Switch Theme:

Do you think 40k should adopt the player's code from AoS 3.0?  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
  • No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
  • Times and dates in your local timezone.
  • Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
  • Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
  • Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.




Made in gb
Ship's Officer





Bristol (UK)

I think it's important to realise these are just guidelines and not strict rules.

No one is going to throw you out of the tournament because you didn't remind your opponent about their doctrines, or whatever.

The intent of this guideline is to not be that dick that sits there smiling slyly knowing you have doctrines but since you forgot he won't remind you and keeps his models alive.

The only tenant I actively disagree with is "ask permission before using unpainted models" that's ridiculous and they have no right to dictate that.

The one about shaking hands before and after is perhaps a little forward (and slightly contradicted later on by "respect personal space").

The rest are fine.
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut





I’ve been been a bit amazed watching some of the conversations about painted and unpainted models unfold recently.

I think people that don’t paint should recognise that for some people that playing against an unpainted army can spoil someone me enjoyment of the game

Like wise painters should recognise some peope hate painting and don’t want to be forced through it, that won’t make any one happy.

But the statement in the rules suggest that painted > unpainted and you need to ask permission from the painter to play. It creates a power dynamic in which the player with the fully painted army has more power.

It should say ‘have a conversation with opponents about using unpainted or proxy models, if you can’t come to a mutual agreement, don’t play with each other’

   
Made in fi
Ye Lord of The End Times (and a good guy)





Tyel wrote:
I feel the idea people won't complain about luck is optimistic, but the rest should be standard practice.


Well. It's not like those are even rules but suggestions and recommendations.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 kirotheavenger wrote:

The only tenant I actively disagree with is "ask permission before using unpainted models" that's ridiculous and they have no right to dictate that.


Well it's better as recommendation than baking in game advantage to game which will then affect game balance in future. GG.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/06/16 09:37:55


2021 painted/bought: 538/575 
   
Made in gb
Ship's Officer





Bristol (UK)

TBH I prefer the +10vp.
I give zero feths about winning so that's meaningless.
Writing "ask permission" sets up the very strong implication that you're doing something wrong.

If the statement had been worded "painted armies are preferable" that'd be fine, although I think it would be a bit out of place in the book.
   
Made in fi
Ye Lord of The End Times (and a good guy)





Well that 10 vp's will affect balance in future. Are you happy at armies randomly being too good/bad because game data is distorded due to painting scores?

The whole page is recommendations rather than rules...Ie those are recommendations, optional. Painting points in 40k are core rules.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/06/16 09:52:34


2021 painted/bought: 538/575 
   
Made in gb
Ship's Officer





Bristol (UK)

40k has more balance problems than 10vp.
   
Made in fi
Ye Lord of The End Times (and a good guy)





And it won't ever be fixed when paint score affects game balance.

2021 painted/bought: 538/575 
   
Made in us
Lone Wolf Sentinel Pilot





 H.B.M.C. wrote:
They should adopt this and page 5. Really confuse everyone with mixed messages.

At least if GW included Page 5 then all of the complaints about it being single handedly responsible for turning shy, sweet, inoffensive nerds into jocks throwing newbies into lockers and stealing their lunch money would dry up. It would be heralded as the most hilarious but necessary page of any rulebook ever that GW are genius' for including it.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/06/16 10:35:31


 
   
Made in us
Agile Revenant Titan





Fayetteville NC

I didn't know AOS had such issues to the point GW felt the need to include this information.

Whoah....I have played 40K for over 30 years.  
   
Made in fi
Ye Lord of The End Times (and a good guy)





 Sarigar wrote:
I didn't know AOS had such issues to the point GW felt the need to include this information.


On the contrary AOS has lot more relaxed atmosphere than 40k.

btw speaking of GW supposedly forcing their terrain...

AOS3 rules wrote:17.1.4 WYLDWOOD TERRAIN
Forests and woods in games of Warhammer Age of Sigmar are called wyldwoods. Targets that lie within them are concealed from sight by thick foliage. If the scenery pieces that make up a wyldwood terrain feature are formed into a circle with an area of open ground inside the circle, then the area of open ground inside the circle is considered to be part of the wyldwood terrain feature.

Visibility between 2 models is blocked if a straight line 1mm wide drawn between the closest points of the 2 models passes across more than 3" of a wyldwood terrain feature. Visibility to or from models with a Wounds characteristic of 10 or more is not blocked by wyldwood terrain features.


Soooooo. Note how this just states forests and woods are called wyldwoods. Nothing in text says you have to use GW piece. It doesn't mandate size, shape etc. It covers how to handle if interior isn't part of actual terrain piece in circle so this works both whether it's one area terrain or with edge. Only thing it really expects is that terrain has edges clearly marked so some form of connected edges forming up closed area but that can be U shaped as well.

Cover, defensible(buildings basically) etc same.

It's actually very generic here...Basically you just decide with your opponent what terrain pieces are cover, defensible, woods. Then there's random feature you can roll for them before game but this isn't mandatory core rule either.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/06/16 10:46:59


2021 painted/bought: 538/575 
   
Made in au
Longtime Dakkanaut




 Arbitrator wrote:
 H.B.M.C. wrote:
They should adopt this and page 5. Really confuse everyone with mixed messages.

At least if GW included Page 5 then all of the complaints about it being single handedly responsible for turning shy, sweet, inoffensive nerds into jocks throwing newbies into lockers and stealing their lunch money would dry up. It would be heralded as the most hilarious but necessary page of any rulebook ever that GW are genius' for including it.


I sometimes think more 40k players have read page 5 than warmachine ones ;p

With the painting guideline, I wonder if someone at GW noticed they create a bit of a monster rule and decided this is better as it’s not a hard rule and they are hoping it will be taken more positive.
Should really just say something about discussing painting expectations but baby steps for GW is Huge.
   
Made in gb
Ship's Officer





Bristol (UK)

That's a positive change on the Wyldwoods then.
I'd love it if they went the extra mile and cut the gothic names crap, it's not that bad on "Wyldwoods" but Sanctum Imperialis, and whatever jargon names I can't even remember is ridiculous and impossible to understand unless you already know what they are.
   
Made in us
Monster-Slaying Daemonhunter




I know this is kinda impossible, but I would like a rule that before a match, both players will list any "Questionable" or RAI interpretations they have of key rules, say 8" charges, or do my Tangle foot grenades work on your Death Guard? "This is how I interpret how flying models works, so is it ok with you if I place my Repulsors on top of this building and make them unchargeable?"

So there is no wasted time 2 hours into the game when one player says "I'm sorry that's how I play and I refuse to play under another interpretation"
   
Made in gb
Fixture of Dakka







 kirotheavenger wrote:
The only tenant I actively disagree with is "ask permission before using unpainted models" that's ridiculous and they have no right to dictate that.


Tenet, not tenant - though the point seems to be living rent-free in a number of minds at present...

2021 Plog - Here we go again... - my fifth attempt at a Dakka PLOG

My [url=https://pileofpotential.com/dysartes]Pile of Potential[/url - updates ongoing...

Gamgee on Tau Players wrote:we all kill cats and sell our own families to the devil and eat live puppies.


 Kanluwen wrote:
This is, emphatically, why I will continue suggesting nuking Guard and starting over again. It's a legacy army that needs to be rebooted with a new focal point.

Confirmation of why no-one should listen to Kanluwen when it comes to the IG - he doesn't want the IG, he want's Kan's New Model Army... 
   
Made in us
Blessed Living Saint




On the Internet

 Sarigar wrote:
I didn't know AOS had such issues to the point GW felt the need to include this information.

It doesn't, but it doesn't prevent them from putting forth guidelines to try and keep it that way.
   
Made in ca
Legendary Master of the Chapter





FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
I know this is kinda impossible, but I would like a rule that before a match, both players will list any "Questionable" or RAI interpretations they have of key rules, say 8" charges, or do my Tangle foot grenades work on your Death Guard? "This is how I interpret how flying models works, so is it ok with you if I place my Repulsors on top of this building and make them unchargeable?"

So there is no wasted time 2 hours into the game when one player says "I'm sorry that's how I play and I refuse to play under another interpretation"


the problem is that much of the time those rules are known to be questionable only if you spend a buncha time on the internet forums obsessing over it

Opinions are not facts please don't confuse the two 
   
Made in us
Gore-Soaked Lunatic Witchhunter







FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
I know this is kinda impossible, but I would like a rule that before a match, both players will list any "Questionable" or RAI interpretations they have of key rules, say 8" charges, or do my Tangle foot grenades work on your Death Guard? "This is how I interpret how flying models works, so is it ok with you if I place my Repulsors on top of this building and make them unchargeable?"

So there is no wasted time 2 hours into the game when one player says "I'm sorry that's how I play and I refuse to play under another interpretation"


Wouldn't it be nice if we just had a game where it was obvious how the rules worked the first time and we didn't have to do any arguing about it at all?

Balanced Game: Noun. A game in which all options and choices are worth using.
Homebrew oldhammer project: https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/790996.page#10896267
Meridian: Necromunda-based 40k skirmish: https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/795374.page 
   
Made in au
Owns Whole Set of Skullz Techpriests






Versteckt in den Schatten deines Geistes.

Maybe a company that can't get basic rules right after how many decades has no place trying to write further "guidelines" on how people should play their games.

Industrial Insanity - My Terrain Blog
"GW really needs to understand 'Less is more' when it comes to AoS." - Wha-Mu-077

 
   
Made in se
Glorious Lord of Chaos






Almost literally in the Phantom Zone.

I like the inclusion of painted models. In practice it won't make much of a difference I bet, but it helps set the idea that playing with painted models is the standard. It really is worth the effort, and I hold myself to that standard even if I am looser with my friends.

I imagine the stand-in model bit is for when it can be confusing or size becomes an issue, which is very fair. I like 3D printing and the like but it's not flawless.

Imagine that you’re sitting down to dinner with your family, and while everyone else gets a serving of the meal, you don’t get any. So you say “I should get my fair share.” And as a direct response to this, your dad corrects you, saying, “everyone should get their fair share.” Now, that’s a wonderful sentiment — indeed, everyone should, and that was kinda your point in the first place: that you should be a part of everyone, and you should get your fair share also. However, dad’s smart-!@# comment just dismissed you and didn’t solve the problem that you still haven’t gotten any!

The problem is that the statement “I should get my fair share” had an implicit “too” at the end: “I should get my fair share, too, just like everyone else.” But your dad’s response treated your statement as though you meant “only I should get my fair share”, which clearly was not your intention. As a result, his statement that “everyone should get their fair share,” while true, only served to ignore the problem you were trying to point out.

That is why we need feminism, and why I am not simply egalitarian. 
   
Made in au
Owns Whole Set of Skullz Techpriests






Versteckt in den Schatten deines Geistes.

 Ashiraya wrote:
I like the inclusion of painted models. In practice it won't make much of a difference I bet, but it helps set the idea that playing with painted models is the standard. It really is worth the effort, and I hold myself to that standard even if I am looser with my friends.
And some people don't like painting. Some people don't know how. Some people have physical disabilities that prevent or make painting the worst aspects of the hobby for them.

Painted shouldn't be a 'standard'. All it does is separate those that have from those that haven't, and ignores the reasons why people haven't.

Industrial Insanity - My Terrain Blog
"GW really needs to understand 'Less is more' when it comes to AoS." - Wha-Mu-077

 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




Painting is a standard. All their promotional material shows painted miniatures. All the miniatures in the rulebook are painted. All the major battle report channels feature painted miniatures, etc etc.

But that's precisely why they don't need to strong-arm people into it. Everybody already knows that painted miniatures at the default and the ideal, and if they're not painting their miniatures, it's not because they're not aware.

GW here is like the nosy aunt who asks someone if they think their diet of cheetos and ranch dip is really the healthiest choice. Nobody thinks cheetos and ranch dip is healthy. The scales aren't going to fall from their eyes if you tell them, just like nobody who doesn't paint their miniatures is going to be like "oh, wow, thanks for letting me know that painting my miniatures was a thing GW, I wondered why mine were all this same dull grey color while everyone else had colorful ones!!!11"

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/06/17 03:17:23


 
   
Made in us
Terminator with Assault Cannon




San Jose, CA

Yeah, I could see painting being subordinate to anything if GW didn't show off fully painted models in all of their advertising, marketing, etc....

Since they do, obviously they place a certain level of importance to fully painting their miniatures.
   
Made in gb
Executing Exarch






Not much surprised about these "rules". All this stuff seems pretty much what is accepted and goes on anyway in most places.. No real harm in including them. As many stated the kind of pond life that would be a dick will continue to be a dick weather code of conduct is codified or implied

But I do think it would be beneficial for young ones coming into the hobby. Some of them may need this spelled out if they were only ever around their friends (who turn out to be toxic bastards). Not to mention alarming number of youths leaving school and entering adult life without basic life skills.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/06/17 03:23:21


https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/772746.page#10378083 - My progress/failblog painting blog thingy

Eldar- 4436 pts


AngryAngel80 wrote:
I don't know, when I see awesome rules, I'm like " Baby, your rules looking so fine. Maybe I gotta add you to my first strike battalion eh ? "


 Eonfuzz wrote:


I would much rather everyone have a half ass than no ass.


"A warrior does not seek fame and honour. They come to him as he humbly follows his path"  
   
Made in au
Owns Whole Set of Skullz Techpriests






Versteckt in den Schatten deines Geistes.

yukishiro1 wrote:
Painting is a standard. All their promotional material shows painted miniatures. All the miniatures in the rulebook are painted. All the major battle report channels feature painted miniatures, etc etc.
Racerguy180 wrote:
Since they do, obviously they place a certain level of importance to fully painting their miniatures.
But it shouldn't come up as a requirement to play the game, something you need to "ask permission" to avoid, nor should anyone be rewarded in game for having done so.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/06/17 03:35:49


Industrial Insanity - My Terrain Blog
"GW really needs to understand 'Less is more' when it comes to AoS." - Wha-Mu-077

 
   
Made in us
Terminator with Assault Cannon




San Jose, CA

Why not, some put in more work, they shouldn't be rewarded?

I prefer to look at it like you get docked 10pts for no paint rather than 10pts reward for being painted.

Don't like getting docked, paint...or play with those that don't care. Which is what I prefer.

Que those that have problems painting....don't play matched play rules, easy peazy lemon squeezy. Play matched, deal with it....
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




 H.B.M.C. wrote:
yukishiro1 wrote:
Painting is a standard. All their promotional material shows painted miniatures. All the miniatures in the rulebook are painted. All the major battle report channels feature painted miniatures, etc etc.
Racerguy180 wrote:
Since they do, obviously they place a certain level of importance to fully painting their miniatures.
But it shouldn't come up as a requirement to play the game, something you need to "ask permission" to avoid, nor should anyone be rewarded in game for having done so.



I mean, I agree with you, that was literally the point of my comment. At most, they should have put something in saying "Painting is a big part of the hobby to many players. It does not violate this code of conduct to decline to play with someone whose miniatures are not painted, if you prefer that your matches be between two painted armies. Similarly, it does not violate this code of conduct for a tournament organizer to set minimum painting standards in order to participate in their event." It's something you can leave up to people to figure out for themselves what they prefer, the only reason to put it in a code of conduct would be to make that clear.

   
Made in au
Owns Whole Set of Skullz Techpriests






Versteckt in den Schatten deines Geistes.

Racerguy180 wrote:
Why not, some put in more work, they shouldn't be rewarded?
For real?
 H.B.M.C. wrote:
And some people don't like painting. Some people don't know how. Some people have physical disabilities that prevent or make painting the worst aspects of the hobby for them.
And your solution is "Well don't play the game then LOL!".


This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2021/06/17 04:36:31


Industrial Insanity - My Terrain Blog
"GW really needs to understand 'Less is more' when it comes to AoS." - Wha-Mu-077

 
   
Made in us
Terminator with Assault Cannon




San Jose, CA

No, you could forgo the chains of matched play???

I don't care about if you're painted or not, I also don't play by matched play rules, so seems to be self imposed if it's a problem...

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/06/17 04:53:40


 
   
Made in ca
Legendary Master of the Chapter





 H.B.M.C. wrote:
yukishiro1 wrote:
Painting is a standard. All their promotional material shows painted miniatures. All the miniatures in the rulebook are painted. All the major battle report channels feature painted miniatures, etc etc.
Racerguy180 wrote:
Since they do, obviously they place a certain level of importance to fully painting their miniatures.
But it shouldn't come up as a requirement to play the game, something you need to "ask permission" to avoid, nor should anyone be rewarded in game for having done so.



defacto that's already the case. there are a small minority of people out there who won't play games against upainted minis (it's crazy I know but they exist) clariifying that the guy you're meeting up to play isn't one of these people before you bother unpacking is honestly common sense. the last time I sat down to a game and took some unpainted mini's out (I paint all my stuff I just wanted to try these out) I outright said "Don't have an issue if a few of my mini's aren't painted I trust?" He said "nope it's cool. although I love the paint job on your painted stuff by the way" and we sat down and played.

Boom there it was. that's ALL you have to do. it's not some bizzare complex thing where you need to humbling beg forgiveness and permission to use your unpainted mini
s just sit down note "yeah I'm using unpainted stuff, cool with that?" and there ya go. I mean seriously if the guy says "I ONLY PLAY PAINTED STUFF" are you going to sit there and argue that he MUST play a game? no you're gonna shurg admit you both want something differant and go find other partners.

Opinions are not facts please don't confuse the two 
   
Made in us
Terminator with Assault Cannon




San Jose, CA

BrianDavion wrote:
 H.B.M.C. wrote:
yukishiro1 wrote:
Painting is a standard. All their promotional material shows painted miniatures. All the miniatures in the rulebook are painted. All the major battle report channels feature painted miniatures, etc etc.
Racerguy180 wrote:
Since they do, obviously they place a certain level of importance to fully painting their miniatures.
But it shouldn't come up as a requirement to play the game, something you need to "ask permission" to avoid, nor should anyone be rewarded in game for having done so.



defacto that's already the case. there are a small minority of people out there who won't play games against upainted minis (it's crazy I know but they exist) clariifying that the guy you're meeting up to play isn't one of these people before you bother unpacking is honestly common sense. the last time I sat down to a game and took some unpainted mini's out (I paint all my stuff I just wanted to try these out) I outright said "Don't have an issue if a few of my mini's aren't painted I trust?" He said "nope it's cool. although I love the paint job on your painted stuff by the way" and we sat down and played.

Boom there it was. that's ALL you have to do. it's not some bizzare complex thing where you need to humbling beg forgiveness and permission to use your unpainted mini
s just sit down note "yeah I'm using unpainted stuff, cool with that?" and there ya go. I mean seriously if the guy says "I ONLY PLAY PAINTED STUFF" are you going to sit there and argue that he MUST play a game? no you're gonna shurg admit you both want something differant and go find other partners.


Woah woah.woah, that's making to much damn sense.....

Damn matched play dragon rearing its ugly head....

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/06/17 04:58:19


 
   
 
Forum Index » 40K General Discussion
Go to: