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.
Rather than removing models, simply have the secondary "coherency" available to play -- but limited to 4 points.
If you pick it, you get 2 for coherency, 2 for the other guy not having it. So you can if you see someone playing cheesehammer with 40 different borrowed models smile, and start your game 4 points ahead, and have even greater flexibility in choosing your remaining 2 secondaries -- while your opponent is struggling to find 3 that are mission appropriate.
Brothererekose wrote: Some perspective from a guy who has seen the offending armies:
The night before LVO, a top guy brought his models (a couple years ago), primed white, and with 2 washes for 3 colors, primer white, a blue (I believe Nightshade) and green or purple. He was painting Thursday night. It looked like ass. And I mean I picked up the models and eyeballed them. It'd be funnier if I said they were still wet, but I can't remember if so. I know this was the army that, well maybe not started the resolve, but definitely got the ITC guys moving toward this goal.
Another:
A buddy of mine my pretty much always plays borrow hammer, and just-purchased-ebay hammer. At a BAO, me and the other buddies saw his really awful ebay purchases and put in 2 hours the night before to bring some coherency to its appearance ... maybe 3 years ago. He finally commissioned someone to paint an army, and hey! Looks good.
Both of these players are Top Table guys. GT level top competitors. They're being held to this higher standard fer sure.
As I understand Reece's intent, *these* guys need to step up and not have:
silver blue eldar jetbikes, 2x5 black DAs, and another unit of red Dire Avengers (1 is actually orange), a white/blue Crimson Hunter, another painted like USC's burgundy and yellow (one based, the other base is still back plastic), black primer farseer with blue trim and the other farseer green & white ... this is the stuff that this ruling is intended to eliminate. Easily seen as a hodgepodge of models with about 6 different themes.
@ the detractors:
If you're not going to LVO, why are you harping on this?
Are you worried about the fallout at your local scene? Okay, that makes sense.
However, if *your* local ITC scene is gonna go this route, then get your buddies together for a beer, discuss, plan, and take control of your local scene. If all 15 locals players tell the TO that you want a continued, relaxed paint requirement for events, and he balks, screw him. Organize your own tourney, the same day, spread the word and let the TO hold is empty BCP roster, while *you* hold your own event. "Oh, hey, man, since no one's playing in your RTT, I guess we can go ahead and use the tables and terrain?" Course, I don't think any TO would be so daft as to allow things to go so far.
I nearly did this to make sure a local TFG/WAAC unpleasant player got shut out for our RTT. The TO banned him before I need to pull the trigger.
This ITC thing is pretty much just gonna be LVO, BAO and SoCal Open. If other events are on your agenda, and you don't want this, call them up! Ask for concessions or even flat out Get-Out-of-Jail, that is, Get-Out-of-Paint-Jail and say you're gonna be in the kiddie pool and are there just for fun.
@Byte:
I didn't see any pix from the first post. Did I miss something?
@those complaining about announcing it "After the event Sold Out"
Quoting Reece, "You've got 2 months!" I agree with him. Here are a couple points:
a. the meta is likely to shift again, and some people are gonna be swapping out units anyway
b. Us die-hards who play the same mid-level to kiddie pool armies are (based on experience) gonna play armies that already match the standard. For those that don't, you've got 2 MONTHS!
Base sizes:
@ WisdomLS - $4 american for 10 bases going from 25 to 32 mm (those extender things). Is that really gonna break your bank? For 40k?! Really?
My 50+ bloodletters are half on 25s and half on 32s. I'll get to it, so I'm there with ya, but ... as Reece stated, fielding 30 BLs with 25mm bases is gonna afford me far more attacks because of the "1 inch within 1 inch" attack mechanic. It'll be a lot less with 32 bases.
40k has always been about playing an edition for a few yeas, and then a new edition comes out, and many of your models get shelved or altered. I've been playing since 4th. Lo! and behold, indexes were just rendered absolete. Give it 5 years. The army you're playing now won't be the same in 9th edition. And it'll have nothing to do with ITC. It's GW.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Throwing down a gauntlet of "Lookit what I did when I had to resize muh bases!"
Those are 1988 era, metal termies on 25 mm bases. And then I got the bigger ones and added trophies.
B**ches!
FN excellent post good sir! For real. Bravo!
Like I said. Somewhere here or elsewhere. Because its now a rule and I can't not follow rules. I would/will be the guy that called out my opponents jacked up looking armies. If the judge was like "no big deal". 1. Now Im the donkey cave. 2. The rest of the game is gonna suck either way! But rules dammit!
The concept is good but the actual implementation will be interesting to watch. Will players actually have units removed or complete armies disqualified? I think we really know the answer. Ive seen the answer so many times brfore over so many years.
The game is slowly getting over legislated. Stop! The current rules arent even enforced and they add more! Goodness! Lol
There was a pic. But because FB I couldnt post it here. I wrote in the first post a small description of the pic. It was just a hodgepodge of colored marines and a dreadnought
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Dukeofstuff wrote: Rather than removing models, simply have the secondary "coherency" available to play -- but limited to 4 points.
If you pick it, you get 2 for coherency, 2 for the other guy not having it. So you can if you see someone playing cheesehammer with 40 different borrowed models smile, and start your game 4 points ahead, and have even greater flexibility in choosing your remaining 2 secondaries -- while your opponent is struggling to find 3 that are mission appropriate.
People would quickly learn not to borrowhammer!
Plausible.
However, here come the rules of exclusion from the rule. Precisely why I think this can't be enforceable. I know gamers and its like the ink blot test. They see what they want to see and always think they are the exception. Of course I speak with a broad brush but you all know what I mean if youve been in the game for anytime
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2019/12/21 02:01:28
Brothererekose wrote: Some perspective from a guy who has seen the offending armies:
The night before LVO, a top guy brought his models (a couple years ago), primed white, and with 2 washes for 3 colors, primer white, a blue (I believe Nightshade) and green or purple. He was painting Thursday night. It looked like ass. And I mean I picked up the models and eyeballed them. It'd be funnier if I said they were still wet, but I can't remember if so. I know this was the army that, well maybe not started the resolve, but definitely got the ITC guys moving toward this goal.
Another:
A buddy of mine my pretty much always plays borrow hammer, and just-purchased-ebay hammer. At a BAO, me and the other buddies saw his really awful ebay purchases and put in 2 hours the night before to bring some coherency to its appearance ... maybe 3 years ago. He finally commissioned someone to paint an army, and hey! Looks good.
Both of these players are Top Table guys. GT level top competitors. They're being held to this higher standard fer sure.
As I understand Reece's intent, *these* guys need to step up and not have:
silver blue eldar jetbikes, 2x5 black DAs, and another unit of red Dire Avengers (1 is actually orange), a white/blue Crimson Hunter, another painted like USC's burgundy and yellow (one based, the other base is still back plastic), black primer farseer with blue trim and the other farseer green & white ... this is the stuff that this ruling is intended to eliminate. Easily seen as a hodgepodge of models with about 6 different themes.
@ the detractors:
If you're not going to LVO, why are you harping on this?
Are you worried about the fallout at your local scene? Okay, that makes sense.
However, if *your* local ITC scene is gonna go this route, then get your buddies together for a beer, discuss, plan, and take control of your local scene. If all 15 locals players tell the TO that you want a continued, relaxed paint requirement for events, and he balks, screw him. Organize your own tourney, the same day, spread the word and let the TO hold is empty BCP roster, while *you* hold your own event. "Oh, hey, man, since no one's playing in your RTT, I guess we can go ahead and use the tables and terrain?" Course, I don't think any TO would be so daft as to allow things to go so far.
I nearly did this to make sure a local TFG/WAAC unpleasant player got shut out for our RTT. The TO banned him before I need to pull the trigger.
This ITC thing is pretty much just gonna be LVO, BAO and SoCal Open. If other events are on your agenda, and you don't want this, call them up! Ask for concessions or even flat out Get-Out-of-Jail, that is, Get-Out-of-Paint-Jail and say you're gonna be in the kiddie pool and are there just for fun.
@Byte:
I didn't see any pix from the first post. Did I miss something?
@those complaining about announcing it "After the event Sold Out"
Quoting Reece, "You've got 2 months!" I agree with him. Here are a couple points:
a. the meta is likely to shift again, and some people are gonna be swapping out units anyway
b. Us die-hards who play the same mid-level to kiddie pool armies are (based on experience) gonna play armies that already match the standard. For those that don't, you've got 2 MONTHS!
Base sizes:
@ WisdomLS - $4 american for 10 bases going from 25 to 32 mm (those extender things). Is that really gonna break your bank? For 40k?! Really?
My 50+ bloodletters are half on 25s and half on 32s. I'll get to it, so I'm there with ya, but ... as Reece stated, fielding 30 BLs with 25mm bases is gonna afford me far more attacks because of the "1 inch within 1 inch" attack mechanic. It'll be a lot less with 32 bases.
40k has always been about playing an edition for a few yeas, and then a new edition comes out, and many of your models get shelved or altered. I've been playing since 4th. Lo! and behold, indexes were just rendered absolete. Give it 5 years. The army you're playing now won't be the same in 9th edition. And it'll have nothing to do with ITC. It's GW.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Throwing down a gauntlet of "Lookit what I did when I had to resize muh bases!"
Those are 1988 era, metal termies on 25 mm bases. And then I got the bigger ones and added trophies.
B**ches!
FN excellent post good sir! For real. Bravo!
Like I said. Somewhere here or elsewhere. Because its now a rule and I can't not follow rules. I would/will be the guy that called out my opponents jacked up looking armies. If the judge was like "no big deal". 1. Now Im the donkey cave. 2. The rest of the game is gonna suck either way! But rules dammit!
The concept is good but the actual implementation will be interesting to watch. Will players actually have units removed or complete armies disqualified? I think we really know the answer. Ive seen the answer so many times brfore over so many years.
The game is slowly getting over legislated. Stop! The current rules arent even enforced and they add more! Goodness! Lol
There was a pic. But because FB I couldnt post it here. I wrote in the first post a small description of the pic. It was just a hodgepodge of colored marines and a dreadnought
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Dukeofstuff wrote: Rather than removing models, simply have the secondary "coherency" available to play -- but limited to 4 points.
If you pick it, you get 2 for coherency, 2 for the other guy not having it. So you can if you see someone playing cheesehammer with 40 different borrowed models smile, and start your game 4 points ahead, and have even greater flexibility in choosing your remaining 2 secondaries -- while your opponent is struggling to find 3 that are mission appropriate.
People would quickly learn not to borrowhammer!
Plausible.
However, here come the rules of exclusion from the rule. Precisely why I think this can't be enforceable. I know gamers and its like the ink blot test. They see what they want to see and always think they are the exception. Of course I speak with a broad brush but you all know what I mean if youve been in the game for anytime
I think that says more about the current effectiveness of many judges and TOs in following their own rules than it does about the validity of this rule in particular. It's sad, but understandable, that people are doubting whether these rules will be properly implemented and I completely agree that if they aren't it's just one more thing that could cause potential friction between two players if one of them calls a judge over painting standards and nothing is done. That's why I hope they follow these rules pretty strictly at the next LVO. They've said they will and if they follow through on that and it results in some armies being completely removed from the biggest 40k tournament in the world it might benefit the hobby side of the game immensely as people realise they need to follow these guidelines or risk being ejected from tournaments. But this only works if the rules are enforced. Let's see if that happens before we complain about enforcement.
It's a nice attempt, but ultimately doing it Warhammer-World-style and having the painting by 50% of your score would be better IMO.
Instead of complicated regulations that people try to skirt as much as possible, make the painting be part of the competition that competitive people compete in. If people are too lazy to be competitive in all aspects of the hobby, they probably don't deserve to win a big event like that anyhow.
Base sizes:
@ WisdomLS - $4 american for 10 bases going from 25 to 32 mm (those extender things). Is that really gonna break your bank? For 40k?! Really?
My 50+ bloodletters are half on 25s and half on 32s. I'll get to it, so I'm there with ya, but ... as Reece stated, fielding 30 BLs with 25mm bases is gonna afford me far more attacks because of the "1 inch within 1 inch" attack mechanic. It'll be a lot less with 32 bases.
40k has always been about playing an edition for a few yeas, and then a new edition comes out, and many of your models get shelved or altered. I've been playing since 4th. Lo! and behold, indexes were just rendered absolete. Give it 5 years. The army you're playing now won't be the same in 9th edition. And it'll have nothing to do with ITC. It's GW.
Some great points made, just to point out that in my post I actually stated how cheap and easy the 25 -32mm extenders are to use. It is the other more esoteric rare bases sizes which GW are only recently bringing out, usually on medium to large models that are the issue.
It may be mainly a daemon issue, lots of changes going from bikes to rounds to ovals and having multiple types available at the same time in different places. If there was a consistent GW policy on basing then I could see where they are coming from but there isn't.
I've been playing since RT and have re-based many things including my entire daemon army once from squares to rounds, it wasn't expensive but neither was it particularly cheap, it certainly wasn't in any way fun and took a fair amount of time. Doing it all again because of an arbitary rule that relies on the fact GW has decided in their infinite wisdom that this year Bloodcrushers will come on ovals instead of rounds and that flesh hounds with come on slightly wider bike bases just seems like a whole lot of effort for no reason.
Sunny Side Up wrote: It's a nice attempt, but ultimately doing it Warhammer-World-style and having the painting by 50% of your score would be better IMO.
Instead of complicated regulations that people try to skirt as much as possible, make the painting be part of the competition that competitive people compete in. If people are too lazy to be competitive in all aspects of the hobby, they probably don't deserve to win a big event like that anyhow.
What about commissioned paintwork? Considering that many at these events might be very good players but very poor painters is it really fair to suddenly change the whole status to awarding 50% to the painting quality?
Don't get me wrong, a catch all event that includes painting, modelling and playing can work (just leave out sportsmanship!) its just that its not always good to take an event that focuses on one of the three and suddenly change it to include the others. It would be the same if Golden Demon suddenly required you to also win 5 matches in a row at the event in order to be awarded.
Having a well painted army at an event is its own reward. This is even more true when the event in no way requires it. You get a lot more people clearly enjoying your army and asking questions. Judging for score puts way more of a damper on why I paint than anything.
Sunny Side Up wrote: It's a nice attempt, but ultimately doing it Warhammer-World-style and having the painting by 50% of your score would be better IMO.
Instead of complicated regulations that people try to skirt as much as possible, make the painting be part of the competition that competitive people compete in. If people are too lazy to be competitive in all aspects of the hobby, they probably don't deserve to win a big event like that anyhow.
What about commissioned paintwork? Considering that many at these events might be very good players but very poor painters is it really fair to suddenly change the whole status to awarding 50% to the painting quality?
Don't get me wrong, a catch all event that includes painting, modelling and playing can work (just leave out sportsmanship!) its just that its not always good to take an event that focuses on one of the three and suddenly change it to include the others. It would be the same if Golden Demon suddenly required you to also win 5 matches in a row at the event in order to be awarded.
Rule as written. If they aren't coherent. Pull 'em!
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/12/18 16:49:26
LunarSol wrote: Having a well painted army at an event is its own reward. This is even more true when the event in no way requires it. You get a lot more people clearly enjoying your army and asking questions. Judging for score puts way more of a damper on why I paint than anything.
It also sucks to put years into your army only to draw some guy with busted in models he tosses into a shoe box between rounds. Win or lose it makes the game less enjoyable and breaks the social contract IMHO.
I don't care what the quality level is at the end, painting is subjective, but you can certainly tell when an effort has been made. Most people appreciate the effort and attempt and it starts the game on a bad note when you know the guy across from you could not care less about your enjoyment from an immersion standpoint. Again, it's about effort.
Polonius wrote: It's important to remember that top table 40k is often streamed. Having reasonably well painted armies makes for better content.
I was going to point this out, GW has not been able to stream a lot of the top table games late in the tourny over the years because of the lack of standard being enforced.
There's always been a tension between enforcing painting standards and trying to increase participation/attendance. It looks like there's finally enough of the latter to move ahead with the former.
Rule as written. If they aren't coherent. Pull 'em!
And this is my fear. TFG will use this rule to WAAC instead of playing with the intent of the rule and will put judges in a bad situation.
A couple of my SW units have gravel bases and not snow ones. My primaris units have a different armor color than my long fangs and blood claws. All of them have been painted by me over the last couple decades. I'm not the greatest painter and paint slowly while having a family and job. I don't have the 10-20 hours just laying around to re-paint those 20ish models (along with the time to fix the bases of my old models to the "proper" size) and work on adding things that I enjoy to my army (besides, I kind of am attached to those crappy old paint jobs).
I only play in ITC tournaments as I don't have a play group (my friends are into golf and guns not "nerdy dolls"). These rules as written are exploitable by TFGs all over the place and either there will be resentment because I know the local shop owner/TO that will most likely not remove my models or will because my models get removed. RAW I can see my models getting removed, RAI no way and that is a problem for me. I guess when in doubt I could just submit pics to the T.O. and get a pre-tourney ruling but it would still suck for TFG who tries to get them pulled (hahahahahahahaha).
My army as it stands now is fully painted and based (played a lot of them at the most recent BAO without issue), contrast paints weren't even a thought when I painted my blood angels (and the contrast ones look different than the og ones). Some of my scouts are black "armored" with red shoulders (metal models) and some are contrast red all over (plastic), you telling me you get to pull those from the board because I wanted to experiment with a new technique/product? Having to add extenders is one thing, having to completely repaint (or retire) dozens of models to force people to buy more models is a problem.
I hope this experiments crashes and burns. It is an inelegant solution to a problem that no players I know were having.
And this is my fear. TFG will use this rule to WAAC instead of playing with the intent of the rule and will put judges in a bad situation.
Thats the glaring issue with this particular implementation. It relies on TO exceptions and judgements. Those exceptions will, inevitably, be doled out in inequitable fashions (not attributing malice, simple human nature), alongside a possibility of weaponization by jackwagons.
I get wanting to avoid rainbow model syndrome. This aint the way.
Sunny Side Up wrote: It's a nice attempt, but ultimately doing it Warhammer-World-style and having the painting by 50% of your score would be better IMO.
Instead of complicated regulations that people try to skirt as much as possible, make the painting be part of the competition that competitive people compete in. If people are too lazy to be competitive in all aspects of the hobby, they probably don't deserve to win a big event like that anyhow.
You "get it". It's interested how others just can't fathom what the issue is. Amazing to me. I'll all about the change as long as its handled strict, fair and consistent.
"Get those models out of here!". Like a Strat card. lol
And this is my fear. TFG will use this rule to WAAC instead of playing with the intent of the rule and will put judges in a bad situation.
Thats the glaring issue with this particular implementation. It relies on TO exceptions and judgements. Those exceptions will, inevitably, be doled out in inequitable fashions (not attributing malice, simple human nature), alongside a possibility of weaponization by jackwagons.
I get wanting to avoid rainbow model syndrome. This aint the way.
Now the root issue is starting to be exposed now that the shininess is wearing off.
It will be used as a tactic. It has to be. Dudes aren't going to want to lose to a non complaint army. Its the rules! Right?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Polonius wrote: You know that you can always email the TO with your army and get prechecked, right?
This isn't the issue. It will be the guys that just show up that get burned. Not all players geek out on this crap. Some will ignore and just assume they will be the exception.
Honestly, do people really do what there told in general? No. Everybody is special and the exception. Particularly in this hobby. Dudes don't even bring copies of their army lists and rules with them now. lol
I predict a hot mess if carried out RAW. But, I suspect everything will be the exception if history repeats itself. I've heard all the excuses before about protecting the attendees and all the money they spent. Same thing with this. Guess we'll see.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/12/18 19:12:00
I can't base half of my detachment with snow and the other half with gravel, WTF?
Is ITC telling me that one of the shades of my space wolves would be removed from play if I wanted to run them in the same detachment alongside a blood angels?
What about my blood angel scouts which 2 units are done with old school GW paints but the newest one is done with GW contrast. My opponent gets to remove whatever one they want?
RAW do you get to pull my death wing termies (classic bone) from my DA army (dark green) since they are not uniform and coherent?
The only possible issue on this based on my reading of the rules would be different basing, and I think that if you had similar rim colors and somewhat tied the different bases together, snow and gravel would be fine.
As for your other examples, the rules do not require them to be uniform, but coherent. They specially point out librarians in blue armor as coherent, which bone colored Deathwing clearly would be.
But yes, the goal of this policy is clearly to have armies present with a more uniform look. They can afford to do this since they sell out so quickly.
Though I imagine someone with some recognition behind them will try and call you out if you had something like green wing and deathwing (or Eldar, Eldar color schemes often go by aspect and not faction) so they could score an easy win
Sunny Side Up wrote: It's a nice attempt, but ultimately doing it Warhammer-World-style and having the painting by 50% of your score would be better IMO.
Instead of complicated regulations that people try to skirt as much as possible, make the painting be part of the competition that competitive people compete in. If people are too lazy to be competitive in all aspects of the hobby, they probably don't deserve to win a big event like that anyhow.
What about commissioned paintwork? Considering that many at these events might be very good players but very poor painters is it really fair to suddenly change the whole status to awarding 50% to the painting quality?
Don't get me wrong, a catch all event that includes painting, modelling and playing can work (just leave out sportsmanship!) its just that its not always good to take an event that focuses on one of the three and suddenly change it to include the others. It would be the same if Golden Demon suddenly required you to also win 5 matches in a row at the event in order to be awarded.
What about paying for list-building and coaching?
Can't check that. If people pay for commission to be competitive, so what?
I did not realize that buying your models off ebay was a bad thing. I always thought that was GOOD for the game as it kept models fairly valuable since they can be re-used.
Terrible addition to the rules. I have 120 or so termagants I can't use in tournaments now because they are painted different colors (I ran them as all one hive fleet, but different colors made them much easier to differentiate on the table while playing). I'm not going to re-buy and/or re-paint 120 termagants for ITC.
It's a really bad rule that's affecting a lot more people negatively than helping the few people who abused this.
Very competitive gaming clubs will just starting painting all their models the same way so they can still borrow hammer. It will slow down the abuse for 1 year maybe.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/12/18 19:49:01
Sunny Side Up wrote: It's a nice attempt, but ultimately doing it Warhammer-World-style and having the painting by 50% of your score would be better IMO.
Instead of complicated regulations that people try to skirt as much as possible, make the painting be part of the competition that competitive people compete in. If people are too lazy to be competitive in all aspects of the hobby, they probably don't deserve to win a big event like that anyhow.
What about commissioned paintwork? Considering that many at these events might be very good players but very poor painters is it really fair to suddenly change the whole status to awarding 50% to the painting quality?
Don't get me wrong, a catch all event that includes painting, modelling and playing can work (just leave out sportsmanship!) its just that its not always good to take an event that focuses on one of the three and suddenly change it to include the others. It would be the same if Golden Demon suddenly required you to also win 5 matches in a row at the event in order to be awarded.
What about paying for list-building and coaching?
Can't check that. If people pay for commission to be competitive, so what?
I'm not saying paying for commissions in a competitive setting is bad, just that a person should not win for the quality of painting if they have not used their own painting skills to achieve the result. It's all about context.
As for list building and coaching - well the former is honestly not something I've ever heard of happening anywhere. Lists are just lists like a paint scheme list. Meanwhile the latter is training; the actual person still has to be there to play the game.
stratigo wrote: Though I imagine someone with some recognition behind them will try and call you out if you had something like green wing and deathwing (or Eldar, Eldar color schemes often go by aspect and not faction) so they could score an easy win
I think this is an incredibly cynical view of both tournament players and tournament organizers. The rules literally carve out an exception for lore based variations.
stratigo wrote: Though I imagine someone with some recognition behind them will try and call you out if you had something like green wing and deathwing (or Eldar, Eldar color schemes often go by aspect and not faction) so they could score an easy win
I think this is an incredibly cynical view of both tournament players and tournament organizers. The rules literally carve out an exception for lore based variations.
Some tournament players, including really good one that can regularly hit the top tens, are just donkey-caves. I mean sometimes they are donkey-caves even on live stream. It is a thing. If you go to a tournament, be prepared to deal with an donkey-cave or two in your games.
As for TOs, they’re usually solid, but mistakes happen. I can imagine a round two of a tournament a new ref is called over by a dude with big name recognition In The competitive community and going “well I mean, I guess it is what it says in the rules”.
There is enough argument of inches that happens actually pretty regularly, that I can’t see some people not trying this
stratigo wrote: Though I imagine someone with some recognition behind them will try and call you out if you had something like green wing and deathwing (or Eldar, Eldar color schemes often go by aspect and not faction) so they could score an easy win
I think this is an incredibly cynical view of both tournament players and tournament organizers. The rules literally carve out an exception for lore based variations.
Any ruleset that isn’t grief proofed will be used to grief people. That’s a simple fact of human existence, exacerbated by the bleeding edge at which competitive 40k is played.
If there’s an opportunity to gain an advantage by weaponizing a ruleset, that will be done. We’ve seen it before, and will see it again.
[rant]
If I didn't play DA and was TFG I'd have a moment like "this guys terminators are different than the rest of his army. REMOVE THEM!!!!"
Which would be embarrassing but how the heck is a nid player supposed to know the ins and outs of every army they can face (black death company is another example I can think of). Having to explain my paint job on every table under the threat of losing the game is complete BS and shouldn't be codified into rules.
I'm sticking to my original point that this is a solution to a non-problem. Based, WYSIWYG, Painted = good to go.
Anything beyond that is nearly impossible to write a coherent blanket rule that can be applied without a lot of judge discretion that doesn't punish more people unfairly than it helps. Having to paint my entire army the same color/theme is a restriction that negatively impacts my hobby more than facing an army that has models that are different colors (as long as what is what is clear). What ever happened to my dudes are my dudes? It doesn't get more my dudes than the paint I chose to put on them.
Detachments being visibly clear, sure. WYSIWYG, sure. Having to use the same damned shade of green for all of my models is a bridge too far.
I don't want this to be a thing. I'm already pissed enough that all of my bike characters and auto-cannon dreads along with several of my mini-marine characters got squatted DURING THE EDITION I BOUGHT/PAINTED THEM WHERE THEY WERE PERFECTLY LEGAL. Telling me what colors I have to paint my army to play with them is fething dumb.
Take it all the way then. Any models not painted to exactly their lore colors down to the markings shall be removed from the table and destroyed in a fire with the ashes mixed into a natty ice the offending player then has to drink...
Sucks that I'm in Cali and can't get away from frontline events for any GTs (was hoping to go to BAO, LAO and Vegas next season). Hell if thunder wolf cavalry get competitive in the SWPA I'm extra screwed...
Since I can make my own lore for my own models and there's a lore exception I'm just going to come up with some warp shenanigans for why my armor looks a different color to you xeno scum and have it out with the T.O. right there. Table flips and all. Come at me bro!!
[/rant]
stratigo wrote:Some tournament players, including really good one that can regularly hit the top tens, are just donkey-caves. I mean sometimes they are donkey-caves even on live stream. It is a thing. If you go to a tournament, be prepared to deal with an donkey-cave or two in your games.
As for TOs, they’re usually solid, but mistakes happen. I can imagine a round two of a tournament a new ref is called over by a dude with big name recognition In The competitive community and going “well I mean, I guess it is what it says in the rules”.
There is enough argument of inches that happens actually pretty regularly, that I can’t see some people not trying this
so in this scenario, you have this big mean players that will claim nicely painted models are not coherent, judges that allow it, and a community that simply accepts that.
I just don't see any of that happening. The guys that are being targeted by this know what they need to do to avoid it. People with slightly different shades of red will be fine. to think otherwise assumes that TOs have terrible judgment, and players are 100% comfortable with building a reputation for ridiculous gamesmanship.
Sterling191 wrote:Any ruleset that isn’t grief proofed will be used to grief people. That’s a simple fact of human existence, exacerbated by the bleeding edge at which competitive 40k is played.
If there’s an opportunity to gain an advantage by weaponizing a ruleset, that will be done. We’ve seen it before, and will see it again.
Have we though? In my experience, rules that allow players to bully other players, or to anonymously chipmunk are abused, but this requires essentially that a player make an active complaint to a TO, and that a TO agree.
In a world with no social friction, maybe players try this. In a world where a player needs to look a TO in the eye, in front of their opponent, and argue that models are incoherent, is a lot less likely. If anything, I think many players would like wildly out of line models slide.
This isn't a cost free power play. Any player trying something as dumb as arguing death company or Deathwing are incoherent will end up on a watch list.
The reactions seem to be getting ever more hysterical here. If anyone had bothered to read the rules and listen to the podcast where this was discussed they'd know things like Deathwing, Librarians, Aspect Warriors etc don't have to be in the same colour scheme as the rest of your army since it is accepted they are different lore-wise, so you won't be DQ'd for that. The amount of cynicism and conspiracy theories from people thinking this will be weaponised by TFGs is also quite amusing. If anything, it's going to be TFG that are most impacted by this since they're often the ones, IME, who are most likely to be running the new hotness and therefore often borrowing a bunch of stuff to make said meta armies. It reminds me of the arguments about chess clocks, with people claiming they'd be used to game the system even harder but that didn't happen either.
If you don't have coherently painted models that's unfortunate, but if you're planning to go to LVO you have two months to correct that. If you're not planning to go there's not much problem for you...yet. I suspect more tournaments might start using the same guidelines but it's not like you haven't been warned now and you don't have time to prepare.
40,000pts
8,000pts
3,000pts
3,000pts
6,000pts
2,000pts
1,000pts
20000+ points