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.

Slipspace wrote:
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.

The degree of entitlement in this post is off the fething charts, and a fantastic example of why multiple folks are concerned.

Sterling191 wrote:

Slipspace wrote:
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.

The degree of entitlement in this post is off the fething charts, and a fantastic example of why multiple folks are concerned.

Perhaps instead of throwing out buzzwords you can explain where the entitlement is? This hobby involves painting and modelling. I don't think asking for a certain minimum level of effort in that area is going too far.

Slipspace wrote:

Perhaps instead of throwing out buzzwords you can explain where the entitlement is? This hobby involves painting and modelling. I don't think asking for a certain minimum level of effort in that area is going too far.

If thats what this particular ruleset were doing, you'd be correct. It isnt. And you know it. The fact that you're dismissing any concern about a highly subjective ruleset designed from the ground up to be based solely on exceptions, as opposed to a single uniform and clearly applicable set of standards, as hysterics is where your "buzzword" is.

But by all means, please continue to demonstrate that you're more interested in telling other people that they're doing their hobby wrong than actually arriving at a workable implementation.

Sterling191 wrote:

Slipspace wrote:

Perhaps instead of throwing out buzzwords you can explain where the entitlement is? This hobby involves painting and modelling. I don't think asking for a certain minimum level of effort in that area is going too far.

If thats what this particular ruleset were doing, you'd be correct. It isnt. And you know it. The fact that you're dismissing any concern about a highly subjective ruleset designed from the ground up to be based solely on exceptions, as opposed to a single uniform and clearly applicable set of standards, as hysterics is where your "buzzword" is.

But by all means, please continue to demonstrate that you're more interested in telling other people that they're doing their hobby wrong than actually arriving at a workable implementation.

Honestly I think you're interpreting the rules far out of the spirit of them and also with a very specific angle which is twisting their intention. I think you'll have to go into detail and reference the parts of the original core rule that you're interpreting and how you're interpreting them. Because right now you sound like you're jumping at nothing


As for "telling people what to do with their hobby" that's kind of what rules at an event are about. They DO tell you what to do with your hobby if you wish to participate in their event and competition.

Sterling191 wrote:

Slipspace wrote:

Perhaps instead of throwing out buzzwords you can explain where the entitlement is? This hobby involves painting and modelling. I don't think asking for a certain minimum level of effort in that area is going too far.

If thats what this particular ruleset were doing, you'd be correct. It isnt. And you know it. The fact that you're dismissing any concern about a highly subjective ruleset designed from the ground up to be based solely on exceptions, as opposed to a single uniform and clearly applicable set of standards, as hysterics is where your "buzzword" is.

But by all means, please continue to demonstrate that you're more interested in telling other people that they're doing their hobby wrong than actually arriving at a workable implementation.

You're talking purely about hypotheticals and inventing boogeymen to justify a completely unfounded opinion that the rules will somehow be so subjective they'll be useless. I don't think that's the case at all but since you seem to know my mind better than me you must already know that. I think the rules are pretty clear but I do recognise they're subjective. I just don't think they're subjective to the point of being weaponised as many people here seem to think.

As for me telling other people they're hobbying wrong, you're completely incorrect. I'm commenting on the rules for the event, not giving my opinion on the validity of those rules. In essence there's no difference in the purpose of these rules compared to the previous "3 colours minimum" rules. Both are enforcing some minimum level of effort in the hobby area of the game, the new ones are just more stringent.

But I've already put in that level once. Because of a few donkey caves I'm being asked to put that in again.

This also feels like someone telling me how I have to paint my army. What if my customer chapter is the new "rainbow warriors" and their chapter colors is in the ultra-violet spectrum so the colors that you see on the table top isn't what they judge themselves by? Or newbros get different army and it undergoes a color change once they've bloodied themselves by hunting an ancient Rhe'mera on Istalon IV? Units from different home worlds use different armor colors to blend in with their native world but have all be called to rally for this super important galaxy changing battle? It's cannon that chapters have worn different color armors for different crusades, warp f'ery and these heroes from the Dralthen Crusade where we wore our away jerseys just came back after a millennia spent in the warp and have now rejoined their battle brothers...Or a million other reasons I could come up with why not everyone in my army wears the same boring color armor that I don't want to have to paint 60-100 times over and over again.

Telling me how I have to paint my guys is beyond what a TO should be doing. Ensuring that models are painted/based sure.

Amend the rule that any models that look obviously/grossly/whatever out of place (no pink marines with your blue ones) models will be removed is a step in the right direction. Using vague language like "coherent" will lead to more issues than just enforcing a basic 3 color minimum and impinges on my hobbying (that's what this is about hobbying right, not the fact that people can't afford to buy the new hotness and are jealous that they got their head beat in with it so they have to lash out at the WAAC tryhards?).

IME TFGs don't run the new hotness because they are mid-table bullies. Brandon Grant isn't going to ask for any of my models to be removed because he doesn't need any advantage to beat a scrub like me (I know from first hand experience).

But the same guy who plays chess clock shenanigans (I've played in 2 games out of about a hundred where this has happened to me, stealth clock switches), accidental bumps their models, mis-remembers their rules will absolutely make this an issue somewhere and they will throw a fit when the judge uses common sense to allow the player to keep their models on the table (I have faith in the TOs).

The clock is important for speed of play so the potential for abuse has a counter-weight. I don't see what problem this rule is trying to fix. I've never played against someone (at a major or even GT) that had an army that only met the three color minimum (most of you guys/gals have amazingly painted armies that make me super jealous of my terrible painting skills and limited time).

How about we start with enforcing the three color minimum and see where that goes? This feels like too much, too soon, with too draconian of a consequence to address a problem that I've never seen or heard any of my 40k friends talk about. If this is going to be a thing I'd like it to be judged by the TOs/judges not left to the whims of your opponents. TOs take a walk down your line of tables and see if there are any egregious painting/composition issues and talk to the players to figure something out.

All of these are steps to commoditize the players. I can understand that TOs want armies that will look good on their stream. A better resolution is to just not stream the top tables and stream the best looking armies. I'm just hung up on "what problem are these draconian measures trying to fix" and I just can't come up with a compelling one.

They don't specify anywhere that they have to be painted to official colours. Only that whatever scheme you choose remains unified over the army.

You can paint your army as a rainbow army if you want! It's totally allowed, rainbow is the scheme.

What they say is that if the whole army is 1 division then that's fine; if you've got two different subfactions on the table then you have to be able to tell which one is which clearly on the model itself. This might be a marker; a colour on the base; or even two different colour schemes.

Is this not more or less solved with uniform trim colors for the bases of each subdivision?

If its not a big deal and units aren't going to be removed... why do it? Your point makes zero sense. None. If I can't call out a non compliant unit in a detachment that isn't in accordance with the written requirements it SHOULD be removed. Period.

Your implyi g a "not really" approach and saying its gonna take a TFG to actually say something. BS. Its the rules buddy. Comply like everyone else or pull your models. Its not a TFG move. Its the standard. I'm not looking the other way and I wouldn't expect others to either.

I was going to LVO this year but changed my mind after this ruling.

The reason. Because I know the exception will become the rule. Im not going to change my stuff up to comply and subsequently watch the exemption train roll by. Than be labeled "TFG" when I call out non-compliant armies. Its literally not fair. Your comment cements my concern. It takes TFG to say something? Thats ridiculous, but pretty much the way I see this going.

 Byte wrote:

Spoiler:

Slipspace wrote:
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.

If its not a big deal and units aren't going to be removed... why do it? Your point makes zero sense. None. If I can't call out a non compliant unit in a detachment that isn't in accordance with the written requirements it SHOULD be removed. Period.

Your implyi g a "not really" approach and saying its gonna take a TFG to actually say something. BS. Its the rules buddy. Comply like everyone else or pull your models. Its not a TFG move. Its the standard. I'm not looking the other way and I wouldn't expect others to either.

I was going to LVO this year but changed my mind after this ruling.

The reason. Because I know the exception will become the rule. Im not going to change my stuff up to comply and subsequently watch the exemption train roll by. Than be labeled "TFG" when I call out non-compliant armies. Its literally not fair. Your comment cements my concern. It takes TFG to say something? Thats ridiculous, but pretty much the way I see this going.

That's a complete misreading of what I'm saying. I'm not saying the rule won't be enforced, or that asking for it to be enforced makes you TFG. I'm saying I don't expect people to be able to abuse these guidelines to get an opponent's models removed without good reason, hence me calling some of the scenarios people are talking about here hysterical. So Space Wolves in two slightly different shades of grey would, I hope, be fine under these rules. As always with these things we'll have to wait and see how it works out in practice but I really don't think it's going to be anywhere near as bas as people are making out.

Aren't these rules to stop people using their Ultramarine painted army as Iron Hands, Salamanders and Imperial Fists in three different detachments rather than stopping someone who has some 90's models in Space Wolves Grey being in the same detachment as Primaris done in Fenrisian Grey or whatever the current paint colours are?

Surely once models are approved and have been played with once, TFG can't come along and moan that the snow scheme on your Long Fangs is different to the granite scheme on your Blood Claws?

I've not listened to the podcast, so may be wrong, but it sounds like people are worrying over a storm in a teacup here.

phillv85 wrote:
Aren't these rules to stop people using their Ultramarine painted army as Iron Hands, Salamanders and Imperial Fists in three different detachments rather than stopping someone who has some 90's models in Space Wolves Grey being in the same detachment as Primaris done in Fenrisian Grey or whatever the current paint colours are?

Surely once models are approved and have been played with once, TFG can't come along and moan that the snow scheme on your Long Fangs is different to the granite scheme on your Blood Claws?

I've not listened to the podcast, so may be wrong, but it sounds like people are worrying over a storm in a teacup here.

That pretty much sums it up, yes.

phillv85 wrote:
Aren't these rules to stop people using their Ultramarine painted army as Iron Hands, Salamanders and Imperial Fists in three different detachments rather than stopping someone who has some 90's models in Space Wolves Grey being in the same detachment as Primaris done in Fenrisian Grey or whatever the current paint colours are?

Surely once models are approved and have been played with once, TFG can't come along and moan that the snow scheme on your Long Fangs is different to the granite scheme on your Blood Claws?

I've not listened to the podcast, so may be wrong, but it sounds like people are worrying over a storm in a teacup here.

Can we just end the thread with this?
This sums it up perfectly.
It’s not about a slightly differing shade of model, it’s about making things clear in the army.
No one wants to play against an army that looks like 4 different chapters when it’s actually 3 different detachments of marines.
Tournaments are meant to run quickly and smooth, having to work out what actually goes where non stop just makes games unpleasant.

This isn’t entitled or elitist, it’s common courtesy.

Most tournament players have ran into the old “these 2 bolters are actually plasma, this ones a Melta” situation and this really is no different.
There’s a reason that so many tournaments dislike weapon proxies if they aren’t clear.
Having chapter proxies split across varying colour models with no coherency is just as bad.

Jackal90 wrote:
Most tournament players have ran into the old “these 2 bolters are actually plasma, this ones a Melta” situation and this really is no different.

As it is the chapter rules are often waaaaaaay more important than is weapon plasma or melta.

Guess if there's no need for any clarity on what model counts as what trait no need for this bolter to be bolter. It can be melta gun as well.

phillv85 wrote:
Aren't these rules to stop people using their Ultramarine painted army as Iron Hands, Salamanders and Imperial Fists in three different detachments rather than stopping someone who has some 90's models in Space Wolves Grey being in the same detachment as Primaris done in Fenrisian Grey or whatever the current paint colours are?

Surely once models are approved and have been played with once, TFG can't come along and moan that the snow scheme on your Long Fangs is different to the granite scheme on your Blood Claws?

I've not listened to the podcast, so may be wrong, but it sounds like people are worrying over a storm in a teacup here.

I wish this is what the text of the rule said. But it's not. So now you have people like Byte (or god forbid if BCB ever went to a tournament) who will feel empowered to try to stick to the RAW and will feel slighted when TOs go with the RAI vs their strict RAW.

No offense Slip, I understand your desire for a level playing field that complies with RAW, but making someone forfeit the game because their colors (we won the war, we get to decide how things are spelled ) don't match is a jerk move, regardless of your noble reasons.

To trial this at a huge event like LVO just seems bad form. Use LVO as a place to give players yellow cards if their army runs afoul of these regulations. Start the new painting recs for the new season with clearly worded rules that reflect this common sense interpretation vs the imprecise language Frontline chose to go with.

Putting the onus for enforcement on the players is another mistake. If Frontline wants to police the models then let Frontline do it. Asking the players to do it is just not fair. Most people will not feel empowered to call it out if they see it, some super small percentage of people will try to weaponize it and it will lead to feelz badz moments all over the place.

If this is to strictly stop people from using a unit of blood angels as iron hands (because if they were all red you could just call them red IH and that's fine by the rules) it is a dumb rule. GW broke the game with the SM release and this is Frontlines way of putting a band-aid on it? I've yet to see a compelling reason behind this change other than Frontline wants pretty armies on their stream and that is much easier to achieve by streaming armies that are pretty rather than telling people how they have to paint their armies.

A player may appeal a judges choice but typically once its made its made. So surely once an army is passed authentication (which in theory happens at the start/before start) then you can't just go "Oh judge those models aren't painted right" half way through the event.

Besides most events and most games have interpretive event rules to some degree. All those "be a good sport" and "behave yourself" rules can all be abused if you want or could be abused by the event officials if they want. In general abuses on both sides don't happen all that often at major long lasting events and its more likely someone tries it on than the judges start "power playing".

This is just one of those rules, if you're super worried about it you can surely take a photo and send it in showing your army before the event for confirmation.




Again I think a few people are overreacting and twisting things through very negative interpretations of the rule or looking for potential challenges that could be used in a negative way. However those challenges would likely be overruled and the negative interpretations rarer rather than common if they ever actually appear at the event at all.

This is no different to the "must be 3 colours minimum" rule. Yes its telling you what to do with your toys if you want to attend the event. Can you abuse it - sure you could paint your models all grey in shades of grey with exceptionally light colour tints and argue its fair. You can try and break things or take the micky if you want, but its unlikely to work.

 Overread wrote:
A player may appeal a judges choice but typically once its made its made. So surely once an army is passed authentication (which in theory happens at the start/before start) then you can't just go "Oh judge those models aren't painted right" half way through the event.

Besides most events and most games have interpretive event rules to some degree. All those "be a good sport" and "behave yourself" rules can all be abused if you want or could be abused by the event officials if they want. In general abuses on both sides don't happen all that often at major long lasting events and its more likely someone tries it on than the judges start "power playing".

This is just one of those rules, if you're super worried about it you can surely take a photo and send it in showing your army before the event for confirmation.




Again I think a few people are overreacting and twisting things through very negative interpretations of the rule or looking for potential challenges that could be used in a negative way. However those challenges would likely be overruled and the negative interpretations rarer rather than common if they ever actually appear at the event at all.

This is no different to the "must be 3 colours minimum" rule. Yes its telling you what to do with your toys if you want to attend the event. Can you abuse it - sure you could paint your models all grey in shades of grey with exceptionally light colour tints and argue its fair. You can try and break things or take the micky if you want, but its unlikely to work.

See, that's exactly the problem with this sort of thing though - you think you're describing someone trying to "abuse" the rule, they might think they've spent a long time executing an actually pretty technically difficult(if you want it to look decent) style of painting(greyscale with very light colour tints is exactly how you execute "monochrome/black & white" schemes). Being so strict over something so subjective is ludicrous.

Whether people are overreacting to it a bit is kinda besides the point, it is an overreach, only slightly less egregious than demanding you use accurate factional colours to use the associated factional rules. And it's not as if the other side of the argument aren't stretching the actualite a fair bit as well - nobody's presented any evidence that this is actually a major problem that needs fixing, the reality is the motivation was laid bare on the first page of discussions; it's about making things look pretty for streaming the top tables. Frankly, if you're entering a competition and paying to attend the event, it's not your responsibility to be a walking talking advert for the products being used to compete, and I think it's sad that some folk are evidently happy giving up more & more freedom over how they do their hobbying for the sake of providing GW with free advertising.

Just took a quick pic but the primaris model is a little more metalic than it looks here. Neither is quite done but you can see the different color armors.

Every time I try to link the image it shows up huge so here's the link until someone can tell me how to scale it down:

https://imgur.com/a/90GsmJ9/img.ext

I think these would present a legit issue under the new rubric but are totally fine under a 3 color minimum (which I have problem with as it's more of a minimum effort to count as painted vs rules as to how I have to paint my army)

[edit to say I think Yodhrin hit it on the head]

bananathug wrote:
Just took a quick pic but the primaris model is a little more metalic than it looks here. Neither is quite done but you can see the different color armors.

Every time I try to link the image it shows up huge so here's the link until someone can tell me how to scale it down:

https://imgur.com/a/90GsmJ9/img.ext

I think these would present a legit issue under the new rubric but are totally fine under a 3 color minimum (which I have problem with as it's more of a minimum effort to count as painted vs rules as to how I have to paint my army)

[edit to say I think Yodhrin hit it on the head]

I can’t imagine that’s going to cause an issue. They are both very obviously Space Wolves.

To me it looks like they’re trying to avoid people having blue marines and red marines in the same squads or detachments. It probably is a case of trying to make the top tables look pretty, but it’s at least partly being done to stop confusion and impede cheaters.

bananathug wrote:
Just took a quick pic but the primaris model is a little more metalic than it looks here. Neither is quite done but you can see the different color armors.

Every time I try to link the image it shows up huge so here's the link until someone can tell me how to scale it down:

https://imgur.com/a/90GsmJ9/img.ext

I think these would present a legit issue under the new rubric but are totally fine under a 3 color minimum (which I have problem with as it's more of a minimum effort to count as painted vs rules as to how I have to paint my army)

[edit to say I think Yodhrin hit it on the head]

My old marines I bought a decade ago and those I have painted this year look very different. But even without forcing this kind of rules I'm still slowly trying to make my old and new models look like a coherent force. Im doing it mainly by rebasing my old models one at a time when I feel like it and by very strict rules some TOs would perhaps not allow it since I happen to have different base sizes in some of my JP units. I do have my guys with THs etc on 32mm and some of the standard guys on 25mm so cant really abuse it like if it were the reverse. Some old characters are still on 25mm but will be 32mm soon, mostly because they balance better on larger base since BA JP characters are quite heavy when metal and also have a tall center of gravity for 25mm models.

Usually only takes a quick look on my army and it is quite obvious what I'm doing and not just borrowing/ebaying models. People are very accomodating when they see that you are actually trying to make your army look better on the tabletop and allow slight inconsistencies that wouldnt fly otherwise.

Everyone likes good looking armies and Im pretty sure they would allow yours as well. In worst case you can just spend a few hours and make the bases look more inline with each other or perhaps make the aquilias/trims/bolters or whatever same colors/style. Only an insane person would require a complete repainting.

Slipspace wrote:
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.

You do realize literally ever major tournament player is trying to chase the meta and regularly shifts armies to gain an advantage over what they see the meta as being. They're more keyed into the met than the rest of us, so the shifts they make don't always make sense to a guy in an armchair, but it is rare a tourney player shows up with a list they've been running since 8th dropped and pushes it to the top. List building, which includes knowledge of the meta, is step one, and likely the most important step, to winning a tournament. The painting requirement will hit literally all these guys in some fashion. But some just have that deep a collection, some have that much disposable cash to commission, some have the mad skills and the time to paint. And several will show up with gakky looking models that are just consistently gakky. It's a thing. Not everyone has the time, money, or passion to paint a quality army or to pay someone else to do it, and I don't think they should be ejected from the tourney scene because of that.

This ruling has very little to do with shaking up tournament players and their armies and very much to do with presentation and PR. The FLG guys want pretty armies they can showcase on their streams, in pictures, and on the floor. It helps them drive interest in the hobby, which helps drive sales, which attracts more attention from companies, et cetera, et cetera.

This is nothing to do with painting quality though? Unless there’s a full statement somewhere it doesn’t mention quality of paint jobs, just that they are coherent.

Detachment soup is one of the worst things to happen to warhammer 40k ever. Stuff like this is just an outgrowth of a terrible, and, as far as I can see, random game design decision.

I think soup armies look more 40k than anything codex pure, but the recent push away from multiple codexes towards one codex multiple chapters feels less fluffy to me.

stratigo wrote:

Slipspace wrote:
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.

You do realize literally ever major tournament player is trying to chase the meta and regularly shifts armies to gain an advantage over what they see the meta as being. They're more keyed into the met than the rest of us, so the shifts they make don't always make sense to a guy in an armchair, but it is rare a tourney player shows up with a list they've been running since 8th dropped and pushes it to the top. List building, which includes knowledge of the meta, is step one, and likely the most important step, to winning a tournament. The painting requirement will hit literally all these guys in some fashion. But some just have that deep a collection, some have that much disposable cash to commission, some have the mad skills and the time to paint. And several will show up with gakky looking models that are just consistently gakky. It's a thing. Not everyone has the time, money, or passion to paint a quality army or to pay someone else to do it, and I don't think they should be ejected from the tourney scene because of that.

This ruling has very little to do with shaking up tournament players and their armies and very much to do with presentation and PR. The FLG guys want pretty armies they can showcase on their streams, in pictures, and on the floor. It helps them drive interest in the hobby, which helps drive sales, which attracts more attention from companies, et cetera, et cetera.

Yes, I realise that. The fact remains, these armies are not usually dreamt up the night before the tournament. Prepping for a tournament for these top players involves many reps with their army, which requires something approaching a finalised list with a decent amount of time to spare. Therefore painting the army is something they should have time for. And yes, of course I'm aware this is basically about presentation but I also don't think that's necessarily a bad thing at all. I was frankly pretty shocked and disappointed with some of the armies I saw at many of the tables in big tournaments over the last year or so. Anything that tries to improve that side of the hobby is worth investigating, IMO. Also, the minimum painting requirement here is pretty low. We're talking very basic tabletop standard, which is why I think people are making far too big a deal of this. The time investment to meet these requirements needn't be all that great.

I'd also say that there are still people blowing this way out of proportion with scare stories and endless whataboutisms that will likely never come to pass. If we start seeing exceptions being made for some people, or inconsistent application of the rules then I'll be among the first to admit the rules aren't working as intended. But it hasn't happened yet, and I don't think it will, so many of the more extreme reactions are, IMO, simply not worth considering.

Opener: I've been to every LVO. The last 8 or so BAOs. All the SoCal Opens. I'm not a judge, but I'm reasonably sure I'm on spot here.**

This first collection of doods is what is intended to be fixed. No more armies like these 3 jumpers. And I've seen them. The blue/red one is pretty piss-poor, but it's still 3 colors legal (pushing it). Yes, it was painted by a young child. Putting all the into the same detachment is what the ruling is intended for.

Now, to be compliant, I could field an all green detachment as Dark Angels, and ones that all match the black one as Raven Guard. Or all greens ones as Ultra marines, and all my black ones as Iron Fists. But none of these as the same detachment. Just not a green paint job with the black paint job in the same detachment.

If I was a Top Table guy, I'm pretty sure the red/blue would get pulled. I selected it for this post purposely. It's 3 color, yeah, but to bring this to a big GT, as a Top Table contender? The Naydens, Nanavatis, Harrisons, B. Grants, etc? That would not fly. It certainly does *not* meet the FLG middle jumper standard they posted in the guidelines.




But, wait, there's more!
After the 8e drop of the new Death Guard I grabbed some unloved tacticals, spiky bits, and got to painting. I tried a more yellowy scheme, with a really light silver for the guns, models on the left. And then a more greenish flavor on the right, with actual boltgun metal (that 4e paint pot's last gasp, iirc).

Was it poster bananathug that is sweating his SW, being slightly off from one gray to the next, not being legal? Well, here ya go. These are definitely different in color, like the ones you posted a link to, but *absolutely* the same factions, err, <FACTION>,

same basing, same codex - clearly being DG, and would be absolutely fine in the same detachment. Not one pulled. And with the slightly different hues, squad differentiation is clear.




bananathug, your models here:

bananathug wrote:
https://imgur.com/a/90GsmJ9/img.ext

I think these would present a legit issue under the new rubric but are totally fine under a 3 color minimum (which I have problem with as it's more of a minimum effort to count as painted vs rules as to how I have to paint my army)

... would just need matching basing, not a total repaint. Ought to be easy enough as the one on the right isn't based anyway.

I have rebased my army before. 30 wyches/succubi, 45 or so kabalites/Trueborn. It sucked, but my old basing scheme was sliced ass and I'm far happier with my more experienced approach that yielded better results.




Regarding rebasing:




The assault cannon DWT needs to have its basing scheme match the others, which is not a big deal. I can't remember which of you griped about not rebasing your models and I used to gripe about it, too. I resisted 40mm termies for years.

Repaint the bases? My newer Death Wing Terminators need to be rebased to match the rest of my Dark Angels. It'll take ... 10 minutes each? I think less.
Soak the base in shallow water,
scrape the grass. Dry.
Glue, sand, like my original bases. Dry.
Dry brush black, gray, white.

Not counting time to dry in between, 10 minutes a model? 2 squads a weekend? I can easily see doing 20 models a weekend.

**
If I'm wrong on any of these calls, and you find me, I'll buy you a beer. And, yes, I'm going to ask an LVO judge peruse my post, with full license to punk me as hard as he wants.

have to be honest, I have no issue with the ruling as is. I went to LVO last year and for the most part, the armies looked spectacular (I know all of my opponents had good looking armies). It definitely enhances the experience compared to the junk I've seen locally (half built models accepted etc).

Maybe Im naive to what the top tournament players do, but I dont think this would effect many (if any of them at all). The big time players usually have guys that paint stuff for them, or give them painted models for free as they want to be associated with said player or company. Other tournament players have become very adept at painting in general and there always seem to be competitive armies that require few models. Honestly, I think this affects the average joe more than the pure competitive guys. The guy that likes to compete but he paints all his stuff and can't keep up with the meta because he doesnt paint fast. It took me close to 10 years to fully paint a SW army (my only painted army at the time). Over that time, SW went from being good, to great, to awful. Now, Im not a tournament player but if I was, just because I dont have the cash to pay for a commission should I be hamstrung with an army that simply cant compete on the table top because GW can't write balanced rules across the board? I don't know, I guess I vote each to their own.

As long as non-compliant models, units, detachments get pulled I have zero issue with this. Just don't make me TFG for asking for a ruling. If exemptions become the general rule or "reasonable person theory" starts to trump RAW. Than all of this is a gross waste of time and consideration. Time will tell

 Byte wrote:
As long as non-compliant models, units, detachments get pulled I have zero issue with this. Just don't make me TFG for asking for a ruling. If exemptions become the general rule or "reasonable person theory" starts to trump RAW. Than all of this is a gross waste of time and consideration. Time will tell

I don't have a dog in this fight, as I am not going to LVO, but I would certainly hope that they employ some form of judgement to include being reasonable about what constitutes consistent basing and painting. Reasonable should trump blind adherence to RAW, especially when we are talking about a judgement of appearance. Now, I also think that in addition to being fair and reasonable, the judgement of admissibility should indeed be as consistent as possible.

Looking at my own collection, my Dark Angels and Astra Militarum collections have models ranging from 25 years to 25 hours old. My basing changed two years ago, so I guess I would have some tough decisions to make. I think a more reasonable standard would be to stipulate that squads have the same basing. Still, their house - their rules!

And yes, time will tell what effect this has on the LVO and the scene in general.

Warm regards,

T2B