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.

LeRufus wrote:


My problem is, that I really cant afford X armies with different color schemes, so if i want to play black legion or thousand sons some day i cant really use my army in all Pink, can I?

Why the hell not?

Use whatever justification you want - 'oh yeah, the black armour is being washed, they're using their other suits and all that was left was the gaudy pink ones. It makes them even ANGRIER too....'

Or don't justify. Your models. Play them and paint them however the hell you want. And screw the haters. There's enough rubbish in the world without needing to bother yourself with what some nerd thinks of you :p

LeRufus wrote:

At least that is what I see in tournament rules a lot, that if you dont fit the correct color code there might be VP deductions or something. (or you have to explain why that is etc.)

Screw tournaments? Screw those elitists?

Not all red marines are blood angels after all. Successor chapters are a thing.

Karol wrote:
If the reason for there to be rules about painting is the lore. Then saying someone should ignore it would make no sense.

Why would the necron even do something like that, their transformation in to robots predates humanity. Painting them that way would be like finding a stone curving done by neanderthals and one have someone run around with a Switch.

You're basing your reasoning on the assumption that those colours mean the sane to the necrons as they do to us...

As to justifying any particular painting scheme.

*shrug*

Their binary code got corrupted and the painting scarabs subroutines went raj. Or the necron lord themselves is... colourful.

Oh look, and now you literally have non-binary necrons. The pun is obvious.

Or 'the warp did it'.

Would I face it? I play Minotaurs. I don't need much of an excuse to want to stomp on anyone.

Karol wrote:

ccs 806621 11424115 wrote:

Sure, I can see why.
But their opinions on how I paint my stuff isnt important to me. So if someday I'm inclined to paint a MLP force....
If they don't like it? They can pretend its painted differently. Or simply not play.

Nah that is not how it can work. Because then you have to decide on a case by case what kind of a wierd army is okey to be played. A much easier and safter for a store or club way of dealing with stuff, and for the people getting engaging in playing the game too, is to ban all the non lore stuff.

Nah. Nothing wrong with deciding things on a case by case Karol. Inflexible 'one size fits all' rulings can be utterly catastrophic for a community. Remember, it's all canon and none of it is - and it's 'our' lore too. Snd if someone wants to have fun with a bit of a kooky project - yeah I'll cheer them on. Not everything needs to be serious all the time.

Karol wrote:


You that sounds awefuly like some dudes explaining in courts here why they should be allowed to run around with "sun signs" because it was, and still regionaly is, used as a marking by the highland clans here.

It's almost like the context is different....

Karol wrote:

Case by case means favouritism steps in and personal bias. When the rule is no talking durning matches is the rule, it is clear and precise. No one has to worry what the talk is potentialy about, why there was talking, who started it etc. The olympic comitte says no.

What? And an absolute unbending set of rules doesn't also means favouritism, personal bias? You're being naive.


And Of course, rules shouldn't be followed 'just because'. the 'why' matters Karol.

Karol wrote:

As soon as you say X is allowed there are going to be people asking for Y, Z and Q etc and in always ends in total chaos. And then that is a real catastrophy for a community, unless someone is lucky enough to be in places where 100+ people play and the groups can divide themselfs.

Yes, and?

the alternative of forced conformity and limited expressiveness isn't destructive?

Karol wrote:

And even then it is bad blood, because who takes the terrain or the venue etc I see it happen and it is never a good thing.

That kind of catfighting is endemic in gaming communities. It has nothing to do with whether you want to paint your marines in rainbow colours.

Karol wrote:

Strickt clear rules and staying within them is the base way to function.

I mean, sure, but only to an extent. Most of our progress as a society is because of people giving the finger to 'strict clear rules and staying within them' - or do you want to return to the days of being a foredlock tugging serf with no rights, living a life of grinding poverty and back breaking work who existed at the whim of his 'betters'.

We are assuming 'the rules' are fit for purpose, otherwise we are heading for repression and a police state. What happens if the rules themselves are broken? There is a reaaon folk heroes who flouted unfair laws and rules (like Nottinghams other hero, Robin Hood) are celebrated.

Karol wrote:

And the less politics or personal life in games with strangers, the better. Although the last one is my own personal opinion.

Nah, I'd rather play a person, not an NPC. It's a social hobby after all.

As an irishman, if I can celebrate Saint Patrick's day (And if you've ever even heard of Guinness, you can count yourself as Irish on the day and join the craic with us), or if my wife can wear her football teams maroon jersey* on any given game day, let alone a day they do well, its perfectly fair that my gay friends and family can celebrate pride. They're not the ones out there crushing people.

It is normal.

*I painted one bloodbowl team in her teams colours; and I painted the orks in teal, blaxk and white to be like my nfl team - jacksonville jags. So we have 'Tyne Castle Terrors' versus Axe Devil's jag-waaaaghs. Painting any variation of pride is ok in my book.

 TheBestBucketHead wrote:


I tried looking for your mini in question, and didn't see it, so I'm sorry. If you could post it again, I'll tell you what I think.

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2021/04/23/feast-your-eyes-on-an-ork-army-unlike-anything-youve-seen-before/

I've seen her work before.its...exquisite.

As is Louise's sphinx.

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2020/02/18/peer-into-the-mindstealer-of-the-expertsgw-homepage-post-4/

If a rainbow paint scheme looked anything like these, I'd happily play it once I'd ungooped myself from being a puddle on the floor.

Truthfully I'd be half tempted to forfeit on principle- no way I can roll against those exquisite models and take them off the board- and simply spend the game time gawking.

EviscerationPlague wrote:

If those Orks are your definition of Rainbow, your definition is very skewed as that just means "anything with more than the three minimum colors". They're GOOD but they're not Rainbow.

Not skewed at all. Your usual snark aside, and while we are being pernickety, it would be what? Six, seven? But I'll settle for less too - pretty easy going guy here after all. 'If a pride scheme looked anything like these' - you know, Bright, vibrant, colourful palette? I guess you might need exhausting excruciating specificity on your statements but as a ballpark, it works well enough for me, so yeah I'll go with that.

But hey, you keep snarking. All the thumbs up.

And now back to stardew valley.