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.

Basically if you use anything near the official scheme for an army that has alternate subfactions then you've got to use the army that its painted like. (Good luck proving that with Daughter's of Khaine!)

However if you use your own scheme you're basically totally free to pick and choose.



I think its GW's way of trying to keep clarity in the game but doing it poorly ;whilst also someone form marketing got a foot in to try and unify the appearance of armies. A fine policy for GW's internal system but rubbish for gamers esp when GW has had DECADES of encouraging peoples own schemes.

 Overread wrote:
Basically if you use anything near the official scheme for an army that has alternate subfactions then you've got to use the army that its painted like. (Good luck proving that with Daughter's of Khaine!)

However if you use your own scheme you're basically totally free to pick and choose.



I think its GW's way of trying to keep clarity in the game but doing it poorly ;whilst also someone form marketing got a foot in to try and unify the appearance of armies. A fine policy for GW's internal system but rubbish for gamers esp when GW has had DECADES of encouraging peoples own schemes.

Most of your average opponents won't have a problem with you proxying models painted as one Warrior Chamber as a different one. Tournaments and official GW events may have differing opinions on the matter.

Any notion of having to have my minis look a certain way is very off putting for someone like me, who doesn’t own a single finished miniature that isn’t converted in some way.

As said it will likely only affect GW sponsored tournaments. Even then the actual real world test of the rule might result in it being modified.

I highly doubt it would ever be general policy or store policy. The only time you might get ruled on it casually would be if you were abusing things (eg mixing groups up to confuse your opponent what is what on the table)/

The problem is that it's really hard to put the actual guideline in an official document. We all know that, when it comes to proxies and stuff, the rule really is "yeah, but don't take the p**s".

I'm almost certain the Stormcast battletome will have the same line all the recent ones do, which is something like, "if you want to play a [sub-faction] of your own invention, just pick whichever set of rules suit the background of your army". So you'll be able to use the rules however you've painted your models, but that doesn't necessarily make them "Hammers of Sigmar" which is what the question was addressing.

I have to admit..the instance someone looks at my army and says.."They can't be so and so cause there actually painted like so and so"...Is when I shake their hand, concede the game and go find some else to play. My Stormcast all have chaos helmets and are painted to look like iron warriors from 40k.

Fortunately, this has never happened.

Yeah, this sounds like just a token effort to stop rules exploiting at the big tourneys. Especially when GW have constantly been pushing player creativity and narratives to the point they show fan conversions and vastly different paint schemes on their all their sites including their store images.

I know I don't care as my Stormcasts are a mix of Hallowed knights, Grailcasts and videogame inspirations like Darknuts and Shovel Knight. Heck, i'm buying Sureheart and painting him as a Hallowed knight despite him being all about Hammers of Sigmar, with all the magic flying around he converted for the sake of keeping his brother knights safe and to better charge ahead into the fray.

For me the biggest thing is that they have specified at last that you should use always the latest Warscroll for a unit. I have seen a couple of people using the old faq where you could chose which one to use and it was shaddy as f****

And yeah. This will be like 40k. "Do you have your army painted as Dark Angels? Use dark Angels Rules. Do you have your custom chapter? Use wichever rules you want"

Are there any SE specific key word factions other than Hammers right now?
Until they add more it's pretty irrelevant.

 Galas wrote:
For me the biggest thing is that they have specified at last that you should use always the latest Warscroll for a unit. I have seen a couple of people using the old faq where you could chose which one to use and it was shaddy as f****

And yeah. This will be like 40k. "Do you have your army painted as Dark Angels? Use dark Angels Rules. Do you have your custom chapter? Use wichever rules you want"

That is how I read it. Don't show up with an Ultramarines army and say they are Dark Angles.

 plastictrees wrote:
Are there any SE specific key word factions other than Hammers right now?
Until they add more it's pretty irrelevant.

As of this moment, no. But there's nothing stopping more down the road.

Right now the HoS nameds are:
Naeve Blacktalon
Astreia Solbright
Aventis Firestrike
Gavriel Sureheart
IF THEY GIVE HIM A NAMED WARSCROLL--Lord Ordinator Starstrike

Speaking for myself, there's some people I will never let run "custom Stormhosts" with since I know they'll change with the FAQs and have some hastily painted color scheme.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 plastictrees wrote:
Are there any SE specific key word factions other than Hammers right now?
Until they add more it's pretty irrelevant.

As of this moment, no. But there's nothing stopping more down the road.

Right now the HoS nameds are:
Naeve Blacktalon
Astreia Solbright
Aventis Firestrike
Gavriel Sureheart
IF THEY GIVE HIM A NAMED WARSCROLL--Lord Ordinator Starstrike

Speaking for myself, there's some people I will never let run "custom Stormhosts" with since I know they'll change with the FAQs and have some hastily painted color scheme.

Those are the Heroes that belong to a specific Stormhost (i.e., the Hammers of Sigmar). Other Stormhosts exist that have rules but no Heroes for those Stormhosts. Those include the Hallowed Knights, the Celestial Vindicators, the Anvils of the Heldenhammer, the Knights Excelsior, the Celestial Warbringers, the Tempest Lords and the Astral Templars. More may be included in the new battletome which goes on pre-order this weekend.

Confirmed stormhost in the new battletome? And the same <chapter> system than in 40k?



"Q: If I add units to my army after a battle has started, and my army has an allegiance ability that adds a keyword to the units in the army, is that keyword received by eligible units I add to my army after the battle has begun? For example, if I have a Stormcast Eternals army and use the Stormhosts rule to give all Stormcast Eternals units in the army the Hammers of Sigmar keyword, would any new Stormcast Eternals units that I add to my army get the keyword?"

Yeah Ghaz, that's what HoS means...?

I just figured I'd name off the heroes so people could get an idea as to the number of them to expect. It's worth pointing out that I missed one--Vandus Hammerhand(the starter box guy)--and that they all roughly coincide with specific Chambers of the Stormcast. Naeve's a Vanguard oriented hero, Sureheart and Hammerhand are Warrior Chamber, Solbright and Firestrike are Sacrosancts.

 Kanluwen wrote:
Yeah Ghaz, that's what HoS means...?

I just figured I'd name off the heroes so people could get an idea as to the number of them to expect. It's worth pointing out that I missed one--Vandus Hammerhand(the starter box guy)--and that they all roughly coincide with specific Chambers of the Stormcast. Naeve's a Vanguard oriented hero, Sureheart and Hammerhand are Warrior Chamber, Solbright and Firestrike are Sacrosancts.

Yes. I just quoted you for completeness in my post instead of repeating all of the Heroes you listed. With the question being "Are there any SE specific key word factions other than Hammers right now?" it looked to me that plastictrees was asking if there were other stormhosts other than the Hammers of Sigmar with rules. There are, but none of them have named Heroes.

Which is a shame because Gardus and Hamilcar deserve something. It would be neat if the tome gave warscrolls for them anyway as generic heroes in narratives.

 MonkeyBallistic wrote:

 HorticulusDK wrote:
I don't get the problem with the paint scheme rule.

It's just a specific occurence of WSIWYG isn't it ?

In 40k if I really like the rules for Dark Angels (for example) but I want paint my marines red, I could invent my own Dark Angels successor chapter. Does Age of Sigmar let me do that? That’s why it’s a problem.

See, that's my problem with recent GW inanity - yes, you can make pink chapter and say these are DA or Ultramarines, but one of the recent 40K FAQs stated then you're then forbidden from using say Calgar or Azrael, as these are DA or Ultramarines characters, not from successor chapters. Of course, all it did was people now saying they have fielded DA or Ultramarines with dirty armour, instead of successors, but the fact you need to jump through these hoops in 40K (and now Sigmar) is pretty dumb. Remember 5th edition SM Codex? That just plainly stated that you can use Calgar as 'counts as' badass chapter master of your own design, no questions asked? No proxying needed? I miss that. GW may be encouraging conversions these days, as it sells more models, but their rule writers (or maybe sales department?) starting with 6th edition make dumber and dumber rules, exceptions, and flip flops on what exactly is the allowed mini paint if you want to stay 100% compliant with rules...

Yeah, following the rules in the Codex you literally can't play a DA successor chapter and use a Chapter Master, you don't have that option.

I have yet to see someone forbidding other player of using his custom chapter and using Azrael/X special character as his Chapter Master. Is easy, just use <dark angels> keyword with your custom paint scheme.

I like the rule personally.

But I left the tourney scene long ago after playing against red Ultramarines (actually blood angels - but person called the ultras to get the ultramarine psychic powers to bolster his Tau).

I also play the army I paint and don’t rules hop or jump into flavor of the month builds. I also talk to my opponents before the game to smooth out any inconsistency... which will solve this issue almost all the time.

I guess I don’t understand the self made problem of purchasing a character model and then wanting it to be something else.

 rayphoton wrote:
I have to admit..the instance someone looks at my army and says.."They can't be so and so cause there actually painted like so and so"...Is when I shake their hand, concede the game and go find some else to play. My Stormcast all have chaos helmets and are painted to look like iron warriors from 40k.

Fortunately, this has never happened.

Nah, then you call THEM out for not having the correct unit markings and take the double disqualify.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Irbis wrote:

 MonkeyBallistic wrote:

 HorticulusDK wrote:
I don't get the problem with the paint scheme rule.

It's just a specific occurence of WSIWYG isn't it ?

In 40k if I really like the rules for Dark Angels (for example) but I want paint my marines red, I could invent my own Dark Angels successor chapter. Does Age of Sigmar let me do that? That’s why it’s a problem.

See, that's my problem with recent GW inanity - yes, you can make pink chapter and say these are DA or Ultramarines, but one of the recent 40K FAQs stated then you're then forbidden from using say Calgar or Azrael, as these are DA or Ultramarines characters, not from successor chapters. Of course, all it did was people now saying they have fielded DA or Ultramarines with dirty armour, instead of successors, but the fact you need to jump through these hoops in 40K (and now Sigmar) is pretty dumb. Remember 5th edition SM Codex? That just plainly stated that you can use Calgar as 'counts as' badass chapter master of your own design, no questions asked? No proxying needed? I miss that. GW may be encouraging conversions these days, as it sells more models, but their rule writers (or maybe sales department?) starting with 6th edition make dumber and dumber rules, exceptions, and flip flops on what exactly is the allowed mini paint if you want to stay 100% compliant with rules...

The fluff has no place on the table, unless you're specifically playing narrative games. That's why narrative play and matched play are different things. When you try to force things like painting to matter, you open up all sorts of problems. For example: Which shade of blue is the shade of blue Hammers of Sigmar are ACTUALLY? Because if you have to be painted exactly hammers of sigmar then only 1 shade of blue is correct. How many highlights do hammers of sigmar stormcasts use on their blue? Because if you do the wrong highlights you're not technically Hammers of Sigmar anymore. What about gold? The hafts on their hammers? Ornaments? Squad markings? Other various bits and bobs? Do any one of those a non-hammers of Sigmar color and you've technically violated the painting rule.

And if you're reading this going 'that sounds like nit-pickey BS' you're 100% right, but it's also the correct implementation of the rule. You don't say 'oh this has a 6" range but a 7 or 8 would be fine too', do you?

Using the correct paint scheme when it playing dark angels is as important as using the correct models. You wouldn't play as DS with Tau models, even if they were the right size and base would you? They're both the hobby side of things sure, but why is that any less valid?

Everyone loves creativity, but if you're playing something well defined in the lore, such as a space marine chapter, then you don't get to say "but dark angels were pink with blue feathers as loin cloths". The game (all parts of it including matched play) is set in a defined universe, that of 40k. Because for this to work every game must be set in that universe that gw created, which has rules, rules that to play in that universe you must follow, otherwise you're not really playing 40k.

Some omissions are easier overlooked, you generally allow for slightly different shades of the colour, same as you account for painting ability which may not be able to show the universe as it should be.

You can complain that's stifling creativity, but there are many plenty of places you can be creative, such as custom chapters, it's only when you want to play a defined chapter but use not the defined colour scheme that it's wrong. If anything, it shows you don't really care about the chapter you're playing, you just want the rules because they're good. If that's the case, I could happily play against you but only using drinks cans as my vehicles.


It's same as with historical recreation events. You're trying to match a very specific thing when playing a specific chapter, hence you don't get to invent new things for them, you're not a BL writer.

Okay, that FAQ is a pretty big mess.
A lot of these answers change the rules instead of clarifying.
Who finishes setting up first chooses who goes first in the first battle round.
You have to choose artefacts and command traits when writing the list, yet you can only choose the general (and therefore the command trait) when setting up the model.
Abilities that allow you to make a move can now be used to move within 3" of an enemy if it lacks "normal move" or "as if it were the movement phase"?

Some of these base sizes also seem a little shady.

I'm not in the habit of defending GW's shoddier ideas, but there's really no need to worry about the paint scheme thing. It's not new. There's been a notable uproar about the exact same thing in 2004 when GW released chapter traits for Marines. and you know what? People kept painting their models they way they like regardless, and picked the rules that best suited them.

The latest designer commentary isn't going to change that. It's just GW's desire to protect the integrity of their setting. If you paint your Sigmarines red with pink dots, you can still play Hammers of Sigmar rules because your color scheme isn't taken yet. They just don't want you to use an established color scheme to confuse an opponent. If you see Salamanders, it's going to be Salamanders. If you see Black Templars, it's going to be Black Templars. If you see Ultramarines, it's going to be Alpha Legion.

Aren73 wrote:
You can complain that's stifling creativity, but there are many plenty of places you can be creative, such as custom chapters, it's only when you want to play a defined chapter but use not the defined colour scheme that it's wrong. If anything, it shows you don't really care about the chapter you're playing, you just want the rules because they're good. If that's the case, I could happily play against you but only using drinks cans as my vehicles.

No you can't. Those cans are Carnifexes and you know it. Stop using Carnifexes as proxies for your vehicles.

 silent25 wrote:

 Galas wrote:
For me the biggest thing is that they have specified at last that you should use always the latest Warscroll for a unit. I have seen a couple of people using the old faq where you could chose which one to use and it was shaddy as f****

And yeah. This will be like 40k. "Do you have your army painted as Dark Angels? Use dark Angels Rules. Do you have your custom chapter? Use wichever rules you want"

That is how I read it. Don't show up with an Ultramarines army and say they are Dark Angles.

OK, they're the Omega Angels, a Dark Angels successor chapter of my own design who wear blue, use Codex company markings, and bear a silver/white inverted omega as their sigil.

And that's why this totally arbitrary distinction between "I painted my models as Ultramarines but will use them as Dark Angels" being evilbadwrong, while a "custom" chapter using whatever rules you like is fine is moronic. Either a paint scheme is tied to rules, in which case rules should only be available to armies painted in the exact official GW colours for the appropriate faction and any subfactions GW also explicitly name and define a colourscheme for, or a paintscheme isn't tied to rules, in which case it shouldn't matter a jot whether the scheme you're using is official or made up.

GW want to have it all ways - they want to push forward with basing game rules around named special characters rather than generic ones of the players' own design, they want to sell those named characters to as many people as possible, and they also want to keep all the "official" stuff "pure". You can't have all those things at once while also being fair.

Either actually limit SCs to their specific faction's paintschemes without exception, or go back to treating how you paint your army and what the rules of your army are as distinct things that don't relate if you don't want them to.

Aren73 wrote:


You can complain that's stifling creativity, but there are many plenty of places you can be creative, such as custom chapters, it's only when you want to play a defined chapter but use not the defined colour scheme that it's wrong. If anything, it shows you don't really care about the chapter you're playing, you just want the rules because they're good. If that's the case, I could happily play against you but only using drinks cans as my vehicles.

Comparing a different paint scheme to playing with drinks can? Honestly that’s a bit of an insult to every player who spends a huge amount of time, effort and money doing interesting and creative things in the hobby.

Battletome Preview Stormhost Rules on Warhammer Community

WHAT IF MY STORMHOST ISN'T IN THE BOOK?

Worry not! While these rules are designed to represent the unique tactics of the most iconic groupings of Stormcast Eternals, you can use them however you’ve painted your models – just choose the rules that you think best represent how YOUR army fights.

By the same credit, these rules aren’t compulsory – if you’d rather leave yourself the flexibility of not fighting for a specific Stormhost, you can do so!

In fact, these rules are a bit of a treat for those who like to home-brew their own Stormhosts and characters, allowing you to further distinguish your army to represent how YOU think it should play. If your Stormcast Eternals are cerebral, patient and tactical, you could use the Tempest Lords rules, while the Celestial Warbringers rules are perfect for those looking to make the most out of magic.

Me whenever GeeDub tells me what to do with my minis:



Or put another way, I lived through GW's dramatic withdrawal from hosting events and having much of any contact with the community it counts on for life. So every time I hear "but in GW events" I snort and scroll on, because there was quite a long time where there essentially weren't GW events, where clubs and other organizations ran virtually all the tournaments. This is still the reality. It's neat that The Dub is hosting events outside of Warhammer World and having some thoughts about competition a) as a thing that they should have a hand in and b) as a thing that exists on a national and larger scale. But even then we still run this thing, and the GW event is still this strange boogeyman that gets trotted out in the name of homogenizing the hobby side of the hobby.

Do I get irked that people use their painted space marines as space marines from whatever the best codex is? Actually, I do, because that's proxying and I'm a counts as player - I model with intention, fitting models to rules but with the goal of using what I want and telling the story I want. Proxying sort of works the other direction, with rules first as opposed to models. But would I ever tell those people they couldn't do what they're doing by playing their Blood Angels as Flavor-of-the-Week Marines? Not a chance, and I'd recognize that they have a painted army at all, which is cool. But I still wouldn't vote for them as Favorite Army

- Salvage

 Ghaz wrote:
Battletome Preview Stormhost Rules on Warhammer Community

Spoiler:

Spoiler:

WHAT IF MY STORMHOST ISN'T IN THE BOOK?

Worry not! While these rules are designed to represent the unique tactics of the most iconic groupings of Stormcast Eternals, you can use them however you’ve painted your models – just choose the rules that you think best represent how YOUR army fights.

By the same credit, these rules aren’t compulsory – if you’d rather leave yourself the flexibility of not fighting for a specific Stormhost, you can do so!

In fact, these rules are a bit of a treat for those who like to home-brew their own Stormhosts and characters, allowing you to further distinguish your army to represent how YOU think it should play. If your Stormcast Eternals are cerebral, patient and tactical, you could use the Tempest Lords rules, while the Celestial Warbringers rules are perfect for those looking to make the most out of magic.

Interesting that the first artifact taken for a Stormhost hero has to be the Stormhost's artifact.

Anyone keen based on the stormhost pics what the 3 other chapters are?

 Boss Salvage wrote:
Me whenever GeeDub tells me what to do with my minis:

GW have never told anyone what to do with their models. That's why they've been pretty clear over the decades that players should feel free to change the rules to their liking, and that FAQs are simply the designers' house rules.