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.

I’d heard every city could have Stormcast.

I think he meant Living City & Tempests Eye could have their factions in addition to the SCE option.

Also every order army can have stormcast; just like stormcast can ally any order army into their own forces.

However the 1/4 and allegiance ability limits tend to keep alliances like that muted. You either do it for a very specific benefit or for fun and the limits prevent spamming. Honestly its the kind of system that 40K really needs for space marines and Imperials to control the soup issue they've got going on

 Overread wrote:
Honestly its the kind of system that 40K really needs for space marines and Imperials to control the soup issue they've got going on

Sad thing is, they already had this system, in 6th edition. Not only some Imperial factions didn't play along very well, to bring allies you needed ally detachment that pretty much killed spamming even without points limits. Today, when you're limited to 3 detachments in matched play this would work even better, you can't fit loyal 32 in ally detachment and cherrypicking subfactions can't really be combined with allies at all, killing two birds with one stone...

 Overread wrote:
Also every order army can have stormcast; just like stormcast can ally any order army into their own forces.

However the 1/4 and allegiance ability limits tend to keep alliances like that muted. You either do it for a very specific benefit or for fun and the limits prevent spamming. Honestly its the kind of system that 40K really needs for space marines and Imperials to control the soup issue they've got going on

They said in the beginning that every city can bring Stormcast and when they do the Stormcast get the city’s keyword and abilities. That’s not just the usual allying. I Wish my Sylvaneth could do that with the Stormcast I own. Still bummed the new book didn’t have that joint Sylvaneth/Stormcast Battalion the old one did.

 AduroT wrote:

 Overread wrote:
Also every order army can have stormcast; just like stormcast can ally any order army into their own forces.

However the 1/4 and allegiance ability limits tend to keep alliances like that muted. You either do it for a very specific benefit or for fun and the limits prevent spamming. Honestly its the kind of system that 40K really needs for space marines and Imperials to control the soup issue they've got going on

They said in the beginning that every city can bring Stormcast and when they do the Stormcast get the city’s keyword and abilities. That’s not just the usual allying. I Wish my Sylvaneth could do that with the Stormcast I own. Still bummed the new book didn’t have that joint Sylvaneth/Stormcast Battalion the old one did.

Unclear why you can't. Living City seems to do exactly that:

WarCom wrote:This wild and vibrant city was built as a monument to the alliance between Alarielle the Everqueen and Sigmar. Be sure to visit the Oakenspire, the foremost stronghold of the Ghyran Guard Stormhost, who fight alongside the surprisingly even-tempered Oakenbrow Sylvaneth.

Stormhost+ Sylvaneth. Done.

Which stormhost is based in the living city?

"Ghyran Guard" according to that.

Are stormhost saddled with super specific special rules based on their color scheme, like space marines?

Voss wrote:
"Ghyran Guard" according to that.

Are stormhost saddled with super specific special rules based on their color scheme, like space marines?

Yes, along with this FAQ which is most likely ignored in friendly play (tournaments are another matter):

Q: Is it okay to use ‘proxy’ models to stand in for models that I do not have but want to use in a game? For example, using a Slaughterpriest model to represent a Bloodsecrator, or using Stormcast Eternals models painted in the colours of the Hammers of Sigmar to represent Stormcast Eternals from a different warrior chamber?

A: The use of proxy models is generally frowned upon, because doing so can confuse the other players (and sometimes even yourself), and because it spoils the spectacle and aesthetic of the game. Because of this, you can only use proxy models if you’ve gained your opponent’s permission to do so before the game begins.

Voss wrote:
"Ghyran Guard" according to that.

Are stormhost saddled with super specific special rules based on their color scheme, like space marines?

Yet the battle art shows Hallowed Knights fighting alongside The Living City. Which is fine for me as my Hallowed Knight Chamber, the Nightbreakers have been stationed in Ghyran since the Realmgate Wars.

Voss wrote:
"Ghyran Guard" according to that.

Are stormhost saddled with super specific special rules based on their color scheme, like space marines?

There are stormhost specific rules but not even the grand tournament at Warhammer world requires specific colour schemes now. The community has been pretty strongly against it.
Edit stormcadt also lose their stormhost abilities if they are in cities of sigmar.

 Ghaz wrote:

Voss wrote:
"Ghyran Guard" according to that.

Are stormhost saddled with super specific special rules based on their color scheme, like space marines?

Yes, along with this FAQ which is most likely ignored in friendly play (tournaments are another matter):

Q: Is it okay to use ‘proxy’ models to stand in for models that I do not have but want to use in a game? For example, using a Slaughterpriest model to represent a Bloodsecrator, or using Stormcast Eternals models painted in the colours of the Hammers of Sigmar to represent Stormcast Eternals from a different warrior chamber?

A: The use of proxy models is generally frowned upon, because doing so can confuse the other players (and sometimes even yourself), and because it spoils the spectacle and aesthetic of the game. Because of this, you can only use proxy models if you’ve gained your opponent’s permission to do so before the game begins.

FWIW GW don't care. I've played on Warhammer Live at a GT with different stormhost painting schemes.

Honestly the whole paint thing will never stick. Heck some armies the paint schemes are hardly different from each other (Daughters of Khaine they are pretty much identical save for marginal changes in the shade of red); whilst most players can't ID an official scheme army past Space Marines (who not only have specific schemes but unique models and codex for their subfactions - unlike every other army that uses identical models and the same battletome/codex).

It also leaves anyone who uses a custom scheme with an unfair advantage since they could use whatever rules they'd like, whilst anyone who painted an official scheme would be saddled with that limitation (a huge problem for newbies who are far more likely to follow the studio design scheme).



Automatically Appended Next Post:
Honestly the whole paint thing will never stick. Heck some armies the paint schemes are hardly different from each other (Daughters of Khaine they are pretty much identical save for marginal changes in the shade of red); whilst most players can't ID an official scheme army past Space Marines (who not only have specific schemes but unique models and codex for their subfactions - unlike every other army that uses identical models and the same battletome/codex).

It also leaves anyone who uses a custom scheme with an unfair advantage since they could use whatever rules they'd like, whilst anyone who painted an official scheme would be saddled with that limitation (a huge problem for newbies who are far more likely to follow the studio design scheme).

Yea GW has come out and said it doesn’t matter what color scheme.

The one way they have gotten around this with Stormhosts is introduce “Stormhost Only” Heroes. Like Vandus has to be part of a Hammers Stormhost, Gardus has to be a Hallowed Knight, and that Sacrosanct guy from the last WD for Anvils

Cataphract wrote:
Yea GW has come out and said it doesn’t matter what color scheme.

And there is an official document from Games Workshop which says otherwise. Again, most players won't have a problem with it just so long as you're not being an arse about it. Tournaments may or may not enforce it and events at Warhammer World definitely will enforce it.

Just FYI, several reviews are out for Orruk Warclans.

Quite a lot of small changes that are cumulatively quite significant. For instance I don't see anything impressive in the Ironjawz battalions. Weapon profiles were significantly consolidated and points were adjusted significantly for megabosses and Ard boys.

Agh, the start collecting! sets are 100$?!?

I was having trouble justifying getting greywater fastness when I thought it would be $90, but come on.

At least ebay will probably have it for $90 or so...

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
I think he meant Living City & Tempests Eye could have their factions in addition to the SCE option.

Correctamundo!

 Ghaz wrote:

Cataphract wrote:
Yea GW has come out and said it doesn’t matter what color scheme.

And there is an official document from Games Workshop which says otherwise. Again, most players won't have a problem with it just so long as you're not being an arse about it. Tournaments may or may not enforce it and events at Warhammer World definitely will enforce it.

That answer in that FAQ is straight up BS. They are equating using one model for other model with paint scheme when everybody makes a distinction between the two. Specifically because a model is a model but the rules associate with a paint scheme come and go, or stop existing without any internal logic for GW part.

 Galas wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:

Cataphract wrote:
Yea GW has come out and said it doesn’t matter what color scheme.

And there is an official document from Games Workshop which says otherwise. Again, most players won't have a problem with it just so long as you're not being an arse about it. Tournaments may or may not enforce it and events at Warhammer World definitely will enforce it.

That answer in that FAQ is straight up BS. They are equating using one model for other model with paint scheme when everybody makes a distinction between the two. Specifically because a model is a model but the rules associate with a paint scheme come and go, or stop existing without any internal logic for GW part.

You don't have to like it or agree with it or even force people to abide by it, but from GW's position it's completely logical. If you assume that GW was concerned with the integrity of their setting, which is debatable, but if you assume that, there really is no difference between a model and a color scheme. Both visually establish personal and/or faction identity. A Hammer of Sigmar looks like this and behaves like this, a Hallowed Knight looks like that and behaves like that. That's all in the color scheme (except for the chambers that have an upgrade sprue) for now. You may not care how your opponent paints their models. I may not mind if my opponent selects different rules from what their models suggest. But as the people that try to create and present a coherent setting, from GW's perspective it is no less important that what they decide Hammers of Sigmar to be to be represented both by the correct model and the correct color scheme. Because any deviation from that is simply not a Hammer of Sigmar, or else needs dedicated background to explain the deviation.

Execution? That changes over time. Rules change. Color schemes change. Models change. Drawing on 40k as that has a longer history than Age of Sigmar, look at the Ultramarines. Let's not even get into Primaris, just traditional Marines. Their rules change from edition to edition, as you say. But at one point at the beginning of 4th ed, so did their color scheme. They went from a medium blue with non-metallic trim on their shoulder pads, specifically yellow for the poster boy company, to a darker blue with metallic (gold in that case) trim. They were Ultramarines before, and they were Ultramarines after. But it's not like you would have all of a sudden mistaken them for Crimson Fists. Both looked like Ultramarines (in their specific case that's obviously helped by the chapter badge).

Models, too, have changed from Rogue Trader beakies over austere 2nd and 3rd ed Marines taking on a modern form to the latest bling boys. And Marines are only a pretty small offender here. Just look at how different the various Tyranid incarnations are. Give Age of Sigmar enough time and you'll find that a model is not in fact a model. But just like the Ultramarine color scheme a new model will be the recognizable new version of the old model.

That's the important bit here. GW relies on this kind of continuity of identity and it can't be surprising that they take any visual aspect as seriously as another. That's not BS. That's creating a consistent and recognizable setting.

People always misinterpreted the paint scheme thing anyways. All it meant was if your army was painted as a specific stormhost you couldn't use it as another specific stormhost. Custom paint scheme? Whatever you want. Want to use your Hammers painted SCE as generic? Cool. All you couldn't do is have an army painted as Hammers using the rules for Anvils of the Heldenhammer, and the like.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
People always misinterpreted the paint scheme thing anyways. All it meant was if your army was painted as a specific stormhost you couldn't use it as another specific stormhost. Custom paint scheme? Whatever you want. Want to use your Hammers painted SCE as generic? Cool. All you couldn't do is have an army painted as Hammers using the rules for Anvils of the Heldenhammer, and the like.

The problem with that is GW releases cool paint schemes for specific subfactions of the fluff before any subfaction rules were given to them, even before subfaction rules existed both for AoS or 40k.
And you end up with problems like the new chapter rules for space marines were you have hundreds of official sucessor chapters that cover nearly all paint schemes one could come up with, and many are very cool, and then BLAM, theres rules for you that mabye you don't even like or even knew there would exist , SORRY NO TAKEBACKS!

A model is very different. A catapult is a catapult it can be OP it can suck ass but you know what you are getting from the first moment you buy it. And until it gets discontinued. But maybe next edition GW just scraps subfaction rules alltogether or changes how they totally work, you can't adapt to that in any sensible way.

And I know, you are just rationalizing GW part, you haven't stated you support it (And even if you support it, theres nothing bad with that, we all have our opinions). I just wanted to explain why I "hate" (Hate is a strong word but my english is limited), GW new approach with this. it goes agaisnt all of the original warhammer ethos. But many many things nu-GW is doing goes against the original spirit of his games.



Yeah thats all and good but at the same time GW is the one that says that their rules are just guidelines like the pirate code, not strict rules, and setting comes before the game. A game, they themselves have said is nothing more than an excuse to forge your own narrative (And this they have said in recent White Dwarfs). So by that, THEIR logic, paint scheme and even Models should have no relation with the rules you use to represent, and well, they actually don't, all the conversions are just examples , and all the GW armies and conversion of their own staff "Yeah maybe this looks like Orks but they are actually a Tyranid army by rules, how cool!"

Not only that but many sub-armies (barring space marines) are often just a few bonuses in combat of a different type. So you might have one Stormcast host who get a +1 to hit with ranged weapons whilst another gets a bonus charge distance boost.

Clearly if you built your army close combat heavy you'd want the latter, whilst if you decide one evening to change to ranged you'd really not want to have to buy and build and paint an entire new stormhost in official colours just for a +1 to hit bonus.


Marines are a bit different because each of the different chapters (At least the major ones) has unique models, unique sculpts and such. That said even then if you've a generic block of marines it shoudln't matter what colour they are.

 Overread wrote:
Not only that but many sub-armies (barring space marines) are often just a few bonuses in combat of a different type. So you might have one Stormcast host who get a +1 to hit with ranged weapons whilst another gets a bonus charge distance boost.

Clearly if you built your army close combat heavy you'd want the latter, whilst if you decide one evening to change to ranged you'd really not want to have to buy and build and paint an entire new stormhost in official colours just for a +1 to hit bonus.


Marines are a bit different because each of the different chapters (At least the major ones) has unique models, unique sculpts and such. That said even then if you've a generic block of marines it shoudln't matter what colour they are.

i see subfactions as a way to add a little variation in your army. And with how limited many new armies are in AoS, with so many little options, like Ironjawz, THATS sorely needed. To have that limited by the paint scheme I like? Feth off.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
People always misinterpreted the paint scheme thing anyways. All it meant was if your army was painted as a specific stormhost you couldn't use it as another specific stormhost. Custom paint scheme? Whatever you want. Want to use your Hammers painted SCE as generic? Cool. All you couldn't do is have an army painted as Hammers using the rules for Anvils of the Heldenhammer, and the like.

It's still dumb. Using a paint scheme shouldn't tie you permanently tie your ability to use certain rules. You just select the Stormhost you are using from the Warscroll builder, and tell your opponent what host you are playing.

FWIWs, I don't think I've ever seen anyone even try to enforce it, even at the Citadel.

 Sasori wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
People always misinterpreted the paint scheme thing anyways. All it meant was if your army was painted as a specific stormhost you couldn't use it as another specific stormhost. Custom paint scheme? Whatever you want. Want to use your Hammers painted SCE as generic? Cool. All you couldn't do is have an army painted as Hammers using the rules for Anvils of the Heldenhammer, and the like.

It's still dumb. Using a paint scheme shouldn't tie you permanently tie your ability to use certain rules. You just select the Stormhost you are using from the Warscroll builder, and tell your opponent what host you are playing.

FWIWs, I don't think I've ever seen anyone even try to enforce it, even at the Citadel.

Yup. I've never even seen anyone not enforce it, because I've never seen a situation where the rule would have applied. The only times I have seen official paint schemes is with people using them as that specific army or as generic. It's an over-specific rule to begin with and I'm glad to see GW phasing it out as quickly as they introduced it.

 Galas wrote:

Spoiler:

 Geifer wrote:

 Galas wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:

Cataphract wrote:
Yea GW has come out and said it doesn’t matter what color scheme.

And there is an official document from Games Workshop which says otherwise. Again, most players won't have a problem with it just so long as you're not being an arse about it. Tournaments may or may not enforce it and events at Warhammer World definitely will enforce it.

That answer in that FAQ is straight up BS. They are equating using one model for other model with paint scheme when everybody makes a distinction between the two. Specifically because a model is a model but the rules associate with a paint scheme come and go, or stop existing without any internal logic for GW part.

You don't have to like it or agree with it or even force people to abide by it, but from GW's position it's completely logical. If you assume that GW was concerned with the integrity of their setting, which is debatable, but if you assume that, there really is no difference between a model and a color scheme. Both visually establish personal and/or faction identity. A Hammer of Sigmar looks like this and behaves like this, a Hallowed Knight looks like that and behaves like that. That's all in the color scheme (except for the chambers that have an upgrade sprue) for now. You may not care how your opponent paints their models. I may not mind if my opponent selects different rules from what their models suggest. But as the people that try to create and present a coherent setting, from GW's perspective it is no less important that what they decide Hammers of Sigmar to be to be represented both by the correct model and the correct color scheme. Because any deviation from that is simply not a Hammer of Sigmar, or else needs dedicated background to explain the deviation.

Execution? That changes over time. Rules change. Color schemes change. Models change. Drawing on 40k as that has a longer history than Age of Sigmar, look at the Ultramarines. Let's not even get into Primaris, just traditional Marines. Their rules change from edition to edition, as you say. But at one point at the beginning of 4th ed, so did their color scheme. They went from a medium blue with non-metallic trim on their shoulder pads, specifically yellow for the poster boy company, to a darker blue with metallic (gold in that case) trim. They were Ultramarines before, and they were Ultramarines after. But it's not like you would have all of a sudden mistaken them for Crimson Fists. Both looked like Ultramarines (in their specific case that's obviously helped by the chapter badge).

Models, too, have changed from Rogue Trader beakies over austere 2nd and 3rd ed Marines taking on a modern form to the latest bling boys. And Marines are only a pretty small offender here. Just look at how different the various Tyranid incarnations are. Give Age of Sigmar enough time and you'll find that a model is not in fact a model. But just like the Ultramarine color scheme a new model will be the recognizable new version of the old model.

That's the important bit here. GW relies on this kind of continuity of identity and it can't be surprising that they take any visual aspect as seriously as another. That's not BS. That's creating a consistent and recognizable setting.

Yeah thats all and good but at the same time GW is the one that says that their rules are just guidelines like the pirate code, not strict rules, and setting comes before the game. A game, they themselves have said is nothing more than an excuse to forge your own narrative (And this they have said in recent White Dwarfs). So by that, THEIR logic, paint scheme and even Models should have no relation with the rules you use to represent, and well, they actually don't, all the conversions are just examples , and all the GW armies and conversion of their own staff "Yeah maybe this looks like Orks but they are actually a Tyranid army by rules, how cool!"

Isn't that just what they're saying in the FAQ? "This is our official stance, but feel free to agree with your opponent to do things differently". There's always mention of changing rules to your liking in GW rule books early on to let people know the rules provided by GW are just a starting point. Why highlight that again in an FAQ something meant to provide clarification on an unclear issue, if GW doesn't intend for people to break with a rule that for all we know is there as a formality that they feel they have to follow, but have no intention of forcing on players?

It just seems to me that people who take issue with the color scheme restriction are so quick to latch on to the restrictive part of that FAQ without stopping to think why GW explicitly provides a way around it in the second part of their answer.

Sprues and Brews have got hold of another Wargames Factory terrain list like the one that leaked for the Dominion of a Sigmar terrain

https://spruesandbrews.com/2019/10/02/ogor-mawtribes-great-mawpot-rumoured/

Listed

Ogor Mawpot
Bonereaper Endless Spells
Bonereaper Scenery

That list has been doing the rounds for a while now. The only question mark is that we've not seen any hint of spells in the big leak that happened a short while back for Bonereapers (though it did confirm the terrain). The lack of terrain and spells for both orruks and cities was an oddity and could have been linked to the trade issues in the past that plagued sylvaneth or might just be blind luck - though it was odd, esp for Orruks which one would have thought would have been a totally normal Battletome.

 Overread wrote:
That list has been doing the rounds for a while now. The only question mark is that we've not seen any hint of spells in the big leak that happened a short while back for Bonereapers (though it did confirm the terrain). The lack of terrain and spells for both orruks and cities was an oddity and could have been linked to the trade issues in the past that plagued sylvaneth or might just be blind luck - though it was odd, esp for Orruks which one would have thought would have been a totally normal Battletome.

I'm not entirely convinced the free cities book isnt just GWs way of giving all those models a fond farewell before the embark on bold new directions for the mortal forces of order. Which is why no spells or terrain.