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.

 Ishagu wrote:

 Mmmpi wrote:

Hankovitch wrote:
He's not interested in the same hobby I am.

No he's not. He does share interest in the same game as you though.

I just don't like when people call non-painters lazy or scum, just because they don't find interest in the hobby side of 40K, don't have the resources to paint (usually time), or have to choose between painting and game time. It would be the same as calling people who don't read the 40K novels lazy.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Crimson wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:

 Ishagu wrote:
If people don't want to see every chapter run as Iron Hands or every Eldar run as Alaitoc we should be more strict with painting.

If the army is painted as a Chapter it must be played as that Chapter. Same for all other factions.

That sounds awful. If I like red marines, I have to be BA? Or blue, I have to be Ultras? No, that’s gak.

Edit: If anything, it’d DISCOURAGE people from painting, so they aren’t stuck with one faction they don’t know if they like yet.

Yep, it is absolutely terrible stance.

Agreed.

These are fake concerns. There are very few people who have BA painted Centurions or an army that would no longer be playable if it was tied to the chapter it was painted as. And those affected are meta chasers trying to do it on the cheap.

People are whinging in topic after topic about having to play against Iron Hands of all colours, but when a clear and effective solution is offered they reject it. If you want to use the best rules for the the strongest chapter it's perfectly fine. How about you actually collect and paint it?

^And how about people who had painted their army as a successor chapter, who are forced to use certain rules for their chapter now? All of a sudden, many armies have become 'locked'.

 Ishagu wrote:

 Mmmpi wrote:

Hankovitch wrote:
He's not interested in the same hobby I am.

No he's not. He does share interest in the same game as you though.

I just don't like when people call non-painters lazy or scum, just because they don't find interest in the hobby side of 40K, don't have the resources to paint (usually time), or have to choose between painting and game time. It would be the same as calling people who don't read the 40K novels lazy.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Crimson wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:

 Ishagu wrote:
If people don't want to see every chapter run as Iron Hands or every Eldar run as Alaitoc we should be more strict with painting.

If the army is painted as a Chapter it must be played as that Chapter. Same for all other factions.

That sounds awful. If I like red marines, I have to be BA? Or blue, I have to be Ultras? No, that’s gak.

Edit: If anything, it’d DISCOURAGE people from painting, so they aren’t stuck with one faction they don’t know if they like yet.

Yep, it is absolutely terrible stance.

Agreed.

These are fake concerns. There are very few people who have BA painted Centurions or an army that would no longer be playable if it was tied to the chapter it was painted as. And those affected are meta chasers trying to do it on the cheap.

People are whinging in topic after topic about having to play against Iron Hands of all colours, but when a clear and effective solution is offered they reject it. If you want to use the best rules for the the strongest chapter it's perfectly fine. How about you actually collect and paint it?

Forgive me for not caring one bit about the shortcuts you want to take in your quest for power gaming.

Unless you're going to enforce a policy of only allowing painted miniatures to be used in the game all your stance does is actively discourage these WAAC gamers from painting their models at all. Also, as noted by many people above, it punishes people who painted their models a certain colour scheme at a time when it didn't actually matter what colour your Eldar or Tyranids, or even SM were. The correct response to dealing with rules as broken as IH (or the new SM in general) is to balance the rules, not punish players for decisions they may have made years ago.

You mean the same players who are spamming the best rules and allegedly making the experience bad for the many on this forum who are complaining?

If you chose to paint chapters for rules ahead of lore, and are now swapping and changing to chase the meta that is not my concern.

Boohoo, the best chapter used to be Ultras, now it's IH, it was WS at the end of 7th edition. And you're just picking the best rules without painting new models?

 Ishagu wrote:
You mean the same players who are spamming the best rules and allegedly making the experience bad for the many on this forum who are complaining?

If you chose to paint chapters for rules ahead of lore, and are now swapping and changing to chase the meta that is not my concern.

Cheapskate meta chasers get no sympathy.

No mention of players who like to experiment with different rules and strategies though? Everyone's just a meta-chaser I supose?

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Ishagu wrote:
You mean the same players who are spamming the best rules and allegedly making the experience bad for the many on this forum who are complaining?

If you chose to paint chapters for rules ahead of lore, and are now swapping and changing to chase the meta that is not my concern.

Cheapskate meta chasers get no sympathy.

No mention of players who like to experiment with different rules and strategies though? Everyone's just a meta-chaser I supose?

Experiment at home with your friends over pretzels and a beer to your heart's content.

 Ishagu wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Ishagu wrote:
You mean the same players who are spamming the best rules and allegedly making the experience bad for the many on this forum who are complaining?

If you chose to paint chapters for rules ahead of lore, and are now swapping and changing to chase the meta that is not my concern.

Cheapskate meta chasers get no sympathy.

No mention of players who like to experiment with different rules and strategies though? Everyone's just a meta-chaser I supose?

Experiment at home with your friends over pretzels and a beer to your heart's content.

So you are trying to balance the tournament scene (A type of game that is based around playing the strongest stuff, so why do you even care everybody plays the strongest stuff?) with a paint related measure (That does a ton of "collateral" damage) instead of just fixing the unbalanced rules.

I play Tau. I love to use all the rules my codex offers me. I do all kind of lists, and use all the subfaction rules, stratagems, etc... that I can. Not all lists are equal but it feels very different to play a assault heavy Vior'la army vs a short ranged Farsight one or a defensive T'au list with tons of heavy weapons. If by my paintjob someone comes and says "Yo boy you should ignore 40% of your rules and just stick to this" I would tell him to go feth a badger or something.

That's the thing. There is no collateral damage.

Every chapter and army is playable. The more casual players are not affected.
The only ones that are the "on-the-cheap" meta chasers who damage the experience for everyone else.

I'm not the one complaining on the forum about Iron Hands and Raven Guard Centurions. Do you want to see less Raven Guard Centurions and Iron Hands?

 Ishagu wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Ishagu wrote:
You mean the same players who are spamming the best rules and allegedly making the experience bad for the many on this forum who are complaining?

If you chose to paint chapters for rules ahead of lore, and are now swapping and changing to chase the meta that is not my concern.

Cheapskate meta chasers get no sympathy.

No mention of players who like to experiment with different rules and strategies though? Everyone's just a meta-chaser I supose?

Experiment at home with your friends over pretzels and a beer to your heart's content.

I can and will, both at home and in tournaments, because I have a custom chapter. That immediately creates a stark difference between my more malleable collection vs. someone who painted their army as, say White Consuls, who is all of a sudden forced to use whatever-they-are. . . UM I think.

It would make the game better and the meta more varied, only at the expense of a tiny minority of players who chose rules ahead of everything else.

 Ishagu wrote:
That's the thing. There is no collateral damage.

Every chapter and army is playable. The more casual players are not affected.
The only ones that are the "on-the-cheap" meta chasers who damage the experience for everyone else.

I'm not the one complaining on the forum about Iron Hands and Raven Guard Centurions. Do you want to see less Raven Guard Centurions and Iron Hands?

That's a ridiculous stance, but I'm not surprised you would take it.

This community spends a good portion of it's time complaining, yet is unwilling to police itself to make things better.

Perpetual complaining with obvious solutions that no one is willing to take. I'm not the one complaining in every topic.

 Ishagu wrote:
It would make the game better and the meta more varied, only at the expense of a tiny minority of players who chose rules ahead of everything else.

It encourages people not to put badges on their guys so that they're not tied to any specific chapter. That's the easy sidestep of whatever paint-accurate utopia you're imagining.

None of my own painting is what you would call pro-no airbrush etc.. I do multiple colors, washes and decals (sometimes free hand) to make it look table presentable because I like the immersion of painted minis and fine terrain, but if I can get some good games in it's all good,

I understand after all these years that you never seem to be done with building or painting in this hobby, as such it doesn't bug me a lot. I also play with different kinds of players including one guy who is always good for a game but he is more on the playing the game side of the hobby. almost nothing he has is painted he just puts it together and plays. he has just recently started painting some of his minis and some test minis from reaper.

I avoid the entire successor chapter problem because I made my own, with my own paint scheme. although they have always been salamanders successors(there is a joke in there if you knew the paint scheme) since I built them in 5th.

It is a far cry from my very first attempts with my old dark angels battle company paintjob I did back in 3rd.
*shudders*

 Ishagu wrote:
This community spends a good portion of it's time complaining, yet is unwilling to police itself to make things better.

Perpetual complaining with obvious solutions that no one is willing to take. I'm not the one complaining in every topic.

Ishagu posts as Ishagu posts. Moving on.

Wrong. We need more strict painting and labelling rules to go with this, especially in competitive play.

So many armies look like absolute rubbish with no effort put in whatsoever, all because people rush out to abuse the "rules of the day."

Minimal standard should be 5 colours on fully painted models, fully based and with symbols/transfers/markings on models. This community creates it's own problems, it enhances exiting issues, and it refuses to take ownership of itself.

The only people affected by this would be the meta chasers who put rules ahead of everything else at the expense of the greater hobby and many in the community.

Yes, punish people who have already painted their armies. Good policy.

Why are they being punished? Their armies are still perfectly usable. Maybe not as Iron Hands.

And guess what, one day Iron Hands will not the be the best army.

Your only complaint revolves around the power level of the chapter you've painted.

 Ishagu wrote:
Why are they being punished? Their armies are still perfectly usable. Maybe not as Iron Hands.

And guess what, one day Iron Hands will not the be the best army.

Your only complaint revolves around the power level of the chapter you've painted.

Person A, with lovingly painted White Consuls army is forced to play with UM

Person B, with sloppy custom chapter can meta chase to their hearts content.

Bad paradigm, and doesn't at all punish the people you claim are punished, while punishing the person who already owns a beautifully painted army.

Yeah, the reward for custom chapters should come with more flexibility but no access to named characters or heroes at any point.

Fair trade.

 Ishagu wrote:
Yeah, the reward for custom chapters should come with more flexibility but no access to named characters or heroes at any point.

Fair trade.

Also newly limiting and dumb. 40K never had those constraints before, and I've been running UM characters in my custom scheme since forever now.

Overall it places too high a burden on someone just getting into the hobby in choosing the "right rules" as they paint their first models possibly before they even have any experience under their belt to know if they like the style of play for their army or not.

No matter what, it all comes around to marines. again. *sigh*

I'm more game focused than most here, but even accounting for the current game situation, i wouldn't muck with the hobbiers side, when you can use the game side to handle the "issue". if im gonna get thrashed by omnipresent marine nonsense, id prefer to at least see different shades of them before they table me instead of different attempts at the same stock scheme. also, what a idea to force even extra purchases if someone does or doesn't wanna play the OP subfaction, but is with folk so strict.

I can just picture the person being told to not play with their favorite faction and it simultaneously removes all their paint work from the table as an option to because suddenly they got the "OP" buff.

 Ishagu wrote:
You mean the same players who are spamming the best rules and allegedly making the experience bad for the many on this forum who are complaining?

If you chose to paint chapters for rules ahead of lore, and are now swapping and changing to chase the meta that is not my concern.

Boohoo, the best chapter used to be Ultras, now it's IH, it was WS at the end of 7th edition. And you're just picking the best rules without painting new models?

I've got a certain degree of sympathy for this approach and agree that it can tend to solve problems with people incessantly trying to squeeze every possible competitive advantage out o the rules. So what if how I've painted my guys isn't the most "optimal" way of using them?

In my Ork army, I've got some Goffs, Bad Moons and Evil Sunz units. Prior to our 8th-ed Codex coming out, this had absolutely no impact on how they behaved in-game. Now, I play them as Goffs, Bad Moons and Evil Sunz, depending on paint job. The Clan rules give me a bit of extra flavour to those units, but I don't see it as essential that I should have to manipulate those to gain the greatest in-game advantage over my opponent.

If people don't agree with what I suggested they cannot go on to complain about too many Iron Hands Astartes or Alaitoc Eldar in pick up games or tournaments.

Just because something hasn't mattered before doesn't mean it shouldn't matter. At official GW events they do expect you to play your Dark Angels as Dark Angels.

The meta chasers who do the minimal amount of work to get the best results are a tiny minority of the hobbyists, and they should not be the ones to steer the habits of the community.

I can't really understand how people see wanting to use different rules and try different lists to change how you play the game as something negative.

All things related to wanting to use X package of rules is labeled as meta chasing.

Maybe is because I come from a videogame background so the idea of not using part of the game I paid for is just alien to me. I mean, we all have "mains": Those characters we tend to play more in a fighting game, those weapons we like the best in shooters, etc... but if someday we want to try something new, we do it without a problem.

I assume the solution for this , for Ishagu and co will be "If you want to try different subfaction rules just buy another army and paint it differently lol"

 Ishagu wrote:
Wrong. We need more strict painting and labelling rules to go with this, especially in competitive play.

So many armies look like absolute rubbish with no effort put in whatsoever, all because people rush out to abuse the "rules of the day."

Minimal standard should be 5 colours on fully painted models, fully based and with symbols/transfers/markings on models. This community creates it's own problems, it enhances exiting issues, and it refuses to take ownership of itself.

The only people affected by this would be the meta chasers who put rules ahead of everything else at the expense of the greater hobby and many in the community.

So are you going to count the number of colors on someone's models? Do washes count? Weathering? Base coat then wash then another wash is three? I use multiple layers of colors to create plasma glow can you look at a model and count those?

Your "fix" would punish new players who are learning to paint their own models while doing nothing to waac players who have their armies painted on commission.

@Galas

Unfortunately there is no real or substantial instance of players making their armies worse by choosing Chapters that aren't as competitive as the ones they have painted.

This "experimentation" as you call it is simply a way for player to use better rules without buying or painting any new models.

This has also led to a reduction in the focus and importance of the hobby over the years in the eyes of many. It's why so many people make the absolute minimum effort to rush and put together whatever the flavour of the month might be. These are the same people that lead to very single list at a tournament being Iron Hands, even though most weren't collected or painted as that chapter. It leads to less variety, less enjoyment, and I have no sympathy for it.

How can this community complain and cry about things on a daily basis, and yet refuse to police itself to promote better habits and more variety?

Gadzilla666 wrote:

So are you going to count the number of colors on someone's models? Do washes count? Weathering? Base coat then wash then another wash is three? I use multiple layers of colors to create plasma glow can you look at a model and count those?

Your "fix" would punish new players who are learning to paint their own models while doing nothing to waac players who have their armies painted on commission.

Take the example of a standard Marine. You have armour, trim, a gun, eye lenses, various bits on the armour like the joints. There is 5 colours for you. It's not hard to achieve.

Advanced techniques are of course welcome and separate a beginner from a more seasoned painter. Exceptions can be made on a case by case basis for armies with unique themes, like a glowing ghost look that might use only a few shades.

 Galas wrote:

I assume the solution for this , for Ishagu and co will be "If you want to try different subfaction rules just buy another army and paint it differently lol"

I mean, I personally don't think this is *quite* as ludicrous an idea as you're insinuating it is. Where do you draw the line? What if I want to play my Orks using the Marines rules cos I like the Ork figures better but the Marines Codex "gives me more tactical options"? Is anyone who suggests I buy a Space Marine army being ridiculous?

That's exactly the point I'm making. We all have a line, I'm saying it should be moved for the benefit of the hobby and the community.

This rubbish about punishing long term hobbyists is nonsense. It's a tiny minority of competitive players doing it on the cheap at the expense of everything else in the hobby, including the enjoyment of their opponents.

 Ishagu wrote:
That's exactly the point I'm making. We all have a line, I'm saying it should be moved for the benefit of the hobby and the community.

This rubbish about punishing long term hobbyists is nonsense. It's a tiny minority of competitive players doing it on the cheap at the expense of everything else in the hobby, including the enjoyment of their opponents.

So you're just going to keep asserting this without evidence then, while ignoring all the collateral damage your poorly thought through proposals create? Seems reasonable. I don't see how punishing people, especially a lot of new players, for their choice of colour scheme is going to benefit the community or the hobby.

Or how about we tackle the core problem which is the balance within the game? If the game was better balanced in the first place we wouldn't even be having this conversation because the guy using Iron Hands and the guy using White Consuls wouldn't have such a disparity in power level between their armies.

 Ishagu wrote:
That's exactly the point I'm making. We all have a line, I'm saying it should be moved for the benefit of the hobby and the community.

Totally. And with the issue of where that line sits, I kinda feel like we're back to the whole broader issue of the social contract of playing the game, and finding people to play with whose ideas of where the line is pretty much align with one's own. There's not necessarily a hard and fast right answer to a lot of these questions.