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 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?
I'm sorry but different models for different armies has existed since the game inception. This "A certain paint scheme goes with a certain amount of rules" is something very new. If GW wants to force paintschemes into us, then better they start selling prepainted miniatures.
You know many people play armies not only because how they look but also because they enjoy playing them?
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.
But at the end of the day this is not true. Actual meta-chasers just buy and sell armies on ebay , and if they need to they'll have their armies painted in the appropiate colours (I don't really understand this way of playing because... I mean. Warhammer 40k as a pure gameplay element is not very good. Is not even mediocre. But I suppose everyone enjoys different things)
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2020/01/09 12:07:27
Dakka does have White Knights and is also rather infamous for it's Black Knights. A new edition brings out the passionate and not all of them are good at expressing themselves in written form. There have been plenty of hysterical responses from both sides so far. So we descend into pointless bickering with neither side listening to each other. So posting here becomes more masturbation than conversation.
ERJAK wrote: Forcing a 40k player to keep playing 7th is basically a hate crime.
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.
Balance with the game is certainly an issue, although a small one. Most Marine lists doing damage are being run as Iron Hands or Raven Guard with Centurions. Are you telling me that 80% of Marine players have painted Iron Hands armies? Of course not. It's people running their existing forces as something else for an advantage.
Iron Hands would not be a problem if they made up 5% of the meta, would they?
To pass off all responsibility for the health of the game to GW, when many players ignore the hobby and play using unlicensed 3rd party rules is arrogant and stupid. The community is as much to blame as the makers of the game. If the community is not willing to do it's part in making this social hobby better, it deserves nothing. It's immature to expect someone else to fix everything for you whilst you do everything you can to get a advantage without putting effort.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/01/09 12:09:38
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.
Balance with the game is certainly an issue, although a small one. Most Marine lists doing damage are being run as Iron Hands or Raven Guard with Centurions. Are you telling me that 80% of Marine players have painted Iron Hands armies? Of course not. It's people running their existing forces as something else for an advantage.
Iron Hands would not be a problem if they made up 5% of the meta, would they?
To pass off all responsibility for the health of the game to GW, when many players ignore the hobby and play using unlicensed 3rd party rules is arrogant and stupid. The community is as much to blame as the makers of the game.
In Smash Bross Meele, Fox is 35% of the competitive scene. That means of 26 characters, one represents 1/3 of the competitive scene. And that will happen in all kind of games, be them video or tabletop. In the competitive scene people will use the most powerfull tool to achieve victory.
The only way to change that is by balancing the OP stuff. Thats the objetive and for many people hard truth, because they can't do it properly.
So by you reasoning I assume ALL competitive comunities are to blame, and all rules creators are free of any kind of responsability?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/01/09 12:11:14
Dakka does have White Knights and is also rather infamous for it's Black Knights. A new edition brings out the passionate and not all of them are good at expressing themselves in written form. There have been plenty of hysterical responses from both sides so far. So we descend into pointless bickering with neither side listening to each other. So posting here becomes more masturbation than conversation.
ERJAK wrote: Forcing a 40k player to keep playing 7th is basically a hate crime.
We can't compare video games to tabletop games. The variables are much higher, and this is an analogue experience.
Equally there are fighting games with much better balance.
If you want a meta where 80% of Marines lists at events aren't Iron Hands there are very simple thing that can be done. The Iron Hands issue is only temporary and will be resolved sooner or later, and then the same people will abuse the next best thing, and on and on it goes with every faction.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2020/01/09 12:14:56
If you want a meta where 80% of Marines lists at events aren't Iron Hands there are very simple thing that can be done.
Banning iron hands rules competitively if they are so meta-breaking they needed to be brought up in this thread about paint instead of messing with how a number of hobby folk of every army interact with their rulesets?
I could just say ban marines in general until the other books come out, but Id rather not move to quickly.
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?
I'm sorry but different models for different armies has existed since the game inception. This "A certain paint scheme goes with a certain amount of rules" is something very new. If GW wants to force paintschemes into us, then better they start selling prepainted miniatures.
"This is how things were done in earlier versions of the game" is a bit of a slippery slope – Ork Clans had different rules in 1st-ed; Marine chapters have had different rules since 2nd (1st if you include Space Wolves). So "a certain paint scheme goes with certain rules" is far from a new thing. And I don't see what pre-painted miniatures have to do with this at all.
As I said before though, it's largely down to preference of what you want for the game, and there's not necessarily a hard and fast "correct" answer to that.
I remember when taking certain units required the permission of your opponent in advance? Should we go back to that because it was a thing in the past?
If you want a meta where 80% of Marines lists at events aren't Iron Hands there are very simple thing that can be done.
Banning iron hands rules competitively if they are so meta-breaking they needed to be brought up in this thread about paint instead of messing with how a number of hobby folk of every army interact with their rulesets?
How is "ban this army outright" *less* restrictive on people's choice of what they play than "play your army as what it's painted as"? The latter doesn't exclude anyone, it simply requires that they use a particular set of unified rules.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ishagu wrote: I remember when taking certain units required the permission of your opponent in advance? Should we go back to that because it was a thing in the past?
i mean, it's *kind of * still the case in any non-competitive environment. "Hey would you mind not using that? [Insert reason here]"
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/01/09 12:38:22
If you want a meta where 80% of Marines lists at events aren't Iron Hands there are very simple thing that can be done.
Banning iron hands rules competitively if they are so meta-breaking they needed to be brought up in this thread about paint instead of messing with how a number of hobby folk of every army interact with their rulesets?
How is "ban this army outright" *less* restrictive on people's choice of what they play than "play your army as what it's painted as"? The latter doesn't exclude anyone, it simply requires that they use a particular set of unified rules.
as a preface, even though I personally dislike marines in general, I think both ideas are silly. that said...
assuming we're talking about the "meta" a competitive ban on iron hands would only affect the tournaments. those people would be free to use whatever rules they like otherwise in the faction that are deemed more "balanced". if people want to play those rules outside of those tournaments, then that's on them to sign that social contract. and this ban could be employed whenever a subfaction is to strong for the current curve against the rest of the game by a very noticable margin, say enough statistics over a long enough period of months. it's actually really common in games on top of that. the largest nontournament consequence is like every other tournament suggestion thusfar, it gets taken as Gospel and people wouldn't want to play that subfaction in non-competitive games... which would trim down on the complaining about said subfaction, though not by much.
the proposed alternative would be to tell all the painters across all armies they are ramrod stuck with whatever they painted if they liked the schemes GW already came up or may use soon, and if they later change their minds, or painted what just looked cool and it affects their gameplay, then they should just repaint the whole thing or go buy more plastic to paint in a scheme they may not even enjoy for whatever reason.
the first one should likely affect a smaller group than the second, hammers down the errant nail lickedy split, and can be shifted as necessary. if all the complaining is based primarily on iron hands, then why shouldn't they get the banhammer until at least more books arrive? seems like a much more workable thing to me if we have to make this argument at all. someones gonna get inconvenienced, but if we gotta talk in the name of balance, this seems easier. may as well consider unit bans as well, though id REALLY not wanna open any such can of worms.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2020/01/09 13:04:23
Ishagu wrote: This community spends a good portion of it's time complaining, yet is unwilling to police itself to make things better.
We are policing ourselves to make the community better. That's what everyone telling you that your idea is toxic rubbish is.
Your negative toxic attitude is a problem. I get accused of trolling for not hating enough things.
Fine job of policing the community. It's overrun by entitled whingers looking to pass the blame for their own bad habits.
@Bdrone
I have no complaint about any specific faction or sub faction. This same cycle repeats every year with different armies. Remember Eldar flyers? The Castellan? The Loyal 32? The Decurion? Etc, etc
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/01/09 13:04:19
If you want a meta where 80% of Marines lists at events aren't Iron Hands there are very simple thing that can be done.
Banning iron hands rules competitively if they are so meta-breaking they needed to be brought up in this thread about paint instead of messing with how a number of hobby folk of every army interact with their rulesets?
How is "ban this army outright" *less* restrictive on people's choice of what they play than "play your army as what it's painted as"? The latter doesn't exclude anyone, it simply requires that they use a particular set of unified rules.
assuming we're talking about the "meta" a competitive ban on iron hands would only affect the tournaments.
I mean, tbh, unless there's some sort of tournament ruleset imposing additional rules beyond the basic ones of the game, *either* option just boils down to "what you agree with whomever you're playing the game with".
It's still a lot easier to create a banlist as a means of restricting the choice seen as "overpowered" then to add entriely new game requirements by painting scheme if the banlist would solve the issue. why use paint scheme to restrict a game anyway if we know where the issues are and have the stats to back it up?
Your negative toxic attitude is a problem. I get accused of trolling for not hating enough things.
Fine job of policing the community. It's overrun by entitled whingers looking to pass the blame for their own bad habits.
You should consider getting a mirror!
Look, your idea is massively harmful. I want encourage people to paint their models, I want them to use the colour scheme they think looks the best, was it a canon or custom one. I really don't want to mechanically punish anyone for choosing the 'wrong colour', even if that 'punishment' was merely 'I don't like this playsyle' instead of 'your army now sucks' as it often is. Rules come and go but the miniatures stay. It is completely unreasonable to expect people to have precognitive powers when they choose their colour scheme that would allow them to know what the rules for that subfaction will be in five of then years.
People already explained this to you and there has been massive threads on the subject previously. That's why my terse response, as you already should know that this is a bad idea. But of course as usual, you're incapable of self reflection or humility and cannot admit that your idea is rubbish and instead belittle people and the community for not embracing your 'magnificent wisdom.' You truly are an excellent example of the Dunning-Kruger effect in action.
Stop with the hyperbole. No one is being punished. It's not like Salamanders and Imperil Fists are useless.
Every chapter, Brood, Klan, etc is perfectly playable.
The only people being "punished" are lazy meta chasers looking to squeeze any advantage they can at the expense of everything else.
"Oh no, I can't use my Novamarines as Iron Hands, how can I go on?"
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/01/09 13:23:34
Ishagu wrote: Stop with the hyperbole. No one is being punished. It's not like Salamanders and Imperil Fists are useless.
Every chapter, Brood, Klan, etc is perfectly playable.
The only people being "punished" are lazy meta chasers looking to squeeze any advantage they can at the expense of everything else.
Just no. Even a small punishment is a punishment. Why on earth why I would reward not painting models if I want encourage people to paint them? It is completely insane.
It is an undeniable fact that under the method you propose unpainted models have a competitive advantage and advantage of trying different playstyles. Now you may not care about that, I may not care about that but a lot of people do, and that doesn't automatically make them WAAC metachasers. You're introducing an element which directly pits aesthetics against power and flexibility in the game. It is harmful and completely unnecessary.
Who says anything about not painting? I also suggested we have stricter hobby criteria like the events at GW.
Are you a lazy meta chaser who swaps rules without converting or painting new models to gain any advantage you can? Why are you so worried about a greater focus on the hobby, lore and variety within the community?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/01/09 13:38:22
I also suggested we have stricter hobby criteria like the events at GW.
Having super strict paint scheme requirement in top end tournaments would stifle creativity and encourage pay to win. Hard core competitive people will just commission a new army in the current meta colour. Not an improvement. And i half the armies need to be Iron Hands then at least it will nook nicer if all of them are not painted the same.
I look at painted models as a means to attract people to the game because it looks pretty.
I have NEVER seen anyone stop and ask about a game when bare plastic models are in use, unlike painted ones.
I want more players, painting is the "feathers on the peacock" that draws the eye and generates interest.
It is a courtesy.
You can get along fine without it but it just makes things more agreeable.
I personally have a comfort zone in assembly, painting has never come easy for me BUT it is the best means to make my model skills look good.
As stated earlier, few people comment on the good join filling and mold line removal unless they are hard-core modelers, "finished" product is where the interest is.
A revolution is an idea which has found its bayonets.
Napoleon Bonaparte
I also suggested we have stricter hobby criteria like the events at GW.
Having super strict paint scheme requirement in top end tournaments would stifle creativity and encourage pay to win. Hard core competitive people will just commission a new army in the current meta colour. Not an improvement. And i half the armies need to be Iron Hands then at least it will nook nicer if all of them are not painted the same.
I think you're probably right that the sort of people who go all-in on competitive play are always going to find some sort of loophole to bend things to their advantage, but my personal preference is for people (myself included) to use the rules that go with their figures' paint schemes, rather than taking a pick'n'mix approach.
That said, it's impossible to know for sure what people's underlying motivations are so, when it comes to tournaments/competitive play, isn't it better to err on the side of caution and be *more* rather than less restrictive? I.e. "if you want to play as this, you paint as this"?
Overally though, I don't particularly care about what tournaments do; they generally just encourage/reward gakky gaming behaviour by focusing on the competitive aspect imo.
(Although the rules around painting/rules they have at the WhW tournaments are one of the reasons I'd quite like to give one a go someday)
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2020/01/09 13:56:49
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.
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.
Or they're people who want to keep their army playable and effective. Even if you were correct in assuming most of them were meta chasers though, it would still be an actual concern, rather than a 'fake' one.
Your 'clear and concise' solution is just as conceited as the people who think everyone who doesn't paint is lazy.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Spoiler:
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?
There very much is collateral damage. You just had three people point out some of it to you. As for IH and RG, it very much sounds like you are complaining.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Spoiler:
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.
Meta chasers, people who like to experiment with different lists, casual gamers, people who suck at painting (but still want painted armies), the list goes on and on with who would be affected. The later in particular by your asinine 5 colors idea.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Spoiler:
Ishagu wrote: 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.
They very much can still complain. Broken rules are broken rules. Why is this so hard for you?
The way marines work, except IH in which everything is good, is that each chapter mainly does one thing well and suck at the rest while previously and in the background they were all pretty much good at everything but had a slight bias. I might prefer JP models as a BA player but I still have dreads, a landraider, a whirlwind, a predator and some other non JP stuff and might want to play them as well. But if colored locked I might just sell them on ebay as the rules are right now.
My MM attackbike have more than twice the output against most of its prefered targets, 0.66wounds vs 0.25 with the melta against t8, and twice the survivability against ap 0 shots if played as IH successor over being played as BA. Thats TWICE the effectiveness and people want to have that locked due to colors! If I want to use my vehicle park im almost forced to play with another chapters rules, play with a huge handicap or just go in to the game with the mindset that a small loss is a victory for me since I wont have a chance of actually winning with my crappy units I still pay the same points for as MA/Stealthy IH successors do.
I started off as a badly painted successor but as I had mostly BA characters and jump units I decided to go more red(they were red and black before) and paint them as BA now with my increased skill after a decade. My newly painted models are way way way better looking than my old ones but if I had to be locked I wouldnt even bother with anything more than absolute minimum like I used to. No way Im painting better for me and my opponents if I get punished for it now. Likely not even continue playing 40k and just play better and cheaper games like KoW which my friends are now getting in to. That game is so much more relaxed in almost every way that it is a joy. So many more models available for each army and if I dont like the mantic models I can just use GW models and paint them in any color scheme.
Nazrak wrote: Ork Clans had different rules in 1st-ed
IIRC back in the day it was typical for clans to be mixed within a single army; eg your Shoota Boyz would be Bad Moons, your Stormboyz would be Goffs, etc. So if your army was built and painted then as a hodge-podge of different clans, then if you take 'paint scheme = rules' literally your army would be unplayable under 8th.
Which highlights the overall point- that how paint schemes have interacted with rules has changed over time, and it's not fun to be locked into a particular set of rules because the colors you chose have suddenly been given rules.
I enjoy WYSIWYG and I magnetize my models so that I can give them appropriate weapons, but I can't magnetize paint schemes.
To give another example, I know a guy who built a Nidzilla army using the Space Hulk color scheme back in 4th, which is now defined as Hive Fleet Hydra. Hydra's specialty is swarming, with a trait that only applies when you outnumber the enemy. If he used the Hydra rules, because that's the color scheme he chose back in 4th, he would literally never get to use his trait. Is that how it ought to be?
Nazrak wrote: Ork Clans had different rules in 1st-ed
IIRC back in the day it was typical for clans to be mixed within a single army; eg your Shoota Boyz would be Bad Moons, your Stormboyz would be Goffs, etc. So if your army was built and painted then as a hodge-podge of different clans, then if you take 'paint scheme = rules' literally your army would be unplayable under 8th.
That would be me. I have bad moons shoota boyz, evil suns trukk boyz, trukks and battlewagons, blood axe boyz and battlewagon, koptas are bad moons, deff skulls and snakebites, lootas are deff skulls, my warbiker unit has bloodaxe, evil suns, bad moons and deff skull bikers in just one unit, every single nob has a different clan, depending on which one I felt he fits best, my naut is deff skulls, and so forth. Note that the fluff used to state that certain units like warbikers, stormboyz or lootas were basically dedicated clan units, similar to how khorne berzerkers and plague marines were always World Eaters and Death Guard, even if they travel with renegades.
And I'm not about to drop a paint scheme I started ten years ago, so all my buggies are painted in the clan colors shown on their box - SJD is bad moons, KBB is evil suns, boom-dakka snazzwagon is deff skulls, scrapjet is bloodaxes and the wartrike is goff.
7 Ork facts people always get wrong: Ragnar did not win against Thrakka, but suffered two crushing defeats within a few days of each other. A lasgun is powerful enough to sever an ork's appendage or head in a single, well aimed shot. Orks meks have a better understanding of electrics and mechanics than most Tech Priests. Orks actually do not think that purple makes them harder to see. The joke was made canon by Alex Stewart's Caphias Cain books. Gharkull Blackfang did not even come close to killing the emperor. Orks can be corrupted by chaos, but few of them have any interest in what chaos offers. Orks do not have the power of believe.
Ishagu wrote: I remember when taking certain units required the permission of your opponent in advance? Should we go back to that because it was a thing in the past?
Making people paint models in a specific way is a very gate keeping thing to do, specialy when a lot of people aren't even interested in painting their models in the first place . What is next not allowing people to play with old models? GW could be changing base sizes, or paint scheems just to force people to buy new armies. Just because someone bought an IH army, and now a DA army fits them better, they shouldn't be stoped from using the models they bought, specially when the only thing that changes are the rules, which they pay for while buying a codex.
If you have to kill, then kill in the best manner. If you slaughter, then slaughter in the best manner. Let one of you sharpen his knife so his animal feels no pain.
As much as I'll unashamedly state which side of the fence I am on (obviously it's the 'painting minis makes ALL games cooler' stance), it's threads like this make me thank god I only play casually, where idiotic arguments and problems like these don't exist. In my kind of casual games, everyone wants to show off their personal style as a way to nerd-brag about something they are proud of, even if they are crappy painters.
My kind of games are where players want to show off their cool "Doom Marine" paintjobs (as in the ancient video game, not any particular GW approved faction paintjob), etc.
Funny about how almost all the "paintscheme for advantage" arguments almost solely involve Space Marines. No one is accusing people of painting or not-painting say, Tyranids.
"By this point I'm convinced 100% that every single race in the 40k universe have somehow tapped into the ork ability to just have their tech work because they think it should."
Stop with the hyperbole. No one is being punished ...
...The only people being "punished" are lazy meta chasers looking to squeeze any advantage they can at the expense of everything else.
"Oh no, I can't use my Novamarines as Iron Hands, how can I go on?"
I found that funny ...
Because of the fact that painting is important to me personally, I dislike your suggestions for this. The problem is that this does punish people. People like me. While the "lazy meta-chasers" will just do an even sloppier paint-job over top of the already sloppy paint job they have (or just outright buy a new painted army), people like me will be shot in the foot. When Forgeworld introduced the Red Hunters, I instantly fell in love and converted my Blood Angels to Red Hunters. I have a FULL BATTLE COMPANY of Red Hunters and they are very well painted. Hundreds of hours sunk into lovingly painting each and every model. Names on sergeant models and even squad leader models, kill markings, weathering, the whole 9. Since Red Hunters don't technically exist in this edition (unless I missed an update - in which case let me know), I typically play them as Sons of Orar because that's a fairly close match to the color scheme, and the chapter traits match up close enough to what I envision for them. Your rule would have me unable to play my marines at all, while not having the slightest effect on the people you're trying to target with it. Because I'm no paint snob and will play against anyone (long as your stuff's assembled), but if you're going to get so strict that red marines with some white helmets from Chapter "A" can't be used as red marines w/white helmets from chapter "B", then I'll just stay home and paint. The actual "gaming" isn't for me at that point.
I think it's important in these discussions to try and keep the hobby aspect as flexible and welcoming as possible, and we can't do that by introducing rules of exclusion in this manner. OT - Painting is important to me, but not to the point that I want it to drive people away from playing games. Not trying to toot my own horn here, but you want people like me coming to games and tourneys. I don't have Golden Demon level skill or anything crazy, but I'm a very good painter and sculptor (my career began with practical special effects and making medical prosthetics), so my armies tend to be the type of armies that attract people to the game in the first place.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2020/01/10 01:19:40
Edit: I just googled ablutions and apparently it does not including dropping a duece. I should have looked it up early sorry for any confusion. - Baldsmug
Psiensis on the "good old days":
"Kids these days...
... I invented the 6th Ed meta back in 3rd ed.
Wait, what were we talking about again? Did I ever tell you about the time I gave you five bees for a quarter? That's what you'd say in those days, "give me five bees for a quarter", is what you'd say in those days. And you'd go down to the D&D shop, with an onion in your belt, 'cause that was the style of the time. So there I was in the D&D shop..."
