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 started my eldar army in my own scheme and own made up fluff long before custom traits, or before I knew which craftworlds were good.

I guess it does give me flexibility and some decorum of advantage. But it also gives me great joy to see my army slowly being completed according to my vision and not designs by GW.

Why are you unable to play the Red Hunters?

They have an unknown founding so you can simply use the chapter trait creation for them in the codex.

Why are you unable to play the Red Hunters?

I could, but they had specific rules, etc under 6th/7th ed. Nothing crazy as you likely know, but they haven't been updated to 8, and I think Sons of Orar suits them well. WHat you're suggesting wouldn't allow for that. There are IH successors that also have a similar paint scheme. I could have gone that route but I didn't. Mine is clearly NOT a case of lazy meta-chasing, but you'd punish me just the same as the guy next to me who, last week sprayed everything yellow plus two other shades, and this week sprayed over that in three different shades of grey. There's a vast gulf between me and that person in terms of hobby effort, but you would penalize me just the same. That's the point everyone's making.

 Ishagu wrote:
It applies to all factions. Alaitoc Eldar are another prime culprit.

So can you tell me what colour Poisoned Tongue are? Or Jormugandr, or Pauper Princes? I couldn't even tell you what the Dark Eldar colour schemes for each sub-faction are and I play them. Additionally, non-SM armies don't have the "choose your own traits" caveat so for Xenos armies you're free to use a custom paint job and enjoy the benefits of meta chasing with Ad Mech or Dark Eldar, but not Space Marines because...reasons. But screw you if you painted your Necrons in the traditional silver and green because now you're locked into Sautekh.

Your approach is unworkable for any number of reasons, all of which you simply refuse to acknowledge. A few practical examples:

I have Blood Angels. I've played them since 2nd edition when they were just red marines with some angry black-armoured dudes. I played them in 3rd when they were broken as all feth and I played them all the way through each edition afterwards when they were various different types of terrible. At some point in 5th edition I decided to repaint my models since they were literally the first things I painted. I decided to go for a reverse colour scheme of black armour and red trim, with red Death Company. They're easily identifiable as whatever unit they're supposed to represent, including various special characters painted in the same colours. According to your approach I can't play them as the chapter I have used for literally decades because of a decision taken more than 10 years ago when it didn't matter. And why? Because Iron Hands are broken.

Similarly, I've seen a fantastic Emperor's Children army, built and painted as a pre-Heresy force and using Ultramarines rules, including a Guilliman conversion into Fulgrim and an Eidolon using the rules for Calgar. It looks great and the use of UM rules even makes sense in the circumstances given both forces tend towards the pursuit of martial perfection and the UM rules reflect that quite nicely. Nobody has even been confused by what anything represents and it's clearly a labour of love for the guy who owns it. Again, you're saying this player can't use his army in the way he wants because Iron Hands are broken.

You're proposing a solution that doesn't solve the core problem, has huge holes in it even if enforced fully and punishes people for creativity and decisions taken potentially years ago when they had no consequence. All because GW can't balance their game properly.

yeah everyone knows what Imperial Fists colours are, craftworld Altioc? not so much

Even for marines from established chapters/legions their are problems. Each chapter has multiple companies, do we have paint schemes for all of them? For every chapter? I paint my Night Lords with silver trim darkened with nuln oil because I find the gold trim garish and impractical for a legion that likes to hide in the darkness. It's also how they're depicted in much of the hh artwork and fw models. Does that make them illegal for 40k but legal for hh? This approach would restrict artistic license among players and punish creativity.

BrianDavion wrote:
yeah everyone knows what Imperial Fists colours are, craftworld Altioc? not so much

What color are freebootas? Not even GW knows

 Jidmah wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:
yeah everyone knows what Imperial Fists colours are, craftworld Altioc? not so much

What color are freebootas? Not even GW knows

Freebootaz aren't, as I understand it, even a single unified Ork orginization yeah?

BrianDavion wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:
yeah everyone knows what Imperial Fists colours are, craftworld Altioc? not so much

What color are freebootas? Not even GW knows

Freebootaz aren't, as I understand it, even a single unified Ork orginization yeah?

No ork clan is. The clans are coded into their genes, so any group of orks will eventually consist of all clans when they grow enough in size.

 Jidmah wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:
yeah everyone knows what Imperial Fists colours are, craftworld Altioc? not so much

What color are freebootas? Not even GW knows

Pirate!

 Mmmpi wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:
yeah everyone knows what Imperial Fists colours are, craftworld Altioc? not so much

What color are freebootas? Not even GW knows

Pirate!

all and none, they stole all the point from the otha boyz.

Oh, it is pretty easy to "chase the meta" and just put on a 3 colour paint scheme.
Do a three colour progressive Zenithal paint job (airbrush) and then spray the base of the model and you are done painting an entire army in the span of an hour or two.
A steady couple hours of large brush dry brushing could achieve something similar.
There really is no excuse play bare plastic, though some people insist on playing when assembly is not quite complete.

But most of what we are talking about is more than a passing attempt to pick out the details of the model and paint them accordingly.

I got a bit of an expectation adjustment looking at our local 40k group playing at the FLGS:
- Heads were missing from some of the troops.
- Arms missing from dreadnaughts and bare plastic.
- A bright silver base-coat was put all over some marines.
- Tanks with their turrets missing.
- Basilisks all painted with one colour, the whole thing.
- Daemon princes painted to an amazing standard from Forgeworld.
- I saw one guy drop some well block-painted grots at least 3 times on the floor because he carried them on a baking sheet with a tea-towel laid over them.

It was an insane mixed bag of players (which is a good thing all the same...), the hobby shop provides fully painted terrain pieces with "FAT Mats" to play on so the "incomplete" armies kinda stood out.

I dunno, I just find the game looks like utter garbage when I see the army of "Misfit Toys" assemble for war (you would bother to put the heads on at least right???).
I would assemble "classic" model kits and they never were put out on display till the painting was done...

I genuinely would like to hear from those who play with bare plastic models: why do you stop there? Chomping at the bit to play and really have zero interest in the look of it so long as you can get to the game at hand?

 Talizvar wrote:
There really is no excuse play bare plastic, though some people insist on playing when assembly is not quite complete.

The one reason for me to ever play half-assembled models is when I didn't finish painting models in time for a game, and it's impossible to paint them assembled. The ork buggies and warbikers are such models, for example.

People like different aspects of the hobby.
The objective of a hobby is entertainment. Doing things you don't like due to peer pressure isn't the best entertainment the hobby can offer.

I know people who only care about the game and grudlingly build the model first, but won't make any effort in painting. That seems to be your modus operadi as well.

Since most people make some effort to paint their army, making none is unusual and should probably be disclosed if you are setting up a game with someone you don't know, since it will detract from their enjoyment.

Besides that, more power to you. If you are having fun (and you are not the only one having fun) you are doing it right!

Ah well, many of us would rather play a game than not at all.

BUT borrowing from a previous format:
Playing > Not Playing
Playing painted models > Playing not painted.

Though always #1 is the character of the person you play against makes or breaks any game.

EDIT: Nevermind, not worth it

 Talizvar wrote:
Oh, it is pretty easy to "chase the meta" and just put on a 3 colour paint scheme.
Do a three colour progressive Zenithal paint job (airbrush) and then spray the base of the model and you are done painting an entire army in the span of an hour or two.
A steady couple hours of large brush dry brushing could achieve something similar.
There really is no excuse play bare plastic, though some people insist on playing when assembly is not quite complete.

But most of what we are talking about is more than a passing attempt to pick out the details of the model and paint them accordingly.

I got a bit of an expectation adjustment looking at our local 40k group playing at the FLGS:
- Heads were missing from some of the troops.
- Arms missing from dreadnaughts and bare plastic.
- A bright silver base-coat was put all over some marines.
- Tanks with their turrets missing.
- Basilisks all painted with one colour, the whole thing.
- Daemon princes painted to an amazing standard from Forgeworld.
- I saw one guy drop some well block-painted grots at least 3 times on the floor because he carried them on a baking sheet with a tea-towel laid over them.

It was an insane mixed bag of players (which is a good thing all the same...), the hobby shop provides fully painted terrain pieces with "FAT Mats" to play on so the "incomplete" armies kinda stood out.

I dunno, I just find the game looks like utter garbage when I see the army of "Misfit Toys" assemble for war (you would bother to put the heads on at least right???).
I would assemble "classic" model kits and they never were put out on display till the painting was done...

I genuinely would like to hear from those who play with bare plastic models: why do you stop there? Chomping at the bit to play and really have zero interest in the look of it so long as you can get to the game at hand?

I could see the waiting to add weapons If a squad has some options and you want to do a few test games before committing to one of the builds, but I see a lot of -woolens with bare plastic and no weapons that stay that way forever.

 Talizvar wrote:


I genuinely would like to hear from those who play with bare plastic models: why do you stop there? Chomping at the bit to play and really have zero interest in the look of it so long as you can get to the game at hand?

My army isn't plastic aside for two rhinos. But as they came pre painted I have not painted a single model, and the rhinos are the way I bought them. I have strong doubts I would paint the army, if it was not painted.

I don't play big events or store events that require a painted army, so that entice is gone. The army being painted adds nothing to how the army feels or plays. I don't care if my opponents army is or isn't painted, as this again has no impact on the game. I also don't think that painting the army vs the cost both in time, space and money warents painting for me. If I had the money to buy enough paints to paint stuff, I would buy something else, like the new PA or maybe a new unit, if my army gets a new unit in PA4.

 Stephanius wrote:

making none is unusual and should probably be disclosed if you are setting up a game with someone you don't know, since it will detract from their enjoyment.

Besides that, more power to you. If you are having fun (and you are not the only one having fun) you are doing it right!

Or since you're the one that has the problem with unpainted models, you should be the one to declare that you won't play against them.

 Talizvar wrote:


I don't play big events or store events that require a painted army, so that entice is gone. The army being painted adds nothing to how the army feels or plays. I don't care if my opponents army is or isn't painted, as this again has no impact on the game. I also don't think that painting the army vs the cost both in time, space and money warents painting for me. If I had the money to buy enough paints to paint stuff, I would buy something else, like the new PA or maybe a new unit, if my army gets a new unit in PA4.

Why do you play 40k? Why get into a hobby where 90% of the content is irrelevant or obnoxious to you?

I really don't understand the people who do not care about the visuals, but such attitudes certainly shed new light into common complaints about GW prices. Yes, the models are expensive, but to me they're art pieces and hobby projects. I will spend untold hours building converting and painting them, and once I am done, them sitting in cabinet and looking pretty pleases me greatly. But if I only viewed them as gaming pieces, things I need to play the game, I would never ever pay the prices GW is asking for them. Think what two 2000 point armies cost. If a chess set would cost that much, would you buy it, even if you liked the game? Because I sure as hell wouldn't.

Karol wrote:
I also don't think that painting the army vs the cost both in time, space and money warents painting for me. If I had the money to buy enough paints to paint stuff, I would buy something else, like the new PA or maybe a new unit, if my army gets a new unit in PA4.

A fair response.
So the cost for paint supplies and effort does not provide sufficient payback: it does not add to the game play in a meaningful way to you.

40k, game-play is reminiscent of a collectible card game so it seems to have an element of "pay to win" and a TON of mitigating the buckets of dice rolls so I tend to select other games for more of a challenge in the strategy/tactics end of things. Looking at the models merely as playing pieces, printed cardboard punch out chits were sufficient for me for war games in the past, so I see your point.

I am drawn to 40k for the look/spectacle of it, a glorified 40k universe "simulator" so I put a bit more effort into that.

I love spaghetti, I will make it from scratch over an entire day and roll my own noodles and in a pinch I will eat Chef-Boy-R-Dee from a can. That demonstrates that "it is all good" in the end.

Karol wrote:

 Talizvar wrote:


I genuinely would like to hear from those who play with bare plastic models: why do you stop there? Chomping at the bit to play and really have zero interest in the look of it so long as you can get to the game at hand?

My army isn't plastic aside for two rhinos. But as they came pre painted I have not painted a single model, and the rhinos are the way I bought them. I have strong doubts I would paint the army, if it was not painted.

I don't play big events or store events that require a painted army, so that entice is gone. The army being painted adds nothing to how the army feels or plays. I don't care if my opponents army is or isn't painted, as this again has no impact on the game. I also don't think that painting the army vs the cost both in time, space and money warents painting for me. If I had the money to buy enough paints to paint stuff, I would buy something else, like the new PA or maybe a new unit, if my army gets a new unit in PA4.

you'd proably find painting to be a relaxing part of the hobby TBH, I know I do.

I like painting and seeing my skills improve so it's an important aspect of the hobby to me. But I don't care if others don't paint. People are into the hobby for different reasons. I actually don't really play much of the game at all but I like putting together and painting the minis. I don't frown upon anyone who doesn't paint, because maybe they're just not good at it, don't have time, or are solely interested in playing the game.

I get the whole "immersion" argument against having grey plastic on the battlefield but it doesn't bother me as long as everyone is having fun.

 Talizvar wrote:

Karol wrote:
I also don't think that painting the army vs the cost both in time, space and money warents painting for me. If I had the money to buy enough paints to paint stuff, I would buy something else, like the new PA or maybe a new unit, if my army gets a new unit in PA4.

A fair response.
So the cost for paint supplies and effort does not provide sufficient payback: it does not add to the game play in a meaningful way to you.

40k, game-play is reminiscent of a collectible card game so it seems to have an element of "pay to win" and a TON of mitigating the buckets of dice rolls so I tend to select other games for more of a challenge in the strategy/tactics end of things. Looking at the models merely as playing pieces, printed cardboard punch out chits were sufficient for me for war games in the past, so I see your point.

I am drawn to 40k for the look/spectacle of it, a glorified 40k universe "simulator" so I put a bit more effort into that.

I love spaghetti, I will make it from scratch over an entire day and roll my own noodles and in a pinch I will eat Chef-Boy-R-Dee from a can. That demonstrates that "it is all good" in the end.

Well I never tried it to be honest, even if I tried and had the money for paint etc, the main problem would be space. At my store there are 2 spots for painting, both are always taken by the same 3 people. At home, I don't have enough space. I would like to point out , that I don't think that lack of space is the main thing stoping everyone from painting. It is more a personal thing.

The pay to win part I do understand and accept. I did play drafts for a few years. Maybe it is the cost of whole thing, spending 700$ spread over 3 years is not little, but it is not little either. Winning or losing doesn't matter as much in such a situation, specialy as you get to win from time to time. spending the same money, and then slowly more, and losing all the time, is not very fun. And when something is not fun, it is hard to convince oneself to invest more in to side activities. If your getting beaten up on the mat, every day, your not going to buy new gym gear, if the old still works.

you'd proably find painting to be a relaxing part of the hobby TBH, I know I do.

Hard for me to have an opinion. Never was in to art stuff in my life, and at school at I was always horrible at painting and drawing. But again it is kind of a hard for me to decide, if I would like it or not. Could be a thing for sure.

Yes, the models are expensive, but to me they're art pieces and hobby projects.

That is an acceptable view on things. But can you imagine that for others the models may not be art projects, but more like protectors or head gear for gym. Only vain or those that want to show off buy flashy versions of those.

Karol wrote:
But can you imagine that for others the models may not be art projects, but more like protectors or head gear for gym.

I can't understand why anyone who viewed the models that way would be willing to pay the GW prices.

 Crimson wrote:

Karol wrote:
But can you imagine that for others the models may not be art projects, but more like protectors or head gear for gym.

I can't understand why anyone who viewed the models that way would be willing to pay the GW prices.

Fortunately, you don't have to understand. They're not you, you're not them. People pay ridiculous prices every day for things I don't want, need, or like. That in no way invalidates their decisions, or the prices of those things. Look to yourself, spend what you want to spend on what you want to own, and let other people enjoy their things without criticism.

::rainbow emoji::

 Crimson wrote:

I can't understand why anyone who viewed the models that way would be willing to pay the GW prices.

I bought a GK second hand army, at probably 1/3 its store price. Ton of people here buy recast models. Am not saying it is 100% of people, but I don't think many people think buying GW models at GW prices is a smart thing to do. Now when the avarge monthly salary is close to half what a 2000pts army costs. Also a lot of players are people who bought their armies when I was not even in school. the majority of players in my area as old as my dad.

 Crimson wrote:

Karol wrote:
But can you imagine that for others the models may not be art projects, but more like protectors or head gear for gym.

I can't understand why anyone who viewed the models that way would be willing to pay the GW prices.

Often they dont. Ebay and other sources can get you anything at well below gw prices. I picked up several FW hive tyrants in FW bags with instructions for 30.00 a piece a year and a half ago. 20.00 cheaper then gws plastic for a oop better model. Nobody needs to pay gw prices.

Yeah, but if looks don't matter for you and just need gaming tokes you can just saw appropriately sized bits of plastic tube or something, glue them on the base and write 'space marine' on the side...