Do you think 40k should adopt the player's code from AoS 3.0?

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.

**JNAProductions**

There’s a lot of people who seem to be unwilling to accept other people have different standards as them.

**Irkjoe**

JNAProductions wrote:
There’s a lot of people who seem to be unwilling to accept other people have different standards as them.

Do you mean some people have standards and others have none? Imo high standards, gatekeeping, and elitism result in improved quality across the board whilst those who don't want to paint and cannot play in tournaments anyway remain unaffected. Outside of events you're already going to be picking who you want to play against in a voluntary, casual manner; therefore, you and your opponent are free to disregard the players code and the 10vp rule if you want.

I'm trying to imagine where any of this is a negative beyond it making someone feel bad. And if you can break the hobby down into separate elements and abandon the ones that don't effect gameplay then miniatures aren't needed and paper proxies will work just fine. GW and elitist gamers are being mean to the poor by having a standard that miniature hobby games require actual miniatures.

**Quasistellar**

It's kinda funny -- I don't have a problem playing against some unpainted miniatures, but it seems those that don't like to paint have a HUGE problem with painted models being the standard.

If I had a problem with that, I wouldn't play GW games. I'd keep playing Xwing or Armada or or board games. This is not a slight against those types of games, either--they're actually fantastic. I have a large collection of other games.

But, when I want a big spectacle on the board, I play 40k or AoS. (or I get out my fully painted Rising Sun board game . . .

)

With the golf analogy, it's more along the lines of: would you like playing on a course that's just literally dirt and really low mowed weeds? Heck no--I want a beautifully landscaped course. The game can be played the same on either.

**Apple fox**

Quasistellar wrote:
It's kinda funny -- I don't have a problem playing against some unpainted miniatures, but it seems those that don't like to paint have a HUGE problem with painted models being the standard.

If I had a problem with that, I wouldn't play GW games. I'd keep playing Xwing or Armada or or board games. This is not a slight against those types of games, either--they're actually fantastic. I have a large collection of other games.

But, when I want a big spectacle on the board, I play 40k or AoS. (or I get out my fully painted Rising Sun board game . . . )

With the golf analogy, it's more along the lines of: would you like playing on a course that's just literally dirt and really low mowed weeds? Heck no--I want a beautifully landscaped course. The game can be played the same on either.

No one has a issue with it being a standard, but it’s so easy for players to use this to be nasty, and really that’s kinda it.
The rules encourage this and GW is good and turning there players against each other.
Maybe if GW had good rules and encouraged people sticking with factions and offering them good support we wouldn’t needing half assed rules to use player harassment and shaming to get more painting done.

The first thing I see in response to these rules where 40k players doing that, and then nothing but pushing that onto the players this effects.
Care about the hobby, or create divide. But I only see people who constantly say the other side is selfish, but never reflect on what they say or how they effect others.

**BrianDavion**

Aash wrote:
Reading through this thread it seems a lot of people are jumping to extremes and assuming worst case scenarios and over-reacting.

Personally I’d welcome this code of conduct in 40K. Most clubs, sports and games have official codes of conduct as far as I know, and I don’t think introducing something like this to 40K would change much, but I can’t see it being harmful.

thats exactly whats going on. the people protesting these ettiiquite guidelines as somehow something that will be used by WAAC TFGs to screw them is baffling. If this is a GENUINE fear I can;t help but say I feel sorry for them

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Apple fox wrote:

No one has a issue with it being a standard, but it’s so easy for players to use this to be nasty, and really that’s kinda it.

if someone is going to abuse this, they're an donkey-cave. Who wants to play with an donkey-cave?

**Apple fox**

I think the names, dismiss attitude and way people talk about it shows that 40k has lots of people who will.

The guideline also sidelines the hobby as well.
And GW subverts it with its rule design, there are several factions where faith of any good support is not really high.
GW made my only painted army unplayable before I got sick.
Only to put the 40k rule in. Consistency of rule design would help the hobby far more.

**Seabass**

Karol wrote:
That is a very bad example. You can perfectly well play w40k with unpainted models, you can't play golf without proper clubs.

For eight edition it was not required for armies to be painted. So the argument, that the painting of models was and part of the gaming is not true either. It was only in 9th, when the rule was forced on to people. And while GW can do with rules what ever they can, it can't be said that people knew or know that the hobby requires painting their models when for 30 years plus they did not have to do it to play. How many people with unpainted armies or new people who are starting the game, and get to know that the rules exists, have you seen saying that it is a good rules and they welcome it. No the only people that like the rule is people that like painting and/or who have painted armies.

It very much is a suprising requirement when for 30+ years you did not have to do it. And also the commonly accepted standard is something claimed by people who like painting,and that isn't even the majority of all player, and even less of new players. In fact from the new players perspective painting is seens as an unwanted chore and additional cost they would rather avoid, if it was possible. And they did exactly that for 8 editions.

I've played the game since 1994, and almost every event outside of the local game store events where no one cares has almost always had some kind of painting requirement. Might just be my singular experience, but everything from Games Day to RTTs during 3rd, 3.5 and 4th all had requirements, and about the time of 4th to 5th is when ITC really started to become a thing, and there were always painting requirements there. As far as I can remember, painting has always been a requirement at events beyond your local play group and area.

**Jidmah**

Dysartes wrote:
Jidmah wrote:
And building is a perfect comparison because the hobby is separate from the game right? If you don't have to paint then I don't have to build, now play my proxies.

Yep 100% dishonest elitist argument here. Building has an impact on the game, painting doesn't.

*looks at subfaction rules that are tied to specific paint schemes, and the complaining about that recently*

You sure about that, Gracie?

Not a single word in any of the books requires your army to be blue to count as ultramarines, and outside of marines most faction's colors tend to be unknown to most players anyways.

**Racerguy180**

That only works if you like "counts as"

**Seabass**

Jidmah wrote:
Dysartes wrote:
Jidmah wrote:
And building is a perfect comparison because the hobby is separate from the game right? If you don't have to paint then I don't have to build, now play my proxies.

Yep 100% dishonest elitist argument here. Building has an impact on the game, painting doesn't.

*looks at subfaction rules that are tied to specific paint schemes, and the complaining about that recently*

You sure about that, Gracie?

Not a single word in any of the books requires your army to be blue to count as ultramarines, and outside of marines most faction's colors tend to be unknown to most players anyways.

yeah, but if your army is painted like ultramarines, you have to run them as ultramarines in organized play, IIRC. I seem to remember reading that. I think it was to stop the number of ultramarines, salamanders, and blood angels that had mysteriously took a temporary duty assignment with the iron hands...

**Jidmah**

Seabass wrote:
yeah, but if your army is painted like ultramarines, you have to run them as ultramarines in organized play, IIRC. I seem to remember reading that. I think it was to stop the number of ultramarines, salamanders, and blood angels that had mysteriously took a temporary duty assignment with the iron hands...

That is not a thing outside some very specific circuits like warhammer world. LVO also had a rule in place to enforce a coherent look across armies to put a stop to wild mixes of borrowed units.

There is no actual rule that tells you how to paint your miniatures.

**Apple fox**

Marine rules shouldn’t be different enough for it to really matter, at this point it’s a bit of a joke. All the codex compliant chapters should be able to be competent at all types of warfare.
The difference should be minor with some weapons and some special units.

**a_typical_hero**

Are they not? All of them have access to nearly the whole roster, with single exceptions where they have chapter alternatives.

**Gert**

Apple fox wrote:
Marine rules shouldn’t be different enough for it to really matter, at this point it’s a bit of a joke. All the codex compliant chapters should be able to be competent at all types of warfare.
The difference should be minor with some weapons and some special units.

They can be competent but some chapters do certain things better than others. The White Scars don't just use Bikes for no reason, it's as close to the culture of Chogoris as they can get so for them a Bike isn't equipment its a little piece of home they take everywhere with them while also being a companion in the great hunts, it's part of their very soul.

**Apple fox**

Gert wrote:
Apple fox wrote:
Marine rules shouldn’t be different enough for it to really matter, at this point it’s a bit of a joke. All the codex compliant chapters should be able to be competent at all types of warfare.
The difference should be minor with some weapons and some special units.

They can be competent but some chapters do certain things better than others. The White Scars don't just use Bikes for no reason, it's as close to the culture of Chogoris as they can get so for them a Bike isn't equipment its a little piece of home they take everywhere with them while also being a companion in the great hunts, it's part of their very soul.

Not enough to make a difference with how flat the rules are now, in a more RPG or narrative focused game yup. But in 40k it just means some marine factions not worth bothering. Or like we see, players switching around the rules to best suit the army they have.

**Gert**

I mean that's flat out not true though is it. Each Chapter has units that work better with their unique rules and units that don't.
Dreadnoughts don't work well for WS but are good for IH. A UM Assault Intercessor is going to be good at combat but a BA or BT one is going to be better. If the Chapter rules were so inconsequential then why did people complain about IH in 8th or DW in 9th? I think there's probably complaints about X being OP in Y sub-factions all over the place but those two seem to stand out.
As for the rules switching, I really don't think that's as widespread as you say it is.

**AngryAngel80**

Irkjoe wrote:
JNAProductions wrote:
There’s a lot of people who seem to be unwilling to accept other people have different standards as them.

Do you mean some people have standards and others have none? Imo high standards, gatekeeping, and elitism result in improved quality across the board whilst those who don't want to paint and cannot play in tournaments anyway remain unaffected. Outside of events you're already going to be picking who you want to play against in a voluntary, casual manner; therefore, you and your opponent are free to disregard the players code and the 10vp rule if you want.

I'm trying to imagine where any of this is a negative beyond it making someone feel bad. And if you can break the hobby down into separate elements and abandon the ones that don't effect gameplay then miniatures aren't needed and paper proxies will work just fine. GW and elitist gamers are being mean to the poor by having a standard that miniature hobby games require actual miniatures.

All these rules are, at least a number of them, is about not making people feel bad. So going into a rule to make someone feel lesser when paint doesn't alter the game just alters the experience, it feels sorta dumb. Also standards is highly subjective and sorry I don't think elitism and gatekeeping is at all a good thing in this regard unless you want to actively discourage people from playing the game or getting into it in the first place. This game can cost a lot of cash to get into and maintain for some people and the only drive to work harder is the use they get out of their models in game. I suppose though might as well not let those dirty non painters play anyways, they probably can't even buy 3 of every new model that drops, the plebs ! Gatekeeping is fun.

**Apple fox**

I didn’t say it was, but it’s brought up all the time. The reason I even respond is that paint of marines does matter, and matter a lot to some people.
But space marines are masters of warfare, and when you only use a D6 and have large units the difference in rules between marines is way overdone.
Some marines just kinda suck more than others, and when they start to step on the mechanics of other factions it becomes a issue for a few other reasons.
And leads to a lot of rule bloat, which leads into other issues. Maybe if GW was a master of rules design it would be better.
But what we have end up with lots of words that will bog down the game until the next reboot most likely.

**AngryAngel80**

If people really think the paint schemes will end up not being touched on in future rules, they must be some sweet summer children. They will end up with official paint locking them to what army they were taken for soon. I bet my wooden nickels on it !

Don't worry when it happens though we'll hear how its all better for everyone, just means everyone will use special paint schemes then. So really the are doing us all a favor, creating difference.

**Apple fox**

I don’t think even GW would try to lock rules behind paint official or even using guidelines like this.
They not quite that bad.

**Gert**

@Apple fox
Marines are bloated because GW can't axe the Firstborn from the range meaning SM have double the average unit count for an army. This wasn't as much of an issue when Primaris were basically supplementary to Firstborn but now they have enough units to be their own army and the Codex has to cover pure Firstborn and Primaris armies alongside mixed forces.
Subfactions aren't the issue, it's poor range management.

**Turnip Jedi**

Apple fox wrote:
I don’t think even GW would try to lock rules behind paint official or even using guidelines like this.
They not quite that bad.

The Deathwatch disagree...(silly you if you stuck a Space Wolf shoulder on your HQ and now want to use the UM warlord trait)

**Gert**

TBF thats a very specific rare example that effects a single unit in the army and only if you take that specific Warlord trait. It can also be easily ignored by being:
A - A successor chapter without distinct rules.
B - A Blackshield.
C - Using a shoulder pad with a generic SM symbol on it.

**Aash**

Apple fox wrote:
I don’t think even GW would try to lock rules behind paint official or even using guidelines like this.
They not quite that bad.

They already do for organised play at Warhammer World:

If you have painted your models in a specific way, we expect you to use the rules relevant to that scheme.
For example, if you have painted your models as Salamanders, your army must have the Salamanders keyword or if you have painted your models as Hammers of Sigmar they must use the relevant Command Trait, Artefact of Power etc.
If you have created your own Chapter/Hive Fleet/Sept/Stormhost/ etc and they are painted in your own unique colour scheme, then you may give them any keyword that you wish.
If you have used different keywords between detachments, there must be a clear visual difference between each detachment. For example, if you have a Tyranid army with detachments from both Kraken and Kronos, the models in each detachment must be clearly distinguishable from one to another such as a different coloured carapace. Note that different colour base rims, or a single thin stripe on each miniature are not a sufficient difference.
If you are unsure whether something is clearly distinguishable, contact us via the details at the end of this guide.

https://warhammerworld.warhammer-community.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/15/2019/10/Updated-Model-Requirements.pdf

Admittedly this is for organised play at one of their own venues, so is essentially house rules, but if they were to include a more detailed set of Organised Play rules in the Core Rules, I wouldn’t be surprised if something like this cropped up.

**tneva82**

Aash wrote:
Apple fox wrote:
I don’t think even GW would try to lock rules behind paint official or even using guidelines like this.
They not quite that bad.

They already do for organised play at Warhammer World:

If you have painted your models in a specific way, we expect you to use the rules relevant to that scheme.
For example, if you have painted your models as Salamanders, your army must have the Salamanders keyword or if you have painted your models as Hammers of Sigmar they must use the relevant Command Trait, Artefact of Power etc.
If you have created your own Chapter/Hive Fleet/Sept/Stormhost/ etc and they are painted in your own unique colour scheme, then you may give them any keyword that you wish.
If you have used different keywords between detachments, there must be a clear visual difference between each detachment. For example, if you have a Tyranid army with detachments from both Kraken and Kronos, the models in each detachment must be clearly distinguishable from one to another such as a different coloured carapace. Note that different colour base rims, or a single thin stripe on each miniature are not a sufficient difference.
If you are unsure whether something is clearly distinguishable, contact us via the details at the end of this guide.

https://warhammerworld.warhammer-community.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/15/2019/10/Updated-Model-Requirements.pdf

Admittedly this is for organised play at one of their own venues, so is essentially house rules, but if they were to include a more detailed set of Organised Play rules in the Core Rules, I wouldn’t be surprised if something like this cropped up.

Note this just means you can't have models that are painted just like ultramarines to have as blood angels.

But your custom blue marines? Blood angels, fine. Iron hand, fine.

It's basically "don't make confusing". If your models look like ultramarines then they are ultramarines. If it's not official colour scheme with markings etc you are free because then there's visual hint that these are not official chapter but custom.

So basically "don't play plasma gun as melta gun"

**Apple fox**

Gert wrote:
@Apple fox
Marines are bloated because GW can't axe the Firstborn from the range meaning SM have double the average unit count for an army. This wasn't as much of an issue when Primaris were basically supplementary to Firstborn but now they have enough units to be their own army and the Codex has to cover pure Firstborn and Primaris armies alongside mixed forces.
Subfactions aren't the issue, it's poor range management.

Well I mostly agree, I think poor range management has been driving a lot of issues.
GW needs a talented manager in the right place for 40k.

But I don’t know enough about deathwatch so I find that interesting, I just let people play what ever rules wise.
Warhammer world is not something I really pay attention too. It’s a long way away

**Gadzilla666**

Don't they have those same paint scheme rules for their upcoming US Grand Tournament games?

**vipoid**

Aash wrote:
Apple fox wrote:
I don’t think even GW would try to lock rules behind paint official or even using guidelines like this.
They not quite that bad.

They already do for organised play at Warhammer World:

If you have painted your models in a specific way, we expect you to use the rules relevant to that scheme.
For example, if you have painted your models as Salamanders, your army must have the Salamanders keyword or if you have painted your models as Hammers of Sigmar they must use the relevant Command Trait, Artefact of Power etc.
If you have created your own Chapter/Hive Fleet/Sept/Stormhost/ etc and they are painted in your own unique colour scheme, then you may give them any keyword that you wish.
If you have used different keywords between detachments, there must be a clear visual difference between each detachment. For example, if you have a Tyranid army with detachments from both Kraken and Kronos, the models in each detachment must be clearly distinguishable from one to another such as a different coloured carapace. Note that different colour base rims, or a single thin stripe on each miniature are not a sufficient difference.
If you are unsure whether something is clearly distinguishable, contact us via the details at the end of this guide.

https://warhammerworld.warhammer-community.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/15/2019/10/Updated-Model-Requirements.pdf

Admittedly this is for organised play at one of their own venues, so is essentially house rules, but if they were to include a more detailed set of Organised Play rules in the Core Rules, I wouldn’t be surprised if something like this cropped up.

This seems like a reason to never use any of the official paint schemes.

**Aash**

tneva82 wrote:
Aash wrote:
Apple fox wrote:
I don’t think even GW would try to lock rules behind paint official or even using guidelines like this.
They not quite that bad.

They already do for organised play at Warhammer World:

If you have painted your models in a specific way, we expect you to use the rules relevant to that scheme.
For example, if you have painted your models as Salamanders, your army must have the Salamanders keyword or if you have painted your models as Hammers of Sigmar they must use the relevant Command Trait, Artefact of Power etc.
If you have created your own Chapter/Hive Fleet/Sept/Stormhost/ etc and they are painted in your own unique colour scheme, then you may give them any keyword that you wish.
If you have used different keywords between detachments, there must be a clear visual difference between each detachment. For example, if you have a Tyranid army with detachments from both Kraken and Kronos, the models in each detachment must be clearly distinguishable from one to another such as a different coloured carapace. Note that different colour base rims, or a single thin stripe on each miniature are not a sufficient difference.
If you are unsure whether something is clearly distinguishable, contact us via the details at the end of this guide.

https://warhammerworld.warhammer-community.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/15/2019/10/Updated-Model-Requirements.pdf

Admittedly this is for organised play at one of their own venues, so is essentially house rules, but if they were to include a more detailed set of Organised Play rules in the Core Rules, I wouldn’t be surprised if something like this cropped up.

Note this just means you can't have models that are painted just like ultramarines to have as blood angels.

But your custom blue marines? Blood angels, fine. Iron hand, fine.

It's basically "don't make confusing". If your models look like ultramarines then they are ultramarines. If it's not official colour scheme with markings etc you are free because then there's visual hint that these are not official chapter but custom.

So basically "don't play plasma gun as melta gun"

I think it’s a little more than that. Your custom blue marines can be blood angel successors, ( they have to clearly not be ultramarines though, so the chapter symbol shouldn’t be the ultramarines one) but they can’t be blood angels, you can’t take Dante. Your custom red angels can be ultramarine successors, but they can’t actually be ultramarines, no Tigerius or Marneus Calgar.

It’s not quite mandating an official colour scheme, but it definitely is locking some rules and some models behind specific paint schemes.

**kirotheavenger**

It's including paint schemes under WYSIWYG, but that's a given since they assigned rules to paint schemes.