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.

ccs 806621 11424115 wrote:

Sure, I can see why.
But their opinions on how I paint my stuff isnt important to me. So if someday I'm inclined to paint a MLP force....
If they don't like it? They can pretend its painted differently. Or simply not play.

Nah that is not how it can work. Because then you have to decide on a case by case what kind of a wierd army is okey to be played. A much easier and safter for a store or club way of dealing with stuff, and for the people getting engaging in playing the game too, is to ban all the non lore stuff.

Karol wrote:
If the reason for there to be rules about painting is the lore. Then saying someone should ignore it would make no sense.

Why would the necron even do something like that, their transformation in to robots predates humanity. Painting them that way would be like finding a stone curving done by neanderthals and one have someone run around with a Switch.

You're basing your reasoning on the assumption that those colours mean the sane to the necrons as they do to us...

As to justifying any particular painting scheme.

*shrug*

Their binary code got corrupted and the painting scarabs subroutines went raj. Or the necron lord themselves is... colourful.

Oh look, and now you literally have non-binary necrons. The pun is obvious.

Or 'the warp did it'.

Would I face it? I play Minotaurs. I don't need much of an excuse to want to stomp on anyone.

Karol wrote:

ccs 806621 11424115 wrote:

Sure, I can see why.
But their opinions on how I paint my stuff isnt important to me. So if someday I'm inclined to paint a MLP force....
If they don't like it? They can pretend its painted differently. Or simply not play.

Nah that is not how it can work. Because then you have to decide on a case by case what kind of a wierd army is okey to be played. A much easier and safter for a store or club way of dealing with stuff, and for the people getting engaging in playing the game too, is to ban all the non lore stuff.

Nah. Nothing wrong with deciding things on a case by case Karol. Inflexible 'one size fits all' rulings can be utterly catastrophic for a community. Remember, it's all canon and none of it is - and it's 'our' lore too. Snd if someone wants to have fun with a bit of a kooky project - yeah I'll cheer them on. Not everything needs to be serious all the time.

Aecus Decimus wrote:

 Blndmage wrote:
I've got a kid that wants pride coloured Necrons, warriors are trans, Scarabs are rainbow, the warden is non binary. Should I tell them they can't do it because the lore says so, or should I let them paint the army they want?

You're the parent, do what you want with your kid. But a lot of people are going to eyeroll at it and may or may not want to play with them, especially since it's a political statement.

Sounds like a you problem.

My existence as a non-binary individual, and choosing to express my existence, isn't political. Get over it.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Karol wrote:
Why would the necron even do something like that, their transformation in to robots predates humanity.

Because they're not actually an alien race predating humanity, they're plastic toys which exist in the real world, and are painted and enjoyed by real people.
If real people want to paint them a certain way, then they should.

If you have a problem with that, you can refuse to play them.

He's not saying that your existence is political. I hate pride flags as a gay man, and my girlfriend hates trans flags. I don't want pride. I want it to not matter. Pride flags keep it not normal. And pride is political in the first place, as a way to go against people who dislike, to put it lightly, lgbt people.

I probably wouldn't play against pridecrons, but would play against nicecrons, who are painted with flower patterns. If the pride flags weren't ugly as sin, I'd probably play against pridecrons as well.

Deadnight 806621 11424240 wrote:
You're basing your reasoning on the assumption that those colours mean the sane to the necrons as they do to us...

As to justifying any particular painting scheme.

*shrug*

Their binary code got corrupted and the painting scarabs subroutines went raj. Or the necron lord themselves is... colourful.

Oh look, and now you literally have non-binary necrons. The pun is obvious.

Or 'the warp did it'.

Would I face it? I play Minotaurs. I don't need much of an excuse to want to stomp on anyone.

You that sounds awefuly like some dudes explaining in courts here why they should be allowed to run around with "sun signs" because it was, and still regionaly is, used as a marking by the highland clans here.

Nah. Nothing wrong with deciding things on a case by case Karol. Inflexible 'one size fits all' rulings can be utterly catastrophic for a community. Remember, it's all canon and none of it is - and it's 'our' lore too. Snd if someone wants to have fun with a bit of a kooky project - yeah I'll cheer them on. Not everything needs to be serious all the time.

Case by case means favouritism steps in and personal bias. When the rule is no talking durning matches is the rule, it is clear and precise. No one has to worry what the talk is potentialy about, why there was talking, who started it etc. The olympic comitte says no. As soon as you say X is allowed there are going to be people asking for Y, Z and Q etc and in always ends in total chaos. And then that is a real catastrophy for a community, unless someone is lucky enough to be in places where 100+ people play and the groups can divide themselfs. And even then it is bad blood, because who takes the terrain or the venue etc I see it happen and it is never a good thing. Strickt clear rules and staying within them is the base way to function. And the less politics or personal life in games with strangers, the better. Although the last one is my own personal opinion.

Super colorful armies can look great. There have been some examples shared by Warhammer community in the past, for example this here:
https://www.warhammer-community.com/2021/04/23/feast-your-eyes-on-an-ork-army-unlike-anything-youve-seen-before/

Sexual orientation or gender identity of you or your models is irrelevant to me. Representing it on your models via paint scheme to make sure nobody misses the message just makes you a weirdo to me. I would still play you if you are pleasant to have a game with, but it remains weird. The example in question mentions LGBT painting, but I would think the same about a "super straight" scheme or other stuff.

 TheBestBucketHead wrote:
He's not saying that your existence is political.

Yes, they are. Their comment implies that for me to express myself and not live invisibly is "political". I shouldn't have to be invisible for my life not to be considered "political". It shouldn't be political for me to *say what I am*.

I hate pride flags as a gay man, and my girlfriend hates trans flags. I don't want pride.

Good for you. I do want to take Pride. And as a fellow human being, I would have expected you to have some empathy with people who want to enjoy the way they live their lives, instead of having to pretend it doesn't exist because it's "political".

If the pride flags weren't ugly as sin, I'd probably play against pridecrons as well.

Just so we're clear, it's purely because you don't like certain schemes on an aesthetic level? So, if there was a canon colour scheme that I didn't like, you'd also entirely support me not wanting to play against it, because it's also "ugly as sin"?

I'm also curious, which Pride flags? All of them? Some of them are very simple colour schemes, and are pretty much canon anyways - the ace flag is greyscale with purple as an accent colour. Agender and aro are both green and greyscale. What's the issue with those schemes?

The ork jet in the linked article above uses colours predominantly from the pan flag. Would you refuse against that?

Because they're not actually an alien race predating humanity, they're plastic toys which exist in the real world, and are painted and enjoyed by real people.
If real people want to paint them a certain way, then they should.

That is not how the rules work. If people, even those that don't like it, have to paint their armies. Then there is rules to it. And when the core argument for puting the rule in is "lack of immersion" if they are not painted, then same thing kick in here. A necron army painted like that is immersion breaking and there for should not be allowed the same way, someone can say that because their space marines fight in hives a lot and pre attack they use artilery barrage, they also paint themselfs all grey to use the ferrocrate dust as a form of additional camo.

Their comment implies that for me to express myself and not live invisibly is "political"

You know there was a time, when people in my part of the world had to be colour coded in what they wore. each time it was a thing, it was very bad for all people taking part of it. The very idea that people not only can, but have colour code themselfs for the entire world to show and know is a bad idea. And it doesn't even matter in what century it is done and by which group. People shouldn't interact with others as if they were humans, and not some random set of descriptives which aren't even precise enough to properly describe every member of the group. And thrusting such coding on other people is just an form of non physical aggresion.

a_typical_hero wrote:
Sexual orientation or gender identity of you or your models is irrelevant to me. Representing it on your models via paint scheme to make sure nobody misses the message just makes you a weirdo to me. I would still play you if you are pleasant to have a game with, but it remains weird. The example in question mentions LGBT painting, but I would think the same about a "super straight" scheme or other stuff.

The difference between LBGT+ and "super straight" is that one is a reactionary effort to invalidate the other. The two are not the same.

Ultimately, you can think it's weird to you, but I'd also say that there's a great many things that I'd consider "weird" which people tend to do more often (certain real world iconography on certain factions, for instance, which I'm sure you can pick up my inference). And again, it's not so much "so no-one misses the message", it's more of an exercise of self expression. In much the same way that someone might play a certain faction because it might hold significance to them (ie, an ex-soldier playing Imperial Guard because they have a specific resonance with the footslogging infantryman), someone may choose to paint colours that hold significance to them. I don't really see how that's weird, personally.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Karol wrote:

Because they're not actually an alien race predating humanity, they're plastic toys which exist in the real world, and are painted and enjoyed by real people.
If real people want to paint them a certain way, then they should.

That is not how the rules work. If people, even those that don't like it, have to paint their armies. Then there is rules to it.

What rules? What rule SAYS I *need* to paint my plastic models for my own plastic model faction in a certain way?

Necrons don't exist. Plastic toys do. I think people should paint their toys how they like.

A necron army painted like that is immersion breaking

So would be a badly painted army. Are you going to mandate that armies MUST be painted to a certain ability? How about bases? If an army is mounted on lava bases and they're fighting on a city tabletop, that'll break immersion too.

Immersion can be good, but it's not FORCED.

What rules? What rule SAYS I *need* to paint my plastic models for my own plastic model faction in a certain way?

Necrons don't exist. Plastic toys do. I think people should paint their toys how they like.

You just can't be serious here. There is thread like at least every 2-3 weeks, where people who like painting compare those who don't want or like painting to people who don't wash, aren't part of the hobby "for real" and grandstand that painting is not only part of the hobby, but actualy its core and main thing, and everyone who doesn't see it that way is not just wrong, but almost moraly wrong. And then , aside for social rules, there is also GW rules regarding playing of armies.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

So would be a badly painted army. Are you going to mandate that armies MUST be painted to a certain ability? How about bases? If an army is mounted on lava bases and they're fighting on a city tabletop, that'll break immersion too.

There is a difference between someone doing something bad or not perfect and someone doing something bad on purpose.
A church in Zakopany with the "sun sign" on the tile floor is not the same thing, as some dudes running around under green flags proclaiming the coming of the sons of Aryus.

Karol wrote:

What rules? What rule SAYS I *need* to paint my plastic models for my own plastic model faction in a certain way?

Necrons don't exist. Plastic toys do. I think people should paint their toys how they like.

You just can't be serious here. There is thread like at least every 2-3 weeks, where people who like painting compare those who don't want or like painting to people who don't wash, aren't part of the hobby "for real" and grandstand that painting is not only part of the hobby, but actualy its core and main thing, and everyone who doesn't see it that way is not just wrong, but almost moraly wrong.

That's not a rule. That's people sharing their opinions.

Show me where it is *against the rules* to paint my models in a certain way.

And then , aside for social rules, there is also GW rules regarding playing of armies.

Show me those rules where GW have enforced that, in my own home games, I need to paint my models a certain way.

The only rule that exists, as far as I know, is that for GW events at WHW, if your faction is supposed to represent an existing faction, your paint scheme should reflect that. If you're explicitly playing Ultramarines, they should look like Ultramarines. But what if I'm playing my Pride of the Emperor homebrew faction? There's no enforced colour scheme there.

And, as helpfully linked above, the article featuring cross-hatched Orks in very vivid colours. GW have featured that, therefore that's fine, right?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Karol wrote:

So would be a badly painted army. Are you going to mandate that armies MUST be painted to a certain ability? How about bases? If an army is mounted on lava bases and they're fighting on a city tabletop, that'll break immersion too.

There is a difference between someone doing something bad or not perfect and someone doing something bad on purpose.

An army painted in a colours you don't approve of isn't "bad", for a start. And no, if you're going to use the "immersion" argument, no, they're the same thing.

A church in Zakopany with the "sun sign" on the tile floor is not the same thing, as some dudes running around under green flags proclaiming the coming of the sons of Aryus.

I genuinely have no clue what you're talking about.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
The difference between LBGT+ and "super straight" is that one is a reactionary effort to invalidate the other. The two are not the same.

Ultimately, you can think it's weird to you, but I'd also say that there's a great many things that I'd consider "weird" which people tend to do more often (certain real world iconography on certain factions, for instance, which I'm sure you can pick up my inference). And again, it's not so much "so no-one misses the message", it's more of an exercise of self expression. In much the same way that someone might play a certain faction because it might hold significance to them (ie, an ex-soldier playing Imperial Guard because they have a specific resonance with the footslogging infantryman), someone may choose to paint colours that hold significance to them. I don't really see how that's weird, personally.

Not a big fan of people who put problematic real world iconography on their models either, for that matter. I'm not in your shoes and don't have a fundamental problem with LGBT people either.

If you paint your models in rainbow colors, I understand it as you want to show me that either you are part of the community, or support it's ideals. It is weird to me in the same way somebody telling me "I'm straight and support the classical family picture" everytime we sit down to have a game. It is just not the right platform for me to express this.

a_typical_hero wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
The difference between LBGT+ and "super straight" is that one is a reactionary effort to invalidate the other. The two are not the same.

Ultimately, you can think it's weird to you, but I'd also say that there's a great many things that I'd consider "weird" which people tend to do more often (certain real world iconography on certain factions, for instance, which I'm sure you can pick up my inference). And again, it's not so much "so no-one misses the message", it's more of an exercise of self expression. In much the same way that someone might play a certain faction because it might hold significance to them (ie, an ex-soldier playing Imperial Guard because they have a specific resonance with the footslogging infantryman), someone may choose to paint colours that hold significance to them. I don't really see how that's weird, personally.

Not a big fan of people who put problematic real world iconography on their models either, for that matter. I'm not in your shoes and don't have a fundamental problem with LGBT people either.

Just to clarify, I wasn't claiming that you did - only that it's vastly more common for people to do *that* than it is for people to have queer colour schemes, and yet that "weirdness" is much less often called out by folks (not you specifically).

If you paint your models in rainbow colors, I understand it as you want to show me that either you are part of the community, or support it's ideals. It is weird to me in the same way somebody telling me "I'm straight and support the classical family picture" everytime we sit down to have a game. It is just not the right platform for me to express this.

Alternatively, it's an artistic hobby. Why shouldn't it be the right platform? Every model is a canvas by which people can artistically express themselves. That could be in creating an awesome immersive and detailed army, a Blanchitsu gothic horror warband, or simply getting to paint bright and vivid colours. Explicitly saying "I'm straight and support the classical family" is very different to having a set of colours that signify something emotionally resonant to someone. They are both methods of communicating an idea, but one is done via art and implicit self-expression - the other has no self-expression beyond simply saying those words. There's a hell of a difference there.

You understand it as "you want to show me you're part of the community", but I don't think that's always the case - for me, if I were to do so, it wouldn't be to show "you", it would be self-expression for expression's sake. It's not trying to prove a point to someone, but just to express myself in my army. That's not trying to prove something, it's just expressing enjoyment, in much the same way that someone who likes a certain colour might feature that on their models.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

a_typical_hero wrote:
Sexual orientation or gender identity of you or your models is irrelevant to me. Representing it on your models via paint scheme to make sure nobody misses the message just makes you a weirdo to me. I would still play you if you are pleasant to have a game with, but it remains weird. The example in question mentions LGBT painting, but I would think the same about a "super straight" scheme or other stuff.

The difference between LBGT+ and "super straight" is that one is a reactionary effort to invalidate the other. The two are not the same.

Ultimately, you can think it's weird to you, but I'd also say that there's a great many things that I'd consider "weird" which people tend to do more often (certain real world iconography on certain factions, for instance, which I'm sure you can pick up my inference). And again, it's not so much "so no-one misses the message", it's more of an exercise of self expression. In much the same way that someone might play a certain faction because it might hold significance to them (ie, an ex-soldier playing Imperial Guard because they have a specific resonance with the footslogging infantryman), someone may choose to paint colours that hold significance to them. I don't really see how that's weird, personally.

It's probably weird to him because to some people the concept of basing your identity as a person on your sexuality is weird.

 Sim-Life wrote:
It's probably weird to him because to some people the concept of basing your identity as a person on your sexuality is weird.

Basing, as if your entire identity revolves around sexuality and gender? Of course not. But embracing and accepting that your sexuality and gender makes up a part of your identity? I don't see why that's an issue.

That may be a fundamental misunderstanding of what it means to "have pride". It's not that your entire personality is based off of that facet, in the same way that a football supporter wearing the colours of their team is "based" off of their love for a football team, or that someone wearing a band or fandom shirt has their identity "based" in that fandom or band. It is simply "this is part of who I am, and I want to express that, if only for myself".

People who model their Space Marines as Star Wars stormtroopers aren't basing their whole identity as Star Wars fans, and people who paint their models in queer colours aren't basing their whole identity off of their queerness.

If it's not on my models, how will I signal my virtues to you though?

 Lord Damocles wrote:
If it's not on my models, how will I signal my virtues to you though?

Ah, yes. Of course the only reason someone has to express themselves is virtue signalling. /s

Do you think that people who wear band merch are virtue signalling? People who wear sports team colours? Ooh, here's a big one - national flags, or things like poppies?

I'd love to see you call most of the UK population virtue signallers on 11/11.

I paint my marines and CSM in the same blue to green color change colors with rosegold and gun metal trim. that way they can be a split off chapter of any legion or a splinter chaos marine warband who adopted new colors. The only time it actually matters is GW stores (manager dependent) or tournaments, and tournaments from my experience are always open to custom chapters of chaos, renegade, or loyalists, but less open to say a decaled iron hands army played as ultramarines.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

 Lord Damocles wrote:
If it's not on my models, how will I signal my virtues to you though?

Ah, yes. Of course the only reason someone has to express themselves is virtue signalling. /s

Do you think that people who wear band merch are virtue signalling? People who wear sports team colours? Ooh, here's a big one - national flags, or things like poppies?

I'd love to see you call most of the UK population virtue signallers on 11/11.

I understand Sgt. Smudge's reasoning, I just dont share it. No need to assume anything (and lowkey be disrespectful to others).

 Lord Damocles wrote:
If it's not on my models, how will I signal my virtues to you though?

You you say that to the child who's excitedly showing off their Necrons?

I was amazed (and happy) when I asked them if they'd thought about what colors they want to use, and, since they still adorably struggle with Rs, they confidently said "P ide Nec ons!".

 G00fySmiley wrote:
The only time it actually matters is GW stores (manager dependent) or tournaments, and tournaments from my experience are always open to custom chapters of chaos, renegade, or loyalists, but less open to say a decaled iron hands army played as ultramarines.

Aye, I think that's the only real time when GW stores might be like "hey, come on now, that's not quite in the spirit of how we do things".

In terms of any actual codified rules, as long as you're not passing off a very recognisable scheme as another, you're totally fine in GW's eyes.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

 TheBestBucketHead wrote:
He's not saying that your existence is political.

Yes, they are. Their comment implies that for me to express myself and not live invisibly is "political". I shouldn't have to be invisible for my life not to be considered "political". It shouldn't be political for me to *say what I am*.

I hate pride flags as a gay man, and my girlfriend hates trans flags. I don't want pride.

Good for you. I do want to take Pride. And as a fellow human being, I would have expected you to have some empathy with people who want to enjoy the way they live their lives, instead of having to pretend it doesn't exist because it's "political".

If the pride flags weren't ugly as sin, I'd probably play against pridecrons as well.

Just so we're clear, it's purely because you don't like certain schemes on an aesthetic level? So, if there was a canon colour scheme that I didn't like, you'd also entirely support me not wanting to play against it, because it's also "ugly as sin"?

I'm also curious, which Pride flags? All of them? Some of them are very simple colour schemes, and are pretty much canon anyways - the ace flag is greyscale with purple as an accent colour. Agender and aro are both green and greyscale. What's the issue with those schemes?

The ork jet in the linked article above uses colours predominantly from the pan flag. Would you refuse against that?

Yeah, feel free to deny a game because color schemes are ugly. I think plenty of official color schemes turn me off from wanting to fight the army. I'm not a fan of the golden Custodes, but like the non golden variants. One or two minis might not be enough to turn me off from fighting an army, unless it's a big center piece. If there was a pan flag Magnus, I might not play against it.

However, saying that pride flags are political is not telling you that you cannot express yourself and should remain invisible. What kind of logic is that? It's not political to say that you're different. Also, I have empathy for people in rough spots due to being gay, trans, or whatever they're going through. I also am fine with people doing literally anything they want, as long as it doesn't harm someone else. If you enjoy going out and waving a pride flag around, or painting all of your minis as trans icons, or just doing things relating to the LGBT community all day, I probably wouldn't be your friend, because I find all of that boring, and counter intuitive to what I want, which is stuff being normal, rather than talking about how much pride I have that... I like men?

It's actually pretty easy to find an explanation for most color schemes in 40K since the galaxy is just that big. Rainbow colored Necrons are no problem (metals on their tomb world; Lord gone mad and painted everything crazy; it's just an interesting reflection of the atmosphere of the planet, whatever).
It's a tougher sell if all the Necrons are actually meant to be queer of some kind, because why would 60 Mio. years old feudal murder robots from outer space share any connection to/ heraldry of the 21st century LGBT movement? (On the other hand, rule of cool explains Viking Space Marines, Vampire Space marines, Mongol Space Marines, Samurai Space Elves, Zombie Space Marines, so even that wouldn't be unfitting for 40K)

Karol wrote:


You that sounds awefuly like some dudes explaining in courts here why they should be allowed to run around with "sun signs" because it was, and still regionaly is, used as a marking by the highland clans here.

It's almost like the context is different....

Karol wrote:

Case by case means favouritism steps in and personal bias. When the rule is no talking durning matches is the rule, it is clear and precise. No one has to worry what the talk is potentialy about, why there was talking, who started it etc. The olympic comitte says no.

What? And an absolute unbending set of rules doesn't also means favouritism, personal bias? You're being naive.


And Of course, rules shouldn't be followed 'just because'. the 'why' matters Karol.

Karol wrote:

As soon as you say X is allowed there are going to be people asking for Y, Z and Q etc and in always ends in total chaos. And then that is a real catastrophy for a community, unless someone is lucky enough to be in places where 100+ people play and the groups can divide themselfs.

Yes, and?

the alternative of forced conformity and limited expressiveness isn't destructive?

Karol wrote:

And even then it is bad blood, because who takes the terrain or the venue etc I see it happen and it is never a good thing.

That kind of catfighting is endemic in gaming communities. It has nothing to do with whether you want to paint your marines in rainbow colours.

Karol wrote:

Strickt clear rules and staying within them is the base way to function.

I mean, sure, but only to an extent. Most of our progress as a society is because of people giving the finger to 'strict clear rules and staying within them' - or do you want to return to the days of being a foredlock tugging serf with no rights, living a life of grinding poverty and back breaking work who existed at the whim of his 'betters'.

We are assuming 'the rules' are fit for purpose, otherwise we are heading for repression and a police state. What happens if the rules themselves are broken? There is a reaaon folk heroes who flouted unfair laws and rules (like Nottinghams other hero, Robin Hood) are celebrated.

Karol wrote:

And the less politics or personal life in games with strangers, the better. Although the last one is my own personal opinion.

Nah, I'd rather play a person, not an NPC. It's a social hobby after all.

Thinking about it, I feel trans flag paint schemes probably would look better on Infinity models than 40k models. Knights Hospitaller could look pretty good.

 TheBestBucketHead wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

 TheBestBucketHead wrote:
He's not saying that your existence is political.

Yes, they are. Their comment implies that for me to express myself and not live invisibly is "political". I shouldn't have to be invisible for my life not to be considered "political". It shouldn't be political for me to *say what I am*.

I hate pride flags as a gay man, and my girlfriend hates trans flags. I don't want pride.

Good for you. I do want to take Pride. And as a fellow human being, I would have expected you to have some empathy with people who want to enjoy the way they live their lives, instead of having to pretend it doesn't exist because it's "political".

If the pride flags weren't ugly as sin, I'd probably play against pridecrons as well.

Just so we're clear, it's purely because you don't like certain schemes on an aesthetic level? So, if there was a canon colour scheme that I didn't like, you'd also entirely support me not wanting to play against it, because it's also "ugly as sin"?

I'm also curious, which Pride flags? All of them? Some of them are very simple colour schemes, and are pretty much canon anyways - the ace flag is greyscale with purple as an accent colour. Agender and aro are both green and greyscale. What's the issue with those schemes?

The ork jet in the linked article above uses colours predominantly from the pan flag. Would you refuse against that?

Yeah, feel free to deny a game because color schemes are ugly. I think plenty of official color schemes turn me off from wanting to fight the army. I'm not a fan of the golden Custodes, but like the non golden variants. One or two minis might not be enough to turn me off from fighting an army, unless it's a big center piece. If there was a pan flag Magnus, I might not play against it.

So, just to clarify, would you turn down the game against those aforementioned Orks, because the jet uses pan colours?

You'd turn a game down against a Doom Legion army or 9th company Raven Guard because their colour scheme looks like either the aro or ace flags respectively?

However, saying that pride flags are political is not telling you that you cannot express yourself and should remain invisible. What kind of logic is that? It's not political to say that you're different.

Except allegedly it is, if I do so using specific colours. If I choose to express myself via a common mode of expression (flags, within semiotics, are almost perfect signifiers), that's "political" apparently, and shouldn't be done.

It's not even that I'm "different", it's that "I am". It's not about defining in opposition to someone else, it's simply stating that you ARE what you are.

Also, I have empathy for people in rough spots due to being gay, trans, or whatever they're going through. I also am fine with people doing literally anything they want, as long as it doesn't harm someone else.

So why shouldn't people be able to paint queer-inspired colour schemes on their minis? Why is that a bad thing you'd reject? You say you're fine with it, but also that you'd turn it down. Perhaps you meant to say "I'm fine with people doing it, so long as I don't have to see it"?

If you enjoy going out and waving a pride flag around, or painting all of your minis as trans icons, or just doing things relating to the LGBT community all day, I probably wouldn't be your friend, because I find all of that boring, and counter intuitive to what I want, which is stuff being normal, rather than talking about how much pride I have that... I like men?

And you're well within your rights to do that - but you say "being normal", implying that taking pride shouldn't be normal. Why shouldn't that be normal? What's abnormal about showing your pride in something? People do it with the merch they buy, the team colours they wear, the factions they choose to paint their army as. Why is self-expression of gender or sexuality worse than one's self-expression of a favoured faction or pop culture media, or sports team, or nation?

Again, not here to force people to do anything, but I want to make it very clear that I expect the same level of "expression isn't allowed" on things beyond gender and sexuality, if you're going to be consistent.

As an irishman, if I can celebrate Saint Patrick's day (And if you've ever even heard of Guinness, you can count yourself as Irish on the day and join the craic with us), or if my wife can wear her football teams maroon jersey* on any given game day, let alone a day they do well, its perfectly fair that my gay friends and family can celebrate pride. They're not the ones out there crushing people.

It is normal.

*I painted one bloodbowl team in her teams colours; and I painted the orks in teal, blaxk and white to be like my nfl team - jacksonville jags. So we have 'Tyne Castle Terrors' versus Axe Devil's jag-waaaaghs. Painting any variation of pride is ok in my book.

Sgt. Cortez wrote:It's actually pretty easy to find an explanation for most color schemes in 40K since the galaxy is just that big. Rainbow colored Necrons are no problem (metals on their tomb world; Lord gone mad and painted everything crazy; it's just an interesting reflection of the atmosphere of the planet, whatever).
It's a tougher sell if all the Necrons are actually meant to be queer of some kind, because why would 60 Mio. years old feudal murder robots from outer space share any connection to/ heraldry of the 21st century LGBT movement? (On the other hand, rule of cool explains Viking Space Marines, Vampire Space marines, Mongol Space Marines, Samurai Space Elves, Zombie Space Marines, so even that wouldn't be unfitting for 40K)

I think it's potentially better to look at it as "why wouldn't they be"? We already know that the Necrontyr had plenty of (perhaps not the right word) humanity and spanned all across various gender and sexuality lines - and we also know that a not-insignificant amount of Necron nobility still maintain a good deal of their personality. Sure, they might still be robots and not, you know, ever act on their sexualities or genders, but they would still *be* that way.

Plus, I think it's important to also emphasise that being queer or LGBT isn't a "modern" phenomenon. People have been queer for as long as people have existed. I'd be more surprised if only humanity were, and the Necrontyr simply weren't. As for heraldry, I suppose it's in much a similar way that any heraldry in 40k exists - it looks cool to *us*, a player base. With how far humanity has developed in 40k, certain elements of iconography probably shouldn't exist as they have, but for us, as a modern audience, the contextual cues that said icons bring work for us specifically. Things like the Space Wolves having Viking symbology, or the Black Templars having Crusader sigils, are more for *us* than they are for any in-universe reason.

TheBestBucketHead wrote:Thinking about it, I feel trans flag paint schemes probably would look better on Infinity models than 40k models. Knights Hospitaller could look pretty good.

Harlequins too! Honestly, I'd love to see what could be done with queer-coded colour schemes within a Harlequin troupe.

 Lord Damocles wrote:
The barely sentient genocidal kill-bots saying gay rights matter as they slaughter everyone is pretty cringy to be honest.

do they have to be saying it? Can't we just have a tomb world that happens to use rainbow colors?

"As always, you and your opponent can play using whichever rules you agree on...." - first paragraph of the content validity update. GW officially says it's alright to play by whatever rules you want so long as your opponent agrees...that extends to paint. If you and your opponent can't agree, a game doesn't take place. This is all a nonissue. Can it be confusing for those who have it ingrained in their head that certain rules are tied to certain paint schemes? Sure, but if there's a game taking place, you've already agreed it's okay. If you're not okay with it (and I can't stress this enough) politely decline to play against them. Tell them it's just so ingrained in your head that it would cause constant mistakes on your part. It's okay for that to be the case and it's really cool that your that close to the game that you've been able to develop that association.