Feedback on Painting guidelines please!

After the success of the WFB event, January 2011 will see the start of a similar event for 40k.
Forum rules
Be excellent to each other
Locked
phil
Ancient Muppet
Posts: 349
Joined: Thu Jul 08, 2010 9:39 am

Feedback on Painting guidelines please!

Post by phil » Mon Dec 20, 2010 3:39 pm

Hey

Ahead of a final ruleset and sign-up thread tomorrow, I want to get some feedback on one point for the Hobby section rules.

For the FB Tale of Muppet Gamers, we required people to build on a single army through each month, and although it wasn't a strict escalation (ie units could come and go, as long as newly-painted stuff hit the monthly totals), it did need to be the same army each time.

I initially thought we might make an exception for a couple of people with Grimdark Tales because of the need to paint stuff up for ASMOH - ie, they might start a Space Marine army for Grimdark, but if they needed to paint up a remaining portion of an Ork army for ASMOH, they could swap their painting points to the Ork army for a month... as long as they were getting some painting done.

But I'm beginning to worry this will confuse the issue and we'll lose the sense of army-building that was so neat about Tale of Muppet Gamers. Also, ASMOH should be its own motivator for painting an army up, rather than a by-product of Grimdark (or vice versa).

So - thoughts please on:

Should we scrap the exception and require an all-new army to be painted from beginning to end?

PLEASE NOTE that this does not affect the rule about allowing separate armies for the Battle section. You do NOT need to use your Hobby army in the Battle section, but you may do so if you want to.
-- Dutch --

daniel_cave00
The muppet with many names
Posts: 1059
Joined: Fri Jan 25, 2008 4:21 pm

Re: Feedback on Painting guidelines please!

Post by daniel_cave00 » Tue Dec 21, 2010 12:27 pm

As a non organising person, purely commenting for the sake of impartial feedback I would say the following.

Having people build an entire new army might be prohibitive given where we are in the life cycle of 40K (its in prime 5th edition hayday) and the fact that post Christmas in the middle of a recession, some might find it a little costly to start a whole new army just for this.

However the hobby side of things isnt entirely down to building new armies, there is the expansion factor or just taking a new slant on an old format. For me if I were so inclined, I have sufficient unfinished models to make one hell of a different marine army without having to buy a single model. This would almost be the same as building a whole new army but I would have to involve a few key painted units I have already got in order to field it. I would therefore be able to paint 1750 points of marine army without ever fielding it together. Whilst it might be harder to track it certainly would be in keeping with, what I believe is, the spirit of the task.

One of the main reasons why we "comissioned" the 40K painting escalation was to give people like Fergus, Duncan, OJ etc the chance to show that they also could paint to a schedule (making our club seem a little less than play play play, which we have been accused of in the past). I think allowing people to prove that they are painting new elements for existing armies is a good idea and should be included somehow.

However as my caveat stated at the start I am not organising this one, it falls to Phil in order to make the rules. If the popular vote is to change then I would ask him to respect the mob where it is reasonable to do so.

I do agree though that you really aught to be keeping the painting within one Codex, the idea behind painting a force is that you will be using it for gaming. Whilst that isnt a requirement that you should be playing with what you paint, you should at least be joining the painting task with the understanding that you are building one army rather than just finishing off a couple of units across multiple armies and getting Muppets to give you a prize for it.

I also disagree with joining these things with our two main tournaments. The tournaments are separate from our regular community events because not everyone wants to play tournaments, however they may still like to get involved. Focusing everything on RR and ASMOH might force some members to completely abandon club run events alltogether. As Phil puts it quite succinctly, these tournaments are their own motivators. You dont paint, you dont play. Club shouldnt be sponsoring you to do something you would be doing anyway though if it fits in then its a lucky day for you.

This is all personal opinion, it has no weighting whatsoever and is not tied in with my current holding of any post. Please feel free to mock, argue and disagree (you always have this right, just wanted to remind you)
The muppet with many names

2011 - Mavis
2010 - Randolph
2009 - Sally
2008 - Ben

Migraines suck!!!

phil
Ancient Muppet
Posts: 349
Joined: Thu Jul 08, 2010 9:39 am

Re: Feedback on Painting guidelines please!

Post by phil » Tue Dec 21, 2010 1:40 pm

daniel_cave00 wrote:Having people build an entire new army might be prohibitive given where we are in the life cycle of 40K (its in prime 5th edition hayday) and the fact that post Christmas in the middle of a recession, some might find it a little costly to start a whole new army just for this.


Okay - this is a very good point, and has helped clarify my thinking.

Unless there's any more feedback, let's keep the hobby path as simple as possible, but not require people to build new armies from scratch.

So, in essence - it's restricted to a single codex, but as long as you paint up the right amount of points for each deadline (and can display them), it doesn't need to be part of a persistent force.

Eg - I have a part-painted Eldar army. If I chose to, I could continue to paint that up, with 500pts of NEWLY-painted models by the January deadline, an additional 250pts by the Feb deadline and so on. There's no pressure for it to need to fit into force organisation charts whatsoever, but it must be Eldar stuff throughout the event. No switching to Orkses or anything for one of them.

Make sense?

I'll round-up the rules in a new thread, before tonight. If somebody could then send a message to all users linking to that thread for sign-ups, that would eb great.
-- Dutch --

User avatar
fynn
Ancient Muppet
Posts: 603
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2008 9:04 am

Re: Feedback on Painting guidelines please!

Post by fynn » Tue Dec 21, 2010 1:46 pm

that sounds good. so for example, if i want i could work on paint up my guard (which does include part painted units) but play my CSM for the battle path if i wish.
Now i do have 1 question, if for example im working on my guard and getting it ready for asmoh, and i decide to include some witch hunter allies for the final build (legal if useing the origional paper codex), how would that fit with the one codex rule??
(but for reference, i be painting and useing guard for both paths, not sure about WH allies yet)

phil
Ancient Muppet
Posts: 349
Joined: Thu Jul 08, 2010 9:39 am

Re: Feedback on Painting guidelines please!

Post by phil » Tue Dec 21, 2010 1:51 pm

Good question - you say it's legal in the original Codex, but I'd presume that's not a Codex you'd use if you played normally? I'd kinda be inclined to specify the latest Codex, or that one that you'd regularly play with.

However, I don't know if that would be an unreasonable exclusion based on 40K rules.

In FB you can in theory field allies from other Army Books, but it's not very common. In that game system I'd regard it as a loophole and say no.
-- Dutch --

daniel_cave00
The muppet with many names
Posts: 1059
Joined: Fri Jan 25, 2008 4:21 pm

Re: Feedback on Painting guidelines please!

Post by daniel_cave00 » Tue Dec 21, 2010 1:58 pm

Given that I dont believe allies are acceptable for ASMOH I dont think it would be a problem if that is your goal.

One codex should mean one codex IMO. Lets not muddy the waters with loopholes and work arounds, still its up to Phil.
The muppet with many names

2011 - Mavis
2010 - Randolph
2009 - Sally
2008 - Ben

Migraines suck!!!

User avatar
fynn
Ancient Muppet
Posts: 603
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2008 9:04 am

Re: Feedback on Painting guidelines please!

Post by fynn » Tue Dec 21, 2010 2:10 pm

@phil, the WH/DH codex, are no longer in print, but GW released a cocked up version on PDF, and stated that the origional paper versions are still legal, which include rules for useing inducted guard/space marines, and for feilding WH/DH with guard and SM.
Dan if what you say is true for ASMoH, then any one wanting to run a WH/DH inquistor army with alies will be buggered.
(and theres little chance of the new GK codex being out in time for ASMoH, and sisters codex is still looking like 2012)
As for a pure inquistion force, your stuck with underpowerd stormtroopers, penitent engines and a few resricted (and crap in 5th ed) elite units), which is why you bolster it up with inducted troops.
just something to bear in mind for ASMoH

daniel_cave00
The muppet with many names
Posts: 1059
Joined: Fri Jan 25, 2008 4:21 pm

Re: Feedback on Painting guidelines please!

Post by daniel_cave00 » Tue Dec 21, 2010 2:31 pm

Rich,

I dont know any of our regulars that will be affected by this. The only way people use allies is as you are suggesting, bringing WH/DH units into their regular codex lists. Its a discussion for another time, however I believe the rules have been the same for these last two years I have been involved with in the club.
The muppet with many names

2011 - Mavis
2010 - Randolph
2009 - Sally
2008 - Ben

Migraines suck!!!

User avatar
fynn
Ancient Muppet
Posts: 603
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2008 9:04 am

Re: Feedback on Painting guidelines please!

Post by fynn » Tue Dec 21, 2010 2:52 pm

the main one it could effect is dave OJ, as i know he fields WH a lot (no sisters, jusy inquistion) with guard platoons.

phil
Ancient Muppet
Posts: 349
Joined: Thu Jul 08, 2010 9:39 am

Re: Feedback on Painting guidelines please!

Post by phil » Tue Dec 21, 2010 4:39 pm

CLOSED
-- Dutch --

Locked

Return to “Grimdark Tales 2011”