Warhammer 40K Tabletop Thread XXXVII: Highlighting the Contrasts

[Cheesegear]

You asked for an opinion and I offered one, and I did everything I could to offer it politely and justify it by admitting that...

Woah woah woah.
That was my point. I think you're being defensive about something we agree with each other on. Hopefully this'll clear it up.

My point wasn't to call you out.
The reason I used your post is because I had anecdotal evidence on this very forum to back myself up.

My point was that you get to decide which criticisms about your models, from someone else, matters.
- I'm ignoring the part about the yellow paint job.
- I'm ignoring the part about the pink and white wings.
Those are what I want. Those bits are what I like. If you have a problem with my models, tough ****.

I choose what matters, to me. Why would I care about someone complaining about the parts of the model I actually want/like?

The mold line? I didn't intend. I don't want. And it's really obvious. My model would be better - objectively - if it didn't have a huge mold line on it. I agree. The truth hurts.
Requizen, same model, said that it would be better if there was more contrast in the wings. You know what? As a detail-orientated guy myself...He's right! I took that criticism on board and reshaded the wings a bit more.
These are criticisms I took on board because it highlights aspects of the model I don't want...Even if I didn't notice the bit about the wings until after it was pointed out to me.

Another guy in my meta, was really happy with his Nurgle Predator, until someone pointed out...
"Uhh...You know the barrel looks like a giant ****?"
Oops. It was not the converter's intent to make a ****-mobile. Scrap the barrel, start again.

Contrastingly, my Deathwatch Guilliman. I, didn't like it. It felt too much Black Legion, not enough Deathwatch. Essentially, the model was too dark. Given that I paint yellow models, maybe my bar is too high? But not the point.
A lot of people, when I showed them the problem, didn't understand what I was talking about. The model looks great! Nice minor conversion. If it looks good, there's no problem? ...Uhh...No.
Missing the point. I need to know how to fix this problem I have. I, me, am not happy with it. It's not what I want...Even if it looks good to other people.
So I brightened him up. Some people didn't even notice the difference. I did. Because it's my model.

Although one thing I would like to suggest, possibly for the benefit of everyone in the current discussion, is the difference between an opinion being invalid and it just being irrelevant.

Listen to Wraith. He's a cool guy.

[Wraith]

Woah woah woah.
That was my point. I think you're being angry about something we agree with each other on.

I assure you, it's faux outrage for comedic (?) effect. We're cool.

[LansXero]

Unfortunately, nobody I've met starts with...
"What do you think of my model, bearing in mind that I have six paints and a single wash (it's always Nuln)?"

Like thats a thing? I could show such great models and busts done with exactly that. Sure, I couldnt paint that well if you gave me a full Citadel rack, but being poor doesnt mean being bad at things. You just need to get more creative. WAY more creative, sometimes. Wet palletes and color mixing have been a thing, so as long as you have the right 6 paints and 1 wash you can do almost anything.

On the matter of criticism, I dont think anyone is harsh on purpose. I do think some people are just way too sensitive, but its a given if you expect people to put care and love into what they do. Cant have one without the other; but rubbing against each other is the only way to smooth out differences (not literally, unless thats your thing).

For our little community for example, everyone tends to prop up those who try. We love when our peers get better, because then we have to step up our own game, so its motivating. Newbies are to be embraced and lovingly cared for. But people who think they are big shots and fail get mocked into the dirt. All in good spirits though, its just to show nobody is untouchable and even 'pros' screw up from time to time.

[druid91]

Cover is wrong.
The to wound table is wrong.

The win conditions of the game, are wrong. When the win conditions of the game are wrong, how you play the game, becomes wrong. The game is...Bad...For beginners and casuals because there is only one right way to win - holding Objectives. Which Chapter Approved '19 breaking or fixing - depending on your PoV - how tabling works, the game now clusters around large, hard-to-kill units of <Infantry>, that move very little - if at all - away from Objectives, unless they're 'teleporting'. Alternatively, small units of Infantry that stay out of LoS (by never moving) on an Objective.
Contrasting to popular pinion from ITC players, The ITC doesn't fix this. It only exacerbates it.

Everything wrong with 40K is tied to the win conditions of the game.

Here's the kicker; How do we fix it? Easy. Remove 'Most models holds the Objective', and bring back Contested Objectives.

I don't like that 1KP = 1KP.
But the other way is that a unit is worth a number of VPs equal to its points cost. Which means an even harder swing to models that cost less winning games.

Or just don't play those scenarios. Shocking idea I know... But we literally decided objectives were stupid in literally our first game playing with them and happily have gone on playing out tiny wargames ever since.

Objectives are lazy nonsense distractions from the actual game.

[Cheesegear]

Objectives are lazy nonsense distractions from the actual game.

So what is the actual game? 'Let's just kill each other'?
In which case Mathhammer becomes King. Just like it did pre-5th Ed.
Which leads directly to an arms race in your meta around one or two Codecies because every other Codex doesn't have certain units.

The fact that you need Troops (the majority of the time), is currently what's keeping the game balanced at all.

[Forum Explorer]

Or just don't play those scenarios. Shocking idea I know... But we literally decided objectives were stupid in literally our first game playing with them and happily have gone on playing out tiny wargames ever since.

Objectives are lazy nonsense distractions from the actual game.

So do you just do kill points or do you come up with your own scenarios?

[Avaris]

Random thought that occurred to me just now, and am interested in other people’s views: is it a good decision on behalf of GW to have chapter traits etc tied so explicitly to certain colour schemes?

What I mean is, in the current SM codex, and in many others, there are chapter rules for Ultramarines, Imperial Fists, Salamanders etc. These forces all use the same codex, but with minor tweaks from these chapter traits. The rules state that you are free to use a sucessor chapter, so don’t need to use the colour scheme, but in practice anyone who wants to use Salamanders rules will feel they need to use the Salamanders colour scheme, and anyone who wants to use the Salamanders colour scheme absolutely has to use their rules.

This feels like a problem? Given the disparity in the effectiveness of chapter rules there are some that are definitely better than others, so you have some players not choosing the army they like the colour style of because it’s not good, and others who are disappointed because the army they spent effort on making look good doesn’t have good rules.

Is there therefore an argument for detaching the subfaction rules from the fluff that defines what an army looks like? Keep the rules, perhaps with modifications, but call them ‘codex tactics’ or something and explicitly allow a player free range to choose between them depending on the army style they want. Perhaps say that certain chapters favour certain tactics, but don’t limit them to those. Then, when GW want to specifically support a chapter, they could release a supplemental codex in WD or wherever that contains a much more tailored list, so that the fully themed army has much more unique things to play with than just a single chapter trait.

[Cheesegear]

is it a good decision on behalf of GW to have chapter traits etc tied so explicitly to certain colour schemes?

In one phrase; Paint schemes don't matter.

Related to previous question;
Is it important that your - or your opponent's - army is painted? No.
Is it important that your - or your opponent's - army is painted 'in the right colours'? Uhh...
Are you telling me that not only do I have to paint, but I have to paint the way you - or a book - tell me to? **** off, mate.

Tying your paint scheme to rules is absolutely oppressing someone's hobby. My Celestine is yellow and pink. And if you don't like it, I'm going to ignore everything you have to say about it.

I like yellow. Imperial Fists are arguably the worst Chapter in the book. I am being punished - rules wise - because I like yellow, instead of blue. Thanks, GW.

Your Keywords are anything you want them to be. End of story.

These forces all use the same codex, but with minor tweaks from these chapter traits.

Which would be fine, if the 'tweaks' were all equally useful - they are not.

but in practice anyone who wants to use Salamanders rules will feel they need to use the Salamanders colour scheme

Nope. Because even the GW Blackshirt behind the counter will say that if you don't like the colour green, you absolutely do not have to paint your models green.

and anyone who wants to use the Salamanders colour scheme absolutely has to use their rules.

*Looks at Imperial Fists army that in the last ten years has been used as Black Templars, Ultramarines, White Scars, Crimson Fists, Salamanders - and sometimes even Imperial Fists!*

Is there therefore an argument for detaching the subfaction rules from the fluff

Yes. The fluff and the game are two different things.
The only time your paint scheme matters, is if you're playing a narrative game and want to take a lot of photos.

Keep the rules, perhaps with modifications, but call them ‘codex tactics’ or something and explicitly allow a player free range to choose between them depending on the army style they want.

This is exactly the wrong reason to come up with your own Chapter's paint scheme.
'My Chapter can be anything I want them to be...Which I will change every week or so. Can you show me what Chapter Tactics I have to use for Celestial Loins? Didn't think so."

Perhaps say that certain chapters favour certain tactics, but don’t limit them to those.

Hell, certain Companies favour certain tactics. Which is how I do it. Tournaments demand that different Detachments be clearly differentiated from each other.
Cool. My models with Red shoulder rims (3rd Company) are Blood Angels. That also makes it easy, because in your head, you also know that Red = Blood Angels anyway. Not only are my models differentiated, but they are easily identified in a way that makes sense to my opponent. As I can denote that my army consists of elements from the 2nd and 3rd Companies, my army is also fluff-tastic, and due to everything being painted in roughly the same style, my army looks cohesive and I win best painted.

Easy.

This is the same reason I ended up slightly converting and painting my Guilliman as Deathwatch. He fits in with my army better.
Does he lose his Keywords because he's painted 'wrong'? Again, if you're telling me what colours I have to paint my model, you can **** off.

[Avaris]

@Cheesegear: great, it sounds like you’re already playing/collecting in much more sensible way than seems to be portrayed in GW publications! Do you ever have any push back from opponents, either in tournaments or otherwise, saying you ‘have’ to use the rules that match your colour scheme?

I imagine your experience of being able to say ‘your keywords are what you want them to be’ isn’t universal: certainly, this thought was sparked by someone elsewhere saying they would be playing Alpha Lagion except that their CSM are painted as Red Corsairs. I really like your spin on it of ‘different companies have different styles’, and feel that would be a perhaps better way for GW codexes to approach things.

[Cheesegear]

Do you ever have any push back from opponents, either in tournaments or otherwise, saying you ‘have’ to use the rules that match your colour scheme?

I have had a number of issues with my Ultramarines, because they are painted literally the way that Deathwatch are.
This causes a lot of people to believe I play Deathwatch.
But, when you actually get to the table, I make it very clear that there are no actual Deathwatch on the table. After all, Deathwatch don't have Scouts (they do, but not in the rules), and they definitely don't have Guilliman...And there's certainly no Thunderfire Cannon in the DW Codex.

As long as you make it clear to your opponent, there shouldn't be a problem.

There would be a problem if I had actual Deathwatch in my list as well (i.e; Models in differing Detachments should be clearly identifiable). But I don't, and now that Storm Bolters and Special Ammo don't mix, I'm unlikely to in the future, either.

I imagine your experience of being able to say ‘your keywords are what you want them to be’ isn’t universal:

It isn't amongst the casual player base. Because as you said, GW markets their product in such a way that the thing you paint, is the thing you have.
When you've played for a number of editions - especially as a Space Marine player, where almost all of the models across four different Codecies are pretty much identical - the idea that if GW happens to buff or nerf a certain Codex or even just a unit...The idea that you'd have to paint your entire army all over again - even using the exact same models - is pretty...Bad.

This is shown in later Codecies, after GW realised that the idea was stupid and bad.
In the Imperial Guard Codex, your Regiment Doctine can be anything you choose.

The problem is rather specifically a Space Marine problem, as they were the first-printed Codex, before GW realised that tying rules to paint schemes was frittata'd.

[Forum Explorer]

Random thought that occurred to me just now, and am interested in other people’s views: is it a good decision on behalf of GW to have chapter traits etc tied so explicitly to certain colour schemes?

What I mean is, in the current SM codex, and in many others, there are chapter rules for Ultramarines, Imperial Fists, Salamanders etc. These forces all use the same codex, but with minor tweaks from these chapter traits. The rules state that you are free to use a sucessor chapter, so don’t need to use the colour scheme, but in practice anyone who wants to use Salamanders rules will feel they need to use the Salamanders colour scheme, and anyone who wants to use the Salamanders colour scheme absolutely has to use their rules.

This feels like a problem? Given the disparity in the effectiveness of chapter rules there are some that are definitely better than others, so you have some players not choosing the army they like the colour style of because it’s not good, and others who are disappointed because the army they spent effort on making look good doesn’t have good rules.

It's not a problem. I've seen people run 'Red Ultramarines' with their Blood Angel models before, and no one cares. So long as you tell your opponent, and don't have multiple factions using the same color scheme.

I've never heard of a meta where it is a problem to be frank.

[Cheesegear]

It's not a problem. I've seen people run 'Red Ultramarines' with their Blood Angel models before

Gabriel Seth called it.

[JNAProductions]

First crack at an Eldar list.

Spoiler: Alaitoc

Show

Battalion 1

HQs
119-Autarch Skyrunner-Banshee Mask, Laser Lance, Fusion Gun
132-Farseer Skyrunner

Troops
60-5 Rangers
60-5 Rangers
60-5 Rangers

Heavy Support
111-3 Support Weapons with Shadow Weavers
111-3 Support Weapons with Shadow Weavers
111-3 Support Weapons with Shadow Weavers

Total Points
764

Battalion 2

HQs
80-Ilic Nightspear
140-Maugan Ra

Troops
60-5 Rangers
60-5 Rangers
60-5 Rangers

Heavy Support
157-Fire Prism with Twin Shuriken Catapult
157-Fire Prism with Twin Shuriken Catapult
157-Fire Prism with Twin Shuriken Catapult

Total Points
871

Spearhead
55-Warlock

Heavy Support
102-3 Dark Reapers
102-3 Dark Reapers
102-3 Dark Reapers

Total Points
361

Overall Total
1,996 Points, 14 CP

I own none of these models yet, so nothing's final.

[LeSwordfish]

I tried out Contrast. You can just slop it on and it looks perfectly solid.

[Avaris]

I tried out Contrast. You can just slop it on and it looks perfectly solid.

Similarly, I tried out contrast today. Don’t think it will be my default, as I enjoy getting into the mediative painting state and don’t mind the time, but it’s certainly another tool in the arsenal.

I was most interested in the white effects, so tried out a couple of White Scars. Wasn’t convinced as the paint was going on, but once it had and it had other colours around it it was perfectly serviceable. It won’t work for a ‘clean’ white, but apothecary white over the wraithbone base is a fine shade for armour.

I suspect my approach will be to use contrast for base colours, then fill in the details with normal paints. It’s also a standard I would be perfectly ok with if I were a new painter; I was using a shade brush standing up and controlled the paint just fine.

[Cheesegear]

I used Contrast a few times. I think I'll call it what LansXero did earlier; It's a base & wash in the same step.
A lot of people are okay with 'Base and Wash' and calling it a day.

I - and many others - found best results with two more edge highlights over the top - just like GW does.

Basecoat > Wash > Highlight > Highlight, becomes
Contrast > Highlight > Highlight.

Overall, you'd save between 5-10 minutes per model. Provided that you don't do two thin coats of Contrast (which looks way better) and/or don't waste time cleaning up pools 'cause you slapped it on thick like GW told you to. On a single centrepiece model (or a single trial model), you wont even notice the difference.
Over a 30 model unit? You save yourself 2.5-5 hours on the first day of painting. Which isn't bad at all, if that's what you're doing. To have your entire Plaguebearer (x30) unit basecoated and washed before lunch definitely has practical value.

Contrast, by itself holds little value to me.
If I'm going to end up highlighting the model traditionally anyway...It's cheaper than buying a base paint plus a wash.

GW wins this round...With the very low bar they have to reach wobbling 'cause they hit it on the way over.

[LansXero]

A lot of people are okay with 'Base and Wash' and calling it a day.

Contrast, by itself holds little value to me.
If I'm going to end up highlighting the model traditionally anyway...It's cheaper than buying a base paint plus a wash.

Its the same; you need the new base plus contrast, which comes out the same as an old base + a wash. "but you use the base for many models" duh, same for the wash.

Its still slower than colour spray + wash though, for the largely monochromatic models its good for.

Id say if its the first thing you are learning, sure, it may work, but then you probably wont ever get past that stage. Which is allright, just not whats advertised. Also, people who peak at what they do or who are a chasm away from the next step tend to quit rather than try harder.

[Cheesegear]

Its the same; you need the new base plus contrast, which comes out the same as an old base + a wash.

lol...So GW even managed to fail that bar.
In that case, consider me thoroughly unimpressed by Contrasts...Except for people who are painting upwards of 20 models at a time.

[Avaris]

Its the same; you need the new base plus contrast, which comes out the same as an old base + a wash. "but you use the base for many models" duh, same for the wash.

That’s not entirely a fair comparison, unless you’re genuinely only considering a single base colour.

Normal paints are Undercoat + base paint + shade. You can combine the undercoat with the base paint for one colour, but any other colours will be a different base colour.

Contrast are Undercoat + shade paint. If you want multiple colours you don’t need another base paint, so contrast paint value starts adding up.

Ultimately, contrast paints are good value if they’re being used for what they’re intended for: doing many models in a short space of time. Even simple colour schemes, like Ultramarines, have enough large areas of different colours that they’ll benefit from a couple of different colours of Contrast: blue over most of the model, black on the gun and a few other details. Even if you want to do finer control details like shoulder pad edges in normal paints you are using two colours of contrast as a quick base, and thus saving a bit of money over the normal paints. That effect escalates as you use more colours.

[LansXero]

That’s not entirely a fair comparison, unless you’re genuinely only considering a single base colour.

Normal paints are Undercoat + base paint + shade. You can combine the undercoat with the base paint for one colour, but any other colours will be a different base colour.

Contrast are Undercoat + shade paint. If you want multiple colours you don’t need another base paint, so contrast paint value starts adding up.

Ultimately, contrast paints are good value if they’re being used for what they’re intended for: doing many models in a short space of time. Even simple colour schemes, like Ultramarines, have enough large areas of different colours that they’ll benefit from a couple of different colours of Contrast: blue over most of the model, black on the gun and a few other details. Even if you want to do finer control details like shoulder pad edges in normal paints you are using two colours of contrast as a quick base, and thus saving a bit of money over the normal paints. That effect escalates as you use more colours.

Contrast also already costs twice what a regular paint does; equating it to the old paints is disingenous. Also, most people do fine with agrax / nuln; specially if all you want to do is match the result of Contrast. Finally, for any given job you will only use 1 color of basecoat, as whats being discussed are large lots of models with a single majority color.

Its also more expensive than just going coat+base with a TAP spray of Ultramarine Blue or Angel Green and then spot wash with either Nuln or Agrax. Which achieves the same result, but faster.

[Cheesegear]

So, Contrasts in the hands of non-invitational, non-professional and semi-professional painters...

Pros
It's fast.

Con(trast)s
Contrast paints are finnicky to use.
Similar to washes, it's better to go with less than you think you need, otherwise pooling happens. Which is in direct opposition to 'One Thick Coat'.
It's better with two thin coats - one coat is likely to be inconsistent and leave splotches. Doing two coats means no time saved. Especially as a Contrast basecoat takes longer to dry than a normal Base...Uh...Coat.
It's very, very difficult to fix mistakes.
It makes your model look washed (like Glaze-painting does). So it looks even better with traditional edge highlighting or drybrushing afterwards, which is how you'd normally paint a model after washing it anyway. So it's not actually faster if you actually want your models to look good.
It doesn't taste nice - for those who lick their brushes


So...Trade quality for speed. Somehow I'm pretty sure I saw that coming.

[Avaris]

It doesn't taste nice - for those who lick their brushes .

Well that’s a complete deal breaker then

While it’s right that two coats can give better effect, I think a large part of what is good about contrast is that it gives better results in a single coat, unthinned, than with normal paints used in that way. Won’t be perfect, will be acceptable to many. Having used contrast I found them no more finnicky than normal paints, though I wouldn’t want to do fine detail work with them.

[Voidhawk]

I am someone who doesn't enjoy painting, and wish it was faster, and as a result often plays with grey plastic and/or black-spray-only. I am the (primary) target market for Contrast paints.

For my Necrons my method, such as it is, is this:
1) Spray black.
2) Silver for most surfaces, leaving black exposed on the joints.
3) Nuln Oil wash. To highlight the joints and silver bits.
4) Red for "armour" (pauldrons mostly). This means Warriors only have red on the shoulders, while more important 'crons get more red. Hierarchy!
5) Green for glowy bits (eyes, gun barrels, etc)
6) Maybe some Agrax on the base if I feel like it. (That's the grey-rubble one, right?)

So my question to the forum is: will Contrast paints in any way reduce my time/expense? They way I'm hearing things, it would let me condense 2) and 3) together perhaps?

Remember, I don't care about quality at all.

[Avaris]

I am someone who doesn't enjoy painting, and wish it was faster, and as a result often plays with grey plastic and/or black-spray-only. I am the (primary) target market for Contrast paints.

For my Necrons my method, such as it is, is this:
1) Spray black.
2) Silver for most surfaces, leaving black exposed on the joints.
3) Nuln Oil wash. To highlight the joints and silver bits.
4) Red for "armour" (pauldrons mostly). This means Warriors only have red on the shoulders, while more important 'crons get more red. Hierarchy!
5) Green for glowy bits (eyes, gun barrels, etc)
6) Maybe some Agrax on the base if I feel like it. (That's the grey-rubble one, right?)

So my question to the forum is: will Contrast paints in any way reduce my time/expense? They way I'm hearing things, it would let me condense 2) and 3) together perhaps?

Remember, I don't care about quality at all.

In your specific case I don’t think it will, as there aren’t metallic contrast paints (though you might decide some of the others give the result you want). For you I’d actually suggest just spraying them silver to start with and then nuln oil, though that loses the black joints.

[Cheesegear]

For my Necrons my method, such as it is, is this:
1) Spray black.
2) Silver for most surfaces, leaving black exposed on the joints.
3) Nuln Oil wash. To highlight the joints and silver bits.

There's no metallic Contrast Paint (don't even know how you would do that). The best you'll find is a very dull grey, which they've already previewed - with a Necron, in fact.

Spoiler: GW's Example

Show

...If you ask me, it's also been cleaned up as well with Nuln Oil, and the Black gun...I'd bet has an edge highlight on it as well.

But yeah. The best you're gonna get is what used to be called 'Ceramic' Necrons.

6) Maybe some Agrax on the base if I feel like it. (That's the grey-rubble one, right?)

That's Astrogranite.
Agrax is the brown wash, one of the two 'Liquid Talents' - the other being Nuln, of course.


As someone who paints Necrons too, I haven't found them too difficult to paint as is. Their monochromatic bodies with many edges and raised areas makes them perfect for drybrushing.
Leadbelcher > Nuln > Drybrush > Drybrush.
Not including the dry-time on the wash, I have an entire 12-man Warrior box done in less than an hour. 60 minutes divided by 12 models? Yeah...Less than 5 minutes per model sounds about right for Necrons to get the bright silver.
...The hard part on my Necrons is painting the yellow armour plates after the black undercoat.

One of my favourite models I've ever painted

Spoiler

Show

...All of the blue orbs have a coat of 'Ardcoat, which is kind of annoying with the lighting 'cause it looks like I've painted two white dots....Which would be dumb. I should take another photo in natural lighting...In fact I will do that...Tomorrow.

[Requizen]

From what I've seen, it will be extremely good for cloth, fur, and skintones (the Guilliman Flesh in particular gives a good look that was previously quite finnicky) and mostly useless for large swaths of armor or plates. The stupid thing is that the stores are previewing it on Stormcast and Primaris which have... armor and plates.

The Fellowship models they showed on the Community site done with Contrasts look solid, because cloth done with just base + wash previously was already most of the way to done depending on how much you enjoy highlighting folds. My Savage Orruk army for Sigmar I could see just slapping on the Camo Contrast and then handpainting tattoos. A horde of Termagants can probably be done entirely in Contrast since there's few wide flat plates, but you'll want to spend more time on Carnifexes and Tyrants... which you were probably going to do anyway for your big centerpiece models.

I'm getting some just to knock out the small backlog of board games I have - Warhammer Quest (both), Underworlds, maybe a Blood Bowl starter.


As an aside, has anyone flipped through Kill Team Elites or are we just completely done with KT for the time being? It's kinda died out over here other than a casual game when you don't have a full 40k/AoS night.

[Cheesegear]

As an aside, has anyone flipped through Kill Team Elites or are we just completely done with KT for the time being? It's kinda died out over here other than a casual game when you don't have a full 40k/AoS night.

I have literally not looked through Commanders or Elites. Not even once.
I meant to go through the Kill Team results from BAO (they're also up to 125 Points)... I just...Didn't.

[Requizen]

I have literally not looked through Commanders or Elites. Not even once.
I meant to go through the Kill Team results from BAO (they're also up to 125 Points)... I just...Didn't.

This is my fear with Warcry as well... Anything that isn't 2000 point 40k or AoS just doesn't last around here (or from the sounds of it, much anywhere else). Everything else ends up niche at best, other than the hardcore anti-GW people still trying to make Kings of War, Infinity, and Malifaux work.

Sometimes I look at my Kill Team Arena box and sigh melodramatically to myself.

[LansXero]

Sometimes I look at my Kill Team Arena box and sigh melodramatically to myself.

We just played last week, used Custodes and sub-factions rules, stuck with mostly same old KT. It needs a lot of championing, but 'casual wargaming' is a niche within a niche, so its hard for it to survive long. Which is why I dislike sub-games so much, it ends up with people getting stuck with unused junk.

Then again, "Kill Team in corridors only, no vertical fun allowed" supporters deserve what they get :v.

[Requizen]

We just played last week, used Custodes and sub-factions rules, stuck with mostly same old KT. It needs a lot of championing, but 'casual wargaming' is a niche within a niche, so its hard for it to survive long. Which is why I dislike sub-games so much, it ends up with people getting stuck with unused junk.

Then again, "Kill Team in corridors only, no vertical fun allowed" supporters deserve what they get :v.

Hey, don't make fun of Arena, it's actually a really good game Verticality is cool and thematic, but unbalanced AF unless someone meticulously builds good tables for every game, it gets really screwy real fast.

I've enjoyed championing for some games - Underworlds being the main one, and it's come and gone - but at some point you don't want to be the guy trying to make things work when no one seems interested. If KT crops up again, I'm more than happy to participate, but I just don't have it in me to shill another game.

Though KT is a great reason to snag some Contrast paints and have some small painting projects every now and then