Have you guys ever played a battle, maybe just a non competitive battle, in which your opponent wanted his 10 points for having painted miniatures, where as you didnt have a fully painted army?
I have never had this happen to me, but i was curious if you guys had met people that was adamant in him getting his 10 points just because, so he would have an advantage of winning on points.
Edit: i really meant in a non competitive situation, so non tournements here. I would not show up to a tournement with an unpainted army myself.
My armies are all painted as I am a long-term 40ker. That doesn't mean I or some of my group try a new unit out. Outside my own garage? Always a painted army. That said;
If you're at a tournament? He has the right, it's in the rules. Do I agree with it being in the rules? Not sure. I do think painting and modelling are a big part of the hobby.
Have I ever asked for that or had someone ask? No.
If I run into someone in a casual game that wants the points because the actual score matters that much, I'd probably not play them again.
I mean, why not give him the points? If he beats you because he’s painted and you’re not, then that’s a moment to CHEER! Not jeer. You laugh and say you had him beat, but his painting literally won it for him. And if you win, you laugh and say “Once again the hordes of grey are victorious!”. In a casual game, it really, absolutely, does NOT matter.
Now, in a tourney game or league or whatever? Well, it’s in the rules, so do it, and that win is legit. You can STILL laugh like before, but now the win counts.
Technically they would be right. It's a core rule that a painted army gets 10 VP, like it or not. If you agree before the game to ignore it that's fine but if nothing is said then it applies by default. Holding it against someone to want to have the base rules enforced if not agreed on beforehand is akin to getting upset because somebody wants to use Guilliman In a game.
Beardedragon wrote: Have you guys ever played a battle, maybe just a non competitive battle, in which your opponent wanted his 10 points for having painted miniatures, where as you didnt have a fully painted army?
I have never had this happen to me, but i was curious if you guys had met people that was adamant in him getting his 10 points just because, so he would have an advantage of winning on points.
In a tournament your army should be painted and rules that unpainted models had to be removed from the table are not uncommon so it basically never comes up.
Outside of a tournament? Why the F cares, its a casual game. If you lose by less then 10 points because of it you can think to yourself that you won and that's that.
It seems to me that the painted armies bonus ought to be a tournament thing where you say up-front "we want people to bring painted armies so we're going to hand out a game penalty to people who don't". If you're doing a casual 1v1 with no money on the line and someone demands ten free points at the end of the game because they've had their army longer than yours or because they slapped three-colour minimum haphazardly onto everything they're just being an ass.
Outside of a tournament, league or competition match I don't use that rule. It's frankly silly outside of those gaming environments. Someone who has not painted their army or has no desire to paint their army should not be penalised because of it.
BlackLobster wrote: Outside of a tournament, league or competition match I don't use that rule. It's frankly silly outside of those gaming environments. Someone who has not painted their army or has no desire to paint their army should not be penalised because of it.
They're not being penalised - the player who has put the effort in to achieve the standard is getting a bonus. Subtle difference, but still a difference.
If you don’t want to paint then pay someone to do it. GW models are not meant to be fielded unpainted. People who are too lazy to paint should just go play a game that doesn’t require painting. 10 points is not much.
There are so many games which don’t require painting anything
Cause you like the designs? The lore? The act of putting models together but not painting? There's million different reasons why you could be into something.
Of course there's also people who are physically unable to paint much, but I guess they should bring a doctor's notice to the game, the silly things.
Because not everyone enjoys painting models. I know and have known a fair few players who build their models but just want to play the game. They don't care about painting their models. The 10 point thing is rather a silly addition and just their because GW wants you spend money on their paints. I would never turn someone down because they do not have a painted army. Likewise I'd say upfront that I won't be playing that 10 point rule. I'd rather play a game and enjoy it.
So far we outright ignored / forgot that rule. And I'm not playing with unpainted armies anyway. Game is not just about winning, too. So if it was an exciting game and victory points are that close that the additional 10 for paint decide the winner, I'd chuckle and admit defeat.
It's a dumb rule, but so are a lot of other rules. I'd be mildly miffed if my opponent sprang it on me as an "Ah-ha, but I really won the game!" but if they said up front, "Hey, I notice you're running an unpainted/partially painted list. Mine's fully painted, so I'll start 10 points up," I wouldn't really care that much.
Racerguy180 wrote: If you have no desire to paint you're army, why the feth are you playing a game that has painting as part of it?
Go play with some cardboard chits instead, would probably save money.
It's not lack of desire. It's time, inspiration, etc. It's art. And a hobby. As such it will get done as pleases me.
If that's not good enough for you? Well that's your problem, not mine.
Racerguy180 wrote: If you have no desire to paint you're army, why the feth are you playing a game that has painting as part of it?
Go play with some cardboard chits instead, would probably save money.
Because I like the game. I like the models. I even like painted models-I just don't like painting.
It's possible to enjoy some parts of a hobby without enjoying or participating in every aspect. If you do the 100 meter dash in track and field, are you not a true athlete unless you also compete well in the mile? Or a marathon?
I deliberately leave my army unpainted, insist they take the points and then crush them anyway. Or at least I do in my head. The only games I’ve played this millennium have been with a 3 year old and a 5 year old.
I think we are mostly talking about the theoretical here. In a tourney you follow the scoring rubric set by the TO. If you get +10 for painting - great! If you didn't paint, you don't get those points. Not seeing the big deal.
In a pick-up game winning and losing is not, in my experience, a big deal. You keep score, but its not something to get too excited about. I haven't seen it come up in pick-up games.
It's a dumb rule, but so are a lot of other rules. I'd be mildly miffed if my opponent sprang it on me as an "Ah-ha, but I really won the game!" but if they said up front, "Hey, I notice you're running an unpainted/partially painted list. Mine's fully painted, so I'll start 10 points up," I wouldn't really care that much.
I do think "Determine if armies are Battle Ready" should've been a pre-battle step, just to avoid the feeling of "Gotcha!"
Beardedragon wrote: Have you guys ever played a battle, maybe just a non competitive battle, in which your opponent wanted his 10 points for having painted miniatures, where as you didnt have a fully painted army?
I have never had this happen to me, but i was curious if you guys had met people that was adamant in him getting his 10 points just because, so he would have an advantage of winning on points.
Uuh...that's the rules. That's how gw wants it played. If you have problem with complain to gw. He's 100% correct. That's how 40k is supposed to be played.
The rules say he gets the 10 points so he gets the 10 points, but who really cares? Everyone knows who actually won the game either way. Anybody who gets upset over it either way is making themselves look foolish.
The rules says he gets the points. I don't see what is there to argue about.
It feels bad, if you have colour coded the bases of your 6x5 man terminator units with a mono colour and the rules, supposably, require highlights and scenic bases. But my dudes have bigger problems then my opponent getting 10VP, because I don't have stones and skulls on my bases.
AnomanderRake wrote: It seems to me that the painted armies bonus ought to be a tournament thing where you say up-front "we want people to bring painted armies so we're going to hand out a game penalty to people who don't". If you're doing a casual 1v1 with no money on the line and someone demands ten free points at the end of the game because they've had their army longer than yours or because they slapped three-colour minimum haphazardly onto everything they're just being an ass.
Played in an AoS tournament a few years ago with no painting requirement. The Daughters of Khane had just came out. I have my well painted and based Iron Jawz on the table. Spent a lot of time painting them. My opponent uses half assembled, lots of blu-tak, Daughters. His Cauldron was constantly falling apart and half way through, he just gave up and there it was, a large base with a pair of legs on it. I had no idea what half his models were because they had no weapons. So when I thought I was charging a unit of Wyches, it turned out to be a unit of Slaughters (maybe? I don't know).
If that was a 40K game, you well better believe I'd have insisted on 10 points for having a painted army.
The 10 points for a painted army was a HUGE step back for tournament play as its a concession by GW to allow unpainted armies. All it does is encourage those crappy, "throw contrast paint on it" armies that look like garbage so they can get an extra +10 points.
For garage play? Kitchen table play? The "Hey! I see you have a 40K army, wanna game?" games? Why are you tracking points anyways? Who cares?
Of course there's also people who are physically unable to paint much, but I guess they should bring a doctor's notice to the game, the silly things.
There's people who can't put the miniatures together, too. So clearly if someone shows up with a bunch of empty bases with maybe a leg here and there glued on, that shouldn't be a big deal either, right?
The rule's stupid because if you don't want to play someone's unpainted army you should just not play their army; the decision should be before the game starts, and it shouldn't impact the scoring if you do agree to play.
But it's equally silly to wring your hands about accessibility only when it comes to painting. Painting is one of the least of the accessibility problems with wargaming. It'd be a very rare condition indeed that would allow someone to assemble miniatures but not to paint them to the very basic standards GW requires to get the 10 points. For every 1 person who genuinely can't paint their minis because of a disability, there's 100 or 1000 who just don't like to - and that's fine, but it's distasteful to hide behind the disabilities of others as an excuse.
I think it's important to remember here that GW has no quality standards for the painting requirement. You can paint really bad; it still counts. You just have to do it. Spray primer in the main color, wash the entire model, then splotch on two contrast paints vaguely onto the other two primary colors, cover the entire base with any textured paint, and you are done. Contrary to some of what's been claimed here, there is no highlighting requirement and no requirement to create scenic bases, and there certainly isn't any requirement that your paint stay within the lines.
Like everything else in a GW hobby, getting the 10 points for a painted army is about spending $ on paint and a modicum of time on getting the models ready (or paying someone else to do that for you, if you are unable or unwilling to do it yourself), not about passing some quality test.
Nah, with how many snap fit models GW makes nowadays, it really isn't hard to make an army real fast with minimal or zero glue.
Painting on the other hand requires a ton of money, and time, which more or less equals to more money. And you realy have to want to do it. I saw an army of DG being assembled over a few hours, and it was done. To finish a 2000+pts army with 70+ models one had to be some sort of master of air brush and a time mage, at the same time.
It is seriously a bit odd to me. No one forces people, techincally to play the game within a specific way. In theory you can get an open or narrative or crusade game, and not just the 2250pts match played expiriance. With painting there is no such option. No I don't like it, no I just started my army. It is straight army unpainted your opponent just won, unless your army is like the top 3 of all armies.
Don't know why GW did that. It is as if they wanted to force people in to buying paints, brushs etc.
addnid wrote: If you don’t want to paint then pay someone to do it. GW models are not meant to be fielded unpainted. People who are too lazy to paint should just go play a game that doesn’t require painting. 10 points is not much.
There are so many games which don’t require painting anything
+1 with Racerguy
So what's your opinion on really poorly painted stuff?
Racerguy180 wrote: If you have no desire to paint you're army, why the feth are you playing a game that has painting as part of it?
Go play with some cardboard chits instead, would probably save money.
Because 8th didn't have such rules and the state of paint on the model has no impact on the game. That could be one reason, and from what I understand w40k never had rules like that before. And according to the goons a 10VP difference from the start more or less auto loses the game to the person with the unpainted army.
If you don’t want to paint then pay someone to do it.
I see a rich persons problem. Imagine this, you struggle to save money to slowly build an army, and now someone comes and tells you have to pay western prices, because eastern europe studios paint for western people, for it. Which means it practicaly doubles the cost of your army. That is unthinkable levels of gate keeping. And what is worse, the stores are of course loving it, because they want to sell paints and often have dudes doing commissions.
If you lost by a couple of points against a grey plastic army, you'd want your free 10 points as well.
It takes less time to spray and dip a space marine army than it does to put the models together. Sure, they'll look unfinished or just bad. But painted is painted, anything is better than grey plastic.
Eh, sometimes over the editions you'll find a something in an Ork army that requires (or at least heavily implies) a paint requirement - "Red ones go fasta!".
It takes less time to spray and dip a space marine army than it does to put the models together. Sure, they'll look unfinished or just bad. But painted is painted, anything is better than grey plastic.
But the 9th edition rules say that models must be painted to a battlefield standard. No where does it define what that means? Is it the old three colour minimum, table top quality or I've spent 10 hours on one guardsman?
It takes less time to spray and dip a space marine army than it does to put the models together. Sure, they'll look unfinished or just bad. But painted is painted, anything is better than grey plastic.
But the 9th edition rules say that models must be painted to a battlefield standard. No where does it define what that means? Is it the old three colour minimum, table top quality or I've spent 10 hours on one guardsman?
Battle Ready is a standard which is sort-of defined in a WHC article, though I don't have the link to hand.
I completely agree that, as it is being used as a term in the rulebook, it should be defined within the rulebook.
Karol wrote: Nah, with how many snap fit models GW makes nowadays, it really isn't hard to make an army real fast with minimal or zero glue.
Painting on the other hand requires a ton of money, and time, which more or less equals to more money. And you realy have to want to do it. I saw an army of DG being assembled over a few hours, and it was done. To finish a 2000+pts army with 70+ models one had to be some sort of master of air brush and a time mage, at the same time.
This just isn't true, though. Painting to the extremely rudimentary standards GW requires takes about the same active time that assembling any standard GW multi-part kit does. You can primer a whole army in 5-10 minutes. You can wash that whole army for about 1 minute per model. Splashing two contrast paints vaguely onto the right areas to represent the two other major colors on the model besides the base coat takes you maybe 2-3 minutes per model.
You're looking at maybe 5ish minutes per infantry model, with an hour or two of drying time total spread out over a couple stages.
Will it look terrible? Absolutely. And that's honestly the biggest problem with the rule: it encourages bad painting to get the points, because it's fast and easy, instead of encouraging better painting over a longer period of time. But it'll get you the 10 points if you really care about it.
BlackLobster wrote: But the 9th edition rules say that models must be painted to a battlefield standard. No where does it define what that means? Is it the old three colour minimum, table top quality or I've spent 10 hours on one guardsman?
"Combat ready means that your models are fully painted and have a detailed or textured base." Page 12, German Grand Tournament 2020 book.
Included are 7 examples, 3 for Contrast and 4 for classic paints. There is no doubt what "combat ready" means.
Yarium wrote: I mean, why not give him the points? If he beats you because he’s painted and you’re not, then that’s a moment to CHEER! Not jeer. You laugh and say you had him beat, but his painting literally won it for him. And if you win, you laugh and say “Once again the hordes of grey are victorious!”. In a casual game, it really, absolutely, does NOT matter.
Now, in a tourney game or league or whatever? Well, it’s in the rules, so do it, and that win is legit. You can STILL laugh like before, but now the win counts.
So either way, do it. Why not?
The only reason he would ask is because he KNOWS your stuff isn't painted. He's deliberately putting you on the back foot for no reason in a friendly game.
This is just a new form of list tailoring. It's like if you play a guy you know LOVES his guard tanks so you take 3 units of eradicaters and 3 units off Sisters of battle retributors. Or a guy who plays green tide so you bring 200 stormbolters.
BlackLobster wrote: But the 9th edition rules say that models must be painted to a battlefield standard. No where does it define what that means? Is it the old three colour minimum, table top quality or I've spent 10 hours on one guardsman?
"Combat ready means that your models are fully painted and have a detailed or textured base." Page 12, German Grand Tournament 2020 book.
Included are 7 examples, 3 for Contrast and 4 for classic paints. There is no doubt what "combat ready" means.
Fair play. It is in my copy of the Grand Tournament book, which I had forgotten about. I can't find that in the core rules though and not everyone will have a copy of the Grand Tournament book.
Even so, looking at those examples, that still requires a level of painting expertise that not everyone has.
Dysartes wrote: Battle Ready is a standard which is sort-of defined in a WHC article, though I don't have the link to hand.
'Introducing: Battle Ready' on Warhammer Community. It's the first result on Google if you search for 'Battle Ready Games Workshop', 'Battle Ready Warhammer', Battle Ready 40K' or 'Battle Ready Age of Sigmar'
addnid wrote: If you don’t want to paint then pay someone to do it. GW models are not meant to be fielded unpainted. People who are too lazy to paint should just go play a game that doesn’t require painting. 10 points is not much.
There are so many games which don’t require painting anything
+1 with Racerguy
So what's your opinion on really poorly painted stuff?
Better than unpainted. At least they did it, which is better than not trying at all. I keep my RTB-01 beakies that I painted in 1990 around and play with them/look at them when working on my current Salamanders often. They look terrible, ya know. But they remind me that it takes practice and give me inspiration to attempt new techniques.
Of course there's also people who are physically unable to paint much, but I guess they should bring a doctor's notice to the game, the silly things.
There's people who can't put the miniatures together, too. So clearly if someone shows up with a bunch of empty bases with maybe a leg here and there glued on, that shouldn't be a big deal either, right?
The rule's stupid because if you don't want to play someone's unpainted army you should just not play their army; the decision should be before the game starts, and it shouldn't impact the scoring if you do agree to play.
But it's equally silly to wring your hands about accessibility only when it comes to painting. Painting is one of the least of the accessibility problems with wargaming. It'd be a very rare condition indeed that would allow someone to assemble miniatures but not to paint them to the very basic standards GW requires to get the 10 points. For every 1 person who genuinely can't paint their minis because of a disability, there's 100 or 1000 who just don't like to - and that's fine, but it's distasteful to hide behind the disabilities of others as an excuse.
I think it's important to remember here that GW has no quality standards for the painting requirement. You can paint really bad; it still counts. You just have to do it. Spray primer in the main color, wash the entire model, then splotch on two contrast paints vaguely onto the other two primary colors, cover the entire base with any textured paint, and you are done. Contrary to some of what's been claimed here, there is no highlighting requirement and no requirement to create scenic bases, and there certainly isn't any requirement that your paint stay within the lines.
Like everything else in a GW hobby, getting the 10 points for a painted army is about spending $ on paint and a modicum of time on getting the models ready (or paying someone else to do that for you, if you are unable or unwilling to do it yourself), not about passing some quality test.
Full disclosure. I have an annoying defect in my neck that makes painting (and gluing, but gluing takes significantly less time per model!) a literal pain in the neck after about 30-40 minutes, and the longer i don't stop, the worse it gets. It doesn't prevent me from painting in a technical sense, but it means a 10-man unit can take between a month and three depending on details. And sure, I could just slop paint on, but I *can* paint to a better standard, and I don't want to just fingerpaint-tier the expensive models. So instead I paint super-slow.
Then you have people who might paint slow or not at all due to other reasons, be it working long hours, kid, depression etc. I feel like telling all of them "just ruin your models, as long as they have paint on them it's ok" is kind of mean? Painting is separate hobby to playing games.
BlackLobster wrote: But the 9th edition rules say that models must be painted to a battlefield standard. No where does it define what that means? Is it the old three colour minimum, table top quality or I've spent 10 hours on one guardsman?
"Combat ready means that your models are fully painted and have a detailed or textured base." Page 12, German Grand Tournament 2020 book.
Included are 7 examples, 3 for Contrast and 4 for classic paints. There is no doubt what "combat ready" means.
The examples do jack gak for the definition other than to say that those exact 7 models are 'combat ready'. Also define 'textured'. GW standard black bases have a pebbly texture to them out of the box, does that count? If not, why? It's a texture, the definition just says 'detailed OR textured' GW black bases are textured, why wouldn't they count? What about themed resin bases that aren't painted? They're not part of the model (the definition accidentally defines the model and the base as being distinct from each other) so they don't have to be painted, and even out of the mold gray they're both detailed AND textured. Would they count? If not, why not?
What if you don't paint the inside of a vehicle? That's not fully painted, even if you glued whatever ramp/doorway it has shut. What if you painted it after assembling it and there's a grey spot in a hard to reach area under a cloak or armor plate? That's not fully painted. What if you painted all the rivets on the armor silver except one? That's not fully painted. What if you paint your army with heavy OSL to make it look like the army is walking at night with the only light source being their own weapons and electronics, the shadows would be black where things are supposed to be colors, that's not fully painted.
Full disclosure. I have an annoying defect in my neck that makes painting (and gluing, but gluing takes significantly less time per model!) a literal pain in the neck after about 30-40 minutes, and the longer i don't stop, the worse it gets. It doesn't prevent me from painting in a technical sense, but it means a 10-man unit can take between a month and three depending on details. And sure, I could just slop paint on, but I *can* paint to a better standard, and I don't want to just fingerpaint-tier the expensive models. So instead I paint super-slow.
Then you have people who might paint slow or not at all due to other reasons, be it working long hours, kid, depression etc. I feel like telling all of them "just ruin your models, as long as they have paint on them it's ok" is kind of mean? Painting is separate hobby to playing games.
Oh I agree - see my other posts, that's my big problem with the rule. It encourages you to do stuff badly, instead of taking the time to do it right, because you get rewarded in the meantime for doing it badly while getting punished in the meantime for doing it well.
My comment was more directed at pointing out that, whether you like the results or not, painting to the very low standard required by GW is not a major accessibility issue, at least not compared to the many other, greater ones inherent in the hobby.
BlackLobster wrote: But the 9th edition rules say that models must be painted to a battlefield standard. No where does it define what that means? Is it the old three colour minimum, table top quality or I've spent 10 hours on one guardsman?
"Combat ready means that your models are fully painted and have a detailed or textured base." Page 12, German Grand Tournament 2020 book.
Included are 7 examples, 3 for Contrast and 4 for classic paints. There is no doubt what "combat ready" means.
The examples do jack gak for the definition other than to say that those exact 7 models are 'combat ready'. Also define 'textured'. GW standard black bases have a pebbly texture to them out of the box, does that count? If not, why? It's a texture, the definition just says 'detailed OR textured' GW black bases are textured, why wouldn't they count? What about themed resin bases that aren't painted? They're not part of the model (the definition accidentally defines the model and the base as being distinct from each other) so they don't have to be painted, and even out of the mold gray they're both detailed AND textured. Would they count? If not, why not?
What if you don't paint the inside of a vehicle? That's not fully painted, even if you glued whatever ramp/doorway it has shut. What if you painted it after assembling it and there's a grey spot in a hard to reach area under a cloak or armor plate? That's not fully painted. What if you painted all the rivets on the armor silver except one? That's not fully painted. What if you paint your army with heavy OSL to make it look like the army is walking at night with the only light source being their own weapons and electronics, the shadows would be black where things are supposed to be colors, that's not fully painted.
Has anyone ever tried to disqualify you or anyone you know for any of those reasons? Honestly? This feels like a bad-faith strawman.
Someone trying to rules-lawyer your compliance to get the points is totally different than the requirement itself. I think we all agree that if someone's like "hey! I can spot a point on this model where the wash didn't reach! no 10 points for you!" you should laugh at them for being That Guy. The rule isn't designed to be applied that way. You should be able to tell within 10 seconds of looking across someone's army whether they qualify. Are all the models painted? Do they each have three colors on them? Did you do something to the bases? If so, you get the points. It doesn't need to be more complicated than that, and rules-lawyering compliance OR non-compliance should be laughed out of the store as bad-faith gaming, just like any other kind of gotcha rules-lawyering is.
Don't play with weasels. A weasel weaseling over paint is no different than a weasel weaseling over any other aspect of the game.
addnid wrote: If you don’t want to paint then pay someone to do it. GW models are not meant to be fielded unpainted. People who are too lazy to paint should just go play a game that doesn’t require painting. 10 points is not much.
There are so many games which don’t require painting anything
+1 with Racerguy
So what's your opinion on really poorly painted stuff?
The guy tried, and perhaps he is starting 40k (we all started out as bad painters, nearly all. I was terrible for a year). I really is completely different than the many many lazy people who just don’t bother. Good or bad, a paint job shows someone at least tried.
addnid wrote: If you don’t want to paint then pay someone to do it. GW models are not meant to be fielded unpainted. People who are too lazy to paint should just go play a game that doesn’t require painting. 10 points is not much.
There are so many games which don’t require painting anything
+1 with Racerguy
You ever priced out how much it costs to get an army painted, even to a basic 3 color standard? It ranges anywhere from equal to or triple the cost of the army. You gonna donate 2 grand to get my army painted because you're an elitist?
Also GW models not 'meant' to fielded painted is utter, laughable garbage. GW doesn't give a feth if you buy their models, eat them, then gak them into an incinerator, as long as you buy them first.
Oh, and one of those games just happens to be called 40k.
BlackLobster wrote: But the 9th edition rules say that models must be painted to a battlefield standard. No where does it define what that means? Is it the old three colour minimum, table top quality or I've spent 10 hours on one guardsman?
"Combat ready means that your models are fully painted and have a detailed or textured base." Page 12, German Grand Tournament 2020 book.
Included are 7 examples, 3 for Contrast and 4 for classic paints. There is no doubt what "combat ready" means.
The examples do jack gak for the definition other than to say that those exact 7 models are 'combat ready'. Also define 'textured'. GW standard black bases have a pebbly texture to them out of the box, does that count? If not, why? It's a texture, the definition just says 'detailed OR textured' GW black bases are textured, why wouldn't they count? What about themed resin bases that aren't painted? They're not part of the model (the definition accidentally defines the model and the base as being distinct from each other) so they don't have to be painted, and even out of the mold gray they're both detailed AND textured. Would they count? If not, why not?
What if you don't paint the inside of a vehicle? That's not fully painted, even if you glued whatever ramp/doorway it has shut. What if you painted it after assembling it and there's a grey spot in a hard to reach area under a cloak or armor plate? That's not fully painted. What if you painted all the rivets on the armor silver except one? That's not fully painted. What if you paint your army with heavy OSL to make it look like the army is walking at night with the only light source being their own weapons and electronics, the shadows would be black where things are supposed to be colors, that's not fully painted.
Has anyone ever tried to disqualify you or anyone you know for any of those reasons? Honestly? This feels like a bad-faith strawman.
Someone trying to rules-lawyer your compliance to get the points is totally different than the requirement itself. I think we all agree that if someone's like "hey! I can spot a point on this model where the wash didn't reach! no 10 points for you!" you should laugh at them for being That Guy. The rule isn't designed to be applied that way. You should be able to tell within 10 seconds of looking across someone's army whether they qualify. Are all the models painted? Do they each have three colors on them? Did you do something to the bases? If so, you get the points. It doesn't need to be more complicated than that, and rules-lawyering compliance OR non-compliance should be laughed out of the store as bad-faith gaming, just like any other kind of gotcha rules-lawyering is.
Don't play with weasels. A weasel weaseling over paint is no different than a weasel weaseling over any other aspect of the game.
It's an inherent flaw in the idealogy. The rule is so poorly defined that if it comes down to those 10 points, there are a dozens ways even 'complete' armies could be disqualified just based on a judicious reading of the rules and strong oratory. If it has to be redefined before every game/event so it's actually applicable, the rule shouldn't exist.
The painting for points thing has already been abused in large tournaments to hand suspicious victories to friendly individuals. So the precedent for abuse is always there.
The complaint that the rule isn't particularly clear is valid - not the weird weasel stuff, but that it's unclear what exactly GW expects. I think that's intentional on GW's part, but they should have been upfront about it. There should be a paragraph in the book that basically says:
"Look, this rule is about making a decent effort, not about results. You can look at our tutorials as an example of the process, but you shouldn't take them as a requirement as to quality. Don't tell someone else their paint-job doesn't measure up because they couldn't color in the lines. This is about process, not results. If someone makes a good faith effort to meet the requirements, they meet the requirements, period. The only reason someone should be denied the 10 points if it it is clear they have not made a real attempt to paint a battle-ready force."
It's an inherent flaw in the idealogy. The rule is so poorly defined that if it comes down to those 10 points, there are a dozens ways even 'complete' armies could be disqualified just based on a judicious reading of the rules and strong oratory. If it has to be redefined before every game/event so it's actually applicable, the rule shouldn't exist.
The painting for points thing has already been abused in large tournaments to hand suspicious victories to friendly individuals. So the precedent for abuse is always there.
So I will take that as a "no, it hasn't ever happened to me or anyone I know."
Don't play with weasels. Especially hypothetical ones. Anyone who would try to weasel you out of your 10 points for any of the nonsense reasons you suggested like not having paint on the inside of your vehicle is not someone you should ever play with period, and if anything you should thank the paint rule for letting you know how toxic they are before you wasted more time on them.
BlackLobster wrote: Outside of a tournament, league or competition match I don't use that rule. It's frankly silly outside of those gaming environments. Someone who has not painted their army or has no desire to paint their army should not be penalised because of it.
They're not being penalised - the player who has put the effort in to achieve the standard is getting a bonus. Subtle difference, but still a difference.
What standard? you can take 2 spray cans and spray them super quick to look like gak and you would get your ten points.
The rule is slowed. It should be up to tournement organizers to say if they want painted armies only or not. That way organizers can, themselves, deem if an army is painted or not, so even if you spray your minis 2 different colors super quick, you would still not be allowed to play because they say no. But the rule is right now that you could just spray super quickly your army or the units that needs to be painted, and they'd look like dog gak, and you would technically be getting your 10 points.
This 10+ points for a painted army incentivizes people to paint their army like garbage just to avoid being penelized. I always take my sweet ass time painting minis because i want them to look good, so why should i be penelized for not painting like an idiot like some does because all they want is to play?
Again i dont show up at a tournement with an unpainted army, never have, never will, but not everything i have is unpainted, and i use unpainted minis outside of competitive plays (because im new and started 8 months ago, which is also why i havent done tournements yet). If some scrub whos played a long time wants to gain 10 points, outside of the a tournement scenario, and say i shouldnt because im unpainted? i will probably pack up my gak and go home because thats just toxic, and clearly, hes one of those types that wants to win at all cost.
Nothing good comes from playing with types like that.
And it doesnt matter if thats the rule because its a stupid rule. If the rule stated that people with blond hair automatically loses 5 points per turn i would also call that a stupid rule and not follow it. I think GW forgets that some of us are new to warhammer, and painting a 2k army takes a lot of time if you dont want them to look like horse gak. We new players dont need this new rule to make the game further unpleasant by making us "technically" lose ten points in casual games.
Luckily ive never met anyone who has even remotely mentioned the 10 points, because the people i play with arent asinine, they're good people. The winner is the guy who played best, not the player who happened to have played the longest and has fully painted armies.
You're welcome to refuse to play people who insist on playing by the rules as written because you don't like them. That's the great thing about a tabletop game - unlike computer games, you can pick and choose whatever rules you want, with the only limitation being that you need to find another player who agrees with you.
That said, I think you'd be behaving just as strangely as they were, because in a casual game, it doesn't matter who technically wins anyway. If they want to "win" because they painted their minis, why would you care? By the same token, it's rather pathetic on their part to insist on it, because why would they care?
If either one of you is refusing to play a game over the application of the painting rule - for or against - it's probably a sign that person may not be cut out for the hobby.
yukishiro1 wrote: You're welcome to refuse to play people who insist on playing by the rules as written because you don't like them. That's the great thing about a tabletop game - unlike computer games, you can pick and choose whatever rules you want, with the only limitation being that you need to find another player who agrees with you.
That said, I think you'd be behaving just as strangely as they were, because in a casual game, it doesn't matter who technically wins anyway. If they want to "win" because they painted their minis, why would you care? By the same token, it's rather pathetic on their part to insist on it, because why would they care?
If either one of you is refusing to play a game over the application of the painting rule - for or against - it's probably a sign that person may not be cut out for the hobby.
If i play a game, be it football, Golf or what ever, warhammer in this case, i want to win. I play for fun, but i have more fun when i win. I would feel sad if i lost most battles. Atm i lose about 60% of them, which i dont mind.
I always play my best, so i can tell myself, that i lost because i was outplayed. I dont bring super armies, i often bring fun armies, but when the minis are down, i do the best i can to win. Which doesnt happen that often, again im new. This is purely from a tactical point of view, because ive never played with anyone before that didnt allow me, and vice versa me allowing him, to go back and undo a mess up. Warhammer is about communication and friendliness, and ive only ever met nice people in the game, and i try to be super nice to others too.
So basically im talking about a scenario ive never been in right now.
anyway im pretty large with most things, but i dont want to "lose" because i lost 10 points to a rule that only benefits him, in that scenario in a casual game.
And i would never claim ten points against someone who has a non painted army. In fact i wouldnt even mention the ten points at all because the rule is stupid.
So yea, there "technically" is a winner and a loser, and i want to win. I dont want to lose because someone wants to try so hard to win that they wanna claim a point advantage before the game even starts.
So you want to win, but you want to play by the rules you like, not the actual rules of the game?
That's fine - again, that's the beauty of a tabletop game, you can refuse to play except by your own version of the rules if you want - but be honest about what you're doing. You are saying that anyone who plays by the real rules of the game is a bad sport who you won't play with, because winning while playing by your own version of the rules is what you want to do, and if they won't play along with that, you don't want to play with them.
You being so bothered by them technically "winning" is pretty much exactly the same as them insisting on technically winning. Both of you are so insistent on winning that you're willing to give up having a fun game because of it. There's no moral high ground there - it's the collision of two WAACs who want to play by different rules.
yukishiro1 wrote: So you want to win, but you want to play by the rules you like, not the actual rules of the game?
That's fine - again, that's the beauty of a tabletop game, you can refuse to play except by your own version of the rules if you want - but be honest about what you're doing. You are saying that anyone who plays by the real rules of the game is a bad sport who you won't play with, because winning while playing by your own version of the rules is what you want to do, and if they won't play along with that, you don't want to play with them.
You being so bothered by them technically "winning" is pretty much exactly the same as them insisting on technically winning. Both of you are so insistent on winning that you're willing to give up having a fun game because of it. There's no moral high ground there - it's the collision of two WAACs who want to play by different rules.
I want to win because i played better in a fair match, he wants to win by a technicality and play an unfair game.
And ive never met anyone so rigid who wanted to win like that, luckily because it would be the last time i ever played said person. Every single person plays this game to win, or at least one wouldnt play with the intention of losing. Even when you bring a foolish army that is most likely going to lose, you still try to win.
But yes, they technically win, but since this would be discussed before the battle begins i would just not accept the battle. Because i dont play with rigid people who cant bend that ONE rule to make the match fair. That one rule, that gives one person, an advantage, so he wins more easily, which isnt even based around his army or anything.
The rule might as well state that if you wear blue jeans or you're a ginger, then you automatically get 10 points, and anyone else gets nothing. Would you follow a rule like that? Maybe you would, i wouldnt. But hey! its in the rules right? so he wouldnt be a weirdo for following it, right? its just the rules.
But yea. if a person wants that 10 points to have a game advantage for no reason so he can win more easily because hes uncertain about his own ability to win, then im not playing him. I wanna play to have fun, but i still do what i can to win. the two are not mutually exclusive. The match should be as fair as possible, so when one decides to not be fair, then the game is put off for me. Just like if you allow your opponent to go back to the psychic phase because he forgot something, and in the next round you forget it, and he wont let you do it? yea. No fairness, and thus, no battle. Although in that case i would finish the game because we already started, but about the 10 points, the game wouldnt have started yet, so i wouldnt accept it at all.
And besides, the mood would just be sour, and i dont really feel like chatting with someone like that, and warhammer takes a few hours. Normally people talk warhammer or other things, and the mood is over all pretty great playing warhammer, but when one wants to not play fair, how could the mood ever be great?
I dont care what they do at a tournement however, i wouldnt complain there. Ive never been to one, and had i joined a tournement and my army wasnt painted, id accept that i lost 10 points. but not for casual games.
I want to win because i played better, he wants to win by a technicality.
And ive never met anyone so rigid who wanted to win like that, luckily because it would be the last time i ever played said person.
They want to win by the actual rules of the game. You want to win by your own version of the rules that removes a rule you don't like and that is disadvantageous to you.
GW obviously disagreed that it's a technicality, since it's in the actual rules of the game. So the other dude just wants to play the actual game; you want to play your own game. It takes some chutzpah to then argue that he's the one being a bad sport for wanting to play by the actual rules of the game, not your made-up version of the rules.
If I had a game against you and you said "ok just heads up ahead of time, I don't play by the painting rules, and if you do, I don't want to play with you because I won't be able to enjoy a game if I technically lose it because of the painting rules," I'm polite so I'd shrug and say "ok, we'll play without those rules if it makes you happy, it doesn't bother me" but I'd note you down as someone who doesn't share my values, and I wouldn't seek you out for a game in future. Not because of your stance on the rule, but because of the "winning is so important to me I'll actually call you the bad sport if you don't go along with my version of the rules, the only impact of which is that my chance of winning is higher."
The rule might as well state that if you wear blue jeans or you're a ginger, then you automatically get 10 points, and anyone else gets nothing. Would you follow a rule like that? Maybe you would, i wouldnt. But hey! its in the rules right? so he wouldnt be a weirdo for following it, right? its just the rules.
But yea. if a person wants that 10 points to have a game advantage for no reason so he can win more easily because hes uncertain about his own ability to win, then im not playing him. I wanna play to have fun, but i still do what i can to win. the two are not mutually exclusive. The match should be as fair as possible, so when one decides to not be fair, then the game is put off for me.
If it's the rules of the game, it's the rules of the game, whether you think they're fair or not. If you want to depart from the rules of the game and refuse to play anyone who doesn't agree to your departure, that's fine. But it's a bit rich to them turn around and say they're the one being stubborn, not you.
Own your desires. You want to win so badly that playing the game as written upsets you to the point where you'd rather not play than play as written. That's ok, assuming you can find someone else who feels the same way you do. So why insist on trying to dress yourself up as the morally superior one?
I prefer to play with painted armies. However, given my current arm situation, if getting a game in means my army is not fully painted, so be it. They can have the points if they want.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Man the effort you people put into defending these laughable rules is amazing.
It's a bad rule. I think lots of the rules in 40k are bad rules; it doesn't mean I announce loudly that anyone who doesn't go along with my version of how the game should be played is a bad sport who I won't play with.
Now if my opponent and I both agree that a given rule is bad and we'd rather play with a modified version of it...awesome! That's what tabletop gaming is all about. The widely-adopted "ruins block LOS on the first floor" is a great example of the community deciding there was a better way to play 8th edition 40k than the rules as written. I'm all for that.
But to insist that my way is not only better but that anyone who refuses to amend the rules in the way I want is a bad sport, while I am not? That's kinda laughable. In this case, it's doubly laughable because the rule doesn't actually have any impact on the actual game. If you think it's silly, just tell yourself afterwards "I actually won that game, because he only won because of the paint score." Refusing to play over a rule that literally doesn't impact the game is weird WAAC behavior, no matter in which direction you're going with it.
Just Tony wrote: Wait, it's actually in the modern rules that you gain 10 VP for having a painted army if your opponent does not?
nah both get 10 points for a painted army. But if you have a painted army and he dont, then you would get 10 points and he wouldnt, and thus you would have an advantage.
Just Tony wrote: Wait, it's actually in the modern rules that you gain 10 VP for having a painted army if your opponent does not?
Well, no. You get 10VP for having a painted army; so do they (I think it's technically at the end of the game, not the start, but it doesn't really matter). But yes, if one player is playing with a painted army and the other player isn't, the matched play rules currently result in the player with the painted army getting 10 more VP in the final scoring.
From page 283 of the Core Rules ('Determine Victor'):
Each player can score a maximum of 45 victory points from primary objectives and a maximum of 45 victory points from secondary objectives (from a maximum of 15 victory points from each of the 3 secondary objectives you have selected), for a total of 90 possible victory points from mission objectives (any excess victory points awarded are discounted). If every model in a player’s army was painted to a Battle Ready standard, that player is awarded a bonus 10 victory points. This gives the player a maximum total score out of 100 victory points.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Man the effort you people put into defending these laughable rules is amazing.
It's a bad rule. I think lots of the rules in 40k are bad rules; it doesn't mean I announce loudly that anyone who doesn't go along with my version of how the game should be played is a bad sport who I won't play with.
Now if my opponent and I both agree that a given rule is bad and we'd rather play with a modified version of it...awesome! That's what tabletop gaming is all about. The widely-adopted "ruins block LOS on the first floor" is a great example of the community deciding there was a better way to play 8th edition 40k than the rules as written. I'm all for that.
But to insist that my way is not only better but that anyone who refuses to amend the rules in the way I want is a bad sport, while I am not? That's kinda laughable. In this case, it's doubly laughable because the rule doesn't actually have any impact on the actual game. If you think it's silly, just tell yourself afterwards "I actually won that game, because he only won because of the paint score." Refusing to play over a rule that literally doesn't impact the game is weird WAAC behavior, no matter in which direction you're going with it.
if you want to have a 10 point lead before the game even starts, then yes, its a bad rule, and yes, you dont play fairly because your opponent doesnt get it. Thus you play with an unfair advantage just because your army is painted.
So yes, i will actually very boldly claim, that the person is wrong, and i am in the right to ditch the rule. I will rarely state this, but in this case, i will.
ANY person, who wants to advocate to have an advantage that makes him win officially, more easily, for no other reason than having a painted army, then that person, should feel bad and i will not play him. I went and said it. He wants to have an unfair advantage? So be it, but it wont be against me.
You said the rule is bad, i say the rule is bad, and people who want to play with an unfair advantage, are not showing the type of sportsmanship that this game deserves. I dont see any other way around it other than calling it unsportsman like and unfair. While it changes nothing gameplay wise, it does change the outcome officially, and thus, it should officially not be played with.
Again, if i play at a tournement, i would shut it, but not in casual games. Casual games are the community battles where we have fun, and no one has fun looking at a smug person who wants to defend getting 10 points to get an easier victory. I sadly have a strong sense of justice for right and wrong, and this isnt right towards newer players who dont have fully painted armies. Everyone should throw this rule out the window in community casual battles.
All rules should be upheld at a tournement, but casual battles? no. absolutely not. And GW should feel ashamed for even making this rule to begin with, it does nothing but to make new players feel bad.
There are dozen or worst rules than this one to goes crusading against (that, btw, is totally not influential in casual games, and already there in basically all the tourneys of some relevance as said multiples time).
You want to play with tokens? Be my guest.l there are cardboard versionof 40k with the same LoS of you need them.
I prefer new gamers to know that painting miniatures now a requirement. We needed decades to finally being able to play painted armies, and some of my friends don't do it even know due to bad habit.
Take them when they're young: write it in the rules.
You are saying the real rules of the game are unfair, and anyone who wants to play by them is playing the game wrong and should feel bad about it.
This is exactly why I would not want to play with you. You are exhibiting exactly the sort of WAAC attitude you claim to be against (except that they actually have the rules on their side, whereas you don't). It's hugely ironic.
I think you will find you have trouble enjoying this hobby if you don't find some way to chill out a bit.
Cybtroll wrote: There are dozen or worst rules than this one to goes crusading against (that, btw, is totally not influential in casual games, and already there in basically all the tourneys of some relevance as said multiples time).
You want to play with tokens? Be my guest.l there are cardboard versionof 40k with the same LoS of you need them.
I prefer new gamers to know that painting miniatures now a requirement. We needed decades to finally being able to play painted armies, and some of my friends don't do it even know due to bad habit.
Take them when they're young: write it in the rules.
what exactly do you want to write in the rules? that being a new player means you must play uphill battles with a -10 point loss because you cant field a 2k painted army because you only started 6 months ago?
How does that NOT drive people OFF this hobby? Where is the community feeling? Wheres the fairness?
yukishiro1 wrote: You are saying the real rules of the game are unfair, and anyone who wants to play by them is playing the game wrong and should feel bad about it.
This is exactly why I would not want to play with you. You are exhibiting exactly the sort of WAAC attitude you claim to be against (except that they actually have the rules on their side, whereas you don't). It's hugely ironic.
I think you will find you have trouble enjoying this hobby if you don't find some way to chill out a bit.
no i dont. Theres literally only one rule i dont follow, and thats that rule. We always play super large, allowing for a lot of mistakes, that includes myself.
I dont have any trouble in this hobby and as ive already stated numberous times, ive never met anyone who even remotely wanted to claim 10 points. All im saying is out of a hypothetical situation that i will honestly most likely never be in.
I know what WAAC people does and ive never done a single one of them. the only thing i have is a sense of fairness, and that rule isnt fair to new players. So if a person, who has played for a long time, feel the need to uphold a rule that makes the game unfair towards a new player, then that isnt a player i wanna play against.
But i havent met said person yet, and ive had a match against maybe 10 different people so far (i havent had 10 matches only, just against maybe 10 different ones). The only time this rule was ever mentioned was when 9th came out so we knew the rule existed, but no one cared about it.
Gadzilla666 wrote: Why are we reopening this can of worms? Is it because Auspex Tactics released a video on this exact subject earlier today?
i didnt know it had been discussed. Im not a long time warhammer player, i was just curious as to what peoples opinion was to that given situation. I had never experienced it myself, i was actually just curious. A lot of weird things that has happened to the general warhammer player, has never happened to me.
Like this situation, as well as having had a bad experience with warhammer. Ive never had one, ive only ever had good experiences and great battles. Sure ive been absolutely trashed and lost by almost turn 2, but never a bad experience per say. So i was just interested in peoples stories and opinions.
Racerguy180 wrote: If you have no desire to paint you're army, why the feth are you playing a game that has painting as part of it?
Maybe you don't like painting. Maybe you can't paint. Maybe you have vision of mobility issues that making painting a pain if not impossible.
Racerguy180 wrote: Go play with some cardboard chits instead, would probably save money.
But what if you like the miniatures.
Yeah, I don't have any more time for the moral preening over "you're bad if you don't paint your miniatures" than the moral preening over "you're bad if you want to play by the rules!"
The great thing about tabletop gaming is you can do whatever you want as long as you find a like-minded group of people. I don't understand the need to insist that anyone who does it differently is wrong and morally inferior.
I like playing with painted armies and prefer to play against people who feel the same way (though I'm super understanding that it takes time, and if someone is in the process of painting an army, I'd be very happy to encourage that by playing them in the meantime even if it's not completely done yet). But if other people like playing with grey plastic - great! More power to them. I hope they have fun too. They aren't worse people for it. There's no moral superiority when it comes to tiny plastic soldiers.
Why should he ask? If his army is fully painted, the rules says he gets those points. That said, I don’t field unpainted models. No reason other than personal pride. If my opponent is unpainted however, I will not accept receiving the 10 points personally as my pride only extends to myself.
Strg Alt wrote: You guys with grey plastic armies better learn how to use a brush.
Will learning how to use a brush also magically fix my eyes?
FWIW, I'm colorblind too, and it's not been any issue for me at all in painting. If you're concerned about how a particular color combination might look to people with normal vision (why would you be, though? it's you who is looking at them! you should paint what looks good to you), there are a bunch of different ways to figure out how it's going to look to other people - color wheels, a pigment chart, just asking other people, etc.
If you don't want to paint because you don't want to paint that's fine, but it'd be a shame if you didn't get into painting because of fears of whether you can do it colorblind (I am assuming we're talking about the common colorblindness varieties, not a completely inability to see color at all - in that case, I can see why you wouldn't want to bother!).
I take a long time to paint because i want my miniatures to look amazing. Next to that i play Orks, and have over 90 boyz. It takes a long time for me to paint, and given i started recently, i cant be expected to have my army painted fully at this point.
Whether people think its because im lazy or dont give a feth, well, i just want to paint my miniatures perfectly. And that takes time. I know some just wanna play and paint them like gak, and cudos to those guys, but im not one of them.
Some people wanna make the argument that i can just paint them fast? thats never gonna happen because i would end up ruining them. Next to that, i have a life outside of warhammer.
Some people seemingly forget that not all of us are long forgotten veterans. Some of us are new players.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Man the effort you people put into defending these laughable rules is amazing.
It's a bad rule. I think lots of the rules in 40k are bad rules; it doesn't mean I announce loudly that anyone who doesn't go along with my version of how the game should be played is a bad sport who I won't play with.
Now if my opponent and I both agree that a given rule is bad and we'd rather play with a modified version of it...awesome! That's what tabletop gaming is all about. The widely-adopted "ruins block LOS on the first floor" is a great example of the community deciding there was a better way to play 8th edition 40k than the rules as written. I'm all for that.
But to insist that my way is not only better but that anyone who refuses to amend the rules in the way I want is a bad sport, while I am not? That's kinda laughable. In this case, it's doubly laughable because the rule doesn't actually have any impact on the actual game. If you think it's silly, just tell yourself afterwards "I actually won that game, because he only won because of the paint score." Refusing to play over a rule that literally doesn't impact the game is weird WAAC behavior, no matter in which direction you're going with it.
if you want to have a 10 point lead before the game even starts, then yes, its a bad rule, and yes, you dont play fairly because your opponent doesnt get it. Thus you play with an unfair advantage just because your army is painted.
So yes, i will actually very boldly claim, that the person is wrong, and i am in the right to ditch the rule. I will rarely state this, but in this case, i will.
ANY person, who wants to advocate to have an advantage that makes him win officially, more easily, for no other reason than having a painted army, then that person, should feel bad and i will not play him. I went and said it. He wants to have an unfair advantage? So be it, but it wont be against me.
I agree on being able to not use any rule you want as long as the person you're playing with agrees and vice-versa.
I've never used this rule due to it being stupid (amongst several others), but if that is a rule you agree to before the game(i.e. by not stating otherwise beforehand) tough gak.
Officially its in the matched play rules, easy way to not using it....don't play matched play rules then.
I do question you as to how taking the time to paint your army is EASIER than not. As that statement makes absolutely zero sense.
BlackLobster wrote: Outside of a tournament, league or competition match I don't use that rule. It's frankly silly outside of those gaming environments. Someone who has not painted their army or has no desire to paint their army should not be penalised because of it.
They're not being penalised - the player who has put the effort in to achieve the standard is getting a bonus. Subtle difference, but still a difference.
What standard? you can take 2 spray cans and spray them super quick to look like gak and you would get your ten points.
The rule is slowed. It should be up to tournement organizers to say if they want painted armies only or not. That way organizers can, themselves, deem if an army is painted or not, so even if you spray your minis 2 different colors super quick, you would still not be allowed to play because they say no. But the rule is right now that you could just spray super quickly your army or the units that needs to be painted, and they'd look like dog gak, and you would technically be getting your 10 points.
This 10+ points for a painted army incentivizes people to paint their army like garbage just to avoid being penelized. I always take my sweet ass time painting minis because i want them to look good, so why should i be penelized for not painting like an idiot like some does because all they want is to play?
Again i dont show up at a tournement with an unpainted army, never have, never will, but not everything i have is unpainted, and i use unpainted minis outside of competitive plays (because im new and started 8 months ago, which is also why i havent done tournements yet). If some scrub whos played a long time wants to gain 10 points, outside of the a tournement scenario, and say i shouldnt because im unpainted? i will probably pack up my gak and go home because thats just toxic, and clearly, hes one of those types that wants to win at all cost.
Nothing good comes from playing with types like that.
Luckily ive never met anyone who has even remotely mentioned the 10 points, because the people i play with arent asinine, they're good people. The winner is the guy who played best, not the player who happened to have played the longest and has fully painted armies.
I was wondering what you meant by "slow" until I quoted you and saw what you actually wrote. And calling your imaginary opponent a scrub for taking the 10VP, followed by you calling them toxic? Maybe look in the mirror? Its seems that you are the one who really wants to win, including getting mad at someone playing by the rules. I think you need to chill, especially if you've never actually encountered the situation. You laid down a short post asking for opinion when you clearly had a rant locked and loaded.
In any case it's not two spray cans and done - it's Battle Ready.
You really don't need to worry. If its a casual game then why are you all twisted about 10VP? The sporting thing to do is simply offer the 10VP at the start of the game if your opponent's army is fully painted and yours is not. More likely than not he'll chuckle and say to forget it. If he takes it - oh well. Do you really worry about the score? If its a tourney then get the scoring rubric before the event and play to it without calling other players toxic for following the tourney scoring rules.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Man the effort you people put into defending these laughable rules is amazing.
It's a bad rule. I think lots of the rules in 40k are bad rules; it doesn't mean I announce loudly that anyone who doesn't go along with my version of how the game should be played is a bad sport who I won't play with.
Now if my opponent and I both agree that a given rule is bad and we'd rather play with a modified version of it...awesome! That's what tabletop gaming is all about. The widely-adopted "ruins block LOS on the first floor" is a great example of the community deciding there was a better way to play 8th edition 40k than the rules as written. I'm all for that.
But to insist that my way is not only better but that anyone who refuses to amend the rules in the way I want is a bad sport, while I am not? That's kinda laughable. In this case, it's doubly laughable because the rule doesn't actually have any impact on the actual game. If you think it's silly, just tell yourself afterwards "I actually won that game, because he only won because of the paint score." Refusing to play over a rule that literally doesn't impact the game is weird WAAC behavior, no matter in which direction you're going with it.
if you want to have a 10 point lead before the game even starts, then yes, its a bad rule, and yes, you dont play fairly because your opponent doesnt get it. Thus you play with an unfair advantage just because your army is painted.
So yes, i will actually very boldly claim, that the person is wrong, and i am in the right to ditch the rule. I will rarely state this, but in this case, i will.
ANY person, who wants to advocate to have an advantage that makes him win officially, more easily, for no other reason than having a painted army, then that person, should feel bad and i will not play him. I went and said it. He wants to have an unfair advantage? So be it, but it wont be against me.
I agree on being able to not use any rule you want as long as the person you're playing with agrees and vice-versa.
I've never used this rule due to it being stupid (amongst several others), but if that is a rule you agree to before the game(i.e. by not stating otherwise beforehand) tough gak.
Officially its in the matched play rules, easy way to not using it....don't play matched play rules then.
I do question you as to how taking the time to paint your army is EASIER than not. As that statement makes absolutely zero sense.
mate... i havent even played warhammer 40k for a year and i intend to put my miniatures on display, and i collect orks, not some silly space marine army that has few models. I have over 90 Boyz, and i started out going for a green tide army.
I have a lot of models, so given the small amount of time ive been doing the warhammer tabletop hobby, there simply hasnt been time for me to paint my entire army.
Can i paint it super easy so they look like trash? Yes. Do i want to? no. Because i intend to put them in a display glass, so i make them look perfect. perfect takes time and cant be rushed. Could i paint more than what i do right now? Sure, but i have a life outside of warhammer. and a job. Its a hobby, not a demand.
I paint when i have time and i feel like it. Right now im painting a gargantuan Squiggoth, that thing is massive and takes a lot of time to paint too.
I also have killa kanz thats not painted yet, as well as around 30 boyz.
I have many things that arent painted yet, because ive accumulated a lot of models within small amount of time. Thats really all there is to it. Just painting my Ghazzy alone took a ton of time because i wanted him to be perfect. I take pride in my miniatures, they dont deserve to be rushed.
yukishiro1 wrote: FWIW, I'm colorblind too, and it's not been any issue for me at all in painting. If you're concerned about how a particular color combination might look to people with normal vision (why would you be, though? it's you who is looking at them! you should paint what looks good to you), there are a bunch of different ways to figure out how it's going to look to other people - color wheels, a pigment chart, just asking other people, etc.
If you don't want to paint because you don't want to paint that's fine, but it'd be a shame if you didn't get into painting because of fears of whether you can do it colorblind (I am assuming we're talking about the common colorblindness varieties, not a completely inability to see color at all - in that case, I can see why you wouldn't want to bother!).
You might want to go back and re-read what I wrote. It wasn't just colourblindness.
I prefer new gamers to know that painting miniatures now a requirement. We needed decades to finally being able to play painted armies, and some of my friends don't do it even know due to bad habit.
Take them when they're young: write it in the rules.
You should go and reread the core book again. The literal first page after the table of contents makes it explicitly clear that painting is not a requirement.
I prefer new gamers to know that painting miniatures now a requirement. We needed decades to finally being able to play painted armies, and some of my friends don't do it even know due to bad habit.
Take them when they're young: write it in the rules.
You should go and reread the core book again. The literal first page after the table of contents makes it explicitly clear that painting is not a requirement.
this. Though thats a bit contradictive of the whole 10 points when painted
Tamwulf wrote:For garage play? Kitchen table play? The "Hey! I see you have a 40K army, wanna game?" games? Why are you tracking points anyways? Who cares?
You'd be surprised at how many people treat every game like a tournament game because the treat every pick up game as if training for the next tournament. When I first started collecting 40K, getting a game could be hard since I didn't have an army at tournament level size. It was only when someone didn't mind goofing off that I could get one in.
Beardedragon wrote: Have you guys ever played a battle, maybe just a non competitive battle, in which your opponent wanted his 10 points for having painted miniatures, where as you didnt have a fully painted army?
I have never had this happen to me, but i was curious if you guys had met people that was adamant in him getting his 10 points just because, so he would have an advantage of winning on points.
Edit: i really meant in a non competitive situation, so non tournements here. I would not show up to a tournement with an unpainted army myself.
Yes, I give it to them if theyre painted. I've lost like three games this edition by less than the 10 points my opponent got that I didn't.
In all honesty, if someone wanted to stickler for that 10 points I'd do them one better, I'd give them the win. I'd play it out and even if I was crushing them utterly, I'd give them the game win.
In the end, it doesn't matter, if I won it, I won it. I can say they did, doesn't change the fact. If someone wants the win that much it obviously means way more to them than it ever will to me.
yukishiro1 wrote: FWIW, I'm colorblind too, and it's not been any issue for me at all in painting. If you're concerned about how a particular color combination might look to people with normal vision (why would you be, though? it's you who is looking at them! you should paint what looks good to you), there are a bunch of different ways to figure out how it's going to look to other people - color wheels, a pigment chart, just asking other people, etc.
If you don't want to paint because you don't want to paint that's fine, but it'd be a shame if you didn't get into painting because of fears of whether you can do it colorblind (I am assuming we're talking about the common colorblindness varieties, not a completely inability to see color at all - in that case, I can see why you wouldn't want to bother!).
You might want to go back and re-read what I wrote. It wasn't just colourblindness.
I did read what you wrote. I wasn't trying to be critical at all, I was trying to make clear that being colorblind isn't something you need to think is a reason why you can't paint. If you don't want to paint anyway or you have other reasons why it's difficult for you, I'm not judging you for it or those reasons.
They're entitled to claim the points, but I can't say I'm going to be in a hurry to play them again if they make a big deal of it.
I won't play an army until it's painted personally, so it's moot, but if you're playing casually, it's purely for fun. It's not fun to spend time at a board with somebody who thinks like this; I will not enjoy their company. I'd sooner play against somebody with "Tactical Marine" written on a load of bottle caps than a guy I've seen try to lawyer himself a win from insufficiently colourdy army men.
We had a huge debate about this 10 points awhile back now. I don't think the lines changed. Some people did have opinions moved during the talk and for that I think it was a win.
At this point, going over and over on if its a penalty or not or who will hold people to it or not isn't anything of importance. It's all in how you view it, and if its a bonus or a penalty is more a matter of opinion, in my opinion of course.
For the record, I think its a penalty to unpainted armies. However, if you won the game and lost to pain you'd need to be a real odd duck to feel like you won, because of paint. Feels like a victory you'd give a new player or a kid just starting out so they'd feel like they won even if it was a hard fought loss.
For that, the 10 points for paint is a good thing. Trying to do it just to squeak a win out of a loss just feels gamey and I'd like to think most fair minded folks wouldn't do it.
Cynista wrote: If you lost by a couple of points against a grey plastic army, you'd want your free 10 points as well.
It takes less time to spray and dip a space marine army than it does to put the models together. Sure, they'll look unfinished or just bad. But painted is painted, anything is better than grey plastic.
What if the person on the other side of the table disagrees with you?
Then you're both chumps if you let something so irrelevant get in the way of having a game. It's so silly, because the rule doesn't actually impact the way the game is played in any way. You can play by your rules and say "I won that game by so many points!" and he can play by his and say "No, I won that game by so many points!" and it doesn't matter if you disagree. You can both have won in your own heads.
yukishiro1 wrote: There's people who can't put the miniatures together, too. So clearly if someone shows up with a bunch of empty bases with maybe a leg here and there glued on, that shouldn't be a big deal either, right?
It hasn't been, any of the times I've encountered armies like that. Hell, my first 6th edition tournament included a game against an army that featured a basecoated Land Raider Crusader with no weapons and a hull held together with rubber bands. It didn't actually have an impact on the game, which was an extremely enjoyable one regardless of his army only being half finished.
I mean, I prefer to play against armies that are assembled and nicely painted... but I also accept that this is merely my preference, and I'd rather just get on with playing the game rather than stressing over whether or not a potential opponent has put in an amount of effort to army building that I personally deem acceptable.
So far as the rule in question goes, in the situation given in the OP, absolutely he could have the points, in the rare situation where I showed up with an unpainted army, because that's the rule. But it's a stupid rule, and I wouldn't enforce it on an opponent outside of a tournament that had specified that it was in use.
Tournament play yes I would want the points open play I probably wouldn’t care unless the person is a jerk or just a Win at all costs player than I’m taking those 10 points. I myself have many units that aren’t painted I see it as a way to run those and know I’m on equal footing.
It is only a technical win. I can't understand why someone would want to win in that manner but who cares. Also it isn't a punishment to reward someone for having a painted army. If you do the work, you get the reward.
People don't generally come to internet forums to not post. If you don't like what someone else writes, usually the best choice is just not to rise to the bait.
At least prime the army...... takes me like an hour or two to prime a 2K point army and to paint it I’ll get about 45 min to 1 hour. And painting not that much time 30-60 min a night with tricks I’ve seen an army painted up in a few months.
Casualty wrote: They're entitled to claim the points, but I can't say I'm going to be in a hurry to play them again if they make a big deal of it.
With the big fuss that the OP is making that he's in an unfair situation and so on would be one that I wouldn't be in a rush to play against again either.
I'm probably one of the most lazy gamers in my group, that has been playing with grey hordes for YEARS (I also have painted armies but normally I paint them for a big tournament in 3-5 days and I end up so sick of them that stop playing it and jump on the next grey army) but I would never try to justify me.
This game is better with two painted armies in a nice table. For every person involved. But we are all adults here. We can chose when and with who whe play.
I never had an unpainted army. I didn't really care, but since I played at GW stores, the managers tended to enforce that rule to get people to buy paint.
The only time it was really 'too much' to me is when somebody started using tokens in place of some units. I would rather go play a WW2 wargame or something at that point, half the fun is how cool the army looks! Okay it's most of the fun!
also, ten points is like... a commander gets one more piece of wargear, right?
Seems fitting to me to grant an army with full regalia a non-shorted budget
It’s a bad rule that allmost always ends up in a discussion of my ability to paint, game is already hard with there trash rule writing without discussion of my disability’s as well on top of that.
yukishiro1 wrote: Then you're both chumps if you let something so irrelevant get in the way of having a game. It's so silly, because the rule doesn't actually impact the way the game is played in any way. You can play by your rules and say "I won that game by so many points!" and he can play by his and say "No, I won that game by so many points!" and it doesn't matter if you disagree. You can both have won in your own heads.
Or you could just have a standing house rule that you aren't using the 10pt paint rule.
Saves alot of trouble.
yukishiro1 wrote: Then you're both chumps if you let something so irrelevant get in the way of having a game. It's so silly, because the rule doesn't actually impact the way the game is played in any way. You can play by your rules and say "I won that game by so many points!" and he can play by his and say "No, I won that game by so many points!" and it doesn't matter if you disagree. You can both have won in your own heads.
Or you could just have a standing house rule that you aren't using the 10pt paint rule.
Saves alot of trouble.
Sure. Or that it does apply. People should absolutely play the game they want to play, they just shouldn't get all morally righteous about how if anyone wants to play a different way, they're inferior and should feel bad.
yukishiro1 wrote: Then you're both chumps if you let something so irrelevant get in the way of having a game. It's so silly, because the rule doesn't actually impact the way the game is played in any way. You can play by your rules and say "I won that game by so many points!" and he can play by his and say "No, I won that game by so many points!" and it doesn't matter if you disagree. You can both have won in your own heads.
Or you could just have a standing house rule that you aren't using the 10pt paint rule.
Saves alot of trouble.
Sure. Or that it does apply. People should absolutely play the game they want to play, they just shouldn't get all morally righteous about how if anyone wants to play a different way, they're inferior and should feel bad.
The rule is a feel bad rule, groups that really wanted all painted already had means to do that. And groups that had people that did not paint for one reason or many could talk to them. This is a passive way to avoid talking about it and putting pressure on players to avoid that interaction.
Tournaments already had ways to deal with it, including more positive ways. Like with a lot of these things, the people it does effect the most are left picking up the peace’s and having to work things out. Really don’t need more rules that support dismissive behaviour if GW won’t put in the effort to reinforce positive use of there rules.
The rule is a feel bad rule, groups that really wanted all painted already had means to do that. And groups that had people that did not paint for one reason or many could talk to them. This is a passive way to avoid talking about it and putting pressure on players to avoid that interaction.
Tournaments already had ways to deal with it, including more positive ways. Like with a lot of these things, the people it does effect the most are left picking up the peace’s and having to work things out. Really don’t need more rules that support dismissive behaviour if GW won’t put in the effort to reinforce positive use of there rules.
Basically this. The game is built upon and is entirely dependent on social skills to come to a reasonable agreement in regards to the match being played and any adjustments to rules or conditions for the game to ensure an enjoyable experience for all parties. This being a rule that has an impact on gameplay is putting gasoline next to a fire as it only serves as justification to start up trouble for people who are willing to put win over fun or lack the ability to connect with others to perhaps understand that not everyone has the means or desire to have a fully painted army.
For the majority of player interactions its a non issue because people have a degree of emotional maturity and empathy for others to understand that penalizing or gaining an advantage because of a model's paint status is not in the spirit of the game. The issue is that GW should know that a non insignificant portion of the 40k community lack these social skills and so it just gives them justification for anti fun behavior. They only have to look at comments on their facebook page to see examples of these sorts of people.
I mean it's 100% a garbage rule. But it's a core rule so you need to agree to ignore it or it's in effect. That's really all there is to it. You're free to agree to ignore it In a friendly game because it's stupid, but if you don't clear that with your opponent beforehand they are completely within their rights to claim +10 VP for a fully painted army.
Originally, miniatures wargames were a hobby mix of history, chess, and model train sets.
Now, people want a collectible card game with prepainted plastic models.
And GW has added a rule to remind people what sort of hobby they have chosen.
No doubt, the whiners will get their wish and GW will sell pre painted models to meet their microwave expectations.
Sans disability, grey plastic is not going to get me to a table. It is not the hobby that I chose. Though this hobby is slowly being replaced with something different, I choose not to engage with those who demand it.
Again, if I ever gamed without paint on models, I would insist that my opponent get the points for painting because it is an integral part of the hobby.
jeff white wrote: Originally, miniatures wargames were a hobby mix of history, chess, and model train sets.
Now, people want a collectible card game with prepainted plastic models.
And GW has added a rule to remind people what sort of hobby they have chosen.
No doubt, the whiners will get their wish and GW will sell pre painted models to meet their microwave expectations.
Sans disability, grey plastic is not going to get me to a table. It is not the hobby that I chose. Though this hobby is slowly being replaced with something different, I choose not to engage with those who demand it.
Again, if I ever gamed without paint on models, I would insist that my opponent get the points for painting because it is an integral part of the hobby.
I have a disability, this rule has only been used as a way to make me feal worse about this “hobby”of GW. I don’t think I have ever seen a positive use of the rule, as all places have had better ways to incentivise it. In a time where a lot of army’s are being made more horde like as well.
All the historical groups I have play with have been extremely helpful and assisted in the hobby Parts I struggle with, GW created a toxic rule that has been used to shame me. Even on this forum.
The discussions of painting in the hobby as a positive and ways to get people to paint has mostly dry up, people don’t talk as much about it due to this rule as it allways comes back to the rule. Rather than the positive of the hobby itself.
It’s created more toxicity over painting than ever I think, and I have to wonder if that’s intended as part of the hobby.
It’s even been used as a way to Shane and dismiss people who want to take the game itself more serious with less emphasis on the hobby of painting.
I like to paint, I enjoy it a lot when I can. But it will take me a very long time to paint and this rule just makes me enjoy it less. You had all the tools before, GW has just codified the worst of the behaviour.
Beardedragon wrote: Have you guys ever played a battle, maybe just a non competitive battle, in which your opponent wanted his 10 points for having painted miniatures, where as you didnt have a fully painted army?
I have never had this happen to me, but i was curious if you guys had met people that was adamant in him getting his 10 points just because, so he would have an advantage of winning on points.
Edit: i really meant in a non competitive situation, so non tournements here. I would not show up to a tournement with an unpainted army myself.
No. It's asinine and likely would get the asking player laughed out of my LGS. None one gets to dictate how others have fun with their hobby. If they're not interested in painting and only want to play, that is 100% fine.
The implementation of the rule is bad and incentivizes bad behavior - painting badly to get the points, instead of taking the time to do a better job. I don't think anybody here disagrees with that.
I frequently have idiots making jokes about how I don't deserve the 10 points for having black bases.
If you want to game the system, just spray primer on you miniatures and put a dot of armageddon dust on the base for texture. 10VP archived. If someone argues, you always find a spot on at least one miniature which isn't primed to deny them 10 VP. Stupid rules deserve stupid solution.
i keep seeing people mention three colors along with battle ready as the standard. do you need three colors to be considered battle ready or is there a different number of colors required to be considered battle ready?
yukishiro1 wrote: The implementation of the rule is bad and incentivizes bad behavior - painting badly to get the points, instead of taking the time to do a better job. I don't think anybody here disagrees with that.
A bold statement, Sir! Especially considering the platform! :-)
I’ll play against unpainted armies, I’ll take the 10 points. Unless we agree to disregard the rule. Remember, short of tournament-like conditions, it’s _your_ game. If you both agree to add/subtract something, it’s not as if the rule police revoke your gaming license :-)
I do remember the suggestion being made early on in the 9th release, that if the 10pts offends you, include an unpainted piece in your army?
If you care, get your army painted. And yes, if I played with an unpainted army and my opponent wants their 10 points, they can have them, they are deserved, imo.
Meh, guys like this are either WAAC offs or they just don't get the idea that some people do not have the time to paint every new model to a decent standard and prefer to take longer to get them all looking decently then slopcoat them to appease people like him.
Peterhausenn wrote: i keep seeing people mention three colors along with battle ready as the standard. do you need three colors to be considered battle ready or is there a different number of colors required to be considered battle ready?
Battle ready only requires your model to be "fully painted with a detailed or textured base". Primed and some technical paint with texture on the base fulfill that requirement.
jeff white wrote:Again, if I ever gamed without paint on models, I would insist that my opponent get the points for painting because it is an integral part of the hobby.
The problem is, not everyone is here for the hobby, just the game. To me, the game and the hobby are two separate considerations.
That being said, I did prefer to have as much painted of my army painted as schedule generally permitted. One of the other reasons I had few games.
" No paint on my model ?..you want 10 points ?..At the bottom of this pit you'll find plenty of points...THIS...IS...SPARTA !!! " * Kicks opponent into deep pit to find the 10 points*
Insectum7 wrote: If you care, get your army painted. And yes, if I played with an unpainted army and my opponent wants their 10 points, they can have them, they are deserved, imo.
Why assume that the reason is that people don’t care? If people could just paint up a army most probably would just like that.
It’s this ignoring of the possible reasons that make this rule so toxic.
I ignore that rule. I mean I'd never claim 10 points if my army is 100% battle ready and the opponent's one isn't, and for the same reason I'd expect tolerance from my opponents if I bring unpainted models. Playing in a friendly meta helps, here no one cares about those 10 points.
Points that have nothing to do with the actual game.
The concept of "battle ready" isn't really objective. I've seen armies that were allowed in tournaments, so 100% battle ready, that really looked like gak and mostly painted in a single colour, very distant from the "battle ready" examples you see from GW pictures. IMHO plastic grey armies look better than badly painted ones, even if by the book the latter are considered battle ready.
Playing casually, no - no paint points for you. I'd probably not even play such a person if they continued to push or comment on it.
It takes time to these things assembled and painted, and because of a variety of reasons I actually still have some models all the way back to RT that are still raw metal or maybe just primed and forgotten about.
Now granted, whenever I can, I reach for what I do have painted, but sometimes something may be so new (or extremely old and untried) I haven't finished it yet, but I'd like to try it out on the battlefield - more often than not to see which loadout I want to finalize it with.
Easiest way to deny the opponent the 10 points is to "accidentally" knock one model off their base. Oops, not battle ready anymore! Sorry, i'm clumsy, my bad, but them's the rules!
Unless they were a close friend, wanting to play their army before it was finished (and I would still expect at least it to be primed, and it would be a one off) I would refuse games against unpainted armies unless there was an exceptional reason for it not being painted, such as the person playing it could not paint the army for reason of disability.
I have chosen to play and engage in the hobby how it is intended, not the I just want to play competitive and have the latest toys in the meta version of the game. If you turn up to play with an unpainted army, I think it personally says a hell of a lot...
Now, would I be aggrieved about you playing and others accepting, no, but I just personally would choose not to play against you and I wouldn't. I've spoke in other threads about the spectacle of the game being important to me, how the game looks and the battlefield looks, unpainted armies don't fulfil that criteria for me.
That is me, my opinion and I'm sure some would be unhappy with it, but that's okay, I'd honestly prefer not to play a game than play against an unpainted army.
vict0988 wrote: This is just another way that 9th is for narrative players first. Am I supposed to not allow SM to use Oath of Moment either?
I don't think 40k has been more angled toward competitive players than 9th is since I started in 5th.
In my experience most people who don't paint their armies haven't done it not because they can't, but because they don't want to/don't care.
*of course I know some people who genuinely do have more difficulty painting.
The 10pts rule is intended to give competitive players a reason to care as well.
vict0988 wrote: This is just another way that 9th is for narrative players first. Am I supposed to not allow SM to use Oath of Moment either?
I don't think 40k has been more angled toward competitive players than 9th is since I started in 5th.
In my experience most people who don't paint their armies haven't done it not because they can't, but because they don't want to/don't care. *of course I know some people who genuinely do have more difficulty painting.
The 10pts rule is intended to give competitive players a reason to care as well.
Let's face it, there is a core of players who won't paint the army because they do not want to impede the reselling price.
vict0988 wrote: This is just another way that 9th is for narrative players first. Am I supposed to not allow SM to use Oath of Moment either?
I don't think 40k has been more angled toward competitive players than 9th is since I started in 5th.
In my experience most people who don't paint their armies haven't done it not because they can't, but because they don't want to/don't care. *of course I know some people who genuinely do have more difficulty painting.
The 10pts rule is intended to give competitive players a reason to care as well.
Let's face it, there is a core of players who won't paint the army because they do not want to impede the reselling price.
Maybe, that's actually something I had never even considered.
Selling my models is like selling off one of my children, it just didn't occur to me.
vict0988 wrote: This is just another way that 9th is for narrative players first. Am I supposed to not allow SM to use Oath of Moment either?
I don't think 40k has been more angled toward competitive players than 9th is since I started in 5th.
In my experience most people who don't paint their armies haven't done it not because they can't, but because they don't want to/don't care. *of course I know some people who genuinely do have more difficulty painting.
The 10pts rule is intended to give competitive players a reason to care as well.
Let's face it, there is a core of players who won't paint the army because they do not want to impede the reselling price.
Maybe, that's actually something I had never even considered.
Selling my models is like selling off one of my children, it just didn't occur to me.
It's expensive to keep up with the meta... I find it crazy but people legit switch armies based on what is the current flavour.
EDIT: I'm probably coming across as condescending here, again, whatever people do with their own money, models is their business, I just personally won't play against them. Though, the specific sub set I am talking about above are most likely within the serious competitive crowd anyway and that isn't my thing either, it would be a pointless game for both most likely (unless they are looking to wrack up some easy wins for their record).
vict0988 wrote: This is just another way that 9th is for narrative players first. Am I supposed to not allow SM to use Oath of Moment either?
I don't think 40k has been more angled toward competitive players than 9th is since I started in 5th.
In my experience most people who don't paint their armies haven't done it not because they can't, but because they don't want to/don't care. *of course I know some people who genuinely do have more difficulty painting. The 10pts rule is intended to give competitive players a reason to care as well.
Let's face it, there is a core of players who won't paint the army because they do not want to impede the reselling price.
Maybe, that's actually something I had never even considered. Selling my models is like selling off one of my children, it just didn't occur to me.
This hobby is broad. -Building -Painting -Playing -lore related activities.
It works as a holistic experience, just as much as it works for a collector, as it works for a lore nerd as it works for a player.
The rule IS bad from that perspective as it tells people that only want to play within that universe that they "did it wrong and get "punished" for it". Also the standard implemented is questionable, as someone that has managed to destroy due to clumsiness models via basing it is nonsense, hence why i understand perfectly jids issues with someone complaining in a "whell ackshually" manner against the black bases. Also the minimal standards don't help for the visuals as pointed out allready by another poster. And it impedes on resell value.
I happen to like the hobby holistically but i think a painting guide, conversion and build tips in article form would go a longer and better way to improve the visuals of the hobby then the minimal rule application.
endlesswaltz123 wrote: Unless they were a close friend, wanting to play their army before it was finished (and I would still expect at least it to be primed, and it would be a one off) I would refuse games against unpainted armies unless there was an exceptional reason for it not being painted, such as the person playing it could not paint the army for reason of disability.
I have chosen to play and engage in the hobby how it is intended, not the I just want to play competitive and have the latest toys in the meta version of the game. If you turn up to play with an unpainted army, I think it personally says a hell of a lot...
Now, would I be aggrieved about you playing and others accepting, no, but I just personally would choose not to play against you and I wouldn't. I've spoke in other threads about the spectacle of the game being important to me, how the game looks and the battlefield looks, unpainted armies don't fulfil that criteria for me.
That is me, my opinion and I'm sure some would be unhappy with it, but that's okay, I'd honestly prefer not to play a game than play against an unpainted army.
I think this is fair, if players want fully painted then that is great. We have fully painted narrative campaigns, I really enjoy running them for people.
The big issue this rule has is it mostly takes away the discussion, it forces it as a situation when a lot of people’s reason may not be visible.
I have had people question my painting ability as not being able to walk shouldn’t stop me from painting, the thing is I can walk. I use assistance for long periods out for the same reason I cannot paint. Half the days I cannot even hold a miniature when I want one, painting is completely out of the question most days. But I love painting, it’s a importent part of my hobby that this rule effects negatively.
Before this rule, there was painting jokes all the time and people understood and where playful about it, no pressure and only tournaments had rules implemented for it.
After, well it’s been a lot worse. It sells a lot of paint probably so GW won’t care about the community damage it causes unless it causes them to have to deal with it.
The moment a rule in a game causes people to have to bring external disability’s or issues into the game, then it’s a bad rule. It’s the same as not being able to grow a beard in Age of Sigmar, possibly worse as at least we can all roll our eyes at that and call GW a little daft for the joke. But this causes damage in the way that people have taken to the discussion surrounding it.
endlesswaltz123 wrote: Unless they were a close friend, wanting to play their army before it was finished (and I would still expect at least it to be primed, and it would be a one off) I would refuse games against unpainted armies unless there was an exceptional reason for it not being painted, such as the person playing it could not paint the army for reason of disability.
I have chosen to play and engage in the hobby how it is intended, not the I just want to play competitive and have the latest toys in the meta version of the game. If you turn up to play with an unpainted army, I think it personally says a hell of a lot...
Now, would I be aggrieved about you playing and others accepting, no, but I just personally would choose not to play against you and I wouldn't. I've spoke in other threads about the spectacle of the game being important to me, how the game looks and the battlefield looks, unpainted armies don't fulfil that criteria for me.
That is me, my opinion and I'm sure some would be unhappy with it, but that's okay, I'd honestly prefer not to play a game than play against an unpainted army.
I think this is fair, if players want fully painted then that is great. We have fully painted narrative campaigns, I really enjoy running them for people.
The big issue this rule has is it mostly takes away the discussion, it forces it as a situation when a lot of people’s reason may not be visible.
I have had people question my painting ability as not being able to walk shouldn’t stop me from painting, the thing is I can walk. I use assistance for long periods out for the same reason I cannot paint. Half the days I cannot even hold a miniature when I want one, painting is completely out of the question most days. But I love painting, it’s a importent part of my hobby that this rule effects negatively.
Before this rule, there was painting jokes all the time and people understood and where playful about it, no pressure and only tournaments had rules implemented for it.
After, well it’s been a lot worse. It sells a lot of paint probably so GW won’t care about the community damage it causes unless it causes them to have to deal with it.
The moment a rule in a game causes people to have to bring external disability’s or issues into the game, then it’s a bad rule. It’s the same as not being able to grow a beard in Age of Sigmar, possibly worse as at least we can all roll our eyes at that and call GW a little daft for the joke. But this causes damage in the way that people have taken to the discussion surrounding it.
Not that I'm the best painter in the world by any means, but if there was a person in a situation similar to yours, if you provide the paint, I don't mind doing my bit and painting some up for you. I don't want to limit yourself if you wanted to do all the painting yourself, good for you, but if you want a hand and want to show me your method so it's consistent then fine. It's a hobby, it should be a community and it should be social, help people out if you can.
Again, that's just me, I wouldn't expect everyone to engage in the hobby in the same way.
endlesswaltz123 wrote: Unless they were a close friend, wanting to play their army before it was finished (and I would still expect at least it to be primed, and it would be a one off) I would refuse games against unpainted armies unless there was an exceptional reason for it not being painted, such as the person playing it could not paint the army for reason of disability.
I have chosen to play and engage in the hobby how it is intended, not the I just want to play competitive and have the latest toys in the meta version of the game. If you turn up to play with an unpainted army, I think it personally says a hell of a lot...
Now, would I be aggrieved about you playing and others accepting, no, but I just personally would choose not to play against you and I wouldn't. I've spoke in other threads about the spectacle of the game being important to me, how the game looks and the battlefield looks, unpainted armies don't fulfil that criteria for me.
That is me, my opinion and I'm sure some would be unhappy with it, but that's okay, I'd honestly prefer not to play a game than play against an unpainted army.
So.. when you just started out this hobby, did you have a fully painted army before you engaged in combat? Did your first 2k point army uphold the full standard of being painted at the time? with no models, being unpainted, before you used them in combat? surely you upheld yourself to the standards you put on to others.
Because newer players who just started, will obviously not have a fully painted army in most situations
endlesswaltz123 wrote: Unless they were a close friend, wanting to play their army before it was finished (and I would still expect at least it to be primed, and it would be a one off) I would refuse games against unpainted armies unless there was an exceptional reason for it not being painted, such as the person playing it could not paint the army for reason of disability.
I have chosen to play and engage in the hobby how it is intended, not the I just want to play competitive and have the latest toys in the meta version of the game. If you turn up to play with an unpainted army, I think it personally says a hell of a lot...
Now, would I be aggrieved about you playing and others accepting, no, but I just personally would choose not to play against you and I wouldn't. I've spoke in other threads about the spectacle of the game being important to me, how the game looks and the battlefield looks, unpainted armies don't fulfil that criteria for me.
That is me, my opinion and I'm sure some would be unhappy with it, but that's okay, I'd honestly prefer not to play a game than play against an unpainted army.
So.. when you just started out this hobby, did you have a fully painted army before you engaged in combat? Did your first 2k point army uphold the full standard of being painted at the time?
Because newer players who just started, will obviously not have a fully painted army in most situations
Yeah, I painted my army before playing. I also built up slowly and didn't play 2000pts straight away. This was in 1997 though, when a 2000pt army could be very small in 2nd edition anyway but still, painted before playing, that was the rules in the GW shop.
I mean, on that note you are making, you just going to let them play with the models on the sprues still? It takes time to build the models, more time to paint them, but if you are going to take the time to build them, I'd prefer if you took the extra time to paint them also.
And again, finally, if you find people that want to play against you with whilst your army is unpainted, that is fine, it's not for me to worry about, but I won't play against you.
endlesswaltz123 wrote: Unless they were a close friend, wanting to play their army before it was finished (and I would still expect at least it to be primed, and it would be a one off) I would refuse games against unpainted armies unless there was an exceptional reason for it not being painted, such as the person playing it could not paint the army for reason of disability.
I have chosen to play and engage in the hobby how it is intended, not the I just want to play competitive and have the latest toys in the meta version of the game. If you turn up to play with an unpainted army, I think it personally says a hell of a lot...
Now, would I be aggrieved about you playing and others accepting, no, but I just personally would choose not to play against you and I wouldn't. I've spoke in other threads about the spectacle of the game being important to me, how the game looks and the battlefield looks, unpainted armies don't fulfil that criteria for me.
That is me, my opinion and I'm sure some would be unhappy with it, but that's okay, I'd honestly prefer not to play a game than play against an unpainted army.
So.. when you just started out this hobby, did you have a fully painted army before you engaged in combat? Did your first 2k point army uphold the full standard of being painted at the time?
Because newer players who just started, will obviously not have a fully painted army in most situations
Yeah, I painted my army before playing. I also built up slowly and didn't play 2000pts straight away. This was in 1997 though, when a 2000pt army could be very small in 2nd edition anyway but still, painted before playing, that was the rules in the GW shop.
I mean, on that note you are making, you just going to let them play with the models on the sprues still? It takes time to build the models, more time to paint them, but if you are going to take the time to build them, I'd prefer if you took the extra time to paint them also.
if they're on sprue, they're not on the table so i dont understand what you mean.
It doesnt take a lot of time to put things together. It takes a lot of time to paint however. If one wants their models to not look like trash, then yea, painting takes a lot of time. I spent a lot of time painting Ghaz back in the day and while doing so, i couldnt paint any of my boys. Now im painting a Gargantuan Squiggoth, and i definitly will use it in battle before its finished.
I paint all my models, because i want them on display as well, but that doesnt mean ive gotten around to paint them all at this point.
Its easy for Space marine players or players who use elite armies to tell others to start painting, when some of us use horde armies, like i do. I started recently, i cant be asked to have it all painted before i can play. Playing is the core aspect of the game, and before i can engage in a proper battle, i would have to wait a very very very long time before i had 2k painted.
At this point maybe 60% of my army is painted, however the most important parts i have are painted. Thats what ive gotten around to do, its not because i dont want to paint the rest. But i do have a job, and other hobbies next to warhammer. So i wont treat this hobby like a job and force paint everything in a super fast fashion that will give me stress. Ill paint slowly but steadily, and make my miniatures look amazing.
In the end, ive never met anyone who wouldnt play with an army where some of the models arent painted. Sure a painted army looks better, but ive never met anyone declining. In fact when i started i didnt bring unpainted models, but people told me to just bring them so we could up the number from maybe 750 points to 1000. Everyone was like: hey that trukk and Mega Nobz of yours, just bring them even if they aint painted, it'll be more fun. So i did.
We would never fight, because you wouldnt fight me, but i feel like your type is the minority. At least ive never met anyone that feels the way you do.
endlesswaltz123 wrote: Unless they were a close friend, wanting to play their army before it was finished (and I would still expect at least it to be primed, and it would be a one off) I would refuse games against unpainted armies unless there was an exceptional reason for it not being painted, such as the person playing it could not paint the army for reason of disability.
I have chosen to play and engage in the hobby how it is intended, not the I just want to play competitive and have the latest toys in the meta version of the game. If you turn up to play with an unpainted army, I think it personally says a hell of a lot...
Now, would I be aggrieved about you playing and others accepting, no, but I just personally would choose not to play against you and I wouldn't. I've spoke in other threads about the spectacle of the game being important to me, how the game looks and the battlefield looks, unpainted armies don't fulfil that criteria for me.
That is me, my opinion and I'm sure some would be unhappy with it, but that's okay, I'd honestly prefer not to play a game than play against an unpainted army.
So.. when you just started out this hobby, did you have a fully painted army before you engaged in combat? Did your first 2k point army uphold the full standard of being painted at the time?
Because newer players who just started, will obviously not have a fully painted army in most situations
Yeah, I painted my army before playing. I also built up slowly and didn't play 2000pts straight away. This was in 1997 though, when a 2000pt army could be very small in 2nd edition anyway but still, painted before playing, that was the rules in the GW shop.
I mean, on that note you are making, you just going to let them play with the models on the sprues still? It takes time to build the models, more time to paint them, but if you are going to take the time to build them, I'd prefer if you took the extra time to paint them also.
if they're on sprue, they're not on the table so i dont understand what you mean.
It doesnt take a lot of time to put things together. It takes a lot of time to paint however. If one wants their models to not look like trash, then yea, painting takes a lot of time. I spend a lot of time painting Ghaz and while doing so, i couldnt paint any of my boys.
I paint all my models, because i want them on display as well, but that doesnt mean ive gotten around to paint them all at this point.
Its easy for Space marine players or players who use elite armies to tell others to start painting, when some of us use horde armies, like i do. I started recently, i cant be asked to have it all painted before i can play. Playing is the core aspect of the game, and before i can engage in a proper battle, i would have to wait a very very very long time before i had 2k painted.
This point you have made here is an opinion, not a fact, I think you would find many people state that the building and painting side of the hobby is just as important for them, or even more important than gaming, playing/gaming is your core reason, not everyones, and for me it is equal to the hobby side.
Also, I had a near full infantry tallern desert raiders force and I've had an ork army in the past also so you're preaching to the wrong person about your horde issue here...
And again, just find someone who doesn't mind you playing with unpainted model, I won't play against you, others will though. It's just as valid a reason for you to expect to be able to play with an unfinished army as mine is to expect an opponent to have a finished army.
It's funny to see how you are trying to equate a 10% advantage/disadvantage to gatekeeping when none is interested in that in casual game and in tournament is something that is already there.
You're free to do as you want. However, the hobby and the game include to assemble and paint miniatures. Don't like it? It's a game.
And I will avoid to comment further on the suggestion to broke your enemy models so they are not battle ready. I mean, I can inadvertently invest you with my car on the way to the tournament to score higher: that's not covered by the rule too. ^^
In general, do you play against empty bases "to avoid forcing people to build their own model"?
It's exactly the same reasoning (yeah there is the line of sight s but you can use cardboard cutout: search PaperHammer).
You could also play with Lego, they look great when built properlyand are much more accessible to people with disabilities. Why stopping at painting?
Honestly the idea that asking for paint should be bad is ridiculous, and the ad-hoc donkey caving you're suggesting as a counterclaim is less as abusive than any stretched interpretation that you can find in the rules subforum (because at least you discuss the painting before hand, not during the game)...
A game can't and shouldn't have rules to tell you how to be a human, or a social or reasonable person. It's a prerequisites.
If you haven't those, or your opponent don't, it's not a problem of the game. A game can't solve the problems of the world, or of the people.
endlesswaltz123 wrote: Unless they were a close friend, wanting to play their army before it was finished (and I would still expect at least it to be primed, and it would be a one off) I would refuse games against unpainted armies unless there was an exceptional reason for it not being painted, such as the person playing it could not paint the army for reason of disability.
I have chosen to play and engage in the hobby how it is intended, not the I just want to play competitive and have the latest toys in the meta version of the game. If you turn up to play with an unpainted army, I think it personally says a hell of a lot...
Now, would I be aggrieved about you playing and others accepting, no, but I just personally would choose not to play against you and I wouldn't. I've spoke in other threads about the spectacle of the game being important to me, how the game looks and the battlefield looks, unpainted armies don't fulfil that criteria for me.
That is me, my opinion and I'm sure some would be unhappy with it, but that's okay, I'd honestly prefer not to play a game than play against an unpainted army.
So.. when you just started out this hobby, did you have a fully painted army before you engaged in combat? Did your first 2k point army uphold the full standard of being painted at the time?
Because newer players who just started, will obviously not have a fully painted army in most situations
Yeah, I painted my army before playing. I also built up slowly and didn't play 2000pts straight away. This was in 1997 though, when a 2000pt army could be very small in 2nd edition anyway but still, painted before playing, that was the rules in the GW shop.
I mean, on that note you are making, you just going to let them play with the models on the sprues still? It takes time to build the models, more time to paint them, but if you are going to take the time to build them, I'd prefer if you took the extra time to paint them also.
if they're on sprue, they're not on the table so i dont understand what you mean.
It doesnt take a lot of time to put things together. It takes a lot of time to paint however. If one wants their models to not look like trash, then yea, painting takes a lot of time. I spend a lot of time painting Ghaz and while doing so, i couldnt paint any of my boys.
I paint all my models, because i want them on display as well, but that doesnt mean ive gotten around to paint them all at this point.
Its easy for Space marine players or players who use elite armies to tell others to start painting, when some of us use horde armies, like i do. I started recently, i cant be asked to have it all painted before i can play. Playing is the core aspect of the game, and before i can engage in a proper battle, i would have to wait a very very very long time before i had 2k painted.
This point you have made here is an opinion, not a fact, I think you would find many people state that the building and painting side of the hobby is just as important for them, or even more important than gaming, playing/gaming is your core reason, not everyones, and for me it is equal to the hobby side.
Also, I had a near full infantry tallern desert raiders force and I've had an ork army in the past also so you're preaching to the wrong person about your horde issue here...
And again, just find someone who doesn't mind you playing with unpainted model, I won't play against you, others will though. It's just as valid a reason for you to expect to be able to play with an unfinished army as mine is to expect an opponent to have a finished army.
its an opinion? well of course it is. EVERYTHING we say in this thread is an opinion, so is everything you say. Few things stated in this thread are facts but you know what is a fact? that your kind is the minority where i play because ive never met anyone before in real life, with an opinion like yours.
So it doesnt really bother me. I only ever meet people who are down to earth and wants to have a great match.
I have zero idea why you are getting upset. Also, the way you stated that point you made was in a manner that was factual, not an opinion.
Anyway, you crack on with your unpainted models, I'm not stopping you, you would just not be able to play against myself or others with my opinion, and there are others like me, read through the whole thread.
endlesswaltz123 wrote: I have zero idea why you are getting upset. Also, the way you stated that point you made was in a manner that was factual, not an opinion.
Anyway, you crack on with your unpainted models, I'm not stopping you, you would just not be able to play against myself or others with my opinion, and there are others like me, read through the whole thread.
upset? why would i be upset. you claim i dont state a fact but opinion, and that is correct. In the same way that you only claim opinions and not facts.
Whos upset here?
also did i say there werent others like you? No. there simply arent others like you in my warhammer ring of players that i play. THAT however, is a fact.
Is it someone trying out a new army, and hasn’t had a chance to paint everything, or even settled on what it’ll all be? Reckon we can forgo it.
Campaign game? I’m claiming them.
Tournament game, where that rule is in effect? Yeah, again I’m claiming them.
The only thing really open to debate is what counts as painted. For me? The old Three Colours and Based will do. I feel that’s a fair benchmark which respects the differing levels of skill and available time.
And that’s coming from me, a documented reluctant painter. If I of all people can be bothered, surely anyone can (not allowing for specific disabilities etc)
see? you're the one being snide with that kiddo stuff.
Few things stated in this thread are facts but you know what is a fact? that your kind is the minority where i play because ive never met anyone before in real life, with an opinion like yours.
And this isn't layered with a thick amount of snide?
Kids in glass houses shouldn't throw stones mate.
Anyway, I'm out, you harp on if you want, I've got better things to do.
see? you're the one being snide with that kiddo stuff.
Few things stated in this thread are facts but you know what is a fact? that your kind is the minority where i play because ive never met anyone before in real life, with an opinion like yours.
And this isn't layered with a thick amount of snide?
Kids in glass houses shouldn't throw stones mate.
Anyway, I'm out, you harp on if you want, I've got better things to do.
When you feel the need to blatantly state that my opinion isnt a fact just to shoot me down, then i decided to state an actual fact, so i did. Thats all it is. And like getting the last word in before leaving through the door is just another snide thing to do.
Believe what you want but you started this sir with your facts and opinion bollocks.
endlesswaltz123 wrote: Unless they were a close friend, wanting to play their army before it was finished (and I would still expect at least it to be primed, and it would be a one off) I would refuse games against unpainted armies unless there was an exceptional reason for it not being painted, such as the person playing it could not paint the army for reason of disability.
I have chosen to play and engage in the hobby how it is intended, not the I just want to play competitive and have the latest toys in the meta version of the game. If you turn up to play with an unpainted army, I think it personally says a hell of a lot...
Now, would I be aggrieved about you playing and others accepting, no, but I just personally would choose not to play against you and I wouldn't. I've spoke in other threads about the spectacle of the game being important to me, how the game looks and the battlefield looks, unpainted armies don't fulfil that criteria for me.
That is me, my opinion and I'm sure some would be unhappy with it, but that's okay, I'd honestly prefer not to play a game than play against an unpainted army.
I think this is fair, if players want fully painted then that is great. We have fully painted narrative campaigns, I really enjoy running them for people.
The big issue this rule has is it mostly takes away the discussion, it forces it as a situation when a lot of people’s reason may not be visible.
I have had people question my painting ability as not being able to walk shouldn’t stop me from painting, the thing is I can walk. I use assistance for long periods out for the same reason I cannot paint. Half the days I cannot even hold a miniature when I want one, painting is completely out of the question most days. But I love painting, it’s a importent part of my hobby that this rule effects negatively.
Before this rule, there was painting jokes all the time and people understood and where playful about it, no pressure and only tournaments had rules implemented for it.
After, well it’s been a lot worse. It sells a lot of paint probably so GW won’t care about the community damage it causes unless it causes them to have to deal with it.
The moment a rule in a game causes people to have to bring external disability’s or issues into the game, then it’s a bad rule. It’s the same as not being able to grow a beard in Age of Sigmar, possibly worse as at least we can all roll our eyes at that and call GW a little daft for the joke. But this causes damage in the way that people have taken to the discussion surrounding it.
Not that I'm the best painter in the world by any means, but if there was a person in a situation similar to yours, if you provide the paint, I don't mind doing my bit and painting some up for you. I don't want to limit yourself if you wanted to do all the painting yourself, good for you, but if you want a hand and want to show me your method so it's consistent then fine. It's a hobby, it should be a community and it should be social, help people out if you can.
Again, that's just me, I wouldn't expect everyone to engage in the hobby in the same way.
It’s cool, the issue I see with rules like this, is the mechanism was already there and implemented just fine for those that wanted. It’s fairly tragic that GW couldn’t see this as a issue.
It’s also why I mostly focus on other games, as dealing with 40k players and the game is more effort with the way GW handles it.
I would also say, seperate. When people are selling off army’s, and not painting as not to devalue the selling price. It’s interesting that people don’t see that as a GW problem, if players just expect an army to at any moment be worth abandoning for something else. It’s teaching them to not value painting and the hobby that surrounds it at all.
Honestly it baffles me that we've had 6 pages of another of these threads.
Lockdown madness is pretty real in here, some people need to stop seething at there screens for hours a day and take a step back and look at themselves.
Warhammer/miniature tabletop wargame rpgs whatever is a really broad hobby, and it's perfectly possible that people can enjoy them *as fully as they want*, without engaging in all aspects, and that's totally groovy. Being a dirty mouthbreathing WAAC who uses grey horde FOTM armies is just as legit as having a golden-daemon-teir army of gorgeously painted, heavily converted RT era Eldar - and feth it, if you're having fun? More power to you. *YOU* personally might prefer to play against, and even be one of these guys. You might fall in the middle. I don't give a gak. I have fun doing my hobby my way, and, if you're a cool guy like me, you won't really be bothered by other people having fun their way, too.
But man alive, how socially abnormal do you have to be to finish a, what? hour-and-a-half to 2-hour long game of 40k with someone, for the game to wrap up, and them to be "Oh, hey, do you mind if I take the 10 bonus VP for having a painted army?" Like, grow up? Either say "ah, yeah, fair enough, those are some lovely minis, go on, good game," or "jog on you cheeky sod, I trounced you." and that's kind of it?
If you think it's a bad rule, just ask when you agree to play if it's okay not to use it. If you wanna play only painted armies? Just go and play painted armies. If you think it's a legit rule, and your opponent is cool with it? Great. Fall somewhere in between? It's a fething game of toy soldiers, try talking it out in a way that isn't chimping out on a messageboard with strangers.
SO MANY dudes in this thread are just willfully arguing past each other looking for a reason to be mad, and this fething issue wasn't worth ANOTHER thread, let alone 6 pages. Some people like the rule. Some people choose not to use the rule. Some people need to maybe stop acting like a 14-year-old pissbaby who's just realized that there are people in the world with different opinions and outlooks on things, and adjust to the crushing cognitive dissonance caused by the realization that they aren't the only sentient being in existence.
This rule is a bit bs, I think we all know that. But like, enough people agreed on it in Nottingham that it made it to print.
see? you're the one being snide with that kiddo stuff.
Few things stated in this thread are facts but you know what is a fact? that your kind is the minority where i play because ive never met anyone before in real life, with an opinion like yours.
And this isn't layered with a thick amount of snide?
Kids in glass houses shouldn't throw stones mate.
Anyway, I'm out, you harp on if you want, I've got better things to do.
When you feel the need to blatantly state that my opinion isnt a fact just to shoot me down, then i decided to state an actual fact, so i did. Thats all it is. And like getting the last word in before leaving through the door is just another snide thing to do.
Believe what you want but you started this sir with your facts and opinion bollocks.
see? you're the one being snide with that kiddo stuff.
Few things stated in this thread are facts but you know what is a fact? that your kind is the minority where i play because ive never met anyone before in real life, with an opinion like yours.
And this isn't layered with a thick amount of snide?
Kids in glass houses shouldn't throw stones mate.
Anyway, I'm out, you harp on if you want, I've got better things to do.
When you feel the need to blatantly state that my opinion isnt a fact just to shoot me down, then i decided to state an actual fact, so i did. Thats all it is. And like getting the last word in before leaving through the door is just another snide thing to do.
Believe what you want but you started this sir with your facts and opinion bollocks.
In which case, I suggest you learn to rephrase your sentences so they don't come across as a statement of fact, but as an opinion in the first place, as that example above is not worded to indicate it is an opinion.
Different people play for different reasons.
GW certainly doesn't consider the rules as the core of the game.
Many players don't either.
So who are any of us to dictate what the core of the game truly is?
This is one of those things that I view as an almost total non-issue.
In a casual game (including casual matched play), who won doesn't make a shred of difference. Is it really an issue if both players leave believing that they've won, because one player counts the 10vp and the other doesn't? Not to me it wouldn't.
In an organised event it would matter, but tournaments have had various rules for encouraging painting for yonks. Many just flat out require painted minis. So this standardises that approach (or is redundant), which is surely a positive for the overall tournament scene.
Beardedragon wrote: if they're on sprue, they're not on the table so i dont understand what you mean.
It doesnt take a lot of time to put things together. It takes a lot of time to paint however. If one wants their models to not look like trash, then yea, painting takes a lot of time. I spent a lot of time painting Ghaz back in the day and while doing so, i couldnt paint any of my boys. Now im painting a Gargantuan Squiggoth, and i definitly will use it in battle before its finished.
I paint all my models, because i want them on display as well, but that doesnt mean ive gotten around to paint them all at this point.
Its easy for Space marine players or players who use elite armies to tell others to start painting, when some of us use horde armies, like i do. I started recently, i cant be asked to have it all painted before i can play. Playing is the core aspect of the game, and before i can engage in a proper battle, i would have to wait a very very very long time before i had 2k painted.
At this point maybe 60% of my army is painted, however the most important parts i have are painted. Thats what ive gotten around to do, its not because i dont want to paint the rest. But i do have a job, and other hobbies next to warhammer. So i wont treat this hobby like a job and force paint everything in a super fast fashion that will give me stress. Ill paint slowly but steadily, and make my miniatures look amazing.
In the end, ive never met anyone who wouldnt play with an army where some of the models arent painted. Sure a painted army looks better, but ive never met anyone declining. In fact when i started i didnt bring unpainted models, but people told me to just bring them so we could up the number from maybe 750 points to 1000. Everyone was like: hey that trukk and Mega Nobz of yours, just bring them even if they aint painted, it'll be more fun. So i did.
We would never fight, because you wouldnt fight me, but i feel like your type is the minority. At least ive never met anyone that feels the way you do.
endlesswaltz123 wrote: In which case, I suggest you learn to rephrase your sentences so they don't come across as a statement of fact, but as an opinion in the first place, as that example above is not worded to indicate it is an opinion.
Im sorry but what is going on here? You said you left and didnt bother responding once more, and now you're back, responding again? Are you unable to let things go?
What is wrong with you. stand by your word and dont respond if you say you arent going to.
You and i dont agree with one another, so take your own advice and leave it at that.
BTW, mainly due to my non engaging with opponents that don't play with painted models (unless specific circumstances detailed above), no I wouldn't take the 10VP... Why bother really? It's most likely a cheap win, and even worse, if you manage to lose with a 10 VP head start then you just look like an idiot, it's almost a lose lose situation for you to take the 10VP.
I also agree with Mad Doc, I'll take the 3x colours and a painted base as tabletop standard, unless it happens to be a cool mono colour scheme for any reason that works, however I suppose that usually involves shading and highlights anyway so will have the 3x colours technically, if not more.
posermcbogus wrote: Honestly it baffles me that we've had 6 pages of another of these threads.
Lockdown madness is pretty real in here, some people need to stop seething at there screens for hours a day and take a step back and look at themselves.
Warhammer/miniature tabletop wargame rpgs whatever is a really broad hobby, and it's perfectly possible that people can enjoy them *as fully as they want*, without engaging in all aspects, and that's totally groovy. Being a dirty mouthbreathing WAAC who uses grey horde FOTM armies is just as legit as having a golden-daemon-teir army of gorgeously painted, heavily converted RT era Eldar - and feth it, if you're having fun? More power to you. *YOU* personally might prefer to play against, and even be one of these guys. You might fall in the middle. I don't give a gak. I have fun doing my hobby my way, and, if you're a cool guy like me, you won't really be bothered by other people having fun their way, too.
But man alive, how socially abnormal do you have to be to finish a, what? hour-and-a-half to 2-hour long game of 40k with someone, for the game to wrap up, and them to be "Oh, hey, do you mind if I take the 10 bonus VP for having a painted army?" Like, grow up? Either say "ah, yeah, fair enough, those are some lovely minis, go on, good game," or "jog on you cheeky sod, I trounced you." and that's kind of it?
If you think it's a bad rule, just ask when you agree to play if it's okay not to use it. If you wanna play only painted armies? Just go and play painted armies. If you think it's a legit rule, and your opponent is cool with it? Great. Fall somewhere in between? It's a fething game of toy soldiers, try talking it out in a way that isn't chimping out on a messageboard with strangers.
SO MANY dudes in this thread are just willfully arguing past each other looking for a reason to be mad, and this fething issue wasn't worth ANOTHER thread, let alone 6 pages. Some people like the rule. Some people choose not to use the rule. Some people need to maybe stop acting like a 14-year-old pissbaby who's just realized that there are people in the world with different opinions and outlooks on things, and adjust to the crushing cognitive dissonance caused by the realization that they aren't the only sentient being in existence.
This rule is a bit bs, I think we all know that. But like, enough people agreed on it in Nottingham that it made it to print.
I don’t like starting games being interrogated over a rule that makes me feel quite bad, it’s a small rule to some but it effects me quite a lot. And here is the thing, before this rule it was never an issue I encounter. People where cool and casual about it, it’s a rule that directly causes confrontation on the issue and offers and excuse to avoid its discussion.
I have been to tournaments as well, I never won painting prizes for my army’s. But I could win at the game itself, an ability to use my mind which is mostly intact.
I also very much enjoy painting and put 100% into every model and want to learn to improve and do win prizes for painting completions. GW should account with there rules the human part of the game when they can. They should by now know the issues.
Wayniac wrote: I mean it's 100% a garbage rule. But it's a core rule so you need to agree to ignore it or it's in effect. That's really all there is to it. You're free to agree to ignore it In a friendly game because it's stupid, but if you don't clear that with your opponent beforehand they are completely within their rights to claim +10 VP for a fully painted army.
Here is Nottingham's reasoning behind the painting rule. Think like a suit and you might understand the thought process here:
Suit 1: "We need to make more money. Any ideas?"
Suit 2: "Yes, implement a rule which favours painted models."
Suit 1:" Why?"
Suit 2: "Well, these nerds will then buy more paints from us in order to cash in more wins. Some might even try to wield a brush for the first time in their life. Golden times await us, fellow suit!"
Suit 1: "True. Oh my gawd how I despise our customers!"
posermcbogus wrote: Honestly it baffles me that we've had 6 pages of another of these threads.
Lockdown madness is pretty real in here, some people need to stop seething at there screens for hours a day and take a step back and look at themselves.
Warhammer/miniature tabletop wargame rpgs whatever is a really broad hobby, and it's perfectly possible that people can enjoy them *as fully as they want*, without engaging in all aspects, and that's totally groovy. Being a dirty mouthbreathing WAAC who uses grey horde FOTM armies is just as legit as having a golden-daemon-teir army of gorgeously painted, heavily converted RT era Eldar - and feth it, if you're having fun? More power to you. *YOU* personally might prefer to play against, and even be one of these guys. You might fall in the middle. I don't give a gak. I have fun doing my hobby my way, and, if you're a cool guy like me, you won't really be bothered by other people having fun their way, too.
But man alive, how socially abnormal do you have to be to finish a, what? hour-and-a-half to 2-hour long game of 40k with someone, for the game to wrap up, and them to be "Oh, hey, do you mind if I take the 10 bonus VP for having a painted army?" Like, grow up? Either say "ah, yeah, fair enough, those are some lovely minis, go on, good game," or "jog on you cheeky sod, I trounced you." and that's kind of it?
If you think it's a bad rule, just ask when you agree to play if it's okay not to use it. If you wanna play only painted armies? Just go and play painted armies. If you think it's a legit rule, and your opponent is cool with it? Great. Fall somewhere in between? It's a fething game of toy soldiers, try talking it out in a way that isn't chimping out on a messageboard with strangers.
SO MANY dudes in this thread are just willfully arguing past each other looking for a reason to be mad, and this fething issue wasn't worth ANOTHER thread, let alone 6 pages. Some people like the rule. Some people choose not to use the rule. Some people need to maybe stop acting like a 14-year-old pissbaby who's just realized that there are people in the world with different opinions and outlooks on things, and adjust to the crushing cognitive dissonance caused by the realization that they aren't the only sentient being in existence.
This rule is a bit bs, I think we all know that. But like, enough people agreed on it in Nottingham that it made it to print.
I don’t like starting games being interrogated over a rule that makes me feel quite bad, it’s a small rule to some but it effects me quite a lot. And here is the thing, before this rule it was never an issue I encounter. People where cool and casual about it, it’s a rule that directly causes confrontation on the issue and offers and excuse to avoid its discussion.
I have been to tournaments as well, I never won painting prizes for my army’s. But I could win at the game itself, an ability to use my mind which is mostly intact.
I also very much enjoy painting and put 100% into every model and want to learn to improve and do win prizes for painting completions. GW should account with there rules the human part of the game when they can. They should by now know the issues.
I agree wholeheartedly with you.
I too put everything i have in to my models, i dont settle with painting my minis fast just because. The fact its now a rule, the whole painted thing, takes away the discussion. Or rather should i say, one can still have a discussion, but your opponent can now also legally claim an easier victory, by essentially VETO'ing your proposal of not using the rule. Because there IS a rule now.
Nothing has changed for me from 8th where i started to now in 9th in terms of how i go about painting my miniatures. I paint as much and as well as i did in 8th where there werent any rules, as i do now where there is. I havent met people who wanted to claim the points, not even once, so at least in my general area of the people ive met and played with, people are understanding.
I would never ruin my miniatures by speed painting them just because the rules state i need to have a fully painted army.
Wouldn't be the first time people thought that of customers. People here would often like to run a public office of some sort, but never have people come with any problems or things to do. In fact even in stores, you visit daily, you are treated as if you were botheringthe ladies working there, by trying to buy stuff. Can easily imagine that.
posermcbogus wrote: If I'm not mistaken, I never said anything about interrogations, friend. I'm not a cop, not gonna tell you what to do.
I am using interrogation as a phrase to describe how people have wanted justification for the removal of the rule and it’s effect on the game. It’s not just a easy thing for some people, and sometimes it’s a entire conversation about issues I need to go though.
posermcbogus wrote: If I'm not mistaken, I never said anything about interrogations, friend. I'm not a cop, not gonna tell you what to do.
I am using interrogation as a phrase to describe how people haven’t wanted justification for the removal of the rule and it’s effect on the game. It’s not just a easy thing for some people, and sometimes it’s a entire conversation about issues I need to go though.
I think the rule is bs and I said as much. Stop trying to misconstrue what I was saying to start an argument, I'd honestly rather see this thread locked. We had this discussion when 9th dropped and it was just as bad as this one.
He was an excellent Giga-chad, but he got sent to internet bad-boy hell for being too funny and not a skaven or a space marine or a fish elf, unfortunately. I really am the Jaden Smith of this website.
posermcbogus wrote: If I'm not mistaken, I never said anything about interrogations, friend. I'm not a cop, not gonna tell you what to do.
I am using interrogation as a phrase to describe how people haven’t wanted justification for the removal of the rule and it’s effect on the game. It’s not just a easy thing for some people, and sometimes it’s a entire conversation about issues I need to go though.
I think the rule is bs and I said as much. Stop trying to misconstrue what I was saying to start an argument, I'd honestly rather see this thread locked. We had this discussion when 9th dropped and it was just as bad as this one.
I should say it’s a response directly to your 3rd paragraph, I don’t really want an argument. I am discussing it since it effects me, but it’s also quite dismissive to handwave it away. It’s a issue then and it’s still a issue. GW does have the power to change it if they want to, and i will continue to discuss it and if mods feel I step out of line I will try and step back when informed.
It’s also entirely possible language differences and use cause misunderstanding for the post itself, mistakes do happen as well and sorry for that.
"Playing is the core aspect of the game" isn't an opinion actually, is the only part of the hobby that is shared with another player. Other activities like reading/inventing the lore or painting have nothing to do with the game itself.
The game is not gonna be different if a model is painted or not, the only thing that matters is assembling the models, and they don't even need to be 100% complete.
Blackie wrote: "Playing is the core aspect of the game" isn't an opinion actually, is the only part of the hobby that is shared with another player. Other activities like reading/inventing the lore or painting have nothing to do with the game itself.
The game is not gonna be different if a model is painted or not, the only thing that matters is assembling the models, and they don't even need to be 100% complete.
In that you've made the implicit assumption that "the hobby" and "the game" are one and the same.
TBH, I agree with you. When I'm playing a game it makes no difference to me if we're playing with card chits or painted models (the theatre of my kind is very good). But I don't think the tabletop game is completely separate from building and painting the miniatures, especially amongst the community.
Blackie wrote: "Playing is the core aspect of the game" isn't an opinion actually, is the only part of the hobby that is shared with another player. Other activities like reading/inventing the lore or painting have nothing to do with the game itself.
The game is not gonna be different if a model is painted or not, the only thing that matters is assembling the models, and they don't even need to be 100% complete.
In that you've made the implicit assumption that "the hobby" and "the game" are one and the same.
TBH, I agree with you. When I'm playing a game it makes no difference to me if we're playing with card chits or painted models (the theatre of my kind is very good). But I don't think the tabletop game is completely separate from building and painting the miniatures, especially amongst the community.
No, I meant to say the opposite, they're not the same thing. The game is just a part of the hobby. For some players building/painting and playing might be completely separate things.
I've met several people who own tons of models, or even complete armies, just for painting them and never played a single game in their life and other dudes that never painted a single model in their life but play regularly.
Personally I enjoy each part of the hobby but I aknowledge that some people might want to focus only to a few parts of the hobby, or even skip some of them completely.
I've met several people who own tons of models, or even complete armies, just for painting them and never played a single game in their life and other dudes that never painted a single model in their life but play regularly.
Personally I enjoy each part of the hobby but I acknowledge that some people might want to focus only to a few parts of the hobby, or even skip some of them completely.
Card chits can be used, kind of, but fall down on LoS etc.
Same goes for proxy models. As a deliberately daft and extreme example, a Snotling Proxy Marine army might sound funny, but the smaller models will impact the playing of the game, as they’re easier to entirely hide behind scenery, providing an advantage the Proper Models wouldn’t have.
For the same reason I would insist on at least fully built models, with no modelling for advantage. Extreme example? One tournament years ago saw a most unsporting player build his Orky Trucks with high, advertising van type billboards - all so they could block LoS.
Now, not every proxy or scratch build is going to be Modelled for Advantage. A claim otherwise is clearly deliberately bogus. But there can still be unintended advantage gained.
Pretty much all TTWG rely on visual aids for both players. Tinker with that too much, and things can get out of hand.
Yes, some folk will be pains. Some will model for advantage, others will complain about any non-official Proper Model, even when there’s no actual advantage gained by their opponent.
Painting is clearly the least of worries. Provided I can tell what your army is composed of, and each model is armed with, the paint job doesn’t particularly matter. I for one am not even fussed if your usually Dark Angels Marines are played as Blood Angels in our next game, because it’s the models not the colour that’s important.
But for the purpose of this thread? A rule is a rule. Unless agreed beforehand, it’s kind of a Richard Move to demand one be dropped when setting up, regardless of how commonly it might be dropped.
Oh I agree that chits and crazy conversions/proxies can result in problems for 40k. But in many games chits make no difference at all (for example Blackstone Fortress). Even in 40k, there's little reason players shouldn't be able to use 2d vertical sprites to play.
As you say, they're just visual aids. For games that involve TLoS the overall size of those visual aids matter (hence the sprites), for other games it doesn't (hence the chits).
yukishiro1 wrote: The implementation of the rule is bad and incentivizes bad behavior - painting badly to get the points, instead of taking the time to do a better job. I don't think anybody here disagrees with that.
A bold statement, Sir! Especially considering the platform! :-)
I’ll play against unpainted armies, I’ll take the 10 points. Unless we agree to disregard the rule. Remember, short of tournament-like conditions, it’s _your_ game. If you both agree to add/subtract something, it’s not as if the rule police revoke your gaming license :-)
I do remember the suggestion being made early on in the 9th release, that if the 10pts offends you, include an unpainted piece in your army?
House rules aren't a solution since it ignores the grand point.
Hobby time for me is finite, as I imagine it is for many others. So spending five hours painting is five hours not spent playing games and getting practice. You might even say that someone with an unpainted army should be more experienced so the +10 VPs is a catch-up mechanism. It's also a penalty for playtesting proxies in a list until you settle on your choices and paint them.
Those are my weak justifications for the rule as written. In actuality I find the all-or-nothing painting requirement prevents motivation to paint if you have an unpainted army and an event is coming up soon. It would be a much better system if you got +1 VP per fully painted unit, up to a maximum of 10 VPs.
Keep in mind that this system allows you to participate o. Tournaments which adhere to GW rules, while before (at least to my knowledge) you can't because the requirements was often binary.
We can debate however if a 10% applied to any game is worst that a penalty on the final score. I fell that the current way skew results less and is at least consistent
If it makes them happy, just give them the points. Who honestly cares? In a casual game, winning and losing only carry the value you place on it.
If you don't want the painting points, then your goal is to score more objective points. If they do want the painting points, then their goal is to score more total points. If the painting points decide the overall game? Congrats, you both accomplished your personal definitions of success. Who "won" really doesn't matter.
Spoletta wrote: I will 100% agree to give them the points.
That will spur me to keep working on my minis.
What keeps me working on my minis is wanting to have them look nice.
the 10 point rule keeps me from playing, not incentivizes me to paint.
So you refuse to play out of apparent spite over a 10 point rule that never seems to come up in the real world?
Two things:
1) It doesn't seem to be spite, it seems to be frustration, or something similar, over starting 10 points down due to something that's not related to the gameplay.
2) If the rule doesn't even get used, why print it?
Spoletta wrote: I will 100% agree to give them the points.
That will spur me to keep working on my minis.
What keeps me working on my minis is wanting to have them look nice.
the 10 point rule keeps me from playing, not incentivizes me to paint.
So you refuse to play out of apparent spite over a 10 point rule that never seems to come up in the real world?
Yup. got it in one. Just completely motivated by spite. [SARCASM] I have no other motivations for avoiding a terrible, toxic, and decisive rule besides spite. [SARCASM]
And yes, the rule comes up in the real world, because it's part of the rules. So when I get games in, I either have the rule waived (painted army or not), or I don't play. The same as the people who refuse to play unpainted armies. Oh wait! Are they doing that out of spite too?
Spoletta wrote: I will 100% agree to give them the points.
That will spur me to keep working on my minis.
What keeps me working on my minis is wanting to have them look nice.
the 10 point rule keeps me from playing, not incentivizes me to paint.
So you refuse to play out of apparent spite over a 10 point rule that never seems to come up in the real world?
Two things:
1) It doesn't seem to be spite, it seems to be frustration, or something similar, over starting 10 points down due to something that's not related to the gameplay.
2) If the rule doesn't even get used, why print it?
It's definitely not spite. I'm trying to get people in my local community used to house ruling it out for the sake of newer players, and people who are only casually involved in the hobby.
Here's the deal though. Some people paint slow. For whatever reason, they just do.
What the 10point rule does is penalize people who paint slow but want to paint the models well, and incentivizes you to do a slapdash job just to satisfy the rule. Don't bother with primer, don't bother with layering, just slap some contrasts on bare plastic and done, your army is instantly "better experience" to play against than an army with 30 well-painted models and 30 primed models waiting to be painted. Which...really seems backward to me? Why should I bother trying to be better at painting if the game penalizes me for it?
Here's the deal though. Some people paint slow. For whatever reason, they just do.
What the 10point rule does is penalize people who paint slow but want to paint the models well, and incentivizes you to do a slapdash job just to satisfy the rule. Don't bother with primer, don't bother with layering, just slap some contrasts on bare plastic and done, your army is instantly "better experience" to play against than an army with 30 well-painted models and 30 primed models waiting to be painted. Which...really seems backward to me? Why should I bother trying to be better at painting if the game penalizes me for it?
this. i paint my horde army as perfect as i can. I take pride in my painted miniatures, and i wont rush them just to cater to some silly rule
I also agree with Mad Doc, I'll take the 3x colours and a painted base as tabletop standard, unless it happens to be a cool mono colour scheme for any reason that works, however I suppose that usually involves shading and highlights anyway so will have the 3x colours technically, if not more.
Hmmm,
1st it was "I won't play against unpainted models" (unless you're my friend).
NOW there's of 3 colors min. you'll accept. (unless a mono scheme works for some reason)
Let me guess though, you're the one who gets to decide if the other guys reason for a mono scheme works aren't you?
And upon encountering a 3 color army painted like gak you'll reveal a further standard.....
We are in control of our games. If you have brand-new players its unlikely we are using scoring in the first place. Its possible to play without Secondaries at all. Or Primaries. Or even Matched Play. Ironically new players might actually "suffer" less since they don't have that big pile of unpainted minis.
I say spite because you seem intent on not playing over 10 VPs. "Cutting off your nose to spite your face" and all that. OK. You quit out of frustration over 10 VPs. Are 10 VP really so damaging that you would refuse to play or walk away from the game? I get it if the opponent is being obnoxious about it, but in that case they would likely be obnoxious about something else.
I think the whole drama is hypothetical - borrowed trouble on the internet. Would I have written that rule in? Probably not. It doesn't come up round these parts. I certainly haven't asked for it. An opponent gave it to me once - he was trying out an online scoring app and he was being thorough with the scores to test it out. We both laughed about it - his army was a beautiful work in progress while mine was an unspectacular Battle Ready force. He wasn't going to rush over 10 VPs and it was pickup game. Tourneys establish the scoring and in pick-up games who really cares?
I also agree with Mad Doc, I'll take the 3x colours and a painted base as tabletop standard, unless it happens to be a cool mono colour scheme for any reason that works, however I suppose that usually involves shading and highlights anyway so will have the 3x colours technically, if not more.
Hmmm,
1st it was "I won't play against unpainted models" (unless you're my friend).
NOW there's of 3 colors min. you'll accept. (unless a mono scheme works for some reason)
Let me guess though, you're the one who gets to decide if the other guys reason for a mono scheme works aren't you?
And upon encountering a 3 color army painted like gak you'll reveal a further standard.....
If playing against a painted army is something you like, presumably yes, you would be the one to decide whether an army is painted to a standard you enjoy playing against. Why wouldn't you be?
I don't know anybody who's like "you know, it's the paint on the models that really makes me want to play, not how that paint makes them look. Dip your models in housepaint for all I care, it's that layer of chemical that does it for me!" If people want to play against painted armies, they presumably want to play against a painted army someone's made a decent effort at, not something someone's technically done the bare minimum on in the most slapdash way possible.
That's different than saying "the highlighting on this guy is bad! I won't play you!" I don't know anyone who assesses quality when deciding whether someone's paint job is good enough to play.
Slow painters and people who are in the hobby since not long. How long does it take to paint 2000 points of stuff for someone that has never painted a model before?
I started as a kid, in an era with no internet at home (so no tutorials, etc...), and I was mostly a painter than a gamer then, and yet it took me approx 3 years to paint 1500-2000 points of orks.
Now with 20 years of experience I could paint 2000 points of orks in an year, if I rush a little bit probably and just at a standard tabletop level, but definitely an entire edition (or two) of 40k to paint a reasonably complete collection of models.
yukishiro1 wrote: If playing against a painted army is something you like, presumably yes, you would be the one to decide whether an army is painted to a standard you enjoy playing against. Why wouldn't you be?
I don't know anybody who's like "you know, it's the paint on the models that really makes me want to play, not how that paint makes them look. Dip your models in housepaint for all I care, it's that layer of chemical that does it for me!" If people want to play against painted armies, they presumably want to play against a painted army someone's made a decent effort at, not something someone's technically done the bare minimum on in the most slapdash way possible.
That's different than saying "the highlighting on this guy is bad! I won't play you!" I don't know anyone who assesses quality when deciding whether someone's paint job is good enough to play.
Which is why the RULE is bad.
If you only like playing against well-painted armies, a slapdash, awful paintjob won't make it better just because it's technically there. And likewise, 10 points won't make the game any better-you're not concerned about winning or losing, but the aesthetics.
I have zero issues with someone refusing to play me because my army isn't painted, assuming they're polite about it. I have zero issues with GW saying "This game is best played with painted minis on a cool table!" or something like that. I do have an issue with the game being impacted by non-gameplay elements, in a way that doesn't really serve to make anyone happier.
Here's the deal though. Some people paint slow. For whatever reason, they just do.
What the 10point rule does is penalize people who paint slow but want to paint the models well, and incentivizes you to do a slapdash job just to satisfy the rule. Don't bother with primer, don't bother with layering, just slap some contrasts on bare plastic and done, your army is instantly "better experience" to play against than an army with 30 well-painted models and 30 primed models waiting to be painted. Which...really seems backward to me? Why should I bother trying to be better at painting if the game penalizes me for it?
this. i paint my horde army as perfect as i can. I take pride in my painted miniatures, and i wont rush them just to cater to some silly rule
Well, repeat any given task over and over and you eventually gain proficiency in it, so the more you paint, the more you can make the process of getting them good look quicker- so instead of stomping your feet about this, which is something GW has wanted the wind to blow that way with for a long while (just look at the historical WHW tournament rules), with them even having the "3 colour" rule in their stores for decades at this point then you need to go get painting your models.
If you really think GW are not going to die on this hill, you really haven't been paying attention all these years...
endlesswaltz123 wrote: Unless they were a close friend, wanting to play their army before it was finished (and I would still expect at least it to be primed, and it would be a one off) I would refuse games against unpainted armies unless there was an exceptional reason for it not being painted, such as the person playing it could not paint the army for reason of disability.
I have chosen to play and engage in the hobby how it is intended, not the I just want to play competitive and have the latest toys in the meta version of the game. If you turn up to play with an unpainted army, I think it personally says a hell of a lot...
Now, would I be aggrieved about you playing and others accepting, no, but I just personally would choose not to play against you and I wouldn't. I've spoke in other threads about the spectacle of the game being important to me, how the game looks and the battlefield looks, unpainted armies don't fulfil that criteria for me.
That is me, my opinion and I'm sure some would be unhappy with it, but that's okay, I'd honestly prefer not to play a game than play against an unpainted army.
So.. when you just started out this hobby, did you have a fully painted army before you engaged in combat? Did your first 2k point army uphold the full standard of being painted at the time? with no models, being unpainted, before you used them in combat? surely you upheld yourself to the standards you put on to others.
Because newer players who just started, will obviously not have a fully painted army in most situations
then why in the hell are they playing with VP???? If you're just starting out you should build/paint the smallest force you can at the appropriate points level, THEN, lather,rinse,repeat until you have whatever points you want.
You'd be surprised how much experience you gain from doing that. Absolutely no one should try to start this game(or any game for that matter) with whatever the tourney(read:douchebag) level is.
Blackie wrote:"Playing is the core aspect of the game" isn't an opinion actually, is the only part of the hobby that is shared with another player. Other activities like reading/inventing the lore or painting have nothing to do with the game itself.
The game is not gonna be different if a model is painted or not, the only thing that matters is assembling the models, and they don't even need to be 100% complete.
Except it'll look terrible. Not much is worse than having a completely painted army, painted terrain, game surface....only to be faced with Grey on the other side of the table. I'll take some effort over ZERO every day of the week.
Or we can just play "Open" & select to use every rule but this one. Oh look, we're playing 40k by the rules as written by GW. Issue avoided.
Well the easiest way is to stop giving a gak about Primary, Secondary, or any scoring and just let the story emerge from the table and not the amount of VP(cancer in game) you gain.....
Here's the deal though. Some people paint slow. For whatever reason, they just do.
What the 10point rule does is penalize people who paint slow but want to paint the models well, and incentivizes you to do a slapdash job just to satisfy the rule. Don't bother with primer, don't bother with layering, just slap some contrasts on bare plastic and done, your army is instantly "better experience" to play against than an army with 30 well-painted models and 30 primed models waiting to be painted. Which...really seems backward to me? Why should I bother trying to be better at painting if the game penalizes me for it?
Well IDK about you but most of the players I play with have fun with this rule and also use it to encourage people to paint. If your army is 85% painted and you are showing real effort - then ofc you count as a painted army. Or like if you painted everything but don't have your army fully based. Also - If it comes down to the difference it is always..."oh you would have won if only you painted those boys up"! I mean...nothing is on the line here except pride. So if you have pride in your army youll work harder to make it look nice.
Heck I used to be the grey army guy...Whole army unpainted. In the past 3-4 years though I have put in made effort into painting. So understand both perspectives. It just feels better to play with a painted army - if you are unpainted - you are really missing out on the game.
Here's the deal though. Some people paint slow. For whatever reason, they just do.
What the 10point rule does is penalize people who paint slow but want to paint the models well, and incentivizes you to do a slapdash job just to satisfy the rule. Don't bother with primer, don't bother with layering, just slap some contrasts on bare plastic and done, your army is instantly "better experience" to play against than an army with 30 well-painted models and 30 primed models waiting to be painted. Which...really seems backward to me? Why should I bother trying to be better at painting if the game penalizes me for it?
this. i paint my horde army as perfect as i can. I take pride in my painted miniatures, and i wont rush them just to cater to some silly rule
Well, repeat any given task over and over and you eventually gain proficiency in it, so the more you paint, the more you can make the process of getting them good look quicker- so instead of stomping your feet about this, which is something GW has wanted the wind to blow that way with for a long while (just look at the historical WHW tournament rules), with them even having the "3 colour" rule in their stores for decades at this point then you need to go get painting your models.
If you really think GW are not going to die on this hill, you really haven't been paying attention all these years...
i havent paid attention all these years?
No gak, ive been collecting warhammer 40k for 7 months dude.
TangoTwoBravo 796210 11056871 wrote:
So you refuse to play out of apparent spite over a 10 point rule that never seems to come up in the real world?
A 10VP difference in the state of the game right now, means an automatic lost game for all armies save 2. Specially if you go second. I can imagine some people not wanting to play games where they automaticaly lose. You know it is like when you play as child, and the guy whose family owns the playground picks you to be the dead one every game. Very fast you stop wanting to play.
the problem with the rule, is the same thing as always. The way it is defined, it Gate Keeps new people, until they have a painted army want or it. And, what is IMO a bigger problem, it opens the gates to people being donkey-caves to others in more ways in pick up games, and in general everywhere where you are the new player, or where your opponent has a higher store or playgroup standing then you. Because good look getting the 10VP vs the store owners son, and at the same time, some prick can always say that just because your bases are mono colour coded, the whole model is not painted. Or because it has no edge highlights it ain't painted etc etc.
Well, repeat any given task over and over and you eventually gain proficiency in it, so the more you paint, the more you can make the process of getting them good look quicker- so instead of stomping your feet about this, which is something GW has wanted the wind to blow that way with for a long while (just look at the historical WHW tournament rules), with them even having the "3 colour" rule in their stores for decades at this point then you need to go get painting your models.
But it doesn't mean you start to like it. Imagine your back in school and you get beat up, and some tells you that after you get beat up for the the first 2-3 years, your just going to get used to it.
Here's the deal though. Some people paint slow. For whatever reason, they just do.
What the 10point rule does is penalize people who paint slow but want to paint the models well, and incentivizes you to do a slapdash job just to satisfy the rule. Don't bother with primer, don't bother with layering, just slap some contrasts on bare plastic and done, your army is instantly "better experience" to play against than an army with 30 well-painted models and 30 primed models waiting to be painted. Which...really seems backward to me? Why should I bother trying to be better at painting if the game penalizes me for it?
this. i paint my horde army as perfect as i can. I take pride in my painted miniatures, and i wont rush them just to cater to some silly rule
Well, repeat any given task over and over and you eventually gain proficiency in it, so the more you paint, the more you can make the process of getting them good look quicker- so instead of stomping your feet about this, which is something GW has wanted the wind to blow that way with for a long while (just look at the historical WHW tournament rules), with them even having the "3 colour" rule in their stores for decades at this point then you need to go get painting your models.
If you really think GW are not going to die on this hill, you really haven't been paying attention all these years...
No kidding. I am by no means a great painter. I can get stuff looking good in a pretty short amount of time though.
For example I painted 10 lychgaurd in about 2 hours total (I had already primed them black) and I get complements from the best painters in my club that they look excellent! 2 hours! I get it if you don't have time but this process is so fast. You can get a unit completed in a night.
Here's the deal though. Some people paint slow. For whatever reason, they just do.
What the 10point rule does is penalize people who paint slow but want to paint the models well, and incentivizes you to do a slapdash job just to satisfy the rule. Don't bother with primer, don't bother with layering, just slap some contrasts on bare plastic and done, your army is instantly "better experience" to play against than an army with 30 well-painted models and 30 primed models waiting to be painted. Which...really seems backward to me? Why should I bother trying to be better at painting if the game penalizes me for it?
this. i paint my horde army as perfect as i can. I take pride in my painted miniatures, and i wont rush them just to cater to some silly rule
Well, repeat any given task over and over and you eventually gain proficiency in it, so the more you paint, the more you can make the process of getting them good look quicker- so instead of stomping your feet about this, which is something GW has wanted the wind to blow that way with for a long while (just look at the historical WHW tournament rules), with them even having the "3 colour" rule in their stores for decades at this point then you need to go get painting your models.
If you really think GW are not going to die on this hill, you really haven't been paying attention all these years...
i havent paid attention all these years?
No gak, ive been collecting warhammer 40k for 7 months dude.
Then you should know what the company culture of GW is, you're pretty active on a forum, so you should have a good handle on what they want their version of the hobby to be. Paint your minis or not, but know this- this is not going away.
Here's the deal though. Some people paint slow. For whatever reason, they just do.
What the 10point rule does is penalize people who paint slow but want to paint the models well, and incentivizes you to do a slapdash job just to satisfy the rule. Don't bother with primer, don't bother with layering, just slap some contrasts on bare plastic and done, your army is instantly "better experience" to play against than an army with 30 well-painted models and 30 primed models waiting to be painted. Which...really seems backward to me? Why should I bother trying to be better at painting if the game penalizes me for it?
this. i paint my horde army as perfect as i can. I take pride in my painted miniatures, and i wont rush them just to cater to some silly rule
Well, repeat any given task over and over and you eventually gain proficiency in it, so the more you paint, the more you can make the process of getting them good look quicker- so instead of stomping your feet about this, which is something GW has wanted the wind to blow that way with for a long while (just look at the historical WHW tournament rules), with them even having the "3 colour" rule in their stores for decades at this point then you need to go get painting your models.
If you really think GW are not going to die on this hill, you really haven't been paying attention all these years...
I've been painting for nearly 20 years, since I was a very small kit with very little understanding of rules. When I was 10, I could paint 20 skinks in an afternoon, because I thought what I painted looked good- I had no point of reference beyond my equally inexperienced friends. Nowadays it'll take me good few months (and that assumes I don't get burned out on the same model over and over and over again, which as I age, I find sets in much faster then when I was a kid of 18 with all the time in the world) because I want them to not look like they belong in an "ebay pro-painted" compilation.
As I mentioned, I do have a minor disability that makes painting have to be split into very short sessions, but even without that, it wouldn't be fast. And as an adult, I have much better appreciation of what the models cost (every single model you buy equals X minutes (or hours, depending on your wages and price of model) of your life that you are not getting back) so doing a turd of a job is not acceptable to me.
I will be honest, if I actually had to play with this rule, I'd probably sell all the GW stuff and move on.
It's a good rule because it incentivizes people who have the ability and wherewithal to paint, resulting in more painted armies. The games look best and are intended to be painted. You cannot break painting off from gaming with the "it's separate and just not for me" argument without doing the same thing for every element of warhammer. I don't want to buy and build models because it's just not fun now play against my cardboard proxies, is the same excuse as playing with your unpainted army. Warhammer is a package deal, you don't have to do anything you don't want to but you aren't being kept down because somebody else does the hard work and gets the reward.
I will also play devils advocate and say that gate keeping the types who don't want to paint is a good thing because they aren't playing in tournaments so they have no reason to be obsessed with 10 vp giving a technical win to their opponents. There's nothing stopping people with painted armies from playing them and just setting the rule aside anyway. They just don't like being told their armies look bad and they know if their positions were reversed they would absolutely hold their opponents to RAW and take the 10 vp. The complaints are all projection.
Here's the deal though. Some people paint slow. For whatever reason, they just do.
What the 10point rule does is penalize people who paint slow but want to paint the models well, and incentivizes you to do a slapdash job just to satisfy the rule. Don't bother with primer, don't bother with layering, just slap some contrasts on bare plastic and done, your army is instantly "better experience" to play against than an army with 30 well-painted models and 30 primed models waiting to be painted. Which...really seems backward to me? Why should I bother trying to be better at painting if the game penalizes me for it?
Well IDK about you but most of the players I play with have fun with this rule and also use it to encourage people to paint. If your army is 85% painted and you are showing real effort - then ofc you count as a painted army.
Not RAW. If you have to keep making special exceptions and house rule something, the core aspect is bad to begin with.
Start small, at about 500 points or so. Don't play until it's done, devote the time to painting instead. If you've got a buddy who's also working on something, invite him over for a painting session. Play with your finished 500 points and grow from there.
Cebalrai wrote: Start small, at about 500 points or so. Don't play until it's done, devote the time to painting instead. If you've got a buddy who's also working on something, invite him over for a painting session. Play with your finished 500 points and grow from there.
Cebalrai wrote: Start small, at about 500 points or so. Don't play until it's done, devote the time to painting instead. If you've got a buddy who's also working on something, invite him over for a painting session. Play with your finished 500 points and grow from there.
This is how you do it.
According to my own experiences, this is everything BUT the majoritys opinion. Most players would be more than happy to field that one or two extra unpainted minis in a battle just to increase the point max value of the entire game, if we're talking low point battles like 500 or 1000.
I used to do what you said, in fact my first battle was 500 points and everything was painted, but people kept goading me in to using my unfinished models just to go from maybe 700 points to a 1000. People i meet are only ever friendly and would always support new players trying to get in to the game.
Building, painting and playing goes hand in hand and should be done simultaneously imo.
One should be allowed to play with unpainted miniatures, especially when one is new. And most players ive met (in fact all of em) would allow this. Only the elitists who has played for years and have fully painted armies with a touch of slanneshi pride over it, would avoid playing in such a scenario.
And even then, painting a 500 point army still takes a bit of time if you dont want your minatures to look like trash. its like a warboss, 30 boyz and a trukk, + something more. thats not just a sweep with a brush and done. and telling someone they cant play the game untill they've done this, is counter intuitive for newer players who cant wait to field their army. Luckily most people understand this and arent elitists.
Is it way cooler to fight with painted armies? sure. But it wouldnt stop me from playing if someone dont have a fully painted army.
Cebalrai wrote: Start small, at about 500 points or so. Don't play until it's done, devote the time to painting instead. If you've got a buddy who's also working on something, invite him over for a painting session. Play with your finished 500 points and grow from there.
This is how you do it.
Thread closed. Mic Drop.
I dont feel like a single persons opinion means the entire debate is over and he won everything, like he won the internet or something.
If this thread were to be closed, which would be fine i guess, its because we've all said basically everything there is to say. including me. we're going in circles, once again, including myself.
Cebalrai wrote: Start small, at about 500 points or so. Don't play until it's done, devote the time to painting instead. If you've got a buddy who's also working on something, invite him over for a painting session. Play with your finished 500 points and grow from there.
This is how you do it.
When I started, GW had Sunday beginners. You know what you used? Maybe one unit or so in a group game. You built up your forces week to week and weren't expected to be playing large games on your own. Saturdays were roughly the same, you could organise larger games but nobody (Not even today. I say today, but the last time I could actually play games in my local GW in the before times, games were generally limited to 1500pts due to space constraints) played 2k all the time, every time.
Here's the deal though. Some people paint slow. For whatever reason, they just do.
What the 10point rule does is penalize people who paint slow but want to paint the models well, and incentivizes you to do a slapdash job just to satisfy the rule. Don't bother with primer, don't bother with layering, just slap some contrasts on bare plastic and done, your army is instantly "better experience" to play against than an army with 30 well-painted models and 30 primed models waiting to be painted. Which...really seems backward to me? Why should I bother trying to be better at painting if the game penalizes me for it?
Well IDK about you but most of the players I play with have fun with this rule and also use it to encourage people to paint. If your army is 85% painted and you are showing real effort - then ofc you count as a painted army.
Not RAW. If you have to keep making special exceptions and house rule something, the core aspect is bad to begin with.
Not really. I don't have to house rule anything. Want to use match play rules - RAW is you get 10 points for painted army. The game isn't designed to be played with D bags or sticklers ether. The rule at it's core is good - everyone enjoys playing with and against painted armies more. This encourages that. As a non D bag myself - if I see real effort - I will not deduct the points.
Cebalrai wrote: Start small, at about 500 points or so. Don't play until it's done, devote the time to painting instead. If you've got a buddy who's also working on something, invite him over for a painting session. Play with your finished 500 points and grow from there.
This is how you do it.
Oh. Oh well.
{shrugs} I'll just keep doing my hobby the same as I've been doing it all these years. Build, play, & paint as the mood/inspiration/time/alignment of stars/etc permits.
Figure as it's been working for me perfectly fine for 30+ years, there's no reason to change at this late date....
Alternatively, play any other GW game, since they don't have the bizarre rule in it. Apparently AoS players either are better human beings than 40k players and have painted armies right from the start, or...idk, my guess is that. AoS or even Necromunda players are just better class of people according to GW, since they don't need the rule to "guide" them.
Here's the deal though. Some people paint slow. For whatever reason, they just do.
What the 10point rule does is penalize people who paint slow but want to paint the models well, and incentivizes you to do a slapdash job just to satisfy the rule. Don't bother with primer, don't bother with layering, just slap some contrasts on bare plastic and done, your army is instantly "better experience" to play against than an army with 30 well-painted models and 30 primed models waiting to be painted. Which...really seems backward to me? Why should I bother trying to be better at painting if the game penalizes me for it?
Well IDK about you but most of the players I play with have fun with this rule and also use it to encourage people to paint. If your army is 85% painted and you are showing real effort - then ofc you count as a painted army.
Not RAW. If you have to keep making special exceptions and house rule something, the core aspect is bad to begin with.
Not really. I don't have to house rule anything. Want to use match play rules - RAW is you get 10 points for painted army. The game isn't designed to be played with D bags or sticklers ether. The rule at it's core is good - everyone enjoys playing with and against painted armies more. This encourages that. As a non D bag myself - if I see real effort - I will not deduct the points.
It’s largely encouraged harassment , and turned the discussion online more toxic sounding it. The judgment of effort for points in a game is just that from where I am on this. Already let slide as the rule as held is bad.
And GW has added a rule to remind people what sort of hobby they have chosen.
Yep, in only 2/3 of the play styles in one edition of one of their many games....
It is only a reminder.
Sans concerns about disability, or testing newly acquired units in a casual game, again, that is the hobbyist with whom I would engage, the one who paints and takes the modeling as seriously as the rest of it... for me, more so.
Others wanting to play with sprues stood up on bases to stand in for whatever, or chits or corks or bottle caps, that is their business, how they spend their time.
Not really. I don't have to house rule anything. Want to use match play rules - RAW is you get 10 points for painted army. The game isn't designed to be played with D bags or sticklers ether. The rule at it's core is good - everyone enjoys playing with and against painted armies more. This encourages that. As a non D bag myself - if I see real effort - I will not deduct the points.
Says the guy who's judging what someone elses "real effort" is....
Not really. I don't have to house rule anything. Want to use match play rules - RAW is you get 10 points for painted army. The game isn't designed to be played with D bags or sticklers ether. The rule at it's core is good - everyone enjoys playing with and against painted armies more. This encourages that. As a non D bag myself - if I see real effort - I will not deduct the points.
Says the guy who's judging what someone elses "real effort" is....
I am dumbfounded. You must be misunderstanding me. I am literally saying people should be lenient with the implementation of the 10 points rule. Effort over RAW in this case. Are they trying to paint their army essentially. If the answer is no...they get no points.
Not really. I don't have to house rule anything. Want to use match play rules - RAW is you get 10 points for painted army. The game isn't designed to be played with D bags or sticklers ether. The rule at it's core is good - everyone enjoys playing with and against painted armies more. This encourages that. As a non D bag myself - if I see real effort - I will not deduct the points.
Says the guy who's judging what someone elses "real effort" is....
I am dumbfounded. You must be misunderstanding me. I am literally saying people should be lenient with the implementation of the 10 points rule. Effort over RAW in this case. Are they trying to paint their army essentially. If the answer is no...they get no points.
I agree people are complaining about having to paint my army fast!!!! It will look terrible!!!! My old store years ago even before this rule was a thing encouraged painted armies which was literally prime, base, and a wash or layer even with my 45 min to 1 hour a night I devote to painting after my work and family is handled I can get a squad of 5-10 intercessors painted up to my standard. It’s just choosing other things over painting like when I choose sleep or video games I lose paint time but even chipping at a small Boulder you can get your stuff painted up and the effort I take I’m sorry I’m getting those 10 points...
Cebalrai wrote: Start small, at about 500 points or so. Don't play until it's done, devote the time to painting instead. If you've got a buddy who's also working on something, invite him over for a painting session. Play with your finished 500 points and grow from there.
This is how you do it.
Thread closed. Mic Drop.
Or, and just think about this for a second...how about we let people do what the hell the want with their plastic toys? If someone wants to play first, then paint, why should we stop them, or make it harder?
Besides the eternal will of the online gatekeeper of course.
Cebalrai wrote: Start small, at about 500 points or so. Don't play until it's done, devote the time to painting instead. If you've got a buddy who's also working on something, invite him over for a painting session. Play with your finished 500 points and grow from there.
This is how you do it.
Thread closed. Mic Drop.
Or, and just think about this for a second...how about we let people do what the hell the want with their plastic toys? If someone wants to play first, then paint, why should we stop them, or make it harder?
Besides the eternal will of the online gatekeeper of course.
It is actually a GW rule. Why should we follow any GW rule but not this one?
Cebalrai wrote: Start small, at about 500 points or so. Don't play until it's done, devote the time to painting instead. If you've got a buddy who's also working on something, invite him over for a painting session. Play with your finished 500 points and grow from there.
This is how you do it.
According to my own experiences, this is everything BUT the majoritys opinion. Most players would be more than happy to field that one or two extra unpainted minis in a battle just to increase the point max value of the entire game, if we're talking low point battles like 500 or 1000.
I used to do what you said, in fact my first battle was 500 points and everything was painted, but people kept goading me in to using my unfinished models just to go from maybe 700 points to a 1000. People i meet are only ever friendly and would always support new players trying to get in to the game.
Building, painting and playing goes hand in hand and should be done simultaneously imo.
One should be allowed to play with unpainted miniatures, especially when one is new. And most players ive met (in fact all of em) would allow this. Only the elitists who has played for years and have fully painted armies with a touch of slanneshi pride over it, would avoid playing in such a scenario.
And even then, painting a 500 point army still takes a bit of time if you dont want your minatures to look like trash. its like a warboss, 30 boyz and a trukk, + something more. thats not just a sweep with a brush and done. and telling someone they cant play the game untill they've done this, is counter intuitive for newer players who cant wait to field their army. Luckily most people understand this and arent elitists.
Is it way cooler to fight with painted armies? sure. But it wouldnt stop me from playing if someone dont have a fully painted army.
You have described the best of both worlds.
"Wanna play a game?"
"Sure. I only have 500 points fully painted, so how about a Combat Patrol Game?"
"I'd rather play a bigger game. You can use some of your unpainted models."
"I don't really like playing down due to unpainted models."
"Don't worry about it. We can ignore that rule. Do you have enough models for a 1000 point Incursion Game?
Cebalrai wrote: Start small, at about 500 points or so. Don't play until it's done, devote the time to painting instead. If you've got a buddy who's also working on something, invite him over for a painting session. Play with your finished 500 points and grow from there.
This is how you do it.
Thread closed. Mic Drop.
Or, and just think about this for a second...how about we let people do what the hell the want with their plastic toys? If someone wants to play first, then paint, why should we stop them, or make it harder?
Besides the eternal will of the online gatekeeper of course.
Buy 500 points start small than build up from there... it’s what I did had an army in about 2 weeks.
Cebalrai wrote: Start small, at about 500 points or so. Don't play until it's done, devote the time to painting instead. If you've got a buddy who's also working on something, invite him over for a painting session. Play with your finished 500 points and grow from there.
This is how you do it.
Thread closed. Mic Drop.
Or, and just think about this for a second...how about we let people do what the hell the want with their plastic toys? If someone wants to play first, then paint, why should we stop them, or make it harder?
Besides the eternal will of the online gatekeeper of course.
Buy 500 points start small than build up from there... it’s what I did had an army in about 2 weeks.
i mean. what works for one person, doesnt work for everyone else. I cant paint 500 points in 2 weeks. Well i suppose i could but.. i dont want to, it would require a lot of time dedicated to painting over a small amount of time.
Im pretty sure South Park did a religion episode about Gilgameks where they specifically said: What works on planet Gelgamek doesnt necessarily work for people here on earth".
but we can easily turn that over to the warhammer hobby. What works for you, as in painting 500 points in 2 weeks, doesnt necessarily work for everyone else.
I'm a big fan of the 10/100 points for a painted army rule. It doesn't tell you not to play if you aren't painted like the community put up in the past. With the current rule in place, it's much more acceptable to play unpainted even in a mostly painted army community if you are willing to take that points hit. I think this lessens gatekeeping overall.
LiMunPai wrote: I'm a big fan of the 10/100 points for a painted army rule. It doesn't tell you not to play if you aren't painted like the community put up in the past. With the current rule in place, it's much more acceptable to play unpainted even in a mostly painted army community if you are willing to take that points hit. I think this lessens gatekeeping overall.
Just want to point out that AoS had those garbage larping rules when it came out. The community hated it so they stopped including them. Just because GW makes a rule doesn't mean you have to follow it.
Still the thought process that I'm seeing is mind blowing. It's almost like it's expected that people spend hundreds of dollars on minis, spend dozens of hours putting the models together and then spend 5, 10, 20 times as many hours painting the things just so you can have a fair fight in a table top game. It's not quite pay to win but it's sickeningly close to the same mindset of sinking more resources to get an advantage.
Its one thing if this is a private club where you have your own rules and whatnot. If you want to have an exclusive club with its own rules then knock yourselves out with that. You could ban Tau or demand golden demon painting standards for all anybody cares. It's another thing to stack the deck against somebody walking in with their half painted army they have been tinkering with for months because they work a demanding job, have a family to take care of, have hobbies outside of just 40k, and have the audacity to want to play a game of plastic army men pew pew wars at their local game store. I guess it's their own damn fault for being so entitled to think that they shouldn't be at a score disadvantage because they didn't buy enough GW paint and didn't sacrifice time with the kids or let the house fall apart so they could have the time paint the pants on their space marines in two thin costs.
It's easy to say "what's the big deal, it's only 10 VP in a game that doesn't matter, why make this such big stink" but if so then why put into print something that inherently puts somebody at a disadvantage in a game for not having fully painted minis? Why is it such a big deal that this rule needs to be enforced at the expense of somebody who doesn't have a fully painted army? And frankly the excuse for not having a painted army doesn't matter (newbie, busy life,doesn't care about painting, handicap, etc) because at the end of the day it's a rule that puts a demand that people spend a considerable amount of time, effort, ability, and money to do something before being able to have a fair game as per the rules. This isn't a tournament or club, this is for friendly pickup games.
That said I can't wait for 10th when you lose command points for using non official GW models.
Besides the eternal will of the online gatekeeper of course.
It is actually a GW rule. Why should we follow any GW rule but not this one?
Very few people play 40k by following any GW rule. Americans sure love their house rules, have you heard about the ITC format? Anyone who plays ITC isn't following "any GW rule".
Besides the eternal will of the online gatekeeper of course.
It is actually a GW rule. Why should we follow any GW rule but not this one?
Very few people play 40k by following any GW rule. Americans sure love their house rules, have you heard about the ITC format? Anyone who plays ITC isn't following "any GW rule".
BaconCatBug takes offense to that. He's a stickler for RAW, don'tcha know?
But yeah, outside BCB, I can't think of anyone who thinks GW is god and RAW is scripture.
Cebalrai wrote: Start small, at about 500 points or so. Don't play until it's done, devote the time to painting instead. If you've got a buddy who's also working on something, invite him over for a painting session. Play with your finished 500 points and grow from there.
This is how you do it.
Thread closed. Mic Drop.
Or, and just think about this for a second...how about we let people do what the hell the want with their plastic toys? If someone wants to play first, then paint, why should we stop them, or make it harder?
Besides the eternal will of the online gatekeeper of course.
Buy 500 points start small than build up from there... it’s what I did had an army in about 2 weeks.
i mean. what works for one person, doesnt work for everyone else. I cant paint 500 points in 2 weeks. Well i suppose i could but.. i dont want to, it would require a lot of time dedicated to painting over a small amount of time.
Im pretty sure South Park did a religion episode about Gilgameks where they specifically said: What works on planet Gelgamek doesnt necessarily work for people here on earth".
but we can easily turn that over to the warhammer hobby. What works for you, as in painting 500 points in 2 weeks, doesnt necessarily work for everyone else.
yukishiro1 wrote: If playing against a painted army is something you like, presumably yes, you would be the one to decide whether an army is painted to a standard you enjoy playing against. Why wouldn't you be?
I don't know anybody who's like "you know, it's the paint on the models that really makes me want to play, not how that paint makes them look. Dip your models in housepaint for all I care, it's that layer of chemical that does it for me!" If people want to play against painted armies, they presumably want to play against a painted army someone's made a decent effort at, not something someone's technically done the bare minimum on in the most slapdash way possible.
That's different than saying "the highlighting on this guy is bad! I won't play you!" I don't know anyone who assesses quality when deciding whether someone's paint job is good enough to play.
Which is why the RULE is bad.
If you only like playing against well-painted armies, a slapdash, awful paintjob won't make it better just because it's technically there. And likewise, 10 points won't make the game any better-you're not concerned about winning or losing, but the aesthetics.
I have zero issues with someone refusing to play me because my army isn't painted, assuming they're polite about it.
I have zero issues with GW saying "This game is best played with painted minis on a cool table!" or something like that.
I do have an issue with the game being impacted by non-gameplay elements, in a way that doesn't really serve to make anyone happier.
You're preaching to the choir here. I think the implementation is terrible. A rule that encourages you to paint like crap and punishes you for taking the time to paint well is not a good way to encourage painting.
Cebalrai wrote: Start small, at about 500 points or so. Don't play until it's done, devote the time to painting instead. If you've got a buddy who's also working on something, invite him over for a painting session. Play with your finished 500 points and grow from there.
This is how you do it.
Thread closed. Mic Drop.
Or, and just think about this for a second...how about we let people do what the hell the want with their plastic toys? If someone wants to play first, then paint, why should we stop them, or make it harder?
Besides the eternal will of the online gatekeeper of course.
Buy 500 points start small than build up from there... it’s what I did had an army in about 2 weeks.
i mean. what works for one person, doesnt work for everyone else. I cant paint 500 points in 2 weeks. Well i suppose i could but.. i dont want to, it would require a lot of time dedicated to painting over a small amount of time.
Im pretty sure South Park did a religion episode about Gilgameks where they specifically said: What works on planet Gelgamek doesnt necessarily work for people here on earth".
but we can easily turn that over to the warhammer hobby. What works for you, as in painting 500 points in 2 weeks, doesnt necessarily work for everyone else.
Painted this army in 2 weeks painting 45-60 min a night...... not perfect but 10 points
Stalked21 wrote: Painted this army in 2 weeks painting 45-60 min a night...... not perfect but 10 points
Good for you.
What if I can't see well, or have muscle twitches, and therefore can't paint that fast no matter how hard I try?
Or, in a non-hypothetical, what if I don't like to paint?
Where there is a will there is a way. The paints nowadays are way better than the older versions like I’ve been saying at least prime them do a quick base color, layer or shade. Even with shaky hands which I’ve got cause electrician you can figure it out
yukishiro1 wrote: If playing against a painted army is something you like, presumably yes, you would be the one to decide whether an army is painted to a standard you enjoy playing against. Why wouldn't you be?
I don't know anybody who's like "you know, it's the paint on the models that really makes me want to play, not how that paint makes them look. Dip your models in housepaint for all I care, it's that layer of chemical that does it for me!" If people want to play against painted armies, they presumably want to play against a painted army someone's made a decent effort at, not something someone's technically done the bare minimum on in the most slapdash way possible.
That's different than saying "the highlighting on this guy is bad! I won't play you!" I don't know anyone who assesses quality when deciding whether someone's paint job is good enough to play.
Which is why the RULE is bad.
If you only like playing against well-painted armies, a slapdash, awful paintjob won't make it better just because it's technically there. And likewise, 10 points won't make the game any better-you're not concerned about winning or losing, but the aesthetics.
I have zero issues with someone refusing to play me because my army isn't painted, assuming they're polite about it.
I have zero issues with GW saying "This game is best played with painted minis on a cool table!" or something like that.
I do have an issue with the game being impacted by non-gameplay elements, in a way that doesn't really serve to make anyone happier.
You're preaching to the choir here. I think the implementation is terrible. A rule that encourages you to paint like crap and punishes you for taking the time to paint well is not a good way to encourage painting.
More ham-fisted rules writing by the GW crew. Is this another example of “streamlining”?
Stalked21 wrote: Painted this army in 2 weeks painting 45-60 min a night...... not perfect but 10 points
Good for you.
What if I can't see well, or have muscle twitches, and therefore can't paint that fast no matter how hard I try?
Or, in a non-hypothetical, what if I don't like to paint?
Where there is a will there is a way. The paints nowadays are way better than the older versions like I’ve been saying at least prime them do a quick base color, layer or shade. Even with shaky hands which I’ve got cause electrician you can figure it out
Not really. I don't have to house rule anything. Want to use match play rules - RAW is you get 10 points for painted army. The game isn't designed to be played with D bags or sticklers ether. The rule at it's core is good - everyone enjoys playing with and against painted armies more. This encourages that. As a non D bag myself - if I see real effort - I will not deduct the points.
Says the guy who's judging what someone elses "real effort" is....
I am dumbfounded. You must be misunderstanding me. I am literally saying people should be lenient with the implementation of the 10 points rule. Effort over RAW in this case. Are they trying to paint their army essentially. If the answer is no...they get no points.
Given that your going on about how if you see "real progress" that's possible.
Oh, and BTW you are misapplying the rule as well. As written the max pts for a mission using this poo rule is that max pts available through play is 90/person. YOU don't get to deduct any pts from someone elses score. All that happens is that YOU can earn +10 more if YOUR army is Battle Ready.
Cebalrai wrote: Start small, at about 500 points or so. Don't play until it's done, devote the time to painting instead. If you've got a buddy who's also working on something, invite him over for a painting session. Play with your finished 500 points and grow from there.
This is how you do it.
Thread closed. Mic Drop.
Or, and just think about this for a second...how about we let people do what the hell the want with their plastic toys? If someone wants to play first, then paint, why should we stop them, or make it harder?
Besides the eternal will of the online gatekeeper of course.
It is actually a GW rule. Why should we follow any GW rule but not this one?
Do what you like. I'm not going to use this rule. If you're unhappy about that, you're free not to play me. No skin off of my teeth.
Then you find other people who also don't like to paint, or who don't mind modifying the core rules of the game to accommodate your preferences. I dunno what the big deal is either way. This whole thing seems like a massive tempest in a teacup. It's a rule you can play with or not as you choose, that has no impact on the actual game, so it literally doesn't even matter whether you choose to play with it or not. You can choose to play with it and your opponent can choose to play without it and you can both play the game exactly the same, you just have different ideas of who "won" at the end.
Cebalrai wrote: Start small, at about 500 points or so. Don't play until it's done, devote the time to painting instead. If you've got a buddy who's also working on something, invite him over for a painting session. Play with your finished 500 points and grow from there.
This is how you do it.
Thread closed. Mic Drop.
Or, and just think about this for a second...how about we let people do what the hell the want with their plastic toys? If someone wants to play first, then paint, why should we stop them, or make it harder?
Besides the eternal will of the online gatekeeper of course.
Buy 500 points start small than build up from there... it’s what I did had an army in about 2 weeks.
Ok. And if no one wants to play 500 points? Or if it still takes months to paint 500 points to a quality that I'm satisfied? What then? Why should I let someone else's standards dictate what I do with one of my hobbies (paint, build, collect, play)?
Stalked21 wrote: Painted this army in 2 weeks painting 45-60 min a night...... not perfect but 10 points
Good for you.
What if I can't see well, or have muscle twitches, and therefore can't paint that fast no matter how hard I try?
Or, in a non-hypothetical, what if I don't like to paint?
Where there is a will there is a way. The paints nowadays are way better than the older versions like I’ve been saying at least prime them do a quick base color, layer or shade. Even with shaky hands which I’ve got cause electrician you can figure it out
And if I just don't like to paint?
Idunno don’t get 10 points. Sometimes life favors those who try
Where there is a will there is a way. The paints nowadays are way better than the older versions like I’ve been saying at least prime them do a quick base color, layer or shade. Even with shaky hands which I’ve got cause electrician you can figure it out
Sure. And not everyone cares enough to put that will in. Or has time. Or can get that done even if they have 9,001x the will you have.
You're using your situation and assuming everyone else can meet that as a baseline, despite dozens of people telling you that's not the case.
Why should I let someone else's standards dictate what I do with one of my hobbies (paint, build, collect, play)?
Well, that depends, doesn't it? Are there enough people who share your preferences that you can do what you want and still have fun? Then have at it! Whether that's ignoring the painting rules or ignoring the coherency rules or ignoring any other rule of the game, more power to you! If there aren't, you'll probably need to compromise your own preferences to meet those of the people around you, to whatever degree is sufficient to get enough people to enjoy the hobby the way you want to enjoy it.
You don't have to compromise anything unless you want to. They don't have to compromise anything unless they want to. That's the great thing about tabletop gaming. You can do absolutely anything you want as long as you can find enough like-minded people to go along with it.
In this case, it's a terribly stupid thing to draw lines in the sand over, because you don't even need to compromise. You can say you're not playing with the painting rules, they can say they're playing with them. At the end of the game, you'll have one score you consider the score for the game, and they'll have a different one. They can win according to their rules, you can win according to yours (if the game is that close). Everybody's happy! Unless, of course, part of your enjoyment of the game relies on getting your opponent to acknowledge your version of how the game went. Which is something that is going to inhibit your enjoyment of gaming generally, so it's something best to work to get rid of the need for.
vict0988 wrote: This is just another way that 9th is for narrative players first. Am I supposed to not allow SM to use Oath of Moment either?
I don't think 40k has been more angled toward competitive players than 9th is since I started in 5th.
In my experience most people who don't paint their armies haven't done it not because they can't, but because they don't want to/don't care. *of course I know some people who genuinely do have more difficulty painting.
The 10pts rule is intended to give competitive players a reason to care as well.
Let's face it, there is a core of players who won't paint the army because they do not want to impede the reselling price.
Jokes on you, most of my eBay minis are painted and based, all in their own unique ways. The pirate Phaeron Thaszar does not discriminate.
The evidence for 9th being narrative is everywhere, this thread did not exist in the previous edition. 9th also brought back the genius idea of sandwiching images and narrative in between the matched play rules. GW couldn't even copy the ITC Champions missions without injecting narrative into everything, making a decently balanced and immensely fun system much worse and the ITC guys have been muzzled and stopped from improving the game.
I recently read an article on GW playtesting, it was, unfortunately, a little vague and went into a lot of detail about who tested instead of how they tested. All they talk about how much effort it is to be a playtester, well, it takes a great amount of effort to dig a ditch with a garden shovel, I want to know if they are using garden shovels or excavators to test their rules. It's great to read that they did two rounds of playtesting for 8th and that they listened to playtesters, but that doesn't fit with what playtesters have said about 9th and it fails to deliver the juicy details or even acknowledge that the GW rules writing team pump out tonnes of imbalanced and poorly written rules. 9th is really close to being perfect and I want to know why it isn't, did GW listen too much to the casual playtesters of the Infinity Circuit and the evil knife-ear podcasters and not enough to the competitive playtesters of the Mournival and evil man Reecio?
Where there is a will there is a way. The paints nowadays are way better than the older versions like I’ve been saying at least prime them do a quick base color, layer or shade. Even with shaky hands which I’ve got cause electrician you can figure it out
Sure. And not everyone cares enough to put that will in. Or has time. Or can get that done even if they have 9,001x the will you have.
You're using your situation and assuming everyone else can meet that as a baseline, despite dozens of people telling you that's not the case.
Well that’s them everyone has different situations but if you can’t for the 15th time prime. Base and shade or layer which I would count as 10 points than damn you must be even more busy than I am. Especially with lockdowns what else is even going on?
Why should I let someone else's standards dictate what I do with one of my hobbies (paint, build, collect, play)?
Well, that depends, doesn't it? Are there enough people who share your preferences that you can do what you want and still have fun? Then have at it! Whether that's ignoring the painting rules or ignoring the coherency rules or ignoring any other rule of the game, more power to you! If there aren't, you'll probably need to compromise your own preferences to meet those of the people around you, to whatever degree is sufficient to get enough people to enjoy the hobby the way you want to enjoy it.
You don't have to compromise anything unless you want to. They don't have to compromise anything unless they want to. That's the great thing about tabletop gaming. You can do absolutely anything you want as long as you can find enough like-minded people to go along with it.
In this case, it's a terribly stupid thing to draw lines in the sand over, because you don't even need to compromise. You can say you're not playing with the painting rules, they can say they're playing with them. At the end of the game, you'll have one score you consider the score for the game, and they'll have a different one. They can win according to their rules, you can win according to yours (if the game is that close). Everybody's happy! Unless, of course, part of your enjoyment of the game relies on getting your opponent to acknowledge your version of how the game went. Which is something that is going to inhibit your enjoyment of gaming generally, so it's something best to work to get rid of the need for.
Apparently there are enough people who share my preference.
Sure, I would have to compromise. But in this case compromise is pretty much limited to "no paint rule, or no game". There really isn't much that can be given up that wouldn't end things up in the same situation as free victory points.
You think it's a stupid reason to draw a line in the sand. I think it's a battle worth having. And no, life doesn't work the way you described. Literally no one would settle on two different points totals. All this does is harm communities and pisses everyone off.
Where there is a will there is a way. The paints nowadays are way better than the older versions like I’ve been saying at least prime them do a quick base color, layer or shade. Even with shaky hands which I’ve got cause electrician you can figure it out
Sure. And not everyone cares enough to put that will in. Or has time. Or can get that done even if they have 9,001x the will you have.
You're using your situation and assuming everyone else can meet that as a baseline, despite dozens of people telling you that's not the case.
Well that’s them everyone has different situations but if you can’t for the 15th time prime. Base and shade or layer which I would count as 10 points than damn you must be even more busy than I am. Especially with lockdowns what else is even going on?
What could stop that? You mean besides cold weather, work, family, other hobbies, sickness, physical issues such as eye quality, or hands, wow, that list just keeps going!
Mmmpi wrote: And no, life doesn't work the way you described. Literally no one would settle on two different points totals. All this does is harm communities and pisses everyone off.
I am literally someone, so your statement is literally wrong.
But why wouldn't you? If it's not a tournament, who cares? Why in your need to win so great that you not only need to win according to the rules you're applying, but you also need to force your opponent to acknowledge that your rules are the correct ones? That's classic WAAC behavior. Normally rules disputes matter because you can't continue the game playing by two different sets of rules, but in this case, you can, so why create an argument where none needs to exist?
The only good thing about this rule is that it has zero impact on the actual game, so it doesn't matter whether you agree to play with it or not. You can still play the exact same game together while each getting to have it your way.
Racerguy180 wrote: If you have no desire to paint you're army, why the feth are you playing a game that has painting as part of it?
Maybe you don't like painting. Maybe you can't paint. Maybe you have vision of mobility issues that making painting a pain if not impossible.
Racerguy180 wrote: Go play with some cardboard chits instead, would probably save money.
But what if you like the miniatures.
addnid wrote: People who are too lazy to paint should just go play a game that doesn’t require painting.
Hi. I'm colourblind, have unsteady hands, and basically can't see out of one eye.
But no, I'm just 'lazy' about painting.
I see the white Knight is out again. Hah hah.
This game doesn't require painting.
Warhammer 40k has literally one rule that references painted models, and it's the 10 point rule.
No other rule requires your models to have paint on them. They do require models for Line of Sight, but paint is exclusively limited to 10 points because you like painting and gaming, instead of just gaming.
Why should I let someone else's standards dictate what I do with one of my hobbies (paint, build, collect, play)?
Well, that depends, doesn't it? Are there enough people who share your preferences that you can do what you want and still have fun? Then have at it! Whether that's ignoring the painting rules or ignoring the coherency rules or ignoring any other rule of the game, more power to you! If there aren't, you'll probably need to compromise your own preferences to meet those of the people around you, to whatever degree is sufficient to get enough people to enjoy the hobby the way you want to enjoy it.
You don't have to compromise anything unless you want to. They don't have to compromise anything unless they want to. That's the great thing about tabletop gaming. You can do absolutely anything you want as long as you can find enough like-minded people to go along with it.
In this case, it's a terribly stupid thing to draw lines in the sand over, because you don't even need to compromise. You can say you're not playing with the painting rules, they can say they're playing with them. At the end of the game, you'll have one score you consider the score for the game, and they'll have a different one. They can win according to their rules, you can win according to yours (if the game is that close). Everybody's happy! Unless, of course, part of your enjoyment of the game relies on getting your opponent to acknowledge your version of how the game went. Which is something that is going to inhibit your enjoyment of gaming generally, so it's something best to work to get rid of the need for.
Apparently there are enough people who share my preference.
Sure, I would have to compromise. But in this case compromise is pretty much limited to "no paint rule, or no game". There really isn't much that can be given up that wouldn't end things up in the same situation as free victory points.
You think it's a stupid reason to draw a line in the sand. I think it's a battle worth having. And no, life doesn't work the way you described. Literally no one would settle on two different points totals. All this does is harm communities and pisses everyone off.
Where there is a will there is a way. The paints nowadays are way better than the older versions like I’ve been saying at least prime them do a quick base color, layer or shade. Even with shaky hands which I’ve got cause electrician you can figure it out
Sure. And not everyone cares enough to put that will in. Or has time. Or can get that done even if they have 9,001x the will you have.
You're using your situation and assuming everyone else can meet that as a baseline, despite dozens of people telling you that's not the case.
Well that’s them everyone has different situations but if you can’t for the 15th time prime. Base and shade or layer which I would count as 10 points than damn you must be even more busy than I am. Especially with lockdowns what else is even going on?
What could stop that? You mean besides cold weather, work, family, other hobbies, sickness, physical issues such as eye quality, or hands, wow, that list just keeps going!
yukishiro1 wrote: Why wouldn't you? If it's not a tournament, who cares? Why in your need to win so great that you not only need to win according to the rules you're applying, but you also need to force your opponent to acknowledge that your rules are the correct ones?
The only good thing about this rule is that it has zero impact on the actual game, so it doesn't matter whether you agree to play with it or not. You can still play the exact same game together while each getting to have it your way.
Why is your need to win so great that you have to force a non-game requirement onto people just to have a chance at winning?
The only good thing about this rule is that is lets me know who in my group can feth off, and who are worth my time.
Why should I let someone else's standards dictate what I do with one of my hobbies (paint, build, collect, play)?
Well, that depends, doesn't it? Are there enough people who share your preferences that you can do what you want and still have fun? Then have at it! Whether that's ignoring the painting rules or ignoring the coherency rules or ignoring any other rule of the game, more power to you! If there aren't, you'll probably need to compromise your own preferences to meet those of the people around you, to whatever degree is sufficient to get enough people to enjoy the hobby the way you want to enjoy it.
You don't have to compromise anything unless you want to. They don't have to compromise anything unless they want to. That's the great thing about tabletop gaming. You can do absolutely anything you want as long as you can find enough like-minded people to go along with it.
In this case, it's a terribly stupid thing to draw lines in the sand over, because you don't even need to compromise. You can say you're not playing with the painting rules, they can say they're playing with them. At the end of the game, you'll have one score you consider the score for the game, and they'll have a different one. They can win according to their rules, you can win according to yours (if the game is that close). Everybody's happy! Unless, of course, part of your enjoyment of the game relies on getting your opponent to acknowledge your version of how the game went. Which is something that is going to inhibit your enjoyment of gaming generally, so it's something best to work to get rid of the need for.
Apparently there are enough people who share my preference.
Sure, I would have to compromise. But in this case compromise is pretty much limited to "no paint rule, or no game". There really isn't much that can be given up that wouldn't end things up in the same situation as free victory points.
You think it's a stupid reason to draw a line in the sand. I think it's a battle worth having. And no, life doesn't work the way you described. Literally no one would settle on two different points totals. All this does is harm communities and pisses everyone off.
Where there is a will there is a way. The paints nowadays are way better than the older versions like I’ve been saying at least prime them do a quick base color, layer or shade. Even with shaky hands which I’ve got cause electrician you can figure it out
Sure. And not everyone cares enough to put that will in. Or has time. Or can get that done even if they have 9,001x the will you have.
You're using your situation and assuming everyone else can meet that as a baseline, despite dozens of people telling you that's not the case.
Well that’s them everyone has different situations but if you can’t for the 15th time prime. Base and shade or layer which I would count as 10 points than damn you must be even more busy than I am. Especially with lockdowns what else is even going on?
What could stop that? You mean besides cold weather, work, family, other hobbies, sickness, physical issues such as eye quality, or hands, wow, that list just keeps going!
There are a huge range of hidden assumptions behind this single rule.
That everyone has the same amount of free time to sink into every aspect of the hobby rather than those aspects they actually like
That they can physically paint
That if they can't or won't, they have enough money to pay someone else to do it.
This rule has many intentions, but they are irrelevant to the actual practical outcomes on legitimising gatekeeping in the hobby.
It literally says if you don't engage with this hobby in the prescribed ways, the game is designed to punish you for it (just because something is a reward for one person doesn't absolve it of being a punishment in absentia for others).
Now there are plenty of reasons I wouldn't want to play someone who doesn't have a painted army that have nothing to do with their army. The lack of painting may be a visual indicator that they are a WAAC gamer and cheese master and I wouldn't wan to play someone like that anyway.
Painting is but one aspect of the hobby. This rule tries to connect the gaming side with the painting side, but it does so in a way that clearly says if you aren't a middle class able bodied, free time-rich person, you should be punished for not being able to do all the prescribed aspects of enjoying the GW Hobby (TM).
To add to Hellebore's answer, it also punishes people who are trying to paint, but want to do more than sit at home for weeks/months before getting into this cool game they just picked up.
So hurting new people who are doing 'the right thing'.
yukishiro1 wrote: Why wouldn't you? If it's not a tournament, who cares? Why in your need to win so great that you not only need to win according to the rules you're applying, but you also need to force your opponent to acknowledge that your rules are the correct ones?
The only good thing about this rule is that it has zero impact on the actual game, so it doesn't matter whether you agree to play with it or not. You can still play the exact same game together while each getting to have it your way.
Why is your need to win so great that you have to force a non-game requirement onto people just to have a chance at winning?
The only good thing about this rule is that is lets me know who in my group can feth off, and who are worth my time.
Mate, I feel like you are really confused here on a pretty basic level. Believe it or not, I'm not Games Workshop. I didn't write this rule. I'm flattered that you thought I was, but we need to clear this up right away, before you start blaming me for all the other bad rules GW writes.
And I'm doing literally the opposite of forcing it on you - I'm telling you there is a perfect way to resolve an impasse over this rule, that doesn't require anyone to give up anything. If you want to play without the 10 points rule, and the other guy wants to play with it, you can just both play the way each one of you wants to. Nothing changes in the game, so you can both have your own set of rules, and it won't impact anything at all. Everyone gets what they wants. It's the definition of win-win.
But that isn't good enough for you. You not only need to be able to play without the rule, you need to force your opponent to acknowledge it too. Why is that? Why can't you just play the game, and at the end, you can have your score and they can have theirs? Why the need to force your preferences onto them?
Think of the miniatures that you could have painted with the time you invested in typing about a rule about painting!
edit - And I think that yukishiro1 has the answer for those who feel its an impasse. If its not in a tourney who cares about 10VP? Like has anybody actually seen this come up?
Mmmpi wrote: To add to Hellebore's answer, it also punishes people who are trying to paint, but want to do more than sit at home for weeks/months before getting into this cool game they just picked up.
So hurting new people who are doing 'the right thing'.
True i was away from home for most of 8th edition and unable to even paint due to work than Covid hit trapping me overseas for an additional 5 months now I’m back and I still am still playing catch-up. Even with all this I can play a 2K game with a fully painted army. Chip at the Boulder and you’ll get results.
yukishiro1 wrote: Why wouldn't you? If it's not a tournament, who cares? Why in your need to win so great that you not only need to win according to the rules you're applying, but you also need to force your opponent to acknowledge that your rules are the correct ones?
The only good thing about this rule is that it has zero impact on the actual game, so it doesn't matter whether you agree to play with it or not. You can still play the exact same game together while each getting to have it your way.
Why is your need to win so great that you have to force a non-game requirement onto people just to have a chance at winning?
The only good thing about this rule is that is lets me know who in my group can feth off, and who are worth my time.
Mate, I feel like you are really confused here on a pretty basic level. Believe it or not, I'm not Games Workshop. I didn't write this rule. I'm flattered that you thought I was, but we need to clear this up right away, before you start blaming me for all the other bad rules GW writes.
And I'm doing literally the opposite of forcing it on you - I'm telling you there is a perfect way to resolve an impasse over this rule, that doesn't require anyone to give up anything. If you want to play without the 10 points rule, and the other guy wants to play with it, you can just both play the way each one of you wants to. Nothing changes in the game, so you can both have your own set of rules, and it won't impact anything at all. Everyone gets what they wants. It's the definition of win-win.
But that isn't good enough for you. You not only need to be able to play without the rule, you need to force your opponent to acknowledge it too. Why is that? Why can't you just play the game, and at the end, you can have your score and they can have theirs? Why the need to force your preferences onto them?
Cute. Making things up about me, or what I wrote, won't change my mind. Or make me any more receptive. The opposite actually.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
TangoTwoBravo wrote: Think of the miniatures that you could have painted with the time you invested in typing about a rule about painting!
edit - And I think that yukishiro1 has the answer for those who feel its an impasse. If its not in a tourney who cares about 10VP? Like has anybody actually seen this come up?
Mmmpi wrote: To add to Hellebore's answer, it also punishes people who are trying to paint, but want to do more than sit at home for weeks/months before getting into this cool game they just picked up.
So hurting new people who are doing 'the right thing'.
True i was away from home for most of 8th edition and unable to even paint due to work than Covid hit trapping me overseas for an additional 5 months now I’m back and I still am still playing catch-up. Even with all this I can play a 2K game with a fully painted army. Chip at the Boulder and you’ll get results.
Good for you. Try working two Healthcare jobs and finding time to paint in between that free time. Good punishment for me I guess, all while still deciding what the actual paint scheme will be.
I never thought people could be so extreme and engaged in defending what is, in the vast majority of cases, basically ininfluent. GW attitude against third models party, conversions, push towards standardizes scenery all deserve much more blame that this small nudge to drive people towards the hobby.
I think it's good to discuss about this. If this rules hurt you so much, then you care too much about imaginary points and nothing about the game experience. Probably the community as a whole can get a net gain by someone who is so enraged to leave the hobby: addiction by subtraction of a negative element.
Mmmpi wrote: To add to Hellebore's answer, it also punishes people who are trying to paint, but want to do more than sit at home for weeks/months before getting into this cool game they just picked up.
So hurting new people who are doing 'the right thing'.
True i was away from home for most of 8th edition and unable to even paint due to work than Covid hit trapping me overseas for an additional 5 months now I’m back and I still am still playing catch-up. Even with all this I can play a 2K game with a fully painted army. Chip at the Boulder and you’ll get results.
You're assuming I don't have a fully painted army, when I have multiple fully painted armies.
This might be a stretch for you, but I'm capable of advocating for things that don't directly benefit me.
Mmmpi wrote: To add to Hellebore's answer, it also punishes people who are trying to paint, but want to do more than sit at home for weeks/months before getting into this cool game they just picked up.
So hurting new people who are doing 'the right thing'.
True i was away from home for most of 8th edition and unable to even paint due to work than Covid hit trapping me overseas for an additional 5 months now I’m back and I still am still playing catch-up. Even with all this I can play a 2K game with a fully painted army. Chip at the Boulder and you’ll get results.
But that's really missing the point, isn't it? It's true that the vast majority of people who play with plastic could paint their minis, and just don't want to bother. But so what? Why should they do something they don't enjoy doing? It's a hobby, not a job. If they can find enough like-minded people who enjoy the tide of grey, more power to them! You should play the game you want to play it, assuming you can find enough other people to go along with it.
It's the weird need so many people in this thread show to force their preferences on others that's the problem. If you don't like the 10 points for painting rule? Great, don't play with it! If you do like it? Great too, play with it! You don't even need to agree with one another to play, since it has no in-game impact. That's really the end of it. This rule has no real impact on anything at all, except people who are so uptight that they not only have to have it their way but have to get their opponent to bow down to their way of playing the game too.
From a gameplay perspective, I think a sea of grey is hard to distinguish at a glance. Even table ready (3 colors including a base and a wash) it's difficult to tell some unit's from another unit if they are all poorly painted. Sea of grey just seems crappy to play against. If you have two squads of 30 conscripts, all of the Grey Legion, how do I call you out on being out of coherency or tell your units apart if they get mixed together?
I mean I just paint my models because I want to at least provide a level playing environment. It's not fair, or fun sometimes, to play against a fully unpainted horde list. Now if you are playing Knights, Custodes, or all Tanks, etc (Armies less than 15 models) then I can see that not being a problem.
But I would never call for the points simply because of what I choose to do with my free time, because I don't want to judge the other player.
Cute. Making things up about me, or what I wrote, won't change my mind. Or make me any more receptive. The opposite actually.
I wasn't making up anything about you or what you wrote. I was trying to make sense of your comment. I was literally doing the opposite of forcing anything on anybody, so what you wrote didn't make any possible sense unless you thought I was somehow affiliated with GW.
If you don't want to address the substance of what I wrote that's up to you, but you ought to take responsibility for it, just like you ought to admit that you are forcing your preferences onto others by insisting they not play with the rule, just as much as anyone insisting you play with the rule is forcing their preferences onto you. And it's a shame, because there's absolutely no need for anyone force anyone's preferences on anyone when in comes to this rule.
But that's really missing the point, isn't it? It's true that the vast majority of people who play with plastic could paint their minis, and just don't want to bother. But so what? Why should they do something they don't enjoy doing? It's a hobby, not a job. If they can find enough like-minded people who enjoy the tide of grey, more power to them! You should play the game you want to play it, assuming you can find enough other people to go along with it.
It's the weird need so many people in this thread show to force their preferences on others that's the problem. If you don't like the 10 points for painting rule? Great, don't play with it! If you do like it? Great too, play with it! You don't even need to agree with one another to play, since it has no in-game impact. That's really the end of it. This rule has no real impact on anything at all, except people who are so uptight that they not only have to have it their way but have to get their opponent to bow down to their way of playing the game too.
I think you're making an assumption here when you say most people just aren't bothering. Rather, most people are making progress, but want to do more than sit at home and paint model by themselves. (Yes, you can paint at 'paint days' but that's not an every day thing for most people)
It's not weird that people are showing their preferences. People were directed asked their opinion by the OP.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: From a gameplay perspective, I think a sea of grey is hard to distinguish at a glance. Even table ready (3 colors including a base and a wash) it's difficult to tell some unit's from another unit if they are all poorly painted. Sea of grey just seems crappy to play against. If you have two squads of 30 conscripts, all of the Grey Legion, how do I call you out on being out of coherency or tell your units apart if they get mixed together?
I mean I just paint my models because I want to at least provide a level playing environment. It's not fair, or fun sometimes, to play against a fully unpainted horde list. Now if you are playing Knights, Custodes, or all Tanks, etc (Armies less than 15 models) then I can see that not being a problem.
But I would never call for the points simply because of what I choose to do with my free time, because I don't want to judge the other player.
How do you tell 60 conscripts apart if they're all painted the same? I bring that up because this painting rule encourages people to just batch paint the whole thing as fast as possible, which doesn't (for me at least) make it any easier to tell units apart.
Mmmpi wrote: To add to Hellebore's answer, it also punishes people who are trying to paint, but want to do more than sit at home for weeks/months before getting into this cool game they just picked up.
So hurting new people who are doing 'the right thing'.
True i was away from home for most of 8th edition and unable to even paint due to work than Covid hit trapping me overseas for an additional 5 months now I’m back and I still am still playing catch-up. Even with all this I can play a 2K game with a fully painted army. Chip at the Boulder and you’ll get results.
Good for you. Try working two Healthcare jobs and finding time to paint in between that free time. Good punishment for me I guess, all while still deciding what the actual paint scheme will be.
I think you're making an assumption here when you say most people just aren't bothering. Rather, most people are making progress, but want to do more than sit at home and paint model by themselves. (Yes, you can paint at 'paint days' but that's not an every day thing for most people)
It's not weird that people are showing their preferences. People were directed asked their opinion by the OP.
Of course I'm making an assumption, generalized from my own experience. Maybe it's right, maybe it's wrong. But the point of the comment was it doesn't matter why people aren't painting - even if it is just laziness, that's totally fine! If you don't enjoy painting, why should you do it?
But the original poster asked what to do in a situation where one person wants to use the rule and the other person doesn't. To which the obvious answer is: Each of you keep score the way you want to and if when you get to the end of the game those 10 VPs make a difference, each of you can have your own score and decide who won based on it. Everybody's happy! It's totally win-win!
So it's weird and unfortunate that it immediately degenerated into a bunch of people fighting with each other as to whose way of playing is the true, correct, morally superior way, when there's absolutely no need to have that fight.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: From a gameplay perspective, I think a sea of grey is hard to distinguish at a glance. Even table ready (3 colors including a base and a wash) it's difficult to tell some unit's from another unit if they are all poorly painted. Sea of grey just seems crappy to play against. If you have two squads of 30 conscripts, all of the Grey Legion, how do I call you out on being out of coherency or tell your units apart if they get mixed together?
I mean I just paint my models because I want to at least provide a level playing environment. It's not fair, or fun sometimes, to play against a fully unpainted horde list. Now if you are playing Knights, Custodes, or all Tanks, etc (Armies less than 15 models) then I can see that not being a problem.
But I would never call for the points simply because of what I choose to do with my free time, because I don't want to judge the other player.
How do you tell 60 conscripts apart if they're all painted the same? I bring that up because this painting rule encourages people to just batch paint the whole thing as fast as possible, which doesn't (for me at least) make it any easier to tell units apart.
Mmmpi wrote: To add to Hellebore's answer, it also punishes people who are trying to paint, but want to do more than sit at home for weeks/months before getting into this cool game they just picked up.
So hurting new people who are doing 'the right thing'.
True i was away from home for most of 8th edition and unable to even paint due to work than Covid hit trapping me overseas for an additional 5 months now I’m back and I still am still playing catch-up. Even with all this I can play a 2K game with a fully painted army. Chip at the Boulder and you’ll get results.
Good for you. Try working two Healthcare jobs and finding time to paint in between that free time. Good punishment for me I guess, all while still deciding what the actual paint scheme will be.
Pitty party table for one!
Let us know when your table is free.
Might be a while my tables covered in painted models.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: From a gameplay perspective, I think a sea of grey is hard to distinguish at a glance. Even table ready (3 colors including a base and a wash) it's difficult to tell some unit's from another unit if they are all poorly painted. Sea of grey just seems crappy to play against. If you have two squads of 30 conscripts, all of the Grey Legion, how do I call you out on being out of coherency or tell your units apart if they get mixed together?
I mean I just paint my models because I want to at least provide a level playing environment. It's not fair, or fun sometimes, to play against a fully unpainted horde list. Now if you are playing Knights, Custodes, or all Tanks, etc (Armies less than 15 models) then I can see that not being a problem.
But I would never call for the points simply because of what I choose to do with my free time, because I don't want to judge the other player.
How do you tell 60 conscripts apart if they're all painted the same? I bring that up because this painting rule encourages people to just batch paint the whole thing as fast as possible, which doesn't (for me at least) make it any easier to tell units apart.
Mmmpi wrote: To add to Hellebore's answer, it also punishes people who are trying to paint, but want to do more than sit at home for weeks/months before getting into this cool game they just picked up.
So hurting new people who are doing 'the right thing'.
True i was away from home for most of 8th edition and unable to even paint due to work than Covid hit trapping me overseas for an additional 5 months now I’m back and I still am still playing catch-up. Even with all this I can play a 2K game with a fully painted army. Chip at the Boulder and you’ll get results.
Good for you. Try working two Healthcare jobs and finding time to paint in between that free time. Good punishment for me I guess, all while still deciding what the actual paint scheme will be.
Pitty party table for one!
Let us know when your table is free.
[/spoiler]
Might be a while my tables covered in painted models.
Mmmpi wrote: To add to Hellebore's answer, it also punishes people who are trying to paint, but want to do more than sit at home for weeks/months before getting into this cool game they just picked up.
So hurting new people who are doing 'the right thing'.
True i was away from home for most of 8th edition and unable to even paint due to work than Covid hit trapping me overseas for an additional 5 months now I’m back and I still am still playing catch-up. Even with all this I can play a 2K game with a fully painted army. Chip at the Boulder and you’ll get results.
Good for you. Try working two Healthcare jobs and finding time to paint in between that free time. Good punishment for me I guess, all while still deciding what the actual paint scheme will be.
Pitty party table for one!
I'm not asking for pity. I'm asking you to understand y'all are defending a gakky rule and don't understand the principle of, especially if you need to try to houserule and edit per game, it was a garbage rule to begin with. Go off being white Knights though.
Cebalrai wrote: Start small, at about 500 points or so. Don't play until it's done, devote the time to painting instead. If you've got a buddy who's also working on something, invite him over for a painting session. Play with your finished 500 points and grow from there.
This is how you do it.
Thread closed. Mic Drop.
Or, and just think about this for a second...how about we let people do what the hell the want with their plastic toys? If someone wants to play first, then paint, why should we stop them, or make it harder?
Besides the eternal will of the online gatekeeper of course.
It is actually a GW rule. Why should we follow any GW rule but not this one?
We follow GW rules because it is convenient to have one set of rules for everyone. If GW writers snapped one day completely and made strip 40k the official matched ruleset, it would no longer be convenient (or sane) to play "by GW rules".
This is of course in no way as bad as the theoretical strip variant, but it's also annoying and discourages painting well over painting fast, making for a worse experience overall.
In the end, sane people will be able to agree before game if this rule applies or not, people who try to use it as a gotcha may find themselves with a shrunk pool of opponents in the long run (but a table full of painted models for their v-day dinner i suppose)
Mmmpi wrote: To add to Hellebore's answer, it also punishes people who are trying to paint, but want to do more than sit at home for weeks/months before getting into this cool game they just picked up.
So hurting new people who are doing 'the right thing'.
True i was away from home for most of 8th edition and unable to even paint due to work than Covid hit trapping me overseas for an additional 5 months now I’m back and I still am still playing catch-up. Even with all this I can play a 2K game with a fully painted army. Chip at the Boulder and you’ll get results.
Good for you. Try working two Healthcare jobs and finding time to paint in between that free time. Good punishment for me I guess, all while still deciding what the actual paint scheme will be.
Pitty party table for one!
I'm not asking for pity. I'm asking you to understand y'all are defending a gakky rule and don't understand the principle of, especially if you need to try to houserule and edit per game, it was a garbage rule to begin with. Go off being white Knights though.
I follow rules as in the black and white if it hurts your fee fees don’t play.
Mmmpi wrote: To add to Hellebore's answer, it also punishes people who are trying to paint, but want to do more than sit at home for weeks/months before getting into this cool game they just picked up.
So hurting new people who are doing 'the right thing'.
True i was away from home for most of 8th edition and unable to even paint due to work than Covid hit trapping me overseas for an additional 5 months now I’m back and I still am still playing catch-up. Even with all this I can play a 2K game with a fully painted army. Chip at the Boulder and you’ll get results.
Good for you. Try working two Healthcare jobs and finding time to paint in between that free time. Good punishment for me I guess, all while still deciding what the actual paint scheme will be.
Pitty party table for one!
I'm not asking for pity. I'm asking you to understand y'all are defending a gakky rule and don't understand the principle of, especially if you need to try to houserule and edit per game, it was a garbage rule to begin with. Go off being white Knights though.
I follow rules as in the black and white if it hurts your fee fees don’t play.
I won't be playing you. I've made it clear that I won't use the rule, and would rather not play than use it.
Considering GW rules though, I'm not sure they're playable in B&W.
Voss wrote: Wow. 'Strip 40k' isn't the worst thing I've ever seen result from a 'slippery slope' argument, but its definitely up there on the weirdness scale.
Though tying stripping and painting to an evaluation of 'sanity' is a bit much.
As a hypothetical bad rule it works just fine. I mean, they weren't suggesting that it was possible, just that if it somehow did, that almost no one would use it.
I've been in the hobby for over 20 years and have NEVER played with a fully painted army.
It just hasn't been far up on my list of priorities and i've usually preferred the modeling, converting and gaming parts of the hobby and only ever bothered to paint the odd unit or character here and there. Nobody has ever made any comments on any of my armies or judged me for not having things fully painted.
I am not a tournament player and could somewhat understand the painted army rule being enforced at the more 'prestegious' tournaments. However if i was looking to play someone casually or in a local tournament and they looked to enforce this rule i would probably just not bother playing them. If someone is happy to take advantage of this 'handicap' whilst playing a friendly game then they aren't the kind of person i am interested in playing anyway.
Recently however i have found myself having extra motivation and have pledged to try and complete one army per year (i have 6 armies between 40k and Warhammer Fantasy).
First up being my Biel-Tan Eldar having managed to fully paint in the past 10 months:
Avatar and Court of the Young King
Farseer and Seer Council
8 different units of Aspect Warriors
Rangers
4 Wave Serpents
3 Fire Prisms/Nightspinners
3 Falcons
1 Crimson Hunter
The only things left to complete the army are a unit of Shadow Specters and 40 Eldar Guardians and i am proud of the progress i have made.
Regardless of my newfound enthusiasm i still have no interest in enforcing the painted army rule. Everybody has their own way to enjoy their hobby and i have no interest in giving myself an unfair advantage over an opponent in a local game.
Voss wrote: Wow. 'Strip 40k' isn't the worst thing I've ever seen result from a 'slippery slope' argument, but its definitely up there on the weirdness scale.
Though tying stripping and painting to an evaluation of 'sanity' is a bit much.
Maybe he meant if you lose the game, you have to strip all the paint off your miniatures and repaint them?
Voss wrote: Wow. 'Strip 40k' isn't the worst thing I've ever seen result from a 'slippery slope' argument, but its definitely up there on the weirdness scale.
Though tying stripping and painting to an evaluation of 'sanity' is a bit much.
As a hypothetical bad rule it works just fine. I mean, they weren't suggesting that it was possible, just that if it somehow did, that almost no one would use it.
What works fine is people just accepting that its liked and disliked by different people. For all the pages of back and forth (again) and bad logic everywhere (especially 10 != 10), nothing has changed.
The only time its going to matter is if someone actually on the other side of a physical table is severely passionate about it (in one way or the other). Here its just an internet debate attracting flies.
Voss wrote: Wow. 'Strip 40k' isn't the worst thing I've ever seen result from a 'slippery slope' argument, but its definitely up there on the weirdness scale.
Though tying stripping and painting to an evaluation of 'sanity' is a bit much.
As a hypothetical bad rule it works just fine. I mean, they weren't suggesting that it was possible, just that if it somehow did, that almost no one would use it.
What works fine is people just accepting that its liked and disliked by different people. For all the pages of back and forth (again) and bad logic everywhere (especially 10 != 10), nothing has changed.
The only time its going to matter is if someone actually on the other side of a physical table is severely passionate about it (in one way or the other). Here its just an internet debate attracting flies.
Sure. But then, the bad logic coming from the gatekeepers should be opposed so casual readers don't think it's the only way to do things. And let me know if you like paying 10% more on things. 10% is a lot.
Voss wrote: Wow. 'Strip 40k' isn't the worst thing I've ever seen result from a 'slippery slope' argument, but its definitely up there on the weirdness scale.
Though tying stripping and painting to an evaluation of 'sanity' is a bit much.
As a hypothetical bad rule it works just fine. I mean, they weren't suggesting that it was possible, just that if it somehow did, that almost no one would use it.
What works fine is people just accepting that its liked and disliked by different people. For all the pages of back and forth (again) and bad logic everywhere (especially 10 != 10), nothing has changed.
The only time its going to matter is if someone actually on the other side of a physical table is severely passionate about it (in one way or the other). Here its just an internet debate attracting flies.
Sure. But then, the bad logic coming from the gatekeepers should be opposed so casual readers don't think it's the only way to do things. And let me know if you like paying 10% more on things. 10% is a lot.
Bad logic should be opposed no matter who its coming from. Regardless of 'casual readers' and what they might by thinking.
And regardless of which side your hypothetical gatekeepers might be on. I see them on both sides.
Voss wrote: Wow. 'Strip 40k' isn't the worst thing I've ever seen result from a 'slippery slope' argument, but its definitely up there on the weirdness scale.
Though tying stripping and painting to an evaluation of 'sanity' is a bit much.
As a hypothetical bad rule it works just fine. I mean, they weren't suggesting that it was possible, just that if it somehow did, that almost no one would use it.
What works fine is people just accepting that its liked and disliked by different people. For all the pages of back and forth (again) and bad logic everywhere (especially 10 != 10), nothing has changed.
The only time its going to matter is if someone actually on the other side of a physical table is severely passionate about it (in one way or the other). Here its just an internet debate attracting flies.
Sure. But then, the bad logic coming from the gatekeepers should be opposed so casual readers don't think it's the only way to do things. And let me know if you like paying 10% more on things. 10% is a lot.
Bad logic should be opposed no matter who its coming from. Regardless of 'casual readers' and what they might by thinking.
And regardless of which side your hypothetical gatekeepers might be on. I see them on both sides.
Both sides is often a terrible argument. This conversation isn't any different.
Funny thing is so far ive never faced anybody obnoxious enough or with enough of a fully based and painted army to do this. I also don't plan on facing them. If it's that big of a deal to you then I just won't play you.
I will be 100% honest and say i did not expect 10 pages when i asked my question which started this thread. I dont really skulk around a lot on the general forum so i was really just curious. I had not met anyone who wanted to claim his ten points before, at all, so i was curious if those types existed at all. Which i guess they do, looking at this thread. Apparently i just dont meet them.
I had recently just made 2 other posts in the general forums, and those 2 along side this one was just made out of curiocity. I didnt know there had been a long discussion about it before i made mine, and i didnt bother using the search engine nor necro old threads in case i wanted my opinion to be heard.
Amazing how fast this simple questions has spawned 10 pages. And really it is all pretty simple.
Games Workshop makes the rules of the game as they want it played. They decided that painting should be a factor in their Matched Play format and put that in the rules. If you want to play by the rules as published, then players playing with a fully painted to Battle Ready army get 10 points. We can certainly discuss why, but those are the rules.
Any two players are allowed to change any rules of the game they see fit. If you and your opponent don't want to use this rule, then don't. If one of you does, then the two of you need to decide what is more important, getting your way or playing the game.
Expecting your opponent to play by the rules doesn't make someone WAAC, unreasonable, or any other negative character trait someone may want to call them. Some people think the designated hitter rules is an abomination against baseball. If you pay in the American League, you have to live with a designated hitter.
As for those who lack the time, ability, or inclination to paint, it's not your opponents problem to solve. That is your issue to resolve whether that means prioritizing your time differently, finding an alternative way to get your models painted, just sucking it up and playing down 10 points, or not playing if you can't get the rule waived by your opponent. The choice is yours. Regardless on how you resolve the issue, your opponent isn't the bad guy for expecting the written rules to be followed.
I mean, what you're saying was from page 1. Most of the rest is about the moral implication of forcing other players to follow a single way to enjoy the game aspect of the hobbies, as well as the idea that people don't need a rule to motivate them to paint, nor that they should be punished for not doing the steps in order.
Mmmpi wrote: I mean, what you're saying was from page 1. Most of the rest is about the moral implication of forcing other players to follow a single way to enjoy the game aspect of the hobbies, as well as the idea that people don't need a rule to motivate them to paint, nor that they should be punished for not doing the steps in order.
Nobody is forced to do anything; you don't have to paint, I don't have to play your grey army, and you don't have to play me. You just don't want people to get any reward for painting their models.
Mmmpi wrote: I mean, what you're saying was from page 1. Most of the rest is about the moral implication of forcing other players to follow a single way to enjoy the game aspect of the hobbies, as well as the idea that people don't need a rule to motivate them to paint, nor that they should be punished for not doing the steps in order.
Nobody is forced to do anything; you don't have to paint, I don't have to play your grey army, and you don't have to play me. You just don't want people to get any reward for painting their models.
Shouldn't the reward be having kick-ass models you painted yourself?
Do you really care about 10 points that anyone can get if they spray their models and slap three random colors on there?
Mmmpi wrote: I mean, what you're saying was from page 1. Most of the rest is about the moral implication of forcing other players to follow a single way to enjoy the game aspect of the hobbies, as well as the idea that people don't need a rule to motivate them to paint, nor that they should be punished for not doing the steps in order.
Nobody is forced to do anything; you don't have to paint, I don't have to play your grey army, and you don't have to play me. You just don't want people to get any reward for painting their models.
No, I don't want people to get an arbitrary in game reward for painting their models. For a very long list of reasons I don't feel the need to repeat.
Mmmpi wrote: I mean, what you're saying was from page 1. Most of the rest is about the moral implication of forcing other players to follow a single way to enjoy the game aspect of the hobbies, as well as the idea that people don't need a rule to motivate them to paint, nor that they should be punished for not doing the steps in order.
Nobody is forced to do anything; you don't have to paint, I don't have to play your grey army, and you don't have to play me. You just don't want people to get any reward for painting their models.
Shouldn't the reward be having kick-ass models you painted yourself?
Do you really care about 10 points that anyone can get if they spray their models and slap three random colors on there?
Daedalus81 wrote: 10 pages in one day. This topic isn't divisive at all!
Its the live wire of 40k - social interaction.
I don't see myself ever having a problem because either I'm playing with friends, in which case who wins really doesn't matter, so winning cos "haha I've got painted models" can just be laughed off. Or its a tournament where there will be rules.
So to my mind the whole thing comes across as
*Western Whistle Plays*
"You there. I challenge you to the greatest and most manly test there is. That's right, 40k."
*3 hours later* "Ha! I win by 5 points. Read'em and weep pal."
"Ah, you think you've won? You didn't paint those 10 grots there. Whereas my army is fully painted. So in fact I win by 5 points. Ha. Haha. HAHAHAHAHA!"
"No. No. I've lost.. a game of 40k? My pride. My ego. My identity. How will I go on..."
well better believe I'd have insisted on 10 points for having a painted army.
and sorry for that.
