Blndmage wrote: To the folks who think I could be given a pass due to my disability.
In garagehammer groups, you'd be right.
At FLGS's? Literally had my vision used against me on a number of occasions, and when I called it out at the store? A slap on the wrist, and zero consequences. The digital local groups froze me out or told me to "play better".
The local community is competitive and tournament focused.
I've tried to find folks who I could play not at stores with, but I've become a Pariah now.
Being a disabled gamer isn't easy of as fun as you'd imagine.
Most gamers are...at least not consciously ablist, but it's a huuuge issue.
That's not even touching on the misogyny that's almost a core tennentnof many gaming circles.
Literally had folks cancel/ghost games and big organized things after I changed my avatar in our local groups to a pic of me.
Hey Blindmage, sounds like a gakky, sexist, ableist local scene you've got, sorry to hear that. If you're ever in the UK let me know, I play with a lovely group of players who give no grief and are friendly and kind, we'd be well up for playing some Canadian Crons!
For what it's worth, you've changed my mind on this rule. I was previously all for it, but hearing it from your perspective I no longer like it.
Good luck on building a little group of players who are cool & not-dicks.
I won't lie, her brave admission of past struggles has made this discussion a more real thing for me as well. The fact that it made her feel, finally, unable to play the game she enjoys ? That is really a clear and glaring problem as she's most likely not the only one. While she and those like her may be the far minority of our hobby, if they can partake and fight hard to do so I don't see how anyone could support a rule that would push them away as a good addition to the core rules.
People don't always want things made easier because of their hardships, sometimes we just want to feel we are all on the same page. This rule goes from being " A painted army is an ideal " to " Play a painted army or we will let other players directly shame and punish you. Oh and it has to be by these arbitrary standards as well. " It's not a good thing.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
yukishiro1 wrote: The rule should have just been: "The game is played with assembled and painted GW models. If your army does not comply with these rules, check with your opponent before the game to make sure they are ok with your army."
There was no need to get overly technical with VPs for painting, any more than there was a need to give people 10VPs for a fully assembled force, or for not proxying, or WYSIWYG, or whatever else.
That is all I'm arguing, we all know the game is better painted. I have not played anyone who didn't want to have their army fully painted or didn't like full painted armies. It should be the ideal to strive for, not something you're punished in VP for not reaching yet for whatever reason you have to not reach their standards.
I'm about to blow up your whole world view here but I'm going to say it. You ever stop to think maybe those with disabilities don't want you to lower the bar for them all the time ? Maybe they want to push and strive and meet you on a more equal level ?
I am not stopping anyone from doing that. Blindmage's painted Necrons do not require waiving the rule. But you simply cannot design a game in a manner that would not require special dispensations in some cases. Do not try to use the accessibility angle to attack the rule you simply do not like.
Why should there be a rule that is punitive, doesn't at all change game play, only further divides us all and as a side effect negatively effects disabled players and is being openly praised as a way to shame and punish people in the game who either paint slow, don't like or paint and can't meet their " Battle Ready " dumb standard for whatever reason ?
It's a poor rule, a crap rule. Painting should be something you strive for not something you are directly punished by the game itself for not doing to its standards.
Everyone who starts this hobby should know that it is supposed to be played with painted models. Complaining about having to paint makes just as little sense than complaining about having to assemble the models or having to read the rules.
It's a stupid rule which had little more thought than trying to push paint sales behind it. I like having a fully painted army, but I also don't like forcing myself to paint if I'm busy or just not feeling up to it.
The fact you're talking to me of actual legal handling shouldn't need to be made for a game designed for fun. Don't you see how off the wall that is ? That my friend is the peak of absurd. This isn't the law of the land, it's rules for a miniature game. We shouldn't need to be already deciding to enforce it on some people and ignore it for others as that is a sure sign the law is broke as a damn joke and not a funny one either.
Game rules shouldn't need to be ignored for some and enforced to just shame and be little others, that is the exact opposite of fun and inclusive.
The rule does not prevent anyone from playing and if we are talking about hobbies and disabilities, of course sometimes you need to make special dispensations. If you assume that any game that cannot be played unmodified by people with any disability that could potentially exist is fundamentally a bad game, then I doubt any good games can exist. Hell, rock-paper-scissors assumes that the player has at least one functioning hand!
I'm about to blow up your whole world view here but I'm going to say it. You ever stop to think maybe those with disabilities don't want you to lower the bar for them all the time ? Maybe they want to push and strive and meet you on a more equal level ? Why should there be a rule that is punitive, doesn't at all change game play, only further divides us all and as a side effect negatively effects disabled players and is being openly praised as a way to shame and punish people in the game who either paint slow, don't like or paint and can't meet their " Battle Ready " dumb standard for whatever reason ?
It's a poor rule, a crap rule. Painting should be something you strive for not something you are directly punished by the game itself for not doing to its standards.
Yes!
This!
I don't want rules ignored out of fething pity!
Nope. If you have to houserule something, it means there's a problem with the rule at hand. Either you actually DO agree with it or you don't, Insectum. This isn't some middle ground thing.
I'm happy with the rule, but I'm happy to waive it in various circumstances. It's fine.
Like WYSIWYG. It was a rule, but lots of people comfortably proxied just the same.
Do you drive exactly the speed limit?
You don't just waive rules because you feel like. Either the rule is good or bad.
Also yes I do stick to the speed limit, only ever going 5 above at most. Granted I have a garbage Civic that can't go fast whatsoever so it is what it is.
No man, you either follow the speed limit exactly or you just have to get rid of it because you don't believe it. It's a bad rule.
I don't purposely do it believe me
Well the flow on 101 tends to be around 75-78 when traffic is good. It's a 65 zone. Is the 65 speed limit a bad rule? Do we throw it out?
Or maybe we accept that the rule is a guideline and we allow some flexibility based on a communal understanding.
So the rest of the people are breaking the law, perfect.
Perfection is the enemy of good enough.
GW wants to encourage you to paint your army. They give you a little bonus for doing so. Players can follow the rule or not follow the rule, and set standards for their respective communities at their discretion. Good enough!
You know how you encourage people? Those instruction vids they had. The supposed contrast paints working. This is not encouraging people to paint their armies. It's a rule that people are already planning on house ruling out.
TL;DR if you are able to constantly find situations where you need to get rid of a rule, chances are the rule shouldn't have been implemented to begin with.
The fact you're talking to me of actual legal handling shouldn't need to be made for a game designed for fun. Don't you see how off the wall that is ? That my friend is the peak of absurd. This isn't the law of the land, it's rules for a miniature game. We shouldn't need to be already deciding to enforce it on some people and ignore it for others as that is a sure sign the law is broke as a damn joke and not a funny one either.
Game rules shouldn't need to be ignored for some and enforced to just shame and be little others, that is the exact opposite of fun and inclusive.
The rule does not prevent anyone from playing and if we are talking about hobbies and disabilities, of course sometimes you need to make special dispensations. If you assume that any game that cannot be played unmodified by people with any disability that could potentially exist is fundamentally a bad game, then I doubt any good games can exist. Hell, rock-paper-scissors assumes that the player has at least one functioning hand!
I'm about to blow up your whole world view here but I'm going to say it. You ever stop to think maybe those with disabilities don't want you to lower the bar for them all the time ? Maybe they want to push and strive and meet you on a more equal level ? Why should there be a rule that is punitive, doesn't at all change game play, only further divides us all and as a side effect negatively effects disabled players and is being openly praised as a way to shame and punish people in the game who either paint slow, don't like or paint and can't meet their " Battle Ready " dumb standard for whatever reason ?
It's a poor rule, a crap rule. Painting should be something you strive for not something you are directly punished by the game itself for not doing to its standards.
Where are they punishing you for not painting?
What are they actively doing to you that prohibits you from participating in the hobby based on how you want to?
The rule is worded specifically to encourage painting.
Does it have the tangential effect of punishing players for NOT painting? Sure, you can argue that if you like. But the argument is in poor taste because the wording is clearly an incentive aimed at rewarding people who put more time in the hobby away from the tournament scene (where this rule really has the impact). But, the fact remains: GW is not banning you from their events for fielding the gray tide. If that is all you have... then you have incentive to paint it up for next time... it will DIRECTLY ASSIST YOU IN PLACING HIGHER. But it will not PROHIBIT you from playing that day.
We as humans also have agency, and can freely say "this rule negatively impacts you in an unfair manner, so we're either going to fix it... or ignore it as we agree upon to MAKE IT FAIR". If a blind person, as mentioned above, sat down with an unpainted army and just wanted to play a game with people... no... I'm not going to go full HAM and start being a jerk for models being unpainted or assembled a little skewed due to their disability... or needing more time to move and engage in the game for not being able to see. Good lord, not everyone is an extremist that cannot make reasonable exceptions for those who genuinely need it.
But in a competitive space? GW just said they want their tables to field painted models... so instead of just slamming the doors in your face like a bunch of jerks... they gave you an incentive by making your overall placing a few spots higher just for painting your models. You'll see a lot more painted armies that would have otherwise been gray as a result. And this trickles down to ALL phases of play... even demoing in stores is better when both armies are painted, and people are given rewards for investing time into more than the "blowing models off of the table" phase... and they develop good habits from the start of their time in the hobby.
The fact you're talking to me of actual legal handling shouldn't need to be made for a game designed for fun. Don't you see how off the wall that is ? That my friend is the peak of absurd. This isn't the law of the land, it's rules for a miniature game. We shouldn't need to be already deciding to enforce it on some people and ignore it for others as that is a sure sign the law is broke as a damn joke and not a funny one either.
Game rules shouldn't need to be ignored for some and enforced to just shame and be little others, that is the exact opposite of fun and inclusive.
The rule does not prevent anyone from playing and if we are talking about hobbies and disabilities, of course sometimes you need to make special dispensations. If you assume that any game that cannot be played unmodified by people with any disability that could potentially exist is fundamentally a bad game, then I doubt any good games can exist. Hell, rock-paper-scissors assumes that the player has at least one functioning hand!
I'm about to blow up your whole world view here but I'm going to say it. You ever stop to think maybe those with disabilities don't want you to lower the bar for them all the time ? Maybe they want to push and strive and meet you on a more equal level ? Why should there be a rule that is punitive, doesn't at all change game play, only further divides us all and as a side effect negatively effects disabled players and is being openly praised as a way to shame and punish people in the game who either paint slow, don't like or paint and can't meet their " Battle Ready " dumb standard for whatever reason ?
It's a poor rule, a crap rule. Painting should be something you strive for not something you are directly punished by the game itself for not doing to its standards.
It's not a rule that exists in the free PDF Core rules and associated mission.
That doesn't matter if people are going to play the " book " missions and follow those scoring scenarios. More players follow the absolute status quo, especially in pick up games. What may or may not be in the free rules for open play won't matter if no one plays them and I can say not even one person ever wanted to play Narrative or Open play anywhere I played, not even once. I doubt I'm in the minority with that and most people I would imagine never did those game types either. So what is in the rules pamphlet is worth less than nothing to most players when the big book missions are the ones that will be the de facto standard.
Grimtuff wrote:For full disclosure, I disagree with what some terrible Aussie powergamer ITT is saying ref painting, however he is 100% correct about the bloody objective of the game, which is to win. The point is to have fun and some people seem to be confusing the two. The game is quite literally a competition with victory conditions, how secondary or tertiary those are to the rest of the experience is down to the individual player.
Still disagree. The mission *has* victory conditions, but the game's victory condition are different. The mission is part of the game, but the mission is not the entire game.
pm713 wrote:Having better things to do with your free time? Some people don't like painting and why spend time doing something unpleasant when you could do something fun instead?
If I don't like assembling my models, can I play with cardboard cutouts? Empty bases? Why spend time doing something unpleasant when I could do something fun instead? All I'm saying is let's not treat painting any differently than building your models, however you take that to mean. You're fine with proxy armies and half-built units? Great, not an issue if you're adverse to paint. And likewise, if you're super strict on paint, but uncaring about building the models, why?
yukishiro1 wrote:As long as everyone playing agrees, it doesn't matter what the official rules say.
This is the most important rule - in that rules should be flexible and malleable to circumstance. Disability? Experience gap? Literally any circumstance you can imagine? Modify the rules to fit you and your counterpart across the table. Don't care about painting? Don't use the rule. Don't like subfaction traits? Don't use them. Can't reach across the table for your models? Use a shorter table. If you and your opponent are fine to ignore or add or modify rules, why should what anyone else says matter?
Rules are a guideline, but shouldn't be taken as total gospel if you want to mix things up.
And for Blindmage - it is such a shame that you, or anyone else, has to put up with the kind of people you've had to deal with. You are far more welcome in the hobby than they are. I can't speak from a position of disability, so I'll revaluate my position on this ruling.
The fact you're talking to me of actual legal handling shouldn't need to be made for a game designed for fun. Don't you see how off the wall that is ? That my friend is the peak of absurd. This isn't the law of the land, it's rules for a miniature game. We shouldn't need to be already deciding to enforce it on some people and ignore it for others as that is a sure sign the law is broke as a damn joke and not a funny one either.
Game rules shouldn't need to be ignored for some and enforced to just shame and be little others, that is the exact opposite of fun and inclusive.
The rule does not prevent anyone from playing and if we are talking about hobbies and disabilities, of course sometimes you need to make special dispensations. If you assume that any game that cannot be played unmodified by people with any disability that could potentially exist is fundamentally a bad game, then I doubt any good games can exist. Hell, rock-paper-scissors assumes that the player has at least one functioning hand!
I'm about to blow up your whole world view here but I'm going to say it. You ever stop to think maybe those with disabilities don't want you to lower the bar for them all the time ? Maybe they want to push and strive and meet you on a more equal level ? Why should there be a rule that is punitive, doesn't at all change game play, only further divides us all and as a side effect negatively effects disabled players and is being openly praised as a way to shame and punish people in the game who either paint slow, don't like or paint and can't meet their " Battle Ready " dumb standard for whatever reason ?
It's a poor rule, a crap rule. Painting should be something you strive for not something you are directly punished by the game itself for not doing to its standards.
Where are they punishing you for not painting?
What are they actively doing to you that prohibits you from participating in the hobby based on how you want to?
The rule is worded specifically to encourage painting.
Does it have the tangential effect of punishing players for NOT painting? Sure, you can argue that if you like. But the argument is in poor taste because the wording is clearly an incentive aimed at rewarding people who put more time in the hobby away from the tournament scene (where this rule really has the impact). But, the fact remains: GW is not banning you from their events for fielding the gray tide. If that is all you have... then you have incentive to paint it up for next time... it will DIRECTLY ASSIST YOU IN PLACING HIGHER. But it will not PROHIBIT you from playing that day.
We as humans also have agency, and can freely say "this rule negatively impacts you in an unfair manner, so we're either going to fix it... or ignore it as we agree upon to MAKE IT FAIR". If a blind person, as mentioned above, sat down with an unpainted army and just wanted to play a game with people... no... I'm not going to go full HAM and start being a jerk for models being unpainted or assembled a little skewed due to their disability... or needing more time to move and engage in the game for not being able to see. Good lord, not everyone is an extremist that cannot make reasonable exceptions for those who genuinely need it.
But in a competitive space? GW just said they want their tables to field painted models... so instead of just slamming the doors in your face like a bunch of jerks... they gave you an incentive by making your overall placing a few spots higher just for painting your models. You'll see a lot more painted armies that would have otherwise been gray as a result. And this trickles down to ALL phases of play... even demoing in stores is better when both armies are painted, and people are given rewards for investing time into more than the "blowing models off of the table" phase... and they develop good habits from the start of their time in the hobby.
As has been said many times, most tournaments already slam the door in your face if you have unpainted models and you try and play in it. I doubt that will change at all, so all this rule does is make you have to deal with it in pick up or casual games.
As well, how is it not a punishment to players who are playing at a 10 point handicap ? One persons reward is another persons punishment in this case. Those 10 points only go against the player with the unpainted models.
I'll say again, the disabled are already well aware life is hard. I doubt they want to feel pity if you'd hold someone else to the rule and say they can slide and ignore it. It can hurt and acts like you are handling them with kid gloves. They want to be treated as normal as possible as they fight real hard to do some things and compete. I'm not disabled and I'll offer help if needed but there is a fine line to walk with help and lowering the bar just because. No exceptions would need to be made if such a crap rule wasn't included and such a rule never needed to be included as groups tended to press for painted models and tournaments already pressed paint as a standard to compete. This rule was needless and only a negative and punishment is the wrong incentive for this hobby and I really find it hard to imagine they thought it was a good idea.
I'm about to blow up your whole world view here but I'm going to say it. You ever stop to think maybe those with disabilities don't want you to lower the bar for them all the time ? Maybe they want to push and strive and meet you on a more equal level ?
I am not stopping anyone from doing that. Blindmage's painted Necrons do not require waiving the rule. But you simply cannot design a game in a manner that would not require special dispensations in some cases. Do not try to use the accessibility angle to attack the rule you simply do not like.
Why should there be a rule that is punitive, doesn't at all change game play, only further divides us all and as a side effect negatively effects disabled players and is being openly praised as a way to shame and punish people in the game who either paint slow, don't like or paint and can't meet their " Battle Ready " dumb standard for whatever reason ?
It's a poor rule, a crap rule. Painting should be something you strive for not something you are directly punished by the game itself for not doing to its standards.
Everyone who starts this hobby should know that it is supposed to be played with painted models. Complaining about having to paint makes just as little sense than complaining about having to assemble the models or having to read the rules.
My point in posting my army pics was that I'm not able to paint to even that level anymore, the pylon required more help that I've even put across, that simple paint scheme was so difficult and now so out of my reach that I was in tears trying to paint it. I've been wanting to get the new Scarabs, but I'm super worried that I'll be in the same state tryingbti paint them.
Blndmage wrote: To the folks who think I could be given a pass due to my disability.
In garagehammer groups, you'd be right.
At FLGS's? Literally had my vision used against me on a number of occasions, and when I called it out at the store? A slap on the wrist, and zero consequences. The digital local groups froze me out or told me to "play better".
The local community is competitive and tournament focused.
I've tried to find folks who I could play not at stores with, but I've become a Pariah now.
Being a disabled gamer isn't easy of as fun as you'd imagine.
Most gamers are...at least not consciously ablist, but it's a huuuge issue.
That's not even touching on the misogyny that's almost a core tennentnof many gaming circles.
Literally had folks cancel/ghost games and big organized things after I changed my avatar in our local groups to a pic of me.
Hey Blindmage, sounds like a gakky, sexist, ableist local scene you've got, sorry to hear that. If you're ever in the UK let me know, I play with a lovely group of players who give no grief and are friendly and kind, we'd be well up for playing some Canadian Crons!
For what it's worth, you've changed my mind on this rule. I was previously all for it, but hearing it from your perspective I no longer like it.
Good luck on building a little group of players who are cool & not-dicks.
I won't lie, her brave admission of past struggles has made this discussion a more real thing for me as well. The fact that it made her feel, finally, unable to play the game she enjoys ? That is really a clear and glaring problem as she's most likely not the only one. While she and those like her may be the far minority of our hobby, if they can partake and fight hard to do so I don't see how anyone could support a rule that would push them away as a good addition to the core rules.
People don't always want things made easier because of their hardships, sometimes we just want to feel we are all on the same page. This rule goes from being " A painted army is an ideal " to " Play a painted army or we will let other players directly shame and punish you. Oh and it has to be by these arbitrary standards as well. " It's not a good thing.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
yukishiro1 wrote: The rule should have just been: "The game is played with assembled and painted GW models. If your army does not comply with these rules, check with your opponent before the game to make sure they are ok with your army."
There was no need to get overly technical with VPs for painting, any more than there was a need to give people 10VPs for a fully assembled force, or for not proxying, or WYSIWYG, or whatever else.
That is all I'm arguing, we all know the game is better painted. I have not played anyone who didn't want to have their army fully painted or didn't like full painted armies. It should be the ideal to strive for, not something you're punished in VP for not reaching yet for whatever reason you have to not reach their standards.
Can I respectfully request that you write this out in an Email to GW and explain why its a bad rule as you have done here.
I suspect that they have added the rule without considering this as a potential consequence.
Heck I hadn't even considered it that way and I have to agree with you.
While I understand why at first glance and compairing it to events who all have a similar rule, I did not realy understand what the argument was about, as it's esentially been something I've taken for granted for like 20+ years of events.
I agree adding it to the core rules was overstepping and the last thing this hobby needs it more things that make it feel exclusionary.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:TL;DR if you are able to constantly find situations where you need to get rid of a rule, chances are the rule shouldn't have been implemented to begin with.
On the contrary, I think encouraging the "let's get rid of this rule to better suit us" mentality is much more productive. If given the choice between a cast-iron ruleset that was well-written, and a ruleset that promoted personal initiative and encouraged customising the parameters to better suit you and your counterpart across the table, I'd prefer the latter.
AngryAngel80 wrote:So what is in the rules pamphlet is worth less than nothing to most players when the big book missions are the ones that will be the de facto standard.
No-one's forcing them to play the Big Book missions. If they limit themselves to that, that's their choice. It's not like they don't have other options.
The fact you're talking to me of actual legal handling shouldn't need to be made for a game designed for fun. Don't you see how off the wall that is ? That my friend is the peak of absurd. This isn't the law of the land, it's rules for a miniature game. We shouldn't need to be already deciding to enforce it on some people and ignore it for others as that is a sure sign the law is broke as a damn joke and not a funny one either.
Game rules shouldn't need to be ignored for some and enforced to just shame and be little others, that is the exact opposite of fun and inclusive.
The rule does not prevent anyone from playing and if we are talking about hobbies and disabilities, of course sometimes you need to make special dispensations. If you assume that any game that cannot be played unmodified by people with any disability that could potentially exist is fundamentally a bad game, then I doubt any good games can exist. Hell, rock-paper-scissors assumes that the player has at least one functioning hand!
I'm about to blow up your whole world view here but I'm going to say it. You ever stop to think maybe those with disabilities don't want you to lower the bar for them all the time ? Maybe they want to push and strive and meet you on a more equal level ? Why should there be a rule that is punitive, doesn't at all change game play, only further divides us all and as a side effect negatively effects disabled players and is being openly praised as a way to shame and punish people in the game who either paint slow, don't like or paint and can't meet their " Battle Ready " dumb standard for whatever reason ?
It's a poor rule, a crap rule. Painting should be something you strive for not something you are directly punished by the game itself for not doing to its standards.
Yes!
This!
I don't want rules ignored out of fething pity!
Then don't ignore it. Your army met the requirement, but even if it hadn't you don't have to get an exception from it if you don't want to.
I don't think it's something that shouldn't exist simply because someones prideful either.
I'll say again, the disabled are already well aware life is hard. I doubt they want to feel pity if you'd hold someone else to the rule and say they can slide and ignore it. It can hurt and acts like you are handling them with kid gloves. They want to be treated as normal as possible as they fight real hard to do some things and compete. I'm not disabled and I'll offer help if needed but there is a fine line to walk with help and lowering the bar just because. No exceptions would need to be made if such a crap rule wasn't included and such a rule never needed to be included as groups tended to press for painted models and tournaments already pressed paint as a standard to compete. This rule was needless and only a negative and punishment is the wrong incentive for this hobby and I really find it hard to imagine they thought it was a good idea.
You might as well argue that a set table size is a crap rule as a disabled person might have trouble reaching across a large table. Sometimes dispensations have to have to be made, it is merely a question in what situation and what kind.
Nope. If you have to houserule something, it means there's a problem with the rule at hand. Either you actually DO agree with it or you don't, Insectum. This isn't some middle ground thing.
I'm happy with the rule, but I'm happy to waive it in various circumstances. It's fine.
Like WYSIWYG. It was a rule, but lots of people comfortably proxied just the same.
Do you drive exactly the speed limit?
You don't just waive rules because you feel like. Either the rule is good or bad.
Also yes I do stick to the speed limit, only ever going 5 above at most. Granted I have a garbage Civic that can't go fast whatsoever so it is what it is.
No man, you either follow the speed limit exactly or you just have to get rid of it because you don't believe it. It's a bad rule.
I don't purposely do it believe me
Well the flow on 101 tends to be around 75-78 when traffic is good. It's a 65 zone. Is the 65 speed limit a bad rule? Do we throw it out?
Or maybe we accept that the rule is a guideline and we allow some flexibility based on a communal understanding.
So the rest of the people are breaking the law, perfect.
Perfection is the enemy of good enough.
GW wants to encourage you to paint your army. They give you a little bonus for doing so. Players can follow the rule or not follow the rule, and set standards for their respective communities at their discretion. Good enough!
You know how you encourage people? Those instruction vids they had. The supposed contrast paints working. This is not encouraging people to paint their armies. It's a rule that people are already planning on house ruling out.
TL;DR if you are able to constantly find situations where you need to get rid of a rule, chances are the rule shouldn't have been implemented to begin with.
The frequency of ignoring the rule is going to depend on your local community/situation. At the moment it's 55/45 in favor of a bonus to painted armies.
Also, we still don't get rid of speed limits even though they aren't followed to the letter(number).
The fact you're talking to me of actual legal handling shouldn't need to be made for a game designed for fun. Don't you see how off the wall that is ? That my friend is the peak of absurd. This isn't the law of the land, it's rules for a miniature game. We shouldn't need to be already deciding to enforce it on some people and ignore it for others as that is a sure sign the law is broke as a damn joke and not a funny one either.
Game rules shouldn't need to be ignored for some and enforced to just shame and be little others, that is the exact opposite of fun and inclusive.
The rule does not prevent anyone from playing and if we are talking about hobbies and disabilities, of course sometimes you need to make special dispensations. If you assume that any game that cannot be played unmodified by people with any disability that could potentially exist is fundamentally a bad game, then I doubt any good games can exist. Hell, rock-paper-scissors assumes that the player has at least one functioning hand!
I'm about to blow up your whole world view here but I'm going to say it. You ever stop to think maybe those with disabilities don't want you to lower the bar for them all the time ? Maybe they want to push and strive and meet you on a more equal level ? Why should there be a rule that is punitive, doesn't at all change game play, only further divides us all and as a side effect negatively effects disabled players and is being openly praised as a way to shame and punish people in the game who either paint slow, don't like or paint and can't meet their " Battle Ready " dumb standard for whatever reason ?
It's a poor rule, a crap rule. Painting should be something you strive for not something you are directly punished by the game itself for not doing to its standards.
It's not a rule that exists in the free PDF Core rules and associated mission.
That doesn't matter if people are going to play the " book " missions and follow those scoring scenarios. More players follow the absolute status quo, especially in pick up games. What may or may not be in the free rules for open play won't matter if no one plays them and I can say not even one person ever wanted to play Narrative or Open play anywhere I played, not even once. I doubt I'm in the minority with that and most people I would imagine never did those game types either. So what is in the rules pamphlet is worth less than nothing to most players when the big book missions are the ones that will be the de facto standard.
I'm not so sure that "people" follow the status quo so much with 40K. Lots of people play Power Level, lots of people play Narrative, lots of people ignore rules or modify them to fit their gaming circle. It'd be interesting to get numbers on it. We've had numerous threads involving the split between ITC and 'standard' 40K. Same with Malestrom vs. something-War back in 7th. 40K seems filled with people happy to bend the official rules in varying capacities.
I'm amazed that this rule exists. once you agree to a game, the outcome should be decided entirely by the game, and not by whether one player has everything painted and the other doesn't.
I get that painting is part of the hobby, but I'm a very slow painter with an awful lot of Orks (12k), mostly unpainted. I decide what to paint next by how it performs in games - I don't want to spend hours painting a unit which subsequently gets shelved 90% of the time. so I field a smattering of unpainted hopefuls, who want to shine in the game and earn their place in the painting queue. If someone played me and claimed victory for having paint, then I would resolve not to play that person again, or to only play with painted models against them, and to jump on any chance to claim it right back in their face. which isn't an environment I want to play in.
Conversely, if I lost a game by 9 points and could pull it back by claiming fully-painted-dom, then I would only do so if the opponent was a TFG through the game. and I don't want to play a game with rules which you would pick and choose depending on how much of a TFG you want to be at the time. Morals, conscience and guilt shouldn't factor into the scoring, and if someone beat me by one point in a game, I don't want the decision to gift myself 10VP because I used colourful models. It has nothing to do with the game! you might as well have 10VP if you have every codex on your person, or 5VP if you're using all official GW measuring equipment.
I'm about to blow up your whole world view here but I'm going to say it. You ever stop to think maybe those with disabilities don't want you to lower the bar for them all the time ? Maybe they want to push and strive and meet you on a more equal level ?
I am not stopping anyone from doing that. Blindmage's painted Necrons do not require waiving the rule. But you simply cannot design a game in a manner that would not require special dispensations in some cases. Do not try to use the accessibility angle to attack the rule you simply do not like.
Why should there be a rule that is punitive, doesn't at all change game play, only further divides us all and as a side effect negatively effects disabled players and is being openly praised as a way to shame and punish people in the game who either paint slow, don't like or paint and can't meet their " Battle Ready " dumb standard for whatever reason ?
It's a poor rule, a crap rule. Painting should be something you strive for not something you are directly punished by the game itself for not doing to its standards.
Everyone who starts this hobby should know that it is supposed to be played with painted models. Complaining about having to paint makes just as little sense than complaining about having to assemble the models or having to read the rules.
My point in posting my army pics was that I'm not able to paint to even that level anymore, the pylon required more help that I've even put across, that simple paint scheme was so difficult and now so out of my reach that I was in tears trying to paint it. I've been wanting to get the new Scarabs, but I'm super worried that I'll be in the same state tryingbti paint them.
I can only imagine how frustrating it has to be. I'm sorry you get any grief and that people can be cruel and uncaring. I'd actually think it was pretty interesting to see how a game we would play would go. If you want to try, get the models, do your best but try not to cry over it. The game should be about joy and fun. You can always fix a mistake with paint but do it because you want to, don't ever do it and struggle to try so hard because you feel you'll be outcast for not. People can be lacking and very often don't try and walk through someone elses shoes but maybe they should more.
The army looks good though, so it was worth the struggle indeed.
some bloke wrote: I'm amazed that this rule exists. once you agree to a game, the outcome should be decided entirely by the game, and not by whether one player has everything painted and the other doesn't.
Yeah, that's what it comes down to for me. If they wanted to encourage painting, they should have just said that the game is played with painted models, period, and that if your models aren't painted, check with your opponent that they are ok with that before playing.
Once you accept a game with someone, it shouldn't be a factor in the outcome. You either agree to play with someone or you don't.
I'm about to blow up your whole world view here but I'm going to say it. You ever stop to think maybe those with disabilities don't want you to lower the bar for them all the time ? Maybe they want to push and strive and meet you on a more equal level ?
I am not stopping anyone from doing that. Blindmage's painted Necrons do not require waiving the rule. But you simply cannot design a game in a manner that would not require special dispensations in some cases. Do not try to use the accessibility angle to attack the rule you simply do not like.
Why should there be a rule that is punitive, doesn't at all change game play, only further divides us all and as a side effect negatively effects disabled players and is being openly praised as a way to shame and punish people in the game who either paint slow, don't like or paint and can't meet their " Battle Ready " dumb standard for whatever reason ?
It's a poor rule, a crap rule. Painting should be something you strive for not something you are directly punished by the game itself for not doing to its standards.
Everyone who starts this hobby should know that it is supposed to be played with painted models. Complaining about having to paint makes just as little sense than complaining about having to assemble the models or having to read the rules.
My point in posting my army pics was that I'm not able to paint to even that level anymore, the pylon required more help that I've even put across, that simple paint scheme was so difficult and now so out of my reach that I was in tears trying to paint it. I've been wanting to get the new Scarabs, but I'm super worried that I'll be in the same state tryingbti paint them.
You know what? You can send them to me. I will happily paint them for you and send them back.
Seriously, PM me if you are interested. I'll paint your new Necron collection from the new boxed set. (or some similar amount of models.)
Blndmage wrote: To the folks who think I could be given a pass due to my disability.
In garagehammer groups, you'd be right.
At FLGS's? Literally had my vision used against me on a number of occasions, and when I called it out at the store? A slap on the wrist, and zero consequences. The digital local groups froze me out or told me to "play better".
The local community is competitive and tournament focused.
I've tried to find folks who I could play not at stores with, but I've become a Pariah now.
Being a disabled gamer isn't easy of as fun as you'd imagine.
Most gamers are...at least not consciously ablist, but it's a huuuge issue.
That's not even touching on the misogyny that's almost a core tennentnof many gaming circles.
Literally had folks cancel/ghost games and big organized things after I changed my avatar in our local groups to a pic of me.
Hey Blindmage, sounds like a gakky, sexist, ableist local scene you've got, sorry to hear that. If you're ever in the UK let me know, I play with a lovely group of players who give no grief and are friendly and kind, we'd be well up for playing some Canadian Crons!
For what it's worth, you've changed my mind on this rule. I was previously all for it, but hearing it from your perspective I no longer like it.
Good luck on building a little group of players who are cool & not-dicks.
I won't lie, her brave admission of past struggles has made this discussion a more real thing for me as well. The fact that it made her feel, finally, unable to play the game she enjoys ? That is really a clear and glaring problem as she's most likely not the only one. While she and those like her may be the far minority of our hobby, if they can partake and fight hard to do so I don't see how anyone could support a rule that would push them away as a good addition to the core rules.
People don't always want things made easier because of their hardships, sometimes we just want to feel we are all on the same page. This rule goes from being " A painted army is an ideal " to " Play a painted army or we will let other players directly shame and punish you. Oh and it has to be by these arbitrary standards as well. " It's not a good thing.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
yukishiro1 wrote: The rule should have just been: "The game is played with assembled and painted GW models. If your army does not comply with these rules, check with your opponent before the game to make sure they are ok with your army."
There was no need to get overly technical with VPs for painting, any more than there was a need to give people 10VPs for a fully assembled force, or for not proxying, or WYSIWYG, or whatever else.
That is all I'm arguing, we all know the game is better painted. I have not played anyone who didn't want to have their army fully painted or didn't like full painted armies. It should be the ideal to strive for, not something you're punished in VP for not reaching yet for whatever reason you have to not reach their standards.
Can I respectfully request that you write this out in an Email to GW and explain why its a bad rule as you have done here.
I suspect that they have added the rule without considering this as a potential consequence.
Heck I hadn't even considered it that way and I have to agree with you.
While I understand why at first glance and compairing it to events who all have a similar rule, I did not realy understand what the argument was about, as it's esentially been something I've taken for granted for like 20+ years of events.
I agree adding it to the core rules was overstepping and the last thing this hobby needs it more things that make it feel exclusionary.
If you think it'll make any kind of a difference I will send the mail off today and hope it makes a positive change. I'd ask though if others do feel strong enough that is a bad rule, we all send our voices out there. I mean I didn't expect this topic to be so deep but I think some people are missing the bigger picture in how stuff like this makes people feel and how it puts a negative emphasis on forcing something, regardless of why it isn't done just that way, over pushing pride for a job hard to do and well done. Pride should be the reward for a full painted force, not a freedom from playing an uphill battle in every game.
Blndmage wrote: To the folks who think I could be given a pass due to my disability.
In garagehammer groups, you'd be right.
At FLGS's? Literally had my vision used against me on a number of occasions, and when I called it out at the store? A slap on the wrist, and zero consequences. The digital local groups froze me out or told me to "play better".
The local community is competitive and tournament focused.
I've tried to find folks who I could play not at stores with, but I've become a Pariah now.
Being a disabled gamer isn't easy of as fun as you'd imagine.
Most gamers are...at least not consciously ablist, but it's a huuuge issue.
That's not even touching on the misogyny that's almost a core tennentnof many gaming circles.
Literally had folks cancel/ghost games and big organized things after I changed my avatar in our local groups to a pic of me.
Hey Blindmage, sounds like a gakky, sexist, ableist local scene you've got, sorry to hear that. If you're ever in the UK let me know, I play with a lovely group of players who give no grief and are friendly and kind, we'd be well up for playing some Canadian Crons!
For what it's worth, you've changed my mind on this rule. I was previously all for it, but hearing it from your perspective I no longer like it.
Good luck on building a little group of players who are cool & not-dicks.
I won't lie, her brave admission of past struggles has made this discussion a more real thing for me as well. The fact that it made her feel, finally, unable to play the game she enjoys ? That is really a clear and glaring problem as she's most likely not the only one. While she and those like her may be the far minority of our hobby, if they can partake and fight hard to do so I don't see how anyone could support a rule that would push them away as a good addition to the core rules.
People don't always want things made easier because of their hardships, sometimes we just want to feel we are all on the same page. This rule goes from being " A painted army is an ideal " to " Play a painted army or we will let other players directly shame and punish you. Oh and it has to be by these arbitrary standards as well. " It's not a good thing.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
yukishiro1 wrote: The rule should have just been: "The game is played with assembled and painted GW models. If your army does not comply with these rules, check with your opponent before the game to make sure they are ok with your army."
There was no need to get overly technical with VPs for painting, any more than there was a need to give people 10VPs for a fully assembled force, or for not proxying, or WYSIWYG, or whatever else.
That is all I'm arguing, we all know the game is better painted. I have not played anyone who didn't want to have their army fully painted or didn't like full painted armies. It should be the ideal to strive for, not something you're punished in VP for not reaching yet for whatever reason you have to not reach their standards.
Can I respectfully request that you write this out in an Email to GW and explain why its a bad rule as you have done here.
I suspect that they have added the rule without considering this as a potential consequence.
Heck I hadn't even considered it that way and I have to agree with you.
While I understand why at first glance and compairing it to events who all have a similar rule, I did not realy understand what the argument was about, as it's esentially been something I've taken for granted for like 20+ years of events.
I agree adding it to the core rules was overstepping and the last thing this hobby needs it more things that make it feel exclusionary.
If you think it'll make any kind of a difference I will send the mail off today and hope it makes a positive change. I'd ask though if others do feel strong enough that is a bad rule, we all send our voices out there. I mean I didn't expect this topic to be so deep but I think some people are missing the bigger picture in how stuff like this makes people feel and how it puts a negative emphasis on forcing something, regardless of why it isn't done just that way, over pushing pride for a job hard to do and well done. Pride should be the reward for a full painted force, not a freedom from playing an uphill battle in every game.
Simply put I suspect they have completely missed this angle as they have had this rule in all of their event packets since they used to day gamesday's at the factory back in the 90's.
Ignoring that you have made a rule that is exclusionary or in anyway punitive to people with disabilities, lets just say at best it's a PR nightmare at worse it's legal action.
The sad part is they have warhammer world all set up to be fully accessible.
some bloke wrote: I'm amazed that this rule exists. once you agree to a game, the outcome should be decided entirely by the game, and not by whether one player has everything painted and the other doesn't.
The outcome of a match will be far more significantly determined by whether your opponent has purchased Primaris Space Marines than by whether either of your armies is painted. So much of an average 40k match is determined by factors that have nothing to do with how you push your mini around he table, that the amount of hair-pulling and hand-wringing on display in this thread is beyond disingenuous.
Well but that's a separate issue. "Primaris are overpowered so stop complaining that you're getting dinged for not painting" isn't a logically convincing argument.
The point is that 40k is not some sort of balanced contest of skills to begin with. It is not chess. It's a silly game we play with our toys. You can't complain that a painted-army bonus is unfair or imbalanced in a game that is fundamentally devoid of fairness or balance.
My point in posting my army pics was that I'm not able to paint to even that level anymore, the pylon required more help that I've even put across, that simple paint scheme was so difficult and now so out of my reach that I was in tears trying to paint it. I've been wanting to get the new Scarabs, but I'm super worried that I'll be in the same state tryingbti paint them.
You don't need to try to paint them for any other reason that you yourself want to; you have the best possible reason for not painting them. And if this means that the painting rule negatively affects you, then of course your opponent should waive it. Hell, were I your opponent in such a situation I would first time in my over two decades of playing GW games put a singe unpainted model in my army so that we would be even. And you shouldn't feel bad for accepting such a dispensation, no person who has issues with any aspect of the game with health reasons should.
(I of course do not know the extent of your vision issue, so I don't know if this is something you can do, but if you decide to paint the scarabs, just spraying them silver and then gluing them on clean bases would probably be the easiest route. Should match your existing colour scheme and look decent enough. Dip them in thinned black ink if you want to go the extra mile.)
Noone's dismantled the ridiculous refrain being thrown around that it doesn't stop people from playing and it's just a way of rewarding players that do paint, so here goes
It is not about you.
Whatever fleeting sense of (hopefully private) joy you get in winning purely because your army was fully painted and your opponent's was not is immaterial to the discussion, as is, and god forbid, any sense of arrogant personal superiority rising out of it.
It is incomparable to the fact that you are potentially going to risk being disrespectful, discourteous, unsporting by flaunting the fact you deserve to claim the win because your army happened to be painted in your opponent's face.
You will not always know what issues your opponent is going through, their conditions, illnesses, etc and you are risking compounding those issues. Art, as a talent/skill, is a a very personal subject to some people - I personally know people who do not or hesitate to fully paint their armies for no other reason than they find the exercise of painting depressing and an exercise in straining their self-esteem because they're very self-critical.
And I'm going to reiterate what I already said, it is none of your damn business. If you're in a free, casual play environment with no specified venue restrictions or penalties for non-painted armies, you do not have the right to get all judgemental. Noone has to explain themselves to you and if you're so affected then tell the person how fussy you are and that you have no interest in playing them, before dropping that bombshell at the end of the game in bad faith.
And let's drop this pretence that people are going to be going, or needing to go into games acknowledging they won't get the points. I know for a fact that at my LGS that the vast majority of players will ignore the rule as dumb since there's a culture of politeness. When this rule will come up is generally going to be when people who have spent the game privately sneering down their nose instantly claim the 10 pts at the game's end and when people realize they can instantly change the outcome by claiming the 10 pts after tallying them altogether.
Whether or not this stops people from playing is equally immaterial - the suggestion is for the most part absurd and this isn't the crux of the problem. People do not show up to play to compare armies. Games are not a painting competition, they're about strategy. There is nothing unreasonable about being irritated that after a contest of the strategic elements in the game you are told firmly that you have lost, despite having outplayed the other person, purely because of something irrelevant to how the game actually plays, that you had no way to mitigate once the match had actually started. I'm also directing this at the one person who claimed that this only matters to implied WAAC's who want 10 pts to win and are unduly entitled to winning despite having fair and honestly just outplayed you.
If you lost and you want your opponent to acknowledge that you won purely because you had the fully painted army then you're the one that is being problematic.
But saying the grey marines are ultramarines? That's fine. I'm not going to tell my opponent he's having fun wrong for not painting something to someone's arbitrary standards.
Oh, that's fine by me (of course, depending on how long those Marines have been unpainted) - but I don't agree with the idea that modelling is sacrosanct and super important because the rules say so, but we can ignore rules that say painting is important. Either they're both important, or neither are - and I just want that clarification from Castozor.
Well I skipped over 7 pages or so of discussion but since you called me out specifically I´ll answer this first before reading the rest. I perhaps misread your post, but I thought you were talking about modeling guys without arms or something to avoid LoS. I personally have 0 issue with someone wanting to model a chainsword as a powersword or stuff like that, it hardly impacts the LoS of the model anyway. And I still disagree, painting now is not an actual game/mechanic it is a useless, unwanted victory condition bolted on to the actual game part, unlike LoS which needs to be drawn all the time during the game. Painting rules are simply a Y/N condition you get to check at the end for a free doling of VP for the gameplay-disabled who can't win normally but do know how to hold a brush.
Hankovitch wrote: The point is that 40k is not some sort of balanced contest of skills to begin with. It is not chess. It's a silly game we play with our toys. You can't complain that a painted-army bonus is unfair or imbalanced in a game that is fundamentally devoid of fairness or balance.
Indeed. To many of us 40K is a game where the visual spectacle is more important than balanced gmaeplay and thus find a rule which encourages painting to be generally a good idea. Now some people have argued that the AOS way of doing this would have been better. I have no strong feelings about it either way, though to me AOS method seems stricter.
Hankovitch wrote: The point is that 40k is not some sort of balanced contest of skills to begin with. It is not chess. It's a silly game we play with our toys. You can't complain that a painted-army bonus is unfair or imbalanced in a game that is fundamentally devoid of fairness or balance.
Indeed. To many of us 40K is a game where the visual spectacle is more important than balanced gmaeplay and thus find a rule which encourages painting to be generally a good idea. Now some people have argued that the AOS way of doing this would have been better. I have no strong feelings about it either way, though to me AOS method seems stricter.
So we should cater to you exclusively, instead of being open to everyone?
I would have zero issues with GW including something like "The game is best enjoyed with fully-painted miniatures and a board full of beautiful terrain!"
I would have zero issues with someone refusing to game with me, because they value the spectacle more than the gameplay and my army is not fully painted.
But I very much have an issue with what GW did here.
Noone's dismantled the ridiculous refrain being thrown around that it doesn't stop people from playing and it's just a way of rewarding players that do paint, so here goes
It is not about you.
Whatever fleeting sense of (hopefully private) joy you get in winning purely because your army was fully painted and your opponent's was not is immaterial to the discussion, as is, and god forbid, any sense of arrogant personal superiority rising out of it.
It is incomparable to the fact that you are potentially going to risk being disrespectful, discourteous, unsporting by flaunting the fact you deserve to claim the win because your army happened to be painted in your opponent's face.
You will not always know what issues your opponent is going through, their conditions, illnesses, etc and you are risking compounding those issues. Art, as a talent/skill, is a a very personal subject to some people - I personally know people who do not or hesitate to fully paint their armies for no other reason than they find the exercise of painting depressing and an exercise in straining their self-esteem because they're very self-critical.
And I'm going to reiterate what I already said, it is none of your damn business. If you're in a free, casual play environment with no specified venue restrictions or penalties for non-painted armies, you do not have the right to get all judgemental. Noone has to explain themselves to you and if you're so affected then tell the person how fussy you are and that you have no interest in playing them, before dropping that bombshell at the end of the game in bad faith.
And let's drop this pretence that people are going to be going, or needing to go into games acknowledging they won't get the points. I know for a fact that at my LGS that the vast majority of players will ignore the rule as dumb since there's a culture of politeness. When this rule will come up is generally going to be when people who have spent the game privately sneering down their nose instantly claim the 10 pts at the game's end and when people realize they can instantly change the outcome by claiming the 10 pts after tallying them altogether.
Whether or not this stops people from playing is equally immaterial - the suggestion is for the most part absurd and this isn't the crux of the problem. People do not show up to play to compare armies. Games are not a painting competition, they're about strategy. There is nothing unreasonable about being irritated that after a contest of the strategic elements in the game you are told firmly that you have lost, despite having outplayed the other person, purely because of something irrelevant to how the game actually plays, that you had no way to mitigate once the match had actually started. I'm also directing this at the one person who claimed that this only matters to implied WAAC's who want 10 pts to win and are unduly entitled to winning despite having fair and honestly just outplayed you.
If you lost and you want your opponent to acknowledge that you won purely because you had the fully painted army then you're the one that is being problematic.
Everything is fair in war and love. I will take my 10 pts muahahaha
Blndmage wrote: To the folks who think I could be given a pass due to my disability.
In garagehammer groups, you'd be right.
At FLGS's? Literally had my vision used against me on a number of occasions, and when I called it out at the store? A slap on the wrist, and zero consequences. The digital local groups froze me out or told me to "play better".
The local community is competitive and tournament focused.
I've tried to find folks who I could play not at stores with, but I've become a Pariah now.
Being a disabled gamer isn't easy of as fun as you'd imagine.
Most gamers are...at least not consciously ablist, but it's a huuuge issue.
That's not even touching on the misogyny that's almost a core tennentnof many gaming circles.
Literally had folks cancel/ghost games and big organized things after I changed my avatar in our local groups to a pic of me.
Hey Blindmage, sounds like a gakky, sexist, ableist local scene you've got, sorry to hear that. If you're ever in the UK let me know, I play with a lovely group of players who give no grief and are friendly and kind, we'd be well up for playing some Canadian Crons!
For what it's worth, you've changed my mind on this rule. I was previously all for it, but hearing it from your perspective I no longer like it.
Good luck on building a little group of players who are cool & not-dicks.
I won't lie, her brave admission of past struggles has made this discussion a more real thing for me as well. The fact that it made her feel, finally, unable to play the game she enjoys ? That is really a clear and glaring problem as she's most likely not the only one. While she and those like her may be the far minority of our hobby, if they can partake and fight hard to do so I don't see how anyone could support a rule that would push them away as a good addition to the core rules.
People don't always want things made easier because of their hardships, sometimes we just want to feel we are all on the same page. This rule goes from being " A painted army is an ideal " to " Play a painted army or we will let other players directly shame and punish you. Oh and it has to be by these arbitrary standards as well. " It's not a good thing.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
yukishiro1 wrote: The rule should have just been: "The game is played with assembled and painted GW models. If your army does not comply with these rules, check with your opponent before the game to make sure they are ok with your army."
There was no need to get overly technical with VPs for painting, any more than there was a need to give people 10VPs for a fully assembled force, or for not proxying, or WYSIWYG, or whatever else.
That is all I'm arguing, we all know the game is better painted. I have not played anyone who didn't want to have their army fully painted or didn't like full painted armies. It should be the ideal to strive for, not something you're punished in VP for not reaching yet for whatever reason you have to not reach their standards.
Can I respectfully request that you write this out in an Email to GW and explain why its a bad rule as you have done here.
I suspect that they have added the rule without considering this as a potential consequence.
Heck I hadn't even considered it that way and I have to agree with you.
While I understand why at first glance and compairing it to events who all have a similar rule, I did not realy understand what the argument was about, as it's esentially been something I've taken for granted for like 20+ years of events.
I agree adding it to the core rules was overstepping and the last thing this hobby needs it more things that make it feel exclusionary.
If you think it'll make any kind of a difference I will send the mail off today and hope it makes a positive change. I'd ask though if others do feel strong enough that is a bad rule, we all send our voices out there. I mean I didn't expect this topic to be so deep but I think some people are missing the bigger picture in how stuff like this makes people feel and how it puts a negative emphasis on forcing something, regardless of why it isn't done just that way, over pushing pride for a job hard to do and well done. Pride should be the reward for a full painted force, not a freedom from playing an uphill battle in every game.
Simply put I suspect they have completely missed this angle as they have had this rule in all of their event packets since they used to day gamesday's at the factory back in the 90's.
Ignoring that you have made a rule that is exclusionary or in anyway punitive to people with disabilities, lets just say at best it's a PR nightmare at worse it's legal action.
The sad part is they have warhammer world all set up to be fully accessible.
Well I sent the email off, they say they have email back log but I send a long, polite and well reasoned letter so hopefully they give it a look over and if they change course on that rule or at least acknowledge it openly, I can say I did what I can on it. I hope it helps.
For tournaments, its part of the competition to be fully painted. For casual play, where your list fluctuates, and you are proxying different things to see if you like them... heck no.
And honestly, if a friend needs to 10pts to "beat" me. Take it, enjoy. You get your *win, I give you an asterisk with it :-)
I'm going to field armies for causal games 99% painted, others have said this too, enjoy the rule. Actually I think this will make people happier, you know they got crushed, but they get the win because of the one grey guy.
Noone's dismantled the ridiculous refrain being thrown around that it doesn't stop people from playing and it's just a way of rewarding players that do paint, so here goes
. . .
It is incomparable to the fact that you are potentially going to risk being disrespectful, discourteous, unsporting by flaunting the fact you deserve to claim the win because your army happened to be painted in your opponent's face.
As opposed to the feeling of disrespect I might feel when someone shows up with broken, unpainted proxy models, running the latest powerbuild?
You're fundamentaly making the "my way of fun is best" argument here.
Noone's dismantled the ridiculous refrain being thrown around that it doesn't stop people from playing and it's just a way of rewarding players that do paint, so here goes
. . .
It is incomparable to the fact that you are potentially going to risk being disrespectful, discourteous, unsporting by flaunting the fact you deserve to claim the win because your army happened to be painted in your opponent's face.
As opposed to the feeling of disrespect I might feel when someone shows up with broken, unpainted proxy models, running the latest powerbuild?
You're fundamentaly making the "my way of fun is best" argument here.
Noone's dismantled the ridiculous refrain being thrown around that it doesn't stop people from playing and it's just a way of rewarding players that do paint, so here goes
. . .
It is incomparable to the fact that you are potentially going to risk being disrespectful, discourteous, unsporting by flaunting the fact you deserve to claim the win because your army happened to be painted in your opponent's face.
As opposed to the feeling of disrespect I might feel when someone shows up with broken, unpainted proxy models, running the latest powerbuild?
You're fundamentaly making the "my way of fun is best" argument here.
As has been said many times, most tournaments already slam the door in your face if you have unpainted models and you try and play in it. I doubt that will change at all, so all this rule does is make you have to deal with it in pick up or casual games.
I disagree with the fact people will have to deal with this in casual games..
However, I am willing to concede the fact that I do not live in a horrifying dystopian place where people are utter gaklords to each other.
I'll be honest. Considering how many people in this thread describe their LGS(I refuse to say FLGS due to how people have described them) and PUG situation I am actually surprised those people are in the hobby at all. I'd be long gone if the hobby arena close to me was full of toxic jerks like that. The sad thing is that whether GW would have this rule or not is not going to change those toxic jerks. Toxic jerks will continue to be toxic jerks until they disappear with the heat death of the universe.
This thread has also brought to light that those who are in favor of this rule, like myself, are lucky. Lucky that we live in a relative utopia with decent and reasonable people who are friendly and enjoy a sense of camaraderie. I am not even trying to be satirical or funny. What some people have described here is just horrifying communities and social circles that exhibit pure cruelty and hate..
Whatever fleeting sense of (hopefully private) joy you get in winning purely because your army was fully painted and your opponent's was not is immaterial to the discussion, as is, and god forbid, any sense of arrogant personal superiority rising out of it.
It is incomparable to the fact that you are potentially going to risk being disrespectful, discourteous, unsporting by flaunting the fact you deserve to claim the win because your army happened to be painted in your opponent's face.
Or you could practice good sportsmanship, treat the social interaction as a social interaction between people, and not some sort of referendum on your life choices.
If a match at my FLGS came down to me being 5 VPs ahead, and I had some yet-unpainted boys or mek guns on the table, whilst my opponent had some fully painted army on display? I would remind them of the 10 points they get for their painted army, congratulate them on a good close game, and offer a handshake. Because we're here to enjoy ourselves, and there is literally no harm or consequence in walking away with a W or an L. I suppose Games Workshop should add some paragraphs to their rulebook about good sportsmanship and maturity; but then we probably would have an online argent about that too.
Too much of this game comes down to what army you're financially or aesthetically bound to, to the whims of GW marketing, to the vagaries of a small subset of dice rolls, to view this game as a demonstration of your personal worth. It's a game, and how you treat other people in winning or losing is more important than the outcome of the game itself.
Noone's dismantled the ridiculous refrain being thrown around that it doesn't stop people from playing and it's just a way of rewarding players that do paint, so here goes
. . .
It is incomparable to the fact that you are potentially going to risk being disrespectful, discourteous, unsporting by flaunting the fact you deserve to claim the win because your army happened to be painted in your opponent's face.
As opposed to the feeling of disrespect I might feel when someone shows up with broken, unpainted proxy models, running the latest powerbuild?
You're fundamentaly making the "my way of fun is best argument" here.
I suggest you actually read and break down the key points of what I said instead of attempting to snipe my whole post with some empty retort, thanks. I already said that I paint everything I put on the table. The point is to show courtesy and respect to others.
As for your second empty retort that "my way of fun is the best argument" is the best summary of my argument you could make, that's completely wrong too.
Neither element of the hobby is more important than the other.
Fundamentally, if you want the thing that matters in a contest to be about the painting, go enter a painting competition. If you agree to play a game - the side of the hobby that is all about strategy - then you should win or lose based on how you played, and not because you're privileged enough to have the time, motivation and mental wellbeing etc to put a fully painted army on the table.
I'll be honest. Considering how many people in this thread describe their LGS(I refuse to say FLGS due to how people have described them) and PUG situation I am actually surprised those people are in the hobby at all. I'd be long gone if the hobby arena close to me was full of toxic jerks like that. The sad thing is that whether GW would have this rule or not is not going to change those toxic jerks. Toxic jerks will continue to be toxic jerks until they disappear with the heat death of the universe.
This thread has also brought to light that those who are in favor of this rule, like myself, are lucky. Lucky that we live in a relative utopia with decent and reasonable people who are friendly and enjoy a sense of camaraderie. I am not even trying to be satirical or funny. What some people have described here is just horrifying communities and social circles that exhibit pure cruelty and hate..
It should be both , a visual spectacle and a balanced game , the spectacle we Players as a community create, some have the capabilities of da Vinci , other (Like me ) destroy models via basing process and others do what they can and want but sadly have impairements.
I think gw has kinda crossed a Line with this rule, in a Way , that is an issue for some , and honestly a huge Part of player agency and choice and i am not liking it for that.
Edit: also the above is heavily true, all i can say i am lucky for my Group beeing more diverse in playstyle and Games we play.
And welcoming.
Or you could practice good sportsmanship, treat the social interaction as a social interaction between people, and not some sort of referendum on your life choices.
If a match at my FLGS came down to me being 5 VPs ahead, and I had some yet-unpainted boys or mek guns on the table, whilst my opponent had some fully painted army on display? I would remind them of the 10 points they get for their painted army, congratulate them on a good close game, and offer a handshake. Because we're here to enjoy ourselves, and there is literally no harm or consequence in walking away with a W or an L.
Too much of this game comes down to what army you're financially or aesthetically bound to, to the whims of GW marketing, to the vagaries of a small subset of dice rolls, to view this game as a demonstration of your personal worth. It's a game, and how you treat other people in winning or losing is more important than the outcome of the game itself.
Yep. I really don't get why people are so hung up on who wins or loses a casual game.
I stil lstruggle t osee any situation where this rule can be employed without seeming like a douche.
it will only matter if it tips the balance of the game, so if you're losing by 11 points or more then yeah, then you canclaim a closer loss.
if it tips you from a loss to a win, you basically say to your opponent "I know you won the game, but my models are all pretty because I have the time/have the talent/have the drive/have the money to have all my units painted and you don't".
As I said before, you might as well say "any player with a physical copy of the rulebook and codex on their person gets 10VP". it's utterly irrelevant.
what I hate most is that, because it's part of the actual rules, it's something which players will have to agree beforehand not to use, which is along the same lines as ye olde "you may use special characters with your opponents permission" rule, which simply didn't work.
As has been said many times, most tournaments already slam the door in your face if you have unpainted models and you try and play in it. I doubt that will change at all, so all this rule does is make you have to deal with it in pick up or casual games.
I disagree with the fact people will have to deal with this in casual games..
However, I am willing to concede the fact that I do not live in a horrifying dystopian place where people are utter gaklords to each other.
I'll be honest. Considering how many people in this thread describe their LGS(I refuse to say FLGS due to how people have described them) and PUG situation I am actually surprised those people are in the hobby at all. I'd be long gone if the hobby arena close to me was full of toxic jerks like that. The sad thing is that whether GW would have this rule or not is not going to change those toxic jerks. Toxic jerks will continue to be toxic jerks until they disappear with the heat death of the universe.
This thread has also brought to light that those who are in favor of this rule, like myself, are lucky. Lucky that we live in a relative utopia with decent and reasonable people who are friendly and enjoy a sense of camaraderie. I am not even trying to be satirical or funny. What some people have described here is just horrifying communities and social circles that exhibit pure cruelty and hate..
The point is, the world is varied, some places have less than ideal people to game with. This is at the end of the day a very niche hobby. GW making rules that, as you say, Gak Lords can use to pressure, brow beat and pick on other players for points advantage or some sense of self superiority is a poor take.
I'll give GW credit in that they didn't see how it would touch some people or some peoples issues with it on a deeper level than just " I don't like to paint ". GW has shown many times that their view of how the game is played and should be played can be worlds apart from what we see and engage with.
They can fix a poor rule though, they have that power. This should have always been a suggestion, a held aloft ideal and something you strive for. It should have never been a scoring mechanic rule for all the missions.
If you've never had to deal with the kinds of people some of us have met, I hope you never do but they exist and sometimes are impossible to avoid as the scenes just not that large.
Noone's dismantled the ridiculous refrain being thrown around that it doesn't stop people from playing and it's just a way of rewarding players that do paint, so here goes
. . .
It is incomparable to the fact that you are potentially going to risk being disrespectful, discourteous, unsporting by flaunting the fact you deserve to claim the win because your army happened to be painted in your opponent's face.
As opposed to the feeling of disrespect I might feel when someone shows up with broken, unpainted proxy models, running the latest powerbuild?
You're fundamentaly making the "my way of fun is best argument" here.
I suggest you actually read and break down the key points of what I said instead of attempting to snipe my whole post with some empty retort, thanks. I already said that I paint everything I put on the table. The point is to show courtesy and respect to others.
As for your second empty retort that "my way of fun is the best argument" is the best summary of my argument you could make, that's completely wrong too.
Neither element of the hobby is more important than the other.
Fundamentally, if you want the thing that matters in a contest to be about the painting, go enter a painting competition. If you agree to play a game - the side of the hobby that is all about strategy - then you should win or lose based on how you played, and not because you're privileged enough to have the time, motivation and mental wellbeing etc to put a fully painted army on the table.
But the barrier of entry that is the cost of all the models, books, time for assembly etc. is all fine though? Like, people put money and effort into the game just the same. All we're doing is defining where the line is. And it's a soft line! You don't auto-lose or anything. You aren't barred from playing.
And it is the "my way of fun is best" argument when you project that the game is purely strategic. It can also be viewed as an aesthetic experience, and is marketed as such. Lots of people play it for narrative value, and not strategic as well. So defining it as "purely strategic" is you bringing your own narrow definition to the party.
Not Online!!! wrote: It should be both , a visual spectacle and a balanced game , the spectacle we Players as a community create, some have the capabilities of da Vinci , other (Like me ) destroy models via basing process and others do what they can and want but sadly have impairements.
I think gw has kinda crossed a Line with this rule, in a Way , that is an issue for some , and honestly a huge Part of player agency and choice and i am not liking it for that.
Edit: also the above is heavily true, all i can say i am lucky for my Group beeing more diverse in playstyle and Games we play.
And welcoming.
I don't think anyone is going to pull out the da Vinci standard on you and force your models to be there for +10 VPs. If your models look like a hot mess in the basing process, but you put that effort in and put those models on the table... I'm sure all but the worst of the "that guy's" are going to give you the +10 VP your deserve for investing the time and effort into that work. Even shoddy models with paint on them look worlds better than the gray tide. No one is requiring you to be the best player and the best painter... they're just asking you to show up like you care for the models more than simply thrashing the guy across the table.
It engages more people, draws in more people, and allows better stories to be told and shared when it happens. Some say is it a gimmick to sell more Citadel paints (though they never reference "painted with the Citadel color system"), I'd argue that it is a more a gimmick to hook people passing by with showing them awesome models and battle scenes that grab the eye (way more that the flinch instinct of seeing the gray tide).
What is Battle Ready? If a model is Battle Ready, it means it’s ready to game with. Battle Ready models have their main areas coloured and an simple finish on their bases.
(just noticed "an simple finish", thank goodness these people don't write rules.... ...oh...)
So, the definition is the main area coloured and a simple finish on the base.
I would argue that black is a colour (I know it's technically a shade but shh). Nothing says the colour has to be different, or detailed. so if the whole model is red (EG primed red for a blood angels army) then it's battle ready. all the "main areas" are coloured (red) and the base has a simple finish (also red).
same deal for sprayed black. that's the colour I want all my minis right now, and black is the simple base detail.
Or you could practice good sportsmanship, treat the social interaction as a social interaction between people, and not some sort of referendum on your life choices.
If a match at my FLGS came down to me being 5 VPs ahead, and I had some yet-unpainted boys or mek guns on the table, whilst my opponent had some fully painted army on display? I would remind them of the 10 points they get for their painted army, congratulate them on a good close game, and offer a handshake. Because we're here to enjoy ourselves, and there is literally no harm or consequence in walking away with a W or an L.
Too much of this game comes down to what army you're financially or aesthetically bound to, to the whims of GW marketing, to the vagaries of a small subset of dice rolls, to view this game as a demonstration of your personal worth. It's a game, and how you treat other people in winning or losing is more important than the outcome of the game itself.
Yep. I really don't get why people are so hung up on who wins or loses a casual game.
If it doesn't matter at all, to anyone who wins or loses then the rule on its face is pointless, and not needed in the first place. Holding it up as a good idea then saying " Winning don't matter duh ! " Well then why argue its a good rule if all it will promise is argument and disagreement ?
If tournaments already enforce painting policy why does this rule even need to exist ? It's only point is shame, punishment and exclusion that players can choose who to spring it on and who to let it slide for, that is a poor, poor rule.
Whatever fleeting sense of (hopefully private) joy you get in winning purely because your army was fully painted and your opponent's was not is immaterial to the discussion, as is, and god forbid, any sense of arrogant personal superiority rising out of it.
It is incomparable to the fact that you are potentially going to risk being disrespectful, discourteous, unsporting by flaunting the fact you deserve to claim the win because your army happened to be painted in your opponent's face.
Or you could practice good sportsmanship, treat the social interaction as a social interaction between people, and not some sort of referendum on your life choices.
If a match at my FLGS came down to me being 5 VPs ahead, and I had some yet-unpainted boys or mek guns on the table, whilst my opponent had some fully painted army on display? I would remind them of the 10 points they get for their painted army, congratulate them on a good close game, and offer a handshake. Because we're here to enjoy ourselves, and there is literally no harm or consequence in walking away with a W or an L. I suppose Games Workshop should add some paragraphs to their rulebook about good sportsmanship and maturity; but then we probably would have an online argent about that too.
Too much of this game comes down to what army you're financially or aesthetically bound to, to the whims of GW marketing, to the vagaries of a small subset of dice rolls, to view this game as a demonstration of your personal worth. It's a game, and how you treat other people in winning or losing is more important than the outcome of the game itself.
The whole point of my post is that the interaction should be social and friendly and not a referendum on life choices, like how a person allocates their free time instead of painting and what issues people have.
Further on that, as if you didn't read what I said at all, you go on to make this post all about you and how you would inform the opponent that they won because you're such a gent. Congrats, I don't care. That's entirely besides the point.
The issue here is that the rule acts as an implicit endorsement of elitism under the unfounded assumption that people only don't paint their armies because they're lazy, good-for-nothings, and that encourages callous and disrespectful behaviour.
Not Online!!! wrote: It should be both , a visual spectacle and a balanced game , the spectacle we Players as a community create, some have the capabilities of da Vinci , other (Like me ) destroy models via basing process and others do what they can and want but sadly have impairements.
I think gw has kinda crossed a Line with this rule, in a Way , that is an issue for some , and honestly a huge Part of player agency and choice and i am not liking it for that.
Edit: also the above is heavily true, all i can say i am lucky for my Group beeing more diverse in playstyle and Games we play.
And welcoming.
I don't think anyone is going to pull out the da Vinci standard on you and force your models to be there for +10 VPs. If your models look like a hot mess in the basing process, but you put that effort in and put those models on the table... I'm sure all but the worst of the "that guy's" are going to give you the +10 VP your deserve for investing the time and effort into that work. Even shoddy models with paint on them look worlds better than the gray tide. No one is requiring you to be the best player and the best painter... they're just asking you to show up like you care for the models more than simply thrashing the guy across the table.
It engages more people, draws in more people, and allows better stories to be told and shared when it happens. Some say is it a gimmick to sell more Citadel paints (though they never reference "painted with the Citadel color system"), I'd argue that it is a more a gimmick to hook people passing by with showing them awesome models and battle scenes that grab the eye (way more that the flinch instinct of seeing the gray tide).
It still crosses a Line of agency and it still is a discipline that has imo nothing lost in Rating for Battle points.
If it doesn't matter at all, to anyone who wins or loses then the rule on its face is pointless, and not needed in the first place. Holding it up as a good idea then saying " Winning don't matter duh ! " Well then why argue its a good rule if all it will promise is argument and disagreement ?
If tournaments already enforce painting policy why does this rule even need to exist ? It's only point is shame, punishment and exclusion that players can choose who to spring it on and who to let it slide for, that is a poor, poor rule.
I didn't say winning doesn't matter at all, it just isn't a big deal. This rule gives a small benefit to painted armies, thus encouraging people to play with painted models, the game is better with painted models, thus the rule is good. This is not difficult.
Noone's dismantled the ridiculous refrain being thrown around that it doesn't stop people from playing and it's just a way of rewarding players that do paint, so here goes
. . .
It is incomparable to the fact that you are potentially going to risk being disrespectful, discourteous, unsporting by flaunting the fact you deserve to claim the win because your army happened to be painted in your opponent's face.
As opposed to the feeling of disrespect I might feel when someone shows up with broken, unpainted proxy models, running the latest powerbuild?
You're fundamentaly making the "my way of fun is best argument" here.
I suggest you actually read and break down the key points of what I said instead of attempting to snipe my whole post with some empty retort, thanks. I already said that I paint everything I put on the table. The point is to show courtesy and respect to others.
As for your second empty retort that "my way of fun is the best argument" is the best summary of my argument you could make, that's completely wrong too.
Neither element of the hobby is more important than the other.
Fundamentally, if you want the thing that matters in a contest to be about the painting, go enter a painting competition. If you agree to play a game - the side of the hobby that is all about strategy - then you should win or lose based on how you played, and not because you're privileged enough to have the time, motivation and mental wellbeing etc to put a fully painted army on the table.
But the barrier of entry that is the cost of all the models, books, time for assembly etc. is all fine though? Like, people put money and effort into the game just the same. All we're doing is defining where the line is. And it's a soft line! You don't auto-lose or anything. You aren't barred from playing.
And it is the "my way of fun is best" argument when you project that the game is purely strategic. It can also be viewed as an aesthetic experience, and is marketed as such. Lots of people play it for narrative value, and not strategic as well. So defining it as "purely strategic" is you bringing your own narrow definition to the party.
The game, in so far as the outcome of the game and who wins or loses as this topic of discussion concerns, is purely strategic. Don't drop it on someone that they've lost because you're upset that they affected your "aesthetic experience" when you consented to play them, having seen their army.
You have the freedom to tell people you don't want to play their half-built power-build before the game.
some bloke wrote: I stil lstruggle t osee any situation where this rule can be employed without seeming like a douche.
Hankovitch told you how to do that. You invoke it when it is for the advantage of your opponent.
but then that seems like pity points.
It's also the issue of wen you can not use it. I would seem like a douche if I arrive at a game with unpainted minis and then say "I don't use the 10vp for painted minis rule". that would be like using all vehicles and saying "I don't play with the melta rules", or bringing any non-marine army and saying "I don't play with bolter discipline".
The fact that they made this a rule and not a recommendation makes it impossible to either use it or not use it without it seeming pitying, douchey or irrelevant.
There is as said the fact as players you can already choose to play or not with who you will or won't engage with. We don't need rules to just punish the unpainted army guys with. It was a line crossed they should have left alone.
If it doesn't matter at all, to anyone who wins or loses then the rule on its face is pointless, and not needed in the first place. Holding it up as a good idea then saying " Winning don't matter duh ! " Well then why argue its a good rule if all it will promise is argument and disagreement ?
If tournaments already enforce painting policy why does this rule even need to exist ? It's only point is shame, punishment and exclusion that players can choose who to spring it on and who to let it slide for, that is a poor, poor rule.
I didn't say winning doesn't matter at all, it just isn't a big deal. This rule gives a small benefit to painted armies, thus encouraging people to play with painted models, the game is better with painted models, thus the rule is good. This is not difficult.
As friends you should encourage each other to paint and play with painted stuff, not need some gamey, poor rule to try and brow beat people into it so they aren't at a disadvantage, thus the rule is bad and I think not really in keeping with the spirit of the game at its core.
It's also the issue of wen you can not use it. I would seem like a douche if I arrive at a game with unpainted minis and then say "I don't use the 10vp for painted minis rule". that would be like using all vehicles and saying "I don't play with the melta rules", or bringing any non-marine army and saying "I don't play with bolter discipline".
Right. So don't do that.
The fact that they made this a rule and not a recommendation makes it impossible to either use it or not use it without it seeming pitying, douchey or irrelevant.
It is a rule, use the rule, accept the results. Not difficult.
So given the rest of the rules there it looks like a Matched Play rules. If you’re salty about it just play Open Play, with every Matched Play rule but this one. No longer an issue. Not every game is a tournament so doesn’t need to be tourney rules. This rule is only a problem if you make it one.
Maybe I just live in the single greatest WH40k community ever created, or this is just hyperbole regarding people's inability to paint and their communities reaction to it.
A few points.
Do people not help each other with painting? Like, when we have an event coming up and someone doesn't have their stuff ready and they need help, we organize a painting group and we help the person out. I'll jump on my airbrush, another buddy will base coat and drybrush, other washes, I mean, does that really not happen anywhere else but my own little utopia?
Before it gets to that point, do you or the people so heavily against this rule (and it almost sounds like painting in general) try to organize painting nights with friends and such. I get that time is in demand, I work 3 jobs and am finishing grad school, but even I can find a few hours a week to get some sanity time in, and I paint. If I need help, ill invite a buddy or 5 over and ill order some take out and we will sit down and paint for a while to get going. Does no one do this?
As far as the discussion of the disabled person, I REALLY get concerned about this discussion when it heads in that direction. There is a saying in the Human resources world that there is no such thing as a blind pilot. What that means is that you make as many reasonable accommodations for everyone you can, but accept the fact that rules are written for the average, not for those in need of accommodation. So when we are talking about people being ableist or this rule is gatekeeping, I think its a stretch to assume that those things are true. They aren't. In fact, the reality is that rules are written for the average player, and there will always be situations that exist outside of the confines of rules that easily cover 99.9% of the purchasing/playing population.
Noone's dismantled the ridiculous refrain being thrown around that it doesn't stop people from playing and it's just a way of rewarding players that do paint, so here goes
. . .
It is incomparable to the fact that you are potentially going to risk being disrespectful, discourteous, unsporting by flaunting the fact you deserve to claim the win because your army happened to be painted in your opponent's face.
As opposed to the feeling of disrespect I might feel when someone shows up with broken, unpainted proxy models, running the latest powerbuild?
You're fundamentaly making the "my way of fun is best argument" here.
I suggest you actually read and break down the key points of what I said instead of attempting to snipe my whole post with some empty retort, thanks. I already said that I paint everything I put on the table. The point is to show courtesy and respect to others.
As for your second empty retort that "my way of fun is the best argument" is the best summary of my argument you could make, that's completely wrong too.
Neither element of the hobby is more important than the other.
Fundamentally, if you want the thing that matters in a contest to be about the painting, go enter a painting competition. If you agree to play a game - the side of the hobby that is all about strategy - then you should win or lose based on how you played, and not because you're privileged enough to have the time, motivation and mental wellbeing etc to put a fully painted army on the table.
But the barrier of entry that is the cost of all the models, books, time for assembly etc. is all fine though? Like, people put money and effort into the game just the same. All we're doing is defining where the line is. And it's a soft line! You don't auto-lose or anything. You aren't barred from playing.
And it is the "my way of fun is best" argument when you project that the game is purely strategic. It can also be viewed as an aesthetic experience, and is marketed as such. Lots of people play it for narrative value, and not strategic as well. So defining it as "purely strategic" is you bringing your own narrow definition to the party.
The game, in so far as the outcome of the game and who wins or loses as this topic of discussion concerns, is purely strategic. Don't drop it on someone that they've lost because you're upset that they affected your "aesthetic experience" when you consented to play them, having seen their army.
You have the freedom to tell people you don't want to play their half-built power-build before the game.
There's no "dropping", dude. It's (apparently) in the book and you can discuss it before hand if you think it's going to matter.
And, if you only care about the "strategic" win, you should have zero problem accepting that you would have won the game had the bonus been unawarded. After all, you have verifiably 'outplayed' the opponent, no?
So then why does there need to be a points incentive in the rules for paint ? Why ? If everyone paints anyways, and no one will enforce the rule because its a poor sport thing to do. I think that leaves most of us in agreement its a poor rule and needless in the game.
As for some claiming it isn't gatekeeping we had someone, who has dealt with it in other ways, already saying this rule is concerning for that very reason. So God Bless you for not having issues or struggles, I'm glad. However if its negatively impacting that .1 percent and I think its actually more than that this rule hits upon. It shouldn't be there.
Painting standard should be enforced by group and by event and not offer in game advantage through core mission scoring rules.
Not everyone against the rule is against painting but I don't like the line this rule crosses, implications other areas " Taste " issues could touch upon game play rules, scoring, etc.
There is no reason the rule needs to be in the game. Communities enforce standards and events enforce standards the core rules shouldn't need to as well for army painting.
Seabass wrote: Maybe I just live in the single greatest WH40k community ever created, or this is just hyperbole regarding people's inability to paint and their communities reaction to it.
A few points.
Do people not help each other with painting? Like, when we have an event coming up and someone doesn't have their stuff ready and they need help, we organize a painting group and we help the person out. I'll jump on my airbrush, another buddy will base coat and drybrush, other washes, I mean, does that really not happen anywhere else but my own little utopia?
Well I sent the email off, they say they have email back log but I send a long, polite and well reasoned letter so hopefully they give it a look over and if they change course on that rule or at least acknowledge it openly, I can say I did what I can on it. I hope it helps.
Yeah I would hope that most people are decent enough to not use rules like this to punsih or exclude people from the hobby but at the same time the number of times I hear of incidents happening that would have me speachless is too often.
I hope it's an oversight due to the culture of friendly games the studio guys have that they have oversighted that this rule negatively affects people trying thier best to keep hobbying.
AngryAngel80 wrote: So then why does there need to be a points incentive in the rules for paint ? Why ? If everyone paints anyways, and no one will enforce the rule because its a poor sport thing to do. I think that leaves most of us in agreement its a poor rule and needless in the game.
As for some claiming it isn't gatekeeping we had someone, who has dealt with it in other ways, already saying this rule is concerning for that very reason. So God Bless you for not having issues or struggles, I'm glad. However if its negatively impacting that .1 percent and I think its actually more than that this rule hits upon. It shouldn't be there.
Painting standard should be enforced by group and by event and not offer in game advantage through core mission scoring rules.
Not everyone against the rule is against painting but I don't like the line this rule crosses, implications other areas " Taste " issues could touch upon game play rules, scoring, etc.
There is no reason the rule needs to be in the game. Communities enforce standards and events enforce standards the core rules shouldn't need to as well for army painting.
This, is probably my point more competently formulated.
Well I sent the email off, they say they have email back log but I send a long, polite and well reasoned letter so hopefully they give it a look over and if they change course on that rule or at least acknowledge it openly, I can say I did what I can on it. I hope it helps.
Yeah I would hope that most people are decent enough to not use rules like this to punsih or exclude people from the hobby but at the same time the number of times I hear of incidents happening that would have me speachless is too often.
I hope it's an oversight due to the culture of friendly games the studio guys have that they have oversighted that this rule negatively affects people trying thier best to keep hobbying.
Tbf the "Communities "using this rules specifically to be a dick will Find other ways to be such.
Red Corsair wrote: He's having a good time re-framing the argument or being pedantic. That's his MO. He defaults to that state when ever he's losing ground.
In the N&R thread he argued that he doesn't even play competitively in order to "win" another debate. But somehow a none competitive person is finding this to be a massive issue lol. He even admitted his first and only tournament was in 7th despite posting on here since 2005. Oh, and that the event had one single guy with a painted army in an otherwise see of grey plastic, but apparently feth that guy for his effort.
He still hasn't honestly answered my question from the N&R thread. Why should another player win a game based on purchasing power? There is no way to claim there isn't an advantage to winning 40k when you have a bigger hobby budget. That has nothing to do with whos the better player but factors into who wins way more then this.
Whats hilarious to me is how many WAAC players are being unmasked by that little bonus they are tossing to the guys that paint their stuff. You don't even need to paint well mind you. You can spray a base coat from a rattle can on your army while its on the sprue, dip wash it with min wax in a tray and spray texture paint (yes this is sold in cans too) onto the bases before assembly. It would dry before you finished reading the rules and you would have the BRS lol. Literally no need for a brush. It also goes for slow or detail painters, it's the base initial set up you can paint them up from.
Weird that you're discussing me rather than the topic.
And accusing me of being a WAAC player as well? Good God...
I mean we literally had a blind person come into this thread and say "I've got an issue with this!" and you still don't get it. And I'm the one "losing ground" apaprently?
Imma just quote Slayer, as he has summed it up perfectly: "If you have to houserule something, it means there's a problem with the rule at hand. Either you actually DO agree with it or you don't, Insectum. This isn't some middle ground thing."
Well I sent the email off, they say they have email back log but I send a long, polite and well reasoned letter so hopefully they give it a look over and if they change course on that rule or at least acknowledge it openly, I can say I did what I can on it. I hope it helps.
Yeah I would hope that most people are decent enough to not use rules like this to punsih or exclude people from the hobby but at the same time the number of times I hear of incidents happening that would have me speachless is too often.
I hope it's an oversight due to the culture of friendly games the studio guys have that they have oversighted that this rule negatively affects people trying thier best to keep hobbying.
Tbf the "Communities "using this rules specifically to be a dick will Find other ways to be such.
Totally agree with that but having it in the core rules adds a level of legitimacy that they will abuse.
Yeah I would hope that most people are decent enough to not use rules like this to punsih or exclude people from the hobby but at the same time the number of times I hear of incidents happening that would have me speachless is too often.
I hope it's an oversight due to the culture of friendly games the studio guys have that they have oversighted that this rule negatively affects people trying thier best to keep hobbying.
I think the main point that people seem to be disagreeing on is what the actual "hobby" is. GW see the painting as part of the hobby, while others separate it out and consider the game to be the all that's important to them.
It's also hyperbolic to say this "excludes" anyone. It no more excludes a player than playing 2000 points when they only own 1500. If you can't play a full painted army, you can ask to play at a lower points value so you can.
I've never in the 20 years I've been in this hobby managed to field a fully painted force. It's always been my ambition, but life can distract, or I'll move in to a different project without finishing the first.
I guess it's really a glass half full Vs half empty argument. Some see it as rewarding those that put the time into painting everything, and others see it as punishing those who don't.
For me, I like the new rule. I like that I actually have a reason other than completionism to go after it, and if someone I'm playing with wins because they have a fully painted army and I don't, then more power too them, it was earned.
Realistically I imagine it won't feature very often though, as like me, the people I play with have never managed a fully finished army.
Noone's dismantled the ridiculous refrain being thrown around that it doesn't stop people from playing and it's just a way of rewarding players that do paint, so here goes
. . .
It is incomparable to the fact that you are potentially going to risk being disrespectful, discourteous, unsporting by flaunting the fact you deserve to claim the win because your army happened to be painted in your opponent's face.
As opposed to the feeling of disrespect I might feel when someone shows up with broken, unpainted proxy models, running the latest powerbuild?
You're fundamentaly making the "my way of fun is best argument" here.
I suggest you actually read and break down the key points of what I said instead of attempting to snipe my whole post with some empty retort, thanks. I already said that I paint everything I put on the table. The point is to show courtesy and respect to others.
As for your second empty retort that "my way of fun is the best argument" is the best summary of my argument you could make, that's completely wrong too.
Neither element of the hobby is more important than the other.
Fundamentally, if you want the thing that matters in a contest to be about the painting, go enter a painting competition. If you agree to play a game - the side of the hobby that is all about strategy - then you should win or lose based on how you played, and not because you're privileged enough to have the time, motivation and mental wellbeing etc to put a fully painted army on the table.
But the barrier of entry that is the cost of all the models, books, time for assembly etc. is all fine though? Like, people put money and effort into the game just the same. All we're doing is defining where the line is. And it's a soft line! You don't auto-lose or anything. You aren't barred from playing.
And it is the "my way of fun is best" argument when you project that the game is purely strategic. It can also be viewed as an aesthetic experience, and is marketed as such. Lots of people play it for narrative value, and not strategic as well. So defining it as "purely strategic" is you bringing your own narrow definition to the party.
The game, in so far as the outcome of the game and who wins or loses as this topic of discussion concerns, is purely strategic. Don't drop it on someone that they've lost because you're upset that they affected your "aesthetic experience" when you consented to play them, having seen their army.
You have the freedom to tell people you don't want to play their half-built power-build before the game.
There's no "dropping", dude. It's (apparently) in the book and you can discuss it before hand if you think it's going to matter.
And, if you only care about the "strategic" win, you should have zero problem accepting that you would have won the game had the bonus been unawarded. After all, you have verifiably 'outplayed' the opponent, no?
Instead of a fourth reply that amounts to an "RTP" of my original post I'm just going to put this here
The axioms behind arguments in this thread are almost completely parralel and being bounced off each other
I.e, in this one you mention that you can discuss the rule before hand, which is directly parralel to how I mentioned you can just say that you're looking for a game against a painted army/non-powerbuild etc and move on
You also make the argument that not winning because of a lack of painted minis doesn't matter, because people should know they've "won" on merit, which is directly parralel to the argument that people who've lost the game strategically shouldn't point out that they've actually won because winning doesn't matter in that context either, does it?
Thirdly, there are people that see this as a reward for people who paint, and people who see this as a penalty for people who do not.
What my argument is seeking to establish independently of those axioms is that you should be mindful of how this rule can contribute to toxicity and the risks involved in being TFG and invoking it over an issue that is personal, private and concerns talent/skill, in a circumstance where the thing being tested is not painting ability but gaming ability. Secondly, there should not be rules that penalise people for not having painted armies as if that is a willful character flaw or error. As Blindmage has pointed out from her own experience, there are instances where it is not.
Toxic people will be toxic regardless. They'll always find avenues to be toxic. At least this way they'll have lovely armies to go along with their toxicity.
Well I sent the email off, they say they have email back log but I send a long, polite and well reasoned letter so hopefully they give it a look over and if they change course on that rule or at least acknowledge it openly, I can say I did what I can on it. I hope it helps.
Yeah I would hope that most people are decent enough to not use rules like this to punsih or exclude people from the hobby but at the same time the number of times I hear of incidents happening that would have me speachless is too often.
I hope it's an oversight due to the culture of friendly games the studio guys have that they have oversighted that this rule negatively affects people trying thier best to keep hobbying.
Tbf the "Communities "using this rules specifically to be a dick will Find other ways to be such.
Totally agree with that but having it in the core rules adds a level of legitimacy that they will abuse.
See , you can't Make everything allways unabusable,(i'd argue their balance allows enough legitimate beeing a dick) more concerning is the assertion into the sphere of Taste and Looks , areas highly subjective and divisive, Heck Look at art? And gw decided it to be smart to Make a rule that grants 1/10 in vp's of a match?
Yeah I would hope that most people are decent enough to not use rules like this to punsih or exclude people from the hobby but at the same time the number of times I hear of incidents happening that would have me speachless is too often.
I hope it's an oversight due to the culture of friendly games the studio guys have that they have oversighted that this rule negatively affects people trying thier best to keep hobbying.
I think the main point that people seem to be disagreeing on is what the actual "hobby" is. GW see the painting as part of the hobby, while others separate it out and consider the game to be the all that's important to them.
It's also hyperbolic to say this "excludes" anyone. It no more excludes a player than playing 2000 points when they only own 1500. If you can't play a full painted army, you can ask to play at a lower points value so you can.
I've never in the 20 years I've been in this hobby managed to field a fully painted force. It's always been my ambition, but life can distract, or I'll move in to a different project without finishing the first.
I guess it's really a glass half full Vs half empty argument. Some see it as rewarding those that put the time into painting everything, and others see it as punishing those who don't.
For me, I like the new rule. I like that I actually have a reason other than completionism to go after it, and if someone I'm playing with wins because they have a fully painted army and I don't, then more power too them, it was earned.
Realistically I imagine it won't feature very often though, as like me, the people I play with have never managed a fully finished army.
Visually impaired, any number of conditions that makes painting models a challenge, not to mention that with TLOS and the modern micro managment that's been added to coherency etc, it's all these little nudges that can give players the sence that GW doesn't want them to be part of the hobby.
Intentionally or not I think that alone is a good enough reason for GW to have a long hard think about if they really should have gone about it this way.
Sentineil wrote: Toxic people will be toxic regardless. They'll always find avenues to be toxic. At least this way they'll have lovely armies to go along with their toxicity.
That is true but rarely do the rules actually give them reason to be toxic to someone. It adds a level of legitimacy to the act. That is aside and in addition to all the other points I've typed out of the lines crossed and why it isn't needed in mission scoring rules.
It isn't something that needed to be handled by more than a recommendation and not hard stamped into the core rules scoring system.
To be honest it kind of feels like a joke rule, like they would use it on each other in the studio to tease each other and they don't see how some people outside their bubble would use it to be toxic to other players just to be trolls, or because they don't like someone, or to be petty, etc.
Either way, it was poorly thought out and no rule should be placed in the core rules as a joke when they are also saying how super serious tournament ready all these rules are.
Sentineil wrote: Toxic people will be toxic regardless. They'll always find avenues to be toxic. At least this way they'll have lovely armies to go along with their toxicity.
Well kinda Beauty is dependant in subjectivity and context.
Nope. If you have to houserule something, it means there's a problem with the rule at hand. Either you actually DO agree with it or you don't, Insectum. This isn't some middle ground thing.
I'm happy with the rule, but I'm happy to waive it in various circumstances. It's fine.
Like WYSIWYG. It was a rule, but lots of people comfortably proxied just the same.
Do you drive exactly the speed limit?
You don't just waive rules because you feel like. Either the rule is good or bad.
Also yes I do stick to the speed limit, only ever going 5 above at most. Granted I have a garbage Civic that can't go fast whatsoever so it is what it is.
No man, you either follow the speed limit exactly or you just have to get rid of it because you don't believe it. It's a bad rule.
I don't purposely do it believe me
Well the flow on 101 tends to be around 75-78 when traffic is good. It's a 65 zone. Is the 65 speed limit a bad rule? Do we throw it out?
Or maybe we accept that the rule is a guideline and we allow some flexibility based on a communal understanding.
So the rest of the people are breaking the law, perfect.
Perfection is the enemy of good enough.
GW wants to encourage you to paint your army. They give you a little bonus for doing so. Players can follow the rule or not follow the rule, and set standards for their respective communities at their discretion. Good enough!
You know how you encourage people? Those instruction vids they had. The supposed contrast paints working. This is not encouraging people to paint their armies. It's a rule that people are already planning on house ruling out.
TL;DR if you are able to constantly find situations where you need to get rid of a rule, chances are the rule shouldn't have been implemented to begin with.
The frequency of ignoring the rule is going to depend on your local community/situation. At the moment it's 55/45 in favor of a bonus to painted armies.
Also, we still don't get rid of speed limits even though they aren't followed to the letter(number).
The fact you're talking to me of actual legal handling shouldn't need to be made for a game designed for fun. Don't you see how off the wall that is ? That my friend is the peak of absurd. This isn't the law of the land, it's rules for a miniature game. We shouldn't need to be already deciding to enforce it on some people and ignore it for others as that is a sure sign the law is broke as a damn joke and not a funny one either.
Game rules shouldn't need to be ignored for some and enforced to just shame and be little others, that is the exact opposite of fun and inclusive.
The rule does not prevent anyone from playing and if we are talking about hobbies and disabilities, of course sometimes you need to make special dispensations. If you assume that any game that cannot be played unmodified by people with any disability that could potentially exist is fundamentally a bad game, then I doubt any good games can exist. Hell, rock-paper-scissors assumes that the player has at least one functioning hand!
I'm about to blow up your whole world view here but I'm going to say it. You ever stop to think maybe those with disabilities don't want you to lower the bar for them all the time ? Maybe they want to push and strive and meet you on a more equal level ? Why should there be a rule that is punitive, doesn't at all change game play, only further divides us all and as a side effect negatively effects disabled players and is being openly praised as a way to shame and punish people in the game who either paint slow, don't like or paint and can't meet their " Battle Ready " dumb standard for whatever reason ?
It's a poor rule, a crap rule. Painting should be something you strive for not something you are directly punished by the game itself for not doing to its standards.
It's not a rule that exists in the free PDF Core rules and associated mission.
That doesn't matter if people are going to play the " book " missions and follow those scoring scenarios. More players follow the absolute status quo, especially in pick up games. What may or may not be in the free rules for open play won't matter if no one plays them and I can say not even one person ever wanted to play Narrative or Open play anywhere I played, not even once. I doubt I'm in the minority with that and most people I would imagine never did those game types either. So what is in the rules pamphlet is worth less than nothing to most players when the big book missions are the ones that will be the de facto standard.
I'm not so sure that "people" follow the status quo so much with 40K. Lots of people play Power Level, lots of people play Narrative, lots of people ignore rules or modify them to fit their gaming circle. It'd be interesting to get numbers on it. We've had numerous threads involving the split between ITC and 'standard' 40K. Same with Malestrom vs. something-War back in 7th. 40K seems filled with people happy to bend the official rules in varying capacities.
If you think speed limits are "guidelines" they shouldn't be enforced then, period. Either you follow it or you don't. It's that simple.
I for one cant wait to employ this rule on some nob who constantly manages to get that extra 1" here and there and someohow "forgets" some rules work in a certain way.. But apparently your dudes are out of range all of the time and you can never have a take back..
"Well one of your dude is only primed im afraid so as all of my army is painted and based I get the bonus pts. Good game though sir"
Visually impaired, any number of conditions that makes painting models a challenge, not to mention that with TLOS and the modern micro managment that's been added to coherency etc, it's all these little nudges that can give players the sence that GW doesn't want them to be part of the hobby.
Intentionally or not I think that alone is a good enough reason for GW to have a long hard think about if they really should have gone about it this way.
I'm sorry, but people need to stop parading out people with disabilities when they don't like something. They don't add validity to your argument because it's essentially reductio ad absurdum.
No one is going to enforce this rule against someone who is visually impaired, just like we won't enforce dice rolling on someone with motor impairment. We let them use dice rolling apps and we move models for people in wheelchairs that can't reach.
Playing a game with someone is a social contract. If they have special needs of any kind, we accomodate them.
While I'm sure that will very good at the time, I still say rules that feel like personal digs on other players do us all a disservice as much I have dealt with those players as well. Lol
Visually impaired, any number of conditions that makes painting models a challenge, not to mention that with TLOS and the modern micro managment that's been added to coherency etc, it's all these little nudges that can give players the sence that GW doesn't want them to be part of the hobby.
Intentionally or not I think that alone is a good enough reason for GW to have a long hard think about if they really should have gone about it this way.
I'm sorry, but people need to stop parading out people with disabilities when they don't like something. They don't add validity to your argument because it's essentially reductio ad absurdum.
No one is going to enforce this rule against someone who is visually impaired, just like we won't enforce dice rolling on someone with motor impairment. We let them use dice rolling apps and we move models for people in wheelchairs that can't reach.
Playing a game with someone is a social contract. If they have special needs of any kind, we accomodate them.
Dice vs dice apps aren't in the rules though, so not a correct comparison.
Visually impaired, any number of conditions that makes painting models a challenge, not to mention that with TLOS and the modern micro managment that's been added to coherency etc, it's all these little nudges that can give players the sence that GW doesn't want them to be part of the hobby.
Intentionally or not I think that alone is a good enough reason for GW to have a long hard think about if they really should have gone about it this way.
I'm sorry, but people need to stop parading out people with disabilities when they don't like something. They don't add validity to your argument because it's essentially reductio ad absurdum.
No one is going to enforce this rule against someone who is visually impaired, just like we won't enforce dice rolling on someone with motor impairment. We let them use dice rolling apps and we move models for people in wheelchairs that can't reach.
Playing a game with someone is a social contract. If they have special needs of any kind, we accomodate them.
Thats one of the points. No one is going to enforce the rule unless they don't like the person they are playing against or are a toxic person in general. No one will accept the extra 10 points if it would help them beat a friend and their friend won otherwise with game play. It's completely a crap rule so why place it in the first place ? The core rules don't need to enforce personal taste. Communities can enforce painting standards, events can do so as well, we don't need it in the core book.
If the people endorsing it live in these fully painted and everyone is friends utopias of modeling, they'll never get a benefit from it over anyone so it rounds out to a zero sum game. So what is the point of a rule you'll literally just use on someone you don't like ?
Visually impaired, any number of conditions that makes painting models a challenge, not to mention that with TLOS and the modern micro managment that's been added to coherency etc, it's all these little nudges that can give players the sence that GW doesn't want them to be part of the hobby.
Intentionally or not I think that alone is a good enough reason for GW to have a long hard think about if they really should have gone about it this way.
I'm sorry, but people need to stop parading out people with disabilities when they don't like something. They don't add validity to your argument because it's essentially reductio ad absurdum.
No one is going to enforce this rule against someone who is visually impaired, just like we won't enforce dice rolling on someone with motor impairment. We let them use dice rolling apps, we move models for people in wheelchairs that can't reach.
You're making the unfounded assumption that all relevant disabilities are visible and that people are entirely incapable of abusing the rule. Plus, as I pointed out earlier, we're talking about more than just physical disabilities here, as mental illness/disability could be involved as well.
Dice vs dice apps aren't in the rules though, so not a correct comparison.
I'm certain it says to roll a dice, and not the virtual equivalent of a dice, but regardless, this is an irrelevant nitpick to the point being made.
Moving said person's models for them, or helping them assemble them or any other number of scenarios you'd like to choose from where we make accomodations for people.
If you're unfortunate enough to encounter someone who penalises a blind person for not having their army painted, then that community will know not to deal with that person again. Problem solved.
@Mr.Omega
Unless the person is mute, they can communicate they have a visual impairment.
A game is a social experience. Why do we keep assuming the worst possible scenario to make rules?
Please don't drag mental health into this either. It's not a factor. Your scenario where someone has mental health issues and can't paint, is no more applicable than someone who has mental health issues and can't lose, or someone who copes with their mental health issues by painting and playing a narrative game, and comes up against a sea of grey that ruins it for them.
Visually impaired, any number of conditions that makes painting models a challenge, not to mention that with TLOS and the modern micro managment that's been added to coherency etc, it's all these little nudges that can give players the sence that GW doesn't want them to be part of the hobby.
Intentionally or not I think that alone is a good enough reason for GW to have a long hard think about if they really should have gone about it this way.
I'm sorry, but people need to stop parading out people with disabilities when they don't like something. They don't add validity to your argument because it's essentially reductio ad absurdum.
No one is going to enforce this rule against someone who is visually impaired, just like we won't enforce dice rolling on someone with motor impairment. We let them use dice rolling apps and we move models for people in wheelchairs that can't reach.
Playing a game with someone is a social contract. If they have special needs of any kind, we accomodate them.
As I said pages back this rule has zero impact on me personally as I have been used to this being a rule for events since the 90's.
But by the same token I agree with how you treat peoole like you have said. However we have a small minority who aren't in 40k for the comunity and sportsmanship, you either change the rules so they can't be used as a weapon by the butt monkeys or you have to make it so blatantly obvious that being a Butt monkey will have such catastrophic consequences they don't even consider it.
Dice vs dice apps aren't in the rules though, so not a correct comparison.
I'm certain it says to roll a dice, and not the virtual equivalent of a dice, but regardless, this is an irrelevant nitpick to the point being made.
Moving said person's models for them, or helping them assemble them or any other number of scenarios you'd like to choose from where we make accomodations for people.
If you're unfortunate enough to encounter someone who penalises a blind person for not having their army painted, then that community will know not to deal with that person again. Problem solved.
@Mr.Omega
Unless the person is mute, they can communicate they have a visual impairment.
A game is a social experience. Why do we keep assuming the worst possible scenario to make rules?
Please don't drag mental health into this either. It's not a factor. Your scenario where someone has mental health issues and can't paint, is no more applicable than someone who has mental health issues and can't lose, or someone who copes with their mental health issues by painting and playing a narrative game, and comes up against a sea of grey that ruins it for them.
You can roll dice virtually. This is not a problem.
Ergo, once again, if you find there are constant areas you need to houserule something out, that rule shouldn't have been implemented to begin with. It isn't rocket science.
One thing is for certain, that rule will be a great tfg detector ,due to condesing and showing used Context for Application of it to the circumstance it got applied to.
Dice vs dice apps aren't in the rules though, so not a correct comparison.
I'm certain it says to roll a dice, and not the virtual equivalent of a dice, but regardless, this is an irrelevant nitpick to the point being made.
Moving said person's models for them, or helping them assemble them or any other number of scenarios you'd like to choose from where we make accomodations for people.
If you're unfortunate enough to encounter someone who penalises a blind person for not having their army painted, then that community will know not to deal with that person again. Problem solved.
@Mr.Omega
Unless the person is mute, they can communicate they have a visual impairment.
A game is a social experience. Why do we keep assuming the worst possible scenario to make rules?
Please don't drag mental health into this either. It's not a factor. Your scenario where someone has mental health issues and can't paint, is no more applicable than someone who has mental health issues and can't lose, or someone who copes with their mental health issues by painting and playing a narrative game, and comes up against a sea of grey that ruins it for them.
Here we go with the "Me me me" post
"I don't have to be considerate, because the onus is always on the other person to tell me their medical history no matter how embarassed or uncomfortable that might make them
We can't just have a game, you have to actually medically justify why you can't paint and disclose private and personal information or else you lose 10 points and I rub your disability in your face. Not my fault!
Who cares about people with mental health issues, they're just troublesome anyway!"
some bloke wrote: I stil lstruggle t osee any situation where this rule can be employed without seeming like a douche.
Flip the narrative.
Pretend it's a rule where you get to award your opponent +10 VP's for having a fully painted BRS army. Would you feel like less of a douche if you refused to award those bonus points to your opponent if they met the criteria?
This is basically the same thing.
Scenario: I give my two kids $10 for doing chores around the house each week. First kid mowed the lawn, second kid laid around on the couch all week. I give the $10 to the kid that did the chore and helped out and give $0 to the lazy kid. Lazy kid is now crying that it's not fair because they don't like chores so neither of them should get the $10... The second kid isn't being penalized here.
Noone's dismantled the ridiculous refrain being thrown around that it doesn't stop people from playing and it's just a way of rewarding players that do paint, so here goes
. . .
It is incomparable to the fact that you are potentially going to risk being disrespectful, discourteous, unsporting by flaunting the fact you deserve to claim the win because your army happened to be painted in your opponent's face.
As opposed to the feeling of disrespect I might feel when someone shows up with broken, unpainted proxy models, running the latest powerbuild?
You're fundamentaly making the "my way of fun is best argument" here.
I suggest you actually read and break down the key points of what I said instead of attempting to snipe my whole post with some empty retort, thanks. I already said that I paint everything I put on the table. The point is to show courtesy and respect to others.
As for your second empty retort that "my way of fun is the best argument" is the best summary of my argument you could make, that's completely wrong too.
Neither element of the hobby is more important than the other.
Fundamentally, if you want the thing that matters in a contest to be about the painting, go enter a painting competition. If you agree to play a game - the side of the hobby that is all about strategy - then you should win or lose based on how you played, and not because you're privileged enough to have the time, motivation and mental wellbeing etc to put a fully painted army on the table.
But the barrier of entry that is the cost of all the models, books, time for assembly etc. is all fine though? Like, people put money and effort into the game just the same. All we're doing is defining where the line is. And it's a soft line! You don't auto-lose or anything. You aren't barred from playing.
And it is the "my way of fun is best" argument when you project that the game is purely strategic. It can also be viewed as an aesthetic experience, and is marketed as such. Lots of people play it for narrative value, and not strategic as well. So defining it as "purely strategic" is you bringing your own narrow definition to the party.
The game, in so far as the outcome of the game and who wins or loses as this topic of discussion concerns, is purely strategic. Don't drop it on someone that they've lost because you're upset that they affected your "aesthetic experience" when you consented to play them, having seen their army.
You have the freedom to tell people you don't want to play their half-built power-build before the game.
There's no "dropping", dude. It's (apparently) in the book and you can discuss it before hand if you think it's going to matter.
And, if you only care about the "strategic" win, you should have zero problem accepting that you would have won the game had the bonus been unawarded. After all, you have verifiably 'outplayed' the opponent, no?
Instead of a fourth reply that amounts to an "RTP" of my original post I'm just going to put this here
The axioms behind arguments in this thread are almost completely parralel and being bounced off each other
I.e, in this one you mention that you can discuss the rule before hand, which is directly parralel to how I mentioned you can just say that you're looking for a game against a painted army/non-powerbuild etc and move on
You also make the argument that not winning because of a lack of painted minis doesn't matter, because people should know they've "won" on merit, which is directly parralel to the argument that people who've lost the game strategically shouldn't point out that they've actually won because winning doesn't matter in that context either, does it?
Thirdly, there are people that see this as a reward for people who paint, and people who see this as a penalty for people who do not.
What my argument is seeking to establish independently of those axioms is that you should be mindful of how this rule can contribute to toxicity and the risks involved in being TFG and invoking it over an issue that is personal, private and concerns talent/skill, in a circumstance where the thing being tested is not painting ability but gaming ability. Secondly, there should not be rules that penalise people for not having painted armies as if that is a willful character flaw or error. As Blindmage has pointed out from her own experience, there are instances where it is not.
Like another poster said, toxic people are going to be toxic people. This rule does literally nothing to change the "level of possible toxicity", nor do I see how it encourages toxicity any more than the potential for bringing the latest netlist. One could argue that it actively discourages bringing the latest netlist, therefore discouraging behavior some view as toxic. The line you are drawing is effectively arbitrary.
I'm also seriously confused as to how Blindmage can build models and play 40K, but not paint. How does one play 40K blind?
some bloke wrote: I stil lstruggle t osee any situation where this rule can be employed without seeming like a douche.
Flip the narrative.
Pretend it's a rule where you get to award your opponent +10 VP's for having a fully painted BRS army. Would you feel like less of a douche if you refused to award those bonus points to your opponent if they met the criteria?
This is basically the same thing.
Scenario: I give my two kids $10 for doing chores around the house each week. First kid mowed the lawn, second kid laid around on the couch all week. I give the $10 to the kid that did the chore and helped out and give $0 to the lazy kid. Lazy kid is now crying that it's not fair because they don't like chores so neither of them should get the $10... The second kid isn't being penalized here.
It isn't rewarding them though. The actual max is 100 points which cannot be achieved without this rule in place.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: If you think speed limits are "guidelines" they shouldn't be enforced then, period. Either you follow it or you don't. It's that simple.
You clearly don't know how the world works. It is definitely NOT that simple.
Dice vs dice apps aren't in the rules though, so not a correct comparison.
I'm certain it says to roll a dice, and not the virtual equivalent of a dice, but regardless, this is an irrelevant nitpick to the point being made.
Moving said person's models for them, or helping them assemble them or any other number of scenarios you'd like to choose from where we make accomodations for people.
If you're unfortunate enough to encounter someone who penalises a blind person for not having their army painted, then that community will know not to deal with that person again. Problem solved.
@Mr.Omega
Unless the person is mute, they can communicate they have a visual impairment.
A game is a social experience. Why do we keep assuming the worst possible scenario to make rules?
Please don't drag mental health into this either. It's not a factor. Your scenario where someone has mental health issues and can't paint, is no more applicable than someone who has mental health issues and can't lose, or someone who copes with their mental health issues by painting and playing a narrative game, and comes up against a sea of grey that ruins it for them.
Here we go with the "Me me me" post
"I don't have to be considerate, because the onus is always on the other person to tell me their medical history no matter how embarassed or uncomfortable that might make them
We can't just have a game, you have to actually medically justify why you can't paint and disclose private and personal information or else you lose 10 points and I rub your disability in your face. Not my fault!
Who cares about people with mental health issues, they're just troublesome anyway!"
This is absolute nonsense. If someone requires accomodation they need to say it or they won't receive them. If you don't tell me you have a nut allergy I won't know. Likewise if you are unable to paint your army, I won't know.
We don't accomodate people with disabilities by changing the rules, we do it by creating supports so they can play at the same level. The new Last of Us game is the best example of this.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: If you think speed limits are "guidelines" they shouldn't be enforced then, period. Either you follow it or you don't. It's that simple.
You clearly don't know how the world works. It is definitely NOT that simple.
Laws, and rules, are created with purpose. When either is unfair, we do the correct thing and do what we can to repeal them. You don't say "suck it up buttercup" and choose when you want to follow them. You either agree with it or don't. If the implantation is bad, the creators need to be let known about it because you don't fix future issues otherwise.
You think I follow HIPAA just when I feel like it? Hell no. I follow it the best I can. If I don't agree with something because it slows down several processes considerably (not too unfamiliar with being late because you followed speed limits), it doesn't matter. If I don't agree with something, I do the appropriate thing and write emails.
some bloke wrote: I stil lstruggle t osee any situation where this rule can be employed without seeming like a douche.
Flip the narrative.
Pretend it's a rule where you get to award your opponent +10 VP's for having a fully painted BRS army. Would you feel like less of a douche if you refused to award those bonus points to your opponent if they met the criteria?
This is basically the same thing.
Scenario: I give my two kids $10 for doing chores around the house each week. First kid mowed the lawn, second kid laid around on the couch all week. I give the $10 to the kid that did the chore and helped out and give $0 to the lazy kid. Lazy kid is now crying that it's not fair because they don't like chores so neither of them should get the $10... The second kid isn't being penalized here.
Lets flip the narrative again. Lets say you actually play the game with that person, commend them on a very nice looking army and say how great it is to see them all out on the table. Then, you play the game and who ever wins it, wins it. Without the need for arbitrary points based on painting because the effort is its own reward of a job well done, and that other player feels real good he did such a great job getting his army painted ? Pretty sweet story there.
Insectum7 wrote: I'm also seriously confused as to how Blindmage can build models and play 40K, but not paint. How does one play 40K blind?
Blindness is a spectrum, not a binary state. Different conditions have different impacts, including what part of the visual field is affected as well as degree.
(Over here in practice, we'd refer to degrees of visual impairment)
Dice vs dice apps aren't in the rules though, so not a correct comparison.
I'm certain it says to roll a dice, and not the virtual equivalent of a dice, but regardless, this is an irrelevant nitpick to the point being made.
Moving said person's models for them, or helping them assemble them or any other number of scenarios you'd like to choose from where we make accomodations for people.
If you're unfortunate enough to encounter someone who penalises a blind person for not having their army painted, then that community will know not to deal with that person again. Problem solved.
@Mr.Omega
Unless the person is mute, they can communicate they have a visual impairment.
A game is a social experience. Why do we keep assuming the worst possible scenario to make rules?
Please don't drag mental health into this either. It's not a factor. Your scenario where someone has mental health issues and can't paint, is no more applicable than someone who has mental health issues and can't lose, or someone who copes with their mental health issues by painting and playing a narrative game, and comes up against a sea of grey that ruins it for them.
Here we go with the "Me me me" post
"I don't have to be considerate, because the onus is always on the other person to tell me their medical history no matter how embarassed or uncomfortable that might make them
We can't just have a game, you have to actually medically justify why you can't paint and disclose private and personal information or else you lose 10 points and I rub your disability in your face. Not my fault!
Who cares about people with mental health issues, they're just troublesome anyway!"
This is absolute nonsense. If someone requires accomodation they need to say it or they won't receive them. If you don't tell me you have a nut allergy I won't know. Likewise if you are unable to paint your army, I won't know.
We don't accomodate people with disabilities by changing the rules, we do it by creating supports so they can play at the same level. The new Last of Us game is the best example of this.
There's no comparison. The Last of Us mitigated traditional issues inherent to playing video games for people with disabilities by adding options to the settings.
This rule does not need to be in the game. It does not add anything significant. It is not inherent to the game being played. The solution is not to make dispensation but to make sure that dispensation does not need to be made because the only loss is that a few sneering elitists will get mildly irritated and then forget in a week and they are less important.
He has a point though, the social contracts is in the End the be all End all Of interaction on the Table between Players.
I Rate the Chance very high that this rule will be the greatest tfg detector to exist because regardless why it got invoked , you can assume that gak hit the Fan if it did.
Visually impaired, any number of conditions that makes painting models a challenge, not to mention that with TLOS and the modern micro managment that's been added to coherency etc, it's all these little nudges that can give players the sence that GW doesn't want them to be part of the hobby.
Intentionally or not I think that alone is a good enough reason for GW to have a long hard think about if they really should have gone about it this way.
I'm sorry, but people need to stop parading out people with disabilities when they don't like something. They don't add validity to your argument because it's essentially reductio ad absurdum.
No one is going to enforce this rule against someone who is visually impaired, just like we won't enforce dice rolling on someone with motor impairment. We let them use dice rolling apps and we move models for people in wheelchairs that can't reach.
Playing a game with someone is a social contract. If they have special needs of any kind, we accomodate them.
As a disabled girl, who's posted on here on this topic, Feth You.
We can enforce the rule of that's what you want...? Or are you against people being accommodating during games? Or that a game is a social contract?
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: If you think speed limits are "guidelines" they shouldn't be enforced then, period. Either you follow it or you don't. It's that simple.
You clearly don't know how the world works. It is definitely NOT that simple.
Laws, and rules, are created with purpose. When either is unfair, we do the correct thing and do what we can to repeal them. You don't say "suck it up buttercup" and choose when you want to follow them. You either agree with it or don't. If the implantation is bad, the creators need to be let known about it because you don't fix future issues otherwise.
You think I follow HIPAA just when I feel like it? Hell no. I follow it the best I can. If I don't agree with something because it slows down several processes considerably (not too unfamiliar with being late because you followed speed limits), it doesn't matter. If I don't agree with something, I do the appropriate thing and write emails.
All well and good, but the fact that the speed limit isn't explicitly followed doesn't make it either a bad idea or implementation.
Visually impaired, any number of conditions that makes painting models a challenge, not to mention that with TLOS and the modern micro managment that's been added to coherency etc, it's all these little nudges that can give players the sence that GW doesn't want them to be part of the hobby.
Intentionally or not I think that alone is a good enough reason for GW to have a long hard think about if they really should have gone about it this way.
I'm sorry, but people need to stop parading out people with disabilities when they don't like something. They don't add validity to your argument because it's essentially reductio ad absurdum.
No one is going to enforce this rule against someone who is visually impaired, just like we won't enforce dice rolling on someone with motor impairment. We let them use dice rolling apps and we move models for people in wheelchairs that can't reach.
Playing a game with someone is a social contract. If they have special needs of any kind, we accomodate them.
As a disabled girl, who's posted on here on this topic, Feth You.
We can enforce the rule of that's what you want...? Or are you against people being accommodating during games? Or that a game is a social contract?
Well, people should have to ask for accommodations. Clearly we shouldn't bother being reasonable in advance, say by building ramps in addition to or instead of stairs for those in wheelchairs, or adding braille to room signs so the blind can still figure out where they are.
Moreover, even if you personally are not, there are a lot of people who are ablist. There are people who will mock or even hurt people who are disabled, so why should someone be forced to broadcast their disablement just to have a fun and relatively fair game?
You're thinking from a position of privilege. I'm lucky that I don't have any major physical disabilities, but that doesn't mean that I or anyone like myself shouldn't be forward-thinking to accommodate those who need it without having to be asked.
It's a daft, redundant rule. Of course the ideal is that games are played with fully painted armies, because it improves the visual experience for everyone. I'm all for painted armies over unpainted ones, and I always have been, even though my own mental health concerns have made it near impossible for me to ever finish anything. But it should never be codified into the rules of the game, because at that point it achieves precisely one thing: division. Just look at this thread alone to see how much it splits folk and creates argument.
Tournaments generally had a painting requirement anyway as part of the rules pack given out by the TO, so in most cases there the rule isn't going to change anything and thus adds absolutely nothing. In a casual setting, if one is in a group of like-minded friends or a LGS, and you agree for whatever reason not to enforce it, then why does the rule even need to be there? In what way is it improving the experience for anyone? To encourage people to paint their armies? A nicely painted army should be it's own reward, not an arbitrary bonus in the game that will feel more like a punishment for not achieving it (and again, if the solution to that is not to use the rule at all, then why is it there?).
If the intent of the rule is to be a punishment for so called "WAAC" players who don't paint armies and meta-chase, then it fails. If, as a lot of people claim, that the 10VPs is such a small little bonus that it doesn't matter, then what's to stop said WAAC players from actively not painting their army, taking the apparently irrelevantly small score hit, and winning anyway? It's literally achieved the opposite of the intent at that stage, giving them a rules-legal way of continuing to not paint and circumvent whatever social contract the group has.
As far as I can see the only use for the rule is a way to punish players - only brought out and enforced when you're trying to make some kind of spiteful point because you perceive someone as 'deserving it'. It comes across as elitist snobbery and there's no reason it should ever be used. After all, if you take such offence to a non-painted army then don't play the person in the first place, rather than going through the game, presumably unhappy, just so you can pull this rule out to try and make them feel inferior?
Putting something like this into the core rules and scoring of the game, rather than leaving it as an ideal to aspire to or a tournament attendance requirement, adds nothing positive. If you're among a friendly, like-minded community you don't need it since it will be ignored the majority of the time anyway. The only thing it adds is potential for arguments and division over different approaches to the game.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: If you think speed limits are "guidelines" they shouldn't be enforced then, period. Either you follow it or you don't. It's that simple.
You clearly don't know how the world works. It is definitely NOT that simple.
Laws, and rules, are created with purpose. When either is unfair, we do the correct thing and do what we can to repeal them. You don't say "suck it up buttercup" and choose when you want to follow them. You either agree with it or don't. If the implantation is bad, the creators need to be let known about it because you don't fix future issues otherwise.
You think I follow HIPAA just when I feel like it? Hell no. I follow it the best I can. If I don't agree with something because it slows down several processes considerably (not too unfamiliar with being late because you followed speed limits), it doesn't matter. If I don't agree with something, I do the appropriate thing and write emails.
All well and good, but the fact that the speed limit isn't explicitly followed doesn't make it either a bad idea or implementation.
If something isn't going to be followed, it should not be implemented. It's LITERALLY that simple. Either you agree it's a fantastic rule or you can admit maybe GW shouldn't have done it. It isn't like it's their first blunder with creating rules anyway.
Or you could practice good sportsmanship, treat the social interaction as a social interaction between people, and not some sort of referendum on your life choices.
If a match at my FLGS came down to me being 5 VPs ahead, and I had some yet-unpainted boys or mek guns on the table, whilst my opponent had some fully painted army on display? I would remind them of the 10 points they get for their painted army, congratulate them on a good close game, and offer a handshake. Because we're here to enjoy ourselves, and there is literally no harm or consequence in walking away with a W or an L.
Too much of this game comes down to what army you're financially or aesthetically bound to, to the whims of GW marketing, to the vagaries of a small subset of dice rolls, to view this game as a demonstration of your personal worth. It's a game, and how you treat other people in winning or losing is more important than the outcome of the game itself.
Yep. I really don't get why people are so hung up on who wins or loses a casual game.
Funny then how it seems to be all hobby elitists like you 2 favour this ridiculous rule. If winning or losing is so inconsequential to you types why even take the free VP? Surely having them or not does not impact your fun, but people like me who actually enjoy the game part of this game and little else, get kicked in the nuts because, reasons?
Insectum7 wrote: I'm also seriously confused as to how Blindmage can build models and play 40K, but not paint. How does one play 40K blind?
Blindness is a spectrum, not a binary state. Different conditions have different impacts, including what part of the visual field is affected as well as degree.
(Over here in practice, we'd refer to degrees of visual impairment)
I get that, but I still don't see how there wouldn't be at least some solution. Like, if you can see "some", then it seems like you could paint "some".
(Sorry Blindmage! The mechanics are just confounding to me atm.)
Let's not continue this particular avenue of conversation unless Blindmage specifically says we can. I'm totally fascinated by this but I don't want to be more insensitive than I've probably already been.
"Will you use the '+10 VPs if your whole army is painted' rule?"
From the snippet on the front page, this rule isn't optional, so yes.
If I don't have a fully painted army, and my opponent does, he gets 10 more points then me.
It wouldn't hurt to ask my opponent if we could ignore that rule, but if he says no, then there is no ill will on my part.
People forget that games workshop does not sell a game - the company sells models, paints, etc... It is a hobby company, not a gaming company. If this is a way they can get a few customers to buy paints, great!
AS ALWAYS... People can agree to play by house rules if they want. Most people do when they enter tournaments. 99% of all Warhammer 40k tournaments ever has had house rules the T.O. wanted his participants to abide by. This will be no different if he removes this rule for his event.
Visually impaired, any number of conditions that makes painting models a challenge, not to mention that with TLOS and the modern micro managment that's been added to coherency etc, it's all these little nudges that can give players the sence that GW doesn't want them to be part of the hobby.
Intentionally or not I think that alone is a good enough reason for GW to have a long hard think about if they really should have gone about it this way.
I'm sorry, but people need to stop parading out people with disabilities when they don't like something. They don't add validity to your argument because it's essentially reductio ad absurdum.
No one is going to enforce this rule against someone who is visually impaired, just like we won't enforce dice rolling on someone with motor impairment. We let them use dice rolling apps and we move models for people in wheelchairs that can't reach.
Playing a game with someone is a social contract. If they have special needs of any kind, we accomodate them.
As a disabled girl, who's posted on here on this topic, Feth You.
We can enforce the rule of that's what you want...? Or are you against people being accommodating during games? Or that a game is a social contract?
You stop to think maybe she's against them including a rule that needs " special discretion " for her or those like her when she already does so much just to play the game in the first place ? To share the hobby ? If the rule adds nothing of substance and I've heard no one say this rule is either needed or in fact important at all, why place it in the first place ? Remove it and just play the game and let communities decide on painting standards themselves as its always been.
This is an un forced GW error of a rule. Now she can correct me if I'm wring with what she takes issue with or if its you saying its a non issue for those with such issues as it obviously does matter to her.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: If you think speed limits are "guidelines" they shouldn't be enforced then, period. Either you follow it or you don't. It's that simple.
You clearly don't know how the world works. It is definitely NOT that simple.
Laws, and rules, are created with purpose. When either is unfair, we do the correct thing and do what we can to repeal them. You don't say "suck it up buttercup" and choose when you want to follow them. You either agree with it or don't. If the implantation is bad, the creators need to be let known about it because you don't fix future issues otherwise.
You think I follow HIPAA just when I feel like it? Hell no. I follow it the best I can. If I don't agree with something because it slows down several processes considerably (not too unfamiliar with being late because you followed speed limits), it doesn't matter. If I don't agree with something, I do the appropriate thing and write emails.
All well and good, but the fact that the speed limit isn't explicitly followed doesn't make it either a bad idea or implementation.
If something isn't going to be followed, it should not be implemented. It's LITERALLY that simple. Either you agree it's a fantastic rule or you can admit maybe GW shouldn't have done it. It isn't like it's their first blunder with creating rules anyway.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: If you think speed limits are "guidelines" they shouldn't be enforced then, period. Either you follow it or you don't. It's that simple.
You clearly don't know how the world works. It is definitely NOT that simple.
Laws, and rules, are created with purpose. When either is unfair, we do the correct thing and do what we can to repeal them. You don't say "suck it up buttercup" and choose when you want to follow them. You either agree with it or don't. If the implantation is bad, the creators need to be let known about it because you don't fix future issues otherwise.
You think I follow HIPAA just when I feel like it? Hell no. I follow it the best I can. If I don't agree with something because it slows down several processes considerably (not too unfamiliar with being late because you followed speed limits), it doesn't matter. If I don't agree with something, I do the appropriate thing and write emails.
All well and good, but the fact that the speed limit isn't explicitly followed doesn't make it either a bad idea or implementation.
If something isn't going to be followed, it should not be implemented. It's LITERALLY that simple. Either you agree it's a fantastic rule or you can admit maybe GW shouldn't have done it. It isn't like it's their first blunder with creating rules anyway.
Insectum7 wrote: I'm also seriously confused as to how Blindmage can build models and play 40K, but not paint. How does one play 40K blind?
Blindness is a spectrum, not a binary state. Different conditions have different impacts, including what part of the visual field is affected as well as degree.
(Over here in practice, we'd refer to degrees of visual impairment)
Exactly!!!
Finally another person that gets it!
I'm Very Visually Impaired, not Legally Blind (20/200 vision, or the big E on the eye chart)...with my glasses, but that's distance up close means I literally have my nose against the spine of the book I'm reading. Also only one eye, so no depth perception.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: If you think speed limits are "guidelines" they shouldn't be enforced then, period. Either you follow it or you don't. It's that simple.
You clearly don't know how the world works. It is definitely NOT that simple.
Laws, and rules, are created with purpose. When either is unfair, we do the correct thing and do what we can to repeal them. You don't say "suck it up buttercup" and choose when you want to follow them. You either agree with it or don't. If the implantation is bad, the creators need to be let known about it because you don't fix future issues otherwise.
You think I follow HIPAA just when I feel like it? Hell no. I follow it the best I can. If I don't agree with something because it slows down several processes considerably (not too unfamiliar with being late because you followed speed limits), it doesn't matter. If I don't agree with something, I do the appropriate thing and write emails.
All well and good, but the fact that the speed limit isn't explicitly followed doesn't make it either a bad idea or implementation.
If something isn't going to be followed, it should not be implemented. It's LITERALLY that simple. Either you agree it's a fantastic rule or you can admit maybe GW shouldn't have done it. It isn't like it's their first blunder with creating rules anyway.
Other than lording a painted army over a not painted one, the rule adds nothing of substance and if that means so much to anyone just refuse a game with someone with even one un painted model, simple and could have been done this whole time. It never needed to be or should be a rule.
Funny then how it seems to be all hobby elitists like you 2 favour this ridiculous rule. If winning or losing is so inconsequential to you types why even take the free VP? Surely having them or not does not impact your fun, but people like me who actually enjoy the game part of this game and little else, get kicked in the nuts because, reasons?
The ten points do not matter for me. But if they matter to you and that means that you bring painted models to the game, whereas you otherwise might not, then that is a positive result for me. (Assuming we would be playing together.)
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: If you think speed limits are "guidelines" they shouldn't be enforced then, period. Either you follow it or you don't. It's that simple.
You clearly don't know how the world works. It is definitely NOT that simple.
Laws, and rules, are created with purpose. When either is unfair, we do the correct thing and do what we can to repeal them. You don't say "suck it up buttercup" and choose when you want to follow them. You either agree with it or don't. If the implantation is bad, the creators need to be let known about it because you don't fix future issues otherwise.
You think I follow HIPAA just when I feel like it? Hell no. I follow it the best I can. If I don't agree with something because it slows down several processes considerably (not too unfamiliar with being late because you followed speed limits), it doesn't matter. If I don't agree with something, I do the appropriate thing and write emails.
All well and good, but the fact that the speed limit isn't explicitly followed doesn't make it either a bad idea or implementation.
If something isn't going to be followed, it should not be implemented. It's LITERALLY that simple. Either you agree it's a fantastic rule or you can admit maybe GW shouldn't have done it. It isn't like it's their first blunder with creating rules anyway.
JNAProductions wrote: Well, people should have to ask for accommodations. Clearly we shouldn't bother being reasonable in advance, say by building ramps in addition to or instead of stairs for those in wheelchairs, or adding braille to room signs so the blind can still figure out where they are.
Moreover, even if you personally are not, there are a lot of people who are ablist. There are people who will mock or even hurt people who are disabled, so why should someone be forced to broadcast their disablement just to have a fun and relatively fair game?
You're thinking from a position of privilege. I'm lucky that I don't have any major physical disabilities, but that doesn't mean that I or anyone like myself shouldn't be forward-thinking to accommodate those who need it without having to be asked.
Please don't twist what I'm saying into some absurd position where we shouldn't bother having supports for people with disabilities. Having a rule that encourages painting in a miniatures hobby is not the same as not having ramps or hand rails. Perspective is important, and these issues are not comparable.
It sucks that people with disabilities have difficulties that most of us don't have to deal with, but we don't define how the game operates based on a tiny percentage of users. You add supports to enable those who would have difficulty. You don't remove everything they have difficulty with because that doesn't make sense. Warhammer is a fiddly hobby when it comes to assembling models, and even interpreting the rules. Of course this will be challenging for people, but that's where the social side of the game comes in and people support those than have difficulty.
I stopped trying to play pick up games at the FLGS back in 6th edition. There had always existed the issue of some army builds being much more efficient than others, generally resulting in a less than fun experience for all involved.
I would schedule games with folks ahead of time which allowed for a much more enjoyable gaming experience. It managed our expectations for the game prior to arrival at a location.
Between this and attending tournaments, where expectations are set in advance by tourney organizers, my enjoyment of the game has only increased.
The negativity and general nastiness in this thread demonstrates to me some folks would really benefit by trying what I did.
It's a rule, so what? There have been many rules over the years folks dont like. Its your game to play however you want. There is no 40K police going to arrest you for not playing the game 'the right way'. For folks unaccustomed to that, house rules have generally existed in 40K since its inception. I played ITC exclusively for the past year; it is essentially a set of house rules and nobody has chastized me about playing 40K the wrong way.
Take a breath. Step away from your devices and relax. Dakka is historically filled negativity, but this thread is especially nasty.
It sucks that people with disabilities have difficulties that most of us don't have to deal with, but we don't define how the game operates based on a tiny percentage of users. You add supports to enable those who would have difficulty. You don't remove everything they have difficulty with because that doesn't make sense. Warhammer is a fiddly hobby when it comes to assembling models, and even interpreting the rules. Of course this will be challenging for people, but that's where the social side of the game comes in and people support those than have difficulty.
The goal might be built in supports for common disabilities and illnesses that would impact playing the game.
The reality is not there yet. We're a long ways away. We need to address the massive amounts of ableism in the gaming community, and here on Dakka.
Insectum7 wrote: I'm also seriously confused as to how Blindmage can build models and play 40K, but not paint. How does one play 40K blind?
Blindness is a spectrum, not a binary state. Different conditions have different impacts, including what part of the visual field is affected as well as degree.
(Over here in practice, we'd refer to degrees of visual impairment)
Exactly!!!
Finally another person that gets it!
I'm Very Visually Impaired, not Legally Blind (20/200 vision, or the big E on the eye chart)...with my glasses, but that's distance up close means I literally have my nose against the spine of the book I'm reading. Also only one eye, so no depth perception.
No depth perception is a mo********er. I've tried that and it's shockingly hard.
But you have some vision, ok. Now I think I'm having trouble because I feel like I could paint under those circumstances, but I've been painting for 30 years so I'm automatically bringing years of experience whether I'm conscious of it or not. I can't imagine using your situation as a starting point (or near starting point, since you've painted some in the past.)
I mean, obviously, technically, you are capable of putting paint on models. Whether you feel like you want to do that is up to you. Plainly, it's going to be far more of a struggle (and maybe less rewarding) for you to do it, and I certainly wouldn't put the expectation on you.
Funny then how it seems to be all hobby elitists like you 2 favour this ridiculous rule. If winning or losing is so inconsequential to you types why even take the free VP? Surely having them or not does not impact your fun, but people like me who actually enjoy the game part of this game and little else, get kicked in the nuts because, reasons?
The ten points do not matter for me. But if they matter to you and that means that you bring painted models to the game, whereas you otherwise might not, then that is a positive result for me. (Assuming we would be playing together.)
This also assumes the "privilege" of playing with you or others that share a disposition for this kind of rule is more valuable then whatever was preventing the army from getting painted before.
It's not.
Unpainted armies will stay unpainted and elitists will stay elitist.
I for one would never enact the rule under any circumstance. I don't want to win because I painted some plastic. It adds nothing to the game. The people I enjoy playing with feel the same.
I reckon what one might do is a different rule that rewards painted models that look good, but then, that will rapidly run afoul of the competitive jerkwads paying lots and lots of money to professional painters to make the paint job a competitive edge that poorer, newer, or less insecure people don't get without ponynig up a few grand extra for an already very overpriced hobby
A fun time arguing those points might need a TO to intervene, but to be honest, I would probably not try to win on painting unless I were badly overmatched by I dunno, like 300 ork in a horde of grotling, or an eldar player whose unpainted (and randomly painted) buy unbeatable army obviously got borrowed from 16 friends the night before.
Some reasonable compromise like this could easily be wrote into local tournament rules to encourage the painters and modelers ... in fact... the secondary "paint and model" would have 4 points.
1 point all models painted 2 point all models painted and the scheme is coherent (like "all my marines are red, but all my cadians green and jungle camo, except my scions in the mixed battalion are also painted cadian to show their functional difference from the pure doctrine battalion of scions." 3 point all models look good (subject to a TO quick ruling of "yeah, that's worth 3 points, don't be a dick, give him the points!" 4 points the paint and model army looks like its a better paint and model job (subject to a to ruling by TO if its a dispute)( than the other army. If your army has got unpainted units or you borrowed crap from Mike to play, your opponent can get this point if his model is paointed, coherent, and looks good, but if both armies could get the first 3 points, it may be necessary to call in a TO to score this one. If you have really cool stuff you did and the army looks better than stock, great, you probably win this one.
Which I reckon a TO could briefly do. At WORST, its going to be a disagreement over 2 victory points (I am using the eighth style where you has secondaries that went up to 4, but if you have something idfferent in ninth, you could use it so that its a different value for the 4 levels.
I don't think that would piss on anyone's parade too much. Sure, it might be harder to win with titanslayer and old school than with marked for death and paint/model score, but you could DO it, even if you were not big into painting.
Insectum7 wrote: I'm also seriously confused as to how Blindmage can build models and play 40K, but not paint. How does one play 40K blind?
Blindness is a spectrum, not a binary state. Different conditions have different impacts, including what part of the visual field is affected as well as degree.
(Over here in practice, we'd refer to degrees of visual impairment)
Exactly!!!
Finally another person that gets it!
I'm Very Visually Impaired, not Legally Blind (20/200 vision, or the big E on the eye chart)...with my glasses, but that's distance up close means I literally have my nose against the spine of the boomik I'm reading. Also only one eye, so no depth perception.
I have the benefit in education of having been placed in a VI rehab team a few years back when a student social worker (I'll admit, my mind immediately went to macular degeneration/central visual field scenarios)
It sucks that people with disabilities have difficulties that most of us don't have to deal with, but we don't define how the game operates based on a tiny percentage of users. You add supports to enable those who would have difficulty. You don't remove everything they have difficulty with because that doesn't make sense. Warhammer is a fiddly hobby when it comes to assembling models, and even interpreting the rules. Of course this will be challenging for people, but that's where the social side of the game comes in and people support those than have difficulty.
The goal might be built in supports for common disabilities and illnesses that would impact playing the game.
Haha, honestly probably the best thing they can do for accessibility is make it cheaper. I'm not joking.
I think, at least atm, I come down to the idea that I don't think it's fundamentally wrong for GW to seek to reward painted armies. I see it, and I think it's intended as, basically a playful nudge towards painting. Maybe my position on that will change over time and after thinking about it more. Dunno.
I reckon what one might do is a different rule that rewards painted models that look good, but then, that will rapidly run afoul of the competitive jerkwads paying lots and lots of money to professional painters to make the paint job a competitive edge that poorer, newer, or less insecure people don't get without ponynig up a few grand extra for an already very overpriced hobby
A fun time arguing those points might need a TO to intervene, but to be honest, I would probably not try to win on painting unless I were badly overmatched by I dunno, like 300 ork in a horde of grotling, or an eldar player whose unpainted (and randomly painted) buy unbeatable army obviously got borrowed from 16 friends the night before.
Some reasonable compromise like this could easily be wrote into local tournament rules to encourage the painters and modelers ... in fact... the secondary "paint and model" would have 4 points.
1 point all models painted
2 point all models painted and the scheme is coherent (like "all my marines are red, but all my cadians green and jungle camo, except my scions in the mixed battalion are also painted cadian to show their functional difference from the pure doctrine battalion of scions."
3 point all models look good (subject to a TO quick ruling of "yeah, that's worth 3 points, don't be a dick, give him the points!"
4 points the paint and model army looks like its a better paint and model job (subject to a to ruling by TO if its a dispute)( than the other army. If your army has got unpainted units or you borrowed crap from Mike to play, your opponent can get this point if his model is paointed, coherent, and looks good, but if both armies could get the first 3 points, it may be necessary to call in a TO to score this one. If you have really cool stuff you did and the army looks better than stock, great, you probably win this one.
Which I reckon a TO could briefly do. At WORST, its going to be a disagreement over 2 victory points (I am using the eighth style where you has secondaries that went up to 4, but if you have something idfferent in ninth, you could use it so that its a different value for the 4 levels.
I don't think that would piss on anyone's parade too much. Sure, it might be harder to win with titanslayer and old school than with marked for death and paint/model score, but you could DO it, even if you were not big into painting.
Phew.
Personally I would never suggest a grading scale based on skill-of-presentation or something else that's more subjective. Not in the wild, anyways.
It sucks that people with disabilities have difficulties that most of us don't have to deal with, but we don't define how the game operates based on a tiny percentage of users. You add supports to enable those who would have difficulty. You don't remove everything they have difficulty with because that doesn't make sense. Warhammer is a fiddly hobby when it comes to assembling models, and even interpreting the rules. Of course this will be challenging for people, but that's where the social side of the game comes in and people support those than have difficulty.
The goal might be built in supports for common disabilities and illnesses that would impact playing the game.
Haha, honestly probably the best thing they can do for accessibility is make it cheaper. I'm not joking.
I think, at least atm, I come down to the idea that I don't think it's fundamentally wrong for GW to seek to reward painted armies. I see it, and I think it's intended as, basically a playful nudge towards painting. Maybe my position on that will change over time and after thinking about it more. Dunno.
There is a good reason the saying is
The road to hell is paved with good intentions
Trying to promote painted armies sounds like a good thing, everyone likes painted armies and they look cool.
That it makes people feel excluded from a hobby they are working hard to take part in, or they have to walk around with a sign saying sorry I can't paint my army better, Not good.
A well intentioned rule with some very negative consequences.
That it makes people feel excluded from a hobby they are working hard to take part in, or they have to walk around with a sign saying sorry I can't paint my army better, Not good.
This is maybe the best argument I've read so far. But why is that different than getting blown away by a power list?
Like I've DEFINITELY seen players with lovingly painted armies get blasted off the table by grey plastic netlists. This is a rule that slightly rewards the hobbyist, but certainly wont save them from the power list.
I could rewrite your sentence about the described situation:
". . .it makes people feel excluded from a hobby they are working hard to take part in, or they have to walk around with a sign saying sorry I can't financially support a more competitive army."
GW: Warhammer is for Everyone!
Also GW: Unless you're disabled, then you can sod right off and even if you do try you'll have a disadvantage (was going to make a golfing joke here but decided against it).
That it makes people feel excluded from a hobby they are working hard to take part in, or they have to walk around with a sign saying sorry I can't paint my army better, Not good.
This is maybe the best argument I've read so far. But why is that different than getting blown away by a power list?
Like I've DEFINITELY seen players with a lovingly painted armies get blasted off the table by grey plastic netlists. This is a rule that slightly rewards the hobbyist, but certainly wont save them from the power list.
Two thing's if people are bringing that much of a broken meta list 10VP aint changing the outcome your tabled turn 2 with probably maximum of 30 VP the opponent will have you beaten by 20VP or more, the 10VP won't change that fact.
Is that small I got 10VP for painting and you didnt with your Grey WAAC list making that butt kicking feel better realy?
Also maybe I'm lucky or because I play oddish lists I have seen plenty of people netlist and get real upset when their GT winning list gets dunked on by my list that wouldn't make it to the top 8 anyway so a nayden, Grant etc would beat me even if their list is weak to my goofy build, but netlister aint got their knowledge.
Seabass wrote: Maybe I just live in the single greatest WH40k community ever created, or this is just hyperbole regarding people's inability to paint and their communities reaction to it.
A few points.
Do people not help each other with painting? Like, when we have an event coming up and someone doesn't have their stuff ready and they need help, we organize a painting group and we help the person out. I'll jump on my airbrush, another buddy will base coat and drybrush, other washes, I mean, does that really not happen anywhere else but my own little utopia?
I could rewrite your sentence about the described situation:
". . .it makes people feel excluded from a hobby they are working hard to take part in, or they have to walk around with a sign saying sorry I can't financially support a more competitive army."
If you can't spot a netlist just from the list dude it's not going to matter, people playing for a easy win not competitive game aren't going to be stopped by this they will just throw some spraypaint at it for those 10VP.
Except they will now blend in a bit more with that person hat shows up once every 3 nights when they have managed to carve just enough time out of their life to make it to games night again with another 4 models painted since last time.
That it makes people feel excluded from a hobby they are working hard to take part in, or they have to walk around with a sign saying sorry I can't paint my army better, Not good.
This is maybe the best argument I've read so far. But why is that different than getting blown away by a power list?
Like I've DEFINITELY seen players with a lovingly painted armies get blasted off the table by grey plastic netlists. This is a rule that slightly rewards the hobbyist, but certainly wont save them from the power list.
Two thing's if people are bringing that much of a broken meta list 10VP aint changing the outcome your tabled turn 2 with probably maximum of 30 VP the opponent will have you beaten by 20VP or more, the 10VP won't change that fact.
Is that small I got 10VP for painting and you didnt with your Grey WAAC list making that butt kicking feel better realy?
Also maybe I'm lucky or because I play oddish lists I have seen plenty of people netlist and get real upset when their GT winning list gets dunked on by my list that wouldn't make it to the top 8 anyway so a nayden, Grant etc would beat me even if their list is weak to my goofy build, but netlister aint got their knowledge.
I think that's all beside the point. The point is that there are already ways that a player can come out of a game feeling disenfranchised. This, as you point out, small 10pt bonus is throwing a bone to a potentially not-insignificant segment of the community.
Seabass wrote: Maybe I just live in the single greatest WH40k community ever created, or this is just hyperbole regarding people's inability to paint and their communities reaction to it.
A few points.
Do people not help each other with painting? Like, when we have an event coming up and someone doesn't have their stuff ready and they need help, we organize a painting group and we help the person out. I'll jump on my airbrush, another buddy will base coat and drybrush, other washes, I mean, does that really not happen anywhere else but my own little utopia?
Before it gets to that point, do you or the people so heavily against this rule (and it almost sounds like painting in general) try to organize painting nights with friends and such. I get that time is in demand, I work 3 jobs and am finishing grad school, but even I can find a few hours a week to get some sanity time in, and I paint. If I need help, ill invite a buddy or 5 over and ill order some take out and we will sit down and paint for a while to get going. Does no one do this?
As far as the discussion of the disabled person, I REALLY get concerned about this discussion when it heads in that direction. There is a saying in the Human resources world that there is no such thing as a blind pilot. What that means is that you make as many reasonable accommodations for everyone you can, but accept the fact that rules are written for the average, not for those in need of accommodation. So when we are talking about people being ableist or this rule is gatekeeping, I think its a stretch to assume that those things are true. They aren't. In fact, the reality is that rules are written for the average player, and there will always be situations that exist outside of the confines of rules that easily cover 99.9% of the purchasing/playing population.
Generally speaking, almost nothing in this hobby (and I don't mean the "GW" hobby, I mean wargaming) is anywhere near as bad as people make it out to be online. The more bitching someone does about their opponents/community....the likelier it is that they're the cause of the problems and are simply venting.
Hyperbole is part and parcel of this forum and most others. The people who say, "feth off, I'd never play with you and your unpainted models!" are as fake as the people pretending they're on some crusade for justice for unpainted miniature players, etc. It's all basically bs.
If anyone is actually getting as worked up as their posts sound - they have bigger problems in life than playing a game of 40K. Note that the people railing against this rule will probably NEVER see it used in anger in person. Genuinely. However, it gets their rocks off to crusade and rail against it because it gives them the ability to insult other people who disagree with them and thump their chests.
I admit I'm on the other side of this fence, and enjoy poking fun at those "everything is evil" types on here because it amuses me to see them get so worked up over a trivial thing in a casual hobby. You are completely right about writing stuff for the majority. It's why I patently ignore people the second they bring a one-in-a-million fringe case into the argument. It's simultaneously daft and disingenuous - because it assumes the worst in every person that players wargames.
"Well what if the guy is blind and in a wheelchair!" - well....any person, even the worst gak on this site would acknowledge that and adjust as necessary. Likewise the biggest gak-talkers on this site are probably 95% completely normal people you'd play a game with and find zero issues. In the end, it's just almost entirely nonsense. But if you can amuse yourself for a bit, it's occasionally worth the popcorn.
hmmm...ya know, those are all really good points. I guess i tend to value transparency in my communication and personality, and I'm a bit too old and persnickety to worry about putting up a fake front for people that I will likewise never meet, so I just don't care. I try to be a decent person, when I go over the line, I try to apologize if I can see the sense in it, and I try not to take too much offense to what people say and do on here, but when people use people with a physical disability as a means to trot out there position on why a rule in a game is a bad rule, that's getting into the corner case of the corner case. Its, as you said, pointing out the .01 to excuse the 99.9 and that doesn't work with me.
Its almost as if the world is not mutually exclusive.
That it makes people feel excluded from a hobby they are working hard to take part in, or they have to walk around with a sign saying sorry I can't paint my army better, Not good.
This is maybe the best argument I've read so far. But why is that different than getting blown away by a power list?
Like I've DEFINITELY seen players with a lovingly painted armies get blasted off the table by grey plastic netlists. This is a rule that slightly rewards the hobbyist, but certainly wont save them from the power list.
Two thing's if people are bringing that much of a broken meta list 10VP aint changing the outcome your tabled turn 2 with probably maximum of 30 VP the opponent will have you beaten by 20VP or more, the 10VP won't change that fact.
Is that small I got 10VP for painting and you didnt with your Grey WAAC list making that butt kicking feel better realy?
Also maybe I'm lucky or because I play oddish lists I have seen plenty of people netlist and get real upset when their GT winning list gets dunked on by my list that wouldn't make it to the top 8 anyway so a nayden, Grant etc would beat me even if their list is weak to my goofy build, but netlister aint got their knowledge.
I think that's all beside the point. The point is that there are already ways that a player can come out of a game feeling disenfranchised. This, as you point out, small 10pt bonus is throwing a bone to a potentially not-insignificant segment of the community.
It will not fundamentally change the game state of player got smashed by netlist has feels bad.
Knows he wasn't going to win regardless
Got to put his nicely painted mini's on the table.
Your trying to find a case where it has a meaningful possitive impact on the game and there aimply won't be one.
Both players set out to WAAC one painted one didn't, WAAC player that didnt Commission paint his army has feels bads. No real impact as they would have had to paint for the next tournament anyway.
Hobbiest getting smashed by netlister.
Hobbist is stilk getting smashed by more thab 10VP getting some wierd moral victory becuase it was a painted non-net list, why does a moral victory need to be in the rukes?
Hobbiest playing new dude, wins due to painting score, hobbist feels like a butt if he wins against new quy on painting.
Ice_can wrote: Your trying to find a case where it has a meaningful possitive impact on the game and there aimply won't be one.
I'd be greatly surprised if this rule wouldn't make using painted armies at least somewhat more common. And if it does that it will have a positive impact.
That it makes people feel excluded from a hobby they are working hard to take part in, or they have to walk around with a sign saying sorry I can't paint my army better, Not good.
This is maybe the best argument I've read so far. But why is that different than getting blown away by a power list?
Like I've DEFINITELY seen players with lovingly painted armies get blasted off the table by grey plastic netlists. This is a rule that slightly rewards the hobbyist, but certainly wont save them from the power list.
I could rewrite your sentence about the described situation:
". . .it makes people feel excluded from a hobby they are working hard to take part in, or they have to walk around with a sign saying sorry I can't financially support a more competitive army."
You know what stops armies from getting blasted off the table? Better rules writing. This isn't a good rule and one of many examples of it
Seabass wrote: Maybe I just live in the single greatest WH40k community ever created, or this is just hyperbole regarding people's inability to paint and their communities reaction to it.
A few points.
Do people not help each other with painting? Like, when we have an event coming up and someone doesn't have their stuff ready and they need help, we organize a painting group and we help the person out. I'll jump on my airbrush, another buddy will base coat and drybrush, other washes, I mean, does that really not happen anywhere else but my own little utopia?
Before it gets to that point, do you or the people so heavily against this rule (and it almost sounds like painting in general) try to organize painting nights with friends and such. I get that time is in demand, I work 3 jobs and am finishing grad school, but even I can find a few hours a week to get some sanity time in, and I paint. If I need help, ill invite a buddy or 5 over and ill order some take out and we will sit down and paint for a while to get going. Does no one do this?
As far as the discussion of the disabled person, I REALLY get concerned about this discussion when it heads in that direction. There is a saying in the Human resources world that there is no such thing as a blind pilot. What that means is that you make as many reasonable accommodations for everyone you can, but accept the fact that rules are written for the average, not for those in need of accommodation. So when we are talking about people being ableist or this rule is gatekeeping, I think its a stretch to assume that those things are true. They aren't. In fact, the reality is that rules are written for the average player, and there will always be situations that exist outside of the confines of rules that easily cover 99.9% of the purchasing/playing population.
This is definitely a case of the internet making a tempest in a tea cup. As usual it's the extreme edge cases that hardly ever arrise and when they do are easily solved by those specific players that folks want to act like is the norm.
As for community spirit I help other paint all the time. Especially my brother who has more on his plate in life ATM, in fact I am currently painting 75 of his ork boys for him for free just to help him get his models painted because I know it will reward everyone at the game table. Hilariously I am actively getting him those 10 points that I would have as an edge, which shows how unimportant it really is unless you make a huge deal of it. On the flip side, there are a few locals with 10+ years in the hobby with nothing painted, that spend all weekend in the shop shooting the shoots and playing with the same tired grey plastic armies that are ever expanding, despite there being a hobby space and an airbrush they can use right there. I will definitely claim my 10 points against them and let them know it the next time I play them, unless of course this encourages them to put at least some paint on their stuff.
I completely disagree. I don't think this will have any impact greater than tournaments requiring certain paint standards already do, nor will it in most groups.
As most even said they won't call it out on friends, as it will lead to annoyance and eye rolling at best and name calling and hurt feelings at worst. It'll literally be a " I don't like you " rule you throw at that guy you play you can't stand but doesn't paint as much as you. You'll also see trolls use it against otherwise good people to just be annoying.
It won't curtail net lists as if they can afford flavor the month armies all the time they can make a half arsed attempt to do the bare minimum work and it'll still look like trash and be a terrible experience.
You also will have those outliers who disagree with such a rules inclusion on its face and they will purposely play unpainted models, units or whole armies just to snub the rule.
Just because people disagree with it doesn't mean we even feel that 10 points is the real issue. There has been so much said as to why it sucks, and very little said to refute any of it aside from " I like the rule, it's cool because paint. ".
As well all the people saying how great the rule is apparently only play against other painted armies with amazing minded people so why would painted armies become more common when they are already the current norm ? The rule would do absolutely nothing for them.
In the case of the visually impared people you can solve your "situation" by a plethora of options:
1.- You can pay someone to apply the minimal amount of paint required. Given how simple battle ready can be, the expense is pretty minimal compared to how much you have to spend in the minis to begin with. At any FLGS you can find people that can charge you like what...4$ per mini to basically apply two bases and a shade? If you are nice, even less than that. Hell, if I know you and you are decent enough as to have a nice functional conversation about wh40k, I'd do it for free. I can do a couple of units in one afternoon at that simplicity level. You could have an entire army in a month. Which bring us to solution 2.
2.- You can find someone to help you for free. Honestly, if you were in my gaming group and you say..."I can't paint because I have visual impairment", the crew would manage an afternoon to help you paint said two base coats and a shade, given you are a basic pleasant fellow and not a complete TFG. The guy that actually introduced me to this hobby, both painting and gaming, lost vision in one eye and lost depth perception. Guess what, he hasn't painted a mini since then, he got them all painted by someone else since then.
3.- So you somehow have hundreds or more dollars/euros to blow on new units and an army but not on painting them. (Really? this hobby isn't cheap and the only gatekeep is money, find some and you have your minis painted, by commission) Get a patreon, or a fundme, or something like that "I'm a visually impaired dude that buys minis but somehow I'm too cheap to pay someone to paint them, help me out". Playing that card can net you the couple hundred you need to paint your minis. Done, there you go, you have a painted army.
3.- If you cannot actually work any of the previous 3, get a new hobby, maybe one that comes with prepainted minis. Really, I know people that have like 5 different greytide armies with tons of models. If instead of buying the entire GW catalog they would spend SOME of that money towards having a decent army at least, then they wouldn't have to suffer that basic -10VP penalty in close games.
Not even visual impairment is an excuse in this hobby really. If you can't paint and you decided to blow your money in a box of new figurines to chase some meta instead of bringing what you already own to standard playing level, then the joke's on you and I get those 10VP, yes.
PS But yeah, in a casual game, if you are missing some minis or units you haven't painted, it's ok, we are friends, you'll get into painting those sometime. That's what casual is all about. Formal competitive environment? Said ad nauseam but I think having your minis painted is a requisite in most already. Informal competitive environment? Well yes, I'll take the 10VP unless the guy is nice, is missing a couple of minis, he just purchased a new unit, etc etc etc. But I'm bored of the massive greytide lazy owners already. At least spray your minis and shade them. One hour per unit, there you go.
Not even visual impairment is an excuse in this hobby really. If you can't paint and you decided to blow your money in a box of new figurines to chase some meta instead of bringing what you already own to standard playing level, then the joke's on you and I get those 10VP, yes.
I have no problem with the rule, but I most definitely have a problem with your attitude.You are being extremely rude and condescending here. I'd say more, but I am afraid the moderation would not appreciate me expressing my opinion candidly.
BaconCatBug wrote: GW: Warhammer is for Everyone!
Also GW: Unless you're disabled, then you can sod right off and even if you do try you'll have a disadvantage (was going to make a golfing joke here but decided against it).
15 pages. God damn this has to be the most polarizing topic ever.
I think that we're all adults. My gak isn't all painted. I wouldn't get the 10 points right now. gak the pandemic should help me get painting done, but the kids murdered that. I don't care. If I got to roll dice and did my best and my opponent enjoyed it then that's all I care about in the moment.
If someone is disabled we're capable of just giving them the points.
The hobby is multi-faceted which includes, but is not limited to : strategy, painting, common sense, and humanity.
P.S. many tournaments since forever have had a best overall and a best general. Also I might be hyper competitive, but god damn if I don't appreciate a beautiful army.
BaconCatBug wrote: GW: Warhammer is for Everyone!
Also GW: Unless you're disabled, then you can sod right off and even if you do try you'll have a disadvantage (was going to make a golfing joke here but decided against it).
15 pages. God damn this has to be the most polarizing topic ever.
I think that we're all adults. My gak isn't all painted. I wouldn't get the 10 points right now. gak the pandemic should help me get painting done, but the kids murdered that. I don't care. If I got to roll dice and did my best and my opponent enjoyed it then that's all I care about in the moment.
If someone is disabled we're capable of just giving them the points.
The hobby is multi-faceted which includes, but is not limited to : strategy, painting, common sense, and humanity.
P.S. many tournaments since forever have had a best overall and a best general. Also I might be hyper competitive, but god damn if I don't appreciate a beautiful army.
the argument also goes the other way - not having stuff painted doesn't matter, we can give out extra points for finished armies if we want to.
There is a big difference between a house rule between friends and a rule legitimised by GW publishing it in the rulebook. It clearly says what GW considers the right way to play. You're throwing the requirement to find away around penalising someone on the player rather than GW straight up telling everyone not to do it.
Regardless of disability (which is a legitimate concern and is much bigger than just penalising people for incomplete paint jobs), this also affects people for whom time is a luxury, and money as well. It says that only those who have the time to paint models and the physical ability, are able to fully enjoy the game rules without penalty.
VPs are no different to a rule that said 'unpainted armies are at -1 to hit'. They're a component of the game that is used to play and is being withheld based on a very prescriptive determination of how it should be played.
I love fully painted armies. I also want people to feel welcome into the game and enjoy the aspects they like and the freedom to enjoy it the way they wish.
This will do a range of things, but i actually think the worst outcome is this one (apart from being turned off by knowing that not only is there a lot of work in painting, but they are going to be penalised for not doing it):
Players, in their haste not to be penalised in pick up games down the local, rush paint jobs to avoid VP penalties and end up with ugly but legal forces on the table. Lowest bar paint jobs become the norm.
I'd rather play a half painted army that the player didn't rush and enjoyed doing (even if it is't high quality) than a paint job applied under protest and pressure to meet a minimum requirement so their enjoyment of playing isn't affected.
It's this kind of thing that makes me want a separation between casual gaming and tournament gaming completely, While this is understandable and i encourage in a tournament (where you're going in as a competitor and thus should expect prescriptions on how you play baked into the rules), it is not a good look for the casual side of the game, regardless of its intentions.
The main problem here is making it a part of the rules. If it was a side comment about how the game is best enjoyed, fine. If it was a tournament or event pack enforcing it, fine. But this is a core rule. It's hardwired into the game. Can you house rule it? Of course just like you can ignore any rule.
But you shouldn't have to. This has no business being an actual rule in the main rules of the game. That moves it from optional to required by default for all matched play games (and others) and lots of people want to play using the rules as they are with no house rules whatsoever.
You shouldn't have to house rule this gak in the first place because it shouldn't be a rule.
Hey all, if we can dial things back a bit and tone it down, that'd be wonderful. There's some pretty absurd hyperbole going on here all-round. This thread is generating entirely too many reports, we're talking about a painting score in a social tabletop game, not a point of criminal law.
There is a big difference between a house rule between friends and a rule legitimised by GW publishing it in the rulebook.
People have been house ruling since time immemorial. No one is going to screw over a disabled person. We're all rational and capable of understanding the issues they face.
Frankly, there's vastly more people who are just lazy. Including me.
I also want people to feel welcome into the game and enjoy the aspects they like and the freedom to enjoy it the way they wish.
I'm in absolute agreement.
Players, in their haste not to be penalised in pick up games down the local, rush paint jobs to avoid VP penalties and end up with ugly but legal forces on the table. Lowest bar paint jobs become the norm.
I feel like this is really just an exaggeration. Never have I ever cared what happens outside a tournament and I've not seen anyone else act in that manner. Maybe I'm just lucky? Who cares if I won, but you "actually" won, because you were painted in a casual game. That just isn't a thing that would happen in my 25+ years of gaming.
There is a big difference between a house rule between friends and a rule legitimised by GW publishing it in the rulebook.
People have been house ruling since time immemorial. No one is going to screw over a disabled person. We're all rational and capable of understanding the issues they face.
Frankly, there's vastly more people who are just lazy. Including me.
I also want people to feel welcome into the game and enjoy the aspects they like and the freedom to enjoy it the way they wish.
I'm in absolute agreement.
Players, in their haste not to be penalised in pick up games down the local, rush paint jobs to avoid VP penalties and end up with ugly but legal forces on the table. Lowest bar paint jobs become the norm.
I feel like this is really just an exaggeration. Never have I ever cared what happens outside a tournament and I've not seen anyone else act in that manner. Maybe I'm just lucky? Who cares if I won, but you "actually" won, because you were painted in a casual game. That just isn't a thing that would happen in my 25+ years of gaming.
It's not local pugs that'll cause this particular issue, it's local events.
That it makes people feel excluded from a hobby they are working hard to take part in, or they have to walk around with a sign saying sorry I can't paint my army better, Not good.
This is maybe the best argument I've read so far. But why is that different than getting blown away by a power list?
Like I've DEFINITELY seen players with lovingly painted armies get blasted off the table by grey plastic netlists. This is a rule that slightly rewards the hobbyist, but certainly wont save them from the power list.
I could rewrite your sentence about the described situation:
". . .it makes people feel excluded from a hobby they are working hard to take part in, or they have to walk around with a sign saying sorry I can't financially support a more competitive army."
You know what stops armies from getting blasted off the table? Better rules writing.
No it won't. Some people will always put more time and energy into winning than others. It is inevitable that some players are just going to lose, hard. People can lose chess in spectacular fashion.
No. I don't like to play against unpainted armies, period. It doesn't matter to me whether I get 10 extra points that are denied to my opponent; I still won't enjoy the game, so this rule has more or less zero impact on how I will play and enjoy the game.
Did this need to be written as a rule that gave VPs? Perhaps not. But, should painting be encouraged? Yes, absolutely, to the same extent that building your models is encouraged. Having this rule be part of the "tournament" ruleset would be better too, although, as many people have said, tourneys already impose their own painting rules.
Does it need a VP bonus? Maybe not. Should painting be encouraged and emphasised, and not just a "it's got nothing to do with the game!" - yes.
I'd also like more promotion and encouragement of modifying/customising rules for their own experiences.
I don't know if it needs to be tied to scoring, but I do think that more emphasis needs to be put on actually painting stuff. It might encourage new players to take it slow and not buy more than they can handle, which would be healthier. The next step is pushing more small point games.
What a BS rule. Not going to enforce it myself, but if other players in the game insist, I'll take -10VP then.
For me, painting my (new) minis takes time. I will not be rushing my painting and risking ruining the models just to get those 10VP.
Day by day it is starting to sound more like that idea I had about having two separate "armies", one for playing and one for painting/modelling, might ultimately be worth pursuing.. I can just buy some easy to build monopose gak, gobble it with thick blobs of paint, and claim that 10VP.. and leave my lovingly kitbashed "proper" models out of the tabletop until M22.765 when I estimate their painting to finally come to completion.
Painting is all well and good. Tying it to your chance of victory makes it another point of contention in an already contentious game. Easy to pull out or modify, also easy to feel unwelcome in a FLGS because someone wants to play by a perfectly legal, clearly-stated rule.
Armies are a commitment. I played a bunch of early games with unpainted Necrons, because I wanted to actually play and get some games in. I slowly paint, and I slowly add more units. To me, you either require it (as many tournaments do), or you don't. Maybe you even throw in a free CP as a nice bonus.
But to tie the paintedness of your army directly to your odds of winning is... weird. Yes, you disadvantage people who are running around buying the latest hotness. You also disadvantage the people who just haven't had the time but still want to participate.
I don't like it because it's a rule that will never feel fun. Whenever it gets applied, someone is going to be disappointed - and maybe that drives them to actually get their army painted, or maybe it just drives them out.
Noone's dismantled the ridiculous refrain being thrown around that it doesn't stop people from playing and it's just a way of rewarding players that do paint, so here goes
. . .
It is incomparable to the fact that you are potentially going to risk being disrespectful, discourteous, unsporting by flaunting the fact you deserve to claim the win because your army happened to be painted in your opponent's face.
As opposed to the feeling of disrespect I might feel when someone shows up with broken, unpainted proxy models, running the latest powerbuild?
You're fundamentaly making the "my way of fun is best argument" here.
I suggest you actually read and break down the key points of what I said instead of attempting to snipe my whole post with some empty retort, thanks. I already said that I paint everything I put on the table. The point is to show courtesy and respect to others.
As for your second empty retort that "my way of fun is the best argument" is the best summary of my argument you could make, that's completely wrong too.
Neither element of the hobby is more important than the other.
Fundamentally, if you want the thing that matters in a contest to be about the painting, go enter a painting competition. If you agree to play a game - the side of the hobby that is all about strategy - then you should win or lose based on how you played, and not because you're privileged enough to have the time, motivation and mental wellbeing etc to put a fully painted army on the table.
But the barrier of entry that is the cost of all the models, books, time for assembly etc. is all fine though? Like, people put money and effort into the game just the same. All we're doing is defining where the line is. And it's a soft line! You don't auto-lose or anything. You aren't barred from playing.
And it is the "my way of fun is best" argument when you project that the game is purely strategic. It can also be viewed as an aesthetic experience, and is marketed as such. Lots of people play it for narrative value, and not strategic as well. So defining it as "purely strategic" is you bringing your own narrow definition to the party.
The game, in so far as the outcome of the game and who wins or loses as this topic of discussion concerns, is purely strategic. Don't drop it on someone that they've lost because you're upset that they affected your "aesthetic experience" when you consented to play them, having seen their army.
You have the freedom to tell people you don't want to play their half-built power-build before the game.
There's no "dropping", dude. It's (apparently) in the book and you can discuss it before hand if you think it's going to matter.
And, if you only care about the "strategic" win, you should have zero problem accepting that you would have won the game had the bonus been unawarded. After all, you have verifiably 'outplayed' the opponent, no?
If they're thinking "strategically", rather than tactically, maybe paint your models, given that if they only play Matched Play games, it appears that the strategic imperative would be to secure 10% of the possible VP in all their games moving forwards...
Play to 100% of your objectives, not 90%
AngryAngel80 wrote: So then why does there need to be a points incentive in the rules for paint ? Why ? If everyone paints anyways, and no one will enforce the rule because its a poor sport thing to do. I think that leaves most of us in agreement its a poor rule and needless in the game.
No, what we seem to have is a vocal minority trying to insist that their point of view is the correct one. Again.
Mr.Omega wrote: Thirdly, there are people that see this as a reward for people who paint, and people who see this as a penalty for people who do not.
The people who see it as a penalty are ignoring the wording that explicitly makes it a bonus, not a penalty.
AngryAngel80 wrote: While I'm sure that will very good at the time, I still say rules that feel like personal digs on other players do us all a disservice as much I have dealt with those players as well. Lol
The rule is hardly a personal dig. If it said in the same section "Should your opponent be Matt Ward, he suffers a 50VP penalty at the end of the game for crimes against the setting", that would be a personal dig...
BaconCatBug wrote: GW: Warhammer is for Everyone!
Also GW: Unless you're disabled, then you can sod right off and even if you do try you'll have a disadvantage (was going to make a golfing joke here but decided against it).
And yet, despite this statement, we can take it as read that you'll be enforcing this bonus should you play Matched Play games during 9th?
Not even visual impairment is an excuse in this hobby really. If you can't paint and you decided to blow your money in a box of new figurines to chase some meta instead of bringing what you already own to standard playing level, then the joke's on you and I get those 10VP, yes.
I have no problem with the rule, but I most definitely have a problem with your attitude.You are being extremely rude and condescending here. I'd say more, but I am afraid the moderation would not appreciate me expressing my opinion candidly.
+1
Sgt_Smudge wrote: Did this need to be written as a rule that gave VPs? Perhaps not. But, should painting be encouraged? Yes, absolutely, to the same extent that building your models is encouraged.
Having this rule be part of the "tournament" ruleset would be better too, although, as many people have said, tourneys already impose their own painting rules.
Does it need a VP bonus? Maybe not. Should painting be encouraged and emphasised, and not just a "it's got nothing to do with the game!" - yes.
Encouraging paitning without a rules hook is what GW has been doing since I started playing back in 2nd edition - why do you think you only tend to see unpainted models in their publications in the context of either an assembly/conversion guide, or at the start of a painting guide?
The problem with such implicit encouragement is that a segment of the customer base ignores it, at this has led to the dreaded Grey Tide armies, which aren't how GW envisions the game being played. So now they've added a rules hook to it, potentially to see if the 10VP bonus is enough to turn some of the Grey Tide into proper armies...
Will it work? I don't know, but I'm interested to see whether the Grey Tide has receded by the end of the edition.
For the most part I've seen some pretty reasonable responses.
I've also seen some minds changed however little or large from the long talk. That is actually really inspiring to hear. It means the talk wasn't all for nothing and some people took in the points, weighed them and thought on it.
You know Dakka, I'm going to say this right here, thank you. Some faith in people has been restored that we can fight tooth and nail but actually listen to each other, change some minds and even agree. That while painting should be something we endorse and aim for, it should be a good thing and not something that would divide us but enrich us and our games together.
Thank you again fellow Dakkaheads. At even this long point in this contentious topic, I'm glad to see some of us do have more that unites us in the game than will ultimately divide us. Even if it took a hard day or two of jawing at each other, with our fingers to get there.
Actually a little proud of us tonight or this morning, depending on where all we are sitting right now.
I don't like it because it's a rule that will never feel fun. Whenever it gets applied, someone is going to be disappointed
This is the core point for me. Either it makes no difference whatsoever, or somebody wins despite getting outplayed and the other player loses despite playing better. that's definitely not the kinda game i'm looking to play, and not why im in the hobby. thankfully the majority of my group seem to think its a silly rule.
Scenario: I give my two kids $10 for doing chores around the house each week. First kid mowed the lawn, second kid laid around on the couch all week. I give the $10 to the kid that did the chore and helped out and give $0 to the lazy kid. Lazy kid is now crying that it's not fair because they don't like chores so neither of them should get the $10... The second kid isn't being penalized here.
Your example is wrong. Both kids mowed the lawn, one did it in up and down lines, the other in checkerboard. You took $5 from the first kid and gave it to the 2nd because it matched your aesthetic more, yet the goal here is shortening the grass.
Sure GW is a hobby company, who sell paints, but they also sell flocking and terrain. Without being too hyperbolic is 10th ed going to award extra hobby based VP for basing your models, using undercoat, contrast, layer and washes? Using only company approved glue, clippers and brushes?
Mostly GW is a table top game system company. Without that core no one would buy their models even. Forcing other aspects of their company into the tabletop is not kosher.
It's like the company I work for insists the guys doing the core business aren't the income generators, but HO is. During shutdown we haven't been able to provide our core business and cash flow has dried up, where's HOs income generation? . Your company can have many aspects but your core is your core.
This rule won't affect how the game is played. So what's the point in making it a rule? Because gatekeeping. If meeting Battle Ready is so easy it won't stop meta chasers and if Grey Tides didn't care before I doubt they will now anyway.
Mostly GW is a table top game system company. Without that core no one would buy their models even. Forcing other aspects of their company into the tabletop is not kosher.
were to you get that from
GW is now trying for years to be the "Hobby" Company, and "the GW Hobby" is collecting, painting, and playing GW stuff
GW never saw themself or advertised themself as a "tabletop game company", the game was never the important part and I guess you were not there were only painted miniatures were allowed to be used in a GW store to Play
this is nothing new, they just enforce it in a different way now
Mostly GW is a table top game system company. Without that core no one would buy their models even. Forcing other aspects of their company into the tabletop is not kosher.
were to you get that from
GW is now trying for years to be the "Hobby" Company, and "the GW Hobby" is collecting, painting, and playing GW stuff
GW never saw themself or advertised themself as a "tabletop game company", the game was never the important part
No a certain CEO decieded they weren't and then wondered why people slowly spent less and less and fewer and fewer people remained in the hobby as he ran the compnay into the ground for his own ego.
We're a model company rules dont matter=WFB died, 40k became a joke, someone's hobby project 30k actually became the company's lifeline.
I think it’s a silly rule, and the only time it will be a concern is at organized events with *PRIZING*.
I say that, because my sense of winning or losing a game is internal. Did I accomplish my goals in the game? Did I do that better than my opponent? I won the game.
You want ten more points for a painted army? Good for you. Have 20. Have 100. Have 54321 points just for showing up. You score one-jillion points.
But I scored more points in the game, and that’s what matters to me. So claim your one-jillion point victory to whomever you wish. I’ll just point out I scored more points in the game.
And that’s why it’s a silly rule. Because the rule could say “if your army isn’t painted, your win doesn’t count” and I would still have won the game. It could say “if your army isn’t painted you’re a stinky doo-doo head” and it would have the same impact on who scored more points in the game.
If prizes are on the line, you make your wager with your entry fee and you live and die by the sword. Otherwise, who cares? Stinky doo-doo head!
BaconCatBug wrote: GW: Warhammer is for Everyone!
Also GW: Unless you're disabled, then you can sod right off and even if you do try you'll have a disadvantage (was going to make a golfing joke here but decided against it).
If you play a disabled opponent you can make reasonable adjustments if you’re a decent human, including such things as waiving the painted requirement and granting them the VPs. Damn, solved it without needing any salt, would you look at that.
BaconCatBug wrote: GW: Warhammer is for Everyone!
Also GW: Unless you're disabled, then you can sod right off and even if you do try you'll have a disadvantage (was going to make a golfing joke here but decided against it).
If you play a disabled opponent you can make reasonable adjustments if you’re a decent human, including such things as waiving the painted requirement and granting them the VPs. Damn, solved it without needing any salt, would you look at that.
The point is it's far less problematic to make the adjustment from the other perspective and thus the argument is pointless.
Why didn't you just offer +10vp to people out of the kindness of your heart when it wasn't a rule? Because obviously it matters more than people will admit.
Choosing to graciously offer that bonus to an opponent because of their effort is a very different proposition than choosing NOT to punish someone for not putting in the legislated effort.
One is magnanimous and the other is a dodgy power imbalance.
Jidmah wrote: I just realized that none of my models are battle-ready, can you guess why?
Spoiler:
I guess I'll just lose 10 point every game and start fielding grey models again.
Aahhh yes, the infamous black bases, welcome friend, to the club that get's shafted because we don't want to base (or can't really. or don't want to because snow base looks wierd on desert table or green table for that matter...)
Jidmah wrote: I just realized that none of my models are battle-ready, can you guess why?
Spoiler:
I guess I'll just lose 10 point every game and start fielding grey models again.
Aahhh yes, the infamous black bases, welcome friend, to the club that get's shafted because we don't want to base (or can't really. or don't want to because snow base looks wierd on desert table or green table for that matter...)
I actually like black bases
Heck, those death guard are on bases that were primed white and then painted black again.
Scenario: I give my two kids $10 for doing chores around the house each week. First kid mowed the lawn, second kid laid around on the couch all week. I give the $10 to the kid that did the chore and helped out and give $0 to the lazy kid. Lazy kid is now crying that it's not fair because they don't like chores so neither of them should get the $10... The second kid isn't being penalized here.
Your example is wrong. Both kids mowed the lawn, one did it in up and down lines, the other in checkerboard. You took $5 from the first kid and gave it to the 2nd because it matched your aesthetic more, yet the goal here is shortening the grass.
No, the example was spot on.
If neither child does any chores (doesn't paint their army), then they each get the same basic standards, but nothing extra (access to the base 90VP).
If, as indicated above, only one child does their chores (paints their army to this Battle Ready standard), then that child gets the $10 (10VP) bonus, while the one who doesn't, does not.
If both children do their chores (paint their armies), they both get the $10 (10VP).
In neither instance has anything been taken from child B to give to child A. A pot of $20 was available to the two of them, if they did tasks to earn it. No matter how you spin it, at no point are we taking money/VP from B to give to A.
Scenario: I give my two kids $10 for doing chores around the house each week. First kid mowed the lawn, second kid laid around on the couch all week. I give the $10 to the kid that did the chore and helped out and give $0 to the lazy kid. Lazy kid is now crying that it's not fair because they don't like chores so neither of them should get the $10... The second kid isn't being penalized here.
Your example is wrong. Both kids mowed the lawn, one did it in up and down lines, the other in checkerboard. You took $5 from the first kid and gave it to the 2nd because it matched your aesthetic more, yet the goal here is shortening the grass.
No, the example was spot on.
If neither child does any chores (doesn't paint their army), then they each get the same basic standards, but nothing extra (access to the base 90VP).
If, as indicated above, only one child does their chores (paints their army to this Battle Ready standard), then that child gets the $10 (10VP) bonus, while the one who doesn't, does not.
If both children do their chores (paint their armies), they both get the $10 (10VP).
In neither instance has anything been taken from child B to give to child A. A pot of $20 was available to the two of them, if they did tasks to earn it. No matter how you spin it, at no point are we taking money/VP from B to give to A.
Except both mowed the lawn, but one did it with a painted lawnmower Oh and I fully agree with the assessment that painting is a chore, not a fun part of the hobby.
Scenario: I give my two kids $10 for doing chores around the house each week. First kid mowed the lawn, second kid laid around on the couch all week. I give the $10 to the kid that did the chore and helped out and give $0 to the lazy kid. Lazy kid is now crying that it's not fair because they don't like chores so neither of them should get the $10... The second kid isn't being penalized here.
Your example is wrong. Both kids mowed the lawn, one did it in up and down lines, the other in checkerboard. You took $5 from the first kid and gave it to the 2nd because it matched your aesthetic more, yet the goal here is shortening the grass.
No, the example was spot on.
If neither child does any chores (doesn't paint their army), then they each get the same basic standards, but nothing extra (access to the base 90VP).
If, as indicated above, only one child does their chores (paints their army to this Battle Ready standard), then that child gets the $10 (10VP) bonus, while the one who doesn't, does not.
If both children do their chores (paint their armies), they both get the $10 (10VP).
In neither instance has anything been taken from child B to give to child A. A pot of $20 was available to the two of them, if they did tasks to earn it. No matter how you spin it, at no point are we taking money/VP from B to give to A.
Except both mowed the lawn, but one did it with a painted lawnmower Oh and I fully agree with the assessment that painting is a chore, not a fun part of the hobby.
*points at Red Corsair's example*
No, only one kid mowed the lawn. Mowing the lawn was an additional step to earn an additional reward. Like painting your army to earn a 10VP bonus in every Matched Play game for an edition.
Living in the house is the baseline - shelter, food, clothes, etc would be the base 90VP.
BaconCatBug wrote: GW: Warhammer is for Everyone!
Also GW: Unless you're disabled, then you can sod right off and even if you do try you'll have a disadvantage (was going to make a golfing joke here but decided against it).
If you play a disabled opponent you can make reasonable adjustments if you’re a decent human, including such things as waiving the painted requirement and granting them the VPs. Damn, solved it without needing any salt, would you look at that.
It’s also making the assumption there are no other routes to a painted army.
Me? I pay my excellent painter friend to do Nice Thing Models, such as Ltd Eds. And since the advent of Contrast, I’ve found a method which suits my limited tolerance for spending time painting. Managed 20 Ossiarchs in a day....
For a disabled person? I’m sure friends and/or family would be happy to assist them in painting their army. This is after all a highly social hobby.
Jidmah wrote: I just realized that none of my models are battle-ready, can you guess why?
Spoiler:
I guess I'll just lose 10 point every game and start fielding grey models again.
Aahhh yes, the infamous black bases, welcome friend, to the club that get's shafted because we don't want to base (or can't really. or don't want to because snow base looks wierd on desert table or green table for that matter...)
I actually like black bases
Heck, those death guard are on bases that were primed white and then painted black again.
i know, i did the same for my whole R&H army, specifically because it is a base type that fits on every table, and also because i notoriously often destroy minis via basing process.
jhnbrg wrote: I find it amusing that so many are against painting their minis but nobody cares about the pay to win part of the game.
I never field unpainted miniatures and find it annoying playing against unpainted or proxy armies.
Miniature games are about the visual impact after all, if you cant be bothered to paint there are lots of other games instead.
Nothing against painting and i paint a lot. About 9k-10k painted orks, 3.5k painted sisters etc.
Problem with being core rule as core rule that is ignore a lot is silly rule. Also would be nice to have for once unified rules rather than various house rules.
Also makes balance reports harder. How many wins are due to painted army bonus?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Eihnlazer wrote: So seriously, whats different about this rule than any of the major tournaments saying you have to have a painted army to even attend?
Paint your mini's guys, or get someone else to paint them.
One is core rule.
Other is supplemantory rule.
One doesn't affect win rate of army thus being neutral for factoring in game balance. Other affects winrate
As has been said many times, most tournaments already slam the door in your face if you have unpainted models and you try and play in it. I doubt that will change at all, so all this rule does is make you have to deal with it in pick up or casual games.
I disagree with the fact people will have to deal with this in casual games..
However, I am willing to concede the fact that I do not live in a horrifying dystopian place where people are utter gaklords to each other.
I'll be honest. Considering how many people in this thread describe their LGS(I refuse to say FLGS due to how people have described them) and PUG situation I am actually surprised those people are in the hobby at all. I'd be long gone if the hobby arena close to me was full of toxic jerks like that. The sad thing is that whether GW would have this rule or not is not going to change those toxic jerks. Toxic jerks will continue to be toxic jerks until they disappear with the heat death of the universe.
This thread has also brought to light that those who are in favor of this rule, like myself, are lucky. Lucky that we live in a relative utopia with decent and reasonable people who are friendly and enjoy a sense of camaraderie. I am not even trying to be satirical or funny. What some people have described here is just horrifying communities and social circles that exhibit pure cruelty and hate..
The thread probably move on a bit, but I did thought I would respond to this.
This is a TFG rule, a good group doesn’t really need it, they will discuss and help players get though why they may not paint. My own group is more passive, but everyone is encouraged to paint. And we do painting prizes and painting completions.
A bad group will just have it as a passive aggressive push to paint things, and it has even come up here I this thread that they can just paint it with a spray can, a wash and some dry brushing. Not so they feel good about there army, but to satisfy the rule and there thoughts on what effort they should put in.
It ignores the why, and does not even try to fix the issues people may have, and effects the game play negatively.
I have rushed an army to have it painted before, when I could do a all weekend paint. The army end up being the one I hated the most, I didn’t enjoy playing it as much and when GW change it forcing me to paint new things. I just shelved it with little to no attachment.
Scenario: I give my two kids $10 for doing chores around the house each week. First kid mowed the lawn, second kid laid around on the couch all week. I give the $10 to the kid that did the chore and helped out and give $0 to the lazy kid. Lazy kid is now crying that it's not fair because they don't like chores so neither of them should get the $10... The second kid isn't being penalized here.
Your example is wrong. Both kids mowed the lawn, one did it in up and down lines, the other in checkerboard. You took $5 from the first kid and gave it to the 2nd because it matched your aesthetic more, yet the goal here is shortening the grass.
No, the example was spot on.
If neither child does any chores (doesn't paint their army), then they each get the same basic standards, but nothing extra (access to the base 90VP).
If, as indicated above, only one child does their chores (paints their army to this Battle Ready standard), then that child gets the $10 (10VP) bonus, while the one who doesn't, does not.
If both children do their chores (paint their armies), they both get the $10 (10VP).
In neither instance has anything been taken from child B to give to child A. A pot of $20 was available to the two of them, if they did tasks to earn it. No matter how you spin it, at no point are we taking money/VP from B to give to A.
Except both mowed the lawn, but one did it with a painted lawnmower Oh and I fully agree with the assessment that painting is a chore, not a fun part of the hobby.
I enjoy painting, its a good way to wind down. On the other hand i think its a chore keeping up with all the new rules coming out at a fast pace.
The thing is that i am forced to learn them to have a decent game for me and my opponent.
Jidmah wrote: I just realized that none of my models are battle-ready, can you guess why?
I guess I'll just lose 10 point every game and start fielding grey models again.
Aahhh yes, the infamous black bases, welcome friend, to the club that get's shafted because we don't want to base (or can't really. or don't want to because snow base looks wierd on desert table or green table for that matter...)
I actually like black bases
Heck, those death guard are on bases that were primed white and then painted black again.
i know, i did the same for my whole R&H army, specifically because it is a base type that fits on every table, and also because i notoriously often destroy minis via basing process.
OK, now i'm morbidly curious - how do you destroy models by basing them?
Scenario: I give my two kids $10 for doing chores around the house each week. First kid mowed the lawn, second kid laid around on the couch all week. I give the $10 to the kid that did the chore and helped out and give $0 to the lazy kid. Lazy kid is now crying that it's not fair because they don't like chores so neither of them should get the $10... The second kid isn't being penalized here.
Your example is wrong. Both kids mowed the lawn, one did it in up and down lines, the other in checkerboard. You took $5 from the first kid and gave it to the 2nd because it matched your aesthetic more, yet the goal here is shortening the grass.
No, the example was spot on.
.
Nope. Both children are cutting the grass, IE playing the Tabletop game. Youre giving extra money/VP to the one with racing stripes on his lawnmower.
If you're not cutting the grass you aren't playing. Both showed up, both tabled an army, both threw the dice.
Giving one +10 is no different than - 5/+5. The result is the same. For the same effort *in the moment* you're penalizing one and rewarding the other for something not directly related to the game there and then.
Seabass wrote: Maybe I just live in the single greatest WH40k community ever created, or this is just hyperbole regarding people's inability to paint and their communities reaction to it.
A few points.
Do people not help each other with painting? Like, when we have an event coming up and someone doesn't have their stuff ready and they need help, we organize a painting group and we help the person out. I'll jump on my airbrush, another buddy will base coat and drybrush, other washes, I mean, does that really not happen anywhere else but my own little utopia?
Ew. No.
Wouldn't want it to either.
Likewise. Everyone has a distinctive painting style. Why on earth would you have a mix of styles? In the nicest possible way I want nobody but me painting my minis and I don’t want to paint anyone else’s for the same reason.
People often accuse me of being lazy on basing - but its really not hard to paint a base a certain colour, then cover it with one of GW's textures. Done. Then if you *really* want shade/dry brush it. (Hey, at least its not goblin green.)
Going the full hog with stones, flock bushes, sand etc can make a model look better, but I'm not that bothered about it.
Red Corsair wrote: Scenario: I give my two kids $10 for doing chores around the house each week. First kid mowed the lawn, second kid laid around on the couch all week. I give the $10 to the kid that did the chore and helped out and give $0 to the lazy kid. Lazy kid is now crying that it's not fair because they don't like chores so neither of them should get the $10... The second kid isn't being penalized here.
Your example is wrong. Both kids mowed the lawn, one did it in up and down lines, the other in checkerboard. You took $5 from the first kid and gave it to the 2nd because it matched your aesthetic more, yet the goal here is shortening the grass.
No, the example was spot on..
Nope. Both children are cutting the grass, IE playing the Tabletop game. Youre giving extra money/VP to the one with racing stripes on his lawnmower.
If you're not cutting the grass you aren't playing. Both showed up, both tabled an army, both threw the dice.
Giving one +10 is no different than - 5/+5. The result is the same. For the same effort *in the moment* you're penalizing one and rewarding the other for something not directly related to the game there and then.
Another example: You have two kids. One is a perfectly healthy child. The other, obviously though no fault of their own, suffers from cerebral palsy which makes controlling the lawn-mower difficult. The healthy child mows the lawn neatly in a spiral pattern, the child with cerebral palsy mows the lawn just as well but does it in not in such a neat pattern. The parent then docks the disabled child's pay for not mowing the lawn "correctly".
For all GW's bluster about how "Warhammer is for everyone", they seem content with putting in a literally discriminatory rule in their game.
jhnbrg wrote: I enjoy painting, its a good way to wind down. On the other hand i think its a chore keeping up with all the new rules coming out at a fast pace.
The thing is that i am forced to learn them to have a decent game for me and my opponent.
Now imagine only being allowed to paint 90% of your miniature because you don't like gaming
BaconCatBug wrote: Another example: You have two kids. One is a perfectly healthy child. The other, obviously though no fault of their own, suffers from cerebral palsy which makes controlling the lawn-mower difficult. The healthy child mows the lawn neatly in a spiral pattern, the child with cerebral palsy mows the lawn just as well but does it in not in such a neat pattern. The parent then docks the disabled child's pay for not mowing the lawn "correctly".
For all GW's bluster about how "Warhammer is for everyone", they seem content with putting in a literally discriminatory rule in their game.
Which is why you're going to backtrack on years of, "I adhere to the rules precisely as they are defined, because we don't get to pick and choose which rules we play by"? Good on you for finally seeing the light Bacon.
BaconCatBug wrote: Another example: You have two kids. One is a perfectly healthy child. The other, obviously though no fault of their own, suffers from cerebral palsy which makes controlling the lawn-mower difficult. The healthy child mows the lawn neatly in a spiral pattern, the child with cerebral palsy mows the lawn just as well but does it in not in such a neat pattern. The parent then docks the disabled child's pay for not mowing the lawn "correctly".
For all GW's bluster about how "Warhammer is for everyone", they seem content with putting in a literally discriminatory rule in their game.
Which is why you're going to backtrack on years of, "I adhere to the rules precisely as they are defined, because we don't get to pick and choose which rules we play by"? Good on you for finally seeing the light Bacon.
No, I didn't say that. I am going to follow the rules, and not pick and choose.
I don't AGREE with the rule, I feel it is discriminatory and a bad rule. I will still abide by it, just as I have abided by rules I don't agree with, or rules that are bad, in the past.
That seems to be a fundamental error people make when it comes to my stance. Following a rule/law doesn't mean you agree with it. I don't agree with a lot of drug laws, for example. That doesn't mean I deal drugs.
People often accuse me of being lazy on basing - but its really not hard to paint a base a certain colour, then cover it with one of GW's textures. Done. Then if you *really* want shade/dry brush it. (Hey, at least its not goblin green.)
Going the full hog with stones, flock bushes, sand etc can make a model look better, but I'm not that bothered about it.
I have multiple pots of Armageddon Dust from the conquest magazine and it's literally easier to cover a base in that stuff than painting white base black again.
Yet, GW still decided that my DG models are the same as grey unpainted minis because I didn't paint my miniatures the way they want.
Well, jokes on them, I can now just not paint anything ever again and suffer no consequences whatsoever.
Red Corsair wrote: Scenario: I give my two kids $10 for doing chores around the house each week. First kid mowed the lawn, second kid laid around on the couch all week. I give the $10 to the kid that did the chore and helped out and give $0 to the lazy kid. Lazy kid is now crying that it's not fair because they don't like chores so neither of them should get the $10... The second kid isn't being penalized here.
Your example is wrong. Both kids mowed the lawn, one did it in up and down lines, the other in checkerboard. You took $5 from the first kid and gave it to the 2nd because it matched your aesthetic more, yet the goal here is shortening the grass.
No, the example was spot on..
Nope. Both children are cutting the grass, IE playing the Tabletop game. Youre giving extra money/VP to the one with racing stripes on his lawnmower.
If you're not cutting the grass you aren't playing. Both showed up, both tabled an army, both threw the dice.
Giving one +10 is no different than - 5/+5. The result is the same. For the same effort *in the moment* you're penalizing one and rewarding the other for something not directly related to the game there and then.
Another example: You have two kids. One is a perfectly healthy child. The other, obviously though no fault of their own, suffers from cerebral palsy which makes controlling the lawn-mower difficult. The healthy child mows the lawn neatly in a spiral pattern, the child with cerebral palsy mows the lawn just as well but does it in not in such a neat pattern. The parent then docks the disabled child's pay for not mowing the lawn "correctly".
For all GW's bluster about how "Warhammer is for everyone", they seem content with putting in a literally discriminatory rule in their game.
Honestly, your example adds nothing. You’re trying to find axes to grind. You’ve never fought for disabled rights before trying to use this to soapbox from so it’s just plain disingenuous.
This rule is only a sticking point if you lack the empathy to make reasonable adjustments for a disabled opponent. It’s a non-problem unless you insist on being a douche and enforcing all Matched Play Rules to the letter instead of being a good human. That’s all there is to it.
JohnnyHell wrote: Honestly, your example adds nothing. You’re trying to find axes to grind. You’ve never fought for disabled rights before trying to use this to soapbox from so it’s just plain disingenuous.
This rule is only a sticking point if you lack the empathy to make reasonable adjustments for a disabled opponent. It’s a non-problem unless you insist on being a douche and enforcing all Matched Play Rules to the letter instead of being a good human. That’s all there is to it.
Because it's never been an issue with the rules before. You don't know my life, my health, or my previous activities, experiences, or advocacy in the real world.
I've never seen you fight for, idk, First People's rights on this forum before. Does that mean you're against First People's rights? No, of course not, but that is the logic you're positing here. I know you have a personal vendetta with me, but you should keep it to PMs if you want and don't spew nonsense and try to derail threads.
The point is the rules shouldn't require you to "make reasonable adjustments for a disabled opponent", the rules shouldn't discriminate against them in the first place.
BaconCatBug wrote: Another example: You have two kids. One is a perfectly healthy child. The other, obviously though no fault of their own, suffers from cerebral palsy which makes controlling the lawn-mower difficult. The healthy child mows the lawn neatly in a spiral pattern, the child with cerebral palsy mows the lawn just as well but does it in not in such a neat pattern. The parent then docks the disabled child's pay for not mowing the lawn "correctly".
For all GW's bluster about how "Warhammer is for everyone", they seem content with putting in a literally discriminatory rule in their game.
Which is why you're going to backtrack on years of, "I adhere to the rules precisely as they are defined, because we don't get to pick and choose which rules we play by"? Good on you for finally seeing the light Bacon.
No, I didn't say that. I am going to follow the rules, and not pick and choose.
I don't AGREE with the rule, I feel it is discriminatory and a bad rule. I will still abide by it, just as I have abided by rules I don't agree with, or rules that are bad, in the past.
That seems to be a fundamental error people make when it comes to my stance. Following a rule/law doesn't mean you agree with it. I don't agree with a lot of drug laws, for example. That doesn't mean I deal drugs.
I'm sure the kid with palsey takes great comfort in your "dem's da rulez" *shrug* stance.
Jidmah wrote: I just realized that none of my models are battle-ready, can you guess why?
Spoiler:
I guess I'll just lose 10 point every game and start fielding grey models again.
Well yes, if someone tries to pull off that rule from those models, that'd be a TFG manouver. There is effort clearly put on those models.
I don't see how people start pulling exceptions to discard the rule. Exceptions are exactly that, exceptions. You paint yet you don't base your models. Maybe you like or prefer black bases. Guess what, this rule is not and should not be about you, and trying to apply it to you is a dick move. The one in a thousand case of a disabled person unable to paint (there are alternative solutions to this issue but well I will not dwelve into it further) then well, we do an exception around you, of course. I for one would not apply this rule on a disabled person, (yet I would vocally offer the solutions I previously stated). I have seen an epidemic of greytide armies lately, and I mean armies in plural as in several belonging to the same person. People that play and I am not sure they even own a brush. As I said, there's a growing market for people who paint for profit, to different levels of expertise. Put apart some of your hobby money to pay for paint instead of buying yet more miniatures. If you own a large greytide, or several, in some cases including Forgeworld models, clearly money is not an issue to you. That, or keep it in your garage to play with your friends, noone is going to chase you down.
BaconCatBug wrote: Another example: You have two kids. One is a perfectly healthy child. The other, obviously though no fault of their own, suffers from cerebral palsy which makes controlling the lawn-mower difficult. The healthy child mows the lawn neatly in a spiral pattern, the child with cerebral palsy mows the lawn just as well but does it in not in such a neat pattern. The parent then docks the disabled child's pay for not mowing the lawn "correctly".
For all GW's bluster about how "Warhammer is for everyone", they seem content with putting in a literally discriminatory rule in their game.
Which is why you're going to backtrack on years of, "I adhere to the rules precisely as they are defined, because we don't get to pick and choose which rules we play by"? Good on you for finally seeing the light Bacon.
No, I didn't say that. I am going to follow the rules, and not pick and choose.
I don't AGREE with the rule, I feel it is discriminatory and a bad rule. I will still abide by it, just as I have abided by rules I don't agree with, or rules that are bad, in the past.
That seems to be a fundamental error people make when it comes to my stance. Following a rule/law doesn't mean you agree with it. I don't agree with a lot of drug laws, for example. That doesn't mean I deal drugs.
I'm sure the kid with palsey takes great comfort in your "dem's da rulez" *shrug* stance.
Except my stance isn't "dem's da rulez" *shrug* , it's "Sadly, those are what the rules say, I don't agree with them, but I don't make the rules."
Kithail wrote: Well yes, if someone tries to pull off that rule from those models, that'd be a TFG manouver. There is effort clearly put on those models.
I don't see how people start pulling exceptions to discard the rule. Exceptions are exactly that, exceptions. You paint yet you don't base your models. Maybe you like or prefer black bases. Guess what, this rule is not and should not be about you, and trying to apply it to you is a dick move.
The thing is that there actually has been an issue with a TO that told me that he wouldn't allow my army because it was not based. I have no problem with skipping a single event with an organizer like that, but having something so subjective hard-coded into every mission is just dumb.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Galas wrote: Please guys. I would sincerely ask to stop using disabled people like some kind of cheap argumentative missile to gain internet points.
I hate painting as one could have but is just disgusting to use that "shield" to put yourself back with your opinion.
Kithail wrote: Well yes, if someone tries to pull off that rule from those models, that'd be a TFG manouver. There is effort clearly put on those models.
I don't see how people start pulling exceptions to discard the rule. Exceptions are exactly that, exceptions. You paint yet you don't base your models. Maybe you like or prefer black bases. Guess what, this rule is not and should not be about you, and trying to apply it to you is a dick move.
The thing is that there actually has been an issue with a TO that told me that he wouldn't allow my army because it was not based. I have no problem with skipping a single event with an organizer like that, but having something so subjective hard-coded into every mission is just dumb.
I ran into a similar situation with an opponent who claimed my vanguard veterans weren't WYSIWYG because I used assault marines (of all things!) legs and torsos to kitbash them. They have Forgeworld raven guard heads and pauldrons and some of them have combat shields that I bought as bits instead of tower shields mostly because I prefer the pentagon aesthetic of the former over the "ironcross" shape of the latter .But I got backed by most people present, though. Everyone has run into people like that from time to time. I got the rule is a general sideline trying to get people to paint at least a bit. Hell lately I am satisfied with playing against PRIMED models at least.
Scenario: I give my two kids $10 for doing chores around the house each week. First kid mowed the lawn, second kid laid around on the couch all week. I give the $10 to the kid that did the chore and helped out and give $0 to the lazy kid. Lazy kid is now crying that it's not fair because they don't like chores so neither of them should get the $10... The second kid isn't being penalized here.
Your example is wrong. Both kids mowed the lawn, one did it in up and down lines, the other in checkerboard. You took $5 from the first kid and gave it to the 2nd because it matched your aesthetic more, yet the goal here is shortening the grass.
No, the example was spot on.
.
Nope. Both children are cutting the grass, IE playing the Tabletop game. Youre giving extra money/VP to the one with racing stripes on his lawnmower.
If you're not cutting the grass you aren't playing. Both showed up, both tabled an army, both threw the dice.
No, in the stated example the starting position - i.e., playing the game - is living in the house. In the context of the example, mowing the lawn was an additional optional task with a specified bonus - equivalent, very clearly, to painting your army being an additional optional task which gives you a bonus.
It's also not a situation where A is denying B anything. Had B completed their additional optional task, they too would be rewarded equally.
You keep trying to reframe the task as the game, when it isn't. The base position is the game, the extra element is the bonus.
Kayback wrote: Giving one +10 is no different than - 5/+5. The result is the same. For the same effort *in the moment* you're penalizing one and rewarding the other for something not directly related to the game there and then.
Assuming you have legal access to two children, test your statement above. I assure you, the reaction to one being given ten and the other nothing will be poor, but will still be more positive than taking five from one to give to the other.
And the result is not the same - assuming both sides score the maximum, we go from a 100 vs. 90 score to a 95 vs. 85 score - and, as a result, the pool grows to 190VP in scenario A, while staying at 180 for scenario B.
At no point in these rules are we taking anything from player B. Any of the 90VP they earn, they keep.
If they choose not to paint their army, they're just missing out on a bonus. For all you "strategists" out there, the right thing to do would be to get painting, rather than keep complaining on here. Securing 10VP per game for a whole edition would be the strategic thing to do, no?
Well yes, if someone tries to pull off that rule from those models, that'd be a TFG manouver. There is effort clearly put on those models.
Why it is a TFG manoeuvre? It's literally the rule. You can't praise the rule in one instant and then go on to criticise people for having the gall to actually follow it.
And if you think black bases shouldn't make a model count as unpainted, how about filing that complaint to GW? You know, since it's their rules that specify bases need to be painted in order for any model to count as painted.
Jidmah wrote: I just realized that none of my models are battle-ready, can you guess why?
I guess I'll just lose 10 point every game and start fielding grey models again.
Aahhh yes, the infamous black bases, welcome friend, to the club that get's shafted because we don't want to base (or can't really. or don't want to because snow base looks wierd on desert table or green table for that matter...)
I actually like black bases
Heck, those death guard are on bases that were primed white and then painted black again.
i know, i did the same for my whole R&H army, specifically because it is a base type that fits on every table, and also because i notoriously often destroy minis via basing process.
OK, now i'm morbidly curious - how do you destroy models by basing them?
Recipe for such a desaster:
- shortisghtedness and glasses not put on because glasses get annoying.
- Bad luck.
- used glue, blocked.
- sand.
- a cat.
Jidmah wrote: I just realized that none of my models are battle-ready, can you guess why?
I guess I'll just lose 10 point every game and start fielding grey models again.
Aahhh yes, the infamous black bases, welcome friend, to the club that get's shafted because we don't want to base (or can't really. or don't want to because snow base looks wierd on desert table or green table for that matter...)
I actually like black bases
Heck, those death guard are on bases that were primed white and then painted black again.
i know, i did the same for my whole R&H army, specifically because it is a base type that fits on every table, and also because i notoriously often destroy minis via basing process.
OK, now i'm morbidly curious - how do you destroy models by basing them?
Recipe for such a desaster:
- shortisghtedness and glasses not put on because glasses get annoying.
- Bad luck.
- used glue, blocked.
- sand.
- a cat.
Gluing models to cats is generally a bad idea, true
BaconCatBug wrote: Another example: You have two kids. One is a perfectly healthy child. The other, obviously though no fault of their own, suffers from cerebral palsy which makes controlling the lawn-mower difficult. The healthy child mows the lawn neatly in a spiral pattern, the child with cerebral palsy mows the lawn just as well but does it in not in such a neat pattern. The parent then docks the disabled child's pay for not mowing the lawn "correctly".
For all GW's bluster about how "Warhammer is for everyone", they seem content with putting in a literally discriminatory rule in their game.
Which is why you're going to backtrack on years of, "I adhere to the rules precisely as they are defined, because we don't get to pick and choose which rules we play by"? Good on you for finally seeing the light Bacon.
No, I didn't say that. I am going to follow the rules, and not pick and choose.
I don't AGREE with the rule, I feel it is discriminatory and a bad rule. I will still abide by it, just as I have abided by rules I don't agree with, or rules that are bad, in the past.
That seems to be a fundamental error people make when it comes to my stance. Following a rule/law doesn't mean you agree with it. I don't agree with a lot of drug laws, for example. That doesn't mean I deal drugs.
I'm sure the kid with palsey takes great comfort in your "dem's da rulez" *shrug* stance.
Except my stance isn't "dem's da rulez" *shrug* , it's "Sadly, those are what the rules say, I don't agree with them, but I don't make the rules."
Just stop already. Being dogmatic doesn’t make sense here. If you can employ empathy to assist a fellow human, do. If your strict adherence to 40K rules takes priority then I’m sorry to tell you the rules aren’t the issue. Just drop this very tacky tack.
Well yes, if someone tries to pull off that rule from those models, that'd be a TFG manouver. There is effort clearly put on those models.
Why it is a TFG manoeuvre? It's literally the rule. You can't praise the rule in one instant and then go on to criticise people for having the gall to actually follow it.
So much this, like I said earlier the rule is just fostering a weird strain of elitism. Reject the rule outright? Oh you're probably just a WAAC douche, why do you care about who wins or loses anyway? And then another day, you haven't been lenient / generous enough to let the rule slide for a specific opponent? Well you're just being TFG and people should avoid playing against you.
Rules should not create this kind of dilemma that has to be navigated before each game. Even if most people navigate it smoothly, the fact that it's there waiting to trip someone up is reason enough to be dismayed that it made it into print.
jhnbrg wrote: I enjoy painting, its a good way to wind down. On the other hand i think its a chore keeping up with all the new rules coming out at a fast pace.
The thing is that i am forced to learn them to have a decent game for me and my opponent.
Now imagine only being allowed to paint 90% of your miniature because you don't like gaming
Who said i dont like gaming?
I find it hard to keep up with all the new rules. I have played every edition of 40k atleast once (7:th).
There are a lot of barriers in these type of games (money, time, people to play with) and i just cant understand why painting should be excluded.
As for your example, it would be more like 100% but i miss out on the bonus miniatures.
I haven't read through all posts, but would like to give my personal opinion:
While I myself have all my minis painted with painted bases to a standard that would earn these 10 points I'm very reluctant towards that rule. As others said, matching the requirement doesn't necessarily mean "I have really put effort into it" while there are various cases were someone put serious effort into his minis, but would not match the rule (black bases, paint schemes with only two colors [could work on Necrons or Tyranids for example] etc.). Of course any decent human being would differentiate in these cases, but unfortunatly there will be those that come with army primed with two different colored dots on their model insisting of getting those 10 points because their opponent liked black bases more and "ITS DA RULES!!!.
Yes the other guy would know for himself that this was unfair and he "should" not have a 10 points disadvantage, but the feeling would still suck.
Meanwhile I totally get the sentiment that it would be preferable to see fully painted armies face each other and with preferable I mean "nicer to look at" and from GWs point of view "more likely to attract people seeing this game". I'm just... not convinced that granting a flat 10 VP is the way to get there. This critique would be more constructive if I had a well working alternative proposal, but I unfortunatly cannot think of one. Free pretzels for anyone showing up with a fully painted army? A bag of gummibears if he arguably did it the best he could?
So many people seem to think this isn't going to be enforced outside of tournaments but I get the feeling we're going to see that rule enforced a lot more than tournaments since it's not a tournament only rule it's baked into the rules themselves.I can see it being enforced every game that uses matched play especially if you have someone with a fully painted army playing someone who may have a unit WIP or whatnot. Even more so if the 10 VPs are significant:
"Good game Bob! So let's see... You have 85 VP and I have 80 but that 5 man squad over there is only primed and base coated. So since my army is fully painted that's 10 VP for me. Guess I win!"
We're going to see a lot of that I suspect given how reluctant many players are to deviate from "official" rules.
BaconCatBug wrote: Another example: You have two kids. One is a perfectly healthy child. The other, obviously though no fault of their own, suffers from cerebral palsy which makes controlling the lawn-mower difficult. The healthy child mows the lawn neatly in a spiral pattern, the child with cerebral palsy mows the lawn just as well but does it in not in such a neat pattern. The parent then docks the disabled child's pay for not mowing the lawn "correctly".
For all GW's bluster about how "Warhammer is for everyone", they seem content with putting in a literally discriminatory rule in their game.
Which is why you're going to backtrack on years of, "I adhere to the rules precisely as they are defined, because we don't get to pick and choose which rules we play by"? Good on you for finally seeing the light Bacon.
No, I didn't say that. I am going to follow the rules, and not pick and choose.
I don't AGREE with the rule, I feel it is discriminatory and a bad rule. I will still abide by it, just as I have abided by rules I don't agree with, or rules that are bad, in the past.
That seems to be a fundamental error people make when it comes to my stance. Following a rule/law doesn't mean you agree with it. I don't agree with a lot of drug laws, for example. That doesn't mean I deal drugs.
I'm sure the kid with palsey takes great comfort in your "dem's da rulez" *shrug* stance.
Except my stance isn't "dem's da rulez" *shrug* , it's "Sadly, those are what the rules say, I don't agree with them, but I don't make the rules."
Just stop already. Being dogmatic doesn’t make sense here. If you can employ empathy to assist a fellow human, do. If your strict adherence to 40K rules takes priority then I’m sorry to tell you the rules aren’t the issue. Just drop this very tacky tack.
Genuine question that i'll preface by saying I'm a chilled person mostly and would always give someone with difficulties a break, but I'm actually struggling to think what kind of limitations someone might have that would prevent them from painting at all (I mean literally at all, not just haphazardly slapping paint on) but still facilitate them carefully picking up and moving minis/rolling dice.
it's "Sadly, those are what the rules say, I don't agree with them, but I don't make the rules."
But GWs stance has always been that you should house rule to your hearts content as long as your opponent agrees, so why are you so inflexible?
While BCB is an extreme example there are a LOT of people who don't want to house rule things or ask "mother may I" to adjust things in the rules to suit them. The fact you can doesn't mean people will let you, and technically it's not them being TFG for wanting to play the game by the rules in the book instead of change things willy-nilly, even if the rule is stupid.
Sure, but there is a difference between not wanting to and taking the position that you couldn't possibly because you didn't write them, even though those that did write them explicitly told you you can house rule
Well yes, if someone tries to pull off that rule from those models, that'd be a TFG manouver. There is effort clearly put on those models.
Why it is a TFG manoeuvre? It's literally the rule. You can't praise the rule in one instant and then go on to criticise people for having the gall to actually follow it.
And if you think black bases shouldn't make a model count as unpainted, how about filing that complaint to GW? You know, since it's their rules that specify bases need to be painted in order for any model to count as painted.
Because any rule, as any law, is open to exceptions and interpretations. Guess what, if your drunk friend slaps you, he committed a crime, but most likely than not you won't report him to the police. If an unknown drunk does that, it's likely you'll press those assault charges.
That's why we have juries and judges. And lawyers. Rules are supposed to be interpreted. And have exceptions. Lawful neutral environments belong to fantasy settings.
BaconCatBug wrote: it's "Sadly, those are what the rules say, I don't agree with them, but I don't make the rules."
But GWs stance has always been that you should house rule to your hearts content as long as your opponent agrees, so why are you so inflexible?
Because House Rules, without exception, boil down to "Buff units I like, Nerf units I don't like."
If I wanted to play a wishy-washy game with no rules I'd play Calvinball or Dungeons and Dragons or just go play pretend with the local community theatre group. When I play a board game, I want to use a set of rules and mechanics in order to achieve a win state and avoid a failure state.
BaconCatBug wrote: Another example: You have two kids. One is a perfectly healthy child. The other, obviously though no fault of their own, suffers from cerebral palsy which makes controlling the lawn-mower difficult. The healthy child mows the lawn neatly in a spiral pattern, the child with cerebral palsy mows the lawn just as well but does it in not in such a neat pattern. The parent then docks the disabled child's pay for not mowing the lawn "correctly".
For all GW's bluster about how "Warhammer is for everyone", they seem content with putting in a literally discriminatory rule in their game.
Which is why you're going to backtrack on years of, "I adhere to the rules precisely as they are defined, because we don't get to pick and choose which rules we play by"? Good on you for finally seeing the light Bacon.
No, I didn't say that. I am going to follow the rules, and not pick and choose.
I don't AGREE with the rule, I feel it is discriminatory and a bad rule. I will still abide by it, just as I have abided by rules I don't agree with, or rules that are bad, in the past.
That seems to be a fundamental error people make when it comes to my stance. Following a rule/law doesn't mean you agree with it. I don't agree with a lot of drug laws, for example. That doesn't mean I deal drugs.
I'm sure the kid with palsey takes great comfort in your "dem's da rulez" *shrug* stance.
Except my stance isn't "dem's da rulez" *shrug* , it's "Sadly, those are what the rules say, I don't agree with them, but I don't make the rules."
Just stop already. Being dogmatic doesn’t make sense here. If you can employ empathy to assist a fellow human, do. If your strict adherence to 40K rules takes priority then I’m sorry to tell you the rules aren’t the issue. Just drop this very tacky tack.
Genuine question that i'll preface by saying I'm a chilled person mostly and would always give someone with difficulties a break, but I'm actually struggling to think what kind of limitations someone might have that would prevent them from painting at all (I mean literally at all, not just haphazardly slapping paint on) but still facilitate them carefully picking up and moving minis/rolling dice.
Probably being naive so please educate me.
40k army’s are big, I like many people like a variety so switch around what I like to paint. With assistance I can paint one mini a week(I don’t really have any schedule I can keep), so a new army could be a year worth of painting if I worked only on that army. And only for this one game. For me playing is a big part of what I enjoy, as I don’t really get to exercise my mind much at all. Why painting I can do all the time when it’s best convenient, games themselves are very difficult to get in and take up the same time.
I would also like to point out, I don’t want to really have to bring this up for games. Even with people I know at a club, it’s not fun to try and bargain for a pass on a rule like this. So if it does come up, I would likely just accept it and feel crappy about the hobby as a whole. I won’t paint more warhammer, I will paint infinity or warmachine or frostgrave.
It’s hard to explain, I not sure my English is good enough.
BaconCatBug wrote: it's "Sadly, those are what the rules say, I don't agree with them, but I don't make the rules."
But GWs stance has always been that you should house rule to your hearts content as long as your opponent agrees, so why are you so inflexible?
Because House Rules, without exception, boil down to "Buff units I like, Nerf units I don't like."
Not even getting into that, I've met a ton of people who just don't like to change the rules. They want to be playing "standard" and "official" rules, no matter how dumb they are so it's consistent. That's the issue everyone seems to be missing with this rule. The fact it exists as an OFFICIAL rule from GW, rather than something in a tournament pack, means by default it's going to be there, and you need to "Mother may I" to remove it, which not everyone is okay with just because they don't want to adjust the rules so it's not consistent.
Dudeface wrote: Genuine question that i'll preface by saying I'm a chilled person mostly and would always give someone with difficulties a break, but I'm actually struggling to think what kind of limitations someone might have that would prevent them from painting at all (I mean literally at all, not just haphazardly slapping paint on) but still facilitate them carefully picking up and moving minis/rolling dice.
Probably being naive so please educate me.
Very poor vision? Blindness is not a binary state, you can have varying stages of it. You might be able to see models just fine as they are quite big, compared to the millimetre details on some models.
As for moving models, again, moving models within an inch of each other doesn't really need that fine of motor skill, but painting millimetre sized details on a model does.
Kithail wrote: Because any rule, as any law, is open to exceptions and interpretations.
Show me one in the rulebook and we'll talk.
Kithail wrote: Guess what, if your drunk friend slaps you, he committed a crime, but most likely than not you won't report him to the police. If an unknown drunk does that, it's likely you'll press those assault charges.
I don't even know what point you're trying to make here.
it sounds like "this rule is an excuse for me to be a dick to people I don't like".
Having seen some of your other posts, you don't need a rule for that.
Kithail wrote: That's why we have juries and judges. And lawyers.
What?
Yet you specifically gave an analogy that didn't require or involve any of those.
Kithail wrote: Because any rule, as any law, is open to exceptions and interpretations.
Show me one in the rulebook and we'll talk.
Kithail wrote: Guess what, if your drunk friend slaps you, he committed a crime, but most likely than not you won't report him to the police. If an unknown drunk does that, it's likely you'll press those assault charges.
I don't even know what point you're trying to make here.
it sounds like "this rule is an excuse for me to be a dick to people I don't like".
Having seen some of your other posts, you don't need a rule for that.
Kithail wrote: That's why we have juries and judges. And lawyers.
What?
Yet you specifically gave an analogy that didn't require or involve any of those.
Do I have to introduce you to the simple concepts of RAI and RAW and FAQs and the like?
The rule is supposed to be always applied. YET certain circumstances might force it to waive it. You have a disability. You are a starting player who is still painting, etc etc. But if you own 4 3k points grey tides, then of course please give me my 10vp extra each time we play.
Go google "aggravating circumstances" and "mitigating factors", read about them and please try to understand my posture again.
Dudeface wrote: Genuine question that i'll preface by saying I'm a chilled person mostly and would always give someone with difficulties a break, but I'm actually struggling to think what kind of limitations someone might have that would prevent them from painting at all (I mean literally at all, not just haphazardly slapping paint on) but still facilitate them carefully picking up and moving minis/rolling dice.
Probably being naive so please educate me.
Very poor vision? Blindness is not a binary state, you can have varying stages of it. You might be able to see models just fine as they are quite big, compared to the millimetre details on some models.
As for moving models, again, moving models within an inch of each other doesn't really need that fine of motor skill, but painting millimetre sized details on a model does.
If you can read a tape measure then anything of equivalent size should be possible to paint surely? The rules don't require the service studs on the heads are painted, just that it's basically been painted to some degree, marine armour red, gun silver or w/e and not even neatly.
Again I'm happy for anyone to be in the game and would assist anyone but I just aren't aware would prevent you form loosely slapping paint on something to make it "battle ready" that doesn't remove the vision/fine motor skills to read a tape measure accurately or move a grot. Again i'm not talking about painting leather straps/belt buckles etc. just blocking in base colours.
I realise I might have a looser definition of battle ready than some though which helps.
Look, if you feel the need to pull out this rule on your opponent at a friendly game or pick-up game to have some fun on a Saturday... if this is the hill you're dying on to win THAT game... you're probably not the person a whole lot of people would want to be playing with in the first place. I mean, it really makes you "that guy". There's no defensible position for using this rule to make someone feel bad about winning/losing a game.
What's important to realize is that while there was a "required painting" regulation enforced at the highest tiers of organized play, there was no standardization. There was no way to know what was permissible or what was not. It was a lot of guess and check. Especially between these different events. Maybe unbased models would be allowed here... but basing was enforced there. Perhaps 3 dots of colored paint just made the cut here, but over there they wanted "no shown primer" or something. All this rule does is ESTABLISH A STANDARD. Now we all know what the minimal acceptable qualifications are. And now if you want to maximize the scoring potential of an army, you know that not only is unit composition vital, but also assembly AND painting will play a hand in you realizing that full potential.
If anything, this rule makes EVERY TOURNAMENT MORE ACCESSIBLE. As now, there is no penalty for showing up with a gray tide. Previously, you'd be barred from entry at all, now you're just put at a "disadvantage". So... technically, every event just became easier to access for all players, even the new ones who haven't had years (or hundreds of dollars) to paint their armies up. Now they are technically included as well.
So let's keep going on at how this rule will be used to shame people at local pick-up games where the results literally mean nothing past your ego. Let's keep on about how crappy people will flaunt this over their "buddies" and make a world where that is socially acceptable. Continue to make victims out of people who will more likely respond "well, if this is how you need to behave to feel good about yourself..." and simply tally this fictitious predator up as a guy they just won't play against.
The heart of this rule is to formalize that painting is a part of the hobby, and the expectation for participation at organized events (you know, where those VPs actually matter). They've tried for YEARS to encourage gamers to voluntarily paint. I'm sure they've had a ton of inner discussions exactly like this on the merits of awarding tangible awards for painting as opposed to just hinting that it was the right thing to do for the hobby. The fact that they've put it down as a written rule should tell you how much they care about that aspect of the game, how important that phase of the hobby is to their overall vision of the game.
Should this rule be used to exclude new players at local clubs and slather them with L's to prop up our egos with W's? Heck no, that literally makes you "that guy". Just like bringing your full tournament "net list" to a game vs a guy with a Start Collecting box and smashing him with stupid rule interactions that require a law degree to unravel. If you can let off of the gas pedal to make the game fun and engaging for that guy by playing down to his army on the table... you can make the experience rewarding by NOT USING THIS RULE TO FLIP THE EXPERIENCE TO A NEGATIVE ONE.
People have agency.
And this rule will be the ultimate TFG detector. It'll bring them all out to the surface where we can properly tell them "that's not cool man, that's not how you treat people in this hobby". Maybe it'll help clean up some of those scummy people.
...why is everyone making this out to be an end-of-battle "gotcha" moment - it makes more sense to address the Battle Ready status of the armies before the game kicks off, so both players know where they stand.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
BaconCatBug wrote: If I wanted to play a wishy-washy game with no rules I'd play Calvinball or Dungeons and Dragons or just go play pretend with the local community theatre group. When I play a board game, I want to use a set of rules and mechanics in order to achieve a win state and avoid a failure state.
D&D is "a wishy-washy game with no rules"? What are you smoking, BCB?
This is my favourite thread on Dakka rn. Loving all the righteous indignation and the community imploding in on itself over something that has been an integral part of wargaming since its inception in the 19th century.
You don’t want to paint? There’s plenty of board, computer and prepainted games out there for ya! GW indicated quite some time ago that that is the way they want the wind to blow (in the current SM codex and in the WHW tournament pack) so this should not be a surprise.
Dudeface wrote: Genuine question that i'll preface by saying I'm a chilled person mostly and would always give someone with difficulties a break, but I'm actually struggling to think what kind of limitations someone might have that would prevent them from painting at all (I mean literally at all, not just haphazardly slapping paint on) but still facilitate them carefully picking up and moving minis/rolling dice.
Probably being naive so please educate me.
Very poor vision? Blindness is not a binary state, you can have varying stages of it. You might be able to see models just fine as they are quite big, compared to the millimetre details on some models.
As for moving models, again, moving models within an inch of each other doesn't really need that fine of motor skill, but painting millimetre sized details on a model does.
I would be up for trying to paint a model with my vision somehow impaired. Imo there are techniques capable of getting reasonable results under the circumstances, such as spraying, drybrushing and dip-washing.
Grimtuff wrote: This is my favourite thread on Dakka rn. Loving all the righteous indignation and the community imploding in on itself over something that has been an integral part of wargaming since its inception in the 19th century.
You don’t want to paint? There’s plenty of board, computer and prepainted games out there for ya! GW indicated quite some time ago that that is the way they want the wind to blow (in the current SM codex and in the WHW tournament pack) so this should not be a surprise.
To be fair we've all be shut inside so long that going bananas is our default setting! I'm sure on a normal sunny day in July no one would have worried for 2 seconds over this rule
Grimtuff wrote: This is my favourite thread on Dakka rn. Loving all the righteous indignation and the community imploding in on itself over something that has been an integral part of wargaming since its inception in the 19th century.
Part of the hobby, but not part of the game. There is a difference, and if this really was your fav thread on Dakka currently then surely having read the thread you would have realised that by now.
Do I have to introduce you to the simple concepts of RAI and RAW and FAQs and the like?
Do you understand that not every rule has different RAI from RAW? Hence why those FAQs don't clarify every single rule in the entire rulebook.
For once, GW's rules are actually clear on this issue - if the base isn't painted, then the rest of the model might as well be grey plastic for all the difference it makes.
Again, if you don't think this is reasonable, then tell GW to change their rules for what constitutes Battle Ready models.
The rule is supposed to be always applied. YET certain circumstances might force it to waive it. You have a disability. You are a starting player who is still painting, etc etc. But if you own 4 3k points grey tides, then of course please give me my 10vp extra each time we play.
You seem to be proving the exact point I was making.
Kithail wrote: Go google "aggravating circumstances" and "mitigating factors", read about them and please try to understand my posture again.
Given that one of your previous posts was a massive rant about how aggravating circumstances don't count, and that disables people can basically go F themselves if they don't have a fully-painted army, you'll forgive me if I take this comment with a massive pinch of salt.
Further, I'm still unclear on why this rule needs to exist in the first place. I don't believe any other rule relating to scoring VPs needs to take disabilities or similar factors into account. You know, because they're based on what actually happened in the specific game you're playing, not on whether or not your army is painted to GW's arbitrary standards.
But I guess it wouldn't be dakkadakka without people being told that they're having fun wrong.
Purifying Tempest wrote:Should this rule be used to exclude new players at local clubs and slather them with L's to prop up our egos with W's? Heck no, that literally makes you "that guy". Just like bringing your full tournament "net list" to a game vs a guy with a Start Collecting box and smashing him with stupid rule interactions that require a law degree to unravel. If you can let off of the gas pedal to make the game fun and engaging for that guy by playing down to his army on the table... you can make the experience rewarding by NOT USING THIS RULE TO FLIP THE EXPERIENCE TO A NEGATIVE ONE.
People have agency.
This is the most important rule for a reason. Just because a rule says XYZ doesn't mean that, if you and your opponent agree, you have to do it. Nothing's forcing you to take those extra VPs, just like how I can *choose* to make a bad tactical move or not use an obvious ability or stratagem or something like that. I can waive things in order to promote a game experience I prefer.
Example: playing a game against Death Guard, my Firstborn Ultramarines do exceptionally well, and essentially pincer the DG into a killzone, leaving only Typhus alive. I *could* have just fired everything at him, shot him from a safe distance, or even charged in with my Terminators and Calgar to make short work of him. I ignored my shooting phase, and went straight to charging with Calgar alone, and we got a mutual kill. Was it the tactical move to do? No, certainly not. But was it more fun and enjoyable? Yes, by several degrees.
The same should be said of this rule, like any GW rule. Use your initiative, and find the approach that is the most fun. If your idea of fun is RAW, no slacking, 'dems the rules', that's fine - but that says more about your own mentality.
Dudeface wrote: Genuine question that i'll preface by saying I'm a chilled person mostly and would always give someone with difficulties a break, but I'm actually struggling to think what kind of limitations someone might have that would prevent them from painting at all (I mean literally at all, not just haphazardly slapping paint on) but still facilitate them carefully picking up and moving minis/rolling dice.
Probably being naive so please educate me.
Very poor vision? Blindness is not a binary state, you can have varying stages of it. You might be able to see models just fine as they are quite big, compared to the millimetre details on some models.
As for moving models, again, moving models within an inch of each other doesn't really need that fine of motor skill, but painting millimetre sized details on a model does.
I would be up for trying to paint a model with my vision somehow impaired. Imo there are techniques capable of getting reasonable results under the circumstances, such as spraying, drybrushing and dip-washing.
Yeah, there are loads of ways you can pull off a good looking army with very little technical skill. Ghostly armies can be as simple as a contrast spray, and something like aethermatic blue contrast over the top. Or, grey spray, wash with black or green, chuck on a drybrush of a light grey, and you've got animated statues.
If people want to go for the millimetre scale details, they're welcome, but they don't *have* to.
Scenario: I give my two kids $10 for doing chores around the house each week. First kid mowed the lawn, second kid laid around on the couch all week. I give the $10 to the kid that did the chore and helped out and give $0 to the lazy kid. Lazy kid is now crying that it's not fair because they don't like chores so neither of them should get the $10... The second kid isn't being penalized here.
Your example is wrong. Both kids mowed the lawn, one did it in up and down lines, the other in checkerboard. You took $5 from the first kid and gave it to the 2nd because it matched your aesthetic more, yet the goal here is shortening the grass.
No, your changing the entire premise. It's called making a strawman. The entire rule is not qualitative, it's quantitative. Did you paint your army? Yes or No.
Your taking my fair example and trying to rephrase it to be how well was the job done. A subjective metric, not objective.
Kithail wrote: Go google "aggravating circumstances" and "mitigating factors", read about them and please try to understand my posture again.
Given that one of your previous posts was a massive rant about how aggravating circumstances don't count, and that disables people can basically go F themselves if they don't have a fully-painted army, you'll forgive me if I take this comment with a massive pinch of salt.
I think you are referring to mitigating factors instead but it's a minor confusion. Those mitigating factors may vary. As I clearly explained beforehand, if someone shares a table with me with an unpainted army, I might enquire why is this the case. "I just started playing and I am visually impaired" is a satisfying explanation. As I exhaustively elaborated earlier, I'd offer said person certain options and solutions for their situation, that would even include ME volunteering to help them for FREE.
If months later you show up to share a table with me again with a different grey tide, your explanation is no longer valid. You could have dedicated some of the money you obviously have (new grey tide right here. Wh40k minis ain't cheap) to decent your army but you didn't, because mainly you DONT give a f*** about it. Not me giving a f*** about you, you not giving it. Then yes, I'll take those 10vp thankyouverymuch, visually impaired or not or whatever.
Kithail wrote: Well yes, if someone tries to pull off that rule from those models, that'd be a TFG manouver. There is effort clearly put on those models.
I don't see how people start pulling exceptions to discard the rule. Exceptions are exactly that, exceptions. You paint yet you don't base your models. Maybe you like or prefer black bases. Guess what, this rule is not and should not be about you, and trying to apply it to you is a dick move.
The thing is that there actually has been an issue with a TO that told me that he wouldn't allow my army because it was not based. I have no problem with skipping a single event with an organizer like that, but having something so subjective hard-coded into every mission is just dumb.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Galas wrote: Please guys. I would sincerely ask to stop using disabled people like some kind of cheap argumentative missile to gain internet points.
I hate painting as one could have but is just disgusting to use that "shield" to put yourself back with your opinion.
This.
I mean we had a person who is literally almost blind say the rule is bad, what more does the pro-side want?
Scenario: I give my two kids $10 for doing chores around the house each week. First kid mowed the lawn, second kid laid around on the couch all week. I give the $10 to the kid that did the chore and helped out and give $0 to the lazy kid. Lazy kid is now crying that it's not fair because they don't like chores so neither of them should get the $10... The second kid isn't being penalized here.
Your example is wrong. Both kids mowed the lawn, one did it in up and down lines, the other in checkerboard. You took $5 from the first kid and gave it to the 2nd because it matched your aesthetic more, yet the goal here is shortening the grass.
No, the example was spot on.
.
Nope. Both children are cutting the grass, IE playing the Tabletop game. Youre giving extra money/VP to the one with racing stripes on his lawnmower.
If you're not cutting the grass you aren't playing. Both showed up, both tabled an army, both threw the dice.
Giving one +10 is no different than - 5/+5. The result is the same. For the same effort *in the moment* you're penalizing one and rewarding the other for something not directly related to the game there and then.
Stop being dishonest.
Fine, we can alter the example, but in a fair way. Both kids mow one acre for $10 each. I offer an additional $10 for each acre after the first. Kid A does an additional acre while kid B plays video games. Kids B isn't losing anything, instead kid A is EARNING more then kid B. It's a carrot based on merit.
JohnnyHell wrote: Honestly, your example adds nothing. You’re trying to find axes to grind. You’ve never fought for disabled rights before trying to use this to soapbox from so it’s just plain disingenuous.
This rule is only a sticking point if you lack the empathy to make reasonable adjustments for a disabled opponent. It’s a non-problem unless you insist on being a douche and enforcing all Matched Play Rules to the letter instead of being a good human. That’s all there is to it.
Because it's never been an issue with the rules before.
False. You need to assemble your models. Learn the rules. Physically be capable of remaining concious or taking actions leaning over/across the table etc.
No, whats happening here is your %100 using a corner case to win an argument, which is pretty terrible.
Likewise you have no idea what health state anyone here is in that doesn't wish to share. I don't want to take the conversation down the path of who has more authority based on their immutable characteristics. So please stop.
The game already require dispensations for certain life circumstances, acting like the rules are required for you to be a human being is a very strange stance to take.
Purifying Tempest wrote:Should this rule be used to exclude new players at local clubs and slather them with L's to prop up our egos with W's? Heck no, that literally makes you "that guy". Just like bringing your full tournament "net list" to a game vs a guy with a Start Collecting box and smashing him with stupid rule interactions that require a law degree to unravel. If you can let off of the gas pedal to make the game fun and engaging for that guy by playing down to his army on the table... you can make the experience rewarding by NOT USING THIS RULE TO FLIP THE EXPERIENCE TO A NEGATIVE ONE.
People have agency.
This is the most important rule for a reason. Just because a rule says XYZ doesn't mean that, if you and your opponent agree, you have to do it. Nothing's forcing you to take those extra VPs, just like how I can *choose* to make a bad tactical move or not use an obvious ability or stratagem or something like that. I can waive things in order to promote a game experience I prefer.
Example: playing a game against Death Guard, my Firstborn Ultramarines do exceptionally well, and essentially pincer the DG into a killzone, leaving only Typhus alive. I *could* have just fired everything at him, shot him from a safe distance, or even charged in with my Terminators and Calgar to make short work of him. I ignored my shooting phase, and went straight to charging with Calgar alone, and we got a mutual kill. Was it the tactical move to do? No, certainly not. But was it more fun and enjoyable? Yes, by several degrees.
The same should be said of this rule, like any GW rule. Use your initiative, and find the approach that is the most fun. If your idea of fun is RAW, no slacking, 'dems the rules', that's fine - but that says more about your own mentality.
Dudeface wrote: Genuine question that i'll preface by saying I'm a chilled person mostly and would always give someone with difficulties a break, but I'm actually struggling to think what kind of limitations someone might have that would prevent them from painting at all (I mean literally at all, not just haphazardly slapping paint on) but still facilitate them carefully picking up and moving minis/rolling dice.
Probably being naive so please educate me.
Very poor vision? Blindness is not a binary state, you can have varying stages of it. You might be able to see models just fine as they are quite big, compared to the millimetre details on some models.
As for moving models, again, moving models within an inch of each other doesn't really need that fine of motor skill, but painting millimetre sized details on a model does.
I would be up for trying to paint a model with my vision somehow impaired. Imo there are techniques capable of getting reasonable results under the circumstances, such as spraying, drybrushing and dip-washing.
Yeah, there are loads of ways you can pull off a good looking army with very little technical skill. Ghostly armies can be as simple as a contrast spray, and something like aethermatic blue contrast over the top. Or, grey spray, wash with black or green, chuck on a drybrush of a light grey, and you've got animated statues.
If people want to go for the millimetre scale details, they're welcome, but they don't *have* to.
Honestly your anecdote is stupid. It's basically saying "hey I won the game anyway, so I'll gloat by doing something stupid in game". That's not agency at all.
Scenario: I give my two kids $10 for doing chores around the house each week. First kid mowed the lawn, second kid laid around on the couch all week. I give the $10 to the kid that did the chore and helped out and give $0 to the lazy kid. Lazy kid is now crying that it's not fair because they don't like chores so neither of them should get the $10... The second kid isn't being penalized here.
Your example is wrong. Both kids mowed the lawn, one did it in up and down lines, the other in checkerboard. You took $5 from the first kid and gave it to the 2nd because it matched your aesthetic more, yet the goal here is shortening the grass.
No, the example was spot on.
.
Nope. Both children are cutting the grass, IE playing the Tabletop game. Youre giving extra money/VP to the one with racing stripes on his lawnmower.
If you're not cutting the grass you aren't playing. Both showed up, both tabled an army, both threw the dice.
Giving one +10 is no different than - 5/+5. The result is the same. For the same effort *in the moment* you're penalizing one and rewarding the other for something not directly related to the game there and then.
Stop being dishonest.
Fine, we can alter the example, but in a fair way. Both kids mow one acre for $10 each. I offer an additional $10 for each acre after the first. Kid A does an additional acre while kid B plays video games. Kids B isn't losing anything, instead kid A is EARNING more then kid B. It's a carrot based on merit.
JohnnyHell wrote: Honestly, your example adds nothing. You’re trying to find axes to grind. You’ve never fought for disabled rights before trying to use this to soapbox from so it’s just plain disingenuous.
This rule is only a sticking point if you lack the empathy to make reasonable adjustments for a disabled opponent. It’s a non-problem unless you insist on being a douche and enforcing all Matched Play Rules to the letter instead of being a good human. That’s all there is to it.
Because it's never been an issue with the rules before.
False. You need to assemble your models. Learn the rules. Physically be capable of remaining concious or taking actions leaning over/across the table etc.
No, whats happening here is your %100 using a corner case to win an argument, which is pretty terrible.
Likewise you have no idea what health state anyone here is in that doesn't wish to share. I don't want to take the conversation down the path of who has more authority based on their immutable characteristics. So please stop.
The game already require dispensations for certain life circumstances, acting like the rules are required for you to be a human being is a very strange stance to take.
Nope. If you need to make special exceptions to the rule in a ton of circumstances, it means the rule didn't need to exist in the first place. Either the rule should be followed or you can admit it's just a bad rule.
Sentineil wrote: Does painting your bases black not meet the criteria for battle ready?
They all just come from the a jet black marble world
It would, there just looking for ammunition.
It doesn't count. It looks the same. Unless you think painting the entire army the same exact shade of gray as the plastic makes it count as Battle Ready.
Again, the issue here is not if you can house-rule it away or "agree with your opponent" or anything since you always could do that, and tournaments always had painted as part of the event pack if it was a big event. It's that getting a bonus for having a painted army, irrespective of anything else in the game is now a CORE RULE expected to be used and followed in every game of Warhammer 40,000 by default. Sure you can ignore it. You can also ignore how to set up the game or the mission or anything else in the core rule, but the expectation by default is that you aren't.
That's the underlying issue here. This should not have been a core rule. The fact you can ignore it doesn't mean the rule should exist.
Grimtuff wrote: This is my favourite thread on Dakka rn. Loving all the righteous indignation and the community imploding in on itself over something that has been an integral part of wargaming since its inception in the 19th century.
Part of the hobby, but not part of the game. There is a difference, and if this really was your fav thread on Dakka currently then surely having read the thread you would have realised that by now.
Again, did you read the thread? There are some here who have made it clear that it isn't a simple matter of wanting to or not wanting to paint.
Except you and I both know the game is considered part of the hobby to GW. You have even joked about it (HHHobby). They even consider purchasing part of their hhhobby. You don't have to like it but it's already been there for a while.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Grimtuff wrote: Except, for good or ill it IS part of the game now, and has been since the 2.0 SM dex.
GW married paint schemes to rules in there. That is the way they want the wind to blow in their game.
Scenario: I give my two kids $10 for doing chores around the house each week. First kid mowed the lawn, second kid laid around on the couch all week. I give the $10 to the kid that did the chore and helped out and give $0 to the lazy kid. Lazy kid is now crying that it's not fair because they don't like chores so neither of them should get the $10... The second kid isn't being penalized here.
Your example is wrong. Both kids mowed the lawn, one did it in up and down lines, the other in checkerboard. You took $5 from the first kid and gave it to the 2nd because it matched your aesthetic more, yet the goal here is shortening the grass.
No, the example was spot on.
.
Nope. Both children are cutting the grass, IE playing the Tabletop game. Youre giving extra money/VP to the one with racing stripes on his lawnmower.
If you're not cutting the grass you aren't playing. Both showed up, both tabled an army, both threw the dice.
Giving one +10 is no different than - 5/+5. The result is the same. For the same effort *in the moment* you're penalizing one and rewarding the other for something not directly related to the game there and then.
Stop being dishonest.
Fine, we can alter the example, but in a fair way. Both kids mow one acre for $10 each. I offer an additional $10 for each acre after the first. Kid A does an additional acre while kid B plays video games. Kids B isn't losing anything, instead kid A is EARNING more then kid B. It's a carrot based on merit.
JohnnyHell wrote: Honestly, your example adds nothing. You’re trying to find axes to grind. You’ve never fought for disabled rights before trying to use this to soapbox from so it’s just plain disingenuous.
This rule is only a sticking point if you lack the empathy to make reasonable adjustments for a disabled opponent. It’s a non-problem unless you insist on being a douche and enforcing all Matched Play Rules to the letter instead of being a good human. That’s all there is to it.
Because it's never been an issue with the rules before.
False. You need to assemble your models. Learn the rules. Physically be capable of remaining concious or taking actions leaning over/across the table etc.
No, whats happening here is your %100 using a corner case to win an argument, which is pretty terrible.
Likewise you have no idea what health state anyone here is in that doesn't wish to share. I don't want to take the conversation down the path of who has more authority based on their immutable characteristics. So please stop.
The game already require dispensations for certain life circumstances, acting like the rules are required for you to be a human being is a very strange stance to take.
Nope. If you need to make special exceptions to the rule in a ton of circumstances, it means the rule didn't need to exist in the first place. Either the rule should be followed or you can admit it's just a bad rule.
Sentineil wrote: Does painting your bases black not meet the criteria for battle ready?
They all just come from the a jet black marble world
It would, there just looking for ammunition.
It doesn't count. It looks the same. Unless you think painting the entire army the same exact shade of gray as the plastic makes it count as Battle Ready.
It would lol. I guess you don't know about the Space sharks chapter eh?
H.B.M.C. wrote: Part of the hobby, but not part of the game.
This is a fallacy. It is a part of the game same way than assembling models is (except the painting requirement is far more lenient.) It is utterly absurd to have a fit about a thing that has been a common part of the wargaming since the 19th century. Sure, it would be nice if common courtesy would be enough to get people to show up only with painted armies like in historical wargames, but as that is evidently not the case this rule is required.
Please do not quote massive slabs of text simply to reply with a single line.
I know about them, and Tyberos is my second favorite Marine character. I also know that it doesn't count under these rules since they use super little color and all. Just grey and black, and it's a shame that poor player didn't color the eyes yet! No 10VP for them!
Ignoring the arguments for a second, but can y'all break out the spoiler tags for the massive quotes, especially if you're only making a single line jab as a response?
Jidmah wrote: I just realized that none of my models are battle-ready, can you guess why?
I guess I'll just lose 10 point every game and start fielding grey models again.
Aahhh yes, the infamous black bases, welcome friend, to the club that get's shafted because we don't want to base (or can't really. or don't want to because snow base looks wierd on desert table or green table for that matter...)
I actually like black bases
Heck, those death guard are on bases that were primed white and then painted black again.
i know, i did the same for my whole R&H army, specifically because it is a base type that fits on every table, and also because i notoriously often destroy minis via basing process.
OK, now i'm morbidly curious - how do you destroy models by basing them?
Recipe for such a desaster:
- shortisghtedness and glasses not put on because glasses get annoying.
- Bad luck.
- used glue, blocked.
- sand.
- a cat.
Gluing models to cats is generally a bad idea, true
Having a cat decide that your models that you prepared are toys to be pushed into thined glue that you prepared and forgot is also bad that was the second incident.....
Jidmah wrote: I just realized that none of my models are battle-ready, can you guess why?
I guess I'll just lose 10 point every game and start fielding grey models again.
Aahhh yes, the infamous black bases, welcome friend, to the club that get's shafted because we don't want to base (or can't really. or don't want to because snow base looks wierd on desert table or green table for that matter...)
I actually like black bases
Heck, those death guard are on bases that were primed white and then painted black again.
i know, i did the same for my whole R&H army, specifically because it is a base type that fits on every table, and also because i notoriously often destroy minis via basing process.
OK, now i'm morbidly curious - how do you destroy models by basing them?
Recipe for such a desaster:
- shortisghtedness and glasses not put on because glasses get annoying.
- Bad luck.
- used glue, blocked.
- sand.
- a cat.
Gluing models to cats is generally a bad idea, true
Having a cat decide that your models that you prepared are toys to be pushed into thined glue that you prepared and forgot is also bad that was the second incident.....
My old dog ate 5 Necron Warriors and chewed on the rest at one time. He came out okay at least.
BaconCatBug wrote: GW: Warhammer is for Everyone!
Also GW: Unless you're disabled, then you can sod right off and even if you do try you'll have a disadvantage (was going to make a golfing joke here but decided against it).
If you play a disabled opponent you can make reasonable adjustments if you’re a decent human, including such things as waiving the painted requirement and granting them the VPs. Damn, solved it without needing any salt, would you look at that.
Many disabilities are invisible. Having to announce it Sucks.
Also, then you have the "oh poor disabled person, here let me bend the rules for you, I'm being so nice." Thing.
I'm behind this rule. its so minor that it doesn't really even really impact most games. Most games of 40k I see are never that close where this will matter, they are usually severe beat downs.
I will never use this rule and I will never play with anyone who attempts to enforce it. Luckily all my local tournaments do not enforce paint because we understand that the only thing that matters in a game is the game itself. Painting has no sway over a game and shouldn't have sway over any points you gain.
I see nothing wrong with opting not to use it as a local group.
It confounds me how you'd choose to engage with this particular range and accompanying game if you aren't invested in the lore and painting side of things. As nothing but a set of rules it's one of the weaker options imo.
BaconCatBug wrote: GW: Warhammer is for Everyone!
Also GW: Unless you're disabled, then you can sod right off and even if you do try you'll have a disadvantage (was going to make a golfing joke here but decided against it).
If you play a disabled opponent you can make reasonable adjustments if you’re a decent human, including such things as waiving the painted requirement and granting them the VPs. Damn, solved it without needing any salt, would you look at that.
Many disabilities are invisible. Having to announce it Sucks.
Also, then you have the "oh poor disabled person, here let me bend the rules for you, I'm being so nice." Thing.
Exactly. I'm a broken record at this point but I'll say it again: if you have to houserule away something, there's an issue with the rule being implemented to begin with.
Exactly. I'm a broken record at this point but I'll say it again: if you have to houserule away something, there's an issue with the rule being implemented to begin with.
That is absurd though. You cannot write a rule, law or recommendation in such a way that there could never potentially be a situation which required making an exception. Now one could argue that a severe visual impairment is a common enough condition that it should be taken into account, but as a maxim your statement is obviously nonsensical.
Eldarain wrote: I see nothing wrong with opting not to use it as a local group.
It confounds me how you'd choose to engage with this particular range and accompanying game if you aren't invested in the lore and painting side of things. As nothing but a set of rules it's one of the weaker options imo.
Its the most popular table top war game?
Also, being invested in the lore doesn't equate to enjoying to paint or incentivize you to make your models look like those you have read about. You can, certainly. But this rule just incentivizes paint, not making a narrative around said paint.
Not a fan, and if my community decides as a whole to enforce it in our meta, I'm probably just going to not play as often as I used to. I'll focus on other games that don't require painting to score points or have fun the way the company dictates. I'll still paint my models, because I love painting Tyranids, but I'm not doing it on behalf of the rules.
I also fail to see how this really addresses people who didn't start painting to get everything done with the advent of guides and contrast paints. They're a great tool, and many people used them to speed their painting up.... but not everyone is going to be suddenly better/faster at painting. It's whatever though.
BaconCatBug wrote: GW: Warhammer is for Everyone!
Also GW: Unless you're disabled, then you can sod right off and even if you do try you'll have a disadvantage (was going to make a golfing joke here but decided against it).
If you play a disabled opponent you can make reasonable adjustments if you’re a decent human, including such things as waiving the painted requirement and granting them the VPs. Damn, solved it without needing any salt, would you look at that.
Many disabilities are invisible. Having to announce it Sucks.
Also, then you have the "oh poor disabled person, here let me bend the rules for you, I'm being so nice." Thing.
Financial hardship is also invisible, and keeping up with a rapidly evolving local meta, especially if you're just starting out, can be tough. But I've never seen a problem with people softening their lists or reducing the number of points or even arranging team games to meet the person who is less well off. At least in my meta, I've seen things things worked out in a positive fashion numerous times.
BaconCatBug wrote: GW: Warhammer is for Everyone!
Also GW: Unless you're disabled, then you can sod right off and even if you do try you'll have a disadvantage (was going to make a golfing joke here but decided against it).
If you play a disabled opponent you can make reasonable adjustments if you’re a decent human, including such things as waiving the painted requirement and granting them the VPs. Damn, solved it without needing any salt, would you look at that.
Many disabilities are invisible. Having to announce it Sucks.
Also, then you have the "oh poor disabled person, here let me bend the rules for you, I'm being so nice." Thing.
Empathy is different to pity. Try using empathy.
Making helpful or needed accommodations after a request is not bending the rules to be nice. It’s being a decent person. It’s a game of toy soldiers not anything crucial. You won’t die or have to leave town if you lose a game of Warhammer.
Many disabilities are invisible and yes, feeling you have to announce them sucks. If someone has to tell you about a disability to get through a game they may decide they need to, so that accommodations can be made and the game can be fun for both players. Once informed and an accommodation is requested, well, if you continue to say “bUt ThE rUlEs!” and pretend that’s a get-out for having to be a decent human then YATA, and the problem is not the Rules. Seriously, if you gleefully take +10VP vs someone who’s told you they literally can’t paint their army for some reason then... well, just don’t be that guy. Be better than that.
It’s fundamentally no different to agreeing how terrain plays today or what the points limit is. Social contract, people. Game should be fun for both players. That this is an alien concept in so many threads is alarming. Not every game is cutthroat 2K Matched Play Tourney Rules Fun Forbidden.
Exactly. I'm a broken record at this point but I'll say it again: if you have to houserule away something, there's an issue with the rule being implemented to begin with.
That is absurd though. You cannot write a rule, law or recommendation in such a way that there could never potentially be a situation which required making an exception. Now one could argue that a severe visual impairment is a common enough condition that it should be taken into account, but as a maxim your statement is obviously nonsensical.
I find that in games between people with real miniatures on a real tabletop there is a pre-game dialogue about the terms of the battle. Tourneys are easy because it’s done for us by the tourney pack and no need for negotiation. Pre-arranged games allow for a discussion before coming to the table. Pick up games are, perhaps the hardest. In any case, a discussion about the nature of the game and victory conditions should prevent most hurt feelings at the end of the game from this rule.
Pick up game against an enthusiastic new player with an unpainted army? Gladly, and we won’t even have VPs. Pick up game against someone preparing for a tourney? Gladly use the +10 VP rule. Pick up game against a veteran player with an unpainted army? Before the game is the time to talk about VPs.
It’s not +10 VP to the best painted. It’s 10 VP available to both players.
It’s a hot button here on Dakka, but every thread about painting vs not-painting seems to get emotional. Perhaps the reality in the FLGS will be much less exciting. Some thought provoking perspectives in this thread, though, and there are some thing so to reflect on a simple members of the gaming community.
I never paint my armies because I neither want to paint nor have the money to have someone else do it. If I’m playing casually and someone tries to pulls this on me I will not be happy. Painting shouldn’t be required
Exactly. I'm a broken record at this point but I'll say it again: if you have to houserule away something, there's an issue with the rule being implemented to begin with.
That is absurd though. You cannot write a rule, law or recommendation in such a way that there could never potentially be a situation which required making an exception. Now one could argue that a severe visual impairment is a common enough condition that it should be taken into account, but as a maxim your statement is obviously nonsensical.
Those laws have the exceptions written in place though. It's illegal kill people still, but if they break into your home you have the right to defend yourself as necessary in almost all the states, or have similar laws in place. If that's not put in stone, or something similar, those people still end up being charged as the jury, regardless of any sympathy or empathy, known they had broken the law.
DeathKorp_Rider wrote: I never paint my armies because I neither want to paint nor have the money to have someone else do it. If I’m playing casually and someone tries to pulls this on me I will not be happy. Painting shouldn’t be required
Then what is required? Where is the line? What if I hate assembling? Mold lines? WYSIWYG? Why even have the proper models, or even models at all? Coke cans fine? What about codex? I don't like my rules this edition, can we just ignore them? At least GW enforced a line for once.
It's amazing how we've gone from +10VP for having a fully painted army to shooting home intruders dead. Have to love the internet and it's ridiculous hyperbolic analogies.
DeathKorp_Rider wrote: I never paint my armies because I neither want to paint nor have the money to have someone else do it. If I’m playing casually and someone tries to pulls this on me I will not be happy. Painting shouldn’t be required
Then what is required? Where is the line? What if I hate assembling? Mold lines? WYSIWYG? Why even have the proper models, or even models at all? Coke cans fine? What about codex? I don't like my rules this edition, can we just ignore them? At least GW enforced a line for once.
DeathKorp_Rider wrote: I never paint my armies because I neither want to paint nor have the money to have someone else do it. If I’m playing casually and someone tries to pulls this on me I will not be happy. Painting shouldn’t be required
Then what is required? Where is the line? What if I hate assembling? Mold lines? WYSIWYG? Why even have the proper models, or even models at all? Coke cans fine? What about codex? I don't like my rules this edition, can we just ignore them? At least GW enforced a line for once.
That’s a BS comparison and you know it.
It's not. If you don't care about the visuals then it is idiotic to waste money on these expensive models in the first place. Just use some appropriately sized tokens.
DeathKorp_Rider wrote: I never paint my armies because I neither want to paint nor have the money to have someone else do it. If I’m playing casually and someone tries to pulls this on me I will not be happy. Painting shouldn’t be required
Then what is required? Where is the line? What if I hate assembling? Mold lines? WYSIWYG? Why even have the proper models, or even models at all? Coke cans fine? What about codex? I don't like my rules this edition, can we just ignore them? At least GW enforced a line for once.
The line is probably wherever you want it.
How far you go decides whether you're still playing 40k or not. Mold lines technically have no bearing on assembling a model. WYSIWYG is not codified in the rules. Proper models, what does that mean? No models can mean bases I suppose, coke cans for 60mm bases. Codex? Do you have one or are you using a homebrew? I'm sure people wouldn't mind that sometimes. But not even using your factions rule? Might be straying out of 40k there. Don't like the rules this edition? You could play a different edition, or not play 40k.
Crimson wrote: It's not. If you don't care about the visuals then it is idiotic to waste money on these expensive models in the first place. Just use some appropriately sized tokens.
Aren't models just tokens already? What if I got some really cheap models that were comparable? I dont think calling spending money on something you like idiotic, reasonable. What if you spent MORE on the models you have, but they're just not painted? Is that more idiotic because they like that model more than the comparable one?
It just seems like a weird angle to criticize someone from.
DeathKorp_Rider wrote: I never paint my armies because I neither want to paint nor have the money to have someone else do it. If I’m playing casually and someone tries to pulls this on me I will not be happy. Painting shouldn’t be required
Then what is required? Where is the line? What if I hate assembling? Mold lines? WYSIWYG? Why even have the proper models, or even models at all? Coke cans fine? What about codex? I don't like my rules this edition, can we just ignore them? At least GW enforced a line for once.
That’s a BS comparison and you know it.
It's not. If you don't care about the visuals then it is idiotic to waste money on these expensive models in the first place. Just use some appropriately sized tokens.
DeathKorp_Rider wrote: I never paint my armies because I neither want to paint nor have the money to have someone else do it. If I’m playing casually and someone tries to pulls this on me I will not be happy. Painting shouldn’t be required
There is always a flip. Here is the other perspective. I have spent hundreds of hours to paint a army and since it is implied in the hobby that painting is the desired norm (yes, I know people are going to argue this) I expect at least a cursory effort from the person im playing against. Looking at grey plastic just zaps so much of the fun of the game from me. Its not hard to at least put a base coat on and maybe a few colored shoulders or heads.
BUT. I will not not shame you for not painting. But pick up games are a negotiation of expectations if you do not know the person. Will I use this rule? Probably not. As I am likely to turn down a game against a unpainted army. Its very much in my right to do so as it is in YOUR right not to paint. Neither of us has primacy. But we both have expectations and if those do not match up there are many other people to play whom expectations do meet, for both of us. The negotiation will start and end with a good will handshake (before covid) and no hard feelings. Life is to short to spend your time playing in a game where you are not happy.
And since most tournaments in my area have painting reqs or award painting points such as the new rule this is not a issue I run into.
Some people cant paint for medical reasons. I have yet to meet anyone thus inflicted but I am very sure they exist. On the other hand I know two fellows who habitually do not paint at my store and there reasons are not as virtuous. One wont paint his Space Marine army because he doesn't want to commit to a chapter rule. The other wont paint for same reason but plays necrons. Either way, I never play them. BUT if a new player who was excited to start while he is in the stages of painting id drop my preference. Id also play against a person who doesn't paint due to a legitimate disability. Its all a negotiation.
DeathKorp_Rider wrote: I never paint my armies because I neither want to paint nor have the money to have someone else do it. If I’m playing casually and someone tries to pulls this on me I will not be happy. Painting shouldn’t be required
Then what is required? Where is the line? What if I hate assembling? Mold lines? WYSIWYG? Why even have the proper models, or even models at all? Coke cans fine? What about codex? I don't like my rules this edition, can we just ignore them? At least GW enforced a line for once.
That’s a BS comparison and you know it.
It's not. If you don't care about the visuals then it is idiotic to waste money on these expensive models in the first place. Just use some appropriately sized tokens.
Remember that one famous meme of the soldiers playing the game with appropriately sized rocks? As long as LoS works for them I don't see the issue. It's too expensive to waste money on stuff that doesn't work in the game.
BaconCatBug wrote: GW: Warhammer is for Everyone!
Also GW: Unless you're disabled, then you can sod right off and even if you do try you'll have a disadvantage (was going to make a golfing joke here but decided against it).
If you play a disabled opponent you can make reasonable adjustments if you’re a decent human, including such things as waiving the painted requirement and granting them the VPs. Damn, solved it without needing any salt, would you look at that.
Many disabilities are invisible. Having to announce it Sucks.
Also, then you have the "oh poor disabled person, here let me bend the rules for you, I'm being so nice." Thing.
Financial hardship is also invisible, and keeping up with a rapidly evolving local meta, especially if you're just starting out, can be tough. But I've never seen a problem with people softening their lists or reducing the number of points or even arranging team games to meet the person who is less well off. At least in my meta, I've seen things things worked out in a positive fashion numerous times.
You know what helps stop that need for keeping up with the Joneses? Better written rules! If that were the case, you wouldn't need to try and gain an advantage via saying someone's bases aren't enough effort and deny them 10 points!
My point is that the line previously was arbitrary. Especially when it came to painting. Nothing was ever defined, but there was enough social pressure to use models that were assembled, and generally looked like what they were trying to represent (for third party or conversions).
The only difference between then and now is GW established a standard. They're not hinting, implying, or even saying that's the way it is supposed to be. They are ruling that it is the standard. If you want those points, if you need them, you know what the standard is now.
There's no more loose interpretations. There is a finite way to measure. I like clarity.
Again what makes this a problem is it's a codified rule. Talk about it before a game and a likely answer is "I want to play by the rules as outlined in the rule book" not well I'll ignore this line because you asked nicely and you have a unit still WIP.
I honestly think it should be calm at this point. First, holidays for some, second I doubt anything new will be said that will shift any views one way or the other. It's more an open discussion to change minds or at least have people think on it some. For that, I think it's been a fine topic.
We just need to try and not attack each other over it as that is one of the worst parts about the spirit of this rule the divisions it can incite no matter how tongue in cheek I feel it was supposed to be in the designers eyes. Another case of not understanding how the community at large plays or thinks.
I will say this though, if the rule means they'll take away forcing to have painted armies at big tournaments then I understand it being in the book. I honestly doubt they will take away the need for all painted armies though which again makes the rule just feel bad and contrary to rule number 1. As players could always just deny games against un painted armies if it offended them in the first place.
DeathKorp_Rider wrote: I never paint my armies because I neither want to paint nor have the money to have someone else do it. If I’m playing casually and someone tries to pulls this on me I will not be happy. Painting shouldn’t be required
Then what is required? Where is the line? What if I hate assembling?
The minimum on our tables is assembled models. Paint optional.
Depends. Are you intending me to apply damage from the weapons you've paid the pts for? If so I'd better be seeing them modeled on your stuff. Otherwise I'm taking the min from whatever you did arm them with (assuming the weapon chosen was a valid option).
You don’t want to paint? There’s plenty of board, computer and prepainted games out there for ya! GW indicated quite some time ago that that is the way they want the wind to blow (in the current SM codex and in the WHW tournament pack) so this should not be a surprise.
You get this rule punishes the player with 99 models painted to display level on the battlefield and 1 just primed, as much as it does to an entire army of grey plastic right?
You don’t want to paint? There’s plenty of board, computer and prepainted games out there for ya! GW indicated quite some time ago that that is the way they want the wind to blow (in the current SM codex and in the WHW tournament pack) so this should not be a surprise.
You get this rule punishes the player with 99 models painted to display level on the battlefield and 1 just primed, as much as it does to an entire army of grey plastic right?
You get that this rule is not binary, right? It has several shades of grey (boom boom!) to it. Show up with a horde of grey that I know you have had for years? No VP for you. Add a mini to your army that you literally bought and assembled that day? Well, I guess we can look the other way...
You don’t want to paint? There’s plenty of board, computer and prepainted games out there for ya! GW indicated quite some time ago that that is the way they want the wind to blow (in the current SM codex and in the WHW tournament pack) so this should not be a surprise.
You get this rule punishes the player with 99 models painted to display level on the battlefield and 1 just primed, as much as it does to an entire army of grey plastic right?
You get that this rule is not binary, right? It has several shades of grey (boom boom!) to it. Show up with a horde of grey that I know you have had for years? No VP for you. Add a mini to your army that you literally bought and assembled that day? Well, I guess we can look the other way...
I’d assume you’d say something before playing then? If both players don’t consent it really doesn’t count
Grimtuff wrote: If they show up with an unpainted army they know exactly what they're getting in for. The rules are right there.
The painting has no effect on the gameplay, therefore it has no effect at all unless all players agree to it
Given this is codified in the rules, it does now - and, as was pointed out earlier, has arguably done so sine sub-faction bonuses which tie into paint schemes have been a thing during 8th.
The thing is, and I'm certain the "why bother with models at all" people are fully aware, we can play a fully proxied game and the winner will still be the winner.
Now you're giving VPs to the person who painted their proxies.
That's literally how dumb this rule is.
Back in the day we had very limited purchase options here in the ass end of Africa. We often fielded paper cutouts for hard to get minis. Heck I once fielded an army which contained 1 metal Hive Tyrant, 3 plastic Warriors and 9 plastic SC Genestealers, the rest of my 2000pts was paper cut outs. And yeah, I coloured the photocopies in. Should they have rated +10VP?
In a painted army game it cancels out. In a unpainted /unfinished army game it cancels out. Enough people have said they won't enforce it on a couple models, or noobs or the impaired. So tell me again why it is such a critical rule?
You don’t want to paint? There’s plenty of board, computer and prepainted games out there for ya! GW indicated quite some time ago that that is the way they want the wind to blow (in the current SM codex and in the WHW tournament pack) so this should not be a surprise.
You get this rule punishes the player with 99 models painted to display level on the battlefield and 1 just primed, as much as it does to an entire army of grey plastic right?
An army of fully painted models with black bases also count the same as a half-assembled grey plastic models
The worst about this rule is that while I was fairly motivated to get everything painted before, now I have no motivation at all, since I know painting my army will count for nothing if I haven't gotten around to paint every single model I'm going to field.
The possibility of some TFG pulling a "nuh-uh, your bases aren't painted in the way GW dictates" doesn't help either. I'm probably going stop painting anything for a while now.
I much prefer to play with painted armies, and don't use models until they are painted (not necessarily finished, but certainly "battle ready" by my own painting ability), so I'm in favour of encouraging players to bring painted armies.
More often than not when I play at my local store my opponents have grey plastic at least in part, and sometimes the majority or even all their army. I've never refused a game against a grey plastic army.
That being said, I don't think this is the best approach. Not that I can think of a better one to encourage people to field a painted army.
That being said, I don't think this is the best approach. Not that I can think of a better one to encourage people to field a painted army.
GW have clearly tried the 'ol carrot approach for years with it being criminally easy to get an army painted these days with contrast, coloured plastics and different coloured undercoats yet people still dig their heels in (whilst simultaneously calling others "entitled" ) resisting what is a core part of the hobby pie for some unknown reason. So now they're doing the stick approach and quote, unquote "punishing" them for not getting off their collective backsides.
"I don't have time!". Well, make time. I've been around the block enough times to know that gamers are one of the flakiest bunch of people and it extends to all aspects of their lives, they'll try an commit to something then just abandon it. "Can't afford it!". Yes you can. Just don't buy (at least) 2 fething Domino's pizzas a week... "I don't have time!". Yes you do. Maybe you should stop playing WoW all night for once and do some painting instead... The list goes on. I've been in this hobby 23 years and have heard every excuse under the sun for people not wanting to paint.
And as an aside, the sole legally blind person I have met in this hobby still painted his fething models! He was blind on one eye and had half vision in the other and he still painted stuff! Because that was part of the hobby and what drew him in. Despite only having a 1/4 of the vision of everyone else he still painted stuff. The only concession he asked for (from the GW store, not opponents) was for them to have some special whippy sticks set aside with holes bored into the 6" and 12" parts so you could more easily see the typical ranges you use in (circa 3rd ed) 40k.
Then we have this army done by George Dellapina. A man who I am lead to believe is colour-blind. So, yeah...
You get that this rule is not binary, right? It has several shades of grey (boom boom!) to it. Show up with a horde of grey that I know you have had for years? No VP for you. Add a mini to your army that you literally bought and assembled that day? Well, I guess we can look the other way...
Both the RAW and RAI is absolutely binary. there is no other way to read it. the only way out is a house rule to ignore it, which I will always be doing, but sadly TFGs like BCB exist.
resisting what is a core part of the hobby pie for some unknown reason.
it's not an unknown reason. its an incredibly simple, oft repeated, easy to comprehend reason: they don't enjoy painting
Grimtuff wrote: Playing RAI is quite literally not binary. The clue is in the final letter of the initialism...
RAI is 'what did GW really mean for this rule to do' and applies when the wording of a rule or ability is able to be taken in more than one way due to poor technical writing on GWs behalf. that does not apply to something as straight forwardly set out as the new rule regarding painted armies. it's no less binary than the 'your army must include a warlord' rule.
where there is a difference between RAW and RAI, that's when we get FAQs and erratas to clarify things. Do you think GW are going to clarify that they only meant 90% of an army has to be painted? or all models that weren't purchased in the last week?
"Painted" is also hard to define objectively. A model that is painted with 2-3 colors, fully based but all the work done in a rush just to have it legal IMHO is not painted, it's just a plastic model tarnished with paint.
RAW even a model that is just primed, and based, counts as painted. It's actually painted, just in one color.
I love how 'playing by the rules as written' now makes you TFG.
Technically the rule is 'painted to a battle ready standard'. So it also excludes any models that are painted ABOVE the battle ready standard. So that second layer of highlights just cost you 10 points.
Blackie wrote:"Painted" is also hard to define objectively. A model that is painted with 2-3 colors, fully based but all the work done in a rush just to have it legal IMHO is not painted, it's just a plastic model tarnished with paint.
RAW even a model that is just primed, and based, counts as painted. It's actually painted, just in one color.
A full primed army should get the +10VP then.
This is why I hope they include a definition of the "Battle Ready Standard" within the book - at this point it is a game term, which presumably includes minimum standards, and therefore requires defining inside the book.
stratigo wrote:Goonhammer communicated it best. This will just be used by TFGs to browbeat newer players.
And boy there's a lot on dakkadakka
Any yet most people have said they wouldn't enforce it on a new player, but would enforce it on those who've been fielding a grey tide for years.
As Grim said, the carrot approach has gotten GW nowhere when it comes to "encouraging" people to paint their armies. They appear to have decided it is time to break out the 10VP stick instead.
I'd love to see a Designer's Commentary on this, though
stratigo wrote: Goonhammer communicated it best. This will just be used by TFGs to browbeat newer players.
And boy there's a lot on dakkadakka
Go on! Name and shame! Who are these supposed TFGs? I wanna know if I made the cut!
There have been tons of elitist donkey caves just in this thread who behave as if having a painted army makes them the second coming of christ. It's not an unrealistic concern.
Blackie wrote:"Painted" is also hard to define objectively. A model that is painted with 2-3 colors, fully based but all the work done in a rush just to have it legal IMHO is not painted, it's just a plastic model tarnished with paint.
RAW even a model that is just primed, and based, counts as painted. It's actually painted, just in one color.
A full primed army should get the +10VP then.
This is why I hope they include a definition of the "Battle Ready Standard" within the book - at this point it is a game term, which presumably includes minimum standards, and therefore requires defining inside the book.
stratigo wrote:Goonhammer communicated it best. This will just be used by TFGs to browbeat newer players.
And boy there's a lot on dakkadakka
Any yet most people have said they wouldn't enforce it on a new player, but would enforce it on those who've been fielding a grey tide for years.
As Grim said, the carrot approach has gotten GW nowhere when it comes to "encouraging" people to paint their armies. They appear to have decided it is time to break out the 10VP stick instead.
I'd love to see a Designer's Commentary on this, though
Battle ready standard is already defined, it's paint+wash. That's why blending, NMM, OSL, etc causes you to lose the 10 points.
I love how 'playing by the rules as written' now makes you TFG.
I suspect that comes from how he posts on here more than anything. I would like to think that playing against him wouldn't feel as much like having your fingernails pulled out than reading some of his posts does.
Unrelated point - did Assault weapons get fixed to actually work? I've not downloaded the free rules PDF yet.
Edit 2 - Actually went and looked and, without getting lawyer-y (as I'm not a lawyer) it looks like Assault weapons actually function as intended in 9th. Huzzah?
I love how 'playing by the rules as written' now makes you TFG.
Technically the rule is 'painted to a battle ready standard'. So it also excludes any models that are painted ABOVE the battle ready standard. So that second layer of highlights just cost you 10 points.
As I said above, this is where it'll be interesting to see how a "battle ready standard" is defined in the full book. I suspect it'll be along the lines of "this much work or more" rather than a specific checklist of points that it would be possible to exceed, but I've given too much credit tot he rules team before now and been disappointed, so...
stratigo wrote: Goonhammer communicated it best. This will just be used by TFGs to browbeat newer players.
And boy there's a lot on dakkadakka
Go on! Name and shame! Who are these supposed TFGs? I wanna know if I made the cut!
There have been tons of elitist donkey caves just in this thread who behave as if having a painted army makes them the second coming of christ. It's not an unrealistic concern.
I've not seen anyone posting as if they're the second coming - not enough preaching, for one thing - just a few people who are proud to field a fully-painted army and would prefer to face one. As Grim said, if there have been some in here, it should be easy for you to name (and, ideally, quote) some examples, no?
Blackie wrote:"Painted" is also hard to define objectively. A model that is painted with 2-3 colors, fully based but all the work done in a rush just to have it legal IMHO is not painted, it's just a plastic model tarnished with paint.
RAW even a model that is just primed, and based, counts as painted. It's actually painted, just in one color.
A full primed army should get the +10VP then.
This is why I hope they include a definition of the "Battle Ready Standard" within the book - at this point it is a game term, which presumably includes minimum standards, and therefore requires defining inside the book.
stratigo wrote:Goonhammer communicated it best. This will just be used by TFGs to browbeat newer players.
And boy there's a lot on dakkadakka
Any yet most people have said they wouldn't enforce it on a new player, but would enforce it on those who've been fielding a grey tide for years.
As Grim said, the carrot approach has gotten GW nowhere when it comes to "encouraging" people to paint their armies. They appear to have decided it is time to break out the 10VP stick instead.
I'd love to see a Designer's Commentary on this, though
Battle ready standard is already defined, it's paint+wash. That's why blending, NMM, OSL, etc causes you to lose the 10 points.
Everyone I've seen reference the BRS is referring back to WHC - as I've said, it is something that will need a definition within the rulebook, which may differ from how WHC presented it previously - if only to cover that going beyond the minimum still means you've achieved it.
You get that this rule is not binary, right? It has several shades of grey (boom boom!) to it. Show up with a horde of grey that I know you have had for years? No VP for you. Add a mini to your army that you literally bought and assembled that day? Well, I guess we can look the other way...
Both the RAW and RAI is absolutely binary. there is no other way to read it. the only way out is a house rule to ignore it, which I will always be doing, but sadly TFGs like BCB exist.
resisting what is a core part of the hobby pie for some unknown reason.
it's not an unknown reason. its an incredibly simple, oft repeated, easy to comprehend reason: they don't enjoy painting
If thats the reason then losing out on a few VP should not feel unreasonable. Its a part of the hobby the same as now looking for combos and netlisting. I dont enjoy listbuilding and trawling multiple books and update, if this costs me VP so be it.
stratigo wrote: Goonhammer communicated it best. This will just be used by TFGs to browbeat newer players.
And boy there's a lot on dakkadakka
Go on! Name and shame! Who are these supposed TFGs? I wanna know if I made the cut!
There have been tons of elitist donkey caves just in this thread who behave as if having a painted army makes them the second coming of christ. It's not an unrealistic concern.
And yet I've never met anyone IRL who was so extreme in their TFG-ness than the internet would have me believe. I've never really even heard of one who's that bad from all the people I've spoken to about the game over the last few decades. TFGs exist, for sure, but even if they're the sort of person who'd use this rule to ding new players I suspect they're already not the sort of person you'd want playing a newbie in the first place.
Not sure I've seen much in the way of elitist posting about painted armies here either. Passionate, maybe, but I think elitist is a stretch. It certainly doesn't describe the majority of the people in favour of this rule.
Grimtuff wrote: Playing RAI is quite literally not binary. The clue is in the final letter of the initialism...
RAI is absolutely binary as well. If I bring 250 fully painted models to the table and one model that is not painted because life got in the way of finishing the unit, I can now lose the game to a marine player who slapped a can of black contrast and armageddon dust on his 40 model strong iron hands army. This is 100% the rule as intended.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
jhnbrg wrote: If thats the reason then losing out on a few VP should not feel unreasonable. Its a part of the hobby the same as now looking for combos and netlisting. I dont enjoy listbuilding and trawling multiple books and update, if this costs me VP so be it.
It's not just a few VP. It's 10% of the VP you can score. The equivalent of destroying five dreadnoughts or daemon princes, three LRBT or a knight. You need to hold an objective marker for two turns to score 10 VP.
Unless you are utterly destroying your opponent, these 10 VP will be game-deciding, not a "fun bonus" like you try to misrepresent it.
It's very much akin to forbidding painters from painting every tenth miniature unless they have won a game of matched play first.
If anything, this rule is a reason for me to stop painting. I need to go buy and build to competitive lists to crush my opponents instead of playing fun stuff to offset this major disadvantage now if I want to have any chance of winning.
RAI is absolutely binary as well. If I bring 250 fully painted models to the table and one model that is not painted because life got in the way of finishing the unit, I can now lose the game to a marine player who slapped a can of black contrast and armageddon dust on his 40 model strong iron hands unit. This is 100% the rule as intended.
While that's technically correct, what is actually at stake here? If the other player won by 5 points because of this rule, would you actually feel like you lost?
RAI is absolutely binary as well. If I bring 250 fully painted models to the table and one model that is not painted because life got in the way of finishing the unit, I can now lose the game to a marine player who slapped a can of black contrast and armageddon dust on his 40 model strong iron hands unit. This is 100% the rule as intended.
While that's technically correct, what is actually at stake here? If the other player won by 5 points because of this rule, would you actually feel like you lost?
Yes, because I actually did lose, and the campaign/league system/crusade mode would punish me for it.
Grimtuff wrote: Playing RAI is quite literally not binary. The clue is in the final letter of the initialism...
RAI is absolutely binary as well. If I bring 250 fully painted models to the table and one model that is not painted because life got in the way of finishing the unit, I can now lose the game to a marine player who slapped a can of black contrast and armageddon dust on his 40 model strong iron hands unit. This is 100% the rule as intended.
Yes? Maybe he only rolled 1s the entire game... I think its a bit of a silly rule but i am positive towards it because it is a small push in the right direction.
Its only 10% of the potential total VP, a bad dice roll at the wrong time will cost you a lot more VPs. Having a painted army is the only factor that you alone can influence.
To me the visual impact of a game is important, the rules change (and faster than ever before) but painted models stay painted.
Grimtuff wrote: Playing RAI is quite literally not binary. The clue is in the final letter of the initialism...
RAI is absolutely binary as well. If I bring 250 fully painted models to the table and one model that is not painted because life got in the way of finishing the unit, I can now lose the game to a marine player who slapped a can of black contrast and armageddon dust on his 40 model strong iron hands army. This is 100% the rule as intended.
No, that is your interpretation of what the rule is intended to be. Others will think differently, so not binary in the slightest.
jhnbrg wrote: Yes? Maybe he only rolled 1s the entire game... I think its a bit of a silly rule but i am positive towards it because it is a small push in the right direction.
Its only 10% of the potential total VP, a bad dice roll at the wrong time will cost you a lot more VPs. Having a painted army is the only factor that you alone can influence.
To me the visual impact of a game is important, the rules change (and faster than ever before) but painted models stay painted.
You keep dodging my question. Do you agree that people should not be allowed to paint 10% of their army unless they have successfully won a game? According to you and Grimtuff, people should not be allowed to fully enjoy one part of the hobby unless they participate in all parts of it.
is saying ref painting, however he is 100% correct about the bloody objective of the game, which is to win. The point is to have fun and some people seem to be confusing the two. The game is quite literally a competition with victory conditions, how secondary or tertiary those are to the rest of the experience is down to the individual player. 
(I'll admit, my mind immediately went to macular degeneration/central visual field scenarios)
