Mmmpi wrote: I mean, what you're saying was from page 1. Most of the rest is about the moral implication of forcing other players to follow a single way to enjoy the game aspect of the hobbies, as well as the idea that people don't need a rule to motivate them to paint, nor that they should be punished for not doing the steps in order.
Nobody is forced to do anything; you don't have to paint, I don't have to play your grey army, and you don't have to play me. You just don't want people to get any reward for painting their models.
So what value is the rule itself, if players already had this choice? Isn’t having a nice painted army the reward itself for the hobby?
Daedalus81 wrote: 10 pages in one day. This topic isn't divisive at all!
Its the live wire of 40k - social interaction.
I don't see myself ever having a problem because either I'm playing with friends, in which case who wins really doesn't matter, so winning cos "haha I've got painted models" can just be laughed off. Or its a tournament where there will be rules.
So to my mind the whole thing comes across as
*Western Whistle Plays*
"You there. I challenge you to the greatest and most manly test there is. That's right, 40k."
*3 hours later* "Ha! I win by 5 points. Read'em and weep pal."
"Ah, you think you've won? You didn't paint those 10 grots there. Whereas my army is fully painted. So in fact I win by 5 points. Ha. Haha. HAHAHAHAHA!"
"No. No. I've lost.. a game of 40k? My pride. My ego. My identity. How will I go on..."
To me it’s a rule that directly relates to my disability and draws attention to pain I Feel all the time. I don’t get the 10 points and are playing with a disadvantage because of factors I cannot control in a hobby I play in a large part to try and keep my mind away from that.
This post honestly just comes off like you don’t really think that far about how others are affected by rules even after all the discussion.
Mmmpi wrote: I mean, what you're saying was from page 1. Most of the rest is about the moral implication of forcing other players to follow a single way to enjoy the game aspect of the hobbies, as well as the idea that people don't need a rule to motivate them to paint, nor that they should be punished for not doing the steps in order.
Nobody is forced to do anything; you don't have to paint, I don't have to play your grey army, and you don't have to play me. You just don't want people to get any reward for painting their models.
So what value is the rule itself, if players already had this choice? Isn’t having a nice painted army the reward itself for the hobby?
Daedalus81 wrote: 10 pages in one day. This topic isn't divisive at all!
Its the live wire of 40k - social interaction.
I don't see myself ever having a problem because either I'm playing with friends, in which case who wins really doesn't matter, so winning cos "haha I've got painted models" can just be laughed off. Or its a tournament where there will be rules.
So to my mind the whole thing comes across as
*Western Whistle Plays*
"You there. I challenge you to the greatest and most manly test there is. That's right, 40k."
*3 hours later* "Ha! I win by 5 points. Read'em and weep pal."
"Ah, you think you've won? You didn't paint those 10 grots there. Whereas my army is fully painted. So in fact I win by 5 points. Ha. Haha. HAHAHAHAHA!"
"No. No. I've lost.. a game of 40k? My pride. My ego. My identity. How will I go on..."
To me it’s a rule that directly relates to my disability and draws attention to pain I Feel all the time. I don’t get the 10 points and are playing with a disadvantage because of factors I cannot control in a hobby I play in a large part to try and keep my mind away from that.
This post honestly just comes off like you don’t really think that far about how others are affected by rules even after all the discussion.
You realise that this is irrelevant. It comes across very much as a leading statement where you attempt to explain to someone else how their disability does and doesn't work.
My argument remains unchanged and I will also flip the premise.
If people who care about their painting affecting the outcome but ALSO are very pro 'decide your own rules at the beginning of the match' then you wouldn't have any problem with GW removing this rule and you imposing it on your opponent yourself?
Or is it perhaps the 'official' GW stick the only thing allowing you to do this?
Beardedragon wrote: I didnt know there had been a long discussion about it before i made mine, and i didnt bother using the search engine
And thus, we have 11 pages of utterly ineffectual screeching about how other people enjoy their free time in the wrong way again. Lessons to be learned, perhaps?
Voss wrote: Wow. 'Strip 40k' isn't the worst thing I've ever seen result from a 'slippery slope' argument, but its definitely up there on the weirdness scale.
Though tying stripping and painting to an evaluation of 'sanity' is a bit much.
As a hypothetical bad rule it works just fine. I mean, they weren't suggesting that it was possible, just that if it somehow did, that almost no one would use it.
What works fine is people just accepting that its liked and disliked by different people. For all the pages of back and forth (again) and bad logic everywhere (especially 10 != 10), nothing has changed.
The only time its going to matter is if someone actually on the other side of a physical table is severely passionate about it (in one way or the other). Here its just an internet debate attracting flies.
Sure. But then, the bad logic coming from the gatekeepers should be opposed so casual readers don't think it's the only way to do things. And let me know if you like paying 10% more on things. 10% is a lot.
Bad logic should be opposed no matter who its coming from. Regardless of 'casual readers' and what they might by thinking.
And regardless of which side your hypothetical gatekeepers might be on. I see them on both sides.
Both sides is often a terrible argument. This conversation isn't any different.
Both sides isn't an argument. Its an observation about behavior.
And you're exactly right. This conversation _isn't_ any different. That's literally the point.
You realise that this is irrelevant. It comes across very much as a leading statement where you attempt to explain to someone else how their disability does and doesn't work.
My argument remains unchanged and I will also flip the premise.
If people who care about their painting affecting the outcome but ALSO are very pro 'decide your own rules at the beginning of the match' then you wouldn't have any problem with GW removing this rule and you imposing it on your opponent yourself?
Or is it perhaps the 'official' GW stick the only thing allowing you to do this?
Don’t get offended for someone else it’s a legit question! Had nothing to do with painting I’m just curious about if it takes extra time and energy don’t white knight right off the bat......
Voss wrote: Wow. 'Strip 40k' isn't the worst thing I've ever seen result from a 'slippery slope' argument, but its definitely up there on the weirdness scale.
Though tying stripping and painting to an evaluation of 'sanity' is a bit much.
As a hypothetical bad rule it works just fine. I mean, they weren't suggesting that it was possible, just that if it somehow did, that almost no one would use it.
What works fine is people just accepting that its liked and disliked by different people. For all the pages of back and forth (again) and bad logic everywhere (especially 10 != 10), nothing has changed.
The only time its going to matter is if someone actually on the other side of a physical table is severely passionate about it (in one way or the other). Here its just an internet debate attracting flies.
Sure. But then, the bad logic coming from the gatekeepers should be opposed so casual readers don't think it's the only way to do things. And let me know if you like paying 10% more on things. 10% is a lot.
Bad logic should be opposed no matter who its coming from. Regardless of 'casual readers' and what they might by thinking.
And regardless of which side your hypothetical gatekeepers might be on. I see them on both sides.
Both sides is often a terrible argument. This conversation isn't any different.
Both sides isn't an argument. Its an observation about behavior.
And you're exactly right. This conversation _isn't_ any different. That's literally the point.
[/spoiler]
Good to know you only read one side of the conversation.
Mmmpi wrote: I mean, what you're saying was from page 1. Most of the rest is about the moral implication of forcing other players to follow a single way to enjoy the game aspect of the hobbies, as well as the idea that people don't need a rule to motivate them to paint, nor that they should be punished for not doing the steps in order.
Nobody is forced to do anything; you don't have to paint, I don't have to play your grey army, and you don't have to play me. You just don't want people to get any reward for painting their models.
So what value is the rule itself, if players already had this choice? Isn’t having a nice painted army the reward itself for the hobby?
Daedalus81 wrote: 10 pages in one day. This topic isn't divisive at all!
Its the live wire of 40k - social interaction.
I don't see myself ever having a problem because either I'm playing with friends, in which case who wins really doesn't matter, so winning cos "haha I've got painted models" can just be laughed off. Or its a tournament where there will be rules.
So to my mind the whole thing comes across as
*Western Whistle Plays*
"You there. I challenge you to the greatest and most manly test there is. That's right, 40k."
*3 hours later* "Ha! I win by 5 points. Read'em and weep pal."
"Ah, you think you've won? You didn't paint those 10 grots there. Whereas my army is fully painted. So in fact I win by 5 points. Ha. Haha. HAHAHAHAHA!"
"No. No. I've lost.. a game of 40k? My pride. My ego. My identity. How will I go on..."
To me it’s a rule that directly relates to my disability and draws attention to pain I Feel all the time. I don’t get the 10 points and are playing with a disadvantage because of factors I cannot control in a hobby I play in a large part to try and keep my mind away from that.
This post honestly just comes off like you don’t really think that far about how others are affected by rules even after all the discussion.
How do you build your models?
I have limited ability, I have to pick and choose my daily activity’s to an extreme degree, overdoing it one day could mean days of recovery. But this is where this rule leaves me, with strangers at shops it leaves me having to explane issues, or sit sad with a disadvantage for my difficulty’s. It’s very much ruining the hobby for me at this point.
Building miniatures can also be done way faster than painting and assistance for this leaves a lot less variance in the end than painting and personal style does.
"Wanna play a game?" "Sure. I only have 500 points fully painted, so how about a Combat Patrol Game?" "I'd rather play a bigger game. You can use some of your unpainted models." "I don't really like playing down due to unpainted models." "Don't worry about it. We can ignore that rule. Do you have enough models for a 1000 point Incursion Game?
I am pretty sure this is how 90% of my games being arranged are like.. (except the 10VP thing. Literally nobody cares to mention it) Out int eh real world. Where you just talk to people
I am impressed we made it to page 11... Anyone taking bets ?
You realise that this is irrelevant. It comes across very much as a leading statement where you attempt to explain to someone else how their disability does and doesn't work.
But there's nothing really wrong with that if someone has brought up their disability on their own as a reason why an accommodation should be made (in this case, the accommodation is that the rule shouldn't exist at all). I realize this goes against modern PC orthodoxy, where as soon as someone utters the big "D" word it's supposed to end every discussion immediately in that person's favor, but I don't think anyone actually believes in that when they really think about it.
Now, that said, people usually have a good answer for "why can you do X but not Y?" because, well, they're the ones living with the disability. So most of the time when you ask this sort of question you're not going to be winning any arguments by doing it. But there's nothing inherently invalid about it, and occasionally people do claim their disability prevents them from doing something it actually doesn't, or don't realize that their disability doesn't actually prevent them from doing something they thought it does, or even use their disabled status in bad faith. Which to be clear, I'm not for a minute saying is the case here. Just that I don't think someone bringing up disability should be an automatic argument-ender.
I have limited ability, I have to pick and choose my daily activity’s to an extreme degree, overdoing it one day could mean days of recovery. But this is where this rule leaves me, with strangers at shops it leaves me having to explane issues, or sit sad with a disadvantage for my difficulty’s. It’s very much ruining the hobby for me at this point.
Building miniatures can also be done way faster than painting and assistance for this leaves a lot less variance in the end than painting and personal style does.
Totally honest question, not a gotcha at all:
Has this situation - playing with someone and having trouble on account of the rule - ever actually come up in real life? I mean the way you've written, it sounds like it does. I just want to confirm. This isn't a theoretical thing - you have actually had it happen that someone assert that they're entitled to the 10 points because you don't have a fully painted army? Not as in a "how do you want to handle the 10VP painting rule?" but as in a "aha, I see your army isn't fully painted, so I'll be starting 10 points up, sucka!?"
Mmmpi wrote: I mean, what you're saying was from page 1. Most of the rest is about the moral implication of forcing other players to follow a single way to enjoy the game aspect of the hobbies, as well as the idea that people don't need a rule to motivate them to paint, nor that they should be punished for not doing the steps in order.
Nobody is forced to do anything; you don't have to paint, I don't have to play your grey army, and you don't have to play me. You just don't want people to get any reward for painting their models.
So what value is the rule itself, if players already had this choice? Isn’t having a nice painted army the reward itself for the hobby?
Daedalus81 wrote: 10 pages in one day. This topic isn't divisive at all!
Its the live wire of 40k - social interaction.
I don't see myself ever having a problem because either I'm playing with friends, in which case who wins really doesn't matter, so winning cos "haha I've got painted models" can just be laughed off. Or its a tournament where there will be rules.
So to my mind the whole thing comes across as *Western Whistle Plays* "You there. I challenge you to the greatest and most manly test there is. That's right, 40k." *3 hours later* "Ha! I win by 5 points. Read'em and weep pal." "Ah, you think you've won? You didn't paint those 10 grots there. Whereas my army is fully painted. So in fact I win by 5 points. Ha. Haha. HAHAHAHAHA!" "No. No. I've lost.. a game of 40k? My pride. My ego. My identity. How will I go on..."
To me it’s a rule that directly relates to my disability and draws attention to pain I Feel all the time. I don’t get the 10 points and are playing with a disadvantage because of factors I cannot control in a hobby I play in a large part to try and keep my mind away from that. This post honestly just comes off like you don’t really think that far about how others are affected by rules even after all the discussion.
How do you build your models?
I have limited ability, I have to pick and choose my daily activity’s to an extreme degree, overdoing it one day could mean days of recovery. But this is where this rule leaves me, with strangers at shops it leaves me having to explane issues, or sit sad with a disadvantage for my difficulty’s. It’s very much ruining the hobby for me at this point.
Building miniatures can also be done way faster than painting and assistance for this leaves a lot less variance in the end than painting and personal style does.
Yeah against this person I wouldn’t complain about 10 points. Pretty good and decent reason here. Also quoted way more than I meant to to lazy to change that.
You realise that this is irrelevant. It comes across very much as a leading statement where you attempt to explain to someone else how their disability does and doesn't work.
But there's nothing really wrong with that if someone has brought up their disability on their own as a reason why an accommodation should be made (in this case, the accommodation is that the rule shouldn't exist at all). I realize this goes against modern PC orthodoxy, where as soon as someone utters the big "D" word it's supposed to end every discussion immediately in that person's favor, but I don't think anyone actually believes in that when they really think about it.
Now, that said, people usually have a good answer for "why can you do X but not Y?" because, well, they're the ones living with the disability. So most of the time when you ask this sort of question you're not going to be winning any arguments by doing it. But there's nothing inherently invalid about it, and occasionally people do claim their disability prevents them from doing something it actually doesn't, or don't realize that their disability doesn't actually prevent them from doing something they thought it does, or even use their disabled status in bad faith. Which to be clear, I'm not for a minute saying is the case here. Just that I don't think someone bringing up disability should be an automatic argument-ender.
I have limited ability, I have to pick and choose my daily activity’s to an extreme degree, overdoing it one day could mean days of recovery. But this is where this rule leaves me, with strangers at shops it leaves me having to explane issues, or sit sad with a disadvantage for my difficulty’s. It’s very much ruining the hobby for me at this point.
Building miniatures can also be done way faster than painting and assistance for this leaves a lot less variance in the end than painting and personal style does.
Totally honest question, not a gotcha at all:
Has this situation - playing with someone and having trouble on account of the rule - ever actually come up in real life? I mean the way you've written, it sounds like it does. I just want to confirm. This isn't a theoretical thing - you have actually had it happen that someone assert that they're entitled to the 10 points because you don't have a fully painted army? Not as in a "how do you want to handle the 10VP painting rule?" but as in a "aha, I see your army isn't fully painted, so I'll be starting 10 points up, sucka!?"
It does. Mostly unless something comes up, I try and leave it be. Say nothing, but discussion and argument does come up regularly now where before it was more fun discussion. Now it’s far more these are the rules and this how it works here. I pick and choose carefully who I will discuss it with, and most shops and game stores shouldn’t have to be the place for safety reasons as well.
I have had people relate my difficulty with walking as not impeding my ability to paint, that I am just lazy and unmotivated or refer to me as things I won’t mention over this.
Also unrelated but my chair has been moved more times since this rule than ever before at gaming stores, I can stand and walk a limited amount and I think things like this just tosses fuel on the fire for how people deal with it all.
Also reply to Stalked21 it’s cool, sometimes in text it’s hard to tell a questions intent behind it. But Hellebore is right, often a question like that leads into a a rather difficult conversations.
Thanks for answering. Wow, that sucks. You have my sympathies, not that the sympathies of some random person on the internet are worth all that much or anything.
I don't want to speak for others, but at least for myself, I think part of the reason we may have a different point of view is that our own communities are totally different, so the rule doesn't present the same issues.
The community where I'm at is super chill generally, so I can't really imagine anyone actually getting into an argument over the 10VP for the painting rules in the first place, but beyond that, they are also super tuned in to accessibility issues.
One of the things I enjoy most about the hobby is how friendly and inclusive people are, and I'm genuinely sorry that isn't the case for you.
Mmmpi wrote: I mean, what you're saying was from page 1. Most of the rest is about the moral implication of forcing other players to follow a single way to enjoy the game aspect of the hobbies, as well as the idea that people don't need a rule to motivate them to paint, nor that they should be punished for not doing the steps in order.
Nobody is forced to do anything; you don't have to paint, I don't have to play your grey army, and you don't have to play me. You just don't want people to get any reward for painting their models.
No, I don't want people to get an arbitrary in game reward for painting their models. For a very long list of reasons I don't feel the need to repeat.
Mmmpi wrote: I mean, what you're saying was from page 1. Most of the rest is about the moral implication of forcing other players to follow a single way to enjoy the game aspect of the hobbies, as well as the idea that people don't need a rule to motivate them to paint, nor that they should be punished for not doing the steps in order.
Nobody is forced to do anything; you don't have to paint, I don't have to play your grey army, and you don't have to play me. You just don't want people to get any reward for painting their models.
Shouldn't the reward be having kick-ass models you painted yourself?
Do you really care about 10 points that anyone can get if they spray their models and slap three random colors on there?
here here!
But I'm being rewarded for doing the work, you could also get the 10 vp if you wanted. You choosing to not have 10 vp by not painting is nobody else's problem. Your army would also look good. You are in no way forced to spend your time any way you don't want to; you're not playing us evil painters and you're not playing in tourneys so there's really no need to get rid of the rule. The worst fate you suffer is a "technical" loss in a casual game, it has no material effect on you.
If you physically can't paint that's a shame but it doesn't become a bad rule because there are some exceptions.
It's a bad rule regardless, because it encourages shoddy painting jobs instead of taking your time to do a better job. If they were trying to encourage people to take the painting side of the hobby seriously, they failed pretty hard.
I mean as someone who really prefers to play against painted armies...I can tell you I'd much rather play someone who has a beautiful army that's half-finished than someone who dumped their minis in a gallon can of red paint, then a gallon can of wash, then splashed on some white and black in a couple spots and called it a day.
yukishiro1 wrote: Thanks for answering. Wow, that sucks. You have my sympathies, not that the sympathies of some random person on the internet are worth all that much or anything.
I don't want to speak for others, but at least for myself, I think part of the reason we may have a different point of view is that our own communities are totally different, so the rule doesn't present the same issues.
The community where I'm at is super chill generally, so I can't really imagine anyone actually getting into an argument over the 10VP for the painting rules in the first place, but beyond that, they are also super tuned in to accessibility issues.
One of the things I enjoy most about the hobby is how friendly and inclusive people are, and I'm genuinely sorry that isn't the case for you.
Sadly one person can ruin entire groups, and nerd groups tend to be fairly forgiving to people like that if they are not really aware. It’s why I bring up the Age of sigmar rules, plenty of people could laugh about it as good fun. But if you fell out of that it was mostly just awkward conversations to start off the game.
I also think it has done little for getting painted models, at first we just see a lot of army’s that looked half done. And now in my fav place to play the rule has been entirely dropped with even tournaments going back to the old painting rules.
yukishiro1 wrote: It's a bad rule regardless, because it encourages shoddy painting jobs instead of taking your time to do a better job. If they were trying to encourage people to take the painting side of the hobby seriously, they failed pretty hard.
I mean as someone who really prefers to play against painted armies...I can tell you I'd much rather play someone who has a beautiful army that's half-finished than someone who dumped their minis in a gallon can of red paint, then a gallon can of wash, then splashed on some white and black in a couple spots and called it a day.
This doesn't make sense, would somebody who really cares just ruin their expensive models and "call it a day" over 10 vp? Not only that, a basic paint job is trivial with everything available now. You have washes, shades, contrasts, airbrushes, and every color of spray paint. It's not hard; if you still can't do it and you can't reconcile the 10vp maybe you're in the wrong hobby.
You can also just get it painted by somebody else.
Mmmpi wrote: I mean, what you're saying was from page 1. Most of the rest is about the moral implication of forcing other players to follow a single way to enjoy the game aspect of the hobbies, as well as the idea that people don't need a rule to motivate them to paint, nor that they should be punished for not doing the steps in order.
Nobody is forced to do anything; you don't have to paint, I don't have to play your grey army, and you don't have to play me. You just don't want people to get any reward for painting their models.
No, I don't want people to get an arbitrary in game reward for painting their models. For a very long list of reasons I don't feel the need to repeat.
Mmmpi wrote: I mean, what you're saying was from page 1. Most of the rest is about the moral implication of forcing other players to follow a single way to enjoy the game aspect of the hobbies, as well as the idea that people don't need a rule to motivate them to paint, nor that they should be punished for not doing the steps in order.
Nobody is forced to do anything; you don't have to paint, I don't have to play your grey army, and you don't have to play me. You just don't want people to get any reward for painting their models.
Shouldn't the reward be having kick-ass models you painted yourself?
Do you really care about 10 points that anyone can get if they spray their models and slap three random colors on there?
here here!
But I'm being rewarded for doing the work, you could also get the 10 vp if you wanted. You choosing to not have 10 vp by not painting is nobody else's problem. Your army would also look good. You are in no way forced to spend your time any way you don't want to; you're not playing us evil painters and you're not playing in tourneys so there's really no need to get rid of the rule. The worst fate you suffer is a "technical" loss in a casual game, it has no material effect on you.
If you physically can't paint that's a shame but it doesn't become a bad rule because there are some exceptions.
[/spoiler]
I can easily get the 10 points. I chose not to use a rule that only serves to make the game *even more* divisive than it already is. If you really don't like playing unpainted armies, no one is making you. But if you spent so much time painting that you just suck at the game, well, I don't feel the need to give you a crutch.
The rule is terrible. It punishes people for not following a strict outlook on a hobby pushed by elitists donkey ditches like yourself. There are two types of people supporting the rule. 1. It's a bad rule, but a rule. 2. It's the greatest thing ever, and now I can make people do the warhammer thing like I want them to.
yukishiro1 wrote: It's a bad rule regardless, because it encourages shoddy painting jobs instead of taking your time to do a better job. If they were trying to encourage people to take the painting side of the hobby seriously, they failed pretty hard.
I mean as someone who really prefers to play against painted armies...I can tell you I'd much rather play someone who has a beautiful army that's half-finished than someone who dumped their minis in a gallon can of red paint, then a gallon can of wash, then splashed on some white and black in a couple spots and called it a day.
This doesn't make sense, would somebody who really cares just ruin their expensive models and "call it a day" over 10 vp? Not only that, a basic paint job is trivial with everything available now. You have washes, shades, contrasts, airbrushes, and every color of spray paint. It's not hard; if you still can't do it and you can't reconcile the 10vp maybe you're in the wrong hobby.
You can also just get it painted by somebody else.
Yes. There are people who would do that. There are also people who would pressure others into doing that, both out of misguided attempts to help, and out of maliciousness.
NOT EVERYONE FINDS A BASIC PAINT JOB TRIVIAL.
Why should they have to reconcile 10 VP? It's not their fault the person on the other side of the table is a jerk.
And no. It's been discussed why hiring someone isn't a valid alternative for many people.
I suggest you go back and reread the thread before you start on things that have already been discussed.
"Wanna play a game?"
"Sure. I only have 500 points fully painted, so how about a Combat Patrol Game?"
"I'd rather play a bigger game. You can use some of your unpainted models."
"I don't really like playing down due to unpainted models."
"Don't worry about it. We can ignore that rule. Do you have enough models for a 1000 point Incursion Game?
I am pretty sure this is how 90% of my games being arranged are like.. (except the 10VP thing. Literally nobody cares to mention it)
Out int eh real world. Where you just talk to people
I am impressed we made it to page 11... Anyone taking bets ?
If you have to keep houseruling and making exceptions, it's a badly done rule to begin with. How are you people not getting this?
"Wanna play a game?"
"Sure. I only have 500 points fully painted, so how about a Combat Patrol Game?"
"I'd rather play a bigger game. You can use some of your unpainted models."
"I don't really like playing down due to unpainted models."
"Don't worry about it. We can ignore that rule. Do you have enough models for a 1000 point Incursion Game?
I am pretty sure this is how 90% of my games being arranged are like.. (except the 10VP thing. Literally nobody cares to mention it)
Out int eh real world. Where you just talk to people
I am impressed we made it to page 11... Anyone taking bets ?
If you have to keep houseruling and making exceptions, it's a badly done rule to begin with. How are you people not getting this?
nobody is saying it isn't a bad rule. But it's still a rule. Which means unless you explicitly agree to not enforce it it is in effect whether you like it or not. The example above explicitly says to ignore that rule.
yukishiro1 wrote: It's a bad rule regardless, because it encourages shoddy painting jobs instead of taking your time to do a better job. If they were trying to encourage people to take the painting side of the hobby seriously, they failed pretty hard.
I mean as someone who really prefers to play against painted armies...I can tell you I'd much rather play someone who has a beautiful army that's half-finished than someone who dumped their minis in a gallon can of red paint, then a gallon can of wash, then splashed on some white and black in a couple spots and called it a day.
This doesn't make sense, would somebody who really cares just ruin their expensive models and "call it a day" over 10 vp? Not only that, a basic paint job is trivial with everything available now. You have washes, shades, contrasts, airbrushes, and every color of spray paint. It's not hard; if you still can't do it and you can't reconcile the 10vp maybe you're in the wrong hobby.
You can also just get it painted by somebody else.
I don't think you can have it both ways. Either the rule has an effect on behavior, or it doesn't. If it does have an effect, the effect it has is to encourage people to do a quick and dirty job on all their models to get the VP, rather than a better, slower job with better end results by taking their time unit by unit and model by model. If it doesn't, it doesn't do anything, and therefore has no purpose. You can't really act like the 10VP both is and is not significant.
More generally, I want people to paint their models because they have discovered the joys of doing so, not out of resentment because they feel like they have to or they'll be punished. I don't think that kind of negative reinforcement is a particularly good way to help people discover the joys of painting. If the only way GW can think of to get people into painting is to twist their arm into it by putting in rules that punish people for not doing it, they need to go back to the drawing board and find a better approach.
It's sad too because there is such a wealth of resources out there to help people paint that GW could lend its profile to and reach a lot of people who currently don't paint. But instead of doing that, they just slap on a sloppily-thought-out rule and call it a day. It's poor, there's no two ways about it.
"Wanna play a game?"
"Sure. I only have 500 points fully painted, so how about a Combat Patrol Game?"
"I'd rather play a bigger game. You can use some of your unpainted models."
"I don't really like playing down due to unpainted models."
"Don't worry about it. We can ignore that rule. Do you have enough models for a 1000 point Incursion Game?
I am pretty sure this is how 90% of my games being arranged are like.. (except the 10VP thing. Literally nobody cares to mention it)
Out int eh real world. Where you just talk to people
I am impressed we made it to page 11... Anyone taking bets ?
If you have to keep houseruling and making exceptions, it's a badly done rule to begin with. How are you people not getting this?
nobody is saying it isn't a bad rule. But it's still a rule. Which means unless you explicitly agree to not enforce it it is in effect whether you like it or not. The example above explicitly says to ignore that rule.
It is 100% a garbage rule. But there it is.
I'm saying it's a good rule for me, at least. I've played miniature games since 2005, and I've almost always had partially painted armies when there isn't a strict painting requirement. The rule is motivationally useful for me to get over that hump and finish painting the last elements of the lists I use. That, in turn, helps increase the enjoyment of the people I play against that would like to play against painted armies. At the same time, the rule doesn't prohibit me from playing with unpainted models I haven't gotten to yet, so I'll be able to play the unpainted list build I'm excited about when I am more enthused about that. This rule is designed for my case, I think.
That doesn't mean that I think the rule is perfect for all of the players of this game, but I do think it contributes more towards making the game better than making the game worse.
Just imagine what they cut, those rules are like they didn’t really know what humans are. But they did also cause army’s to be burned and people still laugh at how bad GW can make rules because of them.
From the interview it sounds like the writers had some really good ideas as well that got trashed for them. So I think it’s the same energy, Someone in management likes it sells paint.
Everyone knows what the rules of the game are. If you don’t like the rules? Then either agree to not play with them or find another game.
It really is sad how unwilling people are to have a conversation and someone playing by the rules is considered a bad person.
Tournaments will have scoring set out in advance, you knew that before showing up so that is a decision you made.
Casual games? Who cares if you win or lose based on a 10 point non-game swing? You still won the game, but they won the overall score. Again, who cares.
Honestly, it has gotten me to paint more over time instead of the bum rush for a tournament that I used to do which I ended up stripping afterwards because it looked awful.
Minis look way better now and it’s actually nice to have models that look good,
yukishiro1 wrote:It's a bad rule regardless, because it encourages shoddy painting jobs instead of taking your time to do a better job. If they were trying to encourage people to take the painting side of the hobby seriously, they failed pretty hard.
I mean as someone who really prefers to play against painted armies...I can tell you I'd much rather play someone who has a beautiful army that's half-finished than someone who dumped their minis in a gallon can of red paint, then a gallon can of wash, then splashed on some white and black in a couple spots and called it a day.
It is time to stop using this completely inaccurate statement. The fully painted rule does not encourage shoddy paint jobs. The only people who will do a shoddy paint job due to this rule are the same people who wouldn't have bothered to paint the models anyway.
And you can't just spray on a base code, slap on some wash, and add a couple of spots to the model and meet the Battle Ready standard (https://www.warhammer-community.com/2019/05/21/introducing-battle-readygw-homepage-post-1fw-homepage-post-1/). And nothing stops a player who wants to paint to a higher standard to paint up their army to Battle Ready to game and then go about improving the paint jobs to Parade Ready standard later.
Leth wrote: Everyone knows what the rules of the game are. If you don’t like the rules? Then either agree to not play with them or find another game.
It really is sad how unwilling people are to have a conversation and someone playing by the rules is considered a bad person.
Tournaments will have scoring set out in advance, you knew that before showing up so that is a decision you made.
Casual games? Who cares if you win or lose based on a 10 point non-game swing? You still won the game, but they won the overall score. Again, who cares.
Honestly, it has gotten me to paint more over time instead of the bum rush for a tournament that I used to do which I ended up stripping afterwards because it looked awful.
Minis look way better now and it’s actually nice to have models that look good,
This rule has been a major part of removing a lot of conversation and helping people be the bad person. And possibly even intended as a marketing to get people talking about the “Hobby”
If peer pressure is the only thing getting people painting, then it’s largely failed at getting people into the hobby.
Leth wrote: It really is sad how unwilling people are to have a conversation and someone playing by the rules is considered a bad person.
Let's not pretend that this particular rule has anything to do with the game and the way it is played. It's a completely separate aspect that has been brought into the game.
yukishiro1 wrote:It's a bad rule regardless, because it encourages shoddy painting jobs instead of taking your time to do a better job. If they were trying to encourage people to take the painting side of the hobby seriously, they failed pretty hard.
I mean as someone who really prefers to play against painted armies...I can tell you I'd much rather play someone who has a beautiful army that's half-finished than someone who dumped their minis in a gallon can of red paint, then a gallon can of wash, then splashed on some white and black in a couple spots and called it a day.
It is time to stop using this completely inaccurate statement. The fully painted rule does not encourage shoddy paint jobs. The only people who will do a shoddy paint job due to this rule are the same people who wouldn't have bothered to paint the models anyway.
And you can't just spray on a base code, slap on some wash, and add a couple of spots to the model and meet the Battle Ready standard (https://www.warhammer-community.com/2019/05/21/introducing-battle-readygw-homepage-post-1fw-homepage-post-1/). And nothing stops a player who wants to paint to a higher standard to paint up their army to Battle Ready to game and then go about improving the paint jobs to Parade Ready standard later.
It totally encourages shoddy paint jobs.
WAAC players, and new players will end up going that route.
This rule has been a major part of removing a lot of conversation and helping people be the bad person. And possibly even intended as a marketing to get people talking about the “Hobby”
If peer pressure is the only thing getting people painting, then it’s largely failed at getting people into the hobby.
I'm not following you on that last part. Its actually confusing. Peer pressure and word of mouth is _exactly_ how you recruit people into any hobby.
Peer pressure isn't exclusively some bizarre negative thing that magically forces people into drugs and cults. Its basic, typical human behavior about sharing and exchanging interests.
yukishiro1 wrote:It's a bad rule regardless, because it encourages shoddy painting jobs instead of taking your time to do a better job. If they were trying to encourage people to take the painting side of the hobby seriously, they failed pretty hard.
I mean as someone who really prefers to play against painted armies...I can tell you I'd much rather play someone who has a beautiful army that's half-finished than someone who dumped their minis in a gallon can of red paint, then a gallon can of wash, then splashed on some white and black in a couple spots and called it a day.
It is time to stop using this completely inaccurate statement. The fully painted rule does not encourage shoddy paint jobs. The only people who will do a shoddy paint job due to this rule are the same people who wouldn't have bothered to paint the models anyway.
And you can't just spray on a base code, slap on some wash, and add a couple of spots to the model and meet the Battle Ready standard (https://www.warhammer-community.com/2019/05/21/introducing-battle-readygw-homepage-post-1fw-homepage-post-1/). And nothing stops a player who wants to paint to a higher standard to paint up their army to Battle Ready to game and then go about improving the paint jobs to Parade Ready standard later.
Everything you wrote here is wrong. On your first point, this simply isn't true. If you are someone who is painting up an army over time and playing in the meantime, you will often be in a situation where a portion of your army is painted to a high standard, and another portion of it is either unpainted, or just primed. This rule encourages you to do a quick and dirty job on everything, rather than taking your time unit by unit. And no, you can't really go back and improve the job, not if you paint to an actual standard and don't want to have to strip the miniatures and redo them. Going from the sort of thing you can do in a few hours for a significant part of an army (i.e. what you can do to not take the 10VP penalty) to an actual good painting job is not something you can do by just doing a second highlight (which is why their "Parade Ready" is such a joke), it requires redoing the paint from ground up.
On the point of what battle ready actually is, the only actual statement in your link is: "Battle Ready models have their main areas coloured and an simple finish on their bases." Spraying on a base color, splotching on some other colors, washing, and then dumping a wad of textured paint on the base qualifies, based on that statement. Technically, that doesn't even require a wash. In the past, they've talked about three colors, so as long as you splotch on two additional colors beyond the primer color, and put a wad of gunk on the base, you apparently meet the requirements.
"Man, look at these chuckleheads, playing 40k in a way that I personally don't choose to play 40k. What a pair of bozos! Look at how wrong the fun that they're having is! If you think they're having fun, not only are you hurting the hobby, but your opinion is objectively bad and worse than my opinion. It makes me so mad to see people doing this, spending their private time doing something that doesn't effect me at all, and brings them joy. I get so MAD when I see this picture that I just have to gak up threads on the internet about how my type of fun is better and superior, and also I'm better at the hobby not just the game."
If you're seriously posting in this thread? That's you. That's you trying to flex that you're better than other people for having your dumb, private opinion on this matter. Listen to how dumb you sound.
Opinions are like donkey-caves. I only really care for a few of the ones that are spread on the internet, and mostly they're stinky and uninteresting.
This rule has been a major part of removing a lot of conversation and helping people be the bad person. And possibly even intended as a marketing to get people talking about the “Hobby”
If peer pressure is the only thing getting people painting, then it’s largely failed at getting people into the hobby.
I'm not following you on that last part. Its actually confusing. Peer pressure and word of mouth is _exactly_ how you recruit people into any hobby.
Peer pressure isn't exclusively some bizarre negative thing that magically forces people into drugs and cults. Its basic, typical human behavior about sharing and exchanging interests.
Ok, if negative reinforcement is the only thing getting people painting, then it’s largely failed at getting people into the hobby. Painting should be fun and enjoyable part of the hobby itself, not used as a punishment or used as a way to try and push others out.
There was already social mechanics that worked for this.
This rule has been a major part of removing a lot of conversation and helping people be the bad person. And possibly even intended as a marketing to get people talking about the “Hobby”
If peer pressure is the only thing getting people painting, then it’s largely failed at getting people into the hobby.
I'm not following you on that last part. Its actually confusing. Peer pressure and word of mouth is _exactly_ how you recruit people into any hobby.
Peer pressure isn't exclusively some bizarre negative thing that magically forces people into drugs and cults. Its basic, typical human behavior about sharing and exchanging interests.
Ok, if negative reinforcement is the only thing getting people painting, then it’s largely failed at getting people into the hobby. Painting should be fun and enjoyable part of the hobby itself, not used as a punishment or used as a way to try and push others out.
There was already social mechanics that worked for this.
Yes...? And those social mechanics haven't gone away. They still function the same way they always have, regardless of this rule.
Even if you don't like this rule, it still isn't the 'only thing' getting people painting. And painting isn't being used as a punishment or to push people out.
It can be weird to be worked up about losing games because the army isn't painted, but painting isn't being used a sentence assigned for losing, nor are people being force to leave if they lose a game or show up with an unpainted army.
Even on some bizarre day where it is the 'only thing' getting people painting, they're still buying and assembling miniatures and playing the game, so I'm not sure how anything has failed at getting people into 'the hobby.' They're a couple hundred bucks and multiple hours in, and at least showing up for a game by the time this rule comes into play. Presumably _something_ attracted them along the way, or they've wasted their time.
Casual games? Who cares if you win or lose based on a 10 point non-game swing? You still won the game, but they won the overall score. Again, who cares.
Minis look way better now and it’s actually nice to have models that look good,
People who play the game do care. The whole goal of the game is to find out who the winner and who the loser is. Caring about who wins is practicaly build in to any game. If people wouldn't care, they wouldn't be keeping a score in the first place.
As the looking good goes, though. Do people really think that models painted by someone who doesn't want or like to paint, and who does it for the first time in their life, are going to end up looking good. Because the esthetic aspect is often brought up as the argument of favour of playing only with painted models. Well I have seen my share of bad painted models to say that it seems to me, that being painted does not automatically makes a model look good.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Voss 796210 11057468 wrote:
Peer pressure isn't exclusively some bizarre negative thing that magically forces people into drugs and cults. Its basic, typical human behavior about sharing and exchanging interests.
Only in this case it isn't magical. 10VP is a substential number of VPs, which when differences in list powers are added means some armies are practicaly on the auto lose situation. And as the sharing goes, since when is playing the game synonymous with painting? those are two distinct actions that can over lap, but that is more or less all they have in common with each other. Specialy as the we consider that for eight edition there were no such rules in the game.
Well, the idea behind it is if you get people to start painting - even if they don't do it very well at first - it will lead to them caring more about it, and, eventually, to do them developing the skills to paint better. In my experience, this is true for people who take up painting voluntarily. It's certainly been true for me. My first models were junk. I'm still not a great painter by any stretch of the imagination, but in about 8 months of doing it a couple hours a week, I've got to the point where I now feel confident putting models on the table in front of people, and where I get compliments on them. That's been a really satisfying experience, and I wouldn't have thought it was possible when I started. My hand tremor has even largely disappeared, something I definitely didn't expect to happened, and that I initially thought would preclude me from ever being able to paint to a decent standard at all.
I don't think that process is likely to occur for people who don't want to paint, but only do it to not to get the VP penalty, though. If anything, I think the requirement is likely to put them off painting entirely, because when you approach something from the point of view of "this sucks, but I have to do it," you're a lot less likely to come to enjoy the experience.
yukishiro1 wrote: Well, the idea behind it is if you get people to start painting - even if they don't do it very well at first - it will lead to them caring more about it, and, eventually, to do them developing the skills to paint better. In my experience, this is true for people who take up painting voluntarily. It's certainly been true for me.
Again that is the sunken cost thing. Works well on people, specialy ones like me. I will not stop playing my army till GW gives me at least a few months good time.
And of course if someone spends a few hours on each model and has 80+ models in an army they are going to have to start thinking that they like or they may start feeling really bad that they wasted 200+hours of their life doing something they are not good at, don't like etc. And more important if they went through it , there is this mechanism that makes other people went through it too.The wave at schools at military works like that too. You may not like it, when it happens to you, but if you went throught it then the freshmen year is going to go through it too.
Also what does voluntary mean? If it was 5 colours to play at tournaments, one could just say that they won't play games at tournaments. When it is a 10VP difference rule, is not something one can just avoid or ignore. On top of it all, 15VP difference at the start of turn 2 is something, most armies are unable to go back from. If it was just suppose to be a symbolic thing,it should be something like lets say, in case of draw painted army wins or it gets 1VP. 10VP is just forcing people to paint their armies, there is no voluntary aspect to it, not if you want to play the game and not lose every time.
Of course you can just ignore it. Just play without the rule in your own head. If whether you win or lose the game has no impact on the next game - i.e., it's not a tournament setting - you can finish a game and say to yourself "I won! I don't count the paint score" and the other dude can say to himself "I won, thanks to the paint score!" and both of you can go home happy.
Casual games? Who cares if you win or lose based on a 10 point non-game swing? You still won the game, but they won the overall score. Again, who cares.
Minis look way better now and it’s actually nice to have models that look good,
Caring about who wins is practicaly build in to any game. If people wouldn't care, they wouldn't be keeping a score in the first place.
I sure as hell don't. But if you're playing matched play, you by default are playing under the rule that states 10vp for painted vs not.
Easy way to not be under the constrictions/rigidity of matched play....is surprisingly not to play matched play. Can't get any easier than that.
Havent played a matched play game yet and I sure as gak don't intend on starting. Cuz if you're bitching about how many VP you did/didn't get, my free time is better spent elsewhere.
Apple Fox, I'm disabled as well and need to be choosy with what I do hobby/physicality-wise. The play group you have seems to be the issue. I'd play you painted or not and wouldn't give a gak about 10vp, mostly cuz I don't care about VP to begin with.
"Buy paints, win more" is definitely a more insidious attempt at translating their business interests into actual game rules than the usual imbalances and power creep. Not that I would care much, personally, as between reasonable people those things are rarely played out the way they are written. However, I can see this becoming a problem for organized events, leagues and such, where you have to maintain a certain consistency across many games and players. There will be people who insist on it to get the edge in a competitive context and there is not much you can say against that, except explicitly excluding the rule from your competition as an organizer.
I think you need to see it from GW view a bit, the grey tide is not appealing to the eye, they want their products to be displayed in a more aesthetic manor than that as it is a form of advertising...
However, an interesting debate is, what is worse for GW in an advertising sense, Grey tide or awful paint jobs. I think grey tide potentially as it is hard to see the detail in them unless you get close up (also on a similar note, I personally find it extremely hard to pick out different models/units when they are only in grey from the other side of the board) but then well, we have all seen the horrific overly thick paint jobs that make a miniature looks like it is part melted so maybe that extreme is worse.
IMHO the rule was an attempt by GW to sell more paints in the short period and more miniatures in the long run. I mean lots of people, especially the new guys, would rush their paint jobs to field a battle ready army to the point that they will probably want to re-buy their entire army after a while, just to paint it better.
That rule is there just for reasons related to business, it has nothing to do with the game experience or feedbacks that GW received from hobbysts.
I think there's two factors that played into GW wanting to do it.
- more people painting equates to more paint sales.
- painted models look better, every time someone sees you playing 40k you're advertising the game - they want that game to look as good as possible.
It is also likely related to the greater attention paid to the competitive scene of 40k, in which requiring painted models is fairly common.
I certainly agree that it's not out of the goodness of their hearts. I've heard from a few GW employees that the execs couldn't care less about the hobby/players.
I have had quite some fun reading the lame excuses for not painting, thanks for creating this thread Waaaagh on lazy buggers, and don't let anyone cramp your idle style (thoses with a disability this is not directed at you, you have a good reason not to paint and I sympathize with you)
Anyone sensible wouldn't be claiming the points and it certainly wouldn't bother me. Everyone's different after all.
Haven't seen it happen though as my local has a painted and based policy. Which is fair enough as they have gone to the expense and trouble of several distinct tables and scenery.
They will match games to various points levels via escalation leagues, run painting clinics and a few of them will even paint up squads to help those less able.
Simple Simon wrote: Anyone sensible wouldn't be claiming the points and it certainly wouldn't bother me. Everyone's different after all.
Haven't seen it happen though as my local has a painted and based policy. Which is fair enough as they have gone to the expense and trouble of several distinct tables and scenery.
They will match games to various points levels via escalation leagues, run painting clinics and a few of them will even paint up squads to help those less able.
All sadly on hold at the moment.
That is top notch policy, this way people who paint slowly can still play and not feel in a rush. Hope you guys will start again soon (hoping costs nothing)
Easy way to not be under the constrictions/rigidity of matched play....is surprisingly not to play matched play. Can't get any easier than that..
In case you haven't noticed it painted army=10 pts isn't matched play rule. It's for every scenario in 40k...
Literally only way to avoid it is to rewrite 40k for your games.
...or play Open Play, going by the mini-rulebook from Command Edition. The Determine Victor step in that game sequence, as seen on page 85 of the mini-rulebook, does not reference the +10VPs for painting, while both Matched Play (pg 95) and Narrative/Crusade do (page 146/7).
Blackie wrote: IMHO the rule was an attempt by GW to sell more paints in the short period and more miniatures in the long run. I mean lots of people, especially the new guys, would rush their paint jobs to field a battle ready army to the point that they will probably want to re-buy their entire army after a while, just to paint it better.
That rule is there just for reasons related to business, it has nothing to do with the game experience or feedbacks that GW received from hobbysts.
I think it is there for game reasons, because playing with 2 painted armies is better than playing with the grey horde or random mismatched models. People don't usually buy armies and not buy paint, I imagine the person who buy their first army with the intent of never painting them from the outset is rare to non-existent. It's when the reality hits you that it'll actually take a few hundred hours of an activity most people see as mind numbing that people don't end up painting their forces.
And yeah, playing with painted armies is nicer, it has to be a REALLY bad paint job before I'd rather face the grey horde.
All that said, I think it's a stupid rule. People can decide for themselves if they want to push their gaming group to paint their models. The rule only exists as a weapon to be wielded by an obnoxious person to make them more obnoxious.
The amount of stuck-up-ness in this thread is embarrassing.
Guys, can you not do simple math? Is someone lording over you and saying "for every match thou shalt fail to win, I will have a puppy murdered in front of thee"?
It's easy; just do the math to see if you would've won anyways, and then you can feel good or bad purely on your skill. Look...
Let's look at a few scenarios. In each scenario, your opponent has 10 points for painting and you don't.
End-game score; 72 for you, 84 for your opponent. Friendly game. = Painting score didn't matter. Your opponent won anyways, as without the painting score they still got 74 and beat you.
End-game score; 72 for you, 84 for your opponent. Tourney game. = Painting score matters for tie breakers, but you lost anyways. Get your army painted for a tournament and score those points, and if you don't, that's on you. Them's the rules.
End-game score; 74 for you, 82 for your opponent. Friendly game. = Painting score would've mattered if this was a tourney game, but it isn't, so doesn't matter. You can actually still declare yourself the winner here anyways. Without painting scores, your opponent would've scored 72, which means you out-played your opponent. If you don't care about painting, you 100% can just call this a win, and as it's a friendly game no one can really dispute you. Get your army painted so when it really matters at a tourney game, you don't lose.
End-game score; 74 for you, 82 for your opponent. Tourney game = The only time it actually matters, but guess what, you're in a tournament and you knew what you were getting into. Get your army painted for the next tournament and score those points, and if you don't, that's on you. Them's the rules.
If you care so much about these points in a friendly game that you are getting up in arms about these points means you're probably on your way to being a TFG
Apple fox wrote: It does. Mostly unless something comes up, I try and leave it be. Say nothing, but discussion and argument does come up regularly now where before it was more fun discussion. Now it’s far more these are the rules and this how it works here. I pick and choose carefully who I will discuss it with, and most shops and game stores shouldn’t have to be the place for safety reasons as well.
I have had people relate my difficulty with walking as not impeding my ability to paint, that I am just lazy and unmotivated or refer to me as things I won’t mention over this.
Also unrelated but my chair has been moved more times since this rule than ever before at gaming stores, I can stand and walk a limited amount and I think things like this just tosses fuel on the fire for how people deal with it all.
Also reply to Stalked21 it’s cool, sometimes in text it’s hard to tell a questions intent behind it. But Hellebore is right, often a question like that leads into a a rather difficult conversations.
I appreciate where you're coming from. I have a chronic illness which is pretty much invisible but massively affects my life, and trying to have that discussion with people is soooo painful. Even my siblings didn't believe me until my early 20's when it started to become obvious that I wasn't just faking it to get out of school / chores. On a bad day a painting session can lead to days of pain and recovery, on a good day it won't, and it's hard to predict beforehand.
FWIW, as much as a prefer playing with painted armies, I try not to judge people who don't have one because you never know their circumstances.
i think the issue with "painted armies" according to the rules is just a slab of 3 different paints which dont look any better than an unpainted army.
How do GW make rules around painted armies? Its difficult to make a written rule i think, it would be up to the individual tournement organizer.
Theoretically i can prime my mini, dip the head in yellow paint and left arm in a green paint and voila! its painted!
Given that its impossible to make a written rule for how a painted army is meant to look like, I feel like they should just remove the rule entirely. then it would be up to tournement organizers to say what they want and dont want. On the other hand it starts becoming a discussion with tournement organizers if they say my army isnt painted well enough when ive dipped my miniatures in 3 different paints super fast, and have thus upheld the GW rules.
You CAN paint your army well (and i definitly do) but if you just want to uphold the rules, prime your mini, slab one blue paint on his head, and one red color on his arms and he is technically painted. Bam, done. It looks like trash but hey its painted. Thats how i understand it anyway, could be wrong though.
Beardedragon wrote: Theoretically i can prime my mini, dip the head in yellow paint and left arm in a green paint and voila! its painted!
I gave two units of boyz to my daughter who painted them using her acrylic paints while I was painting other miniatures. Beautiful kindergarten art, 60 battle ready models and I spend hours with both my daughter and my hobby.
Only downside is that I have to ask her to borrow "her" orks when I want to play
You can choose to houserule the rule away. My local group does not, we abide by it.
So far no game has come up where it would have mattered, but we all consider it just respectful to the other player to field painted armies. We also take some pride in having completed and well painted armies. That's just part of our social contract.
Noone bats an eye at a proxy or a non WYSIWIG model, but we always try to adhere to it as close as possible.
If I put effort and time into my army to make the game look and feel better and you cannot be bothered to do the same for me - I get the 10 VP. It's a reward for me for doing that, not a punishment for you.
That is ofc barring any reason for not having your models painted, be it disability, time constraints, money... whatever. I will not claim the 10 VP if you didn't paint your new model if you were sick and just couldn't or you were excited to field it and just got it 3 days ago.
One player however played like 3 or 4 years with Chaos Marine Bikers without riders. That was annoying and even once put down a Defiler without a torso because he was repainting it. Such behavior now has a consequence I can call upon because its a rule, that, once in place, is just a rule that cannot be argued against.
My ultimate goal is to paint all my armies eventually. The thing is i despise painting the same model over and over. Its just mind numbing to me so i jump around armies/games to keep it fresh.
I almost always have minis that are only primes or basecoated in my armies, be it in 40k or infinity. I'm a slow-ish painter and i have other hobbies. I don't have the time or motivation to paint through 2k+ points to get my 10vps.
The fact that people in here keep treating painted minis as some sort of absolute honestly seems ridiculously gatekeep-y. Not everyone has the time to paint all their minis.
Leth wrote: I dont see how it is judging anyone to say "We are playing by the rules that you and I both knew when we started this game"
Seriously It is kinda funny that people are calling it a cash grab when nothing in the rule requires GW paints.
I have been kicked off of streams at tournaments because my army was unpainted, painted armies are more appealing all around.
I didn’t say it was judging to follow a rule, I just said in general I try not to be judgy of people with unpainted armies. Even before this rules people could be right c$&@s about unpainted armies.
My opinion on the rule I said in my previous post, which is I think it’s a bad rule because it is only going to be used by obnoxious people to make them more obnoxious. That is in spite of me preferring to play against painted armies, I still think it’s a crap rule, and since it’s one that doesn’t affect gameplay it’s not just crap but unnecessary.
Is it just possible that some people, some real freaks, i admit, might just simply want to play a tabletop miniatures wargame instead of painting up an army to a degree they may not have time or skill to do?
Matt Swain wrote: Is it just possible that some people, some real freaks, i admit, might just simply want to play a tabletop miniatures wargame instead of painting up an army to a degree they may not have time or skill to do?
Except painting your minis is an intrinsic part of the hobby, you may not agree with that nor want to do it, but literally every wargaming company in existence disagrees with you.
Board games explicitly require no painting, nor do several RPGs, where there are even a thorough range of prepaints. (Nolzur’s even provide the same sculpts for those that want to paint them. I’d argue GW is doing a similar thing with its coloured plastic for those that do not want to paint them) Wargaming? Nope. There’s a reason practically every prepainted wargame has flopped, as it deletes a part of the hobby some consider to be immutable.
Matt Swain wrote: Is it just possible that some people, some real freaks, i admit, might just simply want to play a tabletop miniatures wargame instead of painting up an army to a degree they may not have time or skill to do?
Except painting your minis is an intrinsic part of the hobby, you may not agree with that nor want to do it, but literally every wargaming company in existence disagrees with you.
Board games explicitly require no painting, nor do several RPGs, where there are even a thorough range of prepaints. (Nolzur’s even provide the same sculpts for those that want to paint them. I’d argue GW is doing a similar thing with its coloured plastic for those that do not want to paint them) Wargaming? Nope. There’s a reason practically every prepainted wargame has flopped, as it deletes a part of the hobby some consider to be immutable.
It's a part of the hobby. Just like you don't need to follow player trades to fully enjoy watching sports, you don't need to have fully painted armies to fully enjoy tabletop wargaming.
I only skimmed the thread. Can only imagine how much fun it's been. Personally, I only play with painted models, but it's never even occurred to me to invoke this rule. Most tournaments will already have a relevant paint standard in order simply to enter, and if it's a pick-up game? I really don't care that much. If the shoe was on the other foot and my army was unpainted ... I still wouldn't care.
If the other person needs to win a game of "war-dollies" so badly that they call out the 10 points for an unpainted army ... they probably already have a much harder life than I do and I'm just going to give it to them because it's really not worth it.
This is such a nothing-burger. Agree that it's a dumb rule, have NEVER seen it brought up IRL and don't understand why there's such an argument over it ....
Tycho wrote: I only skimmed the thread. Can only imagine how much fun it's been. Personally, I only play with painted models, but it's never even occurred to me to invoke this rule. Most tournaments will already have a relevant paint standard in order simply to enter, and if it's a pick-up game? I really don't care that much. If the shoe was on the other foot and my army was unpainted ... I still wouldn't care.
If the other person needs to win a game of "war-dollies" so badly that they call out the 10 points for an unpainted army ... they probably already have a much harder life than I do and I'm just going to give it to them because it's really not worth it.
This is such a nothing-burger. Agree that it's a dumb rule, have NEVER seen it brought up IRL and don't understand why there's such an argument over it ....
Because the implication is that GW wants to sell you their paints to make your army "Battle Ready" and we have white knights defending them as always instead of admitting it's a bad rule.
I don't get the debate. If it's in the rules that the painted army gets +10 bonus victory points then that is just how the game works. How can someone argue with that?
Heaven forbid GW want to sell you their products? No gak, Sherlock...
You can paint your minis with anything, hell- be like Doomthumbs and paint them with fething berries. GW don’t want to tell you that though, as they don’t sell berries.
Tycho wrote: :::L and don't understand why there's such an argument over it ....
Because there's people that like painting and people that don't.
People that like it want the rule because it either gives them an edge or they enjoy the hobby more that way. People that don't dont want the rule because they feel it penalizes them.
Matt Swain wrote: Is it just possible that some people, some real freaks, i admit, might just simply want to play a tabletop miniatures wargame instead of painting up an army to a degree they may not have time or skill to do?
Sure. They're also free to not feel bad, because they "lost" due to a paint rule. I really just don't understand the ego people put behind this.
You lost, because of that rule - so what? Did you have fun playing the game? Great - move on with your life!
At the same time if someone thinks they're so self important that they need to claim 10 points in a friendly game against someone who is handicapped they should re-evaluate their life.
Matt Swain wrote: Is it just possible that some people, some real freaks, i admit, might just simply want to play a tabletop miniatures wargame instead of painting up an army to a degree they may not have time or skill to do?
Sure. They're also free to not feel bad, because they "lost" due to a paint rule. I really just don't understand the ego people put behind this.
You lost, because of that rule - so what? Did you have fun playing the game? Great - move on with your life!
At the same time if someone thinks they're so self important that they need to claim 10 points in a friendly game against someone who is handicapped they should re-evaluate their life.
Love the virtue signaling here. If you can't accept the bad rule helps determine the outcome of a game, you're at fault for the feeling. Only CASUAL people and people who ONLY have fun are welcome here!
Guys, it would actually help the discussion if you would stop attributing things like "self important", "obnoxious", "stuck up" or unsensible to the other part of the argument. No wonder this thread is going hot with 13 pages.
There are a lot of strong opinions in this thread, as well as a lot of scenarios that seem theoretical rather than based on fact.
I will bring up a real scenario that is happening now at my local gaming store. We have just kicked off a narrative crusade league that will last for the next 9 weeks. One of the rules in this league is that if you paint a unit to battle-ready standard during the course of the league, that unit gets +10xp, which is quite a large amount. This rule does not apply to units that are already painted. I suspect it is both to encourage painted armies, as well as to help the store make sales, as there is no entry fee for the league itself. There are 65(!) armies signed up for this league. So far no one has complained that they are at a disadvantage if they don't/can't paint their models. At the other end, there has yet to be anyone who has quickly painted up an army to nab 10xp for all their units. I think this will be a good example of whether the gaming community can enjoy a narrative experience without trying to abuse the system for an advantage.
Oh, and painted armies do get +10VP for each game, again with no complaints. I will admit this is a more narratively driven campaign and not a one-off tournament, but so far it is convincing me that the actual gaming community doesn't behave in the way that some of the examples in this thread makes it seem like they do.
Yarium wrote: If you care so much about these points in a friendly game that you are getting up in arms about these points means you're probably on your way to being a TFG
I agree with your breakdown of the potential scenarios. Seems to me like the reason the rule exists is to provide extrinsic motivation to the sort of player who takes whether they ackshually won their no-stakes casual-play game this seriously. If the fear of losing ten meaningless points is what it takes to get their army painted, mission accomplished.
And if I see someone seriously declare victory because their painting puts them ahead on VP against a kid who just started or someone with a genuine disability that prevents them from painting, then I know they're exactly the sort of person I want to avoid playing against. Win-win.
I would prefer that my opponent had a painted army. But who am I to judge. They may have just started the hobby. Now If I knew them for ten years I would probably just bust their stones about it. I would not care about the ten points. I get why stores want armies painted. It helps bring in sales of paints and modeling tools. I still remember the first painted mini I saw. I was hooked instantly.
I can easily get the 10 points. I chose not to use a rule that only serves to make the game *even more* divisive than it already is. If you really don't like playing unpainted armies, no one is making you. But if you spent so much time painting that you just suck at the game, well, I don't feel the need to give you a crutch.
The rule is terrible. It punishes people for not following a strict outlook on a hobby pushed by elitists donkey ditches like yourself. There are two types of people supporting the rule. 1. It's a bad rule, but a rule. 2. It's the greatest thing ever, and now I can make people do the warhammer thing like I want them to.
yukishiro1 wrote: It's a bad rule regardless, because it encourages shoddy painting jobs instead of taking your time to do a better job. If they were trying to encourage people to take the painting side of the hobby seriously, they failed pretty hard.
I mean as someone who really prefers to play against painted armies...I can tell you I'd much rather play someone who has a beautiful army that's half-finished than someone who dumped their minis in a gallon can of red paint, then a gallon can of wash, then splashed on some white and black in a couple spots and called it a day.
This doesn't make sense, would somebody who really cares just ruin their expensive models and "call it a day" over 10 vp? Not only that, a basic paint job is trivial with everything available now. You have washes, shades, contrasts, airbrushes, and every color of spray paint. It's not hard; if you still can't do it and you can't reconcile the 10vp maybe you're in the wrong hobby.
You can also just get it painted by somebody else.
Yes. There are people who would do that. There are also people who would pressure others into doing that, both out of misguided attempts to help, and out of maliciousness.
NOT EVERYONE FINDS A BASIC PAINT JOB TRIVIAL.
Why should they have to reconcile 10 VP? It's not their fault the person on the other side of the table is a jerk.
And no. It's been discussed why hiring someone isn't a valid alternative for many people.
I suggest you go back and reread the thread before you start on things that have already been discussed.
Personal attacks, excuses, and emotional arguments. First, I don't care if the game is divisive for some; it's your problem if you're spending your time on something you don't like. Second, if you're not playing in tournaments then what is your problem with the rule? It's not a crutch at all because it isn't changing the gameplay in my favor. I gain no advantage on table, just 10 vp at the end resulting in a technical loss at worse. You even admit that you could paint your army easily but don't just because you don't like the rule. Were you painting lots of armies before the rule and just stopped out of spite?
There is never going to be a solution that works for everyone and everything I listed is reasonable. It's your problem if you can't/won't paint it yourself or pay to have it commissioned.
This is a miniature hobby and it is transparent that they are meant to be painted. If the painting is separate from the game then so is the building, the reading, etc. I can pick whatever I want and if you don't like my army of blank bases then you're an elitist.
Matt Swain wrote: Is it just possible that some people, some real freaks, i admit, might just simply want to play a tabletop miniatures wargame instead of painting up an army to a degree they may not have time or skill to do?
Except painting your minis is an intrinsic part of the hobby, you may not agree with that nor want to do it, but literally every wargaming company in existence disagrees with you.
You mean like X-Wing, Star Trek Attack Wing, Star Wars Armada, any Clix game, or AT-43?
Yes, painting is part of the hobby, but the game isn't necessarily part of the hobby unless shoe-horned in like the rule under discussion.
Grimtuff wrote:Board games explicitly require no painting, nor do several RPGs, where there are even a thorough range of prepaints. (Nolzur’s even provide the same sculpts for those that want to paint them. I’d argue GW is doing a similar thing with its coloured plastic for those that do not want to paint them) Wargaming? Nope. There’s a reason practically every prepainted wargame has flopped, as it deletes a part of the hobby some consider to be immutable.
I can think of a couple board games that are much poorer if you don't paint the pieces like any tabletop game, usually produced by Soda Pop Miniatures/Ninja Division.
Beardedragon wrote: Theoretically i can prime my mini, dip the head in yellow paint and left arm in a green paint and voila! its painted!
I gave two units of boyz to my daughter who painted them using her acrylic paints while I was painting other miniatures. Beautiful kindergarten art, 60 battle ready models and I spend hours with both my daughter and my hobby.
Only downside is that I have to ask her to borrow "her" orks when I want to play
That's adorable. Many props to you, and here's hoping your daughter finds this a hobby she loves as she grows older!
If someone who values the painting aspect of the hobby chooses to half-ass their painting so that they can claim 10VP sooner, it really sounds like they don't actually value the painting aspect of the hobby.
'You scored 80VP and I scored 75VP, but your army is only half-painted and mine's technically sufficient three-color slop, so TECHNICALLY I won the battle'
Cool, that and a dollar will get you a cup of coffee. Your first-place prize for winning our beer-and-pretzels toy soldier game is nothing. Why should I care if the rules say your painting reverses the outcome of our already-decided battle? It's not like it's giving you +1 to your hit rolls or anything that actually matters in-game.
I think this thread is an excellent example of the way that peoples' feelings depend much less on the actual impact of something, and much more on whether it makes them feel judged or not. This rule is completely irrelevant in any way that actually matters objectively, but it clearly arouses huge passions among people who feel like they are being negatively judged by it, and produces a lot of strife in the community between the warring camps.
That's a good clue it's a really bad rule for a game company to have: you shouldn't be alienating your customers for something that has no actual impact except in peoples' heads.
yukishiro1 wrote: I think this thread is an excellent example of the way that peoples' feelings depend much less on the actual impact of something, and much more on whether it makes them feel judged or not. This rule is completely irrelevant in any way that actually matters objectively, but it clearly arouses huge passions among people who feel like they are being negatively judged by it, and produces a lot of strife in the community between the warring camps.
That's a good clue it's a really bad rule for a game company to have: you shouldn't be alienating your customers for something that has no actual impact except in peoples' heads.
You are right about it having no impact but if you feel judged by your models you have bigger problems. And we are only a "community" in the absolute loosest sense of the word. My community is the local people I know and play with not you. People who throw this word around always use it to back themselves up with the implication that they somehow represent a large amount of people. So thank you self anointed angels for watching out of the warhammer community, taking the heavy duty upon yourself to save us all.
The warring camps only exist online, in reality we either wouldn't play or we would both knowing that the 10 vp really didn't matter. My painted army would still look better though.
yukishiro1 wrote: I think this thread is an excellent example of the way that peoples' feelings depend much less on the actual impact of something, and much more on whether it makes them feel judged or not. This rule is completely irrelevant in any way that actually matters objectively, but it clearly arouses huge passions among people who feel like they are being negatively judged by it, and produces a lot of strife in the community between the warring camps.
That's a good clue it's a really bad rule for a game company to have: you shouldn't be alienating your customers for something that has no actual impact except in peoples' heads.
It's legitimately tragic how many people in this thread (and in general) have seemingly squandered hours of precious life doing something they don't enjoy (painting) out of a sense of obligation, or fear of being shamed.
I was there, too, once. Then I realized that spending that amount of time doing something that I hated, to achieve results that I didn't believe in and made my models look worse, was literally insane. I hope some of you trapped and tortured souls out there can undergo the same evolution someday.
To anyone making glib comments like "Painting is part of the hobby" or "One is meant to paint miniatures" -- you're braindead, baby. Miniatures are just sculpture. One of the oldest media in existence, which has been finished with or without surface colouring in every possible variation across millions of cultures and contexts, and in deliberate, subversive violation of every culture and context. Suggesting that a uniformly coloured sculpture inherently has less aesthetic value than a multicoloured sculpture does is both an indefensible and a laughable position to take.
Altruizine wrote: It's legitimately tragic how many people in this thread (and in general) have seemingly squandered hours of precious life doing something they don't enjoy (painting) out of a sense of obligation, or fear of being shamed.
I was there, too, once. Then I realized that spending that amount of time doing something that I hated, to achieve results that I didn't believe in and made my models look worse, was literally insane. I hope some of you trapped and tortured souls out there can undergo the same evolution someday.
To anyone making glib comments like "Painting is part of the hobby" or "One is meant to paint miniatures" -- you're braindead, baby. Miniatures are just sculpture. One of the oldest media in existence, which has been finished with or without surface colouring in every possible variation across millions of cultures and contexts, and in deliberate, subversive violation of every culture and context. Suggesting that a uniformly coloured sculpture inherently has less aesthetic value than a multicoloured sculpture does is both an indefensible and a laughable position to take.
I didn't realize how many people got into this hobby that actually hated the hobby...I feel enlightened now.
yukishiro1 wrote: You clearly haven't been reading my posts in the thread if you think I feel judged.
That part wasn't meant to be directed at you specifically but the very idea that there are people who feel that way. If that was your point then we are in agreement. Seems to me the issue is the very implication that models should be painted and that you are doing something wrong by not doing it. I wonder if there was no 10vp rule and GW put out a statement saying that models should be painted if it would cause the same reaction.
I have had quite some fun reading the lame excuses for not painting, thanks for creating this thread Waaaagh on lazy buggers, and don't let anyone cramp your idle style (thoses with a disability this is not directed at you, you have a good reason not to paint and I sympathize with you)
That's a funny way to say "Use painting as a form of elitist gatekeeping".
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Leth wrote: I dont see how it is judging anyone to say "We are playing by the rules that you and I both knew when we started this game"
Seriously It is kinda funny that people are calling it a cash grab when nothing in the rule requires GW paints.
I have been kicked off of streams at tournaments because my army was unpainted, painted armies are more appealing all around.
What do you mean when we started this game? I started in 3rd ed, when the rule didn't exist.
The models are intended to be painted though. It would be one thing if there was a painting score from 1/10 based on the painting quality...It is litererally - have a painted army.
How do you feel about proxies? Can I just make my army out of legos and put them on legal bases? Would that be okay with you?
Oaka wrote: There are a lot of strong opinions in this thread, as well as a lot of scenarios that seem theoretical rather than based on fact.
I will bring up a real scenario that is happening now at my local gaming store. We have just kicked off a narrative crusade league that will last for the next 9 weeks. One of the rules in this league is that if you paint a unit to battle-ready standard during the course of the league, that unit gets +10xp, which is quite a large amount. This rule does not apply to units that are already painted. I suspect it is both to encourage painted armies, as well as to help the store make sales, as there is no entry fee for the league itself. There are 65(!) armies signed up for this league. So far no one has complained that they are at a disadvantage if they don't/can't paint their models. At the other end, there has yet to be anyone who has quickly painted up an army to nab 10xp for all their units. I think this will be a good example of whether the gaming community can enjoy a narrative experience without trying to abuse the system for an advantage.
Oh, and painted armies do get +10VP for each game, again with no complaints. I will admit this is a more narratively driven campaign and not a one-off tournament, but so far it is convincing me that the actual gaming community doesn't behave in the way that some of the examples in this thread makes it seem like they do.
What you experienced is fine because its all houseruled.
What people are complaining about is that its an official rule by GW now.
Matt Swain wrote: Is it just possible that some people, some real freaks, i admit, might just simply want to play a tabletop miniatures wargame instead of painting up an army to a degree they may not have time or skill to do?
Except painting your minis is an intrinsic part of the hobby, you may not agree with that nor want to do it, but literally every wargaming company in existence disagrees with you.
Board games explicitly require no painting, nor do several RPGs, where there are even a thorough range of prepaints. (Nolzur’s even provide the same sculpts for those that want to paint them. I’d argue GW is doing a similar thing with its coloured plastic for those that do not want to paint them) Wargaming? Nope. There’s a reason practically every prepainted wargame has flopped, as it deletes a part of the hobby some consider to be immutable.
Well, if painting is intrinsic to the hobby, so is playing. So in theory lets say I go up to a guy painting and offer a game.
You're telling us if he says no, he's Warhammering wrong.
Because playing the game is also an intrinsic part of Warhammering.
Because the implication is that GW wants to sell you their paints to make your army "Battle Ready" and we have white knights defending them as always instead of admitting it's a bad rule.
Love the virtue signaling here. If you can't accept the bad rule helps determine the outcome of a game, you're at fault for the feeling. Only CASUAL people and people who ONLY have fun are welcome here!
Buzz word garbage.
I'm perfectly comfortable accepting a loss due to paint. I *personally* don't care and you'd never catch me complaining about it. Nor do I care if I ever won by paint points ( actually, I'd consider it a loss ). I played a game. I had fun. Full stop.
Everyone else has their ego wrapped up in this and I find it silly. Let it go. Move on with your life.
Tycho wrote: :::L and don't understand why there's such an argument over it ....
Because there's people that like painting and people that don't.
People that like it want the rule because it either gives them an edge or they enjoy the hobby more that way. People that don't dont want the rule because they feel it penalizes them.
Because the implication is that GW wants to sell you their paints to make your army "Battle Ready" and we have white knights defending them as always instead of admitting it's a bad rule.
Yup.
All those tournaments I attended over the past decade that had paint scores must have been shilling for Geedubs.
Altruizine wrote: It's legitimately tragic how many people in this thread (and in general) have seemingly squandered hours of precious life doing something they don't enjoy (painting) out of a sense of obligation, or fear of being shamed.
I was there, too, once. Then I realized that spending that amount of time doing something that I hated, to achieve results that I didn't believe in and made my models look worse, was literally insane. I hope some of you trapped and tortured souls out there can undergo the same evolution someday.
To anyone making glib comments like "Painting is part of the hobby" or "One is meant to paint miniatures" -- you're braindead, baby. Miniatures are just sculpture. One of the oldest media in existence, which has been finished with or without surface colouring in every possible variation across millions of cultures and contexts, and in deliberate, subversive violation of every culture and context. Suggesting that a uniformly coloured sculpture inherently has less aesthetic value than a multicoloured sculpture does is both an indefensible and a laughable position to take.
I didn't realize how many people got into this hobby that actually hated the hobby...I feel enlightened now.
Are you able to tell the difference between "one thing" and "two things"? Or -- and let me know if I'm going too quickly for you -- "one thing" and "three things"?
That covers today's lesson; tomorrow we will be covering "four things," so please prepare accordingly.
The hobby includes any number of elements. Some of the obvious ones are building, converting, painting, list-building, tactical study, narrative play, and tournament play. Do you think every player is interested in every element? Or even that they *should* be?
Personal attacks, excuses, and emotional arguments.
Stop doing that then.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Xenomancers wrote: The models are intended to be painted though. It would be one thing if there was a painting score from 1/10 based on the painting quality...It is litererally - have a painted army.
How do you feel about proxies? Can I just make my army out of legos and put them on legal bases? Would that be okay with you?
Because the implication is that GW wants to sell you their paints to make your army "Battle Ready" and we have white knights defending them as always instead of admitting it's a bad rule.
Yup.
All those tournaments I attended over the past decade that had paint scores must have been shilling for Geedubs.
You can opt out of a tournament without opting out of 40K.
Tournament paint rules were house rules that were common to tournaments.
Love the virtue signaling here. If you can't accept the bad rule helps determine the outcome of a game, you're at fault for the feeling. Only CASUAL people and people who ONLY have fun are welcome here!
Buzz word garbage.
I'm perfectly comfortable accepting a loss due to paint. I *personally* don't care and you'd never catch me complaining about it. Nor do I care if I ever won by paint points ( actually, I'd consider it a loss ). I played a game. I had fun. Full stop.
Everyone else has their ego wrapped up in this and I find it silly. Let it go. Move on with your life.
Actually the "buzzword" fit perfectly here after that post. You're so wrapped up defending the rule via "well it's only a game and you shouldn't care" even though it's garbage to begin with.
Because the implication is that GW wants to sell you their paints to make your army "Battle Ready" and we have white knights defending them as always instead of admitting it's a bad rule.
Yup.
All those tournaments I attended over the past decade that had paint scores must have been shilling for Geedubs.
Paint scores never affected the game outcome in case you forgot when you made this absolute brain dead post.
You can opt out of a tournament without opting out of 40K.
Tournament paint rules were house rules that were common to tournaments.
Either I went to the tournament and took the paint score hit or I tried my best to finish painting to an acceptable standard ( a standard existing before GW's ). Neither scenario caused me to opt out of 40K.
Warhammer is a game. It is also a spectacle. I look forward to going to WHW someday and getting to look at the dioramas in person or catching a Golden Demon competition, because it is just fething cool. Promoting more hobby engagement isn't a bad thing. It took me 20 years to become just a decent painter.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Paint scores never affected the game outcome in case you forgot when you made this absolute brain dead post.
Umm, Best Overall.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Actually the "buzzword" fit perfectly here after that post. You're so wrapped up defending the rule via "well it's only a game and you shouldn't care" even though it's garbage to begin with.
I think you're so wrapped up in attacking white knights that you completely fail to understand what I'm saying.
Altruizine wrote: It's legitimately tragic how many people in this thread (and in general) have seemingly squandered hours of precious life doing something they don't enjoy (painting) out of a sense of obligation, or fear of being shamed.
I was there, too, once. Then I realized that spending that amount of time doing something that I hated, to achieve results that I didn't believe in and made my models look worse, was literally insane. I hope some of you trapped and tortured souls out there can undergo the same evolution someday.
To anyone making glib comments like "Painting is part of the hobby" or "One is meant to paint miniatures" -- you're braindead, baby. Miniatures are just sculpture. One of the oldest media in existence, which has been finished with or without surface colouring in every possible variation across millions of cultures and contexts, and in deliberate, subversive violation of every culture and context. Suggesting that a uniformly coloured sculpture inherently has less aesthetic value than a multicoloured sculpture does is both an indefensible and a laughable position to take.
I didn't realize how many people got into this hobby that actually hated the hobby...I feel enlightened now.
I love all aspects of the hobby but i can fully understand how someone wouldn't like either painting minis, playing the game or reading up on the lore.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Xenomancers wrote: The models are intended to be painted though. It would be one thing if there was a painting score from 1/10 based on the painting quality...It is litererally - have a painted army.
How do you feel about proxies? Can I just make my army out of legos and put them on legal bases? Would that be okay with you?
You don't have to paint them tho. Just because GW writes "some assembly and painting required" on the box doesn't mean you have to oblige.
And i 100% wouldnt mind playing against proxies as long as its easy to tell what is what.
Altruizine wrote: It's legitimately tragic how many people in this thread (and in general) have seemingly squandered hours of precious life doing something they don't enjoy (painting) out of a sense of obligation, or fear of being shamed.
I was there, too, once. Then I realized that spending that amount of time doing something that I hated, to achieve results that I didn't believe in and made my models look worse, was literally insane. I hope some of you trapped and tortured souls out there can undergo the same evolution someday.
To anyone making glib comments like "Painting is part of the hobby" or "One is meant to paint miniatures" -- you're braindead, baby. Miniatures are just sculpture. One of the oldest media in existence, which has been finished with or without surface colouring in every possible variation across millions of cultures and contexts, and in deliberate, subversive violation of every culture and context. Suggesting that a uniformly coloured sculpture inherently has less aesthetic value than a multicoloured sculpture does is both an indefensible and a laughable position to take.
I didn't realize how many people got into this hobby that actually hated the hobby...I feel enlightened now.
Are you able to tell the difference between "one thing" and "two things"? Or -- and let me know if I'm going too quickly for you -- "one thing" and "three things"?
That covers today's lesson; tomorrow we will be covering "four things," so please prepare accordingly.
The hobby includes any number of elements. Some of the obvious ones are building, converting, painting, list-building, tactical study, narrative play, and tournament play. Do you think every player is interested in every element? Or even that they *should* be?
You are too mean to be Canadian. I call BS.
Building/converting/painting...these are all aspect of modeling. Getting into modeling without intending to ever paint - is kind of like getting into woodshop without ever intending to finish any of your work with coatings or rounding buffing off the edges so people can actually sit on/ use the products you build. No one does that. The truth is - youd be better off just buying completed armies...it would cost you less money and time since you don't care about the modeling aspect at all.
Altruizine wrote: It's legitimately tragic how many people in this thread (and in general) have seemingly squandered hours of precious life doing something they don't enjoy (painting) out of a sense of obligation, or fear of being shamed.
I was there, too, once. Then I realized that spending that amount of time doing something that I hated, to achieve results that I didn't believe in and made my models look worse, was literally insane. I hope some of you trapped and tortured souls out there can undergo the same evolution someday.
To anyone making glib comments like "Painting is part of the hobby" or "One is meant to paint miniatures" -- you're braindead, baby. Miniatures are just sculpture. One of the oldest media in existence, which has been finished with or without surface colouring in every possible variation across millions of cultures and contexts, and in deliberate, subversive violation of every culture and context. Suggesting that a uniformly coloured sculpture inherently has less aesthetic value than a multicoloured sculpture does is both an indefensible and a laughable position to take.
I didn't realize how many people got into this hobby that actually hated the hobby...I feel enlightened now.
I love all aspects of the hobby but i can fully understand how someone wouldn't like either painting minis, playing the game or reading up on the lore.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Xenomancers wrote: The models are intended to be painted though. It would be one thing if there was a painting score from 1/10 based on the painting quality...It is litererally - have a painted army.
How do you feel about proxies? Can I just make my army out of legos and put them on legal bases? Would that be okay with you?
You don't have to paint them tho. Just because GW writes "some assembly and painting required" on the box doesn't mean you have to oblige.
And i 100% wouldnt mind playing against proxies as long as its easy to tell what is what.
Well - thats where you and I differ...I am not playing against a lego 40k army. In the same way I prefer to play against painted armies.
Building/converting/painting...these are all aspect of modeling. Getting into modeling without intending to ever paint - is kind of like getting into woodshop without ever intending to finish any of your work with coatings or rounding buffing off the edges so people can actually sit on/ use the products you build. No one does that. The truth is - youd be better off just buying completed armies...it would cost you less money and time since you don't care about the modeling aspect at all.
Yeah, and modeling is part of the greater hobby that is "wargaming". And no, buying used armies isnt the solution because some people enjoy assembling the minis or even converting them but don't want to go anywhere close to a paintbrush.
Well - thats where you and I differ...I am not playing against a lego 40k army. In the same way I prefer to play against painted armies.
this is fine, its up to personal preference. The reason people are complaining is that GW now has a hand in it instead of simply being on a player by player basis. If you don't want to play against an unpainted army, you're absolutely free to refuse a game and i wouldn't judge you for it. Its just that when GW comes in and adds a bonus/malus for the painter/non painter it sucks and it feels bad for the players that enjoy all of the hobby except the painting (which lets be frank is what takes up most of the time in it)
You can opt out of a tournament without opting out of 40K.
Tournament paint rules were house rules that were common to tournaments.
Either I went to the tournament and took the paint score hit or I tried my best to finish painting to an acceptable standard ( a standard existing before GW's ). Neither scenario caused me to opt out of 40K.
Warhammer is a game. It is also a spectacle. I look forward to going to WHW someday and getting to look at the dioramas in person or catching a Golden Demon competition, because it is just fething cool. Promoting more hobby engagement isn't a bad thing. It took me 20 years to become just a decent painter.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Paint scores never affected the game outcome in case you forgot when you made this absolute brain dead post.
Umm, Best Overall.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Actually the "buzzword" fit perfectly here after that post. You're so wrapped up defending the rule via "well it's only a game and you shouldn't care" even though it's garbage to begin with.
I think you're so wrapped up in attacking white knights that you completely fail to understand what I'm saying.
1. You're not saying anything that hasn't been said before (and much better than you said it as well), 2 you're missing the point completely, and acting belligerently about it.
Tournaments are optional. You can play 40k without using a tournament's house rules. With the paint rule though, you either have to make a house rule, give up games to paint, or be penalized.
And sure, it can be a spectical. But that's not a requirement. No one is obligated to paint for your amusement, whether in golden deamon, or on the table top.
And no, you still have a lot of work to do on your paint skills.
Altruizine wrote: It's legitimately tragic how many people in this thread (and in general) have seemingly squandered hours of precious life doing something they don't enjoy (painting) out of a sense of obligation, or fear of being shamed.
I was there, too, once. Then I realized that spending that amount of time doing something that I hated, to achieve results that I didn't believe in and made my models look worse, was literally insane. I hope some of you trapped and tortured souls out there can undergo the same evolution someday.
To anyone making glib comments like "Painting is part of the hobby" or "One is meant to paint miniatures" -- you're braindead, baby. Miniatures are just sculpture. One of the oldest media in existence, which has been finished with or without surface colouring in every possible variation across millions of cultures and contexts, and in deliberate, subversive violation of every culture and context. Suggesting that a uniformly coloured sculpture inherently has less aesthetic value than a multicoloured sculpture does is both an indefensible and a laughable position to take.
I didn't realize how many people got into this hobby that actually hated the hobby...I feel enlightened now.
Are you able to tell the difference between "one thing" and "two things"? Or -- and let me know if I'm going too quickly for you -- "one thing" and "three things"?
That covers today's lesson; tomorrow we will be covering "four things," so please prepare accordingly.
The hobby includes any number of elements. Some of the obvious ones are building, converting, painting, list-building, tactical study, narrative play, and tournament play. Do you think every player is interested in every element? Or even that they *should* be?
You are too mean to be Canadian. I call BS.
Building/converting/painting...these are all aspect of modeling. Getting into modeling without intending to ever paint - is kind of like getting into woodshop without ever intending to finish any of your work with coatings or rounding buffing off the edges so people can actually sit on/ use the products you build. No one does that. The truth is - youd be better off just buying completed armies...it would cost you less money and time since you don't care about the modeling aspect at all.
The idea of getting into something with firm, unbreakable intentions strikes me as very strange. You have to try stuff out to understand how you feel about it, right?
When I got into the hobby I tried painting. I tried so hard that I ended up with ~15,000 points of painted Dark Angels. When I started second and third 40K armies, and moved into WHFB with two more armies, I tried painting in different styles and with different techniques. And... I hated it all. It was all a waste of time. Luckily, by that point I was well on the way to being a grown ass human, and I was able to make the decision to become a conscientious objector and stand up to Big Paint.
it’s cool, sometimes in text it’s hard to tell a questions intent behind it. But Hellebore is right, often a question like that leads into a a rather difficult conversations.
(thoses with a disability this is not directed at you, you have a good reason not to paint and I sympathize with you)
