Again the issue is in that the wording of GW's player code puts the burden of seeking permission on the person with unpainted models as if the expectation and requirement is fully painted armies and so you need your opponents permission to use your unpainted minis. That notion is rather repugnant as it puts a very high barrier to entry (and can breed elitism) just for somebody to be able to sit down and play a game of plastic army men wars using what passes for game rules from GW.
What is should be is that both parties coming to an agreement to play the game, period. Either party can decline a game for whatever reason they want to and that is as simple as it needs to be.
The criticism isn't about so much about how people interact with each other (just be kind, don't be a jerk) but about GW acting more and more like the arbiter of standards and pushing their agenda of people using only GW products to play GW games with those models being painted with GW paints.
Vankraken wrote: The criticism isn't about so much about how people interact with each other (just be kind, don't be a jerk) but about GW acting more and more like the arbiter of standards and pushing their agenda of people using only GW products to play GW games with those models being painted with GW paints.
I'm one of those people - those "elitists" - that genuinely prefers GW units to be represented by the correct GW model. If I don't own the thing I want to bring, then I don't bring it.
But if someone wants to show up with their Pipe Cleaner Khorne army, or their Spruecrons, then more power to them. Mother fether went to the trouble to make those armies, so why should I get to deny them that?
BrianDavion wrote: so In other words, "yes I reckongize people play differantly and want differant things, but I'm not going to attempt a modicium of communication I'm just going to show up and insist they play with me on my terms?" because thats what it sounds like.
Only if you read it through the reflection of a fun-house mirror. To put it another way, your assessment is about as backwards/reductive as one can get.
I see it the other way around: I'm not going to insist on any terms (outside of what impacts the game itself - mission, forces, set-up, etc.). It's the same reason why I hate the 10 points for painted armies. That's not part of the actual game itself (hobby yes, game no - let's be very clear on that distinction), and thus I don't see it should affect the outcome of the game.
BrianDavion wrote: Look personally I think insisting on only playing painted mini's is silly (that said I appreciate when someone attempts an effort simply because I appreciate painting minis ain't easy) but I'm going to make sure the people I sit down with also don't have an issue if I'm gonna be bringing unpainted mini's. I mean it's common sense to communicate these things.
Maybe it's because I've literally never come across someone who's said "You have to have painted minis or I is walkin' out that door!". Maybe I've just been lucky to have never encountered someone like that in real life.
Thank Christ.
yeah neither have I, everytime I've used unpainted minis and mentioned it they've always said "yeah cool man go ahead" hell the last time I did it, was a game of kill team, where the guys response was quite literally "no not and all, and hey I love how you put together that intercessor, can I look at it up close?" (I'd used some MK III bits and a studded shoulder pad, it was one of my most distinct looking intercessors)
but yeah asking about it is fine because chances are it won't be an issue. *shrugs*
BrianDavion wrote: so In other words, "yes I reckongize people play differantly and want differant things, but I'm not going to attempt a modicium of communication I'm just going to show up and insist they play with me on my terms?" because thats what it sounds like.
Only if you read it through the reflection of a fun-house mirror. To put it another way, your assessment is about as backwards/reductive as one can get.
I see it the other way around: I'm not going to insist on any terms (outside of what impacts the game itself - mission, forces, set-up, etc.). It's the same reason why I hate the 10 points for painted armies. That's not part of the actual game itself (hobby yes, game no - let's be very clear on that distinction), and thus I don't see it should affect the outcome of the game.
BrianDavion wrote: Look personally I think insisting on only playing painted mini's is silly (that said I appreciate when someone attempts an effort simply because I appreciate painting minis ain't easy) but I'm going to make sure the people I sit down with also don't have an issue if I'm gonna be bringing unpainted mini's. I mean it's common sense to communicate these things.
Maybe it's because I've literally never come across someone who's said "You have to have painted minis or I is walkin' out that door!". Maybe I've just been lucky to have never encountered someone like that in real life.
Thank Christ.
yeah neither have I, everytime I've used unpainted minis and mentioned it they've always said "yeah cool man go ahead" hell the last time I did it, was a game of kill team, where the guys response was quite literally "no not and all, and hey I love how you put together that intercessor, can I look at it up close?" (I'd used some MK III bits and a studded shoulder pad, it was one of my most distinct looking intercessors)
but yeah asking about it is fine because chances are it won't be an issue. *shrugs*
I think these discussions where mostly already happening, and GW has made the discussion worse. Just by the way they have framed it in both games.
Yes, I think they should include the players code as it has some very helpful tips for those just starting out. 40K is clearly a tournament focused game( for better or worse ) so it makes sense to include a rough guide to gaming etiquette rather than have newcomers blunder in. For example, handling other players models can easily be taken for granted and can be met with more than just a frown...
Also, it takes its rightful place in the core rule book. This makes far more sense than the mostly unnecessary fluff that bloats the core books these days. Its not like we don't have codices and supplements for all that stuff...
DarknessEternal wrote: HBMC is the kind of person who this code is directed at but can never follow
Uh huh.
We have people in this thread telling everyone that if they're not painting they're just not trying hard enough, all the way up to Seabass screaming in all caps because he got caught out telling someone with disabilities to eat gak, and yet I'm the bad guy? Give me a break...
Seabass wrote: So no, I am NOT taking that statement back. You are standing on the shoulders of people with disabilities to win an internet argument about a game of toy fething soliders.
The only one screaming, again, in all caps, about toy soldiers is you.
I'm not standing on anyone's shoulders. I'm not using anyone as a shield. You (and others) continue to belittle anyone who chooses (or maybe can't chose) to interface with this hobby in a manner different to you. You (and others) are clinging onto this utterly asinine idea that everyone must engage in the hobby, in the same way, that (like a few others have stated) those who do not do what you do simply aren't trying 'hard enough' (or at all).
Putting a painting requirement in a 'code of conduct' is as stupid as putting in a points score in missions for having a painted army. You are specifically separating out - discriminating against, if you prefer - a sub-set of players who could have all kinds of reasons for not painting. I mean, putting aside disabilities, since that gets you all rankled up, what about if someone just doesn't want to? Doesn't care? Has no interest in painting.
Why is their choice any more or less valid than yours? Why should they be treated any differently to someone who does care about painting?
If you can answer that with anything better than "Because painting is part of the hobby!", then I'm all ears.
Just a few things here.
If you think my rebuke of your completely asinine behavior is based on the game, then you have missed the point entirely, or are just willfully ignoring it because the focus of the statement is to not use disabled people as a shield. It really wouldn't matter if we were talking about WH40k, Videogaming, Welding, Nursing, or whatever activity you can insert here. The fact of the matter is you are hiding behind this "what if people are disabled" shield as an excuse to not do something. To be treated differently. While some reasonable restrictions do exist (again, no blind pilots, no paraplegic construction workers, etc) you are just propping that disability shield up and being like "see, because this exists this is stupid". That is an awful way to look at anyone with a disability, and instead of wanting to build them up, that kind of behavior just tears them down. If I was given my Masters's degree on lower standards because I suffered a stroke, I wouldn't have taken it. I went from cum laude to just managing to be a passing student in that time. I wouldn't EVER, and neither would any person I know, have accepted that honor if it had an asterisk by it.
The second point is that the expected societal norm of the game, speaking to the game specifically, is to paint your gak. If the game started off prepainted and all of a sudden you have to do it, then I *might* have a bit of sympathy for that position. But that's not the case. You knew what you were getting into. If you choose to not adhere to the established standards of a societal ingroup, then you cannot be too pissy if you don't get out of it what you feel you are entitled to. Don't want to paint, great, play another game, or accept the fact that painting is a part of the hobby and there could be adverse reactions to willfully ignoring part of the social hobby. It's that damn simple. If someone has a different way they want to enjoy the game, good for them, let them. But if someone chooses not to paint their stuff, and someone who really likes the spectacle of playing a miniatures game and wants to take pictures of cool moments in the game and such, well, if they don't want to play against your grey horde, then that's their choice too. (Shifting back to discussing life in general, now outside of just the hobby, for the sake of clarity) Now, if for some reason, you became disabled post joining the hobby, there might be a point to that, but...
The last point is that you are attempting to take an extremely small, and I mean extremely small subsect of the population, and extrapolate it to a much larger body and community. If/when the case of disability comes around, it can be treated as a one-off, as a case that requires an exception. But to take any general rules set (Game, employment, social club, athletics) and then demand an exception be carved out for disabled people, instead of attempting to include them, work with them, and build them up is one of the most awful and exclusionary things I've read lately. Yes, obviously there are times when exceptions need to be made, it's why the ADA exists, however, just putting up the "they're disabled so they can't" is disgusting, exclusionary, and demeaning. If you truly do have disabilities, as you stated, then you already know this, but again, winning an argument about painting toy soldiers is more important than treating people with disabilities as actual people.
I'm not a good painter. there is a reason why I don't post my models. Hell, your mechanics painted terrain looks better than my blood angels army as a whole (something I'm still scratching my head about), But I'll be damned if I let that stop me from doing the things that need to be done, for the hobbies I enjoy, for the life I live, and for the work I do.
So, yeah, I do get indignant, and I do get aggressive about those behaviors. No, I absolutely will not apologize or take back what I've said, and using disabled people as a shield, even if you have a disability, is disgusting and exclusionary, and serves only to hurt people with disabilities.
Playing with painted miniatures is part of the miniatures game hobby.
It's what sets it apart from a hobby that uses paper cutouts on stands, or cardboard chits, or little steel shoes or whatever.
I equate painting and assembling. The only difference between the two is that "modeling for advantage" (under which just having empty bases or unbuilt hulls lives) is still a stigma and unpainted miniatures aren't.
But I don't understand why someone who plays a miniatures wargame, instead of some other wargame type, would be so opposed in actually making the miniatures look nice. The hobby is about spectacle.
This only seems to be a problem with GW games (and WM/H). I've never ever seen a historicals game where someone uses unpainted minis on purpose over a deliberately long period of time. It's just so strange.
Furthermore, I'd like to add that I do play against unpainted armies and miniatures all the time. Even in historicals. The difference is that I just want people to try to have painted armies. To have made some progress in the last year of playing on the units they bought 12 months ago. But it seems like people are simply satisfied to forever Play the Grey, and that, for me, defeats the purpose. I might as well let them use empty bases or overturned cardboard boxes for tanks, because it looks just as "cinematic" - which is to say, not at all.
The thing I've taken away from this is that apparently in the United States there are those that see it as some kind of violation to consider the impact on persons with disabilities in advance of a decision.
Which is wild. Accommodations are all good and fine but there's a reason accessibility is a moving target as we improve our ability to anticipate and mitigate problems before they become exacerbated.
Why wait to add a colour-blind mode? A ramp? In fact, the easier the change the less reason not to do it pre-emptively... like removing a pointless line for an unenforceable code of conduct, for example.
This is entertaining reading about potential perceived insults that have literally never happened (by their own admission!) to the person complaining the most about them.
This is why dakka has the reputation it has lol. People like that keep dominating otherwise rational discussions that are based in actual reality and not non-existent hyperbolic worst case scenarios, without ever a moderator intervention to curtail trolling.
In my mind I picture Gerald Broflivsky a.k.a. Skankhunt42 gleefully typing away in a dimly lit room and giggling every time he generates an enraged response.
I don't think people are saying "Don't consider the impact". I think they're saying "make accommodations where necessary, but those accommodations should be exceptions rather than the rule"
There are theatre accomodations for deaf people - including glasses that show captions to the individual, as an example. The accommodations are done by exception, though - they don't just put open captions across the entire breadth of the screen for everyone.
A general policy/expectation can exist, and that is not incompatible with the idea that exceptions and adjustments to that policy/expectation can be made in cases where an individual is disabled.
Unit1126PLL wrote: There are theatre accomodations for deaf people - including glasses that show captions to the individual, as an example. The accommodations are done by exception, though - they don't just put open captions across the entire breadth of the screen for everyone.
I think the theater is a good example because you could easily make the case that there's nothing wrong with subtitles being run on everything - and anyone who has ever watched anything in another language knows this hardly compromises the experience. It's not a hill I'd die on because I don't care (who goes to theaters anymore?) but if the powers that be decided to run subs on every movie, to the annoyed able-bodied I guess I would say "Tough".
A tangible example of how accessibility practices should and do precede specific accommodations wherever possible is accessibility guidelines for websites. They prohibit all sorts of implementations that designers might otherwise love to put in. In some places it's enshrined in law. Everyone is expected to make do with the pre-implemented accessibility-friendly UX, you don't get to see the designer's original version that was shot down because it didn't meet requirements.
And really, do these people who refuse to play against grey plastic because it ruins their experience actually exist? Refuse to field it, sure, but play against it? I don't think I've seen anything approaching that outside of events, and those usually want it because it means they can advertise the pictures more easily.
Unit1126PLL wrote: There are theatre accomodations for deaf people - including glasses that show captions to the individual, as an example. The accommodations are done by exception, though - they don't just put open captions across the entire breadth of the screen for everyone.
I think the theater is a good example because you could easily make the case that there's nothing wrong with subtitles being run on everything - and anyone who has ever watched anything in another language knows this hardly compromises the experience. It's not a hill I'd die on because I don't care (who goes to theaters anymore?) but if the powers that be decided to run subs on every movie, to the annoyed able-bodied I guess I would say "Tough".
A tangible example of how accessibility practices should and do precede specific accommodations wherever possible is accessibility guidelines for websites. They prohibit all sorts of implementations that designers might otherwise love to put in. In some places it's enshrined in law. Everyone is expected to make do with the pre-implemented accessibility-friendly UX, you don't get to see the designer's original version that was shot down because it didn't meet requirements.
And really, do these people who refuse to play against grey plastic because it ruins their experience actually exist? Refuse to field it, sure, but play against it? I don't think I've seen anything approaching that outside of events, and those usually want it because it means they can advertise the pictures more easily.
I've mentioned before I won't refuse (unless I have other reasons like the player is a jerk or something).
But if it goes on and on and on, staying grey for years? I'll judge, even if silently, and I'll try to seek other players first and avoid playing the Grey as much as possible, because it really does suck.
And perhaps you don't mind subtitles on everything, but there's a reason those accommodations are provided individually and it's because some people do, whatever your personal opinion, and their expectation is important too. There's no reason to compromise what they want, so long as accommodations for the disabled can still be provided. That's my point.
Unit1126PLL wrote: I don't think people are saying "Don't consider the impact". I think they're saying "make accommodations where necessary, but those accommodations should be exceptions rather than the rule"
There are theatre accomodations for deaf people - including glasses that show captions to the individual, as an example. The accommodations are done by exception, though - they don't just put open captions across the entire breadth of the screen for everyone.
A general policy/expectation can exist, and that is not incompatible with the idea that exceptions and adjustments to that policy/expectation can be made in cases where an individual is disabled.
It's annoying when people post stuff like this, but...
Unit1126PLL wrote: There's no reason to compromise what they want, so long as accommodations for the disabled can still be provided. That's my point.
Yes and it's a good point. I think win-wins are great where possible. And like I said I wouldn't die on the hill of the subtitles thing just an example of how I at least believe the able suffering a marginal reduction in quality of life can be a worthwhile trade if it greatly improves that of the differently-abled. But that's getting far away from the topic.
Basically I don't think demanding painted miniatures is worth even one awkward conversation about disability. I've never been asked for permission to play grey plastic (and I've played more grey plastic than not over the years) and I've never done it myself, and I don't see any compelling reason to start.
Ventus wrote: The thing I've taken away from this is that apparently in the United States there are those that see it as some kind of violation to consider the impact on persons with disabilities in advance of a decision.
Which is wild. Accommodations are all good and fine but there's a reason accessibility is a moving target as we improve our ability to anticipate and mitigate problems before they become exacerbated.
Why wait to add a color-blind mode? A ramp? In fact, the easier the change the less reason not to do it pre-emptively... like removing a pointless line for an unenforceable code of conduct, for example.
Because there is no reason to treat anyone with a disability any differently or hold them to any different expectations than you would anyone else until there literally is a disability so significant that it is not feasible to do so. The first thing psychology/health care practice teaches us when dealing with individuals with disabilities is to not treat them differently. So, no, it really isn't a violation to accommodate someone with a disability, and I don't think anyone is advocating for that. What people are saying (other than me saying to not use people with a disability as a shield) is that it is so rare, in terms of the population of miniature gamers, that reasonable accommodations can be made on a case by case basis but the rule itself is not exclusionary by its design.
Seabass wrote: What people are saying (other than me saying to not use people with a disability as a shield) is that it is so rare, in terms of the population of miniature gamers, that reasonable accommodations can be made on a case by case basis but the rule itself is not exclusionary by its design.
Rare... by what metric? I have encountered FAR more persons with disabilities in miniatures games than I have, just as an example, people who refuse to play against grey plastic.
The hypocritical screed about using disability as a shield doesn't really bear responding to.
Ventus wrote: A tangible example of how accessibility practices should and do precede specific accommodations wherever possible is accessibility guidelines for websites. They prohibit all sorts of implementations that designers might otherwise love to put in. In some places it's enshrined in law. Everyone is expected to make do with the pre-implemented accessibility-friendly UX, you don't get to see the designer's original version that was shot down because it didn't meet requirements.
I've worked in UX design for the US government, where there are hard-coded legal requirements for accessibility. I used to work with a web design office, and we did not present the disability-friendly, plain HTML, no-animations-or-audio accessibility alternative as the default case.
If you put an image on a webpage, you include alt text that a screen reader can pick up. If you use smaller than 12pt font, you make sure it will scale up if the browser is resized. You don't avoid using all images, animations, audio, or small text across all websites forever to accommodate all potential disabilities; you ensure that they are already accommodated with readily-available alternatives so they don't have to send an email to the webmaster asking for help.
All else being equal, it's better to use the more accessible implementation; but when accessibility would come at the cost of the experience of non-disabled users, you provide separate accommodation.
What people in this thread are suggesting is more along the lines of refusing to return their cart at the grocery store, and saying 'but what if I were disabled?' as an excuse. Well, if you're disabled then you're not expected to return your cart; but if you're not disabled and are just being lazy, you don't get to use their existence as a shield. And the general societal expectation that you return your cart can persist alongside exceptions for people who actually have a legitimate reason why they can't.
This is generally how accommodation works. Not throwing out any expectation, rule, or design that isn't suitable for 100% of the population and all forms of disability.
That's a super reasonable take on the disability stuff, but the shopping cart example kinda underlines what I believe is the ridiculous expectation that people have finished armies and need an excuse if they don't have one.
Which I think is rubbish. I wonder where these clubs are where everyone only brings painted minis, I've certainly never visited one.
The issue I have with any official code is that it will be twisted by somebody in such a way to be used for something bad like warmachine page 5 for example. Imo the spirit of the players code is simple and doesn't need to be codified when you can just gatekeep anybody who doesn't adhere to them. You shouldn't complain, you should know the rules, and your models should be modeled/painted to a good standard that clearly represents your army; the stuff about politeness is the most basic human behavior so it doesn't even warrant mentioning. Problems only arise when you try to mix people who follow this with those that don't.
My theory is that keeping costs high helps resolve some of this because there's a correlation between money and conscientiousness.
Seabass wrote: What people are saying (other than me saying to not use people with a disability as a shield) is that it is so rare, in terms of the population of miniature gamers, that reasonable accommodations can be made on a case by case basis but the rule itself is not exclusionary by its design.
Rare... by what metric? I have encountered FAR more persons with disabilities in miniatures games than I have, just as an example, people who refuse to play against grey plastic.
The hypocritical screed about using disability as a shield doesn't really bear responding to.
sure but of those people with disabilities how many fall into the very small catagory of "are capable of taking tinsy bits of plastic and glueing them together, but are literally incapable of grabbing a spray can, spraying a mini, tossing some leadbletcher on the guns, and then maybe hitting the whole thing with a shade?"
I'm not saying "your minis must be painted" but I suspect the number of people who can't do a token quick paint job yet can still assmble their minis are a absolutely tiny number of people.
I mean I enjoy fighting a painted army, it looks good, but obviously one shouldn't expect every painted army to be worthy of a golden deamon winner
Seabass wrote: What people are saying (other than me saying to not use people with a disability as a shield) is that it is so rare, in terms of the population of miniature gamers, that reasonable accommodations can be made on a case by case basis but the rule itself is not exclusionary by its design.
Rare... by what metric? I have encountered FAR more persons with disabilities in miniatures games than I have, just as an example, people who refuse to play against grey plastic.
The hypocritical screed about using disability as a shield doesn't really bear responding to.
sure but of those people with disabilities how many fall into the very small catagory of "are capable of taking tinsy bits of plastic and glueing them together, but are literally incapable of grabbing a spray can, spraying a mini, tossing some leadbletcher on the guns, and then maybe hitting the whole thing with a shade?"
I'm not saying "your minis must be painted" but I suspect the number of people who can't do a token quick paint job yet can still assmble their minis are a absolutely tiny number of people.
I mean I enjoy fighting a painted army, it looks good, but obviously one shouldn't expect every painted army to be worthy of a golden deamon winner
Not everyone wants to just throw paint on and be done with it, if only a short time for the hobby of painting then it cannot be wasted on half thought painting I would be unhappy with.
GW has entire put that on one group of people, and then players are trying to push those people into that place.
Seabass wrote: What people are saying (other than me saying to not use people with a disability as a shield) is that it is so rare, in terms of the population of miniature gamers, that reasonable accommodations can be made on a case by case basis but the rule itself is not exclusionary by its design.
Rare... by what metric? I have encountered FAR more persons with disabilities in miniatures games than I have, just as an example, people who refuse to play against grey plastic.
The hypocritical screed about using disability as a shield doesn't really bear responding to.
sure but of those people with disabilities how many fall into the very small catagory of "are capable of taking tinsy bits of plastic and glueing them together, but are literally incapable of grabbing a spray can, spraying a mini, tossing some leadbletcher on the guns, and then maybe hitting the whole thing with a shade?"
I'm not saying "your minis must be painted" but I suspect the number of people who can't do a token quick paint job yet can still assmble their minis are a absolutely tiny number of people.
I mean I enjoy fighting a painted army, it looks good, but obviously one shouldn't expect every painted army to be worthy of a golden deamon winner
I was wondering this as well. How are you having issues painting the miniature, but you could assemble it? I don’t have a disability, but recent models have so many tiny detailed bits that fit in tiny spots. I would 100% rather paint than assemble. Quick easy paint job- rattle can black primer, rattle can white zenithal, contrast paint (5-10 colors). Battle ready - keep your 10 VPs.
I prefer not to play with/against unpainted armies due to one experience. Guy told me he didn’t care about painting so his army wouldn’t be painted. I said no issue. He then PROCEEDED TO DUMP A PILE OF BROKEN MINIATURES AND BASES OUT OF A TACKLE BOX. After finding enough bases with tau and kroot legs he set them up in his area. Nothing was represented on the miniature. Sometimes it seemed like he gave and took upgrades where he could. After the battle was over he just used his forearm to sweep them into his box. My experience with this individual painted in my mind that many people who leave their miniatures grey don’t really care about them. Tools for a game vs the hobby experience. He tried to pick up some of my guys and I don’t know if I’ve ever been so rude during a game before.
I have seen players do the dump n sweep before at our flgs & have proceeded to not play them. If you don't give enuff feths to care for your minis, how are you gonna care about our mutual experience playing the game, together?
This is only talking about dump n sweep and not painted/whatever.
Seabass wrote: What people are saying (other than me saying to not use people with a disability as a shield) is that it is so rare, in terms of the population of miniature gamers, that reasonable accommodations can be made on a case by case basis but the rule itself is not exclusionary by its design.
Rare... by what metric? I have encountered FAR more persons with disabilities in miniatures games than I have, just as an example, people who refuse to play against grey plastic.
The hypocritical screed about using disability as a shield doesn't really bear responding to.
sure but of those people with disabilities how many fall into the very small catagory of "are capable of taking tinsy bits of plastic and glueing them together, but are literally incapable of grabbing a spray can, spraying a mini, tossing some leadbletcher on the guns, and then maybe hitting the whole thing with a shade?"
I'm not saying "your minis must be painted" but I suspect the number of people who can't do a token quick paint job yet can still assmble their minis are a absolutely tiny number of people.
I mean I enjoy fighting a painted army, it looks good, but obviously one shouldn't expect every painted army to be worthy of a golden deamon winner
I was wondering this as well. How are you having issues painting the miniature, but you could assemble it? I don’t have a disability, but recent models have so many tiny detailed bits that fit in tiny spots. I would 100% rather paint than assemble. Quick easy paint job- rattle can black primer, rattle can white zenithal, contrast paint (5-10 colors). Battle ready - keep your 10 VPs.
I prefer not to play with/against unpainted armies due to one experience. Guy told me he didn’t care about painting so his army wouldn’t be painted. I said no issue. He then PROCEEDED TO DUMP A PILE OF BROKEN MINIATURES AND BASES OUT OF A TACKLE BOX. After finding enough bases with tau and kroot legs he set them up in his area. Nothing was represented on the miniature. Sometimes it seemed like he gave and took upgrades where he could. After the battle was over he just used his forearm to sweep them into his box. My experience with this individual painted in my mind that many people who leave their miniatures grey don’t really care about them. Tools for a game vs the hobby experience. He tried to pick up some of my guys and I don’t know if I’ve ever been so rude during a game before.
I cannot use spray cans today, or anytime again soon and I need to paint in bed most of the time now. The issues are that it’s very different and these rules don’t make it easier to discuss it, but create ways to avoid that discussion.
Even this guideline ignores real discussion to a degree, written by people who like a lot of players really need to deal with these issues.
If Players want GW to weigh in on these issues, then GW really should step up there game. Trial these rules and guidelines in places they can get feedback so we are not left discussing there failures for potentially years.
Seabass wrote: What people are saying (other than me saying to not use people with a disability as a shield) is that it is so rare, in terms of the population of miniature gamers, that reasonable accommodations can be made on a case by case basis but the rule itself is not exclusionary by its design.
Rare... by what metric? I have encountered FAR more persons with disabilities in miniatures games than I have, just as an example, people who refuse to play against grey plastic.
The hypocritical screed about using disability as a shield doesn't really bear responding to.
sure but of those people with disabilities how many fall into the very small catagory of "are capable of taking tinsy bits of plastic and glueing them together, but are literally incapable of grabbing a spray can, spraying a mini, tossing some leadbletcher on the guns, and then maybe hitting the whole thing with a shade?"
I'm not saying "your minis must be painted" but I suspect the number of people who can't do a token quick paint job yet can still assmble their minis are a absolutely tiny number of people.
I mean I enjoy fighting a painted army, it looks good, but obviously one shouldn't expect every painted army to be worthy of a golden deamon winner
I was wondering this as well. How are you having issues painting the miniature, but you could assemble it? I don’t have a disability, but recent models have so many tiny detailed bits that fit in tiny spots. I would 100% rather paint than assemble. Quick easy paint job- rattle can black primer, rattle can white zenithal, contrast paint (5-10 colors). Battle ready - keep your 10 VPs.
I prefer not to play with/against unpainted armies due to one experience. Guy told me he didn’t care about painting so his army wouldn’t be painted. I said no issue. He then PROCEEDED TO DUMP A PILE OF BROKEN MINIATURES AND BASES OUT OF A TACKLE BOX. After finding enough bases with tau and kroot legs he set them up in his area. Nothing was represented on the miniature. Sometimes it seemed like he gave and took upgrades where he could. After the battle was over he just used his forearm to sweep them into his box. My experience with this individual painted in my mind that many people who leave their miniatures grey don’t really care about them. Tools for a game vs the hobby experience. He tried to pick up some of my guys and I don’t know if I’ve ever been so rude during a game before.
I cannot use spray cans today, or anytime again soon and I need to paint in bed most of the time now. The issues are that it’s very different and these rules don’t make it easier to discuss it, but create ways to avoid that discussion.
Even this guideline ignores real discussion to a degree, written by people who like a lot of players really need to deal with these issues.
If Players want GW to weigh in on these issues, then GW really should step up there game. Trial these rules and guidelines in places they can get feedback so we are not left discussing there failures for potentially years.
you're over thinking this... seriously this is basicly a guide to common ettiquite for a newbie, not some sort of iron clad rules. jesus christ
Seabass wrote: What people are saying (other than me saying to not use people with a disability as a shield) is that it is so rare, in terms of the population of miniature gamers, that reasonable accommodations can be made on a case by case basis but the rule itself is not exclusionary by its design.
Rare... by what metric? I have encountered FAR more persons with disabilities in miniatures games than I have, just as an example, people who refuse to play against grey plastic.
The hypocritical screed about using disability as a shield doesn't really bear responding to.
sure but of those people with disabilities how many fall into the very small catagory of "are capable of taking tinsy bits of plastic and glueing them together, but are literally incapable of grabbing a spray can, spraying a mini, tossing some leadbletcher on the guns, and then maybe hitting the whole thing with a shade?"
I'm not saying "your minis must be painted" but I suspect the number of people who can't do a token quick paint job yet can still assmble their minis are a absolutely tiny number of people.
I mean I enjoy fighting a painted army, it looks good, but obviously one shouldn't expect every painted army to be worthy of a golden deamon winner
I was wondering this as well. How are you having issues painting the miniature, but you could assemble it? I don’t have a disability, but recent models have so many tiny detailed bits that fit in tiny spots. I would 100% rather paint than assemble. Quick easy paint job- rattle can black primer, rattle can white zenithal, contrast paint (5-10 colors). Battle ready - keep your 10 VPs.
I prefer not to play with/against unpainted armies due to one experience. Guy told me he didn’t care about painting so his army wouldn’t be painted. I said no issue. He then PROCEEDED TO DUMP A PILE OF BROKEN MINIATURES AND BASES OUT OF A TACKLE BOX. After finding enough bases with tau and kroot legs he set them up in his area. Nothing was represented on the miniature. Sometimes it seemed like he gave and took upgrades where he could. After the battle was over he just used his forearm to sweep them into his box. My experience with this individual painted in my mind that many people who leave their miniatures grey don’t really care about them. Tools for a game vs the hobby experience. He tried to pick up some of my guys and I don’t know if I’ve ever been so rude during a game before.
I cannot use spray cans today, or anytime again soon and I need to paint in bed most of the time now. The issues are that it’s very different and these rules don’t make it easier to discuss it, but create ways to avoid that discussion.
Even this guideline ignores real discussion to a degree, written by people who like a lot of players really need to deal with these issues.
If Players want GW to weigh in on these issues, then GW really should step up there game. Trial these rules and guidelines in places they can get feedback so we are not left discussing there failures for potentially years.
you're over thinking this... seriously this is basicly a guide to common ettiquite for a newbie, not some sort of iron clad rules. jesus christ
People learn from things like this, for newer players and younger players it’s even more important.
But it’s great you ignore it, isn’t. It funny how the people for the rule and the hobby throw that out and support painting in a way that isn’t enjoyable or to do something someone may hate for the hobby!
You can encourage people to engage in the parts of the hobby you enjoy, but when you push it you should only expect backlash.
It’s clear that so many players don’t engage in the panting aspect, points and this guideline are not a positive way to do that.
Guidelines are fine, but they need care and thought just as much as the rules they supposed to support.
Your post was extremely condescending and is honestly the toxicity that these rules promote.
Seems like the smarter thing for GW to do would have been to put in a section on how the game is designed to be played with painted miniatures and for that reason some people may only want to play against other people with painted miniatures, but at the same time, to be cognizant of being friendly towards newer players who are still in the process of painting, and/or those who cannot paint.
In other words, just...be kind and sensible? Something that I've found is very well represented across the hobby in real life, but very poorly represented on the internet.
yukishiro1 wrote: Seems like the smarter thing for GW to do would have been to put in a section on how the game is designed to be played with painted miniatures and for that reason some people may only want to play against other people with painted miniatures, but at the same time, to be cognizant of being friendly towards newer players who are still in the process of painting, and/or those who cannot paint.
In other words, just...be kind and sensible? Something that I've found is very well represented across the hobby in real life, but very poorly represented on the internet.
I think painting expectations are important for the hobby, but in both cases GW has put one player above the other in the social aspect of the hobby.
Rather than push for a discussion and engagement in the painting hobby. They have pushed that players should just paint and forget about it so others are happy or you get your points. Potentially harming the hobby of the owners of the models themselves.
Also, it would probably be a lot less of a issue if some of the hard to paint factions didn’t need huge hordes to compete.
Our entire kill team campaign was painted by week two and everyone was engaged in the hobby
Plus the way it is said how the model is suppose to look and count as painted. You could zenith spray the models with 3 colour and then dry brush with with grey, and do the same for the bases. And the models will be painted. Will look rather peculiar, but they will count as painted.
Seabass wrote: What people are saying (other than me saying to not use people with a disability as a shield) is that it is so rare, in terms of the population of miniature gamers, that reasonable accommodations can be made on a case by case basis but the rule itself is not exclusionary by its design.
Rare... by what metric? I have encountered FAR more persons with disabilities in miniatures games than I have, just as an example, people who refuse to play against grey plastic.
The hypocritical screed about using disability as a shield doesn't really bear responding to.
sure but of those people with disabilities how many fall into the very small catagory of "are capable of taking tinsy bits of plastic and glueing them together, but are literally incapable of grabbing a spray can, spraying a mini, tossing some leadbletcher on the guns, and then maybe hitting the whole thing with a shade?"
I'm not saying "your minis must be painted" but I suspect the number of people who can't do a token quick paint job yet can still assmble their minis are a absolutely tiny number of people.
I mean I enjoy fighting a painted army, it looks good, but obviously one shouldn't expect every painted army to be worthy of a golden deamon winner
I was wondering this as well. How are you having issues painting the miniature, but you could assemble it? I don’t have a disability, but recent models have so many tiny detailed bits that fit in tiny spots. I would 100% rather paint than assemble. Quick easy paint job- rattle can black primer, rattle can white zenithal, contrast paint (5-10 colors). Battle ready - keep your 10 VPs.
I prefer not to play with/against unpainted armies due to one experience. Guy told me he didn’t care about painting so his army wouldn’t be painted. I said no issue. He then PROCEEDED TO DUMP A PILE OF BROKEN MINIATURES AND BASES OUT OF A TACKLE BOX. After finding enough bases with tau and kroot legs he set them up in his area. Nothing was represented on the miniature. Sometimes it seemed like he gave and took upgrades where he could. After the battle was over he just used his forearm to sweep them into his box. My experience with this individual painted in my mind that many people who leave their miniatures grey don’t really care about them. Tools for a game vs the hobby experience. He tried to pick up some of my guys and I don’t know if I’ve ever been so rude during a game before.
I cannot use spray cans today, or anytime again soon and I need to paint in bed most of the time now. The issues are that it’s very different and these rules don’t make it easier to discuss it, but create ways to avoid that discussion.
Even this guideline ignores real discussion to a degree, written by people who like a lot of players really need to deal with these issues.
If Players want GW to weigh in on these issues, then GW really should step up there game. Trial these rules and guidelines in places they can get feedback so we are not left discussing there failures for potentially years.
If you can’t use a rattle can and have to paint in bed how can you play a game for 90+ minutes? I’m not trying to be mean but if someone is incapable of standing for more than a couple minutes and concentrating how are they capable of pushing miniatures around a table?
Seabass wrote: What people are saying (other than me saying to not use people with a disability as a shield) is that it is so rare, in terms of the population of miniature gamers, that reasonable accommodations can be made on a case by case basis but the rule itself is not exclusionary by its design.
Rare... by what metric? I have encountered FAR more persons with disabilities in miniatures games than I have, just as an example, people who refuse to play against grey plastic.
The hypocritical screed about using disability as a shield doesn't really bear responding to.
sure but of those people with disabilities how many fall into the very small catagory of "are capable of taking tinsy bits of plastic and glueing them together, but are literally incapable of grabbing a spray can, spraying a mini, tossing some leadbletcher on the guns, and then maybe hitting the whole thing with a shade?"
I'm not saying "your minis must be painted" but I suspect the number of people who can't do a token quick paint job yet can still assmble their minis are a absolutely tiny number of people.
I mean I enjoy fighting a painted army, it looks good, but obviously one shouldn't expect every painted army to be worthy of a golden deamon winner
I was wondering this as well. How are you having issues painting the miniature, but you could assemble it? I don’t have a disability, but recent models have so many tiny detailed bits that fit in tiny spots. I would 100% rather paint than assemble. Quick easy paint job- rattle can black primer, rattle can white zenithal, contrast paint (5-10 colors). Battle ready - keep your 10 VPs.
I prefer not to play with/against unpainted armies due to one experience. Guy told me he didn’t care about painting so his army wouldn’t be painted. I said no issue. He then PROCEEDED TO DUMP A PILE OF BROKEN MINIATURES AND BASES OUT OF A TACKLE BOX. After finding enough bases with tau and kroot legs he set them up in his area. Nothing was represented on the miniature. Sometimes it seemed like he gave and took upgrades where he could. After the battle was over he just used his forearm to sweep them into his box. My experience with this individual painted in my mind that many people who leave their miniatures grey don’t really care about them. Tools for a game vs the hobby experience. He tried to pick up some of my guys and I don’t know if I’ve ever been so rude during a game before.
I cannot use spray cans today, or anytime again soon and I need to paint in bed most of the time now. The issues are that it’s very different and these rules don’t make it easier to discuss it, but create ways to avoid that discussion.
Even this guideline ignores real discussion to a degree, written by people who like a lot of players really need to deal with these issues.
If Players want GW to weigh in on these issues, then GW really should step up there game. Trial these rules and guidelines in places they can get feedback so we are not left discussing there failures for potentially years.
If you can’t use a rattle can and have to paint in bed how can you play a game for 90+ minutes? I’m not trying to be mean but if someone is incapable of standing for more than a couple minutes and concentrating how are they capable of pushing miniatures around a table?
My disability is far more complicated, I get time I can be more active and need to rest before and after. And able to use assistance as well as having my own table at home so can have people here to play. I also don’t want to be stuck at home so place special effort on going out often to a shop or a club for games.
Allmost all of the discussion has been on how to get people to paint, and nothing on how to get people engaged in the hobby. So often it sounds hollow, if people care about the hobby they would understand why others don’t engage.
And I do think painting expectations are important for discussion.
Edit, I also do understand that I am probably at the near extreme end of disability but I think my input here is important and I try to understand and grow reading all the posts
I have seen players do the dump n sweep before at our flgs & have proceeded to not play them. If you don't give enuff feths to care for your minis, how are you gonna care about our mutual experience playing the game, together?
This is only talking about dump n sweep and not painted/whatever.
Do you mean people that transport their termagants in lunchboxes and sweep/dump them into the box when they die?
If GW had a guideline for painting competitions that you had to win a game with it, I'm sure the painters here would be quite annoyed at that.
Racerguy180 wrote: I have seen players do the dump n sweep before at our flgs & have proceeded to not play them. If you don't give enuff feths to care for your minis, how are you gonna care about our mutual experience playing the game, together?
Another strange distinction to make. How much time do you spend thinking about the way other people treat their own minis.
I mean, if they were touching your minis without asking, then yeah, I could see why that would impact the game, but a guy chucking his dead Orks or whatever in a box? "I won't play you because you care less about something than I do!"
This is what people have been saying about elitism. That attitude above.
In zoos in Japan they do, as do various other animals.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Apple fox 799052 11158418 wrote:
Allmost all of the discussion has been on how to get people to paint, and nothing on how to get people engaged in the hobby. So often it sounds hollow, if people care about the hobby they would understand why others don’t engage.
And I do think painting expectations are important for discussion.
The how to make them want to paint isn't very convincing either. You pay or you lose your games, is something that may make people not want to play the game. Specially considering how many models one has to paint even for armies like GK and how long it takes to finish and how much it costs.
I prefer not to play with/against unpainted armies due to one experience. Guy told me he didn’t care about painting so his army wouldn’t be painted. I said no issue. He then PROCEEDED TO DUMP A PILE OF BROKEN MINIATURES AND BASES OUT OF A TACKLE BOX.
I knew someone who stored painted miniatures this way. What's your point?
Cybtroll wrote: Probably that at this point you should play with token and paper cutout.
Will you play against such an opponent?
A cutout in the end is more accurate and better than a partially assembled unpainted miniature.
One of the features of plastic miniature is there durability.
But... this was also used as someone who treats plastic toys roughly, and chooses not to paint is somehow going to treat there opponents or the game the same way.
This is the type of toxicity that is all too common in a lot of discussions on this.
Lazy, don’t care, or somehow not doing the hobby right.
They may enjoy building them, or playing with them even if they do not paint.
Many players like the feel and weight of metal miniatures for just that reason, it’s why so many do put extra weight on GW plastic miniatures.
This really just ends up as hobby gate keeping, and the behaviour this page is trying to offer a solution too.
In the case above, it could just be frustrated and not as mindful of what they are doing.
Cybtroll wrote: Probably that at this point you should play with token and paper cutout.
The aforementioned chap did, at one point, have at least one cardboard Rhino and (IIRC) a cardboard Land Raider. He had taken some care in getting the sizes and even the shapes pretty accurate to the models.
I was happy for him to use both.
If you are thinking more along the lines of someone cutting out 2D tokens and putting them on bases, I would play against that as well.
Don't misunderstand me: I'd play against them too. And that's why I find very odd people or company (like GW) pretending to have away over how people play.
My own miniature are always converted and fully painted, because I consiy the hobby much more interesting than the game.
The problem is that GW want to pass marketing and commercial ideas like those are for the good of the game, rather than their own.
That's why I'm always very skeptical of any company that pretend to tell you what's good for you to monetize on it.
H.B.M.C. wrote:If GW had a guideline for painting competitions that you had to win a game with it, I'm sure the painters here would be quite annoyed at that.
Racerguy180 wrote: I have seen players do the dump n sweep before at our flgs & have proceeded to not play them. If you don't give enuff feths to care for your minis, how are you gonna care about our mutual experience playing the game, together?
Another strange distinction to make. How much time do you spend thinking about the way other people treat their own minis.
I mean, if they were touching your minis without asking, then yeah, I could see why that would impact the game, but a guy chucking his dead Orks or whatever in a box? "I won't play you because you care less about something than I do!"
This is what people have been saying about elitism. That attitude above.
It goes to show a lack of caring about our mutually shared gaming experience. And after I saw them do it, I don't think about them again.
How is it elitism? Is it due to the fact I care about my time and wish to spend it playing the game with someone who does the same?
It's not elitism to have expectations on how someone should behave.
Playing against bases with legs is no fun. If you enjoy it, more power to you.
kirotheavenger wrote: I do have games arranged ahead of time.
The problem would be turning up and my opponent going "I don't give permission for you to use the unpainted terminator squad" or whatever.
The only way to mitigate that would be to run through my entire army ahead of time and ask permission, which is possible but a bit of a ballache, especially when 99% of people who just say it's fine anyway.
This issue doesn't even apply to me specifically, every 40k unit I own is painted to some capacity. I shared my journey to illustrate why "just go home" is not that viable for a lot of people.
There's no reason "ask permission to use painted models" should be a thing, the best case scenario is you get permission which was the default anyway.
And whos saying there is such a thing? Aos code doesn't make such a thing. All it says is "talk with opponents like reasonable adults".
tneva82 wrote: And whos saying there is such a thing? Aos code doesn't make such a thing. All it says is "talk with opponents like reasonable adults".
"Ask your opponent's permission if you wish to use unpainted models or substitute models."
The power is clearly in the hands of player with the battle ready army, it is not two equals discussing what kind of game they want. I don't think things need to be equal though, if you cannot paint then you are not living up the hobby standard GW wants to set and that many people enjoy, asking permission is not the end of the world. You kind of have to do it anyway if you want to play without the 10 point paint score which I would want to if I was bringing my non-battle ready army.
And whos saying there is such a thing? Aos code doesn't make such a thing. All it says is "talk with opponents like reasonable adults".
How do you perform that action when you are not an adult, and by definition can't talk like one? Doesn't even matter if one that is reasonable or not? Plus it is a huge gate way for people being donkey-caves to each other. Make someone take a 2 hour trip to the store, oh your army isn't painted to a standard I considered as painted, you can not go wait for a bus home for 30 min, and take a 2 hour trip back, while I and my buddies have a hearty laugh at you.
A rules set like this would in the end make it very hard for people to play without a store near by or a group of friends. Pick up games vs strangers would be a horror, with tons of talking and arguments who thinks whose army is painted, and what is offensive or not.
It goes to show a lack of caring about our mutually shared gaming experience.
Because something that was neither mutual or in the rules for 8 editions out of 9 is hard to be considered a core part of a game, specially when it is a separate activity that has no impact on the game, or rather had no impact on the game for 8 edition out of 9. It makes people enter the world of feelings and what people think is important, and what isn't. And feelings make people act illogical and bad to people they do not care about.
It is like saying that the only way to be a football fan is to be an ultras, and that non ultras at the stadium or people watching it at the fan sites or at homes aren't real football fans. And that somehow being a football fans has to include brawling, because this, unlike siting at home, involves interaction with other fans. Plus the police from time to time.
Seabass wrote: What people are saying (other than me saying to not use people with a disability as a shield) is that it is so rare, in terms of the population of miniature gamers, that reasonable accommodations can be made on a case by case basis but the rule itself is not exclusionary by its design.
Rare... by what metric? I have encountered FAR more persons with disabilities in miniatures games than I have, just as an example, people who refuse to play against grey plastic.
The hypocritical screed about using disability as a shield doesn't really bear responding to.
call it hypocritical, but you have absolutely 0 basis for that. The APA, AMA and a host of other psychological and medical institutions happen to be the originating point for the position I'm taking. Don't hold people with disabilities to a different standard than other people. All it does is hurt them. Using them as a reason as to why you do not want to engage in the (what otherwise is considered normative behavior) to whatever activity they wish to engage in is just exclusionary and mean. Call me a hypocrite, don't care. calling me a hypocrite without even conceptualizing the statements I've made just makes you wrong, it doesn't make me a hypocrite.
at any given point, roughly 12% of the population have long-term disabilities (according to the CDC in the US). now take that 12% and apply it to the hobby and its population and then take that population, and break it down across the number of disabilities that would actually prevent someone from engaging in the hobby and you will understand quite quickly, that it is a VERY tiny portion of the total number of players at large to whom this would actually apply to. in those rare circumstances, exceptions can be made. I have never advocated for otherwise. I want everyone to play and have fun. Social hobbies can be very rewarding and have great long-term prosocial psychological benefits. However, the hobby has relatively normative values assigned to it, and expectations placed on it. Holding people with a disability to a different standard than you would anyone else is psychologically damaging to them (up to a point, as I have stated, ad nauseam, no blind pilots, reasonable limitations, etc). It excludes them from the activity. IF they request help, we, as a community absolutely should help. IF they need assistance in a physical or psychological aspect of the game, we as a community should absolutely stand up and do the right thing to assist them. But if they do not ask, or if they ask for help, we should hold them to no different standard. This hobby has to be fulfilling for them too. Stepping in and saying "no, it's ok, you don't have to paint your, models, on account of X" will only make you feel good about "helping" them, but it won't make them feel good and will take away their feeling of, or attempt to gain, accomplishment.
I could go on for hours on this. I have written several research papers, on this subject with support from multiple doctors, and I have worked for a long time in the health care field. I'm going to call it here. I am not engaging on this topic anymore unless specifically asked, because there is little point in it. The entirety that needs to be explained on a surface level has already been explained, and any further understanding can be better explained by a google scholar search for "ADA, psychological development, pros and cons" or other permutations of those search terms. You do not have to accept what I am stating, quick scholarly source searches support my position from a multitude of research studies, sources, and positions of authority if you feel like that is important.
Ventus wrote: That's a super reasonable take on the disability stuff, but the shopping cart example kinda underlines what I believe is the ridiculous expectation that people have finished armies and need an excuse if they don't have one.
Which I think is rubbish. I wonder where these clubs are where everyone only brings painted minis, I've certainly never visited one.
I dunno, man. GW has always shown painted armies in their magazines, boxes, and websites. Back in the day painting was part of your overall score at a tournament. I used to go to a GW store that only allowed painted minis to be used on their tables (they have since relaxed that- but you are expected to make progress, not show up with a fully grey army every weekend). Even today the overwhelming majority of tournaments have painting requirements. It's so ingrained into the hobby that it isn't something that's ever had to be called out specifically.
I mean, are we being elitist, exclusionary, or hostile to the disabled by expecting people to assemble their models and not just clip the bits off the sprue and pile them onto a base? Is it unfair to poorer hobbyists that we generally expect actual models and not random toys as proxies? There are some commonly-accepted expectations here that are core to the hobby, and we provide exceptions on a case-by-case basis to those with legitimate disabilities that hinder their meeting those expectations. And we can always accommodate players who just want to field an unpainted unit, proxy a toy truck as a Land Raider, or field empty bases to pad out a unit, but all with the understanding that an accommodation is being made.
It seems to me like a subset of players is reacting as if the expectation that minis should be painted is a new idea, rather than an implicit part of the hobby all along that is just now being made explicit, and they feel put on the spot. The whole thing about disabled players looks like fishing for justifications to treat the part of the hobby they don't want to engage with (painting) as somehow different from the parts they're comfortable with (buying and assembling).
And to be clear, I'm not saying- nor do I think anybody else here is saying- that you shouldn't be allowed to play if your army isn't 100% painted. Just that painting is part of the hobby, it makes for a better experience, and the expectation is that you are working towards a fully painted army. If your local group doesn't share that expectation, more power to you- but that's the hobby as GW is framing it and as many players participate in it, and I don't think the idea that painted armies make for a more enjoyable experience is a minority opinion.
catbarf wrote: And to be clear, I'm not saying- nor do I think anybody else here is saying- that you shouldn't be allowed to play if your army isn't 100% painted.
I'm very sure that some posters in this thread are implying exactly that, as is the whole "ask for permission" and "lose 10 VP" BS from GW is.
You are not allowed to work towards a fully painted army at your own speed, it's very clearly 100% painted or GTFO. Which is precisely what the people opposed to this notion are complaining about, no one is asking for free pass to run all grey plastic all the time. That is just a polemic pushed by the elitists.
I also want to point out that comparing painting to assembling models is a very dishonest argument. Assembling takes a fraction of the time it takes to assemble models, and time is for most people the one and only reason why they aren't done painting. I can properly assemble a box of plague marines or boyz in half an hour, it takes me days to finish painting them. Not to mention that the primary reason for people to not run fully assembled models is wanting to paint those models.
catbarf wrote: And to be clear, I'm not saying- nor do I think anybody else here is saying- that you shouldn't be allowed to play if your army isn't 100% painted.
You are not allowed to work towards a fully painted army at your own speed, it's very clearly 100% painted or GTFO.
You're going to have to quote someone saying this. I'm tired of seeing arguments that say thing this extreme without actually quoting the source.
catbarf wrote: And to be clear, I'm not saying- nor do I think anybody else here is saying- that you shouldn't be allowed to play if your army isn't 100% painted.
I'm very sure that some posters in this thread are implying exactly that, as is the whole "ask for permission" and "lose 10 VP" BS from GW is.
You are not allowed to work towards a fully painted army at your own speed, it's very clearly 100% painted or GTFO. Which is precisely what the people opposed to this notion are complaining about, no one is asking for free pass to run all grey plastic all the time. That is just a polemic pushed by the elitists.
I also want to point out that comparing painting to assembling models is a very dishonest argument. Assembling takes a fraction of the time it takes to assemble models, and time is for most people the one and only reason why they aren't done painting. I can properly assemble a box of plague marines or boyz in half an hour, it takes me days to finish painting them.
Not to mention that the primary reason for people to not run fully assembled models is wanting to paint those models.
First off, having standards isn't elitist and there will always be people left out and screaming how even the most basic requirements aren't fair. Although they should be kept out nobody is saying that, just lose 10 vp, don't play in tournaments, and don't play pickups with "elitists" who only want games against painted armies.
And building is a perfect comparison because the hobby is separate from the game right? If you don't have to paint then I don't have to build, now play my proxies. Time factor is irrelevant, there are plenty of slow builders.
catbarf wrote: I dunno, man. GW has always shown painted armies in their magazines, boxes, and websites. Back in the day painting was part of your overall score at a tournament. I used to go to a GW store that only allowed painted minis to be used on their tables (they have since relaxed that- but you are expected to make progress, not show up with a fully grey army every weekend). Even today the overwhelming majority of tournaments have painting requirements. It's so ingrained into the hobby that it isn't something that's ever had to be called out specifically.
Tournaments can do what they want. A tournament can say "Space Marines are banned", and that would be the law of the land. This isn't that. This is attempting to put, as others have pointed out, the permission to play the game in general in the hands of those with painted armies. The person without the painted army has to ask permission to play. That's the issue.
catbarf wrote: It seems to me like a subset of players is reacting as if the expectation that minis should be painted is a new idea, rather than an implicit part of the hobby all along that is just now being made explicit, and they feel put on the spot. The whole thing about disabled players looks like fishing for justifications to treat the part of the hobby they don't want to engage with (painting) as somehow different from the parts they're comfortable with (buying and assembling).
Part of the hobby, yes. No arguments there. Not part of the game, though. Whether my army is painted or not should have no impact on how the game is played, nor the outcome of said game, anymore than your ability to play should have any impact on a painting score.
I can't recall anyone every saying "How dare that person enter the painting competition! They don't even play!" or "You've yet to win a game wiht that army, so the Golden Demon is off limits to you buddy!".
catbarf wrote: And to be clear, I'm not saying- nor do I think anybody else here is saying- that you shouldn't be allowed to play if your army isn't 100% painted.
I'm very sure that some posters in this thread are implying exactly that, as is the whole "ask for permission" and "lose 10 VP" BS from GW is.
You are not allowed to work towards a fully painted army at your own speed, it's very clearly 100% painted or GTFO. Which is precisely what the people opposed to this notion are complaining about, no one is asking for free pass to run all grey plastic all the time. That is just a polemic pushed by the elitists.
I also want to point out that comparing painting to assembling models is a very dishonest argument. Assembling takes a fraction of the time it takes to assemble models, and time is for most people the one and only reason why they aren't done painting. I can properly assemble a box of plague marines or boyz in half an hour, it takes me days to finish painting them.
Not to mention that the primary reason for people to not run fully assembled models is wanting to paint those models.
First off, having standards isn't elitist and there will always be people left out and screaming how even the most basic requirements aren't fair. Although they should be kept out nobody is saying that, just lose 10 vp, don't play in tournaments, and don't play pickups with "elitists" who only want games against painted armies.
And building is a perfect comparison because the hobby is separate from the game right? If you don't have to paint then I don't have to build, now play my proxies. Time factor is irrelevant, there are plenty of slow builders.
Standards sorta go out the window when some people throw out just paint it fast and done, not so you can be happy. But as a way to dismiss the hobby itself of others.
Or how people can judge others with being lazy and other things, but seem to still paint the other side as the ones who are overthinking it or even from this thread saying that so little people are effected it doesn’t matter.
The first thing I see with this rule was people talking about it in that way. It was nasty how some people where talking about others. The same way it seems someone can judge a persons interactions with others in how they treat there game peaces.
People place different values in different things, painting expectations are important to the hobby but the people are as well. So expecting GW to do that well shouldn’t be too much to expect.
The rule in 40k has been really great at promoting toxicity in the hobby, and even playful painting jokes are much more likely now to have posts that are in line with that.
It should also be noted that the burden is not equal on army’s and factions, both in complexity and numbers. And thenwith GW uprooting some factions and changing them potentially with a few months warning it’s a pot that’s almost garentee to have sour feelings.
This just shifts some of GW poor design and thoughts onto players to pick up the peaces.
Reading through this thread it seems a lot of people are jumping to extremes and assuming worst case scenarios and over-reacting.
Personally I’d welcome this code of conduct in 40K. Most clubs, sports and games have official codes of conduct as far as I know, and I don’t think introducing something like this to 40K would change much, but I can’t see it being harmful.
Regarding the bit about painted miniatures, I’m broadly in favour of it, as I am for the 10 VPs awarded for painted armies. Encouraging players to play with painted armies is a good thing in my book. Whether this is the best way to go about it, I’m not so sure, but I prefer it to outright banning unpainted miniatures.
I paint my miniatures, and I’m quite proud of how they look (they won’t win any competitions but they’ve come a long way since I started out!) I enjoy playing against other painted armies and on a nice tabletop with attractive, painted terrain. My FLGS has really nice tables and terrain to play on, but I can’t remember the last pick up game I played where my opponent’s army was fully painted, which I think is a shame.
When I was starting out in 2nd edition, the local GW had a rule that you could only play with painted minis, and I never played there, instead only at home with my brother or with friends. I wasn’t interested in painting much, and preferred to play, and I wasn’t very good at painting either. On top of having limited pocket money, I’d usually spend it on new minis rather than paint and brushes!
If 10VPs and a code of conduct in favour of painted miniatures was the rule when I started I expect I’d have played at the local GW with my work in progress army lost my 10VPs and probably been more involved in the hobby community, and probably picked up some painting tips.
As it is, when I finished secondary school and moved out for university, I more or less dropped out of the hobby, as I had nowhere to play with my partly painted army.
Perhaps if the rule for painted armies was more of a guideline back then I may have continued rather than stopping the hobby for 15 years or so.
Jidmah wrote: I'm very sure that some posters in this thread are implying exactly that, as is the whole "ask for permission" and "lose 10 VP" BS from GW is.
You are not allowed to work towards a fully painted army at your own speed, it's very clearly 100% painted or GTFO. Which is precisely what the people opposed to this notion are complaining about, no one is asking for free pass to run all grey plastic all the time. That is just a polemic pushed by the elitists.
You'll have to explain to me how being allowed to use an unpainted army at the cost of 10VP if an opponent is cool with it equates to '100% painted or GTFO'.
Seems to me to be very clearly the opposite. Conditions are explicitly stated for how you may use unpainted units or armies. And I haven't seen anyone in this thread say they would refuse to play against a less than fully painted army.
Jidmah wrote: I also want to point out that comparing painting to assembling models is a very dishonest argument. Assembling takes a fraction of the time it takes to assemble models, and time is for most people the one and only reason why they aren't done painting.
I never said those are equivalent in terms of effort. I said that if expecting models to be painted is unfair to the disabled, then surely expecting models to be assembled, an activity which similarly requires motor skills and precision, is also unfair. Yet I have never seen the implicit requirement that models be assembled challenged on the grounds that it may be unreasonable for the disabled. Nobody puts piles of bits on 25mm bases and argues that they should be allowed to play it because maybe disabled people can't assemble their models.
Rather gives the impression that the people complaining about being expected to paint aren't really concerned with disabled gamers, and it's more about the burden it places on them.
If you're in it for the game and don't care for painting? Fine. I get it. I respect that. I'd never refuse a game on account of paint. Just recognize that you may be detracting from the experience of others (hence establishing painted minis as a standard and suggesting you seek permission), and own that decision; don't bs about the disabled because it sounds better or more justifiable than 'I'm okay with assembly but I don't want to paint'.
catbarf wrote: And to be clear, I'm not saying- nor do I think anybody else here is saying- that you shouldn't be allowed to play if your army isn't 100% painted.
I'm very sure that some posters in this thread are implying exactly that, as is the whole "ask for permission" and "lose 10 VP" BS from GW is.
Point of order - at no point do you lose 10 VPs if your army isn't "Battle Ready".
Score 90 VPs with your "perfect" Generalship? Congratulations, you still have them regardless of what the status is of your army when it comes to paint.
You might not get the tertiary bonus of 10 VPs for having a Battle Ready army, but that isn't the same as losing 10 VPs - you've worked towards the primary and secondary objectives, and earned your VPs there instead.
Or are you going to say at the end of the game that you "lost" your VPs for the Assassinate Secondary when you never attacked a Character during the game?
Jidmah wrote: I'm very sure that some posters in this thread are implying exactly that, as is the whole "ask for permission" and "lose 10 VP" BS from GW is.
You are not allowed to work towards a fully painted army at your own speed, it's very clearly 100% painted or GTFO. Which is precisely what the people opposed to this notion are complaining about, no one is asking for free pass to run all grey plastic all the time. That is just a polemic pushed by the elitists.
You'll have to explain to me how being allowed to use an unpainted army at the cost of 10VP if an opponent is cool with it equates to '100% painted or GTFO'.
Seems to me to be very clearly the opposite. Conditions are explicitly stated for how you may use unpainted units or armies. And I haven't seen anyone in this thread say they would refuse to play against a less than fully painted army.
Jidmah wrote: I also want to point out that comparing painting to assembling models is a very dishonest argument. Assembling takes a fraction of the time it takes to assemble models, and time is for most people the one and only reason why they aren't done painting.
I never said those are equivalent in terms of effort. I said that if expecting models to be painted is unfair to the disabled, then surely expecting models to be assembled, an activity which similarly requires motor skills and precision, is also unfair. Yet I have never seen the implicit requirement that models be assembled challenged on the grounds that it may be unreasonable for the disabled. Nobody puts piles of bits on 25mm bases and argues that they should be allowed to play it because maybe disabled people can't assemble their models.
Rather gives the impression that the people complaining about being expected to paint aren't really concerned with disabled gamers, and it's more about the burden it places on them.
If you're in it for the game and don't care for painting? Fine. I get it. I respect that. I'd never refuse a game on account of paint. Just recognize that you may be detracting from the experience of others (hence establishing painted minis as a standard and suggesting you seek permission), and own that decision; don't bs about the disabled because it sounds better or more justifiable than 'I'm okay with assembly but I don't want to paint'.
Asking permission and defining expectations is different.
Asking permission implies a negative, my play experience is less than my opponents and my feelings are less.
If it’s very important to a player shouldn’t they encourage the hobby and the enjoyment of that hobby. And fostering good relationships that promote that.
Equalising it, with neutral words means both players should be reaching out.
Both players should be trying to find a mutual point where there play experience can be the best for both players.
I also think the building thing is really bad, as it’s only ever used as a response and a way to catch people of guard. Only one person seemed to be interested in the difference in this discussion.
Out of curiosity how would the player base react to this thought experiment:
Any code of conduct makes no mention of painted miniatures, and the 10 VPs for battle forged are removed and replaced with:
Stat boosts/special rules for units that are painted to battle ready, maybe a +1 toughness here, or a +3” range there and so on. Or strategems like “veteran Intercessors“ cost 0 CPs of the unit is painted to battle ready. This could be presented as representing the equipment is well maintained and in good working order, or a leadership boost representing a sense of martial pride for the unit in full battle colours. Conversely, stat reductions for unpainted miniatures.
After all there are already in game bonuses for painting, if your army is red marines, they get one bonus, if they are blue marines they get a different bonus. Maybe just remove the faction bonuses for unpainted minis?
Instead of an all or nothing 10 bonus VPs, it would reward players who are making progress with their painting, unit by unit.
It amounts to the same thing, an advantage to a player in the game for painting up their army, but on a sliding scale. At the end of the day, both this hypothetical and and the current 10 VPs rule make the player with a painted army more likely to win
Aash wrote: Out of curiosity how would the player base react to this thought experiment:
Any code of conduct makes no mention of painted miniatures, and the 10 VPs for battle forged are removed and replaced with:
Stat boosts/special rules for units that are painted to battle ready, maybe a +1 toughness here, or a +3” range there and so on. Or strategems like “veteran Intercessors“ cost 0 CPs of the unit is painted to battle ready. This could be presented as representing the equipment is well maintained and in good working order, or a leadership boost representing a sense of martial pride for the unit in full battle colours. Conversely, stat reductions for unpainted miniatures.
After all there are already in game bonuses for painting, if your army is red marines, they get one bonus, if they are blue marines they get a different bonus. Maybe just remove the faction bonuses for unpainted minis?
Instead of an all or nothing 10 bonus VPs, it would reward players who are making progress with their painting, unit by unit.
It amounts to the same thing, an advantage to a player in the game for painting up their army, but on a sliding scale. At the end of the day, both this hypothetical and and the current 10 VPs rule make the player with a painted army more likely to win
For half the factions most players probably wouldn’t even know the colours for the different types, so I don’t think anyone even cares that much about what they are painted as to the rules themselves when even for space marines you could paint the shoulders different and it’s not ether got no rules or can be a successor and pick from what you want.
But honestly I don’t think anyone would think this is a good idea. It’s like the worst parts of a grow campaign, which is a way for players to do the hobby and grow a army with everyone’s support.
Instead you would be tipping that upside down and just pushing them into complete disaster of design, and for some factions effectively saying don’t bother turning up to play at all.
And favours space marines with ease of paint again, and GW allready struggles with game design.
Honestly, I think the only change to the 10VP rule is to make it 1VP per full 10% of the army painted to at least the Battle Ready stage, along with a definition of Battle Ready being included within the rulebook.
One newly-assembled model/unit is then only likely to reduce the bonus by 1-2VP if the rest of the army is painted, rather than the full 10.
I'm not necessarily sure why the expectation here is that people need to engage in painting when they aren't necessarily good or interested in it, and then punished for it, when there are plenty of people who are terrible at playing the game and will go years without learning how to play the game and even crusade against anything remoted related to competative play, and yet the expectation is for everyone else to change how they do find fun for these other guys.
Luke_Prowler wrote: I'm not necessarily sure why the expectation here is that people need to engage in painting when they aren't necessarily good or interested in it, and then punished for it, when there are plenty of people who are terrible at playing the game and will go years without learning how to play the game and even crusade against anything remoted related to competative play, and yet the expectation is for everyone else to change how they do find fun for these other guys.
Seems to me like all take and no give.
Because it makes the game look better for players and watchers and might get more people into the hobby in a way that grey tide games are less likely to. People that are terrible at the game lose games, that's their punishment. Saying that casual players never try to adjust is hilarious because tonnes of people change their armies just so they can keep up with the power gamers in their community.
And there we have it - if fully painted is a "basic requirement" your "standard" is high enough to become elitism.
So, yes, your are being an elitist.
And building is a perfect comparison because the hobby is separate from the game right? If you don't have to paint then I don't have to build, now play my proxies.
Yep 100% dishonest elitist argument here. Building has an impact on the game, painting doesn't.
Time factor is irrelevant, there are plenty of slow builders.
More dishonest stuff here. No model takes as long to build as it does to paint, even if you fully magnetize stuff like a helbrute.
Essentially you just want people to prioritize you views and enjoyment over their own. At the very least you could be honest enough to say that.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Quasistellar wrote: You're going to have to quote someone saying this. I'm tired of seeing arguments that say thing this extreme without actually quoting the source.
Either quote it or stop with the hyperbole.
I kindly refer you to the posts below.
Also the 10 VP rule are absolute, you can find them in your corresponding rulebooks. If a single model is not smeared with a sloppy paintjob, you are getting punished.
Luke_Prowler wrote: I'm not necessarily sure why the expectation here is that people need to engage in painting when they aren't necessarily good or interested in it, and then punished for it, when there are plenty of people who are terrible at playing the game and will go years without learning how to play the game and even crusade against anything remoted related to competative play, and yet the expectation is for everyone else to change how they do find fun for these other guys.
Seems to me like all take and no give.
Because it makes the game look better for players and watchers and might get more people into the hobby in a way that grey tide games are less likely to. People that are terrible at the game lose games, that's their punishment. Saying that casual players never try to adjust is hilarious because tonnes of people change their armies just so they can keep up with the power gamers in their community.
GW themselves pose a issue in that players could have there army changed, or made unplayable/boring to play.
They have spent years upending the game and providing incentive to not paint or take part in that part hobby, if they plan to sell then the paint will likely lower its value and lower the ability for them to engage in the part of the hobby they enjoy.
And it’s seen as fine to harass and belittle those players regularly. GW doesn’t want them to stop buying, and they are turning players to that rather than offer long term worth to players in the game focus of the hobby to invest in painting and collecting long term.
This I think is why it’s so hollow when players say to just paint the bare minimum, no effort or pride in the hobby.
catbarf wrote: And to be clear, I'm not saying- nor do I think anybody else here is saying- that you shouldn't be allowed to play if your army isn't 100% painted.
I'm very sure that some posters in this thread are implying exactly that, as is the whole "ask for permission" and "lose 10 VP" BS from GW is.
Point of order - at no point do you lose 10 VPs if your army isn't "Battle Ready".
Score 90 VPs with your "perfect" Generalship? Congratulations, you still have them regardless of what the status is of your army when it comes to paint.
You might not get the tertiary bonus of 10 VPs for having a Battle Ready army, but that isn't the same as losing 10 VPs - you've worked towards the primary and secondary objectives, and earned your VPs there instead.
This is just a glass is half full/empty discussion. If hand out cookies to a group of 10 kids and one doesn't get one, that kid is totally not fine with it. Go try it.
Looking back through my games I played in 9th, a solid fourth of them were close enough to decided by a 10 VP swing.
Or are you going to say at the end of the game that you "lost" your VPs for the Assassinate Secondary when you never attacked a Character during the game?
Uhm, yes, that's how it works.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
catbarf wrote: I never said those are equivalent in terms of effort. I said that if expecting models to be painted is unfair to the disabled, then surely expecting models to be assembled, an activity which similarly requires motor skills and precision, is also unfair. Yet I have never seen the implicit requirement that models be assembled challenged on the grounds that it may be unreasonable for the disabled. Nobody puts piles of bits on 25mm bases and argues that they should be allowed to play it because maybe disabled people can't assemble their models.
I really don't want to go into the whole disabled thing (and never did) because it's just one of the many valid reasons why you aren't done painting your models yet. However, I assume that most people suffering from such problems aren't unable to paint, but simply slower in doing so. If I take an hour to assemble a box of plague marines, someone who takes three times as long takes three hours. If I take a week to get that box of plague marines painted, it takes them three weeks. The reason why my stuff isn't getting painted is because I can just fit 4-5 hours hobby time per week, sometimes less. So that box of plague marines is sitting in my painting box for two months before it's done. I'm seriously dreading having to paint two or more units of beastsnagga boyz at this point.
If you're in it for the game and don't care for painting? Fine. I get it. I respect that. I'd never refuse a game on account of paint. Just recognize that you may be detracting from the experience of others (hence establishing painted minis as a standard and suggesting you seek permission), and own that decision; don't bs about the disabled because it sounds better or more justifiable than 'I'm okay with assembly but I don't want to paint'.
I just think that it's hypocritical that people are expected to find a consent for both sides to have fun when it comes to gaming, but when it comes to painting the enjoyment of one sides is much more important than the other.
The the standards of playing were the same as for painting, running over every new player, narrative army and casual player with top tier tournament list would be ok, because people should just not care about winning as much, spend more time on getting better or pay coaches.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Aash wrote: Out of curiosity how would the player base react to this thought experiment:
Any code of conduct makes no mention of painted miniatures, and the 10 VPs for battle forged are removed and replaced with:
Stat boosts/special rules for units that are painted to battle ready, maybe a +1 toughness here, or a +3” range there and so on. Or strategems like “veteran Intercessors“ cost 0 CPs of the unit is painted to battle ready. This could be presented as representing the equipment is well maintained and in good working order, or a leadership boost representing a sense of martial pride for the unit in full battle colours. Conversely, stat reductions for unpainted miniatures.
After all there are already in game bonuses for painting, if your army is red marines, they get one bonus, if they are blue marines they get a different bonus. Maybe just remove the faction bonuses for unpainted minis?
Instead of an all or nothing 10 bonus VPs, it would reward players who are making progress with their painting, unit by unit.
It amounts to the same thing, an advantage to a player in the game for painting up their army, but on a sliding scale. At the end of the day, both this hypothetical and and the current 10 VPs rule make the player with a painted army more likely to win
I see what you are trying to do, and I definitely like it better than the 10 VP thing, but gaming and painting should not be connected in any way. In the end, giving bonuses to painted models always punishes the unpainted ones. Personally, I don't need any reward for painting, having painted models look good on the table and later on pictures is reward enough.
What should be done is just putting something akin to this as one of the first sentences in the book: "Warhammer 40k is about the spectacle unfolding on the table. Therefore games should be played with fully assembled and painted models and a good-looking base. While you might occasionally want to field a model you haven't had time to paint yet, many people prefer fighting against a fully painted foe. So make sure to talk with your opponent about bringing unpainted models before the game."
Boom, done. Everyone in this thread is happy. Well, except those actively seeking to punish unpainted models, but feth them.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Apple fox wrote: And it’s seen as fine to harass and belittle those players regularly. GW doesn’t want them to stop buying, and they are turning players to that rather than offer long term worth to players in the game focus of the hobby to invest in painting and collecting long term. This I think is why it’s so hollow when players say to just paint the bare minimum, no effort or pride in the hobby.
The "bare minimum" is also a big issue with these "thou have to paint" rules. I have a friend how has a craftword eldar army that he has painted in one Sunday, all 4000 points of them.
He just lined up aspect warriors primed black, dumped a huge brush in to their corresponding aspect color and covered all their helmets with one thick coat of it. And no, he wasn't using contrast. In the same manner, all guns got a big blurb of bleached bone on them and for the tanks he took a slightly smaller brush and ran along their lines in purple.
They look like gak. But yes, totally worth 10 VP and according to some here a paragon of the hobby, doing it right.
What should be done is just putting something akin to this as one of the first sentences in the book:
"Warhammer 40k is about the spectacle unfolding on the table. Therefore games should be played with fully assembled and painted models and a good-looking base. While you might occasionally want to field a model you haven't had time to paint yet, many people prefer fighting against a fully painted foe. So make sure to talk with your opponent about bringing unpainted models before the game."
I'm baffled as to how this is supposed to be different from the line in the proposed code of conduct.
From my experience and wiev, it looks like some people are more intersted in the personal enjoyment of winning than the enjoyment of both players (the visual). Is this correct?
From my experience and wiev, it looks like some people are more intersted in the personal enjoyment of winning than the enjoyment of both players (the visual). Is this correct?
What should be done is just putting something akin to this as one of the first sentences in the book: "Warhammer 40k is about the spectacle unfolding on the table. Therefore games should be played with fully assembled and painted models and a good-looking base. While you might occasionally want to field a model you haven't had time to paint yet, many people prefer fighting against a fully painted foe. So make sure to talk with your opponent about bringing unpainted models before the game."
I'm baffled as to how this is supposed to be different from the line in the proposed code of conduct.
The difference is "Agree on a points level with your opponent" while the propose one is "You have to ask the person with more models for permission to play a game smaller than the maximum points they can field."
I think as a guideline you could go “it’s important that all players have similar painting expectations of the game, if you are unsure ask them for there opinion” could be better written for sure, and maybe only even need the first line.
The other part of the rule I think should as a guideline “use appropriate models” I know GW would prefer a barrier to other companies, but that’s even more anti hobby
From my experience and wiev, it looks like some people are more intersted in the personal enjoyment of winning than the enjoyment of both players (the visual). Is this correct?
From my experience and wiev, it looks like some people are more intersted in the personal enjoyment of winning than the enjoyment of both players (the visual). Is this correct?
This is so dismissive.
Can you explain?
I don’t think anyone does, in a lot of these cases it’s being pushed to the detriment of some players. And it’s funny that you seem to imply only one side is interested in wining when the advantage is givin to the other side.
The side that in the case of 40k seems very protective of that advantage, and dismissive of the hobby that other people have.
From my experience and wiev, it looks like some people are more intersted in the personal enjoyment of winning than the enjoyment of both players (the visual). Is this correct?
This is so dismissive.
Can you explain?
I don’t think anyone does, in a lot of these cases it’s being pushed to the detriment of some players. And it’s funny that you seem to imply only one side is interested in wining when the advantage is givin to the other side.
The side that in the case of 40k seems very protective of that advantage, and dismissive of the hobby that other people have.
I mot sure if i get your point. In all the time i have played this game. the People who never bother with painting or WYSIWYG are the same people that see winning as the most important aspects of the game.
I struggle with building a competetive list nowadays, there is to much information to absorb and i am mostly one or more editions behind in my head. This will cost me a lot more than 10VP.
From my experience and wiev, it looks like some people are more intersted in the personal enjoyment of winning than the enjoyment of both players (the visual). Is this correct?
This is so dismissive.
Can you explain?
I don’t think anyone does, in a lot of these cases it’s being pushed to the detriment of some players. And it’s funny that you seem to imply only one side is interested in wining when the advantage is givin to the other side.
The side that in the case of 40k seems very protective of that advantage, and dismissive of the hobby that other people have.
I mot sure if i get your point. In all the time i have played this game. the People who never bother with painting or WYSIWYG are the same people that see winning as the most important aspects of the game.
You are lumping in "People who never bother with painting or WYSIWYG" with the people who spend a lot of time painting and care much about WYSIWYG, but have some unpainted miniatures.
I struggle with building a competetive list nowadays, there is to much information to absorb and i am mostly one or more editions behind in my head. This will cost me a lot more than 10VP.
So, does your lack of knowledge also cost you painting contests?
From my experience and wiev, it looks like some people are more intersted in the personal enjoyment of winning than the enjoyment of both players (the visual). Is this correct?
This is so dismissive.
Can you explain?
I don’t think anyone does, in a lot of these cases it’s being pushed to the detriment of some players. And it’s funny that you seem to imply only one side is interested in wining when the advantage is givin to the other side.
The side that in the case of 40k seems very protective of that advantage, and dismissive of the hobby that other people have.
I mot sure if i get your point. In all the time i have played this game. the People who never bother with painting or WYSIWYG are the same people that see winning as the most important aspects of the game.
I struggle with building a competetive list nowadays, there is to much information to absorb and i am mostly one or more editions behind in my head. This will cost me a lot more than 10VP.
So you feel fine to dismiss others and consider wining as a important aspect or the most important aspect as a negative. And consider that as a slight against people. I think that itself is quite a negative attitude.
WAAC and CAAC I think I equal in how they can be negative.
With competitive lists, I also struggle a bit. But I don’t hold it against players. A lot of those players could be painters as well.
But I think that’s to blame on GW, the rules are a mess and bloated with no care or thought to the design and playability of the game.
No reason to hold that against others, especially if a player is new or unable to paint or field a good army themselves.
Painting expectations are important, but GW doesn’t care about that. If they did we wouldn’t see so many factions neglected.
Maybe individuals do, but as a company they have yet to show it.
So you feel fine to dismiss others and consider wining as a important aspect or the most important aspect as a negative. And consider that as a slight against people. I think that itself is quite a negative attitude.
WAAC and CAAC I think I equal in how they can be negative.
With competitive lists, I also struggle a bit. But I don’t hold it against players. A lot of those players could be painters as well.
But I think that’s to blame on GW, the rules are a mess and bloated with no care or thought to the design and playability of the game.
No reason to hold that against others, especially if a player is new or unable to paint or field a good army themselves.
Painting expectations are important, but GW doesn’t care about that. If they did we wouldn’t see so many factions neglected.
Maybe individuals do, but as a company they have yet to show it.
You are missing the point. I try to stay away from the waac vs caac argument. This is about the trend i see in recent editions of 40k, the actual gameplay as something that is more and more separated from the rest of the hobby.
40k is gradually becoming a ccg with all the combos and the way you assamble your list. I am being forced out of the game with the constant rules changes and huge amonts of books needed to play.
There was a time when the miniatures was the most important aspect of 40k.
The difference is "Agree on a points level with your opponent" while the propose one is "You have to ask the person with more models for permission to play a game smaller than the maximum points they can field."
But it isn't. Because your proposal is still the guy with unpainted models asking permission to use them, which is what people were objecting to in the first place..
All you really did was add some spiel at the beginning about how the game is better with painted models.
So you feel fine to dismiss others and consider wining as a important aspect or the most important aspect as a negative. And consider that as a slight against people. I think that itself is quite a negative attitude.
WAAC and CAAC I think I equal in how they can be negative.
With competitive lists, I also struggle a bit. But I don’t hold it against players. A lot of those players could be painters as well.
But I think that’s to blame on GW, the rules are a mess and bloated with no care or thought to the design and playability of the game.
No reason to hold that against others, especially if a player is new or unable to paint or field a good army themselves.
Painting expectations are important, but GW doesn’t care about that. If they did we wouldn’t see so many factions neglected.
Maybe individuals do, but as a company they have yet to show it.
You are missing the point. I try to stay away from the waac vs caac argument. This is about the trend i see in recent editions of 40k, the actual gameplay as something that is more and more separated from the rest of the hobby.
40k is gradually becoming a ccg with all the combos and the way you assamble your list. I am being forced out of the game with the constant rules changes and huge amonts of books needed to play.
There was a time when the miniatures was the most important aspect of 40k.
I am propably not making a clear point, sorry.
This may be a issue with both our English it’s all good. But if I understand, I agree. GW has mismanaged the game, and I think the lack of faith in the rules has inadvertently created players with little faith that the value of there miniatures staying relevant and taking value from the part of the hobby they see as less enjoyable.
GW bloated rules are a issue, and I don’t think they can fix it.
40k has had a bit of its core gutted and hasn’t really been given any replacements and leads to needing a lot of design support to give interesting units and game play.
I don’t really think it’s really taking understanding from ccg mechanics, I think they are taking inspiration from other table top games and bolting them onto the 40k game systems without really taking the time for maintaining or the future design of those systems.
Management seems to think of the rules as the end part of the project, and we end up with a game that seems to be trying to be several different things.
I don't think expecting painted miniatures in a miniatures game is elitist.
It's a basic standard.
At the risk of repeating myself, I will say again: the whole point of playing a Miniatures Game is the cool spectacle. That is what sets it apart from games that use cardboard chits or other abstractions of units and actors in the game.
Therefore, unlike some other tabletop game types, the spectacle is part of the point of playing. Otherwise, there are plenty of other ways to consume Warhammer content that doesn't provide the same spectacle (if that isn't what you care about).
The shopping cart example from upthread is a good example; is it elitist to suggest people put their carts away?
Simply having normative behaviors in a social setting isn't what "elitism" is, especially when those normative behaviors have been standard for decades and are what sets the activity apart from other activities.
It isn't elitist to insist people use golf balls to play golf rather than soccer balls.
And there we have it - if fully painted is a "basic requirement" your "standard" is high enough to become elitism.
So, yes, your are being an elitist.
And building is a perfect comparison because the hobby is separate from the game right? If you don't have to paint then I don't have to build, now play my proxies.
Yep 100% dishonest elitist argument here. Building has an impact on the game, painting doesn't.
Time factor is irrelevant, there are plenty of slow builders.
More dishonest stuff here. No model takes as long to build as it does to paint, even if you fully magnetize stuff like a helbrute.
Essentially you just want people to prioritize you views and enjoyment over their own. At the very least you could be honest enough to say that.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Quasistellar wrote: You're going to have to quote someone saying this. I'm tired of seeing arguments that say thing this extreme without actually quoting the source.
Either quote it or stop with the hyperbole.
I kindly refer you to the posts below.
Also the 10 VP rule are absolute, you can find them in your corresponding rulebooks. If a single model is not smeared with a sloppy paintjob, you are getting punished.
Ah more hyperbole and outright lies now. My guilty pleasure continues.
And building is a perfect comparison because the hobby is separate from the game right? If you don't have to paint then I don't have to build, now play my proxies.
Yep 100% dishonest elitist argument here. Building has an impact on the game, painting doesn't.
*looks at subfaction rules that are tied to specific paint schemes, and the complaining about that recently*
Aash wrote: Out of curiosity how would the player base react to this thought experiment:
Any code of conduct makes no mention of painted miniatures, and the 10 VPs for battle forged are removed and replaced with:
Stat boosts/special rules for units that are painted to battle ready, maybe a +1 toughness here, or a +3” range there and so on. Or strategems like “veteran Intercessors“ cost 0 CPs of the unit is painted to battle ready. This could be presented as representing the equipment is well maintained and in good working order, or a leadership boost representing a sense of martial pride for the unit in full battle colours. Conversely, stat reductions for unpainted miniatures.
After all there are already in game bonuses for painting, if your army is red marines, they get one bonus, if they are blue marines they get a different bonus. Maybe just remove the faction bonuses for unpainted minis?
Instead of an all or nothing 10 bonus VPs, it would reward players who are making progress with their painting, unit by unit.
It amounts to the same thing, an advantage to a player in the game for painting up their army, but on a sliding scale. At the end of the day, both this hypothetical and and the current 10 VPs rule make the player with a painted army more likely to win
I strongly support painting but I would never, ever accept that.
The difference is that the 10VP bonus is immaterial to the actual gameplay. It does not come into play at all until you total up VP at the end. When you tally the total and find that you got 65VP and your opponent got 70VP, you know whose generalship was superior, even if the rules then say you get 10VP for being painted and thus are technically the winner. It's effectively immaterial; a codification of standards that doesn't matter for casual play (who cares who technically won?), is likely superseded by painting rules for tournament play, and generally doesn't matter in a game where wins tend to be by a lot more than a 10VP margin. Its impact is more symbolic than anything else.
The instant you start making paint matter for turn-by-turn gameplay, then it goes from symbolic to a really big deal. The difference between a painted army and an unpainted army is no longer a single line on a scoring sheet that you don't care about until the very end (if even then); instead it becomes a constant factor with tangible gameplay effects. That's far, far harsher against newbies than a simple VP bonus- getting tabled because your entire army is debuffed is a lot more demoralizing than a close-fought loss that gets marginally amplified by a painting bonus.
Unit1126PLL wrote: I don't think expecting painted miniatures in a miniatures game is elitist.
It's a basic standard.
At the risk of repeating myself, I will say again: the whole point of playing a Miniatures Game is the cool spectacle. That is what sets it apart from games that use cardboard chits or other abstractions of units and actors in the game.
Therefore, unlike some other tabletop game types, the spectacle is part of the point of playing. Otherwise, there are plenty of other ways to consume Warhammer content that doesn't provide the same spectacle (if that isn't what you care about).
The shopping cart example from upthread is a good example; is it elitist to suggest people put their carts away?
Simply having normative behaviors in a social setting isn't what "elitism" is, especially when those normative behaviors have been standard for decades and are what sets the activity apart from other activities.
It isn't elitist to insist people use golf balls to play golf rather than soccer balls.
Putting a shopping cart away is cleaning up after yourself and takes 1-2 minutes to do. You used the cart WHICH YOU DO NOT OWN and your putting it back so they can be reused without some poor worker having to round up the carts from all over the parking lot (and not obstructing parking with carts cluttering up the place).
A golf ball costs a very tiny amount of money and takes basically an insignificant amount of effort to acquire from a store.
Painting an army is tens to hundreds of hours of dedicated work. That is a LOT of resources of money, time, and personal effort which many people cannot or do not want to spend. Basically its saying the people who are busy in life, have to work a lot to get by, or lack some means (be it motivation, ability, whatever) to do all of that painting then they better just sit on the sidelines because their kind isn't accepted here unless you humble yourself to beg for permission to play from those who has the resources to have fully painted armies. If you make $10 an hour (a very low wage in the states) and your painting up a full army which takes 100 hours in this example then your talking about work that has the opportunity cost of $1000 plus the cost of brushes and paint plus however much that army of models cost (add on top of that the half dozen books GW seems to want its customers to buy with rules scattered about). For somebody who likes painting its not as much of a problem (still have that 100 hours of effort lead time before you can play the game "properly") but for those who do not then it can be the same as working a job.
How can you try to compare tiny things like putting a cart away or using a golf ball in golf to painting an entire army of miniatures? They aren't even remotely in the same ball park of effort/investment.
And building is a perfect comparison because the hobby is separate from the game right? If you don't have to paint then I don't have to build, now play my proxies.
Yep 100% dishonest elitist argument here. Building has an impact on the game, painting doesn't.
*looks at subfaction rules that are tied to specific paint schemes, and the complaining about that recently*
You sure about that, Gracie?
*Looks at 3rd ed Ork dex from 1999, with the "Red Paint Job" upgrade. You know, in the times when all weapons and wargear had to represented on the model and WYSIWYG was more stringent. So, the implication being to get said upgrade you had to paint your vehicle red.
Vankraken wrote: Painting an army is tens to hundreds of hours of dedicated work. That is a LOT of resources of money, time, and personal effort which many people cannot or do not want to spend. Basically its saying the people who are busy in life, have to work a lot to get by, or lack some means (be it motivation, ability, whatever) to do all of that painting
Frankly, money and time are not credible objections for someone who has the money and time to buy an entire army, assemble and base it, play with it regularly, and then go on the Internet and complain about being expected to paint it too. Nobody's expecting you to win a Golden Demon; if you really don't care to put any effort into painting, you can bang out the three-color Battle Ready standard in a weekend. Spray, Contrast, pick out two accent colors, apply a basing technical, and you're done. It's a very, very low bar, but it's better to play against than grey tide.
Vankraken wrote: How can you try to compare tiny things like putting a cart away or using a golf ball in golf to painting an entire army of miniatures? They aren't even remotely in the same ball park of effort/investment.
A more direct comparison might be the requirement that you use golf clubs to play golf.
Golf clubs are incredibly expensive and represent a significant barrier to entry, but those are the rules, that's the hobby. You're free to play golf with a cricket bat with your friends in your backyard if you're so inclined, but if you go to a more formal event or even just to play against casuals at the local golf course, it's not elitist to expect you to actually use golf clubs. It's a basic requirement of the game/hobby/sport, and you knew going into it that people play golf with golf clubs. Every picture the PGA puts out of formal golf involves golf clubs, the majority of players use golf clubs, every major event requires golf clubs, and here you are complaining about the elitism of you being expected to use golf clubs and having to ask permission to use your cricket bat instead.
(Edit: And if you want to get hung up on golf clubs being something that has a gameplay element rather than 'window dressing', bear in mind that golf also generally has dress codes for both public courses and formal events)
Having standards, requirements, or expectations for a sport or hobby- even ones that may not be accessible to everyone- isn't elitism. Painting minis for tabletop wargaming isn't a new thing. It's not a surprise requirement that GW has suddenly dropped on us. It's always been part of the hobby and a basic expectation. If you have a group of friends or regulars who don't care about painting, more power to you. But as soon as you play against someone who does care about that aspect of the hobby, you have to recognize that you are not meeting the commonly accepted standard, and that puts you in a position where the polite thing to do is ask your opponent if they're fine with it.
That is a very bad example. You can perfectly well play w40k with unpainted models, you can't play golf without proper clubs.
For eight edition it was not required for armies to be painted. So the argument, that the painting of models was and part of the gaming is not true either. It was only in 9th, when the rule was forced on to people. And while GW can do with rules what ever they can, it can't be said that people knew or know that the hobby requires painting their models when for 30 years plus they did not have to do it to play. How many people with unpainted armies or new people who are starting the game, and get to know that the rules exists, have you seen saying that it is a good rules and they welcome it. No the only people that like the rule is people that like painting and/or who have painted armies.
It very much is a suprising requirement when for 30+ years you did not have to do it. And also the commonly accepted standard is something claimed by people who like painting,and that isn't even the majority of all player, and even less of new players. In fact from the new players perspective painting is seens as an unwanted chore and additional cost they would rather avoid, if it was possible. And they did exactly that for 8 editions.
I mean the rule in 9th is just GW attempting to get people to buy more of their products but at the same time supporting the fact that using painted models is how they desire their game to be played.
Anyone seriously arguing that "painting your models isn't part of the hobby" is talking out their butt.
And declaring people who ask people to paint their models as elitist is just sad. All of the marketing has the models painted, all of the Codex images are of painted models, all of the box art is painted models. It is not elitist to expect a painted army.
And for everyone saying "what about new hobbyists/hobbyists with disabilities", do you seriously not think people would just make an exception. Nobody is going to scream at a 12-year-old child with only one arm that they aren't playing 40k right because their models aren't painted. Take a long hard look at yourself and decide if that was really the best form of the argument you could have made here.
JNAProductions wrote: There’s a lot of people who seem to be unwilling to accept other people have different standards as them.
Do you mean some people have standards and others have none? Imo high standards, gatekeeping, and elitism result in improved quality across the board whilst those who don't want to paint and cannot play in tournaments anyway remain unaffected. Outside of events you're already going to be picking who you want to play against in a voluntary, casual manner; therefore, you and your opponent are free to disregard the players code and the 10vp rule if you want.
I'm trying to imagine where any of this is a negative beyond it making someone feel bad. And if you can break the hobby down into separate elements and abandon the ones that don't effect gameplay then miniatures aren't needed and paper proxies will work just fine. GW and elitist gamers are being mean to the poor by having a standard that miniature hobby games require actual miniatures.
It's kinda funny -- I don't have a problem playing against some unpainted miniatures, but it seems those that don't like to paint have a HUGE problem with painted models being the standard.
If I had a problem with that, I wouldn't play GW games. I'd keep playing Xwing or Armada or or board games. This is not a slight against those types of games, either--they're actually fantastic. I have a large collection of other games.
But, when I want a big spectacle on the board, I play 40k or AoS. (or I get out my fully painted Rising Sun board game . . . )
With the golf analogy, it's more along the lines of: would you like playing on a course that's just literally dirt and really low mowed weeds? Heck no--I want a beautifully landscaped course. The game can be played the same on either.
Quasistellar wrote: It's kinda funny -- I don't have a problem playing against some unpainted miniatures, but it seems those that don't like to paint have a HUGE problem with painted models being the standard.
If I had a problem with that, I wouldn't play GW games. I'd keep playing Xwing or Armada or or board games. This is not a slight against those types of games, either--they're actually fantastic. I have a large collection of other games.
But, when I want a big spectacle on the board, I play 40k or AoS. (or I get out my fully painted Rising Sun board game . . . )
With the golf analogy, it's more along the lines of: would you like playing on a course that's just literally dirt and really low mowed weeds? Heck no--I want a beautifully landscaped course. The game can be played the same on either.
No one has a issue with it being a standard, but it’s so easy for players to use this to be nasty, and really that’s kinda it.
The rules encourage this and GW is good and turning there players against each other.
Maybe if GW had good rules and encouraged people sticking with factions and offering them good support we wouldn’t needing half assed rules to use player harassment and shaming to get more painting done.
The first thing I see in response to these rules where 40k players doing that, and then nothing but pushing that onto the players this effects.
Care about the hobby, or create divide. But I only see people who constantly say the other side is selfish, but never reflect on what they say or how they effect others.
Aash wrote: Reading through this thread it seems a lot of people are jumping to extremes and assuming worst case scenarios and over-reacting.
Personally I’d welcome this code of conduct in 40K. Most clubs, sports and games have official codes of conduct as far as I know, and I don’t think introducing something like this to 40K would change much, but I can’t see it being harmful.
thats exactly whats going on. the people protesting these ettiiquite guidelines as somehow something that will be used by WAACTFGs to screw them is baffling. If this is a GENUINE fear I can;t help but say I feel sorry for them
I think the names, dismiss attitude and way people talk about it shows that 40k has lots of people who will.
The guideline also sidelines the hobby as well.
And GW subverts it with its rule design, there are several factions where faith of any good support is not really high.
GW made my only painted army unplayable before I got sick.
Only to put the 40k rule in. Consistency of rule design would help the hobby far more.
Karol wrote: That is a very bad example. You can perfectly well play w40k with unpainted models, you can't play golf without proper clubs.
For eight edition it was not required for armies to be painted. So the argument, that the painting of models was and part of the gaming is not true either. It was only in 9th, when the rule was forced on to people. And while GW can do with rules what ever they can, it can't be said that people knew or know that the hobby requires painting their models when for 30 years plus they did not have to do it to play. How many people with unpainted armies or new people who are starting the game, and get to know that the rules exists, have you seen saying that it is a good rules and they welcome it. No the only people that like the rule is people that like painting and/or who have painted armies.
It very much is a suprising requirement when for 30+ years you did not have to do it. And also the commonly accepted standard is something claimed by people who like painting,and that isn't even the majority of all player, and even less of new players. In fact from the new players perspective painting is seens as an unwanted chore and additional cost they would rather avoid, if it was possible. And they did exactly that for 8 editions.
I've played the game since 1994, and almost every event outside of the local game store events where no one cares has almost always had some kind of painting requirement. Might just be my singular experience, but everything from Games Day to RTTs during 3rd, 3.5 and 4th all had requirements, and about the time of 4th to 5th is when ITC really started to become a thing, and there were always painting requirements there. As far as I can remember, painting has always been a requirement at events beyond your local play group and area.
And building is a perfect comparison because the hobby is separate from the game right? If you don't have to paint then I don't have to build, now play my proxies.
Yep 100% dishonest elitist argument here. Building has an impact on the game, painting doesn't.
*looks at subfaction rules that are tied to specific paint schemes, and the complaining about that recently*
You sure about that, Gracie?
Not a single word in any of the books requires your army to be blue to count as ultramarines, and outside of marines most faction's colors tend to be unknown to most players anyways.
And building is a perfect comparison because the hobby is separate from the game right? If you don't have to paint then I don't have to build, now play my proxies.
Yep 100% dishonest elitist argument here. Building has an impact on the game, painting doesn't.
*looks at subfaction rules that are tied to specific paint schemes, and the complaining about that recently*
You sure about that, Gracie?
Not a single word in any of the books requires your army to be blue to count as ultramarines, and outside of marines most faction's colors tend to be unknown to most players anyways.
yeah, but if your army is painted like ultramarines, you have to run them as ultramarines in organized play, IIRC. I seem to remember reading that. I think it was to stop the number of ultramarines, salamanders, and blood angels that had mysteriously took a temporary duty assignment with the iron hands...
Seabass wrote: yeah, but if your army is painted like ultramarines, you have to run them as ultramarines in organized play, IIRC. I seem to remember reading that. I think it was to stop the number of ultramarines, salamanders, and blood angels that had mysteriously took a temporary duty assignment with the iron hands...
That is not a thing outside some very specific circuits like warhammer world. LVO also had a rule in place to enforce a coherent look across armies to put a stop to wild mixes of borrowed units.
There is no actual rule that tells you how to paint your miniatures.
Marine rules shouldn’t be different enough for it to really matter, at this point it’s a bit of a joke. All the codex compliant chapters should be able to be competent at all types of warfare.
The difference should be minor with some weapons and some special units.
Apple fox wrote: Marine rules shouldn’t be different enough for it to really matter, at this point it’s a bit of a joke. All the codex compliant chapters should be able to be competent at all types of warfare.
The difference should be minor with some weapons and some special units.
They can be competent but some chapters do certain things better than others. The White Scars don't just use Bikes for no reason, it's as close to the culture of Chogoris as they can get so for them a Bike isn't equipment its a little piece of home they take everywhere with them while also being a companion in the great hunts, it's part of their very soul.
Apple fox wrote: Marine rules shouldn’t be different enough for it to really matter, at this point it’s a bit of a joke. All the codex compliant chapters should be able to be competent at all types of warfare.
The difference should be minor with some weapons and some special units.
They can be competent but some chapters do certain things better than others. The White Scars don't just use Bikes for no reason, it's as close to the culture of Chogoris as they can get so for them a Bike isn't equipment its a little piece of home they take everywhere with them while also being a companion in the great hunts, it's part of their very soul.
Not enough to make a difference with how flat the rules are now, in a more RPG or narrative focused game yup. But in 40k it just means some marine factions not worth bothering. Or like we see, players switching around the rules to best suit the army they have.
I mean that's flat out not true though is it. Each Chapter has units that work better with their unique rules and units that don't.
Dreadnoughts don't work well for WS but are good for IH. A UM Assault Intercessor is going to be good at combat but a BA or BT one is going to be better. If the Chapter rules were so inconsequential then why did people complain about IH in 8th or DW in 9th? I think there's probably complaints about X being OP in Y sub-factions all over the place but those two seem to stand out.
As for the rules switching, I really don't think that's as widespread as you say it is.
JNAProductions wrote: There’s a lot of people who seem to be unwilling to accept other people have different standards as them.
Do you mean some people have standards and others have none? Imo high standards, gatekeeping, and elitism result in improved quality across the board whilst those who don't want to paint and cannot play in tournaments anyway remain unaffected. Outside of events you're already going to be picking who you want to play against in a voluntary, casual manner; therefore, you and your opponent are free to disregard the players code and the 10vp rule if you want.
I'm trying to imagine where any of this is a negative beyond it making someone feel bad. And if you can break the hobby down into separate elements and abandon the ones that don't effect gameplay then miniatures aren't needed and paper proxies will work just fine. GW and elitist gamers are being mean to the poor by having a standard that miniature hobby games require actual miniatures.
All these rules are, at least a number of them, is about not making people feel bad. So going into a rule to make someone feel lesser when paint doesn't alter the game just alters the experience, it feels sorta dumb. Also standards is highly subjective and sorry I don't think elitism and gatekeeping is at all a good thing in this regard unless you want to actively discourage people from playing the game or getting into it in the first place. This game can cost a lot of cash to get into and maintain for some people and the only drive to work harder is the use they get out of their models in game. I suppose though might as well not let those dirty non painters play anyways, they probably can't even buy 3 of every new model that drops, the plebs ! Gatekeeping is fun.
I didn’t say it was, but it’s brought up all the time. The reason I even respond is that paint of marines does matter, and matter a lot to some people.
But space marines are masters of warfare, and when you only use a D6 and have large units the difference in rules between marines is way overdone.
Some marines just kinda suck more than others, and when they start to step on the mechanics of other factions it becomes a issue for a few other reasons.
And leads to a lot of rule bloat, which leads into other issues. Maybe if GW was a master of rules design it would be better.
But what we have end up with lots of words that will bog down the game until the next reboot most likely.
If people really think the paint schemes will end up not being touched on in future rules, they must be some sweet summer children. They will end up with official paint locking them to what army they were taken for soon. I bet my wooden nickels on it !
Don't worry when it happens though we'll hear how its all better for everyone, just means everyone will use special paint schemes then. So really the are doing us all a favor, creating difference.
@Apple fox
Marines are bloated because GW can't axe the Firstborn from the range meaning SM have double the average unit count for an army. This wasn't as much of an issue when Primaris were basically supplementary to Firstborn but now they have enough units to be their own army and the Codex has to cover pure Firstborn and Primaris armies alongside mixed forces.
Subfactions aren't the issue, it's poor range management.
TBF thats a very specific rare example that effects a single unit in the army and only if you take that specific Warlord trait. It can also be easily ignored by being:
A - A successor chapter without distinct rules.
B - A Blackshield.
C - Using a shoulder pad with a generic SM symbol on it.
Apple fox wrote: I don’t think even GW would try to lock rules behind paint official or even using guidelines like this. They not quite that bad.
They already do for organised play at Warhammer World:
If you have painted your models in a specific way, we expect you to use the rules relevant to that scheme. For example, if you have painted your models as Salamanders, your army must have the Salamanders keyword or if you have painted your models as Hammers of Sigmar they must use the relevant Command Trait, Artefact of Power etc. If you have created your own Chapter/Hive Fleet/Sept/Stormhost/ etc and they are painted in your own unique colour scheme, then you may give them any keyword that you wish. If you have used different keywords between detachments, there must be a clear visual difference between each detachment. For example, if you have a Tyranid army with detachments from both Kraken and Kronos, the models in each detachment must be clearly distinguishable from one to another such as a different coloured carapace. Note that different colour base rims, or a single thin stripe on each miniature are not a sufficient difference. If you are unsure whether something is clearly distinguishable, contact us via the details at the end of this guide.
Admittedly this is for organised play at one of their own venues, so is essentially house rules, but if they were to include a more detailed set of Organised Play rules in the Core Rules, I wouldn’t be surprised if something like this cropped up.
Apple fox wrote: I don’t think even GW would try to lock rules behind paint official or even using guidelines like this.
They not quite that bad.
They already do for organised play at Warhammer World:
If you have painted your models in a specific way, we expect you to use the rules relevant to that scheme.
For example, if you have painted your models as Salamanders, your army must have the Salamanders keyword or if you have painted your models as Hammers of Sigmar they must use the relevant Command Trait, Artefact of Power etc.
If you have created your own Chapter/Hive Fleet/Sept/Stormhost/ etc and they are painted in your own unique colour scheme, then you may give them any keyword that you wish.
If you have used different keywords between detachments, there must be a clear visual difference between each detachment. For example, if you have a Tyranid army with detachments from both Kraken and Kronos, the models in each detachment must be clearly distinguishable from one to another such as a different coloured carapace. Note that different colour base rims, or a single thin stripe on each miniature are not a sufficient difference.
If you are unsure whether something is clearly distinguishable, contact us via the details at the end of this guide.
Admittedly this is for organised play at one of their own venues, so is essentially house rules, but if they were to include a more detailed set of Organised Play rules in the Core Rules, I wouldn’t be surprised if something like this cropped up.
Note this just means you can't have models that are painted just like ultramarines to have as blood angels.
But your custom blue marines? Blood angels, fine. Iron hand, fine.
It's basically "don't make confusing". If your models look like ultramarines then they are ultramarines. If it's not official colour scheme with markings etc you are free because then there's visual hint that these are not official chapter but custom.
Gert wrote: @Apple fox
Marines are bloated because GW can't axe the Firstborn from the range meaning SM have double the average unit count for an army. This wasn't as much of an issue when Primaris were basically supplementary to Firstborn but now they have enough units to be their own army and the Codex has to cover pure Firstborn and Primaris armies alongside mixed forces.
Subfactions aren't the issue, it's poor range management.
Well I mostly agree, I think poor range management has been driving a lot of issues.
GW needs a talented manager in the right place for 40k.
But I don’t know enough about deathwatch so I find that interesting, I just let people play what ever rules wise.
Warhammer world is not something I really pay attention too. It’s a long way away
Apple fox wrote: I don’t think even GW would try to lock rules behind paint official or even using guidelines like this.
They not quite that bad.
They already do for organised play at Warhammer World:
If you have painted your models in a specific way, we expect you to use the rules relevant to that scheme.
For example, if you have painted your models as Salamanders, your army must have the Salamanders keyword or if you have painted your models as Hammers of Sigmar they must use the relevant Command Trait, Artefact of Power etc.
If you have created your own Chapter/Hive Fleet/Sept/Stormhost/ etc and they are painted in your own unique colour scheme, then you may give them any keyword that you wish.
If you have used different keywords between detachments, there must be a clear visual difference between each detachment. For example, if you have a Tyranid army with detachments from both Kraken and Kronos, the models in each detachment must be clearly distinguishable from one to another such as a different coloured carapace. Note that different colour base rims, or a single thin stripe on each miniature are not a sufficient difference.
If you are unsure whether something is clearly distinguishable, contact us via the details at the end of this guide.
Admittedly this is for organised play at one of their own venues, so is essentially house rules, but if they were to include a more detailed set of Organised Play rules in the Core Rules, I wouldn’t be surprised if something like this cropped up.
This seems like a reason to never use any of the official paint schemes.
Apple fox wrote: I don’t think even GW would try to lock rules behind paint official or even using guidelines like this. They not quite that bad.
They already do for organised play at Warhammer World:
If you have painted your models in a specific way, we expect you to use the rules relevant to that scheme. For example, if you have painted your models as Salamanders, your army must have the Salamanders keyword or if you have painted your models as Hammers of Sigmar they must use the relevant Command Trait, Artefact of Power etc. If you have created your own Chapter/Hive Fleet/Sept/Stormhost/ etc and they are painted in your own unique colour scheme, then you may give them any keyword that you wish. If you have used different keywords between detachments, there must be a clear visual difference between each detachment. For example, if you have a Tyranid army with detachments from both Kraken and Kronos, the models in each detachment must be clearly distinguishable from one to another such as a different coloured carapace. Note that different colour base rims, or a single thin stripe on each miniature are not a sufficient difference. If you are unsure whether something is clearly distinguishable, contact us via the details at the end of this guide.
Admittedly this is for organised play at one of their own venues, so is essentially house rules, but if they were to include a more detailed set of Organised Play rules in the Core Rules, I wouldn’t be surprised if something like this cropped up.
Note this just means you can't have models that are painted just like ultramarines to have as blood angels.
But your custom blue marines? Blood angels, fine. Iron hand, fine.
It's basically "don't make confusing". If your models look like ultramarines then they are ultramarines. If it's not official colour scheme with markings etc you are free because then there's visual hint that these are not official chapter but custom.
So basically "don't play plasma gun as melta gun"
I think it’s a little more than that. Your custom blue marines can be blood angel successors, ( they have to clearly not be ultramarines though, so the chapter symbol shouldn’t be the ultramarines one) but they can’t be blood angels, you can’t take Dante. Your custom red angels can be ultramarine successors, but they can’t actually be ultramarines, no Tigerius or Marneus Calgar.
It’s not quite mandating an official colour scheme, but it definitely is locking some rules and some models behind specific paint schemes.
Unit1126PLL wrote: I don't think expecting painted miniatures in a miniatures game is elitist.
It's a basic standard.
At the risk of repeating myself, I will say again: the whole point of playing a Miniatures Game is the cool spectacle. That is what sets it apart from games that use cardboard chits or other abstractions of units and actors in the game.
Therefore, unlike some other tabletop game types, the spectacle is part of the point of playing. Otherwise, there are plenty of other ways to consume Warhammer content that doesn't provide the same spectacle (if that isn't what you care about).
The shopping cart example from upthread is a good example; is it elitist to suggest people put their carts away?
Simply having normative behaviors in a social setting isn't what "elitism" is, especially when those normative behaviors have been standard for decades and are what sets the activity apart from other activities.
It isn't elitist to insist people use golf balls to play golf rather than soccer balls.
Putting a shopping cart away is cleaning up after yourself and takes 1-2 minutes to do. You used the cart WHICH YOU DO NOT OWN and your putting it back so they can be reused without some poor worker having to round up the carts from all over the parking lot (and not obstructing parking with carts cluttering up the place).
A golf ball costs a very tiny amount of money and takes basically an insignificant amount of effort to acquire from a store.
Painting an army is tens to hundreds of hours of dedicated work. That is a LOT of resources of money, time, and personal effort which many people cannot or do not want to spend. Basically its saying the people who are busy in life, have to work a lot to get by, or lack some means (be it motivation, ability, whatever) to do all of that painting then they better just sit on the sidelines because their kind isn't accepted here unless you humble yourself to beg for permission to play from those who has the resources to have fully painted armies. If you make $10 an hour (a very low wage in the states) and your painting up a full army which takes 100 hours in this example then your talking about work that has the opportunity cost of $1000 plus the cost of brushes and paint plus however much that army of models cost (add on top of that the half dozen books GW seems to want its customers to buy with rules scattered about). For somebody who likes painting its not as much of a problem (still have that 100 hours of effort lead time before you can play the game "properly") but for those who do not then it can be the same as working a job.
How can you try to compare tiny things like putting a cart away or using a golf ball in golf to painting an entire army of miniatures? They aren't even remotely in the same ball park of effort/investment.
If you have time to assemble miniatures and play, you have time to paint (even if it's fairly low quality).
Plus, you're exactly right, and that's why I've said repeatedly that I don't insist my opponents have a fully painted army every game but rather that they're making progress. In fact, I even think I've mentioned that I myself have used unpainted miniatures, but I make a point to have another squad done every game I play.
Painting takes tons of time, I get it. I struggle with it too. But it's an expectation in the hobby, and not an unreasonable one. If I play your new Sisters in December 2019 after the special box came out and your army is all grey or just primed? That's fine - heck, I'm impressed you got them assembled for our game. If I play your new Sisters in December 2021 and they're still all grey with no further progress except the addition of more grey units, I'm going to go and suspect that you simply don't care as much about the spectacle of the game as me. Which comes with a host of other assumptions - after all, as I've iterated multiple times, the spectacle is the point vis-a-vis engaging with the hobby through a card game or video game or whathaveyou.
Whether or not a behavior is normative within a group has very little to do with how much time it takes or how inconvenient or wasteful it is.
AngryAngel80 wrote: All these rules are, at least a number of them, is about not making people feel bad. So going into a rule to make someone feel lesser when paint doesn't alter the game just alters the experience, it feels sorta dumb.
If you place value on the spectacle of painted armies, going up against partially-assembled grey tide in every game feels bad too. All the rules in the code of conduct are about the experience, not the rules of the game itself.
And saying you should ask for permission before using non-painted models is pretty inoffensive as far as requirements or expectations go. It doesn't say 'only play with fully painted unconverted Citadel™ Miniatures', just ask for permission. 'Hey, is it cool if I use some unpainted models?'. That's it. I do it all the time, in case you're thinking I'm speaking from a position of having fully painted armies.
I have a friend with ADHD. Sometimes he gets distracted and is late to our games, or forgets to bring things. The first rule in the AOS player's code is to arrive on time with everything you need to play. Is he going to feel bad about the code of conduct saying he should be on-time? Probably not. Is it unfair, or 'making someone feel lesser' to say you should be on-time, just because people who are habitually late might feel called out? No.
If someone is so thin-skinned that they will feel bad simply because you imply models are meant to be painted in a hobby that constantly showcases painting and painted models, they are really not worth walking on eggshells to placate.
AngryAngel80 wrote: I suppose though might as well not let those dirty non painters play anyways, they probably can't even buy 3 of every new model that drops, the plebs ! Gatekeeping is fun.
I can tell you with absolute certainty that the people constantly chasing the meta and buying several of every new model are not the ones fielding fully painted armies, so not sure where you're going with this.
AngryAngel80 wrote: All these rules are, at least a number of them, is about not making people feel bad. So going into a rule to make someone feel lesser when paint doesn't alter the game just alters the experience, it feels sorta dumb.
If you place value on the spectacle of painted armies, going up against partially-assembled grey tide in every game feels bad too. All the rules in the code of conduct are about the experience, not the rules of the game itself.
And saying you should ask for permission before using non-painted models is pretty inoffensive as far as requirements or expectations go. It doesn't say 'only play with fully painted unconverted Citadel™ Miniatures', just ask for permission. 'Hey, is it cool if I use some unpainted models?'. That's it. I do it all the time, in case you're thinking I'm speaking from a position of having fully painted armies.
I have a friend with ADHD. Sometimes he gets distracted and is late to our games, or forgets to bring things. The first rule in the AOS player's code is to arrive on time with everything you need to play. Is he going to feel bad about the code of conduct saying he should be on-time? Probably not. Is it unfair, or 'making someone feel lesser' to say you should be on-time, just because people who are habitually late might feel called out? No.
If someone is so thin-skinned that they will feel bad simply because you imply models are meant to be painted in a hobby that constantly showcases painting and painted models, they are really not worth walking on eggshells to placate.
AngryAngel80 wrote: I suppose though might as well not let those dirty non painters play anyways, they probably can't even buy 3 of every new model that drops, the plebs ! Gatekeeping is fun.
I can tell you with absolute certainty that the people constantly chasing the meta and buying several of every new model are not the ones fielding fully painted armies, so not sure where you're going with this.
in fact requiring fully painted mini's in accurate colour schemes strikes me as a fantastic way to DFISCHOURAGE rampent meta following.
AngryAngel80 wrote: All these rules are, at least a number of them, is about not making people feel bad. So going into a rule to make someone feel lesser when paint doesn't alter the game just alters the experience, it feels sorta dumb.
If you place value on the spectacle of painted armies, going up against partially-assembled grey tide in every game feels bad too. All the rules in the code of conduct are about the experience, not the rules of the game itself.
And saying you should ask for permission before using non-painted models is pretty inoffensive as far as requirements or expectations go. It doesn't say 'only play with fully painted unconverted Citadel™ Miniatures', just ask for permission. 'Hey, is it cool if I use some unpainted models?'. That's it. I do it all the time, in case you're thinking I'm speaking from a position of having fully painted armies.
I have a friend with ADHD. Sometimes he gets distracted and is late to our games, or forgets to bring things. The first rule in the AOS player's code is to arrive on time with everything you need to play. Is he going to feel bad about the code of conduct saying he should be on-time? Probably not. Is it unfair, or 'making someone feel lesser' to say you should be on-time, just because people who are habitually late might feel called out? No.
If someone is so thin-skinned that they will feel bad simply because you imply models are meant to be painted in a hobby that constantly showcases painting and painted models, they are really not worth walking on eggshells to placate.
AngryAngel80 wrote: I suppose though might as well not let those dirty non painters play anyways, they probably can't even buy 3 of every new model that drops, the plebs ! Gatekeeping is fun.
I can tell you with absolute certainty that the people constantly chasing the meta and buying several of every new model are not the ones fielding fully painted armies, so not sure where you're going with this.
in fact requiring fully painted mini's in accurate colour schemes strikes me as a fantastic way to DFISCHOURAGE rampent meta following.
Should players not be expected to keep up with the meta and understand it, to provide good games and a challenge to every game.
GW is the one that creates huge meta shifts, they create a lack of desire for engagement in painting. Should complain to them when people don’t want to do it.
Racerguy180 wrote: Metas change when you need to keep up with the jones', they dont if no one is keeping up with the jones'.
Also don't tournies have painting requirements anyway? so umm... the people fielding unpainted armies cause power level are what? the people seal clubbing newbies at their local games club?
Racerguy180 wrote: Metas change when you need to keep up with the jones', they dont if no one is keeping up with the jones'.
Also don't tournies have painting requirements anyway? so umm... the people fielding unpainted armies cause power level are what? the people seal clubbing newbies at their local games club?
If people consider the game a large part of the hobby then improving a list building can be an important aspect of that, if factions can be left behind for years at a time. Then it’s not really that odd they are less committed to parts of the hobby or the hobby’s they don’t like.
Tournament play is not the be all and end of the gaming portion of the hobby.
Racerguy180 wrote: Metas change when you need to keep up with the jones', they dont if no one is keeping up with the jones'.
If Timmy plays his double Land Raider Crusader Black Templars he was in a bad spot 6 months ago. Now he's got more points than he had back then. Timmy having more points means he is a bigger threat in the local meta and people might have to ensure their lists can effectively deal with his Land Raiders.
If Sparky plays his triple Vanguard Veteran Blood Angels he was in a good spot 6 months ago. Now he's got less points than he had back then. Sparky having fewer points means he is a smaller threat in the local meta and any anti-VanVet units people included in their lists become less desirable.
Neither player is creating top meta armies, just picking units they like and coming out better or worse for it and the local meta is adapting to the changing threats, not going out and starting to spam tournament-winning units. GW is just trying to right the imbalance between them created in a previous CA release and changing metas as a result.
And our group has no problem adjusting...cuz we don't. All of us play TAC army's so we already plan to deal with most things. We also adjust games/missions/objectives/everything else.
It's surprisingly easy to "balance" when you don't need to wait from word on high.
Racerguy180 wrote: And our group has no problem adjusting...cuz we don't. All of us play TAC army's so we already plan to deal with most things. We also adjust games/missions/objectives/everything else.
It's surprisingly easy to "balance" when you don't need to wait from word on high.
besides there's a differance between tweeking your list slightly and going out and buying an entire new iron hands army because the new IH suplement dropped
Racerguy180 wrote: And our group has no problem adjusting...cuz we don't. All of us play TAC army's so we already plan to deal with most things. We also adjust games/missions/objectives/everything else.
It's surprisingly easy to "balance" when you don't need to wait from word on high.
besides there's a differance between tweeking your list slightly and going out and buying an entire new iron hands army because the new IH suplement dropped
This suddenly becomes they are having the wrong type of fun, why shouldn’t they go and do that if a player wants to. And this doesn’t even cover that some factions are more limited too TAC lists building.
I have myself buy models I would never have buy otherwise to get more options towards that.
We had this discussion locally a few days ago while doing a gaming day. my take was controversial and simple:
play what you want to play, and play it well. learn to use it, learn its strengths and learn its weaknesses, and when you lose games with it, which is going to happen, don't blame the dice, the other player, the board, or anything else, blame yourself and learn from the mistake.
my basic BA list is simple 2 units of assault intercessors in impulsors 1 10 man unit of intercessors with assault bolters 10 sanguinary guard 5 eradicators 2 units of outriders a sanguinary priest, the sanguinor, and a chaplain on a bike with imperium sword and the gift of foresight.
it isn't a particularly good list, but it's well-rounded, and it does a good job. the list is good enough that when I lose with it (which is about half of my games, maybe a little more right now) I can honestly say that it more than likely is not my list, and it's more than likely how I played and the decisions I made.
If you have time to assemble miniatures and play, you have time to paint (even if it's fairly low quality).
Having the time has very little to do with it for me. I paint at my own pace & more importantly at my own whim. That and when there's something seriously wrong & I'm extremely stressed out/depressed....
If I'm not stressed out/depressed or if the whim isn't striking me atm? Then that time you claim I have? It's being invested in something else.
At no point in this process do I ever consider an opponent.
Unit1126PLL wrote: Plus, you're exactly right, and that's why I've said repeatedly that I don't insist my opponents have a fully painted army every game but rather that they're making progress.
What if I'm "making progress" on some other project, just not what I'm playing that game? Say painting an AoS goblin army but playing 40k come game night? Afterall, no matter how much time you think I have there's still a finite amount of it.
Unit1126PLL wrote: Painting takes tons of time, I get it. I struggle with it too. But it's an expectation in the hobby, and not an unreasonable one. If I play your new Sisters in December 2019 after the special box came out and your army is all grey or just primed? That's fine - heck, I'm impressed you got them assembled for our game. If I play your new Sisters in December 2021 and they're still all grey with no further progress except the addition of more grey units, I'm going to go and suspect that you simply don't care as much about the spectacle of the game as me. Which comes with a host of other assumptions - after all, as I've iterated multiple times, the spectacle is the point vis-a-vis engaging with the hobby through a card game or video game or whathaveyou.
{shrugs} Assume whatever will. I assure you that I will not be changing how I approach the painting aspect of this hobby.
AngryAngel80 wrote: All these rules are, at least a number of them, is about not making people feel bad. So going into a rule to make someone feel lesser when paint doesn't alter the game just alters the experience, it feels sorta dumb.
If you place value on the spectacle of painted armies, going up against partially-assembled grey tide in every game feels bad too. All the rules in the code of conduct are about the experience, not the rules of the game itself.
And saying you should ask for permission before using non-painted models is pretty inoffensive as far as requirements or expectations go. It doesn't say 'only play with fully painted unconverted Citadel™ Miniatures', just ask for permission. 'Hey, is it cool if I use some unpainted models?'. That's it. I do it all the time, in case you're thinking I'm speaking from a position of having fully painted armies.
Shock horror about talking like an adults with opponent about game you are going to play.
Because that's what the codes amount to. "TALK WITH YOUR OPPONENT!"
Shock horror. Talking with human being! The indogmity! Where has this world gone to!
AngryAngel80 wrote: All these rules are, at least a number of them, is about not making people feel bad. So going into a rule to make someone feel lesser when paint doesn't alter the game just alters the experience, it feels sorta dumb.
If you place value on the spectacle of painted armies, going up against partially-assembled grey tide in every game feels bad too. All the rules in the code of conduct are about the experience, not the rules of the game itself.
And saying you should ask for permission before using non-painted models is pretty inoffensive as far as requirements or expectations go. It doesn't say 'only play with fully painted unconverted Citadel™ Miniatures', just ask for permission. 'Hey, is it cool if I use some unpainted models?'. That's it. I do it all the time, in case you're thinking I'm speaking from a position of having fully painted armies.
I have a friend with ADHD. Sometimes he gets distracted and is late to our games, or forgets to bring things. The first rule in the AOS player's code is to arrive on time with everything you need to play. Is he going to feel bad about the code of conduct saying he should be on-time? Probably not. Is it unfair, or 'making someone feel lesser' to say you should be on-time, just because people who are habitually late might feel called out? No.
If someone is so thin-skinned that they will feel bad simply because you imply models are meant to be painted in a hobby that constantly showcases painting and painted models, they are really not worth walking on eggshells to placate.
AngryAngel80 wrote: I suppose though might as well not let those dirty non painters play anyways, they probably can't even buy 3 of every new model that drops, the plebs ! Gatekeeping is fun.
I can tell you with absolute certainty that the people constantly chasing the meta and buying several of every new model are not the ones fielding fully painted armies, so not sure where you're going with this.
First I disagree with you and second I promise you most of those who can afford to buy 3 or every new model that drops will be the ones with fully painted armies as they can also easily afford to pay someone to paint them.
AngryAngel80 wrote: All these rules are, at least a number of them, is about not making people feel bad. So going into a rule to make someone feel lesser when paint doesn't alter the game just alters the experience, it feels sorta dumb.
If you place value on the spectacle of painted armies, going up against partially-assembled grey tide in every game feels bad too. All the rules in the code of conduct are about the experience, not the rules of the game itself.
And saying you should ask for permission before using non-painted models is pretty inoffensive as far as requirements or expectations go. It doesn't say 'only play with fully painted unconverted Citadel™ Miniatures', just ask for permission. 'Hey, is it cool if I use some unpainted models?'. That's it. I do it all the time, in case you're thinking I'm speaking from a position of having fully painted armies.
Shock horror about talking like an adults with opponent about game you are going to play.
Because that's what the codes amount to. "TALK WITH YOUR OPPONENT!"
Shock horror. Talking with human being! The indogmity! Where has this world gone to!
Shock horror why shouldn't someone have to beg me to use non painted models, they should bow down and accept their shame for daring to not field fully painted. Do these other adults we supposedly play with not have eyes to see the models aren't painted ? If it matters that much to the one who has to play against non painted armies why don't they just say outright " I will not play against un painted armies. " Is that so hard ? I guess so. Shock horror putting your expectations out there first so people know it ahead of time, the indignity.
AngryAngel80 wrote: All these rules are, at least a number of them, is about not making people feel bad. So going into a rule to make someone feel lesser when paint doesn't alter the game just alters the experience, it feels sorta dumb.
If you place value on the spectacle of painted armies, going up against partially-assembled grey tide in every game feels bad too. All the rules in the code of conduct are about the experience, not the rules of the game itself.
And saying you should ask for permission before using non-painted models is pretty inoffensive as far as requirements or expectations go. It doesn't say 'only play with fully painted unconverted Citadel™ Miniatures', just ask for permission. 'Hey, is it cool if I use some unpainted models?'. That's it. I do it all the time, in case you're thinking I'm speaking from a position of having fully painted armies.
I have a friend with ADHD. Sometimes he gets distracted and is late to our games, or forgets to bring things. The first rule in the AOS player's code is to arrive on time with everything you need to play. Is he going to feel bad about the code of conduct saying he should be on-time? Probably not. Is it unfair, or 'making someone feel lesser' to say you should be on-time, just because people who are habitually late might feel called out? No.
If someone is so thin-skinned that they will feel bad simply because you imply models are meant to be painted in a hobby that constantly showcases painting and painted models, they are really not worth walking on eggshells to placate.
AngryAngel80 wrote: I suppose though might as well not let those dirty non painters play anyways, they probably can't even buy 3 of every new model that drops, the plebs ! Gatekeeping is fun.
I can tell you with absolute certainty that the people constantly chasing the meta and buying several of every new model are not the ones fielding fully painted armies, so not sure where you're going with this.
First I disagree with you and second I promise you most of those who can afford to buy 3 or every new model that drops will be the ones with fully painted armies as they can also easily afford to pay someone to paint them.
AngryAngel80 wrote: All these rules are, at least a number of them, is about not making people feel bad. So going into a rule to make someone feel lesser when paint doesn't alter the game just alters the experience, it feels sorta dumb.
If you place value on the spectacle of painted armies, going up against partially-assembled grey tide in every game feels bad too. All the rules in the code of conduct are about the experience, not the rules of the game itself.
And saying you should ask for permission before using non-painted models is pretty inoffensive as far as requirements or expectations go. It doesn't say 'only play with fully painted unconverted Citadel™ Miniatures', just ask for permission. 'Hey, is it cool if I use some unpainted models?'. That's it. I do it all the time, in case you're thinking I'm speaking from a position of having fully painted armies.
Shock horror about talking like an adults with opponent about game you are going to play.
Because that's what the codes amount to. "TALK WITH YOUR OPPONENT!"
Shock horror. Talking with human being! The indogmity! Where has this world gone to!
Shock horror why shouldn't someone have to beg me to use non painted models, they should bow down and accept their shame for daring to not field fully painted. Do these other adults we supposedly play with not have eyes to see the models aren't painted ? If it matters that much to the one who has to play against non painted armies why don't they just say outright " I will not play against un painted armies. " Is that so hard ? I guess so. Shock horror putting your expectations out there first so people know it ahead of time, the indignity.
except that some people DO say they won't play unpainted armies and if behoves you to make sure they're not one of those people before you waste your time going to the game hauling models out making a list etc.
Seriously Trev's right, just fething talk to your opponent and eistablish a base line expectation. thats all you need to do. and of course GW expects the default to be painted. it makes sense for several reasons.
1: Painted mini's look better GW would rather any games played in the public sphere be with painted minis, nice terrain etc. because it'll sell the hobby better.
2: GW produces paints, brushes etc. so obviously they want to encourage the purchasing of it.
This whole discussion has gone to gak as it does every time because one side is people investing non-trivial amounts of time in painting and complaining about being actively punished for having some unfinished miniatures while the other side claims the moral high ground by equating them with WAACTFG metachasers who never paint anything ever while at the same time screaming about totally not being elitists.
I do think discussion should be had, I am a painter and hobby focused person.
I think that the way GW has gone about it has been rather daft.
We effectively have all other games painted fully, and no issues but 40k with its churn keeps a lot of people from investing in there army’s.
Jidmah wrote: This whole discussion has gone to gak as it does every time because one side is people investing non-trivial amounts of time in painting and complaining about being actively punished for having some unfinished miniatures while the other side claims the moral high ground by equating them with WAACTFG metachasers who never paint anything ever while at the same time screaming about totally not being elitists.
eh I dunno about that; the over all additude seems to be "it's not a big deal, if you've got unpainted mini's just ask if your opponent is kosher playing against unpainted minis" on one side and on the other is "BUT SOMEONE COULD USE ITAS A WAY TO BE AN donkey-cave ON ME!"
Last week locally guy asked for game and stated he preferred painted army. Well no biggie. If I would have had zero armies that were painted he would have understood. As is I have so it was no big deal figuring out list made from painted armies.
He also stated what he would be bringing to try his new army so I made damned sure I don't hard counter him(seriously I could have pretty much auto won had I WANTED to...but what's the fun in that and guy has spent time painting new toy so would be looking to try to use him and not get hard-countered).
Little chat in advance about the game and we had much more enjoyable game as a result. Not too hard to do
Alas such a basic concept such as talking with humans has seems to have been forgotten these days. Now the less contact with other humans you have the better.
tneva82 wrote: Last week locally guy asked for game and stated he preferred painted army. Well no biggie. If I would have had zero armies that were painted he would have understood. As is I have so it was no big deal figuring out list made from painted armies.
He also stated what he would be bringing to try his new army so I made damned sure I don't hard counter him(seriously I could have pretty much auto won had I WANTED to...but what's the fun in that and guy has spent time painting new toy so would be looking to try to use him and not get hard-countered).
Little chat in advance about the game and we had much more enjoyable game as a result. Not too hard to do
Alas such a basic concept such as talking with humans has seems to have been forgotten these days. Now the less contact with other humans you have the better.
"Talk with your opponent" or "chat with your players" is the basic concept that all of this so often comes down to. There are a couple of rpg-focused podcasts that I listen to and probably 95% of the discussions eventually boil down to "just talk with your group about it". I read this "Code of Conduct" much like the old Stillmania articles from White Dwarf; they're very reasonable suggestions for creating a good game atmosphere. If you have folks in your local meta that have serious issues with any of those rules(to me they read more like guidelines tbh), then those folks are probably going to be causing problems in other areas of gameplay as well.
I do think discussion should be had, I am a painter and hobby focused person.
I think that the way GW has gone about it has been rather daft.
We effectively have all other games painted fully, and no issues but 40k with its churn keeps a lot of people from investing in there army’s.
What does churn have to do with it? I'm not particularly fond of 3-year edition cycles, but my ork army has seen constant painting progress over the last few editions regardless of what the codex says. If anything, the churn has caused me to buy fewer books and supplements and worry less about what's currently hot or OP in the meta.
AngryAngel80 wrote: Shock horror why shouldn't someone have to beg me to use non painted models, they should bow down and accept their shame for daring to not field fully painted. Do these other adults we supposedly play with not have eyes to see the models aren't painted ? If it matters that much to the one who has to play against non painted armies why don't they just say outright " I will not play against un painted armies. " Is that so hard ? I guess so. Shock horror putting your expectations out there first so people know it ahead of time, the indignity.
I think the idea that 'ask for permission' is tantamount to 'beg' and 'bow down and accept their shame' really says everything. A player can't be courteous and respectful of your play experience if they'd rather crawl across broken glass than ask 'hey, is it alright if I use these unpainted models'?
The player who views the basic courtesy of asking permission as a humiliating act clearly isn't having those conversations about mutual expectations in the first place. They're going to assert their god-given right to play grey tide, plunk down an unpainted army, and if their opponent doesn't like it that's their problem.
And so we have a code of conduct clearly setting standards and expectations, and putting the onus on them to seek permission for not meeting a standard that may impact the opponent's play experience. If you're already being courteous about ensuring your opponent has fun too, then it's really not a big deal.
Jidmah wrote: This whole discussion has gone to gak as it does every time because one side is people investing non-trivial amounts of time in painting and complaining about being actively punished for having some unfinished miniatures while the other side claims the moral high ground by equating them with WAACTFG metachasers who never paint anything ever while at the same time screaming about totally not being elitists.
Yeah, that's a completely accurate and unbiased summary of the situation alright /s
Seabass wrote: We had this discussion locally a few days ago while doing a gaming day. my take was controversial and simple:
play what you want to play, and play it well. learn to use it, learn its strengths and learn its weaknesses, and when you lose games with it, which is going to happen, don't blame the dice, the other player, the board, or anything else, blame yourself and learn from the mistake.
my basic BA list is simple
2 units of assault intercessors in impulsors
1 10 man unit of intercessors with assault bolters
10 sanguinary guard
5 eradicators
2 units of outriders
a sanguinary priest, the sanguinor, and a chaplain on a bike with imperium sword and the gift of foresight.
it isn't a particularly good list, but it's well-rounded, and it does a good job. the list is good enough that when I lose with it (which is about half of my games, maybe a little more right now) I can honestly say that it more than likely is not my list, and it's more than likely how I played and the decisions I made.
AngryAngel80 wrote: Shock horror why shouldn't someone have to beg me to use non painted models, they should bow down and accept their shame for daring to not field fully painted. Do these other adults we supposedly play with not have eyes to see the models aren't painted ? If it matters that much to the one who has to play against non painted armies why don't they just say outright " I will not play against un painted armies. " Is that so hard ? I guess so. Shock horror putting your expectations out there first so people know it ahead of time, the indignity.
I think the idea that 'ask for permission' is tantamount to 'beg' and 'bow down and accept their shame' really says everything. A player can't be courteous and respectful of your play experience if they'd rather crawl across broken glass than ask 'hey, is it alright if I use these unpainted models'?
The player who views the basic courtesy of asking permission as a humiliating act clearly isn't having those conversations about mutual expectations in the first place. They're going to assert their god-given right to play grey tide, plunk down an unpainted army, and if their opponent doesn't like it that's their problem.
And so we have a code of conduct clearly setting standards and expectations, and putting the onus on them to seek permission for not meeting a standard that may impact the opponent's play experience. If you're already being courteous about ensuring your opponent has fun too, then it's really not a big deal.
So I am a little curious, when the hobby is standardised. My grey knights are painted to a much higher standard the what GW considers basic, but I left the bases bare. This was done for hobby related reasons as I like the bases that way rather than worked in this case, and it is off benefit to one of my opponents as a big consideration.
Sadly this was the army GW broke and needs updating to be used currently, but I would be curious if people should consider it something I need to seek permission to use. Being that I did consider them complete.
Normally a base for each model would take a few hours, I enjoy it in equal part to the painting and much more than I do most GW models being built.
Apple fox wrote: So I am a little curious, when the hobby is standardised. My grey knights are painted to a much higher standard the what GW considers basic, but I left the bases bare. This was done for hobby related reasons as I like the bases that way rather than worked in this case, and it is off benefit to one of my opponents as a big consideration. Sadly this was the army GW broke and needs updating to be used currently, but I would be curious if people should consider it something I need to seek permission to use. Being that I did consider them complete.
Normally a base for each model would take a few hours, I enjoy it in equal part to the painting and much more than I do most GW models being built.
Did you clean up the bases? (e.g. did you make it so that they're at least black/uniform colored and not covered in stray paint from your basecoats or washes or whatever?)
If so, this is what I do, if I don't have a scenic base, so you'd be good to go with me.
Apple fox wrote: So I am a little curious, when the hobby is standardised. My grey knights are painted to a much higher standard the what GW considers basic, but I left the bases bare. This was done for hobby related reasons as I like the bases that way rather than worked in this case, and it is off benefit to one of my opponents as a big consideration.
Sadly this was the army GW broke and needs updating to be used currently, but I would be curious if people should consider it something I need to seek permission to use. Being that I did consider them complete.
Normally a base for each model would take a few hours, I enjoy it in equal part to the painting and much more than I do most GW models being built.
Did you clean up the bases? (e.g. did you make it so that they're at least black/uniform colored and not covered in stray paint from your basecoats or washes or whatever?)
If so, this is what I do, if I don't have a scenic base, so you'd be good to go with me.
I actually paint of the base probably 99% of the time unless they is a specific reason. So the bases are left as is after I file them if they have an edge or something.
But you don't know if your opponent does, and it doesn't quite meet the standard of 'painted and based', so you just ask. 99% of the time the response will be 'What? Oh yeah, no problem', but you're being respectful by asking.
I'm sure you have these kinds of basic courtesy interactions on a daily basis. No need to overthink it.
Jidmah wrote: This whole discussion has gone to gak as it does every time because one side is people investing non-trivial amounts of time in painting and complaining about being actively punished for having some unfinished miniatures while the other side claims the moral high ground by equating them with WAACTFG metachasers who never paint anything ever while at the same time screaming about totally not being elitists.
Jidmah wrote: This whole discussion has gone to gak as it does every time because one side is people investing non-trivial amounts of time in painting and complaining about being actively punished for having some unfinished miniatures while the other side claims the moral high ground by equating them with WAACTFG metachasers who never paint anything ever while at the same time screaming about totally not being elitists.
What standards are acceptable in your opinion? And please explain how painting expectations will impact you because theoretically, if you and I met at a store we wouldn't play because I'm an elitist and nothing else; the end. You just play against somebody who doesn't care or you ignore their 10 vp technical win in a casual game.
All of this talk about people forcing you to paint and that paint has got you down is the purest nonsense.
Jidmah wrote: This whole discussion has gone to gak as it does every time because one side is people investing non-trivial amounts of time in painting and complaining about being actively punished for having some unfinished miniatures while the other side claims the moral high ground by equating them with WAACTFG metachasers who never paint anything ever while at the same time screaming about totally not being elitists.
What standards are acceptable in your opinion? And please explain how painting expectations will impact you because theoretically, if you and I met at a store we wouldn't play because I'm an elitist and nothing else; the end. You just play against somebody who doesn't care or you ignore their 10 vp technical win in a casual game.
All of this talk about people forcing you to paint and that paint has got you down is the purest nonsense.
It's just as technical win as win by secondaries or primaries.
Do you claim it's technical win if opponent wins because titan slayer secondary? If not then you are having double standards.
It's just as technical win as win by secondaries or primaries.
Do you claim it's technical win if opponent wins because titan slayer secondary? If not then you are having double standards.
It's a technical win because those vp come from something that has no bearing on gameplay in a casual game. In a tournament it matters but everybody is fully painted anyway so it's not an issue there.
Of course he has, that's the whole point of every single one of his posts on this topic.
It's totally fine for people to lose VP for not having a fully painted base on one model, they should just suck it up.
At the same time, a single unpainted model completely ruins the fun in his games up to the point that he'd rather not play at all.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Irkjoe wrote: It's a technical win because those vp come from something that has no bearing on gameplay in a casual game. In a tournament it matters but everybody is fully painted anyway so it's not an issue there.
Jidmah wrote: Of course he has, that's the whole point of every single one of his posts on this topic.
It's totally fine for people to lose VP for not having a fully painted base on one model, they should just suck it up.
At the same time, a single unpainted model completely ruins the fun in his games up to the point that he'd rather not play at all.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Irkjoe wrote: It's a technical win because those vp come from something that has no bearing on gameplay in a casual game. In a tournament it matters but everybody is fully painted anyway so it's not an issue there.
Because crusade isn't a thing, right?
if you're pulling that kinda TFG stuff in crusade you're doing it wrong
Jidmah wrote: Of course he has, that's the whole point of every single one of his posts on this topic.
It's totally fine for people to lose VP for not having a fully painted base on one model, they should just suck it up.
At the same time, a single unpainted model completely ruins the fun in his games up to the point that he'd rather not play at all.
It is the reality, but it is not fine. There are a ton of things about GW official rules that were or are not fine, yet we have to follow them. Doesn't make the right thing or good.
And it isn't just a one model makes things unpainted problem, although I assume it ain't fun either. It is a problem of new players having to play with a huge handicap, when they arleady are hadicaped by smaller unit selection and less play expiriance, for months , in a game where some people play it for a year or two. That is the crux of the issue. And putting the decision in the hands of people who have already painted army is never a better thing, and will often cause a problem. Because contrary to what some people try to say here, winning and losing does matter. Specially when it is a reapeted activity over time. You have experiments on rats, that show that if a rat plays wrestle with an older rat , and the older rat doesn't let the smaller rat win 1/3 of the times , the smaller rat after some time loses all interests in playing with the older rat.
Now imagine you are losing all games for 2-3 years, not because of what your bought or what you did durning the game, but because your army is not painted yet or your bases are considered to not be scenic enough. And because the rule is enforced on a person by person basis, then the opponent with the painted army, can always claim that they don't want to play you, because of some wierd reason like , highlights aren't proper on your models.
Jidmah wrote: Of course he has, that's the whole point of every single one of his posts on this topic.
It's totally fine for people to lose VP for not having a fully painted base on one model, they should just suck it up.
At the same time, a single unpainted model completely ruins the fun in his games up to the point that he'd rather not play at all.
It is the reality, but it is not fine. There are a ton of things about GW official rules that were or are not fine, yet we have to follow them. Doesn't make the right thing or good.
And it isn't just a one model makes things unpainted problem, although I assume it ain't fun either. It is a problem of new players having to play with a huge handicap, when they arleady are hadicaped by smaller unit selection and less play expiriance, for months , in a game where some people play it for a year or two. That is the crux of the issue. And putting the decision in the hands of people who have already painted army is never a better thing, and will often cause a problem. Because contrary to what some people try to say here, winning and losing does matter. Specially when it is a reapeted activity over time. You have experiments on rats, that show that if a rat plays wrestle with an older rat , and the older rat doesn't let the smaller rat win 1/3 of the times , the smaller rat after some time loses all interests in playing with the older rat.
Now imagine you are losing all games for 2-3 years, not because of what your bought or what you did durning the game, but because your army is not painted yet or your bases are considered to not be scenic enough. And because the rule is enforced on a person by person basis, then the opponent with the painted army, can always claim that they don't want to play you, because of some wierd reason like , highlights aren't proper on your models.
except I can already say I don't want to play you if I think your mini's are ugly Karol.
Karol wrote: It is the reality, but it is not fine. There are a ton of things about GW official rules that were or are not fine, yet we have to follow them. Doesn't make the right thing or good.
And it isn't just a one model makes things unpainted problem, although I assume it ain't fun either. It is a problem of new players having to play with a huge handicap, when they arleady are hadicaped by smaller unit selection and less play expiriance, for months , in a game where some people play it for a year or two. That is the crux of the issue. And putting the decision in the hands of people who have already painted army is never a better thing, and will often cause a problem. Because contrary to what some people try to say here, winning and losing does matter. Specially when it is a reapeted activity over time. You have experiments on rats, that show that if a rat plays wrestle with an older rat , and the older rat doesn't let the smaller rat win 1/3 of the times , the smaller rat after some time loses all interests in playing with the older rat.
Now imagine you are losing all games for 2-3 years, not because of what your bought or what you did durning the game, but because your army is not painted yet or your bases are considered to not be scenic enough. And because the rule is enforced on a person by person basis, then the opponent with the painted army, can always claim that they don't want to play you, because of some wierd reason like , highlights aren't proper on your models.
Karol, I gave you a solution to alot of these problems in one of my last posts and your reply was "I got gakked on by senior players, so I will gak on newer players as well".
These are _your_ problems and you do your best to keep the vicious circle alive. Complaining about it afterwards is moot.
Karol wrote: Now imagine you are losing all games for 2-3 years, not because of what your bought or what you did durning the game, but because your army is not painted yet or your bases are considered to not be scenic enough. And because the rule is enforced on a person by person basis, then the opponent with the painted army, can always claim that they don't want to play you, because of some wierd reason like , highlights aren't proper on your models.
With everything I don't like about the rule, if you are losing all your games for 2-3 years, the 10 VP handicap is not what's making you lose games. As stated before, a third of my games were won by a 10 VP or less lead for two thirds those points wouldn't have mattered. And I regularly tune down my lists and playstyle to meet my opponents' level, so I have more close games than your average player.
GW also provided a very dumb, yet specific definition of what you have to do in order to get those 10 VP, so your opponent doesn't arbitrarily get to decide that your model doesn't count as painted if you followed those rules. And if someone acts up - every army has a model or two where the primer didn't quite reach into every gap, immediately disqualifying the entire army for the 10 VP, even if it has won a golden daemon.
AngryAngel80 wrote: Shock horror why shouldn't someone have to beg me to use non painted models, they should bow down and accept their shame for daring to not field fully painted. Do these other adults we supposedly play with not have eyes to see the models aren't painted ? If it matters that much to the one who has to play against non painted armies why don't they just say outright " I will not play against un painted armies. " Is that so hard ? I guess so. Shock horror putting your expectations out there first so people know it ahead of time, the indignity.
I think the idea that 'ask for permission' is tantamount to 'beg' and 'bow down and accept their shame' really says everything. A player can't be courteous and respectful of your play experience if they'd rather crawl across broken glass than ask 'hey, is it alright if I use these unpainted models'?
The player who views the basic courtesy of asking permission as a humiliating act clearly isn't having those conversations about mutual expectations in the first place. They're going to assert their god-given right to play grey tide, plunk down an unpainted army, and if their opponent doesn't like it that's their problem.
And so we have a code of conduct clearly setting standards and expectations, and putting the onus on them to seek permission for not meeting a standard that may impact the opponent's play experience. If you're already being courteous about ensuring your opponent has fun too, then it's really not a big deal.
I have not once ever asked someone if they had a painted army or said I'd prefer them to be painted. I want them to be as happy with their armies as they want to be. I don't care what they do with the paint so long as they are happy. So yeah I am treating others as I'd want to be treated and that is by not needing to ask or have them ask me about paint, period. You can disagree with my opinion all you like but it is consistent and I expect nothing from someone else I wouldn't give to them which is understanding. I don't need any rules to tell me this its called just treating people as you'd want to be treated which shouldn't need to be touched on in a rule book of plastic army men. If it is needed so desperately then we are already lost.
Yes asking if I may play my army is insulting to me, sorry if that is insulting to someone else but not sorry.
Jidmah wrote: It's totally fine for people to lose VP for not having a fully painted base on one model, they should just suck it up.
At the same time, a single unpainted model completely ruins the fun in his games up to the point that he'd rather not play at all.
Again, not being given a bonus is not the same thing as suffering a loss, no matter how much you need to spin it that way to favour your narrative.
If you score 80VP out of a possible 90 before hitting the second page of stage 16 in a Matched Play game, you do not lose any VP that you have scored if your army isn't fully painted. You suffer no loss, you stay at 80VP.
If your opponent is fully painted, they will then score a bonus of 10VP. Depending on your POV, these are 10VP they have earned, arguably via a tertiary condition of the battle. This bonus might leave them behind your 80, it might extend an existing lead, or it might convert who wins a close game - as I think we can agree that within 10VP is a close result.
You have not suffered a loss of VP, they have gained bonus VP. There is a clear difference between the two things.
I actually think being denied 10VP is exactly the same as suffering -10VP, at least as far as a simple win/loss equation goes.
The only difference is in the window dressing. Perhaps that's why politicians are all over the difference
a_typical_hero wrote: There is a real psychological difference wether something is taken away from you or you don't get to have something in the first place.
You don't count your victory points starting at 100 and then calculate backwards how much you "lost" by not scoring them, do you?
You start at 0 and add everything you earn during the game.
Well actually I do both, I count how much I got and compare it to what I could have gotten under ideal circumstances. So yes it would feel like these points were taken away from me if we were to actually play with that dumb rule here.
a_typical_hero wrote: There is a real psychological difference wether something is taken away from you or you don't get to have something in the first place.
You don't count your victory points starting at 100 and then calculate backwards how much you "lost" by not scoring them, do you?
You start at 0 and add everything you earn during the game.
Well actually I do both, I count how much I got and compare it to what I could have gotten under ideal circumstances. So yes it would feel like these points were taken away from me if we were to actually play with that dumb rule here.
If you choose to ignore the tertiary objective, then not earning the bonus is on you.
Jidmah wrote: Of course he has, that's the whole point of every single one of his posts on this topic.
It's totally fine for people to lose VP for not having a fully painted base on one model, they should just suck it up.
At the same time, a single unpainted model completely ruins the fun in his games up to the point that he'd rather not play at all.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Irkjoe wrote: It's a technical win because those vp come from something that has no bearing on gameplay in a casual game. In a tournament it matters but everybody is fully painted anyway so it's not an issue there.
Because crusade isn't a thing, right?
The fact that Crusade carried over the painting for VP rule is asinine.
Jidmah wrote: It's totally fine for people to lose VP for not having a fully painted base on one model, they should just suck it up.
At the same time, a single unpainted model completely ruins the fun in his games up to the point that he'd rather not play at all.
Again, not being given a bonus is not the same thing as suffering a loss, no matter how much you need to spin it that way to favour your narrative.
If you score 80VP out of a possible 90 before hitting the second page of stage 16 in a Matched Play game, you do not lose any VP that you have scored if your army isn't fully painted. You suffer no loss, you stay at 80VP.
If your opponent is fully painted, they will then score a bonus of 10VP. Depending on your POV, these are 10VP they have earned, arguably via a tertiary condition of the battle. This bonus might leave them behind your 80, it might extend an existing lead, or it might convert who wins a close game - as I think we can agree that within 10VP is a close result.
You have not suffered a loss of VP, they have gained bonus VP. There is a clear difference between the two things.
Are you sure you're not a politician?
I'm very much a scientist and mathematician.
I scored 30 points primary. So did my opponent. I played my brand new Lord of Virulence that I haven't had the time to paint yet as part of my otherwise fully painted army. My opponent played his army that he had commission painted for six bars of chocolate by a 3 year old that looks like gak.
I lost the game by 10 points. My opponent gets to add an extra relic to his crusade and I don't.
So yes, that Lord of Virulence lost me 10 points, no matter how much you want to reinforce that the glass is half full rather than half empty. Handing out bonuses to some and not to other is a punishment for those you decided not to reward.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Unit1126PLL wrote: Viewed from that lens, the 10 VP is actually the easiest VP to get in a game, since your opponent has ABSOLUTELY NO SAY in whether you get it or not.
It's on you if you don't get those VP - you can't even claim to have been outplayed.
Wow, after all these arguments why people haven't finished their painting, what utterly donkey-cave thing to say.
a_typical_hero wrote: There is a real psychological difference wether something is taken away from you or you don't get to have something in the first place.
You don't count your victory points starting at 100 and then calculate backwards how much you "lost" by not scoring them, do you?
You start at 0 and add everything you earn during the game.
Well actually I do both, I count how much I got and compare it to what I could have gotten under ideal circumstances. So yes it would feel like these points were taken away from me if we were to actually play with that dumb rule here.
If you choose to ignore the tertiary objective, then not earning the bonus is on you.
"Chose to ignore". Are you sure that you aren't the politician here? Go ahead, go back through all of the thread and count the people who aren't troll accounts with less than 200 posts who said that they are ignoring painting.
You are equating having a few unpainted/unfinished units to people not wanting to paint, never painting or fielding armies without a single painted model and thus completely disqualifying yourself.
Jidmah wrote: It's totally fine for people to lose VP for not having a fully painted base on one model, they should just suck it up.
At the same time, a single unpainted model completely ruins the fun in his games up to the point that he'd rather not play at all.
Again, not being given a bonus is not the same thing as suffering a loss, no matter how much you need to spin it that way to favour your narrative.
If you score 80VP out of a possible 90 before hitting the second page of stage 16 in a Matched Play game, you do not lose any VP that you have scored if your army isn't fully painted. You suffer no loss, you stay at 80VP.
If your opponent is fully painted, they will then score a bonus of 10VP. Depending on your POV, these are 10VP they have earned, arguably via a tertiary condition of the battle. This bonus might leave them behind your 80, it might extend an existing lead, or it might convert who wins a close game - as I think we can agree that within 10VP is a close result.
You have not suffered a loss of VP, they have gained bonus VP. There is a clear difference between the two things.
Are you sure you're not a politician?
I'm very much a scientist and mathematician.
I scored 30 points primary. So did my opponent. I played my brand new Lord of Virulence that I haven't had the time to paint yet as part of my otherwise fully painted army. My opponent played his army that he had commission painted for six bars of chocolate by a 3 year old that looks like gak.
I lost the game by 10 points. My opponent gets to add an extra relic to his crusade and I don't.
So yes, that Lord of Virulence lost me 10 points, no matter how much you want to reinforce that the glass is half full rather than half empty. Handing out bonuses to some and not to other is a punishment for those you decided not to reward.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Unit1126PLL wrote: Viewed from that lens, the 10 VP is actually the easiest VP to get in a game, since your opponent has ABSOLUTELY NO SAY in whether you get it or not.
It's on you if you don't get those VP - you can't even claim to have been outplayed.
Wow, after all these arguments why people haven't finished their painting, what utterly donkey-cave thing to say.
a_typical_hero wrote: There is a real psychological difference wether something is taken away from you or you don't get to have something in the first place.
You don't count your victory points starting at 100 and then calculate backwards how much you "lost" by not scoring them, do you?
You start at 0 and add everything you earn during the game.
Well actually I do both, I count how much I got and compare it to what I could have gotten under ideal circumstances. So yes it would feel like these points were taken away from me if we were to actually play with that dumb rule here.
If you choose to ignore the tertiary objective, then not earning the bonus is on you.
"Chose to ignore". Are you sure that you aren't the politician here? Go ahead, go back through all of the thread and count the people who aren't troll accounts with less than 200 posts who said that they are ignoring painting.
You are equating having a few unpainted/unfinished units to people not wanting to paint, never painting or fielding armies without a single painted model and thus completely disqualifying yourself.
I will assume the scenario you posted is factual. You have an upcoming Crusade game and know that there is a painting score as a part of the game. The Crusade players involved all agreed in advance that it would be enforce. And you willingly brought an unpainted model and thus, not eligible to receive those 10 points. I truly do not understand the issue. Nobody even thought of this prior to starting the Crusade games? Did you discuss this with your opponent before and/or after the game how this significantly alters the outcome of a Crusade game? Were you the one person who did not want to play with a painting standard and got outvoted by the other players?
Again, this is baffling to me. This 10 point paint score issue has come up 0 times in my experience. I've played in tourneys in three different states this past year: paint standards are posted in advance. I've played in a weekly league and play at three different stores in casual settings. I have played 9th edition 40K nearly every week since its release and I'm yet to see a single person claim 10 points for painted while denying 10 points to their opponent for unpainted outside of a tourney setting.
This really reads like fake outrage or some really poor gaming environments. I've experienced unfun environments, moved on and found more enjoyable groups to game with. If this is not an option, I truly don't understand spending so much time in a hobby that one derives so much aggravation from.
Well, today I've learned that I'm losing millions of dollars all the time! Curse the states who run lotteries, where do they get off taking millions of dollars from me and giving it to some "winner"? I've earned it fair and square, and it's a punishment to not give it to me. My only crimes were not buying any lotto tickets :(
"lol, what's the matter, moron? You knew the rules when you took that unpainted model to our game. Now this is what you get for wanting to actually use the model you bought and assembled. See, my army is completely painted and thus vastly more worthy than yours. Observe how much better my painted models look..."
Not sure how that's constructive to the conversation though, just seems like you're being mean about what is likely someone's first painted miniature. I think it's fair to say that most people have plenty of access to painting tutorials through the Internet or even in a GW store and considering that Battle Ready is the standard that's looked for (3 colours and "based") it really ain't much of an ask. There's nothing in the rules that says the whole army must be either Battle Ready or Parade Ready so if you have half-painted units that have the base layers and some dirt but no wash, I very much doubt someone is going to string you up for it.
vipoid wrote: "lol, what's the matter, moron? You knew the rules when you took that unpainted model to our game. Now this is what you get for wanting to actually use the model you bought and assembled. See, my army is completely painted and thus vastly more worthy than yours. Observe how much better my painted models look..."
I'd absolutely rather play against an army painted like that than a tide of grey plastic. It has character. It's clearly representing a certain subfaction. It's easier to recognize elements like what weapon it's armed with than if it were unpainted. They put actual effort into it, beyond their skill to effectively execute, and that alone deserves respect.
Whining about an army like that getting 10VP deserves no respect.
vipoid wrote: "lol, what's the matter, moron? You knew the rules when you took that unpainted model to our game. Now this is what you get for wanting to actually use the model you bought and assembled. See, my army is completely painted and thus vastly more worthy than yours. Observe how much better my painted models look..."
TBH if that was the best you can do I'd appreciate that you made the effort.
vipoid wrote: "lol, what's the matter, moron? You knew the rules when you took that unpainted model to our game. Now this is what you get for wanting to actually use the model you bought and assembled. See, my army is completely painted and thus vastly more worthy than yours. Observe how much better my painted models look..."
Can anyone who is against this player code actually make an argument that doesn't involve fake worst case scenarios that have never happened and in all likelihood never will?
vipoid wrote: "lol, what's the matter, moron? You knew the rules when you took that unpainted model to our game. Now this is what you get for wanting to actually use the model you bought and assembled. See, my army is completely painted and thus vastly more worthy than yours. Observe how much better my painted models look..."
Can anyone who is against this player code actually make an argument that doesn't involve fake worst case scenarios that have never happened and in all likelihood never will?
Sure. Look at this thread-you've got people who insist that the game has to be enjoyed the way they enjoy it, and if you have fun differently, you're doing it wrong.
I don't enjoy painting. I've tried my hand at it numerous times, and it's just not something I enjoy. I fully understand that some people are in the game for the spectacle of it, and an unpainted army diminishes that-if someone turned down a game because my army lacks paint, that'd be fine. They're not required to spend a few hours in an experience that they wouldn't enjoy. But apparently, I'm not to be offered the same courtesy because I'm doing it wrong.
vipoid wrote: "lol, what's the matter, moron? You knew the rules when you took that unpainted model to our game. Now this is what you get for wanting to actually use the model you bought and assembled. See, my army is completely painted and thus vastly more worthy than yours. Observe how much better my painted models look..."
Can anyone who is against this player code actually make an argument that doesn't involve fake worst case scenarios that have never happened and in all likelihood never will?
Sure. Look at this thread-you've got people who insist that the game has to be enjoyed the way they enjoy it, and if you have fun differently, you're doing it wrong.
I don't enjoy painting. I've tried my hand at it numerous times, and it's just not something I enjoy. I fully understand that some people are in the game for the spectacle of it, and an unpainted army diminishes that-if someone turned down a game because my army lacks paint, that'd be fine. They're not required to spend a few hours in an experience that they wouldn't enjoy. But apparently, I'm not to be offered the same courtesy because I'm doing it wrong.
What courtesy are you referring to here -- I'm not following.
I think that they are referring to the courtesy of them not being required to spend a few hours in an experience that they wouldn't enjoy ie the act of painting.
Rihgu wrote: I think that they are referring to the courtesy of them not being required to spend a few hours in an experience that they wouldn't enjoy ie the act of painting.
GW has simply spelled out the expectation that has been implicit since the beginning - to GW the game is meant to be played with painted models. With this player's code they are saying you are free to do otherwise, but ask your opponent first if they are OK playing against unpainted models. Seems pretty simple. Most tourneys require painted models - is that being somehow discourteous to those who don't like painting?
It is not "having fun wrong" to play with unpainted models, but its not how GW see the game being played. Individuals and groups are free to come up with their own norms. GW doesn't control what happens outside their stores and events. They are trying to set an expectation of painted models - players can either paint or not. Does seem odd to me that people spend money on a game system that has a hobby component if they don't like the hobby component, but to each their own I suppose.
In this and other threads, there’s a strong implication, if not outright statement, that I’m doing it wrong.
I accept and understand that you have different tastes.
Neither I nor anyone else here is demanding you paint or saying you shouldn't be allowed to play unless you paint.
It is the standard, though, so the rule is that you should ask if it's okay to play with unpainted models. You already said that you could understand a player refusing a game for that reason, so this shouldn't be an issue.
Having to ask to use my models? The implication that I'm not "doing it right" because of an aspect I either cannot or choose not to engage in? The arrogant and ignorant notion that those who are not engaging with that aspect of the hobby just aren't "trying hard enough"? The very notion that an aspect of the hobby that is unrelated to the rules can have a tangible impact upon the game?
Racerguy180 wrote: You kinda have to ask to play to begin with, right? How is this any different?
The difference is that one is agreeing to a consent where both players have the same standing, while the other is asking for permission where one of the players has the absolute right to decide without involving the other player.
I have denied games against unfinished armies in situations I just want a nice battle if I know the player still haven't made progress to their army. For new players or if I want to practice for events I don't really care since my goals are different in those situations.
I can usually be found painting/talking at the painting table at our club and my mood is what determines what I play and against what I am willing to play against. The better painted, or at least the larger % painted, the higher the chance I will accept a casual game.
I like painting but not because I like the actual act of painting very much but rather because I love to see painting miniatures face off against other painted miniatures. I like the actual gaming part for itself more than the painting but if all I had to play against were unpainted miniatures I would just play boardgames or card games.
I love tournaments for this reason. All painted armies and lots of high quality games back to back. Can try to get rewarded for both my playing and painting at the same time. Got best painted and placed 3d with a 4-1 finish at the last GT I played so I would say I take both aspects quite seriously.
People not painting at all directly affects my experience of the game and I would feel cheated if someone asked me to play and I agreed and then they put a pure grey plastic army on the table without telling me beforehand. I am quite sure I would feel way worse about it than the same player asking if it was fine would feel about doing this "humiliating" act. At least they would feel less bad than when I start packing up and go back to doing something more productive after springing it on me. That would probably feel worse for them. If they asked beforehand there would be more chance for me to enjoy the game if I felt up for a game and go through with it despite the grey tide. I could set my expectations to the right level and enjoy a game without feeling tricked.
Luckily the standard and expectations around here is for things to be painted. Even those that hate painting or even have conditions that make it hard to paint, I haven't heard complain about the standard of everything should be painted. They think it's great, they just wish they didn't had to.
There are many reasons to deny a game without the other person having a say on it. Not just on painting. Trying to make it so is to force the player who dislikes grey tide to a game against their own willingness. No different from not playing against the loud guy, the smelly guy, the ultra competitive guy who never tones down lists, the guy you think might be cheating, the slow player or the tenth Iron Hand player in a row etc. Any reason to deny is valid. I would even go as far as say that racist or sexist reasons might be a good reason to deny a game. If the racist/sexist guy don't want to play against you for inborn characteristics I don't think you would have a nice game with them anyway. The person is probably an donkey-cave and it's better not to play them even if you could force them to play the same way some here want people have to play their unpainted miniatures.
Be a nice and clean person who think about your opponents fund and paint your minis if you care about maximizing the amount of opponents or be prepared to be denied games a bit more often. You will still be denied even if you do your best but if you don't even try to meet the standards don't complain about it. And if you do paint your miniatures and still get denied games as often it's probably something else that is the problem. You might be obnoxious or smelly without knowing it or something else. Refusal to paint because you don't want to and don't think it should matter for your opponent could be closely linked to some other traits that isn't preferable in an opponent.
Just to reiterate because it keeps getting buried:
1) Having normative guidelines in a community is not elitism.
2) Miniatures wargaming has always been about spectacle, and painting miniatures has always been a part of feeding that spectacle.
3) Because of 2, there is an expectation (not a requirement) for at least some painting effort to be applied.
To use yet another golf example, this is like showing up to a golf tournament and clapping loudly, whooping, hollering, etc. It isn't elitism when someone asks you to be quiet.
Jidmah wrote: "My elitist standards aren't elitism because I say so. Now bow down peasant and don't you dare enjoy the hobby in any other way than I command."
Oh, and I wouldn't exactly use a golf as a good example of a sport that had good standards in regards to who is/was allowed to play.
Hyperbole and fake worst case scenario: ENGAGE!
Spend some of this energy you're using to make up fake bullgak that never happens in reality and apply it to painting your miniatures.
Honestly, I'm now pretty convinced that you don't actually play the game with other people in person, because if you did, you'd know that the things you're saying don't align with reality for 99.99% of people.
Jidmah wrote: "My elitist standards aren't elitism because I say so. Now bow down peasant and don't you dare enjoy the hobby in any other way than I command."
Oh, and I wouldn't exactly use a golf as a good example of a sport that had good standards in regards to who is/was allowed to play.
Not just because I say so, tradition and the very idea of the miniature hobby. I assert that there's a set of acceptable expectations that includes paint among other things; we would never play because you don't meet them and you can't play in tournaments so nobody is forced or negatively impacted in any way.
And they brought their favorite logical fallacies, ad hominem attack, appeal to tradition and false analogy!
That will show the dirty peasant that he is not worthy of being part of our elitist club of people who had made the time to smear our plastic miniatures with sufficient amounts of pigment!
Jidmah, in the nicest way possible, why are framing people expecting painted models when they play 40k as some kind of class war?
It's pretty explicit in GW's marketing what they consider to be "The Hobby" and it's printed on the cover of the "Getting Started with 40k" booklet that it's viewed as "Collect, Build, Paint, Play". Citadel makes the miniatures and paints so there's the connection there, when you go into a GW store you get a test game and a free miniature to paint in store, and there are starter sets that include miniatures and paint together.
People have made it pretty clear that they aren't adverse to their opponent having unpainted models as there are many reasons that this would be the case. However, when they discuss their expectations in their hobby group/community, you and others frame them as bourgeoisie elitist painters oppressing the proletariat unpainted model users. From what I've read they aren't being rude or calling you lesser for not painting your models, they're giving their opinion in a thread asking for it and all you seem to be able to do is write troll-posts decrying the evils of painted miniatures while at the same time denying the reality of the hobby where painting your miniatures is a core aspect for creating the cinematic spectacle and the ease of unit/faction identification in-game.
Gert wrote: Jidmah, in the nicest way possible, why are framing people expecting painted models when they play 40k as some kind of class war?
It's pretty explicit in GW's marketing what they consider to be "The Hobby" and it's printed on the cover of the "Getting Started with 40k" booklet that it's viewed as "Collect, Build, Paint, Play". Citadel makes the miniatures and paints so there's the connection there, when you go into a GW store you get a test game and a free miniature to paint in store, and there are starter sets that include miniatures and paint together.
People have made it pretty clear that they aren't adverse to their opponent having unpainted models as there are many reasons that this would be the case. However, when they discuss their expectations in their hobby group/community, you and others frame them as bourgeoisie elitist painters oppressing the proletariat unpainted model users. From what I've read they aren't being rude or calling you lesser for not painting your models, they're giving their opinion in a thread asking for it and all you seem to be able to do is write troll-posts decrying the evils of painted miniatures while at the same time denying the reality of the hobby where painting your miniatures is a core aspect for creating the cinematic spectacle and the ease of unit/faction identification in-game.
Apparently it is all out class warfare. GW has never shown models in any of their promotional material unpainted minis(unless black & white photos). When they post on IG/Twit/fbook it is always fully painted & based minis. The paint job might not be of the specific faction you want, but painted it is.
So I guess GW must've been mistaken for doing that???
Jid will prob say yes.
It's pretty explicit in GW's marketing what they consider to be "The Hobby" and it's printed on the cover of the "Getting Started with 40k" booklet that it's viewed as "Collect, Build, Paint, Play".
(Emphasis mine.)
So you'd agree that anyone who builds and paints models but doesn't play with them is also doing the hobby wrong? And so any painting competition should exclude them on that basis alone.
It's pretty explicit in GW's marketing what they consider to be "The Hobby" and it's printed on the cover of the "Getting Started with 40k" booklet that it's viewed as "Collect, Build, Paint, Play".
(Emphasis mine.)
So you'd agree that anyone who builds and paints models but doesn't play with them is also doing the hobby wrong? And so any painting competition should exclude them on that basis alone.
The first thing to say is we're not so much talking about "The Hobby" as we are "GW's definition of The Hobby". It's their game and their code of conduct after all. I'd argue that under the definition GW is using playing the game includes using painted models. A painting competition does not include the requirement to play the game, by definition. I suspect GW might say someone who builds and paints but doesn't play is not participating in the entire Hobby.
There's also a difference between a solo activity and a shared activity. Somebody sitting at home painting their models and never interacting with another hobbyist is not affecting those hobbyists one way or another. Someone who wants to use unpainted model in a game could potentially reduce the enjoyment of their opponent. I think the code of conduct is just highlighting this as a potential issue, while subtly reinforcing the view of GW about what The Hobby is.
So you'd agree that anyone who builds and paints models but doesn't play with them is also doing the hobby wrong? And so any painting competition should exclude them on that basis alone.
Thats some poor logic and I think you know that.
People can engage with the hobby without ever touching a miniature or paintbrush, that's not in question. What is in question is why people are so willing to die on the hill of "if you want painted models you're an elitist gatekeeper". People have been really clear that they aren't going to crucify their opponent if they occasionally bring an unpainted unit but the expectation, especially for long term players, is to have a painted army. You can deny reality all you want but if you're so entrenched in the idea that 40k is intended to be played with unpainted minis then just go ahead. I couldn't care less about what you do, I care about you insulting people because they dared to say you should paint your minis.
"Games Workshop defines the hobby as Build, Paint Play, therefore anyone building and playing without painting is doing the hobby wrong and deserves to be punished. But someone building and painting but not playing is totally different in every conceivable way and definitely not doing anything wrong at all. Because it's fine for one section of hobbyists to ignore the aspect they don't enjoy but totally unacceptable for another section of hobbyists to ignore another section they don't enjoy (or even just to do it in a timeframe that suits them)."
If you think this is an honest or reasonable argument and not just blatant hypocrisy on your part then we're done here.
"Games Workshop defines the hobby as Build, Paint Play, therefore anyone building and playing without painting is doing the hobby wrong and deserves to be punished. But someone building and painting but not playing is totally different in every conceivable way and definitely not doing anything wrong at all. Because it's fine for one section of hobbyists to ignore the aspect they don't enjoy but totally unacceptable for another section of hobbyists to ignore another section they don't enjoy (or even just to do it in a timeframe that suits them)."
If you think this is an honest or reasonable argument and not just blatant hypocrisy on your part then we're done here.
Well, if you build and paint, you are being punished far more than if you build and play. For example, if you play, you can get as many as 90VP, but if you only build and paint you can never score any VP. So, yes, if getting 10 less VP for not painting is a punishment, then getting up to 100 less VP for not playing is a much larger punishment.
Having to ask to use my models? The implication that I'm not "doing it right" because of an aspect I either cannot or choose not to engage in? The arrogant and ignorant notion that those who are not engaging with that aspect of the hobby just aren't "trying hard enough"? The very notion that an aspect of the hobby that is unrelated to the rules can have a tangible impact upon the game?
Any or all of the above. Your choice.
ok dude, how hard is it to say "My models aren't painted, I assume that's not a problem for you?" ?
Likewise if someone does say they have an issue with it, do you spend the next hour verbally attacking them? or do you make note of it, note you're never going to play with him and go and find a game with someone more your style of play? seriously, how is this a giant problem?
do you object because the formal ettiquite document implies painting is the norm?
Racerguy180 wrote: But if one is painted and one is not, are they on equal standing?
So your saying that people without a fully painted army should be treated as scond class players, inferior to people that that have painted armies?Good for nothing but belittlement, insults and scorn?
Jidmah wrote: "My elitist standards aren't elitism because I say so. Now bow down peasant and don't you dare enjoy the hobby in any other way than I command."
Oh, and I wouldn't exactly use a golf as a good example of a sport that had good standards in regards to who is/was allowed to play.
Not just because I say so, tradition and the very idea of the miniature hobby. I assert that there's a set of acceptable expectations that includes paint among other things; we would never play because you don't meet them and you can't play in tournaments so nobody is forced or negatively impacted in any way.
Not because I said so, but because that's the culture of minis wargaming. The whole hobby of sitting down and painting them is what is celebrated about it, vis a vis other games like boardgames.
If you disagree with that, you can. But it isn't because *I* said so. That's because of how it is.
Just like how clapping quietly at golf isn't a request from one person ("he said so") but rather an expected behavior within the hobby.
Racerguy180 wrote: But if one is painted and one is not, are they on equal standing?
So your saying that people without a fully painted army should be treated as scond class players, inferior to people that that have painted armies?Good for nothing but belittlement, insults and scorn?
How is that creating a class? It is creating apparent apprehension from those that do not like/want/can't paint.
But it is a discussion that should already be happening before any game to begin with. If you ask to play a game, it's kinda implied that you are going to use the correct miniatures(with individual exemption), the correct rules(with individual exemption) and "fully painted"(with individual exemption). It's a discussion that either happens in person, online, or wherever.
You're the only one saying anything about belittlement, insults, & scorn.
Racerguy180 wrote: But if one is painted and one is not, are they on equal standing?
So your saying that people without a fully painted army should be treated as scond class players, inferior to people that that have painted armies?Good for nothing but belittlement, insults and scorn?
way to over read it. Look everyone plays 40k for differant reasons, and has differant expectations of the game.
Racerguy180 wrote: But if one is painted and one is not, are they on equal standing?
So your saying that people without a fully painted army should be treated as scond class players, inferior to people that that have painted armies?Good for nothing but belittlement, insults and scorn?
way to over read it. Look everyone plays 40k for differant reasons, and has differant expectations of the game.
No one owes you a game of Warhammer
I think the code saying one side needs to ask permission in itself says that one sides owes more than the other.
And I think some of the other posters in this thread have well made it they think they are at least on here.
Tygre wrote: Maybe the code should be "inform" if you will be using unpainted and/or proxy, rather than "ask permission".
I think it’s more about both side having expectations, if you do care that a model may not be painted in a casual game. Ask first if they can even meet that requirement. Both players need to work to reach the best player experience expected.
In a casual environment they could be testing units, borrowed or otherwise. They may expect that no one cares about painting in such. Or even testing new painting styles.
BrianDavion wrote: ok dude, how hard is it to say "My models aren't painted, I assume that's not a problem for you?" ?
Exceptionally. I shouldn't have to ask permission to use my models. What don't you get about that?
Unless, of course, new guidelines come out for painting competitions requiring painters who don't play to ask permission to put forth their entries despite not actually playing the game.
Or, as vipoid put it so succinctly:
"Games Workshop defines the hobby as Build, Paint Play, therefore anyone building and playing without painting is doing the hobby wrong and deserves to be punished. But someone building and painting but not playing is totally different in every conceivable way and definitely not doing anything wrong at all. Because it's fine for one section of hobbyists to ignore the aspect they don't enjoy but totally unacceptable for another section of hobbyists to ignore another section they don't enjoy (or even just to do it in a timeframe that suits them)."
Unless, of course, new guidelines come out for painting competitions requiring painters who don't play to ask permission to put forth their entries despite not actually playing the game.
I don't know how you think painting competitions work but I can't say I've ever heard of one which doesn't require all participants to ask permission to participate. You can't just show up, place your mini in the competition case and expect to win. There's like, usually an entry process.
Unless, of course, new guidelines come out for painting competitions requiring painters who don't play to ask permission to put forth their entries despite not actually playing the game.
I don't know how you think painting competitions work but I can't say I've ever heard of one which doesn't require all participants to ask permission to participate. You can't just show up, place your mini in the competition case and expect to win. There's like, usually an entry process.
Why it comes off a bit silly, I think it does kinda work. In a casual environment you don’t have to play any game, to show off or display a model to people.
Tournaments already had ways to deal with painted miniatures, just as a painting competition has requirements, GW has tried to push them further into casual play.
They also could have said to use appropriate miniatures, which is more Hobby positive. But they didn’t, and again put the hobby on the backseat. It’s hollow.
Unless, of course, new guidelines come out for painting competitions requiring painters who don't play to ask permission to put forth their entries despite not actually playing the game.
I don't know how you think painting competitions work but I can't say I've ever heard of one which doesn't require all participants to ask permission to participate. You can't just show up, place your mini in the competition case and expect to win. There's like, usually an entry process.
That isn't the parallel being drawn, and winning isn't even on the cards
He's suggesting the equivalent (for Thou Must Paint) is that to enter a painting competition, you _have to_ play games to enter into the painting competition.
BrianDavion wrote: ok dude, how hard is it to say "My models aren't painted, I assume that's not a problem for you?" ?
Exceptionally. I shouldn't have to ask permission to use my models. What don't you get about that?
Okay, so I gotta ask.
Say you start getting out an army of unpainted models.
Your opponent says 'Hey, I'd prefer a game against a painted army, is that okay?'
Are you saying your response would be 'Tough gak, I'm playing whatever I want'?
Serious question. Because what I'm hearing from the anti-asking-for-permission folks is that they just want their preferences respected- which I get- but outright demanding to use unpainted minis isn't respectful of the preferences of others.
And if you're not demanding, and would acquiesce if your opponent said they'd rather play against a painted army, and you actually care about whether they enjoy the experience, then why is being polite by asking so offensive?
BrianDavion wrote: ok dude, how hard is it to say "My models aren't painted, I assume that's not a problem for you?" ?
Exceptionally. I shouldn't have to ask permission to use my models. What don't you get about that?
Okay, so I gotta ask.
Say you start getting out an army of unpainted models.
Your opponent says 'Hey, I'd prefer a game against a painted army, is that okay?'
Are you saying your response would be 'Tough gak, I'm playing whatever I want'?
Serious question. Because what I'm hearing from the anti-asking-for-permission folks is that they just want their preferences respected- which I get- but outright demanding to use unpainted minis isn't respectful of the preferences of others.
And if you're not demanding, and would acquiesce if your opponent said they'd rather play against a painted army, and you actually care about whether they enjoy the experience, then why is being polite by asking so offensive?
If they care so much, should they not mention it beforehand ? I ask this above as well and was ignored. If it’s a tournament then it’s already to late, if it’s casual then expecting people to be casual about the experiance should be expected.
Suddenly the experiance of one person is above others it seems, and not checking if the opponents are in a position to even filed fully painted.
I say this fully aware I would just start packing up, if they don’t want to play that’s entirely ok. But this is exactly a toxic use of the guideline and placing the burden entirely on one side.
I personally don't think there's a wrong way to do this hobby, nobody should be required to adhere all aspects of it. Paint and collect rather than play? I can respect that. Like to spend time in tabletop rather than painting? Fine, they aren't my models so who am I to say how they should be. There is one single exception to all this, atleast asemble your models. I once played against just all-bases army and was not an experience to fondly remember for.
That said, the opponent and their army affect directly to my own gaming experience. I might pick the one with wholly painted army over unpainted for sole reason of enjoying the view (other circumstances do apply ofc).
About the player's code, I don't see harm implementing it but I am bit ashamed most have to be mentioned at all like they aren't like... I don't know, acting like a decent human being.
BrianDavion wrote: ok dude, how hard is it to say "My models aren't painted, I assume that's not a problem for you?" ?
Exceptionally. I shouldn't have to ask permission to use my models. What don't you get about that?
Okay, so I gotta ask.
Say you start getting out an army of unpainted models.
Your opponent says 'Hey, I'd prefer a game against a painted army, is that okay?'
Are you saying your response would be 'Tough gak, I'm playing whatever I want'?
Serious question. Because what I'm hearing from the anti-asking-for-permission folks is that they just want their preferences respected- which I get- but outright demanding to use unpainted minis isn't respectful of the preferences of others.
And if you're not demanding, and would acquiesce if your opponent said they'd rather play against a painted army, and you actually care about whether they enjoy the experience, then why is being polite by asking so offensive?
If they care so much, should they not mention it beforehand ? I ask this above as well and was ignored. If it’s a tournament then it’s already to late, if it’s casual then expecting people to be casual about the experiance should be expected.
Suddenly the experiance of one person is above others it seems, and not checking if the opponents are in a position to even filed fully painted.
I say this fully aware I would just start packing up, if they don’t want to play that’s entirely ok. But this is exactly a toxic use of the guideline and placing the burden entirely on one side.
At which point you're just moving the onus back onto the other person... In most other environments/games/sports there are standards to adhere to, and if you cannot make that standard, the onus is on you or that person to ensure your opponent knows beforehand that there are some allowances they are asking for, as that is the polite thing to do. I fully back an ideal where armies are expected to be painted, just like I'd expect all members of a sport team to be in the same kit, it makes things easier for your opponent.
From a personal POV and I've mentioned this before I would refuse games based on two factors, firstly I play narratively, armies being painted etc are part of the narrative I want to play. Secondly, a mass of plastic units all grey is really really hard to differentiate what each unit is unless they have glaring scale differences.
I know the argument has come up before of some people being unable to paint for varying reasons, disability being one of them, at which point I'd be willing to help them out and get a unit painted here and there for them.
Additionally, and controversially I do not like meta chasers... There's other ways in the world to flex your competitive egos, and some don't paint their army because they want resell value 2 months down the line when they want to chase the new meta. Personal opinion and all that, I know people won't agree with it, but that is my take.
BrianDavion wrote: ok dude, how hard is it to say "My models aren't painted, I assume that's not a problem for you?" ?
Exceptionally. I shouldn't have to ask permission to use my models. What don't you get about that?
Okay, so I gotta ask.
Say you start getting out an army of unpainted models.
Your opponent says 'Hey, I'd prefer a game against a painted army, is that okay?'
Are you saying your response would be 'Tough gak, I'm playing whatever I want'?
Serious question. Because what I'm hearing from the anti-asking-for-permission folks is that they just want their preferences respected- which I get- but outright demanding to use unpainted minis isn't respectful of the preferences of others.
And if you're not demanding, and would acquiesce if your opponent said they'd rather play against a painted army, and you actually care about whether they enjoy the experience, then why is being polite by asking so offensive?
If they care so much, should they not mention it beforehand ? I ask this above as well and was ignored. If it’s a tournament then it’s already to late, if it’s casual then expecting people to be casual about the experiance should be expected.
Suddenly the experiance of one person is above others it seems, and not checking if the opponents are in a position to even filed fully painted.
I say this fully aware I would just start packing up, if they don’t want to play that’s entirely ok. But this is exactly a toxic use of the guideline and placing the burden entirely on one side.
At which point you're just moving the onus back onto the other person... In most other environments/games/sports there are standards to adhere to, and if you cannot make that standard, the onus is on you or that person to ensure your opponent knows beforehand that there are some allowances they are asking for, as that is the polite thing to do. I fully back an ideal where armies are expected to be painted, just like I'd expect all members of a sport team to be in the same kit, it makes things easier for your opponent.
From a personal POV and I've mentioned this before I would refuse games based on two factors, firstly I play narratively, armies being painted etc are part of the narrative I want to play. Secondly, a mass of plastic units all grey is really really hard to differentiate what each unit is unless they have glaring scale differences.
I know the argument has come up before of some people being unable to paint for varying reasons, disability being one of them, at which point I'd be willing to help them out and get a unit painted here and there for them.
Additionally, and controversially I do not like meta chasers... There's other ways in the world to flex your competitive egos, and some don't paint their army because they want resell value 2 months down the line when they want to chase the new meta. Personal opinion and all that, I know people won't agree with it, but that is my take.
In a casual environment people being casual with painting should be expected, and I advocate for both players to reach out just in case. Put it in neutral language and let players find where they want to be.
Which is why I think GW is just so hollow, they go against this all the time.
People don’t like for there army’s to be left or suddenly made redundant, which makes meta chasing far more fun for a lot of people. Again this guideline directly hinders a major part of the hobby.
I also think GW poor handling of the rules has put a lot of people off any form of narrative style play, again driving players towards the gameplay aspect first.
Competitive ego is not really anything to do with it in my experience, lots of players just like to fiddle with lists and make impactful choices.
And a final note, they say ask permission for substitute models, not use appropriate models. Again pushing against a hobby choice to be made. Being they could fix this issue with quality rules writing.
Edit for guideline, the 10 points rule is worse >.<
Serious question. Because what I'm hearing from the anti-asking-for-permission folks is that they just want their preferences respected- which I get- but outright demanding to use unpainted minis isn't respectful of the preferences of others.
And if you're not demanding, and would acquiesce if your opponent said they'd rather play against a painted army, and you actually care about whether they enjoy the experience, then why is being polite by asking so offensive?
I think what is getting people riled up is that GW are trying to create an environment where people using unpainted models are made to feel judged and somehow lesser. In 40k they did it by actually creating an in game rule giving an advantage to fully painted armies, in AoS it is by creating a code of conduct that puts the onus on a person fielding unpainted models to "ask permission". Technically as a mutually consensual activity everything needs your opponent's permission - my opponent is free to walk away and not play me for any reason including that they don't like the army I've taken or find the shirt I'm wearing offensive. I think what most people are saying is not that they should be able to field unpainted models regardless of their opponent's wishes but that this either does not belong in a code of conduct or should have been phrased more mutually - e.g. "talk over with your opponent about your expectations for the game, including whether unpainted and substitute models will be used".
I agree that GW should not be doing this. It is for players to decide between themselves how they want to hobby and GW shouldn't be sticking their nose in or trying to push their preferences onto people via the in game rules or code of conduct. They are fine to say "we think the game is a better experience with fully painted armies" and to try to inspire people with pictures of fully painted armies and plentiful painting tutorials etc (which, to be fair, they do).
I personally will only field painted models, but that is my personal choice and a luxury I have as the owner of one or more fully painted armies for each game. I don't mind if my opponent wants to use unpainted models and they don't need to ask my permission. The only reason they need not to paint is that they don't enjoy painting. I myself am a slow painter and my painting process at no point passes through "battle ready" (I typically blend up from the darkest colour in multiple stages) and it took almost 2 years to get my first 8th edition army fully painted - I certainly wouldn't have felt motivated or encouraged in any way during this time if I'd been playing at a 10vp deficit. Because of that background I respect that a prohibition on unpainted models is a huge barrier to entry and I'd rather my opponent took the time to do a proper job (and enjoy themselves doing it) rather than throw paint at their models because they feel obligated to do so in order to meet some arbitrary painting requirement.
At which point you're just moving the onus back onto the other person...
Yes, because refusing to play against armies that aren't fully painted is not the norm. It is a specific expectation by those players and so the onus should fall on them to tell any would-be opponents that they will only play against fully-painted armies.
I would also note that GW themselves explicitly say as much when they talk about Battle Ready:
Battle Ready isn’t a bar you have to pass to be allowed into our hobby.
Yet it seems many here - even those claiming to be going by GW's own definition of the hobby - want it to be exactly that.
Serious question. Because what I'm hearing from the anti-asking-for-permission folks is that they just want their preferences respected- which I get- but outright demanding to use unpainted minis isn't respectful of the preferences of others.
And if you're not demanding, and would acquiesce if your opponent said they'd rather play against a painted army, and you actually care about whether they enjoy the experience, then why is being polite by asking so offensive?
I think what is getting people riled up is that GW are trying to create an environment where people using unpainted models are made to feel judged and somehow lesser.
I'm sorry, but where have you been the last 25+ years? You always, always got ragged on in a GW store (in a banter kind of way) for using unpainted minis. Hell, it got so bad that's where the "3 colours" rule came from. It was always the base standard since I ever got into this hobby. Same with basing as well. They made it something to aspire to in our local store, if your model was fully painted and based, it could go in the cabinet on display. I know for a fact I started basing my minis (before then it was just the ol' flat goblin green base) because of said encouragement.
Somewhere along the way though, GW have simply replaced the proverbial carrot with the stick. It happened in GW stores around circa 6th ed. where they said all units got Preferred Enemy vs. unpainted minis (this was not just one store. I heard this thing independently several times). This is not something that has "just" happened. Painted minis have been the base standard for (GW's version of) the hobby for nigh on decades. It is only very recently that it is all of a sudden a big issue and no one wants to paint their toy soldiers, despite entering into a hobby that explicitly depicted painted toy soldiers in all of its media...
Serious question. Because what I'm hearing from the anti-asking-for-permission folks is that they just want their preferences respected- which I get- but outright demanding to use unpainted minis isn't respectful of the preferences of others.
And if you're not demanding, and would acquiesce if your opponent said they'd rather play against a painted army, and you actually care about whether they enjoy the experience, then why is being polite by asking so offensive?
I think what is getting people riled up is that GW are trying to create an environment where people using unpainted models are made to feel judged and somehow lesser.
I'm sorry, but where have you been the last 25+ years? You always, always got ragged on in a GW store (in a banter kind of way) for using unpainted minis. Hell, it got so bad that's where the "3 colours" rule came from. It was always the base standard since I ever got into this hobby. Same with basing as well. They made it something to aspire to in our local store, if your model was fully painted and based, it could go in the cabinet on display. I know for a fact I started basing my minis (before then it was just the ol' flat goblin green base) because of said encouragement.
Somewhere along the way though, GW have simply replaced the proverbial carrot with the stick. It happened in GW stores around circa 6th ed. where they said all units got Preferred Enemy vs. unpainted minis (this was not just one store. I heard this thing independently several times). This is not something that has "just" happened. Painted minis have been the base standard for (GW's version of) the hobby for nigh on decades. It is only very recently that it is all of a sudden a big issue and no one wants to paint their toy soldiers, despite entering into a hobby that explicitly depicted painted toy soldiers in all of its media...
Preferred enemy against painted minis was a joke, even the GWS I played at around then treated it as a funny joke to laugh about but never did enforce it.
People have held the same attitude about painting really since I began around the very end of 2nd. It really just become a issue that couldn’t be joked about when GW made it a issue.
They could have made it 1VP or wins on draws. Still would be a big thing, but wouldn't cripple the very idea of a new player starting to learn to play, before they paint the army. It is as if GW wanted first add extra costs to starting an army, just so people leave less often, because they invested so much more.
Jidmah wrote: Oh, look, I managed to bait three at once.
And they brought their favorite logical fallacies, ad hominem attack, appeal to tradition and false analogy!
That will show the dirty peasant that he is not worthy of being part of our elitist club of people who had made the time to smear our plastic miniatures with sufficient amounts of pigment!
We don't always agree but I've got your back on this one friend. They obviously look at someone with any unpainted stuff as lesser players and really that is a little sad but considering they think this way are you surprised ? I know I'm not.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Unit1126PLL wrote: Not because I said so, but because that's the culture of minis wargaming. The whole hobby of sitting down and painting them is what is celebrated about it, vis a vis other games like boardgames.
If you disagree with that, you can. But it isn't because *I* said so. That's because of how it is.
Just like how clapping quietly at golf isn't a request from one person ("he said so") but rather an expected behavior within the hobby.
I also mini war game and I've never forced the pain on anyone so it isn't always part of the culture my dude. It's maybe part of yours, not mine or some others here. If they will, wonderful, if they are great at it, wonderful, if they move so slow the next ice age will happen before they finish sounds fine to me as well.
Racerguy180 wrote: But if one is painted and one is not, are they on equal standing?
So your saying that people without a fully painted army should be treated as scond class players, inferior to people that that have painted armies?Good for nothing but belittlement, insults and scorn?
way to over read it. Look everyone plays 40k for differant reasons, and has differant expectations of the game.
No one owes you a game of Warhammer
Fully agree, and I don't owe someone asking if I can use my own darn models in a game either.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Tygre wrote: Maybe the code should be "inform" if you will be using unpainted and/or proxy, rather than "ask permission".
Hey inform people is what you can easily do, the other person can deny it if they want its on them then. However I can say I've never had someone even inform me if they had unpainted models as I never cared. I just care if they are a good person to play against and it will be fun. It's a social game experience for me at least most of the game rules are second to the fun I have with my opponent painted or not.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
posermcbogus wrote: I'm posting this every time we have this discussion and there's nothing anyone can do to stop me.
You have to stop putting that picture up it makes me laugh every time I see it.
Once I sat down at a public park table with a family I'd never met before. Right between their children. I then started singing Closer by Nine Inch Nails.
I just couldn't believe my ears when they asked me what I was doing. I told them that obviously I'm enjoying the park table my way, and how dare they suggest I was enjoying the park wrong.
To this day I go to therapy because they made me feel like a second class citizen. I may not ever recover
Given that GW often makes units or entire armies worthless with edition changes, it's an unfair onus to put on players to suddenly have another army ready to go when their gak gets nerfed into unplayability. I play against people who have unpainted or partially painted armies in my regular playgroup, and I watch them slowly make progress on them. I would feel like an absolute donkey-cave to insist they be painted.
BrianDavion wrote: ok dude, how hard is it to say "My models aren't painted, I assume that's not a problem for you?" ?
Exceptionally. I shouldn't have to ask permission to use my models. What don't you get about that?
Unless, of course, new guidelines come out for painting competitions requiring painters who don't play to ask permission to put forth their entries despite not actually playing the game.
Or, as vipoid put it so succinctly:
"Games Workshop defines the hobby as Build, Paint Play, therefore anyone building and playing without painting is doing the hobby wrong and deserves to be punished. But someone building and painting but not playing is totally different in every conceivable way and definitely not doing anything wrong at all. Because it's fine for one section of hobbyists to ignore the aspect they don't enjoy but totally unacceptable for another section of hobbyists to ignore another section they don't enjoy (or even just to do it in a timeframe that suits them)."
and now you're being intelelctuallyl dishonest. this isn't about orginized compeitions. most of which have by and large had painting guidelines in place for AGES.
I am all for each of those rules except one, and in a tourn setting. For a casual or fun game I would have no problems reminding players of rules they miss ect. In a tournament I would do no such thing. Unless its a fluff score comp, then I would remind.
Also, the game is about the enjoyment of both players. If one finds playing against unpainted armies to be joyless, then it is valid not to play with that person. There are enough players, mostly, for people to find games with like minded folks. I wont play vs unpainted and it has never been a problem because we list our expectations pre game and if they dont match no harm no foul.
BrianDavion wrote: ok dude, how hard is it to say "My models aren't painted, I assume that's not a problem for you?" ?
Exceptionally. I shouldn't have to ask permission to use my models. What don't you get about that?
You have to ask for a game though, and your opponent is free to decline for whatever reason; your hair cut, attitude, clothes, grey tide, anything. This is why the rule really doesn't matter and the only thing at stake is the 10vp in a casual game. It's transparent that what people really don't like is anything that reinforces the idea that the miniatures should be painted even if it doesn't impact them at all.
I have never asked one person for a game. I've asked if someone wanted to get in a game ? If so I am available, if they take me up on it fine, if not, fine.
Unless I'm already friends with someone I don't ask them for a game as I don't know them. I've never once even seen someone deny a game based on paint or lack there of. If I saw someone deny a game based on that they could be sure to be free of even the dream of a request from me to play.
So sure I agree you deny a game for anything but some reasons you may choose to deny a game do come off a little stupid right ?
If its such a casual game of fun, I don't think there is much a reason to deny a game other than the other person is super annoying to your personally. Short of that I've never seen someone with a disagreeable shirt I had to say " No way, I won't ever game with someone wearing a Knight Rider shirt ! "
However for such a casual game why do we then need all of these rules formalized ? Do group dynamics not do this enough ? Can peer pressure not do enough to enforce social norms ? They did me well all this time and somehow people still found good games, odd as that may seem and even with this people would still have crap games. It's almost like people who need to follow rules like these the most don't really care, funny how that works.
BrianDavion wrote: ok dude, how hard is it to say "My models aren't painted, I assume that's not a problem for you?" ?
Exceptionally. I shouldn't have to ask permission to use my models. What don't you get about that?
You have to ask for a game though, and your opponent is free to decline for whatever reason; your hair cut, attitude, clothes, grey tide, anything. This is why the rule really doesn't matter and the only thing at stake is the 10vp in a casual game. It's transparent that what people really don't like is anything that reinforces the idea that the miniatures should be painted even if it doesn't impact them at all.
I tend to agree. they're trying to basicly shame the internet into demanding that we adopt THEIR standards
BrianDavion wrote: ok dude, how hard is it to say "My models aren't painted, I assume that's not a problem for you?" ?
Exceptionally. I shouldn't have to ask permission to use my models. What don't you get about that?
You have to ask for a game though, and your opponent is free to decline for whatever reason; your hair cut, attitude, clothes, grey tide, anything. This is why the rule really doesn't matter and the only thing at stake is the 10vp in a casual game. It's transparent that what people really don't like is anything that reinforces the idea that the miniatures should be painted even if it doesn't impact them at all.
I tend to agree. they're trying to basicly shame the internet into demanding that we adopt THEIR standards
The topic itself was started by trying to push a standard on others.
)
