Tawnis wrote:

Vatsetis wrote:
Answering Tawnis last post:

-I have never said that I gave this poll any degree of representation... Thats enterely your own assumption.

-Nobody like to be penalized for not following a rule they dont like... Thats why they are called rules and penalties.

\

Oh, gak, I'm sorry. I got you and Shas'O mixed up since I was talking to you both. My bad.

But it's not an in game rule. It's completely dependent upon how much extra free time you have to paint, or how much extra money you have to throw at a pro painter, or maybe having a friend who has a painted army you can borrow. A game should not be decided by external factors from before the game even takes place. People deserve to play a fair game, neither side should get to have a handicap.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Shas'O Ky'husa wrote:

 Tawnis wrote:
No, it matters if you care about people being rated on their skill, even at a local league level. I would find it just as unfair if I "won" against an unpainted army by 5 points. Winning on a technicality tastes like ash.

But why does it matter in a casual environment? "Winning on a technicality tastes like ash" is the kind of thing I expect from hardcore tournament players, who care very much about having everyone recognize their superior skill.

Why does it matter to you if you're are also casual?

Because games are better with fully painted armies and "please paint" hasn't worked to fix the problem. It's clear that there needs to be a more direct incentive.

Because I feel bad if I win an game because of something my opponent potentially couldn't control, my mentality is that of a hardcore tournament player? Sorry, I can't follow your logic.

They look better sure, but they don't play better. Not everyone is in your situation, or thinks the way you do. If you only want to play with other people who have painted, more power to you, but you shouldn't get to force that onto everyone.

ShasO now also considers me a troll (our marriege of convenience seems as its going to end in a sour divorce).

The 10vp for painted armies ia only "external" because you considered it in that manner... Currently Is just an integral part of the official scoring system, no matter what some people might think about it.

So call "fair games" exist only as an abstraction... Players attention is very frecuently affected by many external factors that affect different players performance in difference manner... Lack of sleep or water, loud noises in the room, fatigue accumulation over many hours, general heath and cognitive issues that greatly affect concentration on the tabletop... None of that is fair in any manner, so the extra allegedly unfairness of the paintingb tax is just another drop of vwater in an ocean of imbalance.

If someone walks in to a casual game dehydrated and exhausted, jumping at every loud noise, and fatigued after playing many hours, I'd worry about more than the game.

Vatsetis wrote:

 Tawnis wrote:

Vatsetis wrote:
Answering Tawnis last post:

-I have never said that I gave this poll any degree of representation... Thats enterely your own assumption.

-Nobody like to be penalized for not following a rule they dont like... Thats why they are called rules and penalties.

\

Oh, gak, I'm sorry. I got you and Shas'O mixed up since I was talking to you both. My bad.

But it's not an in game rule. It's completely dependent upon how much extra free time you have to paint, or how much extra money you have to throw at a pro painter, or maybe having a friend who has a painted army you can borrow. A game should not be decided by external factors from before the game even takes place. People deserve to play a fair game, neither side should get to have a handicap.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Shas'O Ky'husa wrote:

 Tawnis wrote:
No, it matters if you care about people being rated on their skill, even at a local league level. I would find it just as unfair if I "won" against an unpainted army by 5 points. Winning on a technicality tastes like ash.

But why does it matter in a casual environment? "Winning on a technicality tastes like ash" is the kind of thing I expect from hardcore tournament players, who care very much about having everyone recognize their superior skill.

Why does it matter to you if you're are also casual?

Because games are better with fully painted armies and "please paint" hasn't worked to fix the problem. It's clear that there needs to be a more direct incentive.

Because I feel bad if I win an game because of something my opponent potentially couldn't control, my mentality is that of a hardcore tournament player? Sorry, I can't follow your logic.

They look better sure, but they don't play better. Not everyone is in your situation, or thinks the way you do. If you only want to play with other people who have painted, more power to you, but you shouldn't get to force that onto everyone.

ShasO now also considers me a troll (our marriege of convenience seems as its going to end in a sour divorce).

The 10vp for painted armies ia only "external" because you considered it in that manner... Currently Is just an integral part of the official scoring system, no matter what some people might think about it.

So call "fair games" exist only as an abstraction... Players attention is very frecuently affected by many external factors that affect different players performance in difference manner... Lack of sleep or water, loud noises in the room, fatigue accumulation over many hours, general heath and cognitive issues that greatly affect concentration on the tabletop... None of that is fair in any manner, so the extra allegedly unfairness of the paintingb tax is just another drop of vwater in an ocean of imbalance.

It may be part of the official scoring system, but it is hardly integral.

Okay, technically yes, even chess isn't 50/50, but that's not the point. The idea is to make any game as fair as possible. Just because there are other external factors that are unavoidable doesn't mean that more should be added. Yes the factors you mention can and do have an effect on how a game can go, it's also a dice game and subject to the whims of random chance.

Be honest, if you had a painted army and you beat someone who had an unpainted army by 2VP. Do you honestly think, "yeah I deserved that win because I painted my army and my opponent (for whatever reason that you may never know) did not. (Or had only partially painted theirs? I see a lot of work in progress armies on the table)." Are you really okay with your game being decided not by which of you was the better player, but by which of you had more time or money to commit to the hobby?

 Tawnis wrote:
Because I feel bad if I win an game because of something my opponent potentially couldn't control, my mentality is that of a hardcore tournament player? Sorry, I can't follow your logic.

If you aren't a hardcore tournament player then why do you feel so bad about the outcome? Winning or losing doesn't matter, a few minutes later neither of you will care about who won or lost.

They look better sure, but they don't play better. Not everyone is in your situation, or thinks the way you do. If you only want to play with other people who have painted, more power to you, but you shouldn't get to force that onto everyone.

I'm not forcing it onto anyone. You're always free to change the rules and not use the 10 VP rule.

Be honest, if you had a painted army and you beat someone who had an unpainted army by 2VP. Do you honestly think, "yeah I deserved that win because I painted my army and my opponent (for whatever reason that you may never know) did not.

Yep, because those are the rules of the game. See the article I posted earlier about the sore loser mentality of inventing an imaginary "right way to play the game" and then deciding the "winner" based on it instead of who won the actual game.

(Not that it really matters, as I don't play against unpainted armies.)

(Or had only partially painted theirs? I see a lot of work in progress armies on the table).

I have already endorsed a modified version of the 10 VP rule where you get the 10 VP if you have a fully painted army or you have made non-trivial progress on painting since your last game.

 TheBestBucketHead wrote:
If someone walks in to a casual game dehydrated and exhausted, jumping at every loud noise, and fatigued after playing many hours, I'd worry about more than the game.

Well those are regular issues in many tournaments... Perhaps not in game #1 but certainly in game #5.

And I can assume many people go sometimes to casual games with insomnia or are more sensitive than others to loud noises in a LGS.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Tawnis wrote:

Vatsetis wrote:

 Tawnis wrote:

Vatsetis wrote:
Answering Tawnis last post:

-I have never said that I gave this poll any degree of representation... Thats enterely your own assumption.

-Nobody like to be penalized for not following a rule they dont like... Thats why they are called rules and penalties.

\

Oh, gak, I'm sorry. I got you and Shas'O mixed up since I was talking to you both. My bad.

But it's not an in game rule. It's completely dependent upon how much extra free time you have to paint, or how much extra money you have to throw at a pro painter, or maybe having a friend who has a painted army you can borrow. A game should not be decided by external factors from before the game even takes place. People deserve to play a fair game, neither side should get to have a handicap.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Shas'O Ky'husa wrote:

 Tawnis wrote:
No, it matters if you care about people being rated on their skill, even at a local league level. I would find it just as unfair if I "won" against an unpainted army by 5 points. Winning on a technicality tastes like ash.

But why does it matter in a casual environment? "Winning on a technicality tastes like ash" is the kind of thing I expect from hardcore tournament players, who care very much about having everyone recognize their superior skill.

Why does it matter to you if you're are also casual?

Because games are better with fully painted armies and "please paint" hasn't worked to fix the problem. It's clear that there needs to be a more direct incentive.

Because I feel bad if I win an game because of something my opponent potentially couldn't control, my mentality is that of a hardcore tournament player? Sorry, I can't follow your logic.

They look better sure, but they don't play better. Not everyone is in your situation, or thinks the way you do. If you only want to play with other people who have painted, more power to you, but you shouldn't get to force that onto everyone.

ShasO now also considers me a troll (our marriege of convenience seems as its going to end in a sour divorce).

The 10vp for painted armies ia only "external" because you considered it in that manner... Currently Is just an integral part of the official scoring system, no matter what some people might think about it.

So call "fair games" exist only as an abstraction... Players attention is very frecuently affected by many external factors that affect different players performance in difference manner... Lack of sleep or water, loud noises in the room, fatigue accumulation over many hours, general heath and cognitive issues that greatly affect concentration on the tabletop... None of that is fair in any manner, so the extra allegedly unfairness of the paintingb tax is just another drop of vwater in an ocean of imbalance.

It may be part of the official scoring system, but it is hardly integral.

Okay, technically yes, even chess isn't 50/50, but that's not the point. The idea is to make any game as fair as possible. Just because there are other external factors that are unavoidable doesn't mean that more should be added. Yes the factors you mention can and do have an effect on how a game can go, it's also a dice game and subject to the whims of random chance.

Be honest, if you had a painted army and you beat someone who had an unpainted army by 2VP. Do you honestly think, "yeah I deserved that win because I painted my army and my opponent (for whatever reason that you may never know) did not. (Or had only partially painted theirs? I see a lot of work in progress armies on the table)." Are you really okay with your game being decided not by which of you was the better player, but by which of you had more time or money to commit to the hobby?

As with almost everthing in RL, it depends of the context. Most probably I wouldnt brag about it, and invite the losser toba cold drink.

Uh, you do realize that in this context... the player who won by two is totally correct UNLESS there was a prearranged agreement to not use the painting points right?

Literally, by the book. There is no technicality in play except for the one that allows the looser to justify to himself that he is the superior table jockey and only lost because of a stupid rule?

I bet a lot of NFL teams believe they could have won some massive games if the overtime rules didn't suck.

And this talk about worldwide meta vs local meta is backwards, too. I'd argue your local neta is way more important to you as a player than what chuds half the world away do. It's cool to monitor and get ideas of things that work and don't work, but I'm not thinking it is healthy to let people in Australia determine how we play in the midwest. I'm pretty sure they care 0 about my enjoyment, just as I care very little about theirs in comparison to my local area.

If you feel the need to invoke how games are played thousands of miles away... chances are you're on the outs locally and are trying to change your locals because.... whatever

A lot of the people on the 10vp for painting side would probably do well in Karol's meta, it seems.

It's a rule that does nothing but make a player who didn't paint all of their models with basing feel bad, because they lost due to a the enemy having done something outside of the game to earn an in game benefit. I imagine those Football players that bought an ornate football for the 10 extra points feel very justified.

Luckily, I don't play against donkey-caves, but if I were playing with someone, and we both scored exactly 90 points, and I told them it was a good fight, and then they said "With the extra 10 victory points, I've won. Good game." I'd view them ass an donkey-cave regardless, because they invoked a rule that only exists to make someone feel bad.

It's a small thing, sure, and it wouldn't happen to me. But if it did, in some parallel universe, where most people didn't ignore the rule, in which even the people who support the rule say they'd ignore it for a lot of circumstances, and I had an army with a unit that wasn't painted, I'd know that my opponent was someone I wouldn't play again.

"But people wouldn't use the rule if it was just one unit, or if you were making progress, or yadda yadda."
Then we know who really won, obviously. The person should have painted all of his minis for months before going out to play if he didn't want to rely on the painter's pity. The benevolent painter, who only wants what is best for the hobby, and other players.

Note, I am not talking about people who paint, just the people who see this rule as actually mattering.

Just remember, we all know who won, we watched the game. We saw the actions.
It was the person who played best. The one with the painted minis drew the attention, and won, by a mere 5 points. It was a close game. I'm glad he managed to put up with the unpainted masses long enough to win*. He truly earned it.

 TheBestBucketHead wrote:
A lot of the people on the 10vp for painting side would probably do well in Karol's meta, it seems.

It's a rule that does nothing but make a player who didn't paint all of their models with basing feel bad, because they lost due to a the enemy having done something outside of the game to earn an in game benefit. I imagine those Football players that bought an ornate football for the 10 extra points feel very justified.

Luckily, I don't play against donkey-caves, but if I were playing with someone, and we both scored exactly 90 points, and I told them it was a good fight, and then they said "With the extra 10 victory points, I've won. Good game." I'd view them ass an donkey-cave regardless, because they invoked a rule that only exists to make someone feel bad.

It's a small thing, sure, and it wouldn't happen to me. But if it did, in some parallel universe, where most people didn't ignore the rule, in which even the people who support the rule say they'd ignore it for a lot of circumstances, and I had an army with a unit that wasn't painted, I'd know that my opponent was someone I wouldn't play again.

"But people wouldn't use the rule if it was just one unit, or if you were making progress, or yadda yadda."
Then we know who really won, obviously. The person should have painted all of his minis for months before going out to play if he didn't want to rely on the painter's pity. The benevolent painter, who only wants what is best for the hobby, and other players.

Note, I am not talking about people who paint, just the people who see this rule as actually mattering.

Just remember, we all know who won, we watched the game. We saw the actions.
It was the person who played best. The one with the painted minis drew the attention, and won, by a mere 5 points. It was a close game. I'm glad he managed to put up with the unpainted masses long enough to win*. He truly earned it.

What a reasonable post.

Since Im in the "pro 10 vp" camp with some passion I assume I eat for breakfast a couple of Polish Mobsters every couple of days... No wonder Im getting fat!!!

The thing is, this is a hobby. Not a MOBA. Tournaments should show the entire hobby, not just who can cheeseweasel better than the next guy. That's why it's a good rule. If you don't care about the models and might as well be using tokens, then why are you playing Warhammer and not a more suitable game?

Wayniac wrote:
The thing is, this is a hobby. Not a MOBA. Tournaments should show the entire hobby, not just who can cheeseweasel better than the next guy.

Almost every major tournament has a minimum painting requirement. Many tournaments do include awards for best painted. I'm not sure they should go further than that, since 40k tournaments are expressly about the gaming side of the hobby.

Slipspace wrote:

Wayniac wrote:
The thing is, this is a hobby. Not a MOBA. Tournaments should show the entire hobby, not just who can cheeseweasel better than the next guy.

Almost every major tournament has a minimum painting requirement. Many tournaments do include awards for best painted. I'm not sure they should go further than that, since 40k tournaments are expressly about the gaming side of the hobby.

Which is why the +10 VP thing exists. Personally I feel it should have been tournament specific though.

Wayniac wrote:

Slipspace wrote:

Wayniac wrote:
The thing is, this is a hobby. Not a MOBA. Tournaments should show the entire hobby, not just who can cheeseweasel better than the next guy.

Almost every major tournament has a minimum painting requirement. Many tournaments do include awards for best painted. I'm not sure they should go further than that, since 40k tournaments are expressly about the gaming side of the hobby.

Which is why the +10 VP thing exists. Personally I feel it should have been tournament specific though.

I'd be way more fine with it if it were a tournament only rule. It's a lot more lenient than not letting them play, at least, and you still get people with fully painted armies for those nice pictures. But in a casual gaming environment, if someone told me that they won, and I can't dispute it because it's a rule in the game (will literally never happen to me, and exceedingly rare, if it happens at all), I'd get annoyed, despite being fine with losing. I've lost games of Infinity due to rolling terribly, and I've won games of Infinity despite succeeding exactly 3 rolls and most of my army being gone. I can't imagine claiming a win against a casual opponent due to paint.

Wayniac wrote:

Which is why the +10 VP thing exists. Personally I feel it should have been tournament specific though.

making it tournament exclusive wouldve been irrelevant since all the major ones require painted armies anyway.

The real solution is for stores to give incentives to painting, have a monthly painting comp with randomly drawn winners and a nice prize. That way, even Timmy who paints terribly but at least painted his intercessor squad has a reason to do it.

And players that don't enjoy painting still don't have to in order to maximize their points in a game.

The outcome of a game shouldn't be impacted by something outside the game. (in my eyes, that rule makes as much sense as the "longest beard goes first" from early AoS)

 TheBestBucketHead wrote:

Wayniac wrote:

Slipspace wrote:

Wayniac wrote:
The thing is, this is a hobby. Not a MOBA. Tournaments should show the entire hobby, not just who can cheeseweasel better than the next guy.

Almost every major tournament has a minimum painting requirement. Many tournaments do include awards for best painted. I'm not sure they should go further than that, since 40k tournaments are expressly about the gaming side of the hobby.

Which is why the +10 VP thing exists. Personally I feel it should have been tournament specific though.

I'd be way more fine with it if it were a tournament only rule. It's a lot more lenient than not letting them play, at least, and you still get people with fully painted armies for those nice pictures. But in a casual gaming environment, if someone told me that they won, and I can't dispute it because it's a rule in the game (will literally never happen to me, and exceedingly rare, if it happens at all), I'd get annoyed, despite being fine with losing. I've lost games of Infinity due to rolling terribly, and I've won games of Infinity despite succeeding exactly 3 rolls and most of my army being gone. I can't imagine claiming a win against a casual opponent due to paint.

So you have issues about a theoretical problem that might never happend to you in years upon years of 40K gamming?

Can you sleep by night "knowing" that an advance alien race "might" invade the earth and abduct your friends and family at any moment??

Yes, actually. I sleep well at night knowing that the likelihood is extremely low, and that FTL is currently viewed as impossible, and that we haven't discovered aliens, the possibility of them showing up is basically none.

However, if aliens abducted one in a billion people every decade, I'd be worried and have a problem with it.

Not sure what this has to do with me saying my thoughts on a rule in a wargame, though, unless you think that was a gotcha?

Im must recognise that was a great riposte!!!

Slipspace wrote:

Wayniac wrote:
The thing is, this is a hobby. Not a MOBA. Tournaments should show the entire hobby, not just who can cheeseweasel better than the next guy.

Almost every major tournament has a minimum painting requirement. Many tournaments do include awards for best painted. I'm not sure they should go further than that, since 40k tournaments are expressly about the gaming side of the hobby.

Exactly this. Out of game rewards for painting are great. Painting is part of the hobby, but it's a separate part from the wargaming side. You're not going to dock people in the painting competition for not fielding their army on the table if they only like to paint.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Vatsetis wrote:


So you have issues about a theoretical problem that might never happend to you in years upon years of 40K gamming?

Can you sleep by night "knowing" that an advance alien race "might" invade the earth and abduct your friends and family at any moment??

Regardless of how infrequent these things happen, it's the principal of the thing. How would you feel if the situation was revered? If the rule was instead you lost the 10 points for having a painted army? (Yes I know that would never happen and that is not the point) the point is that you are being told that the way you like to play your hobby puts you at a disadvantage in your games. People's right to play with their armies of bare plastic is equal to your right to play with your painted army. We may both like to see fully painted armies on both sides of the table, but it is not right for us to push that desire onto others. People should play their hobby their way.

Drawing parallels to thing that have nothing to do with wargaming can go both ways.

Applying any arbitrary outside rule to ingame makes just as much sense as the painting rule. If you're bot wearing a bright shirt, you loose 10VP. Oh, you don't own a bright shirt, well you should go out and buy one then, or borrow one from a friend. You don't like to wear bright shirts? Well too bad for you, that's the rule we decided on. If you think that's too silly to relate to, Vlad brought up the old longest beard rule from AoS. That's a totally arbitrary thing for in game effects, would you be okay playing with that? Keep in mind, it was an official GW rule, just like this one.

It's a bad meta rule because it causes division in the community. Or maybe it's a good rule because it means more people are talking about 40k, more often.

 Bloviator wrote:
It's a bad meta rule because it causes division in the community. Or maybe it's a good rule because it means more people are talking about 40k, more often.

Outside of threads like this (play MY way! or else I'll be mean on the internet), I don't think it gets talked about at all.

 Tawnis wrote:

No, it matters if you care about people being rated on their skill, even at a local league level. I would find it just as unfair if I "won" against an unpainted army by 5 points. Winning on a technicality tastes like ash.

You also didn't answer my question. Why does it matter to you if you're are also casual? And if you're not, then you are already playing in the high end that requires painting, so why be part of the debate?

Winning by rules is not technicality.

I i call it technicality win by you when you win by secondary points. Feel bad about winning by rules. Painting army requires more skill than that anyway so the 10 pts is more of being rated by skill anyway.

tneva82 wrote:

 Tawnis wrote:

No, it matters if you care about people being rated on their skill, even at a local league level. I would find it just as unfair if I "won" against an unpainted army by 5 points. Winning on a technicality tastes like ash.

You also didn't answer my question. Why does it matter to you if you're are also casual? And if you're not, then you are already playing in the high end that requires painting, so why be part of the debate?

Winning by rules is not technicality.

I i call it technicality win by you when you win by secondary points. Feel bad about winning by rules. Painting army requires more skill than that anyway so the 10 pts is more of being rated by skill anyway.

I suppose calling it a technicality is not technically (ha ha) correct. Still it's the closest I could think of to what I meant. Knowing that my opponent should have won our game but didn't because for whatever reason they couldn't or didn't paint their army is not fair. Yes, I know that it is a rule, but the topic at hand is how we fell about it. It is unfair. I love to paint, and I love to see painted armies on the table, but I shouldn't be able to put my opponent at a disadvantage because of that.

I don't understand your second point at all. You call it technicality win if you win on secondaries? That's even less of a technicality than my example. Or were you being sarcastic, it's hard to tell?

Also, yes painting requires skill, but that has nothing to do with the game on the tabletop. Aside from the time or cost prohibitiveness of having a painted army, some people just don't want to have their models painted for whatever reason. And that reason doesn't matter, because they have every right to enjoy the game they love in the same way you do. If GW wants to say that they game MUST have painted models, they should do it themselves, and people like me and you who want to re-paint them can do so. They've been on this big kick lately that units only get rules for what's in the box, so since there's no painted models in the box, there should be no extra rules for painted models.

Yes, I know that last examples is stretching this to the extreme, but the point is, I see the existing system as the opposite extreme. Why does any of it even matter. Why are so many people so vehemently determined to punish people who don't (or often can't) get a painted army together? I have yet to hear any example that's not either "it's in the rules" which is BS, it's a stupid rule that you don't need to use and I don't see why you'd defend it unless you do use it. Or "because I like to see painted armies" shocking news people, so do I; but it's not all about me and you, it's about everyone who plays and lots of people don't give a damn.

I think the "10 extra vp for people that care" painting rule is excellent mainly because it makes mad people that argue as "negative liberty" fundamentalist... So based on simple philosophical terms it must be something good for humanity.

tneva82 wrote:

 Tawnis wrote:

No, it matters if you care about people being rated on their skill, even at a local league level. I would find it just as unfair if I "won" against an unpainted army by 5 points. Winning on a technicality tastes like ash.

You also didn't answer my question. Why does it matter to you if you're are also casual? And if you're not, then you are already playing in the high end that requires painting, so why be part of the debate?

Winning by rules is not technicality.

I i call it technicality win by you when you win by secondary points. Feel bad about winning by rules. Painting army requires more skill than that anyway so the 10 pts is more of being rated by skill anyway.

No, painting an army WELL requires more skill.
Merely achieving Battle Ready does not. It won't look good to most people, but it'll be Battle Ready.....

A battle ready army looks decent on the table.

Painting is not an "all or nothing" dicotomy... Pretending that if you cannot achieve an optimal level of painting in every mini in your army it is worthless to try its pure nihilism.

A mediocre painted army is nevertheless a qualitative improvement over a "grey tide".

The rule is stupid and has always been stupid, that's why 90% of small tournaments just lie about it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Vatsetis wrote:
A battle ready army looks decent on the table.

Painting is not an "all or nothing" dicotomy... Pretending that if you cannot achieve an optimal level of painting in every mini in your army it is worthless to try its pure nihilism.

A mediocre painted army is nevertheless a qualitative improvement over a "grey tide".

Until it's time to move the goalposts.

And you took that statistic out of thin air?

Why not 99% or 75%???

Vatsetis wrote:
I think the "10 extra vp for people that care" painting rule is excellent mainly because it makes mad people that argue as "negative liberty" fundamentalist... So based on simple philosophical terms it must be something good for humanity.

The only thing I'm mad about is how terrible your sentence structure is.

If it was 10VP for writing coherent sentences, you would be excluded.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Vatsetis wrote:
And you took that statistic out of thin air?

Why not 99% or 75%???

Obviously. Nobody's reporting how much they lie about the paint score. That's the point of lying.

Duh. Get mad about it, though.

ERJAK wrote:
The rule is stupid and has always been stupid, that's why 90% of small tournaments just lie about it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Vatsetis wrote:
A battle ready army looks decent on the table.

Painting is not an "all or nothing" dicotomy... Pretending that if you cannot achieve an optimal level of painting in every mini in your army it is worthless to try its pure nihilism.

A mediocre painted army is nevertheless a qualitative improvement over a "grey tide".

Until it's time to move the goalposts.

I was answering the previous post.

I just follow the flow of the debate.

Call me a troll for such horrible sin if you like.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

ERJAK wrote:

Vatsetis wrote:
I think the "10 extra vp for people that care" painting rule is excellent mainly because it makes mad people that argue as "negative liberty" fundamentalist... So based on simple philosophical terms it must be something good for humanity.

The only thing I'm mad about is how terrible your sentence structure is.

If it was 10VP for writing coherent sentences, you would be excluded.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Vatsetis wrote:
And you took that statistic out of thin air?

Why not 99% or 75%???

Obviously. Nobody's reporting how much they lie about the paint score. That's the point of lying.

Duh. Get mad about it, though.

Thanks for editing so quickly your post, altough I see that you called me "******".

Voss wrote:

 Bloviator wrote:
It's a bad meta rule because it causes division in the community. Or maybe it's a good rule because it means more people are talking about 40k, more often.

Outside of threads like this (play MY way! or else I'll be mean on the internet), I don't think it gets talked about at all.

People just don't participate. Putting a painting requirement on a tournament just reduces the number of people who care to attend. That's fine on a large event, but a 10 person locals dropping to 4...not so good.

ERJAK wrote:

Vatsetis wrote:
I think the "10 extra vp for people that care" painting rule is excellent mainly because it makes mad people that argue as "negative liberty" fundamentalist... So based on simple philosophical terms it must be something good for humanity.

The only thing I'm mad about is how terrible your sentence structure is.

If it was 10VP for writing coherent sentences, you would be excluded.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Vatsetis wrote:
And you took that statistic out of thin air?

Why not 99% or 75%???

Obviously. Nobody's reporting how much they lie about the paint score. That's the point of lying.

Duh. Get mad about it, though.

Nevertheless you perfectly understand the sense of my words.

You are welcome.

 Shas'O Ky'husa wrote:

 Tawnis wrote:
Because I feel bad if I win an game because of something my opponent potentially couldn't control, my mentality is that of a hardcore tournament player? Sorry, I can't follow your logic.

If you aren't a hardcore tournament player then why do you feel so bad about the outcome? Winning or losing doesn't matter, a few minutes later neither of you will care about who won or lost.

They look better sure, but they don't play better. Not everyone is in your situation, or thinks the way you do. If you only want to play with other people who have painted, more power to you, but you shouldn't get to force that onto everyone.

I'm not forcing it onto anyone. You're always free to change the rules and not use the 10 VP rule.

Be honest, if you had a painted army and you beat someone who had an unpainted army by 2VP. Do you honestly think, "yeah I deserved that win because I painted my army and my opponent (for whatever reason that you may never know) did not.

Yep, because those are the rules of the game. See the article I posted earlier about the sore loser mentality of inventing an imaginary "right way to play the game" and then deciding the "winner" based on it instead of who won the actual game.

(Not that it really matters, as I don't play against unpainted armies.)

(Or had only partially painted theirs? I see a lot of work in progress armies on the table).

I have already endorsed a modified version of the 10 VP rule where you get the 10 VP if you have a fully painted army or you have made non-trivial progress on painting since your last game.

Why not put in a 10pt VP prize for taking a LESS painted army? It makes more economic sense than for a painted army.

If you have more unpainted models than previously, that means you bought new models. Purchasing new models has ACTUAL value in the real world, instead of asinine imagined value that painting does.

By buying models you are supporting both your local game store and the hobby as a whole. By using only models you have painted you're strangling small businesses. So, the only logical incentive structure, ESPECIALLY for small local business, is to give 10VP for those who have either NO painted models or who have less painted models than they have previously.

Then institute a 10VP penalty for those selfish people who aren't supporting their local stores by just using their same painted crap over and over again.

There's ZERO economic value in playing painted models and as a result is ZERO reason to incentivize it.

Vatsetis wrote:
I think the "10 extra vp for people that care" painting rule is excellent mainly because it makes mad people that argue as "negative liberty" fundamentalist... So based on simple philosophical terms it must be something good for humanity.

Dude, sometimes a spade is just a spade, there's not hidden meaning or deep philosophical agenda. On that subject, you should really know what you're bringing up before you try to use it as a point, if people arguing this point were truly negative liberty fundamentalists, the argument would be something along the lines of "why should GW give us a rulebook that tells us how we have to play, we should get to decide our own points and stats and everything else, ect..."

I know you're ESL, so I try not to read too much into your subtext as it could be lost in translation, but from this, you're basically saying that the only reason you like and defend this rule is to piss off people that you don't like? And above that, you feel that way based of a dislike of a philosophical ideology that you either don't understand or can't articulate well in English.

Not really sure if that is the case, but if it is, then I can't say much to that; it's a level of callus stupidity beyond what I'm capable of reasoning with.

Vatsetis wrote:
And you took that statistic out of thin air?

Why not 99% or 75%???

Anecdote, i've never seen a small event have the 10VP painting rule, and I have seen some large events allow 1/2 paint armies to get it.

 Amishprn86 wrote:

Vatsetis wrote:
And you took that statistic out of thin air?

Why not 99% or 75%???

Anecdote, i've never seen a small event have the 10VP painting rule, and I have seen some large events allow 1/2 paint armies to get it.

Small events can't afford it. The majority of people in most communities don't have fully painted armies. And even if they DO, that might not be want they want to USE. So if you're looking online, see a post for a locals tournament and then see the '10VP for painting', a lot of people just won't bother.

 Tawnis wrote:

Vatsetis wrote:
I think the "10 extra vp for people that care" painting rule is excellent mainly because it makes mad people that argue as "negative liberty" fundamentalist... So based on simple philosophical terms it must be something good for humanity.

Dude, sometimes a spade is just a spade, there's not hidden meaning or deep philosophical agenda. On that subject, you should really know what you're bringing up before you try to use it as a point, if people arguing this point were truly negative liberty fundamentalists, the argument would be something along the lines of "why should GW give us a rulebook that tells us how we have to play, we should get to decide our own points and stats and everything else, ect..."

I know you're ESL, so I try not to read too much into your subtext as it could be lost in translation, but from this, you're basically saying that the only reason you like and defend this rule is to piss off people that you don't like? And above that, you feel that way based of a dislike of a philosophical ideology that you either don't understand or can't articulate well in English.

Not really sure if that is the case, but if it is, then I can't say much to that; it's a level of callus stupidity beyond what I'm capable of reasoning with.

Second time I ve been called stupid in the last hour... can people rise a bit their stakes and starts attacking my family or nation?

The extreme formalism of your reasoning defines standard logic.

When I said a couple of days ago that this debate has entered anomie, I was unfortunatly right.

 Shas'O Ky'husa wrote:

 Tawnis wrote:


Be honest, if you had a painted army and you beat someone who had an unpainted army by 2VP. Do you honestly think, "yeah I deserved that win because I painted my army and my opponent (for whatever reason that you may never know) did not.

Yep, because those are the rules of the game. See the article I posted earlier about the sore loser mentality of inventing an imaginary "right way to play the game" and then deciding the "winner" based on it instead of who won the actual game.

(Not that it really matters, as I don't play against unpainted armies.)

Except that's not a different way to play the game. You objectively lost the actual game itself, but only get to declare yourself a winner because you were able to spend either more time or money outside of the game to have your army painted. You could also be seen as the one "deciding the winner" based on an external factor beyond the game itself and using GW's poor attempt at forcing people to paint their armies as justification.

What I don't understand is why you're even here arguing this point? You said yourself that you only ever play with people who have fully painted armies, so this rule has zero effect on you and your gaming. Why do you feel the need to push rules that try to force everyone else to play the way you think is best? Just let people do their own thing, it doesn't effect you at all.

Also, to your second point about not playing against unpainted armies, I just want to clarify something. If your closest friend (that does not already play 40k) decided to start playing, and went out to buy 2000k points of models and built them, then asked you for a few games to learn the ropes, you'd tell them no. Not until they spend hundreds of hours painting, or paying someone else to do it for them do they earn the privilege of facing off against you? Or, would you insist that you loan them a painted army, even though they want to play the one they just spent a whole bunch of money on and time building? Is there a third option I'm missing that doesn't sound like a dick move?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Vatsetis wrote:

 Tawnis wrote:

Vatsetis wrote:
I think the "10 extra vp for people that care" painting rule is excellent mainly because it makes mad people that argue as "negative liberty" fundamentalist... So based on simple philosophical terms it must be something good for humanity.

Dude, sometimes a spade is just a spade, there's not hidden meaning or deep philosophical agenda. On that subject, you should really know what you're bringing up before you try to use it as a point, if people arguing this point were truly negative liberty fundamentalists, the argument would be something along the lines of "why should GW give us a rulebook that tells us how we have to play, we should get to decide our own points and stats and everything else, ect..."

I know you're ESL, so I try not to read too much into your subtext as it could be lost in translation, but from this, you're basically saying that the only reason you like and defend this rule is to piss off people that you don't like? And above that, you feel that way based of a dislike of a philosophical ideology that you either don't understand or can't articulate well in English.

Not really sure if that is the case, but if it is, then I can't say much to that; it's a level of callus stupidity beyond what I'm capable of reasoning with.

Second time I ve been called stupid in the last hour... can people rise a bit their stakes and starts attacking my family or nation?

The extreme formalism of your reasoning defines standard logic.

When I said a couple of days ago that this debate has entered anomie, I was unfortunatly right.

I wasn't necessarily calling you stupid, I was stating what your message implied, and hoping that it was some kind of translation misunderstanding... and then if it was not, then yes, I suppose I was. But since you say my reasoning was flawed, then I can't have been calling you stupid, so which is it? Or did you just not understand what I meant?

Also, would you care to explain your rebuttal? You say that my reasoning defies logic, but then just don't explain. I elaborated at length as to the issues I had with your arguments, just pointing and saying "Well that defies logic" and walking away isn't going to help you convince anyone.

I legitimately want to know why you think the way you do, it just seems like every time you try to articulate what you mean, you try to sound insightful and eloquent, but it just comes across sounding pompous and arrogant. (Not saying that you are those things, just that it's the way you're unintentionally coming across.)

Just speak plainly, why does this rule matter to you so much? Why are you willing to die on a hill defending it? How would it damage your enjoyment of the hobby if the rule didn't exist?

huh. trolls for the sake of being trolls and cause issues and problems within a established community, all for and based around real world ideology.

Sigh. How boring.

Explained in simple terms, If the "defend painters" rule didnt exist, it would empower that part of the community that (IMHO) has no empathy for their fellow gamers and that dont care about the aesthetic of the hobby.

I want my hobby to be played by empathic and creative people, therefore I will happily die on that hill.

And after being treated as a punching ball (something that I might partly deserve) by so many posters I really going to bleed over this issue.

It is clear enough?

ERJAK wrote:


Small events can't afford it. The majority of people in most communities don't have fully painted armies. And even if they DO, that might not be want they want to USE. So if you're looking online, see a post for a locals tournament and then see the '10VP for painting', a lot of people just won't bother.

I cannot recall a small tournament in my area ever awarding 10vp's for painting.

What they will usually do is have best general, best painted, and best overall. on rare occasions this will be the same person for 2-3 categories, but usually its a different person for all 3.

Almost none of the people i have ever played with have had any issues whatsoever with part painted, or totally unpainted forces. the biggest issues usually arise from proxies or counts as, since these can often lead to confusion for both parties. and i think i would only have access to one or two opponents if I insisted on playing against fully painted forces,

steelhead177th wrote:
huh. trolls for the sake of being trolls and cause issues and problems within a established community, all for and based around real world ideology.

Sigh. How boring.

For ideology there is no effective divide between the "real world" and "fictional ones".

They are both cultural products of brain activity.

 Tawnis wrote:
You objectively lost the actual game itself

The actual game itself contains 10 VP for having a fully painted army. Please stop being a sore loser and coming up with reasons why you "really won", especially in a casual environment where winning and losing doesn't matter.

If winning and losing doesn't matter, why are you so adamant about getting the points? Why does the rule matter? If you want to win, do it on the board. You cannot in one hand say that you really won due to the painting rule, and on the other say that winning in this situation doesn't matter. You cannot both be a WAAC player, then say that you don't care about who wins or loses.

 TheBestBucketHead wrote:
If winning and losing doesn't matter, why are you so adamant about getting the points? Why does the rule matter? If you want to win, do it on the board. You cannot in one hand say that you really won due to the painting rule, and on the other say that winning in this situation doesn't matter. You cannot both be a WAAC player, then say that you don't care about who wins or loses.

Funny, but you're the one adamantly arguing that the game needs to be changed to accommodate your desire to win. You can make up all the scrub concepts about "winning on the board" or "not using cheap netlists" or whatever, but at the end of the day according to the rules of the actual game you still lost. Winning because of painting VP is not WAAC, it's just playing the game as published by GW instead of some house ruled alternate game.

Vatsetis wrote:
Explained in simple terms, If the "defend painters" rule didnt exist, it would empower that part of the community that (IMHO) has no empathy for their fellow gamers and that dont care about the aesthetic of the hobby.

I want my hobby to be played by empathic and creative people, therefore I will happily die on that hill.

And after being treated as a punching ball (something that I might partly deserve) by so many posters I really going to bleed over this issue.

It is clear enough?

Yes, that actually is, thank you. Now I can actually address your argument rather than us dancing around the issue and getting nowhere. First off, it's not a "defend painters" rule, no one is trying to tell you to stop painting, you are free to paint as much as you want with no penalty.

You say that people who don't paint their armies have no empathy for their fellow gamers? Okay, lets put aside the people who choose not to paint the armies for the time being and just focus on the others for a moment.
People that love to paint and spend what little free time they may have learning how, then painstakingly working on their army, but only get a few hours a week of free time, so it takes them bloody forever to actually finish anything. Those people lack empathy?
Or people that hate painting? They should be forced to do something they can't stand for your visual benefit, or to pay a very expensive premium to take part in an evenly matched game or they lack empathy too?
Or someone that has just gone out and got a new army and is excited to play it right away to test it out instead of waiting months to get all their painting done, they lack empathy?
None of these people think about poor old you and the visual appeal they bring you when they put their army on the table.

You were perfectly clear this time, you only want the hobby to be played by people who think and feel about the hobby the same way you do. The thing is, you are no more special than anyone else that plays this hobby. The person across the table has just as much right to enjoy the game with their unpainted or partially painted army as you do with your fully painted one.

I apologize for my insinuation earlier that you were stupid, that is not the case. However, I can stand by the statement that you are incredibly selfish. A game is not about your sole enjoyment, it is about the enjoyment of everyone playing it. You sir, are the one with no empathy for your fellow gamers.

Perhaps he just wants a morale reward for the extra effort put in painting his army.

You know presentation is also part of exam marks (if you dont do a academically anemic standard multiple answers test)?

Certainly many posters feel entitled to attack my poor English gramnar.

Aesthetic is part of live, its is constantly evaluated... No surprise its also part of a miniature wargame.

You're sounding an awful lot like Karol with that talk. If painting to win makes you happy, play with the rule all you want. But I'm not requesting that my armies get a free ten victory points, you are. I'm not requesting to daddy James Workshop that, since I've painted all my minis, can I get a free 10 victory points?

All I request is an even playing field, where the game is decided with skill, not paint, stupid wombo combos, or broken codexes. That's why I play other games. But feel free to win at any cost, my friend.

 Akor Doomflayer wrote:

 Tawnis wrote:
You objectively lost the actual game itself

The actual game itself contains 10 VP for having a fully painted army. Please stop being a sore loser and coming up with reasons why you "really won", especially in a casual environment where winning and losing doesn't matter.

I'm not being a sore looser. I often play with fully painted armies. I feel just as bad if I am given the win in a game I objectively lost because I had painted my army and my opponent didn't. I have conceded those games in the past because this rule is bs. If I win a game, I want to earn it, not have it given to me because of a factor outside of the game itself.

Aesthetic is great. That's why I enjoy the Golden Demon award winning models. They look beautiful. That's why I paint my models. So they look nice. That's why I encourage my friends to paint their models. Because they look nice.
Not to win.

 Tawnis wrote:
The person across the table has just as much right to enjoy the game with their unpainted or partially painted army as you do with your fully painted one.

Does the person who hates assembling and wants to use an army of bases with legs have an equal right to play the game? Does the person who paints their army as WWII Germans (complete with all the offensive iconography) have an equal right to play the game? Does the person who shows up with a space marine tactical squad, a necron vehicle, a couple of tyranid monsters, a squad of chaos demons, and an eldar transport with ork passengers have an equal right to play? Where are you allowed to draw the line and say sorry, you're not meeting the minimum standards and don't get to play?

 Tawnis wrote:

Vatsetis wrote:
Explained in simple terms, If the "defend painters" rule didnt exist, it would empower that part of the community that (IMHO) has no empathy for their fellow gamers and that dont care about the aesthetic of the hobby.

I want my hobby to be played by empathic and creative people, therefore I will happily die on that hill.

And after being treated as a punching ball (something that I might partly deserve) by so many posters I really going to bleed over this issue.

It is clear enough?

Yes, that actually is, thank you. Now I can actually address your argument rather than us dancing around the issue and getting nowhere. First off, it's not a "defend painters" rule, no one is trying to tell you to stop painting, you are free to paint as much as you want with no penalty.

You say that people who don't paint their armies have no empathy for their fellow gamers? Okay, lets put aside the people who choose not to paint the armies for the time being and just focus on the others for a moment.
People that love to paint and spend what little free time they may have learning how, then painstakingly working on their army, but only get a few hours a week of free time, so it takes them bloody forever to actually finish anything. Those people lack empathy?
Or people that hate painting? They should be forced to do something they can't stand for your visual benefit, or to pay a very expensive premium to take part in an evenly matched game or they lack empathy too?
Or someone that has just gone out and got a new army and is excited to play it right away to test it out instead of waiting months to get all their painting done, they lack empathy?
None of these people think about poor old you and the visual appeal they bring you when they put their army on the table.

You were perfectly clear this time, you only want the hobby to be played by people who think and feel about the hobby the same way you do. The thing is, you are no more special than anyone else that plays this hobby. The person across the table has just as much right to enjoy the game with their unpainted or partially painted army as you do with your fully painted one.

I apologize for my insinuation earlier that you were stupid, that is not the case. However, I can stand by the statement that you are incredibly selfish. A game is not about your sole enjoyment, it is about the enjoyment of everyone playing it. You sir, are the one with no empathy for your fellow gamers.

Its obvious I lack emparhy, thats why I continue in this debate... Because Im a callous, insensitive troll.

Nevertheless after it has been stablish my selfish, even sociopathic nature, would you mind to answer a simple question?

In which manner the fun of those gamers unable to paint their armies is diminished by the fact that their maximum points is 90VP rather than 100VP?

They all have the right to play. You have the right to refuse playing them.

 TheBestBucketHead wrote:
But I'm not requesting that my armies get a free ten victory points, you are.

I'm not requesting anything. The rules are the rules, and those rules contain 10 VP for painting. You're the one requesting a house ruled game where you don't apply that rule.

All I request is an even playing field, where the game is decided with skill, not paint, stupid wombo combos, or broken codexes. That's why I play other games. But feel free to win at any cost, my friend.

Ah yes, the familiar complaint of the sore loser. You didn't really lose, your opponent was a WAAC TFG who played without honor and didn't earn their win with Real Skill. Perhaps, before throwing around WAAC labels, you should consider why it's so important to you that you change the scoring rules instead of accepting the game as it is, win or lose?

Vatsetis wrote:
In which manner the fun of those gamers unable to paint their armies is diminished by the fact that their maximum points is 90VP rather than 100VP?

Assuming their opponent has a painted army? An inherently unfair battle, in which they are always at a deficit of 10 points. A game that is by all definitions uneven. A game that is diminished by the fact that they are now informed by the player and the rules that Games Workshop does not care about them unless their miniatures are painted, and only cares if they are for marketing.

 TheBestBucketHead wrote:
You're sounding an awful lot like Karol with that talk. If painting to win makes you happy, play with the rule all you want. But I'm not requesting that my armies get a free ten victory points, you are. I'm not requesting to daddy James Workshop that, since I've painted all my minis, can I get a free 10 victory points?

All I request is an even playing field, where the game is decided with skill, not paint, stupid wombo combos, or broken codexes. That's why I play other games. But feel free to win at any cost, my friend.

Troll, Stupid... And now Im Karol!!!

Hope none of you get my IP adress or I might be "Swated" to protect the sanity of the dakkanouts.

 Akor Doomflayer wrote:

 TheBestBucketHead wrote:
But I'm not requesting that my armies get a free ten victory points, you are.

I'm not requesting anything. The rules are the rules, and those rules contain 10 VP for painting. You're the one requesting a house ruled game where you don't apply that rule.

All I request is an even playing field, where the game is decided with skill, not paint, stupid wombo combos, or broken codexes. That's why I play other games. But feel free to win at any cost, my friend.

Ah yes, the familiar complaint of the sore loser. You didn't really lose, your opponent was a WAAC TFG who played without honor and didn't earn their win with Real Skill. Perhaps, before throwing around WAAC labels, you should consider why it's so important to you that you change the scoring rules instead of accepting the game as it is, win or lose?

I know why it's important to me. Because I value fairness and equality, even in something as small as a war game. Why do you value the 10 points so highly that you're willing to diminish the fun of others by taking the points and then pretending to not care about winning or losing?

 TheBestBucketHead wrote:
A game that is diminished by the fact that they are now informed by the player and the rules that Games Workshop does not care about them unless their miniatures are painted, and only cares if they are for marketing.

So now failing to score a mere 10 VP means that GW doesn't care about someone? That seems a bit hyperbolic. Does GW also not care about someone if their codex isn't the most recent one and they're facing a similarly "unfair" game?

Vatsetis wrote:

 TheBestBucketHead wrote:
You're sounding an awful lot like Karol with that talk. If painting to win makes you happy, play with the rule all you want. But I'm not requesting that my armies get a free ten victory points, you are. I'm not requesting to daddy James Workshop that, since I've painted all my minis, can I get a free 10 victory points?

All I request is an even playing field, where the game is decided with skill, not paint, stupid wombo combos, or broken codexes. That's why I play other games. But feel free to win at any cost, my friend.

Troll, Stupid... And now Im Karol!!!

Hope none of you get my IP adress or I might be "Swated" to protect the sanity of the dakkanouts.

You're not Karol. The other guy is. Don't worry, I figure you're not in the capital wasteland fighting off hordes of ravening Warhammer players with your miniatures.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Akor Doomflayer wrote:

 TheBestBucketHead wrote:
A game that is diminished by the fact that they are now informed by the player and the rules that Games Workshop does not care about them unless their miniatures are painted, and only cares if they are for marketing.

So now failing to score a mere 10 VP means that GW doesn't care about someone? That seems a bit hyperbolic. Does GW also not care about someone if their codex isn't the most recent one and they're facing a similarly "unfair" game?

If you were playing Tyranids for most of the game's lifespan, Squats for almost all of it, Orks for a lot of it, then yes. They care less about your fun than other people's, because you brought in less sales. And, if you're playing with one codes that is absurdly powerful and one that is weak, yes. It is unfair. You're not going to make me fall into a hypocritical gotcha.

 TheBestBucketHead wrote:
I know why it's important to me. Because I value fairness and equality, even in something as small as a war game.

The game is perfectly fair in this case. Both players have the exact same opportunity to earn the 10 VP. You don't get to choose not to pursue a known victory condition and then complain that you scored less VP as a result of that choice.

Why do you value the 10 points so highly that you're willing to diminish the fun of others by taking the points and then pretending to not care about winning or losing?

Because that's what the game rules say. You don't choose to take the points or not, the score is what it is. And the fact that winning or losing doesn't really matter doesn't change the facts of who won the game. You can play a casual game of basketball where the winner is quickly forgotten but that doesn't change the fact that at the end of the game the score was 45-39. And you certainly aren't going to say "well, winning doesn't matter so I'm not going to count the points for the basket I just made".

"I don't care about winning, I'm just glad that Games Workshop added this rule so I can win."
I don't care that it's a rule. It's stupid. There are a lot of stupid rules in 40k, and this one isn't even the one I complain about the most. But you know what? Your exact excuses mean that you're not an donkey-cave for bringing a meta WAAC list, let's say 7th edition TauDar, to fight a low tier list in a casual meta. It's in the rules.

 Akor Doomflayer wrote:

 Tawnis wrote:
The person across the table has just as much right to enjoy the game with their unpainted or partially painted army as you do with your fully painted one.

Does the person who hates assembling and wants to use an army of bases with legs have an equal right to play the game? Does the person who paints their army as WWII Germans (complete with all the offensive iconography) have an equal right to play the game? Does the person who shows up with a space marine tactical squad, a necron vehicle, a couple of tyranid monsters, a squad of chaos demons, and an eldar transport with ork passengers have an equal right to play? Where are you allowed to draw the line and say sorry, you're not meeting the minimum standards and don't get to play?

Finally, at least one argument that makes logical sense. I was almost about to bail and write this all off.

For the first, obviously no because you need to be able to visually determine what each model has to actually play the game.
Again no for the same reason on top of the obvious other issues.
Yes, it's called Open Play, so long as your opponent agrees to play that type of game go nuts, there are rules for that.

I the line would be clear identification of what you are using. Before GW implemented this stupid rule that worked just fine.

By GW rules, just like painting, everything must be a WYSIWYG GW only model. Do you also have issues with heavy conversions, or 3rd party models? Because by your painting logic, those disqualify a person as well.

Also, me being against the rule in no way benefits me. I don't play 40k. I'm invested in the Warhammer IP and want a good system to be released in it that I can sink my teeth into.

Vatsetis wrote:

 Tawnis wrote:

Vatsetis wrote:
Explained in simple terms, If the "defend painters" rule didnt exist, it would empower that part of the community that (IMHO) has no empathy for their fellow gamers and that dont care about the aesthetic of the hobby.

I want my hobby to be played by empathic and creative people, therefore I will happily die on that hill.

And after being treated as a punching ball (something that I might partly deserve) by so many posters I really going to bleed over this issue.

It is clear enough?

Yes, that actually is, thank you. Now I can actually address your argument rather than us dancing around the issue and getting nowhere. First off, it's not a "defend painters" rule, no one is trying to tell you to stop painting, you are free to paint as much as you want with no penalty.

You say that people who don't paint their armies have no empathy for their fellow gamers? Okay, lets put aside the people who choose not to paint the armies for the time being and just focus on the others for a moment.
People that love to paint and spend what little free time they may have learning how, then painstakingly working on their army, but only get a few hours a week of free time, so it takes them bloody forever to actually finish anything. Those people lack empathy?
Or people that hate painting? They should be forced to do something they can't stand for your visual benefit, or to pay a very expensive premium to take part in an evenly matched game or they lack empathy too?
Or someone that has just gone out and got a new army and is excited to play it right away to test it out instead of waiting months to get all their painting done, they lack empathy?
None of these people think about poor old you and the visual appeal they bring you when they put their army on the table.

You were perfectly clear this time, you only want the hobby to be played by people who think and feel about the hobby the same way you do. The thing is, you are no more special than anyone else that plays this hobby. The person across the table has just as much right to enjoy the game with their unpainted or partially painted army as you do with your fully painted one.

I apologize for my insinuation earlier that you were stupid, that is not the case. However, I can stand by the statement that you are incredibly selfish. A game is not about your sole enjoyment, it is about the enjoyment of everyone playing it. You sir, are the one with no empathy for your fellow gamers.

Its obvious I lack emparhy, thats why I continue in this debate... Because Im a callous, insensitive troll.

Nevertheless after it has been stablish my selfish, even sociopathic nature, would you mind to answer a simple question?

In which manner the fun of those gamers unable to paint their armies is diminished by the fact that their maximum points is 90VP rather than 100VP?

For the record, I don't think you're a troll. Just that, from what you've said, you only care about your own fun. (And I suppose the fun of those that think exactly the same way that you do.)

The manner in which they are walking into a game that should be a fair match but is already stacked against them. Would you want to race someone in a 100 meter dash if they started 10 meters ahead? Yeah sure, you can still win, but it sure feels like a slap in the face when the other person says "oh don't be mad that I get a head start, the people in charge said it was okay." Or "I'm just here to have fun, but the rules are the rules, I'm sorry it gives me an unfair advantage, but there's really nothing I could possibly do about it." or "You know, if you spent a hundred hours making your own cloths from scratch, you'd be able to start up here with me." or even "You wouldn't be bothered by my unfair advantage if you didn't care so much about winning."

I probably won't post anymore in this discussion. I'll just leave by saying that I've yet to see an argument against my cosplay and roleplay bonuses that don't apply to the painting victory point bonus, outside of the fact that there's no rules for it, despite the fact that rules for them existed before. In addition, just saying that something is the rules doesn't protect against the criticism of painting points being an out of game activity benefiting the in game army. In another addition, if you ever don't apply the rule because of any reason, including if someone is working on their army, you're breaking the rule, and admitting that their fun can be ruined by it. I don't think someone's enjoyment should be reliant on their enemy's pity or spending months painting before playing.

Farewell.

 TheBestBucketHead wrote:
"I don't care about winning, I'm just glad that Games Workshop added this rule so I can win."

Nice straw man, but I'm glad GW added the rule so that unpainted armies are discouraged. In my ideal world I would never benefit from the 10 VP because everyone would bring a fully painted army.

 Akor Doomflayer wrote:

 TheBestBucketHead wrote:
"I don't care about winning, I'm just glad that Games Workshop added this rule so I can win."

Nice straw man, but I'm glad GW added the rule so that painted armies are discouraged. In my ideal world I would never benefit from the 10 VP because everyone would bring a fully painted army.

All the matches would be fair, so long as everyone hobbies the exact way you want them to hobby.

 TheBestBucketHead wrote:
I'll just leave by saying that I've yet to see an argument against my cosplay and roleplay bonuses that don't apply to the painting victory point bonus, outside of the fact that there's no rules for it, despite the fact that rules for them existed before.

Then you haven't been looking, because there have been at least two arguments: that very few people, if any, were asking for cosplay bonuses while many people were asking for painting requirements and enforcing painting rules stricter than what GW did, and that unpainted models have an aesthetic impact on the on-table game while cosplaying doesn't.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Tawnis wrote:
All the matches would be fair, so long as every hobbies the exact way you want them to hobby.

Yep. Like it or not painting is an expected part of the miniatures hobby. Isolated 40k groups that refuse to paint are the minority. Go try to play with unpainted miniatures in a historical group and you'll be laughed out of the room and wish it was a mere 10 VP.

And your reply here doesn't change the fact that it's a straw man argument, as removing unpainted armies from the game is not the same thing as seeking more wins.

 Tawnis wrote:

Vatsetis wrote:

 Tawnis wrote:

Vatsetis wrote:
Explained in simple terms, If the "defend painters" rule didnt exist, it would empower that part of the community that (IMHO) has no empathy for their fellow gamers and that dont care about the aesthetic of the hobby.

I want my hobby to be played by empathic and creative people, therefore I will happily die on that hill.

And after being treated as a punching ball (something that I might partly deserve) by so many posters I really going to bleed over this issue.

It is clear enough?

Yes, that actually is, thank you. Now I can actually address your argument rather than us dancing around the issue and getting nowhere. First off, it's not a "defend painters" rule, no one is trying to tell you to stop painting, you are free to paint as much as you want with no penalty.

You say that people who don't paint their armies have no empathy for their fellow gamers? Okay, lets put aside the people who choose not to paint the armies for the time being and just focus on the others for a moment.
People that love to paint and spend what little free time they may have learning how, then painstakingly working on their army, but only get a few hours a week of free time, so it takes them bloody forever to actually finish anything. Those people lack empathy?
Or people that hate painting? They should be forced to do something they can't stand for your visual benefit, or to pay a very expensive premium to take part in an evenly matched game or they lack empathy too?
Or someone that has just gone out and got a new army and is excited to play it right away to test it out instead of waiting months to get all their painting done, they lack empathy?
None of these people think about poor old you and the visual appeal they bring you when they put their army on the table.

You were perfectly clear this time, you only want the hobby to be played by people who think and feel about the hobby the same way you do. The thing is, you are no more special than anyone else that plays this hobby. The person across the table has just as much right to enjoy the game with their unpainted or partially painted army as you do with your fully painted one.

I apologize for my insinuation earlier that you were stupid, that is not the case. However, I can stand by the statement that you are incredibly selfish. A game is not about your sole enjoyment, it is about the enjoyment of everyone playing it. You sir, are the one with no empathy for your fellow gamers.

Its obvious I lack emparhy, thats why I continue in this debate... Because Im a callous, insensitive troll.

Nevertheless after it has been stablish my selfish, even sociopathic nature, would you mind to answer a simple question?

In which manner the fun of those gamers unable to paint their armies is diminished by the fact that their maximum points is 90VP rather than 100VP?

For the record, I don't think you're a troll. Just that, from what you've said, you only care about your own fun. (And I suppose the fun of those that think exactly the same way that you do.)

The manner in which they are walking into a game that should be a fair match but is already stacked against them. Would you want to race someone in a 100 meter dash if they started 10 meters ahead? Yeah sure, you can still win, but it sure feels like a slap in the face when the other person says "oh don't be mad that I get a head start, the people in charge said it was okay." Or "I'm just here to have fun, but the rules are the rules, I'm sorry it gives me an unfair advantage, but there's really nothing I could possibly do about it." or "You know, if you spent a hundred hours making your own cloths from scratch, you'd be able to start up here with me." or even "You wouldn't be bothered by my unfair advantage if you didn't care so much about winning."

If I knew the rules of the race before hand and implies that the rewarded runner did and effort that I couldnt bother to do... Well I certainly would not be specially pissed of by that allegedly unfair" situation".

For most working people the odds they have too face every day are far more dare than those meaningless 10 vp... When every day, every week, every month, year after year you play a rigged game, a game in which you might be able due to pure luck and determination to as best achieve a "minor defeat"... Well you will be happy to accept those odds.

Complaining for the 10 meters ahead its a joke... When the standard in every day life (and dont fool yourselve games are a social construct and there is no great barrier between them and the rest of social life) experience is dragging 30, 50 or 90 meters behind the "competition".

Life is one thing alone, learning to be a better losser.

 Akor Doomflayer wrote:

 TheBestBucketHead wrote:
I'll just leave by saying that I've yet to see an argument against my cosplay and roleplay bonuses that don't apply to the painting victory point bonus, outside of the fact that there's no rules for it, despite the fact that rules for them existed before.

Then you haven't been looking, because there have been at least two arguments: that very few people, if any, were asking for cosplay bonuses while many people were asking for painting requirements and enforcing painting rules stricter than what GW did, and that unpainted models have an aesthetic impact on the on-table game while cosplaying doesn't.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Tawnis wrote:
All the matches would be fair, so long as every hobbies the exact way you want them to hobby.

Yep. Like it or not painting is an expected part of the miniatures hobby. Isolated 40k groups that refuse to paint are the minority. Go try to play with unpainted miniatures in a historical group and you'll be laughed out of the room and wish it was a mere 10 VP.

And your reply here doesn't change the fact that it's a straw man argument, as removing unpainted armies from the game is not the same thing as seeking more wins.

Yes, people who refuse to paint are the vast minority, however, there are plenty of people, like myself, that love to paint but have very little free time to do so. It is rare that I see total bare plastic armies around, but I see A LOT of partially painted WIP armies that people want to get on the table and play before they've contributed their requisite 100+ hours of painting to be battle ready. And even if that weren't the case, the people in that vast minority still should have every right to play an fair game regardless of your aversion to grey plastic.

Depends on the miniature hobby. Yes you are correct about historical groups, but on the flip side, BattleTech allows you to play with cardboard cutouts if you want (so long as the unit's facing is clear), it's in their rules, and people are okay with that.

You're right, it's not. Removing unpainted armies from the game would be preventing people who hobby differently than you from playing at all. Also it would make the barrier to entry for new players even more massive than it already is.

 Tawnis wrote:
there are plenty of people, like myself, that love to paint but have very little free time to do so.

If you have time to play you have time to paint.

It is rare that I see total bare plastic armies around, but I see A LOT of partially painted WIP armies that people want to get on the table and play before they've contributed their requisite 100+ hours of painting to be battle ready.

You and I have very different experiences then. In every group I've been around, in various stores in multiple states, the people who had unpainted armies never painted anything. Maybe they had 1-2 models they (badly) painted years ago but the rest was gray plastic forever, often with broken parts everywhere because of being carelessly tossed into a box between games, bases with legs because "assembling is hard", etc. It was very rare to see someone who was making a genuine attempt at painting but hadn't finished yet. And if you look through this thread you see more of the same, quite a few people declaring that they do not like painting and will never paint anything.

Depends on the miniature hobby. Yes you are correct about historical groups, but on the flip side, BattleTech allows you to play with cardboard cutouts if you want (so long as the unit's facing is clear), it's in their rules, and people are okay with that.

Is that because people like cardboard cutouts or because the complicated legal history of the IP and sales, canceled games, etc, have created so many supply problems that the current owners of the IP had to accept cardboard tokens as a last resort? It may look ugly as hell and make the game less appealing but it's better than not playing the game at all because half the product line is out of stock and/or unavailable because of IP issues.

You're right, it's not. Removing unpainted armies from the game would be preventing people who hobby differently than you from playing at all. Also it would make the barrier to entry for new players even more massive than it already is.

Which is why 10 VP is a good compromise. You're allowed to play but you have a clear incentive to fix the unpainted miniature problem ASAP.

Did Bob make a third account now?

Don't play with VP AND PROBLEM SOLVED!!!!!!!

 VladimirHerzog wrote:
Did Bob make a third account now?

Ha, ha, I was just about to post this! Sure looks like it. Isn’t there some sort of rule against that?

 Gordon Shumway wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:
Did Bob make a third account now?

Ha, ha, I was just about to post this! Sure looks like it. Isn’t there some sort of rule against that?

Yeah but the mods seem unwilling to even suspend anyone now for some reason.

 Akor Doomflayer wrote:

 TheBestBucketHead wrote:
"I don't care about winning, I'm just glad that Games Workshop added this rule so I can win."

Nice straw man, but I'm glad GW added the rule so that painted armies are discouraged. In my ideal world I would never benefit from the 10 VP because everyone would bring a fully painted army.

Perhaps you meant to type that unpainted are discouraged and painted encouraged? That is how i read the post...

 jeff white wrote:

 Akor Doomflayer wrote:

 TheBestBucketHead wrote:
"I don't care about winning, I'm just glad that Games Workshop added this rule so I can win."

Nice straw man, but I'm glad GW added the rule so that painted armies are discouraged. In my ideal world I would never benefit from the 10 VP because everyone would bring a fully painted army.

Perhaps you meant to type that unpainted are discouraged and painted encouraged? That is how i read the post...

Yes. Fixed.

So its clear that indepently from any poll results, what actual tournaments or communities do worlwide or any other esoteric considerations the "Dont enforce a 10 VP reward on painted armies" team have clearly won this debate.

And they have won simply because they have by far the best arguments that I will sum up:

-I dont like to paint.
-I hate painting.
-I love painting but Im so slow that I will never reach the tabletop ready standard for my army.
-I dont care.
-I have a family.
-I have a disability that prevents me from painting.
-Get out of my proper... I mean hobby!
-Painting is not a part of "MY" hobby.
-Pro painters are expensive.
-Im the only one allowed to paint my miniatures even if I dont actually want to paint them.
-Winning any tipe of game due to painting scores is unfair.
-I dont like to paint... Etc.

From a rethoric point of view this is an unbreakable fortress, time to accept the defeat.

All of those arguments are better than the pro-10 VP sides single argument of "I personally get to decide what the hobby entails for literally everyone else".

I don't think people need a good reason if they don't paint their armies let alone a reason at all.

It's your stuff, do whatever you want with it. Same with the playing partner. If they don't want to play you, they don't have to justify themselves.

If playing with that one person is absolutely vital to you, talk it out and see if you can find a compromise.

Actually people dont need a reason to do almost anything... Only trolls look for the hidden meaning behind human behaviour.

Without trolls humanity will be happy and careless.

We live in sad and salty times

 Sim-Life wrote:
All of those arguments are better than the pro-10 VP sides single argument of "I personally get to decide what the hobby entails for literally everyone else".

Trouble for your position is that no one can provide an argument that compels me, or anyone else, to actually engage in a game with anyone else who doesnt paint their models. Nothing. It is my choice. I choose not to engage with people who do not paint. OK, the occasional new model try out is sometimes OK with me, for a quick game (very quick) to try out rules and wargear before committing to a certain modeled loadout, but... yeah, no. You got nothing.

For my part, I am also less likely to want to spend time with anyone who pays other people to paint for them. Why? Because painting and converting models by hand is part of the hobby and some of the things that I both admire in other hobbyists as well as like to talk about during gametime. Not having such conversations takes away from the experience for me, enough to CHOOSE NOT TO SPEND MY TIME WITH THOSE PEOPLE.

There is no argument that can compel me to do so.

Its not an all or o nothing think... You can paint some of your minis and hire a propainter for other.

Why do some people seem so hellbent on playing only in a very concrete and static manner... Dont you have any level of flexibility when playing 40K? You only play the sane people over an over again ussing the same format? As if it was some sort of ritual?

 jeff white wrote:

 Sim-Life wrote:
All of those arguments are better than the pro-10 VP sides single argument of "I personally get to decide what the hobby entails for literally everyone else".

Trouble for your position is that no one can provide an argument that compels me, or anyone else, to actually engage in a game with anyone else who doesnt paint their models. Nothing. It is my choice. I choose not to engage with people who do not paint. OK, the occasional new model try out is sometimes OK with me, for a quick game (very quick) to try out rules and wargear before committing to a certain modeled loadout, but... yeah, no. You got nothing.

For my part, I am also less likely to want to spend time with anyone who pays other people to paint for them. Why? Because painting and converting models by hand is part of the hobby and some of the things that I both admire in other hobbyists as well as like to talk about during gametime. Not having such conversations takes away from the experience for me, enough to CHOOSE NOT TO SPEND MY TIME WITH THOSE PEOPLE.

There is no argument that can compel me to do so.

Sure. You do that. It's your hobby, do what you want, but it makes you look like an ass, not them.

Done keeping up with this.

Though, this thread has me thinking... Maybe the tournament scene took off like it did because people were fed-up with playing against unpainted, half assembled, little to no effort given armies.

At this point I hope the Rules Team makes it 20 VP's.

The bottom line is and always will be... Paint your gak or don't fething show up at the table.

I cannot recall a small tournament in my area ever awarding 10vp's for painting.

I can't either - but then every tourney small or large I have heard of has the three colours minimum rule. Don't meet that, lose points overall in other ways.

I think all those talking oddly about sales, enjoyment etc - the company has decided (correctly I think), its toys look better when not grey plastic. That is an important aspect of the sales and attraction parts. So getting the players to improve that marketing by painting their armies makes sense.

 Sim-Life wrote:
Sure. You do that. It's your hobby, do what you want, but it makes you look like an ass, not them.

Oh look, right on schedule you're back to demonstrate the entitled no-painting attitude that someone is an "ass" if they won't play against your unpainted armies. How quickly the whole "your hobby is your hobby, you're allowed to do what you want" thing disappears when someone's hobby choices don't align with yours...

 jeff white wrote:

 Sim-Life wrote:
All of those arguments are better than the pro-10 VP sides single argument of "I personally get to decide what the hobby entails for literally everyone else".

Trouble for your position is that no one can provide an argument that compels me, or anyone else, to actually engage in a game with anyone else who doesnt paint their models.

That goes for pretty much anything. I can't compel anyone to play me, nor do I expect the reverse. It's absolutely fine to refuse a game that you won't find enjoyable, as long as it's done in a respectful way.

So the conclusion is people are entitled to play who ever they want (or dont play if they dont feel in the mood to do so).

Woa!!!

What a deep conclusion after only 13+ pages of thread.

Internet is indeed a fountain of wisdom!!!

 Akor Doomflayer wrote:

 Sim-Life wrote:
Sure. You do that. It's your hobby, do what you want, but it makes you look like an ass, not them.

Oh look, right on schedule you're back to demonstrate the entitled no-painting attitude that someone is an "ass" if they won't play against your unpainted armies. How quickly the whole "your hobby is your hobby, you're allowed to do what you want" thing disappears when someone's hobby choices don't align with yours...

Well first of all Bob/Shas'O/whatever your name is now, as I've said multiple time all my armies (6 armies all between 2000pts and 6000pts at last count) are fully painted so this is nothing to do with "my unpainted armies". Secondly people with unpainted armies are not refusing games with people because their armies are painted. The only people imposing standards and refusing games are those demanding painted armies. The obstacle is elitism from people with painted armies, not the other way around.

 Akor Doomflayer wrote:

 Sim-Life wrote:
Sure. You do that. It's your hobby, do what you want, but it makes you look like an ass, not them.

Oh look, right on schedule you're back to demonstrate the entitled no-painting attitude that someone is an "ass" if they won't play against your unpainted armies. How quickly the whole "your hobby is your hobby, you're allowed to do what you want" thing disappears when someone's hobby choices don't align with yours...

That has been fine the entire time, it’s even been expressed a bit in this thread.
But Jeff has told people to play other games, as well as been rude about not wanting to play unpainted.
He suggested quitting 40k and playing card games, which I think comes of as rather disrespectful for a number of reasons.
But for me, what prevents me painting, prevents me from handling cards.

Considering the rule itself was effectively redundant in events and tournaments where painting rules are common in different ways already.
It really only effected the casual on a wide degree I would think. Where all parts of the hobby would be expected to be more casual and friendly.
I have found the rule anything but friendly, often if it has come up mostly putting people in very awquard position socially.
The rule as it is I think subverts any real positive change in the community’s, and leads to what I think is quite nasty behaviour. Effectively trying to put a rule in for what should be a very social position for the hobby.

 Sim-Life wrote:
The only people imposing standards and refusing games are those demanding painted armies

What's your point? Why are you calling someone an ass for not playing against an unpainted army? Why are you such a shameless hypocrite about "everyone should be able to do what they want" but then judging people for saying nah, I'd rather not play against that? Do you think that people with unpainted armies are entitled to have games regardless of their opponent's enjoyment?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Apple fox wrote:
But Jeff has told people to play other games, as well as been rude about not wanting to play unpainted.

None of that was in the post in question.

Where all parts of the hobby would be expected to be more casual and friendly.

And they are. That's why the rule is a mere 10 VP instead of an absolute ban on unpainted models as it is in a more competitive context.

 jeff white wrote:

 Sim-Life wrote:
All of those arguments are better than the pro-10 VP sides single argument of "I personally get to decide what the hobby entails for literally everyone else".

Trouble for your position is that no one can provide an argument that compels me, or anyone else, to actually engage in a game with anyone else who doesnt paint their models. Nothing. It is my choice. I choose not to engage with people who do not paint. OK, the occasional new model try out is sometimes OK with me, for a quick game (very quick) to try out rules and wargear before committing to a certain modeled loadout, but... yeah, no. You got nothing.

For my part, I am also less likely to want to spend time with anyone who pays other people to paint for them. Why? Because painting and converting models by hand is part of the hobby and some of the things that I both admire in other hobbyists as well as like to talk about during gametime. Not having such conversations takes away from the experience for me, enough to CHOOSE NOT TO SPEND MY TIME WITH THOSE PEOPLE.

There is no argument that can compel me to do so.

That is perfectly reasonable, in the same way people who don't paint shouldn't be forced to. We all enjoy this hobby differently. As long as this like many things is agreed pre-game I can't see how there can be a problem.

This (seemingly at this point endless) argument is against those who try to make people with un-painted armies feel bad or like they are doing something wrong.

It hasn't helped that GW have muddied the waters by bringing in a crossover rule between two different parts of the hobby. This can cause conflict in close games if it's not handled properly. It seems to be a well meaning attempt to encourage painted armies but mostly is just a potential point of friction.

Tallonian4th wrote:
This (seemingly at this point endless) argument is against those who try to make people with un-painted armies feel bad or like they are doing something wrong.

If you don't paint your models you are doing something wrong. You're making a less enjoyable game for your opponent and going against the social norm that miniatures games involve fully painted armies. Whether that transgression is severe enough to merit being kicked out of the hobby entirely is up for debate but it's still not something we should endorse. Meet the expectations and the 10 VP is not an issue.

Bob, can you have the common decency to at least try to appear like a different person every time you switch accounts? It's so obviously you, that every day feels like arguing with Alpharius. Sgt Bob, Shas'O, and not DoomFlayer. Just pick one, and have the courage to be that personality.

 Akor Doomflayer wrote:

 Sim-Life wrote:
The only people imposing standards and refusing games are those demanding painted armies

What's your point? Why are you calling someone an ass for not playing against an unpainted army?

I am. The only reason someone should refuse a game is because the pair can't agree on a point level. Everything else is pure "I'm better than everyone else, so you can only run what I want you to run and you need to paint too".

EviscerationPlague wrote:
I am. The only reason someone should refuse a game is because the pair can't agree on a point level. Everything else is pure "I'm better than everyone else, so you can only run what I want you to run and you need to paint too".

At least you're honest about your entitlement issues.

Vatsetis wrote:
A battle ready army looks decent on the table.

Painting is not an "all or nothing" dicotomy... Pretending that if you cannot achieve an optimal level of painting in every mini in your army it is worthless to try its pure nihilism.

A mediocre painted army is nevertheless a qualitative improvement over a "grey tide".

I never said I couldn't (or dont) achieve quality results.
I simply said that one can achieve BR that looks like crap & takes virtually no effort.
It will NOT be better than Grey plastic, just more colorful.
If you think a gak paint job is preferable then you've poor standards & should just accept someone's non-BR stuff.

Maybe we should award BobshasDoom 10VP if they maintain the same avatar in the boards. It is the norm and the rule here, and we all know how much they care about that.

 Akor Doomflayer wrote:

Tallonian4th wrote:
This (seemingly at this point endless) argument is against those who try to make people with un-painted armies feel bad or like they are doing something wrong.

If you don't paint your models you are doing something wrong. You're making a less enjoyable game for your opponent and going against the social norm that miniatures games involve fully painted armies. Whether that transgression is severe enough to merit being kicked out of the hobby entirely is up for debate but it's still not something we should endorse. Meet the expectations and the 10 VP is not an issue.

What are you on about 'the social norm'? There is no social norm when it comes to how people individually enjoy a hobby. You cannot state your opinion as fact, you don't like unpainted, but that is not true of everyone. Now if you prefer not to play against unpainted models, fair enough, no one should make you do so and a respectful declining of the match is all that is needed. But in the same way you don't have to play them, you can't make them do something they may not want to, or may even want to but other life priorities preclude them from doing. They are not wrong and you are incredibly rude in your assertations.

 Akor Doomflayer wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:
I am. The only reason someone should refuse a game is because the pair can't agree on a point level. Everything else is pure "I'm better than everyone else, so you can only run what I want you to run and you need to paint too".

At least you're honest about your entitlement issues.

Says the guy who thinks he's entitled to dictate how others engage in the hobby? Again, the players rejecting others are the PAAC players (painted at all cost), not the other way around.

 Sim-Life wrote:
Says the guy who thinks he's entitled to dictate how others engage in the hobby? Again, the players rejecting others are the PAAC players (painted at all cost), not the other way around.

Who cares about who is rejecting who? You aren't entitled to a game with someone and they aren't being an ass just because they won't play a game they don't enjoy. But it's nice to see you doubling down on your hypocrisy, complaining about "dictating how others engage in the hobby" while insulting people for not engaging in the hobby in the way you expect.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Tallonian4th wrote:
There is no social norm when it comes to how people individually enjoy a hobby.

There absolutely are social norms. For example, it is a social norm that you do not paint your models like Nazis. Occasionally people will publicly violate that norm, and we judge them appropriately.

The correct thing to say here is that there are social norms in the hobby, and you just don't think that painting is one of them. And the broader wargaming hobby would disagree with you. Across all genres and eras the standard expectation is that you paint your armies.

nice to know thata single person is representing the broader wargaming hobby across the world. I didn't realize that a single person has the knowledge of everyone that participates in wargaming and is capable of speaking for so many. I also didn't realize I was reading the posts of such a person.

Or, maybe you are wrong and this isn't binary, and you aren't going to sway everyone to agree with you. Maybe people will play with others that may or may not paint, and you have no say on this matter if it doesn't directly involve you.

I don't understand where several people are coming from with such positions. "my way is the only way" smacks of narcissism. you might want to watch out for that.

 oni wrote:
Done keeping up with this.

Though, this thread has me thinking... Maybe the tournament scene took off like it did because people were fed-up with playing against unpainted, half assembled, little to no effort given armies.

At this point I hope the Rules Team makes it 20 VP's.

The bottom line is and always will be... Paint your gak or don't fething show up at the table.

Why should your desires be mandated for everyone?
If you only want to play against and with painted minis, that's fine. But if me and my gamemates don't care, why should we have to follow your standards?

Personal anecdote: In ~20 years of playing 40k with lots of different people in different places, from my own basement, to a local hobby store, to a youth centre and a tabletop club house currently... expecting a fully painted army is not the social norm here.

Sure the "grey people" usually admire a fully painted army and I assume everybody would agree that it helps with immersion and looks cool on the table. But nobody is being a dick about it if the opponent is having a grey horde.

ccs wrote:

Vatsetis wrote:
A battle ready army looks decent on the table.

Painting is not an "all or nothing" dicotomy... Pretending that if you cannot achieve an optimal level of painting in every mini in your army it is worthless to try its pure nihilism.

A mediocre painted army is nevertheless a qualitative improvement over a "grey tide".

I never said I couldn't (or dont) achieve quality results.
I simply said that one can achieve BR that looks like crap & takes virtually no effort.
It will NOT be better than Grey plastic, just more colorful.
If you think a gak paint job is preferable then you've poor standards & should just accept someone's non-BR stuff.

This is epic level sophism... "I dont paint my minis because I dont want to spoil their aesthetic"... Ummmm... Are you a MP or a Lawyer??


Automatically Appended Next Post:

a_typical_hero wrote:
Personal anecdote: In ~20 years of playing 40k with lots of different people in different places, from my own basement, to a local hobby store, to a youth centre and a tabletop club house currently... expecting a fully painted army is not the social norm here.

Sure the "grey people" usually admire a fully painted army and I assume everybody would agree that it helps with immersion and looks cool on the table. But nobody is being a dick about it if the opponent is having a grey horde.

Dont agree with the general POV but this is probably the most sensible post in a while.

 Akor Doomflayer wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Tallonian4th wrote:
There is no social norm when it comes to how people individually enjoy a hobby.

There absolutely are social norms. For example, it is a social norm that you do not paint your models like Nazis. Occasionally people will publicly violate that norm, and we judge them appropriately.

The correct thing to say here is that there are social norms in the hobby, and you just don't think that painting is one of them. And the broader wargaming hobby would disagree with you. Across all genres and eras the standard expectation is that you paint your armies.

Wow what a shoddy reply. Well done on instantly invoking Godwin's law almost immediately, because of course those who are unable or don't enjoy painting are as bad as Nazis. Shows how badly you've lost if that's your first go to.

I was actually with you on the fact that you shouldn't have to play un-painted armies if you don't want to, in the same way others shouldn't have to paint if they don't want to. But you managed to totally ignore a reasonable middle ground which benefits as many as possible to impose your views as fact upon everyone. It's a waste of time even trying to debate you as debate requires each side to listen to one another.

I can say only this, I hope you never play against a painted model ever again.

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 Akor Doomflayer wrote:

 Sim-Life wrote:
The only people imposing standards and refusing games are those demanding painted armies

What's your point? Why are you calling someone an ass for not playing against an unpainted army?

I am. The only reason someone should refuse a game is because the pair can't agree on a point level. Everything else is pure "I'm better than everyone else, so you can only run what I want you to run and you need to paint too".

Actually forcing someone to play against you is the ultimate form of entitlement. Player 1"Sorry I'm looking to play against another painted army i enjoy the look of the game just as much as the play so its important to me"....Player 2 "actually you are a jerk for not playing me, I am entitled to your time. You must play me whether you enjoy it or not. You have to accept the way I enjoy the hobby while simultaneously I disregard how you enjoy it"

Not wanting to play against a grey tide is 100% legitimate and there is nothing wrong with it. Just like there isnt anything wrong with you not wanting to paint.... you might just limit your potential opponent pool

Forcing some one to play a hideous grey tide army against their will its probably a felony outside "gangland Poland" and "ganland USA" were LGS are in fact coverups for Organized crime.

Yes, Evisceration is wrong for saying you have to play someone who you don't want to play. And that can be beyond a painting disagreement-maybe you don't like them much, maybe you're tired and don't have the energy to game, but refusing a game politely isn't a problem.

 JNAProductions wrote:
Yes, Evisceration is wrong for saying you have to play someone who you don't want to play. And that can be beyond a painting disagreement-maybe you don't like them much, maybe you're tired and don't have the energy to game, but refusing a game politely isn't a problem.

No, they're entitled jackasses because muh paint, and they need to be called out on it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Asmodios wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 Akor Doomflayer wrote:

 Sim-Life wrote:
The only people imposing standards and refusing games are those demanding painted armies

What's your point? Why are you calling someone an ass for not playing against an unpainted army?

I am. The only reason someone should refuse a game is because the pair can't agree on a point level. Everything else is pure "I'm better than everyone else, so you can only run what I want you to run and you need to paint too".

Actually forcing someone to play against you is the ultimate form of entitlement. Player 1"Sorry I'm looking to play against another painted army i enjoy the look of the game just as much as the play so its important to me"....Player 2 "actually you are a jerk for not playing me, I am entitled to your time. You must play me whether you enjoy it or not. You have to accept the way I enjoy the hobby while simultaneously I disregard how you enjoy it"

Not wanting to play against a grey tide is 100% legitimate and there is nothing wrong with it. Just like there isnt anything wrong with you not wanting to paint.... you might just limit your potential opponent pool

No it isn't an actual reason. With how bad the rules are to begin with, choosing the draw the line at "I don't like how my opponent's army looks" is pure entitlement and childish. Yes you are childish if you believe what you're posting.

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
Yes, Evisceration is wrong for saying you have to play someone who you don't want to play. And that can be beyond a painting disagreement-maybe you don't like them much, maybe you're tired and don't have the energy to game, but refusing a game politely isn't a problem.

No, they're entitled jackasses because muh paint, and they need to be called out on it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Asmodios wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 Akor Doomflayer wrote:

 Sim-Life wrote:
The only people imposing standards and refusing games are those demanding painted armies

What's your point? Why are you calling someone an ass for not playing against an unpainted army?

I am. The only reason someone should refuse a game is because the pair can't agree on a point level. Everything else is pure "I'm better than everyone else, so you can only run what I want you to run and you need to paint too".

Actually forcing someone to play against you is the ultimate form of entitlement. Player 1"Sorry I'm looking to play against another painted army i enjoy the look of the game just as much as the play so its important to me"....Player 2 "actually you are a jerk for not playing me, I am entitled to your time. You must play me whether you enjoy it or not. You have to accept the way I enjoy the hobby while simultaneously I disregard how you enjoy it"

Not wanting to play against a grey tide is 100% legitimate and there is nothing wrong with it. Just like there isnt anything wrong with you not wanting to paint.... you might just limit your potential opponent pool

No it isn't an actual reason. With how bad the rules are to begin with, choosing the draw the line at "I don't like how my opponent's army looks" is pure entitlement and childish. Yes you are childish if you believe what you're posting.

you are calling people "childish" because they wont play a board game with you. The lack of awareness might be one of the funniest things ive ever read i thank you for this

So if a player you dont know much goes to the gamming night and can choose to play with his finely painted army against another player with a similarly painted army (because he wants to post pics of the game into his social media, for instance) it must INSTEAD play against agrey pile of junk against his will, just so the entitled greyman dosent fill excluded???

Seems very reasonable, does your "gamming" community also practice kidnapping just like XIX century robber barons?

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
Yes, Evisceration is wrong for saying you have to play someone who you don't want to play. And that can be beyond a painting disagreement-maybe you don't like them much, maybe you're tired and don't have the energy to game, but refusing a game politely isn't a problem.

No, they're entitled jackasses because muh paint, and they need to be called out on it.

If someone refuses to game with you because your models aren't painted, and they do so politely? That's fine.
Seriously-it's not your hobby, exclusively. It's everyone's hobby who participates in it-people can value different parts of it. If you don't value painting, like me, then you don't need a painted force. But if someone DOES value painted armies, then that's also fine.

Asmodios wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
Yes, Evisceration is wrong for saying you have to play someone who you don't want to play. And that can be beyond a painting disagreement-maybe you don't like them much, maybe you're tired and don't have the energy to game, but refusing a game politely isn't a problem.

No, they're entitled jackasses because muh paint, and they need to be called out on it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Asmodios wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 Akor Doomflayer wrote:

 Sim-Life wrote:
The only people imposing standards and refusing games are those demanding painted armies

What's your point? Why are you calling someone an ass for not playing against an unpainted army?

I am. The only reason someone should refuse a game is because the pair can't agree on a point level. Everything else is pure "I'm better than everyone else, so you can only run what I want you to run and you need to paint too".

Actually forcing someone to play against you is the ultimate form of entitlement. Player 1"Sorry I'm looking to play against another painted army i enjoy the look of the game just as much as the play so its important to me"....Player 2 "actually you are a jerk for not playing me, I am entitled to your time. You must play me whether you enjoy it or not. You have to accept the way I enjoy the hobby while simultaneously I disregard how you enjoy it"

Not wanting to play against a grey tide is 100% legitimate and there is nothing wrong with it. Just like there isnt anything wrong with you not wanting to paint.... you might just limit your potential opponent pool

No it isn't an actual reason. With how bad the rules are to begin with, choosing the draw the line at "I don't like how my opponent's army looks" is pure entitlement and childish. Yes you are childish if you believe what you're posting.

you are calling people "childish" because they wont play a board game with you. The lack of awareness might be one of the funniest things ive ever read i thank you for this

Denying a game because your opponent has some unpainted models is just as snobbish as not playing them because they aren't wearing an expensive brand of shirt. So yes, you are childish

 JNAProductions wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
Yes, Evisceration is wrong for saying you have to play someone who you don't want to play. And that can be beyond a painting disagreement-maybe you don't like them much, maybe you're tired and don't have the energy to game, but refusing a game politely isn't a problem.

No, they're entitled jackasses because muh paint, and they need to be called out on it.

If someone refuses to game with you because your models aren't painted, and they do so politely? That's fine.
Seriously-it's not your hobby, exclusively. It's everyone's hobby who participates in it-people can value different parts of it. If you don't value painting, like me, then you don't need a painted force. But if someone DOES value painted armies, then that's also fine.

I feel bad for you reasonable "no paint" guys... because 50% of the reason i turn down a no paint game is because i wanna take cool pics and tell a story with the game.... the other 50% is to avoid entitled people like this that think the world revolves around them and im some sort of slave that has to play them

Asmodios wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
Yes, Evisceration is wrong for saying you have to play someone who you don't want to play. And that can be beyond a painting disagreement-maybe you don't like them much, maybe you're tired and don't have the energy to game, but refusing a game politely isn't a problem.

No, they're entitled jackasses because muh paint, and they need to be called out on it.

If someone refuses to game with you because your models aren't painted, and they do so politely? That's fine.
Seriously-it's not your hobby, exclusively. It's everyone's hobby who participates in it-people can value different parts of it. If you don't value painting, like me, then you don't need a painted force. But if someone DOES value painted armies, then that's also fine.

I feel bad for you reasonable "no paint" guys... because 50% of the reason i turn down a no paint game is because i wanna take cool pics and tell a story with the game.... the other 50% is to avoid entitled people like this that think the world revolves around them and im some sort of slave that has to play them

The game doesn't tell a story to begin with, so nice try.

EviscerationPlague wrote:

Asmodios wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
Yes, Evisceration is wrong for saying you have to play someone who you don't want to play. And that can be beyond a painting disagreement-maybe you don't like them much, maybe you're tired and don't have the energy to game, but refusing a game politely isn't a problem.

No, they're entitled jackasses because muh paint, and they need to be called out on it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Asmodios wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 Akor Doomflayer wrote:

 Sim-Life wrote:
The only people imposing standards and refusing games are those demanding painted armies

What's your point? Why are you calling someone an ass for not playing against an unpainted army?

I am. The only reason someone should refuse a game is because the pair can't agree on a point level. Everything else is pure "I'm better than everyone else, so you can only run what I want you to run and you need to paint too".

Actually forcing someone to play against you is the ultimate form of entitlement. Player 1"Sorry I'm looking to play against another painted army i enjoy the look of the game just as much as the play so its important to me"....Player 2 "actually you are a jerk for not playing me, I am entitled to your time. You must play me whether you enjoy it or not. You have to accept the way I enjoy the hobby while simultaneously I disregard how you enjoy it"

Not wanting to play against a grey tide is 100% legitimate and there is nothing wrong with it. Just like there isnt anything wrong with you not wanting to paint.... you might just limit your potential opponent pool

No it isn't an actual reason. With how bad the rules are to begin with, choosing the draw the line at "I don't like how my opponent's army looks" is pure entitlement and childish. Yes you are childish if you believe what you're posting.

you are calling people "childish" because they wont play a board game with you. The lack of awareness might be one of the funniest things ive ever read i thank you for this

Denying a game because your opponent has some unpainted models is just as snobbish as not playing them because they aren't wearing an expensive brand of shirt. So yes, you are childish

so me wanting to be able to take cinematic photos for my gaming group is the exact same thing as not liking somebody's clothing?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

Asmodios wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
Yes, Evisceration is wrong for saying you have to play someone who you don't want to play. And that can be beyond a painting disagreement-maybe you don't like them much, maybe you're tired and don't have the energy to game, but refusing a game politely isn't a problem.

No, they're entitled jackasses because muh paint, and they need to be called out on it.

If someone refuses to game with you because your models aren't painted, and they do so politely? That's fine.
Seriously-it's not your hobby, exclusively. It's everyone's hobby who participates in it-people can value different parts of it. If you don't value painting, like me, then you don't need a painted force. But if someone DOES value painted armies, then that's also fine.

I feel bad for you reasonable "no paint" guys... because 50% of the reason i turn down a no paint game is because i wanna take cool pics and tell a story with the game.... the other 50% is to avoid entitled people like this that think the world revolves around them and im some sort of slave that has to play them

The game doesn't tell a story to begin with, so nice try.

clearly your games dont tell a story because the hostages you have taken to play are spending the whole game looking for a safe exit

And, given the amount of alerts this topic keeps on generating, we're done here.