Curious as to whether anyone intends to use this rule. I know I for one would feel like a massive tool if I was 9 points behind at the end of the game but claimed the win due to my whole army being painted and my opponent having 1 unpainted termagant. On the other hand, if someone did that to me, it's just the rules, I can't exactly accuse them of twisting anything or being unfair, if you want the 10vp you have to make the effort...? This just seems like a very 'awkward / feels bad' rule.
Its in the 9th rulebook. 45 possible VP for primaries, 45 possible VP for secondaries, 10 VP for having your plastic Battle Ready.
To answer the OP though, only if im playing "That Guy". For casual LGS shenanigans, *especially* if it involves newcomers to the game, its going on the shelf.
I'm a slow and reluctant painter, I like the game/immersion/lore but being who I am the game part will always be the most important part to me. I'm the kind of guy that, were true LOS not a thing, would play with tokens to try out builds if my opponents let me. So no I will not be using these rules, or if my friends insist on them will just stop playing altogether until I painted everything.
Overall I can see why they made this a rule but if they are going this far, they should have at least made a rule enforcing fluffy forces too. Why is painting somehow more important than being fluffy. I get punished for playing a fluffy, but unpainted DG army, with loads of actual Plague Marines but mister tourny player who brings nothing from my Dex but 3 tanks and some flamer guys gets rewarded for having them painted?
I think some generosity in enforcing it is merited, but I do appreciate it. Traditionally we tended to just claim a moral victory, and this sorta functions the same way. Like, you won the game. . . buuut. . .
Lol, I don't care if someone did or not. I never would enforce it and would even be sure to play with always one unpainted model. At least just so I could either lose big, or have to score so hard to demoralize the other guy. It's like playing with a handicap !
Unlike some, I really don't care if I win the game, I just want to play it. I'll just focus on crushing the other guys units then and having fun the only way I have left. The other player can have the win every, single, time. I don't know one person I play with who will enforce this as if I won based on actual victory points, but lose because of paint, who really won ?
Yeah I get it as an incentive but it only works like so if you care. Like I'll purposely flaunt it and take the -10 just because I think its a silly rule. I don't play in tournaments these days so what does it matter ? If some new player busts his butt to paint all his stuff and is a new player, this is a great handicap for them incentive them to paint and for me to just have fun.
Edit : That and it feels like a rule just there to peer pressure you to do something and for me, there is no surer way to know I will mock it, then make it feel like it's a " punishment " for being a " bad boy. " Bad boys 4, unpainted models, what ya gonna do ? When my grey hordes coming for you.
Seems fine to me. Makes the game a little harder if you haven't painted everything. Nice that it gives you a little extra motivation to get that new addition some color.
Can always not claim it against people who just built their first models.
No way, claim it every single game. Just keep at least one model un painted so then you equal it out. It's the rules, you gotta follow it, till the end.
It's a really weird thing for them to have done, because by making it a fundamental part of the rules, you really can't just disregard it. The whole scoring system is set up with those 10 points in mind. Scores won't be comparable across games between games where you did use it and where you didn't, and even within one game, it changes the weighting of each part of scoring, by making each primary and secondary point worth more towards victory than it used to be.
In other words, if both players are getting 10 points to start at the game just for having painted armies, each primary and secondary is worth less than it would be, comparatively, than if they aren't.
You really can't *not* use the rule. What you can do, however, is just agree to give both players the 10 points, even if they don't have painted models. That preserves the balance, and the comparability across matches.
Eldarain wrote: I like it. A dedicated soldier left unpainted for just such an occasion
Exactly, give him a name and he exists just to give the other guy an equal chance. The Equalizer he might be. Though that may end up a unit name, or character name for the new Primaris, but until then, old grey model is, The Equalizer.
Drudge Dreadnought wrote: If your game group is so bad that this rule could be a source of drama, you need a new game group.
Tournaments already required paint.
The end.
Also, aren't all of the tournament rules and missions and such coming out in the CA books at release?
I paint my stuff. I like playing against painted armies, the quality of which I do not really care that much about. Tournaments normally require paint, and painting is just part of the game. I know a lot of people are completely blown up by this, but if it gets people to start painting their models and field armies that don't look awful, then sorry, I'll take the ten points every time (which I almost invariably guarantee that it means ill just lose by 5 points and not 15).
Castozor wrote: Except painting is not part of the game, it's part of the overall hobby. Arbitrary VP won't make the actual game part any better.
everything I can think of offhand that is marketing for the game is to collect, build, paint and play. in that order from what i remember. I think it is part of the game. YMMV.
I love this rule, it really is the heart of 9th edition. Silly and overly punitive, can't wait to get my handicap on in every single game. I'll be sure to enjoy it. If anything, it'll feel good, really make those wins feel better.
Nah, there is a big difference between a black undercoat and a painted model in black armour/chitin/uniform/etc.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
AngryAngel80 wrote: I love this rule, it really is the heart of 9th edition. Silly and overly punitive, can't wait to get my handicap on in every single game. I'll be sure to enjoy it. If anything, it'll feel good, really make those wins feel better.
or you could paint your collection to battle-ready standard. No sarcasm intended. Contrast paints really do make battle ready a fast paint.
My armies I field are most all painted, but I won't have GW try and pressure me into finishing anything till I want to do it. My lack of paint does nothing to hamper my friends ability to play so like I said, I'll just make sure to use at least one unpainted model all the time now, it's my goal to endorse this rule.
They actually have a definition of battle ready, and it's fairly forgiving, just base colors and and a shade, with a technical on the base. The kind of thing you could bust out pretty quickly if you are so inclined. It doesn't have a highlight requirement, so you don't even have to drybrush. The base part is the only annoying part for me, because with my custodes I used acrylic bases to make them look like they were part of the scenery they were standing on, and I'm sure I'm going to get digned on that.
If you're playing anyone who's such a jerk that they won't just agree to both take 10 points for a painted army whether it is painted or not, find better people to play with.
I think it's stupid and heavy-handed, but there's such an easy solution.
yes.. But I think neither me nor most of my regular opponents would get the 10 vps though. And if someone body did they deserve it! I pretty much always have some WIP in my list.
Played a game vs a gorgeous custodes army once and I felt bad winning coz half my stuff was just primed while he did all that beautiful work.
I havent read the entire thread but if it hasnt happened already some people are about to spew a whole load of vitrol about this new "rule".
They actually have a definition of battle ready, and it's fairly forgiving, just base colors and and a shade, with a technical on the base. The kind of thing you could bust out pretty quickly if you are so inclined. It doesn't have a highlight requirement, so you don't even have to drybrush. The base part is the only annoying part for me, because with my custodes I used acrylic bases to make them look like they were part of the scenery they were standing on, and I'm sure I'm going to get digned on that.
Which makes it unfair for your Custodes for literally no reason.
Castozor wrote: Except painting is not part of the game, it's part of the overall hobby. Arbitrary VP won't make the actual game part any better.
GW decides what is part of the game, and they just made paint part of it.
And as always it's hamfisted and stupid. I'm personally far less offended by unpainted armies than I am by unfluffy ones. But GW and it's defenders will continue to think like drug addled baboons and defend this gakky stuff.
I would certainly have preferred bonus VPs for fluffy lists. But I understand that's basically impossible to define, so it's not really going to work.
I mean in all fairness all of GWs rules are ideas. You as the players have full agency to take what you want and leave what you don't. I'll play by all the rules and if they suck and are stupid, I won't be the one to deny them.
If my friends want to use it or skip it, it's up to them. I don't like the precedent it sets and therefore while I endorse it, I also think its a mistake. Best way to get rid of mistakes is show off how daft it is though and its why I'll push to use it.
As like I said, if you win by actual VP and lose because of paint, do you really think you'll feel like you lost ? Will the other guy feel like he won ? This rule is simply the truest sign of 9th ed. Good ideas, heavy handed into poor rules that people will fight over, because it sucks. Some other people will say they won't use it, others will enforce it heavily and say how it adds such " greatness " to the game.
Then if it poofs away in a FAQ or another edition we'll hear how wise GW was to remove it after putting it there in the first place, it's a tale as old as time.
yukishiro1 wrote: If you're playing anyone who's such a jerk that they won't just agree to both take 10 points for a painted army whether it is painted or not, find better people to play with.
I think it's stupid and heavy-handed, but there's such an easy solution.
Your thinking about this in the wrong manner, Prior to this unpainted armies were not allowed in many tournaments, or were not eligible for prize support. By GW adding this rule there is a structure allowing you to participate with an unpainted army while encouraging you to finish painting. This will be the rule at GW events, but other TOs are free to use this or not depending on their preference. I don't think I'd use this in a pickup game, and I know that's to my disadvantage because I have fully painted forces.
Will I use it? Hell no. The game is the game, the painting is the painting. I don't game in tournaments (where there are almost always painting requirements anyway) but I ain't gonna be playing with a 10 point handicap just because I value gaming more than painting.
I will, 100%, compliment an opponent with a fully painted army. I will, likewise, enjoy a game, win or lose, provided the opponent is sportsmanlike. But that rule... Nah.
I will, 100%, compliment an opponent with a fully painted army. I will, likewise, enjoy a game, win or lose, provided the opponent is sportsmanlike. But that rule... Nah.
So you've finished the game, and the opponent is 5 pts down. He/she has been a great player and conducted themselves in a fine manner. They have a fully painted army, and you dont.
So who's the one being unsportsmanlike? The one playing to the rules of the book and thus winning? Or the one who refuses to play to the rules of the book and will win because of that refusal?
Granted, as mature gamers this isn't a huge deal. But as a theoretical?
I will, 100%, compliment an opponent with a fully painted army. I will, likewise, enjoy a game, win or lose, provided the opponent is sportsmanlike. But that rule... Nah.
So you've finished the game, and the opponent is 5 pts down. He/she has been a great player and conducted themselves in a fine manner. They have a fully painted army, and you dont.
So who's the one being unsportsmanlike? The one playing to the rules of the book and thus winning? Or the one who refuses to play to the rules of the book and will win because of that refusal?
Granted, as mature gamers this isn't a huge deal. But as a theoretical?
If we did not agree ahead of time to NOT use the rule, then they'd win.
But I'd ask them in advance "I find the 10 points for painting stupid. Mind not using it?"
I will, 100%, compliment an opponent with a fully painted army. I will, likewise, enjoy a game, win or lose, provided the opponent is sportsmanlike. But that rule... Nah.
So you've finished the game, and the opponent is 5 pts down. He/she has been a great player and conducted themselves in a fine manner. They have a fully painted army, and you dont.
So who's the one being unsportsmanlike? The one playing to the rules of the book and thus winning? Or the one who refuses to play to the rules of the book and will win because of that refusal?
Granted, as mature gamers this isn't a huge deal. But as a theoretical?
As a theoretical people weren't playing the game correctly with the terribly written Assault Weapon rules.
I will, 100%, compliment an opponent with a fully painted army. I will, likewise, enjoy a game, win or lose, provided the opponent is sportsmanlike. But that rule... Nah.
So you've finished the game, and the opponent is 5 pts down. He/she has been a great player and conducted themselves in a fine manner. They have a fully painted army, and you dont.
So who's the one being unsportsmanlike? The one playing to the rules of the book and thus winning? Or the one who refuses to play to the rules of the book and will win because of that refusal?
Granted, as mature gamers this isn't a huge deal. But as a theoretical?
As a theoretical people weren't playing the game correctly with the terribly written Assault Weapon rules.
as a practical that's because the rules where clear eneugh we understood what was being said.
Good to see that painting is actually being treated as just as an important part of the experience as building your models.
Will I use the rule? Unlikely, seeing as the games I play don't tend to care too much about the actual score, or winning the game. There certainly won't be any sort of "aha! now I beat you with my painted models!" going on. My models are all painted, I've had a lockdown to see to that, and again, I don't really care too much about winning or losing to care about the extra points I might get.
But for enforcing this as part of the core rules for tournment rulesets to adopt, and, again, emphasising that painting is part of the experience GW want to promote, I support the idea of that. And if something encourages people to break out the brushes, I'm all for that.
And let's be honest, Battle Ready isn't exactly a massive hurdle. Basecoat, wash, paint the base, or one layer of contrast, and the base. No "three colour" rule, not even any highlights. Hell, there's not even a requirement to paint neatly or in the lines. And if you're still attached to the idea of fielding a totally grey horde? Spray Mech Standard Grey (or the other grey of your choice), wash all over in Nuln Oil, apply Astrogranite texture to the base. Perfect, walking battle statue, a totally grey Battle Ready model.
I will, 100%, compliment an opponent with a fully painted army. I will, likewise, enjoy a game, win or lose, provided the opponent is sportsmanlike. But that rule... Nah.
So you've finished the game, and the opponent is 5 pts down. He/she has been a great player and conducted themselves in a fine manner. They have a fully painted army, and you dont.
So who's the one being unsportsmanlike? The one playing to the rules of the book and thus winning? Or the one who refuses to play to the rules of the book and will win because of that refusal?
Granted, as mature gamers this isn't a huge deal. But as a theoretical?
If we did not agree ahead of time to NOT use the rule, then they'd win.
But I'd ask them in advance "I find the 10 points for painting stupid. Mind not using it?"
agreed
But it could also be easily percieved as a TFG thing. Not that I'm saying you're a TFG, but do you see what I'm saying? Guy always shows up with plastic and saying he hates the rule, that can start to be TFG territory.
Can't we just push our models around and make lazer rifle sounds and claim both players won ? Gaining 10 vp is such a silly soft rule, how about we add in points for best play acting during the game ? Best sound effects ? Best in theme battle choices ?
You know, make each scoring at the end of match like a small little Emmy awards, but for geeks.
I will, 100%, compliment an opponent with a fully painted army. I will, likewise, enjoy a game, win or lose, provided the opponent is sportsmanlike. But that rule... Nah.
So you've finished the game, and the opponent is 5 pts down. He/she has been a great player and conducted themselves in a fine manner. They have a fully painted army, and you dont.
So who's the one being unsportsmanlike? The one playing to the rules of the book and thus winning? Or the one who refuses to play to the rules of the book and will win because of that refusal?
Granted, as mature gamers this isn't a huge deal. But as a theoretical?
If we did not agree ahead of time to NOT use the rule, then they'd win.
But I'd ask them in advance "I find the 10 points for painting stupid. Mind not using it?"
And if they say no? I mean, you don't have a fully painted army. There's only one person it benefits to not play by that rule, and it's not them. Not saying that you should only do things that benefit you, but that it's pretty transparent who gets the raw end of the deal.
Again - in the situation Insectum provides, the *sporting* thing to do is give them the points for their models, because to not do so is to ignore rules outright in your favour - unless they agree to it, which you can't assume. The rule is a default. Unless explicitly agreed upon to ignore, it's active.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
AngryAngel80 wrote: Can't we just push our models around and make lazer rifle sounds and claim both players won ? Gaining 10 vp is such a silly soft rule, how about we add in points for best play acting during the game ? Best sound effects ? Best in theme battle choices ?
You know, make each scoring at the end of match like a small little Emmy awards, but for geeks.
I'd unironically rather play a game like that than the way some people here seem to play it. It'd be a damn sight more enjoyable.
AngryAngel80 wrote: Can't we just push our models around and make lazer rifle sounds and claim both players won ? Gaining 10 vp is such a silly soft rule, how about we add in points for best play acting during the game ? Best sound effects ? Best in theme battle choices ?
You know, make each scoring at the end of match like a small little Emmy awards, but for geeks.
While hilarious it is clear GW intends this to be the tournament friendly edition so we can't have that. Well except for the paint your soldiers rule because apparently that is bloody important. Which really is what pisses me off the most about this rule. Everything else seems to be designed around what tournament nutters want, but we get this one throw away rule that maybe please play in an immersive way pls!
I have to agree with Smudge, it's a damn stupid rule, my opinion, but it's a rule. All you can do is play with it, and crush someone with it or flout it and just realize each game is handicap to peacefully protest it and probably make the other player feel bad if you win as they couldn't beat you even with a 10 point just showing up lead.
Anything to help cull the grey hordes is good in my book.
If someone is working up an army and still painting, but making progress, I’d be willing to pass on this rule.
Part of what I enjoy about this game is the spectacle of two well painted armies fighting it out. I’ll play against unpainted armies, but it takes some of the fun out of the game for me. I’ll take 10 points as a compensation. It’s probably just going to be a tie breaker anyway.
If it’s not painted, I don’t put it on the table. I don’t hold everyone to my standards, but if the rulebook wants to reward me, I’ll take it.
AngryAngel80 wrote: Can't we just push our models around and make lazer rifle sounds and claim both players won ? Gaining 10 vp is such a silly soft rule, how about we add in points for best play acting during the game ? Best sound effects ? Best in theme battle choices ?
You know, make each scoring at the end of match like a small little Emmy awards, but for geeks.
While hilarious it is clear GW intends this to be the tournament friendly edition so we can't have that. Well except for the paint your soldiers rule because apparently that is bloody important. Which really is what pisses me off the most about this rule. Everything else seems to be designed around what tournament nutters want, but we get this one throw away rule that maybe please play in an immersive way pls!
See ? That is so biased though. I bet I would sound effect and play act the crap out of any other player I'd be likely to meet. I could make back the loss of points for paint
in the best sound, best score and best screen play for my army.
Castozor wrote: While hilarious it is clear GW intends this to be the tournament friendly edition so we can't have that. Well except for the paint your soldiers rule because apparently that is bloody important. Which really is what pisses me off the most about this rule. Everything else seems to be designed around what tournament nutters want, but we get this one throw away rule that maybe please play in an immersive way pls!
Tournaments nearly all had rules about having painted models in them. If this edition is just Tournament Rules Codified, then having painting requirements would fit within that.
If its about immersion the other player better have good voice acting and call outs as well as vehicle and weapons sound effects. As I don't care how well painted it is, if I can't hear it and experience it, my immersion is broken.
Nevelon wrote:Anything to help cull the grey hordes is good in my book.
If someone is working up an army and still painting, but making progress, I’d be willing to pass on this rule.
Part of what I enjoy about this game is the spectacle of two well painted armies fighting it out. I’ll play against unpainted armies, but it takes some of the fun out of the game for me. I’ll take 10 points as a compensation. It’s probably just going to be a tie breaker anyway.
If it’s not painted, I don’t put it on the table. I don’t hold everyone to my standards, but if the rulebook wants to reward me, I’ll take it.
Pretty much agreed. I won't play an unpainted model of my own, but that's my own standards. Obviously, I'll hold my opponents to things on a contextual basis.
Just starting out? Not had my spare time lately? Nah, of course I'm not going to hold you to that.
Had those models for years, and you play with them every time we game? Yeah, I'm going to have expected you to at least try and paint by now.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
AngryAngel80 wrote: If its about immersion the other player better have good voice acting and call outs as well as vehicle and weapons sound effects. As I don't care how well painted it is, if I can't hear it and experience it, my immersion is broken.
1. Yes, I will absolutely follow this rule.
2. Yes, I will without hesitation field non-battle ready models when I feel like doing so. Up to and including arbitrarily putting a single unpainted model on a table to accompany an otherwise fully painted collection.
If you play a game and the margin of victory is ten points or less, so that it was decided by whether or not the players had "primed and painted by a layer of contrast paints" models, then congratulations. You had a good, close game and should be happy.
Otherwise, stop and consider the words that you're going to say. "You only won because your army was painted." You're going to be saying that about a game of toy soldiers, written by a company that has a group of loyal fans that have complained about the rules for twenty five years.
Castozor wrote: While hilarious it is clear GW intends this to be the tournament friendly edition so we can't have that. Well except for the paint your soldiers rule because apparently that is bloody important. Which really is what pisses me off the most about this rule. Everything else seems to be designed around what tournament nutters want, but we get this one throw away rule that maybe please play in an immersive way pls!
Tournaments nearly all had rules about having painted models in them. If this edition is just Tournament Rules Codified, then having painting requirements would fit within that.
And it is hilariously misguided then as it is now. First of all most people (I assume) don't play tournaments, secondly why is the painting part suddenly so important for immersion? You'd think fluff would be at least equally important but no, getting stomped by a knight led by 32 guardsmen and their 3 space marine captains is somehow more immersive than an fluffy plague company that happens to be unpainted. It's schizophrenic and out of game standards should never determine who wins a game or not.
Don't like it. Feels snobby and gatekeepy. I actively like painting, but I hate rules that punish people for enjoying their hobby "the wrong way."
I'm not going to go out of my way to always have a grey model somewhere in my army, but I'll definitely be sure to include one if it happens to be handy.
My personal salt aside, I do feel like there's some chance that this will turn away some newbies that might be interested in the hobby. More than once, I've heard someone looking at getting into the game ask what the rules for painting are, clearly worried that they're not going to be able to play the game because they don't have experience painting. In the past, I've been able to say, "Oh, there aren't really rules about paint jobs. It's just for fun. Don't worry about it. You can just build the models and be fine." But now those newbies are going to hear, "Weeeeell, there's technically an official rule that says you're more likely to lose if you don't buy the right products and paint your stuff a certain way."
And then I"d say, "But those rules are stupid and we can ignore them," but a non-zero number of people will just hear that as, "We can play wrong/ignore the official rules because you can't paint, newb."
Castozor wrote: While hilarious it is clear GW intends this to be the tournament friendly edition so we can't have that. Well except for the paint your soldiers rule because apparently that is bloody important. Which really is what pisses me off the most about this rule. Everything else seems to be designed around what tournament nutters want, but we get this one throw away rule that maybe please play in an immersive way pls!
Tournaments nearly all had rules about having painted models in them. If this edition is just Tournament Rules Codified, then having painting requirements would fit within that.
And it is hilariously misguided then as it is now. First of all most people (I assume) don't play tournaments, secondly why is the painting part suddenly so important for immersion? You'd think fluff would be at least equally important but no, getting stomped by a knight led by 32 guardsmen and their 3 space marine captains is somehow more immersive than an fluffy plague company that happens to be unpainted. It's schizophrenic and out of game standards should never determine who wins a game or not.
Should the models be built "correctly" too? Do they contribute to "out of game standards" too?
I prefer fully painted armies, but I also appreciate that people are time poor, money poor, and try to get their enjoyment anyway they can.
While this would definitely put pressure on pure tournament gamers, it would also punish people who through living life can't dedicate the amount of time or finances required to do this in a time frame that would also mean they could play.
It seems very targeted but collects other people in the process.
Castozor wrote: While hilarious it is clear GW intends this to be the tournament friendly edition so we can't have that. Well except for the paint your soldiers rule because apparently that is bloody important. Which really is what pisses me off the most about this rule. Everything else seems to be designed around what tournament nutters want, but we get this one throw away rule that maybe please play in an immersive way pls!
Tournaments nearly all had rules about having painted models in them. If this edition is just Tournament Rules Codified, then having painting requirements would fit within that.
And it is hilariously misguided then as it is now. First of all most people (I assume) don't play tournaments, secondly why is the painting part suddenly so important for immersion? You'd think fluff would be at least equally important but no, getting stomped by a knight led by 32 guardsmen and their 3 space marine captains is somehow more immersive than an fluffy plague company that happens to be unpainted. It's schizophrenic and out of game standards should never determine who wins a game or not.
Should the models be built "correctly" too? Do they contribute to "out of game standards" too?
Nice strawman, and yes because LoS is an actual game mechanic, unlike models being painted or not.
Castozor wrote: While hilarious it is clear GW intends this to be the tournament friendly edition so we can't have that. Well except for the paint your soldiers rule because apparently that is bloody important. Which really is what pisses me off the most about this rule. Everything else seems to be designed around what tournament nutters want, but we get this one throw away rule that maybe please play in an immersive way pls!
Tournaments nearly all had rules about having painted models in them. If this edition is just Tournament Rules Codified, then having painting requirements would fit within that.
And it is hilariously misguided then as it is now. First of all most people (I assume) don't play tournaments, secondly why is the painting part suddenly so important for immersion? You'd think fluff would be at least equally important but no, getting stomped by a knight led by 32 guardsmen and their 3 space marine captains is somehow more immersive than an fluffy plague company that happens to be unpainted. It's schizophrenic and out of game standards should never determine who wins a game or not.
Should the models be built "correctly" too? Do they contribute to "out of game standards" too?
Nice strawman, and yes because LoS is an actual game mechanic, unlike models being painted or not.
Maybe an unpopular opinion, but I'm actually not all that worried about how exactly a model is put together. I'd much rather deal with some occassional mild modeling for advantage than tell ork players to stop doing cool vehicle conversions because it impacts their sillouette.
You don't have to use technical paints on the base. That's a floor, not a requirement. You just have to do something considered basing.
Just like you don't have to use a wash if you prefer to do much more intricate highlighting and shadowing.
For the guy with the see-through bases on his custodes, I can't imagine anyone would try to deny you the points based on that; the point is that you did something more than the basic black bases, for aesthetic reasons. That counts as basing too.
Castozor wrote: Nice strawman, and yes because LoS is an actual game mechanic, unlike models being painted or not.
Well, models being painted now is, so let's not ignore that little "actual game mechanic" thing. You can't call one thing an actual game mechanic while ignoring how the other now counts as one.
And when I say "built correctly" - I'm talking about weaponry that has no real effect on silhouette. Chainswords vs power swords, plasma guns vs boltguns, etc. Just to confirm that I don't actually need the "right" weapon equipped, because it's out of game standards?
Castozor wrote: While hilarious it is clear GW intends this to be the tournament friendly edition so we can't have that. Well except for the paint your soldiers rule because apparently that is bloody important. Which really is what pisses me off the most about this rule. Everything else seems to be designed around what tournament nutters want, but we get this one throw away rule that maybe please play in an immersive way pls!
Tournaments nearly all had rules about having painted models in them. If this edition is just Tournament Rules Codified, then having painting requirements would fit within that.
And it is hilariously misguided then as it is now. First of all most people (I assume) don't play tournaments, secondly why is the painting part suddenly so important for immersion? You'd think fluff would be at least equally important but no, getting stomped by a knight led by 32 guardsmen and their 3 space marine captains is somehow more immersive than an fluffy plague company that happens to be unpainted. It's schizophrenic and out of game standards should never determine who wins a game or not.
Should the models be built "correctly" too? Do they contribute to "out of game standards" too?
Nice strawman, and yes because LoS is an actual game mechanic, unlike models being painted or not.
Maybe an unpopular opinion, but I'm actually not all that worried about how exactly a model is put together. I'd much rather deal with some occassional mild modeling for advantage than tell ork players to stop doing cool vehicle conversions because it impacts their sillouette.
GW really likes to be contradictory.
On the one hand they want to call it the hobby and discuss cool Kitbashing, while in the other hand they want you to use a restrictive LOS that makes it hard to actually do Kitbashing without issues.
They want to keyword everything and create bespoke rules for everything, but refuse to do it for LOS.
A simple scale based on keywords and you can switch to a more realistic Los that incorporates the assumption the models are dynamically moving and takin cover, while also allowing people to make cool conversions without worrying it's advantageous.
yukishiro1 wrote: You don't have to use technical paints on the base. That's a floor, not a requirement. You just have to do something considered basing.
Just like you don't have to use a wash if you prefer to do much more intricate highlighting and shadowing.
Exactly - it's just that washing and technical paints are some of the quickest and simplest ways to get to that Battle Ready stage. You can get there however you want, and it's not exactly overly difficult to do.
I see this as a have your cake and eat it too scenario. Gamers will know they won the game, and hobbyists can feel better because they “won” or didn’t lose by as much.
Just a free handy for people that like to paint, that can be ignored by anyone strictly concerned with how the game played... non-issue is unimportant.
Castozor wrote: Nice strawman, and yes because LoS is an actual game mechanic, unlike models being painted or not.
Well, models being painted now is, so let's not ignore that little "actual game mechanic" thing. You can't call one thing an actual game mechanic while ignoring how the other now counts as one.
And when I say "built correctly" - I'm talking about weaponry that has no real effect on silhouette. Chainswords vs power swords, plasma guns vs boltguns, etc. Just to confirm that I don't actually need the "right" weapon equipped, because it's out of game standards?
I think there's a pretty clear difference there. If the bits you're using make it actively confusing to keep track of what a given squad/model is equipped with, that can create some minor game confusion. The same generally isn't true ob paint jobs (except maybe if you're allying in 3 flavors of space marines and painting them all the same).
I'm perfectly fine with my opponent saying his devastator squad that appears to be built with a heavy bolter, lascannon, missile launcher, and plasma cannon is actually just all lascannons. That's easy to remember. I'm less okay with the same bits being used to reflect a mix of lascannons and plasma cannons. Especially if there's a second, similarly jumbled squad that's pretending to have a different combination. But saying the grey marines are ultramarines? That's fine. I'm not going to tell my opponent he's having fun wrong for not painting something to someone's arbitrary standards.
Wyldhunt wrote: I think there's a pretty clear difference there. If the bits you're using make it actively confusing to keep track of what a given squad/model is equipped with, that can create some minor game confusion. The same generally isn't true ob paint jobs (except maybe if you're allying in 3 flavors of space marines and painting them all the same).
I'm more talking about something like a chainsword as a power sword, or vice versa, and just clarifying that that's fine with them.
But saying the grey marines are ultramarines? That's fine. I'm not going to tell my opponent he's having fun wrong for not painting something to someone's arbitrary standards.
Oh, that's fine by me (of course, depending on how long those Marines have been unpainted) - but I don't agree with the idea that modelling is sacrosanct and super important because the rules say so, but we can ignore rules that say painting is important. Either they're both important, or neither are - and I just want that clarification from Castozor.
Just starting out? Not had my spare time lately? Nah, of course I'm not going to hold you to that.
Had those models for years, and you play with them every time we game? Yeah, I'm going to have expected you to at least try and paint by now.
I'd like to see how it is enforced. My current favorite squad is my Catachans that I painred on a whim and they came out brilliantly. I was so happy with them that I gave them a shot of Purity Seal to protect them a bit.
As I was lovingly putting them back into my carry boxes I saw one had a hand left unpainted. They'd been base coated in Contrasts, had layering built up in key places, they'd had individual colours tweaked to show individuality, and a couple of older techniques used in various places like dry brushing and hard lining and weathering. So better than minimal tabletop but not quite character level.
But technically not fully painted. Technically. But now varnished. If you try claim the 10VPs, especially if it's a tie breaker I'm probably going to not play you again. Salty? Yeah.
I agree playing with an army of grey legs on black bases isn't as fun as playing against a perfectly painted Golden Daemon worthy army but not everyone has the skill, or the time to have painted everything. Especially if it's a new unit or a noob. Enthusiasm is way more important than a layer or two of pigment.
Edit - for clarity sake I'd say a weapon is a major area for "battle ready" standard, which includes the bits holding it. If you don't and YMMV then we've got a good example of how subjective this rule can be.
It's a rule that unfairly penalises people with certain types of disabilities (and even those who just have a personal preference regarding painting or the lack thereof).
So not only will I not use it, I am exceptionally disappointed that GW would include such a rule in the first place.
I'd like to see how it is enforced. My current favorite squad is my Catachans that I painred on a whim and they came out brilliantly. I was so happy with them that I gave them a shot of Purity Seal to protect them a bit.
As I was lovingly putting them back into my carry boxes I saw one had a hand left unpainted. They'd been base coated in Contrasts, had layering built up in key places, they'd had individual colours tweaked to show individuality, and a couple of older techniques used in various places like dry brushing and hard lining and weathering. So better than minimal tabletop but not quite character level.
But technically not fully painted. Technically. But now varnished. If you try claim the 10VPs, especially if it's a tie breaker I'm probably going to not play you again. Salty? Yeah.
I agree playing with an army of grey legs on black bases isn't as fun as playing against a perfectly painted Golden Daemon worthy army but not everyone has the skill, or the time to have painted everything. Especially if it's a new unit or a noob. Enthusiasm is way more important than a layer or two of pigment.
I doubt anyone is going to call you on it...But... in every game you will know that you left a hand unpainted. Like a splinter in your mind, those 10 VP and that unpainted hand will drive you mad. Paint the hand. You know you have to. You pointed it out. You can't escape your own accusation.
I have a hard time seeing what particular disability would allow you to play a miniature game that involves careful assembly of multi-part plastic kits, but would prevent you from using a can of spray paint and some extremely basic detailing - a splotch of metal or black paint on the gun, another splotch of paint on the head, a third splotch on the base of something with texture. Maybe if someone was severely allergic to paint I guess?
Battle Ready isn't a quality-based standard, it's a "did you do these things?" standard. You don't have to them well, you just have to do them. For 99.99% of people at least, from a disability standpoint, assembling a multi-part plastic kit is more likely to be a barrier to play than the painting requirements.
If you yourself have such a disability, I'm very sympathetic, and anyone who tried to dock you the 10 points for it would not be worth playing with. But I don't think you should be using those people as a sword to attack the rule with if you aren't one yourself, when really it's just a case of "I don't like painting." Just own that, if that's what it is.
Guys, the rule of there because the GW missions will be the official tournament missions for pretty much every region. No more differing standards depending where you play. Think of it more as a "you get 10 points just for showing up" since most tournaments require it anyway.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also, so you know g that a monochrome scheme meets 3 color standard? Just zenithal and then wash. That's 3 colors. Do a ghost theme. Just do something! The outage at this rule is baffling to me. If you don't want to paint, play a board game or x-wing. Both are excellent alternatives, and if those 10 points are THAT important to you, board games and x-wing are usually more balanced than 40k anyway.
They actually have a definition of battle ready, and it's fairly forgiving, just base colors and and a shade, with a technical on the base. The kind of thing you could bust out pretty quickly if you are so inclined. It doesn't have a highlight requirement, so you don't even have to drybrush. The base part is the only annoying part for me, because with my custodes I used acrylic bases to make them look like they were part of the scenery they were standing on, and I'm sure I'm going to get digned on that.
Technically if you add the highlight, that's no longer a battle ready paint job so it no longer qualifies. RAW you lose the points if your army is painted too well too.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Quasistellar wrote: Guys, the rule of there because the GW missions will be the official tournament missions for pretty much every region. No more differing standards depending where you play. Think of it more as a "you get 10 points just for showing up" since most tournaments require it anyway.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also, so you know g that a monochrome scheme meets 3 color standard? Just zenithal and then wash. That's 3 colors. Do a ghost theme. Just do something! The outage at this rule is baffling to me. If you don't want to paint, play a board game or x-wing. Both are excellent alternatives, and if those 10 points are THAT important to you, board games and x-wing are usually more balanced than 40k anyway.
This is a stupid take. Let's say I'm a newish player. I just spent 3 weeks of my limited free time assembling 2000pts of models and doing practice games with empty bases, now I want to do your strat for the tournament on saturday.
What am I zenithaling with? I don't have an airbrush and it's been crappy weather so I can't use rattle cans. I have to brush prime so just priming everything will take more time than I have. So I guess I'll wait for next month. Weather's been better so I can rattle can but Covid stuff means I'm working 60 hours a week. Between that and the family I can't even find 10 minutes to rattle can everything so I can't do it. The next month the tournament gets canceled because the TO has scabies. So I'll hit the next one. Chapter Approved comes out between them and my power-unit got mauled, going up 20% in points and now I have to change up the whole list because it's effectively dead. I decide the game is stupid and sell all my crap.
If you love painting so much, why are you here? You can get into portraiture or landscapes. Both are excellent alternatives.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
yukishiro1 wrote: I have a hard time seeing what particular disability would allow you to play a miniature game that involves careful assembly of multi-part plastic kits, but would prevent you from using a can of spray paint and some extremely basic detailing - a splotch of metal or black paint on the gun, another splotch of paint on the head, a third splotch on the base of something with texture. Maybe if someone was severely allergic to paint I guess?
Battle Ready isn't a quality-based standard, it's a "did you do these things?" standard. You don't have to them well, you just have to do them. For 99.99% of people at least, from a disability standpoint, assembling a multi-part plastic kit is more likely to be a barrier to play than the painting requirements.
If you yourself have such a disability, I'm very sympathetic, and anyone who tried to dock you the 10 points for it would not be worth playing with. But I don't think you should be using those people as a sword to attack the rule with if you aren't one yourself, when really it's just a case of "I don't like painting." Just own that, if that's what it is.
Blind people have friends who can assemble stuff. Or even easier can buy Ebay prebuilt castoffs just to use. Same with people missing appendages or with diseases like parkinsons.
If you can't find 10 minutes to use a spray paint can, I don't think you're going to be going to any tournaments either.
If the argument is "I just don't like painting," that's a perfectly valid argument. "I can't find the time to do something that takes about 5 minutes a model" really isn't particularly convincing, though. Just be honest about it if the truth is you don't like painting and it gives you angst to do it.
yukishiro1 wrote: I have a hard time seeing what particular disability would allow you to play a miniature game that involves careful assembly of multi-part plastic kits, but would prevent you from using a can of spray paint and some extremely basic detailing - a splotch of metal or black paint on the gun, another splotch of paint on the head, a third splotch on the base of something with texture. Maybe if someone was severely allergic to paint I guess?
Battle Ready isn't a quality-based standard, it's a "did you do these things?" standard. You don't have to them well, you just have to do them. For 99.99% of people at least, from a disability standpoint, assembling a multi-part plastic kit is more likely to be a barrier to play than the painting requirements.
If you yourself have such a disability, I'm very sympathetic, and anyone who tried to dock you the 10 points for it would not be worth playing with. But I don't think you should be using those people as a sword to attack the rule with if you aren't one yourself, when really it's just a case of "I don't like painting." Just own that, if that's what it is.
Blind people have friends who can assemble stuff. Or even easier can buy Ebay prebuilt castoffs just to use. Same with people missing appendages or with diseases like parkinsons.
You're incredibly ableist.
A blind person is going to have a much more basic problem with playing 40k than painting the models, so presumably this whole post is a joke in slightly bad taste?
On the off-chance that it isn't...if people with those conditions can find people to assemble the models for them or move them around the table for them or whatever else, presumably they can also find people to paint for them, right? That was my whole point: it's not the painting that is likely to pose the trouble for people with physical disabilities playing 40k. It's already not disability-friendly to begin with. It's going to be a very rare person who can overcome all the other hurdles to playing 40k but for whom painting will be the thing they can't manage, and for that person, obviously nobody is going to try to deny them the 10 points.
yukishiro1 wrote: If you can't find 10 minutes to use a spray paint can, I don't think you're going to be going to any tournaments either.
If the argument is "I just don't like painting," that's a perfectly valid argument. "I can't find the time to do something that takes about 5 minutes a model" really isn't particularly convincing, though. Just be honest about it if the truth is you don't like painting and it gives you angst to do it.
50 models would still take 4.5 hours. 150 models for my ork bros would take 12.5.
5 minutes per model? Even three layers of rattle can takes longer than that just off drying time. You're also completely ignoring the fact that building the model is ACTUALLY mandatory and takes a huge amount of time in and of itself. So going to the event you already are investing as much as 20+ hours in just straight build time, that you absolutely cannot substitute in any way. So yeah, if I'm working overtime, have a family, AND need to build models as well, I absolutely could be without an extra free 12.5 hours to make my Orkz look like gak.
Also, the whole thing is incredibly unfair. Best Painted doesn't have 10% of it's points locked behind placing top 16. Why should best general have 10% of it's points locked behind painting?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
yukishiro1 wrote: If you can't find 10 minutes to use a spray paint can, I don't think you're going to be going to any tournaments either.
If the argument is "I just don't like painting," that's a perfectly valid argument. "I can't find the time to do something that takes about 5 minutes a model" really isn't particularly convincing, though. Just be honest about it if the truth is you don't like painting and it gives you angst to do it.
yukishiro1 wrote: I have a hard time seeing what particular disability would allow you to play a miniature game that involves careful assembly of multi-part plastic kits, but would prevent you from using a can of spray paint and some extremely basic detailing - a splotch of metal or black paint on the gun, another splotch of paint on the head, a third splotch on the base of something with texture. Maybe if someone was severely allergic to paint I guess?
Battle Ready isn't a quality-based standard, it's a "did you do these things?" standard. You don't have to them well, you just have to do them. For 99.99% of people at least, from a disability standpoint, assembling a multi-part plastic kit is more likely to be a barrier to play than the painting requirements.
If you yourself have such a disability, I'm very sympathetic, and anyone who tried to dock you the 10 points for it would not be worth playing with. But I don't think you should be using those people as a sword to attack the rule with if you aren't one yourself, when really it's just a case of "I don't like painting." Just own that, if that's what it is.
Blind people have friends who can assemble stuff. Or even easier can buy Ebay prebuilt castoffs just to use. Same with people missing appendages or with diseases like parkinsons.
You're incredibly ableist.
A blind person is going to have a much more basic problem with playing 40k than painting the models, so presumably this whole post is a joke in slightly bad taste?
On the off-chance that it isn't...if people with those conditions can find people to assemble the models for them or move them around the table for them or whatever else, presumably they can also find people to paint for them, right? That was my whole point: it's not the painting that is likely to pose the trouble for people with physical disabilities playing 40k. It's already not disability-friendly to begin with. It's going to be a very rare person who can overcome all the other hurdles to playing 40k but for whom painting will be the thing they can't manage, and for that person, obviously nobody is going to try to deny them the 10 points.
How about the blind guy that goes to adepticon every year? Also, yes lets just increase the burden of that person on their friends and family for the sake of a 10 man locals tourney.
For large events, yes there are certain standards that are expected, even of people with disabilities. But this theoretically applies to EVERY event, which locks that person into begging the people close to them, or forking over quite a lot of money, just to be able field one extra new unit. Painting is much more difficult and much more burdenous on people who don't have experience with it than assembly is.
Also, did you really think about that first sentence before you wrote it? "You could afford 40$ for your rulebook, could you not? Presumably you could come up with 200$ for the same rulebook, right? Or you know what, the second sentence is bad too. "It's already hard for disabled people to go up stairs, so it shouldn't matter that we make them taller and put spikes on them, right?"
And that last bit is the thing. People absolutely are going to deny them that ten points if it's a large event. This is why, especially for competitions, you put the accomodations outfront. You have to adjust the system ahead of time because just giving people free points leads to lots of issues, should those points make a significant difference.
Adepticon has painting requirements, so obviously the blind guy figured something out (or got a dispensation - either way, problem solved). I didn't say it couldn't be done, I said there was a much more basic problem to overcome than painting. If you asked him I'm pretty sure he wouldn't say that the painting requirement was the hardest thing about gaming while blind. Moreover, I doubt he'd be very happy at you using his disability as a sword to attack a rule with. If someone with disabilities actually has concerns about the rule, let them bring it up - don't take advantage of their disability to bolster your point.
I will take the fact that you didn't respond to the much more fundamental point about 40k having lots of things that are a lot less disability-friendly than a painting requirement as an admission that the point is right.
On the painting thing, you don't need to do 3 layers of spray paint. That's kinda the point. The requirements are extremely low. You can do one layer of primer, throw some splotches of two other colors on two other areas, a wash, dab some textured paint on the base, and call it a day. It'll be ugly, but it satisfies the rule. Which I have said already several times I'm not personally in favor of. I just don't see the cause for the meltdown it's causing in some people.
If your argument is that you don't have the time to do something that basic, that's fine - it's a perfectly valid argument. But you don't need to use other peoples' disabilities as a shield or to come up with silly stuff about three coats of paint to make that argument. Just be honest about what your argument is.
The thing that blows me away about this conversation is just how many people are so tied up in winning the game that they are willing to argue things like disability, or whether or not it's a "part of the game".
If I win, I win. If I lose, I lose. But I don't want my pride of winning to outstrip a reward someone could potentially get for putting in the same or more work as I did to present a good experience.
If I scored 80 points, and my opponent scores 75, but he's fully painted and I'm not, why is it so bad that he be rewarded for putting in the effort and being rewarded for it?
I struggle to see the reaction as anything more than just being too invested in putting a tally mark in the "W" column to care about the experience.
The objective of the game is to win, but the POINT is to have fun.
Seabass wrote: If I scored 80 points, and my opponent scores 75, but he's fully painted and I'm not, why is it so bad that he be rewarded for putting in the effort and being rewarded for it?
Why should that person win a game because they painted something?
Seabass wrote: If I scored 80 points, and my opponent scores 75, but he's fully painted and I'm not, why is it so bad that he be rewarded for putting in the effort and being rewarded for it?
Why should that person win a game because they painted something?
Because now you can PAINT YOURSELF TO VICTORY!!!
GW can mark up contrasts and say that buying them is like getting 10 free VPs. What a steal
Seabass wrote: If I scored 80 points, and my opponent scores 75, but he's fully painted and I'm not, why is it so bad that he be rewarded for putting in the effort and being rewarded for it?
Why should that person win a game because they painted something?
Because they did more than just paint something. They presented you with a battle ready army to play against. They put in the work the rules state is required and you didn't. Rewarding their hard work is fine with me. Winning the game is not so important to me that this becomes more important than enjoying a good game with fully painted armies.
Seabass wrote: If I scored 80 points, and my opponent scores 75, but he's fully painted and I'm not, why is it so bad that he be rewarded for putting in the effort and being rewarded for it?
Why should that person win a game because they painted something?
Because now you can PAINT YOURSELF TO VICTORY!!!
GW can mark up contrasts and say that buying them is like getting 10 free VPs. What a steal
I'm really quite awful with online sarcasm. Are you joking or serious? Because I want to believe you are being a bit cheeky, but this forum is very hard to gauge sometimes.
Adepticon has painting requirements, so obviously the blind guy figured something out (or got a dispensation - either way, problem solved). I didn't say it couldn't be done, I said there was a much more basic problem to overcome than painting. If you asked him I'm pretty sure he wouldn't say that the painting requirement was the hardest thing about gaming while blind. Moreover, I doubt he'd be very happy at you using his disability as a sword to attack a rule with. If someone with disabilities actually has concerns about the rule, let them bring it up - don't take advantage of their disability to bolster your point.
I will take the fact that you didn't respond to the much more fundamental point about 40k having lots of things that are a lot less disability-friendly than a painting requirement as an admission that the point is right.
On the painting thing, you don't need to do 3 layers of spray paint. That's kinda the point. The requirements are extremely low. You can do one layer of primer, throw some splotches of two other colors on two other areas, a wash, dab some textured paint on the base, and call it a day. It'll be ugly, but it satisfies the rule. Which I have said already several times I'm not personally in favor of. I just don't see the cause for the meltdown it's causing in some people.
If your argument is that you don't have the time to do something that basic, that's fine - it's a perfectly valid argument. But you don't need to use other peoples' disabilities as a shield or to come up with silly stuff about three coats of paint to make that argument. Just be honest about what your argument is.
The problem with these sort of rules is that they often don’t really allow context, and GW has not been at all friendly in there rules for disability’s for there history.
But the other issue here is, not everyone paints to a minimum standard ether, I need help to build miniatures if I want to get them done and in a playable state. I cannot sit or stand for very long in a day, so on my own it takes a long time.
I build each one to be a individual with as much custom work as I can, then with paint I want to paint to the best of my ability which can take hours.
Both I need assistance for or to pay for profession work.
I accept that tournaments as a form of show match will have rules for paint, often as part of but not allways games.
With rules like this pushing it into standard games, it comes off as a position of confrontation as I can stand and sit for long enough to play games before I go home to rest. And most people even at the club I am at won’t know just how difficult it can be. I do this hobby for fun, the game is a important part of that hobby.
: ) dakka emote felt to sarcastic when I just wanted a smile.
I said earlier that that is my biggest sympathy: the person who wants to paint to a higher than minimum standard, but hasn't had time to do it for their full army yet. I would certainly hope that anyone who comes up against someone who has some of their models painted to a high standard and others just primed because they haven't got around to it yet - particularly if part of that is because of physical limitations - would be happy to give that person the 10VP.
It definitely feels lame that the RAW rule encourages people to paint their models in an ugly way just to get technical compliance with the rule, with the result that it actually inhibits them from painting them well later on. Anyone who isn't understanding in that situation really isn't worth playing with.
At a minimum, the rule really should have had something in it making clear that people should not be technical with it and that the point is to get people painting their armies, not to dock someone points because they have a model they haven't had time to paint yet, and another caveat about being aware of peoples' capabilities as well.
Seabass wrote: If I scored 80 points, and my opponent scores 75, but he's fully painted and I'm not, why is it so bad that he be rewarded for putting in the effort and being rewarded for it?
Why should that person win a game because they painted something?
It's only 10 points. And who's really keeping score at the end of the day? If a person really doesn't care about painted models, then scoring higher on pure game play should be enough of a reward, I would think.
It seems weirdly hypocritical to care about the points awarded for painting if a person only cares about the "technical win". And if the Win is tallied, then it seems like your in more of a tournament or league situation in which there would likely be some expectation of painted models or ignoring of the painted rule.
Edit: I love that at the time of writing the poll is exactly 50/50
yukishiro1 wrote: At a minimum, the rule really should have had something in it making clear that people should not be technical with it and that the point is to get people painting their armies, not to dock someone points because they have a model they haven't had time to paint yet, and another caveat about being aware of peoples' capabilities as well.
Friend of mine hasn't used Citadel technical paints to base his minis. I'm going to insist he re-base them with the correct paint if he wants those 10 points.
yukishiro1 wrote: I said earlier that that is my biggest sympathy: the person who wants to paint to a higher than minimum standard, but hasn't had time to do it for their full army yet. I would certainly hope that anyone who comes up against someone who has some of their models painted to a high standard and others just primed because they haven't got around to it yet would be happy to give that person the 10VP.
It definitely feels lame that the RAW rule encourages people to paint their models in an ugly way just to get technical compliance with the rule, with the result that it actually inhibits them from painting them well later on. Anyone who isn't understanding in that situation really isn't worth playing with.
I think off it more as GW is just very out of touch, a rule like this doesn’t need to be written. When we do events I put out my painted work for display, when games are at shows, We tend to use smaller portions anyway and I don’t play those.
For me, often it’s people finding out 6 months after I have known them how difficult it can be. We are not talking about that over games and such, and 40k sadly has not got the most understanding crowd.
As I've been saying, it doesn't matter whether it's 1 point or 99 points. It's points for something you didn't do during the game. That's a bad way to score a match between two people.
Insectum7 wrote: And who's really keeping score at the end of the day?
Umm... anyone who's using these missions! Duh! Because the way you determine the victor is by literally keeping score!
I mean... did you just write "who's keeping score?" in a discussion about points that you use to score missions? Really???
yukishiro1 wrote: I said earlier that that is my biggest sympathy: the person who wants to paint to a higher than minimum standard, but hasn't had time to do it for their full army yet. I would certainly hope that anyone who comes up against someone who has some of their models painted to a high standard and others just primed because they haven't got around to it yet - particularly if part of that is because of physical limitations - would be happy to give that person the 10VP.
It definitely feels lame that the RAW rule encourages people to paint their models in an ugly way just to get technical compliance with the rule, with the result that it actually inhibits them from painting them well later on. Anyone who isn't understanding in that situation really isn't worth playing with.
At a minimum, the rule really should have had something in it making clear that people should not be technical with it and that the point is to get people painting their armies, not to dock someone points because they have a model they haven't had time to paint yet, and another caveat about being aware of peoples' capabilities as well.
That's what I'd do. Rush to finish.
Let people take their time. If they wanna go to a tournament, yeah, paint your stuff.
If you wanna play with Jim down the street? maybe it shouldn't be baked in you should penalize people for wanting to play with toy soldiers because they have some unbased models.
yukishiro1 wrote: I said earlier that that is my biggest sympathy: the person who wants to paint to a higher than minimum standard, but hasn't had time to do it for their full army yet. I would certainly hope that anyone who comes up against someone who has some of their models painted to a high standard and others just primed because they haven't got around to it yet would be happy to give that person the 10VP.
It definitely feels lame that the RAW rule encourages people to paint their models in an ugly way just to get technical compliance with the rule, with the result that it actually inhibits them from painting them well later on. Anyone who isn't understanding in that situation really isn't worth playing with.
I think off it more as GW is just very out of touch, a rule like this doesn’t need to be written. When we do events I put out my painted work for display, when games are at shows, We tend to use smaller portions anyway and I don’t play those.
For me, often it’s people finding out 6 months after I have known them how difficult it can be. We are not talking about that over games and such, and 40k sadly has not got the most understanding crowd.
I'm sorry you haven't found people understanding. It hasn't been my experience. I hope you have better luck in the future.
I do agree that it is kind of an odd rule to put in, because it does create a potential flash-point at the start of a game for no real reason. If you're someone who cares a lot about models being painted, presumably you're not going to want to play with the guy with unpainted models anyway, so it's not like getting 10VP from it is really going to make you happy. And it's a "feels bad" moment for the person who doesn't have a fully painted army.
I can understand the intent behind it - to try to get people to stop putting it off and actually start painting - but it seems a kinda ham-fisted way of doing it. Surely with a little more thought they could have come up with a less coercive way to accomplish the same thing?
As I've been saying, it doesn't matter whether it's 1 point or 99 points. It's points for something you didn't do during the game. That's a bad way to score a match between two people.
Insectum7 wrote: And who's really keeping score at the end of the day?
Umm... anyone who's using these missions! Duh! Because the way you determine the victor is by literally keeping score!
I mean... did you just write "who's keeping score?" in a discussion about points that you use to score missions? Really???
The meaning I took from that was who really cares who wins. It might just be an American phrase or idiom, but "who's keeping score" is just a different way of saying who really cares.
Well the answer to that is the same one I always give: Everyone. Everyone is keeping score.
It's like when someone says "I don't play to win!". Yes you do. Everyone does. No one plays to lose. No one plays to draw.
Everyone plays the game with the intention of winning. That doesn't mean that you're some ultra-list WAAC nutbar, but no one sits across from their opponent and goes "I hope I lose!" or "I can't wait to draw!!!".
But really I was amazed that in a discussion about counting your points score in missions he said "who's keeping score?". Umm... everyone. That's how missions are determined. Obviously.
Insectum7 wrote: It's only 10 points. And who's really keeping score at the end of the day? If a person really doesn't care about painted models, then scoring higher on pure game play should be enough of a reward, I would think.
It seems weirdly hypocritical to care about the points awarded for painting if a person only cares about the "technical win". And if the Win is tallied, then it seems like your in more of a tournament or league situation in which there would likely be some expectation of painted models or ignoring of the painted rule.
Edit: I love that at the time of writing the poll is exactly 50/50
If no one is counting then why do you want those 10 extra points ?
Seems like a super donkey-cave move. Ton of people don't like to paint, don't want to paint or would rather invest money in to models then paints, specialy if they do not like it. But I guess in a world where to play the game properly it is expected from players to buy thousands of points to adujst their army to specific opponents.
I don't think I ever saw a more stupid generic rule, since GW saying that space mariens, but other armies not, have to be painted in one specific way to get specific rules.
yukishiro1 wrote: I said earlier that that is my biggest sympathy: the person who wants to paint to a higher than minimum standard, but hasn't had time to do it for their full army yet. I would certainly hope that anyone who comes up against someone who has some of their models painted to a high standard and others just primed because they haven't got around to it yet would be happy to give that person the 10VP.
It definitely feels lame that the RAW rule encourages people to paint their models in an ugly way just to get technical compliance with the rule, with the result that it actually inhibits them from painting them well later on. Anyone who isn't understanding in that situation really isn't worth playing with.
I think off it more as GW is just very out of touch, a rule like this doesn’t need to be written. When we do events I put out my painted work for display, when games are at shows, We tend to use smaller portions anyway and I don’t play those.
For me, often it’s people finding out 6 months after I have known them how difficult it can be. We are not talking about that over games and such, and 40k sadly has not got the most understanding crowd.
I'm sorry you haven't found people understanding. It hasn't been my experience. I hope you have better luck in the future.
I do agree that it is kind of an odd rule to put in, because it does create a potential flash-point at the start of a game for no real reason. If you're someone who cares a lot about models being painted, presumably you're not going to want to play with the guy with unpainted models anyway, so it's not like getting 10VP from it is really going to make you happy. And it's a "feels bad" moment for the person who doesn't have a fully painted army.
I can understand the intent behind it - to try to get people to stop putting it off and actually start painting - but it seems a kinda ham-fisted way of doing it. Surely with a little more thought they could have come up with a less coercive way to accomplish the same thing?
It would not surprise me if this sort of rule come from other places in GW, the same way they talk about forge the narrative.
Karol wrote: Ton of people don't like to paint, don't want to paint or would rather invest money in to models then paints, specialy if they do not like it. But I guess in a world where to play the game properly it is expected from players to buy thousands of points to adujst their army to specific opponents.
I don't think this is a great argument in the abstract. I mean you could say the same thing about buying models at all, and that people should just be able to play with whatever proxies they like. Maybe I don't like assembling and buying models, so why should I have to do so? But the fact is that GW has created a game based on buying models, assembling them, and painting them. All three are part of the game. You may not like painting; others may not like buying, or assembling. But there's no reason that painting is inherently less a part of the hobby as GW intends it than the buying or the assembling.
But it does illustrate why codifying it as a rule that gives you extra VPs is problematic. There's no rule that says "you get +10VP if you use all GW models to play the game." It's just understood that you use GW models - or not, if whoever you are playing with doesn't care. It should be the same for painting - you don't need a rule like this, the rule should just be the same rule as for anything else - figure it out with the people you play with. If you don't want to play with people with unpainted models, don't. If you don't care about painting, find other people who feel the same way. It feels ham-fisted for this one particular part of the hobby to get a VP bonus.
Seabass wrote: If I scored 80 points, and my opponent scores 75, but he's fully painted and I'm not, why is it so bad that he be rewarded for putting in the effort and being rewarded for it?
Why should that person win a game because they painted something?
Thats the thing, the guy who lost from game play but won on paint, will he really feel he won ? I guess some people could talk themselves into it, I couldn't I'd know I lost but " won " in only the most pity party way I could imagine.
Point is, like it or hate it it's the rules. I'll use them even if I think they are beyond stupid, in time the people will argue the merits or scream the awfulness of it. Like I said, if paint is so important, I demand sound effects and role play during the game should also be important points for victory. I need muh immersion. Though unless you are very easy to please no one will ever feel if they lost to game play but won on paint they really won. That said I know some people who would, probably that same guy I know who felt list tailoring if he knew the list of the player he was playing against was a sign of " tactical genius " no joke there he actually believes that.
Seabass wrote: If I scored 80 points, and my opponent scores 75, but he's fully painted and I'm not, why is it so bad that he be rewarded for putting in the effort and being rewarded for it?
Why should that person win a game because they painted something?
Why should you win a game because you bought the miniature? Shouldn't the other guy just be able to use a proxy if he can't afford it or doesn't want to spend the money on it?
GW has created a game that is about buying, assembling, and then painting your models. You may not like the third prong of the hobby, but it's always been part of it.
I think the rule is a ham-fisted attempt to enforce the third prong, but that's arguably because it doesn't go far enough - if painting is really a fundamental part, you just shouldn't be able to play at all with unpainted miniatures, just like (in theory) you can't play with proxies or unassembled miniatures. To give a VP bonus for doing something you are supposed to have to do anyway is kinda silly and creates more of a mess than there needs to be. It should be just like the rule that you have to buy and assemble a GW model in order to use it - something that applies unless you and the people you are playing with decide it doesn't.
Why should you win the game because you played the game ? That's absurd, I'd rather win the game because I got my army logo as a tat I show off proudly to show all the world, I am the Imperial Guard.
I kinda look at this rule from a different view. I read it as GW saying you can now play sanctioned tourneys with your unpainted army, just that you are going to have a points deficit at the start.
This makes it possible for even people with unpainted armies or half painted armies to enter and have fun while letting the ultra competitive find a way to get those paints slapped on theirs.
I look at it as a way to make tourneys and sanctioned play more accommodating to a wider crowd
yukishiro1 wrote: Why should you win a game because you bought the miniature? Shouldn't the other guy just be able to use a proxy if he can't afford it or doesn't want to spend the money on it?
But you don't win a game just because you brought the miniatures. There's no rule that says "If you brought miniatures to this game, you get 10 points!".
Yeah, in a weird way, the rule actually undermines the importance of painting. Because it literally suggests that you can just not do it - and take a penalty, sure, but you can just not do it.
By comparison, there's no rule that says "get another +10VP if you used real GW models."
But I am 100% sure that tournaments will keep their painting requirements.
If that is the case, god help us all as the grey hordes will flavor of the month all over the tournament scenes. I bet my bottom dollar though actual TO's will still demand the models be painted. Making the rule pointless for Tournaments and only penalizing in casual games.
yukishiro1 wrote: Why should you win a game because you bought the miniature? Shouldn't the other guy just be able to use a proxy if he can't afford it or doesn't want to spend the money on it?
But you don't win a game just because you brought the miniatures. There's no rule that says "If you brought miniatures to this game, you get 10 points!".
Right...because you aren't allowed to play without miniatures at all - unless of course you and your opponent agree.
The problem with the painting rule is actually that it is too permissive - it shouldn't be the case that you can bring an unpainted army and just get a -VP penalty, you should either not be able to bring an unpainted army at all, or, if the people you play with don't care, they don't care, just the same as for whether you have real GW miniatures or proxies.
AngryAngel80 wrote: If that is the case, god help us all as the grey hordes will flavor of the month all over the tournament scenes. I bet my bottom dollar though actual TO's will still demand the models be painted. Making the rule pointless for Tournaments and only penalizing in casual games.
This is likely the real life application of said rule in which TO will likely still have to enforce paint and ignore this. People who you play in casual likely will not care for this rule and if they do you probably won't be playing them or -shrugs- you probably one of them.
In any case, this is causing a massive discussion which will end up probably doing nothing for the game in terms of change as TO will probably house rule this.
Seabass wrote: If I scored 80 points, and my opponent scores 75, but he's fully painted and I'm not, why is it so bad that he be rewarded for putting in the effort and being rewarded for it?
Why should that person win a game because they painted something?
It's only 10 points. And who's really keeping score at the end of the day?
LITERALLY EVERY PERSON AT THE TOURNAMENT.
Honestly, this just make it seem like you don't know what a competition is.
AngryAngel80 wrote: If that is the case, god help us all as the grey hordes will flavor of the month all over the tournament scenes. I bet my bottom dollar though actual TO's will still demand the models be painted. Making the rule pointless for Tournaments and only penalizing in casual games.
This is likely the real life application of said rule in which TO will likely still have to enforce paint and ignore this. People who you play in casual likely will not care for this rule and if they do you probably won't be playing them or -shrugs- you probably one of them.
In any case, this is causing a massive discussion which will end up probably doing nothing for the game in terms of change as TO will probably house rule this.
*
Most tournaments less than 25 people or so didn't have painting rules. Mostly because it's hard enough getting people to come out for events as it is.
The very fact they put into the book a core role, so divisive, is a problem though. I doubt as well we are the only ones who will really go round and round on it. All it does is make a flash point and yet another level of disagreement baked into the core design.
A problem that does nothing for tournaments who will still enforce the painting on their own, so with that it is pointless but give TFGs around the world a reason to brow beat new players, gotcha new players and paint shame long time players who may just be slow or not big on painting.
It won't solve any problems and even its inclusion has this board cut right down the middle, that's a pretty telling sign. It shouldn't be a VP rule, when it involves hobby time and no in game effort during the course of the match that would determine victory in any way.
It's not a solution to a problem, it's just a problem and complication added into the process that really isn't going to do much but make people bitter. One way or the other, much like this whole debate has so far.
It's ok for tournaments, although tournaments usually have house rules that don't allow unpainted games. I for example will not respect a rule like that, in my meta is mostly impossible to play against full painted armies.
I'd rather make WYSIWYG a strict rule. Proxying is for advantage, playing with unpainted models allows players to have their games even if they don't have the time for painting.
AngryAngel80 wrote: The very fact they put into the book a core role, so divisive, is a problem though. I doubt as well we are the only ones who will really go round and round on it. All it does is make a flash point and yet another level of disagreement baked into the core design.
A problem that does nothing for tournaments who will still enforce the painting on their own, so with that it is pointless but give TFGs around the world a reason to brow beat new players, gotcha new players and paint shame long time players who may just be slow or not big on painting.
It won't solve any problems and even its inclusion has this board cut right down the middle, that's a pretty telling sign. It shouldn't be a VP rule, when it involves hobby time and no in game effort during the course of the match that would determine victory in any way.
It's not a solution to a problem, it's just a problem and complication added into the process that really isn't going to do much but make people bitter. One way or the other, much like this whole debate has so far.
Yeah this is exactly right. GW's traditional approach was to fudge on all this stuff precisely because that keeps everybody happy. They should have just kept that up. At most, they should have added a sentence somewhere saying "the game is designed to be played with assembled and painted GW models, painted to at least the following standard:." and just leave it at that, for the players to figure out what to do if someone's army doesn't meet that, whether it's because they're using proxies or unpainted models or whatever else.
yukishiro1 wrote: Why should you win a game because you bought the miniature? Shouldn't the other guy just be able to use a proxy if he can't afford it or doesn't want to spend the money on it?
But you don't win a game just because you brought the miniatures. There's no rule that says "If you brought miniatures to this game, you get 10 points!".
Right...because you aren't allowed to play without miniatures at all - unless of course you and your opponent agree.
The problem with the painting rule is actually that it is too permissive - it shouldn't be the case that you can bring an unpainted army and just get a -VP penalty, you should either not be able to bring an unpainted army at all, or, if the people you play with don't care, they don't care, just the same as for whether you have real GW miniatures or proxies.
"just agree with your opponent" is and has always been a stupid way to write rules. If people really do or don't want to do something in their basement games enough, they will or won't as they see fit, no matter what you say. All stuff like this does is make pugs and tournaments more difficult.
Also, painting has no place in determining rules on the table. The same way you don't lose paint score for bringing not meta units.
Actually yeah, lets talk about that. It negatively impacts player enjoyment for people to bring gak units to events, where's my ten points for that? If you make me listen to you whine about how overpriced Stompas are the whole game, how is that any better than me making you look at grey plastic?
Exactly right, if we are being so demanding of people in the core rules, why don't we demand they wysiwyg or lose 10 points ? Demand they use the proper paint schemes if they are an exact group ? Are those blue Iron Hands ? - 10 points. Force proper army game play. " Are those Orks not charging me ? They can, that isn't very Orky " - 10 points.
I get they want painted models, those are great games but once you start down the road of immersion, and feel and this is the only right way to play this already very hard to get new players in hobby because its so time and money expensive. Well it doesn't do much for the health of the game.
AngryAngel80 wrote: I don't know one person I play with who will enforce this as if I won based on actual victory points, but lose because of paint, who really won ?
The person who paid attention to 100% of their objectives, rather than 90% of them...
Depends what you mean by "mostly Black", I guess? Undercoated and untouched is one thing, painted with black as a primary colour (but with other colours present as appropriate) is another.
That's a point - having not looked at the leaks, how do they define "Battle Ready" in the rulebook? Surely they won't try to mandate Technical paints as basing, but rather than you need to have done something with the bases in general.
5 minutes per model? Even three layers of rattle can takes longer than that just off drying time./quote]
Hmm. Last month I painted 300some WHFB/AoS Goblins (including some orcs). I have a block of 20 orc boys that I joke are my 7 minute orcs - each model took an average of 7 minutes. They aren't Golden Demon champs, but they're still rather good. Especially for R&F meant to prop up the metal (& better painted) front line.
Grey plastic or black primer aren't the best looking miniatures but many tournaments armies that have models painted in 3 colours and in a hurry just to be in time to attend the event are way worse. I'm seeing lots of this gak unfortunately.
Heavy proxying, even if the models are golden damon level of painting, are way more annoying IMHO.
Love it.
It takes time and effort but the gaming experience is nicer for everyone if both armies are painted, imho.
It also discourages meta chasers that now have to put some time into painting the latest hotness they want to field.
I wouldn't use the rule in a game against someone new to the hobby. But if someone still plays with grey marines a year into their entry into warhammer then sure.
It strikes me aa slippery slope. Now you get an extra +5 VP if it's painted like a GW model, +5 if you've used the accessory sprue to modify. +5 if you've got the "approved" army list, +5 if you've got the latest releases, +5 if you've got the modeled bases...
Arguing "it's now a game mechanic" because it may or may not be in the rule book is semantics. It doesn't contribute to the game in any way. LOS, modeling for advantage, proxying and such can change how a game is played and effectively change the outcome. Putting pigment in medium on a model does not, but now it can.
I can still see your Eliminators sticking out from behind that tree if they are bare, undercoated, "battle ready" or Golden Daemon entries.
If it’s a single, new unit in my opponent’s army, nah. We’re not all speed painters, and we all have Other Things in life. If it’s still grey after a month or so? Different feels there, depending on what I know of my opponent.
If it’s a tide of Grey Plastic? Then yes, yes I will. And I say that as a very reluctant painter!
In a tournament setting? I can see that being decided by the TO themselves.
Arguing "it's now a game mechanic" because it may or may not be in the rule book is semantics.
you are free to ignore every rule you don't like
I don't like the new wound allocation hence I ignore it and everyone else should as well as it just slows the game down anyway (and no one should win a game because of that stupid rule)
Wouldn't enforce it on newbies or someone with a new model they want to try out, but absolutely YES if that person is one of those who is still fielding unpainted or unfinished models for months on end!
We all know a guy with 8+ armies living on sprues with 1 unit painted for each army, been collecting 15+ years. Maybe this sort of thing will help with that.
AdmiralHalsey wrote: You guys know that outside of tournaments with material prizes 'Winning' is entirely in your head, right?
Ssssh, that's a secret.
Also for those not in the know, and not playing one of GW's better games, AoS has the same rule on their scoring sheet and so far AoS players haven't had a problem with it.
Well here it's locally agreed already yes if both players want so basically no
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kayback wrote: It strikes me aa slippery slope. Now you get an extra +5 VP if it's painted like a GW model, +5 if you've used the accessory sprue to modify. +5 if you've got the "approved" army list, +5 if you've got the latest releases, +5 if you've got the modeled bases...
Arguing "it's now a game mechanic" because it may or may not be in the rule book is semantics. It doesn't contribute to the game in any way. LOS, modeling for advantage, proxying and such can change how a game is played and effectively change the outcome. Putting pigment in medium on a model does not, but now it can.
I can still see your Eliminators sticking out from behind that tree if they are bare, undercoated, "battle ready" or Golden Daemon entries.
It's a serious gate keeping move.
What next. 5vp per turn you shout slogan for your army? For scenario vp's just as sensible as painting. And gw is after all about attitude
I prefer to play against grey/primed models than horribly painted ones honestly (just my opinion though) and if this is enforced at my GW store I fear it'll push people to just mass paint their models messily just to be able to play them without a handicap.
I find it really sad to see badly painted/assembled models when you consider the price of the thing. When I pay 45€ for 3 cavalry models (Serberys Raiders) I can assure you they'll be lovingly assembled, the mold lines filed off, and painted as best I can, because they're 15€ a piece. People can do whatever they want obviously, just my opinion as I said.
I'm probably just pessimistic as always and people at my store may get motivated and paint them with some care anyway.
Some very good responses in the thread both for and against. The issue is compounded by the incredible split in the votes received. If most people were for it, it would be easy to just resign oneself to it, and if most people were against it, it would be easy to think 'well, it'll probably just never come up then'. But the poll shows an almost exactly 50/50 split, which means whatever angle you take, it will often add an unnecessary element of negotiation to the game.
As far as I can see, it brings nothing but an unnecessary level of elitism to the game, and reminds me of the awful AoS rules that initially came out, like '+1 to hit if you have a bigger beard' and 'if you stand on one leg you can reroll a dice' or whatever. This is simultaneously better, as it's not as silly/trivial and does encourage more painted armies, but also worse, as it's baked into the core rules rather than an individual army, and ultimately it's still bringing a non-tactical element into the game but rewarding it the same way as a tactical decision.
The fact that it has people contorting in knots and basically saying 'well who cares *what* the rules are anyway, it's just a silly old game at the end of the day' just shows, to me, what a bad rule this is.
I'm all for painted armies, and generally won't play against grey plastic, but...this seems like a storm in a teacup to me.
If you are playing in a tournament, then you either accept their rules in advance or don't play. If you are playing casually, and you win by 5 points with an unpainted army, are you really going to care about your opponent declaring victory because their army is painted? Who gives a feth.
Eihnlazer wrote: So seriously, whats different about this rule than any of the major tournaments saying you have to have a painted army to even attend?
Paint your mini's guys, or get someone else to paint them.
Well for starters people that don't play tournaments don't care about tournament rules. The majority of people play Matched Play in gaming stores with friends or pick up games, tournaments are the minority.
I paint my minis, but it takes me 5h/model approximately to attain a standard I find beautiful, and I don't always have the motivation to paint. I'm in mainly for the gaming and the lore, not the painting aspect of the hobby.
I agree that since it's already a bespoke rule for many tournament, shouldn't be surprising it's been added to an edition where GW supposedly related with tournament players.
But even in a casual environment, if you win by 4 points thanks to the 10 additional point for painting... who cares? Your opponent know he/she has win on the battlefield, but lost because he/she should have painted his/her army... where is the issue? Are you really THAT bad at sportsmanship that such a defeat is unbearable?
But I am honestly baffled and surprised by the knee jerk reaction here. If you think that 10% of the game don't deserve to be determine by the physical models.... well, why don't you play with cutout paper figures?
Basically free, they're easier to transport and don't impact the gameplay at all (if you print a front/rear and a sides paper and cross them, they have the same volume).
tneva82 wrote: What next. 5vp per turn you shout slogan for your army? For scenario vp's just as sensible as painting. And gw is after all about attitude
When performing the "plant banner" action, CSM players can earn an extra point by screeching "WE CAPTURED IT FOR CHAOS".
I will freely admit that I'm not really into painting - especially when it comes to painting hordes of near-identical infantry. However, I have enjoyed painting most of the conversions I've made.
Let me give you a few examples:
Spoiler:
]
I don't claim that any of the above have been painted exceptionally well (I fear I'm just not a great painter in general). However, I hope you'll at least take me at my word when I say that I spent a great deal of time and effort painting each of them to the best of my ability.
Why do I bring this up?
Because as far as 'Battle Ready' is concerned, each of these models is no better than grey plastic. Why? Because I haven't painted their bases. But I specifically don't paint bases because I find that they almost always look out of place, regardless (since the base rarely ever matches the colour/texture of the table). Not only that but there isn't even an exception given for transparent bases. I thought the entire point of having transparent bases was so that they'd almost blend in with the table and create the illusion of the model hovering in the air?
Anyway, the point I'm getting at is that this rule does not encourage me to paint my army. If anything, it does the opposite - because if I'm being penalised even for models that I've spent hours and hours converting and painting, why should I even bother with anything else?
Blackie wrote: Grey plastic or black primer aren't the best looking miniatures but many tournaments armies that have models painted in 3 colours and in a hurry just to be in time to attend the event are way worse. I'm seeing lots of this gak unfortunately.
Heavy proxying, even if the models are golden damon level of painting, are way more annoying IMHO.
Good that I attended the last tournament ten years ago. And no, I won't visit another in the future as well.
tneva82 wrote: What next. 5vp per turn you shout slogan for your army? For scenario vp's just as sensible as painting. And gw is after all about attitude
When performing the "plant banner" action, CSM players can earn an extra point by screeching "WE CAPTURED IT FOR CHAOS".
And if you kill one of the g.i. Joe tanks you can shout at your enemy that he Hides in "metawl bawkses" and is a fool !
Aenar wrote: Love it.
It takes time and effort but the gaming experience is nicer for everyone if both armies are painted, imho.
It also discourages meta chasers that now have to put some time into painting the latest hotness they want to field.
Hey, you read my mind.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Dudeface wrote: We all know a guy with 8+ armies living on sprues with 1 unit painted for each army, been collecting 15+ years. Maybe this sort of thing will help with that.
Nope, these are hopeless cases.
I know one guy that was too lazy to paint a SINGLE Rumbleslam mini in order to play the game. Even after six months, he was unable to undercoat the mini properly because he didn't read the instruction to wash it in the first place.
I don't like the new wound allocation hence I ignore it and everyone else should as well as it just slows the game down anyway (and no one should win a game because of that stupid rule)
Your hyperbolic strawman is idiotic. That is, as I clearly indicated, a game mechanic that can change the outcome of core rules used for play. Basically you want to play a different game as opposed to playing the game without painting.
How, and I mean exactly with reference to dice rolls and saving throws and the like, does a layer of pigment change the game?
It doesn't.
It's free VP for doing something NOT DIRECTLY RELATED TO THE TABLETOP ACTIVITIES. It's like saying you can buy VP tokens from GW to use in your next battle.
I personally (probably) won't ever be subject to that rule as modeling and painting are a bigger part of the hobby in my world so I doubt I'll ever be fielding an unpainted army but I do have some units that probably won't pass muster if I fielded them now. But the FYGM attitude and gatekeeper aspect of it isn't conducive to growing the game.
"Hey noob. Well done you played a great first game. But my army is painted and your guys aren't based, so I win"
Just starting out? Not had my spare time lately? Nah, of course I'm not going to hold you to that.
Had those models for years, and you play with them every time we game? Yeah, I'm going to have expected you to at least try and paint by now.
What can I say, I'm a busy guy....
Busy enough that you can play, but not spray and slap on a layer of contrast? You're telling me that you couldn't have done that in the years I've known those hypothetical models to be unpainted? Nope, I'm taking those 10 points.
ERJAK wrote:Blind people have friends who can assemble stuff.
Blind people have friends who can paint stuff.
Or even easier can buy Ebay prebuilt castoffs just to use.
Or buy pre-painted models, or commission someone to paint them to a BR standard. For slapping on a layer of contrast and a base, I'd do it for pittance.
Same with people missing appendages or with diseases like parkinsons.
They'd have the same difficulties with assembling. Why is assembling your models seen as normal and expected, but painting them is ableist?
You're incredibly ableist.
But assembling isn't?
H.B.M.C. wrote:Well the answer to that is the same one I always give: Everyone. Everyone is keeping score.
It's like when someone says "I don't play to win!". Yes you do. Everyone does. No one plays to lose. No one plays to draw.
Sorry bud, but you're wrong.
Just because you can't comprehend the idea of someone playing without winning being their goal doesn't mean I can't.
Everyone plays the game with the intention of winning. That doesn't mean that you're some ultra-list WAAC nutbar, but no one sits across from their opponent and goes "I hope I lose!" or "I can't wait to draw!!!".
It's less that, and more a case of "I don't care what happens, as long as it's a fun game."
But obviously, that's beyond you. And you know what, you're welcome to your way of thinking and why you play! Good for you! Just don't act like it's the only way.
H.B.M.C. wrote:But you don't win a game just because you brought the miniatures.
No, you're just not allowed to play, apparently. Would you prefer if the new rules said "you MUST play with Battle Ready painted models" instead?
The *real* injustice is how I need to play with models, surely - what if I don't want to build my models? Why am I being penalised for not building them?
AdmiralHalsey wrote:You guys know that outside of tournaments with material prizes 'Winning' is entirely in your head, right?
AngryAngel80 wrote: Exactly right, if we are being so demanding of people in the core rules, why don't we demand they wysiwyg or lose 10 points ? Demand they use the proper paint schemes if they are an exact group ? Are those blue Iron Hands ? - 10 points. Force proper army game play. " Are those Orks not charging me ? They can, that isn't very Orky " - 10 points.
I get they want painted models, those are great games but once you start down the road of immersion, and feel and this is the only right way to play this already very hard to get new players in hobby because its so time and money expensive. Well it doesn't do much for the health of the game.
It's been my experience that people who fully paint their army already do most of those things. I'm not sure this works out as intended.
I've found that focusing on the barriers and making plans as a community to get around them help resolve issues with new player induction. I haven't had a whole lot of problems getting new players to paint their stuff, because someone in the group will sit down with them and help them or paint along side them. The biggest detractors of this rule are the people who, in my community, love the look but don't want put in the effort. They own like 15 armies but can't be bothered to put a drop of paint on a model.
Even now in our local group chats, the same people who have tons of stuff and it's all unpainted are bitching up a storm, and the rest of us, is including the new players, are like "nah, it'll be fine".
We have people threatening to sell out of the game over this, and my only thought is, if this is the straw that broke the camel's back, then you probably got into the wrong hobby. Maybe a CCG or a prepainted minis game is more your speed.
But even in a casual environment, if you win by 4 points thanks to the 10 additional point for painting... who cares? Your opponent know he/she has win on the battlefield, but lost because he/she should have painted his/her army... where is the issue? Are you really THAT bad at sportsmanship that such a defeat is unbearable?
Because when did a Tabletop Skirmish dice based strategy game become a painting competition?
Are you THAT bad of a sportsman you'll penalize a person because they want to play more than paint?
Ice_can wrote: I think people are getting way too hung up on what the RAW wording of this is vrs the clear intention, from GW streaming rules etc.
They want painted armies as they look way better on stream even if they aren't the best paint job its way better than shuffling grey plastic around for streaming.
They are live streaming events on Twitch via their offical account you can't be shocked that they are trying to give in game incentives for being twitch stream ready.
Is Army Painted? Yes get points
Is Army Painted like an army of Gold demon entries? Yes get 10 Points
Is Army painted but you clearly have the ability of a house Painter? Yes you get 10 points.
Is your Army commision Painted? Yes get 10 points.
Is Army Base coated Only? YES get 0 Points and no steam games for you
Is your Armt Grey plastic? Yes get 0 Points and no stream games for you either.
This is more about getting people to use painted armies so that at events it all looks nice and fancey for PR photos and Live Streaming, you can complain for days but it's not going anywhere as GW is trying to push the game to be better for streaming etc.
Kayback wrote: How, and I mean exactly with reference to dice rolls and saving throws and the like, does a layer of pigment change the game?
It doesn't.
How does making sure my plasma guns are plasma gun and my chainswords are chainswords and my Space Marines are Space Marines change the game, in reference to dice rolls and saving throws?
It doesn't.
Just so we're on the same page about assembling models.
"Hey noob. Well done you played a great first game. But my army is painted and your guys aren't based, so I win"
That's just called being a dick, in the same way that "well done noob, you tried a really cool maneuver. Now I'm going to pull out XYZ cheesy combo, use this obscure rules interaction, and play these stratagems from this book you didn't know existed, and wipe you out, so I win." is.
Use a shred of logic. Just because you *can* claim the victory points doesn't mean you have to. You have the power to claim them at your own discretion, in the same way you have the discretion to use certain units or tactics.
But even in a casual environment, if you win by 4 points thanks to the 10 additional point for painting... who cares? Your opponent know he/she has win on the battlefield, but lost because he/she should have painted his/her army... where is the issue? Are you really THAT bad at sportsmanship that such a defeat is unbearable?
Because when did a Tabletop Skirmish dice based strategy game become a painting competition?
Are you THAT bad of a sportsman you'll penalize a person because they want to play more than paint?
Who mentioned anything about a painting competition? Neither player gets a bonus for having the better-painted army, as long as they both satisfy a minimum standard (which I hope is defined inside the book).
Sure the bad sportsman is the person trying to argue to get a rule removed, where doing so only benefits them?
This is from the matched play missions designed to be used in tournaments.
Most tournament look for ways to encourage players to used a painted force, which this does.
I'd expect it to be used at events and would be happy it was as it would basically force every one to be fully painted.
I wouldn't expect it to be used for a pickup game or practice game - thats where I tryout new stuff, sometime proxy units I'm looking to buy, sometimes want to get new purchases to the table.
I can already tell which armies are painted and which are not. I already know i prefer playing fully painted armies against each other, but i'm not all that bothered.
I will already know who played better in a game.
I don't need to claim an extra 10vps if my army is painted and my opponents is not. we will both already know who played better, and who has painted models (hint, look at the table)
I can only see this being a sore point of contention, and a possible argument point, not to mention the topic of sportsmanship. If your ego is so fragile that you need those 10vps to turn defeat into victory, then... yeah, fine i guess. have a nice day. but it wont change who played better.
Tournaments are a different thing entirely. from my experience, there are usually 3 winner categories. Best general, best painter, best overall (general & Painter) allowing everyone an opportunity to compete for a prize regardless of their skill on the table, or with a brush.
Obviously, there are various outliers, edge cases, and other reasonable justifications you may have for not wanting to use it and, as with any other rule, you're free to have that discussion with your opponent and come to an agreement. But personally, I'm pleased to see this being codified as the default option, and hopefully it'll give some people the nudge they need to get their armies done.
I have thousands of unpainted models and thousands of painted ones......
If I want it to look good - I pay someone to do it.
If I do it looks crap but some pasic stuff I have done, but reluctantly.
I would not be bothered to see it in a tournament rule pack but for causual games - less sure.
WisdomLS wrote:This is from the matched play missions designed to be used in tournaments. Most tournament look for ways to encourage players to used a painted force, which this does.
I'd expect it to be used at events and would be happy it was as it would basically force every one to be fully painted.
I wouldn't expect it to be used for a pickup game or practice game - thats where I tryout new stuff, sometime proxy units I'm looking to buy, sometimes want to get new purchases to the table.
As a tournament mission rule its fine.
Wait, so this rule ISN'T a universal rule for every mode of play, and is entirely only for Tournament Matched Play? Aka, it's completely within the rules to play other gamemodes that don't feature this one rule? This isn't a rule in "casual" games?
In that case, yep, absolutely no objections to this rule, and if I ever played Tournament Matched, I'd be claiming this rule all the time. You can still always play Open/Narrative/non-Tournament Matched games if you don't like it, just like how you can if you don't like Rule of Three, or the "stratagem once per phase" or playing with points. There's more to the game than Tournament Matched.
I just find it weird how many people are playing friendly games with a TO at their side judging everything, especially considering the outrage.
In friendly games or even standrad PUG nobody is going to care if your army is painted or not when it comes to winning. Are people so afraid of hearing: "I won on mission, he beat me by having a painted army," in a friendly game? Hell, if somebody would say that to me I'd still consider the person who won the mission the winner. The painting score is a superfluous thing for TOs for the most part and has been considered such in AoS for over a year now. It's there to enforce painted armies on the tournament level, mostly because it helps to sell the hobby more than a mountain of grey plastic.
I honestly get the feeling that anybody who decries this rule hasn't played in a proper tourney where painting is enforced, and even then many very small tournaments are very liberal on what you need to have represented on the table or not. Hell, when I was going to AoS tourneys after the painting points were introduced they were not tracked in some of the smaller ones I participated in, because tourneys have a certain amount of autonomy over what they can do(which a lot of people here are forgetting). More or less nothing is changing unless there some alien invasion of non-humans that are stat tracking every minutiae which may or may not lead to you becoming the pilot of a highly advanced starship that will be used to save the galaxy.
Storm in a teacup. This is an utter storm in a teacup.
WisdomLS wrote:This is from the matched play missions designed to be used in tournaments.
Most tournament look for ways to encourage players to used a painted force, which this does.
I'd expect it to be used at events and would be happy it was as it would basically force every one to be fully painted.
I wouldn't expect it to be used for a pickup game or practice game - thats where I tryout new stuff, sometime proxy units I'm looking to buy, sometimes want to get new purchases to the table.
As a tournament mission rule its fine.
Wait, so this rule ISN'T a universal rule for every mode of play, and is entirely only for Tournament Matched Play? Aka, it's completely within the rules to play other gamemodes that don't feature this one rule?
In that case, yep, absolutely no objections to this rule, and if I ever played Tournament Matched, I'd be claiming this rule all the time. You can still always play Open/Narrative/non-Tournament Matched games if you don't like it, just like how you can if you don't like Rule of Three, or the "stratagem once per phase" or playing with points.
There's more to the game than Tournament Matched.
Nope. Both the crusade and matched play missions have it.
I don't paint my stuff until 2 days before a big tournament and then I spend like 30 hours non stop painting a full 2000 point army at battle standard (Bases , shade, technical for the base, If I'm feeling brave maybe some highlints on some character model).
Thats how I work. I cannot obligue myself to paint regularly so I go to a big tournament a year to force myself to paint a whole army.
And I would have 0 problems with something like this in casual gaming. Losing because my army is some ugly ass primed horde is totally fair. I mean. We both know WHO won the mission but my opponent gets the moral victory for having painted his army. I accept that, just as they accept to paint with a cool painted army agaisnt my ugly ass toys.
In big tournaments this is irrelevant because they force painted armies allready.
So the question is: Is this a TOURNAMENT rule or a MATCHED PLAY rule. Because as we all know, Matched Play is 99% the default mode of play. It can be argued that tournament rules are common too but if this is a Matched Play rule expect it to be in effect almost everywhere because "the rules". If it's a tournament rule then the argument can be made it will only affect tournaments.
But if you think people won't attempt to enforce it in every game using points/"balanced" missions (i.e. Matched Play) if it's listed as a matched play rule, you're delusional.
I do not like it, not because i don't prefer painted armies but rather because i can't base, i destroyed alot of my minies by beeing incapable of basing...
I also prefer black or transparent bases because based models rarely fit into the table the model stands on.
What also bothers me a bit is the fact that painting now influences game score, not an issue with an army beeing rewarded seperately from the games in a tournament for the best paintjob, far from it, but i do feel that it should not influence game score...
Not Online!!! wrote: I do not like it, not because i don't prefer painted armies but rather because i can't base, i destroyed alot of my minies by beeing incapable of basing...
I also prefer black or transparent bases because based models rarely fit into the table the model stands on.
What also bothers me a bit is the fact that painting now influences game score, not an issue with an army beeing rewarded seperately from the games in a tournament for the best paintjob, far from it, but i do feel that it should not influence game score...
I have found this to be more common than I thought originally. I do all my bases, I enjoy doing bases but I allways run a black paint around the edge. And I try and base in a way that matches the boards and mats I am likely to play on.
But I have met a lot of players that like the black base since they feel doing a base just makes it look worse once on the table. Originally I thought it was super uncommon but I started to paint the black ring after years of seeing the green painted bases for on the green mats on our new and fancy tables.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: Sorry bud, but you're wrong.
Just because you can't comprehend the idea of someone playing without winning being their goal doesn't mean I can't.
Everyone's goal is to win the game. It might not be their reason for playing. It might not be something they strive for every waking second, but no one plays to lose/draw (with perhaps the exception of playing against a child who has never played, and you are their parent, and you don't want to upset them).
You don't sit down with the intention of drawing/losing. That's just not how people are wired.
Not Online!!! wrote: I do not like it, not because i don't prefer painted armies but rather because i can't base, i destroyed alot of my minies by beeing incapable of basing...
I also prefer black or transparent bases because based models rarely fit into the table the model stands on.
What also bothers me a bit is the fact that painting now influences game score, not an issue with an army beeing rewarded seperately from the games in a tournament for the best paintjob, far from it, but i do feel that it should not influence game score...
Weirdly for me personally I'd let a black base slide on it, you've clearly painted your models an then tidied up the paint on the base, so you've put some thought and effort into presentation. Likewise transparent bases are an after market addition to make it look better on the tabletop so again I'd say that counts.
If you've painted it and left the base just covered in paint splodges and glue marks I'd say not though personally.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: Sorry bud, but you're wrong.
Just because you can't comprehend the idea of someone playing without winning being their goal doesn't mean I can't.
Everyone's goal is to win the game. It might not be their reason for playing. It might not be something they strive for every waking second, but no one plays to lose/draw (with perhaps the exception of playing against a child who has never played, and you are their parent, and you don't want to upset them).
You don't sit down with the intention of drawing/losing. That's just not how people are wired.
If you want to ensure that win, better get them painted up!
WisdomLS wrote: This is from the matched play missions designed to be used in tournaments.
No. It's not "designed to be used in tournaments". These are just the regular missions for 40K that can be or are used in tournaments.
We need to get out of this mindset that "matched play" is the same thing as "tournament play". It's not. Tournaments used the matched play rules, but the matched play rules are not tournaments.
Wayniac wrote: So the question is: Is this a TOURNAMENT rule or a MATCHED PLAY rule. Because as we all know, Matched Play is 99% the default mode of play. It can be argued that tournament rules are common too but if this is a Matched Play rule expect it to be in effect almost everywhere because "the rules". If it's a tournament rule then the argument can be made it will only affect tournaments.
But if you think people won't attempt to enforce it in every game using points/"balanced" missions (i.e. Matched Play) if it's listed as a matched play rule, you're delusional.
From what I can tell from reading it, they are Eternal War missions which utilize points values and the rule of three. I have not found anything specifying tournament or Matched Play. However, GW advised that the Chapter Approved 2020 will have new missions and guidance for running tournaments.
With that said, missions in the rulebook and scoring appear to not be tournament specific.
How does making sure my plasma guns are plasma gun and my chainswords are chainswords and my Space Marines are Space Marines change the game, in reference to dice rolls and saving throws?
It doesn't.
Don't you have a codex? An official assembled model is 100% clear about what it is and what specific weapons it carries.
An unassembled model will likely have no guns at all, and maybe only generic parts that makes impossible to say what unit it represent. A standard infantry dude? A heavy weapon specialist? A sargent? The warlord?
Painted and assembled models are exactly the same in terms of who is who, unassembled models aren't.
I always have unpainted models (or just basecoated with an airbrush) because i'm a slow painter and i want my models to be to a certain level of paint.
Contrast isnt something i'd use to speedpaint an army, anyone suggessting this as an easy out doesn't understand WHY my armies aren't fully painted yet.
I just wish the separation between the hobby and game would be clearer to more people, i don't care if i play against a grey tide or a pro painted army, i just want my opponent to be fun to play with.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: Sorry bud, but you're wrong. Just because you can't comprehend the idea of someone playing without winning being their goal doesn't mean I can't.
Everyone's goal is to win the game. It might not be their reason for playing. It might not be something they strive for every waking second, but no one plays to lose/draw (with perhaps the exception of playing against a child who has never played, and you are their parent, and you don't want to upset them).
You don't sit down with the intention of drawing/losing. That's just not how people are wired.
Look, you can claim this all you want, but as long as I exist, you're wrong, because I don't play like that.
I'd suggest stopping claiming what other people are thinking, unless you're somehow telepathic.
H.B.M.C. wrote:We need to get out of this mindset that "matched play" is the same thing as "tournament play". It's not. Tournaments used the matched play rules, but the matched play rules are not tournaments.
And Matched Play isn't the only way to play.
Blackie wrote:Don't you have a codex? An official assembled model is 100% clear about what it is and what specific weapons it carries.
Where's the rule that says that? I don't see anything that says anything to that extent in mine. And 100% clear - I don't know the difference between a spike rifle and fleshborer. Even if the model was built perfectly, I'm still not 100% clear on what it is.
Also, that rather puts the pin in the proxy bubble, doesn't it?
An unassembled model will likely have no guns at all, and maybe only generic parts that makes impossible to say what unit it represent. A standard infantry dude? A heavy weapon specialist? A sargent? The warlord?
Painted and assembled models are exactly the same in terms of who is who, unassembled models aren't.
If I build a standard Space Marine Terminator with only one lightning claw, it's obvious what their other weapon has to be. But it's not fully assembled. If I build a guardsman with only one arm, or no head, but otherwise still holding it's lasgun and is the right height, it's unassembled, but very much identifiable.
H.B.M.C. wrote:We need to get out of this mindset that "matched play" is the same thing as "tournament play". It's not. Tournaments used the matched play rules, but the matched play rules are not tournaments.
And Matched Play isn't the only way to play
No, but it IS the most common and dare I say it "default" way to play. So Matched Play indirectly affects almost everything. Especially games in FLGS.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: I'd suggest stopping claiming what other people are thinking, unless you're somehow telepathic.
I believe you. I believe that you believe that you don't play to win. And if you really think that you don't try to win a game that has two players that compete against one another to complete set objectives and end up with a score that determines a winner at the end, then more power to you.
I never said it was. What matched play is, however, is how most people play 40K. Before 8th rolled around with the Matched/Open/Narrative stuff, there was just "40k". You made a list, using points, picked (or rolled for) a mission, and then played that mission. What you did in that mission determined who won. Now, with matched play, you do everything I just said, except if someone painted their army they get a bonus because reasons.
Kayback wrote: How, and I mean exactly with reference to dice rolls and saving throws and the like, does a layer of pigment change the game?
It doesn't.
How does making sure my plasma guns are plasma gun and my chainswords are chainswords and my Space Marines are Space Marines change the game, in reference to dice rolls and saving throws?
It doesn't.
Just so we're on the same page about assembling models.
"Hey noob. Well done you played a great first game. But my army is painted and your guys aren't based, so I win"
That's just called being a dick, in the same way that "well done noob, you tried a really cool maneuver. Now I'm going to pull out XYZ cheesy combo, use this obscure rules interaction, and play these stratagems from this book you didn't know existed, and wipe you out, so I win." is.
Use a shred of logic. Just because you *can* claim the victory points doesn't mean you have to. You have the power to claim them at your own discretion, in the same way you have the discretion to use certain units or tactics.
Except he is correct. The person that didn't base now lost. You can say "houserule it" all you want, which leads to the next point.
If you have to houserule something a lot, you need to be questioning the implementation and why it's there in the first place.
Yeah - not gonna use this. As someone who only plays with fully painted and WYSIWYG armies, I appreciate the attempt to reward that. However, I realize that some people prefer the "game" part of the hobby and don't care to paint at all. That's fine by me. I'm not gonna tell anyone they're having fun wrong. This just seems like a really good way to encourage "gate keeping" and all of the negative nonsense we try so hard to prevent.
Wayniac wrote:No, but it IS the most common and dare I say it "default" way to play. So Matched Play indirectly affects almost everything. Especially games in FLGS.
It doesn't mean there's not officially options to play differently though.
H.B.M.C. wrote:
Sgt_Smudge wrote: I'd suggest stopping claiming what other people are thinking, unless you're somehow telepathic.
I believe you. I believe that you believe that you don't play to win.
So, you're saying I'm delusional, instead of considering that maybe your own flawed worldview and expectations of other people are mistaken?
Peak arrogance right there.
And if you really think that you don't try to win a game that has two players that compete against one another to complete set objectives and end up with a score that determines a winner at the end, then more power to you.
Yeah, I do. The set objectives and goals of the game are mechanisms by which one enjoys it, vectors of fun, but not the destination. You progress along those "fun vectors" because that's what the game asks of you, not to "win". There are many goals to the game, and winning is only one.
I never said it was. What matched play is, however, is how most people play 40K. Before 8th rolled around with the Matched/Open/Narrative stuff, there was just "40k". You made a list, using points, picked (or rolled for) a mission, and then played that mission. What you did in that mission determined who won. Now, with matched play, you do everything I just said, except if someone painted their army they get a bonus because reasons.
In the same way that playing without fully assembled models was illegal, because reasons?
Again - there's officially endorsed ways of playing that avoid this painting rule, if people are so opposed. Before Matched, there was just "40k" - so why is Matched the default?
At this point I just find it hilarious that people are shaking in their boots over the idea that the opponent has the possibility of claiming some moral victory because their army is painted, because that's what those 10 points represent at best: a moral victory.
Eldarsif wrote: At this point I just find it hilarious that people are shaking in their boots over the idea that the opponent has the possibility of claiming some moral victory because their army is painted, because that's what those 10 points represent at best: a moral victory.
No I'm pretty sure they just represent a victory. Period. Because missions use points, the total of these points are used to determine victory, and these points are scored from painting rather than your actions during the game.
A moral victory wouldn't actually impact the outcome of the game. These do. Geddit?
Eldarsif wrote: At this point I just find it hilarious that people are shaking in their boots over the idea that the opponent has the possibility of claiming some moral victory because their army is painted, because that's what those 10 points represent at best: a moral victory.
Because only how good you are at the game should determine victory, not arbitrary things... or something like that
Eldarsif wrote: At this point I just find it hilarious that people are shaking in their boots over the idea that the opponent has the possibility of claiming some moral victory because their army is painted, because that's what those 10 points represent at best: a moral victory.
No I'm pretty sure they just represent a victory. Period. Because missions use points, the total of these points are used to determine victory, and these points are scored from painting rather than your actions during the game.
A moral victory wouldn't actually impact the outcome of the game. These do. Geddit?
Eldarsif wrote: At this point I just find it hilarious that people are shaking in their boots over the idea that the opponent has the possibility of claiming some moral victory because their army is painted, because that's what those 10 points represent at best: a moral victory.
Because only how good you are at the game should determine victory, not arbitrary things... or something like that
It's not arbitrary. It's pretty clear from everything GW puts on their website, stuff they stock in their stores, etc.. that painting is part of the hobby.
You cannot and shouldn't win a triathlon just be running and skipping the rest, because you don't like it. That's pretty much the opposite of competitive.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: I'd suggest stopping claiming what other people are thinking, unless you're somehow telepathic.
I believe you. I believe that you believe that you don't play to win. And if you really think that you don't try to win a game that has two players that compete against one another to complete set objectives and end up with a score that determines a winner at the end, then more power to you.
I never said it was. What matched play is, however, is how most people play 40K. Before 8th rolled around with the Matched/Open/Narrative stuff, there was just "40k". You made a list, using points, picked (or rolled for) a mission, and then played that mission. What you did in that mission determined who won. Now, with matched play, you do everything I just said, except if someone painted their army they get a bonus because reasons.
Of course, everyone plays to win. The extent to which they go, and the degree to which they identify the importance of the win is an incredibly subjective and individual thing. That said, I am willing to bet the majority of players, the vast majority, are not willing to let the objective override the point. Sure, we all want to win, its a heads up game, after all. But I know fairly few people that are so invested in the win that they are willing to let the objective override the point. There is also a reason why people don't like playing them. I can't speak to which or what degree this applies to your position on this, but I can say that in my corner of the world, winning is secondary to enjoying the game, because it is entirely possible to win and hate the game or to lose and enjoy it.
As someone who supports this rule, I can honestly say that if you are so invested in getting the big W, (you not as in specifically you, you as in a generic euphemism for the general opponent) Ill let you have it. I know how the game played. I know if I had fun. If I didn't, then winning isn't really that important anyway.
It's also worth mentioning that the reason for the game makes a huge impact on the intended consequence of the win or loss (and likewise the importance of this rule). If you are lining up to play a friend to practice for a big event, then you both know the points for painting aren't going to matter, because the point is to ascertain efficacy on the tabletop. If the point is to play a fun game with fluffy armies, then who cares, because there isn't much of an impact on the win or loss of that game, beyond the individual players' investment in the win.
I can't see this rule causing drama outside of just one side of the community calling the other side elitest, and the opposite calling them WAAC or TFG. The reality will be somewhere inbetween where the important lessons learned from the casual game will be ascertained, and the rules for painting will be more stringent in tournament play (presumabely, assuming that painting requirements arent likely to change at events. maybe they are, we will see.)
Eldarsif wrote: At this point I just find it hilarious that people are shaking in their boots over the idea that the opponent has the possibility of claiming some moral victory because their army is painted, because that's what those 10 points represent at best: a moral victory.
Because only how good you are at the game should determine victory, not arbitrary things... or something like that
It's not arbitrary. It's pretty clear from everything GW puts on their website, stuff they stock in their stores, etc.. that painting is part of the hobby.
You cannot and shouldn't win a triathlon just be running and skipping the rest, because you don't like it. That's pretty much the opposite of competitive.
Oh I agree, I hate the competitive aspect of the game personally. But people think that the ONLY thing that should matter is playing, and nothing else.
I voted yes because I'm grouchy, but the reality is I wouldn't care in a friendly but just about every physical game I play is *at* a tournament sooo....
Hey, you're the one claiming to now how my brain works better than I do myself. If you're going to suggest my concepts are dumb, you might want to start looking closer to home first.
I dunno. I was just told that people don't. But hey, at least you understood what I was getting at, so, points to you.
Seabass wrote: ... but I can say that in my corner of the world, winning is secondary to enjoying the game, because it is entirely possible to win and hate the game or to lose and enjoy it.
This doesn't contradict my statement in any way.
Seabass wrote: As someone who supports this rule, I can honestly say that if you are so invested in getting the big W, (you not as in specifically you, you as in a generic euphemism for the general opponent) Ill let you have it. I know how the game played. I know if I had fun. If I didn't, then winning isn't really that important anyway.
None of what you just said is relevant to the topic at hand.
This isn't about "getting the big W". This is about introducing a victory condition that sits outside of the actual game itself. What happens in the game in no way influences this new rule, but this rule does influence the outcome of the game. That's the problem, specifically because this new rule is contingent on something that not everyone likes to or even can do.
That's actually creating an accessibility barrier. Some might call it gate-keeping, but that would imply some kind of intentional malice IMO, and we know that GW isn't evil, they're just stupid. Well meaning, but stupid.
I'd much rather the rules for the game represent the game that's being played, not outside factors that aren't part of the game.
Eldarsif wrote: At this point I just find it hilarious that people are shaking in their boots over the idea that the opponent has the possibility of claiming some moral victory because their army is painted, because that's what those 10 points represent at best: a moral victory.
Because only how good you are at the game should determine victory, not arbitrary things... or something like that
It's not arbitrary. It's pretty clear from everything GW puts on their website, stuff they stock in their stores, etc.. that painting is part of the hobby.
You cannot and shouldn't win a triathlon just be running and skipping the rest, because you don't like it. That's pretty much the opposite of competitive.
Oh I agree, I hate the competitive aspect of the game personally. But people think that the ONLY thing that should matter is playing, and nothing else.
The same people also forget that there are actual humans playing the games and can interpret things however they want. If I win a game mission-wise and the opponent just ekes in front of me with 3 points because he had a fully painted army, I will still consider it a win for me. I was the better player "game wise". My opponent can also say he wins because he played well and had a cool army to boot and everyone is happy. Now if it were a tournament then the painting thing matters and is probably strictly enforced so it will most likely be a moot point.
Again, AoS already had something similar and what these points have done most of the time is serve as tiebreakers if people are allowed to enter with unpainted/partly painted armies. In AoS it even scores on 3 different things: 3 Color mininum(5 points), shading and highlights(15), and everything else like bases decorated(5 points). These are official Pitched Battle Tournament Rules introduced in AoS over a year ago in GHB 2019. Very little furor over it because TOs and people in general realized that like great many things this was optional. Life kinda just moved on and players played and players painted and players competed.
This has, however, been a delightful storm in a teacup.
Eldarsif wrote: If I win a game mission-wise and the opponent just ekes in front of me with 3 points because he had a fully painted army, I will still consider it a win for me.
But now you're claiming the moral victory, as opposed to the actual victory. See the issue there? It's been flipped.
Eldarsif wrote: Again, AoS already had something similar and what these points have done most of the time is serve as tiebreakers if people are allowed to enter with unpainted/partly painted armies. In AoS it even scores on 3 different things: 3 Color mininum(5 points), shading and highlights(15), and everything else like bases decorated(5 points). These are official Pitched Battle Tournament Rules introduced in AoS over a year ago in GHB 2019. Very little furor over it because TOs and people in general realized that like great many things this was optional. Life kinda just moved on and players played and players painted and players competed.
You keep talking about tournaments. When will you understand that this isn't about tournaments???
These are the general mission rules for matched play 40K, the kind of rules that most people use in most games. If this was just a tournament thing it wouldn't matter, because tournaments can make whatever damned rules they want (like banning Space Marines, or people who's names start with the letter K).
I dunno. I was just told that people don't. But hey, at least you understood what I was getting at, so, points to you.
Seabass wrote: ... but I can say that in my corner of the world, winning is secondary to enjoying the game, because it is entirely possible to win and hate the game or to lose and enjoy it.
This doesn't contradict my statement in any way.
Seabass wrote: As someone who supports this rule, I can honestly say that if you are so invested in getting the big W, (you not as in specifically you, you as in a generic euphemism for the general opponent) Ill let you have it. I know how the game played. I know if I had fun. If I didn't, then winning isn't really that important anyway.
None of what you just said is relevant to the topic at hand.
This isn't about "getting the big W". This is about introducing a victory condition that sits outside of the actual game itself. What happens in the game in no way influences this new rule, but this rule does influence the outcome of the game. That's the problem, specifically because this new rule is contingent on something that not everyone likes to or even can do.
That's actually creating an accessibility barrier. Some might call it gate-keeping, but that would imply some kind of intentional malice IMO, and we know that GW isn't evil, they're just stupid. Well meaning, but stupid.
I'd much rather the rules for the game represent the game that's being played, not outside factors that aren't part of the game.
Only it is relevant to the game and to the point most (and I haven't checked on every post you have made to this thread, so I don't know if you should be a generic or specific descriptor) are making in opposition is (as I understand it) that it's essentially not fair to give someone a bonus for actually painting their models because that is outside the mechanics of moving the models, rolling dice, and adjudicating the rules. The only reason I can reasonably see as to why this would be an issue is if the win is more important than any other aspect of the hobby. GW, with this rule, has now stated that is not the case. They didn't say someone couldn't win with an unpainted army, they said that there will be a bonus for having a fully painted army, meaning that it is now, more than before, a part of the game.
It is a lot of effort to paint a whole army. I feel that given the importance of aesthetics, design, terrain, and all of the other factors that go into how the hobby looks, rewarding that dedication to the game and the hobby is important and it should be done.
Anecdotally, I'm married, have an 8-year-old daughter, work three jobs, finishing graduate school and starting my doctoral residency soon, and I can say that I completely understand the concern that time is limited. Mine is very limited, but an hour or two a week painting will add up, especially if the painter is using the tools available at their disposal to help them speed along the process. I don't love how some of my models look, I know I could do better, but it's fine, because they are painted and based, and look ok on the tabletop. Its a concession to the time I have to put into the hobby side of the game, but that doesn't mean that because I dont have as much time to work on it that those who choose to carve that time out, or just have it to use, shouldn't still have some kind of reward for doing so, especially if the intent is to make that a stronger focus.
Eldarsif wrote: If I win a game mission-wise and the opponent just ekes in front of me with 3 points because he had a fully painted army, I will still consider it a win for me.
But now you're claiming the moral victory, as opposed to the actual victory. See the issue there? It's been flipped.
Eldarsif wrote: Again, AoS already had something similar and what these points have done most of the time is serve as tiebreakers if people are allowed to enter with unpainted/partly painted armies. In AoS it even scores on 3 different things: 3 Color mininum(5 points), shading and highlights(15), and everything else like bases decorated(5 points). These are official Pitched Battle Tournament Rules introduced in AoS over a year ago in GHB 2019. Very little furor over it because TOs and people in general realized that like great many things this was optional. Life kinda just moved on and players played and players painted and players competed.
You keep talking about tournaments. When will you understand that this isn't about tournaments???
These are the general mission rules for matched play 40K, the kind of rules that most people use in most games. If this was just a tournament thing it wouldn't matter, because tournaments can make whatever damned rules they want (like banning Space Marines, or people who's names start with the letter K).
This is about the general rules.
You are absolutely correct, that is what the rules say. you can be outfought in battle through luck or artifice, but you can still win the game because your army is fully painted, and one of his models isn't based, and RAW that's what the rules say. they totally say that, no disputes from me.
I would prefer to be a good sport about it, you want to claim the 10vps, go ahead. that is what the rules say. but we will both know, 10vps or not, who is the better player by the end of the game.
I would prefer to be a good sport about it, you want to claim the 10vps, go ahead. that is what the rules say. but we will both know, 10vps or not, who is the better player by the end of the game.
This exactly a thousand times.
In friendly/PUG games these RAW painting points mean absolutely nothing in the grand scheme of things. They are as worthless as worthless comes. Not unless certain people are all tracking PUG/Friendly game points on some global app only they are privy to. I mean, if there is one please link it so we can all enjoy it together.
I would also add that people decrying their loss due to RAW interpretation of this in a PUG/friendly are very much WAAC players in my mind, especially if winning means so much to them that they are going nuts over a rule that has a superfluous effect on their overall gaming experience.
As I've been saying, it doesn't matter whether it's 1 point or 99 points. It's points for something you didn't do during the game. That's a bad way to score a match between two people.
Insectum7 wrote: And who's really keeping score at the end of the day?
Umm... anyone who's using these missions! Duh! Because the way you determine the victor is by literally keeping score!
I mean... did you just write "who's keeping score?" in a discussion about points that you use to score missions? Really???
The meaning I took from that was who really cares who wins. It might just be an American phrase or idiom, but "who's keeping score" is just a different way of saying who really cares.
Seabass wrote: If I scored 80 points, and my opponent scores 75, but he's fully painted and I'm not, why is it so bad that he be rewarded for putting in the effort and being rewarded for it?
Why should that person win a game because they painted something?
It's only 10 points. And who's really keeping score at the end of the day?
LITERALLY EVERY PERSON AT THE TOURNAMENT.
Honestly, this just make it seem like you don't know what a competition is.
More like you didn't read the entirety of my post. I submit exhibit A:
Seabass wrote: If I scored 80 points, and my opponent scores 75, but he's fully painted and I'm not, why is it so bad that he be rewarded for putting in the effort and being rewarded for it?
Why should that person win a game because they painted something?
It's only 10 points. And who's really keeping score at the end of the day? If a person really doesn't care about painted models, then scoring higher on pure game play should be enough of a reward, I would think.
It seems weirdly hypocritical to care about the points awarded for painting if a person only cares about the "technical win". And if the Win is tallied, then it seems like your in more of a tournament or league situation in which there would likely be some expectation of painted models or ignoring of the painted rule.
Edit: I love that at the time of writing the poll is exactly 50/50
Yeah, friendly or practice games are fine even by proxying models and untis.
Tournaments already enforced painting requirements, so I don't really understand why this new rule should be a problem for those who can't or don't want to paint.
Not that it will really change anything for me in practice. Local tournaments and leagues have always had a similar rule (a small amount of extra tournament points for painted armies) and I try to avoid playing against unpainted armies outside tournaments. Perhaps this will increase my pool of potential opponents.
But this is a good rule. It clearly communicates that the idea is that you should paint your bloody models, without outright banning unpainted models.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: Sorry bud, but you're wrong.
Just because you can't comprehend the idea of someone playing without winning being their goal doesn't mean I can't.
Everyone's goal is to win the game. It might not be their reason for playing. It might not be something they strive for every waking second, but no one plays to lose/draw (with perhaps the exception of playing against a child who has never played, and you are their parent, and you don't want to upset them).
You don't sit down with the intention of drawing/losing. That's just not how people are wired.
The single best game (most fun and most memorable) of 40K I ever played was played with a made-up scenario that didn't even have victory conditions. It was literally impossible to play to win. The game had no winner or loser, and both me and my opponent went into the game knowing that.
Even in games which did have victory conditions, I have made plays which made me more likely to lose because it was the more fun / interesting thing to do, and have had opponents do the same. It has almost always enhanced my experience instead of detracting from it.
There's a difference between "not playing to win" and "playing to draw / lose".
H.B.M.C. wrote: You keep talking about tournaments. When will you understand that this isn't about tournaments???
And why do you care so much about who won or lost outside a tournament? If you throw a tantrum because in a casual game your grey horde lost to my painted army by five points due this rule, I will declare you the winner, ceremoniously hand you glorious and imaginary no-prize medal and make a mental note to not play with you again.
HBMC could probably have painted his army to battle standard in the time he's spent posting about it in this thread.
But the more I think about it, the more I do think it's a ham-fisted rule. If you want painted minis to be part of your game, just say that painting is required (and leave the consequences for not painting up to the individual players). Giving VPs for it in a weird way devalues the importance by implying it's just something optional you can do for a benefit. And for those who do want to play only against painted armies...it kinda makes it harder to do that, because the rules imply that it's ok not to paint, as long as you take the penalty.
If I hate playing against unpainted armies, an extra 10VP isn't gonna make me happy to do it. And if I hate painting, it's just going to make me angry. So I don't see what group this actually pleases.
Independent Tournaments will insisting on painted models only.
GW stores will have this rule - if they even host tournaments these days.
Regular casual games with friends will probably ignore it.
It's a great rule, and a little bit of needling from GW. It's quite funny, and I think it will lead to more painted models on the table which is an awesome thing.
I also don't think it'll be applied all the time - that's fine, people are free to play the game how they want. But I can foresee some pretty funny arguments being had by people with grey legions fuming about their opponent wanting to play by the actual rules in the 9e book.
GW put it in there for a reason. They have gone out of their way to make fielding a painted army painless; I applaud them for it, and the release of contrast paints. Painting is a big part of this hobby, it has been since 1987. Why pretend otherwise? And why fume when that big part of the hobby is represented, in a pretty marginal crunch way, in the rules?
Wow, that's a silly rule.
I get that they are trying to get rid of grey armies as a lot of players do gripe about that, but I can see the "battle ready standard" lead to some abuse, as you can just imagine some git going "I don't like your army's paintjob / your armies paintjob looks like rushed gak, so its not Battle Ready"
I'd rather if the game's results was determined by game play, not a beauty contest. It should be at most 1 VP, not 10.
That's the thing. The rule is a solution that pleases nobody. If I hate seeing your ugly unpainted army, is it really going to make me feel better to be given 10VP to compensate for having to look at it? No, obviously not.
The rule should have been: "Armies shall be painted to a battle-ready standard. If your army is not, check with your opponent before the game to make sure they are willing to play with you" or something like that. The consequences for having an unpainted army should be considered and resolved before the game starts - and if both players are fine with one having an unpainted army, that should be the end of the matter. Giving points to the guy with the painted army doesn't make either party satisfied.
yukishiro1 wrote: That's the thing. The rule is a solution that pleases nobody. If I hate seeing your ugly unpainted army, is it really going to make me feel better to be given 10VP to compensate for having to look at it? No, obviously not.
The rule should have been: "Armies shall be painted to a battle-ready standard. If your army is not, check with your opponent before the game to make sure they are willing to play with you" or something like that. The consequences for having an unpainted army should be considered and resolved before the game starts - and if both players are fine with one having an unpainted army, that should be the end of the matter. Giving points to the guy with the painted army doesn't make either party satisfied.
It pleases the snobby neckbeards that have had things painted for years and don't really buy new models.
Boasting about being the better player of a brainless game is just as silly as edging out a victory by virtue of being painted. It's hilarious that they put this in, it punishes people who are otherwise only concerned with rules with a rule that requires paint. Somebody at gw has a sense of humor. That said, I would never enforce this in a game even though your ugly grey models deserve it.
Wait. People show up at tournaments with unpainted models? This rule is for matched play right? You want to be competitive without painting your minis? Hell yeah I'm using this if someone shows up to a tournie/league game with unpainted figurines.
Casual games for an afternoon? Well yes, another case.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:Well if you don't play to win, arbitrary victory points shouldn't be a thing then huh?
Victory points just happen to be the objective of your troops. That doesn't mean *your* objective is to win.
In picl-up games of football or whatever, you still try and score goals, but the main point isn't to win, it's to have fun. Winning is auxiliary to that.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:It pleases the snobby neckbeards that have had things painted for years and don't really buy new models.
As neither a snobby neckbeard, only having painted a good deal of my stuff over lockdown, and actively buying new stuff, it would seem your statement isn't really true at all.
Kithail wrote: Wait. People show up at tournaments with unpainted models? This rule is for matched play right? You want to be competitive without painting your minis? Hell yeah I'm using this if someone shows up to a tournie/league game with unpainted figurines.
Casual games for an afternoon? Well yes, another case.
Most major tournaments require painting. Local ones might not. But the fact it's matched play means most people are going to enforce it if their opponent's army isn't fully painted, which means the emphasis now is on only ever playing when everything is painted unless you want to be punished.
I almost wish it was a % of your army - eg 10% painted= 1vp, 30% painted =3vp... and so on
Then it might not be so harsh on you if say you just bought a new box of models, built them and want to play ASAP, but the rest of your list is painted...
Kithail wrote: Wait. People show up at tournaments with unpainted models? This rule is for matched play right? You want to be competitive without painting your minis? Hell yeah I'm using this if someone shows up to a tournie/league game with unpainted figurines.
Casual games for an afternoon? Well yes, another case.
Most major tournaments require painting. Local ones might not. But the fact it's matched play means most people are going to enforce it if their opponent's army isn't fully painted, which means the emphasis now is on only ever playing when everything is painted unless you want to be punished.
Man, your community seems really different than mine. I can't imagine anybody in my community enforcing the rule against someone who asked it be suspended. There's some people I know who just don't play against someone with unpainted models period, but can't imagine anyone who is willing to do so would insist on taking the 10VP advantage.
I thought about this one quite a bit and basically if you are playing a pick up game then who cares. If the score ends 65 to 70 in my favor and I brought one of the few models I own that is unpainted sure you can have the win if your army is fully painted. Or if I have my fully painted models and you don't and the score is 65 to 60 in your favor, sure you can win. It is a pick up game who cares.
However, if it is a tournament or a league game I believe this should be enforced. If you are taking the time commitment to play in a league or play in a tournament, then you can take some time and paint your models. I am an attorney and I am married so I know all about having time constraints (that is why I am not currently in a league and I don't really like tournaments), and I understand that some people paint slow etc. But to some extent the point of the game is to have painted models. And people who take the time and do so for a tournament or league should be rewarded for the extra care and time they put in. It is not punishing people for not painting, it is rewarding those who do. Also, it is not that hard to get models painted OK. If you want them all perfect, then yea it takes a lot of time, but especially with like marines or necrons, you can get the base colors down for a model in a few minutes. Will they look the best upon close inspection, no. But they will look a hell of a lot better on the board than a sea of grey.
Also, for anyone one who has unpainted models and regularly plays like that, you really should try getting them painted up, not for the extra 10 points, but for your own enjoyment of the game. When I was younger I was like "who cares painted or unpainted lets play", but as I got older and started playing with fully painted armies then against fully painted armies, I feel it is a much better quality of the game. There is a different feel when both armies are fully painted, even if they are not painted well. Also, you are not as bad of a painter as you think. Especially with the new contrast paints. And it is a pretty awesome feeling when someone compliments your model that you painted.
This is just my opinion and you are welcome to disagree.
Kithail wrote: Wait. People show up at tournaments with unpainted models? This rule is for matched play right? You want to be competitive without painting your minis? Hell yeah I'm using this if someone shows up to a tournie/league game with unpainted figurines.
But this isn't a tournament rule though. This is the key mistakes people keep making:
1. They assume that matched play = competitive/tournament play. It's not though. Tournaments use matched play, not all matched play games are tournaments (in fact, I'd wager most 40K games are matched play non-tournament games).
2. This rule doesn't matter for tournaments as tournaments can set whatever rules they like.
The folks I suspect I'll have the chance to play with are unlikely to be the sort of folks who think a close victory should be decided based on aesthetics.
I'm not a big fan of the general thrust of the rule, either, since the most likely to have a painted army will be players with more experience, and the likelihood is proportional to the experience.
Experienced players are the last ones who need a built-in advantage in scoring points.
I imagine most tournaments already required "Battle Ready" levels of painting, so they're probably mostly unaffected. Really, it just puts pressure on the LGS to favor painted armies.
Not a change I'm a fan of, but not much I can do about that.
Kithail wrote: Wait. People show up at tournaments with unpainted models? This rule is for matched play right? You want to be competitive without painting your minis? Hell yeah I'm using this if someone shows up to a tournie/league game with unpainted figurines.
But this isn't a tournament rule though. This is the key mistakes people keep making:
1. They assume that matched play = competitive/tournament play. It's not though. Tournaments use matched play, not all matched play games are tournaments (in fact, I'd wager most 40K games are matched play non-tournament games).
2. This rule doesn't matter for tournaments as tournaments can set whatever rules they like.
You can always set whatever rules you like. So that logic goes both ways. There's no Celestial Enforcers who are going to phase into existence and smite you with a 9th edition rulebook if you and your buddy playing in the garage decide not to apply the rule.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:Well if you don't play to win, arbitrary victory points shouldn't be a thing then huh?
Victory points just happen to be the objective of your troops. That doesn't mean *your* objective is to win.
In picl-up games of football or whatever, you still try and score goals, but the main point isn't to win, it's to have fun. Winning is auxiliary to that.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:It pleases the snobby neckbeards that have had things painted for years and don't really buy new models.
As neither a snobby neckbeard, only having painted a good deal of my stuff over lockdown, and actively buying new stuff, it would seem your statement isn't really true at all.
Therefore, if the point is to have fun, random VP for arbitrary reasons are something you don't need. IF you're really looking to have fun. Otherwise we get that garbage first iteration of AoS.
Also some of us work many hours even with lockdown, thanks.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:Also some of us work many hours even with lockdown, thanks.
If those people have time to complain about the rule on Dakka or to play games, they can paint too. I'm just saying why *I've* been able to paint them, not that everyone can. But if you or anyone else have time to play a game or build your models, you can paint them too.
Pretty sure every league I've seen encouraged painting. Heck, I think it is one of the primary draws of escalation. When we did our own narrative gigs we gave perks for fielding a fully painted army to encourage people to play with their nice painted models instead of "the next big thing" broken by GW.
Sure you could play with that new unpainted unit to see how they played on the table... but then you're far more interested in seeing how that unit performed as opposed to getting the perk for being painted (be it campaign medals for us, or victory points here).
And I love how everyone immediately went to "GW is punishing me for not painting" when the rule clearly states that "GW is rewarding me for painting". Spin it negative and then screech about how they're oppressing you with their ugly, hurtful rules.
Like... the standard is pretty much "models with the primer covered and colors reasonably located" - battle ready is not a very high bar to achieve. But even a sea of shoddily painted models with poorly done contrast looks WORLDS better than the gray tide.
I like that GW is awarding people for hobbying... IN THEIR HOBBY.
And I love how everyone immediately went to "GW is punishing me for not painting" when the rule clearly states that "GW is rewarding me for painting". Spin it negative and then screech about how they're oppressing you with their ugly, hurtful rules.
There is literally no difference. 90 + 10 or 110 -10 is exactly the same result.
For all the opinion shouting back and forth on who is correct for liking or not liking this rule, Punishing and not rewarding are functionally the same.
ITT- people accusing HBMC of being a powergamer. HBMC as a powergamer... I've never heard something so absurd. He's like the anti powergamer.
Now, my gut feeling was I liked this rule, as it keeps out certain riff raff but after seeing the certain sociopath it has some Dakkanauts walking down it probably should be left by the wayside.
For full disclosure, I disagree with what some terrible Aussie powergamer ITT is saying ref painting, however he is 100% correct about the bloody objective of the game, which is to win. The point is to have fun and some people seem to be confusing the two. The game is quite literally a competition with victory conditions, how secondary or tertiary those are to the rest of the experience is down to the individual player.
And I love how everyone immediately went to "GW is punishing me for not painting" when the rule clearly states that "GW is rewarding me for painting". Spin it negative and then screech about how they're oppressing you with their ugly, hurtful rules.
There is literally no difference. 90 + 10 or 110 -10 is exactly the same result.
For all the opinion shouting back and forth on who is correct for liking or not liking this rule, Punishing and not rewarding are functionally the same.
...no, no they're not.
"Not rewarding" someone is literally just that - they're not getting anything extra over a given starting point. They're staying at n, rather than going to n+1.
Punishing someone will usually mean taking something away from them which they started with - they go from n to n-1.
In terms of how you position a rule, there is a definite difference between a 90 VP baseline, with a 10VP bonus for painting to a Battle Ready standard, compared to a 100VP baseline, and being docked 10VP for not reaching a Battle Ready standard. You can argue it is only a difference in perception, but taking the positive approach over the punitive is a good move.
Grimtuff wrote: ITT- people accusing HBMC of being a powergamer. HBMC as a powergamer... I've never heard something so absurd. He's like the anti powergamer.
Now, my gut feeling was I liked this rule, as it keeps out certain riff raff but after seeing the certain sociopath it has some Dakkanauts walking down it probably should be left by the wayside.
For full disclosure, I disagree with what some terrible Aussie powergamer ITT is saying ref painting, however he is 100% correct about the bloody objective of the game, which is to win. The point is to have fun and some people seem to be confusing the two. The game is quite literally a competition with victory conditions, how secondary or tertiary those are to the rest of the experience is down to the individual player.
Also some of us work many hours even with lockdown, thanks.
Yet I still found time to paint my minis. What's your excuse?
Having better things to do with your free time? Some people don't like painting and why spend time doing something unpleasant when you could do something fun instead?
Having better things to do with your free time? Some people don't like painting and why spend time doing something unpleasant when you could do something fun instead?
So the standard for playing in a tournament was:
Take models out of package
Cut pieces out
Assemble cut out pieces into models that represent the models you're fielding (WYSIWYG)
Put assembled model on appropriate sized base
And now the standard is still EXACTLY the same, only if you want to MAX your earnings potential you now have to:
Primer coat your models
Put some base colors on them
You're already investing your "free" time into meeting the tournament standard... you're just going to have to invest a little more into a phase of the hobby you don't want to (in order to MAXIMIZE your chances to win...).
The arguments against smacks of WAAC players who would put three colored dots on their otherwise gray models and want to meta chase as fast as possible getting upset at the game creators for rewarding people for investing time, care, and devotion to their army. Think of it like this: they guy who went out last night and threw together 6 flyrants to go stomp an upcoming tournament just opted to take a disadvantage he thinks he can overcome because he left all of his finished models at home on the shelf.
Having better things to do with your free time? Some people don't like painting and why spend time doing something unpleasant when you could do something fun instead?
And that's fine. So don't paint. And, if the 10VP penalty for not painting bothers you, don't play with anyone who wants to play with the rules as they are written. You can always have your own set of rules for your own play group.
People on both sides of this are overreacting so much. If you don't want to play with part of the rules, don't play with that part. It's all up to you and the person you're playing with.
And I love how everyone immediately went to "GW is punishing me for not painting" when the rule clearly states that "GW is rewarding me for painting". Spin it negative and then screech about how they're oppressing you with their ugly, hurtful rules.
There is literally no difference. 90 + 10 or 110 -10 is exactly the same result.
For all the opinion shouting back and forth on who is correct for liking or not liking this rule, Punishing and not rewarding are functionally the same.
...no, no they're not.
"Not rewarding" someone is literally just that - they're not getting anything extra over a given starting point. They're staying at n, rather than going to n+1.
Punishing someone will usually mean taking something away from them which they started with - they go from n to n-1.
In terms of how you position a rule, there is a definite difference between a 90 VP baseline, with a 10VP bonus for painting to a Battle Ready standard, compared to a 100VP baseline, and being docked 10VP for not reaching a Battle Ready standard. You can argue it is only a difference in perception, but taking the positive approach over the punitive is a good move.
How is it a definite difference? You're either at a max of 100 if you paint and a max of 90 if you don't, either way. That's the same.
If you're perceiving that as different, you're doing math wrong.
Even if you call it 'rewarding painting,' its still a punishment for not painting, because you end up at the same point cap, regardless of how you spin it.
Painting has always been a big part of 40k, from the very start.
But if you missed it up until now..this is that change. They just declared that painting is a cornerstone of getting full VPs in competitive 40k.
If you don't like it...just play with your own rules pack that leaves that rule out. As long as everyone playing agrees, it doesn't matter what the official rules say.
Sorry, but you're in the wrong hobby. That is all.
Pretty much this.
I must have missed the significant change that made painting the cornerstone of wargaming.
You've not been paying attention then. People playing with painted models was a part of it for a lot longer than people deciding they couldn't be arsed with that facet of it because it wasn't absolutely integral to their pursuit of WINNING.
There's a difference between being a big part and being a needed part. It's perfectly possible to play 40k and never paint. The rules shouldn't penalise you for not painting and house rules shouldn't be needed to play a decently structured game.
I'm curious, if I demanded people bring written copies of their personal lore for their army to play the game and gave them 10% less points if they didn't do so how many people who are saying that the paint rule is fine would be cool with that?
Grimtuff wrote: ITT- people accusing HBMC of being a powergamer. HBMC as a powergamer... I've never heard something so absurd. He's like the anti powergamer.
Now, my gut feeling was I liked this rule, as it keeps out certain riff raff but after seeing the certain sociopath it has some Dakkanauts walking down it probably should be left by the wayside.
For full disclosure, I disagree with what some terrible Aussie powergamer ITT is saying ref painting, however he is 100% correct about the bloody objective of the game, which is to win. The point is to have fun and some people seem to be confusing the two. The game is quite literally a competition with victory conditions, how secondary or tertiary those are to the rest of the experience is down to the individual player.
Also some of us work many hours even with lockdown, thanks.
Yet I still found time to paint my minis. What's your excuse?
I'm doing 6 day work weeks with errands being done on the last day. I haven't gotten a game in since the year started basically with all the Corona crap.
pm713 wrote: There's a difference between being a big part and being a needed part. It's perfectly possible to play 40k and never paint. The rules shouldn't penalise you for not painting and house rules shouldn't be needed to play a decently structured game.
I'm curious, if I demanded people bring written copies of their personal lore for their army to play the game and gave them 10% less points if they didn't do so how many people who are saying that the paint rule is fine would be cool with that?
I think the models can only fight if within 1/2" of 1/2" change in 9th is a bad change. I'll still play with it, but if it really angered me, I could always refuse to play with anyone who doesn't agree to play my version of the game, where models can still fight within 1" of 1".
GW just declared that having a basically painted army is necessary to get full VPs in matched play. How you react to that is up to you, just like how you react to any other rule change is up to you.
You're more than welcome to argue it's a bad rule - I agree, though not for the reason you do - just like I can argue the 1/2" of 1/2" is a bad rule. But it's fundamentally no different than any other rule change.
I'm doing 6 day work weeks with errands being done on the last day. I haven't gotten a game in since the year started basically with all the Corona crap.
So you're on the internet complaining about a game you don't actually have time to even play? Seems like a good way of spending your precious spare time.
Grimtuff wrote: ITT- people accusing HBMC of being a powergamer. HBMC as a powergamer... I've never heard something so absurd. He's like the anti powergamer.
Now, my gut feeling was I liked this rule, as it keeps out certain riff raff but after seeing the certain sociopath it has some Dakkanauts walking down it probably should be left by the wayside.
For full disclosure, I disagree with what some terrible Aussie powergamer ITT is saying ref painting, however he is 100% correct about the bloody objective of the game, which is to win. The point is to have fun and some people seem to be confusing the two. The game is quite literally a competition with victory conditions, how secondary or tertiary those are to the rest of the experience is down to the individual player.
Also some of us work many hours even with lockdown, thanks.
Yet I still found time to paint my minis. What's your excuse?
Having better things to do with your free time? Some people don't like painting and why spend time doing something unpleasant when you could do something fun instead?
Also this. I like putting the miniatures together. However painting sucks. Ever spent DAYS painting thousands of points of stuff only to lose it in a fire? I'm commissioning my current project for painting, plus it'll actually look pleasant.
I'm doing 6 day work weeks with errands being done on the last day. I haven't gotten a game in since the year started basically with all the Corona crap.
So you're on the internet complaining about a game you don't actually have time to even play? Seems like a good way of spending your precious spare time.
Healthcare sucks so the least I can do is hope GW will create a decent game, but apparently they can't do that.
Some rules are just made to watch the world burn. Thank you GW, add just a bit more fuel to the dung fire that is 2020.
The Irony of including a rule for gate keeping while so recently saying how Warhammer is for everybody isn't lost on me though. Guess its for everyone who is rich and loves to paint eh ? Maybe a company name change to PaintsWorkshop.
That's a bit of an odd hot-take. Painting is by far the cheapest part of the hobby. The paint to paint a whole army to the battle ready standard will cost you less than the cost of almost any kit GW sells these days.
And they don't. Disagree with you both on that - not everyone plays to win.
I guess neither of them has played a demo game or a game with young kids. I have even played with my spouse who had absolutely no interest in winning.
He's having a good time re-framing the argument or being pedantic. That's his MO. He defaults to that state when ever he's losing ground.
In the N&R thread he argued that he doesn't even play competitively in order to "win" another debate. But somehow a none competitive person is finding this to be a massive issue lol. He even admitted his first and only tournament was in 7th despite posting on here since 2005. Oh, and that the event had one single guy with a painted army in an otherwise see of grey plastic, but apparently feth that guy for his effort.
He still hasn't honestly answered my question from the N&R thread. Why should another player win a game based on purchasing power? There is no way to claim there isn't an advantage to winning 40k when you have a bigger hobby budget. That has nothing to do with whos the better player but factors into who wins way more then this.
Whats hilarious to me is how many WAAC players are being unmasked by that little bonus they are tossing to the guys that paint their stuff. You don't even need to paint well mind you. You can spray a base coat from a rattle can on your army while its on the sprue, dip wash it with min wax in a tray and spray texture paint (yes this is sold in cans too) onto the bases before assembly. It would dry before you finished reading the rules and you would have the BRS lol. Literally no need for a brush. It also goes for slow or detail painters, it's the base initial set up you can paint them up from.
Why should a player that hates painting be punished? Counter question, why should the guy who painted his army be punished by having to play with an opponent that didn't paint their army?
GW sells models that require building and painting prior to playing. It's only been their business model for 3 decades. This rule doesn't even stop them from playing lol. It just wreaks of bratty entitlement. You still can play and win, your just at a minor disadvantage because you failed to meet the basic expectations from the social contract.
It's also not gate keeping, no more then playing an overpriced boutique luxury game itself is lol. I have played more new gamers with painted armies over the years then the old grogs. they show up and apologize if a model isn't finished, only to play one of those types that never paints their stuff and have this puzzled disheartened look. After a while they start to stop painting or worse yet stop playing at the shop.
yukishiro1 wrote: That's a bit of an odd hot-take. Painting is by far the cheapest part of the hobby. The paint to paint a whole army to the battle ready standard will cost you less than the cost of almost any kit GW sells these days.
The rich part is based on the model cost, the love to paint part is its own thing. Either way if you really want to paint well that does actually take a good deal of cash, proper set ups, brushes, paints, replacement when they dry out or go bad which happens more than would be ideal. The residuals of the hobby aspect aren't cheap and are outright overly expensive if you get the tools through GW. Have you looked up the price for clippers lately ? Ouch and that is just clippers.
Edit: The point of the hot take is, I've rarely seen such a hamfisted rule to try and force painting in. It would be less divisive if they just made it illegal to play with unpainted models. Making it just fine, you're just at a handicap is a real sad way to say " You can keep playing, but F you. " It doesn't feel honest, and how violent the reaction is and will probably only grow from it is a sign it sucks big time.
At a time we should be coming together, many of us can't and haven't played a game for awhile, but really want to. We get rules like this that are just going to drive people away further, cause arguments, debates derision. Something we didn't need help to do as I'm sure we'll find other rules we think suck big time from this edition aside from this. Including it in such a wishy washy way does nothing good for the game and I can already hear the games of " Cool I won ! ".." No you didn't, you had a squad un painted, I really won because of the extra 10 points ! ". People, especially kids or waac adults will cudgel anyone with this.
I support using it but only in so far as to highlight it sucks. I have un painted stuff I can take, and I have full painted forces. All a rule like this does is promise I'll field unpainted stuff more just to spite it. As has been said, victory is in the mind. If I won by gameplay and lose to paint, the other player can say he won, I'll say I won, in reality we both won as we got to play at all. It does make it a point of contention and yet another thing that will need to be discussed for some ahead of time.
So lets see, what type of play ? Narrative ? Open play ? Matched ? If points values how much ? , ok easy so far., Competitive or casual ? How competitive or casual ? What counts as competitive or casual ? Terrain types of odd terrain pieces ? What does each count as ? Are we using the points for painted vs un painted ?
Sorry, but you're in the wrong hobby. That is all.
I don't enjoy painting. I do enjoy playing.
Go on-tell me why I'm wrong.
Oh oh, do me too while youre at it Grimtuff.
I enjoy painting, I enjoy playing.
Not all my models are painted because i want them painted to a certain level and i'm a slow painter.
I also happen to not want to burn myself out painting at mach speed at night instead of doing other things i enjoy (40k isnt at the center of my life).
I also want to test my models before playing them so i know how i should equip them/if theyre worth being put at the top of my painting queue.
H.B.M.C. wrote: You keep talking about tournaments. When will you understand that this isn't about tournaments???
And why do you care so much about who won or lost outside a tournament? If you throw a tantrum because in a casual game your grey horde lost to my painted army by five points due this rule, I will declare you the winner, ceremoniously hand you glorious and imaginary no-prize medal and make a mental note to not play with you again.
Sorry, but you're in the wrong hobby. That is all.
I don't enjoy painting. I do enjoy playing.
Go on-tell me why I'm wrong.
It's not that you're wrong. It's just that GW evidently thinks painting is a fundamental part of the game, or, at least, important enough to penalize people for not doing it.
I think the new 1/2" of 1/2" for who can fight is a bad rule. That's just my opinion, like your opinion is that painting isn't fun. GW evidently disagrees with both of us. So we're left with three options:
1. Stop playing.
2. Play the game with our special version of the rules with anyone else who will accept that version.
3. Just play the game as written, whether we like it or not. In this case, that means either sucking it up and painting your models, or just sucking up the -10VP penalty.
Which of those three options you choose is totally up to you and there is no right answer.
AngryAngel80 wrote: Have you looked up the price for clippers lately ? Ouch and that is just clippers.
About $10 on Amazon for a quality set of side clippers that will last at least a decade of regular use. The trick to find good ones is to look in the electrician supplies section, not the hobbyist section.
Sorry, but you're in the wrong hobby. That is all.
I don't enjoy painting. I do enjoy playing.
Go on-tell me why I'm wrong.
Oh oh, do me too while youre at it Grimtuff.
I enjoy painting, I enjoy playing.
Not all my models are painted because i want them painted to a certain level and i'm a slow painter.
I also happen to not want to burn myself out painting at mach speed at night instead of doing other things i enjoy (40k isnt at the center of my life).
I also want to test my models before playing them so i know how i should equip them/if theyre worth being put at the top of my painting queue.
Am i wrong?
You're not wrong, you're just out 10% of the possible points available if you and your opponent play by that rule.
yukishiro1 wrote: That's a bit of an odd hot-take. Painting is by far the cheapest part of the hobby. The paint to paint a whole army to the battle ready standard will cost you less than the cost of almost any kit GW sells these days.
The rich part is based on the model cost, the love to paint part is its own thing. Either way if you really want to paint well that does actually take a good deal of cash, proper set ups, brushes, paints, replacement when they dry out or go bad which happens more than would be ideal. The residuals of the hobby aspect aren't cheap and are outright overly expensive if you get the tools through GW. Have you looked up the price for clippers lately ? Ouch and that is just clippers.
Yeah but GW isn't requiring you to paint well, just to paint to a very basic standard. A can of spray paint, two additional colors, a wash, a texture paint, and a $1 paintbrush will get you there. No need to use GW paints either. A can of spray paint is $5 off amazon, two vallejo paints, a texture paint, and two bottles of army painter wash (assuming you have a big army, if not, one is fine) is another $15. So that's about $25 to paint your army to the standard GW wants. I.e. cheaper than practically every kit GW sells these days.
I don't think anyone who can afford to buy the kits is going to find the cost of paint a serious limiting factor. Time? Sure, maybe. But cost? Not really.
Blind girl who played 3-5th, came back in 8th checking in here.
Hers pics of my army only the Sentry Pylon is recently done (my wife actually had to help me, as even this simple job became so frustratingly impossible I broke down in tears) the rest were done in 4th, when I had muuuuch better vision and motor skills.
(Posted links rather than pics to keep the thread from getting messed up)
https://imgur.com/a/HnXAJdm https://imgur.com/a/KI8PXzz
I've been following 9th with high hopes.
The 1/2" stuff will probably cause me to lose more than I hope.
The paining requirements, well, if blank bases are fine, then I'm ok, but if I base them, I'll literally lose models, I lost a whole squad of warriors at a pick up game in a random store while I wasnt used to going to.
As a disabled Warhammer player, not just my vision, but a few other issues that impact my play as well, I'm frustrated by this rule.
I was really liking 9th, this makes me...not like it.
I was super psyched for Crusdae, after reading it, I was really excited as it's what I've always been wanting.....but then I saw this rule in there..
There are lots of things about the game that make it hard for me, but I've always pushed through, found ways to manage, personal tricks that make it possible for me to play, but this feels like I'm just screwed. I know a few other disabled gamers. I'm the pest painter on the group, and for some, they physically can't do it, but have found ways to play regardless and enjoy the game. This is like a slap in the face.
"Get a friend to paint them"
Why would a put all that work on my friends? Most dont enjoy or care about 40k, it not a feasible thing.
"Pay to get them painted, you can afford to my models, so obviously you can get them painted"
HAHAHAHAHA No. you think I can afford models! If it wasn't for eBay and charity from other gamers, as well as my 20yr old self being more able bodied and able to work, which I can't any more, I wouldn't even have a enough for a 500pnt army. Disabled people generally can't afford the prices GW charges, the second hand market isn't much better at times. I've been saving for something new for my Necrons since I started playing in the summer of 2018, that money has been used for groceries and rent. At best I saved $26ish to get my Sentry Pylons. If I were commingninto the hobby now, as an adult, I couldn't afford it, even if I saved up.
"If it's this hard for you, just stop playing"
I've been told that my Dakka members in the past, with enough people supporting the person and this view that I did stop playing, as my local 40k community had the same attitude.
Blindmage, you or any person in a similar situation obviously has a very good reason for being exempted of this rule and if anyone argues otherwise, they're a dick.
That being said, your Necrons look fine to me so you'd be getting those ten points regardless.
Sorry, but you're in the wrong hobby. That is all.
I don't enjoy painting. I do enjoy playing.
Go on-tell me why I'm wrong.
Oh oh, do me too while youre at it Grimtuff.
I enjoy painting, I enjoy playing.
Not all my models are painted because i want them painted to a certain level and i'm a slow painter.
I also happen to not want to burn myself out painting at mach speed at night instead of doing other things i enjoy (40k isnt at the center of my life).
I also want to test my models before playing them so i know how i should equip them/if theyre worth being put at the top of my painting queue.
Am i wrong?
Doesn't sound like you're the player chasing 10 VP at a tournament, either.
That's what this all comes down to, right? Who gets that 10 VP? And it isn't even arbitrary. I hate gluing models, I hate scraping mold lines, I hate basing... there's plenty of things I hate along the way in the process... but god do I love a fully painted model that has been given requisite love from start to finish. Well, if I want to earn that satisfaction, I guess I need to get over myself and do those few things I hate doing in order to get it.
You want to have +10 VP to improve your record at an event from 2-2 to 3-1? You want +40 VP total for tie breakers to go from 3rd place to 2nd place? If these are the things you chase... I would suggest you get the brushes out and do the parts of the hobby you hate, too. That's the price, right?
I mean, even looking at it negatively where "you're being penalized 10 VP for not bothering to paint" - there is a solution, right? Some primer, some contrast, and a few hours should take care of your problem. I'm also pretty sure someone above even gave you a non-GW brushless method of achieving this lofty standard for "battle ready" that GW is forcing upon you.
For the local clubs or garage games? Ignore it. No need to be a jerk to your friends... or be a jerk to them... coax and pressure them to get into that phase of the hobby. Ask them what is holding them back, and then help them overcome it. Socialize and be excellent to each other. You know, things good clubs do for each other. Organize paintings days, help your mate get his army painted up to battle ready so he stops losing games, have discord chat nights while you guys paint so you're not doing it alone.
... Or continue to be like: damn GW for punishing me for making the hobby a worse, less immersive, place because I hate X or Y.
You want the 10 VP? Sounds like you got a new motivation to get over your fear of fielding shoddy paint jobs (hell, I'd still consider myself bad at my best) or find that extra time. Amazing what a little push can do for you to find that motivation.
Blndmage wrote: Blind girl who played 3-5th, came back in 8th checking in here.
Hers pics of my army only the Sentry Pylon is recently done (my wife actually had to help me, as even this simple job became so frustratingly impossible I broke down in tears) the rest were done in 4th, when I had muuuuch better vision and motor skills.
(Posted links rather than pics to keep the thread from getting messed up)
https://imgur.com/a/HnXAJdm https://imgur.com/a/KI8PXzz
I've been following 9th with high hopes.
The 1/2" stuff will probably cause me to lose more than I hope.
The paining requirements, well, if blank bases are fine, then I'm ok, but if I base them, I'll literally lose models, I lost a whole squad of warriors at a pick up game in a random store while I wasnt used to going to.
As a disabled Warhammer player, not just my vision, but a few other issues that impact my play as well, I'm frustrated by this rule.
I was really liking 9th, this makes me...not like it.
I was super psyched for Crusdae, after reading it, I was really excited as it's what I've always been wanting.....but then I saw this rule in there..
There are lots of things about the game that make it hard for me, but I've always pushed through, found ways to manage, personal tricks that make it possible for me to play, but this feels like I'm just screwed. I know a few other disabled gamers. I'm the pest painter on the group, and for some, they physically can't do it, but have found ways to play regardless and enjoy the game. This is like a slap in the face.
"Get a friend to paint them" Why would a put all that work on my friends, most dont enjoy or care about 40k, it not a feasible thing.
"Pay to get them painted, you can afford to my models, so obviously you can get them painted" HAHAHAHAHA No. you think I can afford models! If it wasn't for eBay and charity from other gamers, as well as my 20yr old self being more able bodied and able to work, which I can't any more, I wouldn't even have a enough for a 500pnt army. Disabled people generally can't afford the prices GW charges, the second hand market isn't much better at times.
"If it's this hard for you, just stop playing" I've been told that my Dakka members in the past, with enough people supporting the person and this view that I did stop playing, as my local 40k community had the same attitude.
I don't think anybody will have a problem not honoring the rule in your case, or in a lot of cases (like new players). I honestly think this is a problem solved by not playing against ***holes.
WYSIWYG was, iirc an official rule in the past, and lots of people still proxied, etc, and the world didn't fall into chaos.
I don't want poorly painted models. I'm ok with my own bad painting but saying "rattle can, wash and dry brush" means that model is now painted in a way that isn't congruent with the rest of my models.
AngryAngel80 wrote: Some rules are just made to watch the world burn. Thank you GW, add just a bit more fuel to the dung fire that is 2020.
The Irony of including a rule for gate keeping while so recently saying how Warhammer is for everybody isn't lost on me though. Guess its for everyone who is rich and loves to paint eh ? Maybe a company name change to PaintsWorkshop.
The gate keeping argument is hilarious. The rule literally doesn't prevent anyone from playing or partaking. Thats hardly gatekeeping. No more then rules that encourage min maxing or taking the latest and greatest despite the expense.
AngryAngel80 wrote: Some rules are just made to watch the world burn. Thank you GW, add just a bit more fuel to the dung fire that is 2020.
The Irony of including a rule for gate keeping while so recently saying how Warhammer is for everybody isn't lost on me though. Guess its for everyone who is rich and loves to paint eh ? Maybe a company name change to PaintsWorkshop.
Kayback wrote: I don't want poorly painted models. I'm ok with my own bad painting but saying "rattle can, wash and dry brush" means that model is now painted in a way that isn't congruent with the rest of my models.
How's this an incentive again?
Yeah, this is definitely the worst part of the rule, in that it encourages you to paint badly just to satisfy the rule, rather than taking your time to paint your entire army well, even if it means playing with a few unpainted models in the meantime.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Crimson wrote: Blindmage, you or any person in a similar situation obviously has a very good reason for being exempted of this rule and if anyone argues otherwise, they're a dick.
That being said, your Necrons look fine to me so you'd be getting those ten points regardless.
Just want to second this. I can't imagine anyone would be such a jerk that they would try to use this rule against someone with a disability that made it difficult for them to comply, and anyone who did would not be worth playing with.
To the folks who think I could be given a pass due to my disability.
In garagehammer groups, you'd be right.
At FLGS's? Literally had my vision used against me on a number of occasions, and when I called it out at the store? A slap on the wrist, and zero consequences. The digital local groups froze me out or told me to "play better".
The local community is competitive and tournament focused.
I've tried to find folks who I could play not at stores with, but I've become a Pariah now.
Being a disabled gamer isn't easy of as fun as you'd imagine.
Most gamers are...at least not consciously ablist, but it's a huuuge issue.
That's not even touching on the misogyny that's almost a core tennentnof many gaming circles.
Literally had folks cancel/ghost games and big organized things after I changed my avatar in our local groups to a pic of me.
Sorry, but you're in the wrong hobby. That is all.
I don't enjoy painting. I do enjoy playing.
Go on-tell me why I'm wrong.
Oh oh, do me too while youre at it Grimtuff.
I enjoy painting, I enjoy playing.
Not all my models are painted because i want them painted to a certain level and i'm a slow painter.
I also happen to not want to burn myself out painting at mach speed at night instead of doing other things i enjoy (40k isnt at the center of my life).
I also want to test my models before playing them so i know how i should equip them/if theyre worth being put at the top of my painting queue.
Am i wrong?
Yes. I also paint to an extremely high standard. The BRS is literally a base you can start at to get there.
Some honest advice. Spray the models while they are still on the sprue, dip wash them optionally (not required), then clean and assemble them onto the bases. Do the basing prior to assembly. Drybrush them or zenithal form an can or airbrush. From there they are BRS and you can take all the sweet time you want upping the standard.
AngryAngel80 wrote: Have you looked up the price for clippers lately ? Ouch and that is just clippers.
About $10 on Amazon for a quality set of side clippers that will last at least a decade of regular use. The trick to find good ones is to look in the electrician supplies section, not the hobbyist section.
I did say buying them direct from GW, I promise you they aren't just 10$ lol
Blndmage wrote: To the folks who think I could be given a pass due to my disability.
In garagehammer groups, you'd be right.
At FLGS's? Literally had my vision used against me on a number of occasions, and when I called it out at the store? A slap on the wrist, and zero consequences. The digital local groups froze me out or told me to "play better".
The local community is competitive and tournament focused.
I've tried to find folks who I could play not at stores with, but I've become a Pariah now.
Being a disabled gamer isn't easy of as fun as you'd imagine.
Most gamers are...at least not consciously ablist, but it's a huuuge issue.
I believe they would fall strongly into the "jerk" category then. That sucks and I feel for you. I'd give you a game any day (and waive the painting points )
Unfortunately I'm not getting any games at all, CV-19 and all.
Blndmage wrote: To the folks who think I could be given a pass due to my disability.
In garagehammer groups, you'd be right.
At FLGS's? Literally had my vision used against me on a number of occasions, and when I called it out at the store? A slap on the wrist, and zero consequences. The digital local groups froze me out or told me to "play better".
The local community is competitive and tournament focused.
I've tried to find folks who I could play not at stores with, but I've become a Pariah now.
Being a disabled gamer isn't easy of as fun as you'd imagine.
Most gamers are...at least not consciously ablist, but it's a huuuge issue.
I'm really sorry to hear this. These people are dicks.
yukishiro1 wrote: That's a bit of an odd hot-take. Painting is by far the cheapest part of the hobby. The paint to paint a whole army to the battle ready standard will cost you less than the cost of almost any kit GW sells these days.
The rich part is based on the model cost, the love to paint part is its own thing. Either way if you really want to paint well that does actually take a good deal of cash, proper set ups, brushes, paints, replacement when they dry out or go bad which happens more than would be ideal. The residuals of the hobby aspect aren't cheap and are outright overly expensive if you get the tools through GW. Have you looked up the price for clippers lately ? Ouch and that is just clippers.
Yeah but GW isn't requiring you to paint well, just to paint to a very basic standard. A can of spray paint, two additional colors, a wash, a texture paint, and a $1 paintbrush will get you there. No need to use GW paints either. A can of spray paint is $5 off amazon, two vallejo paints, a texture paint, and two bottles of army painter wash (assuming you have a big army, if not, one is fine) is another $15. So that's about $25 to paint your army to the standard GW wants. I.e. cheaper than practically every kit GW sells these days.
I don't think anyone who can afford to buy the kits is going to find the cost of paint a serious limiting factor. Time? Sure, maybe. But cost? Not really.
You can do it without an actual paintbrush actually. Spray them on the spru prior to assembly. Zenithal after assembly. Spray the bases with texture paint, glue on bases. Dip wash in minwax if you wanted. It would take longer to assemble them then to actually paint anything to that standard. That standard also doesn't prevent folks from painting the models further to higher standards.
yukishiro1 wrote: That's a bit of an odd hot-take. Painting is by far the cheapest part of the hobby. The paint to paint a whole army to the battle ready standard will cost you less than the cost of almost any kit GW sells these days.
The rich part is based on the model cost, the love to paint part is its own thing. Either way if you really want to paint well that does actually take a good deal of cash, proper set ups, brushes, paints, replacement when they dry out or go bad which happens more than would be ideal. The residuals of the hobby aspect aren't cheap and are outright overly expensive if you get the tools through GW. Have you looked up the price for clippers lately ? Ouch and that is just clippers.
Yeah but GW isn't requiring you to paint well, just to paint to a very basic standard. A can of spray paint, two additional colors, a wash, a texture paint, and a $1 paintbrush will get you there. No need to use GW paints either. A can of spray paint is $5 off amazon, two vallejo paints, a texture paint, and two bottles of army painter wash (assuming you have a big army, if not, one is fine) is another $15. So that's about $25 to paint your army to the standard GW wants. I.e. cheaper than practically every kit GW sells these days.
I don't think anyone who can afford to buy the kits is going to find the cost of paint a serious limiting factor. Time? Sure, maybe. But cost? Not really.
I'll say it again, the cost is the models, the time is the paint, time and skill that is. However the cost is still there as an additional drag for the paint as well. It won't break the bank of course but then it may, every nickel and dime adds up after all. As well not amazing painted actually takes away re sale value if you ever want to do that or feel you might in the future which could be a consideration for leaving the models primed or bare. Doesn't as much matter to me, I've said countless times I have painted stuff to run, I just disagree with the rule on its face and believe it sucks. Anything that is going to cause this much division at the end isn't good for the game, community or hobby at large.
I'd also add, while painted is good, it can be very intimidating for everyone to do that or feel you have to be fully painted before even playing. As some will hold even newbs to that standard and it will really sour them to their learning curve the game has, as well as heavy cost and time sunk into it if you do paint. However letting all come in, free of pressure has never made anyone I've known not wish to paint, if anything they push themselves to do it because they want to, not because the game spanks them to. That is a very large difference.
Blndmage wrote: To the folks who think I could be given a pass due to my disability.
In garagehammer groups, you'd be right.
At FLGS's? Literally had my vision used against me on a number of occasions, and when I called it out at the store? A slap on the wrist, and zero consequences. The digital local groups froze me out or told me to "play better".
The local community is competitive and tournament focused.
I've tried to find folks who I could play not at stores with, but I've become a Pariah now.
Being a disabled gamer isn't easy of as fun as you'd imagine.
Most gamers are...at least not consciously ablist, but it's a huuuge issue.
The problem with this is... that gaming circle probably drove away all the classy players you need to be playing with with their style of cut throat play. The players you need to be with have probably already broken away and gone underground to play in someone's garage :(
I doubt you are a pariah, I'm sure if you started to dig down into the problem you'll find that the proprietor allows that toxic environment to persist that is driving players away, or indoctrinating new players into that culture.
Not saying it is a good thing, but it certainly appears that it would be the problem you're facing. You don't deserve to face it, but definitely do not let that one group of jerks sour your perception of everyone... that's just one FLGS that has lost their way (especially on the F part), and have succumbed to an elitist circle that isn't going to be welcoming to ANYONE, much less a disabled person that requires a little more time and understanding to game with.
FWIW: You come to my house with a gray army on the table? I'll flip out a painted model for an unpainted model, or more likely... just suspend the darn rule. But we strive to make everyone we invite to our table feel welcomed, because it ain't about winning... it is about having a room of excellent people having a good time together. No amount of VP is going to help that. The game is secondary to the camaraderie of being with friends.
For tournaments? Where those 10 VP mean something (other than internet bragging points)? I'd enforce the standard the same across the board. If you expect me to come to a tournament with a competitive list so you can feel like you got my best game... then I can expect you to come with a fully painted army so I can feel like I got the most immersive experience despite getting walloped all day. Being a disabled army veteran... I'd like to be held to the same standard as everyone else, despite my shortcomings/issues. If we're in a garage playing over some beers? Sure, suspend the parts of the rules we don't want to play... but in an organized setting where people are competing? Establish the standard, and then enforce it evenly. This rule does nothing more than establish the standard so now it can be evenly enforced (because before now... it was awkwardly applied, at best).
I'm sick of people having unpainted armies at events coming from the Warmachine community.
I haven't had a game with my Iron Hands since the codex dropped since I haven't finished painting them. When I started this hobby the local GW had a rule where you couldnt play games at events or vet's night if you didnt have the models painted. I love that GW went with this rule and I appreciate what they've been doing the past few years with this push of painting streams/community/direction they're going.
However I have two minor issues with it:
- If you're disabled/colorblind/cant move you should automatically get it
- If you're playing at your own home and not at an event
The 10 points should be a reward over the 100 base points, not included in the score if I'm reading that right.
Blndmage wrote: Blind girl who played 3-5th, came back in 8th checking in here.
Hers pics of my army only the Sentry Pylon is recently done (my wife actually had to help me, as even this simple job became so frustratingly impossible I broke down in tears) the rest were done in 4th, when I had muuuuch better vision and motor skills.
(Posted links rather than pics to keep the thread from getting messed up)
https://imgur.com/a/HnXAJdm https://imgur.com/a/KI8PXzz
I've been following 9th with high hopes.
The 1/2" stuff will probably cause me to lose more than I hope.
The paining requirements, well, if blank bases are fine, then I'm ok, but if I base them, I'll literally lose models, I lost a whole squad of warriors at a pick up game in a random store while I wasnt used to going to.
As a disabled Warhammer player, not just my vision, but a few other issues that impact my play as well, I'm frustrated by this rule.
I was really liking 9th, this makes me...not like it.
I was super psyched for Crusdae, after reading it, I was really excited as it's what I've always been wanting.....but then I saw this rule in there..
There are lots of things about the game that make it hard for me, but I've always pushed through, found ways to manage, personal tricks that make it possible for me to play, but this feels like I'm just screwed. I know a few other disabled gamers. I'm the pest painter on the group, and for some, they physically can't do it, but have found ways to play regardless and enjoy the game. This is like a slap in the face.
"Get a friend to paint them" Why would a put all that work on my friends, most dont enjoy or care about 40k, it not a feasible thing.
"Pay to get them painted, you can afford to my models, so obviously you can get them painted" HAHAHAHAHA No. you think I can afford models! If it wasn't for eBay and charity from other gamers, as well as my 20yr old self being more able bodied and able to work, which I can't any more, I wouldn't even have a enough for a 500pnt army. Disabled people generally can't afford the prices GW charges, the second hand market isn't much better at times.
"If it's this hard for you, just stop playing" I've been told that my Dakka members in the past, with enough people supporting the person and this view that I did stop playing, as my local 40k community had the same attitude.
I don't think anybody will have a problem not honoring the rule in your case, or in a lot of cases (like new players). I honestly think this is a problem solved by not playing against ***holes.
WYSIWYG was, iirc an official rule in the past, and lots of people still proxied, etc, and the world didn't fall into chaos.
Nope. If you have to houserule something, it means there's a problem with the rule at hand. Either you actually DO agree with it or you don't, Insectum. This isn't some middle ground thing.
Also-this won't affect big tournaments. They already have painting requirements. This is really only going to affect casual games-and not positively, it would seem to me.
Blndmage wrote: Blind girl who played 3-5th, came back in 8th checking in here.
Hers pics of my army only the Sentry Pylon is recently done (my wife actually had to help me, as even this simple job became so frustratingly impossible I broke down in tears) the rest were done in 4th, when I had muuuuch better vision and motor skills.
(Posted links rather than pics to keep the thread from getting messed up)
https://imgur.com/a/HnXAJdm https://imgur.com/a/KI8PXzz
I've been following 9th with high hopes.
The 1/2" stuff will probably cause me to lose more than I hope.
The paining requirements, well, if blank bases are fine, then I'm ok, but if I base them, I'll literally lose models, I lost a whole squad of warriors at a pick up game in a random store while I wasnt used to going to.
As a disabled Warhammer player, not just my vision, but a few other issues that impact my play as well, I'm frustrated by this rule.
I was really liking 9th, this makes me...not like it.
I was super psyched for Crusdae, after reading it, I was really excited as it's what I've always been wanting.....but then I saw this rule in there..
There are lots of things about the game that make it hard for me, but I've always pushed through, found ways to manage, personal tricks that make it possible for me to play, but this feels like I'm just screwed. I know a few other disabled gamers. I'm the pest painter on the group, and for some, they physically can't do it, but have found ways to play regardless and enjoy the game. This is like a slap in the face.
"Get a friend to paint them"
Why would a put all that work on my friends? Most dont enjoy or care about 40k, it not a feasible thing.
"Pay to get them painted, you can afford to my models, so obviously you can get them painted"
HAHAHAHAHA No. you think I can afford models! If it wasn't for eBay and charity from other gamers, as well as my 20yr old self being more able bodied and able to work, which I can't any more, I wouldn't even have a enough for a 500pnt army. Disabled people generally can't afford the prices GW charges, the second hand market isn't much better at times. I've been saving for something new for my Necrons since I started playing in the summer of 2018, that money has been used for groceries and rent. At best I saved $26ish to get my Sentry Pylons. If I were commingninto the hobby now, as an adult, I couldn't afford it, even if I saved up.
"If it's this hard for you, just stop playing"
I've been told that my Dakka members in the past, with enough people supporting the person and this view that I did stop playing, as my local 40k community had the same attitude.
The fact that anyone would tell you not to play when you fight so hard to is a shame. I completely feel for your situation and it isn't directly for you I argue my points on why this is a bad rule but it adds to my passion to say we as a community should shun a rule that makes anyone feel like they are being forced out, or gate kept. Yes we can make exceptions to the rules for people with disability or hardship but, and tell me if I'm wrong, we shouldn't have to make exception for it. The rules themselves shouldn't be set up in a way that we need to ignore core rules just to make sure others feel included and not pushed out due to no choice of their own.
It's a crap rule, it shouldn't be in there, has never been in there in 40k. If tournaments want to enforce paint standards, that is on them but it shouldn't be hard baked into each and every mission, period. It's not good, will only cause headaches and adds nothing but division when we should be bound together as a community.
Why is this in the rules? If events want to mandate fully painted, they are entirely within their rights to do so, and I'd prefer they did. However this just feels like something that gets house ruled away in casual play.
How does making sure my plasma guns are plasma gun and my chainswords are chainswords and my Space Marines are Space Marines change the game, in reference to dice rolls and saving throws?
It doesn't.
Don't you have a codex? An official assembled model is 100% clear about what it is and what specific weapons it carries.
An unassembled model will likely have no guns at all, and maybe only generic parts that makes impossible to say what unit it represent. A standard infantry dude? A heavy weapon specialist? A sargent? The warlord?
Painted and assembled models are exactly the same in terms of who is who, unassembled models aren't.
WYSIWYG is not a thing in 8th edition or 9th edition. So what a model has is irrelevant to what it might have on your list (if it even has anything at all). Assembling minis is a convention to play the game, not in the rules.
Similarly, painting is a convention, though they put this soft incentive into the rule in this case.
Nope. If you have to houserule something, it means there's a problem with the rule at hand. Either you actually DO agree with it or you don't, Insectum. This isn't some middle ground thing.
I'm happy with the rule, but I'm happy to waive it in various circumstances. It's fine.
Like WYSIWYG. It was a rule, but lots of people comfortably proxied just the same.
I virtually never put an unpainted mini on the table even as a Guard player. I dilligently paint everything, generally don't have a big backlog of stuff to work on and find it fairly easy to get going on big projects so long as I have everything setup when I come home from work.
I'm not going to lie, it does affect the experience when I play against someone who doesn't take the effort to paint their stuff and it's certainly less fun that way.
But here's the thing.
This rule is divisive and utterly, totally moronic, to the point that I can't rationally understand why anyone would defend it.
Putting aside all of the obvious points to make that people are playing to enjoy the strategy behind the game as well as the hobby, the fact that people have busy schedules, low motivation and a litany of other things preventing them from painting which are reasonable and noone else's business....
If you're running a narrative event or something and require your playerbase to paint everything, I don't see an issue, people can play elsewhere and there's nothing inherently wrong with wanting to create a private environment where people who particularly enjoy painting can play games.
But what GW have done here is give anyone not so much an excuse to, but an inclination to flip the bird to anyone who doesn't have painted models in any context and feel superior because of it. I take serious issue with that on a basic level of showing respect to others and if I saw someone demand the points in order to win I'd frankly take note to not play that person.
Whether it's in the rules or not, I'd sincerely hope people only pull this on people with a sense of humour and humility.
Nope. If you have to houserule something, it means there's a problem with the rule at hand. Either you actually DO agree with it or you don't, Insectum. This isn't some middle ground thing.
I'm happy with the rule, but I'm happy to waive it in various circumstances. It's fine.
Like WYSIWYG. It was a rule, but lots of people comfortably proxied just the same.
Do you drive exactly the speed limit?
You don't just waive rules because you feel like. Either the rule is good or bad.
Also yes I do stick to the speed limit, only ever going 5 above at most. Granted I have a garbage Civic that can't go fast whatsoever so it is what it is.
You shouldn't need to waive it though and the fact we already are having made decisions on when and if and why we ignore a core rule, the rule is broken before it's released.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Hell the fact I'm agreeing with Slayer Fan on this should be some kind of indication this is bad. The fact our vision is aligning on this frightens me to the core of my dark soul.
Nope. If you have to houserule something, it means there's a problem with the rule at hand. Either you actually DO agree with it or you don't, Insectum. This isn't some middle ground thing.
I'm happy with the rule, but I'm happy to waive it in various circumstances. It's fine.
Like WYSIWYG. It was a rule, but lots of people comfortably proxied just the same.
Do you drive exactly the speed limit?
You don't just waive rules because you feel like. Either the rule is good or bad.
Also yes I do stick to the speed limit, only ever going 5 above at most. Granted I have a garbage Civic that can't go fast whatsoever so it is what it is.
No man, you either follow the speed limit exactly or you just have to get rid of it because you don't believe it. It's a bad rule.
I virtually never put an unpainted mini on the table even as a Guard player. I dilligently paint everything, generally don't have a big backlog of stuff to work on and find it fairly easy to get going on big projects so long as I have everything setup when I come home from work.
I'm not going to lie, it does affect the experience when I play against someone who doesn't take the effort to paint their stuff and it's certainly less fun that way.
But here's the thing.
This rule is divisive and utterly, totally moronic, to the point that I can't rationally understand why anyone would defend it.
Putting aside all of the obvious points to make that people are playing to enjoy the strategy behind the game as well as the hobby, the fact that people have busy schedules, low motivation and a litany of other things preventing them from painting which are reasonable and noone else's business....
If you're running a narrative event or something and require your playerbase to paint everything, I don't see an issue, people can play elsewhere and there's nothing inherently wrong with wanting to create a private environment where people who particularly enjoy painting can play games.
But what GW have done here is give anyone not so much an excuse to, but an inclination to flip the bird to anyone who doesn't have painted models in any context and feel superior because of it. I take serious issue with that on a basic level of showing respect to others and if I saw someone demand the points in order to win I'd frankly take note to not play that person.
Whether it's in the rules or not, I'd sincerely hope people only pull this on people with a sense of humour and humility.
You, Sir are wise. This is what I'm saying. I'm sure as well people would put in the effort if they play with you a lot to paint their armies, to respect your enjoyment of the game as well. Not because you demand they do it but because you are chill, reasonable and it would be a solid. That is the reason we should want to paint, to make the experience better for each other and not try and force and punish people into it. That just feels bad and makes it a shame driven thing and that isn't what we should be seeking in the game/hobby/community.
pm713 wrote: There's a difference between being a big part and being a needed part. It's perfectly possible to play 40k and never paint. The rules shouldn't penalise you for not painting and house rules shouldn't be needed to play a decently structured game.
I'm curious, if I demanded people bring written copies of their personal lore for their army to play the game and gave them 10% less points if they didn't do so how many people who are saying that the paint rule is fine would be cool with that?
It is perfectly possible to play 40k using shot glasses and tupperware for vehicles. You should try to pull off the pepsi keeper of secrets then.
Your wrong because it's codified in the rules and disagree or that you think this is somehow stopping you from playing, despite it not.
I will agree with you that the rules state that a painted army gets an extra 10 points, when painted to exactly Battle Ready standards.
But why SHOULD it be that way? And why SHOULD you mock others or denigrate them for not wanting to paint?
I mean, what's the difference between "You should paint your models before you play with them!" and "You should memorize a model's rules before you paint them!"
Nope. If you have to houserule something, it means there's a problem with the rule at hand. Either you actually DO agree with it or you don't, Insectum. This isn't some middle ground thing.
I'm happy with the rule, but I'm happy to waive it in various circumstances. It's fine.
Like WYSIWYG. It was a rule, but lots of people comfortably proxied just the same.
Do you drive exactly the speed limit?
You don't just waive rules because you feel like. Either the rule is good or bad.
Also yes I do stick to the speed limit, only ever going 5 above at most. Granted I have a garbage Civic that can't go fast whatsoever so it is what it is.
No man, you either follow the speed limit exactly or you just have to get rid of it because you don't believe it. It's a bad rule.
AngryAngel80 wrote: You shouldn't need to waive it though and the fact we already are having made decisions on when and if and why we ignore a core rule, the rule is broken before it's released.
Don't be absurd. There are shedload of laws, customs, regulations and requirements in real life that are perfectly sensible and useful and still need to be waived in some specific circumstances. Like if you're receiving a delivery they might require a signature and as general practice that is fine and sensible but it still should be waived in a situation where the recipient if for medical reasons unable of signing their name.
Are we now conflating receiving punitive measures from not following a stated law with receiving a boon for going "above the standard" (or what appears to be the standard if there is an incentive for putting paint on your plastic).
That's where the speed limit argument breaks down. I don't violate the speed limit because there is a very real punitive action taken against me if I choose to violate it. I don't follow the speed limit because it gets me there faster. I guess you could argue that we follow the speed limit for safety and insurance reasons (but even then that is purely to avoid punitive measures for not).
Like I can go my entire army career without receiving a medal for any of my service... but if I go above and beyond the normal standard... I get a little award for being a swell soldier. We're not throwing people article 15s and Courts Martials for not excelling at their jobs. Let's at least argue from a place of good faith here.
Nope. If you have to houserule something, it means there's a problem with the rule at hand. Either you actually DO agree with it or you don't, Insectum. This isn't some middle ground thing.
I'm happy with the rule, but I'm happy to waive it in various circumstances. It's fine.
Like WYSIWYG. It was a rule, but lots of people comfortably proxied just the same.
Do you drive exactly the speed limit?
You don't just waive rules because you feel like. Either the rule is good or bad.
Also yes I do stick to the speed limit, only ever going 5 above at most. Granted I have a garbage Civic that can't go fast whatsoever so it is what it is.
No man, you either follow the speed limit exactly or you just have to get rid of it because you don't believe it. It's a bad rule.
I don't purposely do it believe me
Well the flow on 101 tends to be around 75-78 when traffic is good. It's a 65 zone. Is the 65 speed limit a bad rule? Do we throw it out?
Or maybe we accept that the rule is a guideline and we allow some flexibility based on a communal understanding.
Your wrong because it's codified in the rules and disagree or that you think this is somehow stopping you from playing, despite it not.
I will agree with you that the rules state that a painted army gets an extra 10 points, when painted to exactly Battle Ready standards.
But why SHOULD it be that way? And why SHOULD you mock others or denigrate them for not wanting to paint?
I mean, what's the difference between "You should paint your models before you play with them!" and "You should memorize a model's rules before you paint them!"
Thats a false equivalency.
1. I am painting by myself.
2. You have to willfully be ignorant of the order of operation here.
I can paint my army and never play a game. If I play the game I have to now paint my models if I want +10 vps. It's not preventing anyone from playing btw.
I am not mocking folks that don't paint their models. I am mocking folks that don't want to paint their models yet still want to have their own way.
It's just as arbitrary to allow unpainted models on the table as to require them. GW literally has the business model of building, painting then playing with those models. This is hardly anything new despite the bitching.
It's entitlement 101
You can still show up play and have fun, you can still try to win and even pull off the win. Your just angry that someone that put in extra work is being rewarded. It doesn't matter if you don't like like that part. I hate the psychic phase, can I demand we don't play with psychers?
Your literally playing a game that is imbalanced to the point where purchases affect game outcome, but somehow the buck stops at painting your damned models? Your taking hours to learn the rules, hours to assemble them but apparently 10 minutes with a few rattle cans is the hill your going to die on? Oh and heaven forbid you might ASK your opponent for some leeway! I mean imagine debasing yourself and the blow to your pride that your might ask them to give you the points.
You know that gets me to thinking. GW should have made it a bonus section for sportsmanship. You get to reward your opponent +10 points for having a BRS minimum army. Had it been implemented like that are you saying you would never reward your opponent for putting in the extra effort you refuse to?
AngryAngel80 wrote: You shouldn't need to waive it though and the fact we already are having made decisions on when and if and why we ignore a core rule, the rule is broken before it's released.
Don't be absurd. There are shedload of laws, customs, regulations and requirements in real life that are perfectly sensible and useful and still need to be waived in some specific circumstances. Like if you're receiving a delivery they might require a signature and as general practice that is fine and sensible but it still should be waived in a situation where the recipient if for medical reasons unable of signing their name.
The fact you're talking to me of actual legal handling shouldn't need to be made for a game designed for fun. Don't you see how off the wall that is ? That my friend is the peak of absurd. This isn't the law of the land, it's rules for a miniature game. We shouldn't need to be already deciding to enforce it on some people and ignore it for others as that is a sure sign the law is broke as a damn joke and not a funny one either.
Game rules shouldn't need to be ignored for some and enforced to just shame and be little others, that is the exact opposite of fun and inclusive.
The fact you're talking to me of actual legal handling shouldn't need to be made for a game designed for fun. Don't you see how off the wall that is ? That my friend is the peak of absurd. This isn't the law of the land, it's rules for a miniature game. We shouldn't need to be already deciding to enforce it on some people and ignore it for others as that is a sure sign the law is broke as a damn joke and not a funny one either.
Game rules shouldn't need to be ignored for some and enforced to just shame and be little others, that is the exact opposite of fun and inclusive.
The rule does not prevent anyone from playing and if we are talking about hobbies and disabilities, of course sometimes you need to make special dispensations. If you assume that any game that cannot be played unmodified by people with any disability that could potentially exist is fundamentally a bad game, then I doubt any good games can exist. Hell, rock-paper-scissors assumes that the player has at least one functioning hand!
Nope. If you have to houserule something, it means there's a problem with the rule at hand. Either you actually DO agree with it or you don't, Insectum. This isn't some middle ground thing.
I'm happy with the rule, but I'm happy to waive it in various circumstances. It's fine.
Like WYSIWYG. It was a rule, but lots of people comfortably proxied just the same.
Do you drive exactly the speed limit?
You don't just waive rules because you feel like. Either the rule is good or bad.
Also yes I do stick to the speed limit, only ever going 5 above at most. Granted I have a garbage Civic that can't go fast whatsoever so it is what it is.
No man, you either follow the speed limit exactly or you just have to get rid of it because you don't believe it. It's a bad rule.
I don't purposely do it believe me
Well the flow on 101 tends to be around 75-78 when traffic is good. It's a 65 zone. Is the 65 speed limit a bad rule? Do we throw it out?
Or maybe we accept that the rule is a guideline and we allow some flexibility based on a communal understanding.
So the rest of the people are breaking the law, perfect.
Blndmage wrote: To the folks who think I could be given a pass due to my disability.
In garagehammer groups, you'd be right.
At FLGS's? Literally had my vision used against me on a number of occasions, and when I called it out at the store? A slap on the wrist, and zero consequences. The digital local groups froze me out or told me to "play better".
The local community is competitive and tournament focused.
I've tried to find folks who I could play not at stores with, but I've become a Pariah now.
Being a disabled gamer isn't easy of as fun as you'd imagine. Most gamers are...at least not consciously ablist, but it's a huuuge issue. That's not even touching on the misogyny that's almost a core tennentnof many gaming circles. Literally had folks cancel/ghost games and big organized things after I changed my avatar in our local groups to a pic of me.
Hey Blindmage, sounds like a gakky, sexist, ableist local scene you've got, sorry to hear that. If you're ever in the UK let me know, I play with a lovely group of players who give no grief and are friendly and kind, we'd be well up for playing some Canadian Crons!
For what it's worth, you've changed my mind on this rule. I was previously all for it, but hearing it from your perspective I no longer like it.
Good luck on building a little group of players who are cool & not-dicks.
Nope. If you have to houserule something, it means there's a problem with the rule at hand. Either you actually DO agree with it or you don't, Insectum. This isn't some middle ground thing.
I'm happy with the rule, but I'm happy to waive it in various circumstances. It's fine.
Like WYSIWYG. It was a rule, but lots of people comfortably proxied just the same.
Do you drive exactly the speed limit?
You don't just waive rules because you feel like. Either the rule is good or bad.
Also yes I do stick to the speed limit, only ever going 5 above at most. Granted I have a garbage Civic that can't go fast whatsoever so it is what it is.
No man, you either follow the speed limit exactly or you just have to get rid of it because you don't believe it. It's a bad rule.
I don't purposely do it believe me
Well the flow on 101 tends to be around 75-78 when traffic is good. It's a 65 zone. Is the 65 speed limit a bad rule? Do we throw it out?
Or maybe we accept that the rule is a guideline and we allow some flexibility based on a communal understanding.
So the rest of the people are breaking the law, perfect.
Perfection is the enemy of good enough.
GW wants to encourage you to paint your army. They give you a little bonus for doing so. Players can follow the rule or not follow the rule, and set standards for their respective communities at their discretion. Good enough!
The fact you're talking to me of actual legal handling shouldn't need to be made for a game designed for fun. Don't you see how off the wall that is ? That my friend is the peak of absurd. This isn't the law of the land, it's rules for a miniature game. We shouldn't need to be already deciding to enforce it on some people and ignore it for others as that is a sure sign the law is broke as a damn joke and not a funny one either.
Game rules shouldn't need to be ignored for some and enforced to just shame and be little others, that is the exact opposite of fun and inclusive.
The rule does not prevent anyone from playing and if we are talking about hobbies and disabilities, of course sometimes you need to make special dispensations. If you assume that any game that cannot be played unmodified by people with any disability that could potentially exist is fundamentally a bad game, then I doubt any good games can exist. Hell, rock-paper-scissors assumes that the player has at least one functioning hand!
I'm about to blow up your whole world view here but I'm going to say it. You ever stop to think maybe those with disabilities don't want you to lower the bar for them all the time ? Maybe they want to push and strive and meet you on a more equal level ? Why should there be a rule that is punitive, doesn't at all change game play, only further divides us all and as a side effect negatively effects disabled players and is being openly praised as a way to shame and punish people in the game who either paint slow, don't like or paint and can't meet their " Battle Ready " dumb standard for whatever reason ?
It's a poor rule, a crap rule. Painting should be something you strive for not something you are directly punished by the game itself for not doing to its standards.
The fact you're talking to me of actual legal handling shouldn't need to be made for a game designed for fun. Don't you see how off the wall that is ? That my friend is the peak of absurd. This isn't the law of the land, it's rules for a miniature game. We shouldn't need to be already deciding to enforce it on some people and ignore it for others as that is a sure sign the law is broke as a damn joke and not a funny one either.
Game rules shouldn't need to be ignored for some and enforced to just shame and be little others, that is the exact opposite of fun and inclusive.
The rule does not prevent anyone from playing and if we are talking about hobbies and disabilities, of course sometimes you need to make special dispensations. If you assume that any game that cannot be played unmodified by people with any disability that could potentially exist is fundamentally a bad game, then I doubt any good games can exist. Hell, rock-paper-scissors assumes that the player has at least one functioning hand!
I'm about to blow up your whole world view here but I'm going to say it. You ever stop to think maybe those with disabilities don't want you to lower the bar for them all the time ? Maybe they want to push and strive and meet you on a more equal level ? Why should there be a rule that is punitive, doesn't at all change game play, only further divides us all and as a side effect negatively effects disabled players and is being openly praised as a way to shame and punish people in the game who either paint slow, don't like or paint and can't meet their " Battle Ready " dumb standard for whatever reason ?
It's a poor rule, a crap rule. Painting should be something you strive for not something you are directly punished by the game itself for not doing to its standards.
It's not a rule that exists in the free PDF Core rules and associated mission.
The rule should have just been: "The game is played with assembled and painted GW models. If your army does not comply with these rules, check with your opponent before the game to make sure they are ok with your army."
There was no need to get overly technical with VPs for painting, any more than there was a need to give people 10VPs for a fully assembled force, or for not proxying, or WYSIWYG, or whatever else.
I've never heard something so absurd. He's like the anti powergamer.
