So, now that Battle Ready standard can potentially win you 10 victory points the definition of the term gets a little more important. Is it defined anywhere in the Core Book? Sorry if it’s in there and I just haven’t spotted it.
Is this simply one of those things where common sense prevails: if you are even playing this rule you just look at the models and agree that a reasonable effort has been made?
Or do you use the description of battle ready from the GW painting guides? In that case they seem to require the use of a technical paint on the base or you aren’t getting the points :-)
What is Battle Ready?
If a model is Battle Ready, it means it’s ready to game with. Battle Ready models have their main areas coloured and an simple finish on their bases.
Some people will probably come and argue that if you don't use shade while painting or base with transparent bases it won't count as battle ready. I'm pretty sure it means : basecoated, highlighted and based miniature counts as battleready
The only definiton we have is 'If a model is Battle Ready, it means it’s ready to game with. Battle Ready models have their main areas coloured and an simple finish on their bases.'
So no highlighting or shading needed. Hell, you could say that undercoated models have their main areas coloured.
Further you could possibly argue that a 2019 war com article is insufficient to define the meaning of 'battle ready' for a 2020 ruleset that doesn't directly reference it.
If you're playing in a tournament, the painting requirements will be stated.
If you're playing casually, pulling an 'ACKSHUALLY since my models are painted to a GW-Certified Battle-Ready Standard, I won the game, despite achieving fewer in-game VPs', you should reflect on why you feel a need to be That Guy.
"Battle Ready means that your models are fully painted with a detailed or textured base."
It also adds a couple of examples. From those, it seems that base color + shade, or contrast, is the minimum acceptable standard.
Ah okay. But then that means the minimum acceptable standard is 'fully painted with a detailed or textured base' which means shade or highlighting isn't needed (given the examples aren't exhaustive). Which also means GD standard models with plain black bases or transparent ones aren't acceptable.
If you're playing in a tournament, the painting requirements will be stated.
If you're playing casually, pulling an 'ACKSHUALLY since my models are painted to a GW-Certified Battle-Ready Standard, I won the game, despite achieving fewer in-game VPs', you should reflect on why you feel a need to be That Guy.
Just seems like a complete non-issue to me.
Pretty much this. I've never been to, or even seen a tournament that didn't specifically list what was needed to meet their painting standard, and outside of tournaments, who cares? It's pretty much a nothing rule.
Shooter wrote: Ah okay. But then that means the minimum acceptable standard is 'fully painted with a detailed or textured base' which means shade or highlighting isn't needed (given the examples aren't exhaustive). Which also means GD standard models with plain black bases or transparent ones aren't acceptable.
So, are you going to be the guy who insists that the GD winner doesn't get 10VP and you do in your casual, non-tournament game?
Like, where does this matter? Seems more like a litmus test for weeding out the WAAC donkey-caves.
catbarf wrote: If you're playing in a tournament, the painting requirements will be stated.
If you're playing casually, pulling an 'ACKSHUALLY since my models are painted to a GW-Certified Battle-Ready Standard, I won the game, despite achieving fewer in-game VPs', you should reflect on why you feel a need to be That Guy.
Just seems like a complete non-issue to me.
Eeeh...gw made that core rule. Not optional. Trying to claim you won despite not having painted army would make you cheating tfgwaac.
Complain to gw. They made rule. It's not tournament rule or optional. It's core rules.
Are you ignoring maximum point limit rule as well? Paying cp for stratagems? -1 to hit for moving and shooting heavy with infantry?
Shooter wrote: Ah okay. But then that means the minimum acceptable standard is 'fully painted with a detailed or textured base' which means shade or highlighting isn't needed (given the examples aren't exhaustive). Which also means GD standard models with plain black bases or transparent ones aren't acceptable.
So, are you going to be the guy who insists that the GD winner doesn't get 10VP and you do in your casual, non-tournament game?
Like, where does this matter? Seems more like a litmus test for weeding out the WAAC donkey-caves.
Gw says so. It's not optional rule. Gw says it's part of gw"s scenarios. Either you make your own scenarios and house rule it or use it. Or you are the waac donkey-cave
catbarf wrote: If you're playing in a tournament, the painting requirements will be stated.
If you're playing casually, pulling an 'ACKSHUALLY since my models are painted to a GW-Certified Battle-Ready Standard, I won the game, despite achieving fewer in-game VPs', you should reflect on why you feel a need to be That Guy.
Just seems like a complete non-issue to me.
Eeeh...gw made that core rule. Not optional. Trying to claim you won despite not having painted army would make you cheating tfgwaac.
Complain to gw. They made rule. It's not tournament rule or optional. It's core rules.
Are you ignoring maximum point limit rule as well? Paying cp for stratagems? -1 to hit for moving and shooting heavy with infantry?
Shooter wrote: Ah okay. But then that means the minimum acceptable standard is 'fully painted with a detailed or textured base' which means shade or highlighting isn't needed (given the examples aren't exhaustive). Which also means GD standard models with plain black bases or transparent ones aren't acceptable.
So, are you going to be the guy who insists that the GD winner doesn't get 10VP and you do in your casual, non-tournament game?
Like, where does this matter? Seems more like a litmus test for weeding out the WAAC donkey-caves.
Gw says so. It's not optional rule. Gw says it's part of gw"s scenarios. Either you make your own scenarios and house rule it or use it. Or you are the waac donkey-cave
Aaaaannnd there it begins. Better lock this thread early @mods
Interesting GW haven't taken transparent bases into account. They also say textured or detailed base which would imply a simple colour on the base is not enough it needs to have depth of some description.
As this definition is in CA2020 does that mean there is still no definition for those playing out of the rule book?
Tallonian4th wrote: Interesting GW haven't taken transparent bases into account. They also say textured or detailed base which would imply a simple colour on the base is not enough it needs to have depth of some description.
As this definition is in CA2020 does that mean there is still no definition for those playing out of the rule book?
technically the default black bases that come with miniatures ARE textured. so no need to do anything to them.
Thats the main problem with this rule : its not precise enough so people are gonna try and read into it so it advantages them (ie : makes them win games)
Shooter wrote: The only definiton we have is 'If a model is Battle Ready, it means it’s ready to game with. Battle Ready models have their main areas coloured and an simple finish on their bases.'
So no highlighting or shading needed. Hell, you could say that undercoated models have their main areas coloured.
Further you could possibly argue that a 2019 war com article is insufficient to define the meaning of 'battle ready' for a 2020 ruleset that doesn't directly reference it.
It also means that if you have a complex finish on your base, you lose the 10 points because it's no longer battle ready.
Gw says so. It's not optional rule. Gw says it's part of gw"s scenarios. Either you make your own scenarios and house rule it or use it. Or you are the waac donkey-cave
Every rule is optional if you and your opponent agree, and GW have always taken that stance too.
Tallonian4th wrote: Interesting GW haven't taken transparent bases into account. They also say textured or detailed base which would imply a simple colour on the base is not enough it needs to have depth of some description.
As this definition is in CA2020 does that mean there is still no definition for those playing out of the rule book?
technically the default black bases that come with miniatures ARE textured. so no need to do anything to them.
Thats the main problem with this rule : its not precise enough so people are gonna try and read into it so it advantages them (ie : makes them win games)
No, the problem with the rule is that it's arse slowed to try and make painting a part of gaming.
You don't see the golden daemon having a minimum ITC ranking, do you?
Thats the main problem with this rule : its not precise enough so people are gonna try and read into it so it advantages them (ie : makes them win games)
Paint your army and the opponent doesn't get advantage.
I am not sure who is more "that guy", the one that wants the 10 VP he is entitled to or the one that denies the opponent from having it while playing grey legion himself.
catbarf wrote: If you're playing in a tournament, the painting requirements will be stated.
If you're playing casually, pulling an 'ACKSHUALLY since my models are painted to a GW-Certified Battle-Ready Standard, I won the game, despite achieving fewer in-game VPs', you should reflect on why you feel a need to be That Guy.
Just seems like a complete non-issue to me.
Eeeh...gw made that core rule. Not optional. Trying to claim you won despite not having painted army would make you cheating tfgwaac.
Complain to gw. They made rule. It's not tournament rule or optional. It's core rules.
Are you ignoring maximum point limit rule as well? Paying cp for stratagems? -1 to hit for moving and shooting heavy with infantry?
Shooter wrote: Ah okay. But then that means the minimum acceptable standard is 'fully painted with a detailed or textured base' which means shade or highlighting isn't needed (given the examples aren't exhaustive). Which also means GD standard models with plain black bases or transparent ones aren't acceptable.
So, are you going to be the guy who insists that the GD winner doesn't get 10VP and you do in your casual, non-tournament game?
Like, where does this matter? Seems more like a litmus test for weeding out the WAAC donkey-caves.
Gw says so. It's not optional rule. Gw says it's part of gw"s scenarios. Either you make your own scenarios and house rule it or use it. Or you are the waac donkey-cave
See, 'I am forced to claim additional victory points over you in our casual game because the book says so, and if you score 5 more VPs than me you are still officially the loser' is perfectly emblematic of the gaming attitude I avoid, so hearing this right up-front would save me a game. Rule works great.
ERJAK wrote: You don't see the golden daemon having a minimum ITC ranking, do you?
There are a decent amount of people on here who say that making painting part of gaming is fine, but making gaming part of painting is stupid and shouldn't be done.
Thats the main problem with this rule : its not precise enough so people are gonna try and read into it so it advantages them (ie : makes them win games)
Paint your army and the opponent doesn't get advantage.
I am not sure who is more "that guy", the one that wants the 10 VP he is entitled to or the one that denies the opponent from having it while playing grey legion himself.
i paint my armies, at least to a basic basecoat (haha, airbrush go pssssst). I still played all my games of 9th with 90pts maximum. I dont want to win a game because i have an airbrush to quickly make my army battle ready against the guy that doesnt have one and hates painting. I also don't want to lose a game because i want to try out my converted khorne berzerkers before i received the chain axes i'm waiting on.
What is Battle Ready?
If a model is Battle Ready, it means it’s ready to game with. Battle Ready models have their main areas coloured and an simple finish on their bases.
Yep, that's all you need to know. Main areas coloured, simple finish on the bases. The examples are just examples. No highlighting needed, no fancy basing. People are making things way more complicated than it needs to be. If you ever come up against someone who is like "hey! this guy isn't highlighted! no 10 points for you!" you've just found a good person not to play with again.
Of course you should highlight and paint better than the minimum, but the minimum is extremely minimal.
What is Battle Ready?
If a model is Battle Ready, it means it’s ready to game with. Battle Ready models have their main areas coloured and an simple finish on their bases.
Yep, that's all you need to know. Main areas coloured, simple finish on the bases. The examples are just examples. No highlighting needed, no fancy basing. People are making things way more complicated than it needs to be. If you ever come up against someone who is like "hey! this guy isn't highlighted! no 10 points for you!" you've just found a good person not to play with again.
Of course you should highlight and paint better than the minimum, but the minimum is extremely minimal.
You should if you enjoy painting, or if you're attending a tournament or gaming club or similar that requires you to have painted minis.
If you don't enjoy painting, and aren't going to a place with minimum painting requirements, then you don't need to paint.
Sure. If you and your buddies are happy with the grey plastic pile look, more power to you I guess.
Just like if little Timmy thinks buying and assembling models is a waste of time and money and wants to just play with cardboard cut-outs, that's fine too, as long as little Timmy's buddies all agree.
Technically all rules are optional, no one actually played 7th and 8th the correct way (You are supposed to build your army after you knew what the mission was) but as players we all agreed to not tailor our lists and just bring one with maybe a couple options for pick up games.
You should talk to your opponent first like always, or if in a league or event follow their rules.
PS: Battle ready is just a finish looking model, if it looks cool even 2 colors works. PICTURE FOR EXAMPLE
no detail, just solid red, blue, grey and green for 4 squads of termintors, and light green and black for strike squads. Characters all have yellow bases, so I can spot them easier.
Tbh I think it just means *vaguely painted*. Which I guess doesn't help people who want a hard definition - but really, its pretty obvious I think if a miniature has seen paint or not.
1. Grey plastic=no.
2. One basecoat spray of white, black, red, whatever=still no.
3. More or less *anything* that's a step up from this qualifies.
If people start going "haha, no washing or contrast paint used=not battle ready" then they are awful people you shouldn't be playing with.
Yeah, this really doesn't have to be complicated. If you did something more than spray painting the model a single color, it's probably fine.
Weasels will always try to weasel (both by putting the requirement too high or by trying to say that spraypainting your models then haphazardly splashing a splotch of different color paint on the head qualifies) and the only thing to do about that is not play with weasels.
Well if GW or an opponent wants to claim my completely painted armies not battle ready because I've never painted my clear flight stands (landspeeders)?
Or because I haven't used shade/contrast paint that didn't exist when I painted the army?
Karol wrote: no detail, just solid red, blue, grey and green for 4 squads of termintors, and light green and black for strike squads. Characters all have yellow bases, so I can spot them easier.
If your want to be clearly compliant, you should paint & texture the top of the bases. You can use the squad coloring for the rims. That will leave them easily identifiable while being clearly battle ready.
if its above just being primed or if the way they primed/base coated it made it look like a cohesive army I'd give it to them. I wouldn't mind it not being based either. Then again I only play with friends and we would have discussed this before hand or not use the rule.
yukishiro1 wrote: Yeah, this really doesn't have to be complicated. If you did something more than spray painting the model a single color, it's probably fine.
Weasels will always try to weasel (both by putting the requirement too high or by trying to say that spraypainting your models then haphazardly splashing a splotch of different color paint on the head qualifies) and the only thing to do about that is not play with weasels.
I only play my models once theyre basecoated + highlighted with an airbrush, pretty sure that counts as "battle-ready"
I've been wrong in the past, but I don't think anyone really has an actual problem figuring out whether something qualifies or not. Anyone who actually tries to nickle and dime people on this is just not someone you should be playing with.
It's one of those "know it when you see it" sort of things. Anyone can tell within five seconds of looking at someone's army whether it complies. Is it more than just spray-canned a single color? Then it's fine.
Thats the main problem with this rule : its not precise enough so people are gonna try and read into it so it advantages them (ie : makes them win games)
Paint your army and the opponent doesn't get advantage.
I am not sure who is more "that guy", the one that wants the 10 VP he is entitled to or the one that denies the opponent from having it while playing grey legion himself.
If we're going A or B there, jullevi, I'd lean towards B myself.
I would also say it is a poor move by GW to introduce this terminology in the core rulebook and define it in there.
It was stupid to put it in the core rulebook, and it seems like a pretty transparent attempt to sell paints (especially texture paints for the bases, you know that's why they put that in there). Tournaments and events already have their own rules; for anything that isn't an organized event, what's the point of mandating things? People can do it on their own.
The basic issue is it doesn't actually please anyone. I want to play people who paint their models; giving me 10VP as some sort of consolation prize for fighting the guy with the tide of grey plastic doesn't make me happy, just like penalizing him 10VP for it doesn't make him happy either. It's a "feels bad" rule that doesn't actually improve anyone's experience. Especially as it encourages people to paint badly but quickly, instead of taking the time to paint well. I know I'd rather play someone who has 90% of his army painted up beautifully along with a new unit that's just spraypainted because he hasn't had the 40 hours to do a great job on it than the guy with the tide of spraypainted blue marines with red heads and some texture paint splashed on the base. Yet the rule penalizes the guy with the beautiful army and rewards the one with the quick and lazy job.
Like I said in the other thread, it's a stupid rule that is left far to much to interpretation and abuse.
If you don't play it you can be considered a bad gamer, if you do play it you can be considered a bad gamer. If you apply it strictly you can be a bad gamer, if you apply it loosely you can be a bad gamer. Any way you swing it can get you labelled "one of those guys".
It's a bad rule. It also has absolutely nothing to do with the game played on the table and introduces an off table source of VPs, which can be slippery sloped into idiocy. (see all the points about next time people with only factory standard GW models get +5, people who used GW dice and rulers get +15, people who used non GW paints get -250 pts.)
I think this is a far less serious issue than people are making it. In a tournament setting it will be well defined. In a pick up game the worse thing that happens is after the game some sore loser might go "oh your not TECHNICALLY battle ready so I get those extra 10 points which puts me ahead so I win." You can hang around and argue pointlessly or you can move on with your life knowing it's a pick up game and it's only bragging rights if that you gain.
Gangland wrote: I think this is a far less serious issue than people are making it. In a tournament setting it will be well defined. In a pick up game the worse thing that happens is after the game some sore loser might go "oh your not TECHNICALLY battle ready so I get those extra 10 points which puts me ahead so I win." You can hang around and argue pointlessly or you can move on with your life knowing it's a pick up game and it's only bragging rights if that you gain.
That's exactly why it shouldn't be a rule. Events are free to have a minimum standard, and they usually define it (which isn't the case for the core rule book). In a casual game it shouldn't matter one way or the other, so why is it a rule?
Gangland wrote: I think this is a far less serious issue than people are making it. In a tournament setting it will be well defined. In a pick up game the worse thing that happens is after the game some sore loser might go "oh your not TECHNICALLY battle ready so I get those extra 10 points which puts me ahead so I win." You can hang around and argue pointlessly or you can move on with your life knowing it's a pick up game and it's only bragging rights if that you gain.
That's exactly why it shouldn't be a rule. Events are free to have a minimum standard, and they usually define it (which isn't the case for the core rule book). In a casual game it shouldn't matter one whay or the other, so why is it a rule?
To encourage me to get my thumb out of my arse and step up my paint game, IME. Which has... worked?
We (as in me and those I play with) thought this rule was a joke the first time we read it.
A few weeks into 9th and with quite a few games under our belts, we still think it's a joke, and we only bring it up for meme's and giggles.
To me, hearing a friend claim "I won because my army is painted" just makes me feel like he's having a laugh.
However, when I imagine two people who don't really know each other (pickup-game or tournament) bring this up though, I just cringe...
I know I wouldn't be able to tell my opponent who technically won with 5 VP that I actually won with 5 VP because my army was painted and his wasn't - at least not with a straight face.
With that said, if it encourages people to get some color on their model's that's great I guess.
MinscS2 wrote: We (as in me and those I play with) thought this rule was a joke the first time we read it.
A few weeks into 9th and with quite a few games under our belts, we still think it's a joke, and we only bring it up for meme's and giggles.
To me, hearing a friend claim "I won because my army is painted" just makes me feel like he's having a laugh.
However, when I imagine two people who don't really know each other (pickup-game or tournament) bring this up though, I just cringe...
I know I wouldn't be able to tell my opponent who technically won with 5 VP that I actually won with 5 VP because my army was painted and his wasn't - at least not with a straight face.
With that said, if it encourages people to get some color on their model's that's great I guess.
although it'd be a great way to deflate some WAACTFG whose crowing that his entirely grey plastic OPFOTM netlist that he took against your loveingly painted underpowered lore list beat you, by pointing out "actually you lost because my army was painted to battle ready standard and yours wasn't" and honestly outside of tournies using this as a "painting reccomended but not required" mechanic thats where I see the most use of this coming into play
Eeeh...gw made that core rule. Not optional. Trying to claim you won despite not having painted army would make you cheating tfgwaac.
Complain to gw. They made rule. It's not tournament rule or optional. It's core rules.
Are you ignoring maximum point limit rule as well? Paying cp for stratagems? -1 to hit for moving and shooting heavy with infantry?
Gw says so. It's not optional rule. Gw says it's part of gw"s scenarios. Either you make your own scenarios and house rule it or use it. Or you are the waac donkey-cave
Anyone who would tell little Timmy who wanted to try out the new models he just bought in a game at their FLGS that they lose because they didn't paint their models in a casual game is a scumbag, an donkey-cave, and an idiot. And personally, I don't know about you guys, but if I saw such poor sportsmanlike behavior I'd walk up to said scumbag and break his jaw tbqh.
As lame as it'd be to be the guy who insisted on taking 10 points off little Timmy in those circumstances, being the guy who responded to that with violence is surely even lamer.
Well but there are other situation, like for example our store close down. So we have to play in another one. This means there is already more competition for same number of tables, on top of it we are coming in with armies bought at another store, so the sympathy from the other store owner is zero. We have to travel longer to the store, which probably isn't that bad for someone with a car, but by bus it is 2 hours there and 2 hours back. Getting a lose in a store event, because metalic blades on your halabards and not the real power weapon colour mean your army is not painted, is not very fun.
yukishiro1 wrote: As lame as it'd be to be the guy who insisted on taking 10 points off little Timmy in those circumstances, being the guy who responded to that with violence is surely even lamer.
I'm hoping it's just an Internet Tough Guy hyperbole thing.
And Karol, there's no such thing as "real power weapon colour" - depending on the writer or artist, a power weapon can have a glow or not. After all, how many glowing power fists do you see - and they use the same tech!
yukishiro1 wrote: As lame as it'd be to be the guy who insisted on taking 10 points off little Timmy in those circumstances, being the guy who responded to that with violence is surely even lamer.
I'm sure little Timmy appreciates your flaccid and impotent moral support.
The point of this rule is that GW wants to encourage fully painted armies in the context of organized events.
They have recognized that tournaments and tournament players are a meaningful part of their player base. They have decided to engange directly with this part of the player base. They want to encourage people to bring fully painted armies, because a) marketing and b) fluff, so they put in a rule that rewards it.
Event organizers now have a standard rule for penalizing unpainted armies. Event organizers who don't like it can change it, just like they can with missions. TOs can exercise discretion on what counts as standard.
For pick up and casual play, it is a non-issue. If you strongly disagree about it, you can refuse to play. If your ego is so sensitive that you can't handle losing, particularly over something you can 100% control (by, you know, painting your models), then I recommend you put away your Marines and toughen up with a few dozen losses using GSC or DE.
yukishiro1 wrote: Sure. If you and your buddies are happy with the grey plastic pile look, more power to you I guess.
Just like if little Timmy thinks buying and assembling models is a waste of time and money and wants to just play with cardboard cut-outs, that's fine too, as long as little Timmy's buddies all agree.
Cardboard and proxies are a vital part of the hobby given GW's poor balance. When you cannot rely on all the models you get for Christmas being good enough you need to playtest the rules that GW didn't bother balancing properly such that you can put together an effective Christmas wish-list. Many tournaments were already pushing for painted armies and most players want to play against painted armies on some level, I like to win, but my ego is not so fragile I mind losing by a couple of pts because I brought an unpainted unit, it was when I was a teenager, but this is just too small to get mad about considering how wrong GW got pts in 9th. I actually agree with the sentiment that it will discourage people from bringing their grey plastic just to win, we all know Eradicators are OP, you are not testing them out or looking to have fun, you are looking to stomp on my vehicles for cheap and you couldn't even wait to beat me silly long enough to get your Eradicators painted. BLAM, painting score lost. I'm still going to treat my clear-based models as battle-ready, although I think some people hate clear bases more than grey plastic. Hopefully, this new measure will get rid of painting scores at events, the true horror of getting accurate information on competitive balance, I think it's fair to assume and demand everyone at a GT is battle-ready, but for everyone to be gentlemen of the highest order and master painters I do not think is fair. Just paint your minis as well as you can and try not to be a git and then let GW know who actually won the tournament, not who made the most friends or who has the steadiest hands or the largest wallet. Perhaps prizes should be given only to best sportsman and best painter, but nobody on another continent cares how good of a sportsman someone is, we care which list was best.
This is rule that should have gone into a event or tournament pack.
Its clear its a bad rule when using it against some players is seen is mean or waac, then only a post or so later not wanting to use it is seen as a sensitive Ego in a casual environment.
I think the rule is kind of BS and I can totally understand why someone wouldn't agree that they should have lost a game when they were ahead in VP before paint score and I don't think that's having a fragile ego and I didn't mean to say that although reading my post again I can see how it could be interpreted that way.
In GW games sometimes you just have to have your personal victories, kill at least one unit against an OP army or a better player, destroy the enemy army even if you cannot get back on VP etc. etc. Paint score winning a game isn't any different than winning because you are playing with more OP units than your opponent, it's only problematic when it affects tournament rankings and given that it's a minimum requirement it's not horrible, but having +3VP for 3 colours, +2VP for based + 5VP for pro-level paint would be much worse even if the majority of people would only get +5 instead of +10 against grey tides. I will personally never enforce the battle ready bonus, I wouldn't even enforce it against someone who was proxying their entire army with cardboard, but I wouldn't punch someone for trying to enforce it against me.
Eeeh...gw made that core rule. Not optional. Trying to claim you won despite not having painted army would make you cheating tfgwaac.
Complain to gw. They made rule. It's not tournament rule or optional. It's core rules.
Are you ignoring maximum point limit rule as well? Paying cp for stratagems? -1 to hit for moving and shooting heavy with infantry?
Gw says so. It's not optional rule. Gw says it's part of gw"s scenarios. Either you make your own scenarios and house rule it or use it. Or you are the waac donkey-cave
Anyone who would tell little Timmy who wanted to try out the new models he just bought in a game at their FLGS that they lose because they didn't paint their models in a casual game is a scumbag, an donkey-cave, and an idiot. And personally, I don't know about you guys, but if I saw such poor sportsmanlike behavior I'd walk up to said scumbag and break his jaw tbqh.
Go for it. I've got a good lawyer. You'll be buying me new models for the rest of your life.
One of the basic concepts of 9th edition is to remove the event packs, so I kind of understand the existence of this rule. Almost all events had some requirements on models being painted, so since those requirements are no more, they have put a basic requirement in the common tournament package. It is actually more permissive than the other ones, which were actually "No full paint, no game". This one at least allows you to go to an even without a full painted army, accepting that you are not really competing but it's more of a trial run. From this point of view, I understand the existence of this rule.
What I cannot understand is why it is in the basic matched play rules. Assuming that this was the logic, it should have been a rule of CA2020, which are the rules for events. Why is it in the basic matched play rules that are meant for friendly games???
Eeeh...gw made that core rule. Not optional. Trying to claim you won despite not having painted army would make you cheating tfgwaac.
Complain to gw. They made rule. It's not tournament rule or optional. It's core rules.
Are you ignoring maximum point limit rule as well? Paying cp for stratagems? -1 to hit for moving and shooting heavy with infantry?
Gw says so. It's not optional rule. Gw says it's part of gw"s scenarios. Either you make your own scenarios and house rule it or use it. Or you are the waac donkey-cave
Anyone who would tell little Timmy who wanted to try out the new models he just bought in a game at their FLGS that they lose because they didn't paint their models in a casual game is a scumbag, an donkey-cave, and an idiot. And personally, I don't know about you guys, but if I saw such poor sportsmanlike behavior I'd walk up to said scumbag and break his jaw tbqh.
Yeah, sure mate. Take you internet toughguy hat off, you know that act doesn't work in 2020...
I've been wrong in the past, but I don't think anyone really has an actual problem figuring out whether something qualifies or not. Anyone who actually tries to nickle and dime people on this is just not someone you should be playing with.
It's one of those "know it when you see it" sort of things. Anyone can tell within five seconds of looking at someone's army whether it complies. Is it more than just spray-canned a single color? Then it's fine.
Except that's not how rules work. If it's a rule then it needs to be clearly defined. Strength 3 vs toughness 3 doesn't wound on 'like...idk 2, 5 and 3 when I'm hungry'; it wounds on a 4+
That's why including it in the rules is stupid. Once it is a rule it has to be treated like a rule. If you say battle ready standard and define battle ready standard as 'all areas covered and a simple finish on the base' then a complex finish on the base disqualifies you as much as not having anything on your base. The same way a meltagun doesn't get to wound a leman russ on a 3 because 'idk man, it kinda feels like melta should do that'.
It’s a terribly written rule, but I understand the sentiment. TOs will obviously apply discretion as to whether they enforce, but I suspect larger tournaments will stick to their current “all armies must be painted and based”. I won’t be fighting to play this rule in a friendly game, but then again if an opponent insists, I don’t really mind, as it’s a game.
GW’s problem is a terrible description of battle ready; the definition should be along the lines of “painted and based in a cohesive scheme using a combination of colours.”
yukishiro1 wrote: As lame as it'd be to be the guy who insisted on taking 10 points off little Timmy in those circumstances, being the guy who responded to that with violence is surely even lamer.
I'm sure little Timmy appreciates your flaccid and impotent moral support.
Legal-e-tea wrote: GW’s problem is a terrible description of battle ready; the definition should be along the lines of “painted and based in a cohesive scheme using a combination of colours.”
It literally says "completely painted model with a detailed base or a base done with technical paints" (translated from my German version). Right below is a picture showing 8 different examples, 4 each for contrast and classical method of painting.
Not meant to poke at you, but I don't see how the description is "terrible"?
yukishiro1 wrote: The German version sounds better than the English one (and what a classic GW mess that is - the rules are now different in different languages?).
that's due to literal & direct translations, no language translates 100% into another. If you are writing something, which in one language means one thing, but by directly translating, causes it to have an entirely different meaning.
English has far too many interpretations of what word means what in which order, which makes it a complete headache if you are doing any sort of technical translations.
The English one says "Battle Ready means your models are fully painted with a detailed or textured base."
So, no matter how much extra work you put into it, it will still be a fully painted model with a detailed/textured base.
Anyways, I have found the perfect loophole in that rule for me. I bought a bunch of cheap acrylic paints and some brushes and whenever I paint models, I let my 4 year old daughter run wild with paint on models not in queue for painting.
We are having fun painting together, I get my 10 VP for having my models fully painted and I get to annoy paint elitists with abstract kindergarten art.
Jidmah wrote: The English one says "Battle Ready means your models are fully painted with a detailed or textured base."
So, no matter how much extra work you put into it, it will still be a fully painted model with a detailed/textured base.
Anyways, I have found the perfect loophole in that rule for me. I bought a bunch of cheap acrylic paints and some brushes and whenever I paint models, I let my 4 year old daughter run wild with paint on models not in queue for painting.
We are having fun painting together, I get my 10 VP for having my models fully painted and I get to annoy paint elitists with abstract kindergarten art.
If she puts it on thick enough, you even get the textured base.
Jidmah wrote: The English one says "Battle Ready means your models are fully painted with a detailed or textured base."
Oh, that's interesting, the Battle Ready rule is different in the CA2020 book than it is on their website, and it isn't defined in the core rulebook at all, unless I can't find it.
The webpage says: "Battle Ready models have their main areas coloured and an simple finish on their bases." Which is less clear.
yukishiro1 wrote: The German version sounds better than the English one (and what a classic GW mess that is - the rules are now different in different languages?).
that's due to literal & direct translations, no language translates 100% into another. If you are writing something, which in one language means one thing, but by directly translating, causes it to have an entirely different meaning.
English has far too many interpretations of what word means what in which order, which makes it a complete headache if you are doing any sort of technical translations.
That is soooo true. There are some amusing videos around of people who take the rather literal translation a computer would do, like say, Google Translate, and then have it translated back to English to show just how odd those Translations go. One of my favorites is has Google Translator put songs through multiple translations and then back in to English, and then she sings them. Some of the results I had to stop several times to catch my breath from laughing to hard.
And yeah, English is a lousy language to do a ruleset in, but it is one that the creators know and use.
As a new player this rule is actually quite a blocker to learning how to play the game. I have only played a few games so far and in all of them I have had unpainted models as I was learning what each unit was and what it did. I play one new unit a game to get a feel for it and it is tacked together and in grey primer. This allows me to get a feel for the unit and the rules before I commit to how I build and paint it. Knowing I would have this army a long time I didn't want to rush into a paint job just so I could play a game.
Luckily I took my time and I'm really happy with the look I have picked for my models but it took time and testing. No one I played against cared my models were grey, they were happy to help someone join the hobby. Of the games I have played I have only won one and it was only by a few points this rule would have robbed me of that first victory. It discourages people from playing by putting a new player at a disadvantage or it means they spend so long painting they loose interest in playing or they rush it and end up with an army they don't like the look of. None of which are good.
Also if seasoned players are confused by what Battle Ready is what hope do new players have?
Anyone who would tell little Timmy who wanted to try out the new models he just bought in a game at their FLGS that they lose because they didn't paint their models in a casual game is a scumbag, an donkey-cave, and an idiot. And personally, I don't know about you guys, but if I saw such poor sportsmanlike behavior I'd walk up to said scumbag and break his jaw tbqh.
No, you wouldn't.
Ridiculous threats of improbable violence don't add anything productive to your argument. Don't do this.
tneva82 wrote: Eeeh...gw made that core rule. Not optional. Trying to claim you won despite not having painted army would make you cheating tfgwaac.
Claiming that after the game, with no prior discussion of the rule, potentially does. In practice though, I suspect this rule will be largely regarded in casual play as somewhat akin to the original AoS rules that gave bonuses to people with moustaches or the like, and people will just ignore it.
Being a core rule doesn't actually force anyone to use it.
Jidmah wrote: The English one says "Battle Ready means your models are fully painted with a detailed or textured base."
Oh, that's interesting, the Battle Ready rule is different in the CA2020 book than it is on their website, and it isn't defined in the core rulebook at all, unless I can't find it.
The webpage says: "Battle Ready models have their main areas coloured and an simple finish on their bases." Which is less clear.
No matter how you look at it, an article released on the community page of the game long before this edition's release is not a rule.
Shouldn't be a rule and only serves to justify "That Guy" or elitist behavior. Tournaments and organized events can do what they want regarding painting standards but FLGS pick up game are no place to punish people for not having models painted. The community shot down the larping rules for AoS so hopefully people will do the right thing and condemn this rule as well.
Jidmah wrote: The English one says "Battle Ready means your models are fully painted with a detailed or textured base."
Oh, that's interesting, the Battle Ready rule is different in the CA2020 book than it is on their website, and it isn't defined in the core rulebook at all, unless I can't find it.
The webpage says: "Battle Ready models have their main areas coloured and an simple finish on their bases." Which is less clear.
No matter how you look at it, an article released on the community page of the game long before this edition's release is not a rule.
Yeah, but it's all we had until CA2020. I was saying it's interesting, because I didn't realize that they actually do define it in CA2020. But that's technically only for tournaments, so it remains undefined in the core rulebook and the eternal war missions, unless I just glazed over it in the main rulebook.
tneva82 wrote: Eeeh...gw made that core rule. Not optional. Trying to claim you won despite not having painted army would make you cheating tfgwaac.
Claiming that after the game, with no prior discussion of the rule, potentially does.
Springing it on someone at the end of the game, without mentioning it beforehand, would seem a bit weird - surely the best time to confirm the Battle Ready status of each army is during initial set-up, so both players know where they stand regarding this tertiary objective before the game begins?
yukishiro1 wrote:But that's technically only for tournaments, so it remains undefined in the core rulebook and the eternal war missions, unless I just glazed over it in the main rulebook.
Silly question, as I've yet to have a look myself - is it actually a factor in the scoring for the Eternal War missions? I seem to recall it only applies to one format of the game, not all of them, so wouldn't be surprised if it only cropped up for one mission type.
It really should've been defined, with examples, in the core rulebook, though.
yukishiro1 wrote: Yeah, but it's all we had until CA2020. I was saying it's interesting, because I didn't realize that they actually do define it in CA2020. But that's technically only for tournaments, so it remains undefined in the core rulebook and the eternal war missions, unless I just glazed over it in the main rulebook.
That rule is not part of the mission pack, it is written in its own chapter. RAW it's as much a rule for regular matched play games as the updated point values from the same publication are.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Nevelon wrote: If she puts it on thick enough, you even get the textured base.
Being a core rule doesn't actually force anyone to use it.
No, but it does mean it's in use unless you explicitly ask to ignore it. So there would be no springing it on someone because it's a core rule that's always in effect unless you specifically agree to ignore it for every game you play.
auticus wrote: Yep you have to houserule it out for it not to be in effect.
And that of course... is the slippery slope
Except you know that gamers are selective about "good" houserules and "bad" houserules. Getting rid of those silly AOS rules at launch (the joke rules)? Good house rule those were stupid anyway. Making forests block LOS? Bad house rule and not fair how dare you change the rules. This rule? Maybe good house rule. Just constant double standards.
If this is restricted to tournaments I’d be fine with it. I’ve know a few people enter army’s for FLGS tournaments that weren’t painted and every time someone was told they can’t use that army, there was always a “where in the rules does it say that”.
But for core play, it’s a hell no. Places will have to say yes this rule applys or no it doesn’t. Then there always be exceptions. Any store isn’t going to penalise someone who’s just got started with the hobby, but when do you turn around and say well you have to start painting them and basing them. When I was you I spent what I had on figures not paints. I imagine it’s still the same in a lot of cases.
All that can come from this rule is toxicity and ill feelings. The best case scenario for this rule is that it’s ignored in all places.
auticus wrote: Yep you have to houserule it out for it not to be in effect.
And that of course... is the slippery slope
Except you know that gamers are selective about "good" houserules and "bad" houserules. Getting rid of those silly AOS rules at launch (the joke rules)? Good house rule those were stupid anyway. Making forests block LOS? Bad house rule and not fair how dare you change the rules. This rule? Maybe good house rule. Just constant double standards.
How is that a double standard?
It'd be a double standard if, say, forests block LoS for you, but not for me. But just thinking some houserules are good, and some aren't? That's not a double standard, that's just thinking about the quality of game adjustments.
Templarted wrote: The best case scenario for this rule is that it’s ignored in all places.
I'd argue the best case is that people get their damned armies painted and based, but to each their own.
Do you really want to have people paint because they feel forced to, and therefore probably do a poor job and possibly quit the hobby entirely?
I can 100% understand wanting to play against well-painted armies, since that improves the experience, but if you're picky enough that you refuse to play unpainted ones, just start a gaming club with a minimum painting standard. It's what my local GW manager does-he won't play an unpainted army at all (excepting demo games, where someone might want to use their free Intercessor or whatever that's barely painted) but he still games. He just has friends who all have the same standards he does.
Except in this case there is something to consider. They have literally introduced an off-table element into scoring on table points. It's conceivable they can introduce other off table elements which give you on table points.
Templarted wrote: The best case scenario for this rule is that it’s ignored in all places.
I'd argue the best case is that people get their damned armies painted and based, but to each their own.
Do you really want to have people paint because they feel forced to, and therefore probably do a poor job and possibly quit the hobby entirely?
You aren't forced to do anything, you are choosing to paint because you care about vp. Just tell yourself it was only a technical win and make sure your opponent knows that paint adds nothing to the game for you.
I don't think that this will be a problem in actual games. In yesterday's match at the FLGS my opponent (we've had plenty of games before including tournies) had a handy app to track all our VPs. I wasn't keeping exact score myself. At the end he announced that I had won, while my rough calculus told me that I had lost. He looked at the iPad and said that I had the 10 VPs for Battle Ready while his army was still a WIP. He was ahead on Primary and Secondary by 7 points but I was now ahead by 3. We laughed and we had our post-game analysis (my third Secondary was just plain dumb for the situation). His armies are usually stunningly painted and no doubt this one will be in a few weeks.
If this rule means that a few more armies get finished then its a good thing.
If its a tourney then I imagine that they'll just go with the GW scoring for now with no drama. Everyone knows the rules - want to guarantee 10 VPs each match? Get painting. In pickup games winning and losing doesn't usually factor in. If the score in a pickup game is close enough that 10 VPs matter then it was a great game and people aren't going to get all excited. I think that most of us have enough EQ to sense if we are even going to get into VP counting in the first place. If its a new kid that has a grey army for his first game I highly doubt we are using Primaries and Secondaries and are just playing to learn.
Templarted wrote: The best case scenario for this rule is that it’s ignored in all places.
I'd argue the best case is that people get their damned armies painted and based, but to each their own.
Do you really want to have people paint because they feel forced to, and therefore probably do a poor job and possibly quit the hobby entirely?
You aren't forced to do anything, you are choosing to paint because you care about vp. Just tell yourself it was only a technical win and make sure your opponent knows that paint adds nothing to the game for you.
Or just don’t count it as a rule and the person who wins has done so regardless of the colour of the plastic they play with.
TangoTwoBravo wrote: I don't think that this will be a problem in actual games. In yesterday's match at the FLGS my opponent (we've had plenty of games before including tournies) had a handy app to track all our VPs. I wasn't keeping exact score myself. At the end he announced that I had won, while my rough calculus told me that I had lost. He looked at the iPad and said that I had the 10 VPs for Battle Ready while his army was still a WIP. He was ahead on Primary and Secondary by 7 points but I was now ahead by 3. We laughed and we had our post-game analysis (my third Secondary was just plain dumb for the situation). His armies are usually stunningly painted and no doubt this one will be in a few weeks.
Yeah, this is why I don't get it.
If it's a casual game? Well, if you scored more VPs than the opponent but technically lost because of the painting bonus, who cares? You know who actually won. You're playing for fun. Why get so bent out of shape about it?
If it's a tournament game? There will be painting requirements to start with, so neither of you will be getting VPs the other isn't.
I just cannot wrap my head around why this matters to anyone.
Templarted wrote: The best case scenario for this rule is that it’s ignored in all places.
I'd argue the best case is that people get their damned armies painted and based, but to each their own.
Do you really want to have people paint because they feel forced to, and therefore probably do a poor job and possibly quit the hobby entirely?
You aren't forced to do anything, you are choosing to paint because you care about vp. Just tell yourself it was only a technical win and make sure your opponent knows that paint adds nothing to the game for you.
Or just don’t count it as a rule and the person who wins has done so regardless of the colour of the plastic they play with.
The only time it would ever count for anything is in tournament play which already requires paint. Why does 10vp that we all acknowledge doesn't come from any on table play somehow lessen your game by giving your opponent a technical victory in non tournament play? It seems to me that the real issue is that gw enshrined it as an actual rule and it bothers people who love to use "offical rules" as a club to hear anything about painting from the same source.
TangoTwoBravo wrote: I don't think that this will be a problem in actual games. In yesterday's match at the FLGS my opponent (we've had plenty of games before including tournies) had a handy app to track all our VPs. I wasn't keeping exact score myself. At the end he announced that I had won, while my rough calculus told me that I had lost. He looked at the iPad and said that I had the 10 VPs for Battle Ready while his army was still a WIP. He was ahead on Primary and Secondary by 7 points but I was now ahead by 3. We laughed and we had our post-game analysis (my third Secondary was just plain dumb for the situation). His armies are usually stunningly painted and no doubt this one will be in a few weeks.
Yeah, this is why I don't get it.
If it's a casual game? Well, if you scored more VPs than the opponent but technically lost because of the painting bonus, who cares? You know who actually won. You're playing for fun. Why get so bent out of shape about it?
If it's a tournament game? There will be painting requirements to start with, so neither of you will be getting VPs the other isn't.
I just cannot wrap my head around why this matters to anyone.
If it doesn't matter, than why waste the text on it?
Especially since TFG can easily use this rule as a cudgel.
it's easy, if someone spent the time and effort to paint their stuff and another did not, the one who took the time should be rewarded for it. If you're mad about losing due to unpainted minis, the easiest way to avoid it in the future is
PAINT
YOUR
ARMY
seems pretty easy to me.
I have no problem playing against piles of grey. but would I rather play against an(at minimum) even minimally painted one over unpainted? feth yeah, not even a choice.
Racerguy180 wrote: it's easy, if someone spent the time and effort to paint their stuff and another did not, the one who took the time should be rewarded for it. If you're mad about losing due to unpainted minis, the easiest way to avoid it in the future is PAINT YOUR ARMY
seems pretty easy to me.
I have no problem playing against piles of grey. but would I rather play against an(at minimum) even minimally painted one over unpainted? feth yeah, not even a choice.
Which is exactly why you're not allowed to paint your squad leaders until you win a game with them!
The easiest way to avoid that in the future is to: PLAY SOME GAMES!
Seems pretty easy to me.
/sarcasm
Edit: More seriously, I don't find painting well to be easy. I'm not good at it, and moreover, I don't ENJOY it. Why should I have to do something I don't enjoy to play a fair game?
If you refuse to play games with unpainted minis, that's fine-I won't say you have to play me, or say you're rude or anything for that. That's your standard. But let me have my standard, and don't punish me in an unrelated area for it.
It sets an expectation. GW is telling you they, and by extension your opponent, expect you to show up with a fully assembled, painted, and based army. They are telling you the expected way to engage with the hobby is to do it all, not just show up with bases of half assembled models and call it good enough.
Outside of an organized event, you are free to ignore them. You can decide that those 10 points don't count and add the game to your win column when you technically lost by 3 points because your army was not Battle Ready and your opponent's was. You can give you army the benefits of winning the Crusade Game even if you technically lost because your army was not Battle Ready and your opponent's was. Nobody is going to break down your door and confiscate your models if you don't play by GW's rules.
But every time you look at the victory conditions of the game, you will know that the expectation is to play with a fully assembled, painted, and based army. What you do with that is up to you, not GW.
Edit: More seriously, I don't find painting well to be easy. I'm not good at it, and moreover, I don't ENJOY it. Why should I have to do something I don't enjoy to play a fair game?
You don't. You can play chess, or many other strategy or tactical games on both tabletop and on computer that are actually balanced and are not build around the visual spectacle of two painted armies clashing on a thematic terrain. I am utterly flabbergasted by the amount of people who chose this hobby that has always been about visuals and are now suddenly shocked that they're supposed to paint their models.
Edit: More seriously, I don't find painting well to be easy. I'm not good at it, and moreover, I don't ENJOY it. Why should I have to do something I don't enjoy to play a fair game?
You don't. You can play chess, or many other strategy or tactical games on both tabletop and on computer that are actually balanced and are not build around the visual spectacle of two painted armies clashing on a thematic terrain. I am utterly flabbergasted by the amount of people who chose this hobby that has always been about visuals and are now suddenly shocked that they're supposed to paint their models.
I have fun playing it. My friends play it too, and while chess is a great game, it doesn't scratch the same itch 40k does.
JNAProductions wrote: I have fun playing it. My friends play it too, and while chess is a great game, it doesn't scratch the same itch 40k does.
Why is my fun bad, and yours good?
So why you need those ten points to have fun then?
Two things:
1) I like to have as fair a game as possible. I know, 40k and balance go together like orange juice and toothpaste, but still.
2) There are people who will use this rule as a cudgel to say I'm playing 40k wrong. And that ticks me off.
Or just don’t count it as a rule and the person who wins has done so regardless of the colour of the plastic they play with.
The only time it would ever count for anything is in tournament play which already requires paint. Why does 10vp that we all acknowledge doesn't come from any on table play somehow lessen your game by giving your opponent a technical victory in non tournament play? It seems to me that the real issue is that gw enshrined it as an actual rule and it bothers people who love to use "offical rules" as a club to hear anything about painting from the same source.
It bothers me that it’s enshrined in rules. Mostly because people will be petty enough to use it to say they’ve won. The rules redundant in tournament play, all it is going to do is cause hassle in games. I’ve seen how competitive people get over very casual games.
1) I like to have as fair a game as possible. I know, 40k and balance go together like orange juice and toothpaste, but still.
Then paint your models. Or alternatively, just keep your own tally of wins and losses without the paint score. It's not like 'winning' really matters outside your own head expect in tournaments.
2) There are people who will use this rule as a cudgel to say I'm playing 40k wrong. And that ticks me off.
You are. It has always been intended to be played with painted models, tabletop wargames have since their inception in the 19th century. And you are allowed 'to play it wrong' if you have fun that way, but that doesn't chance what the exception is.
TangoTwoBravo wrote: I don't think that this will be a problem in actual games. In yesterday's match at the FLGS my opponent (we've had plenty of games before including tournies) had a handy app to track all our VPs. I wasn't keeping exact score myself. At the end he announced that I had won, while my rough calculus told me that I had lost. He looked at the iPad and said that I had the 10 VPs for Battle Ready while his army was still a WIP. He was ahead on Primary and Secondary by 7 points but I was now ahead by 3. We laughed and we had our post-game analysis (my third Secondary was just plain dumb for the situation). His armies are usually stunningly painted and no doubt this one will be in a few weeks.
Yeah, this is why I don't get it.
If it's a casual game? Well, if you scored more VPs than the opponent but technically lost because of the painting bonus, who cares? You know who actually won. You're playing for fun. Why get so bent out of shape about it?
If it's a tournament game? There will be painting requirements to start with, so neither of you will be getting VPs the other isn't.
I just cannot wrap my head around why this matters to anyone.
This. But we'll be rehashing this same thread every 3 months or so anyway.
Then paint your models. Or alternatively, just keep your own tally of wins and losses without the paint score. It's not like 'winning' really matters outside your own head expect in tournaments.
I ain't sure about other places, but winning games means you win prizes or get more play time at the store. So it is not just in people heads, there are physical benefits from winning.
Then paint your models. Or alternatively, just keep your own tally of wins and losses without the paint score. It's not like 'winning' really matters outside your own head expect in tournaments.
I ain't sure about other places, but winning games means you win prizes or get more play time at the store. So it is not just in people heads, there are physical benefits from winning.
Normally only in tournaments and those have always enforced painting standards.
I never played in real tournaments, only in one store event. But I assume it could be different in other places. Still not paying for the table or having priority to to reserve one is, at least to me, a big substential thing, not just something in ones head.
How? How on earth is this a problem? How does it matter?
Are you saying that you would go play a casual, pick-up game at a local shop, win by 5VPs, hear your opponent tell you that you actually lost because his army is painted and yours isn't, and then you would genuinely feel like you lost and seethe with anger at GW/TFG/the cosmos because you lost the game? The fact that you scored higher on objectives means nothing, and your victory is only meaningful if the book says so?
Who
cares?
Like, give me a scenario where this would actually legitimately impact your play experience, because I'm failing to see how this could be a problem unless you're really hung up over whether toy soldier game book says you won toy soldier game in a context where it doesn't matter at all.
Karol wrote: I never played in real tournaments, only in one store event. But I assume it could be different in other places. Still not paying for the table or having priority to to reserve one is, at least to me, a big substential thing, not just something in ones head.
Tying table reservations to winning or losing a game sounds utterly bizarre to me and I have never heard of such a thing before. Paying for tables seems pretty unusual too, albeit not completely unheard of.
How? How on earth is this a problem? How does it matter?
Are you saying that you would go play a casual, pick-up game at a local shop, win by 5VPs, hear your opponent tell you that you actually lost because his army is painted and yours isn't, and then you would genuinely feel like you lost and seethe with anger at GW/TFG/the cosmos because you lost the game? The fact that you scored higher on objectives means nothing, and your victory is only meaningful if the book says so?
Who
cares?
Like, give me a scenario where this would actually legitimately impact your play experience, because I'm failing to see how this could be a problem unless you're really hung up over whether toy soldier game book says you won toy soldier game in a context where it doesn't matter at all.
Would it hurt me? No. I've been playing for a while, and I've got a reasonably thick skin.
But you're telling me you cannot think of TFG doing something like, say, mocking you for not having a painted army and declaring himself the victor? Again, that wouldn't really bother me (though I would note to not play that person again) but for someone who's just starting, that's an early experience, and no one can say "He's not even following the rules, ignore him," because guess what? He IS following the rules.
Moreover, it seems like a lot of the people who support this rule don't even support using it all the time. There's a million and one exceptions they have, to the point where I question why it should even be included as a CORE RULE. As a tournament rule? Okay, sure. Including a bit in the rulebook that says "This game is best played with fully painted minis on a battlefield with great terrain,"? Totally fine.
But as a core rule that says you start with a points deficit if you're not painted and your opponent is? That's the equivalent of saying you can't paint your squad leaders unless you play a game with them first. It's stupid.
Karol wrote: I never played in real tournaments, only in one store event. But I assume it could be different in other places. Still not paying for the table or having priority to to reserve one is, at least to me, a big substential thing, not just something in ones head.
Tying table reservations to winning or losing a game sounds utterly bizarre to me and I have never heard of such a thing before. Paying for tables seems pretty unusual too, albeit not completely unheard of.
I will agree with this, though. Occasionally, it'll be "I want to face the winner!" but usually it's just first-come, first-served. Win or lose, if the shop is crowded, neither of you are playing afterwards, since another two or more people need the table next.
But you're telling me you cannot think of TFG doing something like, say, mocking you for not having a painted army and declaring himself the victor? Again, that wouldn't really bother me (though I would note to not play that person again) but for someone who's just starting, that's an early experience, and no one can say "He's not even following the rules, ignore him," because guess what? He IS following the rules.
Here mocking is the issue, as that is being rude. This has nothing to do with the actual rule, your opponent can be rude in myriad ways if they happen to be a jackass.
But as a core rule that says you start with a points deficit if you're not painted and your opponent is? That's the equivalent of saying you can't paint your squad leaders unless you play a game with them first. It's stupid.
This is a false equivalency. Painting just for fun is solo activity, gaming is group activity. The paint points are to encourage you to paint your models and thus enhance the gaming experience of your opponent.
But as a core rule that says you start with a points deficit if you're not painted and your opponent is? That's the equivalent of saying you can't paint your squad leaders unless you play a game with them first. It's stupid.
This is a false equivalency. Painting just for fun is solo activity, gaming is group activity. The paint points are to encourage you to paint your models and thus enhance the gaming experience of your opponent.
And someone who sits at the shop and just paints, doesn't game, is discouraging to me when I show up to game. This is not a hypothetical situation, by the way-it's happened to me plenty of times on slower days.
Should I demand a rule where you cannot paint squad leaders unless you use them in a game? No-the two parts of the hobby, while both under the same umbrella of the gaming hobby, are not directly related.
JNAProductions wrote: And someone who sits at the shop and just paints, doesn't game, is discouraging to me when I show up to game. This is not a hypothetical situation, by the way-it's happened to me plenty of times on slower days.
Should I demand a rule where you cannot paint squad leaders unless you use them in a game? No-the two parts of the hobby, while both under the same umbrella of the gaming hobby, are not directly related.
I am sure this somehow made sense in your head, but I literally do not understand what you're trying to say. How is someone painting discouraging you? I don't get it.
JNAProductions wrote: And someone who sits at the shop and just paints, doesn't game, is discouraging to me when I show up to game. This is not a hypothetical situation, by the way-it's happened to me plenty of times on slower days.
Should I demand a rule where you cannot paint squad leaders unless you use them in a game? No-the two parts of the hobby, while both under the same umbrella of the gaming hobby, are not directly related.
I am sure this somehow made sense in your head, but I literally do not understand what you're trying to say. How is someone painting discouraging you? I don't get it.
Because I cannot game. It's discouraging to arrive at a gaming store and not be able to game.
Clearly, there should be a rule that FORCES them to game, if they want to paint their models. /s
Let me ask you this: If you were to play a game against an unpainted force, would an extra 10 points make you feel any better about it? Or would you still dislike the game, because it's an eyesore to you? And your opponent-do you think they'd enjoy playing 10 points down, relative to you, when you don't even want to be playing it in the first place?
But as a core rule that says you start with a points deficit if you're not painted and your opponent is? That's the equivalent of saying you can't paint your squad leaders unless you play a game with them first. It's stupid.
This is a false equivalency. Painting just for fun is solo activity, gaming is group activity. The paint points are to encourage you to paint your models and thus enhance the gaming experience of your opponent.
And someone who sits at the shop and just paints, doesn't game, is discouraging to me when I show up to game. This is not a hypothetical situation, by the way-it's happened to me plenty of times on slower days.
Should I demand a rule where you cannot paint squad leaders unless you use them in a game? No-the two parts of the hobby, while both under the same umbrella of the gaming hobby, are not directly related.
JNA,
I respect that you do not like to paint, but both your points above make little sense to me. I can't see how the guy who only comes to the store to paint is hurting your gaming experience. He's minding his own business. When you put a unpainted army on the table against another player, however, I think we can understand how your unpainted army might degrade your opponent's experience, or those of spectators.
Regarding your second point, you can demand all you want but your specific demand in this case is rather bizarre. Your demand, if I understand it correctly, is that we can only paint a squad leader after they have been on the table and can presumably be considered veterans? That makes, well, no sense to me at all. I get adding battle honours and kill markers to models to signify memorable events, but that's peripheral to the hobby. Painting, on the other hand, is absolutely a key part of the overall 40K hobby, and they've set the bar quite low with Battle Ready. You don't have to do it, you just forfeit the opportunity to gain those 10 easy VP. Up to you.
JNAProductions wrote: Because I cannot game. It's discouraging to arrive at a gaming store and not be able to game.
Clearly, there should be a rule that FORCES them to game, if they want to paint their models. /s
Oh right, this was nonsense.
Let me ask you this: If you were to play a game against an unpainted force, would an extra 10 points make you feel any better about it? Or would you still dislike the game, because it's an eyesore to you? And your opponent-do you think they'd enjoy playing 10 points down, relative to you, when you don't even want to be playing it in the first place?
Personally I try avoid playing against unpainted armies. But in leagues I sometimes have and they have had similar extra points for paint rule. But it is not about winning or losing, it is about encouraging the people to bring painted models in the first place. In leagues with such a rule overwhelming majority of armies are painted, which makes the league better experience to everyone.
No, I'm not demanding that, because it's exactly as stupid as saying you earn free points for painting.
If I'm to face an opponent who does not face unpainted minis, and they forget to ask if my army is painted before we start setting up, I'd expect them to say something along the lines of "Oh crap, sorry! I didn't realize your minis weren't painted. I don't like playing against grey armies, so I'm actually gonna have to not play." Which, yeah, would be mildly irksome, but certainly not worth getting mad over, and certainly not rude on their part.
If I'm to face an opponent who does not face unpainted minis, and they forget to ask if my army is painted before we start setting up, I'd expect them to say something along the lines of "Oh crap, sorry! I didn't realize your minis weren't painted. I don't like playing against grey armies, so I'm actually gonna have to not play." Which, yeah, would be mildly irksome, but certainly not worth getting mad over, and certainly not rude on their part.
So you wouldn't mind them declining a game but would mind them taking the ten points that the rules give them to them? So you would rather not play at all than face a possibility of losing on technicality in a casual no-stakes game?
If I'm to face an opponent who does not face unpainted minis, and they forget to ask if my army is painted before we start setting up, I'd expect them to say something along the lines of "Oh crap, sorry! I didn't realize your minis weren't painted. I don't like playing against grey armies, so I'm actually gonna have to not play." Which, yeah, would be mildly irksome, but certainly not worth getting mad over, and certainly not rude on their part.
So you wouldn't mind them declining a game but would mind them taking the ten points that the rules give them to them? So you would rather not play at all than face a possibility of losing on technicality in a casual no-stakes game?
Yes?
When playing Crusade, it's not a no-stakes game, by the way.
I’m saying that the rule doesn’t make the game more fun.
The person with an unpainted army is grumpy because their opponent starts 10 points ahead.
The person who prefers to play painted armies is grumpy because they’re playing a grey army.
No one is happy. The game is not improved by its presence.
The person with an unpainted army is grumpy because their opponent starts 10 points ahead.
The person who prefers to play painted armies is grumpy because they’re playing a grey army.
No one is happy. The game is not improved by its presence.
It will increase the number of painted armies being played thus improving the gaming experience. You may quibble about how it is implemented, but the intent is not a mystery and it will no doubt have the desired effect.
Honestly if your enjoyment of the game hinges on how well painted the opposing team is vs how well the game is played then I hate to say it but I think you're in the wrong game.
There are far more things involved in the table top experience that's more important than if your opponent has spare time to put pigment on plastic.
Quite honestly there is ZERO effect on the tabletop for painted or unpainted models, they play exactly the same. Yet there is now 10 VP in it. For .... what?
And the low bar for Battle Ready is its own failing. So you're OK with a spray of base coat, some trim and a layer of paint on the base. You'd prefer to play a "painted" army that's bad over grey or undercoated models? I'd prefer a well painted army than a badly painted one. But I prefer to play a grey army in a good game than a Golden Daemon winner army in a bad game.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Racerguy180 wrote: which is just like losing on objectives, a technicality.
Except that's a table top mechanism, painting isn't. You be happy if I brought my pots and finished painting while we played?
Has something changed since the last 20 page thread we had discussing this exact topic, or is it just a slow day for complaints and we need to rehash this to vent?
Sentineil wrote: Has something changed since the last 20 page thread we had discussing this exact topic, or is it just a slow day for complaints and we need to rehash this to vent?
Always a topic you can try and “win”, bonus points if it’s one that isn’t actually really a problem.
His point was how 40k gamers are almost always adamantly against house rules and anything that isn't "official". So by them saying not to use this rule, it opens up other house rules to fix the game which traditionally they have been against because if you introduce house rules you aren't playing "correctly".
Another thread where we strawman a fictitious victim being preyed upon by some horribly sociopathic TFG so we can virtue signal about our huge hearts and how we would stand up to the tyrant and the bully, if only they would exist. And even, earlier in this thread, literally punch them if afforded the opportunity.
All the while, their piles of unpainted minis languish in sorrow, waiting for a coat of primer or anything... an ounce of love. But no, instead of indulging in some other activity that they we may find we get better at if we only practiced... we engage in hyperbolic, and borderline deranged, arguments on the internet to win some internet debate points that are as substantial to our lives as the 10 VP we'd get for painting.
Ah well, I had 2 minis unpainted from my first Crusade game... still won, barely, but didn't actually get any perks since neither of us exfiltrated a unit from the table to give honors to...
Soon, there will be 1 unpainted mini... just as soon as I turn this thread off and get to work.
By the way: I bet not a single person here started off good at painting. I'm sure we all have memories of our awful first models. The big difference between those painters and the others who cannot be bothered because they "can't paint gud" is perseverance.
Anyways, happy Sunday, dakka! I got a model to paint!
His point was how 40k gamers are almost always adamantly against house rules and anything that isn't "official". So by them saying not to use this rule, it opens up other house rules to fix the game which traditionally they have been against because if you introduce house rules you aren't playing "correctly".
And that, my friend, is exactly what the slippery slope fallacy is. You assume A -> B where there is no middle ground between A and B. The only way for a slippery slope comparison to not be a fallacy is by proving that the middle ground - which is ignoring the battle ready rule and have no other house rules - is so unlikely that it can be discounted as not relevant.
If you want to house rule the Battle Ready rule, you have to let me house rule my tacticals to have 600 wounds each. Why is your house rule valid but mine not?
If you want to house rule the Battle Ready rule, you have to let me house rule my tacticals to have 600 wounds each. Why is your house rule valid but mine not?
Because, BCB, one makes for a more fun game for both parties.
BaconCatBug wrote:It's either all ok to ignore, or none of it is.
If you want to house rule the Battle Ready rule, you have to let me house rule my tacticals to have 600 wounds each. Why is your house rule valid but mine not?
Add this one to the "BCB has no idea what a house rule actually is" list.
House rules are mutually agreeable. If both players consent to a house rule, then there's no problem, and it gets play liked any other rule. If one player is adding rules that the other doesn't agree to, then the house rule isn't implemented. Simple as.
BaconCatBug wrote:It's either all ok to ignore, or none of it is.
If you want to house rule the Battle Ready rule, you have to let me house rule my tacticals to have 600 wounds each. Why is your house rule valid but mine not?
Add this one to the "BCB has no idea what a house rule actually is" list.
House rules are mutually agreeable. If both players consent to a house rule, then there's no problem, and it gets play liked any other rule. If one player is adding rules that the other doesn't agree to, then the house rule isn't implemented. Simple as.
And then the person who disagrees is painted to be TFG, when it should be the opposite.
Rules that mostly serve to provoke arguments are bad rules. This falls into that category. Said as someone who enjoys painting as much as playing (despite not being very good at it) and who hates playing against the grey tide. I want my opponent to paint his minis because he wants to paint his minis and because he wants to be polite to the person he's playing with, not because he needs to get 10VPs for it so he'll do the absolute minimum half-arsed job to comply with the letter rather than the spirit of the rule.
Honestly, I think I'd rather play the grey tide than some models that have been brutalized to technically comply with the rule. And to be clear, by that I don't mean someone who just isn't a good painter who tried their best. I mean the guy who is only painting to get the 10VPs and does his whole army in an hour in the sloppiest way possible just to be able to say he gets the points.
auticus wrote: Yep you have to houserule it out for it not to be in effect.
And that of course... is the slippery slope
Indeed, I wasn't suggesting that it should be ignored without prior discussion. I thought that was clear from my post.
Dysartes wrote: I'd argue the best case is that people get their damned armies painted and based, but to each their own.
I would absolutely agree. But a rule trying to enforce that, outside of organised play, is unnecessary and weird.
Racerguy180 wrote: it's easy, if someone spent the time and effort to paint their stuff and another did not, the one who took the time should be rewarded for it..
They are. They are rewarded with the experience of getting to use the pretty, painted models that they've spent their time and effort on.
The whole point of painting is to make the miniatures look better. Your models being prettier than your opponents' shouldn't win you games.
Because rational human beings are capable of discussing and assessing the viability of proposed rules changes and deciding which changes benefit the game experience and which don't.
Neither player has the right to insist on their house rule being used... it's something to discuss with your opponent, or agree as a group. But one house rule being accepted doesn't mean that any other rules change you can think of should also be accepted. That would be absurd.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Racerguy180 wrote: which is just like losing on objectives, a technicality.
Losing on objectives in an objective-based game is not a technicality.
Losing because your opponent got bonus points for spelling his name correctly on the test paper most certainly is.
Except in this case there is something to consider. They have literally introduced an off-table element into scoring on table points. It's conceivable they can introduce other off table elements which give you on table points.
List construction, army purchase/loan and model assembly are also off table elements that gatekeep your access to victory points.
If they wanted to give you +10VP for only using GW models or for subscribing to the app or whatever else, they could have done that, whether or not they did this. The slippery slope argument is usually bad because usually there's no reason this particular thing made the slope any more or less slippery than it already was.
Battle ready standard only matters if the game has a stake, such as at a tournament. At which point, it would be the Organizer’s decision as to whether or not a given paint job qualifies, and a person would know that going into the tournament.
Battle Ready paint will always be a subjective score, outside of the objectively measurable in-game scoring mechanisms. I’ve said this before, but I don’t consider a mini “complete” without a textured base. So a clear base doesn’t do it for me (exceptions to deliberately clear flying stand bases... because I’m capricious) and a plain black base also wouldn’t work. But in a no stakes game, I wouldn’t care about the points, just like always. In a tournament, I’d abide by the TO’s decision. So again, no need for my personal subjective opinion.
Starting to feel like we've made a mountain out of a molehill here. I was against the Battle Ready Standard +10VP thing to begin with, but the more I think about it, the more I realise it doesn't matter.
Every tournament I've been to has had a requirement for painting, so that strikes me as a non-issue. Tournaments that didn't have a painting requirement before are likely to house rule this out anyway.
And in casual games, it simply doesn't matter who the rules say "won" the game, other than for simple bragging rights.
I might walk away from a game with a "win" because I got the +10VP for having a painted army - the winner of the game by the rules. You might walk away from the game with a "win" because you outplayed me on objectives - a moral victory of sorts.
Likewise, you could "win" a game on VPs but having only got there because you were rolling nothing but 6s for saves and 1s for morale, but I could have played a far better tactical game than you. By the rules, you "win" the game, but I walk away satisfied that my tactics were sound.
In other words: in a casual game, don't worry about what the numbers say. Worry instead about what you got out of the game.
Cheex wrote: Starting to feel like we've made a mountain out of a molehill here. I was against the Battle Ready Standard +10VP thing to begin with, but the more I think about it, the more I realise it doesn't matter.
Every tournament I've been to has had a requirement for painting, so that strikes me as a non-issue. Tournaments that didn't have a painting requirement before are likely to house rule this out anyway.
And in casual games, it simply doesn't matter who the rules say "won" the game, other than for simple bragging rights.
I might walk away from a game with a "win" because I got the +10VP for having a painted army - the winner of the game by the rules. You might walk away from the game with a "win" because you outplayed me on objectives - a moral victory of sorts.
Likewise, you could "win" a game on VPs but having only got there because you were rolling nothing but 6s for saves and 1s for morale, but I could have played a far better tactical game than you. By the rules, you "win" the game, but I walk away satisfied that my tactics were sound.
In other words: in a casual game, don't worry about what the numbers say. Worry instead about what you got out of the game.
Rules like this can directly effect how much that a person can get out of the game, in the same way the age of sigma silly rules did. When you start referring to people within the game itself as a win condition you need to look at there factors.
As evendence when suddenly it’s bad form to use the rule against new players, but this means you have to discuss.
But it’s also to the point, you brush away above how people may feel about a casual game. And then at the end say to worry about what you got out of it. Casual or not people can be effected by the rules, and there effects when you take factors out of the game itself as a win condition can effect that person in ways that the game does not normally effect them.
For some players, these are shame points. Paint your army or don’t get them, no matter what the hobby means or how you enjoy them. Regardless of the circumstances surrounding it.
Apple fox wrote: For some players, these are shame points. Paint your army or don’t get them, no matter what the hobby means or how you enjoy them. Regardless of the circumstances surrounding it.
Absolutely fair point, and along the lines of why I was against the Battle Ready bonus to begin with.
Personally, I feel like this sort of thing should have been introduced as a tiebreaker instead of a flat VP gain, if at all.
Cheex wrote: Starting to feel like we've made a mountain out of a molehill here. I was against the Battle Ready Standard +10VP thing to begin with, but the more I think about it, the more I realise it doesn't matter.
Every tournament I've been to has had a requirement for painting, so that strikes me as a non-issue. Tournaments that didn't have a painting requirement before are likely to house rule this out anyway.
And in casual games, it simply doesn't matter who the rules say "won" the game, other than for simple bragging rights.
I might walk away from a game with a "win" because I got the +10VP for having a painted army - the winner of the game by the rules. You might walk away from the game with a "win" because you outplayed me on objectives - a moral victory of sorts.
Likewise, you could "win" a game on VPs but having only got there because you were rolling nothing but 6s for saves and 1s for morale, but I could have played a far better tactical game than you. By the rules, you "win" the game, but I walk away satisfied that my tactics were sound.
In other words: in a casual game, don't worry about what the numbers say. Worry instead about what you got out of the game.
Rules like this can directly effect how much that a person can get out of the game, in the same way the age of sigma silly rules did. When you start referring to people within the game itself as a win condition you need to look at there factors.
As evendence when suddenly it’s bad form to use the rule against new players, but this means you have to discuss.
But it’s also to the point, you brush away above how people may feel about a casual game. And then at the end say to worry about what you got out of it. Casual or not people can be effected by the rules, and there effects when you take factors out of the game itself as a win condition can effect that person in ways that the game does not normally effect them.
For some players, these are shame points. Paint your army or don’t get them, no matter what the hobby means or how you enjoy them. Regardless of the circumstances surrounding it.
I've seen this paint shame nonsense pop up several times in facebook groups across multiple games always as an excuse to not paint. Nobody is emitting shame at you, it's just an excuse because you can't reconcile not wanting to paint and paint being a part of the game. And I'm not sure what you mean by rules "effecting" people but if this rule or any makes you legitimately feel bad then you have bigger problems than this hobby.
Cheex wrote: Starting to feel like we've made a mountain out of a molehill here. I was against the Battle Ready Standard +10VP thing to begin with, but the more I think about it, the more I realise it doesn't matter.
Every tournament I've been to has had a requirement for painting, so that strikes me as a non-issue. Tournaments that didn't have a painting requirement before are likely to house rule this out anyway.
And in casual games, it simply doesn't matter who the rules say "won" the game, other than for simple bragging rights.
I might walk away from a game with a "win" because I got the +10VP for having a painted army - the winner of the game by the rules. You might walk away from the game with a "win" because you outplayed me on objectives - a moral victory of sorts.
Likewise, you could "win" a game on VPs but having only got there because you were rolling nothing but 6s for saves and 1s for morale, but I could have played a far better tactical game than you. By the rules, you "win" the game, but I walk away satisfied that my tactics were sound.
In other words: in a casual game, don't worry about what the numbers say. Worry instead about what you got out of the game.
Rules like this can directly effect how much that a person can get out of the game, in the same way the age of sigma silly rules did. When you start referring to people within the game itself as a win condition you need to look at there factors.
As evendence when suddenly it’s bad form to use the rule against new players, but this means you have to discuss.
But it’s also to the point, you brush away above how people may feel about a casual game. And then at the end say to worry about what you got out of it. Casual or not people can be effected by the rules, and there effects when you take factors out of the game itself as a win condition can effect that person in ways that the game does not normally effect them.
For some players, these are shame points. Paint your army or don’t get them, no matter what the hobby means or how you enjoy them. Regardless of the circumstances surrounding it.
I've seen this paint shame nonsense pop up several times in facebook groups across multiple games always as an excuse to not paint. Nobody is emitting shame at you, it's just an excuse because you can't reconcile not wanting to paint and paint being a part of the game. And I'm not sure what you mean by rules "effecting" people but if this rule or any makes you legitimately feel bad then you have bigger problems than this hobby.
Cheex wrote: Starting to feel like we've made a mountain out of a molehill here. I was against the Battle Ready Standard +10VP thing to begin with, but the more I think about it, the more I realise it doesn't matter.
Every tournament I've been to has had a requirement for painting, so that strikes me as a non-issue. Tournaments that didn't have a painting requirement before are likely to house rule this out anyway.
And in casual games, it simply doesn't matter who the rules say "won" the game, other than for simple bragging rights.
I might walk away from a game with a "win" because I got the +10VP for having a painted army - the winner of the game by the rules. You might walk away from the game with a "win" because you outplayed me on objectives - a moral victory of sorts.
Likewise, you could "win" a game on VPs but having only got there because you were rolling nothing but 6s for saves and 1s for morale, but I could have played a far better tactical game than you. By the rules, you "win" the game, but I walk away satisfied that my tactics were sound.
In other words: in a casual game, don't worry about what the numbers say. Worry instead about what you got out of the game.
Rules like this can directly effect how much that a person can get out of the game, in the same way the age of sigma silly rules did. When you start referring to people within the game itself as a win condition you need to look at there factors.
As evendence when suddenly it’s bad form to use the rule against new players, but this means you have to discuss.
But it’s also to the point, you brush away above how people may feel about a casual game. And then at the end say to worry about what you got out of it. Casual or not people can be effected by the rules, and there effects when you take factors out of the game itself as a win condition can effect that person in ways that the game does not normally effect them.
For some players, these are shame points. Paint your army or don’t get them, no matter what the hobby means or how you enjoy them. Regardless of the circumstances surrounding it.
I've seen this paint shame nonsense pop up several times in facebook groups across multiple games always as an excuse to not paint. Nobody is emitting shame at you, it's just an excuse because you can't reconcile not wanting to paint and paint being a part of the game. And I'm not sure what you mean by rules "effecting" people but if this rule or any makes you legitimately feel bad then you have bigger problems than this hobby.
The irony is palpable.
I don't think so. Shame comes from within, not from other people. You feel it because you're unsure or know you're wrong.
I think that this might actually help out at local tournaments. I attend four tournaments a year in my town, with between 30 and 40 players. Our awesome TO tries to encourage all players to arrive with painted models, but its hard to disqualify somebody the morning of a tourey. I was the local TO for Flames of War and Team Yankee for three years and I feel the pain.
Now, with the +10VP integrate into each game there is an incentive for all players to hit the Battle Ready standard for the tournament. Guess we'll see.
I think the real gaming world is less grim and angsty than what gets described in the Dakkaverse, because in the real world we have to coexist with each other at the FLGS. This means that real players work it out in a sporting, human fashion - I'd rather lose a game than an opponent. The fighting is so vicious here at Dakka because the stakes are so low.
JNAProductions wrote: You're denying reality if you think other people cannot influence someone's emotions.
Now I didn't say that, I said that you cannot be shamed by someone else into feeling bad about your unpainted models or anything really. The shame you feel comes from yourself because you recognize an actual problem not me putting bad feelings in your head. And if paint really didn't matter to you why would you care at all?
Cheex wrote: Starting to feel like we've made a mountain out of a molehill here. I was against the Battle Ready Standard +10VP thing to begin with, but the more I think about it, the more I realise it doesn't matter.
Every tournament I've been to has had a requirement for painting, so that strikes me as a non-issue. Tournaments that didn't have a painting requirement before are likely to house rule this out anyway.
And in casual games, it simply doesn't matter who the rules say "won" the game, other than for simple bragging rights.
I might walk away from a game with a "win" because I got the +10VP for having a painted army - the winner of the game by the rules. You might walk away from the game with a "win" because you outplayed me on objectives - a moral victory of sorts.
Likewise, you could "win" a game on VPs but having only got there because you were rolling nothing but 6s for saves and 1s for morale, but I could have played a far better tactical game than you. By the rules, you "win" the game, but I walk away satisfied that my tactics were sound.
In other words: in a casual game, don't worry about what the numbers say. Worry instead about what you got out of the game.
Rules like this can directly effect how much that a person can get out of the game, in the same way the age of sigma silly rules did. When you start referring to people within the game itself as a win condition you need to look at there factors.
As evendence when suddenly it’s bad form to use the rule against new players, but this means you have to discuss.
But it’s also to the point, you brush away above how people may feel about a casual game. And then at the end say to worry about what you got out of it. Casual or not people can be effected by the rules, and there effects when you take factors out of the game itself as a win condition can effect that person in ways that the game does not normally effect them.
For some players, these are shame points. Paint your army or don’t get them, no matter what the hobby means or how you enjoy them. Regardless of the circumstances surrounding it.
I've seen this paint shame nonsense pop up several times in facebook groups across multiple games always as an excuse to not paint. Nobody is emitting shame at you, it's just an excuse because you can't reconcile not wanting to paint and paint being a part of the game. And I'm not sure what you mean by rules "effecting" people but if this rule or any makes you legitimately feel bad then you have bigger problems than this hobby.
I am disabled in such a way that hinders my ability to paint, how should I consider a rule that targets specifically my inability to do one thing In the game itself.
I actually really enjoy painting, and want to paint every one of my models to the best of my ability. Why is it so easy for people to assume the positions of others to respond.
Much like this rule, I have to constantly talk about personal issues to get a understand of my position. At the table it’s the same, not everyone will understand why this rule is such a hinderance.
There is a simple solution to all of this. I like to call it the cultist of shame. Just have one model like a cultist or grot that you leave unpainted. If your opponent doesn’t have a fully painted army, just field the cultist of shame and now no one gets the extra 10 VP. Problem solved. This is literally only an issue if you are a fanatic about enforcing the rule book or you really really care about points in toy soldiers.
evil_kiwi_60 wrote: There is a simple solution to all of this. I like to call it the cultist of shame. Just have one model like a cultist or grot that you leave unpainted. If your opponent doesn’t have a fully painted army, just field the cultist of shame and now no one gets the extra 10 VP. Problem solved. This is literally only an issue if you are a fanatic about enforcing the rule book or you really really care about points in toy soldiers.
Let's play chess, except I want to house rule all my pawns to be queens. If you don't agree you're a fanatic about enforcing the rule book pr you really really care about points in toy soldiers.. /s
evil_kiwi_60 wrote: There is a simple solution to all of this. I like to call it the cultist of shame. Just have one model like a cultist or grot that you leave unpainted. If your opponent doesn’t have a fully painted army, just field the cultist of shame and now no one gets the extra 10 VP. Problem solved. This is literally only an issue if you are a fanatic about enforcing the rule book or you really really care about points in toy soldiers.
You're not really enforcing this rule anymore than you are enforcing how to resolve a hit roll - it's a rule, and thus must be used. Cover is not optional, armour saves are not optional. There is no heirarchy of rules and their level of use-ness, they're either in the rulebook and must be used, or they're not. This rule is not in a section specifically called 'optional rules you are not required to use'. It's as mandatory as any other rule in the core rules section.
This particular rule does a few things:
It's a literal game penalty for not engaging with the hobby in a way prescribed by the company
It says that there is a 'correct' way to engage with the hobby (you don't get penalised if you do it right)
It therefore creates a minimum amount of time investment in the hobby, or be penalised
It says that other parts of the hobby are less important than this one thing, because nothing else inflicts a penalty
It means that people who can afford to buy painted armies will not care, while those who are time poor and are trying to enjoy the hobby in the way that works for them, will be penalised
It puts pressure on people who, being time poor but still wanting to play the game,will paint their armies quickly and poorly in order to get to the part they might like more
It turns painting into a chore that you have to perform in order to avoid penalty, rather than a joy you can do at your own leisure as you work around your lifestyle and time constraints
And that's before you get into the ableism inherent in this.
This is a tournament rule that, due to the paradigm of 9th trying to be a book that applies to all methods of playing the game, now will affect the average player for no reason whatsoever.
I see no upside to this, not even the encouragement to paint. Because we all know it's human nature that when something becomes a chore under threat of punishment we do the minimum amount required so we don't have to think about it.
evil_kiwi_60 wrote: There is a simple solution to all of this. I like to call it the cultist of shame. Just have one model like a cultist or grot that you leave unpainted. If your opponent doesn’t have a fully painted army, just field the cultist of shame and now no one gets the extra 10 VP. Problem solved. This is literally only an issue if you are a fanatic about enforcing the rule book or you really really care about points in toy soldiers.
Let's play chess, except I want to house rule all my pawns to be queens. If you don't agree you're a fanatic about enforcing the rule book pr you really really care about points in toy soldiers.. /s
Wow you completely missed the point there, didn’t you? Your example doesn’t really apply here. I haven’t suggested a single house rule. The rules do allow you to field unpainted models in games. You can completely avoid this mess of by fielding a single unpainted model that will be most likely removed by the end of turn one. If your opponent has a fully painted army, don’t field the unpainted model. It’s not a house rule, it’s a simple courtesy that you can follow at almost no cost. Great strawman there though. If I ever need some scarecrows, I know who can build them quickly lol.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also I’m guessing none of y’all give mulligans in your games then? The rules don’t allow your opponent to cast that psychic power they forgot or move a unit they missed behind a building. If you show that courtesy imagine the anarchy we’d descend into.
BaconCatBug wrote: Let's play chess, except I want to house rule all my pawns to be queens. If you don't agree you're a fanatic about enforcing the rule book pr you really really care about points in toy soldiers.. /s
BaconCatBug wrote: Let's play chess, except I want to house rule all my pawns to be queens. If you don't agree you're a fanatic about enforcing the rule book pr you really really care about points in toy soldiers.. /s
No, thanks.
Goodness, that was easy.
I'm not sure what the point is though - saying you won't play someone because they house rule? Not using this particular paint penalty is a house rule, so you're agreeing that you wouldn't play someone because they aren't using the rules as written.
You can make value judgements about what a rules, how it compares to others etc, but that's not an objective truth.
Not playing someone because they refuse to use a paint penalty rule is no different than not playing someone because they refuse to use the new Blast rule, or the maximum -1 to hit penalty rule.
The point that BCB keeps trying to make is that if you use one house rule, the universe will collapse in a heap of illogic if you refuse to also use a different house rule.
The reason that point is ridiculous is that people are capable of rational thought, and of making judgements about the value of individual house rules.
And if two players disagree about whether or not a particular rule should be used, then it's not the end of the world if they choose to not go ahead with the game. You'll have a much better time playing the game with like-minded people.
It is logic without reason. I can only suggest trying it sometime to see how... fruitless... it is. After that, the arguments are hollow and you need not worry about them.
That said, worrying so deeply about this rule is also fruitless. Think of it logically, but apply reason.
Logic: I play this game to have fun. It is not fun for the game’s victory condition to hinge on a non-game-state-related qualification. Therefore it is reasonable to ignore this rule, because it is illogical to enforce it.
Logic: Even if my opponent wishes to claim a victory in a no-stakes (ego and bragging rights aside) game due to paint score, that does not alter the points earned as part of the game. Therefore, it is reasonable to internally recognize one’s victory, if only internally, and attain a sense of victory.
If, and only if, the game has material stakes does this rule matter. As with all games with stakes, if the participant enters freely of their own will, knowing the paint score will be applied, they are still free to enter, though may be at a disadvantage for doing so. All rules are arbitrary. If this rule is enforced as part of that set of arbitrary conditions all participants mutually agree to as part of placing their stake, then gambler beware.
Logic: If I don’t wish to participate in a game with material stakes, I can choose not to. Therefore it is reasonable for me to ignore this rule by choosing to not engage in a game with material stakes.
Logic and reason. There really isn’t a reason to be upset about this.
insaniak wrote: The point that BCB keeps trying to make is that if you use one house rule, the universe will collapse in a heap of illogic if you refuse to also use a different house rule.
The reason that point is ridiculous is that people are capable of rational thought, and of making judgements about the value of individual house rules.
And if two players disagree about whether or not a particular rule should be used, then it's not the end of the world if they choose to not go ahead with the game. You'll have a much better time playing the game with like-minded people.
My point is you cannot be logically consistent. Why are you the arbiter of what is and isn't a valid house rule? Why do you get to decide that my house rule is invalid, but I can't decide yours is?
The other point is that those who want to play by the rules are treated as TFG, despite them being in the right for refusing to use house rules.
If you propose a House Rule, and I refuse, I get made out to be the bad guy who ruined the fun for my opponent.
greatbigtree wrote: It is logic without reason. I can only suggest trying it sometime to see how... fruitless... it is. After that, the arguments are hollow and you need not worry about them.
That said, worrying so deeply about this rule is also fruitless. Think of it logically, but apply reason.
Logic: I play this game to have fun. It is not fun for the game’s victory condition to hinge on a non-game-state-related qualification. Therefore it is reasonable to ignore this rule, because it is illogical to enforce it.
Logic: Even if my opponent wishes to claim a victory in a no-stakes (ego and bragging rights aside) game due to paint score, that does not alter the points earned as part of the game. Therefore, it is reasonable to internally recognize one’s victory, if only internally, and attain a sense of victory.
If, and only if, the game has material stakes does this rule matter. As with all games with stakes, if the participant enters freely of their own will, knowing the paint score will be applied, they are still free to enter, though may be at a disadvantage for doing so. All rules are arbitrary. If this rule is enforced as part of that set of arbitrary conditions all participants mutually agree to as part of placing their stake, then gambler beware.
Logic: If I don’t wish to participate in a game with material stakes, I can choose not to. Therefore it is reasonable for me to ignore this rule by choosing to not engage in a game with material stakes.
Logic and reason. There really isn’t a reason to be upset about this.
Logics would dictate that removing emotions is itself illogical, if I lose most of my games to paint rule. But still say I won as the rule is dumb, I would probably sound like a rather sore loser.
Despite my circumstance, why should I belittle another player ? In the end, I just get to feel bad and they get more fun in a game due to there ability to sit for long periods of time ?
BaconCatBug wrote: Why are you the arbiter of what is and isn't a valid house rule? Why do you get to decide that my house rule is invalid, but I can't decide yours is?
What on earth are you talking about? In order for a house rule to apply, both players need to agree to use it. I'm not the arbiter of what is and isn't a valid house rule. If I'm setting up a game with you, then we both have to agree on any house rules.
The other point is that those who want to play by the rules are treated as TFG, despite them being in the right for refusing to use house rules.
You're not 'in the right' for refusing to use house rules. You're just choosing to play the game as written. That's only the 'right' way to play the game if both players agree to play that way.
If you propose a House Rule, and I refuse, I get made out to be the bad guy who ruined the fun for my opponent.
If the house rule is being suggested because the other player feels that the game will not be fun without it, then sure, they're going to feel that you refusing the rule is a problem. You'll just have to live with the pain of someone with absolutely no impact on your life disapproving of you and carry on as best you can. Go find someone else to play who wants to play the game the same way you do.
It is illogical to remove emotions... that’s part of the point I’m trying to make. Logic (impartial) without reason (at least partially subjective) is fruitless.
You needn’t claim victory over your opponent *outwardly* for losing due to paint score. I’m talking about internal sense. You can have an internal sense of victory, knowing that you achieved more in-game points. Painted armies were worth 0 VP in the past. They could be worth 200 VP in the future and it would be impossible for an Unpainted army to “defeat” a Painted one... but would that change the number of points earned in the game? Would you still not know that you outperformed your opponent on the tabletop?
I haven’t had the perception you belittle another player for being able to paint. For me, I assume your games aren’t for material stakes? No money or prizing on the line? If so, you’re just playing for your own enjoyment and sense of accomplishment, right? That’s why it’s reasonable to not care about the paint score. It doesn’t matter to *you* if someone else claims victory due to paint score. *You* know you outperformed them in the game.
Irkjoe wrote:Now I didn't say that, I said that you cannot be shamed by someone else into feeling bad about your unpainted models or anything really. The shame you feel comes from yourself because you recognize an actual problem not me putting bad feelings in your head. And if paint really didn't matter to you why would you care at all?
Why do I now have a mental image of that "Walk of Shame" scene from GoT? Admittedly, things definitely sounds like they'd look worse with gamers doing it.
Hellebore wrote:It's a literal game penalty for not engaging with the hobby in a way prescribed by the company
It says that there is a 'correct' way to engage with the hobby (you don't get penalised if you do it right)
Point of order - as written, there is no penalty aspect to this. The person who doesn't achieve BRS isn't having VPs they already scored taken away from them - the person who has put the effort in is getting a reward instead.
A very vocal group want to push this narrative of it being a penalty, but it isn't.
greatbigtree wrote:It is logic without reason. I can only suggest trying it sometime to see how... fruitless... it is. After that, the arguments are hollow and you need not worry about them.
That said, worrying so deeply about this rule is also fruitless. Think of it logically, but apply reason.
Logic: I play this game to have fun. It is not fun for the game’s victory condition to hinge on a non-game-state-related qualification. Therefore it is reasonable to ignore this rule, because it is illogical to enforce it.
I'm not seeing the logic here between steps A & B - as has been pointed out by other posts, a host of other "out of game" factors influence your ability to score VPs as well, but you're not claiming they should be ignored as well.
Templarted wrote: The best case scenario for this rule is that it’s ignored in all places.
I'd argue the best case is that people get their damned armies painted and based, but to each their own.
Hey, if you're cool with me throwing sand on the bases, spraying the models with two clashing random colors, & then applying some equally random color to their bases....
Except in this case there is something to consider. They have literally introduced an off-table element into scoring on table points. It's conceivable they can introduce other off table elements which give you on table points.
List construction, army purchase/loan and model assembly are also off table elements that gatekeep your access to victory points.
It is illogical to remove emotions... that’s part of the point I’m trying to make. Logic (impartial) without reason (at least partially subjective) is fruitless.
You needn’t claim victory over your opponent *outwardly* for losing due to paint score. I’m talking about internal sense. You can have an internal sense of victory, knowing that you achieved more in-game points. Painted armies were worth 0 VP in the past. They could be worth 200 VP in the future and it would be impossible for an Unpainted army to “defeat” a Painted one... but would that change the number of points earned in the game? Would you still not know that you outperformed your opponent on the tabletop?
I haven’t had the perception you belittle another player for being able to paint. For me, I assume your games aren’t for material stakes? No money or prizing on the line? If so, you’re just playing for your own enjoyment and sense of accomplishment, right? That’s why it’s reasonable to not care about the paint score. It doesn’t matter to *you* if someone else claims victory due to paint score. *You* know you outperformed them in the game.
The rules state I lost, I am gaming for enjoyment of the hobby. The game starts and ends reminding me that I am sick, and in pain. And if I refer or discuss the game the ultimate end is that ether we remove it and I won, or they won with it in.
Trying to get around that by saying well, you outperformed so it’s all good. Does not make me feel better, as when I am playing the game. I am trying to present myself as best. I don’t want a discussion at the table, nor do I want to have to say “well I won, but painting score pushed them over to win”
This is why these discussions always eventually come back to players just lazy and don’t paint, it’s easy to look good when that’s the position the other side holds. But in reality I think that’s the smallest part of this discussion.
Hellebore wrote:It's a literal game penalty for not engaging with the hobby in a way prescribed by the company
It says that there is a 'correct' way to engage with the hobby (you don't get penalised if you do it right)
Point of order - as written, there is no penalty aspect to this. The person who doesn't achieve BRS isn't having VPs they already scored taken away from them - the person who has put the effort in is getting a reward instead.
A very vocal group want to push this narrative of it being a penalty, but it isn't.
I feel like maybe this is a bit of a semantic argument, because the outcome is being penalised, regardless of the implementation. You are denied access to a component of the scoring system because you do not meet a specific criteria, which was not part of the actions of the game itself.
It doesn't really matter how it's couched - it's the outcome that's relevant. You can focus on one side of the rule when you phrase it all you want, the result is that the other side of the rule is still penalised by the outcome.
'Because you were a good boy and cleaned your room, you get your dinner', doesn't change the fact that whoever didn't do that activity is penalised by the absence of dinner.... :p
Hellebore wrote:It's a literal game penalty for not engaging with the hobby in a way prescribed by the company
It says that there is a 'correct' way to engage with the hobby (you don't get penalised if you do it right)
Point of order - as written, there is no penalty aspect to this. The person who doesn't achieve BRS isn't having VPs they already scored taken away from them - the person who has put the effort in is getting a reward instead.
A very vocal group want to push this narrative of it being a penalty, but it isn't.
I feel like maybe this is a bit of a semantic argument, because the outcome is being penalised, regardless of the implementation. You are denied access to a component of the scoring system because you do not meet a specific criteria, which was not part of the actions of the game itself.
It doesn't really matter how it's couched - it's the outcome that's relevant. You can focus on one side of the rule when you phrase it all you want, the result is that the other side of the rule is still penalised by the outcome.
'Because you were a good boy and cleaned your room, you get your dinner', doesn't change the fact that whoever didn't do that activity is penalised by the absence of dinner.... :p
Failing to meet the criteria to get an award, and then not getting an award, is not being penalised. I do think your example is a touch skewed, though, unless we're dealing with the parents from a variety of Roald Dahl books - cleaning your room resulting in getting your just dessert with dinner, while everyone gets the main course, feels a bit more apt for this comparison, but it's your metaphor.
It's the same as getting a bonus at work, based on what you've achieved - if I know up front I need to sell X widgets to achieve a bonus, and I sell X-1 widgets while my colleague sells X+1, I'm not being penalised by not getting a bonus when my colleague does. They've done what they needed to to meet the threshold for a reward, while I haven't. However, assuming a sane pay structure, I'm also not losing the pay/salary I'm entitled to for the time I've worked, so I still have my base pay available to me.
evil_kiwi_60 wrote: There is a simple solution to all of this. I like to call it the cultist of shame. Just have one model like a cultist or grot that you leave unpainted. If your opponent doesn’t have a fully painted army, just field the cultist of shame and now no one gets the extra 10 VP. Problem solved. This is literally only an issue if you are a fanatic about enforcing the rule book or you really really care about points in toy soldiers.
Let's play chess, except I want to house rule all my pawns to be queens. If you don't agree you're a fanatic about enforcing the rule book pr you really really care about points in toy soldiers.. /s
A nice slice of whataboutism coupled with a false equivalence. Sigh.
Chess is entirely irrelevant to the 40K situation. You’d do well to discuss situations rather than constantly attempt to distract or deride. That just leads to thread lock. Chess is rarely (though not never) house ruled, so it’s a deliberately absurd example which illuminated nothing about the 40K discussion. It’s just a distraction.
You’ve been told so many times that i can’t count them anymore that house ruling one rule the two players in that game both find un-fun does not automatically lead to 600W Marines that auto-hit and anarchy. Slippery slope fallacies have always been and will always be just that... fallacies.
To directly answer your ludicrous example, no-one would ever play you at chess if you make such ridiculous demands. But the thread is about 40K.
This topic keeps coming up and is full of inane posturing for internet points every time. The simple fact is that if both participants don’t want to use the fully-painted=10VP rule they can skip it. If only one player is determined they shouldn’t use it then they need a discussion to convince the other party, else the rules would require painting. If the two players are incapable of an amicable pre-game discussion that might cater for a new player, a disabled player, all the whatabouts posited upthread etc etc etc then it’s indicative of the fact there’ll be bigger issues in that game and they probably shouldn’t play each other.
Rules are just guidance on how to have fun with your space toys. In practice people do what makes the game fun, and house ruling is common. And the game doesn’t break and the universe doesn’t explode and Space Marines don’t get W600 each.
Besides, who’s running Tacs? Is your TTS broken???
evil_kiwi_60 wrote: There is a simple solution to all of this. I like to call it the cultist of shame. Just have one model like a cultist or grot that you leave unpainted. If your opponent doesn’t have a fully painted army, just field the cultist of shame and now no one gets the extra 10 VP. Problem solved. This is literally only an issue if you are a fanatic about enforcing the rule book or you really really care about points in toy soldiers.
Let's play chess, except I want to house rule all my pawns to be queens. If you don't agree you're a fanatic about enforcing the rule book pr you really really care about points in toy soldiers.. /s
A nice slice of whataboutism coupled with a false equivalence. Sigh.
Chess is entirely irrelevant to the 40K situation. You’d do well to discuss situations rather than constantly attempt to distract or deride. That just leads to thread lock. Chess is rarely (though not never) house ruled, so it’s a deliberately absurd example which illuminated nothing about the 40K discussion. It’s just a distraction.
You’ve been told so many times that i can’t count them anymore that house ruling one rule the two players in that game both find un-fun does not automatically lead to 600W Marines that auto-hit and anarchy. Slippery slope fallacies have always been and will always be just that... fallacies.
To directly answer your ludicrous example, no-one would ever play you at chess if you make such ridiculous demands. But the thread is about 40K.
This topic keeps coming up and is full of inane posturing for internet points every time. The simple fact is that if both participants don’t want to use the fully-painted=10VP rule they can skip it. If only one player is determined they shouldn’t use it then they need a discussion to convince the other party, else the rules would require painting. If the two players are incapable of an amicable pre-game discussion that might cater for a new player, a disabled player, all the whatabouts posited upthread etc etc etc then it’s indicative of the fact there’ll be bigger issues in that game and they probably shouldn’t play each other.
Rules are just guidance on how to have fun with your space toys. In practice people do what makes the game fun, and house ruling is common. And the game doesn’t break and the universe doesn’t explode and Space Marines don’t get W600 each.
Besides, who’s running Tacs? Is your TTS broken???
The problem is it entirely places the blame on the ones most effected to bring up things outside the game, Entirely to justify why this rule may not be good. The reason this rule keeps coming up is that it can be very personal, and confrontational to bring it up. This isnt like many other things in the game, It can entirely be dictated by external influence. So many people in support of the rule are so quick to say it can be dismissed if you dont like it, or that its not a big deal. Rules are a guide to healthy play and a fun enviroment, but this rule almost entirely creates conflicts. And seems to be used as a passive aggressive move for TFG to avoid having discussion about why players may not be painting there models.
Its not hard to come up with reasons why this rule may not be a healthy discussion at the table for a wargame, but little real reason the rule is good or healthy at all.
Karol wrote: That is like saying you don't have to worry about being robbed or beaten, among good people. Technicly true, but if you live on an island alone.
If people are given an option to be donkey-caves, they are going to be donkey-caves. It is something people learn around the age of 2-3.
No, it isn't. Please stop applying your frankly skewed world view to literally everything.
JohnnyHell wrote: I didn’t defend the rules. It’s simply not a problem between reasonable humans demonstrating empathy.
Sorry, this rule makes me frustrated. But I think my point still stands, and still places all the burden on those who it effects the most. I don’t really want to discuss my issues across the table.
Players need to know there oponant to make the call on weather they want to use the rule or not. If it is even coming up at all in a group, club or store. Then is the rule needed, players that all use it as a default probably don’t need the rule.
And players who are effected due to anything other than the basic don’t wanna stipulation need to be made visible, To gain that empathy even if they would prefer not.
No, it isn't. Please stop applying your frankly skewed world view to literally everything.
There are litteraly child rhyme about it, that you learn in kinder garden or folk proverbs. I am not smart, and still a kid, but everyone knows that, if you get friendly with someone on the team sooner or later they are going to screw you over. For placments, dorm spots or anything that lets them be better. And this can't be just a local thing, because we also have proverbs about people emigrating, and those always go something like "it is bad to bad to work for a foreigner, but it is much worse to work for Pole" or "never do buissness with family or friends, the betrayal will hurt more" etc.
This is like the most common of common things to know. And I know this ain't just a Polish or slavic thing, because people that got big like Zuckerberg or that apple guy, did that by screwing other people over. I have cousins in Canada who got got screwed over their volley ball tuition, because their friend who was gunning for the same university spot accoused the twins of being from a racist family, and by the time everything was straighted out the recruitment was over, and they had to go to a worse school. And this is normal non special, non war or conflict times. Durning communism people did much worse things to each other. There were people putting their parents and grand parents in jail, just to get a better job or an option to get a flat or car 10 years faster.
Karol wrote: That is like saying you don't have to worry about being robbed or beaten, among good people. Technicly true, but if you live on an island alone.
If people are given an option to be donkey-caves, they are going to be donkey-caves. It is something people learn around the age of 2-3.
If anything that was implied by what I typed. It was certainly my intent to. You can read the opposite of what I posted “this is a problem if people don’t display empathy” and it has the same meaning. So your rebuttal of my post is actually an agreement, if you’d read my post.
