Switch Theme:

Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit  [RSS] 

Do you think 40k should adopt the player's code from AoS 3.0? @ 2021/06/14 20:08:32


Post by: ClockworkZion


The player's code:


Honestly I rather like it (especially the part of reminding your opponent about rules your opponent forgot), but I'm all for hearing other opinions on if we should adopt this even if 40k doesn't adopt this in the rule book.


Do you think 40k should adopt the player's code from AoS 3.0? @ 2021/06/14 20:11:48


Post by: Kanluwen


Frankly, it won't matter if they do or don't adopt it. There's too many garbage people in this hobby at this point and they've gotten away with too much in the competitive scene to justify a "code" now.


Do you think 40k should adopt the player's code from AoS 3.0? @ 2021/06/14 20:14:47


Post by: ClockworkZion


 Kanluwen wrote:
Frankly, it won't matter if they do or don't adopt it. There's too many garbage people in this hobby at this point and they've gotten away with too much in the competitive scene to justify a "code" now.

I mean I'd rather watch the toxic people out themselves and burn their armies in response than them stay in the hobby, but okay.


Do you think 40k should adopt the player's code from AoS 3.0? @ 2021/06/14 20:18:26


Post by: Kanluwen


 ClockworkZion wrote:
 Kanluwen wrote:
Frankly, it won't matter if they do or don't adopt it. There's too many garbage people in this hobby at this point and they've gotten away with too much in the competitive scene to justify a "code" now.

I mean I'd rather watch the toxic people out themselves and burn their armies in response than them stay in the hobby, but okay.

I would too, but most of the really bad people? They don't flare out. They keep going and do nothing but generate exhaustion in the rest of the community they're in.


Do you think 40k should adopt the player's code from AoS 3.0? @ 2021/06/14 20:20:28


Post by: ClockworkZion


 Kanluwen wrote:
 ClockworkZion wrote:
 Kanluwen wrote:
Frankly, it won't matter if they do or don't adopt it. There's too many garbage people in this hobby at this point and they've gotten away with too much in the competitive scene to justify a "code" now.

I mean I'd rather watch the toxic people out themselves and burn their armies in response than them stay in the hobby, but okay.

I would too, but most of the really bad people? They don't flare out. They keep going and do nothing but generate exhaustion in the rest of the community they're in.

Fair point! Still nice when people out their toxicity like what happened with that whole "can Space Marines be black?" thing.


Do you think 40k should adopt the player's code from AoS 3.0? @ 2021/06/14 20:21:14


Post by: a_typical_hero


Didn't know this existed, but we always played like that. At least during games where I participated in.

Reads like basic etiquette between human beings, to be honest.


Do you think 40k should adopt the player's code from AoS 3.0? @ 2021/06/14 20:23:19


Post by: Quasistellar


If nothing else they could put this stuff in the chapter approved packets.

Really it's just a list of things I personally take for granted as a human raised in a society put into writing for those who were apparently raised by wolves or sociopaths.


Do you think 40k should adopt the player's code from AoS 3.0? @ 2021/06/14 20:26:08


Post by: Kanluwen


 ClockworkZion wrote:
 Kanluwen wrote:
 ClockworkZion wrote:
 Kanluwen wrote:
Frankly, it won't matter if they do or don't adopt it. There's too many garbage people in this hobby at this point and they've gotten away with too much in the competitive scene to justify a "code" now.

I mean I'd rather watch the toxic people out themselves and burn their armies in response than them stay in the hobby, but okay.

I would too, but most of the really bad people? They don't flare out. They keep going and do nothing but generate exhaustion in the rest of the community they're in.

Fair point! Still nice when people out their toxicity like what happened with that whole "can Space Marines be black?" thing.

Or the "But...but...the fleet officer's a G-G-GUUUUUUUUUUUUURL?!?!" nonsense.

I don't know how you solve all these problems. They're not strictly GW problems, they're failures on the parts of the individuals or their upbringing.


Do you think 40k should adopt the player's code from AoS 3.0? @ 2021/06/14 20:27:35


Post by: ClockworkZion


a_typical_hero wrote:
Didn't know this existed, but we always played like that. At least during games where I participated in.

Reads like basic etiquette between human beings, to be honest.

It sounds like it, but that recently Necro'd thread about LOS contained a post about not reminding your opponent about their rules because it's "their fault" if they forget.


Do you think 40k should adopt the player's code from AoS 3.0? @ 2021/06/14 20:28:20


Post by: Sim-Life


Its like a family friendly version of Page 5 from Warmachine


Do you think 40k should adopt the player's code from AoS 3.0? @ 2021/06/14 20:35:39


Post by: ClockworkZion


 Kanluwen wrote:
 ClockworkZion wrote:
 Kanluwen wrote:
 ClockworkZion wrote:
 Kanluwen wrote:
Frankly, it won't matter if they do or don't adopt it. There's too many garbage people in this hobby at this point and they've gotten away with too much in the competitive scene to justify a "code" now.

I mean I'd rather watch the toxic people out themselves and burn their armies in response than them stay in the hobby, but okay.

I would too, but most of the really bad people? They don't flare out. They keep going and do nothing but generate exhaustion in the rest of the community they're in.

Fair point! Still nice when people out their toxicity like what happened with that whole "can Space Marines be black?" thing.

Or the "But...but...the fleet officer's a G-G-GUUUUUUUUUUUUURL?!?!" nonsense.

I don't know how you solve all these problems. They're not strictly GW problems, they're failures on the parts of the individuals or their upbringing.

GW can at least try to create a communityt that says "you can't be more than this toxic to ride the bus". Now if the toxic people want to go have a toxic circle jerk on their own that's one thing, but this can help empower people to put their foot down more.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Sim-Life wrote:
Its like a family friendly version of Page 5 from Warmachine

AKA what page 5 should have been instead of talking about having balls and playing "hard".


Do you think 40k should adopt the player's code from AoS 3.0? @ 2021/06/14 20:39:57


Post by: a_typical_hero


 ClockworkZion wrote:
It sounds like it, but that recently Necro'd thread about LOS contained a post about not reminding your opponent about their rules because it's "their fault" if they forget.

I see... didn't read that thread.

I get that it becomes tedious to remind people about basic rules and profiles again and again when they already play the game for some time (sometimes years), but willfully not reminding them feels cheap.

You don't have to give them tactical advice how to beat you (unless you are training a new player how to play the game, then you should), but not reminding them if something is obviously the right rule to use now is not right imho. Example: Forgetting Feel no pain rolls.


Do you think 40k should adopt the player's code from AoS 3.0? @ 2021/06/14 20:47:42


Post by: Gene St. Ealer


 ClockworkZion wrote:
The player's code:


Honestly I rather like it (especially the part of reminding your opponent about rules your opponent forgot), but I'm all for hearing other opinions on if we should adopt this even if 40k doesn't adopt this in the rule book.


Is it not kosher to complain about bad luck? I mean, if you do it excessively I'm sure it gets annoying (I know I'm guilty of it). But so is excessive bad luck

I try to keep it more as "remarking" than complaining (really, when the luck is skewed one way or the other for me or my opponent). I mean, it's a dice game, that can and will be the make or break.

ETA: Otherwise, this is really good, if obvious at times.


Do you think 40k should adopt the player's code from AoS 3.0? @ 2021/06/14 20:49:10


Post by: Gert


Spoiler:
 ClockworkZion wrote:
The player's code:


Honestly I rather like it (especially the part of reminding your opponent about rules your opponent forgot), but I'm all for hearing other opinions on if we should adopt this even if 40k doesn't adopt this in the rule book.

Yeah, absolutely this should be included.
But on the flip side, I don't think a single rule in there isn't just common courtesy to someone you aren't familiar with or even are familiar with, and the fact that this kind of thing needs to be included in a rulebook for a hobby is pretty sad.


Do you think 40k should adopt the player's code from AoS 3.0? @ 2021/06/14 21:02:01


Post by: edwardmyst


My group doesn't need a set of rules to remind themselves to be polite, courteous, fun players. It's why most like-minded players have groups they go with. So, that said here's my two cents on these things:

They can do this, but it would be pointless. Let's be honest, the people breaking these "rules" know it and won't give a rip about them anyway. Your comments about "outing" themselves come from a hopeful idea, but they're doing it already so this changes nothing. Cheating at the game IS cheating without a reminder. Hiding dice, etc etc.
The reasons are too complex for this thread, and will not change. (go study books on empathy, or the lack of it in people)

People who go by these basic tenants of politeness do not need to be reminded of them, and those who don't certainly won't care about "enforcing" them.

And if this is really a "you should play the way I do" post...well, I suspect you know better.


Do you think 40k should adopt the player's code from AoS 3.0? @ 2021/06/14 21:05:30


Post by: Kanluwen


 ClockworkZion wrote:

GW can at least try to create a communityt that says "you can't be more than this toxic to ride the bus". Now if the toxic people want to go have a toxic circle jerk on their own that's one thing, but this can help empower people to put their foot down more.

I mean this in the nicest way possible:

Without giving some actual teeth to these kinds of things? A simple "don't be jerks to each other" statement doesn't help empower people enough. Most people cannot (and I'm going to honestly sympathize here with it, as I've had to go through it myself) be bothered with the drama or the harassment that can manifest from dealing with some of these people.

The best we can hope for at this point is massive reworks to the fluff+gameplay to make stuff less appealing to them.


Do you think 40k should adopt the player's code from AoS 3.0? @ 2021/06/14 21:08:16


Post by: Mr. Grey


 Gert wrote:
Spoiler:
 ClockworkZion wrote:
The player's code:


Honestly I rather like it (especially the part of reminding your opponent about rules your opponent forgot), but I'm all for hearing other opinions on if we should adopt this even if 40k doesn't adopt this in the rule book.

Yeah, absolutely this should be included.
But on the flip side, I don't think a single rule in there isn't just common courtesy to someone you aren't familiar with or even are familiar with, and the fact that this kind of thing needs to be included in a rulebook for a hobby is pretty sad.


I don't think it's sad, I think it's a great way to include a gentle reminder that at the end of the day we're all moving plastic toy soldiers around a table, and that being a courteous human being is the least you can do as an opponent.


Do you think 40k should adopt the player's code from AoS 3.0? @ 2021/06/14 21:16:29


Post by: Kanluwen


 Gene St. Ealer wrote:

Is it not kosher to complain about bad luck? I mean, if you do it excessively I'm sure it gets annoying (I know I'm guilty of it). But so is excessive bad luck

I try to keep it more as "remarking" than complaining (really, when the luck is skewed one way or the other for me or my opponent). I mean, it's a dice game, that can and will be the make or break.

ETA: Otherwise, this is really good, if obvious at times.

There's a difference between a few dramatic "DIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIICE!" moments in the game where both people are having a good laugh about it and constantly saying "Well, you wouldn't have been able to do that if you were rolling like me!" or comments that basically make it sound like your opponent is only doing well because of luck/dice.

You can reach a point, IMO, where it makes it feel less like you're feeling shafted by the Dice Gods and more that the other person was garbage and only won because of dice. Nothing got on my nerves as much as when someone would go out of their way to make a comment like "Well if you hadn't been rolling great, you wouldn't have won!". That's usually when it became "Alright, shut up and reset then. We're swapping armies and having another game" if there was time.


Do you think 40k should adopt the player's code from AoS 3.0? @ 2021/06/14 21:19:02


Post by: ClockworkZion


 Kanluwen wrote:
 ClockworkZion wrote:

GW can at least try to create a communityt that says "you can't be more than this toxic to ride the bus". Now if the toxic people want to go have a toxic circle jerk on their own that's one thing, but this can help empower people to put their foot down more.

I mean this in the nicest way possible:

Without giving some actual teeth to these kinds of things? A simple "don't be jerks to each other" statement doesn't help empower people enough. Most people cannot (and I'm going to honestly sympathize here with it, as I've had to go through it myself) be bothered with the drama or the harassment that can manifest from dealing with some of these people.

The best we can hope for at this point is massive reworks to the fluff+gameplay to make stuff less appealing to them.

There is only so much teeth GW can provide. Giving some kind of written "this is what should be expected of you to play" gives teeth to people who might be less willing to say something when there isn't a written guideline. From what I've seen when there are some kind of rules in place establishing a player's code people are more willing to say something than when there aren't.


Do you think 40k should adopt the player's code from AoS 3.0? @ 2021/06/14 21:22:34


Post by: TangoTwoBravo


Looks like a good code of conduct. I think it’s fine to have a fun moment when the dice do something non-statistical. Like to fail a 4” charge with a reroll is worthy of a glance skyward.

The bit about asking permission to use unpainted models will likely lead to outcry with some folks on Dakka.


Do you think 40k should adopt the player's code from AoS 3.0? @ 2021/06/14 21:24:45


Post by: FezzikDaBullgryn


I really love this! Thank you for sharing. I would say 40k should include this, or something like it, but lets be honest, 40k is a completely different crowd than AoS. It's like Wow vs Everquest. Or Star Wars vs LoTR. One is all about laid back, "it's just a game" and one is "RAW!!! according to paragraph 3 on page 256, of subsection A.1.f, I can place my repulsors on top of this building like so, and you are not allowed to charge or fight them!"

See the difference? One is about playing a game and having fun, the other is about arguing over intent until one player flat out quits. It's also why there is no real big AoS Tournament scene like there is with 40k. It's just not as competitive.


Do you think 40k should adopt the player's code from AoS 3.0? @ 2021/06/14 21:24:54


Post by: Kanluwen


TangoTwoBravo wrote:
Looks like a good code of conduct. I think it’s fine to have a fun moment when the dice do something non-statistical. Like to fail a 4” charge with a reroll is worthy of a glance skyward.

The bit about asking permission to use unpainted models will likely lead to outcry with some folks on Dakka.

Real-talk:
Does it matter if it leads to outcry?

Most people, in real life, will likely not give a crap unless they're doing some kind of active stream or whatever...in which case for many areas they likely have to get your consent to be on camera anyways.


Do you think 40k should adopt the player's code from AoS 3.0? @ 2021/06/14 21:27:37


Post by: Niiai


Yes.

But in Norway all those points are just common curtesy though.

The fact that they need to be spelled out is just rough.


Do you think 40k should adopt the player's code from AoS 3.0? @ 2021/06/14 21:27:40


Post by: Selfcontrol


Are some of you guys really thinking that such a code is useful ?

I routinely play on the Internet where much more drastic rules are imposed upon the players AND are enforced with harsh decision (aka : a very real risk of being permanently banned) and nobody cares.

Everyone is aware of the code of conduct (you are forced to read it and sign it) and nobody listens to it. Basic politeness means that most people don't need it. And the ones who do need it simply don't care.

This player's code is not enforced by GW in any way (except, perhaps, in their own events) and other events already have something akin to this code (and is enforced by TO's or equivalents).

This code is utterly useless. If GW wants to put it in 40K, why not, it's just one page. But it is still useless.



Do you think 40k should adopt the player's code from AoS 3.0? @ 2021/06/14 21:36:16


Post by: ClockworkZion


Selfcontrol wrote:
Are some of you guys really thinking that such a code is useful ?

I routinely play on the Internet where much more drastic rules are imposed upon the players AND are enforced with harsh decision (aka : a very real risk of being permanently banned) and nobody cares.

Everyone is aware of the code of conduct (you are forced to read it and sign it) and nobody listens to it. Basic politeness means that most people don't need it. And the ones who do need it simply don't care.

This player's code is not enforced by GW in any way (except, perhaps, in their own events) and other events already have something akin to this code (and is enforced by TO's or equivalents).

This code is utterly useless. If GW wants to put it in 40K, why not, it's just one page. But it is still useless.


Internet has one drastic difference than real life: no real personal repercussions. Big difference getting banned online and getting banned from your FLGS.


Do you think 40k should adopt the player's code from AoS 3.0? @ 2021/06/14 21:38:35


Post by: Selfcontrol


People were already being banned from their FLGS without such code.


Do you think 40k should adopt the player's code from AoS 3.0? @ 2021/06/14 21:39:08


Post by: CEO Kasen


Yes. It might not do much for the worst cases, but that doesn't mean it's not worthwhile to include. Some younger players might be able to use the lesson or reminder.


Do you think 40k should adopt the player's code from AoS 3.0? @ 2021/06/14 21:41:43


Post by: ClockworkZion


Selfcontrol wrote:
People were already being banned from their FLGS without such code.

That's because FLGS have their own codes. This is giving a code that is the same for everyone to everyone so they can go into the game expecting a base level of decency and arms them to be able to call out toxicity better when they don't have an FLGS' code to fall back on. Like pick up games, or garagehammer groups where people might be more reluctant to rock the boat. Plus you could see it as GW finally adopting a player's code for their own stores.

Just because it does nothing for you personally doesn't make it worthless.


Do you think 40k should adopt the player's code from AoS 3.0? @ 2021/06/14 21:54:42


Post by: Lord Damocles


I don't really see how a few bullet points of 'don't be a dick' are likely to help those who apparently play in some sort of dystopian hellscape where people are cheating with abandon.
Nor do I really see that they're necessary for those of us who play in amongst civilised society.


Do you think 40k should adopt the player's code from AoS 3.0? @ 2021/06/14 21:58:14


Post by: Gert


Some people need reminding of how to behave sometimes, especially kids. Sure 1/10 people or whatever might always be a problem but if there are official guidelines that groups and stores can outline created by the game designers then people tend to stick to those rules. Casual, chilled environments rarely last IME and until someone sets down the law, a lot of things will just get waved off.


Do you think 40k should adopt the player's code from AoS 3.0? @ 2021/06/14 21:59:44


Post by: Stormonu


I think the permission to use unpainted minis is odd, but I don't have a problem with the rest.

At the least, I think the code is something people should be mindful of, and probably posted somewhere visibly for tournaments, but not required for casual play.

And the "page 5" from Warmachine was pretty off-putting. I'm glad its gone; there is a nicer way to present the sentiment of "be fair, accept loss gracefully and don't be abusive" than that did.


Do you think 40k should adopt the player's code from AoS 3.0? @ 2021/06/14 21:59:55


Post by: Apple fox


Measure distances carefully... it’s a decent enough page to put in the book. Wouldn’t be against it.

I think page 5 was trying to be fun, but mostly ends up feeling off and doesn’t age well. Probably the worst part of the Warmachine and hordes rules. Even way better ways to keep the fun play hard attitude without some of the ways it was written .


Do you think 40k should adopt the player's code from AoS 3.0? @ 2021/06/14 22:01:05


Post by: Gert


 Mr. Grey wrote:


I don't think it's sad, I think it's a great way to include a gentle reminder that at the end of the day we're all moving plastic toy soldiers around a table, and that being a courteous human being is the least you can do as an opponent.


TBF it was more a commentary on why people don't just have courtesy anyway. Pretty naive and especially in my experience most people don't use common courtesy but as someone who was brought up to respect others and generally not be a prat, it always makes me sad that people think it's OK to be a wazzock when it comes to playing with toy soldiers.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Stormonu wrote:
I think the permission to use unpainted minis is odd, but I don't have a problem with the rest.


Think that's just to encourage people to paint their models TBH both to get GW more cash money and to make games more "cinematic". If I was gaming with friends and they'd just nabbed some new stuff or I know I'm playing against a new start it's not going to be an issue but if a club/store regular only plays with unpainted models because FOTM or general CBA then I'd be a bit miffed.


Do you think 40k should adopt the player's code from AoS 3.0? @ 2021/06/14 22:12:57


Post by: Racerguy180


Is it just me or is that all stuff you should anyway?


Do you think 40k should adopt the player's code from AoS 3.0? @ 2021/06/14 22:17:17


Post by: CEO Kasen


 Lord Damocles wrote:
I don't really see how a few bullet points of 'don't be a dick' are likely to help those who apparently play in some sort of dystopian hellscape where people are cheating with abandon.
Nor do I really see that they're necessary for those of us who play in amongst civilised society.


Because it's about the little things. Small nudges for kids or those in between the extremes you mention. No one is going to suggest that including a page like this is going to solve unsportsmanlike behavior in 40K Forevar, but these little reminders are quite positive.

When I was littler I used to read the core rulebook over and over, and it would be no bad thing for developing social minds to have that kind of stuff put into their heads. A small bit of 'don't be a dick' can go a long way, and frankly I'd much rather have this here in place of, say, another showcase page of Captain Splodus Groinus and the 34th Primaris Ululators.


Do you think 40k should adopt the player's code from AoS 3.0? @ 2021/06/14 22:21:09


Post by: yukishiro1


We got into a heated discussion on the Tournaments section of the forums about whether it's bad sportsmanship to take advantage of your opponent's lack of knowledge of your rules, so I suspect that part of the code of conduct would generate a lot of opposition from the side of the argument who thought that it's your opponent's responsibility to know your rules, and that taking advantage of their lack of knowledge is acceptable. Some people were even saying it was ok to refuse to answer your opponent's questions about your rules unless they deemed them sufficiently specific.


Do you think 40k should adopt the player's code from AoS 3.0? @ 2021/06/14 22:25:17


Post by: Arachnofiend


 ClockworkZion wrote:
Selfcontrol wrote:
People were already being banned from their FLGS without such code.

That's because FLGS have their own codes. This is giving a code that is the same for everyone to everyone so they can go into the game expecting a base level of decency and arms them to be able to call out toxicity better when they don't have an FLGS' code to fall back on. Like pick up games, or garagehammer groups where people might be more reluctant to rock the boat. Plus you could see it as GW finally adopting a player's code for their own stores.

Just because it does nothing for you personally doesn't make it worthless.

Probably the best way to think of it is as a code for GW stores, really.


Do you think 40k should adopt the player's code from AoS 3.0? @ 2021/06/14 22:26:10


Post by: ccs


 Gert wrote:
 Mr. Grey wrote:


I don't think it's sad, I think it's a great way to include a gentle reminder that at the end of the day we're all moving plastic toy soldiers around a table, and that being a courteous human being is the least you can do as an opponent.


TBF it was more a commentary on why people don't just have courtesy anyway. Pretty naive and especially in my experience most people don't use common courtesy but as someone who was brought up to respect others and generally not be a prat, it always makes me sad that people think it's OK to be a wazzock when it comes to playing with toy soldiers.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Stormonu wrote:
I think the permission to use unpainted minis is odd, but I don't have a problem with the rest.


Think that's just to encourage people to paint their models TBH both to get GW more cash money and to make games more "cinematic". If I was gaming with friends and they'd just nabbed some new stuff or I know I'm playing against a new start it's not going to be an issue but if a club/store regular only plays with unpainted models because FOTM or general CBA then I'd be a bit miffed.


I'm sorry, [I paint this stuff at my own speed/whim. You are not a factor in that equation.
You don't like the speed I do this? {shrugs}


Do you think 40k should adopt the player's code from AoS 3.0? @ 2021/06/14 22:32:45


Post by: Gert


Painted minis might not be a factor in your game enjoyment but it is in mine and even then I'm hardly going to string you up because your army isn't painted. However, 3 colours and a base material ain't hard if all you do the hobby for is gaming. Painting ain't just about making things cinematic, it also allows opponents to pick out units/models on the table more easily. For example, if I am playing against a CSM player who has CQC Marines and Berzerkers in an army, I could quickly and easily surmise the unit with more red paint is the Berzerkers and I can adapt my gameplay to suit the situation.


Do you think 40k should adopt the player's code from AoS 3.0? @ 2021/06/14 22:43:24


Post by: Jadenim


I think it’s more a way for GW to set the tone for how they want the community to be than commandments to be enforced, but it does also do to actually tell people what good etiquette looks like. Particularly in a community where there are quite a lot of kids and *ahem* “socially challenged” people who don’t necessarily know that this is how you’re supposed to behave.

The airsoft site I play at has some very similar stuff in the safety brief and it works quite nicely to get everyone’s head in the right space at the start of the day (i.e. everyone’s here to blow off some steam and have fun, so don’t take it too seriously.)


Do you think 40k should adopt the player's code from AoS 3.0? @ 2021/06/14 23:09:44


Post by: Cheex


I see literally no downside to including this page in 40k.

If your group already does this, then that's great. I hope you take this kind of list as an opportunity for introspection and to make sure you actually do these things.

The biggest benefits to me are for two groups of people:

1. Those who fall into the trap of optimism bias. "That doesn't happen to me"; "I'm better than that"; "It's sad this has to be spelled out". I catch myself doing this all the time just in normal daily interactions. It's important to step back sometimes and say "I think I already do these things, but I'll keep an eye on my actions and make sure that I do."

2. New or young players. When I started going to tournaments in the mid-2000s as an awkward teenager, there was always a "code of conduct" in the form of a Sportsmanship score, and that has always impressed upon me the kind of behaviour that is expected in this kind of game.

Obviously, it won't affect people who are dicks (i.e. legitimately don't care for how other people are affected by their actions) or who are incapable of/unwilling to perform introspection (i.e. think they are already behaving acceptably), but spending one page on this hurts absolutely nothing.


Do you think 40k should adopt the player's code from AoS 3.0? @ 2021/06/14 23:26:14


Post by: H.B.M.C.


 Gert wrote:
Think that's just to encourage people to paint their models TBH both to get GW more cash money and to make games more "cinematic".
Like the extra points for having a painted army, I just see it as GW telling me that I'm doing the HHHobby wrong.


Do you think 40k should adopt the player's code from AoS 3.0? @ 2021/06/15 05:58:09


Post by: Vankraken


Most of this is fine but there is no "asking permission to use unpainted models". The opponent has the right to not play against unpainted models (or for any reason they choose) but I don't need somebody's permission to use them like I'm somehow doing something wrong. It really shouldn't irritate me like this but GW's elitist attitude about painting models is absolutely insufferable when we are talking about hundreds to thousands of dollars on plastic figures to then spend tens to hundreds of hours painting the things which is a massive investment in time and effort for a hobby before being "allowed" to play the game.


Do you think 40k should adopt the player's code from AoS 3.0? @ 2021/06/15 06:53:21


Post by: vict0988


"I don't really see how a few bullet points of 'don't be a dick' are likely to help those who apparently play in some sort of dystopian hellscape where people are cheating with abandon.
Nor do I really see that they're necessary for those of us who play in amongst civilised society."
I think you are very wrong, sportsmanship is a skill like any other, it can be developed and the more you apply yourself in a smart way the faster you will get better at it. When you join a gym you shouldn't just lift random weights, you should get a trainer and a regime that fits your body and your goals, when you go on a journey to become a better sportsman having goals and a regime is going to help immensely. I was brought up in a Warhammer environment where "guess range" meant "measure the length from your elbow to your wrist and use it as a measuring stick" and something like this would probably have been good for that environment.
 Vankraken wrote:
Most of this is fine but there is no "asking permission to use unpainted models". The opponent has the right to not play against unpainted models (or for any reason they choose) but I don't need somebody's permission to use them like I'm somehow doing something wrong. It really shouldn't irritate me like this but GW's elitist attitude about painting models is absolutely insufferable when we are talking about hundreds to thousands of dollars on plastic figures to then spend tens to hundreds of hours painting the things which is a massive investment in time and effort for a hobby before being "allowed" to play the game.

Disagree, you don't want to set up a game and then find out by the time you start pulling out your models that your opponent is going to want to dock your paint points because you have an unpainted model in your list. Bringing it up before the game while you are agreeing on the mission to be played and the types of lists and attitude you will bring is a great idea.
 ClockworkZion wrote:
The player's code:

Honestly I rather like it (especially the part of reminding your opponent about rules your opponent forgot), but I'm all for hearing other opinions on if we should adopt this even if 40k doesn't adopt this in the rule book.

Bit too stringent on the complaining about luck I think. Making a groan when you make a bad roll, is that complaining about luck? I think complaining about luck is totally fair in moderate amounts. I feel like my opponents might find it a bit strange when I roll 0 hits and just pick up the dice and move on, the game is partly about the swings the dice bring, otherwise we'd be playing chess. Instead of offering your opponent to let them read your list I think going over your list is easier, especially for people unfamiliar with your list, as a Necron player I think I know more about what someone who hasn't played Necrons before wants to know before the game than they do if they were to just look at my list. Letting people look over Stratagems should be on the 40k list IMO.


Do you think 40k should adopt the player's code from AoS 3.0? @ 2021/06/15 07:50:35


Post by: Jidmah


Some people need an official piece of paper telling them that it's not ok to be a dick. I believe there was an entire P&P book, 50+ pages strong just explaining to people that the DM isn't their opponent.
So yes, it should be included.

Feth that unpainted model gak though.


Do you think 40k should adopt the player's code from AoS 3.0? @ 2021/06/15 07:59:08


Post by: mrFickle


It’s a good set of rules to put up front. People fall out over monopoly. And I’ve seen ork players just go into autopilot on rerolls and you don’t know what’s going on.

Part of the problem is the pace of the game and the number re rolls can slow it down so people tend to get a bit hasty with it. These are good rules to remember I think.

Also when I was a teenager we used to get overly competitive and argue about the rules, like kids do.

I’d be interested to know, re asking to use unpainted models, do they award points for battle ready army painting standard in AOS


Do you think 40k should adopt the player's code from AoS 3.0? @ 2021/06/15 07:59:28


Post by: Jadenim


I kind of agree on the bad luck thing; it’s fine to grumble about the third 1 you roll on a 2+ result, when the dice gods are obviously against you, but try to keep it light hearted and never, ever* direct it at the other player. (So “oh my god, my rolls are terrible tonight”, ok , “the only reason you won is because you roll so well”, no, no .)

* Unless, of course, it’s someone you’re already friends with and it’s part of the usual smack talk/banter. Or there was some genuinely unbelievable, Hail Mary, event that actually came off and you’re discussing it in an excited, positive, way (e.g. I can’t believe your Grot managed to kill Mortarion in close combat! That’s insane!)


Do you think 40k should adopt the player's code from AoS 3.0? @ 2021/06/15 08:01:58


Post by: Sim-Life


I wonder how the people who stick rigidly by the rules are going to interpret this? Are there any RAW/RAI loopholes that can be exploited?


Do you think 40k should adopt the player's code from AoS 3.0? @ 2021/06/15 08:05:06


Post by: Jadenim


mrFickle wrote:
It’s a good set of rules to put up front. People fall out over monopoly. And I’ve seen ork players just go into autopilot on rerolls and you don’t know what’s going on.

Part of the problem is the pace of the game and the number re rolls can slow it down so people tend to get a bit hasty with it. These are good rules to remember I think.

Also when I was a teenager we used to get overly competitive and argue about the rules, like kids do.

I’d be interested to know, re asking to use unpainted models, do they award points for battle ready army painting standard in AOS


That’s because Monopoly is a purely evil game…


Do you think 40k should adopt the player's code from AoS 3.0? @ 2021/06/15 08:35:42


Post by: vict0988


 Sim-Life wrote:
I wonder how the people who stick rigidly by the rules are going to interpret this? Are there any RAW/RAI loopholes that can be exploited?

You have to ask permission to touch your opponenet's models or use unpainted models.
You don't have to get permission.

You can't distract your opponent when they are trying to concentrate.
If you never give them a chance to concentrate then you are not breaking the rules.

Make a nice gesture before the game.
Mister Bean taught me that giving someone the finger is nice in America.


Do you think 40k should adopt the player's code from AoS 3.0? @ 2021/06/15 08:37:10


Post by: Jidmah


 Sim-Life wrote:
I wonder how the people who stick rigidly by the rules are going to interpret this? Are there any RAW/RAI loopholes that can be exploited?


If GW keeps up with the improving their rules writing, I suspect the whole RAW/RAI thing might die out eventually anyways. Nowadays most questions have clear answer, it just needs to be found. Those who don't have one usually have only one valid interpretation that doesn't break the game.

Stuff that is genuinely unclear has become really, really rare.


Do you think 40k should adopt the player's code from AoS 3.0? @ 2021/06/15 09:29:18


Post by: Grimtuff


 Stormonu wrote:
I think the permission to use unpainted minis is odd, but I don't have a problem with the rest.


It’s the second part that irks me. GW really be trying to kill off conversions and scratch builds aren’t they?

That, coupled with the recent changes in certain datasheets, mean the writing is on the wall for the modelling part of this hobby. Why should my conversions and scratchbashes be at the mercy of my opponent? Sure, I get it for the terrible horror story proxies out there (pop bottle Carnifex anyone?), but to lump everything in that is concerning.


Do you think 40k should adopt the player's code from AoS 3.0? @ 2021/06/15 09:50:23


Post by: vict0988


 Grimtuff wrote:
 Stormonu wrote:
I think the permission to use unpainted minis is odd, but I don't have a problem with the rest.


It’s the second part that irks me. GW really be trying to kill off conversions and scratch builds aren’t they?

That, coupled with the recent changes in certain datasheets, mean the writing is on the wall for the modelling part of this hobby. Why should my conversions and scratchbashes be at the mercy of my opponent? Sure, I get it for the terrible horror story proxies out there (pop bottle Carnifex anyone?), but to lump everything in that is concerning.

If the substitute is fair your opponent is going to let you do it, if you make all your Wraithknights crouch you can take a hike.


Do you think 40k should adopt the player's code from AoS 3.0? @ 2021/06/15 09:57:28


Post by: Fergie0044


a_typical_hero wrote:
Didn't know this existed, but we always played like that. At least during games where I participated in.

Reads like basic etiquette between human beings, to be honest.


This, basically. Nothing here struck me as unusual or restrictive. I unconsciously do most of it anyway, because my opponent is a fellow human and I treat them as such.


Do you think 40k should adopt the player's code from AoS 3.0? @ 2021/06/15 09:59:30


Post by: Nazrak


I mean, absolutely yes, I think it's great, but also it's simultaneously hilarious and depressing that it was necessary to devote an entire rulebook page to "don't be an unpleasant little dill weed".


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Nazrak wrote:
I mean, absolutely yes, I think it's great, but also it's simultaneously hilarious and depressing that it was necessary to devote an entire rulebook page to "don't be an unpleasant little dill weed".

Ha, I've not heard anyone called a "dill weed" since about 1993. Fair play, swears filter.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Racerguy180 wrote:
Is it just me or is that all stuff you should anyway?

1. Yes.
2. "Not murdering people" is widely agreed to be "stuff you should do anyway", but it's still codified in law in most societies, I guess.


Do you think 40k should adopt the player's code from AoS 3.0? @ 2021/06/15 10:07:53


Post by: Arbitrator


Not worth the tree that was felled to include it. People aren't suddenly going to play 'politely' or 'nicely' just because GW slapped that in. The dicks will still be dicks, the rude will still be rude.

Page 5 still lives rent free in peoples heads, so I guess I shouldn't be surprised people think this has a far, far, far bigger than impact than it does.



Do you think 40k should adopt the player's code from AoS 3.0? @ 2021/06/15 11:09:12


Post by: Tarvitz77


Looks like a list of things that you would tell a kid and/or someone that has never played a miniature wargame before they have their first game. Some are pretty obvious to any human but others are things someone that isn't experienced might not think about until you point it out.

Obviously isn't going to stop anyone that is actually being malicious, but I don't think that is the intent. Also any talk of 'enforcing' this seems totally against the spirit of why it's included, they're just pointers so everyone has a chilled game.


Do you think 40k should adopt the player's code from AoS 3.0? @ 2021/06/15 11:15:32


Post by: MarkNorfolk


Nothing wrong with putting a 'play nice' page in.

Sure, dickheads will always be dickheads, but taking space to remind everyone we're all doing this to have a nice time is worthwhile.

I'd be quite happy if this was actually printed on page 5 of the book, too. An 'anti-Page 5' if you will.


Do you think 40k should adopt the player's code from AoS 3.0? @ 2021/06/15 11:24:51


Post by: BrianDavion


IMHO this code isn't aimed at well.. us. we're all vetern gamers ehre and "set in our ways" that code is basicly pretty standard ettiquite and is presumably mostly to help kids just getting into the game end up commiting a few faux pas' by breaking what are commonly understood rules within the community


Do you think 40k should adopt the player's code from AoS 3.0? @ 2021/06/15 11:27:27


Post by: H.B.M.C.


They should adopt this and page 5. Really confuse everyone with mixed messages.


Do you think 40k should adopt the player's code from AoS 3.0? @ 2021/06/15 11:38:04


Post by: kirotheavenger


Help an idiot out, what's this "page 5" thing people are mentioning?


Do you think 40k should adopt the player's code from AoS 3.0? @ 2021/06/15 11:38:46


Post by: FezzikDaBullgryn


Can we add "Wash your stanky body at least 7 times per week, so as not to be the AromaJoe"?


Do you think 40k should adopt the player's code from AoS 3.0? @ 2021/06/15 11:41:19


Post by: a_typical_hero


 kirotheavenger wrote:
Help an idiot out, what's this "page 5" thing people are mentioning?

This should be the text in question:
http://shin14n.blogspot.com/2005/12/page-5.html


Do you think 40k should adopt the player's code from AoS 3.0? @ 2021/06/15 11:46:38


Post by: Andykp


That’s just a list of good manners. Shouldn’t be needed but sadly is. I would say don’t play people who can’t follow this really.


Do you think 40k should adopt the player's code from AoS 3.0? @ 2021/06/15 11:52:08


Post by: FezzikDaBullgryn


It's not just play. I have to deal with the crowd of them huddling around the table, and swat/gently push hands away from models. They always bring friends. I've even seen a few websites where this sort of thing is encouraged because it breaks concentration.


Do you think 40k should adopt the player's code from AoS 3.0? @ 2021/06/15 12:10:34


Post by: Jidmah


FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Can we add "Wash your stanky body at least 7 times per week, so as not to be the AromaJoe"?


Here we call those people "Great Unclean Ones"


Automatically Appended Next Post:
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
It's not just play. I have to deal with the crowd of them huddling around the table, and swat/gently push hands away from models. They always bring friends. I've even seen a few websites where this sort of thing is encouraged because it breaks concentration.


When I still used to play MtG competitively, there was one guy here who always brought an attractive girl (a different one every few times) to stand next to him during tournaments. It took me years to realize why he was doing that - and he honestly didn't need that at all because he was a damn good player. Innocent me was just thinking about how that poor girl was forced to hang around a MtG tournament all day with her boyfriend despite having no clue what was going on


Do you think 40k should adopt the player's code from AoS 3.0? @ 2021/06/15 12:18:49


Post by: Deadnight


a_typical_hero wrote:
 kirotheavenger wrote:
Help an idiot out, what's this "page 5" thing people are mentioning?

This should be the text in question:
http://shin14n.blogspot.com/2005/12/page-5.html


To be fair this was the mk1 page 5 which was known for being severely over the top and ridiculous. It's also about 15 years out of date.

Mk2s page 5 toned it down significantly. it's still a bit over the top, but far more affirmative I think. Found a copy of it in a reddit (unrelated!) topic. Point 4 and 5 are especially on point.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.reddit.com/r/Warmachine/comments/3hw77l/new_errata_launched_some_cried_need_i_remind_you/

It's a very 'marmite thing. Its loud, its obnoxious, empowerimg, sporting and honest. at its core was very much 'this is a competitive game. Play hard. Play fair. Mix it up and explore the game, don't rely on crutches. Be magnanimous if you win, dont be a sore loser if you lose and most importantly, don't be a **** to anyone'.

Ironically anyone screaming page 5 whilst in the process of being a **** was very much against the spirit of everything p5 stood for.


Do you think 40k should adopt the player's code from AoS 3.0? @ 2021/06/15 12:20:22


Post by: Vankraken


 vict0988 wrote:

 Vankraken wrote:
Most of this is fine but there is no "asking permission to use unpainted models". The opponent has the right to not play against unpainted models (or for any reason they choose) but I don't need somebody's permission to use them like I'm somehow doing something wrong. It really shouldn't irritate me like this but GW's elitist attitude about painting models is absolutely insufferable when we are talking about hundreds to thousands of dollars on plastic figures to then spend tens to hundreds of hours painting the things which is a massive investment in time and effort for a hobby before being "allowed" to play the game.

Disagree, you don't want to set up a game and then find out by the time you start pulling out your models that your opponent is going to want to dock your paint points because you have an unpainted model in your list. Bringing it up before the game while you are agreeing on the mission to be played and the types of lists and attitude you will bring is a great idea.


I also vehemently disagree with painted models being in any way associated with game score or any game mechanics as again it puts an undue burden on the player who may have limited means (be it time, money, physical capability, etc) or want to paint an entire army. Not everyone is blessed with the means to paint an army and putting things in place that discourage people who can't get a fully painted army on the table is a detriment to the hobby and posh elitism from GW. Even then not everyone wants to skink massive amount of hours into painting hundreds of minis which is an outrageous commitment to appeal to GW's preferences.

Again it's about having to "ask for permission" to use your own models in a game of army men because they haven't been worked on for hours upon hours to be made pretty enough. It's elitism plain and simple. You shouldn't have to invest massive amounts of resources to be able to play a pickup game of army men with GW's frankly amateurish rulesets.


Do you think 40k should adopt the player's code from AoS 3.0? @ 2021/06/15 12:24:56


Post by: Unit1126PLL


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

That said, I do recognize that many people would rather play than paint, which is fine. Just try, for my sake, because I think part of the game is the spectacle, so we can compromise and I'll play against unpainted minis so long as you make some paint progress before our next game, mh? That way, we can each increase one another's fun more than "just go paint!" or "just go play against unpainted minis!" would.


Do you think 40k should adopt the player's code from AoS 3.0? @ 2021/06/15 12:31:59


Post by: tneva82


 Stormonu wrote:
I think the permission to use unpainted minis is odd, but I don't have a problem with the rest.

At the least, I think the code is something people should be mindful of, and probably posted somewhere visibly for tournaments, but not required for casual play.

And the "page 5" from Warmachine was pretty off-putting. I'm glad its gone; there is a nicer way to present the sentiment of "be fair, accept loss gracefully and don't be abusive" than that did.


Well...the page says them as examples. Cardinal is only one you really need to follow


Do you think 40k should adopt the player's code from AoS 3.0? @ 2021/06/15 13:19:00


Post by: H.B.M.C.


 Unit1126PLL wrote:
If you have time to play, you have time to paint.
This topic has been done to death, and if you think it's just a time thing, you haven't been paying attention.


Do you think 40k should adopt the player's code from AoS 3.0? @ 2021/06/15 13:30:08


Post by: vipoid


I can't help but laugh at a company that has spent years wallowing in anti-consumer practises publishing a code of ethics and good conduct for its players.

As to the code itself, there are certainly some points that stood out to me:

Avoid using language your opponent might find offensive.


Given the exceptionally long list of words and phrases that have allegedly caused offence to someone (not to mention such joyous inventions as "microaggressions"), I can't help but think that the only way to avoid using language that your opponent *might* find offensive would be to play the entire game in complete silence.


Ask your opponent's permission if you want to use unpainted models or substitute models.


Oh feth off, GW. Shove your elitist attitude up your rear end, along with your overpriced painting tools.

Also, I have no intention of getting down on my knees before each opponent "Please, sir! I must humbly inform you that some of the models in my army have not been officially sanctioned by our lord and savior, Games Workshop! I beg of you that you overlook this most grievous act of heresy and allow me to play this converted model!"

I also can't help but notice that it's good manners to beg your opponent for permission to use unpainted miniatures, conversions, proxies and 3rd party models; yet there doesn't appear to be any suggestion that it is good manners to allow such things, even within reason.


Measure moves and distances carefully and accurately.


Thanks but I'd appreciate it if you sodded off and left this sort of thing up to the individual players. I say this because I'm more than happy for my opponent to just move the front models in a large unit and then move the rest up behind them (and have had many opponents who've encouraged me to do likewise). Maybe they won't be moved with perfect accuracy but I honestly don't care. It saves a good deal of time and I can't remember it ever making a significant difference to the outcome of a game.


Remind your opponent about rules they may have forgotten to use or that they have used incorrectly, especially when doing so is to your opponent's advantage rather than your own.


Somehow I don't see this working in 40k.

If GW expect me to help my opponent with rules, then they shouldn't have first removed USRs and then added an entire CCG of extra rules on top of the core rules, the army rules, the subfaction rules, the unit rules, the relics, the warlord traits, the special snowflake rules etc.

Back in 5th, I used to know most of the rules in other books almost as well as I knew the rules for my own armies. Now I can't even remember half the Stratagems in my own book.

But even if I could remember them all, how far does this extend? Do I need to remind my opponent of every potential stratagem that he or I could play in a given situation, on the off-chance that he's forgotten?


Never deliberately waste time during a game.




Yeah, might want to try that one in an edition where the game itself isn't chock-full of time-wasting mechanics.


Never fix the outcome of a game.


What.


The other points seem largely fine, though I can't help but find it a little odd that stuff like allowing your opponent to see your army roster before the game is a principle rather than an actual rule of the game.


Do you think 40k should adopt the player's code from AoS 3.0? @ 2021/06/15 13:35:46


Post by: Ordana


The people that need a page of social rules to not be donkey-caves are also the people who ignore a page of social rules.

No one is going to whip out the rulebook and point to the "player code" when their opponent is being a jerk that wouldn't also point it out otherwise.

It makes people feel better about themselves when they can point to a 'rule' when talking about 'That Guy' they played at a tournament last weekend but it does absolutely nothing to stop 'That Guy'.


Do you think 40k should adopt the player's code from AoS 3.0? @ 2021/06/15 13:38:50


Post by: kirotheavenger


I have to agree with those opposed to "ask permission for unpainted/proxy model".
GW has really gone all in on the "go official or go home", when they make terrain rules they don't even do generic terrain, they make rules for this particular ruin that comes from this particular kit. urgh.


Do you think 40k should adopt the player's code from AoS 3.0? @ 2021/06/15 13:41:32


Post by: a_typical_hero



If you want, you can make a mockery of everything.

Or you can think about the goal of the guidelines and not try to interpret them as badly as possible, just to rant again about a company whose products you have been using voluntarily for years(?), despite of everything.


Do you think 40k should adopt the player's code from AoS 3.0? @ 2021/06/15 13:45:23


Post by: Kanluwen


 kirotheavenger wrote:
I have to agree with those opposed to "ask permission for unpainted/proxy model".

Yeah, no. Don't lump those two things together.

Proxies absolutely should be by permission. That is not a new concept.

GW has really gone all in on the "go official or go home", when they make terrain rules they don't even do generic terrain, they make rules for this particular ruin that comes from this particular kit. urgh.

As dumb as it might sound, I actually like that the terrain rules are for specific bits. It's a bit easier for identifying/playing.


Do you think 40k should adopt the player's code from AoS 3.0? @ 2021/06/15 13:46:18


Post by: Gert


Spoiler:
 kirotheavenger wrote:
I have to agree with those opposed to "ask permission for unpainted/proxy model".
GW has really gone all in on the "go official or go home", when they make terrain rules they don't even do generic terrain, they make rules for this particular ruin that comes from this particular kit. urgh.

"Why is GW making us use their products for their game, this is absolute nonsense!"


Automatically Appended Next Post:
a_typical_hero wrote:

If you want, you can make a mockery of everything.

Or you can think about the goal of the guidelines and not try to interpret them as badly as possible, just to rant again about a company whose products you have been using voluntarily for years(?), despite of everything.

^ This.


Do you think 40k should adopt the player's code from AoS 3.0? @ 2021/06/15 13:48:10


Post by: kirotheavenger


 Kanluwen wrote:

As dumb as it might sound, I actually like that the terrain rules are for specific bits. It's a bit easier for identifying/playing.

Only if you're shelled out for GW's terrain.
I haven't so I'm stuck making it up with no guidelines from GW.
Why can't they just have "ruins", "woods", "craters", like every other game system ever, including older 40k editions.


Do you think 40k should adopt the player's code from AoS 3.0? @ 2021/06/15 13:49:43


Post by: Gert


 Kanluwen wrote:

As dumb as it might sound, I actually like that the terrain rules are for specific bits. It's a bit easier for identifying/playing.

If I know what the terrain is just by looking at it then I'd take that over looking through a BRB to find the rules page that may or may not actually be of use.


Do you think 40k should adopt the player's code from AoS 3.0? @ 2021/06/15 13:49:54


Post by: Kanluwen


If you're making your own...why not just make it to vaguely match the bits you're complaining about?


Do you think 40k should adopt the player's code from AoS 3.0? @ 2021/06/15 13:53:54


Post by: Tycho


 ClockworkZion wrote:
 Kanluwen wrote:
 ClockworkZion wrote:

GW can at least try to create a communityt that says "you can't be more than this toxic to ride the bus". Now if the toxic people want to go have a toxic circle jerk on their own that's one thing, but this can help empower people to put their foot down more.

I mean this in the nicest way possible:

Without giving some actual teeth to these kinds of things? A simple "don't be jerks to each other" statement doesn't help empower people enough. Most people cannot (and I'm going to honestly sympathize here with it, as I've had to go through it myself) be bothered with the drama or the harassment that can manifest from dealing with some of these people.

The best we can hope for at this point is massive reworks to the fluff+gameplay to make stuff less appealing to them.

There is only so much teeth GW can provide. Giving some kind of written "this is what should be expected of you to play" gives teeth to people who might be less willing to say something when there isn't a written guideline. From what I've seen when there are some kind of rules in place establishing a player's code people are more willing to say something than when there aren't.


I think Kan is right though. For the people who already conduct themselves like good people, this is, at best, a bit of eye-rolling kind of text, and for the people who DON'T? They'll ignore it anyway. It just won't mean anything. It doesn't really seem to have made much of a difference on the Sigmar side.

This is basically just saying "don't be that guy". If you have a "That guy" at your LGS, don't play him. If you run into one at a tournament (which is significantly more rare than Dakka would have you believe - like an order of magnitude more rare), the tournament already has something similar in place and you should always feel free to call a judge.

So much of this just feels like "I don't understand how to deal with people." That copy printed in the BRB won't really change anything as far as bad behavior, and if you are at a point where you don't know how to deal with that behavior (on the VERY rare occasions you're likely to see it), that copy isn't going to help you deal with it.

I appreciate the sentiment here, but to me, it feels a little bit like a problem looking for a solution.


Do you think 40k should adopt the player's code from AoS 3.0? @ 2021/06/15 13:58:53


Post by: Aenar


Tycho wrote:
For the people who already conduct themselves like good people, this is, at best, a bit of eye-rolling kind of text, and for the people who DON'T? They'll ignore it anyway. It just won't mean anything.

100% like the 10/100 points you get for having a Battle Ready army.
Not relevant in tournaments, as you have painting requirements anyway to be able to participate.
Not relevant in casual games, because who cares about the result in those? If you win or lose by those 10/100 points, you can always ignore them or count them depending on what's the outcome (if you really care about that).


Do you think 40k should adopt the player's code from AoS 3.0? @ 2021/06/15 14:00:32


Post by: a_typical_hero


 kirotheavenger wrote:
Only if you're shelled out for GW's terrain.
I haven't so I'm stuck making it up with no guidelines from GW.
Why can't they just have "ruins", "woods", "craters", like every other game system ever, including older 40k editions.

I don't fully understand. In the rulebook you have the terrain section which describes what kind of features and traits exist + you get a picture showing what kind of (GW) terrain would be usable for this sort of stuff.

As it is not a comprehensive picture showing every single ruin or factory building out there that GW produces, it is clear to me, that those are just examples. If you get ruins from another distributor or you make them yourself, you have rules you can use.

What am I missing?


Do you think 40k should adopt the player's code from AoS 3.0? @ 2021/06/15 14:27:11


Post by: dogboy311


 vipoid wrote:
I can't help but laugh at a company that has spent years wallowing in anti-consumer practises publishing a code of ethics and good conduct for its players.

As to the code itself, there are certainly some points that stood out to me:

Avoid using language your opponent might find offensive.


Given the exceptionally long list of words and phrases that have allegedly caused offence to someone (not to mention such joyous inventions as "microaggressions"), I can't help but think that the only way to avoid using language that your opponent *might* find offensive would be to play the entire game in complete silence.


Ask your opponent's permission if you want to use unpainted models or substitute models.


Oh feth off, GW. Shove your elitist attitude up your rear end, along with your overpriced painting tools.

Also, I have no intention of getting down on my knees before each opponent "Please, sir! I must humbly inform you that some of the models in my army have not been officially sanctioned by our lord and savior, Games Workshop! I beg of you that you overlook this most grievous act of heresy and allow me to play this converted model!"

I also can't help but notice that it's good manners to beg your opponent for permission to use unpainted miniatures, conversions, proxies and 3rd party models; yet there doesn't appear to be any suggestion that it is good manners to allow such things, even within reason.


Measure moves and distances carefully and accurately.


Thanks but I'd appreciate it if you sodded off and left this sort of thing up to the individual players. I say this because I'm more than happy for my opponent to just move the front models in a large unit and then move the rest up behind them (and have had many opponents who've encouraged me to do likewise). Maybe they won't be moved with perfect accuracy but I honestly don't care. It saves a good deal of time and I can't remember it ever making a significant difference to the outcome of a game.


Remind your opponent about rules they may have forgotten to use or that they have used incorrectly, especially when doing so is to your opponent's advantage rather than your own.


Somehow I don't see this working in 40k.

If GW expect me to help my opponent with rules, then they shouldn't have first removed USRs and then added an entire CCG of extra rules on top of the core rules, the army rules, the subfaction rules, the unit rules, the relics, the warlord traits, the special snowflake rules etc.

Back in 5th, I used to know most of the rules in other books almost as well as I knew the rules for my own armies. Now I can't even remember half the Stratagems in my own book.

But even if I could remember them all, how far does this extend? Do I need to remind my opponent of every potential stratagem that he or I could play in a given situation, on the off-chance that he's forgotten?


Never deliberately waste time during a game.




Yeah, might want to try that one in an edition where the game itself isn't chock-full of time-wasting mechanics.


Never fix the outcome of a game.


What.


The other points seem largely fine, though I can't help but find it a little odd that stuff like allowing your opponent to see your army roster before the game is a principle rather than an actual rule of the game.



You sir seem too be the exact person this code was made for. Like how hard is it too not use offensive language. I assume you are an adult right, so it should be pretty easy too not be offensive. Also just give your opponent a heads up about your unpainted army what’s the big deal. Most people won’t care but some will appreciate it. And really why not remind you opponent about something they missed, it’s a game of PLASTIC TOY soldiers, not high stakes poker. And yeah don’t waste people’s time like why get so upset on that? And well measuring your models movement is actually an important part of the game so why not try your best too be accurate. And holy crap a company puts in a set of guidelines for playing a game where everyone can have fun and not be a douche bag. Like get over it man. Like most thing the most vocal complainers are usually the most guilty. Remember it’s a game of plastic toys. Lol.


Do you think 40k should adopt the player's code from AoS 3.0? @ 2021/06/15 14:34:28


Post by: Stormonu


FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Can we add "Wash your stanky body at least 7 times per week, so as not to be the AromaJoe"?


And there it is, folks!


Do you think 40k should adopt the player's code from AoS 3.0? @ 2021/06/15 14:35:49


Post by: Karol


 ClockworkZion wrote:


Honestly I rather like it (especially the part of reminding your opponent about rules your opponent forgot), but I'm all for hearing other opinions on if we should adopt this even if 40k doesn't adopt this in the rule book.


Asking for permission to use unpainted models. Seems bizzar. And while I would have zero problems with this, because I do not talk durning games aside for current game related stuff, how would the not use words your opponent my find offensive would work in practic? People seem to be able to decide that the presence of someone is offensive, and that is before even getting in to face to face with the person. If enforced, it would just give a huge edge to people who are donkey-caves or psychos. Don't like someone, or the result of the game. Claim being offended by someone.

The reminding people of rules thing is bizzar too. It is like calling the judge on yourself during an event, no one does that, unless they want a reason to drop or have a scholarship in the bag already, and want to look nice. But I don't think scouting or sponsorship is a thing in w40k. So why bother. Places a strange oddium on both players, and requires you to litterally mind read, and know what the opponent is thinking turns in advance. Something that may look like a bad move, maybe a bait to charge by the opponent, and if I remind him of it and he doesn't redo the move, there is a good chance I will see the bait and not take it.

On the other hand some stuff I like very much. Avoid distractic your opponent. A great thing for me, hate distraction durning games. Proper way of fast rolling aka removing misses, very good. No more playing the clock another great thing. Although if you are to always anwser any question your opponent asks about your army, how do you do that without playing the clock or distracting your opponent?

And the never fix game result is just something impossible to enforce, with teams, people playing people they know. Or simple life stuff. I can play only two games in an event and then I have to go home with my mom. If I drop game 3, then my opponents will get fewer points playing against me. It is much better for me to tell my 3 round opponent that I have to go, fixt the points ratio , probably mirroring the old 17:3 wins. I can go home without feeling bad, and he doesn't his event ruined, because he got to play me.


Do you think 40k should adopt the player's code from AoS 3.0? @ 2021/06/15 14:38:20


Post by: General Kroll


Most of those things in the players code should go without saying. Like not cheating, or not rigging a game.

For new players little things like not moving the dice, or asking if it’s ok to touch a model can be helpful etiquette that they may not be aware of.

I see no problem with encouraging people to not act like dicks.


Do you think 40k should adopt the player's code from AoS 3.0? @ 2021/06/15 14:43:50


Post by: Karol


dogboy311 799052 11149915 wrote:

You sir seem too be the exact person this code was made for. Like how hard is it too not use offensive language. I assume you are an adult right, so it should be pretty easy too not be offensive. Also just give your opponent a heads up about your unpainted army what’s the big deal. Most people won’t care but some will appreciate it. And really why not remind you opponent about something they missed, it’s a game of PLASTIC TOY soldiers, not high stakes poker. And yeah don’t waste people’s time like why get so upset on that? And well measuring your models movement is actually an important part of the game so why not try your best too be accurate. And holy crap a company puts in a set of guidelines for playing a game where everyone can have fun and not be a douche bag. Like get over it man. Like most thing the most vocal complainers are usually the most guilty. Remember it’s a game of plastic toys. Lol.


It is a high cost , in money game, where people win prizes, on top of the win being a prize in itself. Have you never seen guys from two streets beat the gak out of each other durning a "friendly" game of hockey? The don't use offensive language point doesn't work without a list of things that are considered to be offensive, otherwise your opponet can say that everything is offensive. On top of that, for people that have problems with understanding social interaction, no clear guidliness are a horrible thing. 2 weeks ago I was thrown out of class, because my reaction to a students saying their dog died was saying "good". Because for the last 3 months she has been talking how sick it was and how much in pain it was. MtG has a set of guildlines and a whole code of conduct. If GW wants to implement a , don't be offensive policy, they better write one down, because different people find different things offensive.

I find people wearing Che or Mao t-shirts deeply offensive, on the other hand, I was chastised for my cross getting out from under my shirt durning an event in germany 2 years ago. I can easily imagine games where both people find neither , both or one of the two offensive.


Do you think 40k should adopt the player's code from AoS 3.0? @ 2021/06/15 14:51:54


Post by: a_typical_hero


Karol wrote:

The don't use offensive language point doesn't work without a list of things that are considered to be offensive, otherwise your opponet can say that everything is offensive. ... If GW wants to implement a , don't be offensive policy, they better write one down, because different people find different things offensive.

I find people wearing Che or Mao t-shirts deeply offensive, on the other hand, I was chastised for my cross getting out from under my shirt durning an event in germany 2 years ago. I can easily imagine games where both people find neither , both or one of the two offensive.

What is and isn't offensive depends on the person you are playing with. How do you know what topics, jokes and slurs are okay when you hang around your friends and family? Get to know the person, play it safe. In case of doubt, leave out politics, religion, sex and dark humour for the first few games. You will come to an understanding naturally.

On top of that, for people that have problems with understanding social interaction, no clear guidliness are a horrible thing. 2 weeks ago I was thrown out of class, because my reaction to a students saying their dog died was saying "good". Because for the last 3 months she has been talking how sick it was and how much in pain it was.

I totally get your point of view. You simply expressed it very poorly. "I'm sorry to hear that, at least she is not suffering anymore" might have flown better.


Do you think 40k should adopt the player's code from AoS 3.0? @ 2021/06/15 14:55:08


Post by: Gert


Karol wrote:

It is a high cost , in money game, where people win prizes, on top of the win being a prize in itself. Have you never seen guys from two streets beat the gak out of each other durning a "friendly" game of hockey? The don't use offensive language point doesn't work without a list of things that are considered to be offensive, otherwise your opponet can say that everything is offensive. On top of that, for people that have problems with understanding social interaction, no clear guidliness are a horrible thing. 2 weeks ago I was thrown out of class, because my reaction to a students saying their dog died was saying "good". Because for the last 3 months she has been talking how sick it was and how much in pain it was. MtG has a set of guildlines and a whole code of conduct. If GW wants to implement a , don't be offensive policy, they better write one down, because different people find different things offensive.

I find people wearing Che or Mao t-shirts deeply offensive, on the other hand, I was chastised for my cross getting out from under my shirt durning an event in germany 2 years ago. I can easily imagine games where both people find neither , both or one of the two offensive.


Hey, look it's Karol from the Thunderdome who only exists in a competitive environment where losing games of Warhammer gets you beaten by street gangs.

Anyone who says they need a list of what is and isn't offensive knows EXACTLY what is and isn't offensive. You don't go around yelling racist/homophobic/transphobic/sexist/bigoted slurs at people in your normal life so don't do in Warhammer you absolute wazzock.
Here's a real simple rule for if something is offensive to someone or not, if you say it and they look sad/angry/like they are going to tear you limb from limb, don't say it again and apologise for offending them.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
a_typical_hero wrote:

What is and isn't offensive depends on the person you are playing with. How do you know what topics, jokes and slurs are okay when you hang around your friends and family? Get to know the person, play it safe. In case of doubt, leave out politics, religion and dark humour for the first few games. You will come to an understanding naturally.

^ What they said.


Do you think 40k should adopt the player's code from AoS 3.0? @ 2021/06/15 15:05:37


Post by: dogboy311


Karol wrote:
dogboy311 799052 11149915 wrote:

You sir seem too be the exact person this code was made for. Like how hard is it too not use offensive language. I assume you are an adult right, so it should be pretty easy too not be offensive. Also just give your opponent a heads up about your unpainted army what’s the big deal. Most people won’t care but some will appreciate it. And really why not remind you opponent about something they missed, it’s a game of PLASTIC TOY soldiers, not high stakes poker. And yeah don’t waste people’s time like why get so upset on that? And well measuring your models movement is actually an important part of the game so why not try your best too be accurate. And holy crap a company puts in a set of guidelines for playing a game where everyone can have fun and not be a douche bag. Like get over it man. Like most thing the most vocal complainers are usually the most guilty. Remember it’s a game of plastic toys. Lol.


It is a high cost , in money game, where people win prizes, on top of the win being a prize in itself. Have you never seen guys from two streets beat the gak out of each other durning a "friendly" game of hockey? The don't use offensive language point doesn't work without a list of things that are considered to be offensive, otherwise your opponet can say that everything is offensive. On top of that, for people that have problems with understanding social interaction, no clear guidliness are a horrible thing. 2 weeks ago I was thrown out of class, because my reaction to a students saying their dog died was saying "good". Because for the last 3 months she has been talking how sick it was and how much in pain it was. MtG has a set of guildlines and a whole code of conduct. If GW wants to implement a , don't be offensive policy, they better write one down, because different people find different things offensive.

I find people wearing Che or Mao t-shirts deeply offensive, on the other hand, I was chastised for my cross getting out from under my shirt durning an event in germany 2 years ago. I can easily imagine games where both people find neither , both or one of the two offensive.



What are you talking about man? It’s a game of moving plastic toy soldiers around plastic buildings or plastic trees. And I’m from Canada where we play a metric ton of hockey and fights are extremely rare unless you’re watching NHL. Nice try but you really are the reason this set of guidelines should be implanted into 40k. You are right that it seems silly too have too add stuff like this, unless of course you read your comments and then you see exactly why they Should be. Remember it’s plastic toys the real goal of this stuff is too have fun, I assume you can only have fun if you are being the big man on campus. Also you should have been thrown out of class for that comment. It was unnecessary and absolutely a a case of being a jerk. You could have just said nothing.


Do you think 40k should adopt the player's code from AoS 3.0? @ 2021/06/15 15:10:57


Post by: Xenomancers


I pretty much already play this way and only play with people who are like this. Except for measuring. Measure the closest point and then move your dudes of to that. I am not about wasting time.


Do you think 40k should adopt the player's code from AoS 3.0? @ 2021/06/15 15:19:01


Post by: vipoid


a_typical_hero wrote:

If you want, you can make a mockery of everything.


Thank you, I will.


a_typical_hero wrote:

Or you can think about the goal of the guidelines and not try to interpret them as badly as possible.


It continues to baffle me why people look to a company with such anti-consumer practises and thinks to themselves "Yes, clearly these are the people who should dictate my ethics to me. Please educate me, sempai GW!".


dogboy311 wrote:

You sir seem too be the exact person this code was made for.


Whatever helps you sleep at night.


dogboy311 wrote:
Like how hard is it too not use offensive language.


If you're seriously asking this question, I can only assume that you have been completely out of touch with any sort of news or general affairs for the last 20 years or so.


dogboy311 wrote:
Also just give your opponent a heads up about your unpainted army what’s the big deal.


What's the big deal with playing with unpainted miniatures in the first place?


dogboy311 wrote:
And really why not remind you opponent about something they missed, it’s a game of PLASTIC TOY soldiers, not high stakes poker.




Okay, now I see that in spire of trying to claim some sort of moral high ground you are in fact arguing in bad faith.

I did not say that I would not remind my opponent about rules. What I said was that it was a lot easier to remind people about rules back when there were fewer rules and the number of interactions was limited. Trying to keep in mind every possible stratagem that could affect a given interaction is a hell of a lot harder even when it comes to the ones in my own book, to say nothing of those in my opponent's army.


dogboy311 wrote:
And yeah don’t waste people’s time like why get so upset on that?


Another bad faith argument. Two more and we'll have Connect Four!


dogboy311 wrote:
And well measuring your models movement is actually an important part of the game so why not try your best too be accurate.


I apologise. Clearly my past opponents and I have been having fun wrong by prioritising speed over accuracy with large units. Please advise me, oh great prophet of the almighty Games Workshop, how much plastic tat must I buy to earn forgiveness?


dogboy311 wrote:
And holy crap a company puts in a set of guidelines for playing a game where everyone can have fun and not be a douche bag. Like get over it man.


A person points out a few absurdities in those rules. Like get over it man.


dogboy311 wrote:
Like most thing the most vocal complainers are usually the most guilty. Remember it’s a game of plastic toys. Lol.


Why hello there, Mr. Pot. I suppose I am looking a little black today, yet I can't help but note that your own colour is also on a tad on the dark side.



Just to be completely clear, I'm not saying that players shouldn't be polite and respectful towards their opponents. Of course they should (indeed, as others have said, this is something that really shouldn't need to be said in the first place). What I'm trying to get at is that if a company is intent on putting a 'page of ethics' for its players, then it should really aim for those ethics to be universal and non-contradictory ones. Instead, it includes stuff like elitist attitudes towards painted models (and wherever you stand on this particular issue, I think it's fair to say it's something of a heated topic - not one that's been 'settled' with clearly agreed ethical and unethical sides). Then you've got contradictory rules, like being told not to waste time but also told that we must measure every single move carefully and accurately - in spite of the fact that measuring only the front models of a unit and moving the rest into position behind them is a common way for players to avoid wasting time. It also seems both anti-consumer and outright hypocritical of GW to act like conversions and 3rd party models are some sort of heresy for which players must get special permission (especially when one of the main reasons for the use of 3rd party models is that they've left some ranges to languish for literal decades).


Do you think 40k should adopt the player's code from AoS 3.0? @ 2021/06/15 15:51:31


Post by: a_typical_hero


 vipoid wrote:

It continues to baffle me why people look to a company with such anti-consumer practises and thinks to themselves "Yes, clearly these are the people who should dictate my ethics to me. Please educate me, sempai GW!".

I neither wrote nor implied this.
You are offended by guidelines which most of the posters here summarise as "don't be a dick" and have to make "unsolvable rocket science" out of it to show that it is a bad guideline.

Your example was to be completely silent during a game to not possibly offend anyone.
Because how else could two adults spend 2-3h together playing a tabletop without offending each other.

Your post says alot about you.


Do you think 40k should adopt the player's code from AoS 3.0? @ 2021/06/15 15:56:31


Post by: ERJAK


No. They're not going to officially adopt in Sigmar either.


Do you think 40k should adopt the player's code from AoS 3.0? @ 2021/06/15 15:57:28


Post by: Ghaz


As a bit of a reminder, GW is not the only company that has done something like this...

Spoiler:


Do you think 40k should adopt the player's code from AoS 3.0? @ 2021/06/15 15:57:34


Post by: Seabass


I am ok with setting out clear expectations, even if the community doesn't necessarily follow them. There is nothing wrong with putting that out there.

The community is vast and varied, and you can't put 80 people in a sardine can and expect them all to get along. Having some standardized expectations of behavior is fine.

Should it be needed? Well, I would think it shouldn't be, but we have all acted in a way that is not commensurate with our own societal expectations before, and even in the context of this game. It's a good reminder of what we should attempt to be, not a rigid structure designed to eliminate those unworthy. We are all human, we all have bad days, and we have all said and done things that we rather wished we hadn't. In recognition of that, having this in a rule book certainly doesn't hurt.

We, as a gaming community, when splintered into our various social orbits and ingroups, already do this. Those that act outside of the various forms of socially acceptable behavior is typically not invited back, or have trouble picking up a game until their behavior changes. this is just providing a more comprehensive list of baseline expectations that others should have and you should have of yourself. if you choose to adhere to these rules or not, the ingroup will always be the final say on what is accepted, not GW or a page in a book.

A special note on hygiene...

As a big buy (I'm 6'1", I weigh 268lbs right now) I am constantly scared of my personal hygiene. the last thing I ever want is to be the stinky guy because that's just awful, embarrassing, and socially stigmatizing. But believe it or not, there are people who do not know how to take care of themselves in an appropriate or functional way. I don't want to go on some weird social work tangent, but a quiet conversation can go a long way with someone who is an "offender".

It's hard to do, but I've had to do it with many people when I organized events for my local stores for other miniature games and for magic the gathering


Do you think 40k should adopt the player's code from AoS 3.0? @ 2021/06/15 16:01:37


Post by: ClockworkZion


ERJAK wrote:
No. They're not going to officially adopt in Sigmar either.

Who isn't? GW is the one who put this in the new rules release. It's literally the first page after the table of contents in the 44 page free rules release they did yesterday.


Do you think 40k should adopt the player's code from AoS 3.0? @ 2021/06/15 16:08:01


Post by: dogboy311


 vipoid wrote:
a_typical_hero wrote:

If you want, you can make a mockery of everything.


Thank you, I will.


a_typical_hero wrote:

Or you can think about the goal of the guidelines and not try to interpret them as badly as possible.


It continues to baffle me why people look to a company with such anti-consumer practises and thinks to themselves "Yes, clearly these are the people who should dictate my ethics to me. Please educate me, sempai GW!".


dogboy311 wrote:

You sir seem too be the exact person this code was made for.


Whatever helps you sleep at night.


dogboy311 wrote:
Like how hard is it too not use offensive language.


If you're seriously asking this question, I can only assume that you have been completely out of touch with any sort of news or general affairs for the last 20 years or so.


dogboy311 wrote:
Also just give your opponent a heads up about your unpainted army what’s the big deal.


What's the big deal with playing with unpainted miniatures in the first place?


dogboy311 wrote:
And really why not remind you opponent about something they missed, it’s a game of PLASTIC TOY soldiers, not high stakes poker.




Okay, now I see that in spire of trying to claim some sort of moral high ground you are in fact arguing in bad faith.

I did not say that I would not remind my opponent about rules. What I said was that it was a lot easier to remind people about rules back when there were fewer rules and the number of interactions was limited. Trying to keep in mind every possible stratagem that could affect a given interaction is a hell of a lot harder even when it comes to the ones in my own book, to say nothing of those in my opponent's army.


dogboy311 wrote:
And yeah don’t waste people’s time like why get so upset on that?


Another bad faith argument. Two more and we'll have Connect Four!


dogboy311 wrote:
And well measuring your models movement is actually an important part of the game so why not try your best too be accurate.


I apologise. Clearly my past opponents and I have been having fun wrong by prioritising speed over accuracy with large units. Please advise me, oh great prophet of the almighty Games Workshop, how much plastic tat must I buy to earn forgiveness?


dogboy311 wrote:
And holy crap a company puts in a set of guidelines for playing a game where everyone can have fun and not be a douche bag. Like get over it man.


A person points out a few absurdities in those rules. Like get over it man.


dogboy311 wrote:
Like most thing the most vocal complainers are usually the most guilty. Remember it’s a game of plastic toys. Lol.


Why hello there, Mr. Pot. I suppose I am looking a little black today, yet I can't help but note that your own colour is also on a tad on the dark side.



Just to be completely clear, I'm not saying that players shouldn't be polite and respectful towards their opponents. Of course they should (indeed, as others have said, this is something that really shouldn't need to be said in the first place). What I'm trying to get at is that if a company is intent on putting a 'page of ethics' for its players, then it should really aim for those ethics to be universal and non-contradictory ones. Instead, it includes stuff like elitist attitudes towards painted models (and wherever you stand on this particular issue, I think it's fair to say it's something of a heated topic - not one that's been 'settled' with clearly agreed ethical and unethical sides). Then you've got contradictory rules, like being told not to waste time but also told that we must measure every single move carefully and accurately - in spite of the fact that measuring only the front models of a unit and moving the rest into position behind them is a common way for players to avoid wasting time. It also seems both anti-consumer and outright hypocritical of GW to act like conversions and 3rd party models are some sort of heresy for which players must get special permission (especially when one of the main reasons for the use of 3rd party models is that they've left some ranges to languish for literal decades).


Wow just wow. You really are a special one aren’t you. Lol. It does not matter what you think about the company, it’s a basic guideline not too be a jerk. Lol And everyone of your arguments really shows the type of person you are. And not being offensive is rather easy just act like a decent human, simple. I’m also pretty sure you’re a real peach at playing connect 4. You are the just trying too defend bad behaviour. And as for bad faith arguments you seem too be the king of them. And yes it’s plastic toys, I don’t care how much you think otherwise it’s plastic toys that we enjoy playing with. Lol. So yeah I don’t play this game with the same machismo as you. But in the end it’s all pretty meaningless, it’s just a way too spend some time with friends and hopefully make some new ones. So just play the game and don’t be a waste of skin. And hey if you have a group of like minded friends, well good for you. I hope you guys at least have fun.


Do you think 40k should adopt the player's code from AoS 3.0? @ 2021/06/15 16:14:11


Post by: Blastaar


"Don't be an ass" doesn't need to be in the rulebook.


Do you think 40k should adopt the player's code from AoS 3.0? @ 2021/06/15 16:15:10


Post by: Karol


a_typical_hero 799052 11149945 wrote:
What is and isn't offensive depends on the person you are playing with. How do you know what topics, jokes and slurs are okay when you hang around your friends and family? Get to know the person, play it safe. In case of doubt, leave out politics, religion, sex and dark humour for the first few games. You will come to an understanding naturally.



Slurs are easy. No slurs are or should be acceptable durning the game. The problems with rules like that is how they end up being used. You are at an event. Someone says , nice army, and you call a judge and say that you find him doing so offensive and patronising, and he get his first warrning of the day. If he gets two play against 2-3 people from your team, they can all call him out for anything. Because there is no GW, unlike with MtG, code of conduct, so suddenly it is the the offensive persons "job" to be offensive, but everyone elses job to not feel offended. And if people can use something to get an edge, and it is ill defined or vogue on top of that, they will. Imagine if a sports like the one I do, had a rule saying , no moves that are dangours to the opponent life or health can be performed, and it is the opponent that decides, if he felt in danger. Would kill any form of competition.

a_typical_hero 799052 11149945 wrote:
I totally get your point of view. You simply expressed it very poorly. "I'm sorry to hear that, at least she is not suffering anymore" might have flown better.

You know very well that this doesn't work like that. I said "good" and the teacher said :"out to the principles office" everything after that is social norms, because the official warrning with it being signed in to my papers already has been decided. And again this is stuff I, with my problems with understanding, specific social interactions have to learn in action, because there is no book with "if a person in your class or school says that their family member or animal was sick and in pain, it is socially not acceptable to voice approval of the persons death, and end" and that is on top of bs stuff like "don't lie" etc.

If GW wants to implement such rules, they have the full right to do it. But they have to remember that the rules are going to be used by people in a compatitive setting, which is every game. And not every interaction can be covered with, oh just play vs nice people, that think and react exactly like you, because then only twins and triplets would be able to play GW games.

First GW should put forth a code of conduct. Even the simple and obviouse stuff should be there. We don't want this things to be part of the game, and then a list of things. Just like forum rules. And make them clear. So some donkey-caves after you tell them your armies uniforms are based on the 1886 French ones, starts waving the no politics durning game flag. Clear cut and easy to understand is best, even if you someone doesn't like it, it sure the hell beats out of unclear and vogue.

For example, I don't like the painted rules GW tries to enforce on people, making it seem as if it was mandatory to play and enjoy the game. But at the same time the rules are clear, and my army is painted, so I follow the rules given by GW.


Do you think 40k should adopt the player's code from AoS 3.0? @ 2021/06/15 16:16:33


Post by: ClockworkZion


Blastaar wrote:
"Don't be an ass" doesn't need to be in the rulebook.

Based on the comments in this thread, much less some of the ones on this board? It probably does.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Karol, unless someone is being a sacastic dickweasel no judge is going to yellow card someone for complimenting your army. Your strawman's pants are on fire.


Do you think 40k should adopt the player's code from AoS 3.0? @ 2021/06/15 16:21:21


Post by: Stevefamine


I love this!

Ask your opponents permission to play unpainted models!

That's what I'm talking about!



Never deliberately waste time during a game has tournament Ork players game over
That's a solid % of their win rate for a few editions.


Aussies will not like the removal of the C word


Do you think 40k should adopt the player's code from AoS 3.0? @ 2021/06/15 16:25:00


Post by: Karol


Seabass wrote:


Should it be needed? Well, I would think it shouldn't be, but we have all acted in a way that is not commensurate with our own societal expectations before, and even in the context of this game. It's a good reminder of what we should attempt to be, not a rigid structure designed to eliminate those unworthy. We are all human, we all have bad days, and we have all said and done things that we rather wished we hadn't. In recognition of that, having this in a rule book certainly doesn't hurt.



Let me intreduce you to the history of wrestling then. In its beginings among the Greeks, they very fast found out a few things about , sure there be rules in events. First thing was that, when a master of multiple events wins, by breaking the hands and fingers of his opponents every time, it lowers the attendance of the event, and is kind of a "unfair". Later with another champion, they revised the rules for kicking. Leg drops were always part of the sport, but an Ephesian champion got so good at kicking his opponents in the groin area, that he managed to kill two of his opponents durning Olympic events, you know those holy ones, no war, competition watched by the gods where people shouldn't kill each other. Groin kick and groin punchs were made illegal.


I think that GW games would gain a lot, not from the "don't be an donkey-cave" as a rule, but with an official code of conduct. What can be done, what can not be done. How to you call a judge, how to you resolve a dispute in another way the throw a dice, because I don't remember it, but my trainers do and matchs being decided by a refs coin toss were hated in every sport ever, specially by people that performed the sport.

And that is a problem before stuff like, someone from the US comes to europe with his concept of what is okey, and finds out it is drasticaly different. At my store there is a guy who has a hand sculpted Toltek inspired eldar army. From what I understand in the US, people would find his army offensive, because he isn't a Toltek himself, in fact he is very Polish.


Do you think 40k should adopt the player's code from AoS 3.0? @ 2021/06/15 16:46:05


Post by: BroodSpawn


Karol wrote:


At my store there is a guy who has a hand sculpted Toltek inspired eldar army. From what I understand in the US, people would find his army offensive, because he isn't a Toltek himself, in fact he is very Polish.


Can't speak for the US but in the UK someone having an army that isn't based on there ethnicity is perfectly fine. Heck there's a huge bunch of wargamers across many games that are of Western/European descent that have distinctly Asian themed armies.

OP - the fact this conversation is even happening suggests a page of 'don't be a wazzock and enjoy the game' is somehow actually needed.

Also thanks to the other poster that reminded me how good that word really is.


Do you think 40k should adopt the player's code from AoS 3.0? @ 2021/06/15 17:18:40


Post by: Mr. Grey


 Ghaz wrote:
As a bit of a reminder, GW is not the only company that has done something like this...

Spoiler:


There's a huge difference between this particular Page 5 and the Code of Conduct that's in the new Age of Sigmar rulebook.

The Page 5 that linked to was written probably somewhere around 2003, and today in 2021 honestly sounds like it was written by some teenage edgelord trying to be cool. Even the opening few lines sound like the entire thing is trying too hard. "Warning, Not suitable for wussies! Sissies, little girls, and nancy boys should go home now. This game is not for you." I mean wow, really? "You've got to have BALLS to play this game!" It reads like the writer binged a few dozen episodes of Joe Rogan, did some cocaine, and then went to an underground MMA fighting ring before writing this thing.

Way back in 2004 when I first started playing Warmachine, I thought this was pretty cool. Yeah, they're telling the man(Games Workshop) to suck it! Awesome! This is a wargame for the cool kids. I also recognized even then that this is supposed to be completely over the top, bananas advertising, because at the time, Privateer Press absolutely needed to do everything they could to capture even a sliver of market share from GW.
Reading that Page 5 now is just bad. It's so cringeworthy. And unfortunately, a LOT of players couldn't catch the subtlety at all and took Page 5 as a great excuse to be an absolute That Guy in all of their games. There's a reason that Page 5 still gets a bad rap today - because it created an entire community of players who thought it was great that they could curb-stomp even brand-new players(not realizing that those new players would then immediately drop the game after such a bad demo game experience). PP toned it down a lot in Warmachine Mk2, and it was gone entirely by Mk3, for good reason.

In contrast, the Age of Sigmar Code of Conduct has a bunch of polite suggestions about how you can be a better wargame opponent and generally make both yours and your opponent's play experience more positive. I don't see that as a bad thing. I've been on the end of bad play experiences, where my opponent just totally rolled over my army and I could only watch as more and more of my minis just got taken off the table. I would much rather have a more casual game against a fun, polite opponent than someone who still thinks that "Page 5" is a great mantra.

As for Karol's points about offensive language - I don't go around dropping f-bombs and cursing like a sailor at the game store, no matter how well I know the person I'm playing against. I'm not offended by it, but in a public setting like a local game store I'm going to do my best to watch my language. That's not even getting into actual offensive language like someone mentioned a few posts up - homophobic slurs, that sort of thing. Because that I do find offensive, and you can bet I'd be done playing in a second if I heard my opponent say anything along those lines.


Do you think 40k should adopt the player's code from AoS 3.0? @ 2021/06/15 17:27:55


Post by: Matt Swain


I have no problem with these rules, i do have a problem with the arrogance and hypocrisy of gw acting like it can impose rules about respecting games on gamers while it acts in totally disrespectful ways to gamers with its policies, price gouging, nerf/buff cycles, constant new editions cycled which mean expensive new hardback rulesbooks and codexes every few years, etc.

WTF does gw think it gets off on telling gamers to respect gamers when it treats gamers like a leech treats a pig it's stuck on?

I have no problem respecting other gamers, i have a huge problem with gw daring to tell gamers to respect gamers.


Do you think 40k should adopt the player's code from AoS 3.0? @ 2021/06/15 18:43:48


Post by: vipoid


a_typical_hero wrote:

You are offended by guidelines


Nope. Kindly stop projecting.


a_typical_hero wrote:
which most of the posters here summarise as "don't be a dick" and have to make "unsolvable rocket science" out of it to show that it is a bad guideline.


And if it actually was 'don't be a dick' I'd have no problem with it.

Indeed, I have said multiple times that I have no issue with the actual 'don't be a dick' parts.

What I objected to was stuff like GW giving people permission to act like elitist asshats when it comes to painted models, 3rd party models and even conversions.

But apparently the only possible reason anyone could object to that is because they're jerks. Real big-think stuff here.


a_typical_hero wrote:

Your example was to be completely silent during a game to not possibly offend anyone.


I wasn't the one dictating that you mustn't say anything that *might* cause offence.

If you hadn't immediately jumped on the offended-asshat bandwagon and instead engaged your brain for 30 seconds, you might have realised the problem with statements like that. Because unless my opponent is someone I already know very well (in which case we probably already know what we can/can't say to one another and don't need GW's intervention), I have absolutely no idea what will or won't offend them. I could say something I'd consider offensive and find that it doesn't offend them at all, or I could say something seemingly innocuous that ends up offending them regardless. Hence, the only way I can avoid using language that might offend them is to avoid using language altogether.

Now, if they were to write something like 'Don't use language if your opponent tells you they find it offensive.' then you might have an actual argument. Because now my opponent has told me that they find a given word or phrase or whatever offensive, so I'll know to try and avoid using it around them in future.

What GW is asking, however, is that I avoid language my opponent might find offensive without having any possible idea what language that might be.


But sure, keep defending their nonsense. Maybe one day sempai GW will notice you and give you the much-coveted White Knight of the Year Award.


Do you think 40k should adopt the player's code from AoS 3.0? @ 2021/06/15 18:45:52


Post by: jaredb


It's just good sportsmanship, folks either inherently follow this 'code' or don't, having it written out wont change that.


Do you think 40k should adopt the player's code from AoS 3.0? @ 2021/06/15 18:46:29


Post by: Gert


What I objected to was stuff like GW giving people permission to act like elitist asshats when it comes to painted models, 3rd party models and even conversions.

"It's elitist for GW to get players to use their product in their game".
Spicy take there chief.

If you hadn't immediately jumped on the offended-asshat bandwagon and instead engaged your brain for 30 seconds, you might have realised the problem with statements like that. Because unless my opponent is someone I already know very well (in which case we probably already know what we can/can't say to one another and don't need GW's intervention), I have absolutely no idea what will or won't offend them. I could say something I'd consider offensive and find that it doesn't offend them at all, or I could say something seemingly innocuous that ends up offending them regardless. Hence, the only way I can avoid using language that might offend them is to avoid using language altogether.

Now, if they were to write something like 'Don't use language if your opponent tells you they find it offensive.' then you might have an actual argument. Because now my opponent has told me that they find a given word or phrase or whatever offensive, so I'll know to try and avoid using it around them in future.

Thing is, it is reaaaaaally simple to not say things that most people would find offensive. If you need a rough idea then think about how people who work in hospitality or retail speak to the general public and remember some simple guidelines such as:
- Don't be racist/homophobic/sexist/transphobic/bigoted
- Don't swear or use profanity in a public space with complete strangers
- Don't use slurs that you absolutely know you shouldn't be using


Do you think 40k should adopt the player's code from AoS 3.0? @ 2021/06/15 18:54:40


Post by: CEO Kasen


Okay. I'm noticing a lot of two-tone perception disease in opposition to a page of polite suggestions. Yes, this will not help you if your gaming group is so idyllically harmonious it makes MLP look like UFC. Yes, this will not help a complete sociopath magically become a good player. But there's a lot of shades in between the two extremes that this might in some small way help - younger players, people having a bad day, people with some lower-severity forms of neurologic atypia, people who just aren't perfect - All it has to do is forestall a single poorly chosen utterance and the polite suggestions have done their job. If a handful of games and playspaces can be made a little better by a piece of paper, a thought, then that is absolutely worth half a page of space in a core rulebook.


Do you think 40k should adopt the player's code from AoS 3.0? @ 2021/06/15 19:06:26


Post by: Shadowbrand


Sometimes some toxic 40k builds character.


Do you think 40k should adopt the player's code from AoS 3.0? @ 2021/06/15 19:08:28


Post by: Tycho


 CEO Kasen wrote:
Okay. I'm noticing a lot of two-tone perception disease in opposition to a page of polite suggestions. Yes, this will not help you if your gaming group is so idyllically harmonious it makes MLP look like UFC. Yes, this will not help a complete sociopath magically become a good player. But there's a lot of shades in between the two extremes that this might in some small way help - younger players, people having a bad day, people with some lower-severity forms of neurologic atypia, people who just aren't perfect - All it has to do is forestall a single poorly chosen utterance and the polite suggestions have done their job. If a handful of games and playspaces can be made a little better by a piece of paper, a thought, then that is absolutely worth half a page of space in a core rulebook.


Ignoring the obvious hyperbole (which you are right to point out), I have found in my 20+ years of wargaming, that the kind of person (younger players included) who needs to hear this, is A. actually exceedingly rare (again, in contrast to what Dakka would have you believe, most people aren't raging donkey caves), and B. isn't going to be helped by it.

Most of the time, the younger players in a club tend to take on the tone of what the older players are doing. Got a positive, upbeat group? The kids will follow suit. Got a negative, "cheaty" meta? The kids will follow suit. Making them read a "code of conduct" isn't going to help either way. Especially not when most clubs already have something in place like this anyway. But, again, I still feel like this is a bit of a tempest in a teapot. Things can and do get contentious on Dakka. I've not seen anywhere near that level in real life. It's just so rare that I really wonder at what people are doing that they find enough of these folks to make them WANT this in the BRB. I just don't get it honestly.



Do you think 40k should adopt the player's code from AoS 3.0? @ 2021/06/15 19:50:29


Post by: Horla


Through anatomical changes to the organs of articulation and rapid expansion of the brain over the past 2.5 million years, human evolution has led to development of numerous complex and varied languages allowing for communication, exchange of ideas, and the creation of abstract activities such as poetry and philosophy. From a finite number of root languages, novel tongues which continue to live and grow have spawned and given rise to the Babel of cultures - some extinct, some thriving. Ideas alien to other species are given the spark of life through internal monologue, and we can heed the lessons of our ancestors through their written works long after they themselves have turned to dust. We have words to describe the furthest regions of space where we can never visit and the minute specks of energy that make up the matter of which we are made.

Yet somehow getting through a couple of hours without saying something offensive remains an impossibility so the only course of action is… silence?


Do you think 40k should adopt the player's code from AoS 3.0? @ 2021/06/15 20:05:10


Post by: Castozor


 Gert wrote:
What I objected to was stuff like GW giving people permission to act like elitist asshats when it comes to painted models, 3rd party models and even conversions.

"It's elitist for GW to get players to use their product in their game".
Spicy take there chief.

Considering a lot of proxies/conversions are made out of 100% GW plastic I'm unsure why I'd need permission for those or for using unpainted miniatures. Most other things in this player code are alright but seem so basic/common sense it is not worth the paper it's printed on. Only the reminding people of rules seems nice, but even then what exactly is meant by this? Should I remind my opponent at every turn of every rules interaction I have just to prevent possible misplays? Rather takes the generalship out of the game if you ask me.


Do you think 40k should adopt the player's code from AoS 3.0? @ 2021/06/15 20:13:07


Post by: AnomanderRake


 Gert wrote:
What I objected to was stuff like GW giving people permission to act like elitist asshats when it comes to painted models, 3rd party models and even conversions.

"It's elitist for GW to get players to use their product in their game".
Spicy take there chief...


They seem to spend a lot of time these days making sure you don't get to use their product in their game, given their treatment of FW rules and the kit instructions = datasheet mess.


Do you think 40k should adopt the player's code from AoS 3.0? @ 2021/06/15 20:23:39


Post by: ClockworkZion


 Shadowbrand wrote:
Sometimes some toxic 40k builds character.

No it doesn't. Don't justify people being abusive jackwagons even as a joke.


Do you think 40k should adopt the player's code from AoS 3.0? @ 2021/06/15 20:27:10


Post by: Gert


Conversions/Proxies might not have the original look of the model which could be confusing for someone to know what it actually is. For example, my scratch-built Destroyer Tank Hunter uses a Leman Russ chassis and a very long laser gun made from gubbins, and is fairly obvious what it is. However, my Hydra is made from an Ork Trukk with a human-scale crew and an Icarus Quad Autocannon which is pretty far from the Chimera-based AA tank GW sells.

Unpainted minis is a way for GW to sell paint and at least IMO to encourage the thematic nature of a game of Warhammer.

For me reminding someone of a rule they might have missed means that if I win the game, I'm winning with my opponent having all the weapons in their arsenal used. Something like Militarum Orders or Psychic Powers from a Librarian.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 AnomanderRake wrote:

They seem to spend a lot of time these days making sure you don't get to use their product in their game, given their treatment of FW rules and the kit instructions = datasheet mess.

Your first mistake was assuming the FW rules weren't going to be a mess in the first place


Do you think 40k should adopt the player's code from AoS 3.0? @ 2021/06/15 20:31:06


Post by: Castozor


Sounds like babysitting to me, it's up to my opponent to remember to use his army's tools not me. Only thing we remind each other of over here is non-optional rules that should always go off.


Do you think 40k should adopt the player's code from AoS 3.0? @ 2021/06/15 20:37:08


Post by: ClockworkZion


 Castozor wrote:
Sounds like babysitting to me, it's up to my opponent to remember to use his army's tools not me. Only thing we remind each other of over here is non-optional rules that should always go off.

Eh, if I need my opponent to forget rules to win I don't feel like I've really won that on skill.

Personally I feel like helping my opponent improve by helping them with their rules not only raises the skill level of my local group which helps me raise my own, but it also helps me master the playstyles of more armies since it reinforces their armies in my head allowing me to better understand them and plan around what their army does.


Do you think 40k should adopt the player's code from AoS 3.0? @ 2021/06/15 20:39:07


Post by: Gert


If I was having to remind them every single turn then yes I could see that as basically coaching but where is the harm in reminding someone about Orders in turn 4/6 when they have 50 Hormogaunts eating their Guardsmen?
I am a pretty casual player so maybe it's the comp mindset I just don't get.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 ClockworkZion wrote:

Eh, if I need my opponent to forget rules to win I don't feel like I've really won that on skill.

Personally I feel like helping my opponent improve by helping them with their rules not only raises the skill level of my local group which helps me raise my own, but it also helps me master the playstyles of more armies since it reinforces their armies in my head allowing me to better understand them and plan around what their army does.

^ What Clockwork said.


Do you think 40k should adopt the player's code from AoS 3.0? @ 2021/06/15 20:54:36


Post by: Karol


 ClockworkZion wrote:

Eh, if I need my opponent to forget rules to win I don't feel like I've really won that on skill.

Personally I feel like helping my opponent improve by helping them with their rules not only raises the skill level of my local group which helps me raise my own, but it also helps me master the playstyles of more armies since it reinforces their armies in my head allowing me to better understand them and plan around what their army does.


Ok, lets jump to the real world then, where we play with the have to tell your opponent everything. You opponent deploys one of his unit, in what to you, assuming you are not a mind reader, is a disadvantageous position. Seeing this you proceed to inform him about your unit weapon ranges, charge rules etc. This is considered the norm and how the game should be played, so he is not suprised by it. He still doesn't undo or change the move. Which means one of two things, he is trying to fix the match without you being involved in it, or this movment or unit placement is part of his strategy or bait of some sort, which you now will see. Before when under the prior rule set , the bait would have worked, because something you percived as your opponent would not have made you tell him about it, which wouldn't start the chain of events of him not pulling the move back etc. And this couldn't have been mind games either, because puting units in wrong places knowingly and through that generating questions, would go against the wasting time rule.


Do you think 40k should adopt the player's code from AoS 3.0? @ 2021/06/15 21:00:25


Post by: Gert


Hyperbole thy name is Karol.

Nice made-up nonsense there chief. Take you long to come up with that absurd and utterly pointless analogy that adds nothing to the discussion?
You know fine well what it means when the document says remind opponents of rules they might have missed. Telling someone to deploy their unit in a different place isn't reminding them of their rules. Telling someone they forgot to use a Prayer from their Chaplain this turn is reminding them of their rules.


Do you think 40k should adopt the player's code from AoS 3.0? @ 2021/06/15 21:01:28


Post by: ClockworkZion


Karol wrote:
 ClockworkZion wrote:

Eh, if I need my opponent to forget rules to win I don't feel like I've really won that on skill.

Personally I feel like helping my opponent improve by helping them with their rules not only raises the skill level of my local group which helps me raise my own, but it also helps me master the playstyles of more armies since it reinforces their armies in my head allowing me to better understand them and plan around what their army does.


Ok, lets jump to the real world then, where we play with the have to tell your opponent everything. You opponent deploys one of his unit, in what to you, assuming you are not a mind reader, is a disadvantageous position. Seeing this you proceed to inform him about your unit weapon ranges, charge rules etc. This is considered the norm and how the game should be played, so he is not suprised by it. He still doesn't undo or change the move. Which means one of two things, he is trying to fix the match without you being involved in it, or this movment or unit placement is part of his strategy or bait of some sort, which you now will see. Before when under the prior rule set , the bait would have worked, because something you percived as your opponent would not have made you tell him about it, which wouldn't start the chain of events of him not pulling the move back etc. And this couldn't have been mind games either, because puting units in wrong places knowingly and through that generating questions, would go against the wasting time rule.

So what you described initially was a game with a new player or someone you're coaching which is fine. And reminding them of their rules (or your rules) doesn't mean you tell them what to do, you're just not springing them with a "gotcha". They can still make what seem like unoptimized moves in order to take advantage of positioning.

And distraction carnifex tactics like you described would still work because they rely on being enough of a threat that the opponent has to target them to remove them, but not being a massive points investment meaning you will always trade up in any exchange you put them into, even if the opponent knows it's bait.


Do you think 40k should adopt the player's code from AoS 3.0? @ 2021/06/15 21:07:07


Post by: Castozor


You make valid points, and if it's a new player we do coach them on their and our own rules. But my opponents never remind me of my rules either, it's a certain mentality in this group. I too would rather win knowing my opponent gave it their all but if certain courtesies aren't being returned I will stop doing them too. Now don't think that's because we are toxic to each other, rather we remind each other after the fact when it's too late to redo. We feel that while this might have handicapped your ability to win this game, a painful lesson is better remembered and you will become a better player faster in this way.


Do you think 40k should adopt the player's code from AoS 3.0? @ 2021/06/15 22:13:03


Post by: Sledgehammer


The issues outlined in this players agreement don't address the fundamental issues that 40k really has to deal with.That issue is primarily about setting player expectations for power play, and narrative gaming. Different players prioritize different parts of the game. Some build lists for power above all else, while others are looking for an army to play in the style and way of their choosing. Too often are these players forced to play one another when each has a different expectation of what they're going to get out of the game. When some players fell like they don't, or can't, get what they want out of an interaction due to the way that they each have chosen to approach the game, it leads to conflict.

This players code doesn't address this AT ALL, and from my experience has been the cause of all of my worse interactions in 40k.


Do you think 40k should adopt the player's code from AoS 3.0? @ 2021/06/15 22:13:58


Post by: Daedalus81


 ClockworkZion wrote:
 Castozor wrote:
Sounds like babysitting to me, it's up to my opponent to remember to use his army's tools not me. Only thing we remind each other of over here is non-optional rules that should always go off.

Eh, if I need my opponent to forget rules to win I don't feel like I've really won that on skill.

Personally I feel like helping my opponent improve by helping them with their rules not only raises the skill level of my local group which helps me raise my own, but it also helps me master the playstyles of more armies since it reinforces their armies in my head allowing me to better understand them and plan around what their army does.


This is where I'm at as well.


Do you think 40k should adopt the player's code from AoS 3.0? @ 2021/06/15 22:25:30


Post by: jeff white


Reminds me of the old sportsmanship score. Should attach vp to those conditions...


Do you think 40k should adopt the player's code from AoS 3.0? @ 2021/06/15 22:28:50


Post by: CEO Kasen


Tycho wrote:

Most of the time, the younger players in a club tend to take on the tone of what the older players are doing. Got a positive, upbeat group? The kids will follow suit. Got a negative, "cheaty" meta? The kids will follow suit. Making them read a "code of conduct" isn't going to help either way. Especially not when most clubs already have something in place like this anyway. But, again, I still feel like this is a bit of a tempest in a teapot. Things can and do get contentious on Dakka. I've not seen anywhere near that level in real life. It's just so rare that I really wonder at what people are doing that they find enough of these folks to make them WANT this in the BRB. I just don't get it honestly.



I think we basically agree that, yeah, that code is not going to help most people or solve major issues by itself - the people it helps are going to be rare, or will be helped in very small ways. Where we disagree is whether that makes the small thing worth doing.

I say that so much is on the small things. A few will adopt it as an ideal or memorize it, but much of the time, when it does help, most helped will not(and indeed, might not even be definitively able to) point to the Code as what forestalled a possible piece of gakky behavior; It's going to be simply a second thought before something is said that makes the game less pleasant, or a small change in the tone of the game. If it generates that, a few second thoughts, a few more pleasant games here and there, then that can have a knock-on effect; a sort of reverse toxicity, and I'd happily take a half page of the rulebook with this and the chance that it could improve a game here and there over another random diorama or other rulebook filler.


Do you think 40k should adopt the player's code from AoS 3.0? @ 2021/06/15 22:32:49


Post by: vipoid


 Horla wrote:

Yet somehow getting through a couple of hours without saying something offensive remains an impossibility so the only course of action is… silence?


Remember kids - if you point out the logical flaw in a company's code of ethics, that doesn't make the ethical code badly written; it makes you a bad person.


Do you think 40k should adopt the player's code from AoS 3.0? @ 2021/06/15 22:35:50


Post by: CEO Kasen


 vipoid wrote:
 Horla wrote:

Yet somehow getting through a couple of hours without saying something offensive remains an impossibility so the only course of action is… silence?


Remember kids - if you point out the logical flaw in a company's code of ethics, that doesn't make the ethical code badly written; it makes you a bad person.


...I think I'm on the opposite side of this debate from you and I have no idea what point Horla was trying to make.


Do you think 40k should adopt the player's code from AoS 3.0? @ 2021/06/15 22:41:39


Post by: Da Boss


I seem to recall mild, simple advice about how to be a good sport and a fun opponent in GW rulebooks before this. Not a big code of conduct like this but a little paragraph or comment here or there.

Certainly, D&D Dungeon Master's Guides have something similar. It's just a nice idea to encourage people to play nice, not something that people need to get upset about really.

My only very poor experience playing a wargame didn't involve any of the things on this list anyway, just a game with a mismatch of expectations that I felt had thoroughly wasted my time. And that was really more of an issue with the core rules of that edition than any social problem.


Do you think 40k should adopt the player's code from AoS 3.0? @ 2021/06/15 22:51:37


Post by: vipoid


 CEO Kasen wrote:
 vipoid wrote:
 Horla wrote:

Yet somehow getting through a couple of hours without saying something offensive remains an impossibility so the only course of action is… silence?


Remember kids - if you point out the logical flaw in a company's code of ethics, that doesn't make the ethical code badly written; it makes you a bad person.


...I think I'm on the opposite side of this debate from you and I have no idea what point Horla was trying to make.


Cool.

Tell you what, then. Please provide me with a complete list of all language that might conceivably cause offence to somebody.

That way I'll know everything I'm not allowed to say and can avoid being a jerk.


Do you think 40k should adopt the player's code from AoS 3.0? @ 2021/06/15 22:59:22


Post by: JohnnyHell


There’s posturing and then there’s this thread. What a salty mess over one page that says “don’t be an donkey-cave”. And people’s response is to be donkey-caves to each other? Ok. It’s a choice I gues.


Do you think 40k should adopt the player's code from AoS 3.0? @ 2021/06/15 23:00:14


Post by: Shadowbrand


That list would be so long and so subjective. But I guess as OP said in respounce to my joke. "Don't even joke." Jokes are illegal even if you're mocking the toxic problem behaviour that is the subject of the threads grievance.


Do you think 40k should adopt the player's code from AoS 3.0? @ 2021/06/15 23:03:31


Post by: vipoid


 Shadowbrand wrote:
That list would be so long and so subjective.


Yeah. That was the exact point I was making to begin with.

Alas, people couldn't help but take offence at my pointing that out.


Do you think 40k should adopt the player's code from AoS 3.0? @ 2021/06/15 23:07:12


Post by: Shadowbrand


You bad,bad man.


In actual seriousness though and even though it's been said, I should pad my post with more then a joking respounce. The kind of problem-children something like the player's code will address will not be stopped by paper. The only real solution is to try and find a gaming group that shares the same kind of vibe you want. Not everyone is a weaponized TFG from a Mongolian Basket Weaving Forum.


Do you think 40k should adopt the player's code from AoS 3.0? @ 2021/06/15 23:19:42


Post by: ClockworkZion


 Shadowbrand wrote:
That list would be so long and so subjective. But I guess as OP said in respounce to my joke. "Don't even joke." Jokes are illegal even if you're mocking the toxic problem behaviour that is the subject of the threads grievance.

As the OP, where did I say don't joke?


Do you think 40k should adopt the player's code from AoS 3.0? @ 2021/06/15 23:25:00


Post by: Shadowbrand


Literally when you replied to my comment. It's on the third or something page.


Do you think 40k should adopt the player's code from AoS 3.0? @ 2021/06/15 23:29:20


Post by: ClockworkZion


 Shadowbrand wrote:
Literally when you replied to my comment. It's on the third or something page.

You mean this?

 ClockworkZion wrote:
 Shadowbrand wrote:
Sometimes some toxic 40k builds character.

No it doesn't. Don't justify people being abusive jackwagons even as a joke.


Yeah, that wasn't "don't joke" that was "don't justify people acting like donkey-caves even as a joke". donkey-caves don't get that it's a joke and will unironically adopt this as a mantra. It's not about joking, it's about not giving ammunition to people who wear their butts as hats to justify their gakky behavior.


Do you think 40k should adopt the player's code from AoS 3.0? @ 2021/06/15 23:34:35


Post by: CEO Kasen


 vipoid wrote:

Cool.

Tell you what, then. Please provide me of a complete list of all language that might conceivably cause offence to somebody.

That way I'll know everything I'm not allowed to say and can avoid being a jerk.


Unless you genuinely want to turn this into a discussion on the nature of what's 'offensive' - which I wrote several paragraphs regarding before realizing it was getting long, rambling, and well out of the expected scope of this thread - then the short answer is that it's very context sensitive. It's something you have to address with every group you deal with. And yes, it's a complicated question that a simple code isn't going to solve outright.

But it isn't about solving structural social problems - it's about a little reminder to be civil, which can go a long way.

Not being a jerk is difficult. I'm not sure I always succeed, frankly, and sometimes that just comes from a momentary failure to consider things or gradually feel out what's acceptable in a given group. A code may give someone a second thought to consider their words in public spaces or with those they don't yet know, and may genuinely help.


Do you think 40k should adopt the player's code from AoS 3.0? @ 2021/06/16 02:57:02


Post by: Seabass


Karol wrote:


Let me intreduce you to the history of wrestling then. In its beginings among the Greeks, they very fast found out a few things about , sure there be rules in events. First thing was that, when a master of multiple events wins, by breaking the hands and fingers of his opponents every time, it lowers the attendance of the event, and is kind of a "unfair". Later with another champion, they revised the rules for kicking. Leg drops were always part of the sport, but an Ephesian champion got so good at kicking his opponents in the groin area, that he managed to kill two of his opponents durning Olympic events, you know those holy ones, no war, competition watched by the gods where people shouldn't kill each other. Groin kick and groin punchs were made illegal.


I think that GW games would gain a lot, not from the "don't be an donkey-cave" as a rule, but with an official code of conduct. What can be done, what can not be done. How to you call a judge, how to you resolve a dispute in another way the throw a dice, because I don't remember it, but my trainers do and matchs being decided by a refs coin toss were hated in every sport ever, specially by people that performed the sport.

And that is a problem before stuff like, someone from the US comes to europe with his concept of what is okey, and finds out it is drasticaly different. At my store there is a guy who has a hand sculpted Toltek inspired eldar army. From what I understand in the US, people would find his army offensive, because he isn't a Toltek himself, in fact he is very Polish.


I completely understand the point you are making here, and it's a fair point. If the iteration of the rules of conduct is created to be vague, then the room for abuse increases (as does the likeliness of such behavior). I would offer though that governing human behavior into a rule set of behaviors, even for something as simple as a tabletop miniatures game, would be vastly complex. As a comparative, though not equal example, the Diagnostics and Statistics Manual, 5th edition, released in 2013 is the most commonly used psychological diagnostic manual in the United States, is a 1000 page book that covers diagnostic behaviors alone. Not normative behaviors that can be observed and reported on abnormally, but these are, clinically speaking, nonnormative and maladaptive behaviors alone. And the DSM-V has a significant degree of criticism levied against it for being too vague, not widely ranged enough to encapsulate gradients of disease, doesn't cover enough, etc, etc.

It would be almost impossible to provide a hard list of what can, and cannot, be done within the context of human behavior, and that becomes multiplied exponentially with the inclusion of an adversarial system in which multiple people are attempting to compete with each other. I think it would probably just be better to lay out some groundwork, say "hey, this is what we think is a good idea", and leave the minutia up to the individuals running events to interpret and act upon. Sure there are going to be mistaken, and there are going to be areas where both parties involved, or all parties involved will have an equally valid point to make in contention to the others, but i think that would be better than attempting to dictate human interaction behind a rigid structure of rules.

Because at that point, the guidelines do actually become a malleable malleus from which to determine who actually is worthy, and anytime you place a subjective litmus test on the entry to any social event, it is by default made exclusive.

Side note on the whole Toltek army: people in the US get really upset at everything. It's kind of what we do. Sometimes it's justified, sometimes it isn't, but most importantly, most of the time it is spoken about loudly on the internet and never seen in practice or real life. If your friend came into one of my local stores with an army like that, I promise you, black, white, yellow, green, purple, orange, blue, doesn't matter...everyone is going to be talking to him and taking pictures of it. It has been my professional experience that it would be the same just about anywhere.


Do you think 40k should adopt the player's code from AoS 3.0? @ 2021/06/16 06:53:46


Post by: Dysartes


 CEO Kasen wrote:
 vipoid wrote:
 Horla wrote:

Yet somehow getting through a couple of hours without saying something offensive remains an impossibility so the only course of action is… silence?


Remember kids - if you point out the logical flaw in a company's code of ethics, that doesn't make the ethical code badly written; it makes you a bad person.


...I think I'm on the opposite side of this debate from you and I have no idea what point Horla was trying to make.


I direct you to this quote, Kasen:

 vipoid wrote:
Avoid using language your opponent might find offensive.


Given the exceptionally long list of words and phrases that have allegedly caused offence to someone (not to mention such joyous inventions as "microaggressions"), I can't help but think that the only way to avoid using language that your opponent *might* find offensive would be to play the entire game in complete silence.


Somehow the above is pointing out a "logical flaw," not taking a scenario to such a ridiculous extreme that you end up playing a game in silence - which you would think would cause issues with actual gameplay.


Do you think 40k should adopt the player's code from AoS 3.0? @ 2021/06/16 07:52:06


Post by: a_typical_hero


 vipoid wrote:

And if it actually was 'don't be a dick' I'd have no problem with it.

Indeed, I have said multiple times that I have no issue with the actual 'don't be a dick' parts.

And yet, you took especially the "offend" part to make a mockery out of it.
What is the difference between "Don't offend the other player" and "Don't be a dick"? Both are standing there without a list of actions to avoid or words to say.
You could replace the wording respectively in your other post and it would be the same argument.

 vipoid wrote:

...you might have realised the problem with statements like that. Because unless my opponent is someone I already know very well (in which case we probably already know what we can/can't say to one another and don't need GW's intervention), I have absolutely no idea what will or won't offend them. I could say something I'd consider offensive and find that it doesn't offend them at all, or I could say something seemingly innocuous that ends up offending them regardless. Hence, the only way I can avoid using language that might offend them is to avoid using language altogether.
 vipoid wrote:
Cool.

Tell you what, then. Please provide me with a complete list of all language that might conceivably cause offence to somebody.

That way I'll know everything I'm not allowed to say and can avoid being a jerk.

Until 2014 the UK's law against Hate Speech included "insults" as being punishable. The government did not provide a complete list of what counts as an insult. How did you manage? Did you live your life in complete silence until then?

 vipoid wrote:

If you hadn't immediately jumped on the offended-asshat bandwagon and instead engaged your brain for 30 seconds,
 vipoid wrote:
But sure, keep defending their nonsense. Maybe one day sempai GW will notice you and give you the much-coveted White Knight of the Year Award.

Ironic that you use personal insults in a discussion about the guideline to not use offending language. Insults in lieu of arguments are often a good indicator for what side got the weaker position.


Do you think 40k should adopt the player's code from AoS 3.0? @ 2021/06/16 07:54:43


Post by: CEO Kasen


 Dysartes wrote:
I direct you to this quote, Kasen:

 vipoid wrote:
Avoid using language your opponent might find offensive.


Given the exceptionally long list of words and phrases that have allegedly caused offence to someone (not to mention such joyous inventions as "microaggressions"), I can't help but think that the only way to avoid using language that your opponent *might* find offensive would be to play the entire game in complete silence.


Somehow the above is pointing out a "logical flaw," not taking a scenario to such a ridiculous extreme that you end up playing a game in silence - which you would think would cause issues with actual gameplay.


Oh. Derp. Yeh, that'd do it. Okay, thanks, knowing what it was rebutting in this unexpectedly fractious discussion helps.


Do you think 40k should adopt the player's code from AoS 3.0? @ 2021/06/16 08:04:41


Post by: tneva82


 kirotheavenger wrote:
I have to agree with those opposed to "ask permission for unpainted/proxy model".
GW has really gone all in on the "go official or go home", when they make terrain rules they don't even do generic terrain, they make rules for this particular ruin that comes from this particular kit. urgh.


Well. 40k rules work just fine with any terrain. No requirement to buy kits. It's all about the traits you assign. Rulebook only gives examples but not requirements. Hint: You are expected to hash out what they are with opponent. Ruins are SUGGESTED as obscuring...but can be dense. 100% official rule!

AOS3 rules don't have requirement either. Not much change there except for LOS blocking for forests and now certain very big ones take 2/4 of recommended amounts(who has over 19" wide terrain pieces? O_o)

(AOS3 being fairly unchanged in terrain was bit of a surprise. I was expecting more like 40k. But forest blocking LOS is good change at least)


Do you think 40k should adopt the player's code from AoS 3.0? @ 2021/06/16 08:08:19


Post by: Da Boss


I also wanted to comment on Karol's anecdote about the dead dog. I believe you've mentioned before having a diagnosis about being on the autism spectrum?
Does your teacher have access to this diagnosis? As a teacher it would seem heavy handed and inappropriate to me to punish a student with a diagnosis like this if no harm was intended. I'd probably talk to you outside the room for a few minutes to figure out what you meant by the comment and explain to you why the other students feelings might have been hurt, and then invite the other student out so you could both discuss it, apologise if appropriate, and move on in a constructive manner.

It doesn't seem like the kind of thing I'd throw someone out of class for, so I'm sorry that happened.


Do you think 40k should adopt the player's code from AoS 3.0? @ 2021/06/16 08:10:15


Post by: AngryAngel80


 ClockworkZion wrote:
The player's code:


Honestly I rather like it (especially the part of reminding your opponent about rules your opponent forgot), but I'm all for hearing other opinions on if we should adopt this even if 40k doesn't adopt this in the rule book.


Not reading all the responses, but no. Much of this is common sense. Other parts are putting what should be a fun game into the realm of " Don't relax, even for enjoying this game you have to have rules outside the rules in the game ! " Which I don't like on its face, as you maybe can tell from the avatar, I'm not a huge fan of plans.

Make a respectful gesture ? If I want to do this, I will, if not I won't. I don't see how this helps, as long as I am friendly. Even playing with good friends we don't always wish each other luck, it's implied, nor do we handshake of share a big hug. I'm not really a fan of it telling me I have to do that with a stranger either. The fact we are sitting down to play is me showing a good deal of respect as I value my time so that action alone shows my concerns towards them.

Such as, avoid using language your opponent might find offensive. How about I just read the room and play against people who can handle talking like an adult ? That sounds much better to me personally. If they can't, I'd rather not walk on egg shells the whole game.

Asking his permission to use unpainted models. I'll be damned if I'm going to " My lord may I ? " Just to play a game, I'll tell him/her/them whatever I am using some unpainted models, they can choose to play with me or not, I'm not seeking your permission.

I will offer all the info on what my stuff does but my job there isn't to remind them every two seconds, I'll have my codex they can give it a look over anytime they want.

It's equally not my job to remind them of all their army does as well as remember all my army does. The onus on knowing rules is on them or me for knowing mine. First off I'm not going to enjoy my game if I can't relax because heaven forbid I don't notice they messed something up while I'm thinking on my own army or just chatting with some, answering a text, etc, etc that you can do on your turn. Not trying to be mean but if I'm making sure to play both armies right why not just play against myself at that point ? If they make mistakes, and its not spotted right away, not to be rude but we learn from mistakes, me, them, everyone. Sometimes making those mistakes and having to live with them is better in the long run for remembering to do it right in the future.

Wasting time is very subjective as is distracting your opponent making them rules, is silly and completely up for debate what that would entail. Sure respect personal space but I've never found that to be an issue I've run into.The game is supposed to be fun, if you can chat with your opponent or god forbid take your time, why the heck are we even playing this " fun " " relaxed " game ?

Lastly, if I want to complain about my dice being the poop a little or let them vent some steam for way too many 1's at key times, so be it. If people don't want to hear me say anything remotely human during a game of chance, play on line games with no voice option.

Most of these rules are common sense, some of them are just silly and the ones directly trying to say what I can and can't say can take a flying leap.

Know who you play with, play with people who are chill, if you have to do all of these to appease a player I'd probably rather not play them as I'd want to have relaxed fun when I play and not have to remember " Oh I can't call my luck crap even once or I violate the rules of the game ! Reeeeeee ! "




Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Castozor wrote:
You make valid points, and if it's a new player we do coach them on their and our own rules. But my opponents never remind me of my rules either, it's a certain mentality in this group. I too would rather win knowing my opponent gave it their all but if certain courtesies aren't being returned I will stop doing them too. Now don't think that's because we are toxic to each other, rather we remind each other after the fact when it's too late to redo. We feel that while this might have handicapped your ability to win this game, a painful lesson is better remembered and you will become a better player faster in this way.



Yeah there is a very real difference between teaching new players, which is good, to reminding someone else how to play their own army if they have played as long or longer than you have. Which is less good and is in the end to me not teaching them anything if they rely on you to tell them their own rules, that makes a player sloppy imo.


Do you think 40k should adopt the player's code from AoS 3.0? @ 2021/06/16 09:03:47


Post by: Tyel


I feel the idea people won't complain about luck is optimistic, but the rest should be standard practice.


Do you think 40k should adopt the player's code from AoS 3.0? @ 2021/06/16 09:07:42


Post by: AngryAngel80


The good parts of it should be standard practice, the parts that aren't should be purged with flame. It's a game, there shouldn't need to written rules for how to have correct fun. Somehow I've managed my whole life in being as good a person as I can without this drivel and I think I'll continue on this trend once I forget about it again.

But you all better remind me of my rules and and don't say offensive things to me, like anything about Necrons, and if I see even one unpainted model and you didn't grovel for my mercy you're getting yeeeted right out the game area.

Don't even get me started on if I don't get some respectful gestures at the start and the end of the game or I will be feeling some sort of way.


Do you think 40k should adopt the player's code from AoS 3.0? @ 2021/06/16 09:15:58


Post by: kirotheavenger


I think it's important to realise these are just guidelines and not strict rules.

No one is going to throw you out of the tournament because you didn't remind your opponent about their doctrines, or whatever.

The intent of this guideline is to not be that dick that sits there smiling slyly knowing you have doctrines but since you forgot he won't remind you and keeps his models alive.

The only tenant I actively disagree with is "ask permission before using unpainted models" that's ridiculous and they have no right to dictate that.

The one about shaking hands before and after is perhaps a little forward (and slightly contradicted later on by "respect personal space").

The rest are fine.


Do you think 40k should adopt the player's code from AoS 3.0? @ 2021/06/16 09:20:10


Post by: mrFickle


I’ve been been a bit amazed watching some of the conversations about painted and unpainted models unfold recently.

I think people that don’t paint should recognise that for some people that playing against an unpainted army can spoil someone me enjoyment of the game

Like wise painters should recognise some peope hate painting and don’t want to be forced through it, that won’t make any one happy.

But the statement in the rules suggest that painted > unpainted and you need to ask permission from the painter to play. It creates a power dynamic in which the player with the fully painted army has more power.

It should say ‘have a conversation with opponents about using unpainted or proxy models, if you can’t come to a mutual agreement, don’t play with each other’



Do you think 40k should adopt the player's code from AoS 3.0? @ 2021/06/16 09:36:52


Post by: tneva82


Tyel wrote:
I feel the idea people won't complain about luck is optimistic, but the rest should be standard practice.


Well. It's not like those are even rules but suggestions and recommendations.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 kirotheavenger wrote:

The only tenant I actively disagree with is "ask permission before using unpainted models" that's ridiculous and they have no right to dictate that.


Well it's better as recommendation than baking in game advantage to game which will then affect game balance in future. GG.


Do you think 40k should adopt the player's code from AoS 3.0? @ 2021/06/16 09:43:34


Post by: kirotheavenger


TBH I prefer the +10vp.
I give zero feths about winning so that's meaningless.
Writing "ask permission" sets up the very strong implication that you're doing something wrong.

If the statement had been worded "painted armies are preferable" that'd be fine, although I think it would be a bit out of place in the book.


Do you think 40k should adopt the player's code from AoS 3.0? @ 2021/06/16 09:51:40


Post by: tneva82


Well that 10 vp's will affect balance in future. Are you happy at armies randomly being too good/bad because game data is distorded due to painting scores?

The whole page is recommendations rather than rules...Ie those are recommendations, optional. Painting points in 40k are core rules.


Do you think 40k should adopt the player's code from AoS 3.0? @ 2021/06/16 10:01:28


Post by: kirotheavenger


40k has more balance problems than 10vp.


Do you think 40k should adopt the player's code from AoS 3.0? @ 2021/06/16 10:19:19


Post by: tneva82


And it won't ever be fixed when paint score affects game balance.


Do you think 40k should adopt the player's code from AoS 3.0? @ 2021/06/16 10:34:57


Post by: Arbitrator


 H.B.M.C. wrote:
They should adopt this and page 5. Really confuse everyone with mixed messages.

At least if GW included Page 5 then all of the complaints about it being single handedly responsible for turning shy, sweet, inoffensive nerds into jocks throwing newbies into lockers and stealing their lunch money would dry up. It would be heralded as the most hilarious but necessary page of any rulebook ever that GW are genius' for including it.


Do you think 40k should adopt the player's code from AoS 3.0? @ 2021/06/16 10:38:17


Post by: Sarigar


I didn't know AOS had such issues to the point GW felt the need to include this information.


Do you think 40k should adopt the player's code from AoS 3.0? @ 2021/06/16 10:46:49


Post by: tneva82


 Sarigar wrote:
I didn't know AOS had such issues to the point GW felt the need to include this information.


On the contrary AOS has lot more relaxed atmosphere than 40k.

btw speaking of GW supposedly forcing their terrain...

AOS3 rules wrote:17.1.4 WYLDWOOD TERRAIN
Forests and woods in games of Warhammer Age of Sigmar are called wyldwoods. Targets that lie within them are concealed from sight by thick foliage. If the scenery pieces that make up a wyldwood terrain feature are formed into a circle with an area of open ground inside the circle, then the area of open ground inside the circle is considered to be part of the wyldwood terrain feature.

Visibility between 2 models is blocked if a straight line 1mm wide drawn between the closest points of the 2 models passes across more than 3" of a wyldwood terrain feature. Visibility to or from models with a Wounds characteristic of 10 or more is not blocked by wyldwood terrain features.


Soooooo. Note how this just states forests and woods are called wyldwoods. Nothing in text says you have to use GW piece. It doesn't mandate size, shape etc. It covers how to handle if interior isn't part of actual terrain piece in circle so this works both whether it's one area terrain or with edge. Only thing it really expects is that terrain has edges clearly marked so some form of connected edges forming up closed area but that can be U shaped as well.

Cover, defensible(buildings basically) etc same.

It's actually very generic here...Basically you just decide with your opponent what terrain pieces are cover, defensible, woods. Then there's random feature you can roll for them before game but this isn't mandatory core rule either.


Do you think 40k should adopt the player's code from AoS 3.0? @ 2021/06/16 10:50:11


Post by: Apple fox


 Arbitrator wrote:
 H.B.M.C. wrote:
They should adopt this and page 5. Really confuse everyone with mixed messages.

At least if GW included Page 5 then all of the complaints about it being single handedly responsible for turning shy, sweet, inoffensive nerds into jocks throwing newbies into lockers and stealing their lunch money would dry up. It would be heralded as the most hilarious but necessary page of any rulebook ever that GW are genius' for including it.


I sometimes think more 40k players have read page 5 than warmachine ones ;p

With the painting guideline, I wonder if someone at GW noticed they create a bit of a monster rule and decided this is better as it’s not a hard rule and they are hoping it will be taken more positive.
Should really just say something about discussing painting expectations but baby steps for GW is Huge.


Do you think 40k should adopt the player's code from AoS 3.0? @ 2021/06/16 11:28:13


Post by: kirotheavenger


That's a positive change on the Wyldwoods then.
I'd love it if they went the extra mile and cut the gothic names crap, it's not that bad on "Wyldwoods" but Sanctum Imperialis, and whatever jargon names I can't even remember is ridiculous and impossible to understand unless you already know what they are.


Do you think 40k should adopt the player's code from AoS 3.0? @ 2021/06/16 11:31:32


Post by: FezzikDaBullgryn


I know this is kinda impossible, but I would like a rule that before a match, both players will list any "Questionable" or RAI interpretations they have of key rules, say 8" charges, or do my Tangle foot grenades work on your Death Guard? "This is how I interpret how flying models works, so is it ok with you if I place my Repulsors on top of this building and make them unchargeable?"

So there is no wasted time 2 hours into the game when one player says "I'm sorry that's how I play and I refuse to play under another interpretation"


Do you think 40k should adopt the player's code from AoS 3.0? @ 2021/06/16 13:37:34


Post by: Dysartes


 kirotheavenger wrote:
The only tenant I actively disagree with is "ask permission before using unpainted models" that's ridiculous and they have no right to dictate that.


Tenet, not tenant - though the point seems to be living rent-free in a number of minds at present...


Do you think 40k should adopt the player's code from AoS 3.0? @ 2021/06/16 14:40:33


Post by: ClockworkZion


 Sarigar wrote:
I didn't know AOS had such issues to the point GW felt the need to include this information.

It doesn't, but it doesn't prevent them from putting forth guidelines to try and keep it that way.


Do you think 40k should adopt the player's code from AoS 3.0? @ 2021/06/17 00:42:42


Post by: BrianDavion


FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
I know this is kinda impossible, but I would like a rule that before a match, both players will list any "Questionable" or RAI interpretations they have of key rules, say 8" charges, or do my Tangle foot grenades work on your Death Guard? "This is how I interpret how flying models works, so is it ok with you if I place my Repulsors on top of this building and make them unchargeable?"

So there is no wasted time 2 hours into the game when one player says "I'm sorry that's how I play and I refuse to play under another interpretation"


the problem is that much of the time those rules are known to be questionable only if you spend a buncha time on the internet forums obsessing over it


Do you think 40k should adopt the player's code from AoS 3.0? @ 2021/06/17 01:00:08


Post by: AnomanderRake


FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
I know this is kinda impossible, but I would like a rule that before a match, both players will list any "Questionable" or RAI interpretations they have of key rules, say 8" charges, or do my Tangle foot grenades work on your Death Guard? "This is how I interpret how flying models works, so is it ok with you if I place my Repulsors on top of this building and make them unchargeable?"

So there is no wasted time 2 hours into the game when one player says "I'm sorry that's how I play and I refuse to play under another interpretation"


Wouldn't it be nice if we just had a game where it was obvious how the rules worked the first time and we didn't have to do any arguing about it at all?


Do you think 40k should adopt the player's code from AoS 3.0? @ 2021/06/17 01:08:08


Post by: H.B.M.C.


Maybe a company that can't get basic rules right after how many decades has no place trying to write further "guidelines" on how people should play their games.


Do you think 40k should adopt the player's code from AoS 3.0? @ 2021/06/17 02:38:03


Post by: Ashiraya


I like the inclusion of painted models. In practice it won't make much of a difference I bet, but it helps set the idea that playing with painted models is the standard. It really is worth the effort, and I hold myself to that standard even if I am looser with my friends.

I imagine the stand-in model bit is for when it can be confusing or size becomes an issue, which is very fair. I like 3D printing and the like but it's not flawless.


Do you think 40k should adopt the player's code from AoS 3.0? @ 2021/06/17 03:00:47


Post by: H.B.M.C.


 Ashiraya wrote:
I like the inclusion of painted models. In practice it won't make much of a difference I bet, but it helps set the idea that playing with painted models is the standard. It really is worth the effort, and I hold myself to that standard even if I am looser with my friends.
And some people don't like painting. Some people don't know how. Some people have physical disabilities that prevent or make painting the worst aspects of the hobby for them.

Painted shouldn't be a 'standard'. All it does is separate those that have from those that haven't, and ignores the reasons why people haven't.


Do you think 40k should adopt the player's code from AoS 3.0? @ 2021/06/17 03:16:52


Post by: yukishiro1


Painting is a standard. All their promotional material shows painted miniatures. All the miniatures in the rulebook are painted. All the major battle report channels feature painted miniatures, etc etc.

But that's precisely why they don't need to strong-arm people into it. Everybody already knows that painted miniatures at the default and the ideal, and if they're not painting their miniatures, it's not because they're not aware.

GW here is like the nosy aunt who asks someone if they think their diet of cheetos and ranch dip is really the healthiest choice. Nobody thinks cheetos and ranch dip is healthy. The scales aren't going to fall from their eyes if you tell them, just like nobody who doesn't paint their miniatures is going to be like "oh, wow, thanks for letting me know that painting my miniatures was a thing GW, I wondered why mine were all this same dull grey color while everyone else had colorful ones!!!11"


Do you think 40k should adopt the player's code from AoS 3.0? @ 2021/06/17 03:22:23


Post by: Racerguy180


Yeah, I could see painting being subordinate to anything if GW didn't show off fully painted models in all of their advertising, marketing, etc....

Since they do, obviously they place a certain level of importance to fully painting their miniatures.


Do you think 40k should adopt the player's code from AoS 3.0? @ 2021/06/17 03:22:26


Post by: Argive


Not much surprised about these "rules". All this stuff seems pretty much what is accepted and goes on anyway in most places.. No real harm in including them. As many stated the kind of pond life that would be a dick will continue to be a dick weather code of conduct is codified or implied

But I do think it would be beneficial for young ones coming into the hobby. Some of them may need this spelled out if they were only ever around their friends (who turn out to be toxic bastards). Not to mention alarming number of youths leaving school and entering adult life without basic life skills.


Do you think 40k should adopt the player's code from AoS 3.0? @ 2021/06/17 03:35:06


Post by: H.B.M.C.


yukishiro1 wrote:
Painting is a standard. All their promotional material shows painted miniatures. All the miniatures in the rulebook are painted. All the major battle report channels feature painted miniatures, etc etc.
Racerguy180 wrote:
Since they do, obviously they place a certain level of importance to fully painting their miniatures.
But it shouldn't come up as a requirement to play the game, something you need to "ask permission" to avoid, nor should anyone be rewarded in game for having done so.



Do you think 40k should adopt the player's code from AoS 3.0? @ 2021/06/17 04:22:50


Post by: Racerguy180


Why not, some put in more work, they shouldn't be rewarded?

I prefer to look at it like you get docked 10pts for no paint rather than 10pts reward for being painted.

Don't like getting docked, paint...or play with those that don't care. Which is what I prefer.

Que those that have problems painting....don't play matched play rules, easy peazy lemon squeezy. Play matched, deal with it....


Do you think 40k should adopt the player's code from AoS 3.0? @ 2021/06/17 04:33:06


Post by: yukishiro1


 H.B.M.C. wrote:
yukishiro1 wrote:
Painting is a standard. All their promotional material shows painted miniatures. All the miniatures in the rulebook are painted. All the major battle report channels feature painted miniatures, etc etc.
Racerguy180 wrote:
Since they do, obviously they place a certain level of importance to fully painting their miniatures.
But it shouldn't come up as a requirement to play the game, something you need to "ask permission" to avoid, nor should anyone be rewarded in game for having done so.



I mean, I agree with you, that was literally the point of my comment. At most, they should have put something in saying "Painting is a big part of the hobby to many players. It does not violate this code of conduct to decline to play with someone whose miniatures are not painted, if you prefer that your matches be between two painted armies. Similarly, it does not violate this code of conduct for a tournament organizer to set minimum painting standards in order to participate in their event." It's something you can leave up to people to figure out for themselves what they prefer, the only reason to put it in a code of conduct would be to make that clear.



Do you think 40k should adopt the player's code from AoS 3.0? @ 2021/06/17 04:36:03


Post by: H.B.M.C.


Racerguy180 wrote:
Why not, some put in more work, they shouldn't be rewarded?
For real?
 H.B.M.C. wrote:
And some people don't like painting. Some people don't know how. Some people have physical disabilities that prevent or make painting the worst aspects of the hobby for them.
And your solution is "Well don't play the game then LOL!".




Do you think 40k should adopt the player's code from AoS 3.0? @ 2021/06/17 04:52:08


Post by: Racerguy180


No, you could forgo the chains of matched play???

I don't care about if you're painted or not, I also don't play by matched play rules, so seems to be self imposed if it's a problem...


Do you think 40k should adopt the player's code from AoS 3.0? @ 2021/06/17 04:54:23


Post by: BrianDavion


 H.B.M.C. wrote:
yukishiro1 wrote:
Painting is a standard. All their promotional material shows painted miniatures. All the miniatures in the rulebook are painted. All the major battle report channels feature painted miniatures, etc etc.
Racerguy180 wrote:
Since they do, obviously they place a certain level of importance to fully painting their miniatures.
But it shouldn't come up as a requirement to play the game, something you need to "ask permission" to avoid, nor should anyone be rewarded in game for having done so.



defacto that's already the case. there are a small minority of people out there who won't play games against upainted minis (it's crazy I know but they exist) clariifying that the guy you're meeting up to play isn't one of these people before you bother unpacking is honestly common sense. the last time I sat down to a game and took some unpainted mini's out (I paint all my stuff I just wanted to try these out) I outright said "Don't have an issue if a few of my mini's aren't painted I trust?" He said "nope it's cool. although I love the paint job on your painted stuff by the way" and we sat down and played.

Boom there it was. that's ALL you have to do. it's not some bizzare complex thing where you need to humbling beg forgiveness and permission to use your unpainted mini
s just sit down note "yeah I'm using unpainted stuff, cool with that?" and there ya go. I mean seriously if the guy says "I ONLY PLAY PAINTED STUFF" are you going to sit there and argue that he MUST play a game? no you're gonna shurg admit you both want something differant and go find other partners.


Do you think 40k should adopt the player's code from AoS 3.0? @ 2021/06/17 04:57:38


Post by: Racerguy180


BrianDavion wrote:
 H.B.M.C. wrote:
yukishiro1 wrote:
Painting is a standard. All their promotional material shows painted miniatures. All the miniatures in the rulebook are painted. All the major battle report channels feature painted miniatures, etc etc.
Racerguy180 wrote:
Since they do, obviously they place a certain level of importance to fully painting their miniatures.
But it shouldn't come up as a requirement to play the game, something you need to "ask permission" to avoid, nor should anyone be rewarded in game for having done so.



defacto that's already the case. there are a small minority of people out there who won't play games against upainted minis (it's crazy I know but they exist) clariifying that the guy you're meeting up to play isn't one of these people before you bother unpacking is honestly common sense. the last time I sat down to a game and took some unpainted mini's out (I paint all my stuff I just wanted to try these out) I outright said "Don't have an issue if a few of my mini's aren't painted I trust?" He said "nope it's cool. although I love the paint job on your painted stuff by the way" and we sat down and played.

Boom there it was. that's ALL you have to do. it's not some bizzare complex thing where you need to humbling beg forgiveness and permission to use your unpainted mini
s just sit down note "yeah I'm using unpainted stuff, cool with that?" and there ya go. I mean seriously if the guy says "I ONLY PLAY PAINTED STUFF" are you going to sit there and argue that he MUST play a game? no you're gonna shurg admit you both want something differant and go find other partners.


Woah woah.woah, that's making to much damn sense.....

Damn matched play dragon rearing its ugly head....


Do you think 40k should adopt the player's code from AoS 3.0? @ 2021/06/17 05:02:40


Post by: H.B.M.C.


Racerguy180 wrote:
Damn matched play dragon rearing its ugly head....
Most people play matched play. It's the main method in which the overwhelming majority of players interface with 40k. It is The Standard™.

Saying "Just don't play matched play!" is basically saying "Just don't play the game.". You have to get that.

I mean gak. I'm sorry that I only see out of one eye and as a result have terrible depth perception at short distances combined with generally bad eye sight in the eye that can see. I guess I can't play with the rest of you. I'll sit over here and just listen. And I'm by far not the worst of it. There's a girl who posts here who is actually blind. Go and tell her she can't play the main method of how the game is played.

When people talk about "elitism", it's the kind of attitude that you have Racerguy that they're talking about.






Do you think 40k should adopt the player's code from AoS 3.0? @ 2021/06/17 05:04:31


Post by: BrianDavion


Racerguy180 wrote:
BrianDavion wrote:
 H.B.M.C. wrote:
yukishiro1 wrote:
Painting is a standard. All their promotional material shows painted miniatures. All the miniatures in the rulebook are painted. All the major battle report channels feature painted miniatures, etc etc.
Racerguy180 wrote:
Since they do, obviously they place a certain level of importance to fully painting their miniatures.
But it shouldn't come up as a requirement to play the game, something you need to "ask permission" to avoid, nor should anyone be rewarded in game for having done so.



defacto that's already the case. there are a small minority of people out there who won't play games against upainted minis (it's crazy I know but they exist) clariifying that the guy you're meeting up to play isn't one of these people before you bother unpacking is honestly common sense. the last time I sat down to a game and took some unpainted mini's out (I paint all my stuff I just wanted to try these out) I outright said "Don't have an issue if a few of my mini's aren't painted I trust?" He said "nope it's cool. although I love the paint job on your painted stuff by the way" and we sat down and played.

Boom there it was. that's ALL you have to do. it's not some bizzare complex thing where you need to humbling beg forgiveness and permission to use your unpainted mini
s just sit down note "yeah I'm using unpainted stuff, cool with that?" and there ya go. I mean seriously if the guy says "I ONLY PLAY PAINTED STUFF" are you going to sit there and argue that he MUST play a game? no you're gonna shurg admit you both want something differant and go find other partners.


Woah woah.woah, that's making to much damn sense.....

Damn matched play dragon rearing its ugly head....


I mean I think these rules are mostly with the view of a arranged play meet (perhaps for a league) with someone you're playing with for the first time. obviously if me and someone else are buddies who play every weekend in our garage that's going to be differant.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 kirotheavenger wrote:
I think it's important to realise these are just guidelines and not strict rules.

No one is going to throw you out of the tournament because you didn't remind your opponent about their doctrines, or whatever.

The intent of this guideline is to not be that dick that sits there smiling slyly knowing you have doctrines but since you forgot he won't remind you and keeps his models alive.

The only tenant I actively disagree with is "ask permission before using unpainted models" that's ridiculous and they have no right to dictate that.

The one about shaking hands before and after is perhaps a little forward (and slightly contradicted later on by "respect personal space").

The rest are fine.


shaking hands isn't contridicted by the respect personal space (although it suggests to me this was written before covid 19) shaking hands before a match is pretty common in a lot of compeitive situations.


Do you think 40k should adopt the player's code from AoS 3.0? @ 2021/06/17 05:21:44


Post by: tneva82


Racerguy180 wrote:
Why not, some put in more work, they shouldn't be rewarded?

I prefer to look at it like you get docked 10pts for no paint rather than 10pts reward for being painted.

Don't like getting docked, paint...or play with those that don't care. Which is what I prefer.

Que those that have problems painting....don't play matched play rules, easy peazy lemon squeezy. Play matched, deal with it....


How do you like game balance getting wonky due to that?

Also...painting scores are EVERYWHERE in 40k. You literally cannot avoid it being baked in unless you play without any vp scoring whatsoever. Every single scenario in 40k 9e has it.

"Don't play matched". Good idea. Same painting score waits you anyway. It's not matched play rule...It's core 40k rule.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Racerguy180 wrote:
No, you could forgo the chains of matched play???

I don't care about if you're painted or not, I also don't play by matched play rules, so seems to be self imposed if it's a problem...


If you don't play matched play and don't use painting scores you are house ruling things One could even say cheating.

Also it doesn't change that it affects your game balance either way via game data.


Do you think 40k should adopt the player's code from AoS 3.0? @ 2021/06/17 05:40:30


Post by: Racerguy180


 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Racerguy180 wrote:
Damn matched play dragon rearing its ugly head....
Most people play matched play. It's the main method in which the overwhelming majority of players interface with 40k. It is The Standard™.

Saying "Just don't play matched play!" is basically saying "Just don't play the game.". You have to get that.

I mean gak. I'm sorry that I only see out of one eye and as a result have terrible depth perception at short distances combined with generally bad eye sight in the eye that can see. I guess I can't play with the rest of you. I'll sit over here and just listen. And I'm by far not the worst of it. There's a girl who posts here who is actually blind. Go and tell her she can't play the main method of how the game is played.

When people talk about "elitism", it's the kind of attitude that you have Racerguy that they're talking about.






Nope, it's the elitism of only playing g matched play when other "inclusive" styles exist. It sounds like the matched play people are the ones that have a problem with it. You'd never hear someone who could give 2 gaks whatatched play does, complain about forced inclusivity.
If you have a problem with so called "standard" 40k, do something g about it. Like not playing by their "standards" cuz you don't like them.

Once again I don't care about matched play, if you do and see it's the only way to play...it's a rather myopic viewpoint of the game and only further reinforces why these rules(and by extension matched play)are dumb.

IF YOU HAVE A PROBLEM WITH A "RULE"....DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT....

pretty self explanatory.


Do you think 40k should adopt the player's code from AoS 3.0? @ 2021/06/17 06:18:12


Post by: Jidmah


Racerguy180 wrote:
Why not, some put in more work, they shouldn't be rewarded?

Because they are different parts of the hobby. Painting is painting and playing is playing.

Essentially people playing in events lose points for unpainted miniatures. You are not "rewarded" for your paint work at all, because you can easily get those 10 VP by throwing money at the problem, doing a gakky speed-paint job or game the system by smearing armageddon dust on all the bases of your basecoated miniatures. Meanwhile, my finished miniatures don't count as painted because I don't have texture on my bases for aesthetic reasons.
On the other hand, people participating in painting competitions don't lose points for losing games.

Would you be in favor of adding a rule to the Golden Daemon competition that states that you can't win the trophy if you haven't won a game with your painting entry as part of your army? That would suck, right?

Oh, and crusade has the same paint rules, by the way. So put your hatred for tournaments back in the closet.


Do you think 40k should adopt the player's code from AoS 3.0? @ 2021/06/17 06:26:19


Post by: Racerguy180


No one is saying that you need to lose any games due to no painting. The only way that happens is if you matched play.

So if you don't matched play...miraculously you don't lose any game by not having painted stuff.

Texture on the base is BS.
plenty of bases have been done with paint alone., what if you picked Sector Mechanicus bases, no texture there....you could also paint the base one colour and call it a day.


Do you think 40k should adopt the player's code from AoS 3.0? @ 2021/06/17 06:33:17


Post by: Duskweaver


If you think people with physical disabilities that prevent them from painting their miniatures should be required to ask permission to be allowed to play the game, or should be limited to certain types of play, or should suffer in-game penalties like starting the game down 10VP...

Then you are a gatekeeper and a bigot. You're no better than the donkey-caves who think only straight white males should be allowed in the hobby.


Do you think 40k should adopt the player's code from AoS 3.0? @ 2021/06/17 06:33:45


Post by: Jidmah


Racerguy180 wrote:
No one is saying that you need to lose any games due to no painting. The only way that happens is if you matched play.

So if you don't matched play...miraculously you don't lose any game by not having painted stuff.

Crusade has the same rule. The only way to avoid losing games to unpainted miniatures is playing open play.
You are essentially saying that if you want to play with unpainted miniatures, you are not allowed to play in the way that you enjoy most, but only a trial version of it. That is nothing but elitism.

Texture on the base is BS.
plenty of bases have been done with paint alone., what if you picked Sector Mechanicus bases, no texture there....you could also paint the base one colour and call it a day.


Sorry, that is not what the rule says. No 10 VP for you, because you didn't paint the base as GW told you. Have a problem with that? Quit the hobby then!


Do you think 40k should adopt the player's code from AoS 3.0? @ 2021/06/17 06:37:26


Post by: Racerguy180


Or don't play matched, you seem to not understand that....if you change one rule for matched....your playing open play, by the rules.

So if you change one thing....

You get so stuck on matched being the only way to play, but when GW makes an official rule that you don't like, your only recourse is....to complain, rather than taking the fun into your own hands and ignore it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Jidmah wrote:

Sorry, that is not what the rule says. No 10 VP for you, because you didn't paint the base as GW told you. Have a problem with that? Quit the hobby then!

So you're saying that a GW product doesn't meet their matched play standards, call the hobby police and knock down everyone's door.

Sounds ridiculous, just as ridiculous as paying attention to a stupid(by your own admission) rule. If the community just ignores it, is it really a problem?

Absolutely zero players at my flgs give any gaks, nor do I about painted/not and will continue to not care, irrespective of GW's official rules.

Control your own destiny or be beholden to ill-conceived ideas of whatever.


Do you think 40k should adopt the player's code from AoS 3.0? @ 2021/06/17 06:45:28


Post by: Apple fox


A thought occur to me with the painting and substitute miniature guideline.

It’s interesting they talk about painting presumably over artistic preference, but then also turn it over to substitution as the bad side. Which is often done entirely on artistic choice.
And they could with a very easy rule make a substitute miniature no issues.
It’s why I think GW rules always come in so shallow.

Painting expectations I think is important, a real discussion is fine. But GW just create a rule that leads to elitist and subversion of that discussion instead.


Do you think 40k should adopt the player's code from AoS 3.0? @ 2021/06/17 06:54:00


Post by: BrianDavion


 Duskweaver wrote:
If you think people with physical disabilities that prevent them from painting their miniatures should be required to ask permission to be allowed to play the game, or should be limited to certain types of play, or should suffer in-game penalties like starting the game down 10VP...

Then you are a gatekeeper and a bigot. You're no better than the donkey-caves who think only straight white males should be allowed in the hobby.



can we please stop and remove the 10 VP thing from the arguement, which I agree is mostly bs.

In this case it's simply discussing using unpainted mini's with someone, which, as this thread proves, some people do prefer to play with painted mini's only 5 seconds to discuss the matter in advance with a no potential partner for the game is not unreasonable.

Seriously in HMBC's case literally ALL he'd have to say is "Just as a heads up, I have a disability which makes painting my models to any acceptable degree basicly impossable, you're fine playing unpainted mini's yeah?"

is literally,. IT. all he needs to do. and in 99% of all cases... people'll be cool. and in the 1 percent of the time.. why the feth would you wanna play with "A gate keeping bigot" anyway?


Do you think 40k should adopt the player's code from AoS 3.0? @ 2021/06/17 07:07:38


Post by: tneva82


Racerguy180 wrote:
No one is saying that you need to lose any games due to no painting. The only way that happens is if you matched play.

So if you don't matched play...miraculously you don't lose any game by not having painted stuff..


And narrative...and open.

Every scenario GW has contains painting score....

It...Is...NOT...matched...play....rule.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Racerguy180 wrote:
Or don't play matched, you seem to not understand that....if you change one rule for matched....your playing open play, by the rules.

So if you change one thing....

You get so stuck on matched being the only way to play, but when GW makes an official rule that you don't like, your only recourse is....to complain, rather than taking the fun into your own hands and ignore it.


You CANNOT AVOID THIS BY NOT PLAYING MATCHED PLAY!

You are talking about not playing 40k at all.

It's 40k rule. Not matched play rule. It's 40k core rule. In every game mode. If you remove it you quite literally aren't playing 40k anymore but your own game.


Do you think 40k should adopt the player's code from AoS 3.0? @ 2021/06/17 07:35:29


Post by: Racerguy180


I guess everyone who ignores this isn't playing 40k at all then.

Which is fine, cuz I guess I haven't played 40k then...at all....ever. wow my whole self worth has been devalued and I don't know how ill ever cope with the trauma of that revelation.


Do you think 40k should adopt the player's code from AoS 3.0? @ 2021/06/17 07:48:57


Post by: CEO Kasen


Okay, dafuq is this discussion?

This is, if I'm in the right thread, about a silly little half page of politeness suggestions written by committee that seemed mostly kinda nice, but that you could very reasonably argue are pointless, and now we're having a firestorm about the definition of matched play, elitism and physical disabilities that phosphex would say needs to be turned down a notch?

How'd we get here?


Do you think 40k should adopt the player's code from AoS 3.0? @ 2021/06/17 07:55:09


Post by: Dysartes


tneva82 wrote:
Racerguy180 wrote:
No one is saying that you need to lose any games due to no painting. The only way that happens is if you matched play.

So if you don't matched play...miraculously you don't lose any game by not having painted stuff..


And narrative...and open.

Every scenario GW has contains painting score....

It...Is...NOT...matched...play....rule.


tneva, before you continue to embarrass yourself here - where in the Open Play section (going by the mini-rulebook, the Open Hostility mission pack) are these 10VP for having a painted army referenced?

Page 85, which includes the "Determine Victor" step where the copy features for Matched Play and Crusade, doesn't include it. None of the three scenarios that follow include it - heck, only one of the three scenarios actually uses victory points, with the others having specific win/loss conditions for the attacker/defender.


Do you think 40k should adopt the player's code from AoS 3.0? @ 2021/06/17 07:56:11


Post by: posermcbogus


 CEO Kasen wrote:

How'd we get here?


some silly sausage mentioned the 10vp for a painted army rule and now we're doing that argument again.


Do you think 40k should adopt the player's code from AoS 3.0? @ 2021/06/17 08:00:35


Post by: Dysartes


Having just stuck my nose in the AOS General Discussion board, I do find it interesting that there's no topic regarding this "Player's Code" at all over there - and yet there are seven fairly heated pages over here...


Do you think 40k should adopt the player's code from AoS 3.0? @ 2021/06/17 08:06:52


Post by: Apple fox


 Dysartes wrote:
Having just stuck my nose in the AOS General Discussion board, I do find it interesting that there's no topic regarding this "Player's Code" at all over there - and yet there are seven fairly heated pages over here...


40k gets more discussion in all places, so that’s to be expected. I also think without the context of the VP connected to paint there isn’t as much to discuss on that issue. And a lot of the others can be summed up as be nice to each other.


Do you think 40k should adopt the player's code from AoS 3.0? @ 2021/06/17 08:19:03


Post by: tneva82


 Dysartes wrote:
Having just stuck my nose in the AOS General Discussion board, I do find it interesting that there's no topic regarding this "Player's Code" at all over there - and yet there are seven fairly heated pages over here...


Dakkadakka is quite for AOS in general.

Pop your head over to more AOS heavy forum. All in all dakkadakka discussion over AOS is so quiet most conversations tend to focus on thread or two(rumour thread in AOS for one)


Do you think 40k should adopt the player's code from AoS 3.0? @ 2021/06/17 08:47:14


Post by: chromedog


I'm not understanding why this even needed to be spelled out ...

Surely it *should* be the default *rule zero* of any game. Commandment, even. Thou Shalt not be a d***.


Do you think 40k should adopt the player's code from AoS 3.0? @ 2021/06/17 08:56:41


Post by: BrianDavion


 chromedog wrote:
I'm not understanding why this even needed to be spelled out ...

Surely it *should* be the default *rule zero* of any game. Commandment, even. Thou Shalt not be a d***.


but but, being a dick wins me ten victory points!


seriously though, I'd be very curious if ANYONE here has EVER lost a game due to that rule being applied.


Do you think 40k should adopt the player's code from AoS 3.0? @ 2021/06/17 09:14:09


Post by: AngryAngel80


If it was just that, then yes it would be pointless to have the page. Apparently not giving someone a thumbs up makes you a gakhead, not asking to be able to field an unpainted or 3rd party models makes you a gakhead, etc, etc.

It's well meaning but falls flat in many areas once you break it all down as I bet most players violate one or a few of these things every single game.


Do you think 40k should adopt the player's code from AoS 3.0? @ 2021/06/17 09:28:11


Post by: vipoid


 CEO Kasen wrote:
Okay, dafuq is this discussion?

This is, if I'm in the right thread, about a silly little half page of politeness suggestions written by committee that seemed mostly kinda nice, but that you could very reasonably argue are pointless, and now we're having a firestorm about the definition of matched play, elitism and physical disabilities that phosphex would say needs to be turned down a notch?

How'd we get here?


Perhaps because some people noticed that the "politeness" in these rules only goes one way.

We are told that you should throw yourself on your opponent's mercy if you're not using a fully-painted army or if you're using conversions or 3rd-party models.

However, even aside from the elitist nature of that demand, there is no reciprocal requirement that you be tolerant towards an opponent who has an unpainted army or who wants to use conversions or 3rd party models.


Do you think 40k should adopt the player's code from AoS 3.0? @ 2021/06/17 10:13:35


Post by: General Kroll


BrianDavion wrote:
 chromedog wrote:
I'm not understanding why this even needed to be spelled out ...

Surely it *should* be the default *rule zero* of any game. Commandment, even. Thou Shalt not be a d***.


but but, being a dick wins me ten victory points!


seriously though, I'd be very curious if ANYONE here has EVER lost a game due to that rule being applied.


I’m yet to hear of anyone losing because of that rule. You’d think it was causing fist fights and falling out at every single FLGS the way some on here talk about it. Mountains and mole hills spring to mind.

That some people in this thread are throwing round terms like “bigot” for anyone that thinks it’s not an issue kind of sums up the toxicity of this site.


Do you think 40k should adopt the player's code from AoS 3.0? @ 2021/06/17 10:21:09


Post by: chromedog


If an opponent needs to be told not to be a d - then I'm already packing my stuff up and walking away.

Life is short enough already - I don't need to waste more time dealing with that gak as well. I don't care if it gets me blacklisted from tourneys in that group or store. I've done it before and walked away from an entire game system happily.


Do you think 40k should adopt the player's code from AoS 3.0? @ 2021/06/17 11:12:25


Post by: Sarigar


 Duskweaver wrote:
If you think people with physical disabilities that prevent them from painting their miniatures should be required to ask permission to be allowed to play the game, or should be limited to certain types of play, or should suffer in-game penalties like starting the game down 10VP...

Then you are a gatekeeper and a bigot. You're no better than the donkey-caves who think only straight white males should be allowed in the hobby.


I guess I got my answer as to why GW added this page their new book.


Do you think 40k should adopt the player's code from AoS 3.0? @ 2021/06/17 11:32:53


Post by: Apple fox


 General Kroll wrote:
BrianDavion wrote:
 chromedog wrote:
I'm not understanding why this even needed to be spelled out ...

Surely it *should* be the default *rule zero* of any game. Commandment, even. Thou Shalt not be a d***.


but but, being a dick wins me ten victory points!


seriously though, I'd be very curious if ANYONE here has EVER lost a game due to that rule being applied.


I’m yet to hear of anyone losing because of that rule. You’d think it was causing fist fights and falling out at every single FLGS the way some on here talk about it. Mountains and mole hills spring to mind.

That some people in this thread are throwing round terms like “bigot” for anyone that thinks it’s not an issue kind of sums up the toxicity of this site.


If the rule doesn’t effect the game it doesn’t need to exist in the first place, or it does and it can be a issue.


Do you think 40k should adopt the player's code from AoS 3.0? @ 2021/06/17 11:42:03


Post by: Mad Doc Grotsnik


This is about the fully painted thing, isn’t it?

I’m a self identifying Lazy Sod. I try to get my armies painted, but motivation is low. By all means, claim your VP from me.

But if I’m using one of my painted armies? Not sure I’d bother claiming it, because it’s not nice to judge others. Guess it depends largely on whether you take the piss as an opponent. If you’re WAAC, I’ll meet you every step of the way and press every advantage I can.


Do you think 40k should adopt the player's code from AoS 3.0? @ 2021/06/17 14:56:18


Post by: General Kroll


Apple fox wrote:
 General Kroll wrote:
BrianDavion wrote:
 chromedog wrote:
I'm not understanding why this even needed to be spelled out ...

Surely it *should* be the default *rule zero* of any game. Commandment, even. Thou Shalt not be a d***.


but but, being a dick wins me ten victory points!


seriously though, I'd be very curious if ANYONE here has EVER lost a game due to that rule being applied.


I’m yet to hear of anyone losing because of that rule. You’d think it was causing fist fights and falling out at every single FLGS the way some on here talk about it. Mountains and mole hills spring to mind.

That some people in this thread are throwing round terms like “bigot” for anyone that thinks it’s not an issue kind of sums up the toxicity of this site.


If the rule doesn’t effect the game it doesn’t need to exist in the first place, or it does and it can be a issue.


That’s as maybe, but I don’t see the need for all the hullabaloo about it. If we had page after page of people saying “I can’t believe I lost today because my opponent claimed the ten points.” Or “I got turned down for a game today because my models were only primed.” Then I’d agree that it was a problem. We aren’t though, and as far as I can see on other sites/social media, there hasn’t been a big issue with this.


Do you think 40k should adopt the player's code from AoS 3.0? @ 2021/06/17 19:54:23


Post by: ClockworkZion


I think the player's code point about painting is to encourage people to paint their minis (plus with products like Contrast or products made by other companies it's easier to get a decent table top standard).

It's clear they're different approaches between AoS and 40k with how they're encouraging people to paint their minis which at least seems to have a positive impact on the game since there are less naked plastic or all primer armies as those have always created issues with easy unit identification without stopping to ask what everything is every couple of minutes.


Do you think 40k should adopt the player's code from AoS 3.0? @ 2021/06/17 20:25:05


Post by: Stormonu


I think the “painted mini” statement should just be dropped completely and the rest of that line should read “Ensure your models are easily identifiable for what they represent.”


Do you think 40k should adopt the player's code from AoS 3.0? @ 2021/06/17 20:50:30


Post by: Voss


 Dysartes wrote:
Having just stuck my nose in the AOS General Discussion board, I do find it interesting that there's no topic regarding this "Player's Code" at all over there - and yet there are seven fairly heated pages over here...


It was in the AoS N&R thread, actually.

AoS General has its own gatekeepers that will glom onto any discussion and wear it down on other issues.


Do you think 40k should adopt the player's code from AoS 3.0? @ 2021/06/17 21:29:59


Post by: JNAProductions


 Stormonu wrote:
I think the “painted mini” statement should just be dropped completely and the rest of that line should read “Ensure your models are easily identifiable for what they represent.”
That seems like a good idea.


Do you think 40k should adopt the player's code from AoS 3.0? @ 2021/06/18 00:38:36


Post by: BrianDavion


 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
This is about the fully painted thing, isn’t it?

I’m a self identifying Lazy Sod. I try to get my armies painted, but motivation is low. By all means, claim your VP from me.

But if I’m using one of my painted armies? Not sure I’d bother claiming it, because it’s not nice to judge others. Guess it depends largely on whether you take the piss as an opponent. If you’re WAAC, I’ll meet you every step of the way and press every advantage I can.


basicly the code mentions asking your opponent if he's cool with your using unpainted mini's because yes some people aren't. some people take this aknowlegement of reality and enchouragment to discuss it between two mature consenting adults as being an attack on their personal enjoyment of the hobby


Do you think 40k should adopt the player's code from AoS 3.0? @ 2021/06/18 01:47:43


Post by: JNAProductions


BrianDavion wrote:
 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
This is about the fully painted thing, isn’t it?

I’m a self identifying Lazy Sod. I try to get my armies painted, but motivation is low. By all means, claim your VP from me.

But if I’m using one of my painted armies? Not sure I’d bother claiming it, because it’s not nice to judge others. Guess it depends largely on whether you take the piss as an opponent. If you’re WAAC, I’ll meet you every step of the way and press every advantage I can.


basicly the code mentions asking your opponent if he's cool with your using unpainted mini's because yes some people aren't. some people take this aknowlegement of reality and enchouragment to discuss it between two mature consenting adults as being an attack on their personal enjoyment of the hobby
There's a difference in presentation.

If it was said as "Make sure you and your opponent are on the same page with how to enjoy the game," that'd cover people not wanting to play with unpainted models without casting aspersion on anyone. But it's not phrased that way.


Do you think 40k should adopt the player's code from AoS 3.0? @ 2021/06/18 01:49:56


Post by: yukishiro1


Honestly, the most surprising thing about it to me is that it even acknowledges the existence of proxying as a thing that could ever be ok. Very unlike GW's normal line.


Do you think 40k should adopt the player's code from AoS 3.0? @ 2021/06/18 10:34:23


Post by: General Kroll


yukishiro1 wrote:
Honestly, the most surprising thing about it to me is that it even acknowledges the existence of proxying as a thing that could ever be ok. Very unlike GW's normal line.


But lots of people proxy with GW models, classic examples being the orc shamen being used as a weird boy, or the old witch Hunter model as an inquisitor etc etc.


Do you think 40k should adopt the player's code from AoS 3.0? @ 2021/06/18 14:01:52


Post by: Seabass


yukishiro1 wrote:
Honestly, the most surprising thing about it to me is that it even acknowledges the existence of proxying as a thing that could ever be ok. Very unlike GW's normal line.


Happens all the time (at least in my group). I always ask if it's cool if I use Sanguinius from 30k to represent the Sanguinor. I use leman Russ and Vulkan to represent warlords for my 40k armies all the time if my opponent lets me. The models are sweet looking. However, they need to agree to it, because while much bigger models, and thus easier to shoot, they are on bigger bases typically than the model they're standing in for, and there are points where that can be an advantage for me.


Do you think 40k should adopt the player's code from AoS 3.0? @ 2021/06/18 14:05:54


Post by: Stormonu


yukishiro1 wrote:
Honestly, the most surprising thing about it to me is that it even acknowledges the existence of proxying as a thing that could ever be ok. Very unlike GW's normal line.


GW’s idea of proxying is using GW bits in new and innovate ways - NOT using 3rd party bits or models. They’d still ding you if they could for using non-GW product, but that’d raise a worse firestorm than discussing unpainted models.


Do you think 40k should adopt the player's code from AoS 3.0? @ 2021/06/22 23:34:35


Post by: Banzaimash


 ClockworkZion wrote:
The player's code:


Honestly I rather like it (especially the part of reminding your opponent about rules your opponent forgot), but I'm all for hearing other opinions on if we should adopt this even if 40k doesn't adopt this in the rule book.


This hobby if we're being honest does attract a fair few people who aren't conventionally or well socialised. May not be a bad idea to put something like this in a document like a ruleset which is viewed as 'official' to give them a helpful nudge. Plenty of sketchy try hards who use plastic toy soldiers as a way of having some control in their lives at any cost for whatever reason, but plenty more just need to meet some basic expectations they're unknowingly falling short of. Wouldn't hurt to show them how.


Do you think 40k should adopt the player's code from AoS 3.0? @ 2021/06/23 07:17:46


Post by: Dysartes



Well, that's a really useful contribution to the discussion - care to share with the class why not, or which elements you would object to from the document?


Do you think 40k should adopt the player's code from AoS 3.0? @ 2021/06/23 08:40:48


Post by: Azazelx


 Gene St. Ealer wrote:

Is it not kosher to complain about bad luck? I mean, if you do it excessively I'm sure it gets annoying (I know I'm guilty of it). But so is excessive bad luck
I try to keep it more as "remarking" than complaining (really, when the luck is skewed one way or the other for me or my opponent). I mean, it's a dice game, that can and will be the make or break.
ETA: Otherwise, this is really good, if obvious at times.


I read it as much more "I would have beaten you if my dice weren't to unlucky" /"You just got lucky with dice rolls!" than "feth, I can't roll anything but ones today lol" / "wow can I buy your dice?"


Do you think 40k should adopt the player's code from AoS 3.0? @ 2021/06/23 08:52:07


Post by: Skinnereal


A lot of people (seemingly more who identify as gamers than not) need rules writing down before they will obey them. This does that, and levels the playing field.
It also empowers those people who are usually reluctant to point them out, since there is something to point at.

So, 40k should certainly have this, too.

If a group agrees to refer to these rules as "Pffft, yeah, them", everyone can move on and game. But then, everyone in the group knows where they stand.


Do you think 40k should adopt the player's code from AoS 3.0? @ 2021/06/23 09:53:39


Post by: Karol


BrianDavion 799052 11152250 wrote:
basicly the code mentions asking your opponent if he's cool with your using unpainted mini's because yes some people aren't. some people take this aknowlegement of reality and enchouragment to discuss it between two mature consenting adults as being an attack on their personal enjoyment of the hobby


Only A this doesn't work so well with strangers. B a large chunk of the player base does not consisted of sofisticated people in their mid 30s, there is in fact a large number of people who are not adults. C Not every culture or even generation thinks that not using every arsenal in your disposal to win is not okey. By virtue of which creating a rule set based on vogue terms and people being "nice" breaks the game very fast. If GW wants to implement such a rule set, and for it to work as something else then gate keeping and people being donkey-caves to each other, then they should produce a code of conduct rule set just like Wizards has for MtG. When the rules are clear, everyone knows what is okey and what is not okey to say and do , then even if someone does like the rules, then everything is easy to manage. And if someone doesn't want to follow the rules, they can just not play the game, painting and reading books would still be open to them as some part of the hobby.

Also parts of the rule set do not account for stuff like people having real psychological problems or understanding what is and what isn't socially acceptable, especially when it changes on a person per person basis. Being affected by aspergers or being autistic should not be a free ticket to be an donkey-cave to everyone else, but when you do not get non verbal communication that well, it is much easier to fit in, when you have a writen set of rules saying what is not okey. Then at least you have stuff to fall back on to, when you don't know what to do.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
yukishiro1 wrote:
Honestly, the most surprising thing about it to me is that it even acknowledges the existence of proxying as a thing that could ever be ok. Very unlike GW's normal line.


They kind of a have to, when companies in eastern europe produce nicer and more dynamic model options for stuff like orks and elder, there is a threeshold after which the number of models in the market is big enough, they can't just ignore the fact they exist.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Skinnereal wrote:
A lot of people (seemingly more who identify as gamers than not) need rules writing down before they will obey them.


No it doesn't. Not without a code of conduct. If I were to follow what people think about other people in the western world, then being offensive can be as a simple thing as existing, and that is enough to be breaking the rules. When there is no definition of what is allowed and what isn't. Then some of the rules may as well be worded, as be nice. And who the hell knows what that means , considering how many different people in different cultures play the game. MtG has no such problems, because they do have the code. And it doesn't matter if you play the game in UK, Brasil or Taiwan , the rules are always the same. Plus they give you an explanation what is the reaction taken to someone breaking specific rules. What happens if the other person is considered by the other to be offensive? Those the game end, does some sort of third party is suppose to decide, if something offensive really happened, or are people suppose to fix it on their own, and if so how. What is the difference between someone doing something offensive knowingly and not knowingly? And who is suppose to decide that. There is like a milion and one things to know under such a rule set, that the few points do not help to deal with any way. And for people who play with friends the rule set doesn't matter, because they do not need it to fix stuff in their games, because they can just call back on the groups social norms, friendships etc. It is the moment when two strangers or people that don't really like each other play, that is the important thing. For those the rule set, the way it exists now, all it does is just generate more conflict, and on top of it all , it gives bad people a great option to claim to be offended or a model or player breaking this or that rule, just to get an edge in a game. Specially when they know the chance of playing again vs each other is very low.


Do you think 40k should adopt the player's code from AoS 3.0? @ 2021/06/23 10:14:40


Post by: Azazelx


Having now read the entire thread... wow. I'm equal parts amused and just ...tired. I mean, it's like fething Twitter in some parts of this thread, and we all know how much of a gak hole cesspool twitter is!

Loving the contrarians as well. That "bitter ex" thing never really does stop, does it? Always love to hear about how very hatefully anti-consumer GW is from angry people who still buy their products and.or support them by playing their games.... I can see the WAAC come out in some people who think "remind opponent of rules" means they have to coach their opponent on every move rather than essentially "hey, is that unit going to shoot this turn?" - but I guess that's the WAAC RAW mentality over intent and generally not being a dick.

"Don't be offensive" would pretty much be to speak and act like you would at work or in class with a stranger rather than with your close friends where you say gak that others who don't know you and your injokes/etc might find offensive. I swear like a trooper at home, but manage to not do so at work - except occasionally with those I work most closely with who I'm close and comfortable with. A good rule of thumb is "if in doubt, maybe don't say to your opponent who you met 15 minutes ago that you think {insert person here} is a dumb witch". Getsme through most work days.

Painting? Well, if you have an unpainted unit you want to try out it doesn't hurt to ask. If your whole army is unpainted I might play you once, or.... I might not. It depends on who you are, why they're unpainted and how you're behaving. MY enjoyement of the game is very much as a visual, aesthetic experience. Much more than winning. I'm under no obligation to spend 4 hours doing something for your enjoyment if I'm not also enjoying myself, after all. if I set up a game with someone, I'd expect them to tell me beforehand that their army is completely unpainted as a courtesy. I've played many games over the years watching opponents' units go from literally bought off a shelf and blu-tac'ed together and placed on a table to primed, to basecoated to fully painted, so I'm not exactly the Soup Nazi, but no. I don't really want to set aside a day worth of time to travel and spend the afternoon to play your unpainted grey horde that is and will remain unpainted on principle. Or because the resale value of it tanks if you paint them.

Funny thing is I think most people on this thread would probably be fine to play against. Not all, by any means - but most of them. I think people just enjoy a good internet fight and some like being the rebellious contrarian or any chance to complain about GW!


Do you think 40k should adopt the player's code from AoS 3.0? @ 2021/06/23 10:22:56


Post by: BrianDavion


Karol wrote:
BrianDavion 799052 11152250 wrote:
basicly the code mentions asking your opponent if he's cool with your using unpainted mini's because yes some people aren't. some people take this aknowlegement of reality and enchouragment to discuss it between two mature consenting adults as being an attack on their personal enjoyment of the hobby


Only A this doesn't work so well with strangers. B a large chunk of the player base does not consisted of sofisticated people in their mid 30s, there is in fact a large number of people who are not adults. C Not every culture or even generation thinks that not using every arsenal in your disposal to win is not okey. By virtue of which creating a rule set based on vogue terms and people being "nice" breaks the game very fast. If GW wants to implement such a rule set, and for it to work as something else then gate keeping and people being donkey-caves to each other, then they should produce a code of conduct rule set just like Wizards has for MtG. When the rules are clear, everyone knows what is okey and what is not okey to say and do , then even if someone does like the rules, then everything is easy to manage. And if someone doesn't want to follow the rules, they can just not play the game, painting and reading books would still be open to them as some part of the hobby.

Also parts of the rule set do not account for stuff like people having real psychological problems or understanding what is and what isn't socially acceptable, especially when it changes on a person per person basis. Being affected by aspergers or being autistic should not be a free ticket to be an donkey-cave to everyone else, but when you do not get non verbal communication that well, it is much easier to fit in, when you have a writen set of rules saying what is not okey. Then at least you have stuff to fall back on to, when you don't know what to do.


.


ok, A: it is ABS fething LOTELY something that works perfectly well with strangers. I've done it. It ABSO-fething-LOTELY works fine with strangers to say "hey wanna sit down for a game? Cool, my models aren't painted, not an issue is it?"

B: if you're capable of putting the kind of money and effort required for a game like 40k, you're not a 6 year old. and even if they where, well it's a 6 year old who needs this kind of thing spelled out to them

C: this code of conduct doesn't impact any of that. unless your idea of "winning" consists of "no you can't use your models against me cause they're unpainted! ha I win by default" (note stuff like this should be decided by the tourny in a tourny setting, this is NOT tourny rules. this is "sitting down with a guy at your local gaming club" rules)

And please do NOT. DO NOT bring up autism Karol, because guess what...
I have Asperger's and lemme tell you, as someone with Aspergers? I LIKE having some rules for ettiquite in a new enviroment on hand. it makes my life a lot easier.


Do you think 40k should adopt the player's code from AoS 3.0? @ 2021/06/23 10:24:32


Post by: Karol


Okey, but this means the rules of the game are being governed by how you like or dislike someone on a personal level. If the same joke or word is said by a friend, you will be okey with it, but if a stranger says it, you would be not.

If sports worked like that, then games would be more kin to how hooligan fights look like, then the participation in a noble art. A game of w40k should not be decided, how or even if it happens, by the fact if someone is liked or not liked. It practicaly eliminates anyone from playing the game who has not friends. Worse this is made after 8 editions where no such rules existed, and just like the painting one GW implemented in 9th, it is a huge block for a lot of people.

Again GW can do what ever they want with their games, they are theirs not the players. But if they want to put forth stuff like the AoS "rules", then they can do it without a code of conduct book.


Do you think 40k should adopt the player's code from AoS 3.0? @ 2021/06/23 11:15:08


Post by: Jidmah


BrianDavion wrote:
ok, A: it is ABSFUCKING LOTELY something that works perfectly well with strangers. I've done it. It ABSO-fething-LOTELY works fine with strangers to say "hey wanna sit down for a game? Cool, my models aren't painted, not an issue is it?"


I think the issue people are having with this is not having to talk about unpainted models, but having to ask for permission.

Especially from my time when most of my games were in various stores around, I could see some of the people I experienced looking at the enemy army and just denying unpainted models to be played to have a better shot at winning.

Same thing happened for named characters and FW when they were house-ruled as permission only. The same people who would refuse permission if a powerful character like Eldrad or Thrakka was on the other side, would totally run plenty of named characters themselves when the opponent didn't have any.


Do you think 40k should adopt the player's code from AoS 3.0? @ 2021/06/23 11:31:42


Post by: wuestenfux


During competitive play, I've seem players ''forgetting'' the ''code''.
Having a netiquette doesn't prevent players to behave accordingly.


Do you think 40k should adopt the player's code from AoS 3.0? @ 2021/06/23 11:45:39


Post by: Nazrak


Dysartes wrote:

Well, that's a really useful contribution to the discussion - care to share with the class why not, or which elements you would object to from the document?


Banzaimash wrote:This hobby if we're being honest does attract a fair few people who aren't conventionally or well socialised.


¯\_(ツ)_/¯


Do you think 40k should adopt the player's code from AoS 3.0? @ 2021/06/23 12:08:55


Post by: tneva82


 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
This is about the fully painted thing, isn’t it?

I’m a self identifying Lazy Sod. I try to get my armies painted, but motivation is low. By all means, claim your VP from me.

But if I’m using one of my painted armies? Not sure I’d bother claiming it, because it’s not nice to judge others. Guess it depends largely on whether you take the piss as an opponent. If you’re WAAC, I’ll meet you every step of the way and press every advantage I can.


So you feel bad claiming secondaries?

It's part of core rules. That's the way GW wants you to play. You are expected to give 10 pts for painted army. Don't like it? Complain to GW. Meanwhile score the 10 pts.


Do you think 40k should adopt the player's code from AoS 3.0? @ 2021/06/23 13:08:00


Post by: Jidmah


tneva82 wrote:
It's part of core rules. That's the way GW wants you to play. You are expected to give 10 pts for painted army. Don't like it? Complain to GW. Meanwhile score the 10 pts.


The rules don't give VP for painted armies. They give VP for covering your model in paint and putting texture on bases.


Do you think 40k should adopt the player's code from AoS 3.0? @ 2021/06/23 13:45:15


Post by: Unit1126PLL


This whole painted army thing has really exploded lately - or maybe I'm just blurring things together.

Back in the day, I think it was more normal to paint your army, and people had a common understanding that if you had a new army / were eager to get a new unit on the board / whatever that you'd play with unpainted stuff for a bit, but there generally was an expectation that it'd be painted someday.

But maybe it's different communities or rose-tinted glasses. These days it seems like people insist that they have a right to play with bare plastic regardless of how their opponent enjoys it or not.


Do you think 40k should adopt the player's code from AoS 3.0? @ 2021/06/23 13:54:39


Post by: Karol


 Jidmah wrote:
tneva82 wrote:
It's part of core rules. That's the way GW wants you to play. You are expected to give 10 pts for painted army. Don't like it? Complain to GW. Meanwhile score the 10 pts.


The rules don't give VP for painted armies. They give VP for covering your model in paint and putting texture on bases.

And that is where the problems start. Because you may have taken all 5 of your identical squads and painted the bases in orange, blue, green, yellow and red, for ease of use and spoting what is what. So both you and your opponent don't mix up your librarian or apothecary with a regular termintor. And then get informed that this very action made your army unpainted. Because an all orange base with clear bumps in it somehow is not a texture. Or how next time you notice your opponent has chipped paint on his models, call it out, and that somehow does not count as not being painted somehow, even when there is litteraly no paint on parts of the model. Better yet, you are suddenly the donkey-cave in this situation.


Do you think 40k should adopt the player's code from AoS 3.0? @ 2021/06/23 13:59:44


Post by: Skinnereal


BrianDavion wrote:
And please do NOT. DO NOT bring up autism Karol, because guess what...
I have Asperger's and lemme tell you, as someone with Aspergers? I LIKE having some rules for ettiquite in a new enviroment on hand. it makes my life a lot easier.
Exactly this. I didn't want to point it out by naming specifics, but this is why I said what I did.


Do you think 40k should adopt the player's code from AoS 3.0? @ 2021/06/23 14:15:05


Post by: Karol


BrianDavion 799052 11156103 wrote:
ok, A: it is ABS fething LOTELY something that works perfectly well with strangers. I've done it. It ABSO-fething-LOTELY works fine with strangers to say "hey wanna sit down for a game? Cool, my models aren't painted, not an issue is it?"

Stranger says no, because it gives him an edge in the game. Now what? Every new player loses his first 6 months of playing, unless they have an army that can balance a 10VP handicap.

B: if you're capable of putting the kind of money and effort required for a game like 40k, you're not a 6 year old. and even if they where, well it's a 6 year old who needs this kind of thing spelled out to them

Maybe in Canada. Also I like how you suddenly turned everyone who isn't 35, in to a 6 year old. Classy.



C: this code of conduct doesn't impact any of that. unless your idea of "winning" consists of "no you can't use your models against me cause they're unpainted! ha I win by default" (note stuff like this should be decided by the tourny in a tourny setting, this is NOT tourny rules. this is "sitting down with a guy at your local gaming club" rules)

This code of conduct GW show is either impact nothing, in which case it doesn't matter that it exists. Because people are playing in a setting where with or without it, people deal with those problem. Or it affects absolutly everything, because I can tell you that if someone can use something to their adventage , no matter how small and insignificant they are, they will do it. And I really don't need extra problems with the game. I already have enough. I don't need to keep thinking durning the game if I am possibly not looking in an offending way at my opponent. Or asking them questions, even regarding the game which , he can then call offending, and because he has a higher social standing and more friends in the store, I would be at a disadvantage. It would probably make me stop wanting to play, as I don't like to think about other things the the game , while playing the game.


And please do NOT. DO NOT bring up autism Karol, because guess what...
I have Asperger's and lemme tell you, as someone with Aspergers? I LIKE having some rules for ettiquite in a new enviroment on hand. it makes my life a lot easier.

So do I , but I assume your expiriance is somehow more accurate and more important then my? And what kind of a rules of ettiguite are those, don't be offensive. That says nothing. And today everything can be offensive. I can't keep track of everything AND play the game at the same time. If GW wants to have a rule set for their games like that, they should first, and I am writing this for like 3ed time, should first write a book of conduct first . Just the way WotC has for MtG. You have clear stuff there, what you can do , when , what you do when a rules query happens, different rules for different levels of competition, like in sports. Everything has structure and you know how it works, how to act , when and why. If everything go smooth you don't even have to talk to the opponent, because the procedures do it for you. Heck there is even a code of conduct for judges what they can and can not wear etc.
GW should do something like that, and not create more problems and more ways for people to screw others over.


Do you think 40k should adopt the player's code from AoS 3.0? @ 2021/06/23 14:42:16


Post by: ccs


 Unit1126PLL wrote:
This whole painted army thing has really exploded lately - or maybe I'm just blurring things together.

Back in the day, I think it was more normal to paint your army, and people had a common understanding that if you had a new army / were eager to get a new unit on the board / whatever that you'd play with unpainted stuff for a bit, but there generally was an expectation that it'd be painted someday.

But maybe it's different communities or rose-tinted glasses. These days it seems like people insist that they have a right to play with bare plastic regardless of how their opponent enjoys it or not.


Always working on the "someday" part.
Yes, the ideal is a fully painted army....
But painting is something that proceeds at my own slow pace. Whether you like that pace or not is of no concern to me & won't change how fast it gets done.

Now if someone really wants to be an arse to me about it though....
I've got no problem throwing some sand on the bases, spraying stuff in two random colors, painting the weapons, giving it all a wash & saying DONE.
It'll look like but it'll be fully painted. I can do about 3k pts worth (of Skaven) in an hour.
In the end (until I get around to painting them)? Naked metal/plastic, primed, or gakky two-tone + wash... It's all the same to {me} - the models needed primed/base coated anyways....




Do you think 40k should adopt the player's code from AoS 3.0? @ 2021/06/23 14:54:30


Post by: Quasistellar


I genuinely don't understand how some people get offended when reminded that part of this game is the visual spectacle of painted miniatures on a nice looking board, and that's the experience that most players are looking for.


Do you think 40k should adopt the player's code from AoS 3.0? @ 2021/06/23 15:01:14


Post by: kirotheavenger


I think part of the rise of unpainted armies is the increased popularity of the game. More 'casual' players are joining that don't want to invest the time. Also, a lot of people that used to paint their minis are getting old. That means they've got more money to buy minis but less time to paint them.
Personally, when I scrapped together excess lunch money to buy one kit every 1-2 months I never even played with something that wasn't fully painted.
Now I can afford to buy whatever takes my fancy (granted I'm not inclined to impulsive buys so that is quite low) but various commitments mean I'm still looking at year long lead times between assembling and painting.


Do you think 40k should adopt the player's code from AoS 3.0? @ 2021/06/23 15:02:26


Post by: H.B.M.C.


 Unit1126PLL wrote:
These days it seems like people insist that they have a right to play with bare plastic regardless of how their opponent enjoys it or not.
Insist? Right? These aren't words I've ever associated with playing the game. Your post might be the most arrogant I've seen in this thread so far.

"How dare the little people come near me with that grey plastic! What makes them think they have any business mingling with people like me!"

Please...


Do you think 40k should adopt the player's code from AoS 3.0? @ 2021/06/23 15:15:15


Post by: JNAProductions


Again-if it said "Make sure you and your opponent are both going to enjoy the game," or something to that effect, that'd be fine. I have zero issues with someone not wanting to game with me because my minis are half-painted at best. If they're in it for the visual spectacle, that's fine-I'm not, but to each their own.

But it doesn't say that.


Do you think 40k should adopt the player's code from AoS 3.0? @ 2021/06/23 15:16:54


Post by: Mr. Grey


Karol wrote:


This code of conduct GW show is either impact nothing, in which case it doesn't matter that it exists. Because people are playing in a setting where with or without it, people deal with those problem. Or it affects absolutly everything, because I can tell you that if someone can use something to their adventage , no matter how small and insignificant they are, they will do it. And I really don't need extra problems with the game. I already have enough. I don't need to keep thinking durning the game if I am possibly not looking in an offending way at my opponent. Or asking them questions, even regarding the game which , he can then call offending, and because he has a higher social standing and more friends in the store, I would be at a disadvantage. It would probably make me stop wanting to play, as I don't like to think about other things the the game , while playing the game.


And please do NOT. DO NOT bring up autism Karol, because guess what...
I have Asperger's and lemme tell you, as someone with Aspergers? I LIKE having some rules for ettiquite in a new enviroment on hand. it makes my life a lot easier.

So do I , but I assume your expiriance is somehow more accurate and more important then my? And what kind of a rules of ettiguite are those, don't be offensive. That says nothing. And today everything can be offensive. I can't keep track of everything AND play the game at the same time. If GW wants to have a rule set for their games like that, they should first, and I am writing this for like 3ed time, should first write a book of conduct first . Just the way WotC has for MtG. You have clear stuff there, what you can do , when , what you do when a rules query happens, different rules for different levels of competition, like in sports. Everything has structure and you know how it works, how to act , when and why. If everything go smooth you don't even have to talk to the opponent, because the procedures do it for you. Heck there is even a code of conduct for judges what they can and can not wear etc.
GW should do something like that, and not create more problems and more ways for people to screw others over.


If you're playing against opponents that can and will use everything to their advantage, no matter how insignificant, then you're playing the wrong people. I don't want to play against someone like that. Ever. If you ask a question about a rule and your opponent plays "Woah, I'm offended!" as a response because of this suggested Code of Conduct... then that opponent is a donkey cave. Don't play that person.

As for worrying about "being offensive", this is a social game. Treat it as such. If you're unsure about whether or not something you might say will offend someone, act as if they're a total stranger that you've never met before. Ask yourself "Will this dead baby joke possibly offend this person?" and if the answer is anything other than a "no", then don't tell that dead baby joke. You've had interactions with strangers before without offending them, right? This is exactly like that, except for the duration of an entire game.

There's also no GW Court of Law that will magically prosecute you and send you to Games Workshop Jail if you mess up, but that seems to be how you're treating this Code of Conduct. These are not legally binding agreements, they're suggestions for how to have a game of toy soldiers and ensure that everyone involved has a good time.

"Don't be offensive" is... don't be offensive. Don't go dropping R-rated curse words, talk about kicking kittens, make crude jokes that involve bodily fluids, and so on. Pretend that you're playing the game against a nice little old grandma. Ask yourself if something you're about to say would offend a nice little old lady, and if the answer if "yes"... then don't say it.


Do you think 40k should adopt the player's code from AoS 3.0? @ 2021/06/23 17:49:22


Post by: Unit1126PLL


 H.B.M.C. wrote:
 Unit1126PLL wrote:
These days it seems like people insist that they have a right to play with bare plastic regardless of how their opponent enjoys it or not.
Insist? Right? These aren't words I've ever associated with playing the game. Your post might be the most arrogant I've seen in this thread so far.

"How dare the little people come near me with that grey plastic! What makes them think they have any business mingling with people like me!"

Please...


What words would you rather I have said?

"People insist say I am the donkey-cave because they believe they have the right privilege (?) Need(?) to bring unpainted models?"

I will use whatever words you want if my word choice is incorrect.

The point I am trying to make is "people don't want to paint, but want to play, and will say that it is the other person's fault for declining a game over paint (therefore implying they are the donkey-cave)"


Do you think 40k should adopt the player's code from AoS 3.0? @ 2021/06/23 18:25:13


Post by: ccs


Quasistellar wrote:
I genuinely don't understand how some people get offended when reminded that part of this game is the visual spectacle of painted miniatures on a nice looking board, and that's the experience that most players are looking for.


I'm not offended. I simply paint at my own pace. MY hobby is playing games. Those things will never change. While the goal & ideal are fully painted armies, and that happens eventually, it's never bothered me what colors my minis are in the meantime. And I make no judgements about your minis concerning being painted/unpainted or why.
But if your requirement to play a game with me "It MUST BE PAINTED!", well then you'll get two-tone/washed gak.... After all, you demanded speed vs quality. Now that you're looking at a different color of mini we can get on with the fun part of gaming.


Do you think 40k should adopt the player's code from AoS 3.0? @ 2021/06/23 18:30:54


Post by: Racerguy180


Still better than not trying at all


Do you think 40k should adopt the player's code from AoS 3.0? @ 2021/06/23 18:43:12


Post by: ccs


 kirotheavenger wrote:
I think part of the rise of unpainted armies is the increased popularity of the game. More 'casual' players are joining that don't want to invest the time. Also, a lot of people that used to paint their minis are getting old. That means they've got more money to buy minis but less time to paint them.
Personally, when I scrapped together excess lunch money to buy one kit every 1-2 months I never even played with something that wasn't fully painted.
Now I can afford to buy whatever takes my fancy (granted I'm not inclined to impulsive buys so that is quite low) but various commitments mean I'm still looking at year long lead times between assembling and painting.


Also on the aging thing is, well, aging.
Here in my 50's my eyesight is not as good as it once was. I've noticed it a bit while painting things. It's not a terrible problem atm.... (though I have moved a few detail heavy projects forward on the plan just in case)
And if I follow in my the footsteps of my Father & Grandfather? Then I've got about 15 years before my hands start trembling. That'll interfere with the painting. Fortunately, even at my own slow painting pace, I don't have a backlog that'll take that long to complete.


Do you think 40k should adopt the player's code from AoS 3.0? @ 2021/06/23 20:41:26


Post by: Quasistellar


ccs wrote:
Quasistellar wrote:
I genuinely don't understand how some people get offended when reminded that part of this game is the visual spectacle of painted miniatures on a nice looking board, and that's the experience that most players are looking for.


I'm not offended. I simply paint at my own pace. MY hobby is playing games. Those things will never change. While the goal & ideal are fully painted armies, and that happens eventually, it's never bothered me what colors my minis are in the meantime. And I make no judgements about your minis concerning being painted/unpainted or why.
But if your requirement to play a game with me "It MUST BE PAINTED!", well then you'll get two-tone/washed gak.... After all, you demanded speed vs quality. Now that you're looking at a different color of mini we can get on with the fun part of gaming.


You and many others are (as they always are when painting is involved) reading too much into this. It's a simple nudge to emphasize the fact that for most people in the miniature wargaming hobby, having everything look good is part of the experience. As the game grows it's even more important for new players to get this reminder.

As usual, you, among others, have created hyperbolic fallacies that are just exceedingly rare in real life.

In friendly games exceptions between reasonable people have always and will always be made.


Do you think 40k should adopt the player's code from AoS 3.0? @ 2021/06/23 21:28:29


Post by: Blndmage


BrianDavion wrote:
And please do NOT. DO NOT bring up autism Karol, because guess what...
I have Asperger's and lemme tell you, as someone with Aspergers? I LIKE having some rules for ettiquite in a new enviroment on hand. it makes my life a lot easier.


As a note from gamer who's also on the spectrum, Asperger's was renamed/folded in a while back because the term was actually coined by a Nazi dr in WW2, like, it's his name.


Do you think 40k should adopt the player's code from AoS 3.0? @ 2021/06/23 22:24:10


Post by: BrianDavion


Karol wrote:
BrianDavion 799052 11156103 wrote:
ok, A: it is ABS fething LOTELY something that works perfectly well with strangers. I've done it. It ABSO-fething-LOTELY works fine with strangers to say "hey wanna sit down for a game? Cool, my models aren't painted, not an issue is it?"

Stranger says no, because it gives him an edge in the game. Now what? Every new player loses his first 6 months of playing, unless they have an army that can balance a 10VP handicap.


stranger says no. you walk away and don't play them.

seriously, if I bring a bunch of unpainted minis and a guy says he won't play vs unpainted minis...

I don't play him. shocking I know.


Do you think 40k should adopt the player's code from AoS 3.0? @ 2021/06/23 22:27:52


Post by: iGuy91


Nothing in the code is objectionable. Sure, why not.
Its just writing down the written code of playing a game, the social contract we adhere to in order to mutually engage in our hobby.



Do you think 40k should adopt the player's code from AoS 3.0? @ 2021/06/23 22:28:10


Post by: Seabass


 Blndmage wrote:
BrianDavion wrote:
And please do NOT. DO NOT bring up autism Karol, because guess what...
I have Asperger's and lemme tell you, as someone with Aspergers? I LIKE having some rules for ettiquite in a new enviroment on hand. it makes my life a lot easier.


As a note from gamer who's also on the spectrum, Asperger's was renamed/folded in a while back because the term was actually coined by a Nazi dr in WW2, like, it's his name.


The APA pushed a lot of diagnoses into a more condensed diagnostic mechanism in the DSM-V based on the severity of presenting symptoms and behaviors. For example, Aspergers was moved onto the Autism spectrum Disorder (ASD), ODD (oppositional defiant disorder) now encompasses juvenile defiant disorder now, MDD (Major depressive disorder) now includes multiple degrees of depression based on the severity of presenting symptomology.

The fact that it had a german eugenicist's name on it probably just kind of pushed that one along a bit


Do you think 40k should adopt the player's code from AoS 3.0? @ 2021/06/23 23:24:10


Post by: H.B.M.C.


 Unit1126PLL wrote:
The point I am trying to make is "people don't want to paint, but want to play, and will say that it is the other person's fault for declining a game over paint (therefore implying they are the donkey-cave)"
Ah, there it is. "Don't want to paint". Your base assumption is that those who haven't painted just don't want to.

Don't know how many times the falsehood of that attitude has to be explained.


Do you think 40k should adopt the player's code from AoS 3.0? @ 2021/06/24 02:33:52


Post by: BlackoCatto


 Nazrak wrote:
Dysartes wrote:

Well, that's a really useful contribution to the discussion - care to share with the class why not, or which elements you would object to from the document?


Banzaimash wrote:This hobby if we're being honest does attract a fair few people who aren't conventionally or well socialised.


¯\_(ツ)_/¯


I gave my answer to the thread title, no.


Do you think 40k should adopt the player's code from AoS 3.0? @ 2021/06/24 08:58:13


Post by: kirotheavenger


BrianDavion wrote:

stranger says no. you walk away and don't play them.

I just spent 1.5hrs on the bus getting here, it's another 1.5hrs home. The bus ticket was £4, we've already booked the gaming table so that's another £5 spent, so I've already spent £9 and 3hrs on this game.
Call it sunk cost, but turning around and going home without a game isn't very appealing.
Granted, having a gak game because my opponent leverages a "be nice" rule for dickish purposes isn't much better, but that's why it's a problem.


Do you think 40k should adopt the player's code from AoS 3.0? @ 2021/06/24 09:06:08


Post by: Deadnight


 kirotheavenger wrote:
BrianDavion wrote:

stranger says no. you walk away and don't play them.

I just spent 1.5hrs on the bus getting here, it's another 1.5hrs home. The bus ticket was £4, we've already booked the gaming table so that's another £5 spent, so I've already spent £9 and 3hrs on this game.
Call it sunk cost, but turning around and going home without a game isn't very appealing.
Granted, having a gak game because my opponent leverages a "be nice" rule for dickish purposes isn't much better, but that's why it's a problem.


Or use Facebook/what's app group message to arrange a game ahead of time to avoid that travel/lost time malarkey.

My hobby time is valuable. Honestly, I'd genuinely rather not play, than play a bad game or settle for playing a tryhard or tfg.

'Blind' match ups in terms of organising or hoping for games and opponents is just asking for trouble if you ask me.


Do you think 40k should adopt the player's code from AoS 3.0? @ 2021/06/24 09:54:14


Post by: kirotheavenger


I do have games arranged ahead of time.
The problem would be turning up and my opponent going "I don't give permission for you to use the unpainted terminator squad" or whatever.

The only way to mitigate that would be to run through my entire army ahead of time and ask permission, which is possible but a bit of a ballache, especially when 99% of people who just say it's fine anyway.

This issue doesn't even apply to me specifically, every 40k unit I own is painted to some capacity. I shared my journey to illustrate why "just go home" is not that viable for a lot of people.

There's no reason "ask permission to use painted models" should be a thing, the best case scenario is you get permission which was the default anyway.


Do you think 40k should adopt the player's code from AoS 3.0? @ 2021/06/24 10:10:27


Post by: a_typical_hero


 kirotheavenger wrote:
I do have games arranged ahead of time.
The problem would be turning up and my opponent going "I don't give permission for you to use the unpainted terminator squad" or whatever.

The only way to mitigate that would be to run through my entire army ahead of time and ask permission, which is possible but a bit of a ballache, especially when 99% of people who just say it's fine anyway.

This issue doesn't even apply to me specifically, every 40k unit I own is painted to some capacity. I shared my journey to illustrate why "just go home" is not that viable for a lot of people.

There's no reason "ask permission to use painted models" should be a thing, the best case scenario is you get permission which was the default anyway.

But why are you even bringing up the point as a counter argument, when you yourself think that in 99 out of 100 games there will be no issue? Okay, out of your £900 you wasted £9 over dunno, how often do you play? Once every weekend? So over the course of 2 years you get one bad experience. Is that a big deal


Do you think 40k should adopt the player's code from AoS 3.0? @ 2021/06/24 10:30:17


Post by: Apple fox


Not everyone uses Facebook, or is it entirely safe to give out communication tools to everyone for a game.

There is a lot of practical reasons that painting has been let slide in a lot of places just to get games in.
It’s why I think GW should have used more neutral language like painting expectations.
It allows for events to raise expectations, but keep casual games in other ways.

It also doesn’t help that some army’s, that are favoured to be more elite are also way easier to paint to a good standard with minimal effort. With even the burden of cost in paint being potentially quite different.


Do you think 40k should adopt the player's code from AoS 3.0? @ 2021/06/24 10:39:11


Post by: Jidmah


Deadnight wrote:
My hobby time is valuable. Honestly, I'd genuinely rather not play, than play a bad game or settle for playing a tryhard or tfg.

'Blind' match ups in terms of organising or hoping for games and opponents is just asking for trouble if you ask me.


It's one of 40k's big shortcomings that this is a problem in the first place. For many other games, you can just go to a random store, play a random person and have good time vastly more often than not.


Do you think 40k should adopt the player's code from AoS 3.0? @ 2021/06/24 10:58:45


Post by: Sarigar


Apple fox wrote:
Not everyone uses Facebook, or is it entirely safe to give out communication tools to everyone for a game.

There is a lot of practical reasons that painting has been let slide in a lot of places just to get games in.
It’s why I think GW should have used more neutral language like painting expectations.
It allows for events to raise expectations, but keep casual games in other ways.

It also doesn’t help that some army’s, that are favoured to be more elite are also way easier to paint to a good standard with minimal effort. With even the burden of cost in paint being potentially quite different.


I highly recommend pre arranging games with someone. From my experience, pick up games really soured during 6th edition and latter editions. My scheduled games are much more enjoyable and it allows for better expectations for what both players want to get out of the game. It is a rare day, win or lose, that I have a bad 40K experience.



Do you think 40k should adopt the player's code from AoS 3.0? @ 2021/06/24 11:00:43


Post by: BrianDavion


 kirotheavenger wrote:
I do have games arranged ahead of time.
The problem would be turning up and my opponent going "I don't give permission for you to use the unpainted terminator squad" or whatever.

The only way to mitigate that would be to run through my entire army ahead of time and ask permission, which is possible but a bit of a ballache, especially when 99% of people who just say it's fine anyway.

This issue doesn't even apply to me specifically, every 40k unit I own is painted to some capacity. I shared my journey to illustrate why "just go home" is not that viable for a lot of people.

There's no reason "ask permission to use painted models" should be a thing, the best case scenario is you get permission which was the default anyway.


sure except as you said you arrange your games in advance, presumably you discuss stuff like how many points you'll be playing, what time you'll meet at, wat game you'll be playing. how hard is it to in this entire discussion slide in "Ohh my armies unpainted, that's cool with you yeah?"

THATS ALL YOU NEED TO ASK.

it's not "mother mother may I please please use unpainted minis" it's just "ohh hey, if we're gonna play, you don't mind the odd unpainted mini on the table yeah?"

there's no "TFG" gotcha here. (or shouldn't be) there's just "do we agree to play a game, or not?"


Do you think 40k should adopt the player's code from AoS 3.0? @ 2021/06/24 11:08:00


Post by: Jidmah


You have clearly never played against someone who pulled out a Spanish version of a white dwarf issue bought on ebay, just because translation of one rule had a typo that would benefit them.



Do you think 40k should adopt the player's code from AoS 3.0? @ 2021/06/24 11:09:14


Post by: kirotheavenger


Apple fox wrote:

It’s why I think GW should have used more neutral language like painting expectations.

I agree, this is the core point.
There's no reason it should be worded it as "ask permission". It should just read "make an effort to use painted miniatures" or something.

The only way to defend "ask permission" is, as we've seen, "most of the time it doesn't matter anyway". That's not a defence, that's ignoring it.


Do you think 40k should adopt the player's code from AoS 3.0? @ 2021/06/24 11:32:07


Post by: Sarigar


 kirotheavenger wrote:
Apple fox wrote:

It’s why I think GW should have used more neutral language like painting expectations.

I agree, this is the core point.
There's no reason it should be worded it as "ask permission". It should just read "make an effort to use painted miniatures" or something.

The only way to defend "ask permission" is, as we've seen, "most of the time it doesn't matter anyway". That's not a defence, that's ignoring it.


It is still unnecessary, IMO. Though, I suppose there are folks who need written guidelines.

I've turned down games in the past when someone wanted to use an unpainted army. I remember one potential game was an Ork horde list with multiple detachments and using different clans. I have also turned down games with players whom I have a clash in personality with.


Do you think 40k should adopt the player's code from AoS 3.0? @ 2021/06/24 13:00:54


Post by: Unit1126PLL


 H.B.M.C. wrote:
 Unit1126PLL wrote:
The point I am trying to make is "people don't want to paint, but want to play, and will say that it is the other person's fault for declining a game over paint (therefore implying they are the donkey-cave)"
Ah, there it is. "Don't want to paint". Your base assumption is that those who haven't painted just don't want to.

Don't know how many times the falsehood of that attitude has to be explained.


another word nitpick.

The point I am trying to make is "people don't want to paint don't want to have a painted army, but want to play, and will say that it is the other person's fault for declining a game over paint (therefore implying they are the donkey-cave)"

There are ways to have a painted army that isn't painting it yourself. Hell, I know a competitive player who pays people to build his models as part of the commission price, because he either can't or won't assemble his models either.


Do you think 40k should adopt the player's code from AoS 3.0? @ 2021/06/24 13:09:47


Post by: kirotheavenger


"Just commission it" is all well and good, but this hobby is already pricy enough before you're paying 2-3x RRP to get it built and painted.

I think if you don't want to play against unpainted armies, that's fine, but the onus should be on you to avoid them.
This player code puts the onus on the grey knights player to avoid you, and I think that's unfair and sends the wrong message.


Do you think 40k should adopt the player's code from AoS 3.0? @ 2021/06/24 13:17:31


Post by: Jidmah


 Unit1126PLL wrote:
 H.B.M.C. wrote:
 Unit1126PLL wrote:
The point I am trying to make is "people don't want to paint, but want to play, and will say that it is the other person's fault for declining a game over paint (therefore implying they are the donkey-cave)"
Ah, there it is. "Don't want to paint". Your base assumption is that those who haven't painted just don't want to.

Don't know how many times the falsehood of that attitude has to be explained.


another word nitpick.

The point I am trying to make is "people don't want to paint don't want to have a painted army, but want to play, and will say that it is the other person's fault for declining a game over paint (therefore implying they are the donkey-cave)"

There are ways to have a painted army that isn't painting it yourself. Hell, I know a competitive player who pays people to build his models as part of the commission price, because he either can't or won't assemble his models either.


See, that's just as bad. You are still implying that the person with unpainted models is doing something wrong. The majority of people I know want to have a painted army, want to paint it themselves and are trying their best to eventually get there.

The person wanting to play with unpainted models has every right to do so. Just as the person wanting to play against fully painted army has every right to decline the game.

The only people who are wrong are those telling others how to enjoy their hobby, and that includes telling people that they have to prioritize painting over gaming.


Do you think 40k should adopt the player's code from AoS 3.0? @ 2021/06/24 13:44:07


Post by: Unit1126PLL


kirotheavenger wrote:"Just commission it" is all well and good, but this hobby is already pricy enough before you're paying 2-3x RRP to get it built and painted.

I think if you don't want to play against unpainted armies, that's fine, but the onus should be on you to avoid them.
This player code puts the onus on the grey knights player to avoid you, and I think that's unfair and sends the wrong message.


I don't interpret the code that way. What I see is an encouragement to paint, and a reminder that painting is part of the experience for some players. As for commissioning it, well, them's the breaks. I don't mind poorly painted minis myself - from several feet away, if it's got the right colors and they generally stay within the lines, it looks fine. I'm certainly not an ace painter, and sometimes am in a rush to get a model done on time. It would be hypocritical to insist that everyone paint to a high standard.

Jidmah wrote:
 Unit1126PLL wrote:
 H.B.M.C. wrote:
 Unit1126PLL wrote:
The point I am trying to make is "people don't want to paint, but want to play, and will say that it is the other person's fault for declining a game over paint (therefore implying they are the donkey-cave)"
Ah, there it is. "Don't want to paint". Your base assumption is that those who haven't painted just don't want to.

Don't know how many times the falsehood of that attitude has to be explained.


another word nitpick.

The point I am trying to make is "people don't want to paint don't want to have a painted army, but want to play, and will say that it is the other person's fault for declining a game over paint (therefore implying they are the donkey-cave)"

There are ways to have a painted army that isn't painting it yourself. Hell, I know a competitive player who pays people to build his models as part of the commission price, because he either can't or won't assemble his models either.


See, that's just as bad. You are still implying that the person with unpainted models is doing something wrong. The majority of people I know want to have a painted army, want to paint it themselves and are trying their best to eventually get there.


And I said earlier I'll happily play those people. I'm fine playing against unpainted minis in general, especially a new army or newly-purchased units. But if it's eight months later and the new Sororitas are still 100% grey with no further effort, that's when I start groaning.

Jidmah wrote:The person wanting to play with unpainted models has every right to do so. Just as the person wanting to play against fully painted army has every right to decline the game.

Interestingly, HBMC nitpicked me earlier for saying they insisted on having a "right" to do so. So which is it, do they have that right or not?

As for your argument, disconnected from his, I actually agree with you, with the single caveat that painting in general is part of the experience of miniatures wargaming - which is all this Code says, at least for my interpretation.

Jidmah wrote:The only people who are wrong are those telling others how to enjoy their hobby, and that includes telling people that they have to prioritize painting over gaming.

You don't have to prioritize painting over gaming if you don't want to. Just make some progress, put in some effort now and again. Playing with painted minis is part of the experience - "spectacle" is a crucial reason why miniatures gaming is attractive over, say, board wargames. So it doesn't have to be a priority, but it shouldn't be outright ignored.


Do you think 40k should adopt the player's code from AoS 3.0? @ 2021/06/24 14:43:00


Post by: Tokhuah


One of the players in the photo is wearing a hat inside. If you are setting standards for respectful behavior then take off the damn hat indoors!


Do you think 40k should adopt the player's code from AoS 3.0? @ 2021/06/24 14:49:03


Post by: BlackoCatto


Is the next step a consent form?


Do you think 40k should adopt the player's code from AoS 3.0? @ 2021/06/24 14:51:47


Post by: Jidmah


 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Jidmah wrote:The person wanting to play with unpainted models has every right to do so. Just as the person wanting to play against fully painted army has every right to decline the game.

Interestingly, HBMC nitpicked me earlier for saying they insisted on having a "right" to do so. So which is it, do they have that right or not?

I'm very sure that he nitpicked on you because you implied that the person not painting is doing something wrong.

As for your argument, disconnected from his, I actually agree with you, with the single caveat that painting in general is part of the experience of miniatures wargaming - which is all this Code says, at least for my interpretation.

Jidmah wrote:The only people who are wrong are those telling others how to enjoy their hobby, and that includes telling people that they have to prioritize painting over gaming.

You don't have to prioritize painting over gaming if you don't want to. Just make some progress, put in some effort now and again. Playing with painted minis is part of the experience - "spectacle" is a crucial reason why miniatures gaming is attractive over, say, board wargames. So it doesn't have to be a priority, but it shouldn't be outright ignored.

No matter how much you tone this down, this is you telling others how to enjoy their hobby. No one would ever think about telling a person who is just collecting miniatures they like and painting them that they have to put some effort into learning the game. Therefore you are wrong.

Playing with unpainted miniatures works perfectly fine, if and how someone paints their game pieces is 100% up to them.


Do you think 40k should adopt the player's code from AoS 3.0? @ 2021/06/24 15:04:24


Post by: Deadnight


kirotheavenger wrote:I do have games arranged ahead of time.
The problem would be turning up and my opponent going "I don't give permission for you to use the unpainted terminator squad" or whatever.




Uh huh, and there was absolutely NO WAY if you communicating this to your prospective opponent when you were communicating with them, was there?

You ask when you're arranging ahead of time. Christ, it's not rocket surgery. And it's bloody good manners to build a rapport with the other guy anyway. Put some exp into community building, not just list building. Your hobby will be more rewarding.

'Listen mate, I've just bought a second squad of reivers to use in my list. Right now they're assembled but not painted. Hope thats not an issue? I've heard horror stories, I don't want to get caught out, especially when it's 6 hours round bus trip for me! Its not worth it otherwise!'


Do you think 40k should adopt the player's code from AoS 3.0? @ 2021/06/24 15:23:17


Post by: H.B.M.C.


BrianDavion wrote:
it's not "mother mother may I please please use unpainted minis" it's just "ohh hey, if we're gonna play, you don't mind the odd unpainted mini on the table yeah?"
It shouldn't need to be asked in the first place.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
But if it's eight months later and the new Sororitas are still 100% grey with no further effort, that's when I start groaning.
And you continue to ignore the possible reasons for why someone doesn't want to or can't paint. Your immediate implication is that by them not painting, they are doing something wrong.

Racerguy180 wrote:
Still better than not trying at all
'Cause for some of us it's just because we're not trying hard enough, right?

Honestly... its like you people have never fething heard the word 'disability'.



Do you think 40k should adopt the player's code from AoS 3.0? @ 2021/06/24 15:33:13


Post by: vipoid


 BlackoCatto wrote:
Is the next step a consent form?


No, no, it's reparations. You have to pay your opponent for each unpainted model you used.


Do you think 40k should adopt the player's code from AoS 3.0? @ 2021/06/24 15:36:43


Post by: Seabass


 H.B.M.C. wrote:


Honestly... its like you people have never fething heard the word 'disability'.



Stop it.

Stop standing on the shoulders of people with disabilities and use them as a reason to defend something as stupid and meaningless as painting a model in a game of toy soldiers. Stop it. They are not your token to use a shield, they are not your "best case/worst caser" that you get to trot out when you want to defend a completely fething meaningless position in a game that doesn't matter.

That's not defending anyone, you aren't protecting anyone, and you aren't acting in anyone's best interest. You're desperate to win a damn argument and using people with disabilities as a means to do that. Doing so is beneath contempt.


Do you think 40k should adopt the player's code from AoS 3.0? @ 2021/06/24 15:41:56


Post by: Unit1126PLL


 H.B.M.C. wrote:


 Unit1126PLL wrote:
But if it's eight months later and the new Sororitas are still 100% grey with no further effort, that's when I start groaning.
And you continue to ignore the possible reasons for why someone doesn't want to or can't paint. Your immediate implication is that by them not painting, they are doing something wrong.

Honestly... its like you people have never fething heard the word 'disability'.



No, I'm arguing that by not trying to have painted models, they're doing something wrong. If they can't paint for themselves, there's plenty of alternatives out there - commissioning is the big one.

As for ignoring the reasons they don't want to - well, yes, of course I'll ignore those reasons. Because they might not WANT to, but I also don't WANT to play against unpainted minis forever, and since the general experience of miniatures wargaming is for the miniatures to be painted, I'm not the one being unreasonable (despite how you may seek to portray things).

It's like showing up at a theater and talking through the movie. Part of the general experience of others is being able to hear the movie, regardless of what you want/don't want to do. If you have a hypothetical disability that forces you to talk, then accommodations and work arounds exist. You don't get to just walk in, talk, and when someone says "shh" just go "I have a disability."


Do you think 40k should adopt the player's code from AoS 3.0? @ 2021/06/24 15:49:43


Post by: Crispy78


If I actually played in stores against random people and had the potential to be caught out by the painted-model police, I'd be sorely tempted to found a new CSM warband called The Grey Horde. They'd be painted in the closest colour I could find to GW Model Sprue grey, lovingly washed and highlighted, with red eyes and black dots in the gun barrels for the obligatory three colours. Bases painted black, with a grey stripe under the feet to look like an old slottabase. There you go, pal. Painted.


Do you think 40k should adopt the player's code from AoS 3.0? @ 2021/06/24 15:52:50


Post by: JNAProductions


Unit, has anyone said you're REQUIRED to play against unpainted minis?

Because, if I remember correctly...

 JNAProductions wrote:
Again-if it said "Make sure you and your opponent are both going to enjoy the game," or something to that effect, that'd be fine. I have zero issues with someone not wanting to game with me because my minis are half-painted at best. If they're in it for the visual spectacle, that's fine-I'm not, but to each their own.

But it doesn't say that.
That's what I've said on the matter. If your enjoyment comes from spectacle and aesthetics, that's totally fine-it's not how I enjoy the game, but that just means we probably shouldn't play one another. But I'd appreciate you not implying I'm worse because I don't enjoy it the same way you do.


Do you think 40k should adopt the player's code from AoS 3.0? @ 2021/06/24 15:53:11


Post by: Unit1126PLL


Crispy78 wrote:
If I actually played in stores against random people and had the potential to be caught out by the painted-model police, I'd be sorely tempted to found a new CSM warband called The Grey Horde. They'd be painted in the closest colour I could find to GW Model Sprue grey, lovingly washed and highlighted, with red eyes and black dots in the gun barrels for the obligatory three colours. Bases painted black, with a grey stripe under the feet to look like an old slottabase. There you go, pal. Painted.


That would actually be an excellent army to play against imo, and could look really cool. I have a friend that does an Urban Camo scheme on their Imperial Guard. The infantry have flesh, so not really applicable, but the tanks look basically plastic grey with black treads (just like your bases would).

They're lovingly drybrushed and the lenses are light blue, though. And the tank cannon barrels have some burn scarring. Kinda like the baneblade in my profile pic if you took the weathering off, and left the cannon barrels alone instead of painting them metal. The Baneblades are also a slightly different grey.

They look great because the drybrushing really works. He uses Mechanicus Standard Grey if you're curious as the basecoat.


Do you think 40k should adopt the player's code from AoS 3.0? @ 2021/06/24 15:57:08


Post by: Audustum


Crispy78 wrote:
If I actually played in stores against random people and had the potential to be caught out by the painted-model police, I'd be sorely tempted to found a new CSM warband called The Grey Horde. They'd be painted in the closest colour I could find to GW Model Sprue grey, lovingly washed and highlighted, with red eyes and black dots in the gun barrels for the obligatory three colours. Bases painted black, with a grey stripe under the feet to look like an old slottabase. There you go, pal. Painted.


There used to be a team on the East Coast (maybe they're still around?) called "The Grey Tide" or "The Grey Horde". They would just paint every model of every army 3 shades of grey.


Do you think 40k should adopt the player's code from AoS 3.0? @ 2021/06/24 18:07:27


Post by: Racerguy180


kirotheavenger wrote:
BrianDavion wrote:

stranger says no. you walk away and don't play them.

I just spent 1.5hrs on the bus getting here, it's another 1.5hrs home. The bus ticket was £4, we've already booked the gaming table so that's another £5 spent, so I've already spent £9 and 3hrs on this game.
Call it sunk cost, but turning around and going home without a game isn't very appealing.
Granted, having a gak game because my opponent leverages a "be nice" rule for dickish purposes isn't much better, but that's why it's a problem.

Why didn't you say something when you were arranging the game? Easy fix
Jidmah wrote:You have clearly never played against someone who pulled out a Spanish version of a white dwarf issue bought on ebay, just because translation of one rule had a typo that would benefit them.


Sounds like an donkey-cave, and if both of you are playing the same game language, you would know that to begin with. If they're using a different language rule than you...you're not playing same game.
H.B.M.C. wrote:
BrianDavion wrote:
it's not "mother mother may I please please use unpainted minis" it's just "ohh hey, if we're gonna play, you don't mind the odd unpainted mini on the table yeah?"
It shouldn't need to be asked in the first place.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
But if it's eight months later and the new Sororitas are still 100% grey with no further effort, that's when I start groaning.
And you continue to ignore the possible reasons for why someone doesn't want to or can't paint. Your immediate implication is that by them not painting, they are doing something wrong.

Racerguy180 wrote:
Still better than not trying at all
'Cause for some of us it's just because we're not trying hard enough, right?

Honestly... its like you people have never fething heard the word 'disability'.


Just so you know I've been permanently disabled for 22yrs so you can choke on it. I don't get to paint as much/often as I want to due to my disability. But I do paint when able & if you're not able to, dont & anyone saying something isn't worth your time anyway.

Don't play with donkey-caves who care about playing only with a fullly painted army(or whatever else). Easy fix

Once again I don't care if you're fully painted, I will never claim extra vp(cuz we don't play with VP) for paint. I would rather play against a fully painted army, but if my choices are;
A)Fully painted but WAAC
B)Grey but chill person
I'll pick B all day every day!


Do you think 40k should adopt the player's code from AoS 3.0? @ 2021/06/24 22:32:23


Post by: AngryAngel80


Deadnight wrote:
kirotheavenger wrote:I do have games arranged ahead of time.
The problem would be turning up and my opponent going "I don't give permission for you to use the unpainted terminator squad" or whatever.




Uh huh, and there was absolutely NO WAY if you communicating this to your prospective opponent when you were communicating with them, was there?

You ask when you're arranging ahead of time. Christ, it's not rocket surgery. And it's bloody good manners to build a rapport with the other guy anyway. Put some exp into community building, not just list building. Your hobby will be more rewarding.

'Listen mate, I've just bought a second squad of reivers to use in my list. Right now they're assembled but not painted. Hope thats not an issue? I've heard horror stories, I don't want to get caught out, especially when it's 6 hours round bus trip for me! Its not worth it otherwise!'


How hard is it for someone to just let you use an unpainted squad without needing to bring it up ? This whole debate is so insane to me, and I know insane pretty well. People act like some unpainted models is similar to showing up in your underwear to play a game and it somehow is going to ruin some ones game to even see bare plastic. I hate to say it but if it really pains someone that much to have to deal with unpainted models I think they might have some issues that no code of conduct will fix.As I have never once had anyone take issue with it from anyone else or even myself. I guess I live in an amazingly charitable section of the earth.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Unit1126PLL wrote:
 H.B.M.C. wrote:


 Unit1126PLL wrote:
But if it's eight months later and the new Sororitas are still 100% grey with no further effort, that's when I start groaning.
And you continue to ignore the possible reasons for why someone doesn't want to or can't paint. Your immediate implication is that by them not painting, they are doing something wrong.

Honestly... its like you people have never fething heard the word 'disability'.



No, I'm arguing that by not trying to have painted models, they're doing something wrong. If they can't paint for themselves, there's plenty of alternatives out there - commissioning is the big one.

As for ignoring the reasons they don't want to - well, yes, of course I'll ignore those reasons. Because they might not WANT to, but I also don't WANT to play against unpainted minis forever, and since the general experience of miniatures wargaming is for the miniatures to be painted, I'm not the one being unreasonable (despite how you may seek to portray things).

It's like showing up at a theater and talking through the movie. Part of the general experience of others is being able to hear the movie, regardless of what you want/don't want to do. If you have a hypothetical disability that forces you to talk, then accommodations and work arounds exist. You don't get to just walk in, talk, and when someone says "shh" just go "I have a disability."


You must be a whole lot of fun to play against. Having the models all be well painted is and always should be a bonus to the game itself. It helps the experience sure but I've had amazing games against unpainted armies and not every unit will always be painted. Perhaps if you have such an issue with unpainted models you should be the one to forward out there how much you will not tolerate and be sure its well known and then all those heathens with their fields of grey can avoid the circumstance totally. This is really an issue I've never had to deal with after playing this game since the late 90s. I will praise someone putting in the effort and doing the painting but I will not ever deny someone a game based on a painted or not unit or model and if someone did it to me that would be the last time I'd ponder to play that person.


Reality is this game forces burn and churn on new units so hard sometimes that what works now rolls around multiple times a year with either rules changes, points or new models. To expect everyone to be up to date with what they want to use while also feeding the GW pig is more insane now than ever before. They just want to push the buy buy buy and not everyone has the equal time to paint paint paint if they can afford as well to feed the GW pig. Only so much time in a day and within a life, people should enjoy it in their own time and not feel pressured to have " right fun " just because someone has a fit over a bare model, the scandal.


Do you think 40k should adopt the player's code from AoS 3.0? @ 2021/06/24 22:50:04


Post by: Catulle


TBH I may have worked in the visual impairment field for too long, but it would never even occur to me to deny permission or not agree to defer the paint VPs if the human on the other side of the table mentioned disability. That's just making reasonable adjustments. On the other hand, I'll absolutely play "down" those points or accept not playing with that other human if they don't feel it with my grey-undercoated but based work-in-progress because I have other options and consent is a mutual deal. Winning isn't everything, and I'm likely to learn something out of every game.


Do you think 40k should adopt the player's code from AoS 3.0? @ 2021/06/24 23:50:03


Post by: H.B.M.C.


Seabass wrote:
Stop standing on the shoulders of people with disabilities...
I have disabilities. You want to take everything you just said back?

Racerguy180 wrote:
Just so you know I've been permanently disabled for 22yrs so you can choke on it.
What an impressive display of misplaced and unwarranted hostility. You know this isn't a competition, right?



Do you think 40k should adopt the player's code from AoS 3.0? @ 2021/06/25 00:03:38


Post by: Racerguy180


It didn't seem unwarranted and it inst a competition, you just cannot speak for all those disabled. Same goes for myself or anyone for that matter.

My point is don't play the way GW suggests, if you don't want to/cant/whatever paint, don't let anyone dictate how you hobby. If you play with donkey-caves, expect donkey-cave behaviour.
Easiest way to avoid this is surprisingly don't play with donkey-caves.

If you're that stuck on officialdom that you care about asking permission(or whatever you take it as) don't. if the other person cares, they sure sound like someone you shouldn't play with anyway.


Do you think 40k should adopt the player's code from AoS 3.0? @ 2021/06/25 00:06:51


Post by: H.B.M.C.


Racerguy180 wrote:
... you just cannot speak for all those disabled.
I never attempted to. My point was simply to show how callous and downright insulting it is for some people to just say "Try harder!", or the implication that not trying is somehow doing the hobby "wrong". Which is what you did.

Then you attacked me.

I'm not the donkey-cave here.


Do you think 40k should adopt the player's code from AoS 3.0? @ 2021/06/25 00:16:54


Post by: Seabass


 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Seabass wrote:
Stop standing on the shoulders of people with disabilities...
I have disabilities. You want to take everything you just said back?


ABSOLUTELY NOT.

Whether or not you have disabilities is immaterial to the point that you are using disabled people as a fething shield. If your statements were worded in the context of "I" can't/wont/am not able then that would be one thing, but they aren't. Because if they were, then an argument could be made for an exception to be made in your case, but you aren't interested in that, you are interested in winning an argument about something that doesn't matter about a game you hate.

I have severe neuropathy in my arms and legs. I have no feeling in my left hand, leg, and arm, and have aphasia due to a stroke, and I don't tout that around like a shield because I don't want to conform to the standards of the game. No one I know, no one I have interacted with, as a behavioral therapist, a PsyD student, or my 23+ years in developmentally disabled/traumatic injury disabled, terminally ill, hospice or in-home health care as a grief counselor, direct care worker, nurse or any other position I have held would ever want to be treated differently because of their condition. In fact, that is such a widely adopted position that there every piece of training, techniques, and learning are based on the concept that you DO NOT treat people with a disability differently and you hold them to the same standards as you would hold anyone else (until such a point where it cannot happen, after all, there are no such thing as blind pilots, there are reasonable limitations). To do less is actually a violation of the ADA.

Aphasia is an awful neurological condition. I sometimes cannot speak, cannot even form words correctly. Sometimes I cant even feel if I have dice in my hands, or I bump into or step on my model case because I cant feel the sensory input to tell me there is something there. It's embarrassing, it's humiliating, and it's a challenge I deal with daily, and we won't even talk about how difficult it is to defend your post-grad research presentation with this condition, but I would never want to be treated differently.

So no, I am NOT taking that statement back. You are standing on the shoulders of people with disabilities to win an internet argument about a game of toy fething soliders.


Do you think 40k should adopt the player's code from AoS 3.0? @ 2021/06/25 00:32:45


Post by: Racerguy180


H.B.M.C. wrote:
Racerguy180 wrote:
Still better than not trying at all
'Cause for some of us it's just because we're not trying hard enough, right?

Honestly... its like you people have never fething heard the word 'disability'.



H.B.M.C. wrote:
Racerguy180 wrote:
... you just cannot speak for all those disabled.
I never attempted to. My point was simply to show how callous and downright insulting it is for some people to just say "Try harder!", or the implication that not trying is somehow doing the hobby "wrong". Which is what you did.

Then you attacked me.

I'm not the donkey-cave here.


You implied that I said not trying hard enough, I specifically stated...not try at all.

I've underlined the part where you lead it into hostility.


Do you think 40k should adopt the player's code from AoS 3.0? @ 2021/06/25 00:39:52


Post by: H.B.M.C.


Racerguy180 wrote:
You implied that I said not trying hard enough, I specifically stated...not try at all.
A distinction without a difference.

Racerguy180 wrote:
I've underlined the part where you lead it into hostility.
That's frustration at being told I'm not trying hard enough at things I either don't enjoy or cannot do.

How dare you, or anyone, tell me that the way I, or anyone, is interfacing with this hobby is wrong, or that I need to "try" more.

D'ya get it yet?


Do you think 40k should adopt the player's code from AoS 3.0? @ 2021/06/25 01:58:12


Post by: Racerguy180


Are you trying at all?

Cuz if you are then good for you if not good for you.

Maybe you shouldn't throw around a slur in response to someone who differs from you.

"You people" has terrible connotations. But you are free to say whatever you want...

And I didn't tell you how to enjoy the hobby, you seem to be confusing me with someone who cares about what GW says in their rules.


Do you think 40k should adopt the player's code from AoS 3.0? @ 2021/06/25 03:39:12


Post by: Apple fox


I think this all above is why the rule in 40k really only empowers toxicity in the hobby rather than diffuse it, placing blame onto people rather than real encouragement and engagement with the hobby.

The guideline in the AoS one is again more hostile in the way it puts pressure on one side to engage in part of the hobby they may choose not to for many reasons,
If they really did care about the hobby itself, they would use neutral language to try and engage people.
Simply stating that making sure others are understanding of painting expectations would be enough and far more friendly.


Do you think 40k should adopt the player's code from AoS 3.0? @ 2021/06/25 04:35:13


Post by: Eonfuzz


See, the problem is that there are a certain set of people that can only function by following a set of rules or guidelines.

Somebody start up a eugenics program so we can game in peace


Do you think 40k should adopt the player's code from AoS 3.0? @ 2021/06/25 05:10:50


Post by: DarknessEternal


Seabass wrote:
 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Seabass wrote:
Stop standing on the shoulders of people with disabilities...
I have disabilities. You want to take everything you just said back?


ABSOLUTELY NOT.

Just put him on ignore, dude. HBMC is the kind of person who this code is directed at but can never follow


Do you think 40k should adopt the player's code from AoS 3.0? @ 2021/06/25 05:32:37


Post by: H.B.M.C.


 DarknessEternal wrote:
HBMC is the kind of person who this code is directed at but can never follow
Uh huh.

We have people in this thread telling everyone that if they're not painting they're just not trying hard enough, all the way up to Seabass screaming in all caps because he got caught out telling someone with disabilities to eat gak, and yet I'm the bad guy? Give me a break...

Seabass wrote:
So no, I am NOT taking that statement back. You are standing on the shoulders of people with disabilities to win an internet argument about a game of toy fething soliders.
The only one screaming, again, in all caps, about toy soldiers is you.

I'm not standing on anyone's shoulders. I'm not using anyone as a shield. You (and others) continue to belittle anyone who chooses (or maybe can't chose) to interface with this hobby in a manner different to you. You (and others) are clinging onto this utterly asinine idea that everyone must engage in the hobby in the same way, that (like a few others have stated) those who do not do what you do simply aren't trying 'hard enough' (or at all).

Putting a painting requirement in a 'code of conduct' is as stupid as putting in a points score in missions for having a painted army. You are specifically separating out - discriminating against, if you prefer - a sub-set of players who could have all kinds of reasons for not painting. I mean, putting aside disabilities, since that gets you all rankled up, what about if someone just doesn't want to? Doesn't care? Has no interest in painting.

Why is their choice any more or less valid than yours?
Why should they be treated any differently to someone who does care about painting?

If you can answer that with anything better than "Because painting is part of the hobby!", then I'm all ears.



Do you think 40k should adopt the player's code from AoS 3.0? @ 2021/06/25 05:50:56


Post by: BrianDavion


 H.B.M.C. wrote:
 DarknessEternal wrote:
HBMC is the kind of person who this code is directed at but can never follow
Uh huh.

We have people in this thread telling everyone that if they're not painting they're just not trying hard enough, all the way up to Seabass screaming in all caps because he got caught out telling someone with disabilities to eat gak, and yet I'm the bad guy? Give me a break...


I'd say you're being unreasonable HBMC and letting your own biases intevere in your judgement here.

I mean look let's reduce this entire thing to it's simpliest.
I'm going to ask some questions. These are YES OR NO QUESTIONS. kindly don't weigh in your own judgements here. just answer "yes or no" "true or false etc"

True or false: Some people prefer to play against only painted minis?
True or False: Some people see nothing wrong with using unpainted minis
True or false: given these differant ways of enjoying the hobby discussing the matter before you sit down for a game is proably a sane thing to do?

Look I don't care how you prefer to engage the hobby, nor do you care how I do it, but when we come together we obviously need to discuss preferances and views on that matter yeah?

thats ALL this players code says, ask your opponent if he's cool with your using unpainted models because not everyone is. seriously if you say "I've a disability and can't paint" no one. NO ONE is going to make an issue of it.
And if they do bugger them they're not the kind of people you wanna play games with anyway. You've basicly derailed an entire thread over this. seems a touch silly.



Do you think 40k should adopt the player's code from AoS 3.0? @ 2021/06/25 06:04:42


Post by: H.B.M.C.


BrianDavion wrote:
I'd say you're being unreasonable HBMC and letting your own biases intevere in your judgement here.
And I'd say anyone who just says "try harder" when it comes to things that they either can't or don't want to do is being insulting and, as much as I hate this word, quite 'gate keeper'-y.

BrianDavion wrote:
True or false: Some people prefer to play against only painted minis?
Sure.
BrianDavion wrote:
True or False: Some people see nothing wrong with using unpainted minis
Also yes.
BrianDavion wrote:
True or false: given these differant ways of enjoying the hobby discussing the matter before you sit down for a game is proably a sane thing to do?
No. And you said not to elaborate here.

BrianDavion wrote:
Look I don't care how you prefer to engage the hobby, nor do you care how I do it, but when we come together we obviously need to discuss preferances and views on that matter yeah?
Preferences as they relate to the game, sure. What are we playing. What sort of mission. What size of game. What type of force. "You didn't base your minis properly! Game's off!" is not something I'd even consider.

BrianDavion wrote:
ask your opponent if he's cool with your using unpainted models because not everyone is.
Why should anyone ever have to ask such a question?

I'm bothered by people taking model kits from completely different games (usually WWII tanks) and just putting them in Guard armies and calling them a Russ with nothing other than a 40k-ish paint job. I absolutely hate terrain made of junk. Those are my biases. I'm never going to turn around and say "Hey. That German half-track? That ain't a Chimera buddy. Get a real model!", nor would I ever expect the owner of said 'Chimera' to need to ask if he's ok with me using it. If someone's built up a table full of old electronic parts and packaging containers, then I'll shut my damned mouth and live with it. That's how that person chose to build their terrain, and who the hell am I to tell them different? I'd rather just get on with the game.

BrianDavion wrote:
seriously if you say "I've a disability and can't paint" no one. NO ONE is going to make an issue of it.
I think such a statement should never have to be uttered out loud.



Do you think 40k should adopt the player's code from AoS 3.0? @ 2021/06/25 06:14:45


Post by: BrianDavion


 H.B.M.C. wrote:
BrianDavion wrote:
I'd say you're being unreasonable HBMC and letting your own biases intevere in your judgement here.
And I'd say anyone who just says "try harder" when it comes to things that they either can't or don't want to do is being insulting and, as much as I hate this word, quite 'gate keeper'-y.

BrianDavion wrote:
True or false: Some people prefer to play against only painted minis?
Sure.
BrianDavion wrote:
True or False: Some people see nothing wrong with using unpainted minis
Also yes.
BrianDavion wrote:
True or false: given these differant ways of enjoying the hobby discussing the matter before you sit down for a game is proably a sane thing to do?
No. And you said not to elaborate here.

BrianDavion wrote:
Look I don't care how you prefer to engage the hobby, nor do you care how I do it, but when we come together we obviously need to discuss preferances and views on that matter yeah?
Preferences as they relate to the game, sure. What are we playing. What sort of mission. What size of game. What type of force. "You didn't base your minis properly! Game's off!" is not something I'd even consider.

BrianDavion wrote:
ask your opponent if he's cool with your using unpainted models because not everyone is.
Why should anyone ever have to ask such a question?

I'm bothered by people taking model kits from completely different games (usually WWII tanks) and just putting them in Guard armies and calling them a Russ with nothing other than a 40k-ish paint job. I absolutely hate terrain made of junk. Those are my biases. I'm never going to turn around and say "Hey. That German half-track? That ain't a Chimera buddy. Get a real model!", nor would I ever expect the owner of said 'Chimera' to need to ask if he's ok with me using it. If someone's built up a table full of old electronic parts and packaging containers, then I'll shut my damned mouth and live with it. That's how that person chose to build their terrain, and who the hell am I to tell them different? I'd rather just get on with the game.

BrianDavion wrote:
seriously if you say "I've a disability and can't paint" no one. NO ONE is going to make an issue of it.
I think such a statement should never have to be uttered out loud.



so In other words, "yes I reckongize people play differantly and want differant things, but I'm not going to attempt a modicium of communication I'm just going to show up and insist they play with me on my terms?" because thats what it sounds like. Look personally I think insisting on only playing painted mini's is silly (that said I appreciate when someone attempts an effort simply because I appreciate painting minis ain't easy) but I'm going to make sure the people I sit down with also don't have an issue if I'm gonna be bringing unpainted mini's. I mean it's common sense to communicate these things.


Do you think 40k should adopt the player's code from AoS 3.0? @ 2021/06/25 06:23:27


Post by: Racerguy180


If you discuss point level(not everyone plays same amount), you can discuss this.
If you discuss mission(not everyone plays the same missions), you can discuss this.
If you discuss anything, literally anything before the game with the person you're playing with, surprisingly you can discuss this.

How is this any different?

Say I want to play 1500pts & you want to play 1750, either A) we make accommodations to play at 1500pts or B) we make accommodations to play at 1750.
How is this any different?

Say I want to play with no strats & you do, same as above.

Say you want to play with proxies & I don't, same as above.

How is this any different?

Stop caring about what GW says and do your own thing.


Do you think 40k should adopt the player's code from AoS 3.0? @ 2021/06/25 06:26:12


Post by: H.B.M.C.


BrianDavion wrote:
so In other words, "yes I reckongize people play differantly and want differant things, but I'm not going to attempt a modicium of communication I'm just going to show up and insist they play with me on my terms?" because thats what it sounds like.
Only if you read it through the reflection of a fun-house mirror. To put it another way, your assessment is about as backwards/reductive as one can get.

I see it the other way around: I'm not going to insist on any terms (outside of what impacts the game itself - mission, forces, set-up, etc.). It's the same reason why I hate the 10 points for painted armies. That's not part of the actual game itself (hobby yes, game no - let's be very clear on that distinction), and thus I don't see it should affect the outcome of the game.

BrianDavion wrote:
Look personally I think insisting on only playing painted mini's is silly (that said I appreciate when someone attempts an effort simply because I appreciate painting minis ain't easy) but I'm going to make sure the people I sit down with also don't have an issue if I'm gonna be bringing unpainted mini's. I mean it's common sense to communicate these things.
Maybe it's because I've literally never come across someone who's said "You have to have painted minis or I is walkin' out that door!". Maybe I've just been lucky to have never encountered someone like that in real life.

Thank Christ.