I ask because I know a guy who says he chooses to ignore that rule (tellingly, he often fields unpainted models). I gave him a friendly warning that if he ever beats me by less than 10 VPs on the objectives with a partially-painted army, I am going to claim victory... whether he acknowledges it or not. The rulebook is on my side.

I sort of understand the competitive mentality that victory should be determined solely by what happens once the dice start rolling, but I also think it's good that there's an in-game incentive to paint your models. Especially if both players have been running the same armies for a while and have had ample time to paint them.

I would be willing to waive this rule for someone who is just getting started with their new army and is making steady progress in painting it.

.

I feel most people are pretty content with how this rule has landed.

Most tournaments already had a painting requirement, so having written guidance onto an acceptable 'penalty' gives tournament organizers a way to allow unpainted models while still encouraging fully painted armies if they so choose.

If a local group doesn't like the rule, they disregard it (as usually it's friends/ reasonable people that are just there to have fun).

My group does a modified version. We didn't really love the binary state of it, and as we play the same small group, we modified the rule. If the army is fully painted or they have painted more of their army from the last time they played they get the full 10 points.

Technically I don't use it very often outside of tournaments because I play in a group where nobody uses unpainted models, and in tournaments everyone gets the automatic 10 VP because painting is mandatory. But as a general rule for pickup games it's an excellent rule and the only thing I would even consider doing to change it is making it more than 10 VP.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

patman1440 wrote:
My group does a modified version. We didn't really love the binary state of it, and as we play the same small group, we modified the rule. If the army is fully painted or they have painted more of their army from the last time they played they get the full 10 points.

I like this one and will have to remember it. We don't have any newbies so it isn't needed right now but it sounds like a good way of handling things if it ever comes up.

I think patman1440s idea is a nice middle ground.

My group generally ignores the rule (I was outvoted) and I tend to see many walls of grey plastic. But if I somehow gained dictator powers and was able to force my group into abiding by the rule, do I think it would help? Probably not. I doubt they'd paint their full armies even if it meant going down 10 VP every game. They'd just grumble if they lost because of it.

Its also not very much of an incentive if a large amount of the group likes to feild unpainted minis. That puts most of the players on an equal playing field (unpainted vs unpainted) and you don't want to feel like a jerk for insisting you gain an extra 10 VP because you have painted minis. It's a hard sell.

And its fair to also say that the rule doesnt apply to everybody equally. You already mentioned newer players, but also people who switch armies often are hit by this rule much harder. I have been running my same army for over 2 years and I have a decent size collection of painted models. I have friends who have been through 3 or 4 armies in the same time. Is it fair that I demand they spend 3-4 times as much effort on painting their models? It's not easy to say.

I also personally legitimately enjoy painting. Some of my friends would rather have their teeth pulled. Do I want to be the guy who tells them they have to spend hours on something they hate or else I'm claiming a 10 VP game advantage? No I don't.

I voted yes because I think that in tournaments it *is* a good rule, and you want things to look nice and for tourneys to have a certain atmosphere. But I think for casual games, it depends heavily on the group and the situation. And although I would *like* my friends to paint their models.... I'm fine with ignoring the rule to avoid the social awkwardness of enforcing it.

I think it's a stupid rule. And it's not even a universal rule throughout GW games. So we ignore it.

I don't think painting should play a role in victory within the game. How the game is played should be the only thing that determines victory.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
I don't think painting should play a role in victory within the game. How the game is played should be the only thing that determines victory.

This. Even list-building should be, at most, a way to gain some small advantages.

A well-played game with an okay list should trounce a badly played game with a great list.
And in neither case should the paintjobs matter.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
I don't think painting should play a role in victory within the game. How the game is played should be the only thing that determines victory.

So you advocate both players using the same standard list, so that only how the game is played determines victory?

 Shas'O Ky'husa wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
I don't think painting should play a role in victory within the game. How the game is played should be the only thing that determines victory.

So you advocate both players using the same standard list, so that only how the game is played determines victory?

I'll answer this-HBMC can answer as well, but for me...

As said above, a well-built list shouldn't beat a good player, using a basic list. I'm okay with some minimum competency being needed to make a good list, but said competency should be much closer to "Know the rules well, maybe played a few games," and not what it currently is. And even a tournament-winning list shouldn't give more than a small advantage over a list built with general competency.

 Shas'O Ky'husa wrote:
So you advocate both players using the same standard list, so that only how the game is played determines victory?

I didn't say anything of the kind. Building a list using a Codex is part of the playing the game.

Now, please, go and put words into someone else's mouth.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
I didn't say anything of the kind. Building a list using a Codex is part of the playing the game.

Now, please, go and put words into someone else's mouth.

Then so is painting your models to gain the 10 VP. If you want "choosing a sufficiently powerful faction" to be part of the game then you have no grounds for complaining that painting is part of determining the winner.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 JNAProductions wrote:
I'll answer this-HBMC can answer as well, but for me...

As said above, a well-built list shouldn't beat a good player, using a basic list. I'm okay with some minimum competency being needed to make a good list, but said competency should be much closer to "Know the rules well, maybe played a few games," and not what it currently is. And even a tournament-winning list shouldn't give more than a small advantage over a list built with general competency.

Sounds like the 10 VP is fine then. A fully painted list with a bad player won't beat an unpainted list with a good player.

I think the only way this is fair is if there is also 10VP for fielding conversions and 10VP for fielding fluff-accurate forces. Otherwise the game is just penalizing people who don’t enjoy painting. Either all of the facets of the hobby should be rewarded, or just the game should count towards the game.

patman1440 wrote:

My group does a modified version. We didn't really love the binary state of it, and as we play the same small group, we modified the rule. If the army is fully painted or they have painted more of their army from the last time they played they get the full 10 points.

^That's really cool.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
I think the only way this is fair is if there is also 10VP for fielding conversions and 10VP for fielding fluff-accurate forces. Otherwise the game is just penalizing people who don’t enjoy painting. Either all of the facets of the hobby should be rewarded, or just the game should count towards the game.

Not seeing the problem with penalizing people who don't paint their models. A small penalty for failing to meet the minimum standard is even more generous than not allowing unpainted models at all, which is what many of us (and virtually all tournaments beyond the local store level) set as the standard.

As for conversions and fluff accuracy, no, those are not equivalent. Conversions are optional and often subtle, armies without them can look just as good as armies with them. In fact, in many cases you wouldn't even know if a model is converted or not unless you play that faction and are familiar with all of the details of the kits. And while fluff accuracy is a great goal it's not something that can be reduced to a simple VP score. Everyone has a different idea of what "fluff accurate" means so how do you judge if someone gets the 10 VP or not? With painting it's very easy, with fluff it's just a source of inevitable conflict.

I like the idea of the rule, but I don't like the all-or-nothing nature of it - one model not being Battle Ready denying you the full 10VP.

Had I been writing it, I'd've made two changes.

Firstly, I'd've made sure there was a couple of pages in the damned rulebook explaining what the minimum standards are for Battle Ready, with examples. I understand there may be something to this effect in the most recent matched play mission pack, but that seems a bit late for this edition.

Secondly, I'd've made the VP scale - for every 10% of the points/PL that is Battle Ready (depending on how you're building your army), rounding down, you get 1VP.

For most armies, that means one model that's unpainted is denying you 1, maybe 2VP at most in a 2k game. It also means that making progress towards getting your army fully painted gets you some rewards on this tertiary objective, even if you don't get the full 10VP until you're finished.

 Shas'O Ky'husa wrote:
Then so is painting your models to gain the 10 VP. If you want "choosing a sufficiently powerful faction" to be part of the game then you have no grounds for complaining that painting is part of determining the winner.

You're not very good at making arguments, so to save us both the trouble, I'm just going to stop talking to you.

It's a stupid rule. I say this as someone with 6 fully painted armies, all of which are at least 2000pts and none of them are Knights.

We ignored this rule and will continue to ignore it.

The reward for painting your miniatures is lovely looking models and something cool to display on a shelf at home.

If I win a game because my opponent outplayed me but hadn't painted a model or two, then that wouldn't ring true for me and would be a hollow victory at best.

 Shas'O Ky'husa wrote:

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
I think the only way this is fair is if there is also 10VP for fielding conversions and 10VP for fielding fluff-accurate forces. Otherwise the game is just penalizing people who don’t enjoy painting. Either all of the facets of the hobby should be rewarded, or just the game should count towards the game.

Not seeing the problem with penalizing people who don't paint their models.

Really? No problem at all? So people with disabilities, illnesses or just general life circumstances that get in their way of being able to paint, they should all just suck it up and be penalised for not being able to paint?

 Sim-Life wrote:
Really? No problem at all? So people with disabilities, illnesses or just general life circumstances that get in their way of being able to paint, they should all just suck it up and be penalised for not being able to paint?

In the unlikely event that this comes up maybe the 10 VP can be negotiated. But let's not pretend that people legitimate reasons for being unable to paint are anything other than an incredibly tiny minority compared to the people who simply choose not to.

honestly I think I'd only "remember" this rule if I had an unpleasent experiance with a sore winner with an unpainted army who happened to win by less then 10 VPs. then I absolutely would remember this rule, declare it means I won.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
You're not very good at making arguments, so to save us both the trouble, I'm just going to stop talking to you.

This isn't an airport, you don't have to announce your departure.

But really, your own words speak for themselves. You claim to be opposed to non-game factors deciding the outcome of games but reject the one system where things like "having more money than your opponent" don't decide the outcome of games. And rather than do the honest thing and admit that you just don't like painting you can only flip the table and leave.

 Shas'O Ky'husa wrote:

 Sim-Life wrote:
Really? No problem at all? So people with disabilities, illnesses or just general life circumstances that get in their way of being able to paint, they should all just suck it up and be penalised for not being able to paint?

In the unlikely event that this comes up maybe the 10 VP can be negotiated. But let's not pretend that people legitimate reasons for being unable to paint are anything other than an incredibly tiny minority compared to the people who simply choose not to.

With ~20% of the population of Canada and the States being disabled in one for or another. We're not some small after thought, even though that's always how we're treated.

 Blndmage wrote:
With ~20% of the population of Canada and the States being disabled in one for or another. We're not some small after thought, even though that's always how we're treated.

And what percentage of that 20% has a disability that prevents painting, but not a disability that prevents playing the game at all?

 Blndmage wrote:

 Shas'O Ky'husa wrote:

 Sim-Life wrote:
Really? No problem at all? So people with disabilities, illnesses or just general life circumstances that get in their way of being able to paint, they should all just suck it up and be penalised for not being able to paint?

In the unlikely event that this comes up maybe the 10 VP can be negotiated. But let's not pretend that people legitimate reasons for being unable to paint are anything other than an incredibly tiny minority compared to the people who simply choose not to.

With ~20% of the population of Canada and the States being disabled in one for or another. We're not some small after thought, even though that's always how we're treated.

as part of that 20% Blindmage I find your using that figure to be incrediably dishonest given that I'm comfortable painting and am happy at painting.

with that said obviously no one is going to enforce those kind of rules against people who cannot paint, I don't think anyone's that big a jerk..

I think it's a stupid rule. I feel out of game factors shouldn't give victory points. If I write up lore about my custom faction, 10 victory points. If I animate a story for them, another ten. If I hire a band and play their theme song I wrote, another ten. After all, why stop at painting?

And, I don't think lists should be unbalanced enough for a win to be default, but at least buying the new Angron model won't give you 20 victory points.

If I were playing Infinity, I'd be pretty sure that I could win if I was better than the opponent. I can't be sure of that in any edition of 40k that I've played.

In addition, this rule does nothing. If a person loses because of it, they get annoyed, and feel they won. If a person wins because of it, they might feel justified or not feel like it was a victory. If a person wants to fight only painted armies, this changes nothing. If a person refuses to paint their army, they'll probably not change anything.

In the instance where someone paints their army because of the rule, so they can play in friendly games without losing out on 10 points because their opponents decided to do that, there's a good chance they won't enjoy it.

There's a tiny minority of people that the rule helps, and the only people I see celebrating it tend to not want to play against unpainted minis anyways, so might as well get rid of it.

My dudes are painted, so the rule doesn't effect me. But people who start do not like it, specialy the first few times they hear about it, while they play at a store event or first non demo games.

But a rule is a rule, there is a lot of rules I don't like, but they are put in by GW, so people have to live with it. The reasons why the rules is there and how it impacts the game or people playing it, doesn't matter in the end.

Karol wrote:
My dudes are painted, so the rule doesn't effect me. But people who start do not like it, specialy the first few times they hear about it, while they play at a store event or first non demo games.

But a rule is a rule, there is a lot of rules I don't like, but they are put in by GW, so people have to live with it. The reasons why the rules is there and how it impacts the game or people playing it, doesn't matter in the end.

Depends on what mission pack you play. The Open Play Hostility Mission Pack doesn't have the painted VP rule, or secondaries, just mission specific primaries.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

BrianDavion wrote:

 Blndmage wrote:

 Shas'O Ky'husa wrote:

 Sim-Life wrote:
Really? No problem at all? So people with disabilities, illnesses or just general life circumstances that get in their way of being able to paint, they should all just suck it up and be penalised for not being able to paint?

In the unlikely event that this comes up maybe the 10 VP can be negotiated. But let's not pretend that people legitimate reasons for being unable to paint are anything other than an incredibly tiny minority compared to the people who simply choose not to.

With ~20% of the population of Canada and the States being disabled in one for or another. We're not some small after thought, even though that's always how we're treated.

as part of that 20% Blindmage I find your using that figure to be incrediably dishonest given that I'm comfortable painting and am happy at painting.

with that said obviously no one is going to enforce those kind of rules against people who cannot paint, I don't think anyone's that big a jerk..

I know you're not new here.
I'm very disabled, and terminally ill with blood cancer.

I love 40k, I love playing with my family. Seeing two painted armies on a nice matching themed table is a huge goal. But I'd rather play than paint when I can.

Karol wrote:
My dudes are painted, so the rule doesn't effect me. But people who start do not like it, specialy the first few times they hear about it, while they play at a store event or first non demo games.

But a rule is a rule, there is a lot of rules I don't like, but they are put in by GW, so people have to live with it. The reasons why the rules is there and how it impacts the game or people playing it, doesn't matter in the end.

actually it does matter, and house rules are a common thing in any gaming setting, following the rules blindly is kinda silly. you've proably played games with house rules before without even knowing it (monopoly, for example has a few house rules that are so common most people genuinely think they're part of the rules)

 Shas'O Ky'husa wrote:

 Sim-Life wrote:
Really? No problem at all? So people with disabilities, illnesses or just general life circumstances that get in their way of being able to paint, they should all just suck it up and be penalised for not being able to paint?

In the unlikely event that this comes up maybe the 10 VP can be negotiated. But let's not pretend that people legitimate reasons for being unable to paint are anything other than an incredibly tiny minority compared to the people who simply choose not to.

So you agree there IS in fact a problem with the rule?

I think peoples' painting situations are a little more nuanced than a rule like this allows for.

I also don't see why painting should be a factor in who wins a game. Unless we also plan to make tournament places a factor in painting competitions.

Why should who got biggest pocket be factor?

 Shas'O Ky'husa wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
You're not very good at making arguments, so to save us both the trouble, I'm just going to stop talking to you.

This isn't an airport, you don't have to announce your departure.

But really, your own words speak for themselves. You claim to be opposed to non-game factors deciding the outcome of games but reject the one system where things like "having more money than your opponent" don't decide the outcome of games. And rather than do the honest thing and admit that you just don't like painting you can only flip the table and leave.

So... we're just pretending that paid painting services don't exist, and TFG who'd obsess about getting their free 10 VP from GW's 'We also sell Paint' rule (and deny it to others) aren't first in line to open their wallets?
That seems completely disingenuous in the face of a 'more money than your opponent' argument.

The Black Adder wrote:
We ignored this rule and will continue to ignore it.

The reward for painting your miniatures is lovely looking models and something cool to display on a shelf at home.

If I win a game because my opponent outplayed me but hadn't painted a model or two, then that wouldn't ring true for me and would be a hollow victory at best.

Same. I'd much rather ask for another game (preferably with the same lists) for another chance at actually beating my opponent at the game, than declaring that I won because of a "technicality".

My group ignores that particular rule, so we either score out of 90, or add 10 to whatever score we get when we play matched play games. the results are the same.
In the BRB at least, the painting requirement is absent from Open play and crusade mission rules. but I will freely admit that my group is not up to date with the most recent mission packs and rules.

If you play in a tournament you will know their expectations, and you can make any painting decisions accordingly.
I find the most jarring thing about the rule to be that, since your entire force has to be painted, if you have 1 (one) miniature that is not based in your entire army, whatever standard the rest of your army is painted to, you lose the 10vps, rules as written. so you could have the best painted army in the entire world (excepting one miniature) playing against someone who has put in the least effort required to meet 'battle ready' standard, and they will get the 10vps, you will not, RAW.

So flat ignore for us, TYVM

For events 100% yes, for anything else, 100% no.

I know people that have nerve and muscle disorders why would I tell them to paint their models when its very hard for them to and take points away?

I also know people that dont have time but once a week for 4-5 hours, why would i take points away from them?

 Amishprn86 wrote:

I also know people that dont have time but once a week for 4-5 hours, why would i take points away from them?

Yes, those 4-5 hours are better spent playing.

 Sim-Life wrote:

 Shas'O Ky'husa wrote:

 Sim-Life wrote:
Really? No problem at all? So people with disabilities, illnesses or just general life circumstances that get in their way of being able to paint, they should all just suck it up and be penalised for not being able to paint?

In the unlikely event that this comes up maybe the 10 VP can be negotiated. But let's not pretend that people legitimate reasons for being unable to paint are anything other than an incredibly tiny minority compared to the people who simply choose not to.

So you agree there IS in fact a problem with the rule?

Not being applicable to an edge case doesn't mean that there is a problem with a rule, just that you must be ready to react to that case ( in this case, not using the rule if the other person has a valid reason).

It is like saying that the "You can touch only your minis and your dices" rule we had during covid rules had an issue because someone with a broken arm would not be able to play. Obviously in that case you allow people to help him move the models.

Karol wrote:

But a rule is a rule, there is a lot of rules I don't like, but they are put in by GW, so people have to live with it. The reasons why the rules is there and how it impacts the game or people playing it, doesn't matter in the end.

Incorrect.
Incorrect on all counts.

My usual scrumgrod is a very competitive player and most of my friends play tournaments so this rule is usually in play, my armies are painted so it is mostly irrelevant. I think it's very clear GW wants people to play with painted models, they even sell paint. And no I wont not take my 10 points because someone else didn't paint their army. They will just have to play harder to make up that 10 points, not that I will win but it was a free 10 points available to both players so that's on them for not taking it.

It's dumb because it has an in-game effect. It doesn't matter if tournaments have a painted army rule, because the best painted army doesn't suddenly win more often.

So this rule automatically applying when you have even just one model unpainted is bad. The people that support the rule are bad.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also LOL at people voting the first option, as if GW wasn't doing it to sell their paints instead of your "immersion" when the game isn't immersive to begin with. Just admit you hated losing to someone that didn't paint their models immediately to your standards and move on.

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

The Black Adder wrote:
We ignored this rule and will continue to ignore it.

The reward for painting your miniatures is lovely looking models and something cool to display on a shelf at home.

If I win a game because my opponent outplayed me but hadn't painted a model or two, then that wouldn't ring true for me and would be a hollow victory at best.

Same. I'd much rather ask for another game (preferably with the same lists) for another chance at actually beating my opponent at the game, than declaring that I won because of a "technicality".

A tertiary objective you know about going in to a Matched Play game is hardly a technicality, Gadzilla.

I've never liked the rule and have always been glad my group just quietly ignored its existence.

I'm actually a passionate painter and always field fully painted armies. For me painting and modelling is the part of the hobby I engage the most with. However I've been in the hobby a long time and the reason I have the luxury of only fielding fully painted armies is because I already have at least one fully painted army for each game system I play.

It does take me a long time to paint an army and if this rule had been around when I didn't have a fully painted army to play it would have disincentivised me from actually playing (and perversely as a result from painting).

I'd rather people take the time and love to paint their army to a standard they personally can feel proud of. I'm happy to play against unpainted models in the meantime over playing against a fully painted army someone had felt pressured into doing a bare minimum rush job on in order to not be playing at a disadvantage. And if they just don't enjoy painting that's cool too and I don't see any benefit to penalising them in game for that as well - if it bothered me I wouldn't be playing them anyway. Applying an in game disadvantage for not having a fully painted army is a very negative way to encourage people to do something that should be a source of enjoyment and pride for them and it is also unfair on new players

If people want encouragement to get their armies painted there are more positive ways of doing it, like organising a "tale of 4 gamers" slow grow campaign.

I'm wondering when the next step will be taken and aesthetics enters the scoring game. Will there be bonus points given for drilling out barrels of guns? How about making sure that the paint scheme is exactly what GW shows? Or how about deducting points for armies that have models that have been painted sloppily or poor color choices? I've yet to see a set of dice that care what your figures look like.

If an event posts a paint level minimum then it's on the player to meet that level. If there's no requirement of painting to participate then it shouldn't enter into the W/L record.

 Dysartes wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

The Black Adder wrote:
We ignored this rule and will continue to ignore it.

The reward for painting your miniatures is lovely looking models and something cool to display on a shelf at home.

If I win a game because my opponent outplayed me but hadn't painted a model or two, then that wouldn't ring true for me and would be a hollow victory at best.

Same. I'd much rather ask for another game (preferably with the same lists) for another chance at actually beating my opponent at the game, than declaring that I won because of a "technicality".

A tertiary objective you know about going in to a Matched Play game is hardly a technicality, Gadzilla.

It is when it has nothing to do with actually playing the game. I don't want to "technically" win just because my opponent has some unpainted models in their army. I'd much rather just play another game, and try to win by outplaying them. It's just more fun, IMO.

Unless, of course, you're just arguing about the definition of "technicality". If so, I'm not going to argue with Dakka's "English Professor" over something like that. Feel free to suggest a better word, if you want.

 Shas'O Ky'husa wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
I don't think painting should play a role in victory within the game. How the game is played should be the only thing that determines victory.

So you advocate both players using the same standard list, so that only how the game is played determines victory?

The best way of doing this is by making the gamers play with a couple of armies paired by each player (so if your play your minis, the oponent chooses sides and viceversa) ... Suddenly you have true "competition" were you sholve all list building shenanigans and force true balance and really value player skill over any other meta aspect... Sure it creates some extra logistics but nothing that cannot be tackle (easily by playing smaller games).

This easy fix is not implemented due to some cultural taboo towards ussing only "your minis"... But from a competitive POV is much, much better than the current pretension that 40K is a speudo e-sport but were the challenge is to make a list that exploits erratas or imbalances.

(PD, yep I already tried this method at tournaments and it was effective and interesting).

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
Unless, of course, you're just arguing about the definition of "technicality". If so, I'm not going to argue with Dakka's "English Professor" over something like that. Feel free to suggest a better word, if you want.

"Rule I don't like" seems like the most honest parsing.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
I think the only way this is fair is if there is also 10VP for fielding conversions and 10VP for fielding fluff-accurate forces. Otherwise the game is just penalizing people who don’t enjoy painting. Either all of the facets of the hobby should be rewarded, or just the game should count towards the game.

Dancing, competitions also punish people that dont enjoy dancing... Presentation is slsp important in scatting or Gym at the olimpics.

I voted 'other' because there was no option for 'this rule doesn't actually mean anything'.

If you're playing a casual pick-up game against a stranger then you know who won from the outcome of the tabletop, and whether you technically lost on painting VP is a big fat 'who cares'.

If you're playing a cutthroat tournament where winning or losing 'on paper' matters, they almost always have their own painting requirement rules. Usually it's that every model has to be painted, so if they'll let you play unpainted at a mild VP hit, that makes painting less mandatory.

And most games tend to snowball one way or the other anyways, so coming down to a split of under 10VP is pretty rare to begin with.

The sole reason it's controversial is that it's a shot across the bow for people who feel that painting their army is as ancillary as writing up its backstory or naming their characters, and not something that is generally expected as part of the tabletop experience. It doesn't actually matter in practice, it matters in principle.

Frankly, if someone is playing casual pick-up games against strangers and then getting mad that a hard-fought victory was technically a loss according to words on paper- a 'loss' that has zero impact in the grand scheme of things- then they probably are the sort of hypercompetitive player who needs extrinsic motivation to get their army painted in the first place.

 Sim-Life wrote:

 Shas'O Ky'husa wrote:

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
I think the only way this is fair is if there is also 10VP for fielding conversions and 10VP for fielding fluff-accurate forces. Otherwise the game is just penalizing people who don’t enjoy painting. Either all of the facets of the hobby should be rewarded, or just the game should count towards the game.

Not seeing the problem with penalizing people who don't paint their models.

Really? No problem at all? So people with disabilities, illnesses or just general life circumstances that get in their way of being able to paint, they should all just suck it up and be penalised for not being able to paint?

The bad faith of this post is just unbeliavable.
:(

Catulle wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
Unless, of course, you're just arguing about the definition of "technicality". If so, I'm not going to argue with Dakka's "English Professor" over something like that. Feel free to suggest a better word, if you want.

"Rule I don't like" seems like the most honest parsing.

Meh, more like "rule that I don't care about". Or more precisely "rule that I don't care about, because I don't care that much about winning just one game that I'd use it". I don't play anything until I've painted it, so I wouldn't have anything to lose by using it, but I'd just rather not. Like I said: I'd rather just play another game, and try to win by outplaying my opponent that time. Again, just more enjoyable, IMO.

 Sim-Life wrote:

 Shas'O Ky'husa wrote:

 Sim-Life wrote:
Really? No problem at all? So people with disabilities, illnesses or just general life circumstances that get in their way of being able to paint, they should all just suck it up and be penalised for not being able to paint?

In the unlikely event that this comes up maybe the 10 VP can be negotiated. But let's not pretend that people legitimate reasons for being unable to paint are anything other than an incredibly tiny minority compared to the people who simply choose not to.

So you agree there IS in fact a problem with the rule?

No more than there is with any other rule. You can find an extreme edge case that is problematic for any rule, that doesn't mean it has a relevant problem or is a bad rule.

As someone who often plays with unpainted minis, I like this rule quite a bit. I am quite happy for an opponent who increases the quality of my gameplay experience to be rewarded for it.

Voss wrote:
So... we're just pretending that paid painting services don't exist, and TFG who'd obsess about getting their free 10 VP from GW's 'We also sell Paint' rule (and deny it to others) aren't first in line to open their wallets?
That seems completely disingenuous in the face of a 'more money than your opponent' argument.

What about it? Most people don't use painting services because they paint their own models. The theoretical cost of a painting service is not at all equivalent to the very real cost of buying in-game advantages by choosing a powerful faction and chasing the meta. If you have an unpainted guard army right now you could score 10 VP by painting it, or way more than 10 VP by buying an entire new 2000 point army from a faction that doesn't suck.

 Shas'O Ky'husa wrote:

 Sim-Life wrote:

 Shas'O Ky'husa wrote:

 Sim-Life wrote:
Really? No problem at all? So people with disabilities, illnesses or just general life circumstances that get in their way of being able to paint, they should all just suck it up and be penalised for not being able to paint?

In the unlikely event that this comes up maybe the 10 VP can be negotiated. But let's not pretend that people legitimate reasons for being unable to paint are anything other than an incredibly tiny minority compared to the people who simply choose not to.

So you agree there IS in fact a problem with the rule?

No more than there is with any other rule. You can find an extreme edge case that is problematic for any rule, that doesn't mean it has a relevant problem or is a bad rule.

Well done at minimising it by using the phrase "extreme edge cases" and using a false equivelece. This isn't a case of a badly worded rule or a broken arm (thats not even remotely the same thing) which will heal or change (hopefully, lets hope that broken arm doesn't result in nerve damage that effect the persons fine motor skill but if it does and he's unable to hold a paint brush properly anymore screw him, his fault for breaking his arm(, its a rule GW enforces simply because they want to sell paints and painted armies look better on the table which attracts more attention and potential customers. I don't even think you really though the topic through honestly. You just chose your side and dug yourself into your position to be argumentative.

 Sim-Life wrote:
Well done at minimising it by using the phrase "extreme edge cases" and using a false equivelece.

Sorry, but it absolutely is an extreme edge case. The fact that a rule doesn't do a good job of handling the rare person who genuinely can't paint is not a problem worth worrying about when the vast majority of people with unpainted armies do not paint because they choose not to paint. No rule will ever apply perfectly in literally 100% of possible situations, and this rule works as well as any.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Sim-Life wrote:
its a rule GW enforces simply because they want to sell paints and painted armies look better on the table which attracts more attention and potential customers.

And this is just plain false. Third-party events had painting requirements, usually painting requirements that were far stricter than 10 VP, long before GW introduced the 10 VP rule. And those third-party events had no direct profit motive for doing so. The reality is that painted armies look better and most people value that aesthetic factor so GW introduced a rule to make it official.

(Needless to say, the e-sport types hated those rules because it was an obstacle to winning the game in the list building phase.)

For people it effects, it's not an edge case. It's their every day life and you don't really get to tell them that because something is out of their control they should be penalised when they get to partake in their hobby.

Also yeah, 3rd party tournament had a painting requirement, but tournaments are optional and generally people with the issues that stop them from painting won't attend them. But tournaments don't sell paints generally.

 Sim-Life wrote:
For people it effects, it's not an edge case.

And those people are an extremely rare edge case.

It's their every day life and you don't really get to tell them that because something is out of their control they should be penalised when they get to partake in their hobby.

If someone genuinely has a disability that prevents them from painting most people would be willing to change the 10 VP rule. But let's not pretend that this is a common scenario, or that the need to modify the rules in this one edge case means that it's a problem for the vast majority of games.

Also yeah, 3rd party tournament had a painting requirement, but tournaments are optional and generally people with the issues that stop them from painting won't attend them.

Tournaments are optional but that's not the point. The point is that there is clearly a motive for painting requirements that does not come from paint sales, so it is not appropriate to assume that GW is only doing it as a cynical attempt to sell more paint.

 Shas'O Ky'husa wrote:

 Sim-Life wrote:
For people it effects, it's not an edge case.

And those people are an extremely rare edge case.

So they don't matter?

Also yeah, 3rd party tournament had a painting requirement, but tournaments are optional and generally people with the issues that stop them from painting won't attend them.

Tournaments are optional but that's not the point. The point is that there is clearly a motive for painting requirements that does not come from paint sales, so it is not appropriate to assume that GW is only doing it as a cynical attempt to sell more paint.

It's GW, its 100% a cynical attempt to sell paint and if you genuinly think it isn't (I don't think you do btw) I have a bridge to sell you.

 Sim-Life wrote:
So they don't matter?

Nope. When evaluating a rule you evaluate it in the majority cases, not the incredibly small minority of edge cases. Every rule fails if you look hard enough for an edge case.

It's GW, its 100% a cynical attempt to sell paint and if you genuinly think it isn't (I don't think you do btw) I have a bridge to sell you.

You are going to ignore the non-sales reasons for painting requirements then? And that this is entirely in line with the narrative-focused authors GW has, people who only grudgingly supported competitive play and genuinely believe in painting and story being more important than winning?

GW has long championed The Hobby as a multifaceted activity that includes building, painting, playing and lore. Including facets of those in their Matched Play and Narrative Play rules is hardly a cynical attempt to sell more paint. It is an expression of their vision of the game.

Next thing people are going to complain about how GW doesn't let them use their Aeldari and Adeptus Astartes units in the same army. Lore should not be deciding how my games are played!

 alextroy wrote:
Next thing people are going to complain about how GW doesn't let them use their Aeldari and Adeptus Astartes units in the same army. Lore should not be deciding how my games are played!

Which, amusingly, is exactly what GW would do if it was all a cynical sales strategy. Why tell marine players they shouldn't buy the new eldar kit just because of some stupid lore book from 20 years ago? Shareholders need that money!

ccs wrote:

 Amishprn86 wrote:

I also know people that dont have time but once a week for 4-5 hours, why would i take points away from them?

Yes, those 4-5 hours are better spent playing.

Especially when they busted their asses just to get the models built. They really love the world and the game, let them play with unpainted models, it has no effect in game.

 Amishprn86 wrote:
it has no effect in game.

It absolutely has an effect in game. The other player has to look at those unpainted models and have a less-enjoyable game as a result.

And no, I don't think people are "busting their asses" to get models assembled. Assembling models is trivially easy, especially if you're the kind of person who never paints anything and never bothers to remove mold lines, fill gaps, etc.

 Shas'O Ky'husa wrote:

 Amishprn86 wrote:
it has no effect in game.

It absolutely has an effect in game. The other player has to look at those unpainted models and have a less-enjoyable game as a result.

And no, I don't think people are "busting their asses" to get models assembled. Assembling models is trivially easy, especially if you're the kind of person who never paints anything and never bothers to remove mold lines, fill gaps, etc.

And playing a game against a tool makes the game way less fun than bare plastic. Does that mean you should deduct 50 VP if your opponent is a jerk?
What if your opponent has bad hygiene, but is otherwise really pleasant? Do you deduct points for that?

There's no MECHANICAL impact for whether or not a model is painted. It can affect stuff outside the game, but so can a million other things. Why account for this, and not those?

 JNAProductions wrote:
Why account for this, and not those?

Because painting, unlike those things, is an easily quantifiable yes/no requirement. People can argue about stupid edge cases like "but what if you have resin diorama bases instead of technical paint THATS NOT BATTLE READY" but the reality is everyone with any common sense can recognize if a model is painted to a basic tabletop standard or not. No such agreement exists with things like sportsmanship. Some people believe you're TFG if you don't let your opponent take back a mistake, some people believe you're TFG if you ask to take back a mistake instead of accepting the consequences. So which side is right and decides the scoring system?

And it's not like this is theoretical. Tournaments used to have sportsmanship scoring but in reality nobody could agree on what "good sportsmanship" was and half the players were giving 0/10 to every opponent to maximize their own chances of winning, while the other half gave 0/10 every time they lost because anyone that beats them must be a WAAC TFG with a cheese netlist. All of that got dumped in the trash can in favor of TOs having the ability to remove a player at their discretion if they are guilty of extremely poor sportsmanship.

 Shas'O Ky'husa wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
Why account for this, and not those?

Because painting, unlike those things, is an easily quantifiable yes/no requirement. People can argue about stupid edge cases like "but what if you have resin diorama bases instead of technical paint THATS NOT BATTLE READY" but the reality is everyone with any common sense can recognize if a model is painted to a basic tabletop standard or not. No such agreement exists with things like sportsmanship. Some people believe you're TFG if you don't let your opponent take back a mistake, some people believe you're TFG if you ask to take back a mistake instead of accepting the consequences. So which side is right and decides the scoring system?

But which is more important to the actual enjoyment of the game?

Would you rather play a friendly person who plays the game honestly with unpainted minis. or play someone who yells, screams, cheats, insults you, and more, but has Golden Daemon level paintjobs?

I am 100% fine with encouraging people to paint. I don't like punishing people in-game for not having painted minis, regardless of the reason.

The level of sophism of this last post is out of the charts.

Would you prefer a nice dinner in a luxury restaurant with a bloody dictator or being tortured together with a nobel price winner?

If you answer the first you are a dictatorship simpaticer

 JNAProductions wrote:
But which is more important to the actual enjoyment of the game?

Irrelevant. This is about 10 VP for painted armies, not whether or not other things should be a reason not to play against someone. If you want to start another thread about refusing to play against someone who stinks that's fine but it's completely off-topic here.

Would you rather play a friendly person who plays the game honestly with unpainted minis. or play someone who yells, screams, cheats, insults you, and more, but has Golden Daemon level paintjobs?

I wouldn't play against either of them. What you're posting is a false dilemma.

 Shas'O Ky'husa wrote:

 Sim-Life wrote:
So they don't matter?

Nope. When evaluating a rule you evaluate it in the majority cases, not the incredibly small minority of edge cases. Every rule fails if you look hard enough for an edge case.

It's GW, its 100% a cynical attempt to sell paint and if you genuinly think it isn't (I don't think you do btw) I have a bridge to sell you.

You are going to ignore the non-sales reasons for painting requirements then? And that this is entirely in line with the narrative-focused authors GW has, people who only grudgingly supported competitive play and genuinely believe in painting and story being more important than winning?

If GW were at all narrative focused, the game would actually be immersive. However the rules are not immersive.

Thats a very subjective statement.

That rules are not inmersive to you, dosent mean that they arent inmersive for many.

How do you objectively measure "inmersion"??

EviscerationPlague wrote:
If GW were at all narrative focused, the game would actually be immersive. However the rules are not immersive.

That's because GW is incompetent, not because they aren't trying. GW authors have made it very clear that the game is intended to be focused on the story and competitive play is this weird extra thing that they only grudgingly accept.

 Shas'O Ky'husa wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:
If GW were at all narrative focused, the game would actually be immersive. However the rules are not immersive.

That's because GW is incompetent, not because they aren't trying. GW authors have made it very clear that the game is intended to be focused on the story and competitive play is this weird extra thing that they only grudgingly accept.

Right, time to assemble those sources and prove that then.
And I guess erase any time they wax enthusiastic about the competitive scene and make dedicated tournament books

 Shas'O Ky'husa wrote:

 Amishprn86 wrote:
it has no effect in game.

It absolutely has an effect in game. The other player has to look at those unpainted models and have a less-enjoyable game as a result.

And no, I don't think people are "busting their asses" to get models assembled. Assembling models is trivially easy, especially if you're the kind of person who never paints anything and never bothers to remove mold lines, fill gaps, etc.

Um... yes they do bc when you are literally not home 4-5 days a week traveling for work and and you have a family you don't magically have the other 2-3 days to do what you want. The fact that you dont understand other peoples needs and lives tells me you have no real world experience with people and all your opinions on this matter no longer matters.

I'm guessing you also never timed how long it takes to build 90+ models with 4 hours a week at the most, do me a favor and record building a 2k Necron army before you say its not long to do.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Shas'O Ky'husa wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
But which is more important to the actual enjoyment of the game?

Irrelevant. This is about 10 VP for painted armies, not whether or not other things should be a reason not to play against someone. If you want to start another thread about refusing to play against someone who stinks that's fine but it's completely off-topic here.

And enjoying the looks also doesn't matter bc the game is based off skill not "do I like the way your models looks" What if I painted my models to look like gak, do you still think it matters?

 Amishprn86 wrote:
I'm guessing you also never timed how long it takes to build 90+ models with 4 hours a week at the most, do me a favor and record building a 2k Necron army before you say its not long to do.

I could build that entire army in 4 hours if I didn't care about quality (which is assumed if you aren't going to bother painting them), and probably less. GW models are trivially easy to build if you aren't carefully removing mold lines, filling gaps, etc, to prepare them for painting.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Amishprn86 wrote:
And enjoying the looks also doesn't matter bc the game is based off skill not "do I like the way your models looks" What if I painted my models to look like gak, do you still think it matters?

Yeah, right. 50% of winning at 40k is choosing a faction that has one of the best codices at the moment, 45% is taking the obvious good units from that codex, and maybe 5% at most is on-table skill. Next to those factors the 10 VP for making the game more enjoyable for your opponent is a pretty minor concern.

 Shas'O Ky'husa wrote:

 Amishprn86 wrote:
I'm guessing you also never timed how long it takes to build 90+ models with 4 hours a week at the most, do me a favor and record building a 2k Necron army before you say its not long to do.

I could build that entire army in 4 hours if I didn't care about quality (which is assumed if you aren't going to bother painting them), and probably less. GW models are trivially easy to build if you aren't carefully removing mold lines, filling gaps, etc, to prepare them for painting.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Amishprn86 wrote:
And enjoying the looks also doesn't matter bc the game is based off skill not "do I like the way your models looks" What if I painted my models to look like gak, do you still think it matters?

Yeah, right. 50% of winning at 40k is choosing a faction that has one of the best codices at the moment, 45% is taking the obvious good units from that codex, and maybe 5% at most is on-table skill. Next to those factors the 10 VP for making the game more enjoyable for your opponent is a pretty minor concern.

Having been to a literal build army event called "Army in a weekend" a few times, 3 days of just building and painting, having built and painted 2k in that time using speed tricks that only experience or carelessly insane people will do, I find that a lie. Sure Necron warriors can be built in no time like 1.5min each model, as soon as you get to things like Command Barge, Arks, Wraiths, and Tomb Blades yeah its taking some extra time.

PS: I also only got my army done bc I painted super simple, prime white, only color the carapace, claws, and teeth, then dipped in a wood varnish lol. Build 90 gants (mix of Goyles, T and H, with Tervigons, Tyrants, and.... Tyrannoctyes, its impossible to do in 4hours, the Tyrannoctyes alone was an hour).

Also many event painted armies are not even fully painted.....

As a counterpoint to the various people complaining about unpainted armies. During the various covid lockdowns lack of games prompted me not to bother painting miniatures. Why paint when you can't play. Now I have started playing again I have also started painting again.

Punishing people for an unfinished army can take the fun out of a game to the point they may never get a painted army / leave the hobby and most people generally want to have a pretty painted up army anyway , some people are just slower at it than some others.

Many of you will know someone who seems to have fully painted new armies ready to play a week after release and some that are endlessly painting and never playing because their army isn't quite ready. And the rest of us are somewhere in between but do want a game sometime.

Obviously for tourneys the requirement stands but for a casual game where you just want to crack jokes while laughing because you rolled 3 x 1's out of 4 dice. The paint doesn't matter the experience does and eventually people will get their armies painted anyway. (and still have a plastic pile of shame to be built)

 Amishprn86 wrote:
Having been to a literal build army event called "Army in a weekend" a few times, 3 days of just building and painting, having built and painted 2k in that time using speed tricks that only experience or carelessly insane people will do, I find that a lie. Sure Necron warriors can be built in no time like 1.5min each model, as soon as you get to things like Command Barge, Arks, Wraiths, and Tomb Blades yeah its taking some extra time.

It will take extra time but each of those models takes up a higher percentage of your point total than a single infantry model. And I don't know about Necrons since I don't play that army but I can build a Devilfish/Hammerhead in 10-15 minutes max if I don't care about quality, and a crisis suit in 5 minutes each. Will it look awful? Sure, but that's a given when we're talking about models that will never be painted.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

seburo wrote:
and eventually people will get their armies painted anyway

Counter-point: there are multiple people in this thread (and/or the other ones here on the topic) clearly stating that they do not paint and never will paint their armies. And I've encountered far too many people IRL that will never paint anything, and usually have a bunch of broken models, bases with legs, etc.

 Shas'O Ky'husa wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:
If GW were at all narrative focused, the game would actually be immersive. However the rules are not immersive.

That's because GW is incompetent, not because they aren't trying. GW authors have made it very clear that the game is intended to be focused on the story and competitive play is this weird extra thing that they only grudgingly accept.

And yet the 10VP to someone who's 100% painted is not incompetence? Someone can lose having painted a whole Howling Griffons army with just a single unpainted dude compared to the guy that brought a fully painted Raven Guard or Iron Hands army if they scored a tie for the actual game.

Make no mistake, if you narrative players actually cared about the spectacle and immersion, you'd have asked for better rules to show that in the first place, not a gakky defense for 10VP for being painted like you're doing.

EviscerationPlague wrote:
And yet the 10VP to someone who's 100% painted is not incompetence? Someone can lose having painted a whole Howling Griffons army with just a single unpainted dude compared to the guy that brought a fully painted Raven Guard or Iron Hands army if they scored a tie for the actual game.

Sounds like the Howling Griffons player made a poor decision by including that unpainted model in their army. That isn't incompetence, it's you personally disliking a rule.

Make no mistake, if you narrative players actually cared about the spectacle and immersion, you'd have asked for better rules to show that in the first place, not a gakky defense for 10VP for being painted like you're doing.

Please do some reading on the false dilemma fallacy.

seburo wrote:
Punishing people for an unfinished army can take the fun out of a game to the point they may never get a painted army / leave the hobby and most people generally want to have a pretty painted up army anyway , some people are just slower at it than some others.

The rule isn't a punishment for people not having an unfinished army, it's a bonus for those who can achieve the tertiary objective of fielding a fully-painted army.

If you were arbitrarily docked 10% of the VP you'd earned during a game for not having a fully-painted army? That would be a punishment.

 Shas'O Ky'husa wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:
And yet the 10VP to someone who's 100% painted is not incompetence? Someone can lose having painted a whole Howling Griffons army with just a single unpainted dude compared to the guy that brought a fully painted Raven Guard or Iron Hands army if they scored a tie for the actual game.

Sounds like the Howling Griffons player made a poor decision by including that unpainted model in their army. That isn't incompetence, it's you personally disliking a rule.

How is it not incompetence? Would you disagree that Howling Griffons are a much harder army to paint?

EviscerationPlague wrote:
How is it not incompetence? Would you disagree that Howling Griffons are a much harder army to paint?

What does that have to do with anything? The goal is to have all miniatures be at least tabletop standard, not to provide bonus points for attempting a more difficult scheme.

 Dysartes wrote:
The rule isn't a punishment for people not having an unfinished army, it's a bonus for those who can achieve the tertiary objective of fielding a fully-painted army.

But that has nothing to do with the game. The mission, how you played, the armies you chose, the turn-to-turn events of the game are what determines the outcome. Being painted should play zero role in that.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Dysartes wrote:
The rule isn't a punishment for people not having an unfinished army, it's a bonus for those who can achieve the tertiary objective of fielding a fully-painted army.

But that has nothing to do with the game. The mission, how you played, the armies you chose, the turn-to-turn events of the game are what determines the outcome. Being painted should play zero role in that.

According to GW painting is part of the game.

 Shas'O Ky'husa wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Dysartes wrote:
The rule isn't a punishment for people not having an unfinished army, it's a bonus for those who can achieve the tertiary objective of fielding a fully-painted army.

But that has nothing to do with the game. The mission, how you played, the armies you chose, the turn-to-turn events of the game are what determines the outcome. Being painted should play zero role in that.

According to GW painting is part of the game.

They're wrong and players are free to change the game to reflect that, like most do.

 Sim-Life wrote:
They're wrong and players are free to change the game to reflect that, like most do.

Interestingly the votes in this poll disagree with you, as 52% either like the rule as-is or like the idea of the rule but disagree with the specific implementation of it.

And it's rather arrogant of you to say that you know more about what is or isn't part of the game than the people who own the IP and write the rules.

I dont mind the rule BLACK bit. I don't really care if I win or lose, so if my opponent gets 10VPs cuz he has painted models, good on them!

The way I see it, you either care about those 10VPs, and paint your armies, or you dont. So it serves its purpose, appeals to the ego of the players and takes advantage of their vanity in order to get more painted models on the tabletop.

 Shas'O Ky'husa wrote:

 Sim-Life wrote:
They're wrong and players are free to change the game to reflect that, like most do.

Interestingly the votes in this poll disagree with you, as 52% either like the rule as-is or like the idea of the rule but disagree with the specific implementation of it.

And it's rather arrogant of you to say that you know more about what is or isn't part of the game than the people who own the IP and write the rules.

Well the poll is poorly worded and the wording on the just barely 52% option conflates two options.

GW tries to claim Finecast was a wonderful miracle product that will make our dreams come true and released a literally broken edition that only had a 2 year shelf life before being replaced. GW are not infallible when it comes to their own products.

 Sim-Life wrote:
Well the poll is poorly worded and the wording on the just barely 52% option conflates two options.

The poll is worded just fine. And yes, I combined two options because those are the two options that explicitly endorse painting scoring (with another 7% voting "other", which could include support for it). A majority of people voting in this poll believe that painting scoring is a good idea, so according to the poll your claim that "most people don't want it" is false.

GW tries to claim Finecast was a wonderful miracle product that will make our dreams come true and released a literally broken edition that only had a 2 year shelf life before being replaced. GW are not infallible when it comes to their own products.

"Finecast is good" is a subjective opinion. "Part of the game" is objective fact as determined by the people who write the rules for the game.

 Shas'O Ky'husa wrote:

 Sim-Life wrote:
Well the poll is poorly worded and the wording on the just barely 52% option conflates two options.

The poll is worded just fine. And yes, I combined two options because those are the two options that explicitly endorse painting scoring. A majority of people voting in this poll believe that painting scoring is a good idea, so according to the poll your claim that "most people don't want it" is false.

I'd go so far as to argue that when 38% of people responding to the poll choose the top option, you can't get away with using "most" when describing the people who don't like the rule, especially when the option explicitly against the rule also scores below 50% of votes.

"A mixed reception" is probably the fairest description.

 Shas'O Ky'husa wrote:

 Sim-Life wrote:
Well the poll is poorly worded and the wording on the just barely 52% option conflates two options.

The poll is worded just fine. And yes, I combined two options because those are the two options that explicitly endorse painting scoring (with another 7% voting "other", which could include support for it). A majority of people voting in this poll believe that painting scoring is a good idea, so according to the poll your claim that "most people don't want it" is false.

GW tries to claim Finecast was a wonderful miracle product that will make our dreams come true and released a literally broken edition that only had a 2 year shelf life before being replaced. GW are not infallible when it comes to their own products.

"Finecast is good" is a subjective opinion. "Part of the game" is objective fact as determined by the people who write the rules for the game.

God you're bad at this.

Shockingly, Sim, just saying someone is bad at something doesn't mean that they are.

Try using your words, and expand on your position.

 Dysartes wrote:
Shockingly, Sim, just saying someone is bad at something doesn't mean that they are.

Try using your words, and expand on your position.

And get drawn into a big stupid argument where someone thinks persistence is a valid form of argument? Nah. I'm good. But here's a free sample of what I WOULD say if I was getting into an argument.

How do feel about the 10 VPs for a fully painted army?

Good rule. There needs to be an in-game incentive to paint your models

This is a biased option. "Good" (A) is an answer. "There needs to be an in-game incentive"(B) is another answer. Combining the two implies that that A is a good solution to B. If you think B you have no option but to agree that A is the implied correct answer.

But as I said, I'm not getting drawn into someone who is clearly trolling by playing the "Jokes on you, I was only pretending to be stupid." game.

 Sim-Life wrote:
This is a biased option. "Good" (A) is an answer. "There needs to be an in-game incentive"(B) is another answer. Combining the two implies that that A is a good solution to B. If you think B you have no option but to agree that A is the implied correct answer.

Ok, so let's split the option into A and B. A disagrees with your claim that "most people don't want this", B also disagrees with your claim. Whether they're separate statements or combined into one response the answer is still the same: 52% of people agree with painting scoring in some form and disagree with you.

But I'm sure you'll follow up with another attempt at substituting insults for an actual argument.

 Shas'O Ky'husa wrote:

 Sim-Life wrote:
This is a biased option. "Good" (A) is an answer. "There needs to be an in-game incentive"(B) is another answer. Combining the two implies that that A is a good solution to B. If you think B you have no option but to agree that A is the implied correct answer.

Ok, so let's split the option into A and B. A disagrees with your claim that "most people don't want this", B also disagrees with your claim. Whether they're separate statements or combined into one response the answer is still the same: 52% of people agree with painting scoring in some form and disagree with you.

But I'm sure you'll follow up with another attempt at substituting insults for an actual argument.

Oh so combining results of the poll is a valid argument? Meaning that the 42% of answers in favor of the rule is now the minority? Cool.

 Sim-Life wrote:
Oh so combining results of the poll is a valid argument? Meaning that the 42% of answers in favor of the rule is now the minority? Cool.

Yes, why do you think otherwise? If you have three different responses that are some form of "yes" then it is absolutely reasonable to add those numbers together when totaling up how many people said "yes".

 Shas'O Ky'husa wrote:

 Sim-Life wrote:
Oh so combining results of the poll is a valid argument? Meaning that the 42% of answers in favor of the rule is now the minority? Cool.

Yes, why do you think otherwise? If you have three different responses that are some form of "yes" then it is absolutely reasonable to add those numbers together when totaling up how many people said "yes".

So you said:

A majority of people voting in this poll believe that painting scoring is a good idea

So now you acknowledge that in fact it is NOT the majority opinion if we combine all the options on the poll against it. Do you see why I say you're bad at this yet?

tauist wrote:I dont mind the rule BLACK bit. I don't really care if I win or lose, so if my opponent gets 10VPs cuz he has painted models, good on them!

The way I see it, you either care about those 10VPs, and paint your armies, or you dont. So it serves its purpose, appeals to the ego of the players and takes advantage of their vanity in order to get more painted models on the tabletop.

3rd option, you paint your armies and don't give a gak about vp....

 Sim-Life wrote:
So you said:

A majority of people voting in this poll believe that painting scoring is a good idea

So now you acknowledge that in fact it is NOT the majority opinion if we combine all the options on the poll against it. Do you see why I say you're bad at this yet?

...

Do you even think about what you're saying? Let's assume we split up the response you objected to, which gives us three responses that are some form of "paint scoring is a good idea":

* Good rule. X%
* There needs to be an in-game incentive to paint your models. (39-X%)
* Not a bad notion, but poorly implemented. 14%

No matter what value you choose for X to split up the 39% between those two options the total of all three explicit "paint scoring is a good idea" responses is 53%. According to this poll a majority of people think paint scoring is a good idea, clearly disproving your claim that "most people don't want this".

Now, if you wanted to go into further detail on the 10 VP option vs. other options you no longer have an explicit majority in favor of the 10 VP option. But that doesn't matter, a vote for "paint scoring, but with a different implementation" is still a vote for paint scoring.

 catbarf wrote:
I voted 'other' because there was no option for 'this rule doesn't actually mean anything'.

If you're playing a casual pick-up game against a stranger then you know who won from the outcome of the tabletop, and whether you technically lost on painting VP is a big fat 'who cares'.

If you're playing a cutthroat tournament where winning or losing 'on paper' matters, they almost always have their own painting requirement rules. Usually it's that every model has to be painted, so if they'll let you play unpainted at a mild VP hit, that makes painting less mandatory.

And most games tend to snowball one way or the other anyways, so coming down to a split of under 10VP is pretty rare to begin with.

The sole reason it's controversial is that it's a shot across the bow for people who feel that painting their army is as ancillary as writing up its backstory or naming their characters, and not something that is generally expected as part of the tabletop experience. It doesn't actually matter in practice, it matters in principle.

Frankly, if someone is playing casual pick-up games against strangers and then getting mad that a hard-fought victory was technically a loss according to words on paper- a 'loss' that has zero impact in the grand scheme of things- then they probably are the sort of hypercompetitive player who needs extrinsic motivation to get their army painted in the first place.

I think this is similar to what I wrote in the first thread when this rule was revealed - and so it would seem to have proved.
I guess the issue is that (at least on Dakka) there are people who somehow take winning those random pick up games seriously (due to ego/identity or something), and so feel the weight of VP justice.
But in that case, well, I guess they can throw 3 colours on a mini and call it good.

Really all these painting threads have just made it clear to me that I've become a paint snob. I'd rather have unpainted or just say sprayed white/black minis to "I did this whole army in a weekend, sure it looks like trash with no highlights or anything, but I only had about 3 minutes per mini...". The former have the promise they could go somewhere - the second are just bad forever.

But equally I can see the reverse - that such allows people to get projects "done". Rather than it being many years on and you are still only at say 1500 points.

 Sim-Life wrote:

 Shas'O Ky'husa wrote:

 Sim-Life wrote:
Oh so combining results of the poll is a valid argument? Meaning that the 42% of answers in favor of the rule is now the minority? Cool.

Yes, why do you think otherwise? If you have three different responses that are some form of "yes" then it is absolutely reasonable to add those numbers together when totaling up how many people said "yes".

So you said:

A majority of people voting in this poll believe that painting scoring is a good idea

So now you acknowledge that in fact it is NOT the majority opinion if we combine all the options on the poll against it. Do you see why I say you're bad at this yet?

Might want to work on your reading comprehension, Sim, though the Shas'O could also work on being clearer.

Shas'o's reply to your post only addresses your point regarding combining poll results - it doesn't address your (inaccurate) comment regarding responses in favour of the poll being a minority. In an ideal world, they would have removed the part of your post they weren't responding directly to for clarity.

Let's look at the poll options:
Good rule. There needs to be an in-game incentive to paint your models. In favour 39% - 47
I like this rule, but only because it works in my advantage, rather than for the principle of it. In favour 2% - 2
Not a bad notion, but poorly implemented, In favour 14% - 17
I only grudgingly abide by this rule and wish they would remove it. Not in favour 4% - 5
I prefer to pretend this rule doesn't exist. Not in favour 34% - 41
Other / show results Neutral/unknown 7% - 8

I've added in bold my view as to whether a given option is in favour of the rule (or the concept of the rule, at least) or not in favour of the rule, and included the votes at the time of writing in italics.

If you think my read on any of the options is inaccurate, feel free to correct me, but that's how they read to me.

If we combine all the in favour votes, we end up with 66/120 (55%), while the tally of those not in favour ends up at 46/120 (38.3%) - the ones for Other sit outside that, and their percentage doesn't change. Even if we exclude the 2 votes from the "in favour" category which are just in it for the VP, we still get 64/120, or 53.3% of votes cast at the time of writing this post as being in favour of the idea of an in-game reward for a painted army.

I'd rather an event just had a rule that unpainted armies can't be used than the wishy washy 10vp thing. Otherwise just not have the rule at all. I know I'd feel awkward pointing out I won by those points because they didn't paint their models.

I love that, on the same forum, with the same people, on similar topics, I've seen both "We can't use a poll from this site as evidence, as Dakka is not representative of the hobby, and the wider culture in general" and "The majority of Dakka agrees with me, so the majority of the hobby agrees with me."

 TheBestBucketHead wrote:
I love that, on the same forum, with the same people, on similar topics, I've seen both "We can't use a poll from this site as evidence, as Dakka is not representative of the hobby, and the wider culture in general" and "The majority of Dakka agrees with me, so the majority of the hobby agrees with me."

The duality of the Dakkanaught.

I'm torn in that I dislike the rule, but it benefits me as I prefer using fully painted, and I feel there should be more incentive for things beyond "winning" and "what's the best list" even in tournaments. I am old enough to remember when RTTs and GTs had comp/sportsmanship scores specifically to ensure the overall winner best represented the HOBBY, not just list building, and I feel those were good things. So something like this I feel is a good way to make it clear there's more to the hobby than just getting "the best" models and winning games.

Wayniac wrote:
I'm torn in that I dislike the rule, but it benefits me as I prefer using fully painted, and I feel there should be more incentive for things beyond "winning" and "what's the best list" even in tournaments. I am old enough to remember when RTTs and GTs had comp/sportsmanship scores specifically to ensure the overall winner best represented the HOBBY, not just list building, and I feel those were good things. So something like this I feel is a good way to make it clear there's more to the hobby than just getting "the best" models and winning games.

Back in the day when GW ran the Nemesis Crown campaign for WHFB they gave people who started and painted armies during the campaign a certificate (gak) and a pin (actually pretty cool) for painting a certain amount. They should give people freebies like that for painting their armies.

If you dont like to paint, or cannot, play a card game, my position. Sorry to offend some few posters, but ... I would not consider a game with anyone who does not invest in this area of the hobby. Too little time in this one life to spend entertaining excuses. Just not for me.

40K is a game, not an art exhibition.

 jeff white wrote:
If you dont like to paint, or cannot, play a card game, my position. Sorry to offend some few posters, but ... I would not consider a game with anyone who does not invest in this area of the hobby. Too little time in this one life to spend entertaining excuses. Just not for me.

If you like to ride BMX bikes but dont Dirt track why even bother?
If you like to skateboard but not Vert why even bother?
If you like electric Guitar but not Acoustic why play them?
If you like working on car engines but not body work them why be a mechanic?

This is how you sound. Just bc someone likes some aspects of a hobby and not others doesn't mean they should stop.

I like the idea of having a motivation to have a fully painted army. I don' t know that awarding victory points was the best way to do it.

Perhaps granting an extra 1or 2 Command Points would have been better.

 oni wrote:
I like the idea of having a motivation to have a fully painted army. I don' t know that awarding victory points was the best way to do it.

Perhaps granting an extra 1or 2 Command Points would have been better.

If that rule was implemented, "Rome would burn" so too speak

 Shas'O Ky'husa wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:
How is it not incompetence? Would you disagree that Howling Griffons are a much harder army to paint?

What does that have to do with anything? The goal is to have all miniatures be at least tabletop standard, not to provide bonus points for attempting a more difficult scheme.

So why does the person with the more impressive scheme only get the same amount? If a player gets VP just for having three colors, why isn't there a bonus for someone doing a more difficult scheme?

It's the stupidest rule I've seen this decade. Some of us are here to hobby, not to grind out sloppy paintjobs to have an even shot at winning games.

 oni wrote:
I like the idea of having a motivation to have a fully painted army. I don' t know that awarding victory points was the best way to do it.

Perhaps granting an extra 1or 2 Command Points would have been better.

A VP bonus is perfect because it is utterly meaningless. All you need to do to play the hypothetical 'how would this game have gone if it weren't for this rule?' is to just subtract 10VP as appropriate. If you lose the game by 5VP because your opponent's army was painted, congratulations, you actually won. If you're playing a casual game with no stakes that ought to be all you need, unless you really get wrapped around the axle about GW officially declaring you won.

Granting a command point bonus actually affects gameplay and makes it impossible to separate out its effects.

 CynosureEldar wrote:
It's the stupidest rule I've seen this decade. Some of us are here to hobby, not to grind out sloppy paintjobs to have an even shot at winning games.

Painting is part of the hobby mate.

 Grimtuff wrote:

 CynosureEldar wrote:
It's the stupidest rule I've seen this decade. Some of us are here to hobby, not to grind out sloppy paintjobs to have an even shot at winning games.

Painting is part of the hobby mate.

Painting is not part of gaming. If you are painting while playing a game with me, I would ask you to put the brush down and focus on the game at hand.

To SOME folk, painting is an essential part of the overall hobby. For others, it is not.

 JNAProductions wrote:

 Grimtuff wrote:

 CynosureEldar wrote:
It's the stupidest rule I've seen this decade. Some of us are here to hobby, not to grind out sloppy paintjobs to have an even shot at winning games.

Painting is part of the hobby mate.

Painting is not part of gaming. If you are painting while playing a game with me, I would ask you to put the brush down and focus on the game at hand.

To SOME folk, painting is an essential part of the overall hobby. For others, it is not.

That's not what he wrote though. Read it again.

I was responding to you. And to Cynosure? They’re probably like me and don’t enjoy painting. So it’s not part of their hobby.

 JNAProductions wrote:
I was responding to you. And to Cynosure? They’re probably like me and don’t enjoy painting. So it’s not part of their hobby.

Bully for you. That's not what the rest of the wargaming world at large thinks though.

Okay. Why should that matter to me?

Lots of people enjoy painting. That’s good-but I am not one of them.
Some people won’t play against or with unpainted minis-that’s fine, we won’t play each other.

Just because a lot of people like something doesn’t mean I have to.

 JNAProductions wrote:


Just because a lot of people like something doesn’t mean I have to.

I tried helping you with that and got crickets. You clearly don't want to learn, so I suggest you stop pissing into the wind.

 Grimtuff wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:


Just because a lot of people like something doesn’t mean I have to.

I tried helping you with that and got crickets. You clearly don't want to learn, so I suggest you stop pissing into the wind.

Can you explain?

I and several others provided several pieces of advice for you in the other threads on how and why exactly you might not like painting and it can be made far far easier, but it was all ignored.

 Grimtuff wrote:
I and several others provided several pieces of advice for you in the other threads on how and why exactly you might not like painting and it can be made far far easier, but it was all ignored.

Some people just don't like things dude. You can give me all the advice on how to enjoy watching basketball on the TV but I'll never enjoy it.

 Grimtuff wrote:
I and several others provided several pieces of advice for you in the other threads on how and why exactly you might not like painting and it can be made far far easier, but it was all ignored.

Why is "I don't like painting" a problem to be solved?
This is a hobby we participate in for fun-if parts of it aren't fun for you, you don't need to participate in that part of it.

If you love to paint, but hate to game, then I don't expect you to play a game-why would you? It's not fun for you.

Answering to Grimtuff last post:

Because they are either trolling or they are firm
adherents of solipsism.

I really wish it was the former, but I suspect is the latter :(

Vatsetis wrote:
Because they are either trolling or they are firm adherents of solipsism.

I really wish it was the former, but I suspect is the latter :(

I am not trolling. I simply don't like to paint. There is no need to insult me for not having the same interests.

"Not liking to paint" its not an appropiate answer to the current debate unless you are trolling or you either believe yourselve to be the only being with agency in the universe (IE:solipsism).

Vatsetis wrote:
"Not liking to paint" its not an appropiate answer to the current debate unless you are trolling or you either believe yourselve to be the only being with agency in the universe (IE:solipsism).

No? When I participate in the hobby, I am not required to participate in every facet.
Just because I enjoy the game, the lore, and the modeling doesn't mean I need to enjoy the painting, the novels, the comics, the fanworks, or any other facet. If you are offended by me not having painted models, then you don't need to play me-but there's no reason to insult me for enjoying the overall 40k hobby differently from you.

I suppose your words are factually correct.

Thats not what the current debate its about, sadly.

Participate in 90% of the hobby (though more like 66%) and get 90% of the score.

Participate in 100% of the hobby, get 100% of the score. No judgment, no argument, just the way it is.

Fwiw: we've been doing it as progress points for years instead of some totalitarian nonsense that we keep creating into some strawman.

You show effort, you get points, regardless of what condition the army is. You slack off, you stand the CHANCE at getting a light ribbing and some laughing. We know when we don't put in effort we know we could have, and this rule just holds that attitude to account. It is not made to shame anyone else, especially new and/or infirm. Jumping to those lengths typically means your argument is flawed from the start.

Vatsetis wrote:
Answering to Grimtuff last post:

Because they are either trolling or they are firm
adherents of solipsism.

I really wish it was the former, but I suspect is the latter :(

nice projecting LMAO.

Purifying Tempest wrote:
Participate in 90% of the hobby (though more like 66%) and get 90% of the score.

Participate in 100% of the hobby, get 100% of the score. No judgment, no argument, just the way it is.

Fwiw: we've been doing it as progress points for years instead of some totalitarian nonsense that we keep creating into some strawman.

You show effort, you get points, regardless of what condition the army is. You slack off, you stand the CHANCE at getting a light ribbing and some laughing. We know when we don't put in effort we know we could have, and this rule just holds that attitude to account. It is not made to shame anyone else, especially new and/or infirm. Jumping to those lengths typically means your argument is flawed from the start.

So, drop a couple hundred dollars on a painting service, and you've got 100% participation in the hobby?
That's how this works?

I've never come across it being played so must admit I forgot it was a rule.

It mostly seems like a oddly ham fisted way to discourage people being able to put the new hotness on the table straight away. Problem is the latest broken list/faction usually wins by more then 10 VP so it doesn't really discourage much.

It also seems odd to try and force the painting and playing aspects of the hobby to share a scoring system. I doubt anyone looses 10% of their score in Painting Competitions because their latest creation hasn't played a game yet.

If some one was playing it I'd be happy to do so however, it's in the rules.

 catbarf wrote:

 oni wrote:
I like the idea of having a motivation to have a fully painted army. I don' t know that awarding victory points was the best way to do it.

Perhaps granting an extra 1or 2 Command Points would have been better.

A VP bonus is perfect because it is utterly meaningless. All you need to do to play the hypothetical 'how would this game have gone if it weren't for this rule?' is to just subtract 10VP as appropriate. If you lose the game by 5VP because your opponent's army was painted, congratulations, you actually won. If you're playing a casual game with no stakes that ought to be all you need, unless you really get wrapped around the axle about GW officially declaring you won.

Granting a command point bonus actually affects gameplay and makes it impossible to separate out its effects.

This makes sense, but I think winning the game because of the Painted Army 10VP's can be a feel bad moment for both players. The loser feels cheated out of a win and the winners win feels hallow. I'm sure it has even lead to some salty arguments amongst the players.

I think that because it's impossible to directly correlate an additional 1 or 2 CP to winning that it's a better solution even it is still imperfect.

Voss wrote:

Purifying Tempest wrote:
Participate in 90% of the hobby (though more like 66%) and get 90% of the score.

Participate in 100% of the hobby, get 100% of the score. No judgment, no argument, just the way it is.

Fwiw: we've been doing it as progress points for years instead of some totalitarian nonsense that we keep creating into some strawman.

You show effort, you get points, regardless of what condition the army is. You slack off, you stand the CHANCE at getting a light ribbing and some laughing. We know when we don't put in effort we know we could have, and this rule just holds that attitude to account. It is not made to shame anyone else, especially new and/or infirm. Jumping to those lengths typically means your argument is flawed from the start.

So, drop a couple hundred dollars on a painting service, and you've got 100% participation in the hobby?
That's how this works?

Beautiful thing about a standard is it doesn't care how it is applied. You either met it or you didn't. Your methods of attaining the standard means little to me. If you have short time and deep wallets, whatever man.

I can withhold my judgment on the topic because that is another argument entirely and it is bad form to shift goalposts with the ground erodes under a position.

But surely if its about participation, and bettering yourself and not being lazy, then just buying your way to completion isn't any better than not painting, right?

That's been the crux of the argument the whole time, hasn't it? Non-painters just aren't pulling their own weight and making things bad for everyone?

Same with soldiers who fail a PT test, or cheaters who wish to game the rules for an advantage. None of them are meeting the standard. You know what it is, and how you get there is another topic. Some say hard work, others use other methods. We all live with those decisions, and fortunately it is not me who has to live with the inevitable judgment for your actions (why would I care? The hobby is better, after all, and I upheld my standards).

But still, we're getting off of the topic, and the repeated attempts could be telling.

Last saturday I had a game and the other player and I had one of these rare discussions about this rule.
The discussion followed the same pattern most discussions follow at our gaming tables. One player arguments why the other player should have an advantage, the other player arguments why he doesn't want this advantage and does not like the rule which would favor him.
This time my opponent had most models unpainted and told me I should get 10 VP for my painted army. I did not want them and wanted to play without the rule. After a short argument I was lucky to remember that this meaningless GW "Battle ready" standard grants 10 VP only with textured bases, so I could point to some bases of mine which did not meet GW's painting standard. Therefore I got my will and at last did not get 10 VPs.

If my opponent feels like painting all of his miniatures I will enjoy the looks of them. If he does not paint them, I just don't care, my first priority is playing the game, my second priority is a nice conversation while playing, my third priority is good beer and unhealthy food while gaming. Don't know, perhaps looking at nicely painted miniatures of my opponent is somewhere near priorities 8-10? Doesn't matter enough to me to think about it any further.

Voss wrote:
But surely if its about participation, and bettering yourself and not being lazy, then just buying your way to completion isn't any better than not painting, right?

That's been the crux of the argument the whole time, hasn't it? Non-painters just aren't pulling their own weight and making things bad for everyone?

Why do you put such an effort in being so ofuscated?

Do you really thing that comissioning a paint job and in doing so making the hobby more beutifull for everyone while helping a fellow hobbist (as many comission painters are) is equal to bringing your grey tide to the table and make the table and fellow gamer army look like poo no matter how much effort it was put on them??

This solipsism view (ie: its my hobby and I **** it how I like) is very, very childish.

The unpainted crowd is simply tolerated, sometimes there are good reasons not to paint your minis, but if your "reason" is "I dont care", you are most likely a toxic element amongst your gamming community (just like WAAC or a male chauvinist, which are also usually tolerated in order to maintain a bigger community).

You assume that EVERYONE feels the same you do.
Not everyone does-there are plenty of people fine with grey models.

 JNAProductions wrote:
You assume that EVERYONE feels the same you do.
Not everyone does-there are plenty of people fine with grey models.

But the question is: do we, the community, hold them to a different standard? That's the reduction of the argument isn't it?

Purifying Tempest wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
You assume that EVERYONE feels the same you do.
Not everyone does-there are plenty of people fine with grey models.

But the question is: do we, the community, hold them to a different standard? That's the reduction of the argument isn't it?

And the answer to that is: Wargaming groups are not nearly as homogenous as this question implies.

For some groups, having a fully painted army is an absolute requirement, and that's fine.

For others, what matters is making progress - those models were unpainted last month, now they have the main areas base coated, and next month they'll have shading and the details picked out. And that's fine.

And for some groups, painting is literally irrelevant - they view the painting and the gaming sides of the hobby as completely separate and see no issue with people choosing to play with unpainted models. And that is also fine.

To say "we the community" assumes that all groups are part of the same overall community, and quite frankly they're not. Sure they're on the same Venn diagram and there's definitely an overlap, but they're still distinct. As long as any given group (ie the people in that group) is happy with their approach (the approach taken by others in that group), what right does anyone else (a part of a different group) have to say they're doing it wrong?

And that's the beauty: the answer can be nuanced. We can choose to enforce the standard just as readily as we can disregard it.

At the end of the day, it is simply a matter of how do you feel about it? And what you plan to do about it. I won't make you paint any more than you'll let me skate away with a win because I was fully painted. What ever happened to the convention of both players walking away happy? Why can't the painted guy feel he won because he engaged in all aspects while the unpainted guy knows he was tactically more prepared? I don't think the community exists in a binary, I know I certainly don't. I have my standard, but I'm willing to listen to yours.

At the end of the day, all we can do is be honest with ourselves and our opponents in what will help both of us walk away happy.

GW clearly articulated the issue. Do you and your mates want to enforce it or not? Are you willing to have the hard talk about why? Are you willing to respect "no, I don't agree" for an answer?

GW never articulated an issue. They wanted you to buy their paints LOL

EviscerationPlague wrote:
GW never articulated an issue. They wanted you to buy their paints LOL

Ascribing motive. Not really relevant speculation for the topic either. If anything: GW and FLGS have relaxed over the years and there's now a gateway to bringing an unpainted army into many events they were previously banned in. You just have to accept 90 as a ceiling instead of 100. And fortunately, if you want that 90+, or feel you need it, you know how to go and get it. Why should they have to lower the standard more?

Purifying Tempest wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:
GW never articulated an issue. They wanted you to buy their paints LOL

Ascribing motive. Not really relevant speculation for the topic either. If anything: GW and FLGS have relaxed over the years and there's now a gateway to bringing an unpainted army into many events they were previously banned in. You just have to accept 90 as a ceiling instead of 100. And fortunately, if you want that 90+, or feel you need it, you know how to go and get it. Why should they have to lower the standard more?

Ascribing motive when the company released a new line of paints for supposed "ease of painting" for the edition where you lose points for not painting?

It's pretty fething obvious LOL

Maybe they wanted people to stop barking about the barriers to entry and developed a product that could get results regardless of skill level? Surely they'd monetize it, but ascribing some loony profit above all else motive is pretty disingenuous given that GW has been holding the bar for decades. They've created many tools to assist hobbyists to overcome whatever barriers they may have, shouldn't they make a dollar or two for making the job easier?

Regardless, their stance hasn't changed, they just vocalized it finally and the community has melted down over it between two camps that can't budge from the extremes to meet each other somewhere in between.

Like the other poll about what level of painting do I expect from my opponent? The answer is 0. But it fails to articulate that my standard for myself is closer to an 8 or 9.

Would it make my day if someone made the effort to tickle my eyeballs with paint on their toys? Sure thing, it is a definite feel good for me, and I want to give my opponent that same feeling in case he values that as well.

Would it ruin the game to play against an out of the box mass of grey? Nope. Probably may have a chat about what's holding the player up, but no judgment. It is a simple exchange of dialog where I am happy to hear "I don't like it". Good deal, move on. I can tally the 10 in my head if it makes me feel better, or I can just focus on making the most out of our time together. Like a human would do.

EviscerationPlague wrote:
GW never articulated an issue. They wanted you to buy their paints LOL

And yet third-party tournaments with no sales motive have even stricter rules than GW. The obvious answer here is that profit is not the motive, having more aesthetically appealing armies is.

Can I get a confirmation yet that Shas'O is Canadian Sgt Bob?

 Grimtuff wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
I was responding to you. And to Cynosure? They’re probably like me and don’t enjoy painting. So it’s not part of their hobby.

Bully for you. That's not what the rest of the wargaming world at large thinks though.

You’re not paying attention to the threads around here if you think it’s as one-sided as everyone else saying painting is a mandatory part of the hobby.

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Can I get a confirmation yet that Shas'O is Canadian Sgt Bob?

I'm not, so please don't try to blame me for someone else's argument.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

DeathKorp_Rider wrote:
You’re not paying attention to the threads around here if you think it’s as one-sided as everyone else saying painting is a mandatory part of the hobby.

40k =/= the wargaming hobby. 40k unfortunately has some level of tolerance for unpainted models (but not in organized events), the miniatures hobby as a whole doesn't. Ask this question in a historical-focused community and the results will be overwhelmingly in favor of painting requirements that are far stricter than a mere 10 VP out of 100.

That exactly what a Canadian guilty person would say

Purifying Tempest wrote:
Participate in 90% of the hobby (though more like 66%) and get 90% of the score.

Participate in 100% of the hobby, get 100% of the score. No judgment, no argument, just the way it is.

Fwiw: we've been doing it as progress points for years instead of some totalitarian nonsense that we keep creating into some strawman.

You show effort, you get points, regardless of what condition the army is. You slack off, you stand the CHANCE at getting a light ribbing and some laughing. We know when we don't put in effort we know we could have, and this rule just holds that attitude to account. It is not made to shame anyone else, especially new and/or infirm. Jumping to those lengths typically means your argument is flawed from the start.

100% of the hobby? Really? You think the hobby is limited to assembling, painting and playing only? Or have you been cosplaying while editing your lore videos about your fanfic-based tattoos?

You have a very narrow idea of what the hobby is and how other people enjoy it. What you like is 100% of the hobby, and everything else doesn’t count, does it?

How about this: making a rule to make many participants in the hobby feel unappreciated is alienating and makes the hobby less welcoming.

Purifying Tempest wrote:
Participate in 90% of the hobby (though more like 66%) and get 90% of the score.

Participate in 100% of the hobby, get 100% of the score. No judgment, no argument, just the way it is.

Grossly flawed for two reasons:

1. Why does anyone have to participate in 100% of the hobby. Is reading Black Library books part of the hobby, 'cause I don't read them. Do I need to play every game GW makes to get my gamerscore to 1000? Utterly absurd notion.

2. Why should the score for a game factor painting in at all? And if so, why does it not also factor in adherence to fluff? If I haven't marked my troops with the exact canon-specific transfers/decals, should I be marked down?

You can have a painting score to judge painting, and that's it. Paint shouldn't play a role in who wins the damned game.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
2. Why should the score for a game factor painting in at all?

Because you're using those unpainted models in the game. Whether or not you read a 40k novel outside of the game is not directly related to the events happening in the game.

Paint shouldn't play a role in who wins the damned game.

Fortunately there is an easy solution: follow the social norms, bring a fully painted army, and never have to worry about it.

 Shas'O Ky'husa wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
2. Why should the score for a game factor painting in at all?

Because you're using those unpainted models in the game. Whether or not you read a 40k novel outside of the game is not directly related to the events happening in the game.

Paint shouldn't play a role in who wins the damned game.

Fortunately there is an easy solution: follow the social norms, bring a fully painted army, and never have to worry about it.

Well there's people not following societal norms via not showering, but they're still scored the same.

EviscerationPlague wrote:
Well there's people not following societal norms via not showering, but they're still scored the same.

Ok? The solution is to ban those people from the store/club entirely, not to allow them to play but deduct VP. If you want to treat painting the same way we treat nurgle cultists that's fine with me.

 Shas'O Ky'husa wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:
Well there's people not following societal norms via not showering, but they're still scored the same.

Ok? The solution is to ban those people from the store/club entirely, not to allow them to play but deduct VP. If you want to treat painting the same way we treat nurgle cultists that's fine with me.

this.

as for GW putting out contrast paints right along the time they took a stab at "clarifying" panting levels I see that as more GW attempting to advertise to a niche, the "I'd like to paint but I'm bad at it" crowd

BrianDavion wrote:

 Shas'O Ky'husa wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:
Well there's people not following societal norms via not showering, but they're still scored the same.

Ok? The solution is to ban those people from the store/club entirely, not to allow them to play but deduct VP. If you want to treat painting the same way we treat nurgle cultists that's fine with me.

this.

as for GW putting out contrast paints right along the time they took a stab at "clarifying" panting levels I see that as more GW attempting to advertise to a niche, the "I'd like to paint but I'm bad at it" crowd

When at the same time the edition they release it for is the one where you have to paint or lose 10VP?

Holy hell you're naive enough to be sold anything.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Shas'O Ky'husa wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:
Well there's people not following societal norms via not showering, but they're still scored the same.

Ok? The solution is to ban those people from the store/club entirely, not to allow them to play but deduct VP. If you want to treat painting the same way we treat nurgle cultists that's fine with me.

They still score the same when they play a game though despite not being in line with your societal norm, yes or no?

EviscerationPlague wrote:
When at the same time the edition they release it for is the one where you have to paint or lose 10VP?

Holy hell you're naive enough to be sold anything.

Are you just going to continue ignoring the fact that GW is lagging the trend of every major tournament banning unpainted models entirely? Or the fact that contrast requires fewer paint purchases than the traditional system, so GW would be introducing this supposed sales incentive at the same time as a reduction in the sales generated from paint?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

EviscerationPlague wrote:
They still score the same when they play a game though despite not being in line with your societal norm, yes or no?

They don't score at all because they are kicked out of the store/club before getting to play.

But, like I said, if you want to replace the 10 VP with a stricter penalty then I'm fine with treating painting the same way as basic cleanliness. Show up with an unpainted army, get kicked out and told not to come back until you finish painting.

EviscerationPlague wrote:
When at the same time the edition they release it for is the one where you have to paint or lose 10VP?

Ah, this mis-characterisation of the rule again - you don't "lose" 10VP if you don't complete the tertiary objective, you just don't get the 10 bonus VP.

If you fail to make any effort towards a primary or secondary objective in a Matched Play game - that you could've scored if you tried to - are you going to blame GW for you "losing" up to 15VP there, too? Or would you acknowledge the lack of VP as the consequences of your own inactions?

The poll didn't reflect my opinion. "I find it sad that so many people play grey horde or stealth army that GW had to put an in-game benefit in to attempt to curb the behavior."

 Just Tony wrote:
The poll didn't reflect my opinion. "I find it sad that so many people play grey horde or stealth army that GW had to put an in-game benefit in to attempt to curb the behavior."

That fits under “other”

 Dysartes wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:
When at the same time the edition they release it for is the one where you have to paint or lose 10VP?

Ah, this mis-characterisation of the rule again - you don't "lose" 10VP if you don't complete the tertiary objective, you just don't get the 10 bonus VP.

If you fail to make any effort towards a primary or secondary objective in a Matched Play game - that you could've scored if you tried to - are you going to blame GW for you "losing" up to 15VP there, too? Or would you acknowledge the lack of VP as the consequences of your own inactions?

You are being a sophist for no reason. Losing or gaining 10 victory points in this is the same exact thing. It's a zero sum game, the enemy gains 10 victory points, or you lose 10, and it's the same outcome. If both players started with 10 points, then it was taken away, it would be the exact same effect. Painting for an extra 10 points is nowhere near equivalent to not playing the objective, because one happens in the game, and one is an entirely of the board hobby.

My Dark Angels fanfiction should get me 10 victory points, and it's not you losing 10, it's you not getting 10 because of your inaction. Same with me cosplaying a Space Marine, yelling Waaagh, and having a better beard than you.

If those "soft scores" were to be codified into the official rulebook you should sustain the penalty for not fullfilling it.

If you accept the frame of the scoring sistem you accept the 10Pv reward for painted armies.

Do you modify the size of the objectives of the GT missions? No? Well house rulling no painting reward is similar.

Some people might be surprised, but for many having to play against an unpainted army is as uncomfortable as for others might be having to cosplay during a game... The 10pv reward is just a very partial compensation for what they suffer.

 TheBestBucketHead wrote:
My Dark Angels fanfiction should get me 10 victory points

Your fanfiction does not exist on the table. Your unpainted miniatures do.

And I will once again remind you that painted miniatures are the expected standard in miniature wargaming. Virtually all organized events require them, and unlike the mere 10 VP at stake in a non-tournament game there is zero tolerance for failing to meet that rule. And the same is true in historical games, if your army is not painted and historically accurate you don't play. It's only in casual kitchen table 40k that anyone even attempts to use unpainted miniatures. So yes, it is absolutely appropriate to make meeting that expected standard part of the normal scoring system and if you don't like the standard maybe miniature wargaming isn't the right hobby for you. There's no shame in playing map-based wargames with cardboard tokens and there are plenty of great games that use that system.

 Shas'O Ky'husa wrote:

 TheBestBucketHead wrote:
My Dark Angels fanfiction should get me 10 victory points

Your fanfiction does not exist on the table. Your unpainted miniatures do.

And I will once again remind you that painted miniatures are the expected standard in miniature wargaming. Virtually all organized events require them, and unlike the mere 10 VP at stake in a non-tournament game there is zero tolerance for failing to meet that rule. And the same is true in historical games, if your army is not painted and historically accurate you don't play. It's only in casual kitchen table 40k that anyone even attempts to use unpainted miniatures. So yes, it is absolutely appropriate to make meeting that expected standard part of the normal scoring system and if you don't like the standard maybe miniature wargaming isn't the right hobby for you. There's no shame in playing map-based wargames with cardboard tokens and there are plenty of great games that use that system.

They hated Shas'O Ky'husa because he told the truth.

Nah, we hate him cause he's a blatant troll.

 Sim-Life wrote:
Nah, we hate him cause he's a blatant troll.

I do not think you know what trolling is.

 Sim-Life wrote:
Nah, we hate him cause he's a blatant troll.

So says the guy who thinks anger and insults are a substitute for understanding statistics and poll design.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 blood reaper wrote:

 Sim-Life wrote:
Nah, we hate him cause he's a blatant troll.

I do not think you know what trolling is.

For him "trolling" is defined as "anything that makes me face even mild criticism for not painting".

 Shas'O Ky'husa wrote:

Your fanfiction does not exist on the table. Your unpainted miniatures do.

And I will once again remind you that painted miniatures are the expected standard in miniature wargaming. Virtually all organized events require them, and unlike the mere 10 VP at stake in a non-tournament game there is zero tolerance for failing to meet that rule. And the same is true in historical games, if your army is not painted and historically accurate you don't play. It's only in casual kitchen table 40k that anyone even attempts to use unpainted miniatures. So yes, it is absolutely appropriate to make meeting that expected standard part of the normal scoring system and if you don't like the standard maybe miniature wargaming isn't the right hobby for you. There's no shame in playing map-based wargames with cardboard tokens and there are plenty of great games that use that system.

Because events have sponsors, and sports are often stores or paint studios. Of course they, just like GW love the idea of painting models being required. The more a person invests, both time and money, the bigger the chance they will stay no matter what happens to or in the game. And if on top of that you manage to propagate a culture where it is not playing the game that is the game, but everything else then you no longer have to care what rules you write or what state the meta game it is in. If painting is so essential to table top gaming, then why don't other games have VP for paint too?

Also the mere 10VP comment is strange. If you play a game vs a better army, if it gets 10VP and you don't you may as well not play the game at all. Also pre 9th ed, I have seen a ton of unpainted or never finished armies. And no one here plays at home, everyone played at the old store.

 TheBestBucketHead wrote:

 Dysartes wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:
When at the same time the edition they release it for is the one where you have to paint or lose 10VP?

Ah, this mis-characterisation of the rule again - you don't "lose" 10VP if you don't complete the tertiary objective, you just don't get the 10 bonus VP.

If you fail to make any effort towards a primary or secondary objective in a Matched Play game - that you could've scored if you tried to - are you going to blame GW for you "losing" up to 15VP there, too? Or would you acknowledge the lack of VP as the consequences of your own inactions?

You are being a sophist for no reason. Losing or gaining 10 victory points in this is the same exact thing. It's a zero sum game, the enemy gains 10 victory points, or you lose 10, and it's the same outcome. If both players started with 10 points, then it was taken away, it would be the exact same effect. Painting for an extra 10 points is nowhere near equivalent to not playing the objective, because one happens in the game, and one is an entirely of the board hobby.

The baseline maximum VP total for primary and secondary objectives in a Matched Play game is assumed to be 90VP - from memory, some secondaries could cause a lower maximum, but I can't think of any way you could end up with a higher maximum.

If you were losing 10 VP for not being painted, your max available would be 80VP, not 90.

As you score a tertiary objective by having a painted army, your maximum potential score increases from 90 to 100VP.

There's also nothing zero sum about the painting points - if I score them, there's nothing stopping you from scoring them as well, aside from your own actions.

And while I appreciate you calling my arguments clever, I'd strongly disagree with the characterisation of them as deceptive or fallacious. Use of language is important for clarity, and confusing bonus and penalty really muddies the water of the debate.

Karol wrote:
If painting is so essential to table top gaming, then why don't other games have VP for paint too?

Depends on the game. For some they don't have paint scoring because the community standard is that unpainted models are not permitted at all, therefore everyone would get the same 10 VP. For other games, like the FFG Star Wars games, they don't have paint scoring because the models come painted out of the box. For games like Warmachine they don't have paint scoring because they're trying to attract a WAAC audience that hates painting because it reduces the value of their models on ebay when they're trading for the next netlist. But I don't think it's any coincidence that the games with the least painting have the lowest player counts. Look at Warmachine, a failure of a game in the middle of a complete reboot of the rules and a transition to 3d printing because they can no longer afford normal production.

 Shas'O Ky'husa wrote:

 Sim-Life wrote:
Nah, we hate him cause he's a blatant troll.

So says the guy who thinks anger and insults are a substitute for understanding statistics and poll design.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 blood reaper wrote:

 Sim-Life wrote:
Nah, we hate him cause he's a blatant troll.

I do not think you know what trolling is.

For him "trolling" is defined as "anything that makes me face even mild criticism for not painting".

Except I've stated several times that I'm a fairly prolific painter. Also way to resort to "u mad" as a retort. When you actually have an argument that is actually substantial I'll reply but so far you've just been gaking up the forum with opinion stated as fact.

 Dysartes wrote:

 TheBestBucketHead wrote:

 Dysartes wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:
When at the same time the edition they release it for is the one where you have to paint or lose 10VP?

Ah, this mis-characterisation of the rule again - you don't "lose" 10VP if you don't complete the tertiary objective, you just don't get the 10 bonus VP.

If you fail to make any effort towards a primary or secondary objective in a Matched Play game - that you could've scored if you tried to - are you going to blame GW for you "losing" up to 15VP there, too? Or would you acknowledge the lack of VP as the consequences of your own inactions?

You are being a sophist for no reason. Losing or gaining 10 victory points in this is the same exact thing. It's a zero sum game, the enemy gains 10 victory points, or you lose 10, and it's the same outcome. If both players started with 10 points, then it was taken away, it would be the exact same effect. Painting for an extra 10 points is nowhere near equivalent to not playing the objective, because one happens in the game, and one is an entirely of the board hobby.

The baseline maximum VP total for primary and secondary objectives in a Matched Play game is assumed to be 90VP - from memory, some secondaries could cause a lower maximum, but I can't think of any way you could end up with a higher maximum.

If you were losing 10 VP for not being painted, your max available would be 80VP, not 90.

As you score a tertiary objective by having a painted army, your maximum potential score increases from 90 to 100VP.

There's also nothing zero sum about the painting points - if I score them, there's nothing stopping you from scoring them as well, aside from your own actions.

And while I appreciate you calling my arguments clever, I'd strongly disagree with the characterisation of them as deceptive or fallacious. Use of language is important for clarity, and confusing bonus and penalty really muddies the water of the debate.

You are losing VP for not being painted. The max goes from 100 to 90. Why does losing VP have to go from 90 to 80? Or is it that there's a distinction without a difference? And it's not zero sum for painitng points, it's zero sum for the total game points. You say language is important for discussion, then rely on talking points with no actual difference, only semantic issues, instead of the actual arguments being made.

If there are two armies, the total points able to be scored is 100. The one who does not have a painted army can only score 90, and the person who does can score 100, and has a 10 point lead. Whether or not it's a penalty or a bonus, it's a difference that shouldn't be there, because it is not earned by playing the game, it is earned by doing something almost entirely unrelated to the game. Again, if I were to write up lore about my army, make a fanfiction, and dress up in cosplay, while having a better beard, does that mean I should score more points, and thus penalize my opponent?

 TheBestBucketHead wrote:

 Dysartes wrote:

 TheBestBucketHead wrote:

 Dysartes wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:
When at the same time the edition they release it for is the one where you have to paint or lose 10VP?

Ah, this mis-characterisation of the rule again - you don't "lose" 10VP if you don't complete the tertiary objective, you just don't get the 10 bonus VP.

If you fail to make any effort towards a primary or secondary objective in a Matched Play game - that you could've scored if you tried to - are you going to blame GW for you "losing" up to 15VP there, too? Or would you acknowledge the lack of VP as the consequences of your own inactions?

You are being a sophist for no reason. Losing or gaining 10 victory points in this is the same exact thing. It's a zero sum game, the enemy gains 10 victory points, or you lose 10, and it's the same outcome. If both players started with 10 points, then it was taken away, it would be the exact same effect. Painting for an extra 10 points is nowhere near equivalent to not playing the objective, because one happens in the game, and one is an entirely of the board hobby.

The baseline maximum VP total for primary and secondary objectives in a Matched Play game is assumed to be 90VP - from memory, some secondaries could cause a lower maximum, but I can't think of any way you could end up with a higher maximum.

If you were losing 10 VP for not being painted, your max available would be 80VP, not 90.

As you score a tertiary objective by having a painted army, your maximum potential score increases from 90 to 100VP.

There's also nothing zero sum about the painting points - if I score them, there's nothing stopping you from scoring them as well, aside from your own actions.

And while I appreciate you calling my arguments clever, I'd strongly disagree with the characterisation of them as deceptive or fallacious. Use of language is important for clarity, and confusing bonus and penalty really muddies the water of the debate.

You are losing VP for not being painted. The max goes from 100 to 90. Why does losing VP have to go from 90 to 80? Or is it that there's a distinction without a difference? And it's not zero sum for painitng points, it's zero sum for the total game points. You say language is important for discussion, then rely on talking points with no actual difference, only semantic issues, instead of the actual arguments being made.

If there are two armies, the total points able to be scored is 100. The one who does not have a painted army can only score 90, and the person who does can score 100, and has a 10 point lead. Whether or not it's a penalty or a bonus, it's a difference that shouldn't be there, because it is not earned by playing the game, it is earned by doing something almost entirely unrelated to the game. Again, if I were to write up lore about my army, make a fanfiction, and dress up in cosplay, while having a better beard, does that mean I should score more points, and thus penalize my opponent?

If you're playing certain AoS armies, yes. Which is an interesting point for the pedant harping on about this. When AoS launched and had rules benefits for things like having the biggest moustache, being arrogant like a High Elf, complaining about stuff like a Dwarf etc these rules were all totally fine to you guys? I mean GW thought they were good enough to include in the game so that makes them part of the hobby and not taking part in the stupid roleplay rules means you're not playing the game properly?

Stupid roleplay, for you!!

If someone wants to roleplay by the AOS rulebook how dare you judge his hobby!!!

Are you a totalutarian ****head?????

Vatsetis wrote:
Stupid roleplay, for you!!

If someone wants to roleplay by the AOS rulebook how dare you judge his hobby!!!

Are you a totalutarian ****head?????

So when 10th Ed introduces a rule for tyranids that gives VP for the player literally eating killed models then you're on board?

If someone wants to roleplay, I won't judge them. However, if I don't roleplay, I'm penalized. I'm not sure why I'm explaining this to a clear troll account.

I like it. GW games aren't good enough wargames to be serious about. A lot of the attraction is background and look. The parking lot detracts from that, but an unpainted parking lot kills any desire to play.

We're back to trying to (mis)characterize each other and arguing over standards that simply don't exist (strawmanning).

Remember, this isn't about cosplaying, lore, or anything else not listed in the book, those are all brought in to deflect or distract from the real question: do you think it is okay to hold players to a lower standard or do you wish others to hold you to said lower standard?

It is a simple question which should just require a yes or a no. I think many, many people hold themselves to a higher standard than they expect from others, which is why you'll see responses like: my army will be painted, but I don't expect my opponent to do the same. And like I said earlier: the 10VP rule is more inclusive to the community as it allows the ones who hate painting to still play on the table, albeit at a slight disadvantage. I've still yet to be convinced that Johnny's off meta army is going to run a close game against Spike's GT winning list... or enough to make the 10 matter.

You're right. Spike's GT winning list, fully painted, with the extra 10 victory points makes no difference to Johnny's unpainted army. The rule goes both ways. The rule is almost never going to matter, and if it does, it's not a feel good moment for either party.

I don't care what standard people set for me, and my standard for other people is that they do not harm me.

And I don't see how any of my examples were strawmanning. If a rule about beards were included, I'm sure people with amazing beards and painted armies would be very happy. And we have proof that GW would do it, in the Age of Sigmar books. Unless you think shouting Waagh shouldn't benefit the person putting more into the hobby than the other? I mean, if you only participate in 90% of the hobby, you should only get 90% of the points.

Purifying Tempest wrote:
We're back to trying to (mis)characterize each other and arguing over standards that simply don't exist (strawmanning).

No, in game advantages for role playing were a part of the game when AoS launched. They're totally relevant to the conversation because they were rewards for off table actions.

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Can I get a confirmation yet that Shas'O is Canadian Sgt Bob?

It's far more likely the Shas'O and Vatsetis are the same person.

 TheBestBucketHead wrote:
You're right. Spike's GT winning list, fully painted, with the extra 10 victory points makes no difference to Johnny's unpainted army. The rule goes both ways. The rule is almost never going to matter, and if it does, it's not a feel good moment for either party.

I don't care what standard people set for me, and my standard for other people is that they do not harm me.

And I don't see how any of my examples were strawmanning. If a rule about beards were included, I'm sure people with amazing beards and painted armies would be very happy. And we have proof that GW would do it, in the Age of Sigmar books. Unless you think shouting Waagh shouldn't benefit the person putting more into the hobby than the other? I mean, if you only participate in 90% of the hobby, you should only get 90% of the points.

We're strawmanning when we attempt to "win" an argument by trying to shift things in a way to put our opponent in an indefensible position: like saying cosplaying and lore writing are just a slippery slope away if the "pro-painters" have their way. Never once addressing the fact that the painted expectation has been baked into the game's DNA.

I think we all understand it is different strokes for different folks, but don't delude the fact that when you table an unpainted army that you're not meeting an expectation as of as the hobby, and that many times you're expecting an opponent to come off of his standard to entertain the game.

Also: assuming that someone's position is immutable is also a huge mistake. I'm far far less likely to hold a newcomer or infirm person to the same standard in my head that I would hold a ten year veteran. And I think that is a generally shared position as well, and a position that removes so many of the counter arguments.

This is where the internet fails to meet reality: so many of these absolutists fail to live up to their virtue in real life, because our positions are mutable and there is a ton of gray space between the sides where just about everyone lives. That's why I say that the outcome should never be able 10VP, but instead about finding ways for both players to enjoy the table on their own terms: house rules, standards, exclusion of repulsive rules... but that's player by player and game by game.

I don't know a single person that would intentionally poison the feel of the game because a person came to the table gray. It is childish. Now there may be thoughts of condemnation in their head and may think twice about future games, but most people will be courteous enough in the moment to complete the game and try to make it enjoyable. I think that's about as extreme as it gets. But again, I can't worry about what others think and their judgments. All I can do is make sure I meet whatever guidelines the community sets forth.

I've never strawmanned you into saying anything. And you seem to have meant slippery slope, as you clearly said slippery slope just now. Strawmanning is if I pretend you said something you didn't say. Slippery slope is if I say that people who want painted points will want cosplay points, and then yadda, and then yadda yadda.

So, I'm going to give the benefit of the doubt, and assume you misunderstood me, when what I was saying was,

The fact that an off the table activity affects the game is something I am against. To me, painting and having a really nice beard are about the same in what I expect to affect my gaming experience, which is none.

Is that strawmanning or using the slippery slope fallacy? Or is it the slippery slope fallacy when I mention that Games Workshop has done this before, and are liable to do it again?

Fallacies normally compound into each other. Like the strawman who requires cosplay and novelettes to score full points. Then slippery slope that right into my position so that you never have to answer the question of: do you think it is valid to uphold standards? Is it okay for a person to impose their standard on another?

I'm not holding anyone to anything arbitrary. If anything, the only person I take to task for meeting a standard, or not, is myself. But at the end of the day, we all know what it is. GW put it in black and white on glossy paper. So... why is it hard to at least hold oneself to that standard? Or at least acknowledge that like it or not, we aren't meeting it... and why. Your story is your own, and frankly none of my business. But at the end of the day, if you're not looking for the same game I am... isn't it better if we're both honest with each other? If you really hate painting, the onus is on you, because you're in violation of the standard. I can be graceful and accept that in accordance with my own beliefs and my interpretation of your position... and if you callously dip into that well too many times, eventually you'll find one less partner to dance with... and then another... and another... and so on until you're alone on the internet howling about your community being something like the one's Karol brings up. Never once stopping to take accountability in that the reason you've arrived there is that you never showed grace or understanding to other players and went in the direction of absolutism.

Not you specifically, not anyone specifically. Just a very general statement about how being so rigid normally leads to fallout and breakups. Humans have to bend and give, we're all on this rock together. It is how we've evolved over time. Normally autocrats and dictators tend to have some of the worst endings. I work to make my table and community a little better. And I've said many times that I won't hold another player to task for not meeting my expectations, and many times I won't even mention the rule unless it is to someone a bit habitual about breaking it.

I think it is perfectly fine to have standards. And standards are only useful if they are enforced. But that had to be tempered with compassion to understand the point of view opposing yours, which is where I think these threads really go awry.

Standards are necessary for society to function. However, standards from Games Workshop are still arbitrary. Three Colors with Shade and Basing. None of my miniatures are based. I do not get points as per that standard.
However, if your personal standard (you as in the general populace) is to not play against unpainted minis, I don't care, and this discussion has never had anything to do with you. It started because of insults and poor tempers from people who could not fathom the idea that someone dislikes painting minis.
"The standard" itself would be an appeal to popularity fallacy, and you, my friend, seem to only know fallacies by name, and make up their functions as you see fit. If you appeal to popularity, or authority, as in the Games Workshop standard, you need reason to back it up.
Tell me, because you are not forced to play with people, why is your standard, or GW's standard, king?
I refuse to play with people who don't shower, but I don't think you should get 10 points for using soap.

Edit: I should clarify this line.

Tell me, because you are not forced to play with people, why is your standard, or GW's standard, king?

Society has standards, generally, set as laws or social standards, because people have to interact with each other, so the collective gets together and votes, in a modern world, in order to have standards that best represent their needs. However, you are not forced to interact with anyone for 40k. You can play with only your close friends. Tournament standards are fine, because if you want to play in a tournament, you have to interact with others, and thus follow a standard set. Same with even just game stores. But, if neither sets up a standard you must meet, then your standard is arbitrary. In addition, I don't care about Games Workshop, and would be fine if the company failed. Why should I care about the standard they set? I don't even play 40k.
If you hold me to a standard, and I fail to reach it, you can stop talking to me, for any reason, and for any length of time. If I fail to meet Games Workshop's standards in 40k, I lose out on 10 points. But, why? My models are fully painted, but don't use shade or contrast or basing. Why is this not up to standard, despite them being decently painted? Because Games Workshop wanted to sell contrast. Why should their poor standards apply at all? I think it shouldn't be a rule.
However, my issue is due to people insulting the intelligence of people, calling them lazy, insulting my ability to read, etc..

Tresson wrote:

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Can I get a confirmation yet that Shas'O is Canadian Sgt Bob?

It's far more likely the Shas'O and Vatsetis are the same person.

That would be some next level trolling given the discrepancy in English fluency between the two posters.

It's pretty clear SgtBob and Shas'O are the same.

You make a good many points, and I think if we were able to articulate our positions to each other face-to-face, we'd have more in common than not.

In this particular case, popularity is relevant, especially on the micro scale of a local community. What your mates around you want to make the game into is way more important than the opinions of internet warriors who you'll never have to entertain.

That's really all a standard is, too. A collective understanding of what "minimal effort" is defined as. Usually to guard an important pillar, or at least one deemed important.

And at the end of the day, I believe it is less about paint or no paint and more a display of best effort to make the community a hair better by doing what we can. I think people are a bit hasty to pull out negative tags to apply to each other... especially not understanding all of the variables that go into individual positions.

In this case, I've found a peaceful way to exist in the hobby with both camps. And that's simply to do what I believe I can do and not worry about what, or what not, the others have done.

Final thought: appealing to authority is also relevant because we're not arguing the point or morality of the rule. The rule is just that, and calling it out as the standard is perfectly relevant. I'm flexible enough to live in the gray on the rule and either apply it (rarely) or disregard it (frequently), but no matter what I do... i can't change the fact that it is there. And if I bring one model not in compliance to a game where the other player wishes to enforce the rule... all I can do is say "dang, I knew I needed to get that base done". Villainizing the other player just allows me to scapegoat the behavior I knew was substandard from the start. That and ruins the entire experience for me.

I've probably been too on edge, due to dealing with obvious trolls, and personal matters recently. Now that I've actually had a chance to calm down, I think I've been overly rude to you. I'm sorry about that, and I hope you can understand.

Also, I will never base my models, unless I need to, due to issues with the base itself, as basing actually pulls me out of the immersion of a model. I hate seeing trees and rocks everywhere when fighting on a space ship. But that's just me.

 TheBestBucketHead wrote:
I've probably been too on edge, due to dealing with obvious trolls, and personal matters recently. Now that I've actually had a chance to calm down, I think I've been overly rude to you. I'm sorry about that, and I hope you can understand.

Also, I will never base my models, unless I need to, due to issues with the base itself, as basing actually pulls me out of the immersion of a model. I hate seeing trees and rocks everywhere when fighting on a space ship. But that's just me.

Have you considered getting clear acrylic bases? They're great at making your dudes feel like theyre really on the battlefield

 TheBestBucketHead wrote:

 Dysartes wrote:

 TheBestBucketHead wrote:

 Dysartes wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:
When at the same time the edition they release it for is the one where you have to paint or lose 10VP?

Ah, this mis-characterisation of the rule again - you don't "lose" 10VP if you don't complete the tertiary objective, you just don't get the 10 bonus VP.

If you fail to make any effort towards a primary or secondary objective in a Matched Play game - that you could've scored if you tried to - are you going to blame GW for you "losing" up to 15VP there, too? Or would you acknowledge the lack of VP as the consequences of your own inactions?

You are being a sophist for no reason. Losing or gaining 10 victory points in this is the same exact thing. It's a zero sum game, the enemy gains 10 victory points, or you lose 10, and it's the same outcome. If both players started with 10 points, then it was taken away, it would be the exact same effect. Painting for an extra 10 points is nowhere near equivalent to not playing the objective, because one happens in the game, and one is an entirely of the board hobby.

The baseline maximum VP total for primary and secondary objectives in a Matched Play game is assumed to be 90VP - from memory, some secondaries could cause a lower maximum, but I can't think of any way you could end up with a higher maximum.

If you were losing 10 VP for not being painted, your max available would be 80VP, not 90.

As you score a tertiary objective by having a painted army, your maximum potential score increases from 90 to 100VP.

There's also nothing zero sum about the painting points - if I score them, there's nothing stopping you from scoring them as well, aside from your own actions.

And while I appreciate you calling my arguments clever, I'd strongly disagree with the characterisation of them as deceptive or fallacious. Use of language is important for clarity, and confusing bonus and penalty really muddies the water of the debate.

You are losing VP for not being painted. The max goes from 100 to 90. Why does losing VP have to go from 90 to 80? Or is it that there's a distinction without a difference? And it's not zero sum for painitng points, it's zero sum for the total game points. You say language is important for discussion, then rely on talking points with no actual difference, only semantic issues, instead of the actual arguments being made.

"Not gaining" and "losing" are two different things, that's why. Same reason why "not getting a bonus" and "having your pay docked" are different things.

As stated in the post you replied to, the maximum you can score from Primary and Secondary objectives is 90VP. That's your base position, pre-painting. That's the position you would lose VP from if you were losing them for not being painted, and it is the position you gain them from if you have completed the tertiary objective. But you don't lose VPs for not being painted - you just don't earn them.

And, no, the VP system in a game of 40k is not a zero sum game - see below.

 TheBestBucketHead wrote:
If there are two armies, the total points able to be scored is 100. The one who does not have a painted army can only score 90, and the person who does can score 100, and has a 10 point lead. Whether or not it's a penalty or a bonus, it's a difference that shouldn't be there, because it is not earned by playing the game, it is earned by doing something almost entirely unrelated to the game. Again, if I were to write up lore about my army, make a fanfiction, and dress up in cosplay, while having a better beard, does that mean I should score more points, and thus penalize my opponent?

A Matched Play game has a total of 200VP available, if you include the 10VP per side for the tertiary painting objective - if you choose not to use it, there are 180VP available. It just so happens that both players have a hard cap of half of the available VP.

If 40k were a zero sum game, then every VP I earn is one I prevent you from earning. That is the very definition of a zero sum game - if one player gains, the other loses an equal amount, so the sum remains at zero. What Matched Play 40k is is a competitive* non-zero-sum game.

Depending on the scenario, this can be true for Primary objectives - though there is often a way for both sides to score in a given game round - but is false for Secondary objectives (even if they're mirrored), let alone the tertiary painting objective.

As I've stated elsewhere, I do think ti shouldn't be the whole block or nothing - to encourage progress, and assuming the max remained at 10VP, I'd prefer to see it as 1VP per 10% of your points or Power Level (depending on how forces are being assembled) that has reached the Battle Ready marker. Ideally, I'd also move the point where it is determined to before the game, but that's a minor tweak, as well as including a more useful definition of Battle Ready within the core rulebook, if you're going to use the term.

Or look at it this way, when you start the game the painted army already has 10vp and unpainted has 0vp.



Or, ya know don't give a feth about VP in the first place and problem solved, but if you want to play "by the rules" have fun...

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 TheBestBucketHead wrote:
I've probably been too on edge, due to dealing with obvious trolls, and personal matters recently. Now that I've actually had a chance to calm down, I think I've been overly rude to you. I'm sorry about that, and I hope you can understand.

Also, I will never base my models, unless I need to, due to issues with the base itself, as basing actually pulls me out of the immersion of a model. I hate seeing trees and rocks everywhere when fighting on a space ship. But that's just me.

Have you considered getting clear acrylic bases? They're great at making your dudes feel like theyre really on the battlefield

I have thought about that. I've been using the standard Infinity bases, though, as Infinity models have pegs to stands properly on them. I might use clear bases for non metallic minis, however. Maybe for the Horus Heresy if the mechanicum rules are to my liking.

Its a math problem. It doesn't matter when you add or subtract 10. Its entirely the same result.
The game has a hard cap of 90, and it doesn't matter if you don't earn an additional 10, lose 10 from 100, or are robbed of 10. You still get whatever score you got out of 90.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 TheBestBucketHead wrote:
I've probably been too on edge, due to dealing with obvious trolls, and personal matters recently. Now that I've actually had a chance to calm down, I think I've been overly rude to you. I'm sorry about that, and I hope you can understand.

Also, I will never base my models, unless I need to, due to issues with the base itself, as basing actually pulls me out of the immersion of a model. I hate seeing trees and rocks everywhere when fighting on a space ship. But that's just me.

Have you considered getting clear acrylic bases? They're great at making your dudes feel like theyre really on the battlefield

Have to disagree. 'clear' bases look like the models are standing on plastic discs. I find it even more jarring than basic black bases.

 JNAProductions wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
I don't think painting should play a role in victory within the game. How the game is played should be the only thing that determines victory.

This. Even list-building should be, at most, a way to gain some small advantages.

A well-played game with an okay list should trounce a badly played game with a great list.
And in neither case should the paintjobs matter.

Then people can paint their armies and then no one is determining a win by who is painted or not.

I've never painted so much in my life, honestly and I'm not an avid painter. It's good for the hobby as a whole.

 TheBestBucketHead wrote:


I have thought about that. I've been using the standard Infinity bases, though, as Infinity models have pegs to stands properly on them. I might use clear bases for non metallic minis, however. Maybe for the Horus Heresy if the mechanicum rules are to my liking.

i just saw off the pegs and pin my models for infinity, acrylic bases should do the trick for most models (maybe the dumb poses like the tech bee would struggle to stay on tho)


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Voss wrote:

Have to disagree. 'clear' bases look like the models are standing on plastic discs. I find it even more jarring than basic black bases.

well, i personally don't like them, but i've seen a few where the bases werent as noticeable (they didnt have the "frosting" from being lasercut on their edges). I was simply suggesting an option for TheBestBucketHead.

The rule is good to have for tournaments and if people are using it in friendly games then they never were friendly to begin with.

 Eldarsif wrote:
The rule is good to have for tournaments and if people are using it in friendly games then they never were friendly to begin with.

On a personal level I would never give a gak if I "lost" a friendly game because of paint. And even if they were dorks I still wouldn't care. It's so irrelevant and you know who actually won.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Eldarsif wrote:
The rule is good to have for tournaments and if people are using it in friendly games then they never were friendly to begin with.

On a personal level I would never give a gak if I "lost" a friendly game because of paint. And even if they were dorks I still wouldn't care. It's so irrelevant and you know who actually won.

Exactly.

It’s great. This game has multiple parts to it and it rewards players for partaking in all aspects of the hobby. If you want those points they are easy to achieve, if you don’t care then it really isn’t a big deal.

Most competitive sports have rules like this. I played college and minor pro hockey and your team had to have matching home/away jerseys if you didn’t you would forfeit the game. Even though I only play mens league now even in a more casual setting all teams have to have matching jerseys. I actually can’t think of a sport that doesn’t have some sort of “way you look rule”

Asmodios wrote:
It’s great. This game has multiple parts to it and it rewards players for partaking in all aspects of the hobby. If you want those points they are easy to achieve, if you don’t care then it really isn’t a big deal.

Most competitive sports have rules like this. I played college and minor pro hockey and your team had to have matching home/away jerseys if you didn’t you would forfeit the game. Even though I only play mens league now even in a more casual setting all teams have to have matching jerseys. I actually can’t think of a sport that doesn’t have some sort of “way you look rule”

Oh no, sports were mentionned on DakkaDakka, what have you done! You summoned he who shall not be named. (oh kurwa)

Asmodios wrote:
It’s great. This game has multiple parts to it and it rewards players for partaking in all aspects of the hobby. If you want those points they are easy to achieve, if you don’t care then it really isn’t a big deal.

Most competitive sports have rules like this. I played college and minor pro hockey and your team had to have matching home/away jerseys if you didn’t you would forfeit the game. Even though I only play mens league now even in a more casual setting all teams have to have matching jerseys. I actually can’t think of a sport that doesn’t have some sort of “way you look rule”

All aspects?
What about the novels?
What about making your own fan content?
What about having an army cohesive with the lore?

None of that is worth points in a game.

lets not go back into that discussion, we know very well whats gonna come of it and nobody's opinion is gonna get changed anyway.

 JNAProductions wrote:

Asmodios wrote:
It’s great. This game has multiple parts to it and it rewards players for partaking in all aspects of the hobby. If you want those points they are easy to achieve, if you don’t care then it really isn’t a big deal.

Most competitive sports have rules like this. I played college and minor pro hockey and your team had to have matching home/away jerseys if you didn’t you would forfeit the game. Even though I only play mens league now even in a more casual setting all teams have to have matching jerseys. I actually can’t think of a sport that doesn’t have some sort of “way you look rule”

All aspects?
What about the novels?
What about making your own fan content?
What about having an army cohesive with the lore?

None of that is worth points in a game.

All of those are actually addressed in other parts of the rules. You can’t take necrons with your space marines (covers the lore). You get charged CP for taking additional detachments (tax for your army not fitting to the desired lot appropriate novel feel of an army). Painting your army is part of your “fan content” either creating a custom force or picking one from the lore. You also didn’t address the point that the visual aspect is literally a part of every competitive sport so why should Warhammer be any different. Actually not painting your army gives a huge tactical advantage over your opponents as it makes it harder to identify and track what your opponent is doing

 TheBestBucketHead wrote:
And I don't see how any of my examples were strawmanning. If a rule about beards were included, I'm sure people with amazing beards and painted armies would be very happy.

It's a straw man argument because having a beard has no effect on the game and "more beards" is not something anyone is asking for. Painting, on the other hand, does have an effect on the game and the long list of events with mandatory painting requirements sent a clear message to GW that we the players want painting to be the expectation. If anything you should be glad that GW only made it 10 VP instead of following the tournament example and not letting you play at all without a fully painted army.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
On a personal level I would never give a gak if I "lost" a friendly game because of paint. And even if they were dorks I still wouldn't care. It's so irrelevant and you know who actually won.

Ah, the last resort of the sore loser, making up excuses for how you really won and it's only because of Reasons that anyone thinks otherwise. You may find this article informative: https://www.sirlin.net/ptw-book/introducingthe-scrub

Tresson wrote:

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Can I get a confirmation yet that Shas'O is Canadian Sgt Bob?

It's far more likely the Shas'O and Vatsetis are the same person.

You will never see Clark Kent and Superman in the same Room.

Sadly, Im Kal-El.

 Shas'O Ky'husa wrote:

 TheBestBucketHead wrote:
And I don't see how any of my examples were strawmanning. If a rule about beards were included, I'm sure people with amazing beards and painted armies would be very happy.

It's a straw man argument because having a beard has no effect on the game and "more beards" is not something anyone is asking for. Painting, on the other hand, does have an effect on the game and the long list of events with mandatory painting requirements sent a clear message to GW that we the players want painting to be the expectation. If anything you should be glad that GW only made it 10 VP instead of following the tournament example and not letting you play at all without a fully painted army.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
On a personal level I would never give a gak if I "lost" a friendly game because of paint. And even if they were dorks I still wouldn't care. It's so irrelevant and you know who actually won.

Ah, the last resort of the sore loser, making up excuses for how you really won and it's only because of Reasons that anyone thinks otherwise. You may find this article informative: https://www.sirlin.net/ptw-book/introducingthe-scrub

For someone that keeps saying "Why are you name calling" calling someone a sore loser and link scrub crap... this is why no one takes you seriously and we think you are a troll. If you feel the need to win on a technicality then you are the scrub.

 Arschbombe wrote:

Tresson wrote:

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Can I get a confirmation yet that Shas'O is Canadian Sgt Bob?

It's far more likely the Shas'O and Vatsetis are the same person.

That would be some next level trolling given the discrepancy in English fluency between the two posters.

Perhaps we have multiple personality and therefore some of our "consciences" dont have English as their mother Tongue.

 Amishprn86 wrote:

 Shas'O Ky'husa wrote:

 TheBestBucketHead wrote:
And I don't see how any of my examples were strawmanning. If a rule about beards were included, I'm sure people with amazing beards and painted armies would be very happy.

It's a straw man argument because having a beard has no effect on the game and "more beards" is not something anyone is asking for. Painting, on the other hand, does have an effect on the game and the long list of events with mandatory painting requirements sent a clear message to GW that we the players want painting to be the expectation. If anything you should be glad that GW only made it 10 VP instead of following the tournament example and not letting you play at all without a fully painted army.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
On a personal level I would never give a gak if I "lost" a friendly game because of paint. And even if they were dorks I still wouldn't care. It's so irrelevant and you know who actually won.

Ah, the last resort of the sore loser, making up excuses for how you really won and it's only because of Reasons that anyone thinks otherwise. You may find this article informative: https://www.sirlin.net/ptw-book/introducingthe-scrub

For someone that keeps saying "Why are you name calling" calling someone a sore loser and link scrub crap... this is why no one takes you seriously and we think you are a troll. If you feel the need to win on a technicality then you are the scrub.

Wouldn’t refusing the official rule for paint in the rule book so you could win…… be “winning on a technicality” which per your definition make you a “scrub”

 TheBestBucketHead wrote:
I've probably been too on edge, due to dealing with obvious trolls, and personal matters recently. Now that I've actually had a chance to calm down, I think I've been overly rude to you. I'm sorry about that, and I hope you can understand.

Also, I will never base my models, unless I need to, due to issues with the base itself, as basing actually pulls me out of the immersion of a model. I hate seeing trees and rocks everywhere when fighting on a space ship. But that's just me.

You could use more neutral bases, no need for trees... There are even transparent bases available.

Asmodios wrote:

 Amishprn86 wrote:

 Shas'O Ky'husa wrote:

 TheBestBucketHead wrote:
And I don't see how any of my examples were strawmanning. If a rule about beards were included, I'm sure people with amazing beards and painted armies would be very happy.

It's a straw man argument because having a beard has no effect on the game and "more beards" is not something anyone is asking for. Painting, on the other hand, does have an effect on the game and the long list of events with mandatory painting requirements sent a clear message to GW that we the players want painting to be the expectation. If anything you should be glad that GW only made it 10 VP instead of following the tournament example and not letting you play at all without a fully painted army.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
On a personal level I would never give a gak if I "lost" a friendly game because of paint. And even if they were dorks I still wouldn't care. It's so irrelevant and you know who actually won.

Ah, the last resort of the sore loser, making up excuses for how you really won and it's only because of Reasons that anyone thinks otherwise. You may find this article informative: https://www.sirlin.net/ptw-book/introducingthe-scrub

For someone that keeps saying "Why are you name calling" calling someone a sore loser and link scrub crap... this is why no one takes you seriously and we think you are a troll. If you feel the need to win on a technicality then you are the scrub.

Wouldn’t refusing the official rule for paint in the rule book so you could win…… be “winning on a technicality” which per your definition make you a “scrub”

He didn't say he refused, he was saying Yes he lost and he doesn't care he lost, bc you know and he knows he would have won if he painted his models. He accepted his lost but felt good about it bc he still bested the other player in skill. How are you a scrub for thinking that way? Its one think to think that way and another thing to push it into your opponents face, that would be poor sportsmanship then.

 TheBestBucketHead wrote:
I've probably been too on edge, due to dealing with obvious trolls, and personal matters recently. Now that I've actually had a chance to calm down, I think I've been overly rude to you. I'm sorry about that, and I hope you can understand.

Also, I will never base my models, unless I need to, due to issues with the base itself, as basing actually pulls me out of the immersion of a model. I hate seeing trees and rocks everywhere when fighting on a space ship. But that's just me.

100% on the bases. That's something I can never seem to reconcile fwiw: I have an entire adepta sororitas army on scenic bases from secret weapon. 100% not legal for getting 10VP, and I may laugh really hard if someone docks me the points, but at the end of the day it's a big whatever. You want to win that much, congratulations! I've never had anyone indicate anything of the sort, though.

And thanks for the apology, though I don't think there was anything said towards me that would warrant an apology. If there was any slight in anything I said, I offer my apologies as well, and know I've not been trying to get some negative emotional response from anyone

Forum's worst troll here

 JNAProductions wrote:

Asmodios wrote:
It’s great. This game has multiple parts to it and it rewards players for partaking in all aspects of the hobby. If you want those points they are easy to achieve, if you don’t care then it really isn’t a big deal.

Most competitive sports have rules like this. I played college and minor pro hockey and your team had to have matching home/away jerseys if you didn’t you would forfeit the game. Even though I only play mens league now even in a more casual setting all teams have to have matching jerseys. I actually can’t think of a sport that doesn’t have some sort of “way you look rule”

All aspects?
What about the novels?
What about making your own fan content?
What about having an army cohesive with the lore?

None of that is worth points in a game.

Not in the current ruleset, they could in the future... And those "soft scores" could be implemented by GW in a smart or dumb manner... If you indeed have a cristal ball, go and win the lottery and with the price give my a check so I can pay to paint all my unpainted minis

 VladimirHerzog wrote:
lets not go back into that discussion, we know very well whats gonna come of it and nobody's opinion is gonna get changed anyway.

How many threads like these have been locked now? I think I have lost count.

 Amishprn86 wrote:

Asmodios wrote:

 Amishprn86 wrote:

 Shas'O Ky'husa wrote:

 TheBestBucketHead wrote:
And I don't see how any of my examples were strawmanning. If a rule about beards were included, I'm sure people with amazing beards and painted armies would be very happy.

It's a straw man argument because having a beard has no effect on the game and "more beards" is not something anyone is asking for. Painting, on the other hand, does have an effect on the game and the long list of events with mandatory painting requirements sent a clear message to GW that we the players want painting to be the expectation. If anything you should be glad that GW only made it 10 VP instead of following the tournament example and not letting you play at all without a fully painted army.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
On a personal level I would never give a gak if I "lost" a friendly game because of paint. And even if they were dorks I still wouldn't care. It's so irrelevant and you know who actually won.

Ah, the last resort of the sore loser, making up excuses for how you really won and it's only because of Reasons that anyone thinks otherwise. You may find this article informative: https://www.sirlin.net/ptw-book/introducingthe-scrub

For someone that keeps saying "Why are you name calling" calling someone a sore loser and link scrub crap... this is why no one takes you seriously and we think you are a troll. If you feel the need to win on a technicality then you are the scrub.

Wouldn’t refusing the official rule for paint in the rule book so you could win…… be “winning on a technicality” which per your definition make you a “scrub”

He didn't say he refused, he was saying Yes he lost and he doesn't care he lost, bc you know and he knows he would have won if he painted his models. He accepted his lost but felt good about it bc he still bested the other player in skill. How are you a scrub for thinking that way? Its one think to think that way and another thing to push it into your opponents face, that would be poor sportsmanship then.

He “doesn’t care” but does care enough to post on a forum and call people that win because of the official rule “scrubs”. You can’t seemingly “not care” that you didn’t win and be upset that you didn’t win because of a “technicality” which isn’t a technicality because it is the rule. If he really doesn’t care then he should have no issue with the rule.

For example I couldn’t go “you are such a scrub for winning off of behind enemy lines it’s such a no skill objective and we both know I won….. also I totally don’t care…. Can’t you tell how little I care by all the complaining”

 Amishprn86 wrote:
For someone that keeps saying "Why are you name calling" calling someone a sore loser and link scrub crap... this is why no one takes you seriously and we think you are a troll. If you feel the need to win on a technicality then you are the scrub.

Maybe you should read the article instead of complaining about "technicalities" like the person it describes. The whole point of the article is that there are winners and losers according to the rules of the game and only sore losers blame "technicalities" for losing.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Amishprn86 wrote:
He accepted his lost but felt good about it bc he still bested the other player in skill. How are you a scrub for thinking that way?

Read the article. It very clearly describes exactly what you're talking about: losing the actual game but using "skill" as an excuse for how you're really the winner of a game that exists only in your own imagination.

 Shas'O Ky'husa wrote:

 Amishprn86 wrote:
For someone that keeps saying "Why are you name calling" calling someone a sore loser and link scrub crap... this is why no one takes you seriously and we think you are a troll. If you feel the need to win on a technicality then you are the scrub.

Maybe you should read the article instead of complaining about "technicalities" like the person it describes. The whole point of the article is that there are winners and losers according to the rules of the game and only sore losers blame "technicalities" for losing.

they didnt blame their loss on anything, they said :

"I lost the game"
"if i had painted my army, i would've won"

its the same as someone saying "damn, i lost by less than 10 points"

 VladimirHerzog wrote:
they didnt blame their loss on anything, they said :

"I lost the game"
"if i had painted my army, i would've won"

its the same as someone saying "damn, i lost by less than 10 points"

No, that's not what was said. Read the original post I replied to:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
On a personal level I would never give a gak if I "lost" a friendly game because of paint. And even if they were dorks I still wouldn't care. It's so irrelevant and you know who actually won.

That is a clear statement that the loss isn't a "real loss" and "everyone knows who actually won". That's denial, not acceptance of a close loss and regret that they didn't score more VP to win it.

 Shas'O Ky'husa wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:
they didnt blame their loss on anything, they said :

"I lost the game"
"if i had painted my army, i would've won"

its the same as someone saying "damn, i lost by less than 10 points"

No, that's not what was said. Read the original post I replied to:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
On a personal level I would never give a gak if I "lost" a friendly game because of paint. And even if they were dorks I still wouldn't care. It's so irrelevant and you know who actually won.

That is a clear statement that the loss isn't a "real loss" and "everyone knows who actually won". That's denial, not acceptance of a close loss and regret that they didn't score more VP to win it.

Spot on

Asmodios wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:

Asmodios wrote:
It’s great. This game has multiple parts to it and it rewards players for partaking in all aspects of the hobby. If you want those points they are easy to achieve, if you don’t care then it really isn’t a big deal.

Most competitive sports have rules like this. I played college and minor pro hockey and your team had to have matching home/away jerseys if you didn’t you would forfeit the game. Even though I only play mens league now even in a more casual setting all teams have to have matching jerseys. I actually can’t think of a sport that doesn’t have some sort of “way you look rule”

All aspects?
What about the novels?
What about making your own fan content?
What about having an army cohesive with the lore?

None of that is worth points in a game.

All of those are actually addressed in other parts of the rules. You can’t take necrons with your space marines (covers the lore). You get charged CP for taking additional detachments (tax for your army not fitting to the desired lot appropriate novel feel of an army). Painting your army is part of your “fan content” either creating a custom force or picking one from the lore. You also didn’t address the point that the visual aspect is literally a part of every competitive sport so why should Warhammer be any different. Actually not painting your army gives a huge tactical advantage over your opponents as it makes it harder to identify and track what your opponent is doing

Next time I play against a "Grey Tide" player I will argue that I have a rare visual disorder that dont allow me to visualice properly an unpainted army (due to the lack of contrast)... It really sholves the issue (sure its very unethical to fake a disability, but many posters here seem to have no such limits, so whatever).

CHECK MATE!!

I can't believe the "James Workshop's Favorite" victory points made him win. Well, at least it wasn't a technicality, and was very much related to the game at hand.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Vatsetis wrote:

Asmodios wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:

Asmodios wrote:
It’s great. This game has multiple parts to it and it rewards players for partaking in all aspects of the hobby. If you want those points they are easy to achieve, if you don’t care then it really isn’t a big deal.

Most competitive sports have rules like this. I played college and minor pro hockey and your team had to have matching home/away jerseys if you didn’t you would forfeit the game. Even though I only play mens league now even in a more casual setting all teams have to have matching jerseys. I actually can’t think of a sport that doesn’t have some sort of “way you look rule”

All aspects?
What about the novels?
What about making your own fan content?
What about having an army cohesive with the lore?

None of that is worth points in a game.

All of those are actually addressed in other parts of the rules. You can’t take necrons with your space marines (covers the lore). You get charged CP for taking additional detachments (tax for your army not fitting to the desired lot appropriate novel feel of an army). Painting your army is part of your “fan content” either creating a custom force or picking one from the lore. You also didn’t address the point that the visual aspect is literally a part of every competitive sport so why should Warhammer be any different. Actually not painting your army gives a huge tactical advantage over your opponents as it makes it harder to identify and track what your opponent is doing

Next time I play against a "Grey Tide" player I will argue that I have a rare visual disorder that dont allow me to visualice properly an unpainted army (due to the lack of contrast)... It really sholves the issue (sure its very unethical to fake a disability, but many posters here seem to have no such limits, so whatever).

CHECK MATE!!

I'm sorry, can you tell me what you mean? I'm not sure anyone faked a disability, and if you mean people not being able to visualize, that has not been used as an excuse. Can you provide any amount of context?

 Shas'O Ky'husa wrote:

 TheBestBucketHead wrote:
And I don't see how any of my examples were strawmanning. If a rule about beards were included, I'm sure people with amazing beards and painted armies would be very happy.

It's a straw man argument because having a beard has no effect on the game and "more beards" is not something anyone is asking for. Painting, on the other hand, does have an effect on the game and the long list of events with mandatory painting requirements sent a clear message to GW that we the players want painting to be the expectation. If anything you should be glad that GW only made it 10 VP instead of following the tournament example and not letting you play at all without a fully painted army.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
On a personal level I would never give a gak if I "lost" a friendly game because of paint. And even if they were dorks I still wouldn't care. It's so irrelevant and you know who actually won.

Ah, the last resort of the sore loser, making up excuses for how you really won and it's only because of Reasons that anyone thinks otherwise. You may find this article informative: https://www.sirlin.net/ptw-book/introducingthe-scrub

That "scrub" article displays some disturbing level of sociopathic behaviour. Wikes!

For those that are interested in what an actual game is at a deep cultural level you should read the classic work of Huizinga, "Homo Ludens".


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 TheBestBucketHead wrote:
I can't believe the "James Workshop's Favorite" victory points made him win. Well, at least it wasn't a technicality, and was very much related to the game at hand.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Vatsetis wrote:

Asmodios wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:

Asmodios wrote:
It’s great. This game has multiple parts to it and it rewards players for partaking in all aspects of the hobby. If you want those points they are easy to achieve, if you don’t care then it really isn’t a big deal.

Most competitive sports have rules like this. I played college and minor pro hockey and your team had to have matching home/away jerseys if you didn’t you would forfeit the game. Even though I only play mens league now even in a more casual setting all teams have to have matching jerseys. I actually can’t think of a sport that doesn’t have some sort of “way you look rule”

All aspects?
What about the novels?
What about making your own fan content?
What about having an army cohesive with the lore?

None of that is worth points in a game.

All of those are actually addressed in other parts of the rules. You can’t take necrons with your space marines (covers the lore). You get charged CP for taking additional detachments (tax for your army not fitting to the desired lot appropriate novel feel of an army). Painting your army is part of your “fan content” either creating a custom force or picking one from the lore. You also didn’t address the point that the visual aspect is literally a part of every competitive sport so why should Warhammer be any different. Actually not painting your army gives a huge tactical advantage over your opponents as it makes it harder to identify and track what your opponent is doing

Next time I play against a "Grey Tide" player I will argue that I have a rare visual disorder that dont allow me to visualice properly an unpainted army (due to the lack of contrast)... It really sholves the issue (sure its very unethical to fake a disability, but many posters here seem to have no such limits, so whatever).

CHECK MATE!!

I'm sorry, can you tell me what you mean? I'm not sure anyone faked a disability, and if you mean people not being able to visualize, that has not been used as an excuse. Can you provide any amount of context?

Indeed nobody has declare in this forum to fake a disability to win... Thats my master plan to win in the future against "grey tide" players (if you imitate me, you will be sued).

But quite a few posters in this debate have shown such a lack of limits during the debate (rejecting any form of social standard beyond their own desire) that we have effectively reach anomie.

:(

Vatsetis wrote:

Asmodios wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:

Asmodios wrote:
It’s great. This game has multiple parts to it and it rewards players for partaking in all aspects of the hobby. If you want those points they are easy to achieve, if you don’t care then it really isn’t a big deal.

Most competitive sports have rules like this. I played college and minor pro hockey and your team had to have matching home/away jerseys if you didn’t you would forfeit the game. Even though I only play mens league now even in a more casual setting all teams have to have matching jerseys. I actually can’t think of a sport that doesn’t have some sort of “way you look rule”

All aspects?
What about the novels?
What about making your own fan content?
What about having an army cohesive with the lore?

None of that is worth points in a game.

All of those are actually addressed in other parts of the rules. You can’t take necrons with your space marines (covers the lore). You get charged CP for taking additional detachments (tax for your army not fitting to the desired lot appropriate novel feel of an army). Painting your army is part of your “fan content” either creating a custom force or picking one from the lore. You also didn’t address the point that the visual aspect is literally a part of every competitive sport so why should Warhammer be any different. Actually not painting your army gives a huge tactical advantage over your opponents as it makes it harder to identify and track what your opponent is doing

Next time I play against a "Grey Tide" player I will argue that I have a rare visual disorder that dont allow me to visualice properly an unpainted army (due to the lack of contrast)... It really sholves the issue (sure its very unethical to fake a disability, but many posters here seem to have no such limits, so whatever).

CHECK MATE!!

Holy smokes you must be really upset to misrepresent what I said so badly. Nobody said anything about visual disorders but are you seriously trying to say that a 100% grey model is as easy to distinguish as a painted model from 3 feet away? Is it really easy at a glance to see what weapons/ squads are which when they are 100% the same color standing next to each other? Just like my previous hockey example it wasn’t because anyone had a “visual disability” that teams were required to have a home/ away jersey it’s because during a game you don’t want mistakes being made because people are getting confused in the heat of the moment who is on which team. Not only do paint jobs just help the game look nicer but they help you distinguish which models have what on them and belong to which squads. I’m always shocked how upset some people get that people prefer playing against painted models

 Amishprn86 wrote:

Asmodios wrote:

 Amishprn86 wrote:

 Shas'O Ky'husa wrote:

 TheBestBucketHead wrote:
And I don't see how any of my examples were strawmanning. If a rule about beards were included, I'm sure people with amazing beards and painted armies would be very happy.

It's a straw man argument because having a beard has no effect on the game and "more beards" is not something anyone is asking for. Painting, on the other hand, does have an effect on the game and the long list of events with mandatory painting requirements sent a clear message to GW that we the players want painting to be the expectation. If anything you should be glad that GW only made it 10 VP instead of following the tournament example and not letting you play at all without a fully painted army.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
On a personal level I would never give a gak if I "lost" a friendly game because of paint. And even if they were dorks I still wouldn't care. It's so irrelevant and you know who actually won.

Ah, the last resort of the sore loser, making up excuses for how you really won and it's only because of Reasons that anyone thinks otherwise. You may find this article informative: https://www.sirlin.net/ptw-book/introducingthe-scrub

For someone that keeps saying "Why are you name calling" calling someone a sore loser and link scrub crap... this is why no one takes you seriously and we think you are a troll. If you feel the need to win on a technicality then you are the scrub.

Wouldn’t refusing the official rule for paint in the rule book so you could win…… be “winning on a technicality” which per your definition make you a “scrub”

He didn't say he refused, he was saying Yes he lost and he doesn't care he lost, bc you know and he knows he would have won if he painted his models. He accepted his lost but felt good about it bc he still bested the other player in skill. How are you a scrub for thinking that way? Its one think to think that way and another thing to push it into your opponents face, that would be poor sportsmanship then.

"Sportmanship" is the excuse of "scrubs" aparently.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Asmodios wrote:

Vatsetis wrote:

Asmodios wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:

Asmodios wrote:
It’s great. This game has multiple parts to it and it rewards players for partaking in all aspects of the hobby. If you want those points they are easy to achieve, if you don’t care then it really isn’t a big deal.

Most competitive sports have rules like this. I played college and minor pro hockey and your team had to have matching home/away jerseys if you didn’t you would forfeit the game. Even though I only play mens league now even in a more casual setting all teams have to have matching jerseys. I actually can’t think of a sport that doesn’t have some sort of “way you look rule”

All aspects?
What about the novels?
What about making your own fan content?
What about having an army cohesive with the lore?

None of that is worth points in a game.

All of those are actually addressed in other parts of the rules. You can’t take necrons with your space marines (covers the lore). You get charged CP for taking additional detachments (tax for your army not fitting to the desired lot appropriate novel feel of an army). Painting your army is part of your “fan content” either creating a custom force or picking one from the lore. You also didn’t address the point that the visual aspect is literally a part of every competitive sport so why should Warhammer be any different. Actually not painting your army gives a huge tactical advantage over your opponents as it makes it harder to identify and track what your opponent is doing

Next time I play against a "Grey Tide" player I will argue that I have a rare visual disorder that dont allow me to visualice properly an unpainted army (due to the lack of contrast)... It really sholves the issue (sure its very unethical to fake a disability, but many posters here seem to have no such limits, so whatever).

CHECK MATE!!

Holy smokes you must be really upset to misrepresent what I said so badly. Nobody said anything about visual disorders but are you seriously trying to say that a 100% grey model is as easy to distinguish as a painted model from 3 feet away? Is it really easy at a glance to see what weapons/ squads are which when they are 100% the same color standing next to each other? Just like my previous hockey example it wasn’t because anyone had a “visual disability” that teams were required to have a home/ away jersey it’s because during a game you don’t want mistakes being made because people are getting confused in the heat of the moment who is on which team. Not only do paint jobs just help the game look nicer but they help you distinguish which models have what on them and belong to which squads. I’m always shocked how upset some people get that people prefer playing against painted models

Sorry that my post was so convoluted.

I indeed agree with your remarks, its a very sensible point.

Sorry for muddling the waters, please ignore my comments.