Purifying Tempest wrote: You do realize the car purchase analogy totally destroys your argument, right? It does prove you've never actually purchased a new car and are more or less taking out of your fourth point of contact. When purchasing a new car, most of the negotiation is over the options package you purchase on the car. Every car has options, and practically no car sells without ANY options at all. Beyond even that, I can get luggage racks installed, ball hitches, refine transmission for hauling, bigger cooling upgrades. There's tons of packages and post-sale upgrades. You think street racing cars are stock factory? All of those cases directly prove the point for house ruling to make the basic package match your intended use.
Do you have to go out and install those options yourself?
Or does the manufacturer/seller do it for you?
Because to me, that comparison seems a lot more like "Hey, we'll be using the Matched Play and Crusade rules", not "I'm going to patch the rules that don't work properly on their own."
The dealer will do some, aftemarket shops can do some, also you can do some. I just installed a tow hitch on my car to mount a bike rack. My brother did his own stereo and speaker swap. He also dissasembled, cleaned, and reassembled his engine. Another friend of mine stenciled and painted his motorcycle.
Purifying Tempest wrote: You do realize the car purchase analogy totally destroys your argument, right? It does prove you've never actually purchased a new car and are more or less taking out of your fourth point of contact. When purchasing a new car, most of the negotiation is over the options package you purchase on the car. Every car has options, and practically no car sells without ANY options at all. Beyond even that, I can get luggage racks installed, ball hitches, refine transmission for hauling, bigger cooling upgrades. There's tons of packages and post-sale upgrades. You think street racing cars are stock factory? All of those cases directly prove the point for house ruling to make the basic package match your intended use.
Do you have to go out and install those options yourself?
Or does the manufacturer/seller do it for you?
Because to me, that comparison seems a lot more like "Hey, we'll be using the Matched Play and Crusade rules", not "I'm going to patch the rules that don't work properly on their own."
The dealer will do some, aftemarket shops can do some, also you can do some. I just installed a tow hitch on my car to mount a bike rack. My brother did his own stereo and speaker swap. He also dissasembled, cleaned, and reassembled his engine. Another friend of mine stenciled and painted his motorcycle.
Okay. I legitimately did not know that-I'm not very experienced with cars.
Manufacturer options and post-sale upgrades: these are like errata and FAQs. Some are purely cosmetic, some are to make a feature act correct, some completely change how the vehicle performs/operates. It could be anything from rack rails to haul luggage (a change to allow your car to perform a little bit better in an unintended role) to replacing defective engine seals (an overhaul that will extend the life of your car, increase performance immediately to get back to the baseline, you know... fix things that were fundamentally broken on shipping).
3rd Party Mechanic fixes and upgrades: So I want to boost the performance by adding a part to the car. The manufacturer won't do it because it could have serious consequences on the performance/metrics of the car and thus will put certain specs out of safety/regulatory constraints and violate parts of their warranty. You still really want it, though, so you take it to a mechanic to get the upgrade done. Like engine tuning for street racing falls in this category. 90%+ of those modifications will not be done by the manufacturer, as it is way out of the regulatory boundaries. It still takes a skilled tradesman to do it, and you're not comfortable doing it yourself... or simply don't have the time. This is where things like ITC fit. Industry standard, but not officially supported by the parent company. Beta rules could also fit in here, but this is more like: we universally agree that assembly is required, but many tournaments except for the top have a really lax painting standard. Those are all typically considered "globally acceptable options". But really, this is the category ITC, NOVA, LVO, etc fit into.
Then there is the DiY. I'm skilled enough to install these things. I have a garage and the tools necessary. I am a subject matter expert with the required time (though it may take me however months to install the part). I don't want to commission a mechanic to do it for me, I'd rather save the money or have the satisfaction of the sexy engine purr when I turn the engine over the first time... because it was all done by my hands. I want to do the detailing myself because it is truly unique and no one else will ever have a paint job like that, and I'll have a heck of a story to share at the bar after a show. This is exactly where house ruling fits in. The base product wasn't my intended use, but it was a "close enough" state that with a little work, I can get it the rest of the way. I didn't buy a car chassis with the intention of going home with a truck for hauling. I bought the truck chassis, because it gets me most of the way there, and then added options and/or work to get that extra hauling capacity to pull the stuff I needed to... or get those off-road wheels put in to get into the field for loading without getting mired by the rain.
Like, there's no way your car analogy does not prove a point for house-ruling. No car with no added options or upgrades will normally fill the intended use of the options. The source of the options is irrelevant. They're still options added onto the base vehicle. Heck, by your logic, any codex that suspends a rule (battle focus for running and shooting?) should be trumped by the holy gospel contained within the CRB, as Codexes are "add-on options" and should not have to override the base state of the CRB. I'll give you that the CRB/Codex argument is a bit flaky, but it is the extreme conclusion of the argument you are making.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
JNAProductions wrote: Okay. I legitimately did not know that-I'm not very experienced with cars.
This came while I was typing, I'll keep it there for clarity purpose... but I am not continuing to browbeat you after the fact Do not take it that way, please!
As a disabled Warhammer player (not just vision, but motor control, and also a terminal fething illness so my time allotment in life has meaning) do you know why you don't see many disabled players?
Things like this whole fething thing.
To the people who are saying "you spend time on here, take that time and go paint!" I come here to learn about developments in the game and talk stratagey and lore, that's not painting.
To the people who say "just take your time and you'll get better." Pleas see my Intro to this post, I'd rather spend my time actually playing. Also my disabilities have all progressed since my early 20's when I first (poorly) painted my Necron (an army lauded as one of, if not the, easiest to pain forces), and I am no longer capable for painting to even that basic level in any reasonable kind of timeframe.
This all means that for those who see the 10Vp for painted rule as no issue, it means I'll always be down points in a game.
I'm not a competitive player, my local community (all 3 stores) are hardcore competitive having training matches for sending groups to big events on other countries.
If this rules was strictly a part of Matched Play, which, from what I understand of 9th is the basis for the upcoming tournament rules, that'd be ok with me. BUT! The same rule exists in Crusade, which up until learning that, has had me VERY excited for the new edition as is seems to be a real, official version of the many, many, many, times I've tried to create a similar system over the years.
I'm actually starting to pass out, so I'll stop here, I hope this has added to the conversation. For mmore on how the actual painting part goes, please see my earlier posts.
Blndmage wrote: As a disabled Warhammer player (not just vision, but motor control, and also a terminal fething illness so my time allotment in life has meaning) do you know why you don't see many disabled players?
Things like this whole fething thing.
To the people who are saying "you spend time on here, take that time and go paint!" I come here to learn about developments in the game and talk stratagey and lore, that's not painting.
To the people who say "just take your time and you'll get better." Pleas see my Intro to this post, I'd rather spend my time actually playing. Also my disabilities have all progressed since my early 20's when I first (poorly) painted my Necron (an army lauded as one of, if not the, easiest to pain forces), and I am no longer capable for painting to even that basic level in any reasonable kind of timeframe.
This all means that for those who see the 10Vp for painted rule as no issue, it means I'll always be down points in a game.
I'm not a competitive player, my local community (all 3 stores) are hardcore competitive having training matches for sending groups to big events on other countries.
If this rules was strictly a part of Matched Play, which, from what I understand of 9th is the basis for the upcoming tournament rules, that'd be ok with me. BUT! The same rule exists in Crusade, which up until learning that, has had me VERY excited for the new edition as is seems to be a real, official version of the many, many, many, times I've tried to create a similar system over the years.
I'm actually starting to pass out, so I'll stop here, I hope this has added to the conversation. For mmore on how the actual painting part goes, please see my earlier posts.
I mentioned it earlier, but maybe it got passed over in the heat of things. I will legit paint a batch of necrons for you.
I can't solve your local meta problems though. It's a shame you having trouble getting the sort of games you're looking for. I'd offer my local FLGS but it's quarantined because. . . 'murica. Sigh.
Blndmage wrote: As a disabled Warhammer player (not just vision, but motor control, and also a terminal fething illness so my time allotment in life has meaning) do you know why you don't see many disabled players?
Things like this whole fething thing.
To the people who are saying "you spend time on here, take that time and go paint!" I come here to learn about developments in the game and talk stratagey and lore, that's not painting.
To the people who say "just take your time and you'll get better." Pleas see my Intro to this post, I'd rather spend my time actually playing. Also my disabilities have all progressed since my early 20's when I first (poorly) painted my Necron (an army lauded as one of, if not the, easiest to pain forces), and I am no longer capable for painting to even that basic level in any reasonable kind of timeframe.
This all means that for those who see the 10Vp for painted rule as no issue, it means I'll always be down points in a game.
I'm not a competitive player, my local community (all 3 stores) are hardcore competitive having training matches for sending groups to big events on other countries.
If this rules was strictly a part of Matched Play, which, from what I understand of 9th is the basis for the upcoming tournament rules, that'd be ok with me. BUT! The same rule exists in Crusade, which up until learning that, has had me VERY excited for the new edition as is seems to be a real, official version of the many, many, many, times I've tried to create a similar system over the years.
I'm actually starting to pass out, so I'll stop here, I hope this has added to the conversation. For mmore on how the actual painting part goes, please see my earlier posts.
Disabled army veteran.
I cannot move fast without losing one of my knees and crashing to the ground with a mangled leg dangling under me. Sometimes when walking, just a little pressure the wrong way puts me on the ground and in INTENSE pain for weeks.
I cannot stand for very long before my knees are howling in pain and I have to sit down. I frequently have to park my butt on a bench or a chair when playing games. It ain't because I'm lazy, it is because I genuinely suffer when on my feet for too long.
I've lost a good portion of my hearing. You have to speak up when around me, which seems to be akin to pulling teeth these days. You may have to repeat yourself several times and enunciate certain sounds so I can understand what you're trying to say.
I'm also legally blind without my glasses, I cannot function without them, and spend some time frequently cleaning them because I am a greasy Italian. This isn't a disability, persay, but it is an inconvenience at times.
I live with my limitations, mostly in silence. They are not badges or awards I wave for pity points in society. I park at the back of the parking lot while young, agile, capable kids drive their parent's cars and park in handicapped spots (though, I do love the places that have veteran parking, good on those businesses!).
If any of the above limitations comes into play in company I am not familiar with, I pause and explain the situation kindly. I ask for a little more time. I ask for people to repeat themselves and then tell them I spent time behind the breeches of howitzers with no hearing protection. I ask for short breaks and casually chat and chill because I need to be off of my feet due to injury.
You want to know what? When I approach these people in those ways, 0% of them have a problem with accommodating. 0% of them have issues playing with me. 0% of them have ridiculed me for my injuries.
If what is happening to you is true, those people are abhorrent and have no place in the hobby. But having listened to your unflinching criticism and unwavering attitude and mass of people that you have a problem with, I think the problem is more how you're approaching the average person and engaging them with your issues. I think a little bit of toughening up is in order, and also a little accommodating on your side to allow people in unfamiliar and uncomfortable situations adapt to meet you somewhere in the middle. I bet you'll find out those jerkwads aren't nearly as bad as you're claiming they are. They are probably a little frustrated and confused on how to deal with you and the tantrums have led them to isolate away from you as opposed to offering the olive branch anymore.
Blndmage wrote: As a disabled Warhammer player (not just vision, but motor control, and also a terminal fething illness so my time allotment in life has meaning) do you know why you don't see many disabled players?
Things like this whole fething thing.
To the people who are saying "you spend time on here, take that time and go paint!" I come here to learn about developments in the game and talk stratagey and lore, that's not painting.
To the people who say "just take your time and you'll get better." Pleas see my Intro to this post, I'd rather spend my time actually playing. Also my disabilities have all progressed since my early 20's when I first (poorly) painted my Necron (an army lauded as one of, if not the, easiest to pain forces), and I am no longer capable for painting to even that basic level in any reasonable kind of timeframe.
This all means that for those who see the 10Vp for painted rule as no issue, it means I'll always be down points in a game.
I'm not a competitive player, my local community (all 3 stores) are hardcore competitive having training matches for sending groups to big events on other countries.
If this rules was strictly a part of Matched Play, which, from what I understand of 9th is the basis for the upcoming tournament rules, that'd be ok with me. BUT! The same rule exists in Crusade, which up until learning that, has had me VERY excited for the new edition as is seems to be a real, official version of the many, many, many, times I've tried to create a similar system over the years.
I'm actually starting to pass out, so I'll stop here, I hope this has added to the conversation. For mmore on how the actual painting part goes, please see my earlier posts.
Disabled army veteran.
I cannot move fast without losing one of my knees and crashing to the ground with a mangled leg dangling under me. Sometimes when walking, just a little pressure the wrong way puts me on the ground and in INTENSE pain for weeks.
I cannot stand for very long before my knees are howling in pain and I have to sit down. I frequently have to park my butt on a bench or a chair when playing games. It ain't because I'm lazy, it is because I genuinely suffer when on my feet for too long.
I've lost a good portion of my hearing. You have to speak up when around me, which seems to be akin to pulling teeth these days. You may have to repeat yourself several times and enunciate certain sounds so I can understand what you're trying to say.
I'm also legally blind without my glasses, I cannot function without them, and spend some time frequently cleaning them because I am a greasy Italian. This isn't a disability, persay, but it is an inconvenience at times.
I live with my limitations, mostly in silence. They are not badges or awards I wave for pity points in society. I park at the back of the parking lot while young, agile, capable kids drive their parent's cars and park in handicapped spots (though, I do love the places that have veteran parking, good on those businesses!).
If any of the above limitations comes into play in company I am not familiar with, I pause and explain the situation kindly. I ask for a little more time. I ask for people to repeat themselves and then tell them I spent time behind the breeches of howitzers with no hearing protection. I ask for short breaks and casually chat and chill because I need to be off of my feet due to injury.
You want to know what? When I approach these people in those ways, 0% of them have a problem with accommodating. 0% of them have issues playing with me. 0% of them have ridiculed me for my injuries.
If what is happening to you is true, those people are abhorrent and have no place in the hobby. But having listened to your unflinching criticism and unwavering attitude and mass of people that you have a problem with, I think the problem is more how you're approaching the average person and engaging them with your issues. I think a little bit of toughening up is in order, and also a little accommodating on your side to allow people in unfamiliar and uncomfortable situations adapt to meet you somewhere in the middle. I bet you'll find out those jerkwads aren't nearly as bad as you're claiming they are. They are probably a little frustrated and confused on how to deal with you and the tantrums have led them to isolate away from you as opposed to offering the olive branch anymore.
First, I respect you posting here. As we both know, living with disabilities is hard. Your vision is most definetly a disability, society has just normalized glasses as prosthetics.
Use the disability spots! There there for you!
I'm not "waving them [my disabilities] around for pity points". Don't stay silent. Speak up. Tell people about your lived experience and you, and others can get help in managing your disabilities and make it so that future generantions don't suffer in silence.
In what way have I thrown "tantrums"?
I also don't play with my local community because I'm a trans woman, and have had threats against me even showing up at the store to play, by men who are leaders of the local groups.
I don't need "a little toughening up" I've been disabled my entire life, died at least twice from complications and it's shaped my entire life.
Blindmage, your local community seems insanely toxic and I'm distraught to hear that this sort of crap is going on and is allowed to continue. (Though I'm not exactly surprised. World is a gakky place.) I really hope that you have some reasonable people you can play with and with whom you can also agree how to handle the painting issue.
auticus wrote: I love how a rule designed to reward people who put in the effort is flipped to be a PUNISHMENT to those that don't want to do it.
lol.
Its PUNISHMENT for me to have to chase around the meta and continuously buy new models to have good games too because the balance is utter garbage, but we all seem to embrace that punishment with the continued chorus of git gud and learn to play and build better lists if you want a good game.
I guess some of you better get to picking up a paintbrush. It takes all of 15-20 minutes to spray paint a squad of marines and dip them in some shade and paint their guns black and they are at that point just fine battle ready.
Or you can house rule it... but as I have been told MANY times over the past decade... that wouldn't be "real 40k".
You do realize not everyone against this rule would ever tell a player to get good or learn to play right ? I have a couple marine forces who only use first born and I'll never add primaris too, I'm not doing any meta list chasing and I do think that is all garbage and a sign GW pays lip service to balance. Just because people you deal with that are that blind as to love every rule GW puts out and try and bludgeon people with it doesn't mean we all are. If I think a rule is crap, I say it, as I do with this one. If it really pains you so much, just don't play people with un painted armies, doesn't need to be a rule in place to " reward " someone for painting their army. Painting your army is the reward in and of itself, saying you need to be rewarded for it is a daft mentality.
Why isn't the reward of having your beautiful army good enough ? Why isn't the effort put forth to enjoy your creation somehow diminished by someone else having grey hordes ? Do you or others resent them for not painting and putting forth that effort ? As I said in other posts, I have never cared what my opponents army looked like, I like my army and painted or not I appreciate it.
That is why it feels like a " punishment " the granting of 10 points all the time because it smacks of smug entitlement. " Well I wasn't a lazy git and painted my stuff, so I deserve more points because I'm awesome and you are lazy no goodnik. " Paint doesn't factor into any game effects, it doesn't mix up LOS, it doesn't let us hide with camo, it's just an additional bonus and if you love it great, if not that should be equally great. No one should feel they deserve extra points for an action they undertook willingly to make their own items more pleasing to them. It's just the game, not a painting competition where that effort would ideally be rewarded.
auticus wrote: I guess to me if its ok for people to shout that bad balance is fun and good for the community and making people buy armies every 6 months to a year to be able to play a game where they aren't being tabled in a turn or two, then its also ok for when a rule comes down to support the hobby side that they also adhere to that as well.
I don't think the bad balance and bad rules longterm improve 40k and its community as a whole either. But as you've seen, that seems to be something no one cares about and in fact people fight very passionately to enforce and support.
But they are VERY passionate about being told they have to spend 20 minutes to spray paint and shade dip their models or lose out on 10 victory points as that is unjust and a punishment.
Some like myself call out the bad balance too, we are not all enemies in this thread. I think what you've had to deal with is equally crap and I have been attacked, lambasted and mocked for harping on GW ideas of balance and power creep. I don''t see how some bad apples make this rule any less punitive to the people it annoys. No one should feel they need to have to re buy whole armies every half a year or ever unless they really want to and people shouldn't play a game at a penalty because of having even one un painted model.
Thank you for those offering simpathy for my local scene. I'm in the capital of my province, the other city nearby (the one most folks know) is way worse a place for folks like me, I've asked around.
I'm playing solo narritive games right now, working on doing stop motion stuff with my minis, etc, finding ways to enjoy the hobby alone.
auticus wrote: Yeah. I also do not buy the "punishment" mindset. Sorry not sorry.
This has seeped into professional life as well, where rewarding a teammate for doing great work is seen as punishment to other people who didn't get the reward.
I think its absurd and part of the whole everyone gets a trophy culture we've embraced over the past 20 years or so. Everyone doesn't get a trophy. Thats life.
I have to call this out, you don't think getting 10 free points for even absolute min effort of painting is a participation trophy ? This is a participation trophy if I've ever seen one. As even you say, to do this to min level required, you just get 10 points from now till they decide this rule is stupid and take it away based on no in game effort. I'd also say, this isn't a job, it's a game. Games about playing the game. The hobby side rewards you for the effort given because you want to do it not because it should have any say in who wins the game.
Blndmage wrote:I'm playing solo narritive games right now, working on doing stop motion stuff with my minis, etc, finding ways to enjoy the hobby alone.
How have you found the solo narrative stuff? I've tried it for Kill Team, but there's only so far it goes.
Love the stop motion idea - if I had the skill/patience/equipment for it, I'd like the sound of that.
auticus wrote: I love how a rule designed to reward people who put in the effort is flipped to be a PUNISHMENT to those that don't want to do it.
lol.
Its PUNISHMENT for me to have to chase around the meta and continuously buy new models to have good games too because the balance is utter garbage, but we all seem to embrace that punishment with the continued chorus of git gud and learn to play and build better lists if you want a good game.
I guess some of you better get to picking up a paintbrush. It takes all of 15-20 minutes to spray paint a squad of marines and dip them in some shade and paint their guns black and they are at that point just fine battle ready.
Or you can house rule it... but as I have been told MANY times over the past decade... that wouldn't be "real 40k".
You do realize not everyone against this rule would ever tell a player to get good or learn to play right ? I have a couple marine forces who only use first born and I'll never add primaris too, I'm not doing any meta list chasing and I do think that is all garbage and a sign GW pays lip service to balance. Just because people you deal with that are that blind as to love every rule GW puts out and try and bludgeon people with it doesn't mean we all are. If I think a rule is crap, I say it, as I do with this one. If it really pains you so much, just don't play people with un painted armies, doesn't need to be a rule in place to " reward " someone for painting their army. Painting your army is the reward in and of itself, saying you need to be rewarded for it is a daft mentality.
Why isn't the reward of having your beautiful army good enough ? Why isn't the effort put forth to enjoy your creation somehow diminished by someone else having grey hordes ? Do you or others resent them for not painting and putting forth that effort ? As I said in other posts, I have never cared what my opponents army looked like, I like my army and painted or not I appreciate it.
That is why it feels like a " punishment " the granting of 10 points all the time because it smacks of smug entitlement. " Well I wasn't a lazy git and painted my stuff, so I deserve more points because I'm awesome and you are lazy no goodnik. " Paint doesn't factor into any game effects, it doesn't mix up LOS, it doesn't let us hide with camo, it's just an additional bonus and if you love it great, if not that should be equally great. No one should feel they deserve extra points for an action they undertook willingly to make their own items more pleasing to them. It's just the game, not a painting competition where that effort would ideally be rewarded.
Let me explain my wiev on this and then i will leave this thread.
I like the idea of bonus points for painting. In NO way do i feel smug or superior because i always field painted armies, thats just the way i enjoy this hobby. For a number of editions GW has leaned more and more towards tournament style of rules with a side order of ccg (without really succeding).
As a more casual player i am constantly told to "git gud" and buy into the latest meta if i want to win. If i want to stand a chance of winning a game some negotiation beforehand is reqiured. Cool, no problem, i can do that.
Why doesnt this work if you dont want to use the bonus points?
I see this rule as GW trying to steer the game a little bit back to what it once where and i really really would like that.
That a number of posters are here only to troll and stir up gak doesnt help at all.
Blndmage wrote: Thank you for those offering simpathy for my local scene. I'm in the capital of my province, the other city nearby (the one most folks know) is way worse a place for folks like me, I've asked around.
I'm playing solo narritive games right now, working on doing stop motion stuff with my minis, etc, finding ways to enjoy the hobby alone.
I've already said I feel for you. I don't think people should be like you're describing I can't say I'm surprised as people will make fun of anyone for whatever reason. Hair color, if you are big or small, thin or fat, disabled or not, doesn't matter. People can be awful.
It's why I disagree with this rule, it's never needed to exist, it doesn't need to exist. Even the supporters say it adds nothing of substance, and 10 points is nothing at all, so if it is so much nothing, why need it ? If most games are blow outs why would someone grey hording the meta waste any time to paint when they are just going to push you around with their wallet anyways ? The only people it would punish are slow painters, noobs, those who find it hard to paint, etc, etc. The power gamers will still crush you with flavor of the month, or show up with the most ugly, but battle ready armies.
So if it adds nothing, cut it away. As all it really seems to be adding is a bad taste in many mouths.
auticus wrote: I love how a rule designed to reward people who put in the effort is flipped to be a PUNISHMENT to those that don't want to do it.
lol.
Its PUNISHMENT for me to have to chase around the meta and continuously buy new models to have good games too because the balance is utter garbage, but we all seem to embrace that punishment with the continued chorus of git gud and learn to play and build better lists if you want a good game.
I guess some of you better get to picking up a paintbrush. It takes all of 15-20 minutes to spray paint a squad of marines and dip them in some shade and paint their guns black and they are at that point just fine battle ready.
Or you can house rule it... but as I have been told MANY times over the past decade... that wouldn't be "real 40k".
You do realize not everyone against this rule would ever tell a player to get good or learn to play right ? I have a couple marine forces who only use first born and I'll never add primaris too, I'm not doing any meta list chasing and I do think that is all garbage and a sign GW pays lip service to balance. Just because people you deal with that are that blind as to love every rule GW puts out and try and bludgeon people with it doesn't mean we all are. If I think a rule is crap, I say it, as I do with this one. If it really pains you so much, just don't play people with un painted armies, doesn't need to be a rule in place to " reward " someone for painting their army. Painting your army is the reward in and of itself, saying you need to be rewarded for it is a daft mentality.
Why isn't the reward of having your beautiful army good enough ? Why isn't the effort put forth to enjoy your creation somehow diminished by someone else having grey hordes ? Do you or others resent them for not painting and putting forth that effort ? As I said in other posts, I have never cared what my opponents army looked like, I like my army and painted or not I appreciate it.
That is why it feels like a " punishment " the granting of 10 points all the time because it smacks of smug entitlement. " Well I wasn't a lazy git and painted my stuff, so I deserve more points because I'm awesome and you are lazy no goodnik. " Paint doesn't factor into any game effects, it doesn't mix up LOS, it doesn't let us hide with camo, it's just an additional bonus and if you love it great, if not that should be equally great. No one should feel they deserve extra points for an action they undertook willingly to make their own items more pleasing to them. It's just the game, not a painting competition where that effort would ideally be rewarded.
The beauty of all gaming forums is that we have no end to our metaphors, and anything we don't like we have a skill at making it seem like it came from the depths of a horror movie to punish us, or to paint the other side as smug entitled jackasses.
Come to think of it thats how our political system works as well. Nevermind its not just gaming forums, I take that back.
Why isn't the reward of having your beautiful army good enough ?
I didn't write the rule. But... why isn't the fact i spent $800 on a necron force good enough that I have to sit through getting tabled in 1 or 2 turns because I chose the wrong faction? And that I need to get good or learn to play because I chose to like the wrong faction?
Right see that merry go round is a big circle where we can come up with all kinds of things back and forth, but ultimately gets us nowhere. The rule is what it is. Much like the library of rules in 40k that I absolutely hate exist and I have to deal with (or not play, which is largely what I have had to do for some time until they decide to make my factions not gimp so that I don't waste an afternoon getting throttled because I chose the wrong army and won't go round spending another grand just to have close competitive games again in a system that is mostly flaming garbage that encourages that behavior in the first place)
auticus wrote: I love how a rule designed to reward people who put in the effort is flipped to be a PUNISHMENT to those that don't want to do it.
lol.
Its PUNISHMENT for me to have to chase around the meta and continuously buy new models to have good games too because the balance is utter garbage, but we all seem to embrace that punishment with the continued chorus of git gud and learn to play and build better lists if you want a good game.
I guess some of you better get to picking up a paintbrush. It takes all of 15-20 minutes to spray paint a squad of marines and dip them in some shade and paint their guns black and they are at that point just fine battle ready.
Or you can house rule it... but as I have been told MANY times over the past decade... that wouldn't be "real 40k".
You do realize not everyone against this rule would ever tell a player to get good or learn to play right ? I have a couple marine forces who only use first born and I'll never add primaris too, I'm not doing any meta list chasing and I do think that is all garbage and a sign GW pays lip service to balance. Just because people you deal with that are that blind as to love every rule GW puts out and try and bludgeon people with it doesn't mean we all are. If I think a rule is crap, I say it, as I do with this one. If it really pains you so much, just don't play people with un painted armies, doesn't need to be a rule in place to " reward " someone for painting their army. Painting your army is the reward in and of itself, saying you need to be rewarded for it is a daft mentality.
Why isn't the reward of having your beautiful army good enough ? Why isn't the effort put forth to enjoy your creation somehow diminished by someone else having grey hordes ? Do you or others resent them for not painting and putting forth that effort ? As I said in other posts, I have never cared what my opponents army looked like, I like my army and painted or not I appreciate it.
That is why it feels like a " punishment " the granting of 10 points all the time because it smacks of smug entitlement. " Well I wasn't a lazy git and painted my stuff, so I deserve more points because I'm awesome and you are lazy no goodnik. " Paint doesn't factor into any game effects, it doesn't mix up LOS, it doesn't let us hide with camo, it's just an additional bonus and if you love it great, if not that should be equally great. No one should feel they deserve extra points for an action they undertook willingly to make their own items more pleasing to them. It's just the game, not a painting competition where that effort would ideally be rewarded.
Let me explain my wiev on this and then i will leave this thread.
I like the idea of bonus points for painting. In NO way do i feel smug or superior because i always field painted armies, thats just the way i enjoy this hobby. For a number of editions GW has leaned more and more towards tournament style of rules with a side order of ccg (without really succeding).
As a more casual player i am constantly told to "git gud" and buy into the latest meta if i want to win. If i want to stand a chance of winning a game some negotiation beforehand is reqiured. Cool, no problem, i can do that.
Why doesnt this work if you dont want to use the bonus points?
I see this rule as GW trying to steer the game a little bit back to what it once where and i really really would like that.
That a number of posters are here only to troll and stir up gak doesnt help at all.
I hear what you are saying and I don't agree with those who say git gud or beat the issue with money. That is a GW problem of balance lip service and trying to sell pay to win. They have never had a good balance and the primaris v first born are a perfect sign of just how crap they are and how transparent with their aims.
I don't think you should have to negotiate for a fun game, at least not more than once. I mean I play with the same group mostly and tend to field pretty casual lists. Hell I usually field at least 10 if not more Ogryn for my guard list, that is pretty casual.
I see what you would like the rule to do, I just don't think it'll work that way. If anything, people will be like " Well if you have those extra points, I'll just bring a harder list " or You'll see the most lazy, but battle ready armies tossed up on the field which will be little better than bare plastic.
Some do like to stir the gak, but others really just don't think this is a good rule and feel it will won't lead to good things. Some of us do actually want good balance and don't condone the git gud mentality either. I can only speak for myself on that but I'm pretty consistent in wanting positive changes and good additions to the game, I just don't think this rule is a either of those. Though you seem pretty chill, so if you wanted the extra 10 points I'd happily give it up, though I'd rather the game was good and fun without it.
auticus wrote: Yeah. I also do not buy the "punishment" mindset. Sorry not sorry.
This has seeped into professional life as well, where rewarding a teammate for doing great work is seen as punishment to other people who didn't get the reward.
I think its absurd and part of the whole everyone gets a trophy culture we've embraced over the past 20 years or so. Everyone doesn't get a trophy. Thats life.
Yup, which is why I described them as entitled earlier.
They are OK with the core rules not rewarding their fellow gamer for their extra effort so long as it means they don't have to ask for an exception, because they are too prideful.
It's a carrot based on merit, but folks hate those in the current year for some reason. Like you said, it's got to be the whole "everyone gets a trophy" policies over the last 2 decades.
The rule actually is making it OK for unpainted armies to be played, something that was also never officially codified. Sure you may have never abide by that, but GW certainly always intended on the game to be played with painted models. But rather then seeing the glass half full, it's not only half empty but bone dry if you listen to the hyperbole in here.
I wish the rule were implemented in a different way. You can reward your opponent +10VP at the end of the game for having a fully painted army to at least the BRS. That would have put the sportsmanship element front and center and exposed the TFG type front and center. It's always easier to complain when you are allowed the space to frame yourself as the victim. Put the ball in their court and it gets much harder to complain about being a decent sport to the other guy for his extra hard work.
I also like the other posters suggestion for granularity, luckily we are all adults where I game so we will do just that.
auticus wrote: I love how a rule designed to reward people who put in the effort is flipped to be a PUNISHMENT to those that don't want to do it.
lol.
Its PUNISHMENT for me to have to chase around the meta and continuously buy new models to have good games too because the balance is utter garbage, but we all seem to embrace that punishment with the continued chorus of git gud and learn to play and build better lists if you want a good game.
I guess some of you better get to picking up a paintbrush. It takes all of 15-20 minutes to spray paint a squad of marines and dip them in some shade and paint their guns black and they are at that point just fine battle ready.
Or you can house rule it... but as I have been told MANY times over the past decade... that wouldn't be "real 40k".
You do realize not everyone against this rule would ever tell a player to get good or learn to play right ? I have a couple marine forces who only use first born and I'll never add primaris too, I'm not doing any meta list chasing and I do think that is all garbage and a sign GW pays lip service to balance. Just because people you deal with that are that blind as to love every rule GW puts out and try and bludgeon people with it doesn't mean we all are. If I think a rule is crap, I say it, as I do with this one. If it really pains you so much, just don't play people with un painted armies, doesn't need to be a rule in place to " reward " someone for painting their army. Painting your army is the reward in and of itself, saying you need to be rewarded for it is a daft mentality.
Why isn't the reward of having your beautiful army good enough ? Why isn't the effort put forth to enjoy your creation somehow diminished by someone else having grey hordes ? Do you or others resent them for not painting and putting forth that effort ? As I said in other posts, I have never cared what my opponents army looked like, I like my army and painted or not I appreciate it.
That is why it feels like a " punishment " the granting of 10 points all the time because it smacks of smug entitlement. " Well I wasn't a lazy git and painted my stuff, so I deserve more points because I'm awesome and you are lazy no goodnik. " Paint doesn't factor into any game effects, it doesn't mix up LOS, it doesn't let us hide with camo, it's just an additional bonus and if you love it great, if not that should be equally great. No one should feel they deserve extra points for an action they undertook willingly to make their own items more pleasing to them. It's just the game, not a painting competition where that effort would ideally be rewarded.
The beauty of all gaming forums is that we have no end to our metaphors, and anything we don't like we have a skill at making it seem like it came from the depths of a horror movie to punish us, or to paint the other side as smug entitled jackasses.
Come to think of it thats how our political system works as well. Nevermind its not just gaming forums, I take that back.
Why isn't the reward of having your beautiful army good enough ?
I didn't write the rule. But... why isn't the fact i spent $800 on a necron force good enough that I have to sit through getting tabled in 1 or 2 turns because I chose the wrong faction? And that I need to get good or learn to play because I chose to like the wrong faction?
Right see that merry go round is a big circle where we can come up with all kinds of things back and forth, but ultimately gets us nowhere. The rule is what it is. Much like the library of rules in 40k that I absolutely hate exist and I have to deal with (or not play, which is largely what I have had to do for some time until they decide to make my factions not gimp so that I don't waste an afternoon getting throttled because I chose the wrong army and won't go round spending another grand just to have close competitive games again in a system that is mostly flaming garbage that encourages that behavior in the first place)
I'm literally saying I agree that GW has crap balance and that isn't allowable or should be endorsed. I don't get how I can agree with you any more while still saying I don't think this rule is good either.
You shouldn't be punished based on faction either, I think that is terrible and it sucks. The rule is what it is but saying you've had to eat crap from sucky people doesn't mean you should gleefully support others distaste of a rule that is no less dim and adds nothing but derision and division from the player base. If you feel no one stood up to say that stuff sucks with you I am doing so, right now. Taking joy in other peoples upset because you've been upset isn't any good way to view things though.
JNAProductions wrote: What is wrong with people enjoying the hobby in different ways?
Someone who loves the lore, but doesn't own a single model-are they wrong?
Someone who loves to paint, but doesn't play a game or give a rat's ass about the lore-are they wrong?
Someone who loves to convert models, but hates to paint-are they wrong?
Someone who loves to game with their friends, but doesn't like painting or care much for the lore-are they wrong?
I hate to dribble when I play basketball, they should totally fix the core rules for everyone that plays that sport in a league to accommodate my preferences because I am entitled and shouldn't have to be treated as the exception
Stop willfully creating fake scenarios.
All your examples don't require a social contract except for the last where you would find out how to be an adult and decide as a group of friends rather then make demands.
JNAProductions wrote: What is wrong with people enjoying the hobby in different ways?
Someone who loves the lore, but doesn't own a single model-are they wrong?
Someone who loves to paint, but doesn't play a game or give a rat's ass about the lore-are they wrong?
Someone who loves to convert models, but hates to paint-are they wrong?
Someone who loves to game with their friends, but doesn't like painting or care much for the lore-are they wrong?
I hate to dribble when I play basketball, they should totally fix the core rules for everyone that plays that sport in a league to accommodate my preferences because I am entitled and shouldn't have to be treated as the exception
Stop willfully creating fake scenarios.
All your examples don't require a social contract except for the last where you would find out how to be an adult and decide as a group of friends rather then make demands.
False equivalency. It's more like "I don't like orange basketballs, your team will take a 10 point penalty if you don't provide me pink basketballs to use."
You shouldn't be punished based on faction either, I think that is terrible and it sucks. The rule is what it is but saying you've had to eat crap from sucky people doesn't mean you should gleefully support others distaste of a rule that is no less dim and adds nothing but derision and division from the player base. If you feel no one stood up to say that stuff sucks with you I am doing so, right now. Taking joy in other peoples upset because you've been upset isn't any good way to view things though.
Oh I don't think its a horrible rule. I've played in events with this very rule, and ran some events with this very rule (it took different forms). I played Battlefleet Gothic which had this rule. I did the traveling tournament circuit thing for years where you HAD to have painted miniatures.
So I'm not just posting this to say I take joy in other people being upset. I don't take joy from it. I'm pointing out the blown up hypocrisy of some people, many in this very thread I've read over the years on dakka and other places, upset at an official rule when they have contributed in the past to blasting people for using houserules or for telling them to git gud because of bad balance issues.
JNAProductions wrote: What is wrong with people enjoying the hobby in different ways?
Someone who loves the lore, but doesn't own a single model-are they wrong?
Someone who loves to paint, but doesn't play a game or give a rat's ass about the lore-are they wrong?
Someone who loves to convert models, but hates to paint-are they wrong?
Someone who loves to game with their friends, but doesn't like painting or care much for the lore-are they wrong?
I hate to dribble when I play basketball, they should totally fix the core rules for everyone that plays that sport in a league to accommodate my preferences because I am entitled and shouldn't have to be treated as the exception
Stop willfully creating fake scenarios.
All your examples don't require a social contract except for the last where you would find out how to be an adult and decide as a group of friends rather then make demands.
False equivalency. It's more like "I don't like orange basketballs, your team will take a 10 point penalty if you don't provide me pink basketballs to use."
Actually, it's more like "I expect my basketballs to be inflated, and you take a 10-point penalty if you provide deflated basketballs."
Y'know, since prettiness is basically the reason we play minis games instead of using cardboard chits.
You shouldn't be punished based on faction either, I think that is terrible and it sucks. The rule is what it is but saying you've had to eat crap from sucky people doesn't mean you should gleefully support others distaste of a rule that is no less dim and adds nothing but derision and division from the player base. If you feel no one stood up to say that stuff sucks with you I am doing so, right now. Taking joy in other peoples upset because you've been upset isn't any good way to view things though.
Oh I don't think its a horrible rule. I've played in events with this very rule, and ran some events with this very rule (it took different forms). I played Battlefleet Gothic which had this rule. I did the traveling tournament circuit thing for years where you HAD to have painted miniatures.
So I'm not just posting this to say I take joy in other people being upset. I don't take joy from it. I'm pointing out the blown up hypocrisy of some people, many in this very thread I've read over the years on dakka and other places, upset at an official rule when they have contributed in the past to blasting people for using houserules or for telling them to git gud because of bad balance issues.
Well was it always a baked in rule in BFG ? If it was, people knew what they were buying into yeah ? This has never been a point granting rule in 40k and what events enforce is different from the core missions all holding this as a scoring device. I don't recall any threads saying how unfair it is tournaments require you to bring painted armies, I know I've never disagreed with it.
Two wrongs though will never make a right and the people who said that to you are just as bad as those who want to support this simply because " Dems the rules ".
To clarify, no one I've heard thinks this or more stringent rules shouldn't be used in tournaments, some events, personal groups, etc. We just disagree with its inclusion as a core scoring mechanic when its never been a part of the game before as well has no in game benefit other than meeting an arbitrary standard that could change when the wind blows.
JNAProductions wrote: What is wrong with people enjoying the hobby in different ways?
Someone who loves the lore, but doesn't own a single model-are they wrong?
Someone who loves to paint, but doesn't play a game or give a rat's ass about the lore-are they wrong?
Someone who loves to convert models, but hates to paint-are they wrong?
Someone who loves to game with their friends, but doesn't like painting or care much for the lore-are they wrong?
I hate to dribble when I play basketball, they should totally fix the core rules for everyone that plays that sport in a league to accommodate my preferences because I am entitled and shouldn't have to be treated as the exception
Stop willfully creating fake scenarios.
All your examples don't require a social contract except for the last where you would find out how to be an adult and decide as a group of friends rather then make demands.
False equivalency. It's more like "I don't like orange basketballs, your team will take a 10 point penalty if you don't provide me pink basketballs to use."
Actually, it's more like "I expect my basketballs to be inflated, and you take a 10-point penalty if you provide deflated basketballs."
Y'know, since prettiness is basically the reason we play minis games instead of using cardboard chits.
Not to butt in, but, How you going to play basketball with deflated balls ? That seems more like showing up with built models as opposed to just piles of bits.
the very fact this debate has gone on so long shows we all didn't get into this game because we craved prettiness. We enjoy it, yes but I'd never pressure someone to paint their army, everyone I've ever played with does but at their own pace and I still don't think rules should pressure you to do it beyond your own, self set, pace. As well I'd say many play this game because if they want to play any table top mini/war game its simply the only game in town in a great many instances. Which leads to such varying views on the utmost importance of painted models.
For umpteen years this debate has raged across the internet and now GW has basically said, yes this is a debate we want to be happening. Which is bizarre in itself but as BCB points out also contrary to their own brand ambitions or perhaps it just shows that their branding is all pose.
Could we stop using analogies? We get a new one every other page, and then we get it twisted in 5 different ways to fit different sides, before we finally realise it wasn't appropriate in the first place, or dismiss it as not relevant.
For umpteen years this debate has raged across the internet and now GW has basically said, yes this is a debate we want to be happening. Which is bizarre in itself but as BCB points out also contrary to their own brand ambitions or perhaps it just shows that their branding is all pose.
I'm sorry but, how do you figure that? The games have always been presented as being played with painted models.
Until now,painting was part of the hobby,not the game,is the difference I see it as.What about unpainted terrain?is that gonna be classed as invisible,no longer blocks los?Read it here first!
For umpteen years this debate has raged across the internet and now GW has basically said, yes this is a debate we want to be happening. Which is bizarre in itself but as BCB points out also contrary to their own brand ambitions or perhaps it just shows that their branding is all pose.
I'm sorry but, how do you figure that? The games have always been presented as being played with painted models.
Sure the sales catalogs show painted models. But there was no paint to win rule. This is ... quite a step. In the direction of an existing dumpster fire of an ongoing fight that only the least plugged in staffers could fail to know about.
Insectum7 wrote: I'm sorry but, how do you figure that? The games have always been presented as being played with painted models.
It seem that there is a section of the playerbase who have managed to remain oblivious of this fact for thirty years.
Still waiting for you to provide any evidence to support your assertions BTW. It didn't escape my notice that when I challenged you earlier, you continued to assert your position without providing evidence then went quiet for a bit.
In fact, the 7th edition 40K hardback rulebook bundle actively implies that while it's satisfying to play a game with painted models, it's not necessary to paint your models to play:
A Galaxy Of War, p2 wrote:As each collection grows, it does so along one of three common paths: legends, gaming and painting.
A Galaxy Of War, p5 wrote:None of this is to say that you should feel you're not doing things properly if you don't pursue all three aspects of Warhammer 40,000...
You can pursue one aspect or all three... This is your hobby, and how you pursue it is yours to decide.
There. Direct quotes from a GW publication, dated 2014, confirming that at that time GW considered it perfectly acceptable to play the game without painting your models.
Just to say it, we all know the " Warhammer is for everyone " this is little but empty posturing, there are a great many hurdles to this game and hobby that make it exclusive as past times go. Most people we try to get to play scoff at the price of start up, idea of time invested just to be table ready and all the painting demand does it make it even less approachable.
I got into this hobby not even wanting to model, I had friends who pulled me in kicking and screaming. However once I got a taste, I loved it. Now I engage in all the aspects but as the very same quotes above me point out, painting has never been mandatory just desired.
Honestly, who doesn't wish they had a full painted army ? Who doesn't rather have everything looking nice ? Desire is one thing for views. It shouldn't be and has never been with this game a point based issue outside perhaps tournaments. Which absolutely no one has complained about.
Core game rules is a step too far though, and while I'm sure people wish those who dislike it would just stop bringing it up. This is a process, if we don't like it, say it. I encourage anyone who takes issue with this to mail them, put thoughts to words and say it's not appreciated. They'll either listen at a certain point, or admit what we may feel already that they only pay lip service to caring about their fans in the first place.
Edit: Also at this point is more for others on the fence, or who want to read the issues for and against the rule. I think its a bit of a fallacy to assume debates are only had to win or lose sometimes they are about to really work over the subject matter. Bring it to light and see it from all the angles.
Well was it always a baked in rule in BFG ? If it was, people knew what they were buying into yeah ?
Kind of like when I buy an army and then it gets turned into a tepid steaming bowl of crap with a new edition? And I'm expected to just pony up and buy a new army?
Insectum7 wrote: I'm sorry but, how do you figure that? The games have always been presented as being played with painted models.
It seem that there is a section of the playerbase who have managed to remain oblivious of this fact for thirty years.
Still waiting for you to provide any evidence to support your assertions BTW. It didn't escape my notice that when I challenged you earlier, you continued to assert your position without providing evidence then went quiet for a bit.
In fact, the 7th edition 40K hardback rulebook bundle actively implies that while it's satisfying to play a game with painted models, it's not necessary to paint your models to play:
A Galaxy Of War, p2 wrote:As each collection grows, it does so along one of three common paths: legends, gaming and painting.
A Galaxy Of War, p5 wrote:None of this is to say that you should feel you're not doing things properly if you don't pursue all three aspects of Warhammer 40,000...
You can pursue one aspect or all three... This is your hobby, and how you pursue it is yours to decide.
There. Direct quotes from a GW publication, dated 2014, confirming that at that time GW considered it perfectly acceptable to play the game without painting your models.
It's also not necessary to use models at all, blank bases or flat cardboard proxies work fine. Why can't I split modeling off from the game by that same logic? Because it's stupid and you can break the hobby down into any number of categories and pick and choose whichever to discard.
Well was it always a baked in rule in BFG ? If it was, people knew what they were buying into yeah ?
Kind of like when I buy an army and then it gets turned into a tepid steaming bowl of crap with a new edition? And I'm expected to just pony up and buy a new army?
Same thing I suppose.
I don't expect you to do any of that and in fact agree with you that's a crap process GW does. I don't support it and never will.
In fact, the 7th edition 40K hardback rulebook bundle actively implies that while it's satisfying to play a game with painted models, it's not necessary to paint your models to play:
A Galaxy Of War, p2 wrote:As each collection grows, it does so along one of three common paths: legends, gaming and painting.
A Galaxy Of War, p5 wrote:None of this is to say that you should feel you're not doing things properly if you don't pursue all three aspects of Warhammer 40,000...
You can pursue one aspect or all three... This is your hobby, and how you pursue it is yours to decide.
There. Direct quotes from a GW publication, dated 2014, confirming that at that time GW considered it perfectly acceptable to play the game without painting your models.
Good find, I'll give you that.
Still, as you note, the preceding paragraph says: "Gaming is much more satisfying with with fully painted army than one of bare plastic and resin." That has always been the optimal way to play to GW. Of course they're not gonna tell paying customers that they cannot play in another manner. And indeed, you still can. Unpainted armies are no banned. The rules merely codify this attitude: 'you don't need to paint if you don't want to, but let's face, it is better if you do.'
Aelyn wrote: In fact, the 7th edition 40K hardback rulebook bundle actively implies that while it's satisfying to play a game with painted models, it's not necessary to paint your models to play:
A Galaxy Of War, p2 wrote:As each collection grows, it does so along one of three common paths: legends, gaming and painting.
A Galaxy Of War, p5 wrote:None of this is to say that you should feel you're not doing things properly if you don't pursue all three aspects of Warhammer 40,000...
You can pursue one aspect or all three... This is your hobby, and how you pursue it is yours to decide.
There. Direct quotes from a GW publication, dated 2014, confirming that at that time GW considered it perfectly acceptable to play the game without painting your models.
It's also not necessary to use models at all, blank bases or flat cardboard proxies work fine. Why can't I split modeling off from the game by that same logic? Because it's stupid and you can break the hobby down into any number of categories and pick and choose whichever to discard.
Yep, as long as you have some way of addressing LoS and ensuring it's clear which unit is which, blanks bases or cardboard proxies are also not inherently "wrong".
Besides, the point of my post was that I didn't break the hobby down into those categories - GW did. It was a counterexample to the "GW have always expected people to play with painted models" mantra some people have been pushing. GW have previously said it's fine to pursue gaming without painting in the 40K hobby.
In fact, the 7th edition 40K hardback rulebook bundle actively implies that while it's satisfying to play a game with painted models, it's not necessary to paint your models to play:
A Galaxy Of War, p2 wrote:As each collection grows, it does so along one of three common paths: legends, gaming and painting.
A Galaxy Of War, p5 wrote:None of this is to say that you should feel you're not doing things properly if you don't pursue all three aspects of Warhammer 40,000...
You can pursue one aspect or all three... This is your hobby, and how you pursue it is yours to decide.
There. Direct quotes from a GW publication, dated 2014, confirming that at that time GW considered it perfectly acceptable to play the game without painting your models.
Good find, I'll give you that.
Still, as you note, the preceding paragraph says: "Gaming is much more satisfying with with fully painted army than one of bare plastic and resin." That has always been the optimal way to play to GW. Of course they're not gonna tell paying customers that they cannot play in another manner. And indeed, you still can. Unpainted armies are no banned. The rules merely codify this attitude: 'you don't need to paint if you don't want to, but let's face, it is better if you do.'
I've never disputed it's more satisfying experience overall, I've just disputed that it should be a requirement or even an expectation. While it may make for a more satisfying experience, it doesn't necessarily make for a more satisfying game, and I am of the opinion that game rules should be designed in support of the actual game itself, not the broader experience.
But now the new scenarios are blurring the lines between the different parts of the hobby, and that's what I object to; the rule imposes an in-game penalty for an out-of-game approach to the hobby. And yes, in a zero-sum game, giving one player a bonus is equivalent to giving the other a penalty.
In fact, the 7th edition 40K hardback rulebook bundle actively implies that while it's satisfying to play a game with painted models, it's not necessary to paint your models to play:
A Galaxy Of War, p2 wrote:As each collection grows, it does so along one of three common paths: legends, gaming and painting.
A Galaxy Of War, p5 wrote:None of this is to say that you should feel you're not doing things properly if you don't pursue all three aspects of Warhammer 40,000...
You can pursue one aspect or all three... This is your hobby, and how you pursue it is yours to decide.
There. Direct quotes from a GW publication, dated 2014, confirming that at that time GW considered it perfectly acceptable to play the game without painting your models.
Good find, I'll give you that.
Still, as you note, the preceding paragraph says: "Gaming is much more satisfying with with fully painted army than one of bare plastic and resin." That has always been the optimal way to play to GW. Of course they're not gonna tell paying customers that they cannot play in another manner. And indeed, you still can. Unpainted armies are no banned. The rules merely codify this attitude: 'you don't need to paint if you don't want to, but let's face, it is better if you do.'
You're really reaching, they are more saying " Feel free to buy and play but do so 10 points down ! " that is neither fun nor accepting. It's more a passive attack on you for not having every model painted or having wrong fun. At that point can I make 10 points with having a 30 page printed out and perfectly bound back story ? I mean forging narratives are huge with the game. How about 10 points for a super fluffy list !
Isn't gaming the most satisfying with a good story, background and pleasing set up as well as fully painted ?
Un painted armies were never banned from being used so acting like this rule is good because it doesn't ban you is silly. The rule shows some sorta attitude, but it isn't a good one. In fact, I bet this rule makes doves cry.
You're really reaching, they are more saying " Feel free to buy and play but do so 10 points down ! " that is neither fun nor accepting. It's more a passive attack on you for not having every model painted or having wrong fun.
Consider it balancing the reaction time advantage in meta chasing that skipping the painting gives.
At that point can I make 10 points with having a 30 page printed out and perfectly bound back story ? I mean forging narratives are huge with the game. How about 10 points for a super fluffy list !
Isn't gaming the most satisfying with a good story, background and pleasing set up as well as fully painted ?
This was actually touched upon in the balancing thread. I strongly feel that rules should be written so that they encourage fluff appropriate builds. So yes, I am in favour of effectively giving fluffy armies an advantage in the game.
Un painted armies were never banned from being used so acting like this rule is good because it doesn't ban you is silly.
In AOS they kinda are. The default state is having a painted army and you need to ask your opponents permission to use unpainted. I'm not sure if that is better approach. Though I'm fine with either.
Aelyn wrote: But now the new scenarios are blurring the lines between the different parts of the hobby, and that's what I object to; the rule imposes an in-game penalty for an out-of-game approach to the hobby. And yes, in a zero-sum game, giving one player a bonus is equivalent to giving the other a penalty.
Apparently there's a term for this sort of thinking - zero-sum bias.
Here's the thing - these 10VP (and, indeed, the VP scored within a game as a whole) do not represent a zero-sum game. If there was a finite shared pool of VPs that were pulled from, and which could be emptied to prevent your opponent scoring, then perhaps this thinking might have merit.
But it doesn't.
If both sides put the effort in, both sides can score the 10VP. If neither side does, neither do. If only one does, they do see a benefit - but they're not taking those VPs away from their opponent's score to add to their own.
For umpteen years this debate has raged across the internet and now GW has basically said, yes this is a debate we want to be happening. Which is bizarre in itself but as BCB points out also contrary to their own brand ambitions or perhaps it just shows that their branding is all pose.
I'm sorry but, how do you figure that? The games have always been presented as being played with painted models.
Sure the sales catalogs show painted models. But there was no paint to win rule. This is ... quite a step. In the direction of an existing dumpster fire of an ongoing fight that only the least plugged in staffers could fail to know about.
Honestly I think this is much better than the "you have to play the chapter that you painted" rule which I think was in place for the 40K tournament scene at some point.
I just don't see 10 out of a possible 100 points as being "paint to win", especially when
A: tournaments have been running with painting requirements for decades.
B: you can waive the rule among friends
and
C: you can still get roflstomped by a grey horde
Despite the controversy, I think it will result in more models on the table being painted.
You're really reaching, they are more saying " Feel free to buy and play but do so 10 points down ! " that is neither fun nor accepting. It's more a passive attack on you for not having every model painted or having wrong fun.
Consider it balancing the reaction time advantage in meta chasing that skipping the painting gives.
At that point can I make 10 points with having a 30 page printed out and perfectly bound back story ? I mean forging narratives are huge with the game. How about 10 points for a super fluffy list !
Isn't gaming the most satisfying with a good story, background and pleasing set up as well as fully painted ?
This was actually touched upon in the balancing thread. I strongly feel that rules should be written so that they encourage fluff appropriate builds. So yes, I am in favour of effectively giving fluffy armies an advantage in the game.
Un painted armies were never banned from being used so acting like this rule is good because it doesn't ban you is silly.
In AOS they kinda are. The default state is having a painted army and you need to ask your opponents permission to use unpainted. I'm not sure if that is better approach. Though I'm fine with either.
So let me get this straight, this is somehow good because a game I don't play bans unpainted models ? I don't give good goram what AoS does or doesn't allow. I'm Warhammer Old World Boyo, AoS can vanish back into the eye of terror at the back end of space for all I care about it. So the default state of that less than enticing game doesn't change my point of view, neither should it be used as cudgel to imply we should be grateful here in 40k land.
Well when my huge and impressive back story, and army list selection can earn me more points, I'll re think this painting points thing, until then, hell no, it stinks and it needs to keep its hiney where it belongs, in the hobby section and out of core game rules.
Aelyn wrote: But now the new scenarios are blurring the lines between the different parts of the hobby, and that's what I object to; the rule imposes an in-game penalty for an out-of-game approach to the hobby. And yes, in a zero-sum game, giving one player a bonus is equivalent to giving the other a penalty.
Apparently there's a term for this sort of thinking - zero-sum bias.
Here's the thing - these 10VP (and, indeed, the VP scored within a game as a whole) do not represent a zero-sum game. If there was a finite shared pool of VPs that were pulled from, and which could be emptied to prevent your opponent scoring, then perhaps this thinking might have merit.
But it doesn't.
If both sides put the effort in, both sides can score the 10VP. If neither side does, neither do. If only one does, they do see a benefit - but they're not taking those VPs away from their opponent's score to add to their own.
Sheesh.
The results of a game are zero-sum, and that's what the VPs are used to define. For one player to win, the other has to lose. Admittedly, I was making the unspoken assumption that we were talking about a single game and the ultimate criteria we were looking at was who won or lost that game, as opposed to (for example) a campaign where the number of VPs you get in a game informs your progression rather than your win/loss record.
Zero-sum bias is a thing, but this is not an example of it.
For umpteen years this debate has raged across the internet and now GW has basically said, yes this is a debate we want to be happening. Which is bizarre in itself but as BCB points out also contrary to their own brand ambitions or perhaps it just shows that their branding is all pose.
This is a silly. If it's for everyone, then is it also for people who don't buy models at all? Or use 3rd party models? Or who don't follow rules? Or who flip tables?
When GW says its for everyone, they're talking about every kind of person. Any age/race/color/creed/nationality/etc. Warhammer is for everyone, and Warhammer includes following the rules and using the proper models. And now, clearly, it also includes using painted models in matched play.
For umpteen years this debate has raged across the internet and now GW has basically said, yes this is a debate we want to be happening. Which is bizarre in itself but as BCB points out also contrary to their own brand ambitions or perhaps it just shows that their branding is all pose.
This is a silly. If it's for everyone, then is it also for people who don't buy models at all? Or use 3rd party models? Or who don't follow rules? Or who flip tables?
When GW says its for everyone, they're talking about every kind of person. Any age/race/color/creed/nationality/etc. Warhammer is for everyone, and Warhammer includes following the rules and using the proper models. And now, clearly, it also includes using painted models in matched play.
So it's not for disabled people who have enough motor function to assemble models but not paint them. Gotcha.
Also, it's fairly easy to have friends glue models together, it's no more difficult than lego. Painting is another thing entirely.
For umpteen years this debate has raged across the internet and now GW has basically said, yes this is a debate we want to be happening. Which is bizarre in itself but as BCB points out also contrary to their own brand ambitions or perhaps it just shows that their branding is all pose.
This is a silly. If it's for everyone, then is it also for people who don't buy models at all? Or use 3rd party models? Or who don't follow rules? Or who flip tables?
When GW says its for everyone, they're talking about every kind of person. Any age/race/color/creed/nationality/etc. Warhammer is for everyone, and Warhammer includes following the rules and using the proper models. And now, clearly, it also includes using painted models in matched play.
So it's not for disabled people who have enough motor function to assemble models but not paint them. Gotcha.
Also, it's fairly easy to have friends glue models together, it's no more difficult than lego. Painting is another thing entirely.
You're an expert on rules. You know full well that a general rule does not have to include every exception.
Why aren't you complaining that movement rules don't make exceptions for disabled people who can't move models?
Why aren't you complaining that there's no version of the rules in audio format or braille for the blind?
Why is there no shorthand sign language way to play the game for those who can't speak?
You aren't, so its not really about disabled people. So spare us all your sanctimoniousness. If getting other people to glue models together is an option, then surely just talking to your opponent or TO about waving the rule in certain cases is also an option.
You can say you just don't like the rule because you think its inconvenient. You don't have to do this silly hyperbole.
How the hell has this thread reached 32 pages? The constant arguing in this thread is Exhibit A for why this rule shouldn't exist.
Those of you actually arguing that your opponent has an obligation to paint their minis to make you happy are selfish. It is no-one's damn business what someone does with their own minis.
Blastaar wrote: How the hell has this thread reached 32 pages? The constant arguing in this thread is Exhibit A for why this rule shouldn't exist.
Those of you actually arguing that your opponent has an obligation to paint their minis to make you happy are selfish. It is no-one's damn business what someone does with their own minis.
The rule doesn't say anything about making your opponent happy. It's not me who is demanding that people paint their minis. The rule is an incentive to earn some extra victory points if you do. Its not my business at all if my opponent feels like picking up those VPs or not. There's no arm twisting going on.
So noone is getting bonus points. That's cool. Let's just roll some dice and chill.
In the hypothetical case that this rule encourages a couple of people in your group to finish off enough WIP models to field BRS armies, Nightlord, would you have a problem with them getting the 10VPs?
Blastaar wrote: How the hell has this thread reached 32 pages? The constant arguing in this thread is Exhibit A for why this rule shouldn't exist.
Those of you actually arguing that your opponent has an obligation to paint their minis to make you happy are selfish. It is no-one's damn business what someone does with their own minis.
This is very true, but the person with the painted army is more likely to win the game still. But like i said earlier, that's only a problem based on what you consider important to you.
Likewise people in here are pretending that you can't talk to your opponent about the rule or that it's law. They also seem to think being 10 points down potentially assuming they don't talk to their opponent, results in a loss before even trying.
While I don't play with or against unpainted armies if I have the choice, I think it is a stupid rule because having a painted or unpainted army should not have any effect on the result of the game. On the other hand, if I am attending a tournament I agree on whatever rules they have and if I am playing an one-off game, the result of the game is irrelevant so I don't have an issue with the rule.
If this results in more players painting their armies, good. If this results in tournaments allowing unpainted armies, not good.
jullevi wrote: if I am playing an one-off game, the result of the game is irrelevant so I don't have an issue with the rule.
I think this shows one of the biggest disconnects between people who are against rule and people who either like it or don't care particularly. Because I get that the outcome of the game doesn't *really* matter, and it's not worth losing friends over, it's important to have fun, DBAD etc etc, but at the end of the day you're *still* playing a game where you try to make decisions in order to gain a victory, so any rule that awards points arbitrarily just sticks in my craw. If the result of the game is irrelevant, you'd be OK with a rule stating that Space Marines get an extra 50 VP automatically then? After all, who cares if they win, it doesn't matter who wins? And if people don't like that rule they can just house-rule it away, so the rule's fine then?
jullevi wrote: if I am playing an one-off game, the result of the game is irrelevant so I don't have an issue with the rule.
I think this shows one of the biggest disconnects between people who are against rule and people who either like it or don't care particularly. Because I get that the outcome of the game doesn't *really* matter, and it's not worth losing friends over, it's important to have fun, DBAD etc etc, but at the end of the day you're *still* playing a game where you try to make decisions in order to gain a victory, so any rule that awards points arbitrarily just sticks in my craw. If the result of the game is irrelevant, you'd be OK with a rule stating that Space Marines get an extra 50 VP automatically then? After all, who cares if they win, it doesn't matter who wins? And if people don't like that rule they can just house-rule it away, so the rule's fine then?
It is not arbitrary. You decided to not paint the minis.
Kithail wrote: It is not arbitrary. You decided to not paint the minis.
The vast majority of the people unhappy with this rule in this thread did not "decide" to not paint their minis. Painting requires skill, patience and time. You have limited influence on how much of those you have.
Kithail wrote: It is not arbitrary. You decided to not paint the minis.
The vast majority of the people unhappy with this rule in this thread did not "decide" to not paint their minis. Painting requires skill, patience and time. You have limited influence on how much of those you have.
Playing and winning games do not require skill patience and time I take it?
Kithail wrote: It is not arbitrary. You decided to not paint the minis.
The vast majority of the people unhappy with this rule in this thread did not "decide" to not paint their minis. Painting requires skill, patience and time. You have limited influence on how much of those you have.
Putting some block basecoats on to comply with the rule takes little time, going back over them to do the details and make them look nice requires skill, patience and time.
Battle ready minus base apparently in 10 mins:
Spoiler:
Technically battle ready, can't take too long:
Spoiler:
Also would constitute battle ready with some basing:
Spoiler:
It doesn't have to be pretty, skilful or detailed. It just needs some paint on there and a bit of basing material. You also don't have to paint them this way permanently, just as a temporary measure until you can go and spruce them up.
Twilight Pathways wrote: And if people don't like that rule they can just house-rule it away, so the rule's fine then?
I didn't say the rule is fine. I said that it is stupid and shouldn't exist because having model painted should have no effect on the game and it causes arguments such as this thread.
I said I don't care because the rule as no impact on any games I may play. If it encourages people to paint their armies it will get thumbs up from me. But it is still a stupid rule.
Kithail wrote: Playing and winning games do not require skill patience and time I take it?
If winning games would make you a faster painter, I would not be having this conversion.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Dudeface wrote: Also would constitute battle ready with some basing:
Spoiler:
It doesn't have to be pretty, skilful or detailed. It just needs some paint on there and a bit of basing material. You also don't have to paint them this way permanently, just as a temporary measure until you can go and spruce them up.
Ruining a unit of my miniatures like that would probably still take me two weeks. Meanwhile, my spouse paints a full unit of highly detailed genestealers in the same time.
Skill and ability doesn't just make models beautiful, they also decides how fast you can paint.
It's odd how telling people how to enjoy their hobby suddenly becomes okay when it comes to painting.
You are playing a game that includes assembling and painting your models.
Why are we all in agreement that you should assemble your models (unless someone is playing with sprues glued to bases?) and not with painting them?
I also like tournaments where they include sportmanship points, nothing to do with skill in the game, it's not a big part, but it counts towards winning the tournament, great.
If you want to play a try-out game, fine if your army isn't painted. If you want to include a model to see what is does and it isn't painted yet, fine aswell.
But in the long run, the friends I play regularly against, everything is painted, which is great. Them painting their armies makes my game that much more fun.
Back to the question at hand, my opponent can choose if they want to use it, my army is fully painted.
Kithail wrote: Playing and winning games do not require skill patience and time I take it?
If winning games would make you a faster painter, I would not be having this conversion.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Dudeface wrote: Also would constitute battle ready with some basing:
Spoiler:
It doesn't have to be pretty, skilful or detailed. It just needs some paint on there and a bit of basing material. You also don't have to paint them this way permanently, just as a temporary measure until you can go and spruce them up.
Ruining a unit of my miniatures like that would probably still take me two weeks. Meanwhile, my spouse paints a full unit of highly detailed genestealers in the same time.
Skill and ability doesn't just make models beautiful, they also decides how fast you can paint.
It's odd how telling people how to enjoy their hobby suddenly becomes okay when it comes to painting.
Nobody is telling you how to enjoy your hobby, simply that if 10 points matter to you, paint your stuff quickly and badly to get the 10 points rather than have grey plastic. Nobody claimed you should be enjoying doing that. If you enjoy winning however then arguably you are enjoying the effort you put into painting them by extension.
Dudeface wrote: Nobody is telling you how to enjoy your hobby, simply that if 10 points matter to you, paint your stuff quickly and badly to get the 10 points rather than have grey plastic. Nobody claimed you should be enjoying doing that. If you enjoy winning however then arguably you are enjoying the effort you put into painting them by extension.
I almost definitely do not enjoy throwing paint at my models from a distance just for speeds sake. The only reason I paint at all is because I enjoy my models being painted in a way I like. Yet, in this thread, it seems to be perfectly fine to tell people to do exactly that. This is just the painter's version of "git gud".
This is what my "speed painted" models look like:
Spoiler:
Still, the corresponding boyz mob (12 models) and the nob squad (5 models) each took me a week to finish. They were fine to fulfill tournament requirements of having three paints, and from a distance most people won't even notice that they are unpainted. They are not considered battle ready.
It is not arbitrary. You decided to not paint the minis.
That's wrong, it is arbitrary in the context of how 40k has worked for over three decades. 'Arbitrary: based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system'. So you could argue that it's not arbitrary because by dint of being a rule at all, it's de facto part of the 'system' and so isn't a random choice. However that's rather weak as by the same logic any random rule introduced in the game would not be arbitrary. +10 VPs if you're wearing an orange shirt? Not arbitrary, it's a rule, and you decided not to wear an orange shirt.
It would therefore make far more sense to classify this as a rule based on a 'personal whim' (well ok, it's really a 'corporate whim') as it is diametrically opposed to the established system of how 40k dispenses rewards during a game, namely that you accrue points during a game based on things that happen within the game. A blanket rule granting points based on aesthetics operates outside of that system and is therefore more comparable to a personal whim of the writer(s), who wants to encourage more painted armies, than it is to the 'system' of 40k.
As an aside, I feel like the community's heavy lean towards 'judge whether you are going to enforce this rule on a game-by-game basis, based on the disposition of your opponent and the appearance of their army', amplifies its sense of arbitrariness.
Kithail wrote: It is not arbitrary. You decided to not paint the minis.
The vast majority of the people unhappy with this rule in this thread did not "decide" to not paint their minis. Painting requires skill, patience and time. You have limited influence on how much of those you have.
Putting some block basecoats on to comply with the rule takes little time, going back over them to do the details and make them look nice requires skill, patience and time.
Battle ready minus base apparently in 10 mins:
Spoiler:
Technically battle ready, can't take too long:
Spoiler:
Also would constitute battle ready with some basing:
Spoiler:
It doesn't have to be pretty, skilful or detailed. It just needs some paint on there and a bit of basing material. You also don't have to paint them this way permanently, just as a temporary measure until you can go and spruce them up.
Sorry, is this supposed to be an argument in favour of the rule?
Because what I'm seeing here - especially in the last two pictures - is paint jobs that are significantly more ugly than just plain, grey plastic.
Given that this is precisely the sort of painting this rule encourages, maybe those who purport to care about the image of the game should have a long, hard think about why they're so eager to defend it.
Dudeface wrote: Nobody is telling you how to enjoy your hobby, simply that if 10 points matter to you, paint your stuff quickly and badly to get the 10 points rather than have grey plastic. Nobody claimed you should be enjoying doing that. If you enjoy winning however then arguably you are enjoying the effort you put into painting them by extension.
I almost definitely do not enjoy throwing paint at my models from a distance just for speeds sake. The only reason I paint at all is because I enjoy my models being painted in a way I like.
Yet, in this thread, it seems to be perfectly fine to tell people to do exactly that.
This is just the painter's version of "git gud".
This is what my "speed painted" models look like:
Spoiler:
Still, the corresponding boyz mob (12 models) and the nob squad (5 models) each took me a week to finish.
They were fine to fulfill tournament requirements of having three paints, and from a distance most people won't even notice that they are unpainted.
They are not considered battle ready.
So much for that.
At this point, I don't really understand what you're expecting. You know you can get around the rules by applying basecoats (yes it takes you a couple of weeks, but 19 models in 2 weeks isn't too bad really), that doing so doesn't stop you painting them further if desired at a later date.
Doing this will get you 10 VP against people who want to use the rule, if they don't then no dramas and if they do, it requires them to also have a painted army to have any impact. If you want the 10 points that's what you have to do, if you're not bothered by the 10 points, carry on as you are and rely on your generalship to win the day.
It's pretty clear cut, communicate with your opponent and it likely isn't a problem, if it becomes a problem you face a choice to either carry on possibly 10 points down, paint to a basic level to get them over the line or consider new techniques or paints to try and speed up such as contrast.
I'm not going to force people to play with the rule, I wouldn't turn down a game with someone that does, if I am going to use the rule I'm more concerned with progress than completeness. Is 1 more unit painted than last time? If so sure, have the points.
Kithail wrote: It is not arbitrary. You decided to not paint the minis.
The vast majority of the people unhappy with this rule in this thread did not "decide" to not paint their minis. Painting requires skill, patience and time. You have limited influence on how much of those you have.
Putting some block basecoats on to comply with the rule takes little time, going back over them to do the details and make them look nice requires skill, patience and time.
Battle ready minus base apparently in 10 mins:
Spoiler:
Technically battle ready, can't take too long:
Spoiler:
Also would constitute battle ready with some basing:
Spoiler:
It doesn't have to be pretty, skilful or detailed. It just needs some paint on there and a bit of basing material. You also don't have to paint them this way permanently, just as a temporary measure until you can go and spruce them up.
Sorry, is this supposed to be an argument in favour of the rule?
Because what I'm seeing here - especially in the last two pictures - is paint jobs that are significantly more ugly than just plain, grey plastic.
Given that this is precisely the sort of painting this rule encourages, maybe those who purport to care about the image of the game should have a long, hard think about why they're so eager to defend it.
Not to mention i would much rather play someone who is enthusastic about the game, and how it plays than someone who is put off by painting rules and really not enjoying the rushed paintjob they felt obligated to get.
Our club allready held painting days, Painting Tornaments and other things to encourage painting in the hobby.
My biggist issue is how i enjoy to paint, even if it takes me so long to paint. I would rather play with a grey plastic, than rush any painting.
Kithail wrote: It is not arbitrary. You decided to not paint the minis.
The vast majority of the people unhappy with this rule in this thread did not "decide" to not paint their minis. Painting requires skill, patience and time. You have limited influence on how much of those you have.
Putting some block basecoats on to comply with the rule takes little time, going back over them to do the details and make them look nice requires skill, patience and time.
Battle ready minus base apparently in 10 mins:
Spoiler:
Technically battle ready, can't take too long:
Spoiler:
Also would constitute battle ready with some basing:
Spoiler:
It doesn't have to be pretty, skilful or detailed. It just needs some paint on there and a bit of basing material. You also don't have to paint them this way permanently, just as a temporary measure until you can go and spruce them up.
Sorry, is this supposed to be an argument in favour of the rule?
Because what I'm seeing here - especially in the last two pictures - is paint jobs that are significantly more ugly than just plain, grey plastic.
Given that this is precisely the sort of painting this rule encourages, maybe those who purport to care about the image of the game should have a long, hard think about why they're so eager to defend it.
I'm not defending the rule, I'm disputing the argument that it's a time consuming art form to get to battle ready.
It doesn't have to be pretty, skilful or detailed. It just needs some paint on there and a bit of basing material. You also don't have to paint them this way permanently, just as a temporary measure until you can go and spruce them up.
And these
Are not "battle ready". Individually free handed personalized insignia but bare bases.
We only have the Warhammer Community article to see what's "battle ready" and those minis, besides being Necromunda, won't get me the +10. Sure you can say use common sense, but RAW they don't meet the standard. If you can say use common sense for disabilities, friendly games, new players, new units, more-detail-than-battle-ready-but - not-exactly-battle-ready, or just choose to ignore it with consent, well then it isn't a very good rule is it?
If you're honestly saying Captain STARE of the PAINTGLOB chapter are better than grey minis then you're not buying into the GW narrative of glorious looking minis make for better games.
If I'm already on a time restraint for painting why would I do it TWICE, including any time needed for stripping and re-doing? Why are you ok with haphazardly splashing paint to get ugly, mostly monochrome anyway minis? Why is that better?
The argument about building minis is relevant because of things like movement, charge distance, LOS, melee and to a degree WYSIWYG, but it has an actual effect on the game mechanics, which paint does not, yet now it can affect the outcome of the game?
On a side note I'm curious about the people with transparent Lictors and such. How much of your invisible unit must be painted to pass?
It doesn't have to be pretty, skilful or detailed. It just needs some paint on there and a bit of basing material. You also don't have to paint them this way permanently, just as a temporary measure until you can go and spruce them up.
And these
Are not "battle ready". Individually free handed personalized insignia but bare bases.
We only have the Warhammer Community article to see what's "battle ready" and those minis, besides being Necromunda, won't get me the +10. Sure you can say use common sense, but RAW they don't meet the standard. If you can say use common sense for disabilities, friendly games, new players, new units, more-detail-than-battle-ready-but - not-exactly-battle-ready, or just choose to ignore it with consent, well then it isn't a very good rule is it?
If you're honestly saying Captain STARE of the PAINTGLOB chapter are better than grey minis then you're not buying into the GW narrative of glorious looking minis make for better games.
If I'm already on a time restraint for painting why would I do it TWICE, including any time needed for stripping and re-doing? Why are you ok with haphazardly splashing paint to get ugly, mostly monochrome anyway minis? Why is that better?
The argument about building minis is relevant because of things like movement, charge distance, LOS, melee and to a degree WYSIWYG, but it has an actual effect on the game mechanics, which paint does not, yet now it can affect the outcome of the game?
On a side note I'm curious about the people with transparent Lictors and such. How much of your invisible unit must be painted to pass?
It would take mere minutes to put something on those bases and poof +10 vp (although I would be fine with those personally).
Again ofc it's better to have a good looking army painted well, but if someone feels the need to be on a forum crying about they're auto losing games due to unpainted armies, like I point out, it doesnt take much to get the 10 points.
Edit: again it's convolution of pride, passion and a rule.
If the complaint is "I want the 10 points" and that's the main concern, the paint job quality is less important. Wanting a good looking army is amazing and to be celebrated, if you want to have a "battle ready army" while you do it, just put basecoats on until you have time.
Dudeface wrote: I'm not defending the rule, I'm disputing the argument that it's a time consuming art form to get to battle ready.
That is defending the rule. My argument against the rule is that I do not have sufficient time and ability to paint everything to a standard that I like and am punished by losing a fair amount of games because of that.
Your argument was "well, you save time by having them look like these absolutely terrible models".
Dudeface wrote: I'm not defending the rule, I'm disputing the argument that it's a time consuming art form to get to battle ready.
That is defending the rule. My argument against the rule is that I do not have sufficient time and ability to paint everything to a standard that I like and am punished by losing a fair amount of games because of that.
Your argument was "well, you save time by having them look like these absolutely terrible models".
Yes it was, because if your need for the 10 points exceeds your ability to paint to a nice standard quickly, that's one of your options. They're not forbidding you from playing with unpainted minis, you can play without.
I think the rules intent is good but it's poorly implemented on a fundamental level, but we're all people and apply common sense to find happy mediums.
I guess some of you guys better just get used to being punished then. Or negotiate with your game group to houserule. Just keep that in mind next time I discuss houserules sometime in the future and you come launching off of your tree to give me nine shades of hell for playing houserules.
Consider it balancing the reaction time advantage in meta chasing that skipping the painting gives.
the tournament meta chasers already either
A : fully primed + drybrushed armies, which looked like crap
B : commissionned someone to paint their armies.
You know, after hearing over and over and over from just a few people... the same names... about "woe is me", "you play my way or the highway" type attitudes...
I'm probably going to be MORE in favor of enforcing this.
Just listening to the mental gymnastics to keep sandbagging picking up the brush and doing the job is like listening to my kid go on for a hour about how he already took out the trash while standing beside a full trash can.
Sure, we can argue for a hour. I got nothing better to do. But it doesn't change the fact that he still gotta take out the trash. That trashcan is still full. And he's still not getting that reward for his chores in any event because the job isn't done to completion.
That's pretty much what we got going on here, and that attitude of "minimal effort" is why this rule got put into the book. It is why parents put rules in place for their children. I could encourage my kids until I am blue in the face and promising them a billion dollars to take a shower every night. Sometimes a finger wagging and enforcing a standard is what it takes.
GW has been on people for YEARS to paint their stuff. It is why they had those painting contests and escalation leagues and entry barriers. That was them politely asking you to just do it. Now they're practically flat out telling you. And good on them, because some people are just too lazy to do the extra work. And the best part is... my army is nearly painted (basically replaced all of my metal sisters with plastic ones), and "those same people" fussing here are no closer to meeting any standard. I'll happily take my VPs.
Thanks for getting me off that fence, guys! Fully embracing the suck
It would take mere minutes to put something on those bases and poof +10 vp
What if you prefer them the way they are?
Then by the rules you're 10 VP down unless you and your opponent agree to not enforce it since the base is specifically called out as being part of "Battle Ready".
Purifying Tempest wrote: You know, after hearing over and over and over from just a few people... the same names... about "woe is me", "you play my way or the highway" type attitudes...
I'm probably going to be MORE in favor of enforcing this.
Just listening to the mental gymnastics to keep sandbagging picking up the brush and doing the job is like listening to my kid go on for a hour about how he already took out the trash while standing beside a full trash can.
Sure, we can argue for a hour. I got nothing better to do. But it doesn't change the fact that he still gotta take out the trash. That trashcan is still full. And he's still not getting that reward for his chores in any event because the job isn't done to completion.
That's pretty much what we got going on here, and that attitude of "minimal effort" is why this rule got put into the book. It is why parents put rules in place for their children. I could encourage my kids until I am blue in the face and promising them a billion dollars to take a shower every night. Sometimes a finger wagging and enforcing a standard is what it takes.
GW has been on people for YEARS to paint their stuff. It is why they had those painting contests and escalation leagues and entry barriers. That was them politely asking you to just do it. Now they're practically flat out telling you. And good on them, because some people are just too lazy to do the extra work. And the best part is... my army is nearly painted (basically replaced all of my metal sisters with plastic ones), and "those same people" fussing here are no closer to meeting any standard. I'll happily take my VPs.
Thanks for getting me off that fence, guys! Fully embracing the suck
Considering your last responce to me. I think you are the one that is simply Dismissive of others thoughts and responses.
I put lots of effort into painting, I dont want to put minimal effort onto the table. I also am stuck in bed 16 hours on a good day, On my back and in a lot of pain. I can use a ipad to browse and post on Dakka. When i go to play, Its dificult, i am in pain. But my opponant wont know that, and having to argue my case. Against people who are dismissive of my time and ability is probably not worth it, I will just let them have there points if they want it. I dont want to get into a discussion to argue my case. I dont want to talk about my issues to people i only really know at our club.
In the end i will just feel worse about the game, Worse that it is so hard to paint and worse about the painting part of the hobby i enjoy a lot.
This was the opening to your last responce to me on this "All I hear is more excuses. You had the time to go and purchase. You had time to research units and assemble an army. Now all of a sudden you don't have any more time at all? Yet you have time to argue keyboard warriors on the internet? "
I need a mechacal arm to even hold and respond here, I cant just go and paint at any time. I paint when i am able, since its a hobby i enjoy, and i play the game for mental exercise as its one of the few chances i get. I also have to get everything else i want to do in life around the rest i need to have.
Clubs, Tornaments and groups already had ways to deal with this. This rule is just Support for Behavior that is likly more against the ideas that GW themselves say they are against. People wont feel better about the painting hobby, They may feel worse. I probably will :(
a Few Days before this rule was seen, i had seen a really neat looking black and white army. On the photos they looked awesome, kind of like a comic but from the distance of the tabletop it looked unfinished, and i suspect for this rule they would be seen as such.
Dudeface wrote: I'm not defending the rule, I'm disputing the argument that it's a time consuming art form to get to battle ready.
That is defending the rule. My argument against the rule is that I do not have sufficient time and ability to paint everything to a standard that I like and am punished by losing a fair amount of games because of that..
I'm impressed that you have managed to lose "...a fair amount of games" during an edition which hasn't been released yet.
Also, if you end up losing so many games directly because of this, perhaps that is a sign to either a, play smaller games where you can field a BRS list; or b, that other players in your area have taken the time to get their army to a BRS, and perhaps you should concentrate on what needs to be done to get there for a bit. Two models, from what you said earlier, wasn't it?
a Few Days before this rule was seen, i had seen a really neat looking black and white army. On the photos they looked awesome, kind of like a comic but from the distance of the tabletop it looked unfinished, and i suspect for this rule they would be seen as such.
Got a link to that, Apple fox? In theory, a well-executed monochrome army should qualify as BRS.
Ironically, monochrome tends to feature many shades of grey - exactly as it sounds like will be the case as it pertains to enforcement of this rule.
Considering your last responce to me. I think you are the one that is simply Dismissive of others thoughts and responses.
I put lots of effort into painting, I dont want to put minimal effort onto the table. I also am stuck in bed 16 hours on a good day, On my back and in a lot of pain. I can use a ipad to browse and post on Dakka. When i go to play, Its dificult, i am in pain. But my opponant wont know that, and having to argue my case. Against people who are dismissive of my time and ability is probably not worth it, I will just let them have there points if they want it. I dont want to get into a discussion to argue my case. I dont want to talk about my issues to people i only really know at our club.
In the end i will just feel worse about the game, Worse that it is so hard to paint and worse about the painting part of the hobby i enjoy a lot.
This was the opening to your last responce to me on this "All I hear is more excuses. You had the time to go and purchase. You had time to research units and assemble an army. Now all of a sudden you don't have any more time at all? Yet you have time to argue keyboard warriors on the internet? "
I need a mechacal arm to even hold and respond here, I cant just go and paint at any time. I paint when i am able, since its a hobby i enjoy, and i play the game for mental exercise as its one of the few chances i get. I also have to get everything else i want to do in life around the rest i need to have.
Clubs, Tornaments and groups already had ways to deal with this. This rule is just Support for Behavior that is likly more against the ideas that GW themselves say they are against. People wont feel better about the painting hobby, They may feel worse. I probably will :(
Cool story, bro.
Like I said, I'm done with the excuses. There's plenty of examples of me ceding ground on my position and making exceptions. But the push back is always the same:
Lazy, unmotivated, infirm, too slow, or just thinking that they are somehow above the rules. I'm not up for degrading the handicapped, but I'm not about to argue every point taking in every possible exception. It is pointless because it can be strawmanned into eternity. I've also declared that I am aware enough to make a judgment call at the table.
But for you? The issue sounds to be more about you wanting to take 2 months to paint 1 model. And that's perfectly fine. And the rule will "dock" you 10 VP for the next 40 years while you paint your army. Easy enough solution. I mean, if we're going to continue to ignore the fact that you're not even being penalized, because the only time you are penalized is when you face a dude with a painted army and yours still isn't. We've proven time and time again that it isn't a penalty... because if 2 people don't paint then no ground is lost. It REQUIRES one dude to have a painted army, and one person to not. Sounds like the guy who took time to get his army up to the tabletop standard is catching a perk, not the lazy bum with the same pile of unpainted plastic 10 years later receiving a penalty.
Bases, too. I'm not going to cut corners on bases. I may like 'em black, too, but I painted them. Then I hated them painted and textured, went out and got some 3rd party bases... and painted those! Black bases look fine in a vacuum, but they lose a lot on the tabletop. I conceded that awhile ago.
So continue to wage your internet campaign and come up with more and more excuses on why you fail to meet a standard. I'll shrug at you. That's the rules.
I can be reasonable, but man... there's plenty of unreasonable people out here spouting some inane nonsense that definitely pushes the limits of hospitality. And if you're not willing to budge and compromise with me... why should I have to give up the farm to you?
Dudeface wrote: I'm not defending the rule, I'm disputing the argument that it's a time consuming art form to get to battle ready.
That is defending the rule. My argument against the rule is that I do not have sufficient time and ability to paint everything to a standard that I like and am punished by losing a fair amount of games because of that..
I'm impressed that you have managed to lose "...a fair amount of games" during an edition which hasn't been released yet.
Also, if you end up losing so many games directly because of this, perhaps that is a sign to either a, play smaller games where you can field a BRS list; or b, that other players in your area have taken the time to get their army to a BRS, and perhaps you should concentrate on what needs to be done to get there for a bit. Two models, from what you said earlier, wasn't it?
Nah, I'll just argue that models that are above battle ready do not qualify for the 10 VP either. If they disagree, I can still 4+ it. Or be a toxic player to make my opponent who tries to claim these points miserable enough during the game so the concede. I could also cosplay as great unclean one to make sure I win the game because they go to time from being knocked out from my stink.
As the mutual enjoyment of the hobby clearly isn't a factor when it comes to scoring these 10 VP from painting, these things are obviously fine as well.
Wow...this is still going. All this rule is going to do is fracture game stores and potentially kill smaller groups. I don't paint. Call me lazy or whatever the hell else you want. There is no enjoyment to be had in painting, it is a miserable process and I will have none of it. It doesn't add to immersion in games and I have a group of friends who don't care so we will ignore the rule.
There are other players in our local area who are going to attempt to claim these points. They are going to argue over every paint job on every model in the opponents army to deny them the points. I identified these players in my group 5 secs after reading it and moved them from the "play only if I really want a game and have no other option" group to the "never play again" group. I feel this is how every local group is going to be now.
UncleJetMints wrote: Wow...this is still going. All this rule is going to do is fracture game stores and potentially kill smaller groups. I don't paint. Call me lazy or whatever the hell else you want. There is no enjoyment to be had in painting, it is a miserable process and I will have none of it. It doesn't add to immersion in games and I have a group of friends who don't care so we will ignore the rule.
There are other players in our local area who are going to attempt to claim these points. They are going to argue over every paint job on every model in the opponents army to deny them the points. I identified these players in my group 5 secs after reading it and moved them from the "play only if I really want a game and have no other option" group to the "never play again" group. I feel this is how every local group is going to be now.
Prejudice much?
Or they collectively called you up 5 secs after you read that and said: "Enjoy being 10 VP down, loser!"?
Then again, if all the game to you is putting together good units and clobbering another player to table them ASAP and every single VP matters (you know, beating them 45-15 makes you feel better than 45-25)... on your "casual games"... then perhaps you're doing them a favor by isolating yourself away from them before even seeing what their point-of-view on the matter is.
I'm still a bit "eh" on black bases - but maybe I can get behind it. Really if you are painting them black I think that would count as painted (as against leaving them untouched - although I know that fires a debate over what to do with rims).
But... playing 40k, and caring about winning 40k games, but not painting anything is so... weird to me. At a certain point why bother with models themselves? Just have pieces of paper with the unit name written on them.
You can play the game with unpainted models.
You can win the game with unpainted models.
You can play with people who don't enforce the rule.
It's fine.
UncleJetMints wrote: Wow...this is still going. All this rule is going to do is fracture game stores and potentially kill smaller groups. I don't paint. Call me lazy or whatever the hell else you want. There is no enjoyment to be had in painting, it is a miserable process and I will have none of it. It doesn't add to immersion in games and I have a group of friends who don't care so we will ignore the rule.
There are other players in our local area who are going to attempt to claim these points. They are going to argue over every paint job on every model in the opponents army to deny them the points. I identified these players in my group 5 secs after reading it and moved them from the "play only if I really want a game and have no other option" group to the "never play again" group. I feel this is how every local group is going to be now.
Prejudice much?
Or they collectively called you up 5 secs after you read that and said: "Enjoy being 10 VP down, loser!"?
Then again, if all the game to you is putting together good units and clobbering another player to table them ASAP and every single VP matters (you know, beating them 45-15 makes you feel better than 45-25)... on your "casual games"... then perhaps you're doing them a favor by isolating yourself away from them before even seeing what their point-of-view on the matter is.
Nice, I like losers who attack people they don't know after not fully reading something. Hope everything is ok at home for ya buddy.
Anyway, no I am not prejudice, these specific people have a history of trying to rules lawyer any little advantage they can, arguing every little point made by an opponent, "gatcha"ing new player, not talking to opponents before games, and even swapping models last second on "friendly" games to list tailor for a win. One of them was at an event and people from out of town that had never met him new who he was by the end of round 2 due to the way he was acting.
Also my "Casual games" as you called them don't involve me trying to crush anybody, it is literally just a thing me and my friends ( plus some people from local stores who are fun to play with) do while we bs around and talk, as I said, which with the lockdown has shifted from Warhammer to things like StarCraft.
UncleJetMints wrote: Wow...this is still going. All this rule is going to do is fracture game stores and potentially kill smaller groups. I don't paint. Call me lazy or whatever the hell else you want. There is no enjoyment to be had in painting, it is a miserable process and I will have none of it. It doesn't add to immersion in games and I have a group of friends who don't care so we will ignore the rule.
There are other players in our local area who are going to attempt to claim these points. They are going to argue over every paint job on every model in the opponents army to deny them the points. I identified these players in my group 5 secs after reading it and moved them from the "play only if I really want a game and have no other option" group to the "never play again" group. I feel this is how every local group is going to be now.
Prejudice much?
Or they collectively called you up 5 secs after you read that and said: "Enjoy being 10 VP down, loser!"?
Then again, if all the game to you is putting together good units and clobbering another player to table them ASAP and every single VP matters (you know, beating them 45-15 makes you feel better than 45-25)... on your "casual games"... then perhaps you're doing them a favor by isolating yourself away from them before even seeing what their point-of-view on the matter is.
Nice, I like losers who attack people they don't know after not fully reading something. Hope everything is ok at home for ya buddy.
Anyway, no I am not prejudice, these specific people have a history of trying to rules lawyer any little advantage they can, arguing every little point made by an opponent, "gatcha"ing new player, not talking to opponents before games, and even swapping models last second on "friendly" games to list tailor for a win. One of them was at an event and people from out of town that had never met him new who he was by the end of round 2 due to the way he was acting.
Also my "Casual games" as you called them don't involve me trying to crush anybody, it is literally just a thing me and my friends ( plus some people from local stores who are fun to play with) do while we bs around and talk, as I said, which with the lockdown has shifted from Warhammer to things like StarCraft.
Yeah well, don't play against that guy. TFG gonna TFG regardless.
Or get good enough to clobber him with your unpainted army. Sometimes you can drive them away from the store.
AdmiralHalsey wrote: You guys know that outside of tournaments with material prizes 'Winning' is entirely in your head, right?
Ssssh, that's a secret.
Also for those not in the know, and not playing one of GW's better games, AoS has the same rule on their scoring sheet and so far AoS players haven't had a problem with it.
UncleJetMints wrote: I identified these players in my group 5 secs after reading it and moved them from the "play only if I really want a game and have no other option" group to the "never play again" group. I feel this is how every local group is going to be now.
You literally judged them all with only a cursory thought and dismissed them out of hand because of your feels. That's textbook prejudice.
You literally segregated your play group without having a decent discussion.
I've listed NUMEROUS exemptions I am comfortable making to this rule, my vision fairly aligns to this, as demonstrated in this thread numerous times:
This rule will be great for organized play as it establishes a bare-minimum standard.
This rule engages more communities by no longer EXCLUDING unpainted armies, but instead it EMPOWERS painted ones. Aka: you're free to play your dusty old bright pewter terminators at an organized event without being cast out from the get-go, but you will potentially be at a disadvantage if you play against people who put in the time and effort to meet the base standards outlined in the Battle Ready standard identified by GW and Warhammer Community.
This rule will likely never impact local tables, pickup games, or casual games because players will freely ignore it or enforce it exclusively to enhance their gaming experience. Some players are going to want to take the -10 VP, one of my friends actually said he wanted it as motivation to finish his plastic debt. I told him I'd feel like a jerk enforcing it because we're playing for fun, I'd hate to put him at a disadvantage because he wanted to explore his army. He refused and said "if you field it, you take the VP" and that was that. Like he was offended that I WOULDN'T enforce the rule because he was using it to MOTIVATE himself to finish that backlog. I would never enforce it on a new player because I'd rather the game grow and continue to bring in new people... and that means helping them spin up in the hobby. I may point out that the rule exists and they may want to spend some time on painting, too. I'd even help them do that. I'm not an unreasonable person.
But when people start being ugly. When people are unreasonable back. When you expect to sit on your butt and make demands that I concede ground to you for this, that, and the other. Well, it REALLY turns me off. You're demonstrating that you're not interested in my experience at all, and all you want is to maximize yours at my expense. In that case, in those fringe cases where someone wants to be an unwavering jerk, I'll collect my 10 VPs. I'll make sure to play an army that gets it, even though it is demonstrably worse performing on the table. And then you can slaughter my awesome looking army to the tune of 90-10. And then you'll see that all the belligerence was not worth it, and all you did was potentially lose a cool friend in the process.
Tyel wrote: I'm still a bit "eh" on black bases - but maybe I can get behind it.
I appreciate that people have different aesthetic tastes. I don't ask that you (or anyone else) like my models having black bases (or my paint scheme or my conversions or any other aesthetic choices I've made), just as I won't always like the choices you or others might have have made with regard to your own bases and paint schemes.
However, prior to this rule, my opponent's opinion on the aesthetics of my models didn't determine whether he'd get an in-game advantage.
Tyel wrote: Really if you are painting them black I think that would count as painted (as against leaving them untouched
But how would you tell? Are you really going to ask to examine each one of my models so that you can check whether the bases are naturally black or painted black? And if the purpose is supposed to be for the overall aesthetic, then why should that even matter one iota, let alone influence the outcome of a game?
Because as far as 'Battle Ready' is concerned, each of these models is no better than grey plastic. Why? Because I haven't painted their bases. But I specifically don't paint bases because I find that they almost always look out of place, regardless (since the base rarely ever matches the colour/texture of the table). Not only that but there isn't even an exception given for transparent bases. I thought the entire point of having transparent bases was so that they'd almost blend in with the table and create the illusion of the model hovering in the air?
Anyway, the point I'm getting at is that this rule does not encourage me to paint my army. If anything, it does the opposite - because if I'm being penalised even for models that I've spent hours and hours converting and painting, why should I even bother with anything else?
/rant
I agree with you about bases. I prefer plain black in general. I will take the time and effort to clean them up, but they're going to be black. Based black, no texture.
Insectum7 wrote: The sheen on bare plastic will be different than one that's been painted.
Personally I think black bases are fine. My biggest beef with them is the mold release point in the center looks jenky.
I hate that little bump... even when painting my bases up nicely to look like marble flooring... there was that ugly indention.
Then I spent way too much money getting casted bases that lacked that defect and match the aesthetic I was hunting :(
Not digging on people who don't fill it with texture or just paint over it, just saying that the little indention there has caused me so much torment! It's rather humorous, really
Insectum7 wrote: The sheen on bare plastic will be different than one that's been painted.
Personally I think black bases are fine. My biggest beef with them is the mold release point in the center looks jenky.
I hate that little bump... even when painting my bases up nicely to look like marble flooring... there was that ugly indention.
Then I spent way too much money getting casted bases that lacked that defect and match the aesthetic I was hunting :(
Not digging on people who don't fill it with texture or just paint over it, just saying that the little indention there has caused me so much torment! It's rather humorous, really
What was wrong with the sprue of four bases, where the injection point was on the sprue itself, not the middle of the darned base?
I hate that little bump... even when painting my bases up nicely to look like marble flooring... there was that ugly indention.
Then I spent way too much money getting casted bases that lacked that defect and match the aesthetic I was hunting :(
Not digging on people who don't fill it with texture or just paint over it, just saying that the little indention there has caused me so much torment! It's rather humorous, really
What was wrong with the sprue of four bases, where the injection point was on the sprue itself, not the middle of the darned base?
I looked into the abyss too far and came out with:
I loved 'em so much I decided to replace all my bases for the army with those. No regrets!
Honestly, if I had to use the GW bases with the indention, I'd just texture over it. I just looked at the most recent baggie of bases from GW and they're just solid, individual bases in the bag and probably very good for use for models. But I do so love the secret weapon ones and probably going to continue to use those because I'm a dirty capitalist and can afford to spend stupid money on designer bases. In all honesty though, they're a good product and I strongly endorse them, the bases are amazing. The prices aren't too bad either compared to the grift GW has going on these days
This poll is far too simple to correctly answer because this works like every other rule in the game which depends on the setting.
>hosting an escalation league where the whole point is to get an army painted-yes
>playing a game with a buddy who wants to try new models-No
>some kid wants to try his first game with the models he just slapped together- NO
>going to play at a tournament using official GW rules_ Yes
I'm surprised that of all the new rules this one is receiving so much much time being discussed. Just use the rule in the appropriate setting. GW thugs aren't going to show up to your house and beat you for not using this rule when having a casual game with buddies
yukishiro1 wrote: Painting has always been a big part of 40k, from the very start.
But if you missed it up until now..this is that change. They just declared that painting is a cornerstone of getting full VPs in competitive 40k.
If you don't like it...just play with your own rules pack that leaves that rule out. As long as everyone playing agrees, it doesn't matter what the official rules say.
It's been a part of the *hobby* from the start. Not the game.
Some people enjoy the hobby, some the game, some both.
Now people who enjoy the game are being punished because they don't like the hobby.
Or because they paint slow.
Or because they have to chose between play, or paint.
I kinda liked it when this thread was locked as I don't think this conversation will go anywhere except create further discord.
Ultimately I think this is a rule we'll have to see how it performs in the wild. Granted, a lot of people live in what sounds like hellholes - if the stories told in this thread and elsewhere are true - and I am sorry for that and I wish I could somehow change those places to be those of love, respect, and friendship. At the same time I wonder if there are some good people in those hellholes - people who will be reasonable and accommodating. Perhaps that is the true quest: To find like-minded spirits. Souls who are journeying with us through eternity.
Asmodios wrote: This poll is far too simple to correctly answer because this works like every other rule in the game which depends on the setting.
>hosting an escalation league where the whole point is to get an army painted-yes
>playing a game with a buddy who wants to try new models-No
>some kid wants to try his first game with the models he just slapped together- NO
>going to play at a tournament using official GW rules_ Yes
I'm surprised that of all the new rules this one is receiving so much much time being discussed. Just use the rule in the appropriate setting. GW thugs aren't going to show up to your house and beat you for not using this rule when having a casual game with buddies
I don't think it's an issue with "GW thugs" enforcing their silly rules but an issue with the attitude and message that having official rules for painted models sends. If people don't want to play against unpainted models then they are 100% within their right to refuse a game. People are also within their right to not paint models. The issue is having the rules punish using unpainted models which goes against the spirit of the game.
It wouldn't surprise me if they make some rule about using unofficial models/parts (aka 3rd party stuff) being penalized in the future if they don't get enough backlash from this sort of stuff.
Eldarsif wrote: I kinda liked it when this thread was locked as I don't think this conversation will go anywhere except create further discord.
Ultimately I think this is a rule we'll have to see how it performs in the wild. Granted, a lot of people live in what sounds like hellholes - if the stories told in this thread and elsewhere are true - and I am sorry for that and I wish I could somehow change those places to be those of love, respect, and friendship. At the same time I wonder if there are some good people in those hellholes - people who will be reasonable and accommodating. Perhaps that is the true quest: To find like-minded spirits. Souls who are journeying with us through eternity.
Only time will tell.
Pretty much, the simple answer is to speak to people and play with people or at places with similar views. I'm all for GW promoting people painting their stuff, it makes the hobby look better to those who might be interested and for me - it improves my satisfaction of the game seeing a table full of painted terrain and 2 painted armies facing off.
Some people clearly aren't willing to just communicate with their opponent before hand and have chosen a hill to die on in either direction rather than being willing to talk and compromise.
Same here. If I had access to clear acrylic bases when I started my Tau army (back in 3rd), I would have done them that way. If I ever get through my paint backlog, I might migrate the 2 1/2 armies I've done this way to clear acrylic bases - though I don't relish doing it to 200+ models.
Everyone who starts this hobby should know that it is supposed to be played with painted models. Complaining about having to paint makes just as little sense than complaining about having to assemble the models or having to read the rules.
The game isn't the same as the hobby. Just because *you* like to paint doesn't mean other people should be punished for not sharing your preference.
Furthermore, people aren't complaining about painting. They're complaining about an arbitrary standard, that aside from it's inclusion, has not effect on the game.
UncleJetMints wrote: I identified these players in my group 5 secs after reading it and moved them from the "play only if I really want a game and have no other option" group to the "never play again" group. I feel this is how every local group is going to be now.
You literally judged them all with only a cursory thought and dismissed them out of hand because of your feels. That's textbook prejudice.
You literally segregated your play group without having a decent discussion.
I've listed NUMEROUS exemptions I am comfortable making to this rule, my vision fairly aligns to this, as demonstrated in this thread numerous times:
This rule will be great for organized play as it establishes a bare-minimum standard.
This rule engages more communities by no longer EXCLUDING unpainted armies, but instead it EMPOWERS painted ones. Aka: you're free to play your dusty old bright pewter terminators at an organized event without being cast out from the get-go, but you will potentially be at a disadvantage if you play against people who put in the time and effort to meet the base standards outlined in the Battle Ready standard identified by GW and Warhammer Community.
This rule will likely never impact local tables, pickup games, or casual games because players will freely ignore it or enforce it exclusively to enhance their gaming experience. Some players are going to want to take the -10 VP, one of my friends actually said he wanted it as motivation to finish his plastic debt. I told him I'd feel like a jerk enforcing it because we're playing for fun, I'd hate to put him at a disadvantage because he wanted to explore his army. He refused and said "if you field it, you take the VP" and that was that. Like he was offended that I WOULDN'T enforce the rule because he was using it to MOTIVATE himself to finish that backlog. I would never enforce it on a new player because I'd rather the game grow and continue to bring in new people... and that means helping them spin up in the hobby. I may point out that the rule exists and they may want to spend some time on painting, too. I'd even help them do that. I'm not an unreasonable person.
But when people start being ugly. When people are unreasonable back. When you expect to sit on your butt and make demands that I concede ground to you for this, that, and the other. Well, it REALLY turns me off. You're demonstrating that you're not interested in my experience at all, and all you want is to maximize yours at my expense. In that case, in those fringe cases where someone wants to be an unwavering jerk, I'll collect my 10 VPs. I'll make sure to play an army that gets it, even though it is demonstrably worse performing on the table. And then you can slaughter my awesome looking army to the tune of 90-10. And then you'll see that all the belligerence was not worth it, and all you did was potentially lose a cool friend in the process.
Incorrect, I made a decision about the likelihood that I will play specific people in my group based on their past actions and how I think they will interact with this rule. I believe the term you are looking for is character profiling not prejudice. If you don't want to be identified as a TFG then don't act like a TFG.
I'm not responding to this anymore because it comes of as you thinking I'm attacking people who just want to play against painted armies. I'm not. I am talking about specific people in my group who will use this rule to deny people with painted armies 10 VP because "technically you didn't base your models when you used the GW scenic bases" or "I actually only lost 70-30 cause my army is fully painted and yours isn't."
some bloke wrote: I'm amazed that this rule exists. once you agree to a game, the outcome should be decided entirely by the game, and not by whether one player has everything painted and the other doesn't.
Yeah, that's what it comes down to for me. If they wanted to encourage painting, they should have just said that the game is played with painted models, period, and that if your models aren't painted, check with your opponent that they are ok with that before playing.
Once you accept a game with someone, it shouldn't be a factor in the outcome. You either agree to play with someone or you don't.
What they should of said is:
Warhammer 40K players have different standards. If you and your opponent can't agree on the standards for your game, you are not obliged to play them.
UncleJetMints wrote: I am talking about specific people in my group who will use this rule to deny people with painted armies 10 VP because "technically you didn't base your models when you used the GW scenic bases" or "I actually only lost 70-30 cause my army is fully painted and yours isn't."
Ascribing motive to them, now? I know a few jerks in my area, I don't play with them because they're after some totally different experience at the table than I am. They want to smash you off ASAP with questionable ruling combinations and argue about how I should allow it even though it is a crappy interaction that was never intended. But it was worded!
I'm going to have issues with them outside of this rule.
But if this rule, which has never come up yet because the edition hasn't been released... if that imaginary scenario you found yourself in where "that guy" is lauding over you 100-0 and mocking because you gave him 10 free VP over you... if that's the line that makes you not play those guys that you were seemingly ok or borderline before... well, it looks like your projection of how they're going to enforce this rule is making you discount them before even giving them the chance. It kinda makes you "that guy".
Pretty sure nothing is going to change on the tabletop and 99.9% of this entire thread has been useless banter cooked up to be something bigger because there's been no hot takes from the Community site or leaks since. This is literally the lull in the news cycle.
But seeing how people are balkanizing over how we're going to 100% ignore or 100% enforce this stupid rule is just showing how little people are willing to listen and compromise. Even when they say they are. I've given exception for every reasonable excuse, EVEN time. But people are still crossing their arms over the chests and harumphing... or clutching their pearls and refusing to budge.
The rule is a rule. And like Kirioth said in his video: you go to a tournament, you deal with it... like it or not, it is a rule. If you're not in a tournament, just don't be a jerk to your mates. Play with it where appropriate, suspend it whenever else. It isn't a big deal. But don't assume that your mates suspending it for you because you're 10 years behind and just got slapped with the rule is a free pass to never paint. The game is a part of the hobby, the hobby encompasses everything from purchasing to playing and all the stops in between. GW just doubled down on that by allowing players who participate in more phases of the hobby overall to gain a small advantage in another aspect of the greater hobby.
It blows my mind that this is being taken seriously, let alone as a thirty-five page heated debate.
If you're playing competitively, most competitive events already have minimum painting standards, right?
And if you're playing casually, then you're playing for fun, so what does it matter if your opponent adds some numbers to their number and reveals that now their number is bigger than your number?
So like... the only way this matters is if you are really invested in the outcome of a casual game, and scoring higher in game-related VP isn't enough to feel like you won, because your opponent may technically get a higher number from this arbitrary bonus and so the rulebook says they were the Official Winner of this not-tournament-play casual game?
I genuinely don't get it. I took the bonus VP to be a tongue-in-cheek encouragement to paint your models.
Asmodios wrote: This poll is far too simple to correctly answer because this works like every other rule in the game which depends on the setting.
>hosting an escalation league where the whole point is to get an army painted-yes
>playing a game with a buddy who wants to try new models-No
>some kid wants to try his first game with the models he just slapped together- NO
>going to play at a tournament using official GW rules_ Yes
I'm surprised that of all the new rules this one is receiving so much much time being discussed. Just use the rule in the appropriate setting. GW thugs aren't going to show up to your house and beat you for not using this rule when having a casual game with buddies
I don't think it's an issue with "GW thugs" enforcing their silly rules but an issue with the attitude and message that having official rules for painted models sends. If people don't want to play against unpainted models then they are 100% within their right to refuse a game. People are also within their right to not paint models. The issue is having the rules punish using unpainted models which goes against the spirit of the game.
It wouldn't surprise me if they make some rule about using unofficial models/parts (aka 3rd party stuff) being penalized in the future if they don't get enough backlash from this sort of stuff.
First off if you read the rule it is not "punishing" anyone for not having painted models. It is actually rewarding someone for painting their models which is a big difference. Also just like people are entitled to "100% within their right to refuse a game" people are also 100% within their right to not use this rule. If it bothers you so much dont play a game where this rule is being used.
catbarf wrote: It blows my mind that this is being taken seriously, let alone as a thirty-five page heated debate.
If you're playing competitively, most competitive events already have minimum painting standards, right?
And if you're playing casually, then you're playing for fun, so what does it matter if your opponent adds some numbers to their number and reveals that now their number is bigger than your number?
So like... the only way this matters is if you are really invested in the outcome of a casual game, and scoring higher in game-related VP isn't enough to feel like you won, because your opponent may technically get a higher number from this arbitrary bonus and so the rulebook says they were the Official Winner of this not-tournament-play casual game?
I genuinely don't get it. I took the bonus VP to be a tongue-in-cheek encouragement to paint your models.
People who get extremely hung up on 10VP are exactly the ones who need some encouragement to paint their models
Meanwhile everyone else with in-progress, partially painted armies will just house rule it out. It's really not a huge deal unless you refuse to house rule and you're trying so hard to win that you think a 10 VP handicap ruins your game.
catbarf wrote: It blows my mind that this is being taken seriously, let alone as a thirty-five page heated debate.
If you're playing competitively, most competitive events already have minimum painting standards, right?
And if you're playing casually, then you're playing for fun, so what does it matter if your opponent adds some numbers to their number and reveals that now their number is bigger than your number?
So like... the only way this matters is if you are really invested in the outcome of a casual game, and scoring higher in game-related VP isn't enough to feel like you won, because your opponent may technically get a higher number from this arbitrary bonus and so the rulebook says they were the Official Winner of this not-tournament-play casual game?
I genuinely don't get it. I took the bonus VP to be a tongue-in-cheek encouragement to paint your models.
It seems the only real issue is that the rule exists and affirms the idea that models should be painted. Paint having no affect on the game is no longer a valid excuse.
catbarf wrote: It blows my mind that this is being taken seriously, let alone as a thirty-five page heated debate.
If you're playing competitively, most competitive events already have minimum painting standards, right?
And if you're playing casually, then you're playing for fun, so what does it matter if your opponent adds some numbers to their number and reveals that now their number is bigger than your number?
So like... the only way this matters is if you are really invested in the outcome of a casual game, and scoring higher in game-related VP isn't enough to feel like you won, because your opponent may technically get a higher number from this arbitrary bonus and so the rulebook says they were the Official Winner of this not-tournament-play casual game?
I genuinely don't get it. I took the bonus VP to be a tongue-in-cheek encouragement to paint your models.
Yeah this. It's only 10 friggin VPs and if you're truly a casual player you shouldn't care.
I'm actually pretty happy for the rule. Previously in tournies and against people I was less familiar with I would always ensure I was fully painted. Now with this I don't feel guilty and have no need to apologise for playing unpainted models... the opponent gets compensated.
Let's face it. There are people out there who are only in the game to chase the dopamine hit of an official, GW-sanctioned victory over their opponent. These are the rules lawyer-y, power gamer-y types who always show up with the latest meta cheese list along with an army of completely unpainted models. This rule hits them the hardest because house ruling out the 10VP somehow detracts from the legitimacy of their victory.
Casual circles on the other hand will have no problem playing without the rule because there's more to the hobby than rules-lawyering your way to a 'win'.
If nearly half the playing population are just flat-out not going to use the rule, and the slightly more than half that do want to use it have a million and one exceptions to it, why is it a good rule?
Again-no one is saying "My Plasma guys aren't going to blow up on a hit-roll of 1 when overcharging." No one is saying "My Marines actually have an 8" move." Those rules are fine, and universally accepted. Maybe you should think about why THIS rule isn't.
I think this rule will curb the greytide power gamers. It won't stop power gamers who paint, nor will it affect casual gamers/slow painters who are fine with house rules. But it will discourage the power gaming greytiders. The ones who really, desperately crave every last VP they can get to win, at the expense of everything else in the hobby.
slave.entity wrote: I think this rule will curb the greytide power gamers. It won't stop power gamers who paint, nor will it affect casual gamers/slow painters who are fine with house rules. But it will discourage the power gaming greytiders. The ones who really, desperately crave every last VP they can get to win, at the expense of everything else in the hobby.
Do you consider bad paintjobs better than no paintjobs?
slave.entity wrote: I think this rule will curb the greytide power gamers. It won't stop power gamers who paint, nor will it affect casual gamers/slow painters who are fine with house rules. But it will discourage the power gaming greytiders. The ones who really, desperately crave every last VP they can get to win, at the expense of everything else in the hobby.
Do you consider bad paintjobs better than no paintjobs?
As I said it before, the same people that think painting is petty are really really invested in the pettiness of their 10vps. In their "generalship", "tactical sense" and "mastery of strategy".
Kithail wrote: As I said it before, the same people that think painting is petty are really really invested in the pettiness of their 10vps. In their "generalship", "tactical sense" and "mastery of strategy".
isnt it fair for someone to expect their tactical sense to be the main reason for a win/loss in a wargaming game?
Kithail wrote: As I said it before, the same people that think painting is petty are really really invested in the pettiness of their 10vps. In their "generalship", "tactical sense" and "mastery of strategy".
I don't think painting is petty-I just don't think it's for me.
And, while I'd much prefer a close game than a one-sided stomp (regardless of who's doing the stomping, me or my opponent), I'd like the game to be determined by the game, and not by outside factors. And yes, that does mean that I dislike how unbalanced GW makes everything-I'd much rather that you could pick any faction and do just as well with it as any other, rather than getting buttsmashed because you like playing murder clowns, or stomping everyone because you like the poster boys.
Kithail wrote: As I said it before, the same people that think painting is petty are really really invested in the pettiness of their 10vps. In their "generalship", "tactical sense" and "mastery of strategy".
isnt it fair for someone to expect their tactical sense to be the main reason for a win/loss in a wargaming game?
If this is true of someone then 40k is definitely not the proper game for that outlet. Unless we consider spreadsheeting netlists and maximizing on probability scores of d6 to be a tactical power. (i don't). There are many other games that reward tactical sense a lot more than 40k comes close to doing.
slave.entity wrote: I think this rule will curb the greytide power gamers. It won't stop power gamers who paint, nor will it affect casual gamers/slow painters who are fine with house rules. But it will discourage the power gaming greytiders. The ones who really, desperately crave every last VP they can get to win, at the expense of everything else in the hobby.
Do you consider bad paintjobs better than no paintjobs?
Of course.
I for one would much rather play against a grey horde than an eye-searing monstrosity of an army only painted to hit the bare minimum requirements, any day.
I'd also much rather play with a partly-unpainted army while slowly painting it up to my desired standard a unit at a time, rather than feeling I'm punished if I don't paint the entire thing to an arbitrary "good enough" standard (which does not match my preferred painting standard) before I can even get a feel for the army.
Kithail wrote: As I said it before, the same people that think painting is petty are really really invested in the pettiness of their 10vps. In their "generalship", "tactical sense" and "mastery of strategy".
isnt it fair for someone to expect their tactical sense to be the main reason for a win/loss in a wargaming game?
Which amounts to "check the metablowing list, buy those models, bring them unpainted before anyone else, roll a bucket of dice".
C'mon, don't overstimate what "tactical sense" in the current state of the game is.
Kithail wrote: As I said it before, the same people that think painting is petty are really really invested in the pettiness of their 10vps. In their "generalship", "tactical sense" and "mastery of strategy".
isnt it fair for someone to expect their tactical sense to be the main reason for a win/loss in a wargaming game?
If this is true of someone then 40k is definitely not the proper game for that outlet. Unless we consider spreadsheeting netlists and maximizing on probability scores of d6 to be a tactical power.
40k does have some tactical elements to it, and it remains the most easily accessible wargame for most people.
And even then, building a list is as tactical as playing the list.
Kithail wrote: As I said it before, the same people that think painting is petty are really really invested in the pettiness of their 10vps. In their "generalship", "tactical sense" and "mastery of strategy".
isnt it fair for someone to expect their tactical sense to be the main reason for a win/loss in a wargaming game?
Which amounts to "check the metablowing list, buy those models, bring them unpainted before anyone else, roll a bucket of dice".
C'mon, don't overstimate what "tactical sense" in the current state of the game is.
Yes, because clearly anyone who doesn't enjoy painting is also a meta-chasing dingus, and is in no way, shape, or form capable of attempting to bring a list that's reasonably powerful but not some cheesed-out monster. -_-
Kithail wrote: As I said it before, the same people that think painting is petty are really really invested in the pettiness of their 10vps. In their "generalship", "tactical sense" and "mastery of strategy".
isnt it fair for someone to expect their tactical sense to be the main reason for a win/loss in a wargaming game?
Which amounts to "check the metablowing list, buy those models, bring them unpainted before anyone else, roll a bucket of dice".
C'mon, don't overstimate what "tactical sense" in the current state of the game is.
i don't play meta lists and i purposefully play unoptimised lists, in these cases yes, tactical decision do matter
Purifying Tempest wrote: Tactically, painting your models gives you a better chance of winning the game now.
How about that for a strategy?
Fair enough, its still not a decision that happens on the tabletop so its less tactical than positioning, target priority or determining what are acceptable casualties.
Kithail wrote: As I said it before, the same people that think painting is petty are really really invested in the pettiness of their 10vps. In their "generalship", "tactical sense" and "mastery of strategy".
isnt it fair for someone to expect their tactical sense to be the main reason for a win/loss in a wargaming game?
If this is true of someone then 40k is definitely not the proper game for that outlet. Unless we consider spreadsheeting netlists and maximizing on probability scores of d6 to be a tactical power.
40k does have some tactical elements to it, and it remains the most easily accessible wargame for most people.
And even then, building a list is as tactical as playing the list.
After having played a few dozen wargames in my life time, we will agree, in my case strongly, to disagree. Building a list in 40k with its obvious skews and imbalances is as tactical as an infantryman being able to tie his boots and make sure that his rifle is off of safety before engaging with the enemy.
THe onus of skill is on the limited handful that figured out "holy cow this thing is super powerful and way undercost!" and then next to no skill for the rest of the community that simply goes "copy/paste".
Kithail wrote: As I said it before, the same people that think painting is petty are really really invested in the pettiness of their 10vps. In their "generalship", "tactical sense" and "mastery of strategy".
isnt it fair for someone to expect their tactical sense to be the main reason for a win/loss in a wargaming game?
It is the main reason. 90% of the points available are for your tactical and strategic decisions.
Kithail wrote: As I said it before, the same people that think painting is petty are really really invested in the pettiness of their 10vps. In their "generalship", "tactical sense" and "mastery of strategy".
isnt it fair for someone to expect their tactical sense to be the main reason for a win/loss in a wargaming game?
If this is true of someone then 40k is definitely not the proper game for that outlet. Unless we consider spreadsheeting netlists and maximizing on probability scores of d6 to be a tactical power.
40k does have some tactical elements to it, and it remains the most easily accessible wargame for most people.
And even then, building a list is as tactical as playing the list.
And yes, 90% of your win is still based on that. Only 1 in each 10 points is related to something else
Kithail wrote: As I said it before, the same people that think painting is petty are really really invested in the pettiness of their 10vps. In their "generalship", "tactical sense" and "mastery of strategy".
isnt it fair for someone to expect their tactical sense to be the main reason for a win/loss in a wargaming game?
It is the main reason. 90% of the points available are for your tactical and strategic decisions.
Have you missed the comparisons?
What was it, 5 Dreadnoughts have to be killed to be worth 10 points?
3 Leman Russes?
An entire Imperial Knight?
Kithail wrote: As I said it before, the same people that think painting is petty are really really invested in the pettiness of their 10vps. In their "generalship", "tactical sense" and "mastery of strategy".
isnt it fair for someone to expect their tactical sense to be the main reason for a win/loss in a wargaming game?
If this is true of someone then 40k is definitely not the proper game for that outlet. Unless we consider spreadsheeting netlists and maximizing on probability scores of d6 to be a tactical power.
40k does have some tactical elements to it, and it remains the most easily accessible wargame for most people.
And even then, building a list is as tactical as playing the list.
After having played a few dozen wargames in my life time, we will agree, in my case strongly, to disagree. Building a list in 40k with its obvious skews and imbalances is as tactical as an infantryman being able to tie his boots and make sure that his rifle is off of safety before engaging with the enemy.
THe onus of skill is on the limited handful that figured out "holy cow this thing is super powerful and way undercost!" and then next to no skill for the rest of the community that simply goes "copy/paste".
i dont netlist, heck i don't even build oprimized lists anymore and neither do most people at my store. I dont come from a competitive environment. So yes, tactical decision does matter when playing dual powerscourge helbrute and raptors (for example).
Kithail wrote: As I said it before, the same people that think painting is petty are really really invested in the pettiness of their 10vps. In their "generalship", "tactical sense" and "mastery of strategy".
isnt it fair for someone to expect their tactical sense to be the main reason for a win/loss in a wargaming game?
If this is true of someone then 40k is definitely not the proper game for that outlet. Unless we consider spreadsheeting netlists and maximizing on probability scores of d6 to be a tactical power.
40k does have some tactical elements to it, and it remains the most easily accessible wargame for most people.
And even then, building a list is as tactical as playing the list.
And yes, 90% of your win is still based on that. Only 1 in each 10 points is related to something else
10% points difference is usually how my games end, so yes, this new rule will affect most of my games in the future.
Yeah this. It's only 10 friggin VPs and if you're truly a casual player you shouldn't care.
I have to wonder were this inane idea comes from that just because me and my mates are on the more casual side of listbuilding and playing we don´t care about winning or having a fair and even playing field when we play. If casual gamers really were like that the first iteration of AoS rules wouldn't have been universally despised. 10% of total victory points isn't minor either especially when so far it looks capping out on the other 90 is by no means a done deal, so in practice those 10 VP could be more like 15-20% of total points. which I'd say is a gross disadvantage to go up against.
UncleJetMints wrote: I'm not responding to this anymore because it comes of as you thinking I'm attacking people who just want to play against painted armies. I'm not. I am talking about specific people in my group who will use this rule to deny people with painted armies 10 VP because "technically you didn't base your models when you used the GW scenic bases" or "I actually only lost 70-30 cause my army is fully painted and yours isn't."
Outside of an event where the VP are tracked, does it really matter in the latter case if the result was 70-20 or 70-30? The player with 70VP still won by a large margin, for crying out loud.
In the case of scenic bases, assuming they're painted, I'd expect them to count as fine for BRS purposes, assuming a definition is given in the full rulebook (as we can't assume the WHC post will be there forever).
Kithail wrote: As I said it before, the same people that think painting is petty are really really invested in the pettiness of their 10vps. In their "generalship", "tactical sense" and "mastery of strategy".
isnt it fair for someone to expect their tactical sense to be the main reason for a win/loss in a wargaming game?
Well, I'd've thought their strategy would play a significant part - and the strategic move here is to get your models painted to BRS, so you're going to start the game with 10VP. After all, even if your tactics fail you during the game, you've secured that objective before you've even shown up.
Purifying Tempest wrote: Tactically, painting your models gives you a better chance of winning the game now.
How about that for a strategy?
Fair enough, its still not a decision that happens on the tabletop so its less tactical than positioning, target priority or determining what are acceptable casualties.
List selection, picking secondary objectives and - now - painting your army are strategic moves towards victory. What happens on the table are the tactical moves.
Purifying Tempest wrote: Tactically, painting your models gives you a better chance of winning the game now.
How about that for a strategy?
I'd like the rules that govern victory in a game to be related to the game, not aesthetics.
Have a general question for someone with your viewpoint. Most competitive events already fell in line with a painting standard that would flat out not let you play with unpainted models (aka what the ITC uses and most tournaments ran with). So most games being played with grey armies one way or the other are pickup games. My question then is that even if your opponent were to calculate the extra 10 points for getting their army painted why would it matter? If those points are one and done and not what carries you to another round or affects your rating ect. then why do you even care how your opponent calculates as you could determine your parameter for if you won or lost? Generally curious, because if you have unpainted army chances are you aren't playing in tournaments anyway and then who really cares what the guy across from you calculated as a win? you are simply using your own metric where painting doesn't matter so that 10 points is never added
Yeah this. It's only 10 friggin VPs and if you're truly a casual player you shouldn't care.
I have to wonder were this inane idea comes from that just because me and my mates are on the more casual side of listbuilding and playing we don´t care about winning or having a fair and even playing field when we play. If casual gamers really were like that the first iteration of AoS rules wouldn't have been universally despised. 10% of total victory points isn't minor either especially when so far it looks capping out on the other 90 is by no means a done deal, so in practice those 10 VP could be more like 15-20% of total points. which I'd say is a gross disadvantage to go up against.
So you're casual players, you play a casual game, at the end of it one player has 75 VPs and the other player has 70 VPs. But the underdog is painted, so the book says they get a bonus 10, which makes them technically the winner with 80 VPs.
Is the 75 VP player really going to get bent out of shape about technically losing, despite being the winner from a strictly gameplay standpoint? Because that doesn't sound terribly casual to me.
It's not like the rulebook is giving painted armies bonus CP or anything that actually affects the gameplay.
Purifying Tempest wrote: Tactically, painting your models gives you a better chance of winning the game now.
How about that for a strategy?
I'd like the rules that govern victory in a game to be related to the game, not aesthetics.
Have a general question for someone with your viewpoint. Most competitive events already fell in line with a painting standard that would flat out not let you play with unpainted models (aka what the ITC uses and most tournaments ran with). So most games being played with grey armies one way or the other are pickup games. My question then is that even if your opponent were to calculate the extra 10 points for getting their army painted why would it matter? If those points are one and done and not what carries you to another round or affects your rating ect. then why do you even care how your opponent calculates as you could determine your parameter for if you won or lost? Generally curious, because if you have unpainted army chances are you aren't playing in tournaments anyway and then who really cares what the guy across from you calculated as a win? you are simply using your own metric where painting doesn't matter so that 10 points is never added
I would like to play by the rules as best I can. I'm not BCB, but the rules are common ground to be enjoyed with others.
And let's be honest-if, by the rules, you win by 3 points, and I say "But I really won, because you only got 10 points because of painted models," you're gonna think I'm an ass.
That's by and large my main issue with the rule-it's an invitation for TFG to, well, be that fething guy. It's an invitation to check every model of your opponent's for proper base painting, it's an invitation to mock someone for losing because their models weren't painted, it's an invitation to be smug in a loss because you only lost because your models aren't painted.
It adds virtually nothing-since I guarantee you, people who only paint because of this are not going to have good paintjobs, unless they blow money on commissions-and invites a whole mess of issues.
I don't anticipate it being an issue in my local GW, because it's a very friendly place-but not everyone is as fortunate as I am.
How is an extra 10 VP when determining the winner not affecting the game? Feth they could have made the rule painted armies get another 1/2 CP, and you know what? That would probably decide less games than an extra 10 VP for free. A technical loss is still a loss.
Edit: and to add to what was said above, so far all I'm seeing now is TFG behaviour from BOTH sides of the fence on this issue. That alone should be reason enough to damn the existence of this rule.
Yeah this. It's only 10 friggin VPs and if you're truly a casual player you shouldn't care.
I have to wonder were this inane idea comes from that just because me and my mates are on the more casual side of listbuilding and playing we don´t care about winning or having a fair and even playing field when we play. If casual gamers really were like that the first iteration of AoS rules wouldn't have been universally despised. 10% of total victory points isn't minor either especially when so far it looks capping out on the other 90 is by no means a done deal, so in practice those 10 VP could be more like 15-20% of total points. which I'd say is a gross disadvantage to go up against.
So you're casual players, you play a casual game, at the end of it one player has 75 VPs and the other player has 70 VPs. But the underdog is painted, so the book says they get a bonus 10, which makes them technically the winner with 80 VPs.
Is the 75 VP player really going to get bent out of shape about technically losing, despite being the winner from a strictly gameplay standpoint? Because that doesn't sound terribly casual to me.
It's not like the rulebook is giving painted armies bonus CP or anything that actually affects the gameplay.
this is my confusion as well. I consider myself and my group very casual. If my brother "won" because his army was painted i wouldn't be mad it actually wouldn't matter at all. The only time we really care about who one its if there is a blowout game that was over turn 1 so both the winner and loser didn't have an engaging game. If the victory came down to a coinflip I think it is given to the person who put countless hours into finishing their army is a great idea for motivating everyone in the group to do the little extra. Heck we have had a member for years that just doesn't want to paint any army he brings..... he also is the last person who would care if someone "technically" won because they painted their army
Purifying Tempest wrote: Tactically, painting your models gives you a better chance of winning the game now.
How about that for a strategy?
I'd like the rules that govern victory in a game to be related to the game, not aesthetics.
Have a general question for someone with your viewpoint. Most competitive events already fell in line with a painting standard that would flat out not let you play with unpainted models (aka what the ITC uses and most tournaments ran with). So most games being played with grey armies one way or the other are pickup games. My question then is that even if your opponent were to calculate the extra 10 points for getting their army painted why would it matter? If those points are one and done and not what carries you to another round or affects your rating ect. then why do you even care how your opponent calculates as you could determine your parameter for if you won or lost? Generally curious, because if you have unpainted army chances are you aren't playing in tournaments anyway and then who really cares what the guy across from you calculated as a win? you are simply using your own metric where painting doesn't matter so that 10 points is never added
I would like to play by the rules as best I can. I'm not BCB, but the rules are common ground to be enjoyed with others.
And let's be honest-if, by the rules, you win by 3 points, and I say "But I really won, because you only got 10 points because of painted models," you're gonna think I'm an ass.
That's by and large my main issue with the rule-it's an invitation for TFG to, well, be that fething guy. It's an invitation to check every model of your opponent's for proper base painting, it's an invitation to mock someone for losing because their models weren't painted, it's an invitation to be smug in a loss because you only lost because your models aren't painted.
It adds virtually nothing-since I guarantee you, people who only paint because of this are not going to have good paintjobs, unless they blow money on commissions-and invites a whole mess of issues.
I don't anticipate it being an issue in my local GW, because it's a very friendly place-but not everyone is as fortunate as I am.
I mean i wouldn't be mad at all if some guy im having a 1 off with game wins because of a rule. The fact that you would get so upset that the rulebook says someone technically won because they painted their models is just confusing to me. I don't get upset when i lose a close game so i don't see why i would be upset if i lost because of a paint job. Actually, for anything id see it as great motivation to finish off that new unit i decided to bring out. It actually would come off to me a TFG behavior if some guy lost it because i added up 10 paint points in a casual game. My opponent could decided he gets an extra 100000 points for having drilled out barrels in his gun it wouldnt actually change my outlook on whether i won or lost a game
Castozor wrote: How is an extra 10 VP when determining the winner not affecting the game? Feth they could have made the rule painted armies get another 1/2 CP, and you know what? That would probably decide less games than an extra 10 VP for free. A technical loss is still a loss.
This is the mentality GW is discouraging with this rule. GW does not want players to place the importance of 'technical victories' above basic ideas core to the spirit of the hobby, like painting your minis.
GW is basically saying, if a technical victory is what you want, then paint your minis first. Or, be like everyone else and enjoy playing in a relaxed manner with whatever house rules you prefer.
Either way they are discouraging technical victory achieved at the expense of hobbying.
Castozor wrote: How is an extra 10 VP when determining the winner not affecting the game? Feth they could have made the rule painted armies get another 1/2 CP, and you know what? That would probably decide less games than an extra 10 VP for free. A technical loss is still a loss.
This is the mentality GW is discouraging with this rule. GW does not want players to place the importance of 'technical victories' above basic ideas core to the spirit of the hobby, like painting your minis.
GW is basically saying, if a technical victory is what you want, then paint your minis first. Or, be like everyone else and enjoy playing in a relaxed manner with whatever house rules you prefer.
Either way they are discouraging technical victory achieved at the expense of hobbying.
How are they DISCOURAGING a technical victory from hobbying, when the rule literally gives a technical victory from hobbying?
Castozor wrote: How is an extra 10 VP when determining the winner not affecting the game? Feth they could have made the rule painted armies get another 1/2 CP, and you know what? That would probably decide less games than an extra 10 VP for free. A technical loss is still a loss.
This is the mentality GW is discouraging with this rule. GW does not want players to place the importance of 'technical victories' above basic ideas core to the spirit of the hobby, like painting your minis.
GW is basically saying, if a technical victory is what you want, then paint your minis first. Or, be like everyone else and enjoy playing in a relaxed manner with whatever house rules you prefer.
Either way they are discouraging technical victory achieved at the expense of hobbying.
How are they DISCOURAGING a technical victory from hobbying, when the rule literally gives a technical victory from hobbying?
Re-read what I wrote. 'At the expense of' hobbying, not 'from' hobbying.
Noticing a false dichotomy being promoted in this thread between casual and WAAC tournament player. Also some strange definitions of casual and treating casual players like they are a homogenous group (along with authoritative claims about what a casual player would, wouldn't, should, and shouldn't do).
The repeated assertion that casual players do not care about a fair game and whether they won or lost is too broad imo. Casual play can also encompass friendly games which aren't WAAC, netlisted or bad-natured, yet the players nevertheless want to engage in something at least attempting to approximate a tactical battle, without points being given out like candy due to out-of-game decisions.
Hobbying should be something you do for fun, not for getting technical victories especially when, you guessed it, the people most kicked in the shins by technical victories are the ones who place "playing the game" over the overall hobby.
Twilight Pathways wrote: Noticing a false dichotomy being promoted in this thread between casual and WAAC tournament player. Also some strange definitions of casual and treating casual players like they are a homogenous group (along with authoritative claims about what a casual player would, wouldn't, should, and shouldn't do).
The repeated assertion that casual players do not care about a fair game and whether they won or lost is too broad imo. Casual play can also encompass friendly games which aren't WAAC, netlisted or bad-natured, yet the players nevertheless want to engage in something at least attempting to approximate a tactical battle, without points being given out like candy due to out-of-game decisions.
A way more eloquent expression of my thoughts than I could ever manage. Thank you sir!
Kithail wrote: As I said it before, the same people that think painting is petty are really really invested in the pettiness of their 10vps. In their "generalship", "tactical sense" and "mastery of strategy".
isnt it fair for someone to expect their tactical sense to be the main reason for a win/loss in a wargaming game?
It is the main reason. 90% of the points available are for your tactical and strategic decisions.
Have you missed the comparisons?
What was it, 5 Dreadnoughts have to be killed to be worth 10 points?
3 Leman Russes?
An entire Imperial Knight?
Immaterial. You can get 90 possible points over the course of the game due to your tactical and strategic decisions. I don't care how you get them. From experience my army could chew through three Leman Russes in a turn, no biggie.
You could apparently just stand on an objective and get the points, too.
Twilight Pathways wrote: Noticing a false dichotomy being promoted in this thread between casual and WAAC tournament player. Also some strange definitions of casual and treating casual players like they are a homogenous group (along with authoritative claims about what a casual player would, wouldn't, should, and shouldn't do).
The repeated assertion that casual players do not care about a fair game and whether they won or lost is too broad imo. Casual play can also encompass friendly games which aren't WAAC, netlisted or bad-natured, yet the players nevertheless want to engage in something at least attempting to approximate a tactical battle, without points being given out like candy due to out-of-game decisions.
Yes. Clearly GW wants 'official' play to reward painted minis, and prefers to relegate unpainted minis to casual play.
"Friendly games which aren't WAAC, netlisted or bad-natured" using unpainted models is what GW has implicitly defined as casual play in 9th edition.
Twilight Pathways wrote: Noticing a false dichotomy being promoted in this thread between casual and WAAC tournament player. Also some strange definitions of casual and treating casual players like they are a homogenous group (along with authoritative claims about what a casual player would, wouldn't, should, and shouldn't do).
The repeated assertion that casual players do not care about a fair game and whether they won or lost is too broad imo. Casual play can also encompass friendly games which aren't WAAC, netlisted or bad-natured, yet the players nevertheless want to engage in something at least attempting to approximate a tactical battle, without points being given out like candy due to out-of-game decisions.
Yes. Clearly GW wants 'official' play to reward painted minis, and prefers to relegate unpainted minis to casual play.
That's not what this rule does, though.
Before, tournament play 100% required painted minis. (At least for big tournaments.) Now, there's a rule that you can show up with unpainted ones, you just start 10 points down. If anything, it makes it MORE likely that tournaments will allow unpainted minis, since there's an already-existing mechanism to differentiate between the two.
Yeah this. It's only 10 friggin VPs and if you're truly a casual player you shouldn't care.
I have to wonder were this inane idea comes from that just because me and my mates are on the more casual side of listbuilding and playing we don´t care about winning or having a fair and even playing field when we play. If casual gamers really were like that the first iteration of AoS rules wouldn't have been universally despised. 10% of total victory points isn't minor either especially when so far it looks capping out on the other 90 is by no means a done deal, so in practice those 10 VP could be more like 15-20% of total points. which I'd say is a gross disadvantage to go up against.
I'm not saying you don't care about winning. But if you're playing is a casual environment it's just as easy to house-rule it away, or simply claim tactical victory rather than technical victory, or whatever. As a casual player the game is wide open to custom rules and negotiation.
Twilight Pathways wrote: Noticing a false dichotomy being promoted in this thread between casual and WAAC tournament player. Also some strange definitions of casual and treating casual players like they are a homogenous group (along with authoritative claims about what a casual player would, wouldn't, should, and shouldn't do).
The repeated assertion that casual players do not care about a fair game and whether they won or lost is too broad imo. Casual play can also encompass friendly games which aren't WAAC, netlisted or bad-natured, yet the players nevertheless want to engage in something at least attempting to approximate a tactical battle, without points being given out like candy due to out-of-game decisions.
Yes. Clearly GW wants 'official' play to reward painted minis, and prefers to relegate unpainted minis to casual play.
"Friendly games which aren't WAAC, netlisted or bad-natured" using unpainted models is what GW has implicitly defined as casual play in 9th edition.
And thank the heavens they did. Wouldn't want unpainted armies giving you bad feels, but unfluffy riptide drone spam and 3 smash captains leading a knight and some conscripts is fair game and the intended gaming experience. If they want to go down this dumb path of enforcing an overall holistic hobby they could at least penalize unfluffy lists too. But that'd be hard and as we know GW likes easy fixes.
Castozor wrote: Hobbying should be something you do for fun, not for getting technical victories especially when, you guessed it, the people most kicked in the shins by technical victories are the ones who place "playing the game" over the overall hobby.
GWwants hobbying to be part of technical victories. And yeah, they are specifically kicking those people in the shins, those people who are chasing technical victories without any consideration for the hobby. This is their stance.
Twilight Pathways wrote: Noticing a false dichotomy being promoted in this thread between casual and WAAC tournament player. Also some strange definitions of casual and treating casual players like they are a homogenous group (along with authoritative claims about what a casual player would, wouldn't, should, and shouldn't do).
The repeated assertion that casual players do not care about a fair game and whether they won or lost is too broad imo. Casual play can also encompass friendly games which aren't WAAC, netlisted or bad-natured, yet the players nevertheless want to engage in something at least attempting to approximate a tactical battle, without points being given out like candy due to out-of-game decisions.
Yes. Clearly GW wants 'official' play to reward painted minis, and prefers to relegate unpainted minis to casual play.
"Friendly games which aren't WAAC, netlisted or bad-natured" using unpainted models is what GW has implicitly defined as casual play in 9th edition.
And thank the heavens they did. Wouldn't want unpainted armies giving you bad feels, but unfluffy riptide drone spam and 3 smash captains leading a knight and some conscripts is fair game and the intended gaming experience. If they want to go down this dumb path of enforcing an overall holistic hobby they could at least penalize unfluffy lists too. But that'd be hard and as we know GW likes easy fixes.
Actually GW has taken a step to address this issue by making you pay for detachments as well as giving a negative for soup. They are literally trying to promote more balanced armies in the 9th ed rules
Twilight Pathways wrote: Noticing a false dichotomy being promoted in this thread between casual and WAAC tournament player. Also some strange definitions of casual and treating casual players like they are a homogenous group (along with authoritative claims about what a casual player would, wouldn't, should, and shouldn't do).
The repeated assertion that casual players do not care about a fair game and whether they won or lost is too broad imo. Casual play can also encompass friendly games which aren't WAAC, netlisted or bad-natured, yet the players nevertheless want to engage in something at least attempting to approximate a tactical battle, without points being given out like candy due to out-of-game decisions.
Twilight Pathways wrote: Noticing a false dichotomy being promoted in this thread between casual and WAAC tournament player. Also some strange definitions of casual and treating casual players like they are a homogenous group (along with authoritative claims about what a casual player would, wouldn't, should, and shouldn't do).
The repeated assertion that casual players do not care about a fair game and whether they won or lost is too broad imo. Casual play can also encompass friendly games which aren't WAAC, netlisted or bad-natured, yet the players nevertheless want to engage in something at least attempting to approximate a tactical battle, without points being given out like candy due to out-of-game decisions.
Yes. Clearly GW wants 'official' play to reward painted minis, and prefers to relegate unpainted minis to casual play.
"Friendly games which aren't WAAC, netlisted or bad-natured" using unpainted models is what GW has implicitly defined as casual play in 9th edition.
And thank the heavens they did. Wouldn't want unpainted armies giving you bad feels, but unfluffy riptide drone spam and 3 smash captains leading a knight and some conscripts is fair game and the intended gaming experience. If they want to go down this dumb path of enforcing an overall holistic hobby they could at least penalize unfluffy lists too. But that'd be hard and as we know GW likes easy fixes.
Actually GW has taken a step to address this issue by making you pay for detachments as well as giving a negative for soup. They are literally trying to promote more balanced armies in the 9th ed rules
So a fluffy Deathwing force is punished, because they don't take Troops and therefore take a Vanguard over a Patrol or something, but a force of primarily Riptides and Drones with a token Troops presence to hold some objectives isn't.
Castozor wrote:How is an extra 10 VP when determining the winner not affecting the game? Feth they could have made the rule painted armies get another 1/2 CP, and you know what? That would probably decide less games than an extra 10 VP for free. A technical loss is still a loss.
Edit: and to add to what was said above, so far all I'm seeing now is TFG behaviour from BOTH sides of the fence on this issue. That alone should be reason enough to damn the existence of this rule.
Twilight Pathways wrote:Noticing a false dichotomy being promoted in this thread between casual and WAAC tournament player. Also some strange definitions of casual and treating casual players like they are a homogenous group (along with authoritative claims about what a casual player would, wouldn't, should, and shouldn't do).
The repeated assertion that casual players do not care about a fair game and whether they won or lost is too broad imo. Casual play can also encompass friendly games which aren't WAAC, netlisted or bad-natured, yet the players nevertheless want to engage in something at least attempting to approximate a tactical battle, without points being given out like candy due to out-of-game decisions.
Caring about whether you won or lost the scenario is part of a casual play mindset. Caring about whether a completely-unrelated-to-gameplay bonus turns a victory into a defeat by sheer technicality is not a casual play mindset.
If I score higher VPs in-game, and my buddy informs me that technically I lost because he got a painting bonus... so what? We both know who really won the battle. Our casual game isn't being reported for tournament rankings or anything. It is completely immaterial who 'actually' won.
I would posit that if you obviously beat your opponent on scenario objectives, winning the battle by all practical measures, but then get bent out of shape because a throwaway sentence says that they actually technically won on the basis of a gimmick, you're not a casual player.
Again: The bonus VP for painting doesn't actually affect the battle. It doesn't affect whether your troops live or die, or how effective your weapons are, or whether you're able to accomplish the actual in-game objectives. It makes exactly zero difference until you go to tally the score, at which point you can clearly see who actually scored more VP in-game, and then decide to get upset about whether the inanimate rulebook declares who 'really' won.
Castozor wrote: Hobbying should be something you do for fun, not for getting technical victories especially when, you guessed it, the people most kicked in the shins by technical victories are the ones who place "playing the game" over the overall hobby.
GWwants hobbying to be part of technical victories. And yeah, they are specifically kicking those people in the shins, those people who are chasing technical victories without any consideration for the hobby. This is their stance.
And their stance is dumb, as pointed out before do I get to win painting competitions now because I beat that Golden Demon level painter in a game? No of course not because that'd be silly. It might be an overall hobby for SOME people but each individual part has its own standards by which success is measured. Or rather used to have individual standards because we now have this abomination of a rule. I don't chase for technical victories either but it would stand to reason that to win a game you win by being better at the game, not because you decided to wear pink socks that morning.
In GW's eyes if both players have equal battle scores, the 'winner' from a purely technical standpoint is the one who has the fully painted army.
If you won a game by 4 points, but your opponent's army is fully painted, then from a purely technical standpoint, GW would grant victory to your opponent.
That is how much GW values having painted minis. Of course GW's rulebooks always encourage players to play with whatever house rules they prefer, but if you want their official stance on it, the official, GW-sanctioned, 'right' way to play, then they are telling us having painted minis is a core part of the game and is worth 10 extra victory points.
I genuinely don't get it. I took the bonus VP to be a tongue-in-cheek encouragement to paint your models.
that was my initial reaction until i realized that literally 1/10th or 2 secondaries are hidden behind it.
Tongue in cheek would be like i dunno 3?
Also tongue in cheek would be saying if it was a total tie, the full painted army would win the tie breaker. I also wouldn't care if that was the case either.
Castozor wrote: Hobbying should be something you do for fun, not for getting technical victories especially when, you guessed it, the people most kicked in the shins by technical victories are the ones who place "playing the game" over the overall hobby.
GWwants hobbying to be part of technical victories. And yeah, they are specifically kicking those people in the shins, those people who are chasing technical victories without any consideration for the hobby. This is their stance.
And their stance is dumb, as pointed out before do I get to win painting competitions now because I beat that Golden Demon level painter in a game? No of course not because that'd be silly. It might be an overall hobby for SOME people but each individual part has its own standards by which success is measured. Or rather used to have individual standards because we now have this abomination of a rule. I don't chase for technical victories either but it would stand to reason that to win a game you win by being better at the game, not because you decided to wear pink socks that morning.
Exactly, 40k as a whole is a venn diagram with the following options:
Lore Fan
Hobby fan (painting and modeling goes here)
Game fan
players can be in any of these in any combination.
Why isn't GW giving 10pts for fluffy armies then?
If a player cannot name all the campaigns his army took place in, does that mean he's not enjoying his hobby the proper way?
And their stance is dumb, as pointed out before do I get to win painting competitions now because I beat that Golden Demon level painter in a game? No of course not because that'd be silly. It might be an overall hobby for SOME people but each individual part has its own standards by which success is measured. Or rather used to have individual standards because we now have this abomination of a rule. I don't chase for technical victories either but it would stand to reason that to win a game you win by being better at the game, not because you decided to wear pink socks that morning.
You are free to disagree with their official stance and in fact GW always encourages players to modify and change their rules in whatever way best suits them.
And their stance is dumb, as pointed out before do I get to win painting competitions now because I beat that Golden Demon level painter in a game? No of course not because that'd be silly. It might be an overall hobby for SOME people but each individual part has its own standards by which success is measured. Or rather used to have individual standards because we now have this abomination of a rule. I don't chase for technical victories either but it would stand to reason that to win a game you win by being better at the game, not because you decided to wear pink socks that morning.
You are free to disagree with their official stance and in fact GW always encourages players to modify and change their rules in whatever way best suits them.
[Citation Needed]
If the rules don't matter, why bother publishing rules? Just smack your toys together.
AngryAngel80 wrote:Off topic, you think GW is expensive, check out some lego kits, my word.
Oof, tell me about it! I swear they were never so much when I was a kid!
I was honestly shocked, it made me, for one of the rare times think of GW as cheap.
To really see how expensive GW kits are, compare them to gunpla kits.
Oh don't get me wrong, I still think GW is expensive as heck but this isn't really a thread for that, I just was shocked to see how expensive Legos became, that's all.
And their stance is dumb, as pointed out before do I get to win painting competitions now because I beat that Golden Demon level painter in a game? No of course not because that'd be silly. It might be an overall hobby for SOME people but each individual part has its own standards by which success is measured. Or rather used to have individual standards because we now have this abomination of a rule. I don't chase for technical victories either but it would stand to reason that to win a game you win by being better at the game, not because you decided to wear pink socks that morning.
You are free to disagree with their official stance and in fact GW always encourages players to modify and change their rules in whatever way best suits them.
[Citation Needed]
If the rules don't matter, why bother publishing rules? Just smack your toys together.
Hahaha, I'm not going to get into a citation argument with you of all people, BCB. GW has always had a loose approach to rules. You know this.
This painting rule shows exactly how loose their approach is. For them, the true winners of the game aren't the ones who simply win on game mechanics alone. In their eyes, great generals are the ones who also embody the spirit of the hobby, which manifests in game as +10 VP.
Automatically Appended Next Post: GW is basically saying, take the rules less seriously, or paint your minis.
GW is trying to exclude players who ONLY take the rules super seriously and ignore the rest of the hobby.
And their stance is dumb, as pointed out before do I get to win painting competitions now because I beat that Golden Demon level painter in a game? No of course not because that'd be silly. It might be an overall hobby for SOME people but each individual part has its own standards by which success is measured. Or rather used to have individual standards because we now have this abomination of a rule. I don't chase for technical victories either but it would stand to reason that to win a game you win by being better at the game, not because you decided to wear pink socks that morning.
You are free to disagree with their official stance and in fact GW always encourages players to modify and change their rules in whatever way best suits them.
[Citation Needed]
If the rules don't matter, why bother publishing rules? Just smack your toys together.
Well here is the thing, if people like the rule they are the end all be all, if they make no sense or shouldn't be universally followed they are simply suggestions. Either way GW is a miracle for giving them to us we are the problem for not understanding their wisdom. GW has never released a bad rule you see, just amazing rules and suggestions.
Castozor wrote:How is an extra 10 VP when determining the winner not affecting the game? Feth they could have made the rule painted armies get another 1/2 CP, and you know what? That would probably decide less games than an extra 10 VP for free. A technical loss is still a loss.
Edit: and to add to what was said above, so far all I'm seeing now is TFG behaviour from BOTH sides of the fence on this issue. That alone should be reason enough to damn the existence of this rule.
Twilight Pathways wrote:Noticing a false dichotomy being promoted in this thread between casual and WAAC tournament player. Also some strange definitions of casual and treating casual players like they are a homogenous group (along with authoritative claims about what a casual player would, wouldn't, should, and shouldn't do).
The repeated assertion that casual players do not care about a fair game and whether they won or lost is too broad imo. Casual play can also encompass friendly games which aren't WAAC, netlisted or bad-natured, yet the players nevertheless want to engage in something at least attempting to approximate a tactical battle, without points being given out like candy due to out-of-game decisions.
Caring about whether you won or lost the scenario is part of a casual play mindset. Caring about whether a completely-unrelated-to-gameplay bonus turns a victory into a defeat by sheer technicality is not a casual play mindset.
If I score higher VPs in-game, and my buddy informs me that technically I lost because he got a painting bonus... so what? We both know who really won the battle. Our casual game isn't being reported for tournament rankings or anything. It is completely immaterial who 'actually' won.
I would posit that if you obviously beat your opponent on scenario objectives, winning the battle by all practical measures, but then get bent out of shape because a throwaway sentence says that they actually technically won on the basis of a gimmick, you're not a casual player.
Again: The bonus VP for painting doesn't actually affect the battle. It doesn't affect whether your troops live or die, or how effective your weapons are, or whether you're able to accomplish the actual in-game objectives. It makes exactly zero difference until you go to tally the score, at which point you can clearly see who actually scored more VP in-game, and then decide to get upset about whether the inanimate rulebook declares who 'really' won.
Castozor wrote: Hobbying should be something you do for fun, not for getting technical victories especially when, you guessed it, the people most kicked in the shins by technical victories are the ones who place "playing the game" over the overall hobby.
GWwants hobbying to be part of technical victories. And yeah, they are specifically kicking those people in the shins, those people who are chasing technical victories without any consideration for the hobby. This is their stance.
And their stance is dumb, as pointed out before do I get to win painting competitions now because I beat that Golden Demon level painter in a game? No of course not because that'd be silly. It might be an overall hobby for SOME people but each individual part has its own standards by which success is measured. Or rather used to have individual standards because we now have this abomination of a rule. I don't chase for technical victories either but it would stand to reason that to win a game you win by being better at the game, not because you decided to wear pink socks that morning.
Exactly, 40k as a whole is a venn diagram with the following options:
Lore Fan
Hobby fan (painting and modeling goes here)
Game fan
players can be in any of these in any combination.
Why isn't GW giving 10pts for fluffy armies then?
If a player cannot name all the campaigns his army took place in, does that mean he's not enjoying his hobby the proper way?
They give you that. It is called being "battleforged"
Castozor wrote: Hobbying should be something you do for fun, not for getting technical victories especially when, you guessed it, the people most kicked in the shins by technical victories are the ones who place "playing the game" over the overall hobby.
GWwants hobbying to be part of technical victories. And yeah, they are specifically kicking those people in the shins, those people who are chasing technical victories without any consideration for the hobby. This is their stance.
And their stance is dumb, as pointed out before do I get to win painting competitions now because I beat that Golden Demon level painter in a game? No of course not because that'd be silly. It might be an overall hobby for SOME people but each individual part has its own standards by which success is measured. Or rather used to have individual standards because we now have this abomination of a rule. I don't chase for technical victories either but it would stand to reason that to win a game you win by being better at the game, not because you decided to wear pink socks that morning.
Exactly, 40k as a whole is a venn diagram with the following options:
Lore Fan Hobby fan (painting and modeling goes here) Game fan
players can be in any of these in any combination. Why isn't GW giving 10pts for fluffy armies then? If a player cannot name all the campaigns his army took place in, does that mean he's not enjoying his hobby the proper way?
They give you that. It is called being "battleforged"
A Knight in a SHA, three BA Smash Captains and three five-man squads of scouts, rounded off by a bunch of Guardsmen is still battleforged at 2k points.
Edit: The entire Deathwing, so 10 Squads of Deathwing Terminators lead by Belial, is NOT battleforged.
And their stance is dumb, as pointed out before do I get to win painting competitions now because I beat that Golden Demon level painter in a game? No of course not because that'd be silly. It might be an overall hobby for SOME people but each individual part has its own standards by which success is measured. Or rather used to have individual standards because we now have this abomination of a rule. I don't chase for technical victories either but it would stand to reason that to win a game you win by being better at the game, not because you decided to wear pink socks that morning.
You are free to disagree with their official stance and in fact GW always encourages players to modify and change their rules in whatever way best suits them.
[Citation Needed]
If the rules don't matter, why bother publishing rules? Just smack your toys together.
Hahaha, I'm not going to get into a citation argument with you of all people, BCB. GW has always had a loose approach to rules. You know this.
This painting rule shows exactly how loose their approach is. For them, the true winners of the game aren't the ones who simply win on game mechanics alone. In their eyes, great generals are the ones who also embody the spirit of the hobby, which manifests in game as +10 VP.
Automatically Appended Next Post: GW is basically saying, take the rules less seriously, or paint your minis.
GW is trying to exclude players who ONLY take the rules super seriously and ignore the rest of the hobby.
If you cannot convince them that GW has advertised its game as meant to be played with painted minis then you're not going to convince them of that either.
Some people just won't listen, despite evidence to the contrary from the creators of the game....
"the people most kicked in the shins by technical victories are the ones who place "playing the game" over the overall hobby"
And I'll reiterate, why pick solely painting as the measure by which being a hobbyist is judged? I play against friends with fully painted, but horribly unfluffy armies whereas I field my DG with at least 30 Plague Marines if not more. Because they are good? No of course not they are overpriced wet noodles but that is how GW decided a fluffy DG list looks like. Were is my free VP candy? And were was this overall hobby approach for the prior 30ish years? You can't expect people to blindly follow along if you make a massive upset like this.
Edit: Perhaps at this point I might add, whereas some of you seem to think you should be granted free points for being a full hobbyist/good painter I take pride in being a good (well were I play at least, YMMV) general and in improving my skills as a player. Who are you to take a free victory because you happen to enjoy a completely unrelated aspect of the hobby I don't?
Castozor wrote: Hobbying should be something you do for fun, not for getting technical victories especially when, you guessed it, the people most kicked in the shins by technical victories are the ones who place "playing the game" over the overall hobby.
GWwants hobbying to be part of technical victories. And yeah, they are specifically kicking those people in the shins, those people who are chasing technical victories without any consideration for the hobby. This is their stance.
And their stance is dumb, as pointed out before do I get to win painting competitions now because I beat that Golden Demon level painter in a game? No of course not because that'd be silly. It might be an overall hobby for SOME people but each individual part has its own standards by which success is measured. Or rather used to have individual standards because we now have this abomination of a rule. I don't chase for technical victories either but it would stand to reason that to win a game you win by being better at the game, not because you decided to wear pink socks that morning.
Exactly, 40k as a whole is a venn diagram with the following options:
Lore Fan
Hobby fan (painting and modeling goes here)
Game fan
players can be in any of these in any combination.
Why isn't GW giving 10pts for fluffy armies then?
If a player cannot name all the campaigns his army took place in, does that mean he's not enjoying his hobby the proper way?
They give you that. It is called being "battleforged"
No, battleforged only means youre not souping cross superfaction and within detachments.
Do i get bonuses for running a deathwing army?
Do i get bonuses for running a no boots on the ground kabal of the flayed skul?
Do i get bonuses for running guardsmen with a Tau army? (oh wait, the rules litterally prevent you from building a fluffy army)
"the people most kicked in the shins by technical victories are the ones who place "playing the game" over the overall hobby"
And I'll reiterate, why pick solely painting as the measure by which being a hobbyist is judged? I play against friends with fully painted, but horribly unfluffy armies whereas I field my DG with at least 30 Plague Marines if not more. Because they are good? No of course not they are overpriced wet noodles but that is how GW decided a fluffy DG list looks like. Were is my free VP candy? And were was this overall hobby approach for the prior 30ish years? You can't expect people to blindly follow along if you make a massive upset like this.
I assume it's because painting is an overt, visual exercise that directly affects the subjective experience of both players involved in a game of 40k. But I am just guessing.
I never expected everyone to blindly follow along. I expected it to enrage the portion of the player base that doesn't paint the minis.
"the people most kicked in the shins by technical victories are the ones who place "playing the game" over the overall hobby"
And I'll reiterate, why pick solely painting as the measure by which being a hobbyist is judged? I play against friends with fully painted, but horribly unfluffy armies whereas I field my DG with at least 30 Plague Marines if not more. Because they are good? No of course not they are overpriced wet noodles but that is how GW decided a fluffy DG list looks like. Were is my free VP candy? And were was this overall hobby approach for the prior 30ish years? You can't expect people to blindly follow along if you make a massive upset like this.
Why don't you simply add victory points in for what you consider a fluffy army with your group? If you really dislike the way your group builds its armies and they want something completely different out of the game then you... maybe its time to find a groups whos goals for the game line up with yours? I'm just once again failing to see how somehow GW is punishing you by adding in a consolation 10vp (that you don't have to follow) for painting into the game. Like if this rule isn't for your group then just don't use it
"the people most kicked in the shins by technical victories are the ones who place "playing the game" over the overall hobby"
And I'll reiterate, why pick solely painting as the measure by which being a hobbyist is judged? I play against friends with fully painted, but horribly unfluffy armies whereas I field my DG with at least 30 Plague Marines if not more. Because they are good? No of course not they are overpriced wet noodles but that is how GW decided a fluffy DG list looks like. Were is my free VP candy? And were was this overall hobby approach for the prior 30ish years? You can't expect people to blindly follow along if you make a massive upset like this.
Why don't you simply add victory points in for what you consider a fluffy army with your group? If you really dislike the way your group builds its armies and they want something completely different out of the game then you... maybe its time to find a groups whos goals for the game line up with yours? I'm just once again failing to see how somehow GW is punishing you by adding in a consolation 10vp (that you don't have to follow) for painting into the game. Like if this rule isn't for your group then just don't use it
Why print the rule if damn-near half the people who play won't even use it? And those that do use it have a dozen common situations that even they wouldn't use it in?
Or, if they MUST print it, why not include it as an optional extra?
This rule won't apply to my regular group, rest assured. I found a group of people who's values align with mine very well. We are mostly all gamers first, overall hobbyists second. My issue is that this single rule completely killed my incentive to find further pick up games and on basic principle should not exist. I can complain about things I consider unjust even if they do not impact me personally.
Twilight Pathways wrote: Noticing a false dichotomy being promoted in this thread between casual and WAAC tournament player. Also some strange definitions of casual and treating casual players like they are a homogenous group (along with authoritative claims about what a casual player would, wouldn't, should, and shouldn't do).
The repeated assertion that casual players do not care about a fair game and whether they won or lost is too broad imo. Casual play can also encompass friendly games which aren't WAAC, netlisted or bad-natured, yet the players nevertheless want to engage in something at least attempting to approximate a tactical battle, without points being given out like candy due to out-of-game decisions.
If you want a tactical battle, I'd suggest you get your paints on.
If those 10 VPs mean THAT much to you that you'd set the table on fire and burn everything down to avoid getting "punished" by a rule that only rewards... I suggest you deploy a little strategy and paint 'dem models! Never seen armed forces go out painted in gray-out. They usually wear identifiable uniforms, colors, and heraldry signifying what side they're on. You know, hard-to-emulate things to differentiate themselves from the enemy. If you want to approximate a "tactical battle" - I'd say you'd be better off served getting those forces painted than arguing over 10 VPs... since that coat of paint will help your guys tell friend from foe.
"the people most kicked in the shins by technical victories are the ones who place "playing the game" over the overall hobby"
And I'll reiterate, why pick solely painting as the measure by which being a hobbyist is judged? I play against friends with fully painted, but horribly unfluffy armies whereas I field my DG with at least 30 Plague Marines if not more. Because they are good? No of course not they are overpriced wet noodles but that is how GW decided a fluffy DG list looks like. Were is my free VP candy? And were was this overall hobby approach for the prior 30ish years? You can't expect people to blindly follow along if you make a massive upset like this.
Why don't you simply add victory points in for what you consider a fluffy army with your group? If you really dislike the way your group builds its armies and they want something completely different out of the game then you... maybe its time to find a groups whos goals for the game line up with yours? I'm just once again failing to see how somehow GW is punishing you by adding in a consolation 10vp (that you don't have to follow) for painting into the game. Like if this rule isn't for your group then just don't use it
Why print the rule if damn-near half the people who play won't even use it? And those that do use it have a dozen common situations that even they wouldn't use it in?
Or, if they MUST print it, why not include it as an optional extra?
Why not print it though? All it does is help incentivize some people to paint and that can very well lead to people picking up the game. I was about 8 when I walked by a store with 2 people playing a game with painted models and now I've been playing for like 20 years. why not toss in a rule thats absolute worse outcome is having 2 painted armies across for each other (which typically increase everyone including spectators enjoyment of the game)
"the people most kicked in the shins by technical victories are the ones who place "playing the game" over the overall hobby"
And I'll reiterate, why pick solely painting as the measure by which being a hobbyist is judged? I play against friends with fully painted, but horribly unfluffy armies whereas I field my DG with at least 30 Plague Marines if not more. Because they are good? No of course not they are overpriced wet noodles but that is how GW decided a fluffy DG list looks like. Were is my free VP candy? And were was this overall hobby approach for the prior 30ish years? You can't expect people to blindly follow along if you make a massive upset like this.
Sounds like you need to do your homework, as this "hobby approach" is ingrained in GW. They even had the quote in White Dwarf once of "Painting runs through our hobby like letters in a stick of Blackpool rock". Numerous times in battle reports they field what are; essentially illegal armies, but fudge it because spectacle. All of those aforementioned batreps having accompanying short stories attached too. It is quite obvious this is not how the company is wired, it was founded by people distributing D&D in the UK and writing Fighting Fantasy books (what does that tell you about how customisable they want their own games to have been?).
GW have always, always wanted you to go to the beat of their drum.
"the people most kicked in the shins by technical victories are the ones who place "playing the game" over the overall hobby"
And I'll reiterate, why pick solely painting as the measure by which being a hobbyist is judged? I play against friends with fully painted, but horribly unfluffy armies whereas I field my DG with at least 30 Plague Marines if not more. Because they are good? No of course not they are overpriced wet noodles but that is how GW decided a fluffy DG list looks like. Were is my free VP candy? And were was this overall hobby approach for the prior 30ish years? You can't expect people to blindly follow along if you make a massive upset like this.
Why don't you simply add victory points in for what you consider a fluffy army with your group? If you really dislike the way your group builds its armies and they want something completely different out of the game then you... maybe its time to find a groups whos goals for the game line up with yours? I'm just once again failing to see how somehow GW is punishing you by adding in a consolation 10vp (that you don't have to follow) for painting into the game. Like if this rule isn't for your group then just don't use it
Why print the rule if damn-near half the people who play won't even use it? And those that do use it have a dozen common situations that even they wouldn't use it in?
Or, if they MUST print it, why not include it as an optional extra?
Why not print it though? All it does is help incentivize some people to paint and that can very well lead to people picking up the game. I was about 8 when I walked by a store with 2 people playing a game with painted models and now I've been playing for like 20 years. why not toss in a rule thats absolute worse outcome is having 2 painted armies across for each other (which typically increase everyone including spectators enjoyment of the game)
Because it could just as easily mean someone DOESN'T pick up the game.
What if someone is bad at painting-or even just THINKS they'd be bad at painting-and when they hear that painting your army is worth killing five dreadnoughts, they decide to not play.
"Hi my name is Timmy I made my first small army I haven't been able to afford the paints yet." "Ok Timmy let's have a game." AFewHoursLater.Spongebob "Well, good work Timmy, you outplayed me during the game, but I am afraid you lose because you are new and didn't paint your army yet. Sorry, I guess Warhammer isn't for you!"
"the people most kicked in the shins by technical victories are the ones who place "playing the game" over the overall hobby"
And I'll reiterate, why pick solely painting as the measure by which being a hobbyist is judged? I play against friends with fully painted, but horribly unfluffy armies whereas I field my DG with at least 30 Plague Marines if not more. Because they are good? No of course not they are overpriced wet noodles but that is how GW decided a fluffy DG list looks like. Were is my free VP candy? And were was this overall hobby approach for the prior 30ish years? You can't expect people to blindly follow along if you make a massive upset like this.
Why don't you simply add victory points in for what you consider a fluffy army with your group? If you really dislike the way your group builds its armies and they want something completely different out of the game then you... maybe its time to find a groups whos goals for the game line up with yours? I'm just once again failing to see how somehow GW is punishing you by adding in a consolation 10vp (that you don't have to follow) for painting into the game. Like if this rule isn't for your group then just don't use it
Why print the rule if damn-near half the people who play won't even use it? And those that do use it have a dozen common situations that even they wouldn't use it in?
Or, if they MUST print it, why not include it as an optional extra?
Why not print it though? All it does is help incentivize some people to paint and that can very well lead to people picking up the game. I was about 8 when I walked by a store with 2 people playing a game with painted models and now I've been playing for like 20 years. why not toss in a rule thats absolute worse outcome is having 2 painted armies across for each other (which typically increase everyone including spectators enjoyment of the game)
Because it could just as easily mean someone DOESN'T pick up the game.
What if someone is bad at painting-or even just THINKS they'd be bad at painting-and when they hear that painting your army is worth killing five dreadnoughts, they decide to not play.
[/spoiler]
What if I am really bad at making lists and make tons of sub-optimal decisions because I love the paint job I did on that ABSOLUTELY terrible model? What if I am REALLY good at painting but utter garbage at every other phase of the hobby but LOVE to put those models on the table and have some fun with my friends?
Sure, I could win more games by "git gud" or "bring better units" but my decisions weren't rooted there. But now GW saw fit to reward those players. Will there be a cross-section that maximizes both portions to get that full 100 VP with amazing lists? I'm sure there will, but those guys are already winning tournaments, so the status remains quo.
Edit: god, you guys got me strawmanning now, too. See my previous post. That is all
"the people most kicked in the shins by technical victories are the ones who place "playing the game" over the overall hobby"
And I'll reiterate, why pick solely painting as the measure by which being a hobbyist is judged? I play against friends with fully painted, but horribly unfluffy armies whereas I field my DG with at least 30 Plague Marines if not more. Because they are good? No of course not they are overpriced wet noodles but that is how GW decided a fluffy DG list looks like. Were is my free VP candy? And were was this overall hobby approach for the prior 30ish years? You can't expect people to blindly follow along if you make a massive upset like this.
Why don't you simply add victory points in for what you consider a fluffy army with your group? If you really dislike the way your group builds its armies and they want something completely different out of the game then you... maybe its time to find a groups whos goals for the game line up with yours? I'm just once again failing to see how somehow GW is punishing you by adding in a consolation 10vp (that you don't have to follow) for painting into the game. Like if this rule isn't for your group then just don't use it
Why print the rule if damn-near half the people who play won't even use it? And those that do use it have a dozen common situations that even they wouldn't use it in?
Or, if they MUST print it, why not include it as an optional extra?
Why not print it though? All it does is help incentivize some people to paint and that can very well lead to people picking up the game. I was about 8 when I walked by a store with 2 people playing a game with painted models and now I've been playing for like 20 years. why not toss in a rule thats absolute worse outcome is having 2 painted armies across for each other (which typically increase everyone including spectators enjoyment of the game)
Because it could just as easily mean someone DOESN'T pick up the game.
What if someone is bad at painting-or even just THINKS they'd be bad at painting-and when they hear that painting your army is worth killing five dreadnoughts, they decide to not play.
Well first off someone picking up the game for the first time isn't going to have any meaning attached to "killing 5 dreadnoughts". If we are truly talking about a new player that doesn't have any attached bias that some people in this thread have they are going to take away what the rule actually is. they are going to say "oh you get bonus points if you get everything painted" which is what the rule says. Id say that far more people are going to be more likely to play because of seeing 2 painted models then be completely turned off to the game because someone got bonus points for painting
"the people most kicked in the shins by technical victories are the ones who place "playing the game" over the overall hobby"
And I'll reiterate, why pick solely painting as the measure by which being a hobbyist is judged? I play against friends with fully painted, but horribly unfluffy armies whereas I field my DG with at least 30 Plague Marines if not more. Because they are good? No of course not they are overpriced wet noodles but that is how GW decided a fluffy DG list looks like. Were is my free VP candy? And were was this overall hobby approach for the prior 30ish years? You can't expect people to blindly follow along if you make a massive upset like this.
Sounds like you need to do your homework, as this "hobby approach" is ingrained in GW. They even had the quote in White Dwarf once of "Painting runs through our hobby like letters in a stick of Blackpool rock". Numerous times in battle reports they field what are; essentially illegal armies, but fudge it because spectacle. All of those aforementioned batreps having accompanying short stories attached too. It is quite obvious this is not how the company is wired, it was founded by people distributing D&D in the UK and writing Fighting Fantasy books (what does that tell you about how customisable they want their own games to have been?).
GW have always, always wanted you to go to the beat of their drum.
You mean the same GW that once decided conversions are totally rad and cool but now seems to shun any kind of option that does not come in the kit and/or that is not sold by them? That GW? The "hobbyist" GW died a long time ago, if they really wanted to be a complete hobbyist approach GW they would not axe legend options, restrict datasheet options to what's available in their kits an whatsnot. GW can't have their cake and eat it too if they want me to embrace their new idiocy. Dock points for being unfluffy too, not just for painting, give me back my Ork bikers characters, include all weapon options in a Killa Kan kit. I'm not going to take this "hobbyist" approach from the same company that out of pure greed decides to kill any and all kind of hobby expressionism that doesn't benefit their bottom line.
slave.entity wrote: You are free to disagree with their official stance and in fact GW always encourages players to modify and change their rules in whatever way best suits them.
[Citation Needed]
It's called "The Most Important Rule" - surprised you've not read it.
It basically reads "if you're not sure what to do, chat with your opponent, use common sense/fun, and if you can't agree roll-off on it".
This, partnered with the general comments that GW frequently make about generally enjoying yourself how you want to, seem to indicate that, between you and your opponent, they don't care what you do. They just provide rules that you can choose to use.
If the rules don't matter, why bother publishing rules? Just smack your toys together.
To paraphrase Captain Barbossa - "more what you'd call 'guidelines' than actual rules". If you want to stick 100% to those guidelines, you're welcome. If you want to deviate from them when you and your opponent agree to it? You're welcome to that as well.
BaconCatBug wrote: "Hi my name is Timmy I made my first small army I haven't been able to afford the paints yet."
"Ok Timmy let's have a game."
AFewHoursLater.Spongebob
"Well, good work Timmy, you outplayed me during the game, but I am afraid you lose because you are new and didn't paint your army yet. Sorry, I guess Warhammer isn't for you!"
BaconCatBug wrote: "Hi my name is Timmy I made my first small army I haven't been able to afford the paints yet."
"Ok Timmy let's have a game."
AFewHoursLater.Spongebob
"Well, good work Timmy, you outplayed me during the game, but I am afraid you lose because you are new and didn't paint your army yet. Sorry, I guess Warhammer isn't for you!"
And this is one of those reasons why you shouldn't be taking new players through their first games, BCB.
As an unrelated aside, do you believe the fix to Assault weapons means they'll work properly in 9th without crashing the game?
FWIW I expect very few of my games to actually use the rule. Personally I don't care either way, but if my opponent wants to use it, I'm cool with that. Casual is fun. So is power gaming. So is playing very technically and 'by the book'. For me it's all just an excuse to throw dice.
But I do enjoy how the rule functions as an extra carrot on a stick for power gamers who refuse to paint their armies. Of course I will gladly waive the rule if we're playing a game together and they feel it's inappropriate.
BaconCatBug wrote: "Hi my name is Timmy I made my first small army I haven't been able to afford the paints yet."
"Ok Timmy let's have a game."
AFewHoursLater.Spongebob
"Well, good work Timmy, you outplayed me during the game, but I am afraid you lose because you are new and didn't paint your army yet. Sorry, I guess Warhammer isn't for you!"
Old argument. TFGs gonna TFG.
Following the rules is being TFG now?
Because this isn't some minor, "technically it doesn't work that way" rule. This is a very plain and clear rule with no wiggle room.
BaconCatBug wrote: "Hi my name is Timmy I made my first small army I haven't been able to afford the paints yet."
"Ok Timmy let's have a game."
AFewHoursLater.Spongebob
"Well, good work Timmy, you outplayed me during the game, but I am afraid you lose because you are new and didn't paint your army yet. Sorry, I guess Warhammer isn't for you!"
Old argument. TFGs gonna TFG.
Following the rules is being TFG now?
Because this isn't some minor, "technically it doesn't work that way" rule. This is a very plain and clear rule with no wiggle room.
Yes in the same way bringing the top tournament list against Timmy in his first game would be a TFG move despite it being "allowed in the rules". If you really can't tell the difference you should do the hobby a favor and steer new player towards other people in your club
BaconCatBug wrote: "Hi my name is Timmy I made my first small army I haven't been able to afford the paints yet."
"Ok Timmy let's have a game."
AFewHoursLater.Spongebob
"Well, good work Timmy, you outplayed me during the game, but I am afraid you lose because you are new and didn't paint your army yet. Sorry, I guess Warhammer isn't for you!"
Old argument. TFGs gonna TFG.
Following the rules is being TFG now?
Because this isn't some minor, "technically it doesn't work that way" rule. This is a very plain and clear rule with no wiggle room.
Yes in the same way bringing the top tournament list against Timmy in his first game would be a TFG move despite it being "allowed in the rules". If you really can't tell the difference you should do the hobby a favor and steer new player towards other people in your club
Except there's no rule that states you MUST bring top level lists. This is a binary "Yes/no" for paint.
Additionally, while TFGs will be jerks no matter what, why give them more ammo?
BaconCatBug wrote: "Hi my name is Timmy I made my first small army I haven't been able to afford the paints yet."
"Ok Timmy let's have a game."
AFewHoursLater.Spongebob
"Well, good work Timmy, you outplayed me during the game, but I am afraid you lose because you are new and didn't paint your army yet. Sorry, I guess Warhammer isn't for you!"
Old argument. TFGs gonna TFG.
Following the rules is being TFG now?
Because this isn't some minor, "technically it doesn't work that way" rule. This is a very plain and clear rule with no wiggle room.
Being blind to how your enforcement of the rules is impacting how another player enjoys the game, within the context of that game (friendly casual vs organized event). Being blind to the fact that you're unreasonably being a jerk vs providing motivation. When you willfully ignore your opponent's experience strictly to enhance yours makes you TFG.
If I FORCE someone to take a L at a friendly table because he had 1 unpainted model and it changed the game... and that guy slumps his shoulders and walks away with a big NPE in what would have otherwise been a REALLY great game... that makes me TFG.
If my opponent wants me to enforce the rule negatively against him because he wants to lose the game as a reminder to get to his backlog... and I enforce it and accept the VPs... I'm not TFG.
If a new player started 2 weeks ago and is in "new experience" shock and I enforce this rule on him in a manner to make him feel worse? I'm TFG.
If he's been around a month and I want to encourage him to paint instead of buying $100s of extra plastic in a hurry.... I may pull the rule out to test how he feels about it and inform him that it is something out there to be aware of. Because painting a $500 army is a lot easier and more likely to happen at that stage than him buying 2500 points and being under a mountain of plastic. But I'd TALK to him about it. Does not make me TFG.
But why include the rule if half the time it's gonna be making you TFG?
Again, if you only want to play painted minis, that's fine. I don't think you should be forced to play in a game you won't have fun in. But why should I or anyone else who doesn't enjoy speed-painting be forced to do so to have a fair game? (As much as 40k can be fair, at least.)
"the people most kicked in the shins by technical victories are the ones who place "playing the game" over the overall hobby"
And I'll reiterate, why pick solely painting as the measure by which being a hobbyist is judged? I play against friends with fully painted, but horribly unfluffy armies whereas I field my DG with at least 30 Plague Marines if not more. Because they are good? No of course not they are overpriced wet noodles but that is how GW decided a fluffy DG list looks like. Were is my free VP candy? And were was this overall hobby approach for the prior 30ish years? You can't expect people to blindly follow along if you make a massive upset like this.
Sounds like you need to do your homework, as this "hobby approach" is ingrained in GW. They even had the quote in White Dwarf once of "Painting runs through our hobby like letters in a stick of Blackpool rock". Numerous times in battle reports they field what are; essentially illegal armies, but fudge it because spectacle. All of those aforementioned batreps having accompanying short stories attached too. It is quite obvious this is not how the company is wired, it was founded by people distributing D&D in the UK and writing Fighting Fantasy books (what does that tell you about how customisable they want their own games to have been?).
GW have always, always wanted you to go to the beat of their drum.
You mean the same GW that once decided conversions are totally rad and cool but now seems to shun any kind of option that does not come in the kit and/or that is not sold by them? That GW? The "hobbyist" GW died a long time ago, if they really wanted to be a complete hobbyist approach GW they would not axe legend options, restrict datasheet options to what's available in their kits an whatsnot. GW can't have their cake and eat it too if they want me to embrace their new idiocy. Dock points for being unfluffy too, not just for painting, give me back my Ork bikers characters, include all weapon options in a Killa Kan kit. I'm not going to take this "hobbyist" approach from the same company that out of pure greed decides to kill any and all kind of hobby expressionism that doesn't benefit their bottom line.
Dude, you only started playing 2 years ago. Most of those things you want "back" were gone before you even set foot in this hobby...
Yes, GW talks out of both sides of their mouth. Guess what? This is how they want their game to be played and they have said as much multiple times. You don't like it? Discuss it with your group. That is what they would tell you to do, but apparently because it's not printed in black and white this is somehow blasphemy against the holy writ the same GW have given as some kind of edict to their masses.
"the people most kicked in the shins by technical victories are the ones who place "playing the game" over the overall hobby"
And I'll reiterate, why pick solely painting as the measure by which being a hobbyist is judged? I play against friends with fully painted, but horribly unfluffy armies whereas I field my DG with at least 30 Plague Marines if not more. Because they are good? No of course not they are overpriced wet noodles but that is how GW decided a fluffy DG list looks like. Were is my free VP candy? And were was this overall hobby approach for the prior 30ish years? You can't expect people to blindly follow along if you make a massive upset like this.
Sounds like you need to do your homework, as this "hobby approach" is ingrained in GW. They even had the quote in White Dwarf once of "Painting runs through our hobby like letters in a stick of Blackpool rock". Numerous times in battle reports they field what are; essentially illegal armies, but fudge it because spectacle. All of those aforementioned batreps having accompanying short stories attached too. It is quite obvious this is not how the company is wired, it was founded by people distributing D&D in the UK and writing Fighting Fantasy books (what does that tell you about how customisable they want their own games to have been?).
GW have always, always wanted you to go to the beat of their drum.
You mean the same GW that once decided conversions are totally rad and cool but now seems to shun any kind of option that does not come in the kit and/or that is not sold by them? That GW? The "hobbyist" GW died a long time ago, if they really wanted to be a complete hobbyist approach GW they would not axe legend options, restrict datasheet options to what's available in their kits an whatsnot. GW can't have their cake and eat it too if they want me to embrace their new idiocy. Dock points for being unfluffy too, not just for painting, give me back my Ork bikers characters, include all weapon options in a Killa Kan kit. I'm not going to take this "hobbyist" approach from the same company that out of pure greed decides to kill any and all kind of hobby expressionism that doesn't benefit their bottom line.
Dude, you only started playing 2 years ago. Most of those things you want "back" were gone before you even set foot in this hobby...
Yes, GW talks out of both sides of their mouth. Guess what? This is how they want their game to be played and they have said as much multiple times. You don't like it? Discuss it with your group. That is what they would tell you to do, but apparently because it's not printed in black and white this is somehow blasphemy against the holy writ the same GW have given as some kind of edict to their masses.
So you don't actually have a reubttal to the point that GW is actively working against kitbashing, converting, and having plenty of options... You just think Castozar is too new to the hobby to be able to say that.
BaconCatBug wrote: "Hi my name is Timmy I made my first small army I haven't been able to afford the paints yet."
"Ok Timmy let's have a game."
AFewHoursLater.Spongebob
"Well, good work Timmy, you outplayed me during the game, but I am afraid you lose because you are new and didn't paint your army yet. Sorry, I guess Warhammer isn't for you!"
Old argument. TFGs gonna TFG.
Following the rules is being TFG now?
Because this isn't some minor, "technically it doesn't work that way" rule. This is a very plain and clear rule with no wiggle room.
One can follow the rules and still be a bellend, or is the concept of "lawful evil" new to you?
Sgt_Smudge wrote:It's called "The Most Important Rule" - surprised you've not read it.
TMIR doesn't say "Make up whatever you want", it says "If the game breaks, roll off to continue." This VP rule doesn't break the game, you can't invoke TMIR on it. When you can invoke TMIR is explicitly defined. "Because I want to" is not one of those times.
Dysartes wrote:As an unrelated aside, do you believe the fix to Assault weapons means they'll work properly in 9th without crashing the game?
Yes, 9th edition has fixed the broken RaW for Assault Weapons, Pistols, Fall Back, Minimum Ranges, Unchargable Wave Serpents and "Disembarking is Reinforcements". So overall I feel vindicated.
"the people most kicked in the shins by technical victories are the ones who place "playing the game" over the overall hobby"
And I'll reiterate, why pick solely painting as the measure by which being a hobbyist is judged? I play against friends with fully painted, but horribly unfluffy armies whereas I field my DG with at least 30 Plague Marines if not more. Because they are good? No of course not they are overpriced wet noodles but that is how GW decided a fluffy DG list looks like. Were is my free VP candy? And were was this overall hobby approach for the prior 30ish years? You can't expect people to blindly follow along if you make a massive upset like this.
Sounds like you need to do your homework, as this "hobby approach" is ingrained in GW. They even had the quote in White Dwarf once of "Painting runs through our hobby like letters in a stick of Blackpool rock". Numerous times in battle reports they field what are; essentially illegal armies, but fudge it because spectacle. All of those aforementioned batreps having accompanying short stories attached too. It is quite obvious this is not how the company is wired, it was founded by people distributing D&D in the UK and writing Fighting Fantasy books (what does that tell you about how customisable they want their own games to have been?).
GW have always, always wanted you to go to the beat of their drum.
You mean the same GW that once decided conversions are totally rad and cool but now seems to shun any kind of option that does not come in the kit and/or that is not sold by them? That GW? The "hobbyist" GW died a long time ago, if they really wanted to be a complete hobbyist approach GW they would not axe legend options, restrict datasheet options to what's available in their kits an whatsnot. GW can't have their cake and eat it too if they want me to embrace their new idiocy. Dock points for being unfluffy too, not just for painting, give me back my Ork bikers characters, include all weapon options in a Killa Kan kit. I'm not going to take this "hobbyist" approach from the same company that out of pure greed decides to kill any and all kind of hobby expressionism that doesn't benefit their bottom line.
Dude, you only started playing 2 years ago. Most of those things you want "back" were gone before you even set foot in this hobby...
Yes, GW talks out of both sides of their mouth. Guess what? This is how they want their game to be played and they have said as much multiple times. You don't like it? Discuss it with your group. That is what they would tell you to do, but apparently because it's not printed in black and white this is somehow blasphemy against the holy writ the same GW have given as some kind of edict to their masses.
So you don't actually have a reubttal to the point that GW is actively working against kitbashing, converting, and having plenty of options... You just think Castozar is too new to the hobby to be able to say that.
Great stuff.
Yes, it's called having perspective. JFC, some of ya'll need some fething general life lessons. I suggest you get out more.
BaconCatBug wrote: "Hi my name is Timmy I made my first small army I haven't been able to afford the paints yet."
"Ok Timmy let's have a game."
AFewHoursLater.Spongebob
"Well, good work Timmy, you outplayed me during the game, but I am afraid you lose because you are new and didn't paint your army yet. Sorry, I guess Warhammer isn't for you!"
Old argument. TFGs gonna TFG.
Following the rules is being TFG now?
Because this isn't some minor, "technically it doesn't work that way" rule. This is a very plain and clear rule with no wiggle room.
Being blind to how your enforcement of the rules is impacting how another player enjoys the game, within the context of that game (friendly casual vs organized event). Being blind to the fact that you're unreasonably being a jerk vs providing motivation. When you willfully ignore your opponent's experience strictly to enhance yours makes you TFG.
If I FORCE someone to take a L at a friendly table because he had 1 unpainted model and it changed the game... and that guy slumps his shoulders and walks away with a big NPE in what would have otherwise been a REALLY great game... that makes me TFG.
If my opponent wants me to enforce the rule negatively against him because he wants to lose the game as a reminder to get to his backlog... and I enforce it and accept the VPs... I'm not TFG.
If a new player started 2 weeks ago and is in "new experience" shock and I enforce this rule on him in a manner to make him feel worse? I'm TFG.
If he's been around a month and I want to encourage him to paint instead of buying $100s of extra plastic in a hurry.... I may pull the rule out to test how he feels about it and inform him that it is something out there to be aware of. Because painting a $500 army is a lot easier and more likely to happen at that stage than him buying 2500 points and being under a mountain of plastic. But I'd TALK to him about it. Does not make me TFG.
BaconCatBug wrote: "Hi my name is Timmy I made my first small army I haven't been able to afford the paints yet."
"Ok Timmy let's have a game."
AFewHoursLater.Spongebob
"Well, good work Timmy, you outplayed me during the game, but I am afraid you lose because you are new and didn't paint your army yet. Sorry, I guess Warhammer isn't for you!"
Old argument. TFGs gonna TFG.
Following the rules is being TFG now?
Because this isn't some minor, "technically it doesn't work that way" rule. This is a very plain and clear rule with no wiggle room.
One can follow the rules and still be a bellend, or is the concept of "lawful evil" new to you?
The quote that is not yours presents several common situations.
A full half of them make using this rule a TFG behavior. See the issue?
Am I being TFG for saying "If you overcharge your plasma, you blow up on a 1 when rolling to-hit"?
Am I being TFG for saying "Your Marines only move 6" normally, same as my Guardsmen"?
Am I being TFG for saying "You Advanced to get in range, so your Meltas have a -1 to-hit and your Bolters can't fire at all"?
JNAProductions wrote: But why include the rule if half the time it's gonna be making you TFG?
Again, if you only want to play painted minis, that's fine. I don't think you should be forced to play in a game you won't have fun in. But why should I or anyone else who doesn't enjoy speed-painting be forced to do so to have a fair game? (As much as 40k can be fair, at least.)
Why include a rule if half the time it is going to make you "TFG?"
Probably because they find little value in the attitudes brought to the hobby by those who refuse to play by it. Maybe to GW, refusing to paint your minis because it is tedious and boring is considered TFG behavior by them. Perhaps kicking butt on the table isn't the only thing they consider on the tabletop as part of the "tabletop experience".
If they make a rule to help clean that behavior up, and you find yourself deficient and on the wrong side of the rule... maybe you're a bit of TFG to the hobby. I don't pretend to speak for GW and why they do what they do. It is clear to me, however, that they consider Lore, Assembly/Conversion/Painting, and Gaming all EQUAL parts of the army.
You get bonus rules based off of your army's lore.
You get a few VPs for showing pride and heraldry on the tabletop.
You get even more VPs for playing well on the table and having a good keen mind combined with a good unit selection.
All 3 of those things must be had to succeed in their hobby. The standard is completely defined now. There is no confusion where their expectations lay.
At least they didn't EXCLUDE you for being sub-standard by their expectations. They simply set you a little behind the person who is achieving their standard.
JNAProductions wrote: But why include the rule if half the time it's gonna be making you TFG?
Again, if you only want to play painted minis, that's fine. I don't think you should be forced to play in a game you won't have fun in. But why should I or anyone else who doesn't enjoy speed-painting be forced to do so to have a fair game? (As much as 40k can be fair, at least.)
Why include a rule if half the time it is going to make you "TFG?"
Probably because they find little value in the attitudes brought to the hobby by those who refuse to play by it. Maybe to GW, refusing to paint your minis because it is tedious and boring is considered TFG behavior by them. Perhaps kicking butt on the table isn't the only thing they consider on the tabletop as part of the "tabletop experience".
If they make a rule to help clean that behavior up, and you find yourself deficient and on the wrong side of the rule... maybe you're a bit of TFG to the hobby. I don't pretend to speak for GW and why they do what they do. It is clear to me, however, that they consider Lore, Assembly/Conversion/Painting, and Gaming all EQUAL parts of the army.
You get bonus rules based off of your army's lore.
You get a few VPs for showing pride and heraldry on the tabletop.
You get even more VPs for playing well on the table and having a good keen mind combined with a good unit selection.
All 3 of those things must be had to succeed in their hobby. The standard is completely defined now. There is no confusion where their expectations lay.
At least they didn't EXCLUDE you for being sub-standard by their expectations. They simply set you a little behind the person who is achieving their standard.
I have my standards. You have yours.
I am fine with you having your standards. You're not fine with mine being different from yours.
This is probably the best rule in the history of 40K. I'll use it ever game. I really don't have as much fun playing against unpainted models/armies. Usually it's too much to keep track of and I've been cheated in the past by players who just pushed grey plastic around saying the units are this then later they're something else or have more models or what ever. I'd rather play with and against painted armies every time.
minimum 3 colors and a base with nicely paint HQ models is easy enough and perfectly fine minimum amount of effort.
warhead01 wrote: This is probably the best rule in the history of 40K. I'll use it ever game. I really don't have as much fun playing against unpainted models/armies. Usually it's too much to keep track of and I've been cheated in the past by players who just pushed grey plastic around saying the units are this then later they're something else or have more models or what ever. I'd rather play with and against painted armies every time.
minimum 3 colors and a base with nicely paint HQ models is easy enough and perfectly fine minimum amount of effort.
No one was forcing you to play them, you know. You could've just said "Sorry, I'd rather not play against unpainted minis."
BaconCatBug wrote: "Hi my name is Timmy I made my first small army I haven't been able to afford the paints yet."
"Ok Timmy let's have a game."
AFewHoursLater.Spongebob
"Well, good work Timmy, you outplayed me during the game, but I am afraid you lose because you are new and didn't paint your army yet. Sorry, I guess Warhammer isn't for you!"
Old argument. TFGs gonna TFG.
Following the rules is being TFG now?
Because this isn't some minor, "technically it doesn't work that way" rule. This is a very plain and clear rule with no wiggle room.
Yes in the same way bringing the top tournament list against Timmy in his first game would be a TFG move despite it being "allowed in the rules". If you really can't tell the difference you should do the hobby a favor and steer new player towards other people in your club
Except there's no rule that states you MUST bring top level lists. This is a binary "Yes/no" for paint.
Additionally, while TFGs will be jerks no matter what, why give them more ammo?
You are the type of player that would be against Timmy and not let him move his one unit he forgot to because technically he just declared a target for shooting and "lol better luck next time Timmy I can't help that its in the rules". If you really don't have the mental/ social capacity to understand how to properly have a teaching game with a new opponent you are the guy who everyone thinks is TFG at the club.
JNAProductions wrote: But why include the rule if half the time it's gonna be making you TFG?
Again, if you only want to play painted minis, that's fine. I don't think you should be forced to play in a game you won't have fun in. But why should I or anyone else who doesn't enjoy speed-painting be forced to do so to have a fair game? (As much as 40k can be fair, at least.)
Why include a rule if half the time it is going to make you "TFG?"
Probably because they find little value in the attitudes brought to the hobby by those who refuse to play by it. Maybe to GW, refusing to paint your minis because it is tedious and boring is considered TFG behavior by them. Perhaps kicking butt on the table isn't the only thing they consider on the tabletop as part of the "tabletop experience".
If they make a rule to help clean that behavior up, and you find yourself deficient and on the wrong side of the rule... maybe you're a bit of TFG to the hobby. I don't pretend to speak for GW and why they do what they do. It is clear to me, however, that they consider Lore, Assembly/Conversion/Painting, and Gaming all EQUAL parts of the army.
You get bonus rules based off of your army's lore.
You get a few VPs for showing pride and heraldry on the tabletop.
You get even more VPs for playing well on the table and having a good keen mind combined with a good unit selection.
All 3 of those things must be had to succeed in their hobby. The standard is completely defined now. There is no confusion where their expectations lay.
At least they didn't EXCLUDE you for being sub-standard by their expectations. They simply set you a little behind the person who is achieving their standard.
I have my standards. You have yours.
I am fine with you having your standards. You're not fine with mine being different from yours.
Which sounds like more of TFG to you?
I made no such standards. GW did. They expect a certain amount of effort to "max out" your score on the tables that care about the score.
I'm willing to accept those standards and play accordingly.
You're tell me that you don't have to and I should lower my standards from what was put forth by GW to your lowered standard because you cannot be bothered to elevate yours.
You know, the same attitude that manifests when I get the crap kicked out of me on the table and subsequently told to "git gud", "bring better models", or "follow a netlist".
BaconCatBug wrote: "Hi my name is Timmy I made my first small army I haven't been able to afford the paints yet."
"Ok Timmy let's have a game."
AFewHoursLater.Spongebob
"Well, good work Timmy, you outplayed me during the game, but I am afraid you lose because you are new and didn't paint your army yet. Sorry, I guess Warhammer isn't for you!"
Old argument. TFGs gonna TFG.
Following the rules is being TFG now?
Because this isn't some minor, "technically it doesn't work that way" rule. This is a very plain and clear rule with no wiggle room.
Yes in the same way bringing the top tournament list against Timmy in his first game would be a TFG move despite it being "allowed in the rules". If you really can't tell the difference you should do the hobby a favor and steer new player towards other people in your club
Except there's no rule that states you MUST bring top level lists. This is a binary "Yes/no" for paint.
Additionally, while TFGs will be jerks no matter what, why give them more ammo?
You are the type of player that would be against Timmy and not let him move his one unit he forgot to because technically he just declared a target for shooting and "lol better luck next time Timmy I can't help that its in the rules". If you really don't have the mental/ social capacity to understand how to properly have a teaching game with a new opponent you are the guy who everyone thinks is TFG at the club.
No. No I am not. Thank you for assuming I'm an donkey-cave, though-really makes a positive impression.
JNAProductions wrote: But why include the rule if half the time it's gonna be making you TFG?
Again, if you only want to play painted minis, that's fine. I don't think you should be forced to play in a game you won't have fun in. But why should I or anyone else who doesn't enjoy speed-painting be forced to do so to have a fair game? (As much as 40k can be fair, at least.)
Why include a rule if half the time it is going to make you "TFG?"
Probably because they find little value in the attitudes brought to the hobby by those who refuse to play by it. Maybe to GW, refusing to paint your minis because it is tedious and boring is considered TFG behavior by them. Perhaps kicking butt on the table isn't the only thing they consider on the tabletop as part of the "tabletop experience".
If they make a rule to help clean that behavior up, and you find yourself deficient and on the wrong side of the rule... maybe you're a bit of TFG to the hobby. I don't pretend to speak for GW and why they do what they do. It is clear to me, however, that they consider Lore, Assembly/Conversion/Painting, and Gaming all EQUAL parts of the army.
You get bonus rules based off of your army's lore.
You get a few VPs for showing pride and heraldry on the tabletop.
You get even more VPs for playing well on the table and having a good keen mind combined with a good unit selection.
All 3 of those things must be had to succeed in their hobby. The standard is completely defined now. There is no confusion where their expectations lay.
At least they didn't EXCLUDE you for being sub-standard by their expectations. They simply set you a little behind the person who is achieving their standard.
I have my standards. You have yours.
I am fine with you having your standards. You're not fine with mine being different from yours.
Which sounds like more of TFG to you?
I made no such standards. GW did. They expect a certain amount of effort to "max out" your score on the tables that care about the score.
I'm willing to accept those standards and play accordingly.
You're tell me that you don't have to and I should lower my standards from what was put forth by GW to your lowered standard because you cannot be bothered to elevate yours.
You know, the same attitude that manifests when I get the crap kicked out of me on the table and subsequently told to "git gud", "bring better models", or "follow a netlist".
And what if GW said you can't paint squad Sergeants unless you win a game? Would you be perfectly willing to accept that?
JNAProductions wrote: But why include the rule if half the time it's gonna be making you TFG?
Again, if you only want to play painted minis, that's fine. I don't think you should be forced to play in a game you won't have fun in. But why should I or anyone else who doesn't enjoy speed-painting be forced to do so to have a fair game? (As much as 40k can be fair, at least.)
Why include a rule if half the time it is going to make you "TFG?"
Probably because they find little value in the attitudes brought to the hobby by those who refuse to play by it. Maybe to GW, refusing to paint your minis because it is tedious and boring is considered TFG behavior by them. Perhaps kicking butt on the table isn't the only thing they consider on the tabletop as part of the "tabletop experience".
If they make a rule to help clean that behavior up, and you find yourself deficient and on the wrong side of the rule... maybe you're a bit of TFG to the hobby. I don't pretend to speak for GW and why they do what they do. It is clear to me, however, that they consider Lore, Assembly/Conversion/Painting, and Gaming all EQUAL parts of the army.
You get bonus rules based off of your army's lore.
You get a few VPs for showing pride and heraldry on the tabletop.
You get even more VPs for playing well on the table and having a good keen mind combined with a good unit selection.
All 3 of those things must be had to succeed in their hobby. The standard is completely defined now. There is no confusion where their expectations lay.
At least they didn't EXCLUDE you for being sub-standard by their expectations. They simply set you a little behind the person who is achieving their standard.
I have my standards. You have yours.
I am fine with you having your standards. You're not fine with mine being different from yours.
Which sounds like more of TFG to you?
You don't seem fine with us having our standards. You seem to be having a conniption about it.
But they never said that. As I said, get some bloody perspective. This is GW's raison d'etre. I've been around a lot of GW staff and people that have worked at WHW. I've lived with GW staff. I'm friends with ex-GW staff. The attitude Purifying Tempest describes is one that permeates throughout the company.
If you don't like it then you know where the door is. That is what I have been told in the past on these very forums. So, now the boot is on the other foot. Tough. gak.
The best thing about a standard is... it is a standard. Arbitrary as it is, it is at least enforced evenly over everyone.
I don't know what you're wanting me to answer with. I've been constantly in favor of enforceable standards that put forth a clear understanding of what is expect.
If you find yourself on the wrong end of the enforcement of the standard, you know exactly what you need to do to get into compliance. If the effort isn't worth it you, then the 10 VP boost obviously is not something you're concerned with. And this is fine.
JNAProductions wrote: But why include the rule if half the time it's gonna be making you TFG?
Again, if you only want to play painted minis, that's fine. I don't think you should be forced to play in a game you won't have fun in. But why should I or anyone else who doesn't enjoy speed-painting be forced to do so to have a fair game? (As much as 40k can be fair, at least.)
Why include a rule if half the time it is going to make you "TFG?"
Probably because they find little value in the attitudes brought to the hobby by those who refuse to play by it. Maybe to GW, refusing to paint your minis because it is tedious and boring is considered TFG behavior by them. Perhaps kicking butt on the table isn't the only thing they consider on the tabletop as part of the "tabletop experience".
If they make a rule to help clean that behavior up, and you find yourself deficient and on the wrong side of the rule... maybe you're a bit of TFG to the hobby. I don't pretend to speak for GW and why they do what they do. It is clear to me, however, that they consider Lore, Assembly/Conversion/Painting, and Gaming all EQUAL parts of the army.
You get bonus rules based off of your army's lore.
You get a few VPs for showing pride and heraldry on the tabletop.
You get even more VPs for playing well on the table and having a good keen mind combined with a good unit selection.
All 3 of those things must be had to succeed in their hobby. The standard is completely defined now. There is no confusion where their expectations lay.
At least they didn't EXCLUDE you for being sub-standard by their expectations. They simply set you a little behind the person who is achieving their standard.
I have my standards. You have yours.
I am fine with you having your standards. You're not fine with mine being different from yours.
Which sounds like more of TFG to you?
You don't seem fine with us having our standards. You seem to be having a conniption about it.
I have said, repeatedly, in this thread, that if you refuse a game with me because my minis are not painted, that is fine. My response would be "Well, darn. That stinks."
And then I'd probably ask to see your models anyway, because I do like cool paintjobs-I just don't like painting myself.
But I do not want to penalized in a game (or, if you must, I don't want to be playing a 90 point game while my opponent has a cap of 100) for not enjoying painting. I do not want to be forced to do something I dislike to properly enjoy the part of the hobby I do like.
Yet, in this very thread, people have said I'm wrong for that.
You're wrong because you're not being penalised. You have it bass ackwards, but then again you have willingly entered into a hobby that involves painting yet do not wish to participate despite it being a core foundation of the hobby so this might have doomed from the start...
JNAProductions wrote: But why include the rule if half the time it's gonna be making you TFG?
Again, if you only want to play painted minis, that's fine. I don't think you should be forced to play in a game you won't have fun in. But why should I or anyone else who doesn't enjoy speed-painting be forced to do so to have a fair game? (As much as 40k can be fair, at least.)
Why include a rule if half the time it is going to make you "TFG?"
Probably because they find little value in the attitudes brought to the hobby by those who refuse to play by it. Maybe to GW, refusing to paint your minis because it is tedious and boring is considered TFG behavior by them. Perhaps kicking butt on the table isn't the only thing they consider on the tabletop as part of the "tabletop experience".
If they make a rule to help clean that behavior up, and you find yourself deficient and on the wrong side of the rule... maybe you're a bit of TFG to the hobby. I don't pretend to speak for GW and why they do what they do. It is clear to me, however, that they consider Lore, Assembly/Conversion/Painting, and Gaming all EQUAL parts of the army.
You get bonus rules based off of your army's lore.
You get a few VPs for showing pride and heraldry on the tabletop.
You get even more VPs for playing well on the table and having a good keen mind combined with a good unit selection.
All 3 of those things must be had to succeed in their hobby. The standard is completely defined now. There is no confusion where their expectations lay.
At least they didn't EXCLUDE you for being sub-standard by their expectations. They simply set you a little behind the person who is achieving their standard.
I have my standards. You have yours.
I am fine with you having your standards. You're not fine with mine being different from yours.
Which sounds like more of TFG to you?
You don't seem fine with us having our standards. You seem to be having a conniption about it.
I have said, repeatedly, in this thread, that if you refuse a game with me because my minis are not painted, that is fine. My response would be "Well, darn. That stinks."
And then I'd probably ask to see your models anyway, because I do like cool paintjobs-I just don't like painting myself.
But I do not want to penalized in a game (or, if you must, I don't want to be playing a 90 point game while my opponent has a cap of 100) for not enjoying painting. I do not want to be forced to do something I dislike to properly enjoy the part of the hobby I do like.
Yet, in this very thread, people have said I'm wrong for that.
That still means you're complaining about a standard. A standard which you are free to ignore. You aren't forced to do anything. What you choose to do about the rule is up to you and your group.
warhead01 wrote: This is probably the best rule in the history of 40K. I'll use it ever game. I really don't have as much fun playing against unpainted models/armies. Usually it's too much to keep track of and I've been cheated in the past by players who just pushed grey plastic around saying the units are this then later they're something else or have more models or what ever. I'd rather play with and against painted armies every time.
minimum 3 colors and a base with nicely paint HQ models is easy enough and perfectly fine minimum amount of effort.
No one was forcing you to play them, you know. You could've just said "Sorry, I'd rather not play against unpainted minis."
Mostly your right. I've given up on pickup games but I did start going to a few local tournament over the last few years, maybe attending 4 or 5 and found I was one of only 5 or 6 people to bring painted armies out of about 28 to 30 people attending. Most of the people bringing unpainted models were the people who seemed far more interesting in winning, as in waac players. I had to just accept it especially if it was ,and is has happened, in game 1. On top of that my local tournaments are an hour and a half drive. So, ya. I more or less don't take games with unpainted armies as my close circle of friends have painted armies and or are actually painting more models. And as far as they go I figure who ever hosts the games can decide what the house rules are, which I view as completely different that a book rule. I don't care one way or another what other people do in their own games, that's their business. If this rule makes a tournament more enjoyable for me than I am all for it. If it tuns out our TO is using it I'll consider attending again.
Thing is I don't know what that sounds like to anyone who doesn't actually know me and I will add that I try to encourage people to paint and have painted armies for friends for free as well as takes commissions and over all try to make painting a positive thing when I talk about it with randos. I don't berate them. I just have my preferences.
"the people most kicked in the shins by technical victories are the ones who place "playing the game" over the overall hobby"
And I'll reiterate, why pick solely painting as the measure by which being a hobbyist is judged? I play against friends with fully painted, but horribly unfluffy armies whereas I field my DG with at least 30 Plague Marines if not more. Because they are good? No of course not they are overpriced wet noodles but that is how GW decided a fluffy DG list looks like. Were is my free VP candy? And were was this overall hobby approach for the prior 30ish years? You can't expect people to blindly follow along if you make a massive upset like this.
Sounds like you need to do your homework, as this "hobby approach" is ingrained in GW. They even had the quote in White Dwarf once of "Painting runs through our hobby like letters in a stick of Blackpool rock". Numerous times in battle reports they field what are; essentially illegal armies, but fudge it because spectacle. All of those aforementioned batreps having accompanying short stories attached too. It is quite obvious this is not how the company is wired, it was founded by people distributing D&D in the UK and writing Fighting Fantasy books (what does that tell you about how customisable they want their own games to have been?).
GW have always, always wanted you to go to the beat of their drum.
You mean the same GW that once decided conversions are totally rad and cool but now seems to shun any kind of option that does not come in the kit and/or that is not sold by them? That GW? The "hobbyist" GW died a long time ago, if they really wanted to be a complete hobbyist approach GW they would not axe legend options, restrict datasheet options to what's available in their kits an whatsnot. GW can't have their cake and eat it too if they want me to embrace their new idiocy. Dock points for being unfluffy too, not just for painting, give me back my Ork bikers characters, include all weapon options in a Killa Kan kit. I'm not going to take this "hobbyist" approach from the same company that out of pure greed decides to kill any and all kind of hobby expressionism that doesn't benefit their bottom line.
Dude, you only started playing 2 years ago. Most of those things you want "back" were gone before you even set foot in this hobby...
Yes, GW talks out of both sides of their mouth. Guess what? This is how they want their game to be played and they have said as much multiple times. You don't like it? Discuss it with your group. That is what they would tell you to do, but apparently because it's not printed in black and white this is somehow blasphemy against the holy writ the same GW have given as some kind of edict to their masses.
So you don't actually have a reubttal to the point that GW is actively working against kitbashing, converting, and having plenty of options... You just think Castozar is too new to the hobby to be able to say that.
Great stuff.
Yes, it's called having perspective. JFC, some of ya'll need some fething general life lessons. I suggest you get out more.
You are still wrong anyway, yes I've only been playing 40k for 2 years but I played both LotR and WHFB (before they nuked that game anyway) before and how exactly does that counter any of the points I brought up? Me not having experienced those times does not mean GW is right for completely changing tracks all of a sudden. And again, why painting only and not fluff? I should be penalized but mister "let me spam drones and riptides" is not because he has the money for commission painting?
warhead01 wrote: This is probably the best rule in the history of 40K. I'll use it ever game. I really don't have as much fun playing against unpainted models/armies. Usually it's too much to keep track of and I've been cheated in the past by players who just pushed grey plastic around saying the units are this then later they're something else or have more models or what ever. I'd rather play with and against painted armies every time.
minimum 3 colors and a base with nicely paint HQ models is easy enough and perfectly fine minimum amount of effort.
Your issue seems to be more with people outright cheating than people not painting. My army is 90% unpainted at times but I can assure you I would NEVER cheat my opponents by nudging unit sizes or load outs.
Grimtuff wrote: You're wrong because you're not being penalised. You have it bass ackwards, but then again you have willingly entered into a hobby that involves painting yet do not wish to participate despite it being a core foundation of the hobby so this might have doomed from the start...
I started in 7th edition. Where, to quote the rulebook...
At its heart, Warhammer 40,000 is a collecting hobby. Most collections begin slowly...
-Snipped text for irrelevancy-
What you're glimpsing is merely a vast array of choice and possibility, to be engaged with (or not) at whatever speed you wish.
Bolding mine. Page 2, A Galaxy At War.
On to Page 5...
The three aspects of the Warhammer 40,000 hobby are so deep that you can spend a lifetime exploring only one, discovering new possibilities at each step. However, the absolute apex is to pursue all three, embracing all the opportunities presented by painting, by gaming, and by the far future's many legends. Gaming is much more satisfying with a fully painted army...
-More snipped text-
Ultimately, however, it's your choice how to proceed. You can pursue one aspect or all three, guided by the most nebulous of whimsies, or the most careful of plans. Tread the bone-strewn dust of distant worlds, become a mighty warlord and crush all before you, or marshal the finest armies the galaxy has ever seen. This is your hobby, and how you pursue it is yours to decide. Whichever path you select, and for however long you choose to walk it, your collection will make the journey with you.
So what are you waiting for?
Bolding is mine again.
Notice how it encourages painting, but does NOT require it. Painting is something for you to ENJOY, not to be forced to do to enjoy a separate pillar of the hobby.
slave.entity wrote: GW is trying to exclude players who ONLY take the rules super seriously and ignore the rest of the hobby.
Don't you think that this is very much a cornerstone of the issue? Why on earth should GW (and by extension, anyone else) be actively trying to exclude anyone just for enjoying their products 'wrong'?
The only thing this rules does is divide people, giving ammunition for both sides of the debate to fight over and encourage gaming groups to become more exclusionary and 'clique-y' for those not conforming - we've already seen it here in this thread. How can this ever be considered a good thing?
10% of the potential points within a game is significant and so cannot be written off as 'tongue in cheek' or an unimportant bonus (if it were 1VP it might get away with that definition). And given that the only time this rule will apparently be enforced is to serve as a means of exclusion, why on earth should it exist? How is a rule that, in a vast number of cases, doesn't get applied any better at encouraging people to paint than GW's metric tonne of visual media, in literally *all* of which the models are painted?
It doesn't matter where you stand on the painting/not painting debate; the rule is arbitrary and divisive, and will add nothing good to the game or its communities.
If someone claiming 10 vp per the rules for having the painted army makes one TFG, what about the guys that show up to for fun events with their ITC tournament armies?
Because I see a lot of you all cheerleading that very thing here when it comes up.
"You have no right to tell someone what they can and cannot play at an event, they paid for those models and *lovingly painted them*"
But thats not TFG? What is the definition of TFG? Someone you don't like?
BaconCatBug wrote: "Hi my name is Timmy I made my first small army I haven't been able to afford the paints yet."
"Ok Timmy let's have a game."
AFewHoursLater.Spongebob
"Well, good work Timmy, you outplayed me during the game, but I am afraid you lose because you are new and didn't paint your army yet. Sorry, I guess Warhammer isn't for you!"
Old argument. TFGs gonna TFG.
Following the rules is being TFG now?
Because this isn't some minor, "technically it doesn't work that way" rule. This is a very plain and clear rule with no wiggle room.
Yes in the same way bringing the top tournament list against Timmy in his first game would be a TFG move despite it being "allowed in the rules". If you really can't tell the difference you should do the hobby a favor and steer new player towards other people in your club
Except there's no rule that states you MUST bring top level lists. This is a binary "Yes/no" for paint.
Additionally, while TFGs will be jerks no matter what, why give them more ammo?
You are the type of player that would be against Timmy and not let him move his one unit he forgot to because technically he just declared a target for shooting and "lol better luck next time Timmy I can't help that its in the rules". If you really don't have the mental/ social capacity to understand how to properly have a teaching game with a new opponent you are the guy who everyone thinks is TFG at the club.
No. No I am not. Thank you for assuming I'm an donkey-cave, though-really makes a positive impression.
JNAProductions wrote: But why include the rule if half the time it's gonna be making you TFG?
Again, if you only want to play painted minis, that's fine. I don't think you should be forced to play in a game you won't have fun in. But why should I or anyone else who doesn't enjoy speed-painting be forced to do so to have a fair game? (As much as 40k can be fair, at least.)
Why include a rule if half the time it is going to make you "TFG?"
Probably because they find little value in the attitudes brought to the hobby by those who refuse to play by it. Maybe to GW, refusing to paint your minis because it is tedious and boring is considered TFG behavior by them. Perhaps kicking butt on the table isn't the only thing they consider on the tabletop as part of the "tabletop experience".
If they make a rule to help clean that behavior up, and you find yourself deficient and on the wrong side of the rule... maybe you're a bit of TFG to the hobby. I don't pretend to speak for GW and why they do what they do. It is clear to me, however, that they consider Lore, Assembly/Conversion/Painting, and Gaming all EQUAL parts of the army.
You get bonus rules based off of your army's lore.
You get a few VPs for showing pride and heraldry on the tabletop.
You get even more VPs for playing well on the table and having a good keen mind combined with a good unit selection.
All 3 of those things must be had to succeed in their hobby. The standard is completely defined now. There is no confusion where their expectations lay.
At least they didn't EXCLUDE you for being sub-standard by their expectations. They simply set you a little behind the person who is achieving their standard.
I have my standards. You have yours.
I am fine with you having your standards. You're not fine with mine being different from yours.
Which sounds like more of TFG to you?
I made no such standards. GW did. They expect a certain amount of effort to "max out" your score on the tables that care about the score.
I'm willing to accept those standards and play accordingly.
You're tell me that you don't have to and I should lower my standards from what was put forth by GW to your lowered standard because you cannot be bothered to elevate yours.
You know, the same attitude that manifests when I get the crap kicked out of me on the table and subsequently told to "git gud", "bring better models", or "follow a netlist".
And what if GW said you can't paint squad Sergeants unless you win a game? Would you be perfectly willing to accept that?
You might not think your TFG but if you are truly incapable of realizing that you don't NEED to enforce every rule to the letter against little Timmy (i mean thats your argument you've stated here) You are TFG. The fact that you think any normal person, who isn't TFG, would apply this rule to the kid who just finished assembling his models and wants to play his first game shows that you don't have a good grasp on normal human interaction.
But if you want to fully enjoy the gaming aspect, it does.
However you want to look at it-playing a 90 point game while your opponent plays 100, being 10% of the max down, 5 Dreadnoughts-you cannot have a fair match (again, as much as any 40k match is fair) without either waiving the rule (in which case, why have it?), or painting your forces, if your opponent happens to enjoy painting as well as gaming.
auticus wrote: If someone claiming 10 vp per the rules for having the painted army makes one TFG, what about the guys that show up to for fun events with their ITC tournament armies?
Because I see a lot of you all cheerleading that very thing here when it comes up.
"You have no right to tell someone what they can and cannot play at an event, they paid for those models and *lovingly painted them*"
But thats not TFG? What is the definition of TFG? Someone you don't like?
I have always respected your stance on this issue (TFG bringing their comp lists to fluffy events) but again there is a broad variety of gamers. Some like me like winning yes but also fluffy armies, yet I dislike painting. Yes someone bringing their ITC lists to a fluffy event is TFG agreed but so is someone who at the end of the game thinks he can pull a fast one on me by claiming 10 VP for free because he happens to enjoy painting and I don't. Again were does this idea come from that casual gamers can not just enjoy fluffy games (with heaven's forbid unpainted armies) while still trying to win?
Army bonuses, chapter traits, super doctrines, unique traits and wargear and stratagems. These are not AWARDS for making decisions outside the game that carry over into the game?
Battle-forged crushes 95% of the unit options in the game at the tune of +3 CP.
Army traits narrows that window EVEN FURTHER in exchange for a boost to the remaining units.
Super Doctrines narrows it even more in exchange for more power.
So don't give me lore has no impact on the table. It very much does.
And now painting does too.
Both directly lead to the accumulation of VPs. Probably more than anything else when you sum up all the perks you get for them.
Army bonuses, chapter traits, super doctrines, unique traits and wargear and stratagems. These are not AWARDS for making decisions outside the game that carry over into the game?
Battle-forged crushes 95% of the unit options in the game at the tune of +3 CP.
Army traits narrows that window EVEN FURTHER in exchange for a boost to the remaining units.
Super Doctrines narrows it even more in exchange for more power.
So don't give me lore has no impact on the table. It very much does.
And now painting does too.
Both directly lead to the accumulation of VPs. Probably more than anything else when you sum up all the perks you get for them.
Found the SM player lol. I'll let you know most armies get no were near that boost in power for being fluffy. And pray tell, how is a drone/riptide spam fluffy, or solo smash captains leading some guardsmen and a knight to victory? Remember those armies still get all their armies beneficial traits.
BaconCatBug wrote: "Hi my name is Timmy I made my first small army I haven't been able to afford the paints yet."
"Ok Timmy let's have a game."
AFewHoursLater.Spongebob
"Well, good work Timmy, you outplayed me during the game, but I am afraid you lose because you are new and didn't paint your army yet. Sorry, I guess Warhammer isn't for you!"
Old argument. TFGs gonna TFG.
Following the rules is being TFG now?
Because this isn't some minor, "technically it doesn't work that way" rule. This is a very plain and clear rule with no wiggle room.
Yes in the same way bringing the top tournament list against Timmy in his first game would be a TFG move despite it being "allowed in the rules". If you really can't tell the difference you should do the hobby a favor and steer new player towards other people in your club
Except there's no rule that states you MUST bring top level lists. This is a binary "Yes/no" for paint.
Additionally, while TFGs will be jerks no matter what, why give them more ammo?
You are the type of player that would be against Timmy and not let him move his one unit he forgot to because technically he just declared a target for shooting and "lol better luck next time Timmy I can't help that its in the rules". If you really don't have the mental/ social capacity to understand how to properly have a teaching game with a new opponent you are the guy who everyone thinks is TFG at the club.
No. No I am not. Thank you for assuming I'm an donkey-cave, though-really makes a positive impression.
JNAProductions wrote: But why include the rule if half the time it's gonna be making you TFG?
Again, if you only want to play painted minis, that's fine. I don't think you should be forced to play in a game you won't have fun in. But why should I or anyone else who doesn't enjoy speed-painting be forced to do so to have a fair game? (As much as 40k can be fair, at least.)
Why include a rule if half the time it is going to make you "TFG?"
Probably because they find little value in the attitudes brought to the hobby by those who refuse to play by it. Maybe to GW, refusing to paint your minis because it is tedious and boring is considered TFG behavior by them. Perhaps kicking butt on the table isn't the only thing they consider on the tabletop as part of the "tabletop experience".
If they make a rule to help clean that behavior up, and you find yourself deficient and on the wrong side of the rule... maybe you're a bit of TFG to the hobby. I don't pretend to speak for GW and why they do what they do. It is clear to me, however, that they consider Lore, Assembly/Conversion/Painting, and Gaming all EQUAL parts of the army.
You get bonus rules based off of your army's lore.
You get a few VPs for showing pride and heraldry on the tabletop.
You get even more VPs for playing well on the table and having a good keen mind combined with a good unit selection.
All 3 of those things must be had to succeed in their hobby. The standard is completely defined now. There is no confusion where their expectations lay.
At least they didn't EXCLUDE you for being sub-standard by their expectations. They simply set you a little behind the person who is achieving their standard.
I have my standards. You have yours.
I am fine with you having your standards. You're not fine with mine being different from yours.
Which sounds like more of TFG to you?
I made no such standards. GW did. They expect a certain amount of effort to "max out" your score on the tables that care about the score.
I'm willing to accept those standards and play accordingly.
You're tell me that you don't have to and I should lower my standards from what was put forth by GW to your lowered standard because you cannot be bothered to elevate yours.
You know, the same attitude that manifests when I get the crap kicked out of me on the table and subsequently told to "git gud", "bring better models", or "follow a netlist".
And what if GW said you can't paint squad Sergeants unless you win a game? Would you be perfectly willing to accept that?
You might not think your TFG but if you are truly incapable of realizing that you don't NEED to enforce every rule to the letter against little Timmy (i mean thats your argument you've stated here) You are TFG. The fact that you think any normal person, who isn't TFG, would apply this rule to the kid who just finished assembling his models and wants to play his first game shows that you don't have a good grasp on normal human interaction.
So some people get special treatment and some people don't. Where do you draw the line?
That's why rules like these are stupid. Everyone says 'well obviously you wouldn't enforce the rule against X' and 'Well obviously Y should have painted his models already!!!'
But if you try to actually define X and Y people get all up in arms. Why is a kid who just finished assembling his models more deserving of special treatment than someone who has kids and a 50-60 hour a week job?
MalusCalibur wrote: . . . And given that the only time this rule will apparently be enforced is to serve as a means of exclusion . . .
Why do you say that?
What if this rule is used in tournaments that used to require painted models? Is the rule still "exclusionary?"
Yes. It's always been exclusionary. That was the entire point of including paint scores in large events. To exclude people. That's literally the only thing a rule like this does. It's the ENTIRE POINT.
To expand. All a rule like this actually does is punish people who don't paint their models, same as with painting requirements at events. This leads to those people being excluded either through denial of entry or just creating a situation where playing the game is essentially pointless because it's non-competitive from the very start. The hope is that the fear of being excluded will result in more painted models but that's a secondary knock-on effect, not what the rule actually incentivizes.
Remember, you don't have to take the painting penalty if you just quit 40k either.
MalusCalibur wrote: . . . And given that the only time this rule will apparently be enforced is to serve as a means of exclusion . . .
Why do you say that?
What if this rule is used in tournaments that used to require painted models? Is the rule still "exclusionary?"
Given that a lot of tournaments had an 'armies must be painted' restriction already, this new rule adds nothing and changes nothing in those circumstances, and so may as well not exist.
What I referred to was the implication that there are so many cases in which the solution is 'just ignore/house-rule it away', the only times the rule actually gets enforced is when someone is trying to exclude or shame someone else for their choice in how they enjoy GW's products. I cannot for the life of me imagine a scenario where a)this rule will be enforced, and b)by doing so it has a positive effect on the game, the participants, and the gaming group at large.
slave.entity wrote: GW is trying to exclude players who ONLY take the rules super seriously and ignore the rest of the hobby.
Don't you think that this is very much a cornerstone of the issue? Why on earth should GW (and by extension, anyone else) be actively trying to exclude anyone just for enjoying their products 'wrong'?
The only thing this rules does is divide people, giving ammunition for both sides of the debate to fight over and encourage gaming groups to become more exclusionary and 'clique-y' for those not conforming - we've already seen it here in this thread. How can this ever be considered a good thing?
10% of the potential points within a game is significant and so cannot be written off as 'tongue in cheek' or an unimportant bonus (if it were 1VP it might get away with that definition). And given that the only time this rule will apparently be enforced is to serve as a means of exclusion, why on earth should it exist? How is a rule that, in a vast number of cases, doesn't get applied any better at encouraging people to paint than GW's metric tonne of visual media, in literally *all* of which the models are painted?
It doesn't matter where you stand on the painting/not painting debate; the rule is arbitrary and divisive, and will add nothing good to the game or its communities.
I fully agree. It is absolutely exclusionary toward a certain type of player, the kind that plays for strictly technical victories, refuses to house rule, and refuses to paint. GW is basically saying 40k is not for them.
If you are the kind of player who refuses to house rule, refuses to paint, and only plays to win in an absolute technical sense, then you have every right to be angry.
What technical sense? As in winning the game by the objectives the game sets out, aka what a game should be about? I'm sorry bud some of us like our games to be you know, games, not glorified kids plays were we make some KAPOOSH noises and figure out the victor that way.
MalusCalibur wrote: . . . And given that the only time this rule will apparently be enforced is to serve as a means of exclusion . . .
Why do you say that?
What if this rule is used in tournaments that used to require painted models? Is the rule still "exclusionary?"
Given that a lot of tournaments had an 'armies must be painted' restriction already, this new rule adds nothing and changes nothing in those circumstances, and so may as well not exist.
What I referred to was the implication that there are so many cases in which the solution is 'just ignore/house-rule it away', the only times the rule actually gets enforced is when someone is trying to exclude or shame someone else for their choice in how they enjoy GW's products. I cannot for the life of me imagine a scenario where a)this rule will be enforced, and b)by doing so it has a positive effect on the game, the participants, and the gaming group at large.
The positive effect is you will see less WAAC greytide netlists stomping on casual hobbyists at the local store.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Castozor wrote: I'm sorry bud some of us like our games to be you know, games, not glorified kids plays were we make some KAPOOSH noises and figure out the victor that way.
And that is perfectly OK dude. The guys at GW like their games to be 90% battle score, 10% paint score. It's OK to have opinions you know.
MalusCalibur wrote: . . . And given that the only time this rule will apparently be enforced is to serve as a means of exclusion . . .
Why do you say that?
What if this rule is used in tournaments that used to require painted models? Is the rule still "exclusionary?"
Yes. It's always been exclusionary. That was the entire point of including paint scores in large events. To exclude people. That's literally the only thing a rule like this does. It's the ENTIRE POINT.
Did every tournament have a painting score? And was that connected to the generalship score? I thought they were separate prizes. I don't think I've ever played in a tournament that actually scored painting.
Regardless, my point is that if tournaments ran this rule rather than requiring armies to be painted, the tournament would actually be less exclusive.
MalusCalibur wrote: . . . And given that the only time this rule will apparently be enforced is to serve as a means of exclusion . . .
Why do you say that?
What if this rule is used in tournaments that used to require painted models? Is the rule still "exclusionary?"
Given that a lot of tournaments had an 'armies must be painted' restriction already, this new rule adds nothing and changes nothing in those circumstances, and so may as well not exist.
Then you didn't understand or simply ignored the scenario premise.
Castozor wrote: This rule won't apply to my regular group, rest assured. I found a group of people who's values align with mine very well. We are mostly all gamers first, overall hobbyists second. My issue is that this single rule completely killed my incentive to find further pick up games and on basic principle should not exist. I can complain about things I consider unjust even if they do not impact me personally.
I would further add its important we stand up for what we believe in even if it doesn't alter how we do things. The only way to fix problems is to bring them to light. Just saying " Well, doesn't bother me " won't bring up the fact this rule sucks, for various reasons brought up plenty earlier in the thread. People will think its totally fine when it isn't. That stand is also for when someones faction is poor done, or whole armies are squatted. If we don't stand up for what we think is right and speak out on what is wrong eventually that wrong will fall on you, its inevitable.
I think they just assume most complaining just hate painting and miss the fact we mostly just hate this is a rule and for casual concerns don't feel there needs to be a rule holding VP for painting to an arbitrary degree. Hell we don't even have consensus on if black bases should count, even if the black is painted on. It sets a bad precedent that we should push back against.
slave.entity wrote: GW is trying to exclude players who ONLY take the rules super seriously and ignore the rest of the hobby.
Don't you think that this is very much a cornerstone of the issue? Why on earth should GW (and by extension, anyone else) be actively trying to exclude anyone just for enjoying their products 'wrong'?
The only thing this rules does is divide people, giving ammunition for both sides of the debate to fight over and encourage gaming groups to become more exclusionary and 'clique-y' for those not conforming - we've already seen it here in this thread. How can this ever be considered a good thing?
10% of the potential points within a game is significant and so cannot be written off as 'tongue in cheek' or an unimportant bonus (if it were 1VP it might get away with that definition). And given that the only time this rule will apparently be enforced is to serve as a means of exclusion, why on earth should it exist? How is a rule that, in a vast number of cases, doesn't get applied any better at encouraging people to paint than GW's metric tonne of visual media, in literally *all* of which the models are painted?
It doesn't matter where you stand on the painting/not painting debate; the rule is arbitrary and divisive, and will add nothing good to the game or its communities.
I fully agree. It is absolutely exclusionary toward a certain type of player, the kind that plays for strictly technical victories, refuses to house rule, and refuses to paint. GW is basically saying 40k is not for them.
If you are the kind of player who refuses to house rule, refuses to paint, and only plays to win in an absolute technical sense, then you have every right to be angry.
Hey hey, I thought Warhammer is for everyone, even those who quite wickedly like to game, I know they are monsters those dirty gamers and their technical victories.
BaconCatBug wrote: "Hi my name is Timmy I made my first small army I haven't been able to afford the paints yet."
"Ok Timmy let's have a game."
AFewHoursLater.Spongebob
"Well, good work Timmy, you outplayed me during the game, but I am afraid you lose because you are new and didn't paint your army yet. Sorry, I guess Warhammer isn't for you!"
Old argument. TFGs gonna TFG.
Following the rules is being TFG now?
Because this isn't some minor, "technically it doesn't work that way" rule. This is a very plain and clear rule with no wiggle room.
Yes in the same way bringing the top tournament list against Timmy in his first game would be a TFG move despite it being "allowed in the rules". If you really can't tell the difference you should do the hobby a favor and steer new player towards other people in your club
Except there's no rule that states you MUST bring top level lists. This is a binary "Yes/no" for paint.
Additionally, while TFGs will be jerks no matter what, why give them more ammo?
You are the type of player that would be against Timmy and not let him move his one unit he forgot to because technically he just declared a target for shooting and "lol better luck next time Timmy I can't help that its in the rules". If you really don't have the mental/ social capacity to understand how to properly have a teaching game with a new opponent you are the guy who everyone thinks is TFG at the club.
No. No I am not. Thank you for assuming I'm an donkey-cave, though-really makes a positive impression.
JNAProductions wrote: But why include the rule if half the time it's gonna be making you TFG?
Again, if you only want to play painted minis, that's fine. I don't think you should be forced to play in a game you won't have fun in. But why should I or anyone else who doesn't enjoy speed-painting be forced to do so to have a fair game? (As much as 40k can be fair, at least.)
Why include a rule if half the time it is going to make you "TFG?"
Probably because they find little value in the attitudes brought to the hobby by those who refuse to play by it. Maybe to GW, refusing to paint your minis because it is tedious and boring is considered TFG behavior by them. Perhaps kicking butt on the table isn't the only thing they consider on the tabletop as part of the "tabletop experience".
If they make a rule to help clean that behavior up, and you find yourself deficient and on the wrong side of the rule... maybe you're a bit of TFG to the hobby. I don't pretend to speak for GW and why they do what they do. It is clear to me, however, that they consider Lore, Assembly/Conversion/Painting, and Gaming all EQUAL parts of the army.
You get bonus rules based off of your army's lore.
You get a few VPs for showing pride and heraldry on the tabletop.
You get even more VPs for playing well on the table and having a good keen mind combined with a good unit selection.
All 3 of those things must be had to succeed in their hobby. The standard is completely defined now. There is no confusion where their expectations lay.
At least they didn't EXCLUDE you for being sub-standard by their expectations. They simply set you a little behind the person who is achieving their standard.
I have my standards. You have yours.
I am fine with you having your standards. You're not fine with mine being different from yours.
Which sounds like more of TFG to you?
I made no such standards. GW did. They expect a certain amount of effort to "max out" your score on the tables that care about the score.
I'm willing to accept those standards and play accordingly.
You're tell me that you don't have to and I should lower my standards from what was put forth by GW to your lowered standard because you cannot be bothered to elevate yours.
You know, the same attitude that manifests when I get the crap kicked out of me on the table and subsequently told to "git gud", "bring better models", or "follow a netlist".
And what if GW said you can't paint squad Sergeants unless you win a game? Would you be perfectly willing to accept that?
You might not think your TFG but if you are truly incapable of realizing that you don't NEED to enforce every rule to the letter against little Timmy (i mean thats your argument you've stated here) You are TFG. The fact that you think any normal person, who isn't TFG, would apply this rule to the kid who just finished assembling his models and wants to play his first game shows that you don't have a good grasp on normal human interaction.
So some people get special treatment and some people don't. Where do you draw the line?
That's why rules like these are stupid. Everyone says 'well obviously you wouldn't enforce the rule against X' and 'Well obviously Y should have painted his models already!!!'
But if you try to actually define X and Y people get all up in arms. Why is a kid who just finished assembling his models more deserving of special treatment than someone who has kids and a 50-60 hour a week job?
MalusCalibur wrote: . . . And given that the only time this rule will apparently be enforced is to serve as a means of exclusion . . .
Why do you say that?
What if this rule is used in tournaments that used to require painted models? Is the rule still "exclusionary?"
Yes. It's always been exclusionary. That was the entire point of including paint scores in large events. To exclude people. That's literally the only thing a rule like this does. It's the ENTIRE POINT.
The fact that you need someone to spell out for you when to act differently shows that you aren’t a normal functioning adult. The fact that you need someone to explain when to act differently to little Timmy vs the guy you have known for 2 years at your club makes you TFG. You are the guy that the owner of your local gaming store prays isn’t hanging around when a new customer comes in because your so socially inept that you think you have to enforce the rules in the rule book to the letter during little Tim’s first game. Sadly nobody on the internet is going to be able to spell out for you exactly how to act with each player because a normal person can simply read a situation and make simple choices and not be TFG to a new player.
"It is absolutely exclusionary toward a certain type of player, the kind that plays for strictly technical victories, refuses to house rule, and refuses to paint. GW is basically saying 40k is not for them.
If you are the kind of player who refuses to house rule, refuses to paint, and only plays to win in an absolute technical sense, then you have every right to be angry."
Hey hey, I thought Warhammer is for everyone, even those who quite wickedly like to game, I know they are monsters those dirty gamers and their technical victories.
Pretty much this, yeah. Painting +10VP definitely contradicts "Warhammer is for everyone" if you happen to be among the players who hates painting but likes VP.
Army bonuses, chapter traits, super doctrines, unique traits and wargear and stratagems. These are not AWARDS for making decisions outside the game that carry over into the game?
Battle-forged crushes 95% of the unit options in the game at the tune of +3 CP.
Army traits narrows that window EVEN FURTHER in exchange for a boost to the remaining units.
Super Doctrines narrows it even more in exchange for more power.
So don't give me lore has no impact on the table. It very much does.
And now painting does too.
Both directly lead to the accumulation of VPs. Probably more than anything else when you sum up all the perks you get for them.
Found the SM player lol. I'll let you know most armies get no were near that boost in power for being fluffy. And pray tell, how is a drone/riptide spam fluffy, or solo smash captains leading some guardsmen and a knight to victory? Remember those armies still get all their armies beneficial traits.
About 6000 points in Eldar, but only 1 WK... with a sword and board.
Probably about 5000+ points in Adepta Sororitas between metal and plastic.
About 3k worth of Gray Knights... I loved the puritanical faith motif, and these were how I crossed in from Warmachine.
And...
uhm...
yeah, that's it.
My wife has about 4000 points of Dark Eldar and Harlequins.
I'm splitting 2 Indomitus boxes with a friend who just started playing Primaris. So I guess I'll have a nice start to some Necrons!
And about 1000 points in an Phoenicium AoS army... because I love those birds and painting them.
Yeah, serious power gamer here.
Don't try to deflect that you're granted power for army selections totally on a lore basis. Alaitoc (I play Biel-tan and NOT Ynnari, so get those dreams out of your head... I own 4 Reapers and 3 Spears), Alpha Legion, Kraken, I mean... there's ALWAYS optimal choices during the lore phase to make your army the best... and not everyone is going to ascribe to that. I play a beautiful green and white CHE because it is an aspect warrior and looks FANTASTIC. And this was WAY before Exarch rules made 'em good again, but I didn't have to paint it in a hurry when it did get good!
I play 0 of the nu-marines, I cannot say 0 because I have Gray Knights... but I mean, they're not exactly bringing down the house or anything right now.
But every single model I field is demonstrably better by having Craftworld Traits, Order Convictions, stratagems, WLT's, relic gear, etc. There's no arguing that. Is it the best it could be? Nope, but that's my choice. If I wanted those extra VPs that badly, I guess I should have played Alaitoc. Just like if I wanted those 10 VPs that badly I should have painted ALL those models.
And a SHA of an Imperial Knight gets their Relics and Warlord Traits, while the BA Smash Captains in the same list get their Red Thirst (though not Doctrines), and the IG in that same list get their Regimental Tactics.
Not to mention, they're not even good at being fluffy. You know what unit is helped best by Evil Sunz, the Orks who are all about going fast? It's not the fast units-they're fast enough already. It's Meganobz, the slowest unit in the Dex.
All those faction traits allow for more customization, but that doesn't mean they're inherently fluffy.
Purifying Tempest wrote: Tactically, painting your models gives you a better chance of winning the game now.
How about that for a strategy?
Tha blue ‘uns win moar!
Of course, none of this stops having one squad be painted as ultramarines, another dark angels and the next as blood angels and just using the space wolves as your chapter.
And maybe folks won’t bother to paint strip minis bought from eBay
JNAProductions wrote: And a SHA of an Imperial Knight gets their Relics and Warlord Traits, while the BA Smash Captains in the same list get their Red Thirst (though not Doctrines), and the IG in that same list get their Regimental Tactics.
Not to mention, they're not even good at being fluffy. You know what unit is helped best by Evil Sunz, the Orks who are all about going fast? It's not the fast units-they're fast enough already. It's Meganobz, the slowest unit in the Dex.
All those faction traits allow for more customization, but that doesn't mean they're inherently fluffy.
But it is all tied to how your models perform on the table... which is tied to lore... which all causes you to gain VPs in game (regardless if you do it for fluffy or game-y reasons). You don't have to have pure intentions to benefit from lore bonuses on the table, just like you don't have to have pure intentions to gain bonuses from painting your models.
auticus wrote: If someone claiming 10 vp per the rules for having the painted army makes one TFG, what about the guys that show up to for fun events with their ITC tournament armies?
Because I see a lot of you all cheerleading that very thing here when it comes up.
"You have no right to tell someone what they can and cannot play at an event, they paid for those models and *lovingly painted them*"
But thats not TFG? What is the definition of TFG? Someone you don't like?
I don't get what you are saying, yeah if someone is power gaming casual events,or casual games or vs noobs yeah that is the trademark of TFG. If not that, what is TFG ?
Hey hey, I thought Warhammer is for everyone, even those who quite wickedly like to game, I know they are monsters those dirty gamers and their technical victories.
If you're going to keep bandying that around, I suggest you read the final sentence of it.
Besides, neither have any relevance to what GW want out of their game.
Grimtuff wrote: You're wrong because you're not being penalised. You have it bass ackwards, but then again you have willingly entered into a hobby that involves painting yet do not wish to participate despite it being a core foundation of the hobby so this might have doomed from the start...
I started in 7th edition. Where, to quote the rulebook...
At its heart, Warhammer 40,000 is a collecting hobby. Most collections begin slowly...
-Snipped text for irrelevancy-
What you're glimpsing is merely a vast array of choice and possibility, to be engaged with (or not) at whatever speed you wish.
Bolding mine. Page 2, A Galaxy At War.
On to Page 5...
The three aspects of the Warhammer 40,000 hobby are so deep that you can spend a lifetime exploring only one, discovering new possibilities at each step. However, the absolute apex is to pursue all three, embracing all the opportunities presented by painting, by gaming, and by the far future's many legends. Gaming is much more satisfying with a fully painted army...
-More snipped text-
Ultimately, however, it's your choice how to proceed. You can pursue one aspect or all three, guided by the most nebulous of whimsies, or the most careful of plans. Tread the bone-strewn dust of distant worlds, become a mighty warlord and crush all before you, or marshal the finest armies the galaxy has ever seen. This is your hobby, and how you pursue it is yours to decide. Whichever path you select, and for however long you choose to walk it, your collection will make the journey with you.
So what are you waiting for?
Bolding is mine again.
Notice how it encourages painting, but does NOT require it. Painting is something for you to ENJOY, not to be forced to do to enjoy a separate pillar of the hobby.
Hey hey, I thought Warhammer is for everyone, even those who quite wickedly like to game, I know they are monsters those dirty gamers and their technical victories.
If you're going to keep bandying that around, I suggest you read the final sentence of it.
Besides, neither have any relevance to what GW want out of their game.
"It is absolutely exclusionary toward a certain type of player, the kind that plays for strictly technical victories, refuses to house rule, and refuses to paint. GW is basically saying 40k is not for them.
If you are the kind of player who refuses to house rule, refuses to paint, and only plays to win in an absolute technical sense, then you have every right to be angry."
Hey hey, I thought Warhammer is for everyone, even those who quite wickedly like to game, I know they are monsters those dirty gamers and their technical victories.
Pretty much this, yeah. Painting +10VP definitely contradicts "Warhammer is for everyone" if you happen to be among the players who hates painting but likes VP.
Gamers like winning games, shocker. You are yet to explain to me how this is bad. You and GW might have pipe dreams about this being one wholesome hobby but A) they do a pretty poor job at getting that across when they elevated painting above all other parts for no reason, B) this hobby never worked like this before.
Do not take it that way, please!
