Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
2020/07/07 20:10:53
Subject: Will you use the '+10 VPs if your whole army is painted' rule?
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?
2020/07/07 20:11:35
Subject: Will you use the '+10 VPs if your whole army is painted' rule?
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.
2020/07/07 20:15:50
Subject: Will you use the '+10 VPs if your whole army is painted' rule?
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.
2020/07/07 20:19:49
Subject: Will you use the '+10 VPs if your whole army is painted' rule?
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.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2020/07/07 20:32:56
2020/07/07 20:25:38
Subject: Will you use the '+10 VPs if your whole army is painted' rule?
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.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/07/07 20:25:58
2020/07/07 20:30:25
Subject: Will you use the '+10 VPs if your whole army is painted' rule?
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.
---
2020/07/07 20:32:30
Subject: Will you use the '+10 VPs if your whole army is painted' rule?
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.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/07/07 20:33:25
2020/07/07 20:33:26
Subject: Will you use the '+10 VPs if your whole army is painted' rule?
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.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2020/07/07 20:40:39
---
2020/07/07 20:36:03
Subject: Will you use the '+10 VPs if your whole army is painted' rule?
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.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/07/07 20:37:54
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.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/07/07 20:53:44
2020/07/07 20:54:16
Subject: Will you use the '+10 VPs if your whole army is painted' rule?
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.
2020/07/07 20:56:11
Subject: Will you use the '+10 VPs if your whole army is painted' rule?
"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.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2020/07/07 20:56:56
---
2020/07/07 21:00:11
Subject: Will you use the '+10 VPs if your whole army is painted' rule?
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.
2020/07/07 21:03:12
Subject: Will you use the '+10 VPs if your whole army is painted' rule?
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.
Clocks for the clockmaker! Cogs for the cog throne!
2020/07/07 21:05:36
Subject: Will you use the '+10 VPs if your whole army is painted' rule?
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
It never ends well
2020/07/07 21:07:05
Subject: Will you use the '+10 VPs if your whole army is painted' rule?
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.
Amazing how standards work.
2020/07/07 21:08:45
Subject: Will you use the '+10 VPs if your whole army is painted' rule?
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 ?
2020/07/07 21:09:50
Subject: Will you use the '+10 VPs if your whole army is painted' rule?
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.
Games Workshop Delenda Est.
Users on ignore- 53.
If you break apart my or anyone else's posts line by line I will not read them.
2020/07/07 21:10:51
Subject: Will you use the '+10 VPs if your whole army is painted' rule?
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.
So what about GW's own words?
Clocks for the clockmaker! Cogs for the cog throne!
2020/07/07 21:11:51
Subject: Will you use the '+10 VPs if your whole army is painted' rule?
"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.
2020/07/07 21:13:35
Subject: Re:Will you use the '+10 VPs if your whole army is painted' rule?
New Heavy Gear Log! Also...Grey Knights! The correct pronunciation is Imperial Guard and Stormtroopers, "Astra Militarum" and "Tempestus Scions" are something you'll find at Hogwarts.
