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.

 Blndmage wrote:
It also means that the people who have the money to pay for someone else to paint their models get the points by buying them.

For me, if they want to win that badly they can have it.

Of course exactly zero people have commissioned painted armies for that reason, but reality wandered off on page 1.

It also means that the people who have the money to pay for someone else to paint their models get the points by buying them.

$20 for a rattle can, $10 for contrast paint and a few hours.

Let’s stop pretending the “three colour” rule is only open to the rich elites who can pay others. They’re not asking for Golden Demon quality work, and Bezos and Musk aren’t cruising tournaments eating your lunch, roaring off in self-driving dogecoin-fueled Teslas as they high-five each other for sticking it to another peasant.

Take an evening, spray your minis, and you too can achieve the near-impossible goal of gaining a ten pt. cushion in your games.

Painting is literally the cheapest part of the hobby.

Painting bonus to me is a simple tiebreaker. If two players go head to head, and get a firm tie on the objectives to win. The player who has a painted army gets a tongue-in-cheek win, without and bad feels.

 Mastiff wrote:

It also means that the people who have the money to pay for someone else to paint their models get the points by buying them.

$20 for a rattle can, $10 for contrast paint and a few hours.

Let’s stop pretending the “three colour” rule is only open to the rich elites who can pay others. They’re not asking for Golden Demon quality work, and Bezos and Musk aren’t cruising tournaments eating your lunch, roaring off in self-driving dogecoin-fueled Teslas as they high-five each other for sticking it to another peasant.

Take an evening, spray your minis, and you too can achieve the near-impossible goal of gaining a ten pt. cushion in your games.

Disabled gamers say hi.

It's not as easy as it sounds when you can't stand, or bend your legs, or see well, or have motor control issues (shakes).

For many of us, simply getting our models assembled is a HUGE task.

There's a surprisingly large number of us.

Yeah, I am painting my friends 3k army right now b.c he literally can't paint (nerve damage, has trimmers in his hands).

But I guess he should be force to play 10VP down b.c of that.

Which is a different argument than “it’s unfair that some people pay others to paint their minis”, wouldn’t you say?

 General Kroll wrote:
Painting is literally the cheapest part of the hobby.

Precisely! I'd argue for some people it may be even harder than the build OR the playing part as well.

I believe that a rule like this is perfectly acceptable in a tournament, but not necessarily a casual game. Since the beginning of gaming time when two foes casually face off across the table of battle one would say "do you fancy X rule?" and the other would reply "its really not that important, lets skip it" and the world continued to move on. Since it was casual if you lost by the painting rules then you could even be a rebellious lad and declare that YOU were instead the winner and that the shiftless drones that made the book were to blame. Its casual....you can literally do WHATEVER YOU WANT. It will go on the long list of rules that have been ignored by casual players since 1st edition (im looking at you target priority).

As for tournaments I think its a great rule. Sports aren't just defined by the wins and losses, its also how you play the game. We are at the mercy of dice rolls so its nice to know that you, the player, can have a little bit of input against fate. So if it came to a tie between paints and grays I think that the painted army should take the win. The player put a lot of effort into making their army look nice and is clearly the playing equal to the gray army player. This is just a little bit of a nudge and a reward for engaging in ALL of the hobby. Plus its a convenient way for Tournaments to avoid complete ties.

Really in my opinion there isn't 3 hobbies (painting, building, and playing) there are instead 3 sides of a tripod. You can function with only one or two legs but it really works great when we have all three working in concert. We didn't get into the hobby because we saw unassembled sprues or gray models in a magazine. We saw epic fights in glorious 'eavy Metal paint jobs fighting it out in White Dwarf. Should we shame those who have unpainted? No, but we should reward someone who did all the hard work. I get it, some people are busy, or they have other barriers, but its something that you can do if you really put your mind to it. Im a busy professional so my time is limited and I still manage to get some paint time in here and there. Its even paid off. Ive won best painted army and model before in tournaments despite being dead last. My painting ability, as you can tell by my score, did not influence my being last. Me being a terrible player did. (I believe the youth often say "get good noob")

And on gatekeeping you guys really need to work on the term. Gatekeeping is saying you need X and Y to participate. Its saying that you aren't able to play because you're not playing X army, because its more competitive. Financially speaking the game is already under gatekeeping, as only more affluent players have easy access to the "right" amount of units compared to someone who only has a handful of things. Gatekeeping can be defined as making the game unfriendly for people who are different (something I have had plenty of). Gatekeeping is that you are not fitting the perceived mold of what a player should be and therefore is denied access. This rule instead rewards those who went the extra mile. No one is sitting there sneering at the gray army, saying that their peasant army isn't allowed to participate in the grand tourney. Its merely a reward for the person who put in the effort to paint their army. At no point is the GW black helicopter going to swoop in and smash your models because they aren't painted. You may just fall behind in the case of a tie.

 Amishprn86 wrote:
Yeah, I am painting my friends 3k army right now b.c he literally can't paint (nerve damage, has trimmers in his hands).

But I guess he should be force to play 10VP down b.c of that.

Yes, it's only extra credit and not at all a game decider despite being worth 10% of the game. Forge the narrative! That's what the snobs here would say.

 Crafter91 wrote:
Painted Bonus - Yay or Nay?

I say NAY.

I totally get why it would be a thing in big tournaments to try and encourage entrants to have fully painted lists. Especially if organisers were wanting to post pictures online / in White Dwarf etc etc

but for casual games at the FLGS or gaming clubs - it's a ridiculous rule in my opinion.

I have a full time job and a 2 year old daughter - i probably get 2 hours painting time a day (and no, i don't paint every single day)

I probably spend around 3-4 hours per miniature. 6-8 if it's one I really want to do well such as HQs etc.

Why should I start a game at a 10 POINT disadvantage because my OP has more free time than me? Or bought a pre-painted army? or paid a commissioner to do it for them?

All this rule does in my opinion is force people to rush their paintjobs while putting new gamers at a disadvantage.

Being completely honest - if i lost a close game but my army was painted and my OPs wasn't, I would not want to steal that victory if the 10 points changed the result.

It's a painting hobby AND a wargame. The two should not be mutually exclusive.

What are people's thoughts on this?

Simply put, outside of a tournament (Where you say this rules is fine) why on earth does it matter?
Winning or losing a game at your FLGS or club because of the painting points does not matter, its a friendly game of warhammer. It doesn't matter if you win or lose it.
And you can always look at a game you lose 5 points because of painting points and happily tell yourself that its a minor victory.

 Blndmage wrote:
Disabled gamers say hi.

It's not as easy as it sounds when you can't stand, or bend your legs, or see well, or have motor control issues (shakes).

For many of us, simply getting our models assembled is a HUGE task.

There's a surprisingly large number of us.

This is a completely legitimate point.

And yet I haven't seen people seriously argue that it's unreasonable or unfair that the rules expect people to have to assemble their models to play. You don't just take a 10VP hit, you outright can't play if you don't put your models together, since the physical models are used for line of sight. GW could change this, but they don't.

So either:
A. It is a reasonable expectation for models to be assembled, and players who have legitimate physical handicaps that make it difficult can be accommodated on a case-by-case basis, or
B. The game is elitist/gatekeeping/ableist/etc for requiring models to be assembled and outright not letting you play if you don't participate in that aspect of the hobby.

Doesn't seem to me like most players really, genuinely feel (B), even though the consequences of not assembling your models- being unable to play- are far greater than the consequences of not painting them.

I do think the disagreement here is less about the rule per se and more about about whether painting is a core part of the hobby or not. For people who don't think painting is a core part of the game, they will say that assembling your miniatures is totally different from painting them. For people who do see painting as a core part of the hobby, the comparison works.

GW has always taken the position that painting is a core part of the hobby, right from day 1; the fact that it hasn't put a VP value on it in the past doesn't mean that it hasn't always been considered an integral part of the hobby.

Nevertheless, there is a large segment of GW's player base who doesn't like painting and prefers to play with unpainted plastic. And that's totally fine, and they should be free to do so - just find other like-minded people, and you're golden!

The problematic element of this rule is that ironically by trying to bridge the gap between the two camps, GW has just ended up angering proponents of the grey tide, without making people who like painted models any happier, because believe me, a 10VP bonus doesn't make me enjoy a game against the grey tide any more than I did before.

Accommodations for those who cannot paint is a really different issue than the base question of whether painting should be expected from those who can.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Amishprn86 wrote:
Yeah, I am painting my friends 3k army right now b.c he literally can't paint (nerve damage, has trimmers in his hands).

But I guess he should be force to play 10VP down b.c of that.

Yes, it's only extra credit and not at all a game decider despite being worth 10% of the game. Forge the narrative! That's what the snobs here would say.

I don't play with it, my comment was to Mastiff bc its not easy for everyone.

Blndmage said it was unfair for a player to pay someone else to paint their army.

I pointed out that it’s not just rich people getting the ten points, so it’s a silly argument. Case in point:

Your friend can’t paint, so you’re helping him out. I’m assuming that’s not because your friend is rich?

 catbarf wrote:

 Blndmage wrote:
Disabled gamers say hi.

It's not as easy as it sounds when you can't stand, or bend your legs, or see well, or have motor control issues (shakes).

For many of us, simply getting our models assembled is a HUGE task.

There's a surprisingly large number of us.

This is a completely legitimate point.

And yet I haven't seen people seriously argue that it's unreasonable or unfair that the rules expect people to have to assemble their models to play. You don't just take a 10VP hit, you outright can't play if you don't put your models together, since the physical models are used for line of sight. GW could change this, but they don't.

So either:
A. It is a reasonable expectation for models to be assembled, and players who have legitimate physical handicaps that make it difficult can be accommodated on a case-by-case basis, or
B. The game is elitist/gatekeeping/ableist/etc for requiring models to be assembled and outright not letting you play if you don't participate in that aspect of the hobby.

Doesn't seem to me like most players really, genuinely feel (B), even though the consequences of not assembling your models- being unable to play- are far greater than the consequences of not painting them.

Painting a building are different in that building minis that are in a lot of cases push to fit, or only go together in ways that make sense. Getting help to build as long as all the helpers are competent and care enough should be done to a fair standard. With painting the standard will be far different.

This rule is trying to rule a social issue, and it doesn’t care about player satisfaction for those it effects. It’s in many cases going against the hobby it promotes. As painting and gaming can mean lots of things for different people.

Oh boy, this thread again!

Love the rule simply because it keeps meta chasers from running whatever flavor of the month they want, and playing with boring grey plastic isn't as fun. Doesn't take long to paint a mini to tabletop ready, probably less than 30 minutes per mini and I'm not even the best painter (and that's for a character, not batch painted troops where you can do 10 in the same time frame). Of course I'll play without it at a casual game if it'll cause the game to be unfair. Not sure how it's snobbish to enjoy the hobby part of the hobby?

 Blndmage wrote:

 Mastiff wrote:

It also means that the people who have the money to pay for someone else to paint their models get the points by buying them.

$20 for a rattle can, $10 for contrast paint and a few hours.

Let’s stop pretending the “three colour” rule is only open to the rich elites who can pay others. They’re not asking for Golden Demon quality work, and Bezos and Musk aren’t cruising tournaments eating your lunch, roaring off in self-driving dogecoin-fueled Teslas as they high-five each other for sticking it to another peasant.

Take an evening, spray your minis, and you too can achieve the near-impossible goal of gaining a ten pt. cushion in your games.

Disabled gamers say hi.

It's not as easy as it sounds when you can't stand, or bend your legs, or see well, or have motor control issues (shakes).

For many of us, simply getting our models assembled is a HUGE task.

There's a surprisingly large number of us.

The rules are rigged against dyslexic people because they are written down, and punish people who are bad at math because of how useful averages are during gameplay. They discriminate against people with bad eyesight who won't be as able to determine line of sight in game. People with back problems are punished by the size of the board they must lean over, and don't get me started on the blind...

I mean god forbid you ask that the result of a casual game with literally nothing on the line remain a tie instead of going to your opponent, due to the unique difficulty you have in painting. Now, you must go through the tremendous suffering of an occasional tiebreaker in matches that, again, have nothing riding on victory or defeat. How horrid the world is. /s

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

 Blndmage wrote:

 Mastiff wrote:

It also means that the people who have the money to pay for someone else to paint their models get the points by buying them.

$20 for a rattle can, $10 for contrast paint and a few hours.

Let’s stop pretending the “three colour” rule is only open to the rich elites who can pay others. They’re not asking for Golden Demon quality work, and Bezos and Musk aren’t cruising tournaments eating your lunch, roaring off in self-driving dogecoin-fueled Teslas as they high-five each other for sticking it to another peasant.

Take an evening, spray your minis, and you too can achieve the near-impossible goal of gaining a ten pt. cushion in your games.

Disabled gamers say hi.

It's not as easy as it sounds when you can't stand, or bend your legs, or see well, or have motor control issues (shakes).

For many of us, simply getting our models assembled is a HUGE task.

There's a surprisingly large number of us.

The rules are rigged against dyslexic people because they are written down, and punish people who are bad at math because of how useful averages are during gameplay. They discriminate against people with bad eyesight who won't be as able to determine line of sight in game. People with back problems are punished by the size of the board they must lean over, and don't get me started on the blind...

I mean god forbid you ask that the result of a casual game with literally nothing on the line remain a tie instead of going to your opponent, due to the unique difficulty you have in painting. Now, you must go through the tremendous suffering of an occasional tiebreaker in matches that, again, have nothing riding on victory or defeat. How horrid the world is.

I have serious back issues and find it very difficult and tiring to play the game, but that is very different from a rule that effect painting like this.
You are using other disability’s to gatekeep against disabled people, you may be specifically the reason this rule is so awful to deal with.

I actually don't think it does take any longer to paint a miniature to the minimal standard they require than it takes to assemble a lot of kits.

Everything the rule requires can be accomplished with a spray can, then roughly blocking in two additional colors, plus slapping some texture paint onto the base. There's no requirement in the rules that it be pretty, and you don't lose the 10 points if your painting is sloppy and goes over the lines.

I think the resistance in most cases is less about ability to comply with the requirements of the rule, and more about not being happy with results at that level and preferring to keep models unpainted rather than reveal the basic nature of one's painting skills. As long as the models stay grey, people can always say "well I could paint, I just don't want to / don't have the time / whatever." It's less threatening that way.

That said, obviously you have to both assemble and paint, so painting does add time required - whether the person is doing it themselves or having someone do it for them. So there is a greater barrier to entry if you have to spend an hour assembling AND an hour painting, instead of just an hour assembling. The question is what level of barrier to entry is acceptable.

Talking about "gatekeeping" in a hobby that involves spending many hundreds of dollars for the average army and putting together thousands of pieces is not particularly useful in the abstract, we need to be specific about what's expected and what isn't. This is a hobby that will always have huge barriers to entry by its very nature. The hobby is therefore already very "gated" by its fundamental nature.

Hence the fact that the disagreement is really more about whether painting is a fundamental part of the hobby or not. We're fine "gatekeeping" things we consider fundamental - see how everyone seems to agree it's ok to require miniatures to be assembled.

Apple fox wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

 Blndmage wrote:

 Mastiff wrote:

It also means that the people who have the money to pay for someone else to paint their models get the points by buying them.

$20 for a rattle can, $10 for contrast paint and a few hours.

Let’s stop pretending the “three colour” rule is only open to the rich elites who can pay others. They’re not asking for Golden Demon quality work, and Bezos and Musk aren’t cruising tournaments eating your lunch, roaring off in self-driving dogecoin-fueled Teslas as they high-five each other for sticking it to another peasant.

Take an evening, spray your minis, and you too can achieve the near-impossible goal of gaining a ten pt. cushion in your games.

Disabled gamers say hi.

It's not as easy as it sounds when you can't stand, or bend your legs, or see well, or have motor control issues (shakes).

For many of us, simply getting our models assembled is a HUGE task.

There's a surprisingly large number of us.

The rules are rigged against dyslexic people because they are written down, and punish people who are bad at math because of how useful averages are during gameplay. They discriminate against people with bad eyesight who won't be as able to determine line of sight in game. People with back problems are punished by the size of the board they must lean over, and don't get me started on the blind...

I mean god forbid you ask that the result of a casual game with literally nothing on the line remain a tie instead of going to your opponent, due to the unique difficulty you have in painting. Now, you must go through the tremendous suffering of an occasional tiebreaker in matches that, again, have nothing riding on victory or defeat. How horrid the world is.

I have serious back issues and find it very difficult and tiring to play the game, but that is very different from a rule that effect painting like this.
You are using other disability’s to gatekeep against disabled people, you may be specifically the reason this rule is so awful to deal with.

HAH! You have no idea what I've had to deal with in my life. And you know what? Toxicity towards the disabled is a grot next to the warboss of toxic attitude generated by people who care so much about winning that they can't handle a paint-score tiebreaker. Believe it or not, the only reason this rule is awful to deal with is the people who oppose it. People who light themselves on fire then complain that it's their clothes' fault for being flammable. The win means literally nothing beyond what you personally assign to it. Any and all negative feelings from losing due to a paint rule have one source: yourself.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

Apple fox wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

 Blndmage wrote:

 Mastiff wrote:

It also means that the people who have the money to pay for someone else to paint their models get the points by buying them.

$20 for a rattle can, $10 for contrast paint and a few hours.

Let’s stop pretending the “three colour” rule is only open to the rich elites who can pay others. They’re not asking for Golden Demon quality work, and Bezos and Musk aren’t cruising tournaments eating your lunch, roaring off in self-driving dogecoin-fueled Teslas as they high-five each other for sticking it to another peasant.

Take an evening, spray your minis, and you too can achieve the near-impossible goal of gaining a ten pt. cushion in your games.

Disabled gamers say hi.

It's not as easy as it sounds when you can't stand, or bend your legs, or see well, or have motor control issues (shakes).

For many of us, simply getting our models assembled is a HUGE task.

There's a surprisingly large number of us.

The rules are rigged against dyslexic people because they are written down, and punish people who are bad at math because of how useful averages are during gameplay. They discriminate against people with bad eyesight who won't be as able to determine line of sight in game. People with back problems are punished by the size of the board they must lean over, and don't get me started on the blind...

I mean god forbid you ask that the result of a casual game with literally nothing on the line remain a tie instead of going to your opponent, due to the unique difficulty you have in painting. Now, you must go through the tremendous suffering of an occasional tiebreaker in matches that, again, have nothing riding on victory or defeat. How horrid the world is.

I have serious back issues and find it very difficult and tiring to play the game, but that is very different from a rule that effect painting like this.
You are using other disability’s to gatekeep against disabled people, you may be specifically the reason this rule is so awful to deal with.

HAH! You have no idea what I've had to deal with in my life. And you know what? Toxicity towards the disabled is a grot next to the warboss of toxic attitude generated by people who care so much about winning that they can't handle a paint-score tiebreaker. Believe it or not, the only reason this rule is awful to deal with is the people who oppose it. People who light themselves on fire then complain that it's their clothes' fault for being flammable. The win means literally nothing beyond what you personally assign to it. Any and all negative feelings from losing due to a paint rule have one source: yourself.

No one does, but that doesn’t mean you can use that to target people. This is the toxicity this rule has bring out, a issue before made worse.

You should never get to decide what people find important in the game, people play it for different reasons. And the win means what they consider it to mean.
This rule has done nothing, tournaments already had guidelines and rules, groups had social agreements and understanding.
GW made a issue and a rule to push more toxicity and it’s done great at that.
If you don’t want to play against people who don’t paint, you have the ability to do that without a horrible rule.

Also the toxicity towards disabled people goes far further than the game, and is far more reaching than any Player toxicity the game has. What are you even talking about.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

 Blndmage wrote:

 Mastiff wrote:

It also means that the people who have the money to pay for someone else to paint their models get the points by buying them.

$20 for a rattle can, $10 for contrast paint and a few hours.

Let’s stop pretending the “three colour” rule is only open to the rich elites who can pay others. They’re not asking for Golden Demon quality work, and Bezos and Musk aren’t cruising tournaments eating your lunch, roaring off in self-driving dogecoin-fueled Teslas as they high-five each other for sticking it to another peasant.

Take an evening, spray your minis, and you too can achieve the near-impossible goal of gaining a ten pt. cushion in your games.

Disabled gamers say hi.

It's not as easy as it sounds when you can't stand, or bend your legs, or see well, or have motor control issues (shakes).

For many of us, simply getting our models assembled is a HUGE task.

There's a surprisingly large number of us.

The rules are rigged against dyslexic people because they are written down, and punish people who are bad at math because of how useful averages are during gameplay. They discriminate against people with bad eyesight who won't be as able to determine line of sight in game. People with back problems are punished by the size of the board they must lean over, and don't get me started on the blind...

I mean god forbid you ask that the result of a casual game with literally nothing on the line remain a tie instead of going to your opponent, due to the unique difficulty you have in painting. Now, you must go through the tremendous suffering of an occasional tiebreaker in matches that, again, have nothing riding on victory or defeat. How horrid the world is. /s

I
Am
Blind

Feth you!

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

 Blndmage wrote:
It also means that the people who have the money to pay for someone else to paint their models get the points by buying them.

For me, if they want to win that badly they can have it.

Of course exactly zero people have commissioned painted armies for that reason, but reality wandered off on page 1.

A ton of people have comissioned tournament armies. The majority of paint studios in Poland paint armies that very much look like tournament ones and not some random collections.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
HAH! You have no idea what I've had to deal with in my life. And you know what? Toxicity towards the disabled is a grot next to the warboss of toxic attitude generated by people who care so much about winning that they can't handle a paint-score tiebreaker. Believe it or not, the only reason this rule is awful to deal with is the people who oppose it. People who light themselves on fire then complain that it's their clothes' fault for being flammable. The win means literally nothing beyond what you personally assign to it. Any and all negative feelings from losing due to a paint rule have one source: yourself.

It is 10VP, that is not a tier breaker, in a game where a difference of 20VP at the end of turn 2 generaly means the difference is too big to catch up, if the opponent went first. Meaning if the armies are similar power and the army going first is the painted one, the person with the unpainted army may as well not play.

Also making people do things they do not want to do, and then blaming it on them is stupid. For 8 editions there was no paint score in regular games, and armies did not have to be painted, and people act as if they very much always had to be painted and that somehow painting always was part of non tournament games.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Insectum7 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

But is there a chance for the non painting student to fail if another student does their extra credit?

Are there zero sum classrooms out there somewhere? Maybe.

Either way the painted points are only 10% of the total, so the majority of the outcome isn't determined by paint.

Only that is not how it works. having a 10VP adventage no matter if you go first or second is a very big thing. Going first is around a 15-20pts VP. It is huge, specially when the games are not between an army with a 30% and 70% win rates. Although being steam rolled even harder with no chance to win, unless the opponent has to leave the game before the time runs out, is probably not fun either.

How much does this come up in the wild? Tourneys are tourneys. In my little meta the 10vp have been a big nothing-burger. Do people keep score in pickup games?

TangoTwoBravo wrote:
How much does this come up in the wild? Tourneys are tourneys. In my little meta the 10vp have been a big nothing-burger. Do people keep score in pickup games?

So then why have the rule in the first place?

If it's so unimportant in casual settings that it can be safely ignored, and tournaments impose their own stricter requirements, who does the rule benefit?

People who think painting is important and who paint their armies anyway. If I could somehow make wrestling an obligatory exam to pass to enter any collage I would totally do it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

TangoTwoBravo wrote:
How much does this come up in the wild? Tourneys are tourneys. In my little meta the 10vp have been a big nothing-burger. Do people keep score in pickup games?

yes, people keep score in games that have a scoring system and a clear loser and a victor.

 JNAProductions wrote:

TangoTwoBravo wrote:
How much does this come up in the wild? Tourneys are tourneys. In my little meta the 10vp have been a big nothing-burger. Do people keep score in pickup games?

So then why have the rule in the first place?

If it's so unimportant in casual settings that it can be safely ignored, and tournaments impose their own stricter requirements, who does the rule benefit?

People who really want those 10 VP in a pickup game?

Has anyone actually had an opponent lord over them from the 10VP?

TangoTwoBravo wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:

TangoTwoBravo wrote:
How much does this come up in the wild? Tourneys are tourneys. In my little meta the 10vp have been a big nothing-burger. Do people keep score in pickup games?

So then why have the rule in the first place?

If it's so unimportant in casual settings that it can be safely ignored, and tournaments impose their own stricter requirements, who does the rule benefit?

People who really want those 10 VP in a pickup game?

Has anyone actually had an opponent lord over them from the 10VP?

People keep saying the rule is irrelevant in its defence, or that if you care about the game enough to let it effect you, you are doing something wrong.
Even the point about who it effects seems to be that it shouldn’t be a issue and if it is, maybe you are the problem.

Meta gamers and WAAC are the group of players people always push for the rule, and they are often also the ones who will do the minimum effort to get an army playable.

Apple fox wrote:

TangoTwoBravo wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:

TangoTwoBravo wrote:
How much does this come up in the wild? Tourneys are tourneys. In my little meta the 10vp have been a big nothing-burger. Do people keep score in pickup games?

So then why have the rule in the first place?

If it's so unimportant in casual settings that it can be safely ignored, and tournaments impose their own stricter requirements, who does the rule benefit?

People who really want those 10 VP in a pickup game?

Has anyone actually had an opponent lord over them from the 10VP?

People keep saying the rule is irrelevant in its defence, or that if you care about the game enough to let it effect you, you are doing something wrong.
Even the point about who it effects seems to be that it shouldn’t be a issue and if it is, maybe you are the problem.

Meta gamers and WAAC are the group of players people always push for the rule, and they are often also the ones who will do the minimum effort to get an army playable.

Ok. So I am guessing it has not come up. I think it’s a theoretical flash point. Fun to argue about, but that’s it.