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.

Personally, I play with a painted army 90% of the time. I do not enforce the 10VP bonus, though I might jokingly bring it up if the scores are close.

In my mind, the point of a casual/pickup game is to see what works in your army, whether it's unit choices or battle tactics, and to try things out. Getting a 10VP leg-up doesn't help with this, so has little point in such a game.

I think GW should have kept that rule for the GT missions only and left it out of the EW missions.

TangoTwoBravo wrote:

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.

So.. if it doesn’t come up, why does the rule exist ? Why is it so easy to dismiss other people with this rule as not a issue.
It has effect me, and it’s this dismissive attitude that makes it so toxic a rule. No one it doesn’t effect seems to have to care.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
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.

Did you post this ironically or legit mean it? As someone working Healthcare, you're proving quite the opposite of what you typed.

Apple fox wrote:

TangoTwoBravo wrote:

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.

So.. if it doesn’t come up, why does the rule exist ? Why is it so easy to dismiss other people with this rule as not a issue.
It has effect me, and it’s this dismissive attitude that makes it so toxic a rule. No one it doesn’t effect seems to have to care.

Someone claimed the 10VP over you for the win?

TangoTwoBravo wrote:

Apple fox wrote:

TangoTwoBravo wrote:

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.

So.. if it doesn’t come up, why does the rule exist ? Why is it so easy to dismiss other people with this rule as not a issue.
It has effect me, and it’s this dismissive attitude that makes it so toxic a rule. No one it doesn’t effect seems to have to care.

Someone claimed the 10VP over you for the win?

I am disabled in a way that effects my ability to paint, I don’t want to have to negotiate how points are calculated over that. Before or after and I don’t need the game to remind me right at the start or end about it.

If the rule means nothing, why does it exist.

Fixed.

But you didn't seem equally sympathetic to the person who's disabled in a way that makes it impossible to assemble models. Unless I'm mixing you up with someone else, I think you said that assembly was different and it was ok to require people to assemble their models?

I think the point being made is that the reason you think it's different is because you don't think painting is an important part of the hobby, so to you it's "gatekeeping" to give any advantage for a painted army, whereas assembly is an important part of the hobby to you, so that isn't "gatekeeping." Which gets to the fundamental issue: it really isn't gate-keeping in any meaningful sense of the word, it's just a disagreement about what playing the game entails.

GW seems to think that the hobby involves painting. As someone who isn't able to paint, I appreciate that that must suck for you. But it sucks in the same way that it sucks for someone who can't assemble models, or who doesn't have the fine motion control necessary to measure out distances on the table and move models precisely, etc.

To me, all these issues are things where accommodation comes in. I appreciate you don't want to have to ask for an accomodation, and I can understand how it's frustrating to have to do so. But isn't that frustration mostly coming because you consider it a stupid rule anyway? Should we change the rules so that models don't need to be assembled, so that people who can't assemble them don't have to ask for an accomodation?

yukishiro1 wrote:
But you didn't seem equally sympathetic to the person who's disabled in a way that makes it impossible to assemble models. Unless I'm mixing you up with someone else, I think you said that assembly was different and it was ok to require people to assemble their models?

I think the point being made is that the reason you think it's different is because you don't think painting is an important part of the hobby, so to you it's "gatekeeping" to give any advantage for a painted army, whereas assembly is an important part of the hobby to you, so that isn't "gatekeeping." Which gets to the fundamental issue: it really isn't gate-keeping in any meaningful sense of the word, it's just a disagreement about what playing the game entails.

GW seems to think that the hobby involves painting. As someone who isn't able to paint, I appreciate that that must suck for you. But it sucks in the same way that it sucks for someone who can't assemble models, or who doesn't have the fine motion control necessary to measure out distances on the table and move models precisely, etc.

To me, all these issues are things where accommodation comes in. I appreciate you don't want to have to ask for an accomodation, and I can understand how it's frustrating to have to do so. But isn't that frustration mostly coming because you consider it a stupid rule anyway? Should we change the rules so that models don't need to be assembled, so that people who can't assemble them don't have to ask for an accomodation?

I have difficulty building models, different people will have various difficulty and understanding.
If GW where to put a points for built models in I would say the same thing, a stupid rule that doesn’t do anything but breed toxicity.
I also lay out a issue with getting assistance for painting, over building that I very much have used.

It is a social issue that didn’t need a rule to fix in the first place, tournaments already had rules in place. And other play types allready had ways to deal with it.

Had to do it twice since I am having to post from bed.
I love painting, I am very slow and have no ability to consistency paint.

But the reason I see, is allmost every time this comes up it’s a ever escalating need to defend our position from people who can. Just dismiss the issue away.

If you care about 10 points, or care about wining, or care at all seems to be a easy response. Why care, so why have it as a rule at all.

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.

You say snob. I recall a time when this hobby brought people together from all walks of life, model kit hobbyist meets chess enthusiast meets RPG gamer meets video game fanatic. Together they shared experiences, learn from each other, and the hobby becomes multidimensional and engaging, challenging people to develop new skills... learn how to paint, think past this turn, ... that was gen x. Now, i guess it is snobbish to expect that some things are big enough that one must grow into them before winning tournaments with unpainted netlists.

Maybe I am old, but I still think that OG hobby mode is better ... CCG mode is less dimensional, less challenging, and the only thing that people seem to want to worry about growing into is a bigger budget and the only self development that people are interested in is self confirmation.

Yeah, painting is an important part of the hobby.

Edit. IFF someone were physically unable to paint, I have the feeling that everyone in this hobby in my experience would help. I have painted models for fellows for lesser reasons. Again, this helps to bring people together. If there is so called toxicity introduced, it does not come from a painting requirement, it comes from bad people.

Now if someone wants to start a thread about bad people in this hobby, I expect it to rage for a bit and then die off, because again in my experience people in this hobby seem mostly better than the norm at least in so far as they care and support fellows in the hobby.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Dysartes wrote:

 Octopoid wrote:
EDIT: I'm still not finding this rule in the book, so I must be missing something. Maybe there's something about the way it's written that makes it less elitist?

I don't have my mini-rulebook to hand, for some reason, but it crops up late in the sequence for Matched Play games - it might show up for Crusade as well, but I can't remember off-hand.

p283 in the Indomitus BRB. It shows up under "Determine Victor"

Thanks Kan - if there's one positive coming out of this thread, it's that it made me get up and find which "safe place" I'd put my Command Edition rulebook in...

I think the only problem I have with the rule itself is where it sits within the timing sequence. Coming in during step 15 - Determine Victor - feels like it could be a bit of a gotcha moment. I tend to think it should sit in either stage 7 (Select Secondary Objectives) or stage 11 (Deploy Armies) at the very latest, so people know how the stage is set before the game begins. I also think that if you're going to define the term Battle Ready as part of the rules, you really should spend a couple of pages explaining what the Battle Ready requirements are within the rulebook.

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.

Stats question, especially for those who like getting nose-deep into the tournament scene's data - what proportion of games reported during 9th are landing within a 10 point spread, where the painting points would have an impact? Would be better if we could narrow it down to events where a painted army isn't required, but that might be tricky.

Except you shouldn't have to go out of your way to paint someone else's model just for the sake of them getting those missed 10VP. You're missing the forest through the trees.

I don't understand why there is such a vigorous discussion about this. Either you play by the rules or you house rule them away. If you are going to a tournament then the rules and conditions are generally laid out before hand, at which point you can choose to play or not.

If you care that strongly about the 10 points then speak to your opponent before the game if you want to deviate from what is in the rule book.

Ultimately the reason that GW made this rule choice is 100% irrelevant and it's no more gate keeping than requiring models to be assembled.

JakeSiren wrote:
...If you care that strongly about the 10 points then speak to your opponent before the game if you want to deviate from what is in the rule book...

Some people play in communities where they're comfortable having rules arguments before every game. Some people find that an awkward imposition. Giving people who already find having to argue about which bits of the rulebook to keep an awkward imposition already one more thing to argue about isn't going to go over well.

Rihgu wrote:

Because those are the rules, I guess. As long as your opponent is fine with it you can use whatever house rules you want.

Does make balancing game harder though as these will affect game results. Hello to game imbalance.

 AnomanderRake wrote:

JakeSiren wrote:
...If you care that strongly about the 10 points then speak to your opponent before the game if you want to deviate from what is in the rule book...

Some people play in communities where they're comfortable having rules arguments before every game. Some people find that an awkward imposition. Giving people who already find having to argue about which bits of the rulebook to keep an awkward imposition already one more thing to argue about isn't going to go over well.

Is it even a rules argument? If you don't want to play with the rule, you ask your opponent "Do you mind if we ignore the 10 points for painting rule?". If they say that you can ignore it, then great. If they say no, you either go into the game knowing that you might be 10 points behind, or you chose not to play that person. If you can't manage that much human interaction then I can't imagine how much enjoyment you would derive from playing the game with that opponent.

No way hose.

Imagine being snarky enough to say "Heeeehehehe your iron fists aren't painted YELLOW but my dark eldar drukari are painted black! AHAHAH I get to activate my secret objective card and claim 10 points!"

It's toxic lmao.

JakeSiren wrote:
I don't understand why there is such a vigorous discussion about this. Either you play by the rules or you house rule them away. If you are going to a tournament then the rules and conditions are generally laid out before hand, at which point you can choose to play or not.

If you care that strongly about the 10 points then speak to your opponent before the game if you want to deviate from what is in the rule book.

Ultimately the reason that GW made this rule choice is 100% irrelevant and it's no more gate keeping than requiring models to be assembled.

We have this thread every few months a a few people get very upset because they are unable to grasp that their particular way of having fun might not be universal, so we get like 12 pages of screeching past each other before about 2-3 people start making really off-colour posts, and then the thread gets locked.

Let's all just look at the last thread, please, and let this poor, sad topic die a death until GW either forgets to copy/paste it into 10th ed/ remembers to copy/paste it into 10th ed.
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/796210.page
If it makes you upset, pick a random page, find a post you really hate and imagine you reply, and it's really cool and well written and all the dakkadakkettes think you're really smart but also manly and tough, and the other poster admits that you were right all along and you totally changed their minds.
It's a bad rule. But it's still in the rulebook. But it's still a bad rule.

 posermcbogus wrote:

JakeSiren wrote:
I don't understand why there is such a vigorous discussion about this. Either you play by the rules or you house rule them away. If you are going to a tournament then the rules and conditions are generally laid out before hand, at which point you can choose to play or not.

If you care that strongly about the 10 points then speak to your opponent before the game if you want to deviate from what is in the rule book.

Ultimately the reason that GW made this rule choice is 100% irrelevant and it's no more gate keeping than requiring models to be assembled.

We have this thread every few months a a few people get very upset because they are unable to grasp that their particular way of having fun might not be universal, so we get like 12 pages of screeching past each other before about 2-3 people start making really off-colour posts, and then the thread gets locked.

Let's all just look at the last thread, please, and let this poor, sad topic die a death until GW either forgets to copy/paste it into 10th ed/ remembers to copy/paste it into 10th ed.
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/796210.page
If it makes you upset, pick a random page, find a post you really hate and imagine you reply, and it's really cool and well written and all the dakkadakkettes think you're really smart but also manly and tough, and the other poster admits that you were right all along and you totally changed their minds.
It's a bad rule. But it's still in the rulebook. But it's still a bad rule.

*shock* Being reasonable? On the *Internet*? On *this* forum? </sarcasm>

I don't disagree that it's a bad rule, but players need to take agency in their enjoyment of the game. If a bad rule bothers somebody so much then they should discuss making the game more enjoyable with the other human they are playing with.

JakeSiren wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:

JakeSiren wrote:
...If you care that strongly about the 10 points then speak to your opponent before the game if you want to deviate from what is in the rule book...

Some people play in communities where they're comfortable having rules arguments before every game. Some people find that an awkward imposition. Giving people who already find having to argue about which bits of the rulebook to keep an awkward imposition already one more thing to argue about isn't going to go over well.

Is it even a rules argument? If you don't want to play with the rule, you ask your opponent "Do you mind if we ignore the 10 points for painting rule?". If they say that you can ignore it, then great. If they say no, you either go into the game knowing that you might be 10 points behind, or you chose not to play that person. If you can't manage that much human interaction then I can't imagine how much enjoyment you would derive from playing the game with that opponent.

You've given an already small community another reason to have to say "No, I don't want to play with you, we disagree on which version of the rules we're playing." The "just refuse to play" answer isn't the great panacea you seem to think it is. Some people like to play Warhammer and don't want to be told "suck it up, you have to play a version of the rules you don't like or you can't play, deal with it."

JakeSiren wrote:

 posermcbogus wrote:

JakeSiren wrote:
I don't understand why there is such a vigorous discussion about this. Either you play by the rules or you house rule them away. If you are going to a tournament then the rules and conditions are generally laid out before hand, at which point you can choose to play or not.

If you care that strongly about the 10 points then speak to your opponent before the game if you want to deviate from what is in the rule book.

Ultimately the reason that GW made this rule choice is 100% irrelevant and it's no more gate keeping than requiring models to be assembled.

We have this thread every few months a a few people get very upset because they are unable to grasp that their particular way of having fun might not be universal, so we get like 12 pages of screeching past each other before about 2-3 people start making really off-colour posts, and then the thread gets locked.

Let's all just look at the last thread, please, and let this poor, sad topic die a death until GW either forgets to copy/paste it into 10th ed/ remembers to copy/paste it into 10th ed.
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/796210.page
If it makes you upset, pick a random page, find a post you really hate and imagine you reply, and it's really cool and well written and all the dakkadakkettes think you're really smart but also manly and tough, and the other poster admits that you were right all along and you totally changed their minds.
It's a bad rule. But it's still in the rulebook. But it's still a bad rule.

*shock* Being reasonable? On the *Internet*? On *this* forum? </sarcasm>

I don't disagree that it's a bad rule, but players need to take agency in their enjoyment of the game. If a bad rule bothers somebody so much then they should discuss making the game more enjoyable with the other human they are playing with.

Exactly, if someone would snipe a game with that rule I'd refuse to play the dude.
He's clearly there just to win, and not let *both* players have fun.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 AnomanderRake wrote:

JakeSiren wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:

JakeSiren wrote:
...If you care that strongly about the 10 points then speak to your opponent before the game if you want to deviate from what is in the rule book...

Some people play in communities where they're comfortable having rules arguments before every game. Some people find that an awkward imposition. Giving people who already find having to argue about which bits of the rulebook to keep an awkward imposition already one more thing to argue about isn't going to go over well.

Is it even a rules argument? If you don't want to play with the rule, you ask your opponent "Do you mind if we ignore the 10 points for painting rule?". If they say that you can ignore it, then great. If they say no, you either go into the game knowing that you might be 10 points behind, or you chose not to play that person. If you can't manage that much human interaction then I can't imagine how much enjoyment you would derive from playing the game with that opponent.

You've given an already small community another reason to have to say "No, I don't want to play with you, we disagree on which version of the rules we're playing." The "just refuse to play" answer isn't the great panacea you seem to think it is. Some people like to play Warhammer and don't want to be told "suck it up, you have to play a version of the rules you don't like or you can't play, deal with it."

No reasonable dude would snipe you with that gakky rule though.
The game is basically like a contract, and the two dudes playing have to meet half way.

I once played a game against this SoB player who had scanned copies of forgeworld rules on his phone and he was constantly referencing that. Didn't care. Still fun to play against him

 AnomanderRake wrote:

JakeSiren wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:

JakeSiren wrote:
...If you care that strongly about the 10 points then speak to your opponent before the game if you want to deviate from what is in the rule book...

Some people play in communities where they're comfortable having rules arguments before every game. Some people find that an awkward imposition. Giving people who already find having to argue about which bits of the rulebook to keep an awkward imposition already one more thing to argue about isn't going to go over well.

Is it even a rules argument? If you don't want to play with the rule, you ask your opponent "Do you mind if we ignore the 10 points for painting rule?". If they say that you can ignore it, then great. If they say no, you either go into the game knowing that you might be 10 points behind, or you chose not to play that person. If you can't manage that much human interaction then I can't imagine how much enjoyment you would derive from playing the game with that opponent.

You've given an already small community another reason to have to say "No, I don't want to play with you, we disagree on which version of the rules we're playing." The "just refuse to play" answer isn't the great panacea you seem to think it is. Some people like to play Warhammer and don't want to be told "suck it up, you have to play a version of the rules you don't like or you can't play, deal with it."

If you don't agree on the rules then you aren't playing the same game, it's like trying to play checkers during a game of chess - neither player is going to have fun. Either find someone with the same mindset, change your mindset, or don't play. There's no alternative. You have to chose which option is best for you.

JakeSiren wrote:
...If you don't agree on the rules then you aren't playing the same game, it's like trying to play checkers during a game of chess - neither player is going to have fun. Either find someone with the same mindset, change your mindset, or don't play. There's no alternative. You have to chose which option is best for you.

Exactly. By adding the painted rule GW is saying "No no no, we're not just making one game anymore, we're making two different games, one for people who care about painting and a different one for people who just want to have a good time," (or one for controlling twits who gatekeep the game by their painting standards and a different one for lazy donkey-caves who can't be bothered, if you want to be less charitable), "so now even fewer people play the game you like."

JakeSiren wrote:
players need to take agency in their enjoyment of the game. If a bad rule bothers somebody so much then they should discuss making the game more enjoyable with the other human they are playing with.

/thread

JakeSiren wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:

JakeSiren wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:

JakeSiren wrote:
...If you care that strongly about the 10 points then speak to your opponent before the game if you want to deviate from what is in the rule book...

Some people play in communities where they're comfortable having rules arguments before every game. Some people find that an awkward imposition. Giving people who already find having to argue about which bits of the rulebook to keep an awkward imposition already one more thing to argue about isn't going to go over well.

Is it even a rules argument? If you don't want to play with the rule, you ask your opponent "Do you mind if we ignore the 10 points for painting rule?". If they say that you can ignore it, then great. If they say no, you either go into the game knowing that you might be 10 points behind, or you chose not to play that person. If you can't manage that much human interaction then I can't imagine how much enjoyment you would derive from playing the game with that opponent.

You've given an already small community another reason to have to say "No, I don't want to play with you, we disagree on which version of the rules we're playing." The "just refuse to play" answer isn't the great panacea you seem to think it is. Some people like to play Warhammer and don't want to be told "suck it up, you have to play a version of the rules you don't like or you can't play, deal with it."

If you don't agree on the rules then you aren't playing the same game, it's like trying to play checkers during a game of chess - neither player is going to have fun. Either find someone with the same mindset, change your mindset, or don't play. There's no alternative. You have to chose which option is best for you.

Completely wrong analogy with the checkers/chess thing, as you have two separate games there. 40k is ONE game.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 posermcbogus wrote:

JakeSiren wrote:
players need to take agency in their enjoyment of the game. If a bad rule bothers somebody so much then they should discuss making the game more enjoyable with the other human they are playing with.

/thread

OR realize you're giving money to a company where you have to adjust the rules you paid for, and also realize if you constantly have to houserule something there's a core problem.

 AnomanderRake wrote:

JakeSiren wrote:
...If you don't agree on the rules then you aren't playing the same game, it's like trying to play checkers during a game of chess - neither player is going to have fun. Either find someone with the same mindset, change your mindset, or don't play. There's no alternative. You have to chose which option is best for you.

Exactly. By adding the painted rule GW is saying "No no no, we're not just making one game anymore, we're making two different games, one for people who care about painting and a different one for people who just want to have a good time," (or one for controlling twits who gatekeep the game by their painting standards and a different one for lazy donkey-caves who can't be bothered, if you want to be less charitable), "so now even fewer people play the game you like."

"Two different games"? Really?

Absurd.

Karol wrote:

 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.

By your own metric the painting bonus is worth less than going first or second. Iirc win rates from going second are still upwards of 40% (?). So 10 points, being less than the 15-20 VPs you cite for going first, should be easily surmountable if people who aren't getting that "first turn bonus" are still able to win 40% of the time.

 Insectum7 wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:

JakeSiren wrote:
...If you don't agree on the rules then you aren't playing the same game, it's like trying to play checkers during a game of chess - neither player is going to have fun. Either find someone with the same mindset, change your mindset, or don't play. There's no alternative. You have to chose which option is best for you.

Exactly. By adding the painted rule GW is saying "No no no, we're not just making one game anymore, we're making two different games, one for people who care about painting and a different one for people who just want to have a good time," (or one for controlling twits who gatekeep the game by their painting standards and a different one for lazy donkey-caves who can't be bothered, if you want to be less charitable), "so now even fewer people play the game you like."

"Two different games"? Really?

Absurd...

We're both being hyperbolic here. Jake seems to think that the difference between playing with/without the painted rule is comparable to the difference between wanting to play chess and wanting to play checkers, but doesn't seem to understand why some of the players of the formerly-unified-8x8-two-tone-grid-game might be irritated that they now have to refuse to play against half the people who they used to play against (again, hyperbole) because they want to play different versions of what used to be one game.

 AnomanderRake wrote:

JakeSiren wrote:
...If you don't agree on the rules then you aren't playing the same game, it's like trying to play checkers during a game of chess - neither player is going to have fun. Either find someone with the same mindset, change your mindset, or don't play. There's no alternative. You have to chose which option is best for you.

Exactly. By adding the painted rule GW is saying "No no no, we're not just making one game anymore, we're making two different games, one for people who care about painting and a different one for people who just want to have a good time," (or one for controlling twits who gatekeep the game by their painting standards and a different one for lazy donkey-caves who can't be bothered, if you want to be less charitable), "so now even fewer people play the game you like."

Your argument boils down to terrible players being terrible. That would still be the case regardless of if GW had the painting rule or not. If playing the game against a specific player is not enjoyable, and you can't or won't make concessions to make it enjoyable, then don't play them. Stop acting like people have no agency in making this choice.

JakeSiren wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:

JakeSiren wrote:
...If you don't agree on the rules then you aren't playing the same game, it's like trying to play checkers during a game of chess - neither player is going to have fun. Either find someone with the same mindset, change your mindset, or don't play. There's no alternative. You have to chose which option is best for you.

Exactly. By adding the painted rule GW is saying "No no no, we're not just making one game anymore, we're making two different games, one for people who care about painting and a different one for people who just want to have a good time," (or one for controlling twits who gatekeep the game by their painting standards and a different one for lazy donkey-caves who can't be bothered, if you want to be less charitable), "so now even fewer people play the game you like."

Your argument boils down to terrible players being terrible. That would still be the case regardless of if GW had the painting rule or not. If playing the game against a specific player is not enjoyable, and you can't or won't make concessions to make it enjoyable, then don't play them. Stop acting like people have no agency in making this choice.

If I were to make an outrageous troll post right now of the sort that starts vicious arguments and then ran away would I be in any way responsible for the argument that followed, or would it be entirely down to other terrible forum posters being terrible?

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

OR realize you're giving money to a company where you have to adjust the rules you paid for, and also realize if you constantly have to houserule something there's a core problem.

You're picking a fight with the wrong man, Slayer. I have said across multiple threads that I don't like that this rule is a rule. I don't think there's any defense for it existing beyond "well the designers included it, so..."
Also like, check the sig, boyo. Haven't spent a penny on 40k rules since like, the 8th indexes? Think I might have bought a digital copy of the 1.0 space marine 'dex? Don't remember, might've bailed on rulebooks earlier than that tbh.

 AnomanderRake wrote:

JakeSiren wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:

JakeSiren wrote:
...If you don't agree on the rules then you aren't playing the same game, it's like trying to play checkers during a game of chess - neither player is going to have fun. Either find someone with the same mindset, change your mindset, or don't play. There's no alternative. You have to chose which option is best for you.

Exactly. By adding the painted rule GW is saying "No no no, we're not just making one game anymore, we're making two different games, one for people who care about painting and a different one for people who just want to have a good time," (or one for controlling twits who gatekeep the game by their painting standards and a different one for lazy donkey-caves who can't be bothered, if you want to be less charitable), "so now even fewer people play the game you like."

Your argument boils down to terrible players being terrible. That would still be the case regardless of if GW had the painting rule or not. If playing the game against a specific player is not enjoyable, and you can't or won't make concessions to make it enjoyable, then don't play them. Stop acting like people have no agency in making this choice.

If I were to make an outrageous troll post right now of the sort that starts vicious arguments and then ran away would I be in any way responsible for the argument that followed, or would it be entirely down to other terrible forum posters being terrible?

Would you enjoy it though? I know that I am currently deriving enjoyment from this discussion, otherwise I would have abandoned it long ago

*Edit*
To answer your question, each poster would be responsible for their own participation. Weather or not they are "terrible" is a relative morality thing.

Apple fox wrote:
If you care about 10 points, or care about wining, or care at all seems to be a easy response. Why care, so why have it as a rule at all.

I mean, I don't disagree. There's no particularly good reason for the rule. It doesn't make anybody happy. I've never met someone who was like "ugh, I hate playing against the grey tide, but give me 10VP AND I'M TOTALLY IN!!!11" It's not a rule that really makes any group of people happy.

But by the same token, it's really not a rule that actually matters at all. So getting upset about it seems just as futile if not more futile than the rule itself.