Do you think 40k should adopt the player's code from AoS 3.0?

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.

**H.B.M.C.**

Racerguy180 wrote:
Damn matched play dragon rearing its ugly head....

Most people play matched play. It's the main method in which the overwhelming majority of players interface with 40k. It is The Standard™.

Saying "Just don't play matched play!" is basically saying "Just don't play the game.". You have to get that.

I mean gak. I'm sorry that I only see out of one eye and as a result have terrible depth perception at short distances combined with generally bad eye sight in the eye that can see. I guess I can't play with the rest of you. I'll sit over here and just listen. And I'm by far not the worst of it. There's a girl who posts here who is actually blind. Go and tell her she can't play the main method of how the game is played.

When people talk about "elitism", it's the kind of attitude that you have Racerguy that they're talking about.

**BrianDavion**

Racerguy180 wrote:
BrianDavion wrote:
H.B.M.C. wrote:
yukishiro1 wrote:
Painting is a standard. All their promotional material shows painted miniatures. All the miniatures in the rulebook are painted. All the major battle report channels feature painted miniatures, etc etc.
Racerguy180 wrote:
Since they do, obviously they place a certain level of importance to fully painting their miniatures.
But it shouldn't come up as a requirement to play the game, something you need to "ask permission" to avoid, nor should anyone be rewarded in game for having done so.

defacto that's already the case. there are a small minority of people out there who won't play games against upainted minis (it's crazy I know but they exist) clariifying that the guy you're meeting up to play isn't one of these people before you bother unpacking is honestly common sense. the last time I sat down to a game and took some unpainted mini's out (I paint all my stuff I just wanted to try these out) I outright said "Don't have an issue if a few of my mini's aren't painted I trust?" He said "nope it's cool. although I love the paint job on your painted stuff by the way" and we sat down and played.

Boom there it was. that's ALL you have to do. it's not some bizzare complex thing where you need to humbling beg forgiveness and permission to use your unpainted mini
s just sit down note "yeah I'm using unpainted stuff, cool with that?" and there ya go. I mean seriously if the guy says "I ONLY PLAY PAINTED STUFF" are you going to sit there and argue that he MUST play a game? no you're gonna shurg admit you both want something differant and go find other partners.

Woah woah.woah, that's making to much damn sense.....

Damn matched play dragon rearing its ugly head....

I mean I think these rules are mostly with the view of a arranged play meet (perhaps for a league) with someone you're playing with for the first time. obviously if me and someone else are buddies who play every weekend in our garage that's going to be differant.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

kirotheavenger wrote:
I think it's important to realise these are just guidelines and not strict rules.

No one is going to throw you out of the tournament because you didn't remind your opponent about their doctrines, or whatever.

The intent of this guideline is to not be that dick that sits there smiling slyly knowing you have doctrines but since you forgot he won't remind you and keeps his models alive.

The only tenant I actively disagree with is "ask permission before using unpainted models" that's ridiculous and they have no right to dictate that.

The one about shaking hands before and after is perhaps a little forward (and slightly contradicted later on by "respect personal space").

The rest are fine.

shaking hands isn't contridicted by the respect personal space (although it suggests to me this was written before covid 19) shaking hands before a match is pretty common in a lot of compeitive situations.

**tneva82**

Racerguy180 wrote:
Why not, some put in more work, they shouldn't be rewarded?

I prefer to look at it like you get docked 10pts for no paint rather than 10pts reward for being painted.

Don't like getting docked, paint...or play with those that don't care. Which is what I prefer.

Que those that have problems painting....don't play matched play rules, easy peazy lemon squeezy. Play matched, deal with it....

How do you like game balance getting wonky due to that?

Also...painting scores are EVERYWHERE in 40k. You literally cannot avoid it being baked in unless you play without any vp scoring whatsoever. Every single scenario in 40k 9e has it.

"Don't play matched". Good idea. Same painting score waits you anyway. It's not matched play rule...It's core 40k rule.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Racerguy180 wrote:
No, you could forgo the chains of matched play???

I don't care about if you're painted or not, I also don't play by matched play rules, so seems to be self imposed if it's a problem...

If you don't play matched play and don't use painting scores you are house ruling things

One could even say cheating.

Also it doesn't change that it affects your game balance either way via game data.

**Racerguy180**

H.B.M.C. wrote:
Racerguy180 wrote:
Damn matched play dragon rearing its ugly head....
Most people play matched play. It's the main method in which the overwhelming majority of players interface with 40k. It is The Standard™.

Saying "Just don't play matched play!" is basically saying "Just don't play the game.". You have to get that.

I mean gak. I'm sorry that I only see out of one eye and as a result have terrible depth perception at short distances combined with generally bad eye sight in the eye that can see. I guess I can't play with the rest of you. I'll sit over here and just listen. And I'm by far not the worst of it. There's a girl who posts here who is actually blind. Go and tell her she can't play the main method of how the game is played.

When people talk about "elitism", it's the kind of attitude that you have Racerguy that they're talking about.

Nope, it's the elitism of only playing g matched play when other "inclusive" styles exist. It sounds like the matched play people are the ones that have a problem with it. You'd never hear someone who could give 2 gaks whatatched play does, complain about forced inclusivity.
If you have a problem with so called "standard" 40k, do something g about it. Like not playing by their "standards" cuz you don't like them.

Once again I don't care about matched play, if you do and see it's the only way to play...it's a rather myopic viewpoint of the game and only further reinforces why these rules(and by extension matched play)are dumb.

IF YOU HAVE A PROBLEM WITH A "RULE"....DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT....

pretty self explanatory.

**Jidmah**

Racerguy180 wrote:
Why not, some put in more work, they shouldn't be rewarded?

Because they are different parts of the hobby. Painting is painting and playing is playing.

Essentially people playing in events lose points for unpainted miniatures. You are not "rewarded" for your paint work at all, because you can easily get those 10 VP by throwing money at the problem, doing a gakky speed-paint job or game the system by smearing armageddon dust on all the bases of your basecoated miniatures. Meanwhile, my finished miniatures don't count as painted because I don't have texture on my bases for aesthetic reasons.
On the other hand, people participating in painting competitions don't lose points for losing games.

Would you be in favor of adding a rule to the Golden Daemon competition that states that you can't win the trophy if you haven't won a game with your painting entry as part of your army? That would suck, right?

Oh, and crusade has the same paint rules, by the way. So put your hatred for tournaments back in the closet.

**Racerguy180**

No one is saying that you need to lose any games due to no painting. The only way that happens is if you matched play.

So if you don't matched play...miraculously you don't lose any game by not having painted stuff.

Texture on the base is BS.
plenty of bases have been done with paint alone., what if you picked Sector Mechanicus bases, no texture there....you could also paint the base one colour and call it a day.

**Duskweaver**

If you think people with physical disabilities that prevent them from painting their miniatures should be required to ask permission to be allowed to play the game, or should be limited to certain types of play, or should suffer in-game penalties like starting the game down 10VP...

Then you are a gatekeeper and a bigot. You're no better than the donkey-caves who think only straight white males should be allowed in the hobby.

**Jidmah**

Racerguy180 wrote:
No one is saying that you need to lose any games due to no painting. The only way that happens is if you matched play.

So if you don't matched play...miraculously you don't lose any game by not having painted stuff.

Crusade has the same rule. The only way to avoid losing games to unpainted miniatures is playing open play.
You are essentially saying that if you want to play with unpainted miniatures, you are not allowed to play in the way that you enjoy most, but only a trial version of it. That is nothing but elitism.

Texture on the base is BS.
plenty of bases have been done with paint alone., what if you picked Sector Mechanicus bases, no texture there....you could also paint the base one colour and call it a day.

Sorry, that is not what the rule says. No 10 VP for you, because you didn't paint the base as GW told you. Have a problem with that? Quit the hobby then!

**Racerguy180**

Or don't play matched, you seem to not understand that....if you change one rule for matched....your playing open play, by the rules.

So if you change one thing....

You get so stuck on matched being the only way to play, but when GW makes an official rule that you don't like, your only recourse is....to complain, rather than taking the fun into your own hands and ignore it.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Jidmah wrote:

Sorry, that is not what the rule says. No 10 VP for you, because you didn't paint the base as GW told you. Have a problem with that? Quit the hobby then!

So you're saying that a GW product doesn't meet their matched play standards, call the hobby police and knock down everyone's door.

Sounds ridiculous, just as ridiculous as paying attention to a stupid(by your own admission) rule. If the community just ignores it, is it really a problem?

Absolutely zero players at my flgs give any gaks, nor do I about painted/not and will continue to not care, irrespective of GW's official rules.

Control your own destiny or be beholden to ill-conceived ideas of whatever.

**Apple fox**

A thought occur to me with the painting and substitute miniature guideline.

It’s interesting they talk about painting presumably over artistic preference, but then also turn it over to substitution as the bad side. Which is often done entirely on artistic choice.
And they could with a very easy rule make a substitute miniature no issues.
It’s why I think GW rules always come in so shallow.

Painting expectations I think is important, a real discussion is fine. But GW just create a rule that leads to elitist and subversion of that discussion instead.

**BrianDavion**

Duskweaver wrote:
If you think people with physical disabilities that prevent them from painting their miniatures should be required to ask permission to be allowed to play the game, or should be limited to certain types of play, or should suffer in-game penalties like starting the game down 10VP...

Then you are a gatekeeper and a bigot. You're no better than the donkey-caves who think only straight white males should be allowed in the hobby.

can we please stop and remove the 10 VP thing from the arguement, which I agree is mostly bs.

In this case it's simply discussing using unpainted mini's with someone, which, as this thread proves, some people do prefer to play with painted mini's only 5 seconds to discuss the matter in advance with a no potential partner for the game is not unreasonable.

Seriously in HMBC's case literally ALL he'd have to say is "Just as a heads up, I have a disability which makes painting my models to any acceptable degree basicly impossable, you're fine playing unpainted mini's yeah?"

is literally,. IT. all he needs to do. and in 99% of all cases... people'll be cool. and in the 1 percent of the time.. why the feth would you wanna play with "A gate keeping bigot" anyway?

**tneva82**

Racerguy180 wrote:
No one is saying that you need to lose any games due to no painting. The only way that happens is if you matched play.

So if you don't matched play...miraculously you don't lose any game by not having painted stuff..

And narrative...and open.

Every scenario GW has contains painting score....

It...Is...NOT...matched...play....rule.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Racerguy180 wrote:
Or don't play matched, you seem to not understand that....if you change one rule for matched....your playing open play, by the rules.

So if you change one thing....

You get so stuck on matched being the only way to play, but when GW makes an official rule that you don't like, your only recourse is....to complain, rather than taking the fun into your own hands and ignore it.

You CANNOT AVOID THIS BY NOT PLAYING MATCHED PLAY!

You are talking about not playing 40k at all.

It's 40k rule. Not matched play rule. It's 40k core rule. In every game mode. If you remove it you quite literally aren't playing 40k anymore but your own game.

**Racerguy180**

I guess everyone who ignores this isn't playing 40k at all then.

Which is fine, cuz I guess I haven't played 40k then...at all....ever. wow my whole self worth has been devalued and I don't know how ill ever cope with the trauma of that revelation.

**CEO Kasen**

Okay, dafuq is this discussion?

This is, if I'm in the right thread, about a silly little half page of politeness suggestions written by committee that seemed mostly kinda nice, but that you could very reasonably argue are pointless, and now we're having a firestorm about the definition of matched play, elitism and physical disabilities that phosphex would say needs to be turned down a notch?

How'd we get here?

**Dysartes**

tneva82 wrote:
Racerguy180 wrote:
No one is saying that you need to lose any games due to no painting. The only way that happens is if you matched play.

So if you don't matched play...miraculously you don't lose any game by not having painted stuff..

And narrative...and open.

Every scenario GW has contains painting score....

It...Is...NOT...matched...play....rule.

tneva, before you continue to embarrass yourself here - where in the Open Play section (going by the mini-rulebook, the Open Hostility mission pack) are these 10VP for having a painted army referenced?

Page 85, which includes the "Determine Victor" step where the copy features for Matched Play and Crusade, doesn't include it. None of the three scenarios that follow include it - heck, only one of the three scenarios actually uses victory points, with the others having specific win/loss conditions for the attacker/defender.

**posermcbogus**

CEO Kasen wrote:

How'd we get here?

some silly sausage mentioned the 10vp for a painted army rule and now we're doing that argument again.

**Dysartes**

Having just stuck my nose in the AOS General Discussion board, I do find it interesting that there's no topic regarding this "Player's Code" at all over there - and yet there are seven fairly heated pages over here...

**Apple fox**

Dysartes wrote:
Having just stuck my nose in the AOS General Discussion board, I do find it interesting that there's no topic regarding this "Player's Code" at all over there - and yet there are seven fairly heated pages over here...

40k gets more discussion in all places, so that’s to be expected. I also think without the context of the VP connected to paint there isn’t as much to discuss on that issue. And a lot of the others can be summed up as be nice to each other.

**tneva82**

Dysartes wrote:
Having just stuck my nose in the AOS General Discussion board, I do find it interesting that there's no topic regarding this "Player's Code" at all over there - and yet there are seven fairly heated pages over here...

Dakkadakka is quite for AOS in general.

Pop your head over to more AOS heavy forum. All in all dakkadakka discussion over AOS is so quiet most conversations tend to focus on thread or two(rumour thread in AOS for one)

**chromedog**

I'm not understanding why this even needed to be spelled out ...

Surely it *should* be the default *rule zero* of any game. Commandment, even. Thou Shalt not be a d***.

**BrianDavion**

chromedog wrote:
I'm not understanding why this even needed to be spelled out ...

Surely it *should* be the default *rule zero* of any game. Commandment, even. Thou Shalt not be a d***.

but but, being a dick wins me ten victory points!

seriously though, I'd be very curious if ANYONE here has EVER lost a game due to that rule being applied.

**AngryAngel80**

If it was just that, then yes it would be pointless to have the page. Apparently not giving someone a thumbs up makes you a gakhead, not asking to be able to field an unpainted or 3rd party models makes you a gakhead, etc, etc.

It's well meaning but falls flat in many areas once you break it all down as I bet most players violate one or a few of these things every single game.

**vipoid**

CEO Kasen wrote:
Okay, dafuq is this discussion?

This is, if I'm in the right thread, about a silly little half page of politeness suggestions written by committee that seemed mostly kinda nice, but that you could very reasonably argue are pointless, and now we're having a firestorm about the definition of matched play, elitism and physical disabilities that phosphex would say needs to be turned down a notch?

How'd we get here?

Perhaps because some people noticed that the "politeness" in these rules only goes one way.

We are told that you should throw yourself on your opponent's mercy if you're not using a fully-painted army or if you're using conversions or 3rd-party models.

However, even aside from the elitist nature of that demand, there is no reciprocal requirement that you be tolerant towards an opponent who has an unpainted army or who wants to use conversions or 3rd party models.

**General Kroll**

BrianDavion wrote:
chromedog wrote:
I'm not understanding why this even needed to be spelled out ...

Surely it *should* be the default *rule zero* of any game. Commandment, even. Thou Shalt not be a d***.

but but, being a dick wins me ten victory points!

seriously though, I'd be very curious if ANYONE here has EVER lost a game due to that rule being applied.

I’m yet to hear of anyone losing because of that rule. You’d think it was causing fist fights and falling out at every single FLGS the way some on here talk about it. Mountains and mole hills spring to mind.

That some people in this thread are throwing round terms like “bigot” for anyone that thinks it’s not an issue kind of sums up the toxicity of this site.

**chromedog**

If an opponent needs to be told not to be a d - then I'm already packing my stuff up and walking away.

Life is short enough already - I don't need to waste more time dealing with that gak as well. I don't care if it gets me blacklisted from tourneys in that group or store. I've done it before and walked away from an entire game system happily.

**Sarigar**

Duskweaver wrote:
If you think people with physical disabilities that prevent them from painting their miniatures should be required to ask permission to be allowed to play the game, or should be limited to certain types of play, or should suffer in-game penalties like starting the game down 10VP...

Then you are a gatekeeper and a bigot. You're no better than the donkey-caves who think only straight white males should be allowed in the hobby.

I guess I got my answer as to why GW added this page their new book.

**Apple fox**

General Kroll wrote:
BrianDavion wrote:
chromedog wrote:
I'm not understanding why this even needed to be spelled out ...

Surely it *should* be the default *rule zero* of any game. Commandment, even. Thou Shalt not be a d***.

but but, being a dick wins me ten victory points!

seriously though, I'd be very curious if ANYONE here has EVER lost a game due to that rule being applied.

I’m yet to hear of anyone losing because of that rule. You’d think it was causing fist fights and falling out at every single FLGS the way some on here talk about it. Mountains and mole hills spring to mind.

That some people in this thread are throwing round terms like “bigot” for anyone that thinks it’s not an issue kind of sums up the toxicity of this site.

If the rule doesn’t effect the game it doesn’t need to exist in the first place, or it does and it can be a issue.

**Mad Doc Grotsnik**

This is about the fully painted thing, isn’t it?

I’m a self identifying Lazy Sod. I try to get my armies painted, but motivation is low. By all means, claim your VP from me.

But if I’m using one of my painted armies? Not sure I’d bother claiming it, because it’s not nice to judge others. Guess it depends largely on whether you take the piss as an opponent. If you’re WAAC, I’ll meet you every step of the way and press every advantage I can.

**General Kroll**

Apple fox wrote:
General Kroll wrote:
BrianDavion wrote:
chromedog wrote:
I'm not understanding why this even needed to be spelled out ...

Surely it *should* be the default *rule zero* of any game. Commandment, even. Thou Shalt not be a d***.

but but, being a dick wins me ten victory points!

seriously though, I'd be very curious if ANYONE here has EVER lost a game due to that rule being applied.

I’m yet to hear of anyone losing because of that rule. You’d think it was causing fist fights and falling out at every single FLGS the way some on here talk about it. Mountains and mole hills spring to mind.

That some people in this thread are throwing round terms like “bigot” for anyone that thinks it’s not an issue kind of sums up the toxicity of this site.

If the rule doesn’t effect the game it doesn’t need to exist in the first place, or it does and it can be a issue.

That’s as maybe, but I don’t see the need for all the hullabaloo about it. If we had page after page of people saying “I can’t believe I lost today because my opponent claimed the ten points.” Or “I got turned down for a game today because my models were only primed.” Then I’d agree that it was a problem. We aren’t though, and as far as I can see on other sites/social media, there hasn’t been a big issue with this.

**ClockworkZion**

I think the player's code point about painting is to encourage people to paint their minis (plus with products like Contrast or products made by other companies it's easier to get a decent table top standard).

It's clear they're different approaches between AoS and 40k with how they're encouraging people to paint their minis which at least seems to have a positive impact on the game since there are less naked plastic or all primer armies as those have always created issues with easy unit identification without stopping to ask what everything is every couple of minutes.