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.**

Unit1126PLL wrote:
These days it seems like people insist that they have a right to play with bare plastic regardless of how their opponent enjoys it or not.

Insist? Right? These aren't words I've ever associated with playing the game. Your post might be the most arrogant I've seen in this thread so far.

"How dare the little people come near me with that grey plastic! What makes them think they have any business mingling with people like me!"

Please...

**JNAProductions**

Again-if it said "Make sure you and your opponent are both going to enjoy the game," or something to that effect, that'd be fine. I have zero issues with someone not wanting to game with me because my minis are half-painted at best. If they're in it for the visual spectacle, that's fine-I'm not, but to each their own.

But it doesn't say that.

**Mr. Grey**

Karol wrote:

This code of conduct GW show is either impact nothing, in which case it doesn't matter that it exists. Because people are playing in a setting where with or without it, people deal with those problem. Or it affects absolutly everything, because I can tell you that if someone can use something to their adventage , no matter how small and insignificant they are, they will do it. And I really don't need extra problems with the game. I already have enough. I don't need to keep thinking durning the game if I am possibly not looking in an offending way at my opponent. Or asking them questions, even regarding the game which , he can then call offending, and because he has a higher social standing and more friends in the store, I would be at a disadvantage. It would probably make me stop wanting to play, as I don't like to think about other things the the game , while playing the game.

And please do NOT. DO NOT bring up autism Karol, because guess what...
I have Asperger's and lemme tell you, as someone with Aspergers? I LIKE having some rules for ettiquite in a new enviroment on hand. it makes my life a lot easier.

So do I , but I assume your expiriance is somehow more accurate and more important then my? And what kind of a rules of ettiguite are those, don't be offensive. That says nothing. And today everything can be offensive. I can't keep track of everything AND play the game at the same time. If GW wants to have a rule set for their games like that, they should first, and I am writing this for like 3ed time, should first write a book of conduct first . Just the way WotC has for MtG. You have clear stuff there, what you can do , when , what you do when a rules query happens, different rules for different levels of competition, like in sports. Everything has structure and you know how it works, how to act , when and why. If everything go smooth you don't even have to talk to the opponent, because the procedures do it for you. Heck there is even a code of conduct for judges what they can and can not wear etc.
GW should do something like that, and not create more problems and more ways for people to screw others over.

If you're playing against opponents that can and will use everything to their advantage, no matter how insignificant, then you're playing the wrong people. I don't want to play against someone like that. Ever. If you ask a question about a rule and your opponent plays "Woah, I'm offended!" as a response because of this suggested Code of Conduct... then that opponent is a donkey cave. Don't play that person.

As for worrying about "being offensive", this is a social game. Treat it as such. If you're unsure about whether or not something you might say will offend someone, act as if they're a total stranger that you've never met before. Ask yourself "Will this dead baby joke possibly offend this person?" and if the answer is anything other than a "no", then don't tell that dead baby joke. You've had interactions with strangers before without offending them, right? This is exactly like that, except for the duration of an entire game.

There's also no GW Court of Law that will magically prosecute you and send you to Games Workshop Jail if you mess up, but that seems to be how you're treating this Code of Conduct. These are not legally binding agreements, they're suggestions for how to have a game of toy soldiers and ensure that everyone involved has a good time.

"Don't be offensive" is... don't be offensive. Don't go dropping R-rated curse words, talk about kicking kittens, make crude jokes that involve bodily fluids, and so on. Pretend that you're playing the game against a nice little old grandma. Ask yourself if something you're about to say would offend a nice little old lady, and if the answer if "yes"... then don't say it.

**Unit1126PLL**

H.B.M.C. wrote:
Unit1126PLL wrote:
These days it seems like people insist that they have a right to play with bare plastic regardless of how their opponent enjoys it or not.
Insist? Right? These aren't words I've ever associated with playing the game. Your post might be the most arrogant I've seen in this thread so far.

"How dare the little people come near me with that grey plastic! What makes them think they have any business mingling with people like me!"

Please...

What words would you rather I have said?

"People ~~insist~~ say I am the donkey-cave because they believe they have the ~~right~~ privilege (?) Need(?) to bring unpainted models?"

I will use whatever words you want if my word choice is incorrect.

The point I am trying to make is "people don't want to paint, but want to play, and will say that it is the other person's fault for declining a game over paint (therefore implying they are the donkey-cave)"

**ccs**

Quasistellar wrote:
I genuinely don't understand how some people get offended when reminded that part of this game is the visual spectacle of painted miniatures on a nice looking board, and that's the experience that most players are looking for.

I'm not offended. I simply paint at my own pace. MY hobby is playing games. Those things will never change. While the goal & ideal are fully painted armies, and that happens eventually, it's never bothered me what colors my minis are in the meantime. And I make no judgements about your minis concerning being painted/unpainted or why.
But if your requirement to play a game with me "It MUST BE PAINTED!", well then you'll get two-tone/washed gak.... After all, you demanded speed vs quality. Now that you're looking at a different color of mini we can get on with the fun part of gaming.

**Racerguy180**

Still better than not trying at all

**ccs**

kirotheavenger wrote:
I think part of the rise of unpainted armies is the increased popularity of the game. More 'casual' players are joining that don't want to invest the time. Also, a lot of people that used to paint their minis are getting old. That means they've got more money to buy minis but less time to paint them.
Personally, when I scrapped together excess lunch money to buy one kit every 1-2 months I never even played with something that wasn't fully painted.
Now I can afford to buy whatever takes my fancy (granted I'm not inclined to impulsive buys so that is quite low) but various commitments mean I'm still looking at year long lead times between assembling and painting.

Also on the aging thing is, well, aging.
Here in my 50's my eyesight is not as good as it once was. I've noticed it a bit while painting things. It's not a terrible problem atm.... (though I have moved a few detail heavy projects forward on the plan just in case)
And if I follow in my the footsteps of my Father & Grandfather? Then I've got about 15 years before my hands start trembling. That'll interfere with the painting. Fortunately, even at my own slow painting pace, I don't have a backlog that'll take that long to complete.

**Quasistellar**

ccs wrote:
Quasistellar wrote:
I genuinely don't understand how some people get offended when reminded that part of this game is the visual spectacle of painted miniatures on a nice looking board, and that's the experience that most players are looking for.

I'm not offended. I simply paint at my own pace. MY hobby is playing games. Those things will never change. While the goal & ideal are fully painted armies, and that happens eventually, it's never bothered me what colors my minis are in the meantime. And I make no judgements about your minis concerning being painted/unpainted or why.
But if your requirement to play a game with me "It MUST BE PAINTED!", well then you'll get two-tone/washed gak.... After all, you demanded speed vs quality. Now that you're looking at a different color of mini we can get on with the fun part of gaming.

You and many others are (as they always are when painting is involved) reading too much into this. It's a simple nudge to emphasize the fact that for most people in the miniature wargaming hobby, having everything look good is part of the experience. As the game grows it's even more important for new players to get this reminder.

As usual, you, among others, have created hyperbolic fallacies that are just exceedingly rare in real life.

In friendly games exceptions between reasonable people have always and will always be made.

**Blndmage**

BrianDavion wrote:
And please do NOT. DO NOT bring up autism Karol, because guess what...
I have Asperger's and lemme tell you, as someone with Aspergers? I LIKE having some rules for ettiquite in a new enviroment on hand. it makes my life a lot easier.

As a note from gamer who's also on the spectrum, Asperger's was renamed/folded in a while back because the term was actually coined by a Nazi dr in WW2, like, it's his name.

**BrianDavion**

Karol wrote:
BrianDavion 799052 11156103 wrote:
ok, A: it is ABS fething LOTELY something that works perfectly well with strangers. I've done it. It ABSO-fething-LOTELY works fine with strangers to say "hey wanna sit down for a game? Cool, my models aren't painted, not an issue is it?"

Stranger says no, because it gives him an edge in the game. Now what? Every new player loses his first 6 months of playing, unless they have an army that can balance a 10VP handicap.

stranger says no. you walk away and don't play them.

seriously, if I bring a bunch of unpainted minis and a guy says he won't play vs unpainted minis...

I don't play him. shocking I know.

**iGuy91**

Nothing in the code is objectionable. Sure, why not.
Its just writing down the written code of playing a game, the social contract we adhere to in order to mutually engage in our hobby.

**Seabass**

Blndmage wrote:
BrianDavion wrote:
And please do NOT. DO NOT bring up autism Karol, because guess what...
I have Asperger's and lemme tell you, as someone with Aspergers? I LIKE having some rules for ettiquite in a new enviroment on hand. it makes my life a lot easier.

As a note from gamer who's also on the spectrum, Asperger's was renamed/folded in a while back because the term was actually coined by a Nazi dr in WW2, like, it's his name.

The APA pushed a lot of diagnoses into a more condensed diagnostic mechanism in the DSM-V based on the severity of presenting symptoms and behaviors. For example, Aspergers was moved onto the Autism spectrum Disorder (ASD), ODD (oppositional defiant disorder) now encompasses juvenile defiant disorder now, MDD (Major depressive disorder) now includes multiple degrees of depression based on the severity of presenting symptomology.

The fact that it had a german eugenicist's name on it probably just kind of pushed that one along a bit

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

Unit1126PLL wrote:
The point I am trying to make is "people don't want to paint, but want to play, and will say that it is the other person's fault for declining a game over paint (therefore implying they are the donkey-cave)"

Ah, there it is. "Don't want to paint". Your base assumption is that those who haven't painted just don't want to.

Don't know how many times the falsehood of that attitude has to be explained.

**BlackoCatto**

Nazrak wrote:
Dysartes wrote:
BlackoCatto wrote:
No

Well, that's a really useful contribution to the discussion - care to share with the class why not, or which elements you would object to from the document?

Banzaimash wrote:This hobby if we're being honest does attract a fair few people who aren't conventionally or well socialised.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

I gave my answer to the thread title, no.

**kirotheavenger**

BrianDavion wrote:

stranger says no. you walk away and don't play them.

I just spent 1.5hrs on the bus getting here, it's another 1.5hrs home. The bus ticket was £4, we've already booked the gaming table so that's another £5 spent, so I've already spent £9 and 3hrs on this game.
Call it sunk cost, but turning around and going home without a game isn't very appealing.
Granted, having a gak game because my opponent leverages a "be nice" rule for dickish purposes isn't much better, but that's why it's a problem.

**Deadnight**

kirotheavenger wrote:
BrianDavion wrote:

stranger says no. you walk away and don't play them.

I just spent 1.5hrs on the bus getting here, it's another 1.5hrs home. The bus ticket was £4, we've already booked the gaming table so that's another £5 spent, so I've already spent £9 and 3hrs on this game.
Call it sunk cost, but turning around and going home without a game isn't very appealing.
Granted, having a gak game because my opponent leverages a "be nice" rule for dickish purposes isn't much better, but that's why it's a problem.

Or use Facebook/what's app group message to arrange a game ahead of time to avoid that travel/lost time malarkey.

My hobby time is valuable. Honestly, I'd genuinely rather not play, than play a bad game or settle for playing a tryhard or tfg.

'Blind' match ups in terms of organising or hoping for games and opponents is just asking for trouble if you ask me.

**kirotheavenger**

I do have games arranged ahead of time.
The problem would be turning up and my opponent going "I don't give permission for you to use the unpainted terminator squad" or whatever.

The only way to mitigate that would be to run through my entire army ahead of time and ask permission, which is possible but a bit of a ballache, especially when 99% of people who just say it's fine anyway.

This issue doesn't even apply to me specifically, every 40k unit I own is painted to some capacity. I shared my journey to illustrate why "just go home" is not that viable for a lot of people.

There's no reason "ask permission to use painted models" should be a thing, the best case scenario is you get permission which was the default anyway.

**a_typical_hero**

kirotheavenger wrote:
I do have games arranged ahead of time.
The problem would be turning up and my opponent going "I don't give permission for you to use the unpainted terminator squad" or whatever.

The only way to mitigate that would be to run through my entire army ahead of time and ask permission, which is possible but a bit of a ballache, especially when 99% of people who just say it's fine anyway.

This issue doesn't even apply to me specifically, every 40k unit I own is painted to some capacity. I shared my journey to illustrate why "just go home" is not that viable for a lot of people.

There's no reason "ask permission to use painted models" should be a thing, the best case scenario is you get permission which was the default anyway.

But why are you even bringing up the point as a counter argument, when you yourself think that in 99 out of 100 games there will be no issue? Okay, out of your £900 you wasted £9 over dunno, how often do you play? Once every weekend? So over the course of 2 years you get one bad experience. Is that a big deal

**Apple fox**

Not everyone uses Facebook, or is it entirely safe to give out communication tools to everyone for a game.

There is a lot of practical reasons that painting has been let slide in a lot of places just to get games in.
It’s why I think GW should have used more neutral language like painting expectations.
It allows for events to raise expectations, but keep casual games in other ways.

It also doesn’t help that some army’s, that are favoured to be more elite are also way easier to paint to a good standard with minimal effort. With even the burden of cost in paint being potentially quite different.

**Jidmah**

Deadnight wrote:
My hobby time is valuable. Honestly, I'd genuinely rather not play, than play a bad game or settle for playing a tryhard or tfg.

'Blind' match ups in terms of organising or hoping for games and opponents is just asking for trouble if you ask me.

It's one of 40k's big shortcomings that this is a problem in the first place. For many other games, you can just go to a random store, play a random person and have good time vastly more often than not.

**Sarigar**

Apple fox wrote:
Not everyone uses Facebook, or is it entirely safe to give out communication tools to everyone for a game.

There is a lot of practical reasons that painting has been let slide in a lot of places just to get games in.
It’s why I think GW should have used more neutral language like painting expectations.
It allows for events to raise expectations, but keep casual games in other ways.

It also doesn’t help that some army’s, that are favoured to be more elite are also way easier to paint to a good standard with minimal effort. With even the burden of cost in paint being potentially quite different.

I highly recommend pre arranging games with someone. From my experience, pick up games really soured during 6th edition and latter editions. My scheduled games are much more enjoyable and it allows for better expectations for what both players want to get out of the game. It is a rare day, win or lose, that I have a bad 40K experience.

**BrianDavion**

kirotheavenger wrote:
I do have games arranged ahead of time.
The problem would be turning up and my opponent going "I don't give permission for you to use the unpainted terminator squad" or whatever.

The only way to mitigate that would be to run through my entire army ahead of time and ask permission, which is possible but a bit of a ballache, especially when 99% of people who just say it's fine anyway.

This issue doesn't even apply to me specifically, every 40k unit I own is painted to some capacity. I shared my journey to illustrate why "just go home" is not that viable for a lot of people.

There's no reason "ask permission to use painted models" should be a thing, the best case scenario is you get permission which was the default anyway.

sure except as you said you arrange your games in advance, presumably you discuss stuff like how many points you'll be playing, what time you'll meet at, wat game you'll be playing. how hard is it to in this entire discussion slide in "Ohh my armies unpainted, that's cool with you yeah?"

THATS ALL YOU NEED TO ASK.

it's not "mother mother may I please please use unpainted minis" it's just "ohh hey, if we're gonna play, you don't mind the odd unpainted mini on the table yeah?"

there's no "TFG" gotcha here. (or shouldn't be) there's just "do we agree to play a game, or not?"

**Jidmah**

You have clearly never played against someone who pulled out a Spanish version of a white dwarf issue bought on ebay, just because translation of one rule had a typo that would benefit them.

**kirotheavenger**

Apple fox wrote:

It’s why I think GW should have used more neutral language like painting expectations.

I agree, this is the core point.
There's no reason it should be worded it as "ask permission". It should just read "make an effort to use painted miniatures" or something.

The only way to defend "ask permission" is, as we've seen, "most of the time it doesn't matter anyway". That's not a defence, that's ignoring it.

**Sarigar**

kirotheavenger wrote:
Apple fox wrote:

It’s why I think GW should have used more neutral language like painting expectations.

I agree, this is the core point.
There's no reason it should be worded it as "ask permission". It should just read "make an effort to use painted miniatures" or something.

The only way to defend "ask permission" is, as we've seen, "most of the time it doesn't matter anyway". That's not a defence, that's ignoring it.

It is still unnecessary, IMO. Though, I suppose there are folks who need written guidelines.

I've turned down games in the past when someone wanted to use an unpainted army. I remember one potential game was an Ork horde list with multiple detachments and using different clans. I have also turned down games with players whom I have a clash in personality with.

**Unit1126PLL**

H.B.M.C. wrote:
Unit1126PLL wrote:
The point I am trying to make is "people don't want to paint, but want to play, and will say that it is the other person's fault for declining a game over paint (therefore implying they are the donkey-cave)"
Ah, there it is. "Don't want to paint". Your base assumption is that those who haven't painted just don't want to.

Don't know how many times the falsehood of that attitude has to be explained.

another word nitpick.

The point I am trying to make is "people ~~don't want to paint~~ don't want to have a painted army, but want to play, and will say that it is the other person's fault for declining a game over paint (therefore implying they are the donkey-cave)"

There are ways to have a painted army that isn't painting it yourself. Hell, I know a competitive player who pays people to build his models as part of the commission price, because he either can't or won't assemble his models either.

**kirotheavenger**

"Just commission it" is all well and good, but this hobby is already pricy enough before you're paying 2-3x RRP to get it built and painted.

I think if you don't want to play against unpainted armies, that's fine, but the onus should be on you to avoid them.
This player code puts the onus on the grey knights player to avoid you, and I think that's unfair and sends the wrong message.

**Jidmah**

Unit1126PLL wrote:
H.B.M.C. wrote:
Unit1126PLL wrote:
The point I am trying to make is "people don't want to paint, but want to play, and will say that it is the other person's fault for declining a game over paint (therefore implying they are the donkey-cave)"
Ah, there it is. "Don't want to paint". Your base assumption is that those who haven't painted just don't want to.

Don't know how many times the falsehood of that attitude has to be explained.

another word nitpick.

The point I am trying to make is "people ~~don't want to paint~~ don't want to have a painted army, but want to play, and will say that it is the other person's fault for declining a game over paint (therefore implying they are the donkey-cave)"

There are ways to have a painted army that isn't painting it yourself. Hell, I know a competitive player who pays people to build his models as part of the commission price, because he either can't or won't assemble his models either.

See, that's just as bad. You are still implying that the person with unpainted models is doing something wrong. The majority of people I know want to have a painted army, want to paint it themselves and are trying their best to eventually get there.

The person wanting to play with unpainted models has every right to do so. Just as the person wanting to play against fully painted army has every right to decline the game.

The only people who are wrong are those telling others how to enjoy their hobby, and that includes telling people that they have to prioritize painting over gaming.

**Unit1126PLL**

kirotheavenger wrote:"Just commission it" is all well and good, but this hobby is already pricy enough before you're paying 2-3x RRP to get it built and painted.

I think if you don't want to play against unpainted armies, that's fine, but the onus should be on you to avoid them.
This player code puts the onus on the grey knights player to avoid you, and I think that's unfair and sends the wrong message.

I don't interpret the code that way. What I see is an encouragement to paint, and a reminder that painting is part of the experience for some players. As for commissioning it, well, them's the breaks. I don't mind poorly painted minis myself - from several feet away, if it's got the right colors and they generally stay within the lines, it looks fine. I'm certainly not an ace painter, and sometimes am in a rush to get a model done on time. It would be hypocritical to insist that everyone paint to a high standard.

Jidmah wrote:
Unit1126PLL wrote:
H.B.M.C. wrote:
Unit1126PLL wrote:
The point I am trying to make is "people don't want to paint, but want to play, and will say that it is the other person's fault for declining a game over paint (therefore implying they are the donkey-cave)"
Ah, there it is. "Don't want to paint". Your base assumption is that those who haven't painted just don't want to.

Don't know how many times the falsehood of that attitude has to be explained.

another word nitpick.

The point I am trying to make is "people ~~don't want to paint~~ don't want to have a painted army, but want to play, and will say that it is the other person's fault for declining a game over paint (therefore implying they are the donkey-cave)"

There are ways to have a painted army that isn't painting it yourself. Hell, I know a competitive player who pays people to build his models as part of the commission price, because he either can't or won't assemble his models either.

See, that's just as bad. You are still implying that the person with unpainted models is doing something wrong. The majority of people I know want to have a painted army, want to paint it themselves and are trying their best to eventually get there.

And I said earlier I'll happily play those people. I'm fine playing against unpainted minis in general, especially a new army or newly-purchased units. But if it's eight months later and the new Sororitas are still 100% grey with no further effort, that's when I start groaning.

Jidmah wrote:The person wanting to play with unpainted models has every right to do so. Just as the person wanting to play against fully painted army has every right to decline the game.

Interestingly, HBMC nitpicked me earlier for saying they insisted on having a "right" to do so. So which is it, do they have that right or not?

As for your argument, disconnected from his, I actually agree with you, with the single caveat that painting in general is part of the experience of miniatures wargaming - which is all this Code says, at least for my interpretation.

Jidmah wrote:The only people who are wrong are those telling others how to enjoy their hobby, and that includes telling people that they have to prioritize painting over gaming.

You don't have to prioritize painting over gaming if you don't want to. Just make some progress, put in some effort now and again. Playing with painted minis is part of the experience - "spectacle" is a crucial reason why miniatures gaming is attractive over, say, board wargames. So it doesn't have to be a priority, but it shouldn't be outright ignored.

**Tokhuah**

One of the players in the photo is wearing a hat inside. If you are setting standards for respectful behavior then take off the damn hat indoors!