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.

I think peoples' painting situations are a little more nuanced than a rule like this allows for.

I also don't see why painting should be a factor in who wins a game. Unless we also plan to make tournament places a factor in painting competitions.

Why should who got biggest pocket be factor?

 Shas'O Ky'husa wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
You're not very good at making arguments, so to save us both the trouble, I'm just going to stop talking to you.

This isn't an airport, you don't have to announce your departure.

But really, your own words speak for themselves. You claim to be opposed to non-game factors deciding the outcome of games but reject the one system where things like "having more money than your opponent" don't decide the outcome of games. And rather than do the honest thing and admit that you just don't like painting you can only flip the table and leave.

So... we're just pretending that paid painting services don't exist, and TFG who'd obsess about getting their free 10 VP from GW's 'We also sell Paint' rule (and deny it to others) aren't first in line to open their wallets?
That seems completely disingenuous in the face of a 'more money than your opponent' argument.

The Black Adder wrote:
We ignored this rule and will continue to ignore it.

The reward for painting your miniatures is lovely looking models and something cool to display on a shelf at home.

If I win a game because my opponent outplayed me but hadn't painted a model or two, then that wouldn't ring true for me and would be a hollow victory at best.

Same. I'd much rather ask for another game (preferably with the same lists) for another chance at actually beating my opponent at the game, than declaring that I won because of a "technicality".

My group ignores that particular rule, so we either score out of 90, or add 10 to whatever score we get when we play matched play games. the results are the same.
In the BRB at least, the painting requirement is absent from Open play and crusade mission rules. but I will freely admit that my group is not up to date with the most recent mission packs and rules.

If you play in a tournament you will know their expectations, and you can make any painting decisions accordingly.
I find the most jarring thing about the rule to be that, since your entire force has to be painted, if you have 1 (one) miniature that is not based in your entire army, whatever standard the rest of your army is painted to, you lose the 10vps, rules as written. so you could have the best painted army in the entire world (excepting one miniature) playing against someone who has put in the least effort required to meet 'battle ready' standard, and they will get the 10vps, you will not, RAW.

So flat ignore for us, TYVM

For events 100% yes, for anything else, 100% no.

I know people that have nerve and muscle disorders why would I tell them to paint their models when its very hard for them to and take points away?

I also know people that dont have time but once a week for 4-5 hours, why would i take points away from them?

 Amishprn86 wrote:

I also know people that dont have time but once a week for 4-5 hours, why would i take points away from them?

Yes, those 4-5 hours are better spent playing.

 Sim-Life wrote:

 Shas'O Ky'husa wrote:

 Sim-Life wrote:
Really? No problem at all? So people with disabilities, illnesses or just general life circumstances that get in their way of being able to paint, they should all just suck it up and be penalised for not being able to paint?

In the unlikely event that this comes up maybe the 10 VP can be negotiated. But let's not pretend that people legitimate reasons for being unable to paint are anything other than an incredibly tiny minority compared to the people who simply choose not to.

So you agree there IS in fact a problem with the rule?

Not being applicable to an edge case doesn't mean that there is a problem with a rule, just that you must be ready to react to that case ( in this case, not using the rule if the other person has a valid reason).

It is like saying that the "You can touch only your minis and your dices" rule we had during covid rules had an issue because someone with a broken arm would not be able to play. Obviously in that case you allow people to help him move the models.

Karol wrote:

But a rule is a rule, there is a lot of rules I don't like, but they are put in by GW, so people have to live with it. The reasons why the rules is there and how it impacts the game or people playing it, doesn't matter in the end.

Incorrect.
Incorrect on all counts.

My usual scrumgrod is a very competitive player and most of my friends play tournaments so this rule is usually in play, my armies are painted so it is mostly irrelevant. I think it's very clear GW wants people to play with painted models, they even sell paint. And no I wont not take my 10 points because someone else didn't paint their army. They will just have to play harder to make up that 10 points, not that I will win but it was a free 10 points available to both players so that's on them for not taking it.

It's dumb because it has an in-game effect. It doesn't matter if tournaments have a painted army rule, because the best painted army doesn't suddenly win more often.

So this rule automatically applying when you have even just one model unpainted is bad. The people that support the rule are bad.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also LOL at people voting the first option, as if GW wasn't doing it to sell their paints instead of your "immersion" when the game isn't immersive to begin with. Just admit you hated losing to someone that didn't paint their models immediately to your standards and move on.

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

The Black Adder wrote:
We ignored this rule and will continue to ignore it.

The reward for painting your miniatures is lovely looking models and something cool to display on a shelf at home.

If I win a game because my opponent outplayed me but hadn't painted a model or two, then that wouldn't ring true for me and would be a hollow victory at best.

Same. I'd much rather ask for another game (preferably with the same lists) for another chance at actually beating my opponent at the game, than declaring that I won because of a "technicality".

A tertiary objective you know about going in to a Matched Play game is hardly a technicality, Gadzilla.

I've never liked the rule and have always been glad my group just quietly ignored its existence.

I'm actually a passionate painter and always field fully painted armies. For me painting and modelling is the part of the hobby I engage the most with. However I've been in the hobby a long time and the reason I have the luxury of only fielding fully painted armies is because I already have at least one fully painted army for each game system I play.

It does take me a long time to paint an army and if this rule had been around when I didn't have a fully painted army to play it would have disincentivised me from actually playing (and perversely as a result from painting).

I'd rather people take the time and love to paint their army to a standard they personally can feel proud of. I'm happy to play against unpainted models in the meantime over playing against a fully painted army someone had felt pressured into doing a bare minimum rush job on in order to not be playing at a disadvantage. And if they just don't enjoy painting that's cool too and I don't see any benefit to penalising them in game for that as well - if it bothered me I wouldn't be playing them anyway. Applying an in game disadvantage for not having a fully painted army is a very negative way to encourage people to do something that should be a source of enjoyment and pride for them and it is also unfair on new players

If people want encouragement to get their armies painted there are more positive ways of doing it, like organising a "tale of 4 gamers" slow grow campaign.

I'm wondering when the next step will be taken and aesthetics enters the scoring game. Will there be bonus points given for drilling out barrels of guns? How about making sure that the paint scheme is exactly what GW shows? Or how about deducting points for armies that have models that have been painted sloppily or poor color choices? I've yet to see a set of dice that care what your figures look like.

If an event posts a paint level minimum then it's on the player to meet that level. If there's no requirement of painting to participate then it shouldn't enter into the W/L record.

 Dysartes wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

The Black Adder wrote:
We ignored this rule and will continue to ignore it.

The reward for painting your miniatures is lovely looking models and something cool to display on a shelf at home.

If I win a game because my opponent outplayed me but hadn't painted a model or two, then that wouldn't ring true for me and would be a hollow victory at best.

Same. I'd much rather ask for another game (preferably with the same lists) for another chance at actually beating my opponent at the game, than declaring that I won because of a "technicality".

A tertiary objective you know about going in to a Matched Play game is hardly a technicality, Gadzilla.

It is when it has nothing to do with actually playing the game. I don't want to "technically" win just because my opponent has some unpainted models in their army. I'd much rather just play another game, and try to win by outplaying them. It's just more fun, IMO.

Unless, of course, you're just arguing about the definition of "technicality". If so, I'm not going to argue with Dakka's "English Professor" over something like that. Feel free to suggest a better word, if you want.

 Shas'O Ky'husa wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
I don't think painting should play a role in victory within the game. How the game is played should be the only thing that determines victory.

So you advocate both players using the same standard list, so that only how the game is played determines victory?

The best way of doing this is by making the gamers play with a couple of armies paired by each player (so if your play your minis, the oponent chooses sides and viceversa) ... Suddenly you have true "competition" were you sholve all list building shenanigans and force true balance and really value player skill over any other meta aspect... Sure it creates some extra logistics but nothing that cannot be tackle (easily by playing smaller games).

This easy fix is not implemented due to some cultural taboo towards ussing only "your minis"... But from a competitive POV is much, much better than the current pretension that 40K is a speudo e-sport but were the challenge is to make a list that exploits erratas or imbalances.

(PD, yep I already tried this method at tournaments and it was effective and interesting).

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
Unless, of course, you're just arguing about the definition of "technicality". If so, I'm not going to argue with Dakka's "English Professor" over something like that. Feel free to suggest a better word, if you want.

"Rule I don't like" seems like the most honest parsing.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
I think the only way this is fair is if there is also 10VP for fielding conversions and 10VP for fielding fluff-accurate forces. Otherwise the game is just penalizing people who don’t enjoy painting. Either all of the facets of the hobby should be rewarded, or just the game should count towards the game.

Dancing, competitions also punish people that dont enjoy dancing... Presentation is slsp important in scatting or Gym at the olimpics.

I voted 'other' because there was no option for 'this rule doesn't actually mean anything'.

If you're playing a casual pick-up game against a stranger then you know who won from the outcome of the tabletop, and whether you technically lost on painting VP is a big fat 'who cares'.

If you're playing a cutthroat tournament where winning or losing 'on paper' matters, they almost always have their own painting requirement rules. Usually it's that every model has to be painted, so if they'll let you play unpainted at a mild VP hit, that makes painting less mandatory.

And most games tend to snowball one way or the other anyways, so coming down to a split of under 10VP is pretty rare to begin with.

The sole reason it's controversial is that it's a shot across the bow for people who feel that painting their army is as ancillary as writing up its backstory or naming their characters, and not something that is generally expected as part of the tabletop experience. It doesn't actually matter in practice, it matters in principle.

Frankly, if someone is playing casual pick-up games against strangers and then getting mad that a hard-fought victory was technically a loss according to words on paper- a 'loss' that has zero impact in the grand scheme of things- then they probably are the sort of hypercompetitive player who needs extrinsic motivation to get their army painted in the first place.

 Sim-Life wrote:

 Shas'O Ky'husa wrote:

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
I think the only way this is fair is if there is also 10VP for fielding conversions and 10VP for fielding fluff-accurate forces. Otherwise the game is just penalizing people who don’t enjoy painting. Either all of the facets of the hobby should be rewarded, or just the game should count towards the game.

Not seeing the problem with penalizing people who don't paint their models.

Really? No problem at all? So people with disabilities, illnesses or just general life circumstances that get in their way of being able to paint, they should all just suck it up and be penalised for not being able to paint?

The bad faith of this post is just unbeliavable.
:(

Catulle wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
Unless, of course, you're just arguing about the definition of "technicality". If so, I'm not going to argue with Dakka's "English Professor" over something like that. Feel free to suggest a better word, if you want.

"Rule I don't like" seems like the most honest parsing.

Meh, more like "rule that I don't care about". Or more precisely "rule that I don't care about, because I don't care that much about winning just one game that I'd use it". I don't play anything until I've painted it, so I wouldn't have anything to lose by using it, but I'd just rather not. Like I said: I'd rather just play another game, and try to win by outplaying my opponent that time. Again, just more enjoyable, IMO.

 Sim-Life wrote:

 Shas'O Ky'husa wrote:

 Sim-Life wrote:
Really? No problem at all? So people with disabilities, illnesses or just general life circumstances that get in their way of being able to paint, they should all just suck it up and be penalised for not being able to paint?

In the unlikely event that this comes up maybe the 10 VP can be negotiated. But let's not pretend that people legitimate reasons for being unable to paint are anything other than an incredibly tiny minority compared to the people who simply choose not to.

So you agree there IS in fact a problem with the rule?

No more than there is with any other rule. You can find an extreme edge case that is problematic for any rule, that doesn't mean it has a relevant problem or is a bad rule.

As someone who often plays with unpainted minis, I like this rule quite a bit. I am quite happy for an opponent who increases the quality of my gameplay experience to be rewarded for it.

Voss wrote:
So... we're just pretending that paid painting services don't exist, and TFG who'd obsess about getting their free 10 VP from GW's 'We also sell Paint' rule (and deny it to others) aren't first in line to open their wallets?
That seems completely disingenuous in the face of a 'more money than your opponent' argument.

What about it? Most people don't use painting services because they paint their own models. The theoretical cost of a painting service is not at all equivalent to the very real cost of buying in-game advantages by choosing a powerful faction and chasing the meta. If you have an unpainted guard army right now you could score 10 VP by painting it, or way more than 10 VP by buying an entire new 2000 point army from a faction that doesn't suck.

 Shas'O Ky'husa wrote:

 Sim-Life wrote:

 Shas'O Ky'husa wrote:

 Sim-Life wrote:
Really? No problem at all? So people with disabilities, illnesses or just general life circumstances that get in their way of being able to paint, they should all just suck it up and be penalised for not being able to paint?

In the unlikely event that this comes up maybe the 10 VP can be negotiated. But let's not pretend that people legitimate reasons for being unable to paint are anything other than an incredibly tiny minority compared to the people who simply choose not to.

So you agree there IS in fact a problem with the rule?

No more than there is with any other rule. You can find an extreme edge case that is problematic for any rule, that doesn't mean it has a relevant problem or is a bad rule.

Well done at minimising it by using the phrase "extreme edge cases" and using a false equivelece. This isn't a case of a badly worded rule or a broken arm (thats not even remotely the same thing) which will heal or change (hopefully, lets hope that broken arm doesn't result in nerve damage that effect the persons fine motor skill but if it does and he's unable to hold a paint brush properly anymore screw him, his fault for breaking his arm(, its a rule GW enforces simply because they want to sell paints and painted armies look better on the table which attracts more attention and potential customers. I don't even think you really though the topic through honestly. You just chose your side and dug yourself into your position to be argumentative.

 Sim-Life wrote:
Well done at minimising it by using the phrase "extreme edge cases" and using a false equivelece.

Sorry, but it absolutely is an extreme edge case. The fact that a rule doesn't do a good job of handling the rare person who genuinely can't paint is not a problem worth worrying about when the vast majority of people with unpainted armies do not paint because they choose not to paint. No rule will ever apply perfectly in literally 100% of possible situations, and this rule works as well as any.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Sim-Life wrote:
its a rule GW enforces simply because they want to sell paints and painted armies look better on the table which attracts more attention and potential customers.

And this is just plain false. Third-party events had painting requirements, usually painting requirements that were far stricter than 10 VP, long before GW introduced the 10 VP rule. And those third-party events had no direct profit motive for doing so. The reality is that painted armies look better and most people value that aesthetic factor so GW introduced a rule to make it official.

(Needless to say, the e-sport types hated those rules because it was an obstacle to winning the game in the list building phase.)

For people it effects, it's not an edge case. It's their every day life and you don't really get to tell them that because something is out of their control they should be penalised when they get to partake in their hobby.

Also yeah, 3rd party tournament had a painting requirement, but tournaments are optional and generally people with the issues that stop them from painting won't attend them. But tournaments don't sell paints generally.

 Sim-Life wrote:
For people it effects, it's not an edge case.

And those people are an extremely rare edge case.

It's their every day life and you don't really get to tell them that because something is out of their control they should be penalised when they get to partake in their hobby.

If someone genuinely has a disability that prevents them from painting most people would be willing to change the 10 VP rule. But let's not pretend that this is a common scenario, or that the need to modify the rules in this one edge case means that it's a problem for the vast majority of games.

Also yeah, 3rd party tournament had a painting requirement, but tournaments are optional and generally people with the issues that stop them from painting won't attend them.

Tournaments are optional but that's not the point. The point is that there is clearly a motive for painting requirements that does not come from paint sales, so it is not appropriate to assume that GW is only doing it as a cynical attempt to sell more paint.

 Shas'O Ky'husa wrote:

 Sim-Life wrote:
For people it effects, it's not an edge case.

And those people are an extremely rare edge case.

So they don't matter?

Also yeah, 3rd party tournament had a painting requirement, but tournaments are optional and generally people with the issues that stop them from painting won't attend them.

Tournaments are optional but that's not the point. The point is that there is clearly a motive for painting requirements that does not come from paint sales, so it is not appropriate to assume that GW is only doing it as a cynical attempt to sell more paint.

It's GW, its 100% a cynical attempt to sell paint and if you genuinly think it isn't (I don't think you do btw) I have a bridge to sell you.

 Sim-Life wrote:
So they don't matter?

Nope. When evaluating a rule you evaluate it in the majority cases, not the incredibly small minority of edge cases. Every rule fails if you look hard enough for an edge case.

It's GW, its 100% a cynical attempt to sell paint and if you genuinly think it isn't (I don't think you do btw) I have a bridge to sell you.

You are going to ignore the non-sales reasons for painting requirements then? And that this is entirely in line with the narrative-focused authors GW has, people who only grudgingly supported competitive play and genuinely believe in painting and story being more important than winning?