Switch Theme:

Do you think 40k should adopt the player's code from AoS 3.0?  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


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.




Made in fi
Ye Lord of The End Times (and a good guy)





 Irkjoe wrote:
 Jidmah wrote:
This whole discussion has gone to gak as it does every time because one side is people investing non-trivial amounts of time in painting and complaining about being actively punished for having some unfinished miniatures while the other side claims the moral high ground by equating them with WAAC TFG metachasers who never paint anything ever while at the same time screaming about totally not being elitists.


What standards are acceptable in your opinion? And please explain how painting expectations will impact you because theoretically, if you and I met at a store we wouldn't play because I'm an elitist and nothing else; the end. You just play against somebody who doesn't care or you ignore their 10 vp technical win in a casual game.

All of this talk about people forcing you to paint and that paint has got you down is the purest nonsense.


It's just as technical win as win by secondaries or primaries.

Do you claim it's technical win if opponent wins because titan slayer secondary? If not then you are having double standards.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/06/30 05:44:22


2021 painted/bought: 538/575 
   
Made in us
Brainy Zoanthrope






tneva82 wrote:


It's just as technical win as win by secondaries or primaries.

Do you claim it's technical win if opponent wins because titan slayer secondary? If not then you are having double standards.


It's a technical win because those vp come from something that has no bearing on gameplay in a casual game. In a tournament it matters but everybody is fully painted anyway so it's not an issue there.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/06/30 05:54:18


 
   
Made in de
Ork Admiral Kroozin Da Kosmos on Da Hulk






Of course he has, that's the whole point of every single one of his posts on this topic.

It's totally fine for people to lose VP for not having a fully painted base on one model, they should just suck it up.
At the same time, a single unpainted model completely ruins the fun in his games up to the point that he'd rather not play at all.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Irkjoe wrote:
It's a technical win because those vp come from something that has no bearing on gameplay in a casual game. In a tournament it matters but everybody is fully painted anyway so it's not an issue there.


Because crusade isn't a thing, right?

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/06/30 05:57:51


Earth is not flat
Vaccines work
We've been to the moon
Climate change is real
Chemtrails aren't a thing
Evolution is a fact
Orks are not a melee army
Stand up for science!
 
   
Made in ca
Legendary Master of the Chapter





 Jidmah wrote:
Of course he has, that's the whole point of every single one of his posts on this topic.

It's totally fine for people to lose VP for not having a fully painted base on one model, they should just suck it up.
At the same time, a single unpainted model completely ruins the fun in his games up to the point that he'd rather not play at all.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Irkjoe wrote:
It's a technical win because those vp come from something that has no bearing on gameplay in a casual game. In a tournament it matters but everybody is fully painted anyway so it's not an issue there.


Because crusade isn't a thing, right?


if you're pulling that kinda TFG stuff in crusade you're doing it wrong

Opinions are not facts please don't confuse the two 
   
Made in de
Ork Admiral Kroozin Da Kosmos on Da Hulk






What are you referring to?
Following the rules which half this thread are defending or not painting?

Earth is not flat
Vaccines work
We've been to the moon
Climate change is real
Chemtrails aren't a thing
Evolution is a fact
Orks are not a melee army
Stand up for science!
 
   
Made in pl
Fixture of Dakka




 Jidmah wrote:
Of course he has, that's the whole point of every single one of his posts on this topic.

It's totally fine for people to lose VP for not having a fully painted base on one model, they should just suck it up.
At the same time, a single unpainted model completely ruins the fun in his games up to the point that he'd rather not play at all.


It is the reality, but it is not fine. There are a ton of things about GW official rules that were or are not fine, yet we have to follow them. Doesn't make the right thing or good.

And it isn't just a one model makes things unpainted problem, although I assume it ain't fun either. It is a problem of new players having to play with a huge handicap, when they arleady are hadicaped by smaller unit selection and less play expiriance, for months , in a game where some people play it for a year or two. That is the crux of the issue. And putting the decision in the hands of people who have already painted army is never a better thing, and will often cause a problem. Because contrary to what some people try to say here, winning and losing does matter. Specially when it is a reapeted activity over time. You have experiments on rats, that show that if a rat plays wrestle with an older rat , and the older rat doesn't let the smaller rat win 1/3 of the times , the smaller rat after some time loses all interests in playing with the older rat.

Now imagine you are losing all games for 2-3 years, not because of what your bought or what you did durning the game, but because your army is not painted yet or your bases are considered to not be scenic enough. And because the rule is enforced on a person by person basis, then the opponent with the painted army, can always claim that they don't want to play you, because of some wierd reason like , highlights aren't proper on your models.

If you have to kill, then kill in the best manner. If you slaughter, then slaughter in the best manner. Let one of you sharpen his knife so his animal feels no pain. 
   
Made in ca
Legendary Master of the Chapter





Karol wrote:
 Jidmah wrote:
Of course he has, that's the whole point of every single one of his posts on this topic.

It's totally fine for people to lose VP for not having a fully painted base on one model, they should just suck it up.
At the same time, a single unpainted model completely ruins the fun in his games up to the point that he'd rather not play at all.


It is the reality, but it is not fine. There are a ton of things about GW official rules that were or are not fine, yet we have to follow them. Doesn't make the right thing or good.

And it isn't just a one model makes things unpainted problem, although I assume it ain't fun either. It is a problem of new players having to play with a huge handicap, when they arleady are hadicaped by smaller unit selection and less play expiriance, for months , in a game where some people play it for a year or two. That is the crux of the issue. And putting the decision in the hands of people who have already painted army is never a better thing, and will often cause a problem. Because contrary to what some people try to say here, winning and losing does matter. Specially when it is a reapeted activity over time. You have experiments on rats, that show that if a rat plays wrestle with an older rat , and the older rat doesn't let the smaller rat win 1/3 of the times , the smaller rat after some time loses all interests in playing with the older rat.

Now imagine you are losing all games for 2-3 years, not because of what your bought or what you did durning the game, but because your army is not painted yet or your bases are considered to not be scenic enough. And because the rule is enforced on a person by person basis, then the opponent with the painted army, can always claim that they don't want to play you, because of some wierd reason like , highlights aren't proper on your models.



except I can already say I don't want to play you if I think your mini's are ugly Karol.

Opinions are not facts please don't confuse the two 
   
Made in de
Dakka Veteran



Bamberg / Erlangen

Karol wrote:
It is the reality, but it is not fine. There are a ton of things about GW official rules that were or are not fine, yet we have to follow them. Doesn't make the right thing or good.

And it isn't just a one model makes things unpainted problem, although I assume it ain't fun either. It is a problem of new players having to play with a huge handicap, when they arleady are hadicaped by smaller unit selection and less play expiriance, for months , in a game where some people play it for a year or two. That is the crux of the issue. And putting the decision in the hands of people who have already painted army is never a better thing, and will often cause a problem. Because contrary to what some people try to say here, winning and losing does matter. Specially when it is a reapeted activity over time. You have experiments on rats, that show that if a rat plays wrestle with an older rat , and the older rat doesn't let the smaller rat win 1/3 of the times , the smaller rat after some time loses all interests in playing with the older rat.

Now imagine you are losing all games for 2-3 years, not because of what your bought or what you did durning the game, but because your army is not painted yet or your bases are considered to not be scenic enough. And because the rule is enforced on a person by person basis, then the opponent with the painted army, can always claim that they don't want to play you, because of some wierd reason like , highlights aren't proper on your models.
Karol, I gave you a solution to alot of these problems in one of my last posts and your reply was "I got gakked on by senior players, so I will gak on newer players as well".
These are _your_ problems and you do your best to keep the vicious circle alive. Complaining about it afterwards is moot.

Imperial Guard Space Marines
 
   
Made in de
Ork Admiral Kroozin Da Kosmos on Da Hulk






Karol wrote:
Now imagine you are losing all games for 2-3 years, not because of what your bought or what you did durning the game, but because your army is not painted yet or your bases are considered to not be scenic enough. And because the rule is enforced on a person by person basis, then the opponent with the painted army, can always claim that they don't want to play you, because of some wierd reason like , highlights aren't proper on your models.


With everything I don't like about the rule, if you are losing all your games for 2-3 years, the 10 VP handicap is not what's making you lose games. As stated before, a third of my games were won by a 10 VP or less lead for two thirds those points wouldn't have mattered. And I regularly tune down my lists and playstyle to meet my opponents' level, so I have more close games than your average player.

GW also provided a very dumb, yet specific definition of what you have to do in order to get those 10 VP, so your opponent doesn't arbitrarily get to decide that your model doesn't count as painted if you followed those rules. And if someone acts up - every army has a model or two where the primer didn't quite reach into every gap, immediately disqualifying the entire army for the 10 VP, even if it has won a golden daemon.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/06/30 08:42:38


Earth is not flat
Vaccines work
We've been to the moon
Climate change is real
Chemtrails aren't a thing
Evolution is a fact
Orks are not a melee army
Stand up for science!
 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





 catbarf wrote:
 AngryAngel80 wrote:
Shock horror why shouldn't someone have to beg me to use non painted models, they should bow down and accept their shame for daring to not field fully painted. Do these other adults we supposedly play with not have eyes to see the models aren't painted ? If it matters that much to the one who has to play against non painted armies why don't they just say outright " I will not play against un painted armies. " Is that so hard ? I guess so. Shock horror putting your expectations out there first so people know it ahead of time, the indignity.


I think the idea that 'ask for permission' is tantamount to 'beg' and 'bow down and accept their shame' really says everything. A player can't be courteous and respectful of your play experience if they'd rather crawl across broken glass than ask 'hey, is it alright if I use these unpainted models'?

The player who views the basic courtesy of asking permission as a humiliating act clearly isn't having those conversations about mutual expectations in the first place. They're going to assert their god-given right to play grey tide, plunk down an unpainted army, and if their opponent doesn't like it that's their problem.

And so we have a code of conduct clearly setting standards and expectations, and putting the onus on them to seek permission for not meeting a standard that may impact the opponent's play experience. If you're already being courteous about ensuring your opponent has fun too, then it's really not a big deal.



I have not once ever asked someone if they had a painted army or said I'd prefer them to be painted. I want them to be as happy with their armies as they want to be. I don't care what they do with the paint so long as they are happy. So yeah I am treating others as I'd want to be treated and that is by not needing to ask or have them ask me about paint, period. You can disagree with my opinion all you like but it is consistent and I expect nothing from someone else I wouldn't give to them which is understanding. I don't need any rules to tell me this its called just treating people as you'd want to be treated which shouldn't need to be touched on in a rule book of plastic army men. If it is needed so desperately then we are already lost.

Yes asking if I may play my army is insulting to me, sorry if that is insulting to someone else but not sorry.
   
Made in gb
Fixture of Dakka







 Jidmah wrote:
It's totally fine for people to lose VP for not having a fully painted base on one model, they should just suck it up.
At the same time, a single unpainted model completely ruins the fun in his games up to the point that he'd rather not play at all.


Again, not being given a bonus is not the same thing as suffering a loss, no matter how much you need to spin it that way to favour your narrative.

If you score 80VP out of a possible 90 before hitting the second page of stage 16 in a Matched Play game, you do not lose any VP that you have scored if your army isn't fully painted. You suffer no loss, you stay at 80VP.

If your opponent is fully painted, they will then score a bonus of 10VP. Depending on your POV, these are 10VP they have earned, arguably via a tertiary condition of the battle. This bonus might leave them behind your 80, it might extend an existing lead, or it might convert who wins a close game - as I think we can agree that within 10VP is a close result.

You have not suffered a loss of VP, they have gained bonus VP. There is a clear difference between the two things.

Are you sure you're not a politician?

2021 Plog - Here we go again... - my fifth attempt at a Dakka PLOG

My [url=https://pileofpotential.com/dysartes]Pile of Potential[/url - updates ongoing...

Gamgee on Tau Players wrote:we all kill cats and sell our own families to the devil and eat live puppies.


 Kanluwen wrote:
This is, emphatically, why I will continue suggesting nuking Guard and starting over again. It's a legacy army that needs to be rebooted with a new focal point.

Confirmation of why no-one should listen to Kanluwen when it comes to the IG - he doesn't want the IG, he want's Kan's New Model Army... 
   
Made in gb
Ship's Officer





Bristol (UK)

I actually think being denied 10VP is exactly the same as suffering -10VP, at least as far as a simple win/loss equation goes.
The only difference is in the window dressing. Perhaps that's why politicians are all over the difference

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/06/30 15:03:56


 
   
Made in de
Dakka Veteran



Bamberg / Erlangen

There is a real psychological difference wether something is taken away from you or you don't get to have something in the first place.

You don't count your victory points starting at 100 and then calculate backwards how much you "lost" by not scoring them, do you?

You start at 0 and add everything you earn during the game.

Imperial Guard Space Marines
 
   
Made in nl
Jovial Plaguebearer of Nurgle





a_typical_hero wrote:
There is a real psychological difference wether something is taken away from you or you don't get to have something in the first place.

You don't count your victory points starting at 100 and then calculate backwards how much you "lost" by not scoring them, do you?

You start at 0 and add everything you earn during the game.

Well actually I do both, I count how much I got and compare it to what I could have gotten under ideal circumstances. So yes it would feel like these points were taken away from me if we were to actually play with that dumb rule here.
   
Made in gb
Fixture of Dakka







 Castozor wrote:
a_typical_hero wrote:
There is a real psychological difference wether something is taken away from you or you don't get to have something in the first place.

You don't count your victory points starting at 100 and then calculate backwards how much you "lost" by not scoring them, do you?

You start at 0 and add everything you earn during the game.

Well actually I do both, I count how much I got and compare it to what I could have gotten under ideal circumstances. So yes it would feel like these points were taken away from me if we were to actually play with that dumb rule here.

If you choose to ignore the tertiary objective, then not earning the bonus is on you.

2021 Plog - Here we go again... - my fifth attempt at a Dakka PLOG

My [url=https://pileofpotential.com/dysartes]Pile of Potential[/url - updates ongoing...

Gamgee on Tau Players wrote:we all kill cats and sell our own families to the devil and eat live puppies.


 Kanluwen wrote:
This is, emphatically, why I will continue suggesting nuking Guard and starting over again. It's a legacy army that needs to be rebooted with a new focal point.

Confirmation of why no-one should listen to Kanluwen when it comes to the IG - he doesn't want the IG, he want's Kan's New Model Army... 
   
Made in ca
Deranged Necron Destroyer






 Jidmah wrote:
Of course he has, that's the whole point of every single one of his posts on this topic.

It's totally fine for people to lose VP for not having a fully painted base on one model, they should just suck it up.
At the same time, a single unpainted model completely ruins the fun in his games up to the point that he'd rather not play at all.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Irkjoe wrote:
It's a technical win because those vp come from something that has no bearing on gameplay in a casual game. In a tournament it matters but everybody is fully painted anyway so it's not an issue there.


Because crusade isn't a thing, right?


The fact that Crusade carried over the painting for VP rule is asinine.

Girl Gamers are the best! 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut







Viewed from that lens, the 10 VP is actually the easiest VP to get in a game, since your opponent has ABSOLUTELY NO SAY in whether you get it or not.

It's on you if you don't get those VP - you can't even claim to have been outplayed.

In effect:
   
Made in de
Ork Admiral Kroozin Da Kosmos on Da Hulk






 Dysartes wrote:
 Jidmah wrote:
It's totally fine for people to lose VP for not having a fully painted base on one model, they should just suck it up.
At the same time, a single unpainted model completely ruins the fun in his games up to the point that he'd rather not play at all.


Again, not being given a bonus is not the same thing as suffering a loss, no matter how much you need to spin it that way to favour your narrative.

If you score 80VP out of a possible 90 before hitting the second page of stage 16 in a Matched Play game, you do not lose any VP that you have scored if your army isn't fully painted. You suffer no loss, you stay at 80VP.

If your opponent is fully painted, they will then score a bonus of 10VP. Depending on your POV, these are 10VP they have earned, arguably via a tertiary condition of the battle. This bonus might leave them behind your 80, it might extend an existing lead, or it might convert who wins a close game - as I think we can agree that within 10VP is a close result.

You have not suffered a loss of VP, they have gained bonus VP. There is a clear difference between the two things.

Are you sure you're not a politician?


I'm very much a scientist and mathematician.

I scored 30 points primary. So did my opponent. I played my brand new Lord of Virulence that I haven't had the time to paint yet as part of my otherwise fully painted army. My opponent played his army that he had commission painted for six bars of chocolate by a 3 year old that looks like gak.

I lost the game by 10 points. My opponent gets to add an extra relic to his crusade and I don't.

So yes, that Lord of Virulence lost me 10 points, no matter how much you want to reinforce that the glass is half full rather than half empty. Handing out bonuses to some and not to other is a punishment for those you decided not to reward.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Viewed from that lens, the 10 VP is actually the easiest VP to get in a game, since your opponent has ABSOLUTELY NO SAY in whether you get it or not.

It's on you if you don't get those VP - you can't even claim to have been outplayed.


Wow, after all these arguments why people haven't finished their painting, what utterly donkey-cave thing to say.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Dysartes wrote:
 Castozor wrote:
a_typical_hero wrote:
There is a real psychological difference wether something is taken away from you or you don't get to have something in the first place.

You don't count your victory points starting at 100 and then calculate backwards how much you "lost" by not scoring them, do you?

You start at 0 and add everything you earn during the game.

Well actually I do both, I count how much I got and compare it to what I could have gotten under ideal circumstances. So yes it would feel like these points were taken away from me if we were to actually play with that dumb rule here.

If you choose to ignore the tertiary objective, then not earning the bonus is on you.


"Chose to ignore". Are you sure that you aren't the politician here? Go ahead, go back through all of the thread and count the people who aren't troll accounts with less than 200 posts who said that they are ignoring painting.

You are equating having a few unpainted/unfinished units to people not wanting to paint, never painting or fielding armies without a single painted model and thus completely disqualifying yourself.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/07/01 08:36:20


Earth is not flat
Vaccines work
We've been to the moon
Climate change is real
Chemtrails aren't a thing
Evolution is a fact
Orks are not a melee army
Stand up for science!
 
   
Made in us
Agile Revenant Titan





Fayetteville NC

 Jidmah wrote:
 Dysartes wrote:
 Jidmah wrote:
It's totally fine for people to lose VP for not having a fully painted base on one model, they should just suck it up.
At the same time, a single unpainted model completely ruins the fun in his games up to the point that he'd rather not play at all.


Again, not being given a bonus is not the same thing as suffering a loss, no matter how much you need to spin it that way to favour your narrative.

If you score 80VP out of a possible 90 before hitting the second page of stage 16 in a Matched Play game, you do not lose any VP that you have scored if your army isn't fully painted. You suffer no loss, you stay at 80VP.

If your opponent is fully painted, they will then score a bonus of 10VP. Depending on your POV, these are 10VP they have earned, arguably via a tertiary condition of the battle. This bonus might leave them behind your 80, it might extend an existing lead, or it might convert who wins a close game - as I think we can agree that within 10VP is a close result.

You have not suffered a loss of VP, they have gained bonus VP. There is a clear difference between the two things.

Are you sure you're not a politician?


I'm very much a scientist and mathematician.

I scored 30 points primary. So did my opponent. I played my brand new Lord of Virulence that I haven't had the time to paint yet as part of my otherwise fully painted army. My opponent played his army that he had commission painted for six bars of chocolate by a 3 year old that looks like gak.

I lost the game by 10 points. My opponent gets to add an extra relic to his crusade and I don't.

So yes, that Lord of Virulence lost me 10 points, no matter how much you want to reinforce that the glass is half full rather than half empty. Handing out bonuses to some and not to other is a punishment for those you decided not to reward.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Viewed from that lens, the 10 VP is actually the easiest VP to get in a game, since your opponent has ABSOLUTELY NO SAY in whether you get it or not.

It's on you if you don't get those VP - you can't even claim to have been outplayed.


Wow, after all these arguments why people haven't finished their painting, what utterly donkey-cave thing to say.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Dysartes wrote:
 Castozor wrote:
a_typical_hero wrote:
There is a real psychological difference wether something is taken away from you or you don't get to have something in the first place.

You don't count your victory points starting at 100 and then calculate backwards how much you "lost" by not scoring them, do you?

You start at 0 and add everything you earn during the game.

Well actually I do both, I count how much I got and compare it to what I could have gotten under ideal circumstances. So yes it would feel like these points were taken away from me if we were to actually play with that dumb rule here.

If you choose to ignore the tertiary objective, then not earning the bonus is on you.


"Chose to ignore". Are you sure that you aren't the politician here? Go ahead, go back through all of the thread and count the people who aren't troll accounts with less than 200 posts who said that they are ignoring painting.

You are equating having a few unpainted/unfinished units to people not wanting to paint, never painting or fielding armies without a single painted model and thus completely disqualifying yourself.


I will assume the scenario you posted is factual. You have an upcoming Crusade game and know that there is a painting score as a part of the game. The Crusade players involved all agreed in advance that it would be enforce. And you willingly brought an unpainted model and thus, not eligible to receive those 10 points. I truly do not understand the issue. Nobody even thought of this prior to starting the Crusade games? Did you discuss this with your opponent before and/or after the game how this significantly alters the outcome of a Crusade game? Were you the one person who did not want to play with a painting standard and got outvoted by the other players?

Again, this is baffling to me. This 10 point paint score issue has come up 0 times in my experience. I've played in tourneys in three different states this past year: paint standards are posted in advance. I've played in a weekly league and play at three different stores in casual settings. I have played 9th edition 40K nearly every week since its release and I'm yet to see a single person claim 10 points for painted while denying 10 points to their opponent for unpainted outside of a tourney setting.

This really reads like fake outrage or some really poor gaming environments. I've experienced unfun environments, moved on and found more enjoyable groups to game with. If this is not an option, I truly don't understand spending so much time in a hobby that one derives so much aggravation from.









Whoah....I have played 40K for over 30 years.  
   
Made in us
Veteran Knight Baron in a Crusader





Well, today I've learned that I'm losing millions of dollars all the time! Curse the states who run lotteries, where do they get off taking millions of dollars from me and giving it to some "winner"? I've earned it fair and square, and it's a punishment to not give it to me. My only crimes were not buying any lotto tickets :(

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/07/01 12:44:21


 
   
Made in gb
Killer Klaivex




The dark behind the eyes.

"lol, what's the matter, moron? You knew the rules when you took that unpainted model to our game. Now this is what you get for wanting to actually use the model you bought and assembled. See, my army is completely painted and thus vastly more worthy than yours. Observe how much better my painted models look..."


 the_scotsman wrote:
Yeah, when i read the small novel that is the Death Guard unit options and think about resolving the attacks from a melee-oriented min size death guard squad, the thing that springs to mind is "Accessible!"

 Argive wrote:
GW seems to have a crystal ball and just pulls hairbrained ideas out of their backside for the most part.


 Andilus Greatsword wrote:

"Prepare to open fire at that towering Wraithknight!"
"ARE YOU DAFT MAN!?! YOU MIGHT HIT THE MEN WHO COME UP TO ITS ANKLES!!!"


Akiasura wrote:
I hate to sound like a serial killer, but I'll be reaching for my friend occam's razor yet again.


 insaniak wrote:

You're not. If you're worried about your opponent using 'fake' rules, you're having fun the wrong way. This hobby isn't about rules. It's about buying Citadel miniatures.

Please report to your nearest GW store for attitude readjustment. Take your wallet.
 
   
Made in us
Terminator with Assault Cannon




San Jose, CA

1% less ugly then bare plastic....
   
Made in us
Exalted Beastlord




I'd rather see bare plastic than badly painted. Especially that badly painted.

Efficiency is the highest virtue. 
   
Made in gb
Lit By the Flames of Prospero






Not sure how that's constructive to the conversation though, just seems like you're being mean about what is likely someone's first painted miniature. I think it's fair to say that most people have plenty of access to painting tutorials through the Internet or even in a GW store and considering that Battle Ready is the standard that's looked for (3 colours and "based") it really ain't much of an ask. There's nothing in the rules that says the whole army must be either Battle Ready or Parade Ready so if you have half-painted units that have the base layers and some dirt but no wash, I very much doubt someone is going to string you up for it.
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




Annandale, VA

 vipoid wrote:
"lol, what's the matter, moron? You knew the rules when you took that unpainted model to our game. Now this is what you get for wanting to actually use the model you bought and assembled. See, my army is completely painted and thus vastly more worthy than yours. Observe how much better my painted models look..."



I'd absolutely rather play against an army painted like that than a tide of grey plastic. It has character. It's clearly representing a certain subfaction. It's easier to recognize elements like what weapon it's armed with than if it were unpainted. They put actual effort into it, beyond their skill to effectively execute, and that alone deserves respect.

Whining about an army like that getting 10VP deserves no respect.

   
Made in ca
Legendary Master of the Chapter





 vipoid wrote:
"lol, what's the matter, moron? You knew the rules when you took that unpainted model to our game. Now this is what you get for wanting to actually use the model you bought and assembled. See, my army is completely painted and thus vastly more worthy than yours. Observe how much better my painted models look..."



TBH if that was the best you can do I'd appreciate that you made the effort.

Opinions are not facts please don't confuse the two 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





 vipoid wrote:
"lol, what's the matter, moron? You knew the rules when you took that unpainted model to our game. Now this is what you get for wanting to actually use the model you bought and assembled. See, my army is completely painted and thus vastly more worthy than yours. Observe how much better my painted models look..."




Can anyone who is against this player code actually make an argument that doesn't involve fake worst case scenarios that have never happened and in all likelihood never will?
   
Made in us
Insect-Infested Nurgle Chaos Lord





In My Lab

Quasistellar wrote:
 vipoid wrote:
"lol, what's the matter, moron? You knew the rules when you took that unpainted model to our game. Now this is what you get for wanting to actually use the model you bought and assembled. See, my army is completely painted and thus vastly more worthy than yours. Observe how much better my painted models look..."




Can anyone who is against this player code actually make an argument that doesn't involve fake worst case scenarios that have never happened and in all likelihood never will?
Sure. Look at this thread-you've got people who insist that the game has to be enjoyed the way they enjoy it, and if you have fun differently, you're doing it wrong.

I don't enjoy painting. I've tried my hand at it numerous times, and it's just not something I enjoy. I fully understand that some people are in the game for the spectacle of it, and an unpainted army diminishes that-if someone turned down a game because my army lacks paint, that'd be fine. They're not required to spend a few hours in an experience that they wouldn't enjoy. But apparently, I'm not to be offered the same courtesy because I'm doing it wrong.

Clocks for the clockmaker! Cogs for the cog throne! 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





 JNAProductions wrote:
Quasistellar wrote:
 vipoid wrote:
"lol, what's the matter, moron? You knew the rules when you took that unpainted model to our game. Now this is what you get for wanting to actually use the model you bought and assembled. See, my army is completely painted and thus vastly more worthy than yours. Observe how much better my painted models look..."




Can anyone who is against this player code actually make an argument that doesn't involve fake worst case scenarios that have never happened and in all likelihood never will?
Sure. Look at this thread-you've got people who insist that the game has to be enjoyed the way they enjoy it, and if you have fun differently, you're doing it wrong.

I don't enjoy painting. I've tried my hand at it numerous times, and it's just not something I enjoy. I fully understand that some people are in the game for the spectacle of it, and an unpainted army diminishes that-if someone turned down a game because my army lacks paint, that'd be fine. They're not required to spend a few hours in an experience that they wouldn't enjoy. But apparently, I'm not to be offered the same courtesy because I'm doing it wrong.


What courtesy are you referring to here -- I'm not following.
   
Made in us
Insect-Infested Nurgle Chaos Lord





In My Lab

People accepting that others have different tastes.

In this and other threads, there’s a strong implication, if not outright statement, that I’m doing it wrong.

Clocks for the clockmaker! Cogs for the cog throne! 
   
 
Forum Index » 40K General Discussion
Go to: