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.

 JohnnyHell wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
GW: Warhammer is for Everyone!
Also GW: Unless you're disabled, then you can sod right off and even if you do try you'll have a disadvantage (was going to make a golfing joke here but decided against it).

If you play a disabled opponent you can make reasonable adjustments if you’re a decent human, including such things as waiving the painted requirement and granting them the VPs. Damn, solved it without needing any salt, would you look at that.

Many disabilities are invisible. Having to announce it Sucks.
Also, then you have the "oh poor disabled person, here let me bend the rules for you, I'm being so nice." Thing.

I'm behind this rule. its so minor that it doesn't really even really impact most games. Most games of 40k I see are never that close where this will matter, they are usually severe beat downs.

I will never use this rule and I will never play with anyone who attempts to enforce it. Luckily all my local tournaments do not enforce paint because we understand that the only thing that matters in a game is the game itself. Painting has no sway over a game and shouldn't have sway over any points you gain.

I see nothing wrong with opting not to use it as a local group.

It confounds me how you'd choose to engage with this particular range and accompanying game if you aren't invested in the lore and painting side of things. As nothing but a set of rules it's one of the weaker options imo.

 Blndmage wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
GW: Warhammer is for Everyone!
Also GW: Unless you're disabled, then you can sod right off and even if you do try you'll have a disadvantage (was going to make a golfing joke here but decided against it).

If you play a disabled opponent you can make reasonable adjustments if you’re a decent human, including such things as waiving the painted requirement and granting them the VPs. Damn, solved it without needing any salt, would you look at that.

Many disabilities are invisible. Having to announce it Sucks.
Also, then you have the "oh poor disabled person, here let me bend the rules for you, I'm being so nice." Thing.

Exactly. I'm a broken record at this point but I'll say it again: if you have to houserule away something, there's an issue with the rule being implemented to begin with.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Exactly. I'm a broken record at this point but I'll say it again: if you have to houserule away something, there's an issue with the rule being implemented to begin with.

That is absurd though. You cannot write a rule, law or recommendation in such a way that there could never potentially be a situation which required making an exception. Now one could argue that a severe visual impairment is a common enough condition that it should be taken into account, but as a maxim your statement is obviously nonsensical.

 Eldarain wrote:
I see nothing wrong with opting not to use it as a local group.

It confounds me how you'd choose to engage with this particular range and accompanying game if you aren't invested in the lore and painting side of things. As nothing but a set of rules it's one of the weaker options imo.

Its the most popular table top war game?

Also, being invested in the lore doesn't equate to enjoying to paint or incentivize you to make your models look like those you have read about. You can, certainly. But this rule just incentivizes paint, not making a narrative around said paint.


Not a fan, and if my community decides as a whole to enforce it in our meta, I'm probably just going to not play as often as I used to. I'll focus on other games that don't require painting to score points or have fun the way the company dictates. I'll still paint my models, because I love painting Tyranids, but I'm not doing it on behalf of the rules.
I also fail to see how this really addresses people who didn't start painting to get everything done with the advent of guides and contrast paints. They're a great tool, and many people used them to speed their painting up.... but not everyone is going to be suddenly better/faster at painting. It's whatever though.

 Blndmage wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
GW: Warhammer is for Everyone!
Also GW: Unless you're disabled, then you can sod right off and even if you do try you'll have a disadvantage (was going to make a golfing joke here but decided against it).

If you play a disabled opponent you can make reasonable adjustments if you’re a decent human, including such things as waiving the painted requirement and granting them the VPs. Damn, solved it without needing any salt, would you look at that.

Many disabilities are invisible. Having to announce it Sucks.
Also, then you have the "oh poor disabled person, here let me bend the rules for you, I'm being so nice." Thing.

Financial hardship is also invisible, and keeping up with a rapidly evolving local meta, especially if you're just starting out, can be tough. But I've never seen a problem with people softening their lists or reducing the number of points or even arranging team games to meet the person who is less well off. At least in my meta, I've seen things things worked out in a positive fashion numerous times.

 Blndmage wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
GW: Warhammer is for Everyone!
Also GW: Unless you're disabled, then you can sod right off and even if you do try you'll have a disadvantage (was going to make a golfing joke here but decided against it).

If you play a disabled opponent you can make reasonable adjustments if you’re a decent human, including such things as waiving the painted requirement and granting them the VPs. Damn, solved it without needing any salt, would you look at that.

Many disabilities are invisible. Having to announce it Sucks.
Also, then you have the "oh poor disabled person, here let me bend the rules for you, I'm being so nice." Thing.

Empathy is different to pity. Try using empathy.

Making helpful or needed accommodations after a request is not bending the rules to be nice. It’s being a decent person. It’s a game of toy soldiers not anything crucial. You won’t die or have to leave town if you lose a game of Warhammer.

Many disabilities are invisible and yes, feeling you have to announce them sucks. If someone has to tell you about a disability to get through a game they may decide they need to, so that accommodations can be made and the game can be fun for both players. Once informed and an accommodation is requested, well, if you continue to say “bUt ThE rUlEs!” and pretend that’s a get-out for having to be a decent human then YATA, and the problem is not the Rules. Seriously, if you gleefully take +10VP vs someone who’s told you they literally can’t paint their army for some reason then... well, just don’t be that guy. Be better than that.

It’s fundamentally no different to agreeing how terrain plays today or what the points limit is. Social contract, people. Game should be fun for both players. That this is an alien concept in so many threads is alarming. Not every game is cutthroat 2K Matched Play Tourney Rules Fun Forbidden.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Crimson wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Exactly. I'm a broken record at this point but I'll say it again: if you have to houserule away something, there's an issue with the rule being implemented to begin with.

That is absurd though. You cannot write a rule, law or recommendation in such a way that there could never potentially be a situation which required making an exception. Now one could argue that a severe visual impairment is a common enough condition that it should be taken into account, but as a maxim your statement is obviously nonsensical.

Hear, hear.

 JohnnyHell wrote:

You won’t die or have to leave town if you lose a game of Warhammer.
.

Speak for yourself.

AdmiralHalsey wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:

You won’t die or have to leave town if you lose a game of Warhammer.
.

Speak for yourself.

Woah. Tough meta, man.

I find that in games between people with real miniatures on a real tabletop there is a pre-game dialogue about the terms of the battle. Tourneys are easy because it’s done for us by the tourney pack and no need for negotiation. Pre-arranged games allow for a discussion before coming to the table. Pick up games are, perhaps the hardest. In any case, a discussion about the nature of the game and victory conditions should prevent most hurt feelings at the end of the game from this rule.

Pick up game against an enthusiastic new player with an unpainted army? Gladly, and we won’t even have VPs. Pick up game against someone preparing for a tourney? Gladly use the +10 VP rule. Pick up game against a veteran player with an unpainted army? Before the game is the time to talk about VPs.

It’s not +10 VP to the best painted. It’s 10 VP available to both players.

It’s a hot button here on Dakka, but every thread about painting vs not-painting seems to get emotional. Perhaps the reality in the FLGS will be much less exciting. Some thought provoking perspectives in this thread, though, and there are some thing so to reflect on a simple members of the gaming community.

I never paint my armies because I neither want to paint nor have the money to have someone else do it. If I’m playing casually and someone tries to pulls this on me I will not be happy. Painting shouldn’t be required

 Crimson wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Exactly. I'm a broken record at this point but I'll say it again: if you have to houserule away something, there's an issue with the rule being implemented to begin with.

That is absurd though. You cannot write a rule, law or recommendation in such a way that there could never potentially be a situation which required making an exception. Now one could argue that a severe visual impairment is a common enough condition that it should be taken into account, but as a maxim your statement is obviously nonsensical.

Those laws have the exceptions written in place though. It's illegal kill people still, but if they break into your home you have the right to defend yourself as necessary in almost all the states, or have similar laws in place. If that's not put in stone, or something similar, those people still end up being charged as the jury, regardless of any sympathy or empathy, known they had broken the law.

Wheres the written expedition for the new rule?

DeathKorp_Rider wrote:
I never paint my armies because I neither want to paint nor have the money to have someone else do it. If I’m playing casually and someone tries to pulls this on me I will not be happy. Painting shouldn’t be required

Then what is required? Where is the line? What if I hate assembling? Mold lines? WYSIWYG? Why even have the proper models, or even models at all? Coke cans fine? What about codex? I don't like my rules this edition, can we just ignore them? At least GW enforced a line for once.

It's amazing how we've gone from +10VP for having a fully painted army to shooting home intruders dead. Have to love the internet and it's ridiculous hyperbolic analogies.

Who wants to Godwin it?

Fine! I will! WAAC players are Hilter!

Purifying Tempest wrote:

DeathKorp_Rider wrote:
I never paint my armies because I neither want to paint nor have the money to have someone else do it. If I’m playing casually and someone tries to pulls this on me I will not be happy. Painting shouldn’t be required

Then what is required? Where is the line? What if I hate assembling? Mold lines? WYSIWYG? Why even have the proper models, or even models at all? Coke cans fine? What about codex? I don't like my rules this edition, can we just ignore them? At least GW enforced a line for once.

That’s a BS comparison and you know it.

DeathKorp_Rider wrote:

Purifying Tempest wrote:

DeathKorp_Rider wrote:
I never paint my armies because I neither want to paint nor have the money to have someone else do it. If I’m playing casually and someone tries to pulls this on me I will not be happy. Painting shouldn’t be required

Then what is required? Where is the line? What if I hate assembling? Mold lines? WYSIWYG? Why even have the proper models, or even models at all? Coke cans fine? What about codex? I don't like my rules this edition, can we just ignore them? At least GW enforced a line for once.

That’s a BS comparison and you know it.

It's not. If you don't care about the visuals then it is idiotic to waste money on these expensive models in the first place. Just use some appropriately sized tokens.

Purifying Tempest wrote:

DeathKorp_Rider wrote:
I never paint my armies because I neither want to paint nor have the money to have someone else do it. If I’m playing casually and someone tries to pulls this on me I will not be happy. Painting shouldn’t be required

Then what is required? Where is the line? What if I hate assembling? Mold lines? WYSIWYG? Why even have the proper models, or even models at all? Coke cans fine? What about codex? I don't like my rules this edition, can we just ignore them? At least GW enforced a line for once.

The line is probably wherever you want it.
How far you go decides whether you're still playing 40k or not. Mold lines technically have no bearing on assembling a model. WYSIWYG is not codified in the rules. Proper models, what does that mean? No models can mean bases I suppose, coke cans for 60mm bases. Codex? Do you have one or are you using a homebrew? I'm sure people wouldn't mind that sometimes. But not even using your factions rule? Might be straying out of 40k there. Don't like the rules this edition? You could play a different edition, or not play 40k.

 Crimson wrote:
It's not. If you don't care about the visuals then it is idiotic to waste money on these expensive models in the first place. Just use some appropriately sized tokens.

Aren't models just tokens already? What if I got some really cheap models that were comparable? I dont think calling spending money on something you like idiotic, reasonable. What if you spent MORE on the models you have, but they're just not painted? Is that more idiotic because they like that model more than the comparable one?

It just seems like a weird angle to criticize someone from.

 Crimson wrote:

DeathKorp_Rider wrote:

Purifying Tempest wrote:

DeathKorp_Rider wrote:
I never paint my armies because I neither want to paint nor have the money to have someone else do it. If I’m playing casually and someone tries to pulls this on me I will not be happy. Painting shouldn’t be required

Then what is required? Where is the line? What if I hate assembling? Mold lines? WYSIWYG? Why even have the proper models, or even models at all? Coke cans fine? What about codex? I don't like my rules this edition, can we just ignore them? At least GW enforced a line for once.

That’s a BS comparison and you know it.

It's not. If you don't care about the visuals then it is idiotic to waste money on these expensive models in the first place. Just use some appropriately sized tokens.

Who says I don’t care about visuals?

DeathKorp_Rider wrote:
I never paint my armies because I neither want to paint nor have the money to have someone else do it. If I’m playing casually and someone tries to pulls this on me I will not be happy. Painting shouldn’t be required

There is always a flip. Here is the other perspective. I have spent hundreds of hours to paint a army and since it is implied in the hobby that painting is the desired norm (yes, I know people are going to argue this) I expect at least a cursory effort from the person im playing against. Looking at grey plastic just zaps so much of the fun of the game from me. Its not hard to at least put a base coat on and maybe a few colored shoulders or heads.

BUT. I will not not shame you for not painting. But pick up games are a negotiation of expectations if you do not know the person. Will I use this rule? Probably not. As I am likely to turn down a game against a unpainted army. Its very much in my right to do so as it is in YOUR right not to paint. Neither of us has primacy. But we both have expectations and if those do not match up there are many other people to play whom expectations do meet, for both of us. The negotiation will start and end with a good will handshake (before covid) and no hard feelings. Life is to short to spend your time playing in a game where you are not happy.

And since most tournaments in my area have painting reqs or award painting points such as the new rule this is not a issue I run into.

Some people cant paint for medical reasons. I have yet to meet anyone thus inflicted but I am very sure they exist. On the other hand I know two fellows who habitually do not paint at my store and there reasons are not as virtuous. One wont paint his Space Marine army because he doesn't want to commit to a chapter rule. The other wont paint for same reason but plays necrons. Either way, I never play them. BUT if a new player who was excited to start while he is in the stages of painting id drop my preference. Id also play against a person who doesn't paint due to a legitimate disability. Its all a negotiation.

 Crimson wrote:

DeathKorp_Rider wrote:

Purifying Tempest wrote:

DeathKorp_Rider wrote:
I never paint my armies because I neither want to paint nor have the money to have someone else do it. If I’m playing casually and someone tries to pulls this on me I will not be happy. Painting shouldn’t be required

Then what is required? Where is the line? What if I hate assembling? Mold lines? WYSIWYG? Why even have the proper models, or even models at all? Coke cans fine? What about codex? I don't like my rules this edition, can we just ignore them? At least GW enforced a line for once.

That’s a BS comparison and you know it.

It's not. If you don't care about the visuals then it is idiotic to waste money on these expensive models in the first place. Just use some appropriately sized tokens.

Remember that one famous meme of the soldiers playing the game with appropriately sized rocks? As long as LoS works for them I don't see the issue. It's too expensive to waste money on stuff that doesn't work in the game.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Blndmage wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
GW: Warhammer is for Everyone!
Also GW: Unless you're disabled, then you can sod right off and even if you do try you'll have a disadvantage (was going to make a golfing joke here but decided against it).

If you play a disabled opponent you can make reasonable adjustments if you’re a decent human, including such things as waiving the painted requirement and granting them the VPs. Damn, solved it without needing any salt, would you look at that.

Many disabilities are invisible. Having to announce it Sucks.
Also, then you have the "oh poor disabled person, here let me bend the rules for you, I'm being so nice." Thing.

Financial hardship is also invisible, and keeping up with a rapidly evolving local meta, especially if you're just starting out, can be tough. But I've never seen a problem with people softening their lists or reducing the number of points or even arranging team games to meet the person who is less well off. At least in my meta, I've seen things things worked out in a positive fashion numerous times.

You know what helps stop that need for keeping up with the Joneses? Better written rules! If that were the case, you wouldn't need to try and gain an advantage via saying someone's bases aren't enough effort and deny them 10 points!

My point is that the line previously was arbitrary. Especially when it came to painting. Nothing was ever defined, but there was enough social pressure to use models that were assembled, and generally looked like what they were trying to represent (for third party or conversions).

The only difference between then and now is GW established a standard. They're not hinting, implying, or even saying that's the way it is supposed to be. They are ruling that it is the standard. If you want those points, if you need them, you know what the standard is now.

There's no more loose interpretations. There is a finite way to measure. I like clarity.

Again what makes this a problem is it's a codified rule. Talk about it before a game and a likely answer is "I want to play by the rules as outlined in the rule book" not well I'll ignore this line because you asked nicely and you have a unit still WIP.

Re-opening, please keep it civil.

I honestly think it should be calm at this point. First, holidays for some, second I doubt anything new will be said that will shift any views one way or the other. It's more an open discussion to change minds or at least have people think on it some. For that, I think it's been a fine topic.

We just need to try and not attack each other over it as that is one of the worst parts about the spirit of this rule the divisions it can incite no matter how tongue in cheek I feel it was supposed to be in the designers eyes. Another case of not understanding how the community at large plays or thinks.

I will say this though, if the rule means they'll take away forcing to have painted armies at big tournaments then I understand it being in the book. I honestly doubt they will take away the need for all painted armies though which again makes the rule just feel bad and contrary to rule number 1. As players could always just deny games against un painted armies if it offended them in the first place.

Purifying Tempest wrote:

DeathKorp_Rider wrote:
I never paint my armies because I neither want to paint nor have the money to have someone else do it. If I’m playing casually and someone tries to pulls this on me I will not be happy. Painting shouldn’t be required

Then what is required? Where is the line? What if I hate assembling?

The minimum on our tables is assembled models. Paint optional.

Purifying Tempest wrote:
Mold lines?

That's your problem.

Purifying Tempest wrote:
WYSIWYG?

Depends. Are you intending me to apply damage from the weapons you've paid the pts for? If so I'd better be seeing them modeled on your stuff. Otherwise I'm taking the min from whatever you did arm them with (assuming the weapon chosen was a valid option).

Purifying Tempest wrote:
I don't like my rules this edition, can we just ignore them?

Sure. Tell me wich edition you'd like. I've got 7, soon to be 8 other editions on my shelf. We'll just play that edition.

Deleted.

Just lock the thread already mods.. Nothing good will come off this.

 Grimtuff wrote:


You don’t want to paint? There’s plenty of board, computer and prepainted games out there for ya! GW indicated quite some time ago that that is the way they want the wind to blow (in the current SM codex and in the WHW tournament pack) so this should not be a surprise.

You get this rule punishes the player with 99 models painted to display level on the battlefield and 1 just primed, as much as it does to an entire army of grey plastic right?