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.

 Jidmah wrote:

 Grimtuff wrote:
Playing RAI is quite literally not binary. The clue is in the final letter of the initialism...

RAI is absolutely binary as well. If I bring 250 fully painted models to the table and one model that is not painted because life got in the way of finishing the unit, I can now lose the game to a marine player who slapped a can of black contrast and armageddon dust on his 40 model strong iron hands army. This is 100% the rule as intended.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 jhnbrg wrote:
If thats the reason then losing out on a few VP should not feel unreasonable. Its a part of the hobby the same as now looking for combos and netlisting. I dont enjoy listbuilding and trawling multiple books and update, if this costs me VP so be it.

It's not just a few VP. It's 10% of the VP you can score. The equivalent of destroying five dreadnoughts or daemon princes, three LRBT or a knight. You need to hold an objective marker for two turns to score 10 VP.

Unless you are utterly destroying your opponent, these 10 VP will be game-deciding, not a "fun bonus" like you try to misrepresent it.

It's very much akin to forbidding painters from painting every tenth miniature unless they have won a game of matched play first.

If anything, this rule is a reason for me to stop painting. I need to go buy and build to competitive lists to crush my opponents instead of playing fun stuff to offset this major disadvantage now if I want to have any chance of winning.

I think you are overeacting a bit, so instead of going out to buy and assamble a completely new army just paint that last modelI

 Grimtuff wrote:
No, that is your interpretation of what the rule is intended to be. Others will think differently, so not binary in the slightest.

So you are claiming that "If every model in a player's army was painted"(exact wording from the book) actually intends to say "painting some models is fine"?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 jhnbrg wrote:
I think you are overeacting a bit, so instead of going out to buy and assamble a completely new army just paint that last modelI

According to the rule, I have to go back to every model I've ever painted and re-base it, as well as finish all the models that are not fully painted yet - I have quite a few orks that just have green skin and leadbelcher weapons to fulfill three paint requirements. I don't have the time to do that - at best I get 2-3 hours of painting a week, Thrakka himself took me five weeks to complete. Go figure.
It's much realistic for me to score 10 VP by using 12 grey plastic smasha guns.

 Jidmah wrote:

 jhnbrg wrote:
Yes? Maybe he only rolled 1s the entire game... I think its a bit of a silly rule but i am positive towards it because it is a small push in the right direction.

Its only 10% of the potential total VP, a bad dice roll at the wrong time will cost you a lot more VPs. Having a painted army is the only factor that you alone can influence.

To me the visual impact of a game is important, the rules change (and faster than ever before) but painted models stay painted.

You keep dodging my question. Do you agree that people should not be allowed to paint 10% of their army unless they have successfully won a game? According to you and Grimtuff, people should not be allowed to fully enjoy one part of the hobby unless they participate in all parts of it.

Just saw this.

Thats absolutely a stupid argument. As long as your opponent is the same type of competetive player noone is losing any painting points. If the only way to enjoy 40k is by winning i would never play another game. Is that good enough for you?

 jhnbrg wrote:



Yes? Maybe he only rolled 1s the entire game... I think its a bit of a silly rule but i am positive towards it because it is a small push in the right direction.

Its only 10% of the potential total VP, a bad dice roll at the wrong time will cost you a lot more VPs. Having a painted army is the only factor that you alone can influence.

To me the visual impact of a game is important, the rules change (and faster than ever before) but painted models stay painted.

10% of the potential VP sounds like a lot, maybe not for you though.

The visual impact is very important, I agree, but painted doesn't mean good looking. Painted like gak is definitely worse than grey plastic.

The problem with a rule like this is that it's impossible to define the minimum standard that triggers that +10VP. In a game among friends it doesn't matter at all, as some agreement would certainly be reached, but in a pick up game it could be a problem. "Battle Ready" could easily mean one color+wash, and I can argue that a model painted like that isn't a painted model.

 Jidmah wrote:

 Grimtuff wrote:
No, that is your interpretation of what the rule is intended to be. Others will think differently, so not binary in the slightest.

So you are claiming that "If every model in a player's army was painted"(exact wording from the book) actually intends to say "painting some models is fine"?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 jhnbrg wrote:
I think you are overeacting a bit, so instead of going out to buy and assamble a completely new army just paint that last modelI

According to the rule, I have to go back to every model I've ever painted and re-base it, as well as finish all the models that are not fully painted yet. I don't have the time to do that - at best I get 2-3 hours of painting a week.
It's much easier to score 10 VP by using 10 grey plastic smasha guns.

You type faster than i do lol.

If thats how you enjoy 40k just do it.

 Jidmah wrote:

 Grimtuff wrote:
No, that is your interpretation of what the rule is intended to be. Others will think differently, so not binary in the slightest.

So you are claiming that "If every model in a player's army was painted"(exact wording from the book) actually intends to say "painting some models is fine"?

Your focussing on the specific when I am referring to the general...

If RAI were are binary as you claim then the YMDC forum would not need to exist and the endlessly cyclical threads inside prove the very opposite of what you are harping on about. YOU are going for a reducto ad adsurdism argument when there are clear examples of your own models being fully painted (a black base is an artistic choice, or are we saying literally every single studio model painted by Rackham is unpainted now?) and saying you can only use GW approved basing methods. Bull gak. Guess what? My minis are based with bird sand and static grass- are we about to claim that the are unpainted because GW now sell neither of those things and want you to base your minis with a frankly terrible-looking paint posing as a basing material? No. Don't be so absurd.

The point is I don't.

This 10 VP rule actively takes away my enjoyment from the game.

 Jidmah wrote:
The point is I don't.

This 10 VP rule actively takes away my enjoyment from the game.

Well unpainted models take away mine. Sounds like I'll be 10pts up though for finding time to do what is required of me in this hobby.

 Grimtuff wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:

 Grimtuff wrote:
No, that is your interpretation of what the rule is intended to be. Others will think differently, so not binary in the slightest.

So you are claiming that "If every model in a player's army was painted"(exact wording from the book) actually intends to say "painting some models is fine"?

Your focussing on the specific when I am referring to the general...

If RAI were are binary as you claim then the YMDC forum would not need to exist and the endlessly cyclical threads inside prove the very opposite of what you are harping on about. YOU are going for a reducto ad adsurdism argument when there are clear examples of your own models being fully painted (a black base is an artistic choice, or are we saying literally every single studio model painted by Rackham is unpainted now?) and saying you can only use GW approved basing methods. Bull gak. Guess what? My minis are based with bird sand and static grass- are we about to claim that the are unpainted because GW now sell neither of those things and want you to base your minis with a frankly terrible-looking paint posing as a basing material? No. Don't be so absurd.

Rules as intended is not the same as making up completely different things than the rule says. Battle ready is clearly defined by GW here: https://www.warhammer-community.com/2019/05/21/introducing-battle-readygw-homepage-post-1fw-homepage-post-1/

Which means you adhere to that standard or you create a house rule to change it. But the rules clearly say that all of your models must be fully painted and based (even if you consider black bases to be based to take out the hyperbole) or you are going to be fighting the game at a massive disadvantage.

 Blackie wrote:

 jhnbrg wrote:



Yes? Maybe he only rolled 1s the entire game... I think its a bit of a silly rule but i am positive towards it because it is a small push in the right direction.

Its only 10% of the potential total VP, a bad dice roll at the wrong time will cost you a lot more VPs. Having a painted army is the only factor that you alone can influence.

To me the visual impact of a game is important, the rules change (and faster than ever before) but painted models stay painted.

10% of the potential VP sounds like a lot, maybe not for you though.

The visual impact is very important, I agree, but painted doesn't mean good looking. Painted like gak is definitely worse than grey plastic.

The problem with a rule like this is that it's impossible to define the minimum standard that triggers that +10VP. In a game among friends it doesn't matter at all, as some agreement would certainly be reached, but in a pick up game it could be a problem. "Battle Ready" could easily mean one color+wash, and I can argue that a model painted like that isn't a painted model.

There is so much hyperbole in this thread, i see the rule as a hint that painting your models is part of the hobby like assambling them and learning the rules. I hope it will lead to more people taking up a brush and in time more well painted armies around.

I have painted entire armies for free to help others but that was before kids and all other adult obligations.

I am slowly on my phone so i will leave this thread until i have my computer again.

ERJAK wrote:
Battle ready standard is already defined, it's paint+wash. That's why blending, NMM, OSL, etc causes you to lose the 10 points.

Actually, this isn't correct. According to this article (which is the only source I've seen anyone use as the definition of "Battle Ready"):

Warhammer Community article wrote:
What is Battle Ready?
If a model is Battle Ready, it means it’s ready to game with. Battle Ready models have their main areas coloured and an <sic> simple finish on their bases.

It then goes on to show how you can achieve Battle Ready status using a couple of different methods, including "base plus wash" and "one layer of contrast".

Nowhere in this description does it indicate that blending or any of the other techniques would cause you to lose Battle Ready status - models painted using those techniques do still have "their main areas coloured", after all.

Similarly, I could reasonably argue that if someone prefers black bases and has gone back on their models to ensure the bases are painted in a clean, solid black, rather than being bare plastic or having splotches of other colours included... that's "a simple finish" and therefore would not disqualify something from being battle ready.

Taking the description on the website literally, pretty much the only time a model wouldn't qualify as battle ready is if the entire thing is either bare plastic or single-colour sprayed. Even spraying a model white and then painting the base black would qualify as having the "main areas coloured" and "a simple finish on the base", strictly speaking. And yet I think (almost) everyone would agree that doesn't meet the intent of Battle Ready, even if it does meet the strict definition.

That is the main reason this is a bad rule IMO - it opens the game up to arguments about whether something is Battle Ready or not. The exclusion issue and the fact it legitimises gatekeeping are also definitely issues, but for me the fact it's reliant on a somewhat arbitrary and open-to-interpretation definition is the worst part of making this a hard and fast rule - while I like the intent behind the rule, I think the implementation was badly thought out.

21 pages in and I'm still unclear on why this rule was a thing that needed to exist.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Aelyn wrote:

Similarly, I would argue that if someone prefers black bases and has gone back on their models to ensure the bases are painted in a clean, solid black, rather than being bare plastic or having splotches of other colours included... that's "a simple finish" and therefore would not disqualify something from being battle ready.

Sorry, are you seriously proposing that a person should examine every one of his opponent's bases to check whether they've actually been painted black or whether they've just been left the default black they come as?

How does this make sense? How does it even make a difference? if a person prefers black bases, then why on earth should it matter whether they've painted them black or simply avoided painting them altogether (either being very careful when painting the model or else not attaching the bases until the model is finished)?

My biggest issue is that this rule punishes you for wanting to use something before it's fully painted. Say you actually have a fully painted army but now you buy some new shiny. Until you fully paint that you're playing 10% VP down. There's literally zero reason why you would take anything now that isn't painted, whether you're one of those people who never paint anything or you just bought an addition the day before.

That's a bigger problem. It's encouraging not playing without all models painted. So you will buy something and then not play until it's painted to avoid losing the VP.

Again, the fact you can house rule it away doesn't change that it's a part of the game to only field painted models now or take a possibly significant penalty. And that's a problem.

Wayniac wrote:
My biggest issue is that this rule punishes you for wanting to use something before it's fully painted. Say you actually have a fully painted army but now you buy some new shiny. Until you fully paint that you're playing 10% VP down. There's literally zero reason why you would take anything now that isn't painted, whether you're one of those people who never paint anything or you just bought an addition the day before.

That's a bigger problem. It's encouraging not playing without all models painted. So you will buy something and then not play until it's painted to avoid losing the VP.

Again, the fact you can house rule it away doesn't change that it's a part of the game to only field painted models now or take a possibly significant penalty. And that's a problem.

I guarantee any gaming group worth their salt will waive that rule for that specific instance. C'mon guys- we know exactly what kind of gamer this rule is meant to penalise and it is not that one.

Agree, it also punishes you for wanting to paint your models to a higher standard than battle ready because it will take you longer.

Aelyn wrote:

That is the main reason this is a bad rule IMO - it opens the game up to arguments about whether something is Battle Ready or not. The exclusion issue and the fact it legitimises gatekeeping are also definitely issues, but for me the fact it's reliant on a somewhat arbitrary and open-to-interpretation definition is the worst part of making this a hard and fast rule - while I like the intent behind the rule, I think the implementation was badly thought out.

Tournaments have managed to adjudicate painted status of armies forever. Our local leagues have always had a similar rule, and the paintedness is agreed upon by the players and not by any independent TO. I have never heard this causing any sort of disagreement.

 Grimtuff wrote:
I guarantee any gaming group worth their salt will waive that rule for that specific instance. C'mon guys- we know exactly what kind of gamer this rule is meant to penalise and it is not that one.

And yet you refuse to acknowledge the the massive amount of collateral damage this terribly written rule causes.
As it stands, a single model not being battle ready is the same as fielding a half-assembled grey army that hasn't even been near paint and rewards your opponent with the same amount of VP as destroying a quarter of your army.

My initial reaction to this was - fantastic. It actively incentivises the painting of armies. It is a simple truth that in most cases a fully painted army looks better than a proportionally-painted army even if it is fully painted to a lower standard. The cohesiveness helps immerse you in the experience. It also helps with identification of units at a glance (granted, this does not apply for all armies).

However, the more I thought the less I liked it. It punishes people who are unable to paint. I don't care about people not having time or interest in painting being penalised. But people who are physically unable due to disability. All the ways they can react to this require extra expense or potentially disclosure of disability. Neither of which are appropriate. Good user design should aim to be accessible for all (within reason) but this creates an additional barrier here, which I don't like.

In truth, I don't think it is a big issue at the table. People will align their expectations as you should do before any game. This is an internet argument rule that will - in most cases - disintegrate upon contact with humans.

 Jidmah wrote:
Agree, it also punishes you for wanting to paint your models to a higher standard than battle ready because it will take you longer.

If you paint model in stages you reach battle ready pretty easily and then you can later build more details, shades, highlight and weathering on top of that. I paint models super slowly, but they would have been considered 'battle ready' a lot before I personally consider them done.

 Grimtuff wrote:

Wayniac wrote:
My biggest issue is that this rule punishes you for wanting to use something before it's fully painted. Say you actually have a fully painted army but now you buy some new shiny. Until you fully paint that you're playing 10% VP down. There's literally zero reason why you would take anything now that isn't painted, whether you're one of those people who never paint anything or you just bought an addition the day before.

That's a bigger problem. It's encouraging not playing without all models painted. So you will buy something and then not play until it's painted to avoid losing the VP.

Again, the fact you can house rule it away doesn't change that it's a part of the game to only field painted models now or take a possibly significant penalty. And that's a problem.

I guarantee any gaming group worth their salt will waive that rule for that specific instance. C'mon guys- we know exactly what kind of gamer this rule is meant to penalise and it is not that one.

Not only very slow painters, gamers with 10% or less of their army painterd or people who don't want to paint will be penalized. What about beginners, or people that bought a new army? Painting 2000 points of stuff requires a lot of time. With this rule someone that starts a new army could decide not to play for months, if not years. Unless house ruling it.

 vipoid wrote:
21 pages in and I'm still unclear on why this rule was a thing that needed to exist.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Aelyn wrote:

Similarly, I would argue that if someone prefers black bases and has gone back on their models to ensure the bases are painted in a clean, solid black, rather than being bare plastic or having splotches of other colours included... that's "a simple finish" and therefore would not disqualify something from being battle ready.

Sorry, are you seriously proposing that a person should examine every one of his opponent's bases to check whether they've actually been painted black or whether they've just been left the default black they come as?

How does this make sense? How does it even make a difference? if a person prefers black bases, then why on earth should it matter whether they've painted them black or simply avoided painting them altogether (either being very careful when painting the model or else not attaching the bases until the model is finished)?

You're completely missing my point. The issue is that the language used is vague and can be interpreted in different ways - one person can point to their army and say "This meets Battle Ready criteria" and another person can look at it and say "No, it doesn't." That's why I went back and changed it from saying "I would argue..." to "I could reasonably argue..." - I was trying to make my meaning a bit clearer.

I think that according to RAW and the article as provided, a player could argue his black bases had a "simple finish" if they had gone back to give them a clean black look, and that examining them to confirm whether this is true or not would be the technically-correct approach to scoring maximum points by someone who was more interested in winning the game than having fun. I don't think that people having that attitude is good for the game, and I think it's an example of why the rule is bad. I also don't think it makes sense from a practical perspective - but that is what the rules would imply.

I don't intend to use the rule. I think it's poorly thought out, badly worded, and will lead to significant negative real-world results. I think that the idea behind the rule is understandable, but the implementation fails for exactly the same reason as basically any painting standards fail: it's an ambiguous standard that people can game to its absolute limits.

 Crimson wrote:

Aelyn wrote:

That is the main reason this is a bad rule IMO - it opens the game up to arguments about whether something is Battle Ready or not. The exclusion issue and the fact it legitimises gatekeeping are also definitely issues, but for me the fact it's reliant on a somewhat arbitrary and open-to-interpretation definition is the worst part of making this a hard and fast rule - while I like the intent behind the rule, I think the implementation was badly thought out.

Tournaments have managed to adjudicate painted status of armies forever. Our local leagues have always had a similar rule, and the paintedness is agreed upon by the players and not by any independent TO. I have never heard this causing any sort of disagreement.

In a tournament, there is a (theoretically) unbiased person who can make an independent ruling that the other players are obliged to accept.

What happens when you have a random pick-up game and someone shows up with an army which has been sprayed one colour, and the bases painted another, and they say "The main areas are coloured and I've put a simple finish on the base, so it's Battle Ready"?

What happens when you have a random pick-up game and someone says "Cool character, love the freehand on the cloak and the blending on the face. Of course that means it's way past Battle Ready, guess you don't get the 10 VPs"?

What happens when someone's eager to try out the new model they bought a couple of days ago, which is fully assembled and almost completely painted to the exact same standards as the rest of the army, but because the player's only had a couple of days they've not had a chance to get the base done yet - and then loses the game as a direct result when their opponent decides to call them out on it, despite saying at the start of the game that they wanted to try a game against the new model?

Yes, these are extreme cases. Yes, in all cases it's pretty obvious that there's a TFG involved. My issue is that the rule opens the door to these kinds of attitudes.

Aelyn wrote:

Yes, these are extreme cases. Yes, in all cases it's pretty obvious that there's a TFG involved. My issue is that the rule opens the door to these kinds of attitudes.

donkey-caves will be donkey-caves regardless and game rules can't regulate human behaviour.

In a tournament, you can call a judge or TO to red card them and have them removed from the venue.

In a casual game, you can just not play them.

Either is preferable to arguing with jerks over painting metrics.

 Jidmah wrote:
As it stands, a single model not being battle ready is the same as fielding a half-assembled grey army that hasn't even been near paint and rewards your opponent with the same amount of VP as destroying a quarter of your army.

Point of order - your opponent gains or loses nothing, regardless of how your models are painted. They suffer losses and achieve gains dependent on how their models are painted.

+ + +

The people that argue that going beyond BR status means you wouldn't get the 10VP are being willfully awkward - and, again, this is why I hope a definition is provided within the rulebook itself, if only in case WHC or that specific page disappear for some reason.

Let me quote the definition from the WHC article:

What is Battle Ready?
If a model is Battle Ready, it means it’s ready to game with. Battle Ready models have their main areas coloured and an simple finish on their bases.

Both sentences have relevance in the definition - there's no way a model which has OSL, highlighting and/or a (finished) scenic base doesn't qualify for the first sentence, and doing additional elements over the main area doesn't mean that you've not coloured that area first. Arguing that doing too much work is going to deny you access to the 10VP is ludicrous.

ccs 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?

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

Why do they need to be assembled? Why is paint optional, but assembling isn't?

H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Shooter wrote:
... but sadly TFGs like BCB exist.

I love how 'playing by the rules as written' now makes you TFG.

Playing RAW with utter inflexibility? Absolutely.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

ccs wrote:
The minimum on our tables is assembled models. Paint optional.

Why do they need to be assembled? Why is paint optional, but assembling isn't?

Yeah, and that's the thing, we all have our standards. For some it is assembled models, for some it is painted models, for some it is based which might have some legs glued on them (I've seen this.) And everyone who doesn't meet our standard is a disrespectful lazy slob and everyone who demands more than our standard is a gatekeeping elitist jerk. (Exaggerated for humorous effect.)

Now GW has given a baseline, so it should be easier to be on the same page.

 Crimson wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
Agree, it also punishes you for wanting to paint your models to a higher standard than battle ready because it will take you longer.

If you paint model in stages you reach battle ready pretty easily and then you can later build more details, shades, highlight and weathering on top of that. I paint models super slowly, but they would have been considered 'battle ready' a lot before I personally consider them done.

I prefer finishing models completely one at a time. Assembly line painting is faster, but also a lot less fun. I also tend to not touch models again if I put them away before they are done. Motivation is a huge issue for me since painting is a chore to me. Being forced to paint in a way that I enjoy even less will result in less painted miniatures, not more.

 Jidmah wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
Agree, it also punishes you for wanting to paint your models to a higher standard than battle ready because it will take you longer.

If you paint model in stages you reach battle ready pretty easily and then you can later build more details, shades, highlight and weathering on top of that. I paint models super slowly, but they would have been considered 'battle ready' a lot before I personally consider them done.

I prefer finishing models completely one at a time. Assembly line painting is faster, but also a lot less fun. I also tend to not touch models again if I put them away before they are done. Motivation is a huge issue for me since painting is a chore to me. Being forced to paint in a way that I enjoy even less will result in less painted miniatures, not more.

I tend to move around as well.

Painting for me is a big hobby, but it’s rather detached from the game. Having to paint a full unit of 10 is rather draining at times, just not the way I approach the painting hobby.

 Dysartes wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
As it stands, a single model not being battle ready is the same as fielding a half-assembled grey army that hasn't even been near paint and rewards your opponent with the same amount of VP as destroying a quarter of your army.

Point of order - your opponent gains or loses nothing, regardless of how your models are painted. They suffer losses and achieve gains dependent on how their models are painted.

+ + +

The people that argue that going beyond BR status means you wouldn't get the 10VP are being willfully awkward - and, again, this is why I hope a definition is provided within the rulebook itself, if only in case WHC or that specific page disappear for some reason.

Let me quote the definition from the WHC article:

What is Battle Ready?
If a model is Battle Ready, it means it’s ready to game with. Battle Ready models have their main areas coloured and an simple finish on their bases.

Both sentences have relevance in the definition - there's no way a model which has OSL, highlighting and/or a (finished) scenic base doesn't qualify for the first sentence, and doing additional elements over the main area doesn't mean that you've not coloured that area first. Arguing that doing too much work is going to deny you access to the 10VP is ludicrous.

Actually, it say 'simple finish on their base' a complex finish on their base would still discount them.

This is why you don't make rules around painting.

ERJAK wrote:
Actually, it say 'simple finish on their base' a complex finish on their base would still discount them.

This is why you don't make rules around painting.

Say a model has a beautiful scenic base, with half a destroyed Dreadnought on it leaking oil into a shallow puddle of muddy water.

Say that same base has a dark brown rim.

The rim in that instance could be described as a "simple finish" on an otherwise complex base.

I mean, I'm not disagreeing with your overall point - the rules are badly phrased. But I think we can realistically agree that the intent of Battle Ready is probably that the following requirements are met at a minimum:

- There is a base colour for each of the major areas on the model (armour, gun, flesh, cloth).
- There is an attempt to get a sense of depth (shading, edge highlighting, taking advantage of the properties of Contrast paints)
- There is at least some thought and effort put into how the model is based.

Importantly, part of the intent appears to be that skill is not supposed to be a critical factor.

I won't mind if people ask that the intent of the rule is followed (especially if they're a bit more forgiving for newer players / freshly-built models), it's the possibility that people will use this as a way to bully other players or take the exact wording of the rule over the (apparent) intent that concerns me.

^Don't play with those people.