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.

Let's be honest: no one will accept playing with the handicap.

In the reality a player bringing an army that isn't 100% battle ready will:

A) Play against another army that isn't 100% battle ready
B) Play against someone that agrees on ignoring the rule
C) Refuse to play against army that are 100% battle ready
D) Not play at all

So, basically games will be played just like the rule doesn't exist or with no effect, with the consequence of negating some games.

 Blackie wrote:
Let's be honest: no one will accept playing with the handicap.

In the reality a player bringing an army that isn't 100% battle ready will:

A) Play against another army that isn't 100% battle ready
B) Play against someone that agrees on ignoring the rule
C) Refuse to play against army that are 100% battle ready
D) Not play at all

So, basically games will be played just like the rule doesn't exist or with no effect, with the consequence of negating some games.

Not in my experience. Our local leagues have always had this sort of rule. Some people have painted armies and thus get some extra points, some don't so they don't. I have never heard anyone having a problem with this.

Karol wrote:

 Irkjoe wrote:


You're not forced to do anything just play down some vp if you want. It doesn't matter for tournaments which you mostly can't play unpainted anyway, it doesn't matter for friends, and it doesn't matter for anybody who wants to enforce that rule because they wouldn't play your grey plastic regardless.

Then why make it a rule. Making a rule that half the people do not want to play with is opening the door wide to people being donkey-caves. You go play to a different store, and at the end of game one you are informed that in that store fully painted is 4+ colours and your GK are silver, with red weapons, bronze elements and white tabards, if only you painted visors blue you would have had 4+ colours, but because you went with red you have 4, so your opponent gets 10+ VP. How is that a good thing?
Anything in social interactions that requires other people to act right, when right isn't even that well defined, ends bad every time. Specialy among strangers or people that don't like each other.

I'd clarify it with my opponent first that we are both fully painted, has nothing to do with the store. If it was a store event then it's on me to be informed of their standards. I can't imagine anyone with an acceptable basic table top army being denied the vp.

This rule is ridiculous. Painting has no business becoming a game mechanic. The discussion here sounds very much like the threads on balance, and RAI/RAW debates- "What my opponent does affects my enjoyment" without acknowledging that your behavior affects the enjoyment of your opponent as well.

I do my best to paint as far beyond "Battle Ready" ie., "hit with contrast paints" as I can- because I want to. If people don't want to paint their minis, so what? I thought the point of games was for everyone to have a good time.

 Irkjoe wrote:

Karol wrote:

 Irkjoe wrote:


You're not forced to do anything just play down some vp if you want. It doesn't matter for tournaments which you mostly can't play unpainted anyway, it doesn't matter for friends, and it doesn't matter for anybody who wants to enforce that rule because they wouldn't play your grey plastic regardless.

Then why make it a rule. Making a rule that half the people do not want to play with is opening the door wide to people being donkey-caves. You go play to a different store, and at the end of game one you are informed that in that store fully painted is 4+ colours and your GK are silver, with red weapons, bronze elements and white tabards, if only you painted visors blue you would have had 4+ colours, but because you went with red you have 4, so your opponent gets 10+ VP. How is that a good thing?
Anything in social interactions that requires other people to act right, when right isn't even that well defined, ends bad every time. Specialy among strangers or people that don't like each other.

I'd clarify it with my opponent first that we are both fully painted, has nothing to do with the store. If it was a store event then it's on me to be informed of their standards. I can't imagine anyone with an acceptable basic table top army being denied the vp.

Remember who you're talking to. Apparently Karol plays in the wargaming equivalent of the Thunderdome.

 Crimson wrote:

Not in my experience. Our local leagues have always had this sort of rule. Some people have painted armies and thus get some extra points, some don't so they don't. I have never heard anyone having a problem with this.

Only tournaments require full painted armies here. Definitely not friendly games. No one would play with the handicap here.

 Blackie wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

Not in my experience. Our local leagues have always had this sort of rule. Some people have painted armies and thus get some extra points, some don't so they don't. I have never heard anyone having a problem with this.

Only tournaments require full painted armies here. Definitely not friendly games. No one would play with the handicap here.

These leagues are basically tournaments, there are prizes and stuff. Not that most people take it seriously, it is just an convenient way to arrange a bunch of games. And if one doesn't care about playing with a handicap when there's an actual prize on the line then why would they care when there is not?

I just think you have this cultural gap.

"No one will play with a handicap".
Well... loads of people do, all the time. I would, if the other person was bothered, but they almost certainly wouldn't be - and I wouldn't insist on the rule when playing someone else who hadn't painted their models.

I know some people seem to play in this environment where every game is the LVO finals, where the top meta lists compete in perfect silence with people that could never be considered friends - but its so at odds with how I play the game I just don't see it.

*It encourages TFG beating up newbies*

Well.. so? TFG will curbstomp newbies anyway. Is something like a 100-20 win a bigger humiliation than 90-20?

I've tried introducing versions of that rule in my past campaigns and was lit on fire (metaphorically) and rode out of the store lol. That its now an official rule tickles me.

 JNAProductions wrote:

 Grimtuff wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
Also, the poll is currently 207 for to 177 against.

There's a slim majority who say they'll use the rule.

What do you think the poll would look like if I made a poll asking "Will you use the rule that Plasma weapons kill the bearer on a 1?"

Red herring is my favourite food too.

Why is this rule negotiable, but others aren't?

Because double standards are the only standards some people have. To paraphrase South Park, it's either all ok, or none of it is.

I will not enforce this rule. It is a particularly offensive turd in an otherwise rose garden.

JNAProductions wrote:You've yet to provide any kind of real answer about why people should be FORCED to mix the two aspects of the hobby.

Why should I be FORCED to mix the assembly and playing aspects of the hobby? At least if I don't paint my models, I can still play, even if I lose out on some VPs. If I don't assemble my models? I also don't gain any VPs, and my opponents will be likely even more opposed to my unassembled units.

Why should I be forced to mix aspects when all I want is to play the game and get a strategic win?

JNAProductions wrote:

 Grimtuff wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
Also, the poll is currently 207 for to 177 against.

There's a slim majority who say they'll use the rule.

What do you think the poll would look like if I made a poll asking "Will you use the rule that Plasma weapons kill the bearer on a 1?"

Red herring is my favourite food too.

Why is this rule negotiable, but others aren't?

All rules are negotiable. Don't like how plasma instant kills on a 1? Discuss with your opponent. Don't like how XYZ rule functions? Discuss with your opponent.
When I play, I usually start things off by saying how I'm not using Chapter Tactics on my Space Marines, and if they're also playing Marines, invite them to do the same.

Use your initiative. Don't rely on the rules for everything.

Absolutely idiotic rule and frankly its elitism (or typical GW ivory tower pants on head thinking). Its discouraging to new players, people starting new armies, people who hate painting, people who don't have the time to paint hundreds of minis, and people who physically might be unable to paint. I tend to field fully painted armies and I enjoy seeing fully painted armies but I also know that painting can SUCK and don't begrudge anybody from not wanting or being able to paint an army (especially something tedious like horde armies).

Lets not forget that just because GW made up a rule doesn't mean its worthwhile being in the game. They tried to shoehorn in those stupid larping rules into the initial release of AoS and we saw how long that gak lasted.

I don't get how people don't understand that painting isnt for everyone.

Even amongst the people that enjoy painting, some are slow painters so they wont be able to actually play their armies for a while.

And no, don't say contrast exists, it simply doesn't give the same quality of paint that some of these slow painters might want.

And don't tell people to forfeit other hobbies in favor of painting models like ive seen suggested many times.

Hobbies should not be chores.

Again - I'm not arguing against people not liking painting, or being unable.

I'm just asking why do my models need to be assembled.

After all, if I don't like assembly, why should I do it? Hobbies should not be chores.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Again - I'm not arguing against people not liking painting, or being unable.

I'm just asking why do my models need to be assembled.

After all, if I don't like assembly, why should I do it? Hobbies should not be chores.

If they're not assembled but don't fill out sufficient real space to match the assembled model for TLOS purposes, then they aren't functioning properly within the context of the TLOS mechanics of the game.

If they're not assembled but still follow those rules, no, they shouldn't need to be assembled.

Painting an army, meanwhile, has no interaction with any other part of the game's mechanics, except where GW forcibly inserted it into the scoring process.

Bit of a different kettle of fish there, seems like.

For those upset about having to base their figures, for fun I applied Astrogranite technical paint to ten other-wise painted Intercessors that had been sitting on my shelf. Put on a Midwinter Minis video for background and within twelve minutes I had completed Battle Ready bases on all of them. That's about a minute per miniature. So if nothing else, this rule had led to ten more Battle Ready miniatures!

Seriously folks, the rule does not stop people playing with unpainted or partially painted miniatures. It gives encouragement for those who care about VPs to get their army to Battle Ready condition. I have a feeling in some communities this will be a big Nothing-Burger in the long term, but for some it may just give them the push to finish their army.

I prefer this to judged paint scores being included in tourneys. Its 10 VP that both players can get before the game. I am also fairly certain that humans who are playing against other humans on an actual table with actual miniatures will be reasonable with this rule to include making accomodations for any number of reasons.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Again - I'm not arguing against people not liking painting, or being unable.

I'm just asking why do my models need to be assembled.

After all, if I don't like assembly, why should I do it? Hobbies should not be chores.

A bit of a strawman but If people want to use bases with a small picture or unit icon on it to indicate what the base is suppose to represent then have at it. Players have the choice to play with whoever they want. The game rules shouldn't punish somebody for their models looking a certain way.

TangoTwoBravo wrote:
stop people playing with unpainted or partially painted miniatures. It gives encouragement for those who care about VPs to get their army to Battle Ready condition. I have a feeling in some communities this will be a big Nothing-Burger in the long term, but for some it may just give them the push to finish their army.

the problem is that these 10vps could affect the outcome of a game.

Lets say youre playing in a league in a store, painting isnt required by the leagues rules but it leads to situations where someone that did win the most games ended up losing because his models weren't all painted. Or even worse , a TFG starts telling his opponents how their minis dont meet the required standard.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:


the problem is that these 10vps could affect the outcome of a game.

Lets say youre playing in a league in a store, painting isnt required by the leagues rules but it leads to situations where someone that did win the most games ended up losing because his models weren't all painted. Or even worse , a TFG starts telling his opponents how their minis dont meet the required standard.

Yes. Apart the TFG part this is how leagues are always done here. Why would this be a problem?

 VladimirHerzog wrote:
I don't get how people don't understand that painting isnt for everyone.

....

And don't tell people to forfeit other hobbies in favor of painting models like ive seen suggested many times.

I don't understand why someone would willingly enter into a hobby where painting is advertised as an integral element when they do not enjoy doing said integral element. It's not like they hide the fact from you this gak needs painting in their selling of it to you.

Also, yes you should. Don't go on that WoW raid, don't sit on your laptop doing feth all (something I am guilty of right now when I could be finishing off some minis I started this morning... See, I'm guilty of it too! I should take my own advice...), want to watch a movie? Put one on you've seen many times before and can paint to it as you don't need to give it 100% attention. I'll say it again, I've heard every excuse under the sun for people not painting and more or less all of them revolve around them doing something else involving time wasting. You make time. It's not hard.

Unusual Suspect wrote:If they're not assembled but don't fill out sufficient real space to match the assembled model for TLOS purposes, then they aren't functioning properly within the context of the TLOS mechanics of the game.

As long as I get the models accurate for the sake of dimensions, they're fair game. I don't need to glue the bolters in the arms of my Marines, and they don't add to the dimensions of them, for example.

Do I need to glue in bolters?

If they're not assembled but still follow those rules, no, they shouldn't need to be assembled.

So why is there so much pushback against unassembled models?

Painting an army, meanwhile, has no interaction with any other part of the game's mechanics, except where GW forcibly inserted it into the scoring process.

Painting models helps identify them for the sake of faction rules. It also helps with visual enjoyment, and as you've said scoring process, whether you like it or not.

Bit of a different kettle of fish there, seems like.

Not at all. If the hill we're dying on is "I don't want to do it, why should I do it", then it should apply to assembly too.

Vankraken wrote:A bit of a strawman

Not at all. If painting isn't what people want to do, why should they also feel compelled to assemble their models.

but If people want to use bases with a small picture or unit icon on it to indicate what the base is suppose to represent then have at it. Players have the choice to play with whoever they want. The game rules shouldn't punish somebody for their models looking a certain way.

Great, so we're in agreement that I shouldn't have to build my models, and it's entirely on other people being tolerant or not of me. Perfect!

"I like fantasy LARPs but I hate making or getting costumes. Why should I be forced to get a costume? Why are these elitist gatekeepers upset if I show up wearing my jeans and T-shirt?"

This is what I'm hearing. It just doesn't make any sense.

 Crimson wrote:
"I like fantasy LARPs but I hate making or getting costumes. Why should I be forced to get a costume? Why are these elitist gatekeepers upset if I show up wearing my jeans and T-shirt?"

This is what I'm hearing. It just doesn't make any sense.

The GAME portion should be totally independent from the HOBBY portion.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Unusual Suspect wrote:If they're not assembled but don't fill out sufficient real space to match the assembled model for TLOS purposes, then they aren't functioning properly within the context of the TLOS mechanics of the game.

As long as I get the models accurate for the sake of dimensions, they're fair game. I don't need to glue the bolters in the arms of my Marines, and they don't add to the dimensions of them, for example.

Do I need to glue in bolters?

Pretty sure I already said that. So long as it doesn't interfere with OTHER mechanics of the game, I personally don't care.

If they're not assembled but still follow those rules, no, they shouldn't need to be assembled.

So why is there so much pushback against unassembled models?

Because the vast majority of unassembled models don't actually conform to the TLOS requirements, and thus have an actual effect in game, perhaps?

Painting an army, meanwhile, has no interaction with any other part of the game's mechanics, except where GW forcibly inserted it into the scoring process.

Painting models helps identify them for the sake of faction rules. It also helps with visual enjoyment, and as you've said scoring process, whether you like it or not.

It helps, but it isn't necessary.

Was there a point to the bolded part? Y'know that's WHY folks are complaining about it, right?

Bit of a different kettle of fish there, seems like.

Not at all. If the hill we're dying on is "I don't want to do it, why should I do it", then it should apply to assembly too.

They don't have to be different, but the vast majority of the time, they are different, since ONE will almost always have an actual effect on how the game is played... And the other does not.

But yeah, so long as your miniatures conform to the requirements of fair play, play unassembled models. Go for it. What makes you think I want to stop you?

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Crimson wrote:
"I like fantasy LARPs but I hate making or getting costumes. Why should I be forced to get a costume? Why are these elitist gatekeepers upset if I show up wearing my jeans and T-shirt?"

This is what I'm hearing. It just doesn't make any sense.

The GAME portion should be totally independent from the HOBBY portion.

It literally doesn't work like that, mate. It never has. Not in LARPs, not in tabletop wargames.

Furthermore, if people just regard the models as LOS counters, it is pretty insane to pay GW prices for that functionality.

The game portion is a part of the hobby portion.

 Grimtuff wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:
I don't get how people don't understand that painting isnt for everyone.

....

And don't tell people to forfeit other hobbies in favor of painting models like ive seen suggested many times.

I don't understand why someone would willingly enter into a hobby where painting is advertised as an integral element when they do not enjoy doing said integral element. It's not like they hide the fact from you this gak needs painting in their selling of it to you.

Also, yes you should. Don't go on that WoW raid, don't sit on your laptop doing feth all (something I am guilty of right now when I could be finishing off some minis I started this morning... See, I'm guilty of it too! I should take my own advice...), want to watch a movie? Put one on you've seen many times before and can paint to it as you don't need to give it 100% attention. I'll say it again, I've heard every excuse under the sun for people not painting and more or less all of them revolve around them doing something else involving time wasting. You make time. It's not hard.

What if i feel like gaming more than painting right now? I dont HAVE to paint my models to play, but at that point i don't think anyone can convince you, you're just another gatekeeping douche that wants people to play the game the way you enjoy it.

And its quite strange, when i got introduced to the hobby, the clerk at the GW store told me that i didn't need to worry about painting if i wanted to play.

What YOU consider time wasting isnt what EVERYONE considers time wasting. But you've been told the arguments clearly multiple times already, keep rejecting them.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Unusual Suspect wrote:If they're not assembled but don't fill out sufficient real space to match the assembled model for TLOS purposes, then they aren't functioning properly within the context of the TLOS mechanics of the game.

As long as I get the models accurate for the sake of dimensions, they're fair game. I don't need to glue the bolters in the arms of my Marines, and they don't add to the dimensions of them, for example.

Do I need to glue in bolters?

If you were playing me, no; you wouldn't need to glue on bolters. Now, if you were fielding something like a devastator squad with 4 different heavy guns + a sergeant, there would be more reason for you to glue guns onto that particular unit (for the sake of avoiding confusion). I'm perfectly alright with facing the paper cut out army someone else suggested or most non-modeled armies as long as their lack of conventional modeling doesn't have a strong negative impact on our game experience.

Painting an army, meanwhile, has no interaction with any other part of the game's mechanics, except where GW forcibly inserted it into the scoring process.

Painting models helps identify them for the sake of faction rules. It also helps with visual enjoyment, and as you've said scoring process, whether you like it or not.

Unless you're mixing multiple subfactions in the same army (running Iron Hands + White Scars for instance), the paintjob shouldn't be needed to identify special rules. After all, if you're facing my Iybraesil army, you have no idea whether I'm using custom craftworld traits or one of the main 5 based on the paintjob. If someone is mixing subfactions, then there's more of a reason to represent those differences through paint job in the same way that there's more of a reason to glue on the devastators' weapons. And even then, a color around the rim of their bases or a chunk of blue tack on subfaction B's bases would convey that information just as well.

Bit of a different kettle of fish there, seems like.

Not at all. If the hill we're dying on is "I don't want to do it, why should I do it", then it should apply to assembly too.

And it does, but it's easier for assembly to actually matter mechanically (line of sight stuff) than for a paintjob to do so. Also, there's a big difference between having one model unpainted/unassembled and having huge chunks of your army unpainted or unassembled. If a single necron warrior is just a pair of legs or just gray plastic, that's not likely to cause any confusion about subfactions or line of sight (unless your opponent is trying to exploit it).

 Crimson wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Crimson wrote:
"I like fantasy LARPs but I hate making or getting costumes. Why should I be forced to get a costume? Why are these elitist gatekeepers upset if I show up wearing my jeans and T-shirt?"

This is what I'm hearing. It just doesn't make any sense.

The GAME portion should be totally independent from the HOBBY portion.

It literally doesn't work like that, mate. It never has. Not in LARPs, not in tabletop wargames.

Furthermore, if people just regard the models as LOS counters, it is pretty insane to pay GW prices for that functionality.

People pay for aesthetics as much, if not more, than functionality in a wide variety of things. Insanity is... relative.

As far as I'm concerned, I have my miniatures because they look good AND they're functional for the game system. Both qualities are valuable to me.