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.

Painted Bonus - Yay or Nay?

I say NAY.

I totally get why it would be a thing in big tournaments to try and encourage entrants to have fully painted lists. Especially if organisers were wanting to post pictures online / in White Dwarf etc etc

but for casual games at the FLGS or gaming clubs - it's a ridiculous rule in my opinion.

I have a full time job and a 2 year old daughter - i probably get 2 hours painting time a day (and no, i don't paint every single day)

I probably spend around 3-4 hours per miniature. 6-8 if it's one I really want to do well such as HQs etc.

Why should I start a game at a 10 POINT disadvantage because my OP has more free time than me? Or bought a pre-painted army? or paid a commissioner to do it for them?

All this rule does in my opinion is force people to rush their paintjobs while putting new gamers at a disadvantage.

Being completely honest - if i lost a close game but my army was painted and my OPs wasn't, I would not want to steal that victory if the 10 points changed the result.

It's a painting hobby AND a wargame. The two should not be mutually exclusive.

What are people's thoughts on this?

It's a painting hobby AND a wargame. The two should not be mutually exclusive.

Isn't that what house ruling the 10 points for having a painted army away does? Makes them mutually exclusive?

Why should I start a game at a 10 POINT disadvantage because my OP has more free time than me? Or bought a pre-painted army? or paid a commissioner to do it for them?

Because those are the rules, I guess. As long as your opponent is fine with it you can use whatever house rules you want.

Moved this to 40K general as YMDC is for seeking clarity around rules not whether they should exist or be followed.

Talk to the people at the FLGS; they're the ones with the Painted Bonus House rule in the first place.

I say yay. Even a coat of spray and picking out the weapons in black is an improvement on grey plastic. And if you only have time to paint a bit, play a smaller game. they are often more fun anyway!

Just talk to your opponent before you play. The painting bonus is literally just to put a rule in the book for tournament play.

If it's just a pick up game, where's the issue? There is nothing to win. You can consider or not the bonus points as you see fit.

If you are in a tournament? Before this rule you would not even be able to play without a painted army. This rule actually helps new players. They are put at a disadvantage, sure, but they are allowed in the events.

In my experience allowing unpainted minis leads to allowing incompletely assembled minis. I've fought against whole armies of just torsos and legs on bases because the owner wanted to paint the arms and heads separately. That's a valid reason but it significantly changes the silhouette of the minis and offers an advantage of sorts to that army over a completely assembled one. The same for turrets and sponsons not on tanks because the mini isn't finished yet.

The game is also a LOT more enjoyable for me when there is an element of spectacle about it that comes from painted armies and scenery. Anything that encourages this is good in my books.

There’s been a whole old thread about the argument.

I say nay; it’s a hobby snob rule. Might as well have a point rule for whether my army is fluffy or flavor-of-the-month.

I'll say what I said before;

If it's for tournament games, then these are the rules, and 10 points are 10 points. You want 'em? Earn 'em.

If it's casual, then you have a brain. If you have a big enough brain to calculate that you would've won if not for those 10 points, you have a big enough brain to realize that you out-played your opponent, and that all you need to do to win the same game at a tournament is play at least as well, and finish painting your dudes.

So... yay. Always yay on this.

The last thing we need is another gatekeeping rule for the hobby. It's snobbish, it disadvantages people with less time/money, and it provides nothing concrete to the hobby. Hard nay.

 Stormonu wrote:
There’s been a whole old thread about the argument.

I say nay; it’s a hobby snob rule. Might as well have a point rule for whether my army is fluffy or flavor-of-the-month.

The white Knights that defend this rule would probably suggest this to GW, best be careful.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Stormonu wrote:
There’s been a whole old thread about the argument.

I say nay; it’s a hobby snob rule. Might as well have a point rule for whether my army is fluffy or flavor-of-the-month.

The white Knights that defend this rule would probably suggest this to GW, best be careful.

If they did, it’s no skin off my nose. I can do “you will not be missed” as well as GW.

If it were a judged point allocation that introduced subjective bias, it might be a problem.

But it's literally just: "Are they painted"

Prime them, drybrush the metal real quick, and throw one thin coat on the armour. You're at three colours, and you can go back and improve them as you have time.

I think its a good rule.

I almost never get it, because my army isn't based and there's always one or two odd models out in the mix, but im happy to score it to my opponent when their army is fully painted and based.

It encourages people to actually paint their armies, which is something that definitely should happen. I've played against a lot of unpainted armies over the years.

Nay, terrible rule. I've said it elsewhere; when the exponents of a rule have to defend it by saying things that eventually amount to "it's just a rule, you can house-rule it away, just ignore it if you like... I mean what are rules anyway? What is winning? We are adrift in a vast uncaring universe and we'll all die soon..." ...yeah, I think you can safely say you've got the mother of all godawful rules on your hands. I just always award the points because everyone else does.

I think a minimum standard of painting is required, it’s part of your army building process and it would spoil the hobby, in my opinion, if you could just go out a grab a load of kits and glue them together.

Otherwise why don’t we just write the name of models on bits of paper and use them as counters instead of having models.

I don’t think there should be a bonus for painting I think tournaments should just state that they will Or won’t accept un painted models.

I accept that some models are hard to paint and take ages but a spray on coloured primer isn’t that hard to achieve. And a bit of wash. Then maybe a quick dry brush.

And I do sympathise that some people just want to play the game and aren’t interested in painting which I why I recently posted a thread asking if people would buy some kind of pre painted model.

I just think that turning up to a tournament and being presented with a see of grey plastic sounds miserable.

 Octopoid wrote:
The last thing we need is another gatekeeping rule for the hobby. It's snobbish, it disadvantages people with less time/money, and it provides nothing concrete to the hobby. Hard nay.

I'm someone who doesn't paint a lot of his stuff. Not because I don't have time or money--I don't like my work and I tend to bounce around a lot on color scheme ideas.

I think this rule is fine. Because outside of a tournament environment, who the hell cares?

Yeah I dont get you OP.

You're so much of perfectionist that you spend 3 hours in each model. But not so much of a perfectionist, that you're perfectly fine with showing up to a game with mostly grey models? I think your slow pace is an exaggeration, or your priorities are totally incoherent.

Your limited time excuses are invalid, as you clearly have time to play games. Use that time. You can keep up the social contact by bringing your brushes to the FLGS.

Then after that... its just 10 points. Rarely will that be the deciding factor. And if is.. then your opponent earned it by putting in effort that you didn't put in.

Yay, my lazy arse needs every incentive it can get to get the damn colouring-in done.

The old thread was early in the edition. https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/790821.page

When I'm looking up tournament results I don't want to hear anything about "maybe the Drukhari players were all expert painters and got a better paint score than their opponents". I think hobby scores have gone the way of the dodo if I'm not mistaken, which was my greatest hope for the rule so I am actually pretty happy with it.

Painted miniatures is an okay requirement for tournaments, although if someone wanted to enforce the nitty-gritty of the rules (no clear bases, etc.) they would be a tool IMO. If anybody has heard of a 9th ed tournament with best overall awards I would like to hear about it.

I think it's a bit cheap to win through paint score in a casual game. I haven't played with the rule yet, despite sometimes using miniatures that were not painted to a coherent theme, I don't even know if that's a requirement, but then I'll just fall back on my pirate loot fluff to explain it.

I don't think it would be a problem, if the bonus was something like 1-3VP or army wins in case of draw. Being painted and getting 10 VP vs an unpainted army is a huge adventage. If opponent goes second it is practicaly not worth to play the game from a statistical point of view, because they are not going to be able to make up the point difference. Mostly a new player problem though, so not many people care, because most people don't stay long enough in the game anyway.

Painting an army is a big undertaking, so it's reasonable that people who put in the effort get rewarded for it. Yay for me.

 Stormonu wrote:
There’s been a whole old thread about the argument.

I say nay; it’s a hobby snob rule. Might as well have a point rule for whether my army is fluffy or flavor-of-the-month.

That's basically the purpose of the FOC.

When were powerful builds or factions ever limited by the organisation chart? It has to have been prior 8th ed.

This has been a non issue wherever I played.

Outside of tourneys, I personally have not encountered this to even be discussed (I only play with painted minis). In the tourneys I've attended, if allowing for non painted models, the organizers state up front that player will not receive the 10 points. This ensured a common expectation prior to registering.

I mean it's 10pts, hardly game-winning when you can get like 35 or something from your primaries or secondaries. Plus "painted" is the GW battle-ready standard i.e. 3 colours and based.

 Gert wrote:
I mean it's 10pts, hardly game-winning when you can get like 35 or something from your primaries or secondaries. Plus "painted" is the GW battle-ready standard i.e. 3 colours and based.

You don't know how many points you can score in a game, how do you know how many points are "game-winning"?

I say nay, but I get where GW is coming from.

Look at it like this- they want people to paint their models as it is more of an investment into said models. And the more you invest the less likely you will be inclined to not play. And if your playing then your more likely to buy more stuff.

Also it appears to be a way to reward players that paint their models. Gw wants pictures out there of beautifully painted models battling it out.

BUT even saying that this was a bad way to do it. You get new players who are not used to playing let alone modeling or painting who want to see what this is all about. The last thing we as a community should be doing is making things more difficult for these new players. As such my flgs has removed that rule from all play. We want to expand player numbers not put up arbitrary walls that make them feel like they have to do even more stuff to play on a balanced level (which they already are not doing since they are new. Thats enough of a disadvantage in my book).

So I get it, but I don't play with it.

 vict0988 wrote:

 Gert wrote:
I mean it's 10pts, hardly game-winning when you can get like 35 or something from your primaries or secondaries. Plus "painted" is the GW battle-ready standard i.e. 3 colours and based.

You don't know how many points you can score in a game, how do you know how many points are "game-winning"?

Cos the last time I played a game of 9th those 10pts were eclipsed in one turn by my opponent and I never recovered. If you've got a super close game then sure maybe they are but counting on them to win you the game is a bad strategy. Plus, again, 3 colours and based. For Blood Angels, that's Red main, Gunmetal for metal and another colour for Eye lenses or Bolter Casing. Heck, for Orks it's Green, Brown and Gunmetal. It's that easy.

If you're playing in a tournament, they usually require painted minis, so the 10VP is irrelevant. If a tournament will let you play with unpainted models at a mere 10VP penalty, consider yourself lucky.

If you're playing casually, there are no stakes to your game, so whether you won or lost on a 10VP technicality is utterly meaningless.

If you're playing a no-stakes casual game, your opponent declares victory because their 10VP bonus gets them just ahead of you, and this really matters to you for some reason, think long and hard on how seriously you're taking your plastic toy soldier dice game.

I see this 'but I spend so much time painting my models' argument all the time and it feels disingenuous. Yeah, I put effort into painting too, and that means I'm sometimes not fielding a fully painted army. I don't then freak out over a rulebook awarding my casual opponents ten whole imaginary meaningless board game winner points. We know who the winner was at the end of the game and a painting bonus doesn't change that- and sacrificing my painting quality just so I can say that I really won would be ridiculous.

If someone prioritizes technically winning pick-up games over their painting quality, it sounds to me like they don't much care about the painting to begin with. And if 10VP is the extrinsic motivation it takes to get competitive gamers to engage with the hobby aspect, all the better.