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.

 vipoid wrote:


If all of these are supposed to be equally important even in game, then why is painting not codified into the rules but lore isn't?

Certainly you understand that GW's rule writing process is lore driven? They don't first come up with interesting mechanics for a potential unit and then try to create a lore entity that could have such rules. It is other way around, the fiction comes first, then they try to come up with rules that supports that fiction. And the fiction is intrinsically tied to the visuals. It starts with concept sketches by people like John Blache and Jes Goodwin, who first formulate the look, feel and place in the lore for a thing, the rules come much later.

 Jidmah wrote:

Dudeface wrote:
OK so I'm seeing that people view this as a punishment for not having a painted army more than anything now the whole disability argument has died off.

The thing is "not having a painted army" is not binary. Under this rule the whole spectrum from a grey plastic horde of someone not even owning a paint brush to people genuinely trying to finish their armies at their own speed are tossed in one bucket.

Why not view it as "90 points is the maximum" with a bonus 10 for painting. Better yet, look at it like a work bonus scheme, you turn up, you do your job, you keep your job. You go above and beyond, train the new guy etc and get that extra 10% bonus.

People can always get the 100% score if they really want, if something is more important to you than painting, then I'd hazard a guess it's more important than winning a game of 40k.

Not giving rewards is the same as punishment, because you lose the game because of it. Most of the battle reports made by the playtesters seem to end around the 30-40 points margin, so having an unpainted army massively reduces the chances of actually winning a game.
Why does losing the game matter? Because if you are in a campaign, a league, an event or even in the new crusade mode all non-competitive players are supposed to love so much, you do not get rewards for losing games - which means, you get punished.

The punishment argument is entirely a mindset, otherwise people always want to excel and strive to be the best at everything in life which simply isn't the case. Some people see a reward/benefit as not being worth the time investment and that's fair, not being able to put the time in is entirely subjective and personal to some people, but objectively those unwilling to put the time in must acknowledge that the 10 VP aren't worth it to them.

If you're unable for XYZ reasons, then the same caveat always falls back to - speak to your opponent, but I've known plenty of people binge 4-5 hour online gaming sessions a few times as week but be "too busy" to paint an army.

Yeah. I also do not buy the "punishment" mindset. Sorry not sorry.

This has seeped into professional life as well, where rewarding a teammate for doing great work is seen as punishment to other people who didn't get the reward.

I think its absurd and part of the whole everyone gets a trophy culture we've embraced over the past 20 years or so. Everyone doesn't get a trophy. Thats life.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:AKA do GW's job for them! Hell you don't even need rules! Just go pewpew and best pewpew noises wins!

Unironically yes. If you and your opponent want to play like that and would enjoy that more? Go for it. Bonus Command Points for acting "in character"? I'd play that. You've modelled your guy with a weapon they can't normally have? Tack on an extra PL, and we're golden.

Loosen up. Let GW's rules act as a guideline, and feel free to consider modifying and ignoring features if you and your opponent want to. Who cares about what everyone else does? All that matters is the people on the table.

Then you don't need to pay $60+ for rules.

You don't. The Core Rules are free for 9th, are they not? You can play 40k without paying anything for rules.
If you want to buy the additional rules/guidelines/systems in the full rulebook, you can - but that's your money, your product, to use at your leisure. If I bought the full rulebook, I'm quite happy metaphorically cutting bits out that I don't plan on using if I don't want to.

You can get as much value out of it as you like, but I don't plan on being hidebound to a book. I'll chop and change what I like, how I like, so long as my opponent and I agree on it. So yes - I absolutely don't have to pay for the rules.
(Ironic, coming from an Ultramarines player!)

If someone tried selling a new car that was as bad as it was, the company would be called out on it, but it seems hard for you to do that to GW huh?

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:AKA do GW's job for them! Hell you don't even need rules! Just go pewpew and best pewpew noises wins!

Unironically yes. If you and your opponent want to play like that and would enjoy that more? Go for it. Bonus Command Points for acting "in character"? I'd play that. You've modelled your guy with a weapon they can't normally have? Tack on an extra PL, and we're golden.

Loosen up. Let GW's rules act as a guideline, and feel free to consider modifying and ignoring features if you and your opponent want to. Who cares about what everyone else does? All that matters is the people on the table.

Then you don't need to pay $60+ for rules.

You don't. The Core Rules are free for 9th, are they not? You can play 40k without paying anything for rules.
If you want to buy the additional rules/guidelines/systems in the full rulebook, you can - but that's your money, your product, to use at your leisure. If I bought the full rulebook, I'm quite happy metaphorically cutting bits out that I don't plan on using if I don't want to.

You can get as much value out of it as you like, but I don't plan on being hidebound to a book. I'll chop and change what I like, how I like, so long as my opponent and I agree on it. So yes - I absolutely don't have to pay for the rules.
(Ironic, coming from an Ultramarines player!)

If someone tried selling a new car that was as bad as it was, the company would be called out on it, but it seems hard for you to do that to GW huh?

If they get value from it then they can buy what they like, it's absurd for them to expect the rulebook to be a perfect fit for their personal preferences out the gates. But likewise it's generally frowned upon to promote people not paying for items and taking them anyway under the false guise of a moral protest, but it seems hard for you to stop that as well huh?

I will basically use it as a tie-breaker only if the game boils down to a draw.

 Jidmah wrote:

 jhnbrg wrote:
After calling people liars and elitists you want sympathy for not having time to paint... nice

I call things what they are. And dakkadakka is pretty much the last place I would go looking for sympathy

Noone is going to autoloose any game over this rule. Calm down.

Yeah, you failed to provide a single argument for that in six posts now.
So I'll just declare that opinion to be flat out wrong.

How can you autoloose because of 10 VP? You havent played one single game yet. If you truly belive that this single rule will make you autoloose every game there are many options open to you.

Talk to your opponent?
Only use painted miniatures?
Find ways to overcome your opponents possible VP bonus?
Try some other games?
I am sure you can find other solutions too.

I have had entire armies become obsolete with edition changes and i dislike the way 40k has become a ruleset mostly for tournaments with all the gak that comes with it. Still i play every now and then.

Removed - Rule #1 please

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Removed - Rule #1 please

Meh I'm happy for you to fling negatively implied comments at me because I buy products I enjoy with people I enjoy spending time with, just as I hope you find as much joy in your life fitting the stereotypical negative edge-lord who has to hate things people like persona.

In a 'real' game (not a testing game for rules, board or a list) I would not field an unpainted model. However, I would not insist on using this rule and getting the 10VP, when my opponent cannot get the 10VP due to unpainted models. I interpret this rule only as an encouragement to paint your army.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:If someone tried selling a new car that was as bad as it was, the company would be called out on it, but it seems hard for you to do that to GW huh?

When I buy a car for considerable amounts of money, I expect it to function in it's sole function - a personal transport vehicle.
When I get a free core ruleset, I suffer no financial loss. When I use the full rulebook, my only requirement is to act as a framework I can work off of. I don't expect, or want, it to be "all I ever need".

When I buy a full rulebook, I don't want *want* to be hidebound to it. I want to be able to use a shred of personal wit and preference, unlike you, it seems.
You keep your standards. I'll keep mine. Get used to it.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:It's more than what you're doing, which is saying accept below-mediocre quality and then do the company's job for them, ergo why we get so many gakky rules and paying so much for them.

As I said - my money, my standards. You are free to hold your own standards, but you have no grounds to criticise my standards. If you think people like me are what's wrong with the hobby - that's on you: but I don't plan on leaving.

So yeah the real lesson here is clear. You can't reason with the White Knight a malcontent who can't accept other people's game preferences.

Fixed for you.
You're welcome to your enjoyment of the game. I ask you respect the same for others.

 Galas wrote:
Guys. At this point is obvious each one has his own opinion and no one os going to back on his own at least not by arguing on the internet.

Totally. The poll shows the rule to be extremely polarising and this rule, despite being repeatedly and inexplicably dismissed
as trivial (even though it will clearly decide games), is forcing many people to unravel their entire philosophy towards gaming in defence or criticism of it.

It's been an interesting thread but I've seen nothing at all to dissuade me of the view that it is simply a godawful rule.

 Max Moray wrote:
In a 'real' game (not a testing game for rules, board or a list) I would not field an unpainted model. However, I would not insist on using this rule and getting the 10VP, when my opponent cannot get the 10VP due to unpainted models. I interpret this rule only as an encouragement to paint your army.

That's largely how I see it, yeah.

I don't plan on using this rule in a friendly/pickup game. I don't plan on really using this rule at all. But I don't object to it's existence as an incentive.

What is wrong with people enjoying the hobby in different ways?

Someone who loves the lore, but doesn't own a single model-are they wrong?
Someone who loves to paint, but doesn't play a game or give a rat's ass about the lore-are they wrong?
Someone who loves to convert models, but hates to paint-are they wrong?
Someone who loves to game with their friends, but doesn't like painting or care much for the lore-are they wrong?

 JNAProductions wrote:
What is wrong with people enjoying the hobby in different ways?

Someone who loves the lore, but doesn't own a single model-are they wrong?
Someone who loves to paint, but doesn't play a game or give a rat's ass about the lore-are they wrong?
Someone who loves to convert models, but hates to paint-are they wrong?
Someone who loves to game with their friends, but doesn't like painting or care much for the lore-are they wrong?

None of them are wrong, just as you aren't wrong for playing without a rule you don't like.

 JNAProductions wrote:
What is wrong with people enjoying the hobby in different ways?

Someone who loves the lore, but doesn't own a single model-are they wrong?
Someone who loves to paint, but doesn't play a game or give a rat's ass about the lore-are they wrong?
Someone who loves to convert models, but hates to paint-are they wrong?
Someone who loves to game with their friends, but doesn't like painting or care much for the lore-are they wrong?

First three are solo activities, so how people approach them doesn't affect anyone else. The last one is group activity and if the person's friends find visual immersion to be an important part of the game experience the unpainted models will lessen their fun. So they're not necessarily wrong, but in any group activity you need to consider preferences of the whole group, not just your own. If all of them are fine with unpainted models, then there of course is not an issue.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

 Max Moray wrote:
In a 'real' game (not a testing game for rules, board or a list) I would not field an unpainted model. However, I would not insist on using this rule and getting the 10VP, when my opponent cannot get the 10VP due to unpainted models. I interpret this rule only as an encouragement to paint your army.

That's largely how I see it, yeah.

I don't plan on using this rule in a friendly/pickup game. I don't plan on really using this rule at all. But I don't object to it's existence as an incentive.

I might end up rallying beneath this banner. The proposed "fix" of 1vp per cent of painted seems quite sensible, however.

I wonder if it was +10VP if you spent more money on the army, ot +10VP if you only used Citadel Paints, would the same people also be supportive of it?

 BaconCatBug wrote:
I wonder if it was +10VP if you spent more money on the army, ot +10VP if you only used Citadel Paints, would the same people also be supportive of it?

Yeah, because Warhammer IS the hobby! If you don't like it, houserule it! Forge the narrative everyone!

 BaconCatBug wrote:
I wonder if it was +10VP if you spent more money on the army, ot +10VP if you only used Citadel Paints, would the same people also be supportive of it?

No, neither of those gives me any more or less enjoyment in my game. However, playing against a painted army gives me far more enjoyment than playing against an unpainted one.

And I say that as someone who is almost certain to lose this +10 VP every time. And I'm fine with that.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
I wonder if it was +10VP if you spent more money on the army,

Like this effectively wouldn't be the case! A person who has money to chase the meta and constantly buy the stuff that happens to be OP at the moment has a way bigger advantage than that 10 VP gives.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
I wonder if it was +10VP if you spent more money on the army, ot +10VP if you only used Citadel Paints, would the same people also be supportive of it?

VP for spending money is how works now more or less.

Removed - Rule #1 please

 BaconCatBug wrote:
I wonder if it was +10VP if you spent more money on the army, ot +10VP if you only used Citadel Paints, would the same people also be supportive of it?

Speaking for myself, nope.

But it can certainly be argued that money spent can already have some translation to tabletop performance.

You do realize the car purchase analogy totally destroys your argument, right? It does prove you've never actually purchased a new car and are more or less taking out of your fourth point of contact. When purchasing a new car, most of the negotiation is over the options package you purchase on the car. Every car has options, and practically no car sells without ANY options at all. Beyond even that, I can get luggage racks installed, ball hitches, refine transmission for hauling, bigger cooling upgrades. There's tons of packages and post-sale upgrades. You think street racing cars are stock factory? All of those cases directly prove the point for house ruling to make the basic package match your intended use.

Purifying Tempest wrote:
You do realize the car purchase analogy totally destroys your argument, right? It does prove you've never actually purchased a new car and are more or less taking out of your fourth point of contact. When purchasing a new car, most of the negotiation is over the options package you purchase on the car. Every car has options, and practically no car sells without ANY options at all. Beyond even that, I can get luggage racks installed, ball hitches, refine transmission for hauling, bigger cooling upgrades. There's tons of packages and post-sale upgrades. You think street racing cars are stock factory? All of those cases directly prove the point for house ruling to make the basic package match your intended use.

Do you have to go out and install those options yourself?

Or does the manufacturer/seller do it for you?

Because to me, that comparison seems a lot more like "Hey, we'll be using the Matched Play and Crusade rules", not "I'm going to patch the rules that don't work properly on their own."

Depends on the upgrade. Some the manufacturer will do, some a 3rd party mechanic will do, some you can DiY.

Guess it depends on knowledge, ability, and time, doesn't it?

Going to tell the guy to not use his turbo charger because you were to lazy to install it after purchasing?

Bet a lot of money that turbo charger will give him +10 VP in a race against you.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
The difference you actually don't HAVE standards. I'm even talking high standards like I do. You just don't have any.

And you wonder why people find it difficult to believe you're engaging in good faith.

Hi folks, general reminder to keep things polite and on topic. Warnings have been issued

With some refinement this rule could work well for most people I think.

From what I can tell, most of the points against it are that it's giving an unfair advantage to people who paint/punishing those unfairly who don't.

It's also forcing people to base their minis because the "Battle ready" standard isn't well defined or thought through.

I think the suggestion earlier in the thread of having the points bonus on a scale goes a long way to solving this issue. 1 point per 10% painted doesn't draw a line in the sand that penalises a player who has a single grey model left, and it gives more defined progression goals to work towards if you are painting.

Part of what also makes this rule a point of contention is about the exclusivity of the points. A painted army is marked out of 100 points while a non painted one is only able to achieve 90.

Would it be more palatable if 90 was the max even a painted army could get? So if you scored 80 in game, you get "up to" 10 points to bring you to 90, while of you score 85 points, with the 10 bonus you can still only achieve 90?

I think this rewards hobbyists who aren't as competitive minded, while not creating an exclusive advantage.

At the end of the day we all have limited time. I'm an incredibly slow painter so I can't meta chase, and I don't spend time studying lists or counter plays, which puts me at a distinct disadvantage to a competitively minded player who doesn't paint.

The 10 points, awarded on % painted and not a flat 10 helps to balance the playing field between players who value different aspects of the game.