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.

Just WOW!!!! Triggered a little bit their Octopoid? I’m just amazed with the reaction people have on this. It’s little BonHommes that we paint or don’t paint. Take a step back and re read the comments people, it’s toxic. Like why get so mad over something so silly.

So any incentive is bad because it inherently punishes those who don't achieve it? So like inventives can't exist? That seems to be the argument.

Well I get mad that other people get mad so the silliness cancels out and I get to be taken seriously!!

This thread is getting spicy, maybe some refreshing milk?

Can someone explain where this rule came from? I thought OP was saying. It’s a tournament rule. If it’s a GW then this is BS because they just say that to try and sell paints.

Surely you can play the game however you want as long as your opponent agrees to it, if you can’t agree then don’t play with each other.

If tournaments want to make a rule about minimum painting standards then they are right because some people just want to play the game, some people just want to paint and some just want to read the books. And to some people the hobby is all of those things.

Choose your opponents wisely and you will have more fun.

However just as a suggestion to those that are not into painting... please don’t bite.... on YouTube Marco Frisoni shows how you can paint up space marines pretty quick, to a good standard of base colour with some shade and highlights, using about 4 cans of spray paint. Which might be fun. Up to you.

mrFickle wrote:


Can someone explain where this rule came from? I thought OP was saying. It’s a tournament rule. If it’s a GW then this is BS because they just say that to try and sell paints.

It's in the core rule book in the matched play bit, and yes it's a BS rule

dogboy311 wrote:
Just WOW!!!! Triggered a little bit their Octopoid? I’m just amazed with the reaction people have on this. It’s little BonHommes that we paint or don’t paint. Take a step back and re read the comments people, it’s toxic. Like why get so mad over something so silly.

Arguing over things that don't matter is in someways cathartic, nice little break from work to have a little back and forth with strangers on the internet. I don't imagine anyone here is actually mad or takes anything said here particularly seriously, we're all gonna come away from this playing the game exactly the same way we had been doing before.

Dude, if you take playing with toy soldiers so seriously that you consider it to being equal to professional sports, then you need to get those models to battlefield standard level of painting ASAP. Consider it just another aspect of being a "professional warhammerer"

If you cant be arsed to paint, get your coach/manager to sort it out for you.. or wait, you don't have any of those do you? BUT I THOUGHT U WAS A PROFESSIONAL BRAH

Late to the talk. If playing in a major tournament then absolutely have your models painted. That said it doesn't have to be heavy metal standards. Do the best you can. A local tournament I don't care if my opponent has paint on their army. If I play them again in the future hopefully they will progress on the painting side of the hobby. The ten points is just to get people to make an effort. It would be like going to a tournament and having someone proxie half their army. It just takes away from the spirit of the game.

Twilight Pathways wrote:

mrFickle wrote:


Can someone explain where this rule came from? I thought OP was saying. It’s a tournament rule. If it’s a GW then this is BS because they just say that to try and sell paints.

It's in the core rule book in the matched play bit, and yes it's a BS rule

How did I not know that. Tbf I’m more into the painting.

I suppose from their point of view the game/hobby they have always made is designed to be part modelling part playing. I understand then not wanting to cater to a market that isn’t interested in the painting part but I still thank that rule is Gak.

If they did want to cater for that market I suppose they would offer a pre-painted service. Oh wow it would be expensive to have GW paint your models for you.

If I were running GW, and I’m not, I would license a 3rd party somewhere to make fixed pose figures, pre painted to a factory standard, and give players that option if they really don’t want to paint.

 Octopoid wrote:

 Gert wrote:
Fully done with this nonsense. Getting called elitist because I paint my models for a miniatures-based tabletop game is literally impossible to argue against. Not because it's a good argument but because anyone making it is clearly not having the discussion in good faith or even intends to take another viewpoint into consideration.

I'm not calling you elitist for painting your models. That's a straw man argument, making YOU the one not having the discussion in good faith. I'm calling people elitist for punishing others for NOT painting their models.

How many people do you know are actively using this rule as a gatekeeping mechanism?

Cause I can tell you how many I know. That number is "zero".

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Octopoid wrote:

 Gert wrote:
Fully done with this nonsense. Getting called elitist because I paint my models for a miniatures-based tabletop game is literally impossible to argue against. Not because it's a good argument but because anyone making it is clearly not having the discussion in good faith or even intends to take another viewpoint into consideration.

I'm not calling you elitist for painting your models. That's a straw man argument, making YOU the one not having the discussion in good faith. I'm calling people elitist for punishing others for NOT painting their models.

How many people do you know are actively using this rule as a gatekeeping mechanism?

Cause I can tell you how many I know. That number is "zero".

Considering I didn't even KNOW about this rule until today... (and considering I've managed a single whopping game of 9th due to freakin' COVID)... none. And I expect it will stay that way.

mrFickle wrote:

Twilight Pathways wrote:

mrFickle wrote:


Can someone explain where this rule came from? I thought OP was saying. It’s a tournament rule. If it’s a GW then this is BS because they just say that to try and sell paints.

It's in the core rule book in the matched play bit, and yes it's a BS rule

How did I not know that. Tbf I’m more into the painting.

I suppose from their point of view the game/hobby they have always made is designed to be part modelling part playing. I understand then not wanting to cater to a market that isn’t interested in the painting part but I still thank that rule is Gak.

If they did want to cater for that market I suppose they would offer a pre-painted service. Oh wow it would be expensive to have GW paint your models for you.

If I were running GW, and I’m not, I would license a 3rd party somewhere to make fixed pose figures, pre painted to a factory standard, and give players that option if they really don’t want to paint.

The www is filled with commission builders & painters. Why would GW do that work themselves? And even if they did, they'd probably charge more than the freelance comission workers.

We don’t bother with the rule in our gaming group.

However, I honestly can’t remember the last time I used an unpainted model. It just doesn’t appeal to me.

It’s also very rare for any of our group to use unpainted models either, wouldn’t be an issue if they did though.

 Octopoid wrote:
EDIT: I'm still not finding this rule in the book, so I must be missing something. Maybe there's something about the way it's written that makes it less elitist?

I don't have my mini-rulebook to hand, for some reason, but it crops up late in the sequence for Matched Play games - it might show up for Crusade as well, but I can't remember off-hand.

 Dysartes wrote:

 Octopoid wrote:
EDIT: I'm still not finding this rule in the book, so I must be missing something. Maybe there's something about the way it's written that makes it less elitist?

I don't have my mini-rulebook to hand, for some reason, but it crops up late in the sequence for Matched Play games - it might show up for Crusade as well, but I can't remember off-hand.

Thank you!

 tauist wrote:
Dude, if you take playing with toy soldiers so seriously that you consider it to being equal to professional sports, then you need to get those models to battlefield standard level of painting ASAP. Consider it just another aspect of being a "professional warhammerer"

If you cant be arsed to paint, get your coach/manager to sort it out for you.. or wait, you don't have any of those do you? BUT I THOUGHT U WAS A PROFESSIONAL BRAH

So if it's just you soldiers you agree that things like this are silly (they're just toy soldiers after all, and gatekeeping is bad last I checked), which means it shouldn't have been a rule to begin with.

Thanks for playing.

 Dysartes wrote:

 Octopoid wrote:
EDIT: I'm still not finding this rule in the book, so I must be missing something. Maybe there's something about the way it's written that makes it less elitist?

I don't have my mini-rulebook to hand, for some reason, but it crops up late in the sequence for Matched Play games - it might show up for Crusade as well, but I can't remember off-hand.

p283 in the Indomitus BRB. It shows up under "Determine Victor"

At the end of the battle, the player with the most victory points is the winner. If players are tied, the battle is a draw.

Each player can score a maximum of 45 victory points from primary objectives and a maximum of 45 victory points from secondary objectives (from a maximum of 15 victory points from each of the 3 secondary objectives you have selected), for a total of 90 possible victory points from mission objectives (any excess victory points awarded are discounted). If every model in a player's army was painted to a Battle Ready standard, that player is awarded a bonus 10 victory points. This gives the player a maximum total score out of 100 victory points.

It's literally just an additional 10 points out of the potential 90. If you don't meet the criteria of Battle Ready(based+3 color minimum)? You wouldn't get that 100 point cap and would be going out of 90 instead of 100.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

So if it's just you soldiers you agree that things like this are silly (they're just toy soldiers after all, and gatekeeping is bad last I checked), which means it shouldn't have been a rule to begin with.

Thanks for playing.

It ain't a rule. It's a bonus when determining victory points.

It's effectively extra credit.

 Kanluwen wrote:

At the end of the battle, the player with the most victory points is the winner. If players are tied, the battle is a draw.

Each player can score a maximum of 45 victory points from primary objectives and a maximum of 45 victory points from secondary objectives (from a maximum of 15 victory points from each of the 3 secondary objectives you have selected), for a total of 90 possible victory points from mission objectives (any excess victory points awarded are discounted). If every model in a player's army was painted to a Battle Ready standard, that player is awarded a bonus 10 victory points. This gives the player a maximum total score out of 100 victory points.

Thank you for quoting the rule! Yup, that's a BS rule that rewards those who have more time, effort, money, and/or investment in the game, and punishes the casual, poor, or busy player. I'll be ignoring that firmly for the rest of my gaming time, and will shout from the rooftops that it's a bad rule until the day I die.

 Octopoid wrote:
Thank you for quoting the rule! Yup, that's a BS rule that rewards those who have more time, effort, money, and/or investment in the game, and punishes the casual, poor, or busy player. I'll be ignoring that firmly for the rest of my gaming time, and will shout from the rooftops that it's a bad rule until the day I die.

Casual players don't get bent out of shape if the rulebook says that they 'actually' lost a closely-fought no-stakes non-competitive pick-up game.

Poor players aren't buying armies at GW prices. The cost of paint to get to a battle-ready standard is negligible in comparison.

Busy players aren't playing the game. You can paint a Marine army to the three-color standard in the time it takes to play a 2K game.

The players this affects are those who take their winning and losing a bit too seriously and resent the social expectation that models be painted now codified as a (extremely mild) rule. And then using these casual, poor, and busy players as a shield.

If GW released "pre-painted" model sets, that were monopose, and had the requisite colors to meet the requirement, but were priced way higher than normal, would that be "pay to win"?

 Octopoid wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

At the end of the battle, the player with the most victory points is the winner. If players are tied, the battle is a draw.

Each player can score a maximum of 45 victory points from primary objectives and a maximum of 45 victory points from secondary objectives (from a maximum of 15 victory points from each of the 3 secondary objectives you have selected), for a total of 90 possible victory points from mission objectives (any excess victory points awarded are discounted). If every model in a player's army was painted to a Battle Ready standard, that player is awarded a bonus 10 victory points. This gives the player a maximum total score out of 100 victory points.

Thank you for quoting the rule! Yup, that's a BS rule that rewards those who have more time, effort, money, and/or investment in the game, and punishes the casual, poor, or busy player. I'll be ignoring that firmly for the rest of my gaming time, and will shout from the rooftops that it's a bad rule until the day I die.

Yeah but no... the paint needed to make an entire army battle-ready costs less than a single codex or box of miniatures. The time to do that is no more significant than the time to assemble or to actually play. Someone that can afford to play can by extension afford to play painted.

 tauist wrote:

mrFickle wrote:

Twilight Pathways wrote:

mrFickle wrote:


Can someone explain where this rule came from? I thought OP was saying. It’s a tournament rule. If it’s a GW then this is BS because they just say that to try and sell paints.

It's in the core rule book in the matched play bit, and yes it's a BS rule

How did I not know that. Tbf I’m more into the painting.

I suppose from their point of view the game/hobby they have always made is designed to be part modelling part playing. I understand then not wanting to cater to a market that isn’t interested in the painting part but I still thank that rule is Gak.

If they did want to cater for that market I suppose they would offer a pre-painted service. Oh wow it would be expensive to have GW paint your models for you.

If I were running GW, and I’m not, I would license a 3rd party somewhere to make fixed pose figures, pre painted to a factory standard, and give players that option if they really don’t want to paint.

The www is filled with commission builders & painters. Why would GW do that work themselves? And even if they did, they'd probably charge more than the freelance comission workers.

Why would they want to do it? To make money. If it’s feasible. The internet used to be full of people making 3rd party models and bits for 40K and there aren't anymore. I bet there are some countries where you create an end user agreement that prevented the resale of GW minis this making the commission market disappear.

But licensed 3rd party production, if there is a market for it that won’t affect the current market, I.e if it only replaced the sales of this who don’t paint their models and attracted new players that are put off by painting is a great way to create new revenue.

 catbarf wrote:

 Octopoid wrote:
Thank you for quoting the rule! Yup, that's a BS rule that rewards those who have more time, effort, money, and/or investment in the game, and punishes the casual, poor, or busy player. I'll be ignoring that firmly for the rest of my gaming time, and will shout from the rooftops that it's a bad rule until the day I die.

Casual players don't get bent out of shape if the rulebook says that they 'actually' lost a closely-fought no-stakes non-competitive pick-up game.

Poor players aren't buying armies at GW prices. The cost of paint to get to a battle-ready standard is negligible in comparison.

Busy players aren't playing the game. You can paint a Marine army to the three-color standard in the time it takes to play a 2K game.

The players this affects are those who take their winning and losing a bit too seriously and resent the social expectation that models be painted now codified as a (extremely mild) rule. And then using these casual, poor, and busy players as a shield.

Yeah, exactly this.

 catbarf wrote:

 Octopoid wrote:
Thank you for quoting the rule! Yup, that's a BS rule that rewards those who have more time, effort, money, and/or investment in the game, and punishes the casual, poor, or busy player. I'll be ignoring that firmly for the rest of my gaming time, and will shout from the rooftops that it's a bad rule until the day I die.

Casual players don't get bent out of shape if the rulebook says that they 'actually' lost a closely-fought no-stakes non-competitive pick-up game.

Poor players aren't buying armies at GW prices. The cost of paint to get to a battle-ready standard is negligible in comparison.

Busy players aren't playing the game. You can paint a Marine army to the three-color standard in the time it takes to play a 2K game.

The players this affects are those who take their winning and losing a bit too seriously and resent the social expectation that models be painted now codified as a (extremely mild) rule. And then using these casual, poor, and busy players as a shield.

Quoting for truth.

Part of the reason people play miniature war games is for the visual aspect of seeing painted miniatures on the table top. To a degree when you're just plopping grey models down on the table, you're detracting from the overall experience. Now it's definitely better to play than never play at all due to this, but small bonuses can go a long way to incentivize painting to at least a basic level.

 catbarf wrote:

 Octopoid wrote:
Thank you for quoting the rule! Yup, that's a BS rule that rewards those who have more time, effort, money, and/or investment in the game, and punishes the casual, poor, or busy player. I'll be ignoring that firmly for the rest of my gaming time, and will shout from the rooftops that it's a bad rule until the day I die.

Casual players don't get bent out of shape if the rulebook says that they 'actually' lost a closely-fought no-stakes non-competitive pick-up game.

Poor players aren't buying armies at GW prices. The cost of paint to get to a battle-ready standard is negligible in comparison.

Busy players aren't playing the game. You can paint a Marine army to the three-color standard in the time it takes to play a 2K game.

The players this affects are those who take their winning and losing a bit too seriously and resent the social expectation that models be painted now codified as a (extremely mild) rule. And then using these casual, poor, and busy players as a shield.

Thirded +1

 Kanluwen wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

So if it's just you soldiers you agree that things like this are silly (they're just toy soldiers after all, and gatekeeping is bad last I checked), which means it shouldn't have been a rule to begin with.

Thanks for playing.

It ain't a rule. It's a bonus when determining victory points.

It's effectively extra credit.

No it isn't, because extra credit doesn't cause other students to fail if they didn't complete it.

Got a better analogy?

 catbarf wrote:

 Octopoid wrote:
Thank you for quoting the rule! Yup, that's a BS rule that rewards those who have more time, effort, money, and/or investment in the game, and punishes the casual, poor, or busy player. I'll be ignoring that firmly for the rest of my gaming time, and will shout from the rooftops that it's a bad rule until the day I die.

Casual players don't get bent out of shape if the rulebook says that they 'actually' lost a closely-fought no-stakes non-competitive pick-up game.

Poor players aren't buying armies at GW prices. The cost of paint to get to a battle-ready standard is negligible in comparison.

Busy players aren't playing the game. You can paint a Marine army to the three-color standard in the time it takes to play a 2K game.

The players this affects are those who take their winning and losing a bit too seriously and resent the social expectation that models be painted now codified as a (extremely mild) rule. And then using these casual, poor, and busy players as a shield.

Fourthed.

The bonus is only enforced in tournaments, not casual games. If someone is paying to be in a tourney they know up front what the rules are, and whether it’s worth their time, effort and money to get the bonus 10 pts. Hockey tournaments, softball tournaments, tennis... all have weird little rules that not everyone agrees with, but they aren’t popped up at the last minute as a surprise. Evaluate the cost, and skip it if it doesn’t work for you.

Because the counter argument is that every other rule is specifically written for people who focus solely on the playing aspect. One single rule is written for the hobbyists who enjoy the painting aspect. Should we dump scoring altogether to make the painters happy? Or can non-painters concede that one single bonus isn’t game breaking?

People are arguing that it’s unfair that if they don’t have the time, ability or money to achieve a perfect score, no one else should be able rewarded for their extra effort either. Let’s drag the game down to suit the lowest effort.

Now that I think of it, I don’t have time to practice. Why should people who do have practice time get higher scores?

I can’t afford a titan. Is it fair that people who have more money get an advantage?

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

So if it's just you soldiers you agree that things like this are silly (they're just toy soldiers after all, and gatekeeping is bad last I checked), which means it shouldn't have been a rule to begin with.

Thanks for playing.

It ain't a rule. It's a bonus when determining victory points.

It's effectively extra credit.

No it isn't, because extra credit doesn't cause other students to fail if they didn't complete it.

Got a better analogy?

 Kanluwen wrote:

At the end of the battle, the player with the most victory points is the winner. If players are tied, the battle is a draw.

Each player can score a maximum of 45 victory points from primary objectives and a maximum of 45 victory points from secondary objectives (from a maximum of 15 victory points from each of the 3 secondary objectives you have selected), for a total of 90 possible victory points from mission objectives (any excess victory points awarded are discounted). If every model in a player's army was painted to a Battle Ready standard, that player is awarded a bonus 10 victory points. This gives the player a maximum total score out of 100 victory points.

I posted the exact wording of the rule.

My analogy works just fine. If a student(player) chooses not to do the extra credit(meet the Battle Ready standard), they can only score a maximum of 90 points.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

So if it's just you soldiers you agree that things like this are silly (they're just toy soldiers after all, and gatekeeping is bad last I checked), which means it shouldn't have been a rule to begin with.

Thanks for playing.

It ain't a rule. It's a bonus when determining victory points.

It's effectively extra credit.

No it isn't, because extra credit doesn't cause other students to fail if they didn't complete it.

The "non-painted student" can still win.