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.

 ClockworkZion wrote:
From the general internet wailing I'm willing to vet you can spot the pope who don't paint their armies.

While that is true... the fact that is is now a part of the GW backed competitive packet makes me feel even less inclined to participate in Competitive Events, even locally.

It's not really an issue for me, because I CAN field a fully painted force... but sometimes that's not what I want to do.

Also echo H.B.M.C on this as many people don't actively like to paint. It can make you feel bad about not painting, especially if you enjoy the competitive part of the game. It might widen a gap that the community sometimes makes itself, just driving people to opposite positions. I dont know if this is actually healthy for the Competitive scene.


All I can really say about it is that local painters that do cheap commissions might make some bank.

All this argument over who fights first. If effing obvious to anyone with a reading comprehension skill above a 1st grader that chargers go first, than when all charging units have fought your opponent selects a unit instead of you.

It is the same damn rule as is current with the exception that your opponent picks the first unit to fight with after all of your charging units have fought instead of you getting to double dip.

Only a complete WAAC gamer would try to argue that the opponents NON CHARGING units fight first before their CHARGING units.

Seriously folks. The rule is pretty damn obvious in it's meaning. What part of "charging models always fight first" is unclear?

 ClockworkZion wrote:
From the general internet wailing I'm willing to vet you can spot the pope who don't paint their armies.

You should win the game by being the better general not because you accomplished some external criteria, and like I pointed out in another thread why draw the line at painting if they are going to do this? Fielding fluffy armies seems to me to be more important than wether or not they are painted. Are my black coated plague marines somehow an immersion dealbreaker but a force of 1 knight, 30 guardsman and some random SM captains are not? Now I will say in my group this rule won't be impact full because half of us play with half painted armies but it's the principle that bothers me.

 puma713 wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
You mean "Stolen From The Guard" turret, clearly.

I don't want to hear it, with the "Stolen from Fire Dragons" Eradicators.

Cawl is secretly the primarch of the blood ravens

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
From the general internet wailing I'm willing to vet you can spot the pope who don't paint their armies.

It's awesome when you're made to engage in part of the hobby you don't like by penalising you in-game.

You mean a part of a hobby that has a whole third party industry to paint them for people?

Besides, it's 10 points out of a possible, what? 120? Soynds more like a tiebreaker than a real issue.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Castozor wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
From the general internet wailing I'm willing to vet you can spot the pope who don't paint their armies.

You should win the game by being the better general not because you accomplished some external criteria, and like I pointed out in another thread why draw the line at painting if they are going to do this? Fielding fluffy armies seems to me to be more important than wether or not they are painted. Are my black coated plague marines somehow an immersion dealbreaker but a force of 1 knight, 30 guardsman and some random SM captains are not? Now I will say in my group this rule won't be impact full because half of us play with half painted armies but it's the principle that bothers me.

If you're truly the better general but lost by that 10 points, where you really better?

Look, painting standards have been part of tournaments for years now, and this is clearly an attempt to codify that into what is basically a tie breaker to encourage people to engage in more parts of the wider hobby.

Or at least pay a friend to paint them for you.

The argument over "Do chargers fight first?" seems be based on some strange assumption that GW has written the sort of war-game rules that cross reference their exceptions, instead of just defining a main set of rules and then letting whatever else later contradict the main rules and make exceptions. (And I'm sure the fact that some rules try to be helpful and point out their own common exceptions will be found to be really helpful by some people, and incredibly annoying by others.)

I'm pretty sure over the twenty five years that GW has been publishing rules, that they've had to put the rules priority principles into writing once or twice. But I think the odds are still slim that they're put into writing in the new edition.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

If you're truly the better general but lost by that 10 points, where you really better?

Look, painting standards have been part of tournaments for years now, and this is clearly an attempt to codify that into what is basically a tie breaker to encourage people to engage in more parts of the wider hobby.

Or at least pay a friend to paint them for you.

If I won by 10 points then yes I'm better, wasn't that the point of the game? I take the same issue with some marine strats that basically give free VP in Maelstorm missions for 1 CP. I don't give a gak about tournaments and I suspect so do 80% of all players. This did not need to be codified and like I said why not codify fluffyness too while we are at it and introducing no in game standards to who wins or does not win a game.

Is Battle Ready defined anywhere?

 Oaka wrote:
Is Battle Ready defined anywhere?

Colors blocked out, maybe a wash. They do a video series on it.

 ClockworkZion wrote:
You mean a part of a hobby that has a whole third party industry to paint them for people?

Some people can't afford that. And what has that got to do with anything anyway?

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Besides, it's 10 points out of a possible, what? 120? Soynds more like a tiebreaker than a real issue.

Irrelevant. The idea that one's final score in a game is determined by an aspect of the hobby that isn't part of the game is ludicrous.

Like I said, some people don't like painting. This penalises them for not engaging in that aspect of the hobby.

 ClockworkZion wrote:
If you're truly the better general but lost by that 10 points, where you really better?

Are you intentionally trying to miss his point?

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Look, painting standards have been part of tournaments for years now...

Not everyone plays in tournaments. This is like yesterday when you basically stated that matched play = competitive play. It's not.

Models are a part of the game. Painting those models has always been something that has been pushed. If anything all I am hearing are excuses to defend the grey tide.

Sorry but I am not buying in on it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And I never said "matched = competetive". Stop strawmanning my position.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
So here's a question: if you play narrative and you don't paint your army, are you really playing narrative? Doesn't feel like it.

Well, my opinion is that if you enter tournaments you should have a painted army. You are playing theoretically the best players from all over a certain part of the world (or the entire world itself). If I had to stay up for 48 straight hours to paint my army ahead of a GT I would.

If you play garage 40k with your buddies than, i dont know, discuss with them whether the paint job is going to factor in or not.

The owner of my LGS always has prizes for best painted army so it's incentive to paint my force because even if I lose the tournament I might win "best painted" and get at least a consolation prize.

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Models are a part of the game. Painting those models has always been something that has been pushed. If anything all I am hearing are excuses to defend the grey tide.

Sorry but I am not buying in on it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And I never said "matched = competetive". Stop strawmanning my position.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
So here's a question: if you play narrative and you don't paint your army, are you really playing narrative? Doesn't feel like it.

I don't really enjoy painting, but I do enjoy gaming. Why should I be punished for gaming without painting? They're related, they're both under the whole "40k Hobby" umbrella, but one does not require the other.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:


Like I said, some people don't like painting. This penalises them for not engaging in that aspect of the hobby.

While I agree with your fervor, H.B.M.C, couldn't you just make a counterpoint for people who puts hundreds of hours into painting and modeling and then show up to a game across the table from a field of grey? Couldn't it affect their enjoyment of the hobby as well? So, instead of "penalizing" those that don't paint, it rewards those that do. And "battle ready" isn't really much of a standard anyway, over and above 3-color-minimum, iirc.

 puma713 wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:


Like I said, some people don't like painting. This penalises them for not engaging in that aspect of the hobby.

While I agree with your fervor, H.B.M.C, couldn't you just make a counterpoint for people who puts hundreds of hours into painting and modeling and then show up to a game across the table from a field of grey? Couldn't it affect their enjoyment of the hobby as well? So, instead of "penalizing" those that don't paint, it rewards those that do. And "battle ready" isn't really much of a standard anyway, over and above 3-color-minimum, iirc.

They aren't required to play against a grey army. I have had someone turn down a game with me because my army wasn't painted. That's okay-you're allowed 100% to have those standards.

But let me ask you this-if you only have fun with fully painted armies on both sides, would an extra 10 points in the game make it better? At all?

If I recall GW's painting stuff properly, Battle Ready is just blocks plus a shade (or contrast) and more detail beyond that point is referred to as Parade Ready, right? So if you have any NMMs, layered up highlights, stacking drybrushes with contrasts, etc. you would no longer score those 10 VPs, as at least part of your army would no longer be Battle Ready (i.e. it doesn't say "at least to a Battle Ready standard"). I hope no one spent extra time on leaders or centerpiece models.

Edit: Yep, still up at https://citadelcolour.com/citadel-colour-system.

In a casual game, penalization for lack of painting is just being pedantic.

But in a tournament or other organized event? honestly yeah it is a must.

And lets be honest if you have the resources to go to an official tournament you have the resources to have a painted army.

 puma713 wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:


Like I said, some people don't like painting. This penalises them for not engaging in that aspect of the hobby.

While I agree with your fervor, H.B.M.C, couldn't you just make a counterpoint for people who puts hundreds of hours into painting and modeling and then show up to a game across the table from a field of grey? Couldn't it affect their enjoyment of the hobby as well? So, instead of "penalizing" those that don't paint, it rewards those that do. And "battle ready" isn't really much of a standard anyway, over and above 3-color-minimum, iirc.

Except it rewards them in the wrong way. If people like me enjoy the game part of this game why should be deducted arbitrary points for a part we don't enjoy? I accept not everyone is like me, in fact most of the people I play with don't like my unpainted armies, but they are also powergamers when it comes to playing the game. You liking painting is fine but why should you get points for it in the actual game part? By the looks of it GW wants this to be a tournament game edition and then adds completely unrelated conditions to the actual game part.

 JNAProductions wrote:

 puma713 wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:


Like I said, some people don't like painting. This penalises them for not engaging in that aspect of the hobby.

While I agree with your fervor, H.B.M.C, couldn't you just make a counterpoint for people who puts hundreds of hours into painting and modeling and then show up to a game across the table from a field of grey? Couldn't it affect their enjoyment of the hobby as well? So, instead of "penalizing" those that don't paint, it rewards those that do. And "battle ready" isn't really much of a standard anyway, over and above 3-color-minimum, iirc.

They aren't required to play against a grey army. I have had someone turn down a game with me because my army wasn't painted. That's okay-you're allowed 100% to have those standards.

But let me ask you this-if you only have fun with fully painted armies on both sides, would an extra 10 points in the game make it better? At all?

I think it might deter those without painted armies to join the tournament. So, while 10 extra points might not make the actual game itself any better, it might ensure that whoever I put my models on the table against has a painted army, which increases the enjoyment (at least for those that want to do it).

I can see plenty of TO's houseruling that the painting requirement won't make or break points. But, I've been to plenty of tournaments with paint requirements and nobody bitched about it. They just did or didn't go. This is basically the same thing. No one is making you join the tournament, just like no one is making you paint your army.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Assault Terminators are about to take a bit of a hit. I wonder how much they went up.

Base is 23. SB is 3. I'm really curious to see melee weapons. They better damn well be cheap.

 JNAProductions wrote:

 puma713 wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:


Like I said, some people don't like painting. This penalises them for not engaging in that aspect of the hobby.

While I agree with your fervor, H.B.M.C, couldn't you just make a counterpoint for people who puts hundreds of hours into painting and modeling and then show up to a game across the table from a field of grey? Couldn't it affect their enjoyment of the hobby as well? So, instead of "penalizing" those that don't paint, it rewards those that do. And "battle ready" isn't really much of a standard anyway, over and above 3-color-minimum, iirc.

They aren't required to play against a grey army. I have had someone turn down a game with me because my army wasn't painted. That's okay-you're allowed 100% to have those standards.

But let me ask you this-if you only have fun with fully painted armies on both sides, would an extra 10 points in the game make it better? At all?

No, but it's not meant to do that. It's meant to convince you not to bring a grey plastic army in the first place.

Every tournament on earth already had this rule, casual play is up to you if you want to implement it. It's literally just GW implementing the painting standards rules that most ITC tournaments already had.

So moving on, here's some fun facts:

A unit added to your army during battle are never part of a Detachment.
Meaning
A) they don't cost CPs
B) they never benefit from Detachment abilities
So summoned daemons? Extra-bad- no Daemonic Loci, No Daemonic Legions (their 'troops win objectives' snowflake rule)

Unbound armies (Ie, not Batlleforged) Get 0 (zero) CPs. You can get them via abilities and 'other rules.' In which case, you can use them on Strats.

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Models are a part of the game. Painting those models has always been something that has been pushed. If anything all I am hearing are excuses to defend the grey tide.

Models are part of the game. Painting is not part of the game.

Painting isn't part of the rules. Why am I being penalised for not doing something I don't want to do because I don't enjoy it?

 ClockworkZion wrote:
And I never said "matched = competetive". Stop strawmanning my position.

And yet you're talking about painting being part of tournaments here, as if it meant something. Most people don't play in tournaments, and this rule impacts them just as much.

 ClockworkZion wrote:
So here's a question: if you play narrative and you don't paint your army, are you really playing narrative? Doesn't feel like it.

That's complete and utter nonsense.

Painting and gaming are part of the hobby. Painting is not part of the game. Gaming is not part of painting.

 puma713 wrote:

yukishiro1 wrote:
Again, start with your opponent. Did any of his units charge? No. Did any of your units charge? If yes, they get to go before his non-chargers.

That's RAW.

But that's not what the Fight Phase says. Go back and read it. It says STARTING WITH YOUR OPPONENT, choose an ELIGIBLE unit. An ELIGIBLE unit is a unit that is within Engagement Range of an enemy AND/OR a unit that charged this turn.

RAW, you start with your opponent. Does he have units in Engagement Range? Yes? Then he goes first. Then, it is your turn, and your activate an ELIGIBLE unit (which is a charger, who goes first.)

The Fight Phase is written that way to give that edge to the opponent so that is the base rule. The base rule doesn't assume chargers exist. But when they do they take precedent.

 Trimarius wrote:
If I recall GW's painting stuff properly, Battle Ready is just blocks plus a shade (or contrast) and more detail beyond that point is referred to as Parade Ready, right? So if you have any NMMs, layered up highlights, stacking drybrushes with contrasts, etc. you would no longer score those 10 VPs, as at least part of your army would no longer be Battle Ready (i.e. it doesn't say "at least to a Battle Ready standard"). I hope no one spent extra time on leaders or centerpiece models.

Edit: Yep, still up at https://citadelcolour.com/citadel-colour-system.

Introducing: Battle Ready from Warhammer Community.

 puma713 wrote:
... couldn't you just make a counterpoint for people who puts hundreds of hours into painting and modeling and then show up to a game across the table from a field of grey?

No. Painting isn't part of the game. If someone loves painting more power to them, but they shouldn't win the game because they like painting.

Voss wrote:
So moving on, here's some fun facts:

Unbound armies (Ie, not Batlleforged) Get 0 (zero) CPs. You can get them via abilities and 'other rules.' In which case, you can use them on Strats.

They also don't get access to Strategic Reserves (I guess that's obvious from the 0CP, but it is called out specifically in the Strategic Reserves rule.)

 Tyran wrote:
But in a tournament or other organized event? honestly yeah it is a must.

No it's not, because the tournament can just say "Your army must be painted" and that's it. Tournament organises can do whatever the hell they want. This isn't that though. This is penalising people in-game for something that isn't part of the game.

And, yes, it's yet another tournament rule bleeding into regular 40K.

Tournament Edition!!!!

I'd honestly argue that unpainted models actually detract from the game play experiance and potentially create an unfair advantage.

An army that is all one solid color becomes hard to identify units and wargear from across the table as everything blends together requiring people to waste time asking what things are or walking around the table to check.

It also makes it hard to keep track of units if multiple units end up in combat together and nothing is painted.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Tyran wrote:
But in a tournament or other organized event? honestly yeah it is a must.

No it's not, because the tournament can just say "Your army must be painted" and that's it. Tournament organises can do whatever the hell they want. This isn't that though. This is penalising people in-game for something that isn't part of the game.

And, yes, it's yet another tournament rule bleeding into regular 40K.

Tournament Edition!!!!

Yes, but in casual 40k, just ignore it. I don't think anyone here is advocating for a painting penalty in a game between friends. I think we're all talking about events (in regard to actually using the requirement).