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.

 puma713 wrote:

 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).

Well that and taking shots at TFG.

 puma713 wrote:

 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).

Yeah, I'm not sure what the problem is here. If you are not playing in a tournament, then just don't use it. Seems pretty simple to me.

Most major tournaments and a lot of events usually already required a 3 color minimum or docked you on points anyway.

If GW's website is any indication, "battle ready" is essentially: You've primed the model and put precisely one layer of contrast paints over that primer, although in most cases that still means multiple paints per model. (Or the traditional method, which is slightly more work...)

To be frank, if you're in a situation where you lose a game by that ten point "battle ready" award, then own it. Vent and curse the mustache twirling villains at GW who have put this incredible barrier of ten points between you and your proper victory.

If you say the words "I would have won if I had painted my models" or "I would have won if you hadn't painted your models", I think doing so in the manner of a Scooby Doo villain is advised against.

 ClockworkZion wrote:
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.

Seeing as most people I know paint their army in one uniform colour scheme what exactly is the difference between painted and unpainted at this point? I had as much difficulty differentiating my own unpainted squads as I did between 2 identically painted genestealer squads in the same combat. As usual it seems you are making nonsensical defenses for GW's faulty rules.

 ClockworkZion wrote:
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.

I've never had a problem with that, especially with a really quick zenithal spray job.

Also, I disagree that combat is hard with unpainted units. Not everyone basecoats, leaves models absolutely bare of paint, or uses the same type of color/primer. So there will definitely be some difference.

Another point, how does a solid color make it hard to differentiate between a space marine and a space marine commander? One is clearly more ostentatious. Even in a single scale of color. Even special characters have defining silhouettes.

But your point about mixing up squads? Yeah, that can happen, if its all the same unit type/datasheet, with the same models. But that happens even with painted models unless some care was taken to give them a defining feature.

yukishiro1 wrote:
If I was playing someone without a fully painted army not in a tournament I'd just give them the 10 points too, can't imagine anyone who wouldn't do the same.

We've had people on this very board who not only refuse to play against unpainted armies but also suggest that people who don't paint or have any intention to paint shouldn't be playing the game at all.

Sooooo...

Another stealth change that hasn't been mentioned yet is that models cannot go through terrain that is higher than 1", so (unless there is an exception I've missed). So, with the L-shaped buildings that people have been talking about, in 8th a horde of Orks could just rumble through the walls to assault what's on the other side. In 9th, they've got to trek all the way around the building. Seems like another small shot to big units of infantry.

Edit: Although I don't see the definition of "Breachable" here, so that may cover the above.

 Sasori wrote:
Yeah, I'm not sure what the problem is here. If you are not playing in a tournament, then just don't use it. Seems pretty simple to me.

And if you're playing a random pickup game and your opponent insists in playing by the printed rules rather than your suggested house rule? It's really hard to get annoyed at someone who wants to play by the rules.

Which is why a painting requirement shouldn't be part of the rules.

You should never be able to win a game of 40K because your army is painted. That's daft.

Tournaments can have their own painting requirements (and often do), which is fine, but it shouldn't be part of the core rules.

Wow.... OK so with all the coherency bs, the addition of vehicles Beeing able to shoot in CC, multicharges Beeing extremely risky, the addition of the fall back strat...

They also capped models that can fight to a 1/2" range...

Can someone tell me what I missed in 8th? Since when was the consensus that CC was so overpowering it needed to be nerfed that hard?

Not to mention the screw you to big units which are extremely negatively effected by the before mentioned rule changes in addition to Beeing further screwd by terrain rules and the introduction of blast weapons...

Well at least I can now attack the intervening hero with 3 ork Boyz, that will balance thing out

 puma713 wrote:
Another stealth change that hasn't been mentioned yet is that models cannot go through terrain that is higher than 1", so (unless there is an exception I've missed).

"A model can be moved vertically in order to climb up, down and over any terrain features that are higher than this, counting the vertical distances as part of its move"
Same section as being able to move over terrain that is 1" or less.

yukishiro1 wrote:
If your opponent somehow charged on your turn, he would get to go first with his chargers, before you got to go with your chargers.

Since that doesn't happen, your chargers go before his non-chargers.

It's awkwardly worded because it isn't possible he'd have any chargers, but it works.

Custodes have swooping dive strat that lets them charge in the opponents turn.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Sasori wrote:
Yeah, I'm not sure what the problem is here. If you are not playing in a tournament, then just don't use it. Seems pretty simple to me.

And if you're playing a random pickup game and your opponent insists in playing by the printed rules rather than your suggested house rule? It's really hard to get annoyed at someone who wants to play by the rules.

Which is why a painting requirement shouldn't be part of the rules.

You should never be able to win a game of 40K because your army is painted. That's daft.

Tournaments can have their own painting requirements (and often do), which is fine, but it shouldn't be part of the core rules.

Then you either play with the rules or you move on and find someone else to play with.

I think you're making a mountain out of a molehill here.

 puma713 wrote:
Another stealth change that hasn't been mentioned yet is that models cannot go through terrain that is higher than 1", so (unless there is an exception I've missed). So, with the L-shaped buildings that people have been talking about, in 8th a horde of Orks could just rumble through the walls to assault what's on the other side. In 9th, they've got to trek all the way around the building. Seems like another small shot to big units of infantry.

Edit: Although I don't see the definition of "Breachable" here, so that may cover the above.

I assumed that they meant they can climb and 'jump' down, costing you movement now. Of course, you may be right that the Breachable rule might come into effect. Possibly allows charging through walls and other obstacles?

Voss wrote:

 puma713 wrote:
Another stealth change that hasn't been mentioned yet is that models cannot go through terrain that is higher than 1" (unless there is an exception I've missed).

"A model can be moved vertically in order to climb up, down and over any terrain features that are higher than this, counting the vertical distances as part of its move"
Same section as being able to move over terrain that is 1" or less.

Right, vertically, not through. In 8th, you can go right through a wall. In 9th, you can't (unless "Breachable" let's you).

Edit: Found Breachable and that is exactly what it does. If a terrain piece is breachable, you can move through its walls, structures, etc.

 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.

Its no different then a guy that paints his minis but doesn't like to learn strategy or has trouble learning the rules and loses most of his games. Some folks invest more time in different parts of the game, but building and painting the models has always been a core element to the game.

 Red Corsair wrote:
Its no different then a guy that paints his minis but doesn't like to learn strategy or has trouble learning the rules and loses most of his games. Some folks invest more time in different parts of the game, but building and painting the models has always been a core element to the game.

To the hobby, not the game.

 Sasori wrote:
I think you're making a mountain out of a molehill here.

First time you lose a game not because of anything you or your opponent did during the game but because you didn't have a painted army come back and say that again.

RedNoak wrote:
Can someone tell me what I missed in 8th? Since when was the consensus that CC was so overpowering it needed to be nerfed that hard?

Close combat takes a long time, especially with hordes, which eats up precious round time during a tournament. This is why HTH and hordes needed to be nerfed into the fething ground for Tournament Edition 40K.

 Castozor wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
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.

Seeing as most people I know paint their army in one uniform colour scheme what exactly is the difference between painted and unpainted at this point? I had as much difficulty differentiating my own unpainted squads as I did between 2 identically painted genestealer squads in the same combat. As usual it seems you are making nonsensical defenses for GW's faulty rules.

One solid color =/= one uniform scheme.

Let's give an example: you haveba squad of 10 Intercessors and none of them are painted (or maybe they'll all black) and I kill 5 in melee with a unit who gives -1 LD. Now if you paint them then we both know that you still have a SGT in the squad adding +1LD, but if they're unpainted I have to ask "if your SGT still alive?" and trust I am not being mislead for in game advantage.

Painted models with markings keep players honest, even if they would never intentionally cheat in the first place.

 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.

So why should some one with money to burn have an edge over another guy on a tight budget?

There are a ton of other barriers to winning at 40k. Seems hilarious that folks are upset that your models are expected to be painted. It's not like 10 points guarantees a win BTW. It's pretty minor.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 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.

This times 1000x.

It is beyond idiotic to take a game metric scoring system that is supposed to represent how well players competed in a match, and then give one player a bunch of extra participation points that have zero to do with what happened in that much or how well that player played.

 Carnikang wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
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.

I've never had a problem with that, especially with a really quick zenithal spray job.

Also, I disagree that combat is hard with unpainted units. Not everyone basecoats, leaves models absolutely bare of paint, or uses the same type of color/primer. So there will definitely be some difference.

Another point, how does a solid color make it hard to differentiate between a space marine and a space marine commander? One is clearly more ostentatious. Even in a single scale of color. Even special characters have defining silhouettes.

But your point about mixing up squads? Yeah, that can happen, if its all the same unit type/datasheet, with the same models. But that happens even with painted models unless some care was taken to give them a defining feature.

Zenithal =/= one paint color.

And "not everybody" doesn't change the fact it does happen. I've played against it more times than I care to count over the years.

Sure, there are exceptions, but they don't disprove the arguement.

Get it through your skull:

Some people hate painting.
Some people are bad at painting, so don't want to do it.
Some people have unsteady hands/are colourblind/have bad eye-sight.

No one should suffer in game because of ANY of the above. How the feth don't you people get this???

 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?

Bull crap. I have been in tournaments where armies were "required" to be at least painted and WYSIWYG and all 3 rounds the other players failed to hold up their end. If the store enforced it the RT tournament would have been canceled.

So whats the alternative? Dis-sallow them from prizes? From winning? Because both of those are way harsher and I have seen it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Get it through your skull:

Some people hate painting.
Some people are bad at painting, so don't want to do it.
Some people have unsteady hands/are colourblind/have bad eye-sight.

No one should suffer in game because of ANY of the above. How the feth don't you people get this???

Thats mellow dramatic mate.

It's hardly suffering lol.

I guess WYSIWYG shouldn't be a thing either. Because it forces folks on a budget to make subpar choices in list building often. Heck just let full proxying in so it's more fair.

What if the painting award at a tournament had a "winning games" condition. That wouldn't make any sense, would it?

Breachable does indeed let infantry beasts and swarms move thru as if the terrain isnt there.

Another thing: only swarms, beasts and infantry can benefit from light or heavy cover.

the_scotsman wrote:
Breachable does indeed let infantry beasts and swarms move thru as if the terrain isnt there.

Another thing: only swarms, beasts and infantry can benefit from light or heavy cover.

Good spot, no more +1 save for tanks by hiding in a building, though they can get a -1 to hit at least in dense terrain.

 Red Corsair wrote:

 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.

So why should some one with money to burn have an edge over another guy on a tight budget?

There are a ton of other barriers to winning at 40k. Seems hilarious that folks are upset that your models are expected to be painted. It's not like 10 points guarantees a win BTW. It's pretty minor.

10 out of a 100 maximum is not minor, especially when one player gets it for free and the other is left out. Money, granted that makes a difference but this A) isn't the cheapest hobby to begin with, B) having a 500 or 700 Euro/Dollar/W/e budget is generally not the reason you lose the game, at least not were I play. And even if that were true why add another arbitrary barrier between players? You either are good at the game or not, getting free points because you like painting whereas I don't is ridiculous. Magic tournaments are not decided because one guy decided to sleeve his cards whereas his opponent didn't. You want to win the actual game part of this hobby? Put the work in and get better.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Get it through your skull:

Some people hate painting.
Some people are bad at painting, so don't want to do it.
Some people have unsteady hands/are colourblind/have bad eye-sight.

No one should suffer in game because of ANY of the above. How the feth don't you people get this???

You're going way over the top. If you and a person in the store can't agree for something simple like this for a casual pick up game, then there are other problems at play.

 Virules wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 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.

This times 1000x.

It is beyond idiotic to take a game metric scoring system that is supposed to represent how well players competed in a match, and then give one player a bunch of extra participation points that have zero to do with what happened in that much or how well that player played.

Same goes for the guy that runs out and drops half a grand on 9 ridge runners because of a new mechanic in order to gain an edge. If you don't like that example, there's plenty of others for more competitive crap in the meta BTW, before that target gets moved.

What does purchasing power have to do with skill?

 Sasori wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Get it through your skull:

Some people hate painting.
Some people are bad at painting, so don't want to do it.
Some people have unsteady hands/are colourblind/have bad eye-sight.

No one should suffer in game because of ANY of the above. How the feth don't you people get this???

You're going way over the top. If you and a person in the store can't agree for something simple like this for a casual pick up game, then there are other problems at play.

Maybe yes, maybe no. His point that this should never be part of the core rules is valid. It just invites unnecessary arguments for nor reason.

Something else that is a big change:

Command reroll is only allowed on:

-Armor Saves
-To Wound
-To Hit
-Damage
-Advance
-Charge
-Psychic test
-Deny the witch
-Number of attacks from a weapon


So no using a command re-roll to see if Robby G gets back up or to see if Agents of Vect goes off. No more command re-roll for Morale, for exploding tanks, etc., etc.