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.

 Carnikang wrote:

 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.

It is possible the "proper" competitive packet won't have that clause. And TOs can do as they please.

Actually I think people likely need to chill just a bit: The 10 points is in CRUSADE missions.



If you're playing Crusade you -really- should be painting your models.

No, it's in matched play missions too.

One thing I am really sympathetic to is the guy who has a mostly painted army who has a piece or two that isn't painted yet because he just got it and he doesn't want to do the quick and dirty job on it, he wants to paint it to a higher standard like the rest of his army. But I am sure 99.999% of players would give that guy the full 10 points based on the rest of his army.

yukishiro1 wrote:
No, it's in matched play missions too.

Oh, you're right:

the_scotsman wrote:
Wait, am I late, or have foljs not seen the full rules book? Are we complaining aboit paint because we've all already gone thru the rules?

Yeah I'm in the same boat. Guess we missed out.

So let's see if I can figure this out: fallback is effectively the same, you have to maintain coherence when piling in, and you now have to be closer to engage in cc. So melee is still on the losing side against gun lines. I'm shocked.

Also loyalists are getting another G.I. Primaris toy, which as usual looks terrible, and will probably be getting ridiculous rules and be under costed.

And tacticals are going up to 15 ppm. So csm will probably be 14 ppm, a 27% increase. That's 7% more than intercessors. Without doctrines, super doctrines, good faction traits or any of the other stuff that intercessors get. With the 50% increase for cultists this doesn't look good for the legions.

I am feeling very salty. And everyone is arguing about painting. This is what I get for having a job.

This album is supposed to be a little bit better organized: https://imgur.com/a/nlVT8AM

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Red Corsair wrote:
Sure because it would be applied to everyone that entered.

That makes zero sense. A painting prize should be determined by, wait for it, painting. If someone won a painting competition because they won more games there'd be a frickin' riot.

 Red Corsair wrote:
How is this hard to grasp?

That's what I've been asking.

 Red Corsair wrote:
Go figure a game that revolves around playing with hobby kits that require assembly and painting would expect you to do just that. BTW, no where does it say you can't play or are penalized. You just miss out on that juicy carrot.

Require assembly yes, because the games rules require LOS checks and the ability to see what a mini is armed with. Painting doesn't stop either of those.

And it is a penalty. It's saying your opponent wins more because they painted their army, not because of anything they did during the game. You are losing a game because of nothing you did during the game.

 Red Corsair wrote:
I don't have 20/20 vision, I also hate wearing glasses and contact lenses but if I enter an archery contest you can bet I'll suck it up and wear them or miss out on points.

I won't expect the event give me a handicap on points because I'm an entitled brat.

Painting has never been a requirement of the game. Being accurate in an archery contest is. Your analogy is horrific.

accept it now IS a requirement if you want max points. The analogy might not be perfect but it does get my point across. Your now required to have some paint on your models if you want 100 points. You can still play regardless, your just not getting 100 points, so winning is going to be harder.

Your just acting entitled. Get over it. If you hate painting and want equal odds, either discuss it with your opponent, play another guy with an unpainted army. You could also of course paint your models, even minimally or pay someone else to paint your army.

Paint your models. Get the 10 VP. Don't paint your models. Don't get the 10 VP. I don't see a problem. If those 10 VP are really really important to somebody they'll paint their force. If it's a pick-up funsie game then who's counting VPs anyway?

Battle ready is a fairly low bar.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Sasori wrote:
That's not what you said in the post he replied to though. You talked about how someone with the ability to build the most top meta list (Economic Advantage) would still lose, and he pointed out that is very likely not the case.

Complete conjecture as to what "edge" that would be. It's a nebulous concept. What I said is that someone who has the "edge" can still lose because they didn't paint said units.

The overall point is that you can lose games because of nothing you (or your opponent) did during the game.

That'd be like taking a few strokes off someone's golf score during a major because of the colour of shoes you wore.

That analogy is worse then mine mate. If the tournament didn't tell players maybe, but if the golf tournament was sponsored by Nike and you wore reboks and were forced to play barefoot because your a moron that can't follow instructions and it threw your swing off, sure you deserve to lose

Your acting like this is hidden and nefarious. It's literally equal to anyone that chooses to follow instructions. You just want to have it YOUR way.

I'll ask again, how is it any less fair then unequal purchasing power? That also has nothing to do with skill and VERY much can effect outcome, more so then this.

 puma713 wrote:
You think there's any possibility that GW either knows or condones this leak? The album is still up, which is surprising, and it could be a good move considering all the vitriol on the interwebs today about them not releasing a rulebook alongside Indomitus at launch.

There is a rulebook coming at launch. There is little they can easily do to take this down though.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:


I am feeling very salty. And everyone is arguing about painting. This is what I get for having a job.

I somehow doubt CSM will go up as much. If they don't then it's confirmation of the disparity of traits being codified.

TangoTwoBravo wrote:
Paint your models. Get the 10 VP. Don't paint your models. Don't get the 10 VP. I don't see a problem. If those 10 VP are really really important to somebody they'll paint their force. If it's a pick-up funsie game then who's counting VPs anyway?

Battle ready is a fairly low bar.

If anything this should make folks with unpainted armies feel BETTER. The game is actually saying it's OK, since your "losing" points, before it was part of the social contract. You were failing to uphold your end if you didn't paint your models. Now you can play guilt free because your opponent is being rewarded for their end.

 Sasori wrote:
This album is supposed to be a little bit better organized:

It is. It gets some... NSFW overlays on top of the images later on, however.
The mods also nuked the last album thread as well, so you might want to check about posting it.

 Red Corsair wrote:

TangoTwoBravo wrote:
Paint your models. Get the 10 VP. Don't paint your models. Don't get the 10 VP. I don't see a problem. If those 10 VP are really really important to somebody they'll paint their force. If it's a pick-up funsie game then who's counting VPs anyway?

Battle ready is a fairly low bar.

If anything this should make folks with unpainted armies feel BETTER. The game is actually saying it's OK, since your "losing" points, before it was part of the social contract. You were failing to uphold your end if you didn't paint your models. Now you can play guilt free because your opponent is being rewarded for their end.

Just like you have to memorize rules to paint your models, right?

I mean, if I have to paint models to play the game, surely you should have to do something game-related to paint.

 Sasori wrote:
This album is supposed to be a little bit better organized: https://imgur.com/a/nlVT8AM

Looks like it is. Thank you.

Do you drybrush your models? Use more than one layer? Highlight over contrast? If so, and you want to enforce this rule, you automatically forfeit those 10 VPs. Battle Ready is defined on GW's site, and using those techniques very specifically makes you Parade Ready, not Battle Ready. Is that cool with everyone who likes this rule? Highlights are now actively detrimental to your game.

Obviously enforcing that is silly, but it is the letter of the rules.

As for outspending your opponent on models, those advantages are real, but are the result of GW's poor balance and slow update schedule. Not something that should be held up as a positive. Should I demand that everyone who doesn't heavily convert their minis take a 10 VP hit in games, just because I do it? This is a model based hobby after all - requiring that you do a bit more than just slap your figures together seems around as reasonable as making painting part of the game score. It only takes a few minutes per model to sculpt and add additional scrolls/capes, green stuff on some unique berets, or even just swap all those boring old lasguns on your guard with fancier admech rifles, after all.

VPs for painted models is also another nerf to hordes.

 Trimarius wrote:
Do you drybrush your models? Use more than one layer? Highlight over contrast? If so, and you want to enforce this rule, you automatically forfeit those 10 VPs. Battle Ready is defined on GW's site, and using those techniques very specifically makes you Parade Ready, not Battle Ready. Is that cool with everyone who likes this rule? Highlights are now actively detrimental to your game.

Now we need BCB to determine whether painting your army beyond Battle Ready standard means that you also lose out on those 10 points.

 Oaka wrote:
VPs for painted models is also another nerf to hordes.

Everything in Tournament Edition 40K is.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 puma713 wrote:
You think there's any possibility that GW either knows or condones this leak? The album is still up, which is surprising, and it could be a good move considering all the vitriol on the interwebs today about them not releasing a rulebook alongside Indomitus at launch.

There is a rulebook coming at launch. There is little they can easily do to take this down though.

There's a rulebook coming in a limited edition boxed set. They didn't say anything about a standalone rulebook, which is to what I'm referring.

 Red Corsair wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Red Corsair wrote:
Sure because it would be applied to everyone that entered.

That makes zero sense. A painting prize should be determined by, wait for it, painting. If someone won a painting competition because they won more games there'd be a frickin' riot.

 Red Corsair wrote:
How is this hard to grasp?

That's what I've been asking.

 Red Corsair wrote:
Go figure a game that revolves around playing with hobby kits that require assembly and painting would expect you to do just that. BTW, no where does it say you can't play or are penalized. You just miss out on that juicy carrot.

Require assembly yes, because the games rules require LOS checks and the ability to see what a mini is armed with. Painting doesn't stop either of those.

And it is a penalty. It's saying your opponent wins more because they painted their army, not because of anything they did during the game. You are losing a game because of nothing you did during the game.

 Red Corsair wrote:
I don't have 20/20 vision, I also hate wearing glasses and contact lenses but if I enter an archery contest you can bet I'll suck it up and wear them or miss out on points.

I won't expect the event give me a handicap on points because I'm an entitled brat.

Painting has never been a requirement of the game. Being accurate in an archery contest is. Your analogy is horrific.

accept it now IS a requirement if you want max points. The analogy might not be perfect but it does get my point across. Your now required to have some paint on your models if you want 100 points. You can still play regardless, your just not getting 100 points, so winning is going to be harder.

Your just acting entitled. Get over it. If you hate painting and want equal odds, either discuss it with your opponent, play another guy with an unpainted army. You could also of course paint your models, even minimally or pay someone else to paint your army.

Here's the thing. For large events, this doesn't matter. Every large event has this as a minimum standard to even show up.

For locals? This can be a death sentence to an event. People see 'painting points', look at their gray plastic and stay home. You could lose half the field at an FLGS tourney with a rule like this.

Which would get worse over time. Your bad painters, slow painters, or just people who are really busy will get sick of playing their only painted list and stop showing up.

It's why we don't have paint points in any of our locals. We're lucky to get 10 people as it is. Tell them you have to paint your army and you'll be lucky to keep 4.

 puma713 wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 puma713 wrote:
You think there's any possibility that GW either knows or condones this leak? The album is still up, which is surprising, and it could be a good move considering all the vitriol on the interwebs today about them not releasing a rulebook alongside Indomitus at launch.

There is a rulebook coming at launch. There is little they can easily do to take this down though.

There's a rulebook coming in a limited edition boxed set. They didn't say anything about a standalone rulebook, which is to what I'm referring.

ERJAK wrote:
Which would get worse over time. Your bad painters, slow painters, or just people who are really busy will get sick of playing their only painted list and stop showing up.

It's why we don't have paint points in any of our locals. We're lucky to get 10 people as it is. Tell them you have to paint your army and you'll be lucky to keep 4.

I've been to one tournament in my life. It was during the dark times of 7th, so Eldar/Tau Riptide soup spam made everything exceptionally unfun, but that aside I was disappointed that only one of the armies was painted (and I say that as someone who brought an unpainted army). That said, even I understood that if that had been a requirement, it would have been a tournament with one person in it, which means it wouldn't've been a tournament at all.

It is so disappointing that GW has chosen to implement a rule during a time when game companies are trying to increase accessibility (sometimes to extreme degrees, like the recent Last of Us 2's various visual impairment modes).

The vibe in this thread would be completely reversed if the rule was in regards to painting competitions and dictated that positive W/L records from matches grant extra points when determining the winner.

Whether you think it's a good rule or not is ultimately preference, and also irrelevant, but you're simply wrong if you don't think this rule is 100% arbitrary. I'm not effected by it in any way personally, but on principle if someone tried to swing this gak at me I would immediately counter with "sure, but we also get points deducted for unfluffiness as well. Let me see your list so I can make sure all your unit selections match up with how your force would canonically fight." A Thousand Sons army with Mortarion allied in? Gonna have to deduct 10 points from you there chief.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 puma713 wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 puma713 wrote:
You think there's any possibility that GW either knows or condones this leak? The album is still up, which is surprising, and it could be a good move considering all the vitriol on the interwebs today about them not releasing a rulebook alongside Indomitus at launch.

There is a rulebook coming at launch. There is little they can easily do to take this down though.

There's a rulebook coming in a limited edition boxed set. They didn't say anything about a standalone rulebook, which is to what I'm referring.

Yep. Posted in this thread about 15 pages back.

yukishiro1 wrote:

Ice_can wrote:

yukishiro1 wrote:
Yeah, for reaper, you get 10 points for a 10W+ model. So it could be 100 1W infantry + 5 tanks. Still going to be a pretty rare list where you can max it, since it's 1 point per model (10 for 10W+), not 1 point per wound.

These secondaries are just...bad. Why didn't they just use the ITC ones if this is the best they could come up with? They're much better balanced than these.

Really it looks like someone Baised the out of the secondrys to make certain amies and builds auto give them away will other's will be impossible to maximise score against.

They do seem extremely gameable, in addition to just being weird and unbalanced generally. No matter what angle I look at them from, they look like a bit of a hot mess.

Not a surprise.

Too bad. Gw had gotten pretty darn good missions to themselves which they then abandoned for this junk. Gotta push marines eh.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:


I am feeling very salty. And everyone is arguing about painting. This is what I get for having a job.

I somehow doubt CSM will go up as much. If they don't then it's confirmation of the disparity of traits being codified.

So the idea that veterans of hundreds if not thousands of years of war, much of it in literal hell, are inferior to thin blooded members of founding #3478 will be codified. Thanks, that makes me feel so much better.

Also: apparently gw wants us to pay for new points again, only a little over six months after the last time. And with the change to the supreme command detachment we've lost one of the few ways a super heavy can get traits. Guess that's not really a problem for csm. Oh, and the new super melta primaris are actually 40 ppm.

On the upside, since we already have the full brb, no reason gw shouldn't give us something on the new fw books. Please? A little good news? Can we at least get some leaks for the points for something besides those members of founding #3478?

Edit: Wait, were are these secondaries? What page? Please, give me another reason to be salty.

 BlaxicanX wrote:
The vibe in this thread would be completely reversed if the rule was in regards to painting competitions and dictated that positive W/L records from matches grant extra points when determining the winner.

Whether you think it's a good rule or not is ultimately preference, and also irrelevant, but you're simply wrong if you don't think this rule is 100% arbitrary.

Never mind, read that wrong.

 BlaxicanX wrote:
The vibe in this thread would be completely reversed if the rule was in regards to painting competitions and dictated that positive W/L records from matches grant extra points when determining the winner.

That's what I've been saying from the start, but apparently I'm being "over the top" with my criticism of this rule.

tneva82 wrote:

yukishiro1 wrote:

Ice_can wrote:

yukishiro1 wrote:
Yeah, for reaper, you get 10 points for a 10W+ model. So it could be 100 1W infantry + 5 tanks. Still going to be a pretty rare list where you can max it, since it's 1 point per model (10 for 10W+), not 1 point per wound.

These secondaries are just...bad. Why didn't they just use the ITC ones if this is the best they could come up with? They're much better balanced than these.

Really it looks like someone Baised the out of the secondrys to make certain amies and builds auto give them away will other's will be impossible to maximise score against.

They do seem extremely gameable, in addition to just being weird and unbalanced generally. No matter what angle I look at them from, they look like a bit of a hot mess.

Not a surprise.

Too bad. Gw had gotten pretty darn good missions to themselves which they then abandoned for this junk. Gotta push marines eh.

Because...one secondary favors marines? You know Custodes benefit even more right? And Dark Eldar vehicles only have 6 wounds, Venom Spam loves reaper.

 BlaxicanX wrote:
The vibe in this thread would be completely reversed if the rule was in regards to painting competitions and dictated that positive W/L records from matches grant extra points when determining the winner.

Whether you think it's a good rule or not is ultimately preference, and also irrelevant, but you're simply wrong if you don't think this rule is 100% arbitrary. I'm not effected by it in any way personally, but on principle if someone tried to swing this gak at me I would immediately counter with "sure, but we also get points deducted for unfluffiness as well. Let me see your list so I can make sure all your unit selections match up with how your force would canonically fight." A Thousand Sons army with Mortarion allied in? Gonna have to deduct 10 points from you there chief.

Well, that's a bit of an unfair analogy, isn't it?

Battle Ready isn't a quality standard, it's just a "did you do this?" It doesn't have to be good, it just has to be done. So the analogy would be to just playing, not to what your W/L ratio was.

So it would be like saying "you get an additional 10 points in the painting competition if you played in the tournament too."

Which I agree is also silly...but it's less silly than your analogy.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 puma713 wrote:
I mean, not really. It's 10 points, not 50. If we both scored all of our primaries and I scored one of my secondaries to the max and you scored three, I'd still lose to you, even with a painted army.

Doesn't matter if it's 1 point or 99 points. The events of the game should determine who wins, not whether the minis are painted.

I personally think it is a good rule. I was tired of playing at events and games with people to lazy to paint their armies. Now i gain points for doing the right thing and they don’t since they break game immersion. Not sure how you can’t see that.