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.

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.

I don't think this is about Primaris Syndrome. They're so badly designed that you can't even say they were clearly designed to benefit anything in particular. They're all-around bad, not in any one particular way.

I think it's just about GW being too proud to just take the ITC secondaries wholesale (or with some minor tweaks and additions). Instead they insisted on doing their own version of the same idea, ended up doing it much worse, and were too proud to just admit they had failed and do the logical thing and use the ITC ones instead since they're just better.

jivardi wrote:
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.

Agreed. However gw went hardcoding it to everywhere. So gw disagrees with you and me


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Tyran wrote:
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.

But wouldn't logical point for that being in tournament rules? Now it applies to both.

As it is here either tournament rules have forced painted armies or given bonus(like 1 cp reroll) for painted armies.

Gw decided it applies to casual garage games as well as tournaments.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 puma713 wrote:


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

It's not tournaments that are issue. Before painted armies was common requirement. But this applies to every game. Wanna try new unit? -10 vp.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 puma713 wrote:

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.)

Also guess it means your fliers die leaving board since come back requires strategic reserve rule being used.

 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.

They haven't defined "fluffy/unfluffy." I think that Battle Ready has a standard. Achieve it and get 10 VP. Bask in the glow of those VP.

If they had said: "the player with the better painted army gets +10 VP", I could understand the weeping and gnashing of teeth on this thread. Those 10 VP are there, ready for you to claim them with your brush.

 Sasori wrote:




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.

But having part of core rules rule you expect to not be used for sake of tournaments rather than have that tournament rule in tournament rule is just silly. It shows you have failed basic competence level in rulewriting

I'm surprised there were/are events where unpainted Minis are allowed. I've never seen one, but I'm not that much into the tournament scene of 40K as well, only know it from Lotr.
I guess I like it. Been playing with painted armies since 8th started, it animates you to paint more models, too, as nobody wants to play the same list twice.

Sgt. Cortez wrote:
I'm surprised there were/are events where unpainted Minis are allowed. I've never seen one, but I'm not that much into the tournament scene of 40K as well, only know it from Lotr.
I guess I like it. Been playing with painted armies since 8th started, it animates you to paint more models, too, as nobody wants to play the same list twice.

Issue isn't tournaments. Those have generally had requirement and that's fine. But this is core rule for every...single...game. not just tournaments but your garage game where you buy new unit and want to try it asap. Didn't paint it? -10vp.

Sure you can house rule things but that's something you need to agree and opponent is 100% fine for not allowing house rules and having baked in core rule that is expected to be ignored is just silly. Core rule that is by default is core rule that should be in optional rules. If expectation is it's only used in tournaments then howabout have it in tournaments?

Also wouldn't it be nice to have even once edition where there would be roughly same way to play 40k largely without bunch of house rules altering things?

 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.

Red Corsair: Well said. Dakka is lucky to have you here. Always being constructive unlike others that do nothing but troll here.

Time to dust off my old scatter dice! (just kidding, they never actually left my dice bag)

Time to break out the brushes and, y’know, TRY a little harder.

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

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.

Yeah this discussion about paints and VP involves the same three people and lasted about 10 pages.... Get a freaking room you won't change each others mind so please stop spamming the forum.

CC is nerfed
Primaris stuff gets all the benefits
Weird and clunky rules... Like we need a frikking spreadsheet mark an remember all the terrain features on the table
Coherency bs is bringing back my old PTSD from pieplates
Horses are basically unplayable
We have to pay for point updates
5 model units outperform 6+ units cause of reasons

This edition got me a bit exited at first... Now I am just flat out disappointed... And if idiot another ms ' urrr you hav to wait till all information is out' followed by 'just because now you have all the rules, you still need to play the actual game before whining' finalized by 'they will fix the problems with an errata /faq, so stop complaining' ...I'm going to hang myself

Sgt. Cortez wrote:
I'm surprised there were/are events where unpainted Minis are allowed. I've never seen one, but I'm not that much into the tournament scene of 40K as well, only know it from Lotr.
I guess I like it. Been playing with painted armies since 8th started, it animates you to paint more models, too, as nobody wants to play the same list twice.

The 'Ard Boyz tournaments from GW didn't have painting req's but most others do/did.

Luckily, ''Battle Ready'' is fairly subjective. Just getting models close enough should be good enough! A bit of paint on models isn't too bad. Just assume it is part of the list building process.


Interestingly, since building/painting/basing is now rewarded with points, you are effectively modelling for advantage! (or more accurately choosing to not paint/base models is ''modelling for disadvantage'')

Alternating deployment sounds great but I'm just not sold on ram ranch tbh

yukishiro1 wrote:

 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.

For one, there is a standard, as spraying your 200 boyz with black primer and then slapping them on the table does not count as "battle-ready" (and in fact if you're a gak or slow painter you can in fact "fail" to meet the standard by default), and 2. the point of the comparison is two aspects of the hobby impacting each other for no real reason. Whether or not both scenarios measure skill quality is here nor there.

TangoTwoBravo wrote:


They haven't defined "fluffy/unfluffy." I think that Battle Ready has a standard. Achieve it and get 10 VP. Bask in the glow of those VP.

If they had said: "the player with the better painted army gets +10 VP", I could understand the weeping and gnashing of teeth on this thread. Those 10 VP are there, ready for you to claim them with your brush.

Your point of contention doesn't really matter in regards to my point, for the reasons outlined above.

Damn this thread is moving fast now!

So, is there a real penalty for 'Falling Back' out of close combat, or is it really just that one stratagem, and the unit that charged is just left standing there eligible to be shot up?

 Alpharius wrote:
Damn this thread is moving fast now!

So, is there a real penalty for 'Falling Back' out of close combat, or is it really just that one stratagem, and the unit that charged is just left standing there eligible to be shot up?

Still this. Psykers can't cast after unless Titantic. One unit that's been tri pointed can escape each turn with a strat.

 Eldarain wrote:

 Alpharius wrote:
Damn this thread is moving fast now!

So, is there a real penalty for 'Falling Back' out of close combat, or is it really just that one stratagem, and the unit that charged is just left standing there eligible to be shot up?

Still this. Psykers can't cast after unless Titantic. One unit that's been tri pointed can escape each turn with a strat.

Non-Titanics cannot shoot or cast psychic powers if they fall back, in general. The Fly keyword is no longer immune to this from what I can see.

 Alpharius wrote:
So, is there a real penalty for 'Falling Back' out of close combat

Nope. You can still annihilate assault units after walking away from them. No real change other the unit itself cannot do it (unless they can, like Ultramarines).

 Eldarain wrote:

 Alpharius wrote:
Damn this thread is moving fast now!

So, is there a real penalty for 'Falling Back' out of close combat, or is it really just that one stratagem, and the unit that charged is just left standing there eligible to be shot up?

Still this. Psykers can't cast after unless Titantic. One unit that's been tri pointed can escape each turn with a strat.

Yup, good job "fixing" melee gw. Bravo. Guess I'll be saving 1CP per round for"We Have Come For You", though the coherencey rules have nerfed that. Don't know what other cc centered factions will do though.

 BlaxicanX wrote:

yukishiro1 wrote:

 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.

For one, there is a standard, as spraying your 200 boyz with black primer and then slapping them on the table does not count as "battle-ready" (and in fact if you're a gak or slow painter you can in fact "fail" to meet the standard by default), and 2. the point of the comparison is two aspects of the hobby impacting each other for no real reason. Whether or not both scenarios measure skill quality is here nor there.

Right, but the standard is "did you do these things?" not "did you do them well?" Spray-painting them black doesn't satisfy it not because you didn't paint them well enough but because you didn't use 3 colors and a wash and base them.

But it seems like you agree your reference to the W/L ratio was irrelevant, so I don't think we need to argue about it.

Do I think it would be silly if you got 10 points in a painting competition for having played in the tournament it was associated with? Sure, just like I think this is silly. But I don't think it's as silly as your W/L ratio analogy suggested. And I don't think it's as big a deal as a lot of people are making it out to be. The standard is extremely low. It's simply not true that you can fail to satisfy it by being a bad painter. I'm a terrible painter - I have a tremor that makes it very hard for me to do details well - but battle ready doesn't depend on quality. It's just whether you did the steps you need to do, not how well you did them.

I don't fundamentally disagree with your point about painting and playing being two separate things - though plenty of people do, because they feel that part of the game is having a painted army, and that when someone doesn't, it diminishes their enjoyment. Those are both valid perspectives.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 gorgon wrote:
Time to break out the brushes and, y’know, TRY a little harder.

Yes. People with visual impairments just aren't trying hard enough.

You got me. Between my near-sightedness and red/green colorblindness I could try harder.

Goobi2 wrote:

Sgt. Cortez wrote:
I'm surprised there were/are events where unpainted Minis are allowed. I've never seen one, but I'm not that much into the tournament scene of 40K as well, only know it from Lotr.
I guess I like it. Been playing with painted armies since 8th started, it animates you to paint more models, too, as nobody wants to play the same list twice.

The 'Ard Boyz tournaments from GW didn't have painting req's but most others do/did.

Luckily, ''Battle Ready'' is fairly subjective. Just getting models close enough should be good enough! A bit of paint on models isn't too bad. Just assume it is part of the list building process.


Interestingly, since building/painting/basing is now rewarded with points, you are effectively modelling for advantage! (or more accurately choosing to not paint/base models is ''modelling for disadvantage'')

Also, not for nothing but by RAW if your painting is BETTER than battle ready, you lose the points.

 Ghaz wrote:

 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.

Sweet, thanks. Hard to keep up now.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 gorgon wrote:
Time to break out the brushes and, y’know, TRY a little harder.

Yes. People with visual impairments just aren't trying hard enough.

People with impairments need all sorts of accommodations to play 40k. An exemption from the painting requirement would presumably be one of them. I can't imagine anyone here is actually suggesting that they would refuse to give someone with a disability the 10 points for a battle-ready army if their disability prevented them from being able to paint to that standard.

That's just an argument for accommodation, though, it's not an argument against the requirement.

yukishiro1 wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 gorgon wrote:
Time to break out the brushes and, y’know, TRY a little harder.

Yes. People with visual impairments just aren't trying hard enough.

People with impairments need all sorts of accommodations to play 40k. An exemption from the painting requirement would presumably be one of them. I can't imagine anyone here is actually suggesting that they would refuse to give someone with a disability the 10 points for a battle-ready army if their disability prevented them from being able to paint to that standard.

That's just an argument for accommodation, though, it's not an argument against the requirement.

Definitely this.

I get where HBMC is coming from on an accessibility front, but it's definitely more an argument for accessibility accommodations rather than against a rule about painting.

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

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.

I'm glad I can bring you comfort!

The app will have points (and army builder). The AoS app is like $1 so this will probably be the same, but if you're a tourney slut like me I'm not sure the missions will be in the app...though I'm sure widely discussed on the internet.

 gorgon wrote:
Time to break out the brushes and, y’know, TRY a little harder.

Why not have vp's for fluffy armies, behaviour, yelling waaaghs etc while we are at it?

Huh. Does this kill the Look Out Sir argument from last week?

 ClockworkZion wrote:

yukishiro1 wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 gorgon wrote:
Time to break out the brushes and, y’know, TRY a little harder.

Yes. People with visual impairments just aren't trying hard enough.

People with impairments need all sorts of accommodations to play 40k. An exemption from the painting requirement would presumably be one of them. I can't imagine anyone here is actually suggesting that they would refuse to give someone with a disability the 10 points for a battle-ready army if their disability prevented them from being able to paint to that standard.

That's just an argument for accommodation, though, it's not an argument against the requirement.

Definitely this.

I get where HBMC is coming from on an accessibility front, but it's definitely more an argument for accessibility accommodations rather than against a rule about painting.

Painting rules for large events are fine. It's a long standing expectation and you almost always have a LONG period of time to prep for events of any kind of significant size. It's when you apply them to small events that they become problematic. Because there ARE drawbacks in forcing people to paint. Especially the 5% or so of players that will absolutely dip out of ANYTHING that requires painting, for one reason or another.



1. Reduces attendance: I don't care if it's ONE point off for not painting, some players will simply not show up for the event if they don't qualify. For myself, I have to take off work to go to any event and paying essentially 315 dollars to go to a tournament and starting out 10 points down is deeply irritating. Remember, the cost of getting your models painted is not necessarily less than the cost of just not going. (well then just those people don't get to play I guess! Attendence is the number one thing most locals events struggle with. It's easier to get a venue, terrain, and mats than it is to get even half the people who respond as 'going' to show up.)

2. Limits unit variety: People aren't as likely to take risks on 'fun' or 'niche' models if they have to paint them before they can use them. Generally people will either use one 2k list until they get bored and stop going to events; or they'll stick strictly to meta picks to reduce the risk of wasted time/effort.

3. Pushes Chapter Approved and FAQ nerfs/buffs from dramatic to apocalyptic: Eating a significant nerf to your army can leave you scrambling(remember, these are competitions. It is absolutely reasonable to want to change your army up if it gets significantly worse. It's not even meta hunting at that point, just damage control.) If the tournament is on the 25th and the FAQ comes out on the 10th, that means you only have 2 weeks to buy, build, and paint new models when a lot of locals metas used to let you come in with the arms not attached as long as you had the right gun on the models feet.

4. Encourages terrible, sometimes unfixable paint jobs: If I want to use my Triumph of St. Catherine at an event next month, I don't have time to do divide it into sub assemblies. I just slap it together and rattlecan away and whatever I get is what I get. The idea that nothing is worse than grey plastic is nonsense.

tneva82 wrote:
Why not have vp's for fluffy armies, behaviour, yelling waaaghs etc while we are at it?

Remember all those rules people hated from the start of AoS? We should bring those back. Makes just about as much sense as winning a game because you painted something.

Something I haven't seen mentioned is that you can only end in engagement range of units you declare you're charging against. No tagging units you didn't declare as a target of your charge via a good charge roll.

Pile-ins don't have this restriction, so you only need to stay 1/2" off units you didn't charge before your pile in.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Objective markers are now a 40mm round marker. Guess that's why GW got rid of the old marker set.