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.

yes.. But I think neither me nor most of my regular opponents would get the 10 vps though. And if someone body did they deserve it! I pretty much always have some WIP in my list.

Played a game vs a gorgeous custodes army once and I felt bad winning coz half my stuff was just primed while he did all that beautiful work.

I havent read the entire thread but if it hasnt happened already some people are about to spew a whole load of vitrol about this new "rule".

Most tournies I've played in dock you points or require the 3 color minimum anyway.

Not for say an escalation league or anything.

 Grimgold wrote:

tulun wrote:
Can you ever truly be battle ready?

They actually have a definition of battle ready, and it's fairly forgiving, just base colors and and a shade, with a technical on the base. The kind of thing you could bust out pretty quickly if you are so inclined. It doesn't have a highlight requirement, so you don't even have to drybrush. The base part is the only annoying part for me, because with my custodes I used acrylic bases to make them look like they were part of the scenery they were standing on, and I'm sure I'm going to get digned on that.

Which makes it unfair for your Custodes for literally no reason.

 Castozor wrote:

 Drudge Dreadnought wrote:

 Castozor wrote:
Except painting is not part of the game, it's part of the overall hobby. Arbitrary VP won't make the actual game part any better.

GW decides what is part of the game, and they just made paint part of it.

And as always it's hamfisted and stupid. I'm personally far less offended by unpainted armies than I am by unfluffy ones. But GW and it's defenders will continue to think like drug addled baboons and defend this gakky stuff.

I would certainly have preferred bonus VPs for fluffy lists. But I understand that's basically impossible to define, so it's not really going to work.

I mean in all fairness all of GWs rules are ideas. You as the players have full agency to take what you want and leave what you don't. I'll play by all the rules and if they suck and are stupid, I won't be the one to deny them.

If my friends want to use it or skip it, it's up to them. I don't like the precedent it sets and therefore while I endorse it, I also think its a mistake. Best way to get rid of mistakes is show off how daft it is though and its why I'll push to use it.

As like I said, if you win by actual VP and lose because of paint, do you really think you'll feel like you lost ? Will the other guy feel like he won ? This rule is simply the truest sign of 9th ed. Good ideas, heavy handed into poor rules that people will fight over, because it sucks. Some other people will say they won't use it, others will enforce it heavily and say how it adds such " greatness " to the game.

Then if it poofs away in a FAQ or another edition we'll hear how wise GW was to remove it after putting it there in the first place, it's a tale as old as time.

yukishiro1 wrote:
If you're playing anyone who's such a jerk that they won't just agree to both take 10 points for a painted army whether it is painted or not, find better people to play with.

I think it's stupid and heavy-handed, but there's such an easy solution.

Your thinking about this in the wrong manner, Prior to this unpainted armies were not allowed in many tournaments, or were not eligible for prize support. By GW adding this rule there is a structure allowing you to participate with an unpainted army while encouraging you to finish painting. This will be the rule at GW events, but other TOs are free to use this or not depending on their preference. I don't think I'd use this in a pickup game, and I know that's to my disadvantage because I have fully painted forces.

Will I use it? Hell no. The game is the game, the painting is the painting. I don't game in tournaments (where there are almost always painting requirements anyway) but I ain't gonna be playing with a 10 point handicap just because I value gaming more than painting.

I will, 100%, compliment an opponent with a fully painted army. I will, likewise, enjoy a game, win or lose, provided the opponent is sportsmanlike. But that rule... Nah.

Yea I really don't like that rule and won't be using it.

Yep. But I generally play in tourneys and unpainted stuff is much less common.

 JNAProductions wrote:

I will, 100%, compliment an opponent with a fully painted army. I will, likewise, enjoy a game, win or lose, provided the opponent is sportsmanlike. But that rule... Nah.

So you've finished the game, and the opponent is 5 pts down. He/she has been a great player and conducted themselves in a fine manner. They have a fully painted army, and you dont.

So who's the one being unsportsmanlike? The one playing to the rules of the book and thus winning? Or the one who refuses to play to the rules of the book and will win because of that refusal?

Granted, as mature gamers this isn't a huge deal. But as a theoretical?

 Insectum7 wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:

I will, 100%, compliment an opponent with a fully painted army. I will, likewise, enjoy a game, win or lose, provided the opponent is sportsmanlike. But that rule... Nah.

So you've finished the game, and the opponent is 5 pts down. He/she has been a great player and conducted themselves in a fine manner. They have a fully painted army, and you dont.

So who's the one being unsportsmanlike? The one playing to the rules of the book and thus winning? Or the one who refuses to play to the rules of the book and will win because of that refusal?

Granted, as mature gamers this isn't a huge deal. But as a theoretical?

If we did not agree ahead of time to NOT use the rule, then they'd win.

But I'd ask them in advance "I find the 10 points for painting stupid. Mind not using it?"

 Insectum7 wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:

I will, 100%, compliment an opponent with a fully painted army. I will, likewise, enjoy a game, win or lose, provided the opponent is sportsmanlike. But that rule... Nah.

So you've finished the game, and the opponent is 5 pts down. He/she has been a great player and conducted themselves in a fine manner. They have a fully painted army, and you dont.

So who's the one being unsportsmanlike? The one playing to the rules of the book and thus winning? Or the one who refuses to play to the rules of the book and will win because of that refusal?

Granted, as mature gamers this isn't a huge deal. But as a theoretical?

As a theoretical people weren't playing the game correctly with the terribly written Assault Weapon rules.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:

I will, 100%, compliment an opponent with a fully painted army. I will, likewise, enjoy a game, win or lose, provided the opponent is sportsmanlike. But that rule... Nah.

So you've finished the game, and the opponent is 5 pts down. He/she has been a great player and conducted themselves in a fine manner. They have a fully painted army, and you dont.

So who's the one being unsportsmanlike? The one playing to the rules of the book and thus winning? Or the one who refuses to play to the rules of the book and will win because of that refusal?

Granted, as mature gamers this isn't a huge deal. But as a theoretical?

As a theoretical people weren't playing the game correctly with the terribly written Assault Weapon rules.

as a practical that's because the rules where clear eneugh we understood what was being said.

Good to see that painting is actually being treated as just as an important part of the experience as building your models.

Will I use the rule? Unlikely, seeing as the games I play don't tend to care too much about the actual score, or winning the game. There certainly won't be any sort of "aha! now I beat you with my painted models!" going on. My models are all painted, I've had a lockdown to see to that, and again, I don't really care too much about winning or losing to care about the extra points I might get.

But for enforcing this as part of the core rules for tournment rulesets to adopt, and, again, emphasising that painting is part of the experience GW want to promote, I support the idea of that. And if something encourages people to break out the brushes, I'm all for that.

And let's be honest, Battle Ready isn't exactly a massive hurdle. Basecoat, wash, paint the base, or one layer of contrast, and the base. No "three colour" rule, not even any highlights. Hell, there's not even a requirement to paint neatly or in the lines. And if you're still attached to the idea of fielding a totally grey horde? Spray Mech Standard Grey (or the other grey of your choice), wash all over in Nuln Oil, apply Astrogranite texture to the base. Perfect, walking battle statue, a totally grey Battle Ready model.

 JNAProductions wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:

I will, 100%, compliment an opponent with a fully painted army. I will, likewise, enjoy a game, win or lose, provided the opponent is sportsmanlike. But that rule... Nah.

So you've finished the game, and the opponent is 5 pts down. He/she has been a great player and conducted themselves in a fine manner. They have a fully painted army, and you dont.

So who's the one being unsportsmanlike? The one playing to the rules of the book and thus winning? Or the one who refuses to play to the rules of the book and will win because of that refusal?

Granted, as mature gamers this isn't a huge deal. But as a theoretical?

If we did not agree ahead of time to NOT use the rule, then they'd win.

But I'd ask them in advance "I find the 10 points for painting stupid. Mind not using it?"

agreed

But it could also be easily percieved as a TFG thing. Not that I'm saying you're a TFG, but do you see what I'm saying? Guy always shows up with plastic and saying he hates the rule, that can start to be TFG territory.

Can't we just push our models around and make lazer rifle sounds and claim both players won ? Gaining 10 vp is such a silly soft rule, how about we add in points for best play acting during the game ? Best sound effects ? Best in theme battle choices ?

You know, make each scoring at the end of match like a small little Emmy awards, but for geeks.

 JNAProductions wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:

I will, 100%, compliment an opponent with a fully painted army. I will, likewise, enjoy a game, win or lose, provided the opponent is sportsmanlike. But that rule... Nah.

So you've finished the game, and the opponent is 5 pts down. He/she has been a great player and conducted themselves in a fine manner. They have a fully painted army, and you dont.

So who's the one being unsportsmanlike? The one playing to the rules of the book and thus winning? Or the one who refuses to play to the rules of the book and will win because of that refusal?

Granted, as mature gamers this isn't a huge deal. But as a theoretical?

If we did not agree ahead of time to NOT use the rule, then they'd win.

But I'd ask them in advance "I find the 10 points for painting stupid. Mind not using it?"

And if they say no? I mean, you don't have a fully painted army. There's only one person it benefits to not play by that rule, and it's not them. Not saying that you should only do things that benefit you, but that it's pretty transparent who gets the raw end of the deal.

Again - in the situation Insectum provides, the *sporting* thing to do is give them the points for their models, because to not do so is to ignore rules outright in your favour - unless they agree to it, which you can't assume. The rule is a default. Unless explicitly agreed upon to ignore, it's active.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

AngryAngel80 wrote:
Can't we just push our models around and make lazer rifle sounds and claim both players won ? Gaining 10 vp is such a silly soft rule, how about we add in points for best play acting during the game ? Best sound effects ? Best in theme battle choices ?

You know, make each scoring at the end of match like a small little Emmy awards, but for geeks.

I'd unironically rather play a game like that than the way some people here seem to play it. It'd be a damn sight more enjoyable.

AngryAngel80 wrote:
Can't we just push our models around and make lazer rifle sounds and claim both players won ? Gaining 10 vp is such a silly soft rule, how about we add in points for best play acting during the game ? Best sound effects ? Best in theme battle choices ?

You know, make each scoring at the end of match like a small little Emmy awards, but for geeks.

While hilarious it is clear GW intends this to be the tournament friendly edition so we can't have that. Well except for the paint your soldiers rule because apparently that is bloody important. Which really is what pisses me off the most about this rule. Everything else seems to be designed around what tournament nutters want, but we get this one throw away rule that maybe please play in an immersive way pls!

I have to agree with Smudge, it's a damn stupid rule, my opinion, but it's a rule. All you can do is play with it, and crush someone with it or flout it and just realize each game is handicap to peacefully protest it and probably make the other player feel bad if you win as they couldn't beat you even with a 10 point just showing up lead.

Anything to help cull the grey hordes is good in my book.

If someone is working up an army and still painting, but making progress, I’d be willing to pass on this rule.

Part of what I enjoy about this game is the spectacle of two well painted armies fighting it out. I’ll play against unpainted armies, but it takes some of the fun out of the game for me. I’ll take 10 points as a compensation. It’s probably just going to be a tie breaker anyway.

If it’s not painted, I don’t put it on the table. I don’t hold everyone to my standards, but if the rulebook wants to reward me, I’ll take it.

 Castozor wrote:

AngryAngel80 wrote:
Can't we just push our models around and make lazer rifle sounds and claim both players won ? Gaining 10 vp is such a silly soft rule, how about we add in points for best play acting during the game ? Best sound effects ? Best in theme battle choices ?

You know, make each scoring at the end of match like a small little Emmy awards, but for geeks.

While hilarious it is clear GW intends this to be the tournament friendly edition so we can't have that. Well except for the paint your soldiers rule because apparently that is bloody important. Which really is what pisses me off the most about this rule. Everything else seems to be designed around what tournament nutters want, but we get this one throw away rule that maybe please play in an immersive way pls!

See ? That is so biased though. I bet I would sound effect and play act the crap out of any other player I'd be likely to meet. I could make back the loss of points for paint
in the best sound, best score and best screen play for my army.

 Castozor wrote:
While hilarious it is clear GW intends this to be the tournament friendly edition so we can't have that. Well except for the paint your soldiers rule because apparently that is bloody important. Which really is what pisses me off the most about this rule. Everything else seems to be designed around what tournament nutters want, but we get this one throw away rule that maybe please play in an immersive way pls!

Tournaments nearly all had rules about having painted models in them. If this edition is just Tournament Rules Codified, then having painting requirements would fit within that.

If its about immersion the other player better have good voice acting and call outs as well as vehicle and weapons sound effects. As I don't care how well painted it is, if I can't hear it and experience it, my immersion is broken.

Nevelon wrote:Anything to help cull the grey hordes is good in my book.

If someone is working up an army and still painting, but making progress, I’d be willing to pass on this rule.

Part of what I enjoy about this game is the spectacle of two well painted armies fighting it out. I’ll play against unpainted armies, but it takes some of the fun out of the game for me. I’ll take 10 points as a compensation. It’s probably just going to be a tie breaker anyway.

If it’s not painted, I don’t put it on the table. I don’t hold everyone to my standards, but if the rulebook wants to reward me, I’ll take it.

Pretty much agreed. I won't play an unpainted model of my own, but that's my own standards. Obviously, I'll hold my opponents to things on a contextual basis.

Just starting out? Not had my spare time lately? Nah, of course I'm not going to hold you to that.
Had those models for years, and you play with them every time we game? Yeah, I'm going to have expected you to at least try and paint by now.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

AngryAngel80 wrote:
If its about immersion the other player better have good voice acting and call outs as well as vehicle and weapons sound effects. As I don't care how well painted it is, if I can't hear it and experience it, my immersion is broken.

However, a picture tells a thousand words.

I say, without reservation, two things:

1. Yes, I will absolutely follow this rule.
2. Yes, I will without hesitation field non-battle ready models when I feel like doing so. Up to and including arbitrarily putting a single unpainted model on a table to accompany an otherwise fully painted collection.

If you play a game and the margin of victory is ten points or less, so that it was decided by whether or not the players had "primed and painted by a layer of contrast paints" models, then congratulations. You had a good, close game and should be happy.

Otherwise, stop and consider the words that you're going to say. "You only won because your army was painted." You're going to be saying that about a game of toy soldiers, written by a company that has a group of loyal fans that have complained about the rules for twenty five years.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

 Castozor wrote:
While hilarious it is clear GW intends this to be the tournament friendly edition so we can't have that. Well except for the paint your soldiers rule because apparently that is bloody important. Which really is what pisses me off the most about this rule. Everything else seems to be designed around what tournament nutters want, but we get this one throw away rule that maybe please play in an immersive way pls!

Tournaments nearly all had rules about having painted models in them. If this edition is just Tournament Rules Codified, then having painting requirements would fit within that.

And it is hilariously misguided then as it is now. First of all most people (I assume) don't play tournaments, secondly why is the painting part suddenly so important for immersion? You'd think fluff would be at least equally important but no, getting stomped by a knight led by 32 guardsmen and their 3 space marine captains is somehow more immersive than an fluffy plague company that happens to be unpainted. It's schizophrenic and out of game standards should never determine who wins a game or not.

Don't like it. Feels snobby and gatekeepy. I actively like painting, but I hate rules that punish people for enjoying their hobby "the wrong way."

I'm not going to go out of my way to always have a grey model somewhere in my army, but I'll definitely be sure to include one if it happens to be handy.

My personal salt aside, I do feel like there's some chance that this will turn away some newbies that might be interested in the hobby. More than once, I've heard someone looking at getting into the game ask what the rules for painting are, clearly worried that they're not going to be able to play the game because they don't have experience painting. In the past, I've been able to say, "Oh, there aren't really rules about paint jobs. It's just for fun. Don't worry about it. You can just build the models and be fine." But now those newbies are going to hear, "Weeeeell, there's technically an official rule that says you're more likely to lose if you don't buy the right products and paint your stuff a certain way."

And then I"d say, "But those rules are stupid and we can ignore them," but a non-zero number of people will just hear that as, "We can play wrong/ignore the official rules because you can't paint, newb."

 Castozor wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

 Castozor wrote:
While hilarious it is clear GW intends this to be the tournament friendly edition so we can't have that. Well except for the paint your soldiers rule because apparently that is bloody important. Which really is what pisses me off the most about this rule. Everything else seems to be designed around what tournament nutters want, but we get this one throw away rule that maybe please play in an immersive way pls!

Tournaments nearly all had rules about having painted models in them. If this edition is just Tournament Rules Codified, then having painting requirements would fit within that.

And it is hilariously misguided then as it is now. First of all most people (I assume) don't play tournaments, secondly why is the painting part suddenly so important for immersion? You'd think fluff would be at least equally important but no, getting stomped by a knight led by 32 guardsmen and their 3 space marine captains is somehow more immersive than an fluffy plague company that happens to be unpainted. It's schizophrenic and out of game standards should never determine who wins a game or not.

Should the models be built "correctly" too? Do they contribute to "out of game standards" too?

I refuse to use technical paints on my bases, so I won't ever be able to claim it.

But if my opponent's army is Battle Ready, I will be pretty adamant that they take the points.

Wouldn't force it on anyone.

I prefer fully painted armies, but I also appreciate that people are time poor, money poor, and try to get their enjoyment anyway they can.

While this would definitely put pressure on pure tournament gamers, it would also punish people who through living life can't dedicate the amount of time or finances required to do this in a time frame that would also mean they could play.

It seems very targeted but collects other people in the process.