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.

yukishiro1 wrote:
At a minimum, the rule really should have had something in it making clear that people should not be technical with it and that the point is to get people painting their armies, not to dock someone points because they have a model they haven't had time to paint yet, and another caveat about being aware of peoples' capabilities as well.

Friend of mine hasn't used Citadel technical paints to base his minis. I'm going to insist he re-base them with the correct paint if he wants those 10 points.

RAW!!!

yukishiro1 wrote:
I said earlier that that is my biggest sympathy: the person who wants to paint to a higher than minimum standard, but hasn't had time to do it for their full army yet. I would certainly hope that anyone who comes up against someone who has some of their models painted to a high standard and others just primed because they haven't got around to it yet would be happy to give that person the 10VP.

It definitely feels lame that the RAW rule encourages people to paint their models in an ugly way just to get technical compliance with the rule, with the result that it actually inhibits them from painting them well later on. Anyone who isn't understanding in that situation really isn't worth playing with.

I think off it more as GW is just very out of touch, a rule like this doesn’t need to be written. When we do events I put out my painted work for display, when games are at shows, We tend to use smaller portions anyway and I don’t play those.

For me, often it’s people finding out 6 months after I have known them how difficult it can be. We are not talking about that over games and such, and 40k sadly has not got the most understanding crowd.

 Insectum7 wrote:
It's only 10 points.

As I've been saying, it doesn't matter whether it's 1 point or 99 points. It's points for something you didn't do during the game. That's a bad way to score a match between two people.

 Insectum7 wrote:
And who's really keeping score at the end of the day?

Umm... anyone who's using these missions! Duh! Because the way you determine the victor is by literally keeping score!

I mean... did you just write "who's keeping score?" in a discussion about points that you use to score missions? Really???

yukishiro1 wrote:
I said earlier that that is my biggest sympathy: the person who wants to paint to a higher than minimum standard, but hasn't had time to do it for their full army yet. I would certainly hope that anyone who comes up against someone who has some of their models painted to a high standard and others just primed because they haven't got around to it yet - particularly if part of that is because of physical limitations - would be happy to give that person the 10VP.

It definitely feels lame that the RAW rule encourages people to paint their models in an ugly way just to get technical compliance with the rule, with the result that it actually inhibits them from painting them well later on. Anyone who isn't understanding in that situation really isn't worth playing with.

At a minimum, the rule really should have had something in it making clear that people should not be technical with it and that the point is to get people painting their armies, not to dock someone points because they have a model they haven't had time to paint yet, and another caveat about being aware of peoples' capabilities as well.

That's what I'd do. Rush to finish.

Let people take their time. If they wanna go to a tournament, yeah, paint your stuff.

If you wanna play with Jim down the street? maybe it shouldn't be baked in you should penalize people for wanting to play with toy soldiers because they have some unbased models.

Apple fox wrote:

yukishiro1 wrote:
I said earlier that that is my biggest sympathy: the person who wants to paint to a higher than minimum standard, but hasn't had time to do it for their full army yet. I would certainly hope that anyone who comes up against someone who has some of their models painted to a high standard and others just primed because they haven't got around to it yet would be happy to give that person the 10VP.

It definitely feels lame that the RAW rule encourages people to paint their models in an ugly way just to get technical compliance with the rule, with the result that it actually inhibits them from painting them well later on. Anyone who isn't understanding in that situation really isn't worth playing with.

I think off it more as GW is just very out of touch, a rule like this doesn’t need to be written. When we do events I put out my painted work for display, when games are at shows, We tend to use smaller portions anyway and I don’t play those.

For me, often it’s people finding out 6 months after I have known them how difficult it can be. We are not talking about that over games and such, and 40k sadly has not got the most understanding crowd.

I'm sorry you haven't found people understanding. It hasn't been my experience. I hope you have better luck in the future.

I do agree that it is kind of an odd rule to put in, because it does create a potential flash-point at the start of a game for no real reason. If you're someone who cares a lot about models being painted, presumably you're not going to want to play with the guy with unpainted models anyway, so it's not like getting 10VP from it is really going to make you happy. And it's a "feels bad" moment for the person who doesn't have a fully painted army.

I can understand the intent behind it - to try to get people to stop putting it off and actually start painting - but it seems a kinda ham-fisted way of doing it. Surely with a little more thought they could have come up with a less coercive way to accomplish the same thing?

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
It's only 10 points.

As I've been saying, it doesn't matter whether it's 1 point or 99 points. It's points for something you didn't do during the game. That's a bad way to score a match between two people.

 Insectum7 wrote:
And who's really keeping score at the end of the day?

Umm... anyone who's using these missions! Duh! Because the way you determine the victor is by literally keeping score!

I mean... did you just write "who's keeping score?" in a discussion about points that you use to score missions? Really???

The meaning I took from that was who really cares who wins. It might just be an American phrase or idiom, but "who's keeping score" is just a different way of saying who really cares.

Well the answer to that is the same one I always give: Everyone. Everyone is keeping score.

It's like when someone says "I don't play to win!". Yes you do. Everyone does. No one plays to lose. No one plays to draw.

Everyone plays the game with the intention of winning. That doesn't mean that you're some ultra-list WAAC nutbar, but no one sits across from their opponent and goes "I hope I lose!" or "I can't wait to draw!!!".

But really I was amazed that in a discussion about counting your points score in missions he said "who's keeping score?". Umm... everyone. That's how missions are determined. Obviously.

 Insectum7 wrote:
It's only 10 points. And who's really keeping score at the end of the day? If a person really doesn't care about painted models, then scoring higher on pure game play should be enough of a reward, I would think.

It seems weirdly hypocritical to care about the points awarded for painting if a person only cares about the "technical win". And if the Win is tallied, then it seems like your in more of a tournament or league situation in which there would likely be some expectation of painted models or ignoring of the painted rule.

Edit: I love that at the time of writing the poll is exactly 50/50

If no one is counting then why do you want those 10 extra points ?

Seems like a super donkey-cave move. Ton of people don't like to paint, don't want to paint or would rather invest money in to models then paints, specialy if they do not like it. But I guess in a world where to play the game properly it is expected from players to buy thousands of points to adujst their army to specific opponents.

I don't think I ever saw a more stupid generic rule, since GW saying that space mariens, but other armies not, have to be painted in one specific way to get specific rules.

yukishiro1 wrote:

Apple fox wrote:

yukishiro1 wrote:
I said earlier that that is my biggest sympathy: the person who wants to paint to a higher than minimum standard, but hasn't had time to do it for their full army yet. I would certainly hope that anyone who comes up against someone who has some of their models painted to a high standard and others just primed because they haven't got around to it yet would be happy to give that person the 10VP.

It definitely feels lame that the RAW rule encourages people to paint their models in an ugly way just to get technical compliance with the rule, with the result that it actually inhibits them from painting them well later on. Anyone who isn't understanding in that situation really isn't worth playing with.

I think off it more as GW is just very out of touch, a rule like this doesn’t need to be written. When we do events I put out my painted work for display, when games are at shows, We tend to use smaller portions anyway and I don’t play those.

For me, often it’s people finding out 6 months after I have known them how difficult it can be. We are not talking about that over games and such, and 40k sadly has not got the most understanding crowd.

I'm sorry you haven't found people understanding. It hasn't been my experience. I hope you have better luck in the future.

I do agree that it is kind of an odd rule to put in, because it does create a potential flash-point at the start of a game for no real reason. If you're someone who cares a lot about models being painted, presumably you're not going to want to play with the guy with unpainted models anyway, so it's not like getting 10VP from it is really going to make you happy. And it's a "feels bad" moment for the person who doesn't have a fully painted army.

I can understand the intent behind it - to try to get people to stop putting it off and actually start painting - but it seems a kinda ham-fisted way of doing it. Surely with a little more thought they could have come up with a less coercive way to accomplish the same thing?

It would not surprise me if this sort of rule come from other places in GW, the same way they talk about forge the narrative.

Karol wrote:
Ton of people don't like to paint, don't want to paint or would rather invest money in to models then paints, specialy if they do not like it. But I guess in a world where to play the game properly it is expected from players to buy thousands of points to adujst their army to specific opponents.

I don't think this is a great argument in the abstract. I mean you could say the same thing about buying models at all, and that people should just be able to play with whatever proxies they like. Maybe I don't like assembling and buying models, so why should I have to do so? But the fact is that GW has created a game based on buying models, assembling them, and painting them. All three are part of the game. You may not like painting; others may not like buying, or assembling. But there's no reason that painting is inherently less a part of the hobby as GW intends it than the buying or the assembling.

But it does illustrate why codifying it as a rule that gives you extra VPs is problematic. There's no rule that says "you get +10VP if you use all GW models to play the game." It's just understood that you use GW models - or not, if whoever you are playing with doesn't care. It should be the same for painting - you don't need a rule like this, the rule should just be the same rule as for anything else - figure it out with the people you play with. If you don't want to play with people with unpainted models, don't. If you don't care about painting, find other people who feel the same way. It feels ham-fisted for this one particular part of the hobby to get a VP bonus.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Seabass wrote:
If I scored 80 points, and my opponent scores 75, but he's fully painted and I'm not, why is it so bad that he be rewarded for putting in the effort and being rewarded for it?

Why should that person win a game because they painted something?

Thats the thing, the guy who lost from game play but won on paint, will he really feel he won ? I guess some people could talk themselves into it, I couldn't I'd know I lost but " won " in only the most pity party way I could imagine.

Point is, like it or hate it it's the rules. I'll use them even if I think they are beyond stupid, in time the people will argue the merits or scream the awfulness of it. Like I said, if paint is so important, I demand sound effects and role play during the game should also be important points for victory. I need muh immersion. Though unless you are very easy to please no one will ever feel if they lost to game play but won on paint they really won. That said I know some people who would, probably that same guy I know who felt list tailoring if he knew the list of the player he was playing against was a sign of " tactical genius " no joke there he actually believes that.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Seabass wrote:
If I scored 80 points, and my opponent scores 75, but he's fully painted and I'm not, why is it so bad that he be rewarded for putting in the effort and being rewarded for it?

Why should that person win a game because they painted something?

Why should you win a game because you bought the miniature? Shouldn't the other guy just be able to use a proxy if he can't afford it or doesn't want to spend the money on it?

GW has created a game that is about buying, assembling, and then painting your models. You may not like the third prong of the hobby, but it's always been part of it.

I think the rule is a ham-fisted attempt to enforce the third prong, but that's arguably because it doesn't go far enough - if painting is really a fundamental part, you just shouldn't be able to play at all with unpainted miniatures, just like (in theory) you can't play with proxies or unassembled miniatures. To give a VP bonus for doing something you are supposed to have to do anyway is kinda silly and creates more of a mess than there needs to be. It should be just like the rule that you have to buy and assemble a GW model in order to use it - something that applies unless you and the people you are playing with decide it doesn't.

Why should you win the game because you played the game ? That's absurd, I'd rather win the game because I got my army logo as a tat I show off proudly to show all the world, I am the Imperial Guard.

I kinda look at this rule from a different view. I read it as GW saying you can now play sanctioned tourneys with your unpainted army, just that you are going to have a points deficit at the start.

This makes it possible for even people with unpainted armies or half painted armies to enter and have fun while letting the ultra competitive find a way to get those paints slapped on theirs.

I look at it as a way to make tourneys and sanctioned play more accommodating to a wider crowd

yukishiro1 wrote:
Why should you win a game because you bought the miniature? Shouldn't the other guy just be able to use a proxy if he can't afford it or doesn't want to spend the money on it?

But you don't win a game just because you brought the miniatures. There's no rule that says "If you brought miniatures to this game, you get 10 points!".

Yeah, in a weird way, the rule actually undermines the importance of painting. Because it literally suggests that you can just not do it - and take a penalty, sure, but you can just not do it.

By comparison, there's no rule that says "get another +10VP if you used real GW models."

But I am 100% sure that tournaments will keep their painting requirements.

If that is the case, god help us all as the grey hordes will flavor of the month all over the tournament scenes. I bet my bottom dollar though actual TO's will still demand the models be painted. Making the rule pointless for Tournaments and only penalizing in casual games.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

yukishiro1 wrote:
Why should you win a game because you bought the miniature? Shouldn't the other guy just be able to use a proxy if he can't afford it or doesn't want to spend the money on it?

But you don't win a game just because you brought the miniatures. There's no rule that says "If you brought miniatures to this game, you get 10 points!".

Right...because you aren't allowed to play without miniatures at all - unless of course you and your opponent agree.

The problem with the painting rule is actually that it is too permissive - it shouldn't be the case that you can bring an unpainted army and just get a -VP penalty, you should either not be able to bring an unpainted army at all, or, if the people you play with don't care, they don't care, just the same as for whether you have real GW miniatures or proxies.

AngryAngel80 wrote:
If that is the case, god help us all as the grey hordes will flavor of the month all over the tournament scenes. I bet my bottom dollar though actual TO's will still demand the models be painted. Making the rule pointless for Tournaments and only penalizing in casual games.

This is likely the real life application of said rule in which TO will likely still have to enforce paint and ignore this. People who you play in casual likely will not care for this rule and if they do you probably won't be playing them or -shrugs- you probably one of them.

In any case, this is causing a massive discussion which will end up probably doing nothing for the game in terms of change as TO will probably house rule this.

*

I wouldn't be surprised if the actual missions had different victory conditions and this is just in the core rules for open play to be honest.

Edit - woops, just saw it is for missions. Oh well.

9th is not even released and we have 4 pages of how much of the new rules should be ignored and what is best to be replaced by housrules


would make more sense to play at least once by the original released rules

 Insectum7 wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Seabass wrote:
If I scored 80 points, and my opponent scores 75, but he's fully painted and I'm not, why is it so bad that he be rewarded for putting in the effort and being rewarded for it?

Why should that person win a game because they painted something?

It's only 10 points. And who's really keeping score at the end of the day?

LITERALLY EVERY PERSON AT THE TOURNAMENT.

Honestly, this just make it seem like you don't know what a competition is.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Vyrullax wrote:

AngryAngel80 wrote:
If that is the case, god help us all as the grey hordes will flavor of the month all over the tournament scenes. I bet my bottom dollar though actual TO's will still demand the models be painted. Making the rule pointless for Tournaments and only penalizing in casual games.

This is likely the real life application of said rule in which TO will likely still have to enforce paint and ignore this. People who you play in casual likely will not care for this rule and if they do you probably won't be playing them or -shrugs- you probably one of them.

In any case, this is causing a massive discussion which will end up probably doing nothing for the game in terms of change as TO will probably house rule this.

*

Most tournaments less than 25 people or so didn't have painting rules. Mostly because it's hard enough getting people to come out for events as it is.

The very fact they put into the book a core role, so divisive, is a problem though. I doubt as well we are the only ones who will really go round and round on it. All it does is make a flash point and yet another level of disagreement baked into the core design.

A problem that does nothing for tournaments who will still enforce the painting on their own, so with that it is pointless but give TFGs around the world a reason to brow beat new players, gotcha new players and paint shame long time players who may just be slow or not big on painting.

It won't solve any problems and even its inclusion has this board cut right down the middle, that's a pretty telling sign. It shouldn't be a VP rule, when it involves hobby time and no in game effort during the course of the match that would determine victory in any way.

It's not a solution to a problem, it's just a problem and complication added into the process that really isn't going to do much but make people bitter. One way or the other, much like this whole debate has so far.

It's ok for tournaments, although tournaments usually have house rules that don't allow unpainted games. I for example will not respect a rule like that, in my meta is mostly impossible to play against full painted armies.

I'd rather make WYSIWYG a strict rule. Proxying is for advantage, playing with unpainted models allows players to have their games even if they don't have the time for painting.

AngryAngel80 wrote:
The very fact they put into the book a core role, so divisive, is a problem though. I doubt as well we are the only ones who will really go round and round on it. All it does is make a flash point and yet another level of disagreement baked into the core design.

A problem that does nothing for tournaments who will still enforce the painting on their own, so with that it is pointless but give TFGs around the world a reason to brow beat new players, gotcha new players and paint shame long time players who may just be slow or not big on painting.

It won't solve any problems and even its inclusion has this board cut right down the middle, that's a pretty telling sign. It shouldn't be a VP rule, when it involves hobby time and no in game effort during the course of the match that would determine victory in any way.

It's not a solution to a problem, it's just a problem and complication added into the process that really isn't going to do much but make people bitter. One way or the other, much like this whole debate has so far.

Yeah this is exactly right. GW's traditional approach was to fudge on all this stuff precisely because that keeps everybody happy. They should have just kept that up. At most, they should have added a sentence somewhere saying "the game is designed to be played with assembled and painted GW models, painted to at least the following standard:." and just leave it at that, for the players to figure out what to do if someone's army doesn't meet that, whether it's because they're using proxies or unpainted models or whatever else.

On reflection I think this is really intended as a "tie breaker". They consider a game that is within 10 points either way effectively a tie?

yukishiro1 wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

yukishiro1 wrote:
Why should you win a game because you bought the miniature? Shouldn't the other guy just be able to use a proxy if he can't afford it or doesn't want to spend the money on it?

But you don't win a game just because you brought the miniatures. There's no rule that says "If you brought miniatures to this game, you get 10 points!".

Right...because you aren't allowed to play without miniatures at all - unless of course you and your opponent agree.

The problem with the painting rule is actually that it is too permissive - it shouldn't be the case that you can bring an unpainted army and just get a -VP penalty, you should either not be able to bring an unpainted army at all, or, if the people you play with don't care, they don't care, just the same as for whether you have real GW miniatures or proxies.

"just agree with your opponent" is and has always been a stupid way to write rules. If people really do or don't want to do something in their basement games enough, they will or won't as they see fit, no matter what you say. All stuff like this does is make pugs and tournaments more difficult.

Also, painting has no place in determining rules on the table. The same way you don't lose paint score for bringing not meta units.

Actually yeah, lets talk about that. It negatively impacts player enjoyment for people to bring gak units to events, where's my ten points for that? If you make me listen to you whine about how overpriced Stompas are the whole game, how is that any better than me making you look at grey plastic?

Exactly right, if we are being so demanding of people in the core rules, why don't we demand they wysiwyg or lose 10 points ? Demand they use the proper paint schemes if they are an exact group ? Are those blue Iron Hands ? - 10 points. Force proper army game play. " Are those Orks not charging me ? They can, that isn't very Orky " - 10 points.

I get they want painted models, those are great games but once you start down the road of immersion, and feel and this is the only right way to play this already very hard to get new players in hobby because its so time and money expensive. Well it doesn't do much for the health of the game.

AngryAngel80 wrote:
I don't know one person I play with who will enforce this as if I won based on actual victory points, but lose because of paint, who really won ?

The person who paid attention to 100% of their objectives, rather than 90% of them...

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Screw anyone with mostly Black armies huh?

Depends what you mean by "mostly Black", I guess? Undercoated and untouched is one thing, painted with black as a primary colour (but with other colours present as appropriate) is another.

That's a point - having not looked at the leaks, how do they define "Battle Ready" in the rulebook? Surely they won't try to mandate Technical paints as basing, but rather than you need to have done something with the bases in general.

 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.

Yup, pretty much.

 Castozor wrote:
Nice strawman, and yes because LoS is an actual game mechanic, unlike models being painted or not.

Assuming the leak is accurate, it is a game mechanic now.

 Insectum7 wrote:
Lol, is that a rule?

Yeah I'd use it, I'm a snob for painted models!

Me too. Gray plastic may rot in hell.