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.

 Cybtroll wrote:
.

But even in a casual environment, if you win by 4 points thanks to the 10 additional point for painting... who cares? Your opponent know he/she has win on the battlefield, but lost because he/she should have painted his/her army... where is the issue? Are you really THAT bad at sportsmanship that such a defeat is unbearable?

Because when did a Tabletop Skirmish dice based strategy game become a painting competition?

Are you THAT bad of a sportsman you'll penalize a person because they want to play more than paint?

Ice_can wrote:
I think people are getting way too hung up on what the RAW wording of this is vrs the clear intention, from GW streaming rules etc.
They want painted armies as they look way better on stream even if they aren't the best paint job its way better than shuffling grey plastic around for streaming.
They are live streaming events on Twitch via their offical account you can't be shocked that they are trying to give in game incentives for being twitch stream ready.

Is Army Painted? Yes get points
Is Army Painted like an army of Gold demon entries? Yes get 10 Points
Is Army painted but you clearly have the ability of a house Painter? Yes you get 10 points.
Is your Army commision Painted? Yes get 10 points.

Is Army Base coated Only? YES get 0 Points and no steam games for you
Is your Armt Grey plastic? Yes get 0 Points and no stream games for you either.

This is more about getting people to use painted armies so that at events it all looks nice and fancey for PR photos and Live Streaming, you can complain for days but it's not going anywhere as GW is trying to push the game to be better for streaming etc.

Kayback wrote:
How, and I mean exactly with reference to dice rolls and saving throws and the like, does a layer of pigment change the game?

It doesn't.

How does making sure my plasma guns are plasma gun and my chainswords are chainswords and my Space Marines are Space Marines change the game, in reference to dice rolls and saving throws?

It doesn't.

Just so we're on the same page about assembling models.

"Hey noob. Well done you played a great first game. But my army is painted and your guys aren't based, so I win"

That's just called being a dick, in the same way that "well done noob, you tried a really cool maneuver. Now I'm going to pull out XYZ cheesy combo, use this obscure rules interaction, and play these stratagems from this book you didn't know existed, and wipe you out, so I win." is.

Use a shred of logic. Just because you *can* claim the victory points doesn't mean you have to. You have the power to claim them at your own discretion, in the same way you have the discretion to use certain units or tactics.

Kayback wrote:

 Cybtroll wrote:
.

But even in a casual environment, if you win by 4 points thanks to the 10 additional point for painting... who cares? Your opponent know he/she has win on the battlefield, but lost because he/she should have painted his/her army... where is the issue? Are you really THAT bad at sportsmanship that such a defeat is unbearable?

Because when did a Tabletop Skirmish dice based strategy game become a painting competition?

Are you THAT bad of a sportsman you'll penalize a person because they want to play more than paint?

Who mentioned anything about a painting competition? Neither player gets a bonus for having the better-painted army, as long as they both satisfy a minimum standard (which I hope is defined inside the book).

Sure the bad sportsman is the person trying to argue to get a rule removed, where doing so only benefits them?

This is from the matched play missions designed to be used in tournaments.
Most tournament look for ways to encourage players to used a painted force, which this does.

I'd expect it to be used at events and would be happy it was as it would basically force every one to be fully painted.

I wouldn't expect it to be used for a pickup game or practice game - thats where I tryout new stuff, sometime proxy units I'm looking to buy, sometimes want to get new purchases to the table.

As a tournament mission rule its fine.

No, i will not.

I can already tell which armies are painted and which are not. I already know i prefer playing fully painted armies against each other, but i'm not all that bothered.

I will already know who played better in a game.

I don't need to claim an extra 10vps if my army is painted and my opponents is not. we will both already know who played better, and who has painted models (hint, look at the table)

I can only see this being a sore point of contention, and a possible argument point, not to mention the topic of sportsmanship. If your ego is so fragile that you need those 10vps to turn defeat into victory, then... yeah, fine i guess. have a nice day. but it wont change who played better.

Tournaments are a different thing entirely. from my experience, there are usually 3 winner categories. Best general, best painter, best overall (general & Painter) allowing everyone an opportunity to compete for a prize regardless of their skill on the table, or with a brush.

so, yeah, i'll pass thank you

Absolutely. Love this. Great rule.

Obviously, there are various outliers, edge cases, and other reasonable justifications you may have for not wanting to use it and, as with any other rule, you're free to have that discussion with your opponent and come to an agreement. But personally, I'm pleased to see this being codified as the default option, and hopefully it'll give some people the nudge they need to get their armies done.

undecided

I have thousands of unpainted models and thousands of painted ones......
If I want it to look good - I pay someone to do it.
If I do it looks crap but some pasic stuff I have done, but reluctantly.

I would not be bothered to see it in a tournament rule pack but for causual games - less sure.

WisdomLS wrote:This is from the matched play missions designed to be used in tournaments.
Most tournament look for ways to encourage players to used a painted force, which this does.

I'd expect it to be used at events and would be happy it was as it would basically force every one to be fully painted.

I wouldn't expect it to be used for a pickup game or practice game - thats where I tryout new stuff, sometime proxy units I'm looking to buy, sometimes want to get new purchases to the table.

As a tournament mission rule its fine.

Wait, so this rule ISN'T a universal rule for every mode of play, and is entirely only for Tournament Matched Play? Aka, it's completely within the rules to play other gamemodes that don't feature this one rule? This isn't a rule in "casual" games?

In that case, yep, absolutely no objections to this rule, and if I ever played Tournament Matched, I'd be claiming this rule all the time. You can still always play Open/Narrative/non-Tournament Matched games if you don't like it, just like how you can if you don't like Rule of Three, or the "stratagem once per phase" or playing with points.
There's more to the game than Tournament Matched.

I just find it weird how many people are playing friendly games with a TO at their side judging everything, especially considering the outrage.

In friendly games or even standrad PUG nobody is going to care if your army is painted or not when it comes to winning. Are people so afraid of hearing: "I won on mission, he beat me by having a painted army," in a friendly game? Hell, if somebody would say that to me I'd still consider the person who won the mission the winner. The painting score is a superfluous thing for TOs for the most part and has been considered such in AoS for over a year now. It's there to enforce painted armies on the tournament level, mostly because it helps to sell the hobby more than a mountain of grey plastic.

I honestly get the feeling that anybody who decries this rule hasn't played in a proper tourney where painting is enforced, and even then many very small tournaments are very liberal on what you need to have represented on the table or not. Hell, when I was going to AoS tourneys after the painting points were introduced they were not tracked in some of the smaller ones I participated in, because tourneys have a certain amount of autonomy over what they can do(which a lot of people here are forgetting). More or less nothing is changing unless there some alien invasion of non-humans that are stat tracking every minutiae which may or may not lead to you becoming the pilot of a highly advanced starship that will be used to save the galaxy.

Storm in a teacup. This is an utter storm in a teacup.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

WisdomLS wrote:This is from the matched play missions designed to be used in tournaments.
Most tournament look for ways to encourage players to used a painted force, which this does.

I'd expect it to be used at events and would be happy it was as it would basically force every one to be fully painted.

I wouldn't expect it to be used for a pickup game or practice game - thats where I tryout new stuff, sometime proxy units I'm looking to buy, sometimes want to get new purchases to the table.

As a tournament mission rule its fine.

Wait, so this rule ISN'T a universal rule for every mode of play, and is entirely only for Tournament Matched Play? Aka, it's completely within the rules to play other gamemodes that don't feature this one rule?

In that case, yep, absolutely no objections to this rule, and if I ever played Tournament Matched, I'd be claiming this rule all the time. You can still always play Open/Narrative/non-Tournament Matched games if you don't like it, just like how you can if you don't like Rule of Three, or the "stratagem once per phase" or playing with points.
There's more to the game than Tournament Matched.

Nope. Both the crusade and matched play missions have it.

I don't paint my stuff until 2 days before a big tournament and then I spend like 30 hours non stop painting a full 2000 point army at battle standard (Bases , shade, technical for the base, If I'm feeling brave maybe some highlints on some character model).

Thats how I work. I cannot obligue myself to paint regularly so I go to a big tournament a year to force myself to paint a whole army.

And I would have 0 problems with something like this in casual gaming. Losing because my army is some ugly ass primed horde is totally fair. I mean. We both know WHO won the mission but my opponent gets the moral victory for having painted his army. I accept that, just as they accept to paint with a cool painted army agaisnt my ugly ass toys.

In big tournaments this is irrelevant because they force painted armies allready.

So the question is: Is this a TOURNAMENT rule or a MATCHED PLAY rule. Because as we all know, Matched Play is 99% the default mode of play. It can be argued that tournament rules are common too but if this is a Matched Play rule expect it to be in effect almost everywhere because "the rules". If it's a tournament rule then the argument can be made it will only affect tournaments.

But if you think people won't attempt to enforce it in every game using points/"balanced" missions (i.e. Matched Play) if it's listed as a matched play rule, you're delusional.

I do not like it, not because i don't prefer painted armies but rather because i can't base, i destroyed alot of my minies by beeing incapable of basing...

I also prefer black or transparent bases because based models rarely fit into the table the model stands on.

What also bothers me a bit is the fact that painting now influences game score, not an issue with an army beeing rewarded seperately from the games in a tournament for the best paintjob, far from it, but i do feel that it should not influence game score...

Not Online!!! wrote:
I do not like it, not because i don't prefer painted armies but rather because i can't base, i destroyed alot of my minies by beeing incapable of basing...

I also prefer black or transparent bases because based models rarely fit into the table the model stands on.

What also bothers me a bit is the fact that painting now influences game score, not an issue with an army beeing rewarded seperately from the games in a tournament for the best paintjob, far from it, but i do feel that it should not influence game score...

I have found this to be more common than I thought originally. I do all my bases, I enjoy doing bases but I allways run a black paint around the edge. And I try and base in a way that matches the boards and mats I am likely to play on.
But I have met a lot of players that like the black base since they feel doing a base just makes it look worse once on the table. Originally I thought it was super uncommon but I started to paint the black ring after years of seeing the green painted bases for on the green mats on our new and fancy tables.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Sorry bud, but you're wrong.
Just because you can't comprehend the idea of someone playing without winning being their goal doesn't mean I can't.

Everyone's goal is to win the game. It might not be their reason for playing. It might not be something they strive for every waking second, but no one plays to lose/draw (with perhaps the exception of playing against a child who has never played, and you are their parent, and you don't want to upset them).

You don't sit down with the intention of drawing/losing. That's just not how people are wired.

Not Online!!! wrote:
I do not like it, not because i don't prefer painted armies but rather because i can't base, i destroyed alot of my minies by beeing incapable of basing...

I also prefer black or transparent bases because based models rarely fit into the table the model stands on.

What also bothers me a bit is the fact that painting now influences game score, not an issue with an army beeing rewarded seperately from the games in a tournament for the best paintjob, far from it, but i do feel that it should not influence game score...

Weirdly for me personally I'd let a black base slide on it, you've clearly painted your models an then tidied up the paint on the base, so you've put some thought and effort into presentation. Likewise transparent bases are an after market addition to make it look better on the tabletop so again I'd say that counts.

If you've painted it and left the base just covered in paint splodges and glue marks I'd say not though personally.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Sorry bud, but you're wrong.
Just because you can't comprehend the idea of someone playing without winning being their goal doesn't mean I can't.

Everyone's goal is to win the game. It might not be their reason for playing. It might not be something they strive for every waking second, but no one plays to lose/draw (with perhaps the exception of playing against a child who has never played, and you are their parent, and you don't want to upset them).

You don't sit down with the intention of drawing/losing. That's just not how people are wired.

If you want to ensure that win, better get them painted up!

 WisdomLS wrote:
This is from the matched play missions designed to be used in tournaments.

No. It's not "designed to be used in tournaments". These are just the regular missions for 40K that can be or are used in tournaments.

We need to get out of this mindset that "matched play" is the same thing as "tournament play". It's not. Tournaments used the matched play rules, but the matched play rules are not tournaments.

Wayniac wrote:
So the question is: Is this a TOURNAMENT rule or a MATCHED PLAY rule. Because as we all know, Matched Play is 99% the default mode of play. It can be argued that tournament rules are common too but if this is a Matched Play rule expect it to be in effect almost everywhere because "the rules". If it's a tournament rule then the argument can be made it will only affect tournaments.

But if you think people won't attempt to enforce it in every game using points/"balanced" missions (i.e. Matched Play) if it's listed as a matched play rule, you're delusional.

From what I can tell from reading it, they are Eternal War missions which utilize points values and the rule of three. I have not found anything specifying tournament or Matched Play. However, GW advised that the Chapter Approved 2020 will have new missions and guidance for running tournaments.

With that said, missions in the rulebook and scoring appear to not be tournament specific.

I could see using that rule in a tournament setting, but not in a casual FLGS game.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:


How does making sure my plasma guns are plasma gun and my chainswords are chainswords and my Space Marines are Space Marines change the game, in reference to dice rolls and saving throws?

It doesn't.

Don't you have a codex? An official assembled model is 100% clear about what it is and what specific weapons it carries.

An unassembled model will likely have no guns at all, and maybe only generic parts that makes impossible to say what unit it represent. A standard infantry dude? A heavy weapon specialist? A sargent? The warlord?

Painted and assembled models are exactly the same in terms of who is who, unassembled models aren't.

Not gonna use it.

I always have unpainted models (or just basecoated with an airbrush) because i'm a slow painter and i want my models to be to a certain level of paint.
Contrast isnt something i'd use to speedpaint an army, anyone suggessting this as an easy out doesn't understand WHY my armies aren't fully painted yet.

I just wish the separation between the hobby and game would be clearer to more people, i don't care if i play against a grey tide or a pro painted army, i just want my opponent to be fun to play with.

H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Sorry bud, but you're wrong.
Just because you can't comprehend the idea of someone playing without winning being their goal doesn't mean I can't.

Everyone's goal is to win the game. It might not be their reason for playing. It might not be something they strive for every waking second, but no one plays to lose/draw (with perhaps the exception of playing against a child who has never played, and you are their parent, and you don't want to upset them).

You don't sit down with the intention of drawing/losing. That's just not how people are wired.

Look, you can claim this all you want, but as long as I exist, you're wrong, because I don't play like that.

I'd suggest stopping claiming what other people are thinking, unless you're somehow telepathic.

H.B.M.C. wrote:We need to get out of this mindset that "matched play" is the same thing as "tournament play". It's not. Tournaments used the matched play rules, but the matched play rules are not tournaments.

And Matched Play isn't the only way to play.

Blackie wrote:Don't you have a codex? An official assembled model is 100% clear about what it is and what specific weapons it carries.

Where's the rule that says that? I don't see anything that says anything to that extent in mine. And 100% clear - I don't know the difference between a spike rifle and fleshborer. Even if the model was built perfectly, I'm still not 100% clear on what it is.

Also, that rather puts the pin in the proxy bubble, doesn't it?

An unassembled model will likely have no guns at all, and maybe only generic parts that makes impossible to say what unit it represent. A standard infantry dude? A heavy weapon specialist? A sargent? The warlord?

Painted and assembled models are exactly the same in terms of who is who, unassembled models aren't.

If I build a standard Space Marine Terminator with only one lightning claw, it's obvious what their other weapon has to be. But it's not fully assembled.
If I build a guardsman with only one arm, or no head, but otherwise still holding it's lasgun and is the right height, it's unassembled, but very much identifiable.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

H.B.M.C. wrote:We need to get out of this mindset that "matched play" is the same thing as "tournament play". It's not. Tournaments used the matched play rules, but the matched play rules are not tournaments.

And Matched Play isn't the only way to play

No, but it IS the most common and dare I say it "default" way to play. So Matched Play indirectly affects almost everything. Especially games in FLGS.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
I'd suggest stopping claiming what other people are thinking, unless you're somehow telepathic.

I believe you. I believe that you believe that you don't play to win. And if you really think that you don't try to win a game that has two players that compete against one another to complete set objectives and end up with a score that determines a winner at the end, then more power to you.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
And Matched Play isn't the only way to play.

I never said it was. What matched play is, however, is how most people play 40K. Before 8th rolled around with the Matched/Open/Narrative stuff, there was just "40k". You made a list, using points, picked (or rolled for) a mission, and then played that mission. What you did in that mission determined who won. Now, with matched play, you do everything I just said, except if someone painted their army they get a bonus because reasons.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Kayback wrote:
How, and I mean exactly with reference to dice rolls and saving throws and the like, does a layer of pigment change the game?

It doesn't.

How does making sure my plasma guns are plasma gun and my chainswords are chainswords and my Space Marines are Space Marines change the game, in reference to dice rolls and saving throws?

It doesn't.

Just so we're on the same page about assembling models.

"Hey noob. Well done you played a great first game. But my army is painted and your guys aren't based, so I win"

That's just called being a dick, in the same way that "well done noob, you tried a really cool maneuver. Now I'm going to pull out XYZ cheesy combo, use this obscure rules interaction, and play these stratagems from this book you didn't know existed, and wipe you out, so I win." is.

Use a shred of logic. Just because you *can* claim the victory points doesn't mean you have to. You have the power to claim them at your own discretion, in the same way you have the discretion to use certain units or tactics.

Except he is correct. The person that didn't base now lost. You can say "houserule it" all you want, which leads to the next point.

If you have to houserule something a lot, you need to be questioning the implementation and why it's there in the first place.

Yeah - not gonna use this. As someone who only plays with fully painted and WYSIWYG armies, I appreciate the attempt to reward that. However, I realize that some people prefer the "game" part of the hobby and don't care to paint at all. That's fine by me. I'm not gonna tell anyone they're having fun wrong. This just seems like a really good way to encourage "gate keeping" and all of the negative nonsense we try so hard to prevent.

Wayniac wrote:No, but it IS the most common and dare I say it "default" way to play. So Matched Play indirectly affects almost everything. Especially games in FLGS.

It doesn't mean there's not officially options to play differently though.

H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
I'd suggest stopping claiming what other people are thinking, unless you're somehow telepathic.

I believe you. I believe that you believe that you don't play to win.

So, you're saying I'm delusional, instead of considering that maybe your own flawed worldview and expectations of other people are mistaken?

Peak arrogance right there.

And if you really think that you don't try to win a game that has two players that compete against one another to complete set objectives and end up with a score that determines a winner at the end, then more power to you.

Yeah, I do. The set objectives and goals of the game are mechanisms by which one enjoys it, vectors of fun, but not the destination. You progress along those "fun vectors" because that's what the game asks of you, not to "win". There are many goals to the game, and winning is only one.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
And Matched Play isn't the only way to play.

I never said it was. What matched play is, however, is how most people play 40K. Before 8th rolled around with the Matched/Open/Narrative stuff, there was just "40k". You made a list, using points, picked (or rolled for) a mission, and then played that mission. What you did in that mission determined who won. Now, with matched play, you do everything I just said, except if someone painted their army they get a bonus because reasons.

In the same way that playing without fully assembled models was illegal, because reasons?

Again - there's officially endorsed ways of playing that avoid this painting rule, if people are so opposed. Before Matched, there was just "40k" - so why is Matched the default?

Fun vectors, hey?

Allrightythen...

At this point I just find it hilarious that people are shaking in their boots over the idea that the opponent has the possibility of claiming some moral victory because their army is painted, because that's what those 10 points represent at best: a moral victory.