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.

 Eldarsif wrote:
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.

No I'm pretty sure they just represent a victory. Period. Because missions use points, the total of these points are used to determine victory, and these points are scored from painting rather than your actions during the game.

A moral victory wouldn't actually impact the outcome of the game. These do. Geddit?

 Eldarsif wrote:
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.

Because only how good you are at the game should determine victory, not arbitrary things... or something like that

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Eldarsif wrote:
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.

No I'm pretty sure they just represent a victory. Period. Because missions use points, the total of these points are used to determine victory, and these points are scored from painting rather than your actions during the game.

A moral victory wouldn't actually impact the outcome of the game. These do. Geddit?

Sure, whatever.

I am just glad I play against actual humans.

Wayniac wrote:

 Eldarsif wrote:
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.

Because only how good you are at the game should determine victory, not arbitrary things... or something like that

It's not arbitrary. It's pretty clear from everything GW puts on their website, stuff they stock in their stores, etc.. that painting is part of the hobby.

You cannot and shouldn't win a triathlon just be running and skipping the rest, because you don't like it. That's pretty much the opposite of competitive.

 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. 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.

Of course, everyone plays to win. The extent to which they go, and the degree to which they identify the importance of the win is an incredibly subjective and individual thing. That said, I am willing to bet the majority of players, the vast majority, are not willing to let the objective override the point. Sure, we all want to win, its a heads up game, after all. But I know fairly few people that are so invested in the win that they are willing to let the objective override the point. There is also a reason why people don't like playing them. I can't speak to which or what degree this applies to your position on this, but I can say that in my corner of the world, winning is secondary to enjoying the game, because it is entirely possible to win and hate the game or to lose and enjoy it.

As someone who supports this rule, I can honestly say that if you are so invested in getting the big W, (you not as in specifically you, you as in a generic euphemism for the general opponent) Ill let you have it. I know how the game played. I know if I had fun. If I didn't, then winning isn't really that important anyway.

It's also worth mentioning that the reason for the game makes a huge impact on the intended consequence of the win or loss (and likewise the importance of this rule). If you are lining up to play a friend to practice for a big event, then you both know the points for painting aren't going to matter, because the point is to ascertain efficacy on the tabletop. If the point is to play a fun game with fluffy armies, then who cares, because there isn't much of an impact on the win or loss of that game, beyond the individual players' investment in the win.

I can't see this rule causing drama outside of just one side of the community calling the other side elitest, and the opposite calling them WAAC or TFG. The reality will be somewhere inbetween where the important lessons learned from the casual game will be ascertained, and the rules for painting will be more stringent in tournament play (presumabely, assuming that painting requirements arent likely to change at events. maybe they are, we will see.)

Sunny Side Up wrote:

Wayniac wrote:

 Eldarsif wrote:
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.

Because only how good you are at the game should determine victory, not arbitrary things... or something like that

It's not arbitrary. It's pretty clear from everything GW puts on their website, stuff they stock in their stores, etc.. that painting is part of the hobby.

You cannot and shouldn't win a triathlon just be running and skipping the rest, because you don't like it. That's pretty much the opposite of competitive.

Oh I agree, I hate the competitive aspect of the game personally. But people think that the ONLY thing that should matter is playing, and nothing else.

I voted yes because I'm grouchy, but the reality is I wouldn't care in a friendly but just about every physical game I play is *at* a tournament sooo....

H.B.M.C. wrote:Fun vectors, hey?

Allrightythen...

Hey, you're the one claiming to now how my brain works better than I do myself. If you're going to suggest my concepts are dumb, you might want to start looking closer to home first.

Well, you are the one who said "fun vectors", so this can remain entirely in your domain as far as I'm concerned.

Seabass wrote:
Of course, everyone plays to win.

I dunno. I was just told that people don't. But hey, at least you understood what I was getting at, so, points to you.

Seabass wrote:
... but I can say that in my corner of the world, winning is secondary to enjoying the game, because it is entirely possible to win and hate the game or to lose and enjoy it.

This doesn't contradict my statement in any way.

Seabass wrote:
As someone who supports this rule, I can honestly say that if you are so invested in getting the big W, (you not as in specifically you, you as in a generic euphemism for the general opponent) Ill let you have it. I know how the game played. I know if I had fun. If I didn't, then winning isn't really that important anyway.

None of what you just said is relevant to the topic at hand.

This isn't about "getting the big W". This is about introducing a victory condition that sits outside of the actual game itself. What happens in the game in no way influences this new rule, but this rule does influence the outcome of the game. That's the problem, specifically because this new rule is contingent on something that not everyone likes to or even can do.

That's actually creating an accessibility barrier. Some might call it gate-keeping, but that would imply some kind of intentional malice IMO, and we know that GW isn't evil, they're just stupid. Well meaning, but stupid.

I'd much rather the rules for the game represent the game that's being played, not outside factors that aren't part of the game.

Wayniac wrote:

Sunny Side Up wrote:

Wayniac wrote:

 Eldarsif wrote:
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.

Because only how good you are at the game should determine victory, not arbitrary things... or something like that

It's not arbitrary. It's pretty clear from everything GW puts on their website, stuff they stock in their stores, etc.. that painting is part of the hobby.

You cannot and shouldn't win a triathlon just be running and skipping the rest, because you don't like it. That's pretty much the opposite of competitive.

Oh I agree, I hate the competitive aspect of the game personally. But people think that the ONLY thing that should matter is playing, and nothing else.

The same people also forget that there are actual humans playing the games and can interpret things however they want. If I win a game mission-wise and the opponent just ekes in front of me with 3 points because he had a fully painted army, I will still consider it a win for me. I was the better player "game wise". My opponent can also say he wins because he played well and had a cool army to boot and everyone is happy. Now if it were a tournament then the painting thing matters and is probably strictly enforced so it will most likely be a moot point.

Again, AoS already had something similar and what these points have done most of the time is serve as tiebreakers if people are allowed to enter with unpainted/partly painted armies. In AoS it even scores on 3 different things: 3 Color mininum(5 points), shading and highlights(15), and everything else like bases decorated(5 points). These are official Pitched Battle Tournament Rules introduced in AoS over a year ago in GHB 2019. Very little furor over it because TOs and people in general realized that like great many things this was optional. Life kinda just moved on and players played and players painted and players competed.

This has, however, been a delightful storm in a teacup.

 Eldarsif wrote:
If I win a game mission-wise and the opponent just ekes in front of me with 3 points because he had a fully painted army, I will still consider it a win for me.

But now you're claiming the moral victory, as opposed to the actual victory. See the issue there? It's been flipped.

 Eldarsif wrote:
Again, AoS already had something similar and what these points have done most of the time is serve as tiebreakers if people are allowed to enter with unpainted/partly painted armies. In AoS it even scores on 3 different things: 3 Color mininum(5 points), shading and highlights(15), and everything else like bases decorated(5 points). These are official Pitched Battle Tournament Rules introduced in AoS over a year ago in GHB 2019. Very little furor over it because TOs and people in general realized that like great many things this was optional. Life kinda just moved on and players played and players painted and players competed.

You keep talking about tournaments. When will you understand that this isn't about tournaments???

These are the general mission rules for matched play 40K, the kind of rules that most people use in most games. If this was just a tournament thing it wouldn't matter, because tournaments can make whatever damned rules they want (like banning Space Marines, or people who's names start with the letter K).

This is about the general rules.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Well, you are the one who said "fun vectors", so this can remain entirely in your domain as far as I'm concerned.

Seabass wrote:
Of course, everyone plays to win.

I dunno. I was just told that people don't. But hey, at least you understood what I was getting at, so, points to you.

Seabass wrote:
... but I can say that in my corner of the world, winning is secondary to enjoying the game, because it is entirely possible to win and hate the game or to lose and enjoy it.

This doesn't contradict my statement in any way.

Seabass wrote:
As someone who supports this rule, I can honestly say that if you are so invested in getting the big W, (you not as in specifically you, you as in a generic euphemism for the general opponent) Ill let you have it. I know how the game played. I know if I had fun. If I didn't, then winning isn't really that important anyway.

None of what you just said is relevant to the topic at hand.

This isn't about "getting the big W". This is about introducing a victory condition that sits outside of the actual game itself. What happens in the game in no way influences this new rule, but this rule does influence the outcome of the game. That's the problem, specifically because this new rule is contingent on something that not everyone likes to or even can do.

That's actually creating an accessibility barrier. Some might call it gate-keeping, but that would imply some kind of intentional malice IMO, and we know that GW isn't evil, they're just stupid. Well meaning, but stupid.

I'd much rather the rules for the game represent the game that's being played, not outside factors that aren't part of the game.

Only it is relevant to the game and to the point most (and I haven't checked on every post you have made to this thread, so I don't know if you should be a generic or specific descriptor) are making in opposition is (as I understand it) that it's essentially not fair to give someone a bonus for actually painting their models because that is outside the mechanics of moving the models, rolling dice, and adjudicating the rules. The only reason I can reasonably see as to why this would be an issue is if the win is more important than any other aspect of the hobby. GW, with this rule, has now stated that is not the case. They didn't say someone couldn't win with an unpainted army, they said that there will be a bonus for having a fully painted army, meaning that it is now, more than before, a part of the game.

It is a lot of effort to paint a whole army. I feel that given the importance of aesthetics, design, terrain, and all of the other factors that go into how the hobby looks, rewarding that dedication to the game and the hobby is important and it should be done.

Anecdotally, I'm married, have an 8-year-old daughter, work three jobs, finishing graduate school and starting my doctoral residency soon, and I can say that I completely understand the concern that time is limited. Mine is very limited, but an hour or two a week painting will add up, especially if the painter is using the tools available at their disposal to help them speed along the process. I don't love how some of my models look, I know I could do better, but it's fine, because they are painted and based, and look ok on the tabletop. Its a concession to the time I have to put into the hobby side of the game, but that doesn't mean that because I dont have as much time to work on it that those who choose to carve that time out, or just have it to use, shouldn't still have some kind of reward for doing so, especially if the intent is to make that a stronger focus.

H.B.M.C. wrote:Well, you are the one who said "fun vectors", so this can remain entirely in your domain as far as I'm concerned.

Fun vectors makes more sense than claiming to know what a complete stranger is thinking.

Seabass wrote:
Of course, everyone plays to win.

I dunno. I was just told that people don't.

And they don't. Disagree with you both on that - not everyone plays to win.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Eldarsif wrote:
If I win a game mission-wise and the opponent just ekes in front of me with 3 points because he had a fully painted army, I will still consider it a win for me.

But now you're claiming the moral victory, as opposed to the actual victory. See the issue there? It's been flipped.

 Eldarsif wrote:
Again, AoS already had something similar and what these points have done most of the time is serve as tiebreakers if people are allowed to enter with unpainted/partly painted armies. In AoS it even scores on 3 different things: 3 Color mininum(5 points), shading and highlights(15), and everything else like bases decorated(5 points). These are official Pitched Battle Tournament Rules introduced in AoS over a year ago in GHB 2019. Very little furor over it because TOs and people in general realized that like great many things this was optional. Life kinda just moved on and players played and players painted and players competed.

You keep talking about tournaments. When will you understand that this isn't about tournaments???

These are the general mission rules for matched play 40K, the kind of rules that most people use in most games. If this was just a tournament thing it wouldn't matter, because tournaments can make whatever damned rules they want (like banning Space Marines, or people who's names start with the letter K).

This is about the general rules.

You are absolutely correct, that is what the rules say. you can be outfought in battle through luck or artifice, but you can still win the game because your army is fully painted, and one of his models isn't based, and RAW that's what the rules say. they totally say that, no disputes from me.

I would prefer to be a good sport about it, you want to claim the 10vps, go ahead. that is what the rules say. but we will both know, 10vps or not, who is the better player by the end of the game.

"+10 victory points to whoever has the most Primaris models left alive"

"+10 victory points to whoever assembled their army using solely Citadel products"

I would prefer to be a good sport about it, you want to claim the 10vps, go ahead. that is what the rules say. but we will both know, 10vps or not, who is the better player by the end of the game.

This exactly a thousand times.

In friendly/PUG games these RAW painting points mean absolutely nothing in the grand scheme of things. They are as worthless as worthless comes. Not unless certain people are all tracking PUG/Friendly game points on some global app only they are privy to. I mean, if there is one please link it so we can all enjoy it together.

I would also add that people decrying their loss due to RAW interpretation of this in a PUG/friendly are very much WAAC players in my mind, especially if winning means so much to them that they are going nuts over a rule that has a superfluous effect on their overall gaming experience.

Seabass wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Spoiler:

 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.

Correct.

ERJAK wrote:

 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.

More like you didn't read the entirety of my post. I submit exhibit A:

 Insectum7 wrote:

Spoiler:

 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? 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

Yeah, friendly or practice games are fine even by proxying models and untis.
Tournaments already enforced painting requirements, so I don't really understand why this new rule should be a problem for those who can't or don't want to paint.

Yes.

Not that it will really change anything for me in practice. Local tournaments and leagues have always had a similar rule (a small amount of extra tournament points for painted armies) and I try to avoid playing against unpainted armies outside tournaments. Perhaps this will increase my pool of potential opponents.

But this is a good rule. It clearly communicates that the idea is that you should paint your bloody models, without outright banning unpainted models.

 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.

The single best game (most fun and most memorable) of 40K I ever played was played with a made-up scenario that didn't even have victory conditions. It was literally impossible to play to win. The game had no winner or loser, and both me and my opponent went into the game knowing that.

Even in games which did have victory conditions, I have made plays which made me more likely to lose because it was the more fun / interesting thing to do, and have had opponents do the same. It has almost always enhanced my experience instead of detracting from it.

There's a difference between "not playing to win" and "playing to draw / lose".

The new meta from GW is apparently "fully painted to play" for good or ill.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
You keep talking about tournaments. When will you understand that this isn't about tournaments???

And why do you care so much about who won or lost outside a tournament? If you throw a tantrum because in a casual game your grey horde lost to my painted army by five points due this rule, I will declare you the winner, ceremoniously hand you glorious and imaginary no-prize medal and make a mental note to not play with you again.

Yes in competitive, no otherwise. So literally no change to how things are currently run literally everywhere in the world.

People are going crazy over nothing changed

HBMC could probably have painted his army to battle standard in the time he's spent posting about it in this thread.

But the more I think about it, the more I do think it's a ham-fisted rule. If you want painted minis to be part of your game, just say that painting is required (and leave the consequences for not painting up to the individual players). Giving VPs for it in a weird way devalues the importance by implying it's just something optional you can do for a benefit. And for those who do want to play only against painted armies...it kinda makes it harder to do that, because the rules imply that it's ok not to paint, as long as you take the penalty.

If I hate playing against unpainted armies, an extra 10VP isn't gonna make me happy to do it. And if I hate painting, it's just going to make me angry. So I don't see what group this actually pleases.

As I see it:

Independent Tournaments will insisting on painted models only.
GW stores will have this rule - if they even host tournaments these days.
Regular casual games with friends will probably ignore it.

Audustum wrote:
I voted yes because I'm grouchy

I voted yes because I'm groucho.

It's a great rule, and a little bit of needling from GW. It's quite funny, and I think it will lead to more painted models on the table which is an awesome thing.

I also don't think it'll be applied all the time - that's fine, people are free to play the game how they want. But I can foresee some pretty funny arguments being had by people with grey legions fuming about their opponent wanting to play by the actual rules in the 9e book.

GW put it in there for a reason. They have gone out of their way to make fielding a painted army painless; I applaud them for it, and the release of contrast paints. Painting is a big part of this hobby, it has been since 1987. Why pretend otherwise? And why fume when that big part of the hobby is represented, in a pretty marginal crunch way, in the rules?

Wow, that's a silly rule.
I get that they are trying to get rid of grey armies as a lot of players do gripe about that, but I can see the "battle ready standard" lead to some abuse, as you can just imagine some git going "I don't like your army's paintjob / your armies paintjob looks like rushed gak, so its not Battle Ready"

I'd rather if the game's results was determined by game play, not a beauty contest. It should be at most 1 VP, not 10.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

H.B.M.C. wrote:Well, you are the one who said "fun vectors", so this can remain entirely in your domain as far as I'm concerned.

Fun vectors makes more sense than claiming to know what a complete stranger is thinking.

Seabass wrote:
Of course, everyone plays to win.

I dunno. I was just told that people don't.

And they don't. Disagree with you both on that - not everyone plays to win.

Well if you don't play to win, arbitrary victory points shouldn't be a thing then huh?

That's the thing. The rule is a solution that pleases nobody. If I hate seeing your ugly unpainted army, is it really going to make me feel better to be given 10VP to compensate for having to look at it? No, obviously not.

The rule should have been: "Armies shall be painted to a battle-ready standard. If your army is not, check with your opponent before the game to make sure they are willing to play with you" or something like that. The consequences for having an unpainted army should be considered and resolved before the game starts - and if both players are fine with one having an unpainted army, that should be the end of the matter. Giving points to the guy with the painted army doesn't make either party satisfied.

yukishiro1 wrote:
That's the thing. The rule is a solution that pleases nobody. If I hate seeing your ugly unpainted army, is it really going to make me feel better to be given 10VP to compensate for having to look at it? No, obviously not.

The rule should have been: "Armies shall be painted to a battle-ready standard. If your army is not, check with your opponent before the game to make sure they are willing to play with you" or something like that. The consequences for having an unpainted army should be considered and resolved before the game starts - and if both players are fine with one having an unpainted army, that should be the end of the matter. Giving points to the guy with the painted army doesn't make either party satisfied.

It pleases the snobby neckbeards that have had things painted for years and don't really buy new models.