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.

Boasting about being the better player of a brainless game is just as silly as edging out a victory by virtue of being painted. It's hilarious that they put this in, it punishes people who are otherwise only concerned with rules with a rule that requires paint. Somebody at gw has a sense of humor. That said, I would never enforce this in a game even though your ugly grey models deserve it.

Wait. People show up at tournaments with unpainted models? This rule is for matched play right? You want to be competitive without painting your minis? Hell yeah I'm using this if someone shows up to a tournie/league game with unpainted figurines.

Casual games for an afternoon? Well yes, another case.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:Well if you don't play to win, arbitrary victory points shouldn't be a thing then huh?

Victory points just happen to be the objective of your troops. That doesn't mean *your* objective is to win.

In picl-up games of football or whatever, you still try and score goals, but the main point isn't to win, it's to have fun. Winning is auxiliary to that.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:It pleases the snobby neckbeards that have had things painted for years and don't really buy new models.

As neither a snobby neckbeard, only having painted a good deal of my stuff over lockdown, and actively buying new stuff, it would seem your statement isn't really true at all.

 Kithail wrote:
Wait. People show up at tournaments with unpainted models? This rule is for matched play right? You want to be competitive without painting your minis? Hell yeah I'm using this if someone shows up to a tournie/league game with unpainted figurines.

Casual games for an afternoon? Well yes, another case.

Most major tournaments require painting. Local ones might not. But the fact it's matched play means most people are going to enforce it if their opponent's army isn't fully painted, which means the emphasis now is on only ever playing when everything is painted unless you want to be punished.

I almost wish it was a % of your army - eg 10% painted= 1vp, 30% painted =3vp... and so on

Then it might not be so harsh on you if say you just bought a new box of models, built them and want to play ASAP, but the rest of your list is painted...

Wayniac wrote:

 Kithail wrote:
Wait. People show up at tournaments with unpainted models? This rule is for matched play right? You want to be competitive without painting your minis? Hell yeah I'm using this if someone shows up to a tournie/league game with unpainted figurines.

Casual games for an afternoon? Well yes, another case.

Most major tournaments require painting. Local ones might not. But the fact it's matched play means most people are going to enforce it if their opponent's army isn't fully painted, which means the emphasis now is on only ever playing when everything is painted unless you want to be punished.

Man, your community seems really different than mine. I can't imagine anybody in my community enforcing the rule against someone who asked it be suspended. There's some people I know who just don't play against someone with unpainted models period, but can't imagine anyone who is willing to do so would insist on taking the 10VP advantage.

I thought about this one quite a bit and basically if you are playing a pick up game then who cares. If the score ends 65 to 70 in my favor and I brought one of the few models I own that is unpainted sure you can have the win if your army is fully painted. Or if I have my fully painted models and you don't and the score is 65 to 60 in your favor, sure you can win. It is a pick up game who cares.

However, if it is a tournament or a league game I believe this should be enforced. If you are taking the time commitment to play in a league or play in a tournament, then you can take some time and paint your models. I am an attorney and I am married so I know all about having time constraints (that is why I am not currently in a league and I don't really like tournaments), and I understand that some people paint slow etc. But to some extent the point of the game is to have painted models. And people who take the time and do so for a tournament or league should be rewarded for the extra care and time they put in. It is not punishing people for not painting, it is rewarding those who do. Also, it is not that hard to get models painted OK. If you want them all perfect, then yea it takes a lot of time, but especially with like marines or necrons, you can get the base colors down for a model in a few minutes. Will they look the best upon close inspection, no. But they will look a hell of a lot better on the board than a sea of grey.

Also, for anyone one who has unpainted models and regularly plays like that, you really should try getting them painted up, not for the extra 10 points, but for your own enjoyment of the game. When I was younger I was like "who cares painted or unpainted lets play", but as I got older and started playing with fully painted armies then against fully painted armies, I feel it is a much better quality of the game. There is a different feel when both armies are fully painted, even if they are not painted well. Also, you are not as bad of a painter as you think. Especially with the new contrast paints. And it is a pretty awesome feeling when someone compliments your model that you painted.

This is just my opinion and you are welcome to disagree.

 Kithail wrote:
Wait. People show up at tournaments with unpainted models? This rule is for matched play right? You want to be competitive without painting your minis? Hell yeah I'm using this if someone shows up to a tournie/league game with unpainted figurines.

But this isn't a tournament rule though. This is the key mistakes people keep making:

1. They assume that matched play = competitive/tournament play. It's not though. Tournaments use matched play, not all matched play games are tournaments (in fact, I'd wager most 40K games are matched play non-tournament games).
2. This rule doesn't matter for tournaments as tournaments can set whatever rules they like.

The folks I suspect I'll have the chance to play with are unlikely to be the sort of folks who think a close victory should be decided based on aesthetics.

I'm not a big fan of the general thrust of the rule, either, since the most likely to have a painted army will be players with more experience, and the likelihood is proportional to the experience.

Experienced players are the last ones who need a built-in advantage in scoring points.

I imagine most tournaments already required "Battle Ready" levels of painting, so they're probably mostly unaffected. Really, it just puts pressure on the LGS to favor painted armies.

Not a change I'm a fan of, but not much I can do about that.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Kithail wrote:
Wait. People show up at tournaments with unpainted models? This rule is for matched play right? You want to be competitive without painting your minis? Hell yeah I'm using this if someone shows up to a tournie/league game with unpainted figurines.

But this isn't a tournament rule though. This is the key mistakes people keep making:

1. They assume that matched play = competitive/tournament play. It's not though. Tournaments use matched play, not all matched play games are tournaments (in fact, I'd wager most 40K games are matched play non-tournament games).
2. This rule doesn't matter for tournaments as tournaments can set whatever rules they like.

You can always set whatever rules you like. So that logic goes both ways. There's no Celestial Enforcers who are going to phase into existence and smite you with a 9th edition rulebook if you and your buddy playing in the garage decide not to apply the rule.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:Well if you don't play to win, arbitrary victory points shouldn't be a thing then huh?

Victory points just happen to be the objective of your troops. That doesn't mean *your* objective is to win.

In picl-up games of football or whatever, you still try and score goals, but the main point isn't to win, it's to have fun. Winning is auxiliary to that.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:It pleases the snobby neckbeards that have had things painted for years and don't really buy new models.

As neither a snobby neckbeard, only having painted a good deal of my stuff over lockdown, and actively buying new stuff, it would seem your statement isn't really true at all.

Therefore, if the point is to have fun, random VP for arbitrary reasons are something you don't need. IF you're really looking to have fun. Otherwise we get that garbage first iteration of AoS.

Also some of us work many hours even with lockdown, thanks.

I think everyone is flipping out over something that is probably in a "tournament rules" section.

It's in the matched play missions and the crusade missions.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:Also some of us work many hours even with lockdown, thanks.

If those people have time to complain about the rule on Dakka or to play games, they can paint too. I'm just saying why *I've* been able to paint them, not that everyone can. But if you or anyone else have time to play a game or build your models, you can paint them too.

Pretty sure every league I've seen encouraged painting. Heck, I think it is one of the primary draws of escalation. When we did our own narrative gigs we gave perks for fielding a fully painted army to encourage people to play with their nice painted models instead of "the next big thing" broken by GW.

Sure you could play with that new unpainted unit to see how they played on the table... but then you're far more interested in seeing how that unit performed as opposed to getting the perk for being painted (be it campaign medals for us, or victory points here).

And I love how everyone immediately went to "GW is punishing me for not painting" when the rule clearly states that "GW is rewarding me for painting". Spin it negative and then screech about how they're oppressing you with their ugly, hurtful rules.

Like... the standard is pretty much "models with the primer covered and colors reasonably located" - battle ready is not a very high bar to achieve. But even a sea of shoddily painted models with poorly done contrast looks WORLDS better than the gray tide.

I like that GW is awarding people for hobbying... IN THEIR HOBBY.

Purifying Tempest wrote:

And I love how everyone immediately went to "GW is punishing me for not painting" when the rule clearly states that "GW is rewarding me for painting". Spin it negative and then screech about how they're oppressing you with their ugly, hurtful rules.

There is literally no difference. 90 + 10 or 110 -10 is exactly the same result.

For all the opinion shouting back and forth on who is correct for liking or not liking this rule, Punishing and not rewarding are functionally the same.

ITT- people accusing HBMC of being a powergamer. HBMC as a powergamer... I've never heard something so absurd. He's like the anti powergamer.

Now, my gut feeling was I liked this rule, as it keeps out certain riff raff but after seeing the certain sociopath it has some Dakkanauts walking down it probably should be left by the wayside.

For full disclosure, I disagree with what some terrible Aussie powergamer ITT is saying ref painting, however he is 100% correct about the bloody objective of the game, which is to win. The point is to have fun and some people seem to be confusing the two. The game is quite literally a competition with victory conditions, how secondary or tertiary those are to the rest of the experience is down to the individual player.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Also some of us work many hours even with lockdown, thanks.

Yet I still found time to paint my minis. What's your excuse?

Voss wrote:

Purifying Tempest wrote:

And I love how everyone immediately went to "GW is punishing me for not painting" when the rule clearly states that "GW is rewarding me for painting". Spin it negative and then screech about how they're oppressing you with their ugly, hurtful rules.

There is literally no difference. 90 + 10 or 110 -10 is exactly the same result.

For all the opinion shouting back and forth on who is correct for liking or not liking this rule, Punishing and not rewarding are functionally the same.

...no, no they're not.

"Not rewarding" someone is literally just that - they're not getting anything extra over a given starting point. They're staying at n, rather than going to n+1.

Punishing someone will usually mean taking something away from them which they started with - they go from n to n-1.

In terms of how you position a rule, there is a definite difference between a 90 VP baseline, with a 10VP bonus for painting to a Battle Ready standard, compared to a 100VP baseline, and being docked 10VP for not reaching a Battle Ready standard. You can argue it is only a difference in perception, but taking the positive approach over the punitive is a good move.

 Grimtuff wrote:
ITT- people accusing HBMC of being a powergamer. HBMC as a powergamer... I've never heard something so absurd. He's like the anti powergamer.

Now, my gut feeling was I liked this rule, as it keeps out certain riff raff but after seeing the certain sociopath it has some Dakkanauts walking down it probably should be left by the wayside.

For full disclosure, I disagree with what some terrible Aussie powergamer ITT is saying ref painting, however he is 100% correct about the bloody objective of the game, which is to win. The point is to have fun and some people seem to be confusing the two. The game is quite literally a competition with victory conditions, how secondary or tertiary those are to the rest of the experience is down to the individual player.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Also some of us work many hours even with lockdown, thanks.

Yet I still found time to paint my minis. What's your excuse?

Having better things to do with your free time? Some people don't like painting and why spend time doing something unpleasant when you could do something fun instead?

pm713 wrote:

Having better things to do with your free time? Some people don't like painting and why spend time doing something unpleasant when you could do something fun instead?

So the standard for playing in a tournament was:

Take models out of package
Cut pieces out
Assemble cut out pieces into models that represent the models you're fielding (WYSIWYG)
Put assembled model on appropriate sized base

And now the standard is still EXACTLY the same, only if you want to MAX your earnings potential you now have to:

Primer coat your models
Put some base colors on them

You're already investing your "free" time into meeting the tournament standard... you're just going to have to invest a little more into a phase of the hobby you don't want to (in order to MAXIMIZE your chances to win...).

The arguments against smacks of WAAC players who would put three colored dots on their otherwise gray models and want to meta chase as fast as possible getting upset at the game creators for rewarding people for investing time, care, and devotion to their army. Think of it like this: they guy who went out last night and threw together 6 flyrants to go stomp an upcoming tournament just opted to take a disadvantage he thinks he can overcome because he left all of his finished models at home on the shelf.

Oh boo, painting is unpleasant now is it?

Sorry, but you're in the wrong hobby. That is all.

pm713 wrote:

Having better things to do with your free time? Some people don't like painting and why spend time doing something unpleasant when you could do something fun instead?

And that's fine. So don't paint. And, if the 10VP penalty for not painting bothers you, don't play with anyone who wants to play with the rules as they are written. You can always have your own set of rules for your own play group.

People on both sides of this are overreacting so much. If you don't want to play with part of the rules, don't play with that part. It's all up to you and the person you're playing with.

 Grimtuff wrote:
Oh boo, painting is unpleasant now is it?

Sorry, but you're in the wrong hobby. That is all.

Pretty much this.

 Dysartes wrote:

Voss wrote:

Purifying Tempest wrote:

And I love how everyone immediately went to "GW is punishing me for not painting" when the rule clearly states that "GW is rewarding me for painting". Spin it negative and then screech about how they're oppressing you with their ugly, hurtful rules.

There is literally no difference. 90 + 10 or 110 -10 is exactly the same result.

For all the opinion shouting back and forth on who is correct for liking or not liking this rule, Punishing and not rewarding are functionally the same.

...no, no they're not.

"Not rewarding" someone is literally just that - they're not getting anything extra over a given starting point. They're staying at n, rather than going to n+1.

Punishing someone will usually mean taking something away from them which they started with - they go from n to n-1.

In terms of how you position a rule, there is a definite difference between a 90 VP baseline, with a 10VP bonus for painting to a Battle Ready standard, compared to a 100VP baseline, and being docked 10VP for not reaching a Battle Ready standard. You can argue it is only a difference in perception, but taking the positive approach over the punitive is a good move.

How is it a definite difference? You're either at a max of 100 if you paint and a max of 90 if you don't, either way. That's the same.
If you're perceiving that as different, you're doing math wrong.

Even if you call it 'rewarding painting,' its still a punishment for not painting, because you end up at the same point cap, regardless of how you spin it.

 Crimson wrote:

 Grimtuff wrote:
Oh boo, painting is unpleasant now is it?

Sorry, but you're in the wrong hobby. That is all.

Pretty much this.

I must have missed the significant change that made painting the cornerstone of wargaming.

Painting has always been a big part of 40k, from the very start.

But if you missed it up until now..this is that change. They just declared that painting is a cornerstone of getting full VPs in competitive 40k.

If you don't like it...just play with your own rules pack that leaves that rule out. As long as everyone playing agrees, it doesn't matter what the official rules say.

pm713 wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

 Grimtuff wrote:
Oh boo, painting is unpleasant now is it?

Sorry, but you're in the wrong hobby. That is all.

Pretty much this.

I must have missed the significant change that made painting the cornerstone of wargaming.

You've not been paying attention then. People playing with painted models was a part of it for a lot longer than people deciding they couldn't be arsed with that facet of it because it wasn't absolutely integral to their pursuit of WINNING.

There's a difference between being a big part and being a needed part. It's perfectly possible to play 40k and never paint. The rules shouldn't penalise you for not painting and house rules shouldn't be needed to play a decently structured game.

I'm curious, if I demanded people bring written copies of their personal lore for their army to play the game and gave them 10% less points if they didn't do so how many people who are saying that the paint rule is fine would be cool with that?

 Grimtuff wrote:
ITT- people accusing HBMC of being a powergamer. HBMC as a powergamer... I've never heard something so absurd. He's like the anti powergamer.

Now, my gut feeling was I liked this rule, as it keeps out certain riff raff but after seeing the certain sociopath it has some Dakkanauts walking down it probably should be left by the wayside.

For full disclosure, I disagree with what some terrible Aussie powergamer ITT is saying ref painting, however he is 100% correct about the bloody objective of the game, which is to win. The point is to have fun and some people seem to be confusing the two. The game is quite literally a competition with victory conditions, how secondary or tertiary those are to the rest of the experience is down to the individual player.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Also some of us work many hours even with lockdown, thanks.

Yet I still found time to paint my minis. What's your excuse?

I'm doing 6 day work weeks with errands being done on the last day. I haven't gotten a game in since the year started basically with all the Corona crap.

pm713 wrote:

I must have missed the significant change that made painting the cornerstone of wargaming.

You missed it since it never happened. It has been a cornerstone since the beginnings of the hobby in the 19th century.