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.

 grouchoben wrote:

 Blndmage wrote:
To the folks who think I could be given a pass due to my disability.

In garagehammer groups, you'd be right.

At FLGS's? Literally had my vision used against me on a number of occasions, and when I called it out at the store? A slap on the wrist, and zero consequences. The digital local groups froze me out or told me to "play better".

The local community is competitive and tournament focused.

I've tried to find folks who I could play not at stores with, but I've become a Pariah now.

Being a disabled gamer isn't easy of as fun as you'd imagine.
Most gamers are...at least not consciously ablist, but it's a huuuge issue.
That's not even touching on the misogyny that's almost a core tennentnof many gaming circles.
Literally had folks cancel/ghost games and big organized things after I changed my avatar in our local groups to a pic of me.

Hey Blindmage, sounds like a gakky, sexist, ableist local scene you've got, sorry to hear that. If you're ever in the UK let me know, I play with a lovely group of players who give no grief and are friendly and kind, we'd be well up for playing some Canadian Crons!

For what it's worth, you've changed my mind on this rule. I was previously all for it, but hearing it from your perspective I no longer like it.

Good luck on building a little group of players who are cool & not-dicks.

I won't lie, her brave admission of past struggles has made this discussion a more real thing for me as well. The fact that it made her feel, finally, unable to play the game she enjoys ? That is really a clear and glaring problem as she's most likely not the only one. While she and those like her may be the far minority of our hobby, if they can partake and fight hard to do so I don't see how anyone could support a rule that would push them away as a good addition to the core rules.

People don't always want things made easier because of their hardships, sometimes we just want to feel we are all on the same page. This rule goes from being " A painted army is an ideal " to " Play a painted army or we will let other players directly shame and punish you. Oh and it has to be by these arbitrary standards as well. " It's not a good thing.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

yukishiro1 wrote:
The rule should have just been: "The game is played with assembled and painted GW models. If your army does not comply with these rules, check with your opponent before the game to make sure they are ok with your army."

There was no need to get overly technical with VPs for painting, any more than there was a need to give people 10VPs for a fully assembled force, or for not proxying, or WYSIWYG, or whatever else.

That is all I'm arguing, we all know the game is better painted. I have not played anyone who didn't want to have their army fully painted or didn't like full painted armies. It should be the ideal to strive for, not something you're punished in VP for not reaching yet for whatever reason you have to not reach their standards.

 AngryAngel80 wrote:

I'm about to blow up your whole world view here but I'm going to say it. You ever stop to think maybe those with disabilities don't want you to lower the bar for them all the time ? Maybe they want to push and strive and meet you on a more equal level ?

I am not stopping anyone from doing that. Blindmage's painted Necrons do not require waiving the rule. But you simply cannot design a game in a manner that would not require special dispensations in some cases. Do not try to use the accessibility angle to attack the rule you simply do not like.

Why should there be a rule that is punitive, doesn't at all change game play, only further divides us all and as a side effect negatively effects disabled players and is being openly praised as a way to shame and punish people in the game who either paint slow, don't like or paint and can't meet their " Battle Ready " dumb standard for whatever reason ?

It's a poor rule, a crap rule. Painting should be something you strive for not something you are directly punished by the game itself for not doing to its standards.

Everyone who starts this hobby should know that it is supposed to be played with painted models. Complaining about having to paint makes just as little sense than complaining about having to assemble the models or having to read the rules.

It's a stupid rule which had little more thought than trying to push paint sales behind it. I like having a fully painted army, but I also don't like forcing myself to paint if I'm busy or just not feeling up to it.

 AngryAngel80 wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

 AngryAngel80 wrote:

The fact you're talking to me of actual legal handling shouldn't need to be made for a game designed for fun. Don't you see how off the wall that is ? That my friend is the peak of absurd. This isn't the law of the land, it's rules for a miniature game. We shouldn't need to be already deciding to enforce it on some people and ignore it for others as that is a sure sign the law is broke as a damn joke and not a funny one either.

Game rules shouldn't need to be ignored for some and enforced to just shame and be little others, that is the exact opposite of fun and inclusive.

The rule does not prevent anyone from playing and if we are talking about hobbies and disabilities, of course sometimes you need to make special dispensations. If you assume that any game that cannot be played unmodified by people with any disability that could potentially exist is fundamentally a bad game, then I doubt any good games can exist. Hell, rock-paper-scissors assumes that the player has at least one functioning hand!

I'm about to blow up your whole world view here but I'm going to say it. You ever stop to think maybe those with disabilities don't want you to lower the bar for them all the time ? Maybe they want to push and strive and meet you on a more equal level ? Why should there be a rule that is punitive, doesn't at all change game play, only further divides us all and as a side effect negatively effects disabled players and is being openly praised as a way to shame and punish people in the game who either paint slow, don't like or paint and can't meet their " Battle Ready " dumb standard for whatever reason ?

It's a poor rule, a crap rule. Painting should be something you strive for not something you are directly punished by the game itself for not doing to its standards.

Yes!
This!
I don't want rules ignored out of fething pity!

 Insectum7 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Spoiler:

 Insectum7 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Nope. If you have to houserule something, it means there's a problem with the rule at hand. Either you actually DO agree with it or you don't, Insectum. This isn't some middle ground thing.

I'm happy with the rule, but I'm happy to waive it in various circumstances. It's fine.

Like WYSIWYG. It was a rule, but lots of people comfortably proxied just the same.

Do you drive exactly the speed limit?

You don't just waive rules because you feel like. Either the rule is good or bad.
Also yes I do stick to the speed limit, only ever going 5 above at most. Granted I have a garbage Civic that can't go fast whatsoever so it is what it is.

No man, you either follow the speed limit exactly or you just have to get rid of it because you don't believe it. It's a bad rule.

I don't purposely do it believe me

Well the flow on 101 tends to be around 75-78 when traffic is good. It's a 65 zone. Is the 65 speed limit a bad rule? Do we throw it out?

Or maybe we accept that the rule is a guideline and we allow some flexibility based on a communal understanding.

So the rest of the people are breaking the law, perfect.

Perfection is the enemy of good enough.

GW wants to encourage you to paint your army. They give you a little bonus for doing so. Players can follow the rule or not follow the rule, and set standards for their respective communities at their discretion. Good enough!

You know how you encourage people? Those instruction vids they had. The supposed contrast paints working. This is not encouraging people to paint their armies. It's a rule that people are already planning on house ruling out.

TL;DR if you are able to constantly find situations where you need to get rid of a rule, chances are the rule shouldn't have been implemented to begin with.

 AngryAngel80 wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

 AngryAngel80 wrote:

The fact you're talking to me of actual legal handling shouldn't need to be made for a game designed for fun. Don't you see how off the wall that is ? That my friend is the peak of absurd. This isn't the law of the land, it's rules for a miniature game. We shouldn't need to be already deciding to enforce it on some people and ignore it for others as that is a sure sign the law is broke as a damn joke and not a funny one either.

Game rules shouldn't need to be ignored for some and enforced to just shame and be little others, that is the exact opposite of fun and inclusive.

The rule does not prevent anyone from playing and if we are talking about hobbies and disabilities, of course sometimes you need to make special dispensations. If you assume that any game that cannot be played unmodified by people with any disability that could potentially exist is fundamentally a bad game, then I doubt any good games can exist. Hell, rock-paper-scissors assumes that the player has at least one functioning hand!

I'm about to blow up your whole world view here but I'm going to say it. You ever stop to think maybe those with disabilities don't want you to lower the bar for them all the time ? Maybe they want to push and strive and meet you on a more equal level ? Why should there be a rule that is punitive, doesn't at all change game play, only further divides us all and as a side effect negatively effects disabled players and is being openly praised as a way to shame and punish people in the game who either paint slow, don't like or paint and can't meet their " Battle Ready " dumb standard for whatever reason ?

It's a poor rule, a crap rule. Painting should be something you strive for not something you are directly punished by the game itself for not doing to its standards.

Where are they punishing you for not painting?

What are they actively doing to you that prohibits you from participating in the hobby based on how you want to?

The rule is worded specifically to encourage painting.

Does it have the tangential effect of punishing players for NOT painting? Sure, you can argue that if you like. But the argument is in poor taste because the wording is clearly an incentive aimed at rewarding people who put more time in the hobby away from the tournament scene (where this rule really has the impact). But, the fact remains: GW is not banning you from their events for fielding the gray tide. If that is all you have... then you have incentive to paint it up for next time... it will DIRECTLY ASSIST YOU IN PLACING HIGHER. But it will not PROHIBIT you from playing that day.

We as humans also have agency, and can freely say "this rule negatively impacts you in an unfair manner, so we're either going to fix it... or ignore it as we agree upon to MAKE IT FAIR". If a blind person, as mentioned above, sat down with an unpainted army and just wanted to play a game with people... no... I'm not going to go full HAM and start being a jerk for models being unpainted or assembled a little skewed due to their disability... or needing more time to move and engage in the game for not being able to see. Good lord, not everyone is an extremist that cannot make reasonable exceptions for those who genuinely need it.

But in a competitive space? GW just said they want their tables to field painted models... so instead of just slamming the doors in your face like a bunch of jerks... they gave you an incentive by making your overall placing a few spots higher just for painting your models. You'll see a lot more painted armies that would have otherwise been gray as a result. And this trickles down to ALL phases of play... even demoing in stores is better when both armies are painted, and people are given rewards for investing time into more than the "blowing models off of the table" phase... and they develop good habits from the start of their time in the hobby.

 Insectum7 wrote:

 AngryAngel80 wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

 AngryAngel80 wrote:

The fact you're talking to me of actual legal handling shouldn't need to be made for a game designed for fun. Don't you see how off the wall that is ? That my friend is the peak of absurd. This isn't the law of the land, it's rules for a miniature game. We shouldn't need to be already deciding to enforce it on some people and ignore it for others as that is a sure sign the law is broke as a damn joke and not a funny one either.

Game rules shouldn't need to be ignored for some and enforced to just shame and be little others, that is the exact opposite of fun and inclusive.

The rule does not prevent anyone from playing and if we are talking about hobbies and disabilities, of course sometimes you need to make special dispensations. If you assume that any game that cannot be played unmodified by people with any disability that could potentially exist is fundamentally a bad game, then I doubt any good games can exist. Hell, rock-paper-scissors assumes that the player has at least one functioning hand!

I'm about to blow up your whole world view here but I'm going to say it. You ever stop to think maybe those with disabilities don't want you to lower the bar for them all the time ? Maybe they want to push and strive and meet you on a more equal level ? Why should there be a rule that is punitive, doesn't at all change game play, only further divides us all and as a side effect negatively effects disabled players and is being openly praised as a way to shame and punish people in the game who either paint slow, don't like or paint and can't meet their " Battle Ready " dumb standard for whatever reason ?

It's a poor rule, a crap rule. Painting should be something you strive for not something you are directly punished by the game itself for not doing to its standards.

It's not a rule that exists in the free PDF Core rules and associated mission.

That doesn't matter if people are going to play the " book " missions and follow those scoring scenarios. More players follow the absolute status quo, especially in pick up games. What may or may not be in the free rules for open play won't matter if no one plays them and I can say not even one person ever wanted to play Narrative or Open play anywhere I played, not even once. I doubt I'm in the minority with that and most people I would imagine never did those game types either. So what is in the rules pamphlet is worth less than nothing to most players when the big book missions are the ones that will be the de facto standard.

Grimtuff wrote: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.

Still disagree. The mission *has* victory conditions, but the game's victory condition are different. The mission is part of the game, but the mission is not the entire game.

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?

If I don't like assembling my models, can I play with cardboard cutouts? Empty bases? Why spend time doing something unpleasant when I could do something fun instead?
All I'm saying is let's not treat painting any differently than building your models, however you take that to mean. You're fine with proxy armies and half-built units? Great, not an issue if you're adverse to paint. And likewise, if you're super strict on paint, but uncaring about building the models, why?

yukishiro1 wrote:As long as everyone playing agrees, it doesn't matter what the official rules say.

This is the most important rule - in that rules should be flexible and malleable to circumstance. Disability? Experience gap? Literally any circumstance you can imagine? Modify the rules to fit you and your counterpart across the table. Don't care about painting? Don't use the rule. Don't like subfaction traits? Don't use them. Can't reach across the table for your models? Use a shorter table. If you and your opponent are fine to ignore or add or modify rules, why should what anyone else says matter?

Rules are a guideline, but shouldn't be taken as total gospel if you want to mix things up.

And for Blindmage - it is such a shame that you, or anyone else, has to put up with the kind of people you've had to deal with. You are far more welcome in the hobby than they are.
I can't speak from a position of disability, so I'll revaluate my position on this ruling.

Purifying Tempest wrote:

 AngryAngel80 wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

 AngryAngel80 wrote:

The fact you're talking to me of actual legal handling shouldn't need to be made for a game designed for fun. Don't you see how off the wall that is ? That my friend is the peak of absurd. This isn't the law of the land, it's rules for a miniature game. We shouldn't need to be already deciding to enforce it on some people and ignore it for others as that is a sure sign the law is broke as a damn joke and not a funny one either.

Game rules shouldn't need to be ignored for some and enforced to just shame and be little others, that is the exact opposite of fun and inclusive.

The rule does not prevent anyone from playing and if we are talking about hobbies and disabilities, of course sometimes you need to make special dispensations. If you assume that any game that cannot be played unmodified by people with any disability that could potentially exist is fundamentally a bad game, then I doubt any good games can exist. Hell, rock-paper-scissors assumes that the player has at least one functioning hand!

I'm about to blow up your whole world view here but I'm going to say it. You ever stop to think maybe those with disabilities don't want you to lower the bar for them all the time ? Maybe they want to push and strive and meet you on a more equal level ? Why should there be a rule that is punitive, doesn't at all change game play, only further divides us all and as a side effect negatively effects disabled players and is being openly praised as a way to shame and punish people in the game who either paint slow, don't like or paint and can't meet their " Battle Ready " dumb standard for whatever reason ?

It's a poor rule, a crap rule. Painting should be something you strive for not something you are directly punished by the game itself for not doing to its standards.

Where are they punishing you for not painting?

What are they actively doing to you that prohibits you from participating in the hobby based on how you want to?

The rule is worded specifically to encourage painting.

Does it have the tangential effect of punishing players for NOT painting? Sure, you can argue that if you like. But the argument is in poor taste because the wording is clearly an incentive aimed at rewarding people who put more time in the hobby away from the tournament scene (where this rule really has the impact). But, the fact remains: GW is not banning you from their events for fielding the gray tide. If that is all you have... then you have incentive to paint it up for next time... it will DIRECTLY ASSIST YOU IN PLACING HIGHER. But it will not PROHIBIT you from playing that day.

We as humans also have agency, and can freely say "this rule negatively impacts you in an unfair manner, so we're either going to fix it... or ignore it as we agree upon to MAKE IT FAIR". If a blind person, as mentioned above, sat down with an unpainted army and just wanted to play a game with people... no... I'm not going to go full HAM and start being a jerk for models being unpainted or assembled a little skewed due to their disability... or needing more time to move and engage in the game for not being able to see. Good lord, not everyone is an extremist that cannot make reasonable exceptions for those who genuinely need it.

But in a competitive space? GW just said they want their tables to field painted models... so instead of just slamming the doors in your face like a bunch of jerks... they gave you an incentive by making your overall placing a few spots higher just for painting your models. You'll see a lot more painted armies that would have otherwise been gray as a result. And this trickles down to ALL phases of play... even demoing in stores is better when both armies are painted, and people are given rewards for investing time into more than the "blowing models off of the table" phase... and they develop good habits from the start of their time in the hobby.

As has been said many times, most tournaments already slam the door in your face if you have unpainted models and you try and play in it. I doubt that will change at all, so all this rule does is make you have to deal with it in pick up or casual games.

As well, how is it not a punishment to players who are playing at a 10 point handicap ? One persons reward is another persons punishment in this case. Those 10 points only go against the player with the unpainted models.

I'll say again, the disabled are already well aware life is hard. I doubt they want to feel pity if you'd hold someone else to the rule and say they can slide and ignore it. It can hurt and acts like you are handling them with kid gloves. They want to be treated as normal as possible as they fight real hard to do some things and compete. I'm not disabled and I'll offer help if needed but there is a fine line to walk with help and lowering the bar just because. No exceptions would need to be made if such a crap rule wasn't included and such a rule never needed to be included as groups tended to press for painted models and tournaments already pressed paint as a standard to compete. This rule was needless and only a negative and punishment is the wrong incentive for this hobby and I really find it hard to imagine they thought it was a good idea.

 Crimson wrote:

 AngryAngel80 wrote:

I'm about to blow up your whole world view here but I'm going to say it. You ever stop to think maybe those with disabilities don't want you to lower the bar for them all the time ? Maybe they want to push and strive and meet you on a more equal level ?

I am not stopping anyone from doing that. Blindmage's painted Necrons do not require waiving the rule. But you simply cannot design a game in a manner that would not require special dispensations in some cases. Do not try to use the accessibility angle to attack the rule you simply do not like.

Why should there be a rule that is punitive, doesn't at all change game play, only further divides us all and as a side effect negatively effects disabled players and is being openly praised as a way to shame and punish people in the game who either paint slow, don't like or paint and can't meet their " Battle Ready " dumb standard for whatever reason ?

It's a poor rule, a crap rule. Painting should be something you strive for not something you are directly punished by the game itself for not doing to its standards.

Everyone who starts this hobby should know that it is supposed to be played with painted models. Complaining about having to paint makes just as little sense than complaining about having to assemble the models or having to read the rules.

My point in posting my army pics was that I'm not able to paint to even that level anymore, the pylon required more help that I've even put across, that simple paint scheme was so difficult and now so out of my reach that I was in tears trying to paint it. I've been wanting to get the new Scarabs, but I'm super worried that I'll be in the same state tryingbti paint them.

 AngryAngel80 wrote:

 grouchoben wrote:

 Blndmage wrote:
To the folks who think I could be given a pass due to my disability.

In garagehammer groups, you'd be right.

At FLGS's? Literally had my vision used against me on a number of occasions, and when I called it out at the store? A slap on the wrist, and zero consequences. The digital local groups froze me out or told me to "play better".

The local community is competitive and tournament focused.

I've tried to find folks who I could play not at stores with, but I've become a Pariah now.

Being a disabled gamer isn't easy of as fun as you'd imagine.
Most gamers are...at least not consciously ablist, but it's a huuuge issue.
That's not even touching on the misogyny that's almost a core tennentnof many gaming circles.
Literally had folks cancel/ghost games and big organized things after I changed my avatar in our local groups to a pic of me.

Hey Blindmage, sounds like a gakky, sexist, ableist local scene you've got, sorry to hear that. If you're ever in the UK let me know, I play with a lovely group of players who give no grief and are friendly and kind, we'd be well up for playing some Canadian Crons!

For what it's worth, you've changed my mind on this rule. I was previously all for it, but hearing it from your perspective I no longer like it.

Good luck on building a little group of players who are cool & not-dicks.

I won't lie, her brave admission of past struggles has made this discussion a more real thing for me as well. The fact that it made her feel, finally, unable to play the game she enjoys ? That is really a clear and glaring problem as she's most likely not the only one. While she and those like her may be the far minority of our hobby, if they can partake and fight hard to do so I don't see how anyone could support a rule that would push them away as a good addition to the core rules.

People don't always want things made easier because of their hardships, sometimes we just want to feel we are all on the same page. This rule goes from being " A painted army is an ideal " to " Play a painted army or we will let other players directly shame and punish you. Oh and it has to be by these arbitrary standards as well. " It's not a good thing.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

yukishiro1 wrote:
The rule should have just been: "The game is played with assembled and painted GW models. If your army does not comply with these rules, check with your opponent before the game to make sure they are ok with your army."

There was no need to get overly technical with VPs for painting, any more than there was a need to give people 10VPs for a fully assembled force, or for not proxying, or WYSIWYG, or whatever else.

That is all I'm arguing, we all know the game is better painted. I have not played anyone who didn't want to have their army fully painted or didn't like full painted armies. It should be the ideal to strive for, not something you're punished in VP for not reaching yet for whatever reason you have to not reach their standards.

Can I respectfully request that you write this out in an Email to GW and explain why its a bad rule as you have done here.

I suspect that they have added the rule without considering this as a potential consequence.

Heck I hadn't even considered it that way and I have to agree with you.
While I understand why at first glance and compairing it to events who all have a similar rule, I did not realy understand what the argument was about, as it's esentially been something I've taken for granted for like 20+ years of events.
I agree adding it to the core rules was overstepping and the last thing this hobby needs it more things that make it feel exclusionary.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:TL;DR if you are able to constantly find situations where you need to get rid of a rule, chances are the rule shouldn't have been implemented to begin with.

On the contrary, I think encouraging the "let's get rid of this rule to better suit us" mentality is much more productive. If given the choice between a cast-iron ruleset that was well-written, and a ruleset that promoted personal initiative and encouraged customising the parameters to better suit you and your counterpart across the table, I'd prefer the latter.

AngryAngel80 wrote:So what is in the rules pamphlet is worth less than nothing to most players when the big book missions are the ones that will be the de facto standard.

No-one's forcing them to play the Big Book missions. If they limit themselves to that, that's their choice. It's not like they don't have other options.

 Blndmage wrote:

 AngryAngel80 wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

 AngryAngel80 wrote:

The fact you're talking to me of actual legal handling shouldn't need to be made for a game designed for fun. Don't you see how off the wall that is ? That my friend is the peak of absurd. This isn't the law of the land, it's rules for a miniature game. We shouldn't need to be already deciding to enforce it on some people and ignore it for others as that is a sure sign the law is broke as a damn joke and not a funny one either.

Game rules shouldn't need to be ignored for some and enforced to just shame and be little others, that is the exact opposite of fun and inclusive.

The rule does not prevent anyone from playing and if we are talking about hobbies and disabilities, of course sometimes you need to make special dispensations. If you assume that any game that cannot be played unmodified by people with any disability that could potentially exist is fundamentally a bad game, then I doubt any good games can exist. Hell, rock-paper-scissors assumes that the player has at least one functioning hand!

I'm about to blow up your whole world view here but I'm going to say it. You ever stop to think maybe those with disabilities don't want you to lower the bar for them all the time ? Maybe they want to push and strive and meet you on a more equal level ? Why should there be a rule that is punitive, doesn't at all change game play, only further divides us all and as a side effect negatively effects disabled players and is being openly praised as a way to shame and punish people in the game who either paint slow, don't like or paint and can't meet their " Battle Ready " dumb standard for whatever reason ?

It's a poor rule, a crap rule. Painting should be something you strive for not something you are directly punished by the game itself for not doing to its standards.

Yes!
This!
I don't want rules ignored out of fething pity!

Then don't ignore it. Your army met the requirement, but even if it hadn't you don't have to get an exception from it if you don't want to.
I don't think it's something that shouldn't exist simply because someones prideful either.

 AngryAngel80 wrote:

I'll say again, the disabled are already well aware life is hard. I doubt they want to feel pity if you'd hold someone else to the rule and say they can slide and ignore it. It can hurt and acts like you are handling them with kid gloves. They want to be treated as normal as possible as they fight real hard to do some things and compete. I'm not disabled and I'll offer help if needed but there is a fine line to walk with help and lowering the bar just because. No exceptions would need to be made if such a crap rule wasn't included and such a rule never needed to be included as groups tended to press for painted models and tournaments already pressed paint as a standard to compete. This rule was needless and only a negative and punishment is the wrong incentive for this hobby and I really find it hard to imagine they thought it was a good idea.

You might as well argue that a set table size is a crap rule as a disabled person might have trouble reaching across a large table. Sometimes dispensations have to have to be made, it is merely a question in what situation and what kind.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Spoiler:

 Insectum7 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Nope. If you have to houserule something, it means there's a problem with the rule at hand. Either you actually DO agree with it or you don't, Insectum. This isn't some middle ground thing.

I'm happy with the rule, but I'm happy to waive it in various circumstances. It's fine.

Like WYSIWYG. It was a rule, but lots of people comfortably proxied just the same.

Do you drive exactly the speed limit?

You don't just waive rules because you feel like. Either the rule is good or bad.
Also yes I do stick to the speed limit, only ever going 5 above at most. Granted I have a garbage Civic that can't go fast whatsoever so it is what it is.

No man, you either follow the speed limit exactly or you just have to get rid of it because you don't believe it. It's a bad rule.

I don't purposely do it believe me

Well the flow on 101 tends to be around 75-78 when traffic is good. It's a 65 zone. Is the 65 speed limit a bad rule? Do we throw it out?

Or maybe we accept that the rule is a guideline and we allow some flexibility based on a communal understanding.

So the rest of the people are breaking the law, perfect.

Perfection is the enemy of good enough.

GW wants to encourage you to paint your army. They give you a little bonus for doing so. Players can follow the rule or not follow the rule, and set standards for their respective communities at their discretion. Good enough!

You know how you encourage people? Those instruction vids they had. The supposed contrast paints working. This is not encouraging people to paint their armies. It's a rule that people are already planning on house ruling out.

TL;DR if you are able to constantly find situations where you need to get rid of a rule, chances are the rule shouldn't have been implemented to begin with.

The frequency of ignoring the rule is going to depend on your local community/situation. At the moment it's 55/45 in favor of a bonus to painted armies.

Also, we still don't get rid of speed limits even though they aren't followed to the letter(number).

 AngryAngel80 wrote:

Spoiler:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 AngryAngel80 wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

 AngryAngel80 wrote:

The fact you're talking to me of actual legal handling shouldn't need to be made for a game designed for fun. Don't you see how off the wall that is ? That my friend is the peak of absurd. This isn't the law of the land, it's rules for a miniature game. We shouldn't need to be already deciding to enforce it on some people and ignore it for others as that is a sure sign the law is broke as a damn joke and not a funny one either.

Game rules shouldn't need to be ignored for some and enforced to just shame and be little others, that is the exact opposite of fun and inclusive.

The rule does not prevent anyone from playing and if we are talking about hobbies and disabilities, of course sometimes you need to make special dispensations. If you assume that any game that cannot be played unmodified by people with any disability that could potentially exist is fundamentally a bad game, then I doubt any good games can exist. Hell, rock-paper-scissors assumes that the player has at least one functioning hand!

I'm about to blow up your whole world view here but I'm going to say it. You ever stop to think maybe those with disabilities don't want you to lower the bar for them all the time ? Maybe they want to push and strive and meet you on a more equal level ? Why should there be a rule that is punitive, doesn't at all change game play, only further divides us all and as a side effect negatively effects disabled players and is being openly praised as a way to shame and punish people in the game who either paint slow, don't like or paint and can't meet their " Battle Ready " dumb standard for whatever reason ?

It's a poor rule, a crap rule. Painting should be something you strive for not something you are directly punished by the game itself for not doing to its standards.

It's not a rule that exists in the free PDF Core rules and associated mission.

That doesn't matter if people are going to play the " book " missions and follow those scoring scenarios. More players follow the absolute status quo, especially in pick up games. What may or may not be in the free rules for open play won't matter if no one plays them and I can say not even one person ever wanted to play Narrative or Open play anywhere I played, not even once. I doubt I'm in the minority with that and most people I would imagine never did those game types either. So what is in the rules pamphlet is worth less than nothing to most players when the big book missions are the ones that will be the de facto standard.

I'm not so sure that "people" follow the status quo so much with 40K. Lots of people play Power Level, lots of people play Narrative, lots of people ignore rules or modify them to fit their gaming circle. It'd be interesting to get numbers on it. We've had numerous threads involving the split between ITC and 'standard' 40K. Same with Malestrom vs. something-War back in 7th. 40K seems filled with people happy to bend the official rules in varying capacities.

I'm amazed that this rule exists. once you agree to a game, the outcome should be decided entirely by the game, and not by whether one player has everything painted and the other doesn't.

I get that painting is part of the hobby, but I'm a very slow painter with an awful lot of Orks (12k), mostly unpainted. I decide what to paint next by how it performs in games - I don't want to spend hours painting a unit which subsequently gets shelved 90% of the time. so I field a smattering of unpainted hopefuls, who want to shine in the game and earn their place in the painting queue. If someone played me and claimed victory for having paint, then I would resolve not to play that person again, or to only play with painted models against them, and to jump on any chance to claim it right back in their face. which isn't an environment I want to play in.

Conversely, if I lost a game by 9 points and could pull it back by claiming fully-painted-dom, then I would only do so if the opponent was a TFG through the game. and I don't want to play a game with rules which you would pick and choose depending on how much of a TFG you want to be at the time. Morals, conscience and guilt shouldn't factor into the scoring, and if someone beat me by one point in a game, I don't want the decision to gift myself 10VP because I used colourful models. It has nothing to do with the game! you might as well have 10VP if you have every codex on your person, or 5VP if you're using all official GW measuring equipment.

 Blndmage wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

 AngryAngel80 wrote:

I'm about to blow up your whole world view here but I'm going to say it. You ever stop to think maybe those with disabilities don't want you to lower the bar for them all the time ? Maybe they want to push and strive and meet you on a more equal level ?

I am not stopping anyone from doing that. Blindmage's painted Necrons do not require waiving the rule. But you simply cannot design a game in a manner that would not require special dispensations in some cases. Do not try to use the accessibility angle to attack the rule you simply do not like.

Why should there be a rule that is punitive, doesn't at all change game play, only further divides us all and as a side effect negatively effects disabled players and is being openly praised as a way to shame and punish people in the game who either paint slow, don't like or paint and can't meet their " Battle Ready " dumb standard for whatever reason ?

It's a poor rule, a crap rule. Painting should be something you strive for not something you are directly punished by the game itself for not doing to its standards.

Everyone who starts this hobby should know that it is supposed to be played with painted models. Complaining about having to paint makes just as little sense than complaining about having to assemble the models or having to read the rules.

My point in posting my army pics was that I'm not able to paint to even that level anymore, the pylon required more help that I've even put across, that simple paint scheme was so difficult and now so out of my reach that I was in tears trying to paint it. I've been wanting to get the new Scarabs, but I'm super worried that I'll be in the same state tryingbti paint them.

I can only imagine how frustrating it has to be. I'm sorry you get any grief and that people can be cruel and uncaring. I'd actually think it was pretty interesting to see how a game we would play would go. If you want to try, get the models, do your best but try not to cry over it. The game should be about joy and fun. You can always fix a mistake with paint but do it because you want to, don't ever do it and struggle to try so hard because you feel you'll be outcast for not. People can be lacking and very often don't try and walk through someone elses shoes but maybe they should more.

The army looks good though, so it was worth the struggle indeed.

 some bloke wrote:
I'm amazed that this rule exists. once you agree to a game, the outcome should be decided entirely by the game, and not by whether one player has everything painted and the other doesn't.

Yeah, that's what it comes down to for me. If they wanted to encourage painting, they should have just said that the game is played with painted models, period, and that if your models aren't painted, check with your opponent that they are ok with that before playing.

Once you accept a game with someone, it shouldn't be a factor in the outcome. You either agree to play with someone or you don't.

 Blndmage wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

 AngryAngel80 wrote:

I'm about to blow up your whole world view here but I'm going to say it. You ever stop to think maybe those with disabilities don't want you to lower the bar for them all the time ? Maybe they want to push and strive and meet you on a more equal level ?

I am not stopping anyone from doing that. Blindmage's painted Necrons do not require waiving the rule. But you simply cannot design a game in a manner that would not require special dispensations in some cases. Do not try to use the accessibility angle to attack the rule you simply do not like.

Why should there be a rule that is punitive, doesn't at all change game play, only further divides us all and as a side effect negatively effects disabled players and is being openly praised as a way to shame and punish people in the game who either paint slow, don't like or paint and can't meet their " Battle Ready " dumb standard for whatever reason ?

It's a poor rule, a crap rule. Painting should be something you strive for not something you are directly punished by the game itself for not doing to its standards.

Everyone who starts this hobby should know that it is supposed to be played with painted models. Complaining about having to paint makes just as little sense than complaining about having to assemble the models or having to read the rules.

My point in posting my army pics was that I'm not able to paint to even that level anymore, the pylon required more help that I've even put across, that simple paint scheme was so difficult and now so out of my reach that I was in tears trying to paint it. I've been wanting to get the new Scarabs, but I'm super worried that I'll be in the same state tryingbti paint them.

You know what? You can send them to me. I will happily paint them for you and send them back.

Seriously, PM me if you are interested. I'll paint your new Necron collection from the new boxed set. (or some similar amount of models.)

Ice_can wrote:

 AngryAngel80 wrote:

 grouchoben wrote:

 Blndmage wrote:
To the folks who think I could be given a pass due to my disability.

In garagehammer groups, you'd be right.

At FLGS's? Literally had my vision used against me on a number of occasions, and when I called it out at the store? A slap on the wrist, and zero consequences. The digital local groups froze me out or told me to "play better".

The local community is competitive and tournament focused.

I've tried to find folks who I could play not at stores with, but I've become a Pariah now.

Being a disabled gamer isn't easy of as fun as you'd imagine.
Most gamers are...at least not consciously ablist, but it's a huuuge issue.
That's not even touching on the misogyny that's almost a core tennentnof many gaming circles.
Literally had folks cancel/ghost games and big organized things after I changed my avatar in our local groups to a pic of me.

Hey Blindmage, sounds like a gakky, sexist, ableist local scene you've got, sorry to hear that. If you're ever in the UK let me know, I play with a lovely group of players who give no grief and are friendly and kind, we'd be well up for playing some Canadian Crons!

For what it's worth, you've changed my mind on this rule. I was previously all for it, but hearing it from your perspective I no longer like it.

Good luck on building a little group of players who are cool & not-dicks.

I won't lie, her brave admission of past struggles has made this discussion a more real thing for me as well. The fact that it made her feel, finally, unable to play the game she enjoys ? That is really a clear and glaring problem as she's most likely not the only one. While she and those like her may be the far minority of our hobby, if they can partake and fight hard to do so I don't see how anyone could support a rule that would push them away as a good addition to the core rules.

People don't always want things made easier because of their hardships, sometimes we just want to feel we are all on the same page. This rule goes from being " A painted army is an ideal " to " Play a painted army or we will let other players directly shame and punish you. Oh and it has to be by these arbitrary standards as well. " It's not a good thing.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

yukishiro1 wrote:
The rule should have just been: "The game is played with assembled and painted GW models. If your army does not comply with these rules, check with your opponent before the game to make sure they are ok with your army."

There was no need to get overly technical with VPs for painting, any more than there was a need to give people 10VPs for a fully assembled force, or for not proxying, or WYSIWYG, or whatever else.

That is all I'm arguing, we all know the game is better painted. I have not played anyone who didn't want to have their army fully painted or didn't like full painted armies. It should be the ideal to strive for, not something you're punished in VP for not reaching yet for whatever reason you have to not reach their standards.

Can I respectfully request that you write this out in an Email to GW and explain why its a bad rule as you have done here.

I suspect that they have added the rule without considering this as a potential consequence.

Heck I hadn't even considered it that way and I have to agree with you.
While I understand why at first glance and compairing it to events who all have a similar rule, I did not realy understand what the argument was about, as it's esentially been something I've taken for granted for like 20+ years of events.
I agree adding it to the core rules was overstepping and the last thing this hobby needs it more things that make it feel exclusionary.

If you think it'll make any kind of a difference I will send the mail off today and hope it makes a positive change. I'd ask though if others do feel strong enough that is a bad rule, we all send our voices out there. I mean I didn't expect this topic to be so deep but I think some people are missing the bigger picture in how stuff like this makes people feel and how it puts a negative emphasis on forcing something, regardless of why it isn't done just that way, over pushing pride for a job hard to do and well done. Pride should be the reward for a full painted force, not a freedom from playing an uphill battle in every game.

 AngryAngel80 wrote:

Spoiler:

Ice_can wrote:

 AngryAngel80 wrote:

 grouchoben wrote:

 Blndmage wrote:
To the folks who think I could be given a pass due to my disability.

In garagehammer groups, you'd be right.

At FLGS's? Literally had my vision used against me on a number of occasions, and when I called it out at the store? A slap on the wrist, and zero consequences. The digital local groups froze me out or told me to "play better".

The local community is competitive and tournament focused.

I've tried to find folks who I could play not at stores with, but I've become a Pariah now.

Being a disabled gamer isn't easy of as fun as you'd imagine.
Most gamers are...at least not consciously ablist, but it's a huuuge issue.
That's not even touching on the misogyny that's almost a core tennentnof many gaming circles.
Literally had folks cancel/ghost games and big organized things after I changed my avatar in our local groups to a pic of me.

Hey Blindmage, sounds like a gakky, sexist, ableist local scene you've got, sorry to hear that. If you're ever in the UK let me know, I play with a lovely group of players who give no grief and are friendly and kind, we'd be well up for playing some Canadian Crons!

For what it's worth, you've changed my mind on this rule. I was previously all for it, but hearing it from your perspective I no longer like it.

Good luck on building a little group of players who are cool & not-dicks.

I won't lie, her brave admission of past struggles has made this discussion a more real thing for me as well. The fact that it made her feel, finally, unable to play the game she enjoys ? That is really a clear and glaring problem as she's most likely not the only one. While she and those like her may be the far minority of our hobby, if they can partake and fight hard to do so I don't see how anyone could support a rule that would push them away as a good addition to the core rules.

People don't always want things made easier because of their hardships, sometimes we just want to feel we are all on the same page. This rule goes from being " A painted army is an ideal " to " Play a painted army or we will let other players directly shame and punish you. Oh and it has to be by these arbitrary standards as well. " It's not a good thing.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

yukishiro1 wrote:
The rule should have just been: "The game is played with assembled and painted GW models. If your army does not comply with these rules, check with your opponent before the game to make sure they are ok with your army."

There was no need to get overly technical with VPs for painting, any more than there was a need to give people 10VPs for a fully assembled force, or for not proxying, or WYSIWYG, or whatever else.

That is all I'm arguing, we all know the game is better painted. I have not played anyone who didn't want to have their army fully painted or didn't like full painted armies. It should be the ideal to strive for, not something you're punished in VP for not reaching yet for whatever reason you have to not reach their standards.

Can I respectfully request that you write this out in an Email to GW and explain why its a bad rule as you have done here.

I suspect that they have added the rule without considering this as a potential consequence.

Heck I hadn't even considered it that way and I have to agree with you.
While I understand why at first glance and compairing it to events who all have a similar rule, I did not realy understand what the argument was about, as it's esentially been something I've taken for granted for like 20+ years of events.
I agree adding it to the core rules was overstepping and the last thing this hobby needs it more things that make it feel exclusionary.

If you think it'll make any kind of a difference I will send the mail off today and hope it makes a positive change. I'd ask though if others do feel strong enough that is a bad rule, we all send our voices out there. I mean I didn't expect this topic to be so deep but I think some people are missing the bigger picture in how stuff like this makes people feel and how it puts a negative emphasis on forcing something, regardless of why it isn't done just that way, over pushing pride for a job hard to do and well done. Pride should be the reward for a full painted force, not a freedom from playing an uphill battle in every game.

Simply put I suspect they have completely missed this angle as they have had this rule in all of their event packets since they used to day gamesday's at the factory back in the 90's.

Ignoring that you have made a rule that is exclusionary or in anyway punitive to people with disabilities, lets just say at best it's a PR nightmare at worse it's legal action.

The sad part is they have warhammer world all set up to be fully accessible.

 some bloke wrote:
I'm amazed that this rule exists. once you agree to a game, the outcome should be decided entirely by the game, and not by whether one player has everything painted and the other doesn't.

The outcome of a match will be far more significantly determined by whether your opponent has purchased Primaris Space Marines than by whether either of your armies is painted. So much of an average 40k match is determined by factors that have nothing to do with how you push your mini around he table, that the amount of hair-pulling and hand-wringing on display in this thread is beyond disingenuous.

Well but that's a separate issue. "Primaris are overpowered so stop complaining that you're getting dinged for not painting" isn't a logically convincing argument.

The point is that 40k is not some sort of balanced contest of skills to begin with. It is not chess. It's a silly game we play with our toys. You can't complain that a painted-army bonus is unfair or imbalanced in a game that is fundamentally devoid of fairness or balance.

 Blndmage wrote:

My point in posting my army pics was that I'm not able to paint to even that level anymore, the pylon required more help that I've even put across, that simple paint scheme was so difficult and now so out of my reach that I was in tears trying to paint it. I've been wanting to get the new Scarabs, but I'm super worried that I'll be in the same state tryingbti paint them.

You don't need to try to paint them for any other reason that you yourself want to; you have the best possible reason for not painting them. And if this means that the painting rule negatively affects you, then of course your opponent should waive it. Hell, were I your opponent in such a situation I would first time in my over two decades of playing GW games put a singe unpainted model in my army so that we would be even. And you shouldn't feel bad for accepting such a dispensation, no person who has issues with any aspect of the game with health reasons should.

(I of course do not know the extent of your vision issue, so I don't know if this is something you can do, but if you decide to paint the scarabs, just spraying them silver and then gluing them on clean bases would probably be the easiest route. Should match your existing colour scheme and look decent enough. Dip them in thinned black ink if you want to go the extra mile.)

Noone's dismantled the ridiculous refrain being thrown around that it doesn't stop people from playing and it's just a way of rewarding players that do paint, so here goes

It is not about you.

Whatever fleeting sense of (hopefully private) joy you get in winning purely because your army was fully painted and your opponent's was not is immaterial to the discussion, as is, and god forbid, any sense of arrogant personal superiority rising out of it.

It is incomparable to the fact that you are potentially going to risk being disrespectful, discourteous, unsporting by flaunting the fact you deserve to claim the win because your army happened to be painted in your opponent's face.

You will not always know what issues your opponent is going through, their conditions, illnesses, etc and you are risking compounding those issues. Art, as a talent/skill, is a a very personal subject to some people - I personally know people who do not or hesitate to fully paint their armies for no other reason than they find the exercise of painting depressing and an exercise in straining their self-esteem because they're very self-critical.

And I'm going to reiterate what I already said, it is none of your damn business. If you're in a free, casual play environment with no specified venue restrictions or penalties for non-painted armies, you do not have the right to get all judgemental. Noone has to explain themselves to you and if you're so affected then tell the person how fussy you are and that you have no interest in playing them, before dropping that bombshell at the end of the game in bad faith.

And let's drop this pretence that people are going to be going, or needing to go into games acknowledging they won't get the points. I know for a fact that at my LGS that the vast majority of players will ignore the rule as dumb since there's a culture of politeness. When this rule will come up is generally going to be when people who have spent the game privately sneering down their nose instantly claim the 10 pts at the game's end and when people realize they can instantly change the outcome by claiming the 10 pts after tallying them altogether.

Whether or not this stops people from playing is equally immaterial - the suggestion is for the most part absurd and this isn't the crux of the problem. People do not show up to play to compare armies. Games are not a painting competition, they're about strategy. There is nothing unreasonable about being irritated that after a contest of the strategic elements in the game you are told firmly that you have lost, despite having outplayed the other person, purely because of something irrelevant to how the game actually plays, that you had no way to mitigate once the match had actually started. I'm also directing this at the one person who claimed that this only matters to implied WAAC's who want 10 pts to win and are unduly entitled to winning despite having fair and honestly just outplayed you.

If you lost and you want your opponent to acknowledge that you won purely because you had the fully painted army then you're the one that is being problematic.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

But saying the grey marines are ultramarines? That's fine. I'm not going to tell my opponent he's having fun wrong for not painting something to someone's arbitrary standards.

Oh, that's fine by me (of course, depending on how long those Marines have been unpainted) - but I don't agree with the idea that modelling is sacrosanct and super important because the rules say so, but we can ignore rules that say painting is important. Either they're both important, or neither are - and I just want that clarification from Castozor.

Well I skipped over 7 pages or so of discussion but since you called me out specifically I´ll answer this first before reading the rest. I perhaps misread your post, but I thought you were talking about modeling guys without arms or something to avoid LoS. I personally have 0 issue with someone wanting to model a chainsword as a powersword or stuff like that, it hardly impacts the LoS of the model anyway. And I still disagree, painting now is not an actual game/mechanic it is a useless, unwanted victory condition bolted on to the actual game part, unlike LoS which needs to be drawn all the time during the game. Painting rules are simply a Y/N condition you get to check at the end for a free doling of VP for the gameplay-disabled who can't win normally but do know how to hold a brush.

Hankovitch wrote:
The point is that 40k is not some sort of balanced contest of skills to begin with. It is not chess. It's a silly game we play with our toys. You can't complain that a painted-army bonus is unfair or imbalanced in a game that is fundamentally devoid of fairness or balance.

Indeed. To many of us 40K is a game where the visual spectacle is more important than balanced gmaeplay and thus find a rule which encourages painting to be generally a good idea. Now some people have argued that the AOS way of doing this would have been better. I have no strong feelings about it either way, though to me AOS method seems stricter.

 Crimson wrote:

Hankovitch wrote:
The point is that 40k is not some sort of balanced contest of skills to begin with. It is not chess. It's a silly game we play with our toys. You can't complain that a painted-army bonus is unfair or imbalanced in a game that is fundamentally devoid of fairness or balance.

Indeed. To many of us 40K is a game where the visual spectacle is more important than balanced gmaeplay and thus find a rule which encourages painting to be generally a good idea. Now some people have argued that the AOS way of doing this would have been better. I have no strong feelings about it either way, though to me AOS method seems stricter.

So we should cater to you exclusively, instead of being open to everyone?

I would have zero issues with GW including something like "The game is best enjoyed with fully-painted miniatures and a board full of beautiful terrain!"
I would have zero issues with someone refusing to game with me, because they value the spectacle more than the gameplay and my army is not fully painted.

But I very much have an issue with what GW did here.

 Mr.Omega wrote:

Noone's dismantled the ridiculous refrain being thrown around that it doesn't stop people from playing and it's just a way of rewarding players that do paint, so here goes

It is not about you.

Whatever fleeting sense of (hopefully private) joy you get in winning purely because your army was fully painted and your opponent's was not is immaterial to the discussion, as is, and god forbid, any sense of arrogant personal superiority rising out of it.

It is incomparable to the fact that you are potentially going to risk being disrespectful, discourteous, unsporting by flaunting the fact you deserve to claim the win because your army happened to be painted in your opponent's face.

You will not always know what issues your opponent is going through, their conditions, illnesses, etc and you are risking compounding those issues. Art, as a talent/skill, is a a very personal subject to some people - I personally know people who do not or hesitate to fully paint their armies for no other reason than they find the exercise of painting depressing and an exercise in straining their self-esteem because they're very self-critical.

And I'm going to reiterate what I already said, it is none of your damn business. If you're in a free, casual play environment with no specified venue restrictions or penalties for non-painted armies, you do not have the right to get all judgemental. Noone has to explain themselves to you and if you're so affected then tell the person how fussy you are and that you have no interest in playing them, before dropping that bombshell at the end of the game in bad faith.

And let's drop this pretence that people are going to be going, or needing to go into games acknowledging they won't get the points. I know for a fact that at my LGS that the vast majority of players will ignore the rule as dumb since there's a culture of politeness. When this rule will come up is generally going to be when people who have spent the game privately sneering down their nose instantly claim the 10 pts at the game's end and when people realize they can instantly change the outcome by claiming the 10 pts after tallying them altogether.

Whether or not this stops people from playing is equally immaterial - the suggestion is for the most part absurd and this isn't the crux of the problem. People do not show up to play to compare armies. Games are not a painting competition, they're about strategy. There is nothing unreasonable about being irritated that after a contest of the strategic elements in the game you are told firmly that you have lost, despite having outplayed the other person, purely because of something irrelevant to how the game actually plays, that you had no way to mitigate once the match had actually started. I'm also directing this at the one person who claimed that this only matters to implied WAAC's who want 10 pts to win and are unduly entitled to winning despite having fair and honestly just outplayed you.

If you lost and you want your opponent to acknowledge that you won purely because you had the fully painted army then you're the one that is being problematic.

Everything is fair in war and love. I will take my 10 pts muahahaha