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.

Ice_can wrote:

 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.

Well I sent the email off, they say they have email back log but I send a long, polite and well reasoned letter so hopefully they give it a look over and if they change course on that rule or at least acknowledge it openly, I can say I did what I can on it. I hope it helps.

For tournaments, its part of the competition to be fully painted. For casual play, where your list fluctuates, and you are proxying different things to see if you like them... heck no.

And honestly, if a friend needs to 10pts to "beat" me. Take it, enjoy. You get your *win, I give you an asterisk with it :-)


I'm going to field armies for causal games 99% painted, others have said this too, enjoy the rule. Actually I think this will make people happier, you know they got crushed, but they get the win because of the one grey guy.

 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.

Is it about you then?

 Mr.Omega wrote:

. . .
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.

As opposed to the feeling of disrespect I might feel when someone shows up with broken, unpainted proxy models, running the latest powerbuild?

You're fundamentaly making the "my way of fun is best" argument here.

 Insectum7 wrote:

 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.

Is it about you then?

 Mr.Omega wrote:

. . .
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.

As opposed to the feeling of disrespect I might feel when someone shows up with broken, unpainted proxy models, running the latest powerbuild?

You're fundamentaly making the "my way of fun is best" argument here.

So, crazy idea-don't play that person.

 JNAProductions wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 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.

Is it about you then?

 Mr.Omega wrote:

. . .
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.

As opposed to the feeling of disrespect I might feel when someone shows up with broken, unpainted proxy models, running the latest powerbuild?

You're fundamentaly making the "my way of fun is best" argument here.

So, crazy idea-don't play that person.

That runs both ways, and works fine.

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.

I disagree with the fact people will have to deal with this in casual games..

However, I am willing to concede the fact that I do not live in a horrifying dystopian place where people are utter gaklords to each other.

I'll be honest. Considering how many people in this thread describe their LGS(I refuse to say FLGS due to how people have described them) and PUG situation I am actually surprised those people are in the hobby at all. I'd be long gone if the hobby arena close to me was full of toxic jerks like that. The sad thing is that whether GW would have this rule or not is not going to change those toxic jerks. Toxic jerks will continue to be toxic jerks until they disappear with the heat death of the universe.

This thread has also brought to light that those who are in favor of this rule, like myself, are lucky. Lucky that we live in a relative utopia with decent and reasonable people who are friendly and enjoy a sense of camaraderie. I am not even trying to be satirical or funny. What some people have described here is just horrifying communities and social circles that exhibit pure cruelty and hate..

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.

Or you could practice good sportsmanship, treat the social interaction as a social interaction between people, and not some sort of referendum on your life choices.

If a match at my FLGS came down to me being 5 VPs ahead, and I had some yet-unpainted boys or mek guns on the table, whilst my opponent had some fully painted army on display? I would remind them of the 10 points they get for their painted army, congratulate them on a good close game, and offer a handshake. Because we're here to enjoy ourselves, and there is literally no harm or consequence in walking away with a W or an L. I suppose Games Workshop should add some paragraphs to their rulebook about good sportsmanship and maturity; but then we probably would have an online argent about that too.

Too much of this game comes down to what army you're financially or aesthetically bound to, to the whims of GW marketing, to the vagaries of a small subset of dice rolls, to view this game as a demonstration of your personal worth. It's a game, and how you treat other people in winning or losing is more important than the outcome of the game itself.

 Insectum7 wrote:

 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.

Is it about you then?

 Mr.Omega wrote:

. . .
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.

As opposed to the feeling of disrespect I might feel when someone shows up with broken, unpainted proxy models, running the latest powerbuild?

You're fundamentaly making the "my way of fun is best argument" here.

I suggest you actually read and break down the key points of what I said instead of attempting to snipe my whole post with some empty retort, thanks. I already said that I paint everything I put on the table. The point is to show courtesy and respect to others.

As for your second empty retort that "my way of fun is the best argument" is the best summary of my argument you could make, that's completely wrong too.

Neither element of the hobby is more important than the other.

Fundamentally, if you want the thing that matters in a contest to be about the painting, go enter a painting competition. If you agree to play a game - the side of the hobby that is all about strategy - then you should win or lose based on how you played, and not because you're privileged enough to have the time, motivation and mental wellbeing etc to put a fully painted army on the table.

 Eldarsif wrote:

I'll be honest. Considering how many people in this thread describe their LGS(I refuse to say FLGS due to how people have described them) and PUG situation I am actually surprised those people are in the hobby at all. I'd be long gone if the hobby arena close to me was full of toxic jerks like that. The sad thing is that whether GW would have this rule or not is not going to change those toxic jerks. Toxic jerks will continue to be toxic jerks until they disappear with the heat death of the universe.

This thread has also brought to light that those who are in favor of this rule, like myself, are lucky. Lucky that we live in a relative utopia with decent and reasonable people who are friendly and enjoy a sense of camaraderie. I am not even trying to be satirical or funny. What some people have described here is just horrifying communities and social circles that exhibit pure cruelty and hate..

So true.

It should be both , a visual spectacle and a balanced game , the spectacle we Players as a community create, some have the capabilities of da Vinci , other (Like me ) destroy models via basing process and others do what they can and want but sadly have impairements.

I think gw has kinda crossed a Line with this rule, in a Way , that is an issue for some , and honestly a huge Part of player agency and choice and i am not liking it for that.

Edit: also the above is heavily true, all i can say i am lucky for my Group beeing more diverse in playstyle and Games we play.
And welcoming.

Hankovitch wrote:

Or you could practice good sportsmanship, treat the social interaction as a social interaction between people, and not some sort of referendum on your life choices.

If a match at my FLGS came down to me being 5 VPs ahead, and I had some yet-unpainted boys or mek guns on the table, whilst my opponent had some fully painted army on display? I would remind them of the 10 points they get for their painted army, congratulate them on a good close game, and offer a handshake. Because we're here to enjoy ourselves, and there is literally no harm or consequence in walking away with a W or an L.

Too much of this game comes down to what army you're financially or aesthetically bound to, to the whims of GW marketing, to the vagaries of a small subset of dice rolls, to view this game as a demonstration of your personal worth. It's a game, and how you treat other people in winning or losing is more important than the outcome of the game itself.

Yep. I really don't get why people are so hung up on who wins or loses a casual game.

I stil lstruggle t osee any situation where this rule can be employed without seeming like a douche.

it will only matter if it tips the balance of the game, so if you're losing by 11 points or more then yeah, then you canclaim a closer loss.

if it tips you from a loss to a win, you basically say to your opponent "I know you won the game, but my models are all pretty because I have the time/have the talent/have the drive/have the money to have all my units painted and you don't".

As I said before, you might as well say "any player with a physical copy of the rulebook and codex on their person gets 10VP". it's utterly irrelevant.


what I hate most is that, because it's part of the actual rules, it's something which players will have to agree beforehand not to use, which is along the same lines as ye olde "you may use special characters with your opponents permission" rule, which simply didn't work.

 Eldarsif wrote:

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.

I disagree with the fact people will have to deal with this in casual games..

However, I am willing to concede the fact that I do not live in a horrifying dystopian place where people are utter gaklords to each other.

I'll be honest. Considering how many people in this thread describe their LGS(I refuse to say FLGS due to how people have described them) and PUG situation I am actually surprised those people are in the hobby at all. I'd be long gone if the hobby arena close to me was full of toxic jerks like that. The sad thing is that whether GW would have this rule or not is not going to change those toxic jerks. Toxic jerks will continue to be toxic jerks until they disappear with the heat death of the universe.

This thread has also brought to light that those who are in favor of this rule, like myself, are lucky. Lucky that we live in a relative utopia with decent and reasonable people who are friendly and enjoy a sense of camaraderie. I am not even trying to be satirical or funny. What some people have described here is just horrifying communities and social circles that exhibit pure cruelty and hate..

The point is, the world is varied, some places have less than ideal people to game with. This is at the end of the day a very niche hobby. GW making rules that, as you say, Gak Lords can use to pressure, brow beat and pick on other players for points advantage or some sense of self superiority is a poor take.

I'll give GW credit in that they didn't see how it would touch some people or some peoples issues with it on a deeper level than just " I don't like to paint ". GW has shown many times that their view of how the game is played and should be played can be worlds apart from what we see and engage with.

They can fix a poor rule though, they have that power. This should have always been a suggestion, a held aloft ideal and something you strive for. It should have never been a scoring mechanic rule for all the missions.

If you've never had to deal with the kinds of people some of us have met, I hope you never do but they exist and sometimes are impossible to avoid as the scenes just not that large.

 Mr.Omega wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 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.

Is it about you then?

 Mr.Omega wrote:

. . .
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.

As opposed to the feeling of disrespect I might feel when someone shows up with broken, unpainted proxy models, running the latest powerbuild?

You're fundamentaly making the "my way of fun is best argument" here.

I suggest you actually read and break down the key points of what I said instead of attempting to snipe my whole post with some empty retort, thanks. I already said that I paint everything I put on the table. The point is to show courtesy and respect to others.

As for your second empty retort that "my way of fun is the best argument" is the best summary of my argument you could make, that's completely wrong too.

Neither element of the hobby is more important than the other.

Fundamentally, if you want the thing that matters in a contest to be about the painting, go enter a painting competition. If you agree to play a game - the side of the hobby that is all about strategy - then you should win or lose based on how you played, and not because you're privileged enough to have the time, motivation and mental wellbeing etc to put a fully painted army on the table.

But the barrier of entry that is the cost of all the models, books, time for assembly etc. is all fine though? Like, people put money and effort into the game just the same. All we're doing is defining where the line is. And it's a soft line! You don't auto-lose or anything. You aren't barred from playing.


And it is the "my way of fun is best" argument when you project that the game is purely strategic. It can also be viewed as an aesthetic experience, and is marketed as such. Lots of people play it for narrative value, and not strategic as well. So defining it as "purely strategic" is you bringing your own narrow definition to the party.

 some bloke wrote:
I stil lstruggle t osee any situation where this rule can be employed without seeming like a douche.

Hankovitch told you how to do that. You invoke it when it is for the advantage of your opponent.

Not Online!!! wrote:
It should be both , a visual spectacle and a balanced game , the spectacle we Players as a community create, some have the capabilities of da Vinci , other (Like me ) destroy models via basing process and others do what they can and want but sadly have impairements.

I think gw has kinda crossed a Line with this rule, in a Way , that is an issue for some , and honestly a huge Part of player agency and choice and i am not liking it for that.

Edit: also the above is heavily true, all i can say i am lucky for my Group beeing more diverse in playstyle and Games we play.
And welcoming.

I don't think anyone is going to pull out the da Vinci standard on you and force your models to be there for +10 VPs. If your models look like a hot mess in the basing process, but you put that effort in and put those models on the table... I'm sure all but the worst of the "that guy's" are going to give you the +10 VP your deserve for investing the time and effort into that work. Even shoddy models with paint on them look worlds better than the gray tide. No one is requiring you to be the best player and the best painter... they're just asking you to show up like you care for the models more than simply thrashing the guy across the table.

It engages more people, draws in more people, and allows better stories to be told and shared when it happens. Some say is it a gimmick to sell more Citadel paints (though they never reference "painted with the Citadel color system"), I'd argue that it is a more a gimmick to hook people passing by with showing them awesome models and battle scenes that grab the eye (way more that the flinch instinct of seeing the gray tide).

It's also worth noting the definition:

What is Battle Ready?
If a model is Battle Ready, it means it’s ready to game with. Battle Ready models have their main areas coloured and an simple finish on their bases.

(just noticed "an simple finish", thank goodness these people don't write rules.... ...oh...)

from this:
https://www.warhammer-community.com/2019/05/21/introducing-battle-readygw-homepage-post-1fw-homepage-post-1/

So, the definition is the main area coloured and a simple finish on the base.

I would argue that black is a colour (I know it's technically a shade but shh). Nothing says the colour has to be different, or detailed. so if the whole model is red (EG primed red for a blood angels army) then it's battle ready. all the "main areas" are coloured (red) and the base has a simple finish (also red).

same deal for sprayed black. that's the colour I want all my minis right now, and black is the simple base detail.

 Crimson wrote:

Hankovitch wrote:

Or you could practice good sportsmanship, treat the social interaction as a social interaction between people, and not some sort of referendum on your life choices.

If a match at my FLGS came down to me being 5 VPs ahead, and I had some yet-unpainted boys or mek guns on the table, whilst my opponent had some fully painted army on display? I would remind them of the 10 points they get for their painted army, congratulate them on a good close game, and offer a handshake. Because we're here to enjoy ourselves, and there is literally no harm or consequence in walking away with a W or an L.

Too much of this game comes down to what army you're financially or aesthetically bound to, to the whims of GW marketing, to the vagaries of a small subset of dice rolls, to view this game as a demonstration of your personal worth. It's a game, and how you treat other people in winning or losing is more important than the outcome of the game itself.

Yep. I really don't get why people are so hung up on who wins or loses a casual game.

If it doesn't matter at all, to anyone who wins or loses then the rule on its face is pointless, and not needed in the first place. Holding it up as a good idea then saying " Winning don't matter duh ! " Well then why argue its a good rule if all it will promise is argument and disagreement ?

If tournaments already enforce painting policy why does this rule even need to exist ? It's only point is shame, punishment and exclusion that players can choose who to spring it on and who to let it slide for, that is a poor, poor rule.

Hankovitch wrote:

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.

Or you could practice good sportsmanship, treat the social interaction as a social interaction between people, and not some sort of referendum on your life choices.

If a match at my FLGS came down to me being 5 VPs ahead, and I had some yet-unpainted boys or mek guns on the table, whilst my opponent had some fully painted army on display? I would remind them of the 10 points they get for their painted army, congratulate them on a good close game, and offer a handshake. Because we're here to enjoy ourselves, and there is literally no harm or consequence in walking away with a W or an L. I suppose Games Workshop should add some paragraphs to their rulebook about good sportsmanship and maturity; but then we probably would have an online argent about that too.

Too much of this game comes down to what army you're financially or aesthetically bound to, to the whims of GW marketing, to the vagaries of a small subset of dice rolls, to view this game as a demonstration of your personal worth. It's a game, and how you treat other people in winning or losing is more important than the outcome of the game itself.

The whole point of my post is that the interaction should be social and friendly and not a referendum on life choices, like how a person allocates their free time instead of painting and what issues people have.

Further on that, as if you didn't read what I said at all, you go on to make this post all about you and how you would inform the opponent that they won because you're such a gent. Congrats, I don't care. That's entirely besides the point.

The issue here is that the rule acts as an implicit endorsement of elitism under the unfounded assumption that people only don't paint their armies because they're lazy, good-for-nothings, and that encourages callous and disrespectful behaviour.

Purifying Tempest wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:
It should be both , a visual spectacle and a balanced game , the spectacle we Players as a community create, some have the capabilities of da Vinci , other (Like me ) destroy models via basing process and others do what they can and want but sadly have impairements.

I think gw has kinda crossed a Line with this rule, in a Way , that is an issue for some , and honestly a huge Part of player agency and choice and i am not liking it for that.

Edit: also the above is heavily true, all i can say i am lucky for my Group beeing more diverse in playstyle and Games we play.
And welcoming.

I don't think anyone is going to pull out the da Vinci standard on you and force your models to be there for +10 VPs. If your models look like a hot mess in the basing process, but you put that effort in and put those models on the table... I'm sure all but the worst of the "that guy's" are going to give you the +10 VP your deserve for investing the time and effort into that work. Even shoddy models with paint on them look worlds better than the gray tide. No one is requiring you to be the best player and the best painter... they're just asking you to show up like you care for the models more than simply thrashing the guy across the table.

It engages more people, draws in more people, and allows better stories to be told and shared when it happens. Some say is it a gimmick to sell more Citadel paints (though they never reference "painted with the Citadel color system"), I'd argue that it is a more a gimmick to hook people passing by with showing them awesome models and battle scenes that grab the eye (way more that the flinch instinct of seeing the gray tide).

It still crosses a Line of agency and it still is a discipline that has imo nothing lost in Rating for Battle points.

But that is Personal opinion.

 AngryAngel80 wrote:

If it doesn't matter at all, to anyone who wins or loses then the rule on its face is pointless, and not needed in the first place. Holding it up as a good idea then saying " Winning don't matter duh ! " Well then why argue its a good rule if all it will promise is argument and disagreement ?

If tournaments already enforce painting policy why does this rule even need to exist ? It's only point is shame, punishment and exclusion that players can choose who to spring it on and who to let it slide for, that is a poor, poor rule.

I didn't say winning doesn't matter at all, it just isn't a big deal. This rule gives a small benefit to painted armies, thus encouraging people to play with painted models, the game is better with painted models, thus the rule is good. This is not difficult.

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Mr.Omega wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 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.

Is it about you then?

 Mr.Omega wrote:

. . .
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.

As opposed to the feeling of disrespect I might feel when someone shows up with broken, unpainted proxy models, running the latest powerbuild?

You're fundamentaly making the "my way of fun is best argument" here.

I suggest you actually read and break down the key points of what I said instead of attempting to snipe my whole post with some empty retort, thanks. I already said that I paint everything I put on the table. The point is to show courtesy and respect to others.

As for your second empty retort that "my way of fun is the best argument" is the best summary of my argument you could make, that's completely wrong too.

Neither element of the hobby is more important than the other.

Fundamentally, if you want the thing that matters in a contest to be about the painting, go enter a painting competition. If you agree to play a game - the side of the hobby that is all about strategy - then you should win or lose based on how you played, and not because you're privileged enough to have the time, motivation and mental wellbeing etc to put a fully painted army on the table.

But the barrier of entry that is the cost of all the models, books, time for assembly etc. is all fine though? Like, people put money and effort into the game just the same. All we're doing is defining where the line is. And it's a soft line! You don't auto-lose or anything. You aren't barred from playing.


And it is the "my way of fun is best" argument when you project that the game is purely strategic. It can also be viewed as an aesthetic experience, and is marketed as such. Lots of people play it for narrative value, and not strategic as well. So defining it as "purely strategic" is you bringing your own narrow definition to the party.

The game, in so far as the outcome of the game and who wins or loses as this topic of discussion concerns, is purely strategic. Don't drop it on someone that they've lost because you're upset that they affected your "aesthetic experience" when you consented to play them, having seen their army.

You have the freedom to tell people you don't want to play their half-built power-build before the game.

 Crimson wrote:

 some bloke wrote:
I stil lstruggle t osee any situation where this rule can be employed without seeming like a douche.

Hankovitch told you how to do that. You invoke it when it is for the advantage of your opponent.

but then that seems like pity points.

It's also the issue of wen you can not use it. I would seem like a douche if I arrive at a game with unpainted minis and then say "I don't use the 10vp for painted minis rule". that would be like using all vehicles and saying "I don't play with the melta rules", or bringing any non-marine army and saying "I don't play with bolter discipline".

The fact that they made this a rule and not a recommendation makes it impossible to either use it or not use it without it seeming pitying, douchey or irrelevant.

There is as said the fact as players you can already choose to play or not with who you will or won't engage with. We don't need rules to just punish the unpainted army guys with. It was a line crossed they should have left alone.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Crimson wrote:

 AngryAngel80 wrote:

If it doesn't matter at all, to anyone who wins or loses then the rule on its face is pointless, and not needed in the first place. Holding it up as a good idea then saying " Winning don't matter duh ! " Well then why argue its a good rule if all it will promise is argument and disagreement ?

If tournaments already enforce painting policy why does this rule even need to exist ? It's only point is shame, punishment and exclusion that players can choose who to spring it on and who to let it slide for, that is a poor, poor rule.

I didn't say winning doesn't matter at all, it just isn't a big deal. This rule gives a small benefit to painted armies, thus encouraging people to play with painted models, the game is better with painted models, thus the rule is good. This is not difficult.

As friends you should encourage each other to paint and play with painted stuff, not need some gamey, poor rule to try and brow beat people into it so they aren't at a disadvantage, thus the rule is bad and I think not really in keeping with the spirit of the game at its core.

 some bloke wrote:

but then that seems like pity points.

It seems like playing by the rules.

It's also the issue of wen you can not use it. I would seem like a douche if I arrive at a game with unpainted minis and then say "I don't use the 10vp for painted minis rule". that would be like using all vehicles and saying "I don't play with the melta rules", or bringing any non-marine army and saying "I don't play with bolter discipline".

Right. So don't do that.

The fact that they made this a rule and not a recommendation makes it impossible to either use it or not use it without it seeming pitying, douchey or irrelevant.

It is a rule, use the rule, accept the results. Not difficult.

So given the rest of the rules there it looks like a Matched Play rules. If you’re salty about it just play Open Play, with every Matched Play rule but this one. No longer an issue. Not every game is a tournament so doesn’t need to be tourney rules. This rule is only a problem if you make it one.

Maybe I just live in the single greatest WH40k community ever created, or this is just hyperbole regarding people's inability to paint and their communities reaction to it.

A few points.

Do people not help each other with painting? Like, when we have an event coming up and someone doesn't have their stuff ready and they need help, we organize a painting group and we help the person out. I'll jump on my airbrush, another buddy will base coat and drybrush, other washes, I mean, does that really not happen anywhere else but my own little utopia?

Before it gets to that point, do you or the people so heavily against this rule (and it almost sounds like painting in general) try to organize painting nights with friends and such. I get that time is in demand, I work 3 jobs and am finishing grad school, but even I can find a few hours a week to get some sanity time in, and I paint. If I need help, ill invite a buddy or 5 over and ill order some take out and we will sit down and paint for a while to get going. Does no one do this?

As far as the discussion of the disabled person, I REALLY get concerned about this discussion when it heads in that direction. There is a saying in the Human resources world that there is no such thing as a blind pilot. What that means is that you make as many reasonable accommodations for everyone you can, but accept the fact that rules are written for the average, not for those in need of accommodation. So when we are talking about people being ableist or this rule is gatekeeping, I think its a stretch to assume that those things are true. They aren't. In fact, the reality is that rules are written for the average player, and there will always be situations that exist outside of the confines of rules that easily cover 99.9% of the purchasing/playing population.

 Mr.Omega wrote:

Spoiler:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Mr.Omega wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 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.

Is it about you then?

 Mr.Omega wrote:

. . .
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.

As opposed to the feeling of disrespect I might feel when someone shows up with broken, unpainted proxy models, running the latest powerbuild?

You're fundamentaly making the "my way of fun is best argument" here.

I suggest you actually read and break down the key points of what I said instead of attempting to snipe my whole post with some empty retort, thanks. I already said that I paint everything I put on the table. The point is to show courtesy and respect to others.

As for your second empty retort that "my way of fun is the best argument" is the best summary of my argument you could make, that's completely wrong too.

Neither element of the hobby is more important than the other.

Fundamentally, if you want the thing that matters in a contest to be about the painting, go enter a painting competition. If you agree to play a game - the side of the hobby that is all about strategy - then you should win or lose based on how you played, and not because you're privileged enough to have the time, motivation and mental wellbeing etc to put a fully painted army on the table.

But the barrier of entry that is the cost of all the models, books, time for assembly etc. is all fine though? Like, people put money and effort into the game just the same. All we're doing is defining where the line is. And it's a soft line! You don't auto-lose or anything. You aren't barred from playing.


And it is the "my way of fun is best" argument when you project that the game is purely strategic. It can also be viewed as an aesthetic experience, and is marketed as such. Lots of people play it for narrative value, and not strategic as well. So defining it as "purely strategic" is you bringing your own narrow definition to the party.

The game, in so far as the outcome of the game and who wins or loses as this topic of discussion concerns, is purely strategic. Don't drop it on someone that they've lost because you're upset that they affected your "aesthetic experience" when you consented to play them, having seen their army.

You have the freedom to tell people you don't want to play their half-built power-build before the game.

There's no "dropping", dude. It's (apparently) in the book and you can discuss it before hand if you think it's going to matter.

And, if you only care about the "strategic" win, you should have zero problem accepting that you would have won the game had the bonus been unawarded. After all, you have verifiably 'outplayed' the opponent, no?

So then why does there need to be a points incentive in the rules for paint ? Why ? If everyone paints anyways, and no one will enforce the rule because its a poor sport thing to do. I think that leaves most of us in agreement its a poor rule and needless in the game.

As for some claiming it isn't gatekeeping we had someone, who has dealt with it in other ways, already saying this rule is concerning for that very reason. So God Bless you for not having issues or struggles, I'm glad. However if its negatively impacting that .1 percent and I think its actually more than that this rule hits upon. It shouldn't be there.

Painting standard should be enforced by group and by event and not offer in game advantage through core mission scoring rules.

Not everyone against the rule is against painting but I don't like the line this rule crosses, implications other areas " Taste " issues could touch upon game play rules, scoring, etc.

There is no reason the rule needs to be in the game. Communities enforce standards and events enforce standards the core rules shouldn't need to as well for army painting.

Seabass wrote:
Maybe I just live in the single greatest WH40k community ever created, or this is just hyperbole regarding people's inability to paint and their communities reaction to it.

A few points.

Do people not help each other with painting? Like, when we have an event coming up and someone doesn't have their stuff ready and they need help, we organize a painting group and we help the person out. I'll jump on my airbrush, another buddy will base coat and drybrush, other washes, I mean, does that really not happen anywhere else but my own little utopia?

Ew. No.
Wouldn't want it to either.