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.

 AngryAngel80 wrote:

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.

Yeah I would hope that most people are decent enough to not use rules like this to punsih or exclude people from the hobby but at the same time the number of times I hear of incidents happening that would have me speachless is too often.
I hope it's an oversight due to the culture of friendly games the studio guys have that they have oversighted that this rule negatively affects people trying thier best to keep hobbying.

 AngryAngel80 wrote:
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.

This, is probably my point more competently formulated.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ice_can wrote:

 AngryAngel80 wrote:

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.

Yeah I would hope that most people are decent enough to not use rules like this to punsih or exclude people from the hobby but at the same time the number of times I hear of incidents happening that would have me speachless is too often.
I hope it's an oversight due to the culture of friendly games the studio guys have that they have oversighted that this rule negatively affects people trying thier best to keep hobbying.

Tbf the "Communities "using this rules specifically to be a dick will Find other ways to be such.

 Red Corsair wrote:
He's having a good time re-framing the argument or being pedantic. That's his MO. He defaults to that state when ever he's losing ground.

In the N&R thread he argued that he doesn't even play competitively in order to "win" another debate. But somehow a none competitive person is finding this to be a massive issue lol. He even admitted his first and only tournament was in 7th despite posting on here since 2005. Oh, and that the event had one single guy with a painted army in an otherwise see of grey plastic, but apparently feth that guy for his effort.

He still hasn't honestly answered my question from the N&R thread. Why should another player win a game based on purchasing power? There is no way to claim there isn't an advantage to winning 40k when you have a bigger hobby budget. That has nothing to do with whos the better player but factors into who wins way more then this.

Whats hilarious to me is how many WAAC players are being unmasked by that little bonus they are tossing to the guys that paint their stuff. You don't even need to paint well mind you. You can spray a base coat from a rattle can on your army while its on the sprue, dip wash it with min wax in a tray and spray texture paint (yes this is sold in cans too) onto the bases before assembly. It would dry before you finished reading the rules and you would have the BRS lol. Literally no need for a brush. It also goes for slow or detail painters, it's the base initial set up you can paint them up from.

Weird that you're discussing me rather than the topic.

And accusing me of being a WAAC player as well? Good God...

I mean we literally had a blind person come into this thread and say "I've got an issue with this!" and you still don't get it. And I'm the one "losing ground" apaprently?

Imma just quote Slayer, as he has summed it up perfectly: "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."

Well glad I could help out Not Online !! At least a couple good things came out of all this typing today then.

Not Online!!! wrote:

Ice_can wrote:

 AngryAngel80 wrote:

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.

Yeah I would hope that most people are decent enough to not use rules like this to punsih or exclude people from the hobby but at the same time the number of times I hear of incidents happening that would have me speachless is too often.
I hope it's an oversight due to the culture of friendly games the studio guys have that they have oversighted that this rule negatively affects people trying thier best to keep hobbying.

Tbf the "Communities "using this rules specifically to be a dick will Find other ways to be such.

Totally agree with that but having it in the core rules adds a level of legitimacy that they will abuse.

Ice_can wrote:

Yeah I would hope that most people are decent enough to not use rules like this to punsih or exclude people from the hobby but at the same time the number of times I hear of incidents happening that would have me speachless is too often.
I hope it's an oversight due to the culture of friendly games the studio guys have that they have oversighted that this rule negatively affects people trying thier best to keep hobbying.

I think the main point that people seem to be disagreeing on is what the actual "hobby" is. GW see the painting as part of the hobby, while others separate it out and consider the game to be the all that's important to them.

It's also hyperbolic to say this "excludes" anyone. It no more excludes a player than playing 2000 points when they only own 1500. If you can't play a full painted army, you can ask to play at a lower points value so you can.
I've never in the 20 years I've been in this hobby managed to field a fully painted force. It's always been my ambition, but life can distract, or I'll move in to a different project without finishing the first.

I guess it's really a glass half full Vs half empty argument. Some see it as rewarding those that put the time into painting everything, and others see it as punishing those who don't.

For me, I like the new rule. I like that I actually have a reason other than completionism to go after it, and if someone I'm playing with wins because they have a fully painted army and I don't, then more power too them, it was earned.

Realistically I imagine it won't feature very often though, as like me, the people I play with have never managed a fully finished army.

 Insectum7 wrote:

 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?

Instead of a fourth reply that amounts to an "RTP" of my original post I'm just going to put this here

The axioms behind arguments in this thread are almost completely parralel and being bounced off each other

I.e, in this one you mention that you can discuss the rule before hand, which is directly parralel to how I mentioned you can just say that you're looking for a game against a painted army/non-powerbuild etc and move on

You also make the argument that not winning because of a lack of painted minis doesn't matter, because people should know they've "won" on merit, which is directly parralel to the argument that people who've lost the game strategically shouldn't point out that they've actually won because winning doesn't matter in that context either, does it?

Thirdly, there are people that see this as a reward for people who paint, and people who see this as a penalty for people who do not.

What my argument is seeking to establish independently of those axioms is that you should be mindful of how this rule can contribute to toxicity and the risks involved in being TFG and invoking it over an issue that is personal, private and concerns talent/skill, in a circumstance where the thing being tested is not painting ability but gaming ability. Secondly, there should not be rules that penalise people for not having painted armies as if that is a willful character flaw or error. As Blindmage has pointed out from her own experience, there are instances where it is not.

Toxic people will be toxic regardless. They'll always find avenues to be toxic. At least this way they'll have lovely armies to go along with their toxicity.

Deleted.

Ice_can wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

Ice_can wrote:

 AngryAngel80 wrote:

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.

Yeah I would hope that most people are decent enough to not use rules like this to punsih or exclude people from the hobby but at the same time the number of times I hear of incidents happening that would have me speachless is too often.
I hope it's an oversight due to the culture of friendly games the studio guys have that they have oversighted that this rule negatively affects people trying thier best to keep hobbying.

Tbf the "Communities "using this rules specifically to be a dick will Find other ways to be such.

Totally agree with that but having it in the core rules adds a level of legitimacy that they will abuse.

See , you can't Make everything allways unabusable,(i'd argue their balance allows enough legitimate beeing a dick) more concerning is the assertion into the sphere of Taste and Looks , areas highly subjective and divisive, Heck Look at art? And gw decided it to be smart to Make a rule that grants 1/10 in vp's of a match?

 Sentineil wrote:

Ice_can wrote:

Yeah I would hope that most people are decent enough to not use rules like this to punsih or exclude people from the hobby but at the same time the number of times I hear of incidents happening that would have me speachless is too often.
I hope it's an oversight due to the culture of friendly games the studio guys have that they have oversighted that this rule negatively affects people trying thier best to keep hobbying.

I think the main point that people seem to be disagreeing on is what the actual "hobby" is. GW see the painting as part of the hobby, while others separate it out and consider the game to be the all that's important to them.

It's also hyperbolic to say this "excludes" anyone. It no more excludes a player than playing 2000 points when they only own 1500. If you can't play a full painted army, you can ask to play at a lower points value so you can.
I've never in the 20 years I've been in this hobby managed to field a fully painted force. It's always been my ambition, but life can distract, or I'll move in to a different project without finishing the first.

I guess it's really a glass half full Vs half empty argument. Some see it as rewarding those that put the time into painting everything, and others see it as punishing those who don't.

For me, I like the new rule. I like that I actually have a reason other than completionism to go after it, and if someone I'm playing with wins because they have a fully painted army and I don't, then more power too them, it was earned.

Realistically I imagine it won't feature very often though, as like me, the people I play with have never managed a fully finished army.

Visually impaired, any number of conditions that makes painting models a challenge, not to mention that with TLOS and the modern micro managment that's been added to coherency etc, it's all these little nudges that can give players the sence that GW doesn't want them to be part of the hobby.

Intentionally or not I think that alone is a good enough reason for GW to have a long hard think about if they really should have gone about it this way.

 Sentineil wrote:
Toxic people will be toxic regardless. They'll always find avenues to be toxic. At least this way they'll have lovely armies to go along with their toxicity.

Yep, exactly.

That is true but rarely do the rules actually give them reason to be toxic to someone. It adds a level of legitimacy to the act. That is aside and in addition to all the other points I've typed out of the lines crossed and why it isn't needed in mission scoring rules.

It isn't something that needed to be handled by more than a recommendation and not hard stamped into the core rules scoring system.

To be honest it kind of feels like a joke rule, like they would use it on each other in the studio to tease each other and they don't see how some people outside their bubble would use it to be toxic to other players just to be trolls, or because they don't like someone, or to be petty, etc.

Either way, it was poorly thought out and no rule should be placed in the core rules as a joke when they are also saying how super serious tournament ready all these rules are.

 Sentineil wrote:
Toxic people will be toxic regardless. They'll always find avenues to be toxic. At least this way they'll have lovely armies to go along with their toxicity.

Well kinda Beauty is dependant in subjectivity and context.

 Insectum7 wrote:

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.

If you think speed limits are "guidelines" they shouldn't be enforced then, period. Either you follow it or you don't. It's that simple.

I for one cant wait to employ this rule on some nob who constantly manages to get that extra 1" here and there and someohow "forgets" some rules work in a certain way.. But apparently your dudes are out of range all of the time and you can never have a take back..

"Well one of your dude is only primed im afraid so as all of my army is painted and based I get the bonus pts. Good game though sir"

Ice_can wrote:

Visually impaired, any number of conditions that makes painting models a challenge, not to mention that with TLOS and the modern micro managment that's been added to coherency etc, it's all these little nudges that can give players the sence that GW doesn't want them to be part of the hobby.

Intentionally or not I think that alone is a good enough reason for GW to have a long hard think about if they really should have gone about it this way.

I'm sorry, but people need to stop parading out people with disabilities when they don't like something. They don't add validity to your argument because it's essentially reductio ad absurdum.

No one is going to enforce this rule against someone who is visually impaired, just like we won't enforce dice rolling on someone with motor impairment. We let them use dice rolling apps and we move models for people in wheelchairs that can't reach.

Playing a game with someone is a social contract. If they have special needs of any kind, we accomodate them.

While I'm sure that will very good at the time, I still say rules that feel like personal digs on other players do us all a disservice as much I have dealt with those players as well. Lol

 Sentineil wrote:

Ice_can wrote:

Visually impaired, any number of conditions that makes painting models a challenge, not to mention that with TLOS and the modern micro managment that's been added to coherency etc, it's all these little nudges that can give players the sence that GW doesn't want them to be part of the hobby.

Intentionally or not I think that alone is a good enough reason for GW to have a long hard think about if they really should have gone about it this way.

I'm sorry, but people need to stop parading out people with disabilities when they don't like something. They don't add validity to your argument because it's essentially reductio ad absurdum.

No one is going to enforce this rule against someone who is visually impaired, just like we won't enforce dice rolling on someone with motor impairment. We let them use dice rolling apps and we move models for people in wheelchairs that can't reach.

Playing a game with someone is a social contract. If they have special needs of any kind, we accomodate them.

Dice vs dice apps aren't in the rules though, so not a correct comparison.

 Sentineil wrote:

Ice_can wrote:

Visually impaired, any number of conditions that makes painting models a challenge, not to mention that with TLOS and the modern micro managment that's been added to coherency etc, it's all these little nudges that can give players the sence that GW doesn't want them to be part of the hobby.

Intentionally or not I think that alone is a good enough reason for GW to have a long hard think about if they really should have gone about it this way.

I'm sorry, but people need to stop parading out people with disabilities when they don't like something. They don't add validity to your argument because it's essentially reductio ad absurdum.

No one is going to enforce this rule against someone who is visually impaired, just like we won't enforce dice rolling on someone with motor impairment. We let them use dice rolling apps and we move models for people in wheelchairs that can't reach.

Playing a game with someone is a social contract. If they have special needs of any kind, we accomodate them.

Thats one of the points. No one is going to enforce the rule unless they don't like the person they are playing against or are a toxic person in general. No one will accept the extra 10 points if it would help them beat a friend and their friend won otherwise with game play. It's completely a crap rule so why place it in the first place ? The core rules don't need to enforce personal taste. Communities can enforce painting standards, events can do so as well, we don't need it in the core book.

If the people endorsing it live in these fully painted and everyone is friends utopias of modeling, they'll never get a benefit from it over anyone so it rounds out to a zero sum game. So what is the point of a rule you'll literally just use on someone you don't like ?

 Sentineil wrote:

Ice_can wrote:

Visually impaired, any number of conditions that makes painting models a challenge, not to mention that with TLOS and the modern micro managment that's been added to coherency etc, it's all these little nudges that can give players the sence that GW doesn't want them to be part of the hobby.

Intentionally or not I think that alone is a good enough reason for GW to have a long hard think about if they really should have gone about it this way.

I'm sorry, but people need to stop parading out people with disabilities when they don't like something. They don't add validity to your argument because it's essentially reductio ad absurdum.

No one is going to enforce this rule against someone who is visually impaired, just like we won't enforce dice rolling on someone with motor impairment. We let them use dice rolling apps, we move models for people in wheelchairs that can't reach.

You're making the unfounded assumption that all relevant disabilities are visible and that people are entirely incapable of abusing the rule. Plus, as I pointed out earlier, we're talking about more than just physical disabilities here, as mental illness/disability could be involved as well.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Dice vs dice apps aren't in the rules though, so not a correct comparison.

I'm certain it says to roll a dice, and not the virtual equivalent of a dice, but regardless, this is an irrelevant nitpick to the point being made.

Moving said person's models for them, or helping them assemble them or any other number of scenarios you'd like to choose from where we make accomodations for people.

If you're unfortunate enough to encounter someone who penalises a blind person for not having their army painted, then that community will know not to deal with that person again. Problem solved.

@Mr.Omega
Unless the person is mute, they can communicate they have a visual impairment.

A game is a social experience. Why do we keep assuming the worst possible scenario to make rules?

Please don't drag mental health into this either. It's not a factor. Your scenario where someone has mental health issues and can't paint, is no more applicable than someone who has mental health issues and can't lose, or someone who copes with their mental health issues by painting and playing a narrative game, and comes up against a sea of grey that ruins it for them.

 Sentineil wrote:

Ice_can wrote:

Visually impaired, any number of conditions that makes painting models a challenge, not to mention that with TLOS and the modern micro managment that's been added to coherency etc, it's all these little nudges that can give players the sence that GW doesn't want them to be part of the hobby.

Intentionally or not I think that alone is a good enough reason for GW to have a long hard think about if they really should have gone about it this way.

I'm sorry, but people need to stop parading out people with disabilities when they don't like something. They don't add validity to your argument because it's essentially reductio ad absurdum.

No one is going to enforce this rule against someone who is visually impaired, just like we won't enforce dice rolling on someone with motor impairment. We let them use dice rolling apps and we move models for people in wheelchairs that can't reach.

Playing a game with someone is a social contract. If they have special needs of any kind, we accomodate them.

As I said pages back this rule has zero impact on me personally as I have been used to this being a rule for events since the 90's.

But by the same token I agree with how you treat peoole like you have said. However we have a small minority who aren't in 40k for the comunity and sportsmanship, you either change the rules so they can't be used as a weapon by the butt monkeys or you have to make it so blatantly obvious that being a Butt monkey will have such catastrophic consequences they don't even consider it.

 Sentineil wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Dice vs dice apps aren't in the rules though, so not a correct comparison.

I'm certain it says to roll a dice, and not the virtual equivalent of a dice, but regardless, this is an irrelevant nitpick to the point being made.

Moving said person's models for them, or helping them assemble them or any other number of scenarios you'd like to choose from where we make accomodations for people.

If you're unfortunate enough to encounter someone who penalises a blind person for not having their army painted, then that community will know not to deal with that person again. Problem solved.

@Mr.Omega
Unless the person is mute, they can communicate they have a visual impairment.

A game is a social experience. Why do we keep assuming the worst possible scenario to make rules?

Please don't drag mental health into this either. It's not a factor. Your scenario where someone has mental health issues and can't paint, is no more applicable than someone who has mental health issues and can't lose, or someone who copes with their mental health issues by painting and playing a narrative game, and comes up against a sea of grey that ruins it for them.

You can roll dice virtually. This is not a problem.

Ergo, once again, if you find there are constant areas you need to houserule something out, that rule shouldn't have been implemented to begin with. It isn't rocket science.

One thing is for certain, that rule will be a great tfg detector ,due to condesing and showing used Context for Application of it to the circumstance it got applied to.

 Sentineil wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Dice vs dice apps aren't in the rules though, so not a correct comparison.

I'm certain it says to roll a dice, and not the virtual equivalent of a dice, but regardless, this is an irrelevant nitpick to the point being made.

Moving said person's models for them, or helping them assemble them or any other number of scenarios you'd like to choose from where we make accomodations for people.

If you're unfortunate enough to encounter someone who penalises a blind person for not having their army painted, then that community will know not to deal with that person again. Problem solved.

@Mr.Omega
Unless the person is mute, they can communicate they have a visual impairment.

A game is a social experience. Why do we keep assuming the worst possible scenario to make rules?

Please don't drag mental health into this either. It's not a factor. Your scenario where someone has mental health issues and can't paint, is no more applicable than someone who has mental health issues and can't lose, or someone who copes with their mental health issues by painting and playing a narrative game, and comes up against a sea of grey that ruins it for them.

Here we go with the "Me me me" post

"I don't have to be considerate, because the onus is always on the other person to tell me their medical history no matter how embarassed or uncomfortable that might make them

We can't just have a game, you have to actually medically justify why you can't paint and disclose private and personal information or else you lose 10 points and I rub your disability in your face. Not my fault!

Who cares about people with mental health issues, they're just troublesome anyway!"

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

Flip the narrative.

Pretend it's a rule where you get to award your opponent +10 VP's for having a fully painted BRS army. Would you feel like less of a douche if you refused to award those bonus points to your opponent if they met the criteria?

This is basically the same thing.

Scenario: I give my two kids $10 for doing chores around the house each week. First kid mowed the lawn, second kid laid around on the couch all week. I give the $10 to the kid that did the chore and helped out and give $0 to the lazy kid. Lazy kid is now crying that it's not fair because they don't like chores so neither of them should get the $10... The second kid isn't being penalized here.

 Mr.Omega wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 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?

Instead of a fourth reply that amounts to an "RTP" of my original post I'm just going to put this here

The axioms behind arguments in this thread are almost completely parralel and being bounced off each other

I.e, in this one you mention that you can discuss the rule before hand, which is directly parralel to how I mentioned you can just say that you're looking for a game against a painted army/non-powerbuild etc and move on

You also make the argument that not winning because of a lack of painted minis doesn't matter, because people should know they've "won" on merit, which is directly parralel to the argument that people who've lost the game strategically shouldn't point out that they've actually won because winning doesn't matter in that context either, does it?

Thirdly, there are people that see this as a reward for people who paint, and people who see this as a penalty for people who do not.

What my argument is seeking to establish independently of those axioms is that you should be mindful of how this rule can contribute to toxicity and the risks involved in being TFG and invoking it over an issue that is personal, private and concerns talent/skill, in a circumstance where the thing being tested is not painting ability but gaming ability. Secondly, there should not be rules that penalise people for not having painted armies as if that is a willful character flaw or error. As Blindmage has pointed out from her own experience, there are instances where it is not.

Like another poster said, toxic people are going to be toxic people. This rule does literally nothing to change the "level of possible toxicity", nor do I see how it encourages toxicity any more than the potential for bringing the latest netlist. One could argue that it actively discourages bringing the latest netlist, therefore discouraging behavior some view as toxic. The line you are drawing is effectively arbitrary.

I'm also seriously confused as to how Blindmage can build models and play 40K, but not paint. How does one play 40K blind?

 Red Corsair wrote:

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

Flip the narrative.

Pretend it's a rule where you get to award your opponent +10 VP's for having a fully painted BRS army. Would you feel like less of a douche if you refused to award those bonus points to your opponent if they met the criteria?

This is basically the same thing.

Scenario: I give my two kids $10 for doing chores around the house each week. First kid mowed the lawn, second kid laid around on the couch all week. I give the $10 to the kid that did the chore and helped out and give $0 to the lazy kid. Lazy kid is now crying that it's not fair because they don't like chores so neither of them should get the $10... The second kid isn't being penalized here.

It isn't rewarding them though. The actual max is 100 points which cannot be achieved without this rule in place.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
If you think speed limits are "guidelines" they shouldn't be enforced then, period. Either you follow it or you don't. It's that simple.

You clearly don't know how the world works. It is definitely NOT that simple.