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.
2020/07/02 23:31:52
Subject: Will you use the '+10 VPs if your whole army is painted' rule?
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!"
This is absolute nonsense. If someone requires accomodation they need to say it or they won't receive them. If you don't tell me you have a nut allergy I won't know. Likewise if you are unable to paint your army, I won't know.
We don't accomodate people with disabilities by changing the rules, we do it by creating supports so they can play at the same level. The new Last of Us game is the best example of this.
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.
Laws, and rules, are created with purpose. When either is unfair, we do the correct thing and do what we can to repeal them. You don't say "suck it up buttercup" and choose when you want to follow them. You either agree with it or don't. If the implantation is bad, the creators need to be let known about it because you don't fix future issues otherwise.
You think I follow HIPAA just when I feel like it? Hell no. I follow it the best I can. If I don't agree with something because it slows down several processes considerably (not too unfamiliar with being late because you followed speed limits), it doesn't matter. If I don't agree with something, I do the appropriate thing and write emails.
CaptainStabby wrote: If Tyberos falls and needs to catch himself it's because the ground needed killing.
jy2 wrote: BTW, I can't wait to run Double-D-thirsters! Man, just thinking about it gets me Khorney.
vipoid wrote: Indeed - what sort of bastard would want to use their codex?
MarsNZ wrote: ITT: SoB players upset that they're receiving the same condescending treatment that they've doled out in every CSM thread ever.
2020/07/02 23:34:57
Subject: Will you use the '+10 VPs if your whole army is painted' rule?
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.
Lets flip the narrative again. Lets say you actually play the game with that person, commend them on a very nice looking army and say how great it is to see them all out on the table. Then, you play the game and who ever wins it, wins it. Without the need for arbitrary points based on painting because the effort is its own reward of a job well done, and that other player feels real good he did such a great job getting his army painted ? Pretty sweet story there.
2020/07/02 23:36:03
Subject: Will you use the '+10 VPs if your whole army is painted' rule?
Insectum7 wrote: I'm also seriously confused as to how Blindmage can build models and play 40K, but not paint. How does one play 40K blind?
Blindness is a spectrum, not a binary state. Different conditions have different impacts, including what part of the visual field is affected as well as degree.
(Over here in practice, we'd refer to degrees of visual impairment)
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/07/02 23:45:11
2020/07/02 23:40:32
Subject: Will you use the '+10 VPs if your whole army is painted' rule?
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!"
This is absolute nonsense. If someone requires accomodation they need to say it or they won't receive them. If you don't tell me you have a nut allergy I won't know. Likewise if you are unable to paint your army, I won't know.
We don't accomodate people with disabilities by changing the rules, we do it by creating supports so they can play at the same level. The new Last of Us game is the best example of this.
There's no comparison. The Last of Us mitigated traditional issues inherent to playing video games for people with disabilities by adding options to the settings.
This rule does not need to be in the game. It does not add anything significant. It is not inherent to the game being played. The solution is not to make dispensation but to make sure that dispensation does not need to be made because the only loss is that a few sneering elitists will get mildly irritated and then forget in a week and they are less important.
2020/07/02 23:43:26
Subject: Will you use the '+10 VPs if your whole army is painted' rule?
He has a point though, the social contracts is in the End the be all End all Of interaction on the Table between Players.
I Rate the Chance very high that this rule will be the greatest tfg detector to exist because regardless why it got invoked , you can assume that gak hit the Fan if it did.
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/766717.page A Mostly Renegades and Heretics blog.
GW:"Space marines got too many options to balance, therefore we decided to legends HH units." Players: "why?!? Now we finally got decent plastic kits and you cut them?" Chaos marines players: "Since when are Daemonengines 30k models and why do i have NO droppods now?" GW" MONEY.... erm i meant TOO MANY OPTIONS (to resell your army to you again by disalowing former units)! Do you want specific tyranid fighiting Primaris? Even a new sabotage lieutnant!" Chaos players: Guess i stop playing or go to HH.
2020/07/02 23:44:03
Subject: Will you use the '+10 VPs if your whole army is painted' rule?
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 a disabled girl, who's posted on here on this topic, Feth You.
We can enforce the rule of that's what you want...? Or are you against people being accommodating during games? Or that a game is a social contract?
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.
Laws, and rules, are created with purpose. When either is unfair, we do the correct thing and do what we can to repeal them. You don't say "suck it up buttercup" and choose when you want to follow them. You either agree with it or don't. If the implantation is bad, the creators need to be let known about it because you don't fix future issues otherwise.
You think I follow HIPAA just when I feel like it? Hell no. I follow it the best I can. If I don't agree with something because it slows down several processes considerably (not too unfamiliar with being late because you followed speed limits), it doesn't matter. If I don't agree with something, I do the appropriate thing and write emails.
All well and good, but the fact that the speed limit isn't explicitly followed doesn't make it either a bad idea or implementation.
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 a disabled girl, who's posted on here on this topic, Feth You.
We can enforce the rule of that's what you want...? Or are you against people being accommodating during games? Or that a game is a social contract?
Well, people should have to ask for accommodations. Clearly we shouldn't bother being reasonable in advance, say by building ramps in addition to or instead of stairs for those in wheelchairs, or adding braille to room signs so the blind can still figure out where they are.
Moreover, even if you personally are not, there are a lot of people who are ablist. There are people who will mock or even hurt people who are disabled, so why should someone be forced to broadcast their disablement just to have a fun and relatively fair game?
You're thinking from a position of privilege. I'm lucky that I don't have any major physical disabilities, but that doesn't mean that I or anyone like myself shouldn't be forward-thinking to accommodate those who need it without having to be asked.
Clocks for the clockmaker! Cogs for the cog throne!
2020/07/02 23:47:23
Subject: Re:Will you use the '+10 VPs if your whole army is painted' rule?
It's a daft, redundant rule. Of course the ideal is that games are played with fully painted armies, because it improves the visual experience for everyone. I'm all for painted armies over unpainted ones, and I always have been, even though my own mental health concerns have made it near impossible for me to ever finish anything. But it should never be codified into the rules of the game, because at that point it achieves precisely one thing: division. Just look at this thread alone to see how much it splits folk and creates argument.
Tournaments generally had a painting requirement anyway as part of the rules pack given out by the TO, so in most cases there the rule isn't going to change anything and thus adds absolutely nothing. In a casual setting, if one is in a group of like-minded friends or a LGS, and you agree for whatever reason not to enforce it, then why does the rule even need to be there? In what way is it improving the experience for anyone? To encourage people to paint their armies? A nicely painted army should be it's own reward, not an arbitrary bonus in the game that will feel more like a punishment for not achieving it (and again, if the solution to that is not to use the rule at all, then why is it there?).
If the intent of the rule is to be a punishment for so called "WAAC" players who don't paint armies and meta-chase, then it fails. If, as a lot of people claim, that the 10VPs is such a small little bonus that it doesn't matter, then what's to stop said WAAC players from actively not painting their army, taking the apparently irrelevantly small score hit, and winning anyway? It's literally achieved the opposite of the intent at that stage, giving them a rules-legal way of continuing to not paint and circumvent whatever social contract the group has.
As far as I can see the only use for the rule is a way to punish players - only brought out and enforced when you're trying to make some kind of spiteful point because you perceive someone as 'deserving it'. It comes across as elitist snobbery and there's no reason it should ever be used. After all, if you take such offence to a non-painted army then don't play the person in the first place, rather than going through the game, presumably unhappy, just so you can pull this rule out to try and make them feel inferior?
Putting something like this into the core rules and scoring of the game, rather than leaving it as an ideal to aspire to or a tournament attendance requirement, adds nothing positive. If you're among a friendly, like-minded community you don't need it since it will be ignored the majority of the time anyway. The only thing it adds is potential for arguments and division over different approaches to the game.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2020/07/02 23:50:33
2020/07/02 23:47:33
Subject: Will you use the '+10 VPs if your whole army is painted' rule?
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.
Laws, and rules, are created with purpose. When either is unfair, we do the correct thing and do what we can to repeal them. You don't say "suck it up buttercup" and choose when you want to follow them. You either agree with it or don't. If the implantation is bad, the creators need to be let known about it because you don't fix future issues otherwise.
You think I follow HIPAA just when I feel like it? Hell no. I follow it the best I can. If I don't agree with something because it slows down several processes considerably (not too unfamiliar with being late because you followed speed limits), it doesn't matter. If I don't agree with something, I do the appropriate thing and write emails.
All well and good, but the fact that the speed limit isn't explicitly followed doesn't make it either a bad idea or implementation.
If something isn't going to be followed, it should not be implemented. It's LITERALLY that simple. Either you agree it's a fantastic rule or you can admit maybe GW shouldn't have done it. It isn't like it's their first blunder with creating rules anyway.
CaptainStabby wrote: If Tyberos falls and needs to catch himself it's because the ground needed killing.
jy2 wrote: BTW, I can't wait to run Double-D-thirsters! Man, just thinking about it gets me Khorney.
vipoid wrote: Indeed - what sort of bastard would want to use their codex?
MarsNZ wrote: ITT: SoB players upset that they're receiving the same condescending treatment that they've doled out in every CSM thread ever.
2020/07/02 23:49:13
Subject: Will you use the '+10 VPs if your whole army is painted' rule?
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.
Funny then how it seems to be all hobby elitists like you 2 favour this ridiculous rule. If winning or losing is so inconsequential to you types why even take the free VP? Surely having them or not does not impact your fun, but people like me who actually enjoy the game part of this game and little else, get kicked in the nuts because, reasons?
2020/07/02 23:50:09
Subject: Re:Will you use the '+10 VPs if your whole army is painted' rule?
Insectum7 wrote: I'm also seriously confused as to how Blindmage can build models and play 40K, but not paint. How does one play 40K blind?
Blindness is a spectrum, not a binary state. Different conditions have different impacts, including what part of the visual field is affected as well as degree.
(Over here in practice, we'd refer to degrees of visual impairment)
I get that, but I still don't see how there wouldn't be at least some solution. Like, if you can see "some", then it seems like you could paint "some".
(Sorry Blindmage! The mechanics are just confounding to me atm.)
Let's not continue this particular avenue of conversation unless Blindmage specifically says we can. I'm totally fascinated by this but I don't want to be more insensitive than I've probably already been.
"Will you use the '+10 VPs if your whole army is painted' rule?"
From the snippet on the front page, this rule isn't optional, so yes.
If I don't have a fully painted army, and my opponent does, he gets 10 more points then me.
It wouldn't hurt to ask my opponent if we could ignore that rule, but if he says no, then there is no ill will on my part.
People forget that games workshop does not sell a game - the company sells models, paints, etc... It is a hobby company, not a gaming company. If this is a way they can get a few customers to buy paints, great!
AS ALWAYS... People can agree to play by house rules if they want. Most people do when they enter tournaments. 99% of all Warhammer 40k tournaments ever has had house rules the T.O. wanted his participants to abide by. This will be no different if he removes this rule for his event.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/07/02 23:51:25
Ayn Rand "We can evade reality, but we cannot evade the consequences of evading reality"
2020/07/02 23:50:31
Subject: Will you use the '+10 VPs if your whole army is painted' rule?
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 a disabled girl, who's posted on here on this topic, Feth You.
We can enforce the rule of that's what you want...? Or are you against people being accommodating during games? Or that a game is a social contract?
You stop to think maybe she's against them including a rule that needs " special discretion " for her or those like her when she already does so much just to play the game in the first place ? To share the hobby ? If the rule adds nothing of substance and I've heard no one say this rule is either needed or in fact important at all, why place it in the first place ? Remove it and just play the game and let communities decide on painting standards themselves as its always been.
This is an un forced GW error of a rule. Now she can correct me if I'm wring with what she takes issue with or if its you saying its a non issue for those with such issues as it obviously does matter to her.
2020/07/02 23:51:03
Subject: Will you use the '+10 VPs if your whole army is painted' rule?
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.
Laws, and rules, are created with purpose. When either is unfair, we do the correct thing and do what we can to repeal them. You don't say "suck it up buttercup" and choose when you want to follow them. You either agree with it or don't. If the implantation is bad, the creators need to be let known about it because you don't fix future issues otherwise.
You think I follow HIPAA just when I feel like it? Hell no. I follow it the best I can. If I don't agree with something because it slows down several processes considerably (not too unfamiliar with being late because you followed speed limits), it doesn't matter. If I don't agree with something, I do the appropriate thing and write emails.
All well and good, but the fact that the speed limit isn't explicitly followed doesn't make it either a bad idea or implementation.
If something isn't going to be followed, it should not be implemented. It's LITERALLY that simple. Either you agree it's a fantastic rule or you can admit maybe GW shouldn't have done it. It isn't like it's their first blunder with creating rules anyway.
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.
Laws, and rules, are created with purpose. When either is unfair, we do the correct thing and do what we can to repeal them. You don't say "suck it up buttercup" and choose when you want to follow them. You either agree with it or don't. If the implantation is bad, the creators need to be let known about it because you don't fix future issues otherwise.
You think I follow HIPAA just when I feel like it? Hell no. I follow it the best I can. If I don't agree with something because it slows down several processes considerably (not too unfamiliar with being late because you followed speed limits), it doesn't matter. If I don't agree with something, I do the appropriate thing and write emails.
All well and good, but the fact that the speed limit isn't explicitly followed doesn't make it either a bad idea or implementation.
If something isn't going to be followed, it should not be implemented. It's LITERALLY that simple. Either you agree it's a fantastic rule or you can admit maybe GW shouldn't have done it. It isn't like it's their first blunder with creating rules anyway.
Insectum7 wrote: I'm also seriously confused as to how Blindmage can build models and play 40K, but not paint. How does one play 40K blind?
Blindness is a spectrum, not a binary state. Different conditions have different impacts, including what part of the visual field is affected as well as degree.
(Over here in practice, we'd refer to degrees of visual impairment)
Exactly!!!
Finally another person that gets it!
I'm Very Visually Impaired, not Legally Blind (20/200 vision, or the big E on the eye chart)...with my glasses, but that's distance up close means I literally have my nose against the spine of the book I'm reading. Also only one eye, so no depth perception.
213PL 60PL 12PL 9-17PL (she/her)
2020/07/02 23:57:42
Subject: Will you use the '+10 VPs if your whole army is painted' rule?
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.
Laws, and rules, are created with purpose. When either is unfair, we do the correct thing and do what we can to repeal them. You don't say "suck it up buttercup" and choose when you want to follow them. You either agree with it or don't. If the implantation is bad, the creators need to be let known about it because you don't fix future issues otherwise.
You think I follow HIPAA just when I feel like it? Hell no. I follow it the best I can. If I don't agree with something because it slows down several processes considerably (not too unfamiliar with being late because you followed speed limits), it doesn't matter. If I don't agree with something, I do the appropriate thing and write emails.
All well and good, but the fact that the speed limit isn't explicitly followed doesn't make it either a bad idea or implementation.
If something isn't going to be followed, it should not be implemented. It's LITERALLY that simple. Either you agree it's a fantastic rule or you can admit maybe GW shouldn't have done it. It isn't like it's their first blunder with creating rules anyway.
Other than lording a painted army over a not painted one, the rule adds nothing of substance and if that means so much to anyone just refuse a game with someone with even one un painted model, simple and could have been done this whole time. It never needed to be or should be a rule.
2020/07/02 23:59:15
Subject: Will you use the '+10 VPs if your whole army is painted' rule?
Funny then how it seems to be all hobby elitists like you 2 favour this ridiculous rule. If winning or losing is so inconsequential to you types why even take the free VP? Surely having them or not does not impact your fun, but people like me who actually enjoy the game part of this game and little else, get kicked in the nuts because, reasons?
The ten points do not matter for me. But if they matter to you and that means that you bring painted models to the game, whereas you otherwise might not, then that is a positive result for me. (Assuming we would be playing together.)
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.
Laws, and rules, are created with purpose. When either is unfair, we do the correct thing and do what we can to repeal them. You don't say "suck it up buttercup" and choose when you want to follow them. You either agree with it or don't. If the implantation is bad, the creators need to be let known about it because you don't fix future issues otherwise.
You think I follow HIPAA just when I feel like it? Hell no. I follow it the best I can. If I don't agree with something because it slows down several processes considerably (not too unfamiliar with being late because you followed speed limits), it doesn't matter. If I don't agree with something, I do the appropriate thing and write emails.
All well and good, but the fact that the speed limit isn't explicitly followed doesn't make it either a bad idea or implementation.
If something isn't going to be followed, it should not be implemented. It's LITERALLY that simple. Either you agree it's a fantastic rule or you can admit maybe GW shouldn't have done it. It isn't like it's their first blunder with creating rules anyway.
JNAProductions wrote: Well, people should have to ask for accommodations. Clearly we shouldn't bother being reasonable in advance, say by building ramps in addition to or instead of stairs for those in wheelchairs, or adding braille to room signs so the blind can still figure out where they are.
Moreover, even if you personally are not, there are a lot of people who are ablist. There are people who will mock or even hurt people who are disabled, so why should someone be forced to broadcast their disablement just to have a fun and relatively fair game?
You're thinking from a position of privilege. I'm lucky that I don't have any major physical disabilities, but that doesn't mean that I or anyone like myself shouldn't be forward-thinking to accommodate those who need it without having to be asked.
Please don't twist what I'm saying into some absurd position where we shouldn't bother having supports for people with disabilities. Having a rule that encourages painting in a miniatures hobby is not the same as not having ramps or hand rails. Perspective is important, and these issues are not comparable.
It sucks that people with disabilities have difficulties that most of us don't have to deal with, but we don't define how the game operates based on a tiny percentage of users. You add supports to enable those who would have difficulty. You don't remove everything they have difficulty with because that doesn't make sense. Warhammer is a fiddly hobby when it comes to assembling models, and even interpreting the rules. Of course this will be challenging for people, but that's where the social side of the game comes in and people support those than have difficulty.
I stopped trying to play pick up games at the FLGS back in 6th edition. There had always existed the issue of some army builds being much more efficient than others, generally resulting in a less than fun experience for all involved.
I would schedule games with folks ahead of time which allowed for a much more enjoyable gaming experience. It managed our expectations for the game prior to arrival at a location.
Between this and attending tournaments, where expectations are set in advance by tourney organizers, my enjoyment of the game has only increased.
The negativity and general nastiness in this thread demonstrates to me some folks would really benefit by trying what I did.
It's a rule, so what? There have been many rules over the years folks dont like. Its your game to play however you want. There is no 40K police going to arrest you for not playing the game 'the right way'. For folks unaccustomed to that, house rules have generally existed in 40K since its inception. I played ITC exclusively for the past year; it is essentially a set of house rules and nobody has chastized me about playing 40K the wrong way.
Take a breath. Step away from your devices and relax. Dakka is historically filled negativity, but this thread is especially nasty.
No earth shattering, thought provoking quote. I'm just someone who was introduced to 40K in the late 80's and it's become a lifelong hobby.
2020/07/03 00:13:10
Subject: Will you use the '+10 VPs if your whole army is painted' rule?
It sucks that people with disabilities have difficulties that most of us don't have to deal with, but we don't define how the game operates based on a tiny percentage of users. You add supports to enable those who would have difficulty. You don't remove everything they have difficulty with because that doesn't make sense. Warhammer is a fiddly hobby when it comes to assembling models, and even interpreting the rules. Of course this will be challenging for people, but that's where the social side of the game comes in and people support those than have difficulty.
The goal might be built in supports for common disabilities and illnesses that would impact playing the game.
The reality is not there yet. We're a long ways away. We need to address the massive amounts of ableism in the gaming community, and here on Dakka.
213PL 60PL 12PL 9-17PL (she/her)
2020/07/03 00:15:04
Subject: Re:Will you use the '+10 VPs if your whole army is painted' rule?
Insectum7 wrote: I'm also seriously confused as to how Blindmage can build models and play 40K, but not paint. How does one play 40K blind?
Blindness is a spectrum, not a binary state. Different conditions have different impacts, including what part of the visual field is affected as well as degree.
(Over here in practice, we'd refer to degrees of visual impairment)
Exactly!!!
Finally another person that gets it!
I'm Very Visually Impaired, not Legally Blind (20/200 vision, or the big E on the eye chart)...with my glasses, but that's distance up close means I literally have my nose against the spine of the book I'm reading. Also only one eye, so no depth perception.
No depth perception is a mo********er. I've tried that and it's shockingly hard.
But you have some vision, ok. Now I think I'm having trouble because I feel like I could paint under those circumstances, but I've been painting for 30 years so I'm automatically bringing years of experience whether I'm conscious of it or not. I can't imagine using your situation as a starting point (or near starting point, since you've painted some in the past.)
I mean, obviously, technically, you are capable of putting paint on models. Whether you feel like you want to do that is up to you. Plainly, it's going to be far more of a struggle (and maybe less rewarding) for you to do it, and I certainly wouldn't put the expectation on you.
Funny then how it seems to be all hobby elitists like you 2 favour this ridiculous rule. If winning or losing is so inconsequential to you types why even take the free VP? Surely having them or not does not impact your fun, but people like me who actually enjoy the game part of this game and little else, get kicked in the nuts because, reasons?
The ten points do not matter for me. But if they matter to you and that means that you bring painted models to the game, whereas you otherwise might not, then that is a positive result for me. (Assuming we would be playing together.)
This also assumes the "privilege" of playing with you or others that share a disposition for this kind of rule is more valuable then whatever was preventing the army from getting painted before.
It's not.
Unpainted armies will stay unpainted and elitists will stay elitist.
I for one would never enact the rule under any circumstance. I don't want to win because I painted some plastic. It adds nothing to the game. The people I enjoy playing with feel the same.
These are my opinions. This is how I feel. Others may feel differently. This needs to be stated for some reason.
2020/07/03 00:32:26
Subject: Will you use the '+10 VPs if your whole army is painted' rule?
I reckon what one might do is a different rule that rewards painted models that look good, but then, that will rapidly run afoul of the competitive jerkwads paying lots and lots of money to professional painters to make the paint job a competitive edge that poorer, newer, or less insecure people don't get without ponynig up a few grand extra for an already very overpriced hobby
A fun time arguing those points might need a TO to intervene, but to be honest, I would probably not try to win on painting unless I were badly overmatched by I dunno, like 300 ork in a horde of grotling, or an eldar player whose unpainted (and randomly painted) buy unbeatable army obviously got borrowed from 16 friends the night before.
Some reasonable compromise like this could easily be wrote into local tournament rules to encourage the painters and modelers ... in fact... the secondary "paint and model" would have 4 points.
1 point all models painted 2 point all models painted and the scheme is coherent (like "all my marines are red, but all my cadians green and jungle camo, except my scions in the mixed battalion are also painted cadian to show their functional difference from the pure doctrine battalion of scions." 3 point all models look good (subject to a TO quick ruling of "yeah, that's worth 3 points, don't be a dick, give him the points!" 4 points the paint and model army looks like its a better paint and model job (subject to a to ruling by TO if its a dispute)( than the other army. If your army has got unpainted units or you borrowed crap from Mike to play, your opponent can get this point if his model is paointed, coherent, and looks good, but if both armies could get the first 3 points, it may be necessary to call in a TO to score this one. If you have really cool stuff you did and the army looks better than stock, great, you probably win this one.
Which I reckon a TO could briefly do. At WORST, its going to be a disagreement over 2 victory points (I am using the eighth style where you has secondaries that went up to 4, but if you have something idfferent in ninth, you could use it so that its a different value for the 4 levels.
I don't think that would piss on anyone's parade too much. Sure, it might be harder to win with titanslayer and old school than with marked for death and paint/model score, but you could DO it, even if you were not big into painting.
Phew.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/07/03 00:38:12
60PL 
12PL 
