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.

 Blndmage wrote:

Catulle wrote:

 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 boomik I'm reading. Also only one eye, so no depth perception.

I have the benefit in education of having been placed in a VI rehab team a few years back when a student social worker (I'll admit, my mind immediately went to macular degeneration/central visual field scenarios)

 Blndmage wrote:

 Sentineil wrote:

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.

Haha, honestly probably the best thing they can do for accessibility is make it cheaper. I'm not joking.

I think, at least atm, I come down to the idea that I don't think it's fundamentally wrong for GW to seek to reward painted armies. I see it, and I think it's intended as, basically a playful nudge towards painting. Maybe my position on that will change over time and after thinking about it more. Dunno.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Dukeofstuff wrote:

Spoiler:

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.

Personally I would never suggest a grading scale based on skill-of-presentation or something else that's more subjective. Not in the wild, anyways.

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Blndmage wrote:

 Sentineil wrote:

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.

Haha, honestly probably the best thing they can do for accessibility is make it cheaper. I'm not joking.

I think, at least atm, I come down to the idea that I don't think it's fundamentally wrong for GW to seek to reward painted armies. I see it, and I think it's intended as, basically a playful nudge towards painting. Maybe my position on that will change over time and after thinking about it more. Dunno.

There is a good reason the saying is

The road to hell is paved with good intentions

Trying to promote painted armies sounds like a good thing, everyone likes painted armies and they look cool.
That it makes people feel excluded from a hobby they are working hard to take part in, or they have to walk around with a sign saying sorry I can't paint my army better, Not good.

A well intentioned rule with some very negative consequences.

Ice_can wrote:

That it makes people feel excluded from a hobby they are working hard to take part in, or they have to walk around with a sign saying sorry I can't paint my army better, Not good.

This is maybe the best argument I've read so far. But why is that different than getting blown away by a power list?

Like I've DEFINITELY seen players with lovingly painted armies get blasted off the table by grey plastic netlists. This is a rule that slightly rewards the hobbyist, but certainly wont save them from the power list.

I could rewrite your sentence about the described situation:
". . .it makes people feel excluded from a hobby they are working hard to take part in, or they have to walk around with a sign saying sorry I can't financially support a more competitive army."

GW: Warhammer is for Everyone!
Also GW: Unless you're disabled, then you can sod right off and even if you do try you'll have a disadvantage (was going to make a golfing joke here but decided against it).

 Insectum7 wrote:

Ice_can wrote:

That it makes people feel excluded from a hobby they are working hard to take part in, or they have to walk around with a sign saying sorry I can't paint my army better, Not good.

This is maybe the best argument I've read so far. But why is that different than getting blown away by a power list?

Like I've DEFINITELY seen players with a lovingly painted armies get blasted off the table by grey plastic netlists. This is a rule that slightly rewards the hobbyist, but certainly wont save them from the power list.

Two thing's if people are bringing that much of a broken meta list 10VP aint changing the outcome your tabled turn 2 with probably maximum of 30 VP the opponent will have you beaten by 20VP or more, the 10VP won't change that fact.

Is that small I got 10VP for painting and you didnt with your Grey WAAC list making that butt kicking feel better realy?

Also maybe I'm lucky or because I play oddish lists I have seen plenty of people netlist and get real upset when their GT winning list gets dunked on by my list that wouldn't make it to the top 8 anyway so a nayden, Grant etc would beat me even if their list is weak to my goofy build, but netlister aint got their knowledge.

Voss wrote:

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.

Fair enough, to each their own.

 Insectum7 wrote:

I could rewrite your sentence about the described situation:
". . .it makes people feel excluded from a hobby they are working hard to take part in, or they have to walk around with a sign saying sorry I can't financially support a more competitive army."

If you can't spot a netlist just from the list dude it's not going to matter, people playing for a easy win not competitive game aren't going to be stopped by this they will just throw some spraypaint at it for those 10VP.
Except they will now blend in a bit more with that person hat shows up once every 3 nights when they have managed to carve just enough time out of their life to make it to games night again with another 4 models painted since last time.

Ice_can wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

Ice_can wrote:

That it makes people feel excluded from a hobby they are working hard to take part in, or they have to walk around with a sign saying sorry I can't paint my army better, Not good.

This is maybe the best argument I've read so far. But why is that different than getting blown away by a power list?

Like I've DEFINITELY seen players with a lovingly painted armies get blasted off the table by grey plastic netlists. This is a rule that slightly rewards the hobbyist, but certainly wont save them from the power list.

Two thing's if people are bringing that much of a broken meta list 10VP aint changing the outcome your tabled turn 2 with probably maximum of 30 VP the opponent will have you beaten by 20VP or more, the 10VP won't change that fact.

Is that small I got 10VP for painting and you didnt with your Grey WAAC list making that butt kicking feel better realy?

Also maybe I'm lucky or because I play oddish lists I have seen plenty of people netlist and get real upset when their GT winning list gets dunked on by my list that wouldn't make it to the top 8 anyway so a nayden, Grant etc would beat me even if their list is weak to my goofy build, but netlister aint got their knowledge.

I think that's all beside the point. The point is that there are already ways that a player can come out of a game feeling disenfranchised. This, as you point out, small 10pt bonus is throwing a bone to a potentially not-insignificant segment of the community.

 Elbows wrote:

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?

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.

Generally speaking, almost nothing in this hobby (and I don't mean the "GW" hobby, I mean wargaming) is anywhere near as bad as people make it out to be online. The more bitching someone does about their opponents/community....the likelier it is that they're the cause of the problems and are simply venting.

Hyperbole is part and parcel of this forum and most others. The people who say, "feth off, I'd never play with you and your unpainted models!" are as fake as the people pretending they're on some crusade for justice for unpainted miniature players, etc. It's all basically bs.

If anyone is actually getting as worked up as their posts sound - they have bigger problems in life than playing a game of 40K. Note that the people railing against this rule will probably NEVER see it used in anger in person. Genuinely. However, it gets their rocks off to crusade and rail against it because it gives them the ability to insult other people who disagree with them and thump their chests.

I admit I'm on the other side of this fence, and enjoy poking fun at those "everything is evil" types on here because it amuses me to see them get so worked up over a trivial thing in a casual hobby. You are completely right about writing stuff for the majority. It's why I patently ignore people the second they bring a one-in-a-million fringe case into the argument. It's simultaneously daft and disingenuous - because it assumes the worst in every person that players wargames.

"Well what if the guy is blind and in a wheelchair!" - well....any person, even the worst gak on this site would acknowledge that and adjust as necessary. Likewise the biggest gak-talkers on this site are probably 95% completely normal people you'd play a game with and find zero issues. In the end, it's just almost entirely nonsense. But if you can amuse yourself for a bit, it's occasionally worth the popcorn.

hmmm...ya know, those are all really good points. I guess i tend to value transparency in my communication and personality, and I'm a bit too old and persnickety to worry about putting up a fake front for people that I will likewise never meet, so I just don't care. I try to be a decent person, when I go over the line, I try to apologize if I can see the sense in it, and I try not to take too much offense to what people say and do on here, but when people use people with a physical disability as a means to trot out there position on why a rule in a game is a bad rule, that's getting into the corner case of the corner case. Its, as you said, pointing out the .01 to excuse the 99.9 and that doesn't work with me.

Its almost as if the world is not mutually exclusive.

 Insectum7 wrote:

Spoiler:

Ice_can wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

Ice_can wrote:

That it makes people feel excluded from a hobby they are working hard to take part in, or they have to walk around with a sign saying sorry I can't paint my army better, Not good.

This is maybe the best argument I've read so far. But why is that different than getting blown away by a power list?

Like I've DEFINITELY seen players with a lovingly painted armies get blasted off the table by grey plastic netlists. This is a rule that slightly rewards the hobbyist, but certainly wont save them from the power list.

Two thing's if people are bringing that much of a broken meta list 10VP aint changing the outcome your tabled turn 2 with probably maximum of 30 VP the opponent will have you beaten by 20VP or more, the 10VP won't change that fact.

Is that small I got 10VP for painting and you didnt with your Grey WAAC list making that butt kicking feel better realy?

Also maybe I'm lucky or because I play oddish lists I have seen plenty of people netlist and get real upset when their GT winning list gets dunked on by my list that wouldn't make it to the top 8 anyway so a nayden, Grant etc would beat me even if their list is weak to my goofy build, but netlister aint got their knowledge.

I think that's all beside the point. The point is that there are already ways that a player can come out of a game feeling disenfranchised. This, as you point out, small 10pt bonus is throwing a bone to a potentially not-insignificant segment of the community.

It will not fundamentally change the game state of player got smashed by netlist has feels bad.
Knows he wasn't going to win regardless
Got to put his nicely painted mini's on the table.

Your trying to find a case where it has a meaningful possitive impact on the game and there aimply won't be one.
Both players set out to WAAC one painted one didn't, WAAC player that didnt Commission paint his army has feels bads. No real impact as they would have had to paint for the next tournament anyway.

Hobbiest getting smashed by netlister.
Hobbist is stilk getting smashed by more thab 10VP getting some wierd moral victory becuase it was a painted non-net list, why does a moral victory need to be in the rukes?


Hobbiest playing new dude, wins due to painting score, hobbist feels like a butt if he wins against new quy on painting.

Ice_can wrote:
Your trying to find a case where it has a meaningful possitive impact on the game and there aimply won't be one.

I'd be greatly surprised if this rule wouldn't make using painted armies at least somewhat more common. And if it does that it will have a positive impact.

 Insectum7 wrote:

Ice_can wrote:

That it makes people feel excluded from a hobby they are working hard to take part in, or they have to walk around with a sign saying sorry I can't paint my army better, Not good.

This is maybe the best argument I've read so far. But why is that different than getting blown away by a power list?

Like I've DEFINITELY seen players with lovingly painted armies get blasted off the table by grey plastic netlists. This is a rule that slightly rewards the hobbyist, but certainly wont save them from the power list.

I could rewrite your sentence about the described situation:
". . .it makes people feel excluded from a hobby they are working hard to take part in, or they have to walk around with a sign saying sorry I can't financially support a more competitive army."

You know what stops armies from getting blasted off the table? Better rules writing. This isn't a good rule and one of many examples of it

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?

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.

This is definitely a case of the internet making a tempest in a tea cup. As usual it's the extreme edge cases that hardly ever arrise and when they do are easily solved by those specific players that folks want to act like is the norm.

As for community spirit I help other paint all the time. Especially my brother who has more on his plate in life ATM, in fact I am currently painting 75 of his ork boys for him for free just to help him get his models painted because I know it will reward everyone at the game table. Hilariously I am actively getting him those 10 points that I would have as an edge, which shows how unimportant it really is unless you make a huge deal of it. On the flip side, there are a few locals with 10+ years in the hobby with nothing painted, that spend all weekend in the shop shooting the shoots and playing with the same tired grey plastic armies that are ever expanding, despite there being a hobby space and an airbrush they can use right there. I will definitely claim my 10 points against them and let them know it the next time I play them, unless of course this encourages them to put at least some paint on their stuff.

I completely disagree. I don't think this will have any impact greater than tournaments requiring certain paint standards already do, nor will it in most groups.

As most even said they won't call it out on friends, as it will lead to annoyance and eye rolling at best and name calling and hurt feelings at worst. It'll literally be a " I don't like you " rule you throw at that guy you play you can't stand but doesn't paint as much as you. You'll also see trolls use it against otherwise good people to just be annoying.

It won't curtail net lists as if they can afford flavor the month armies all the time they can make a half arsed attempt to do the bare minimum work and it'll still look like trash and be a terrible experience.

You also will have those outliers who disagree with such a rules inclusion on its face and they will purposely play unpainted models, units or whole armies just to snub the rule.

Just because people disagree with it doesn't mean we even feel that 10 points is the real issue. There has been so much said as to why it sucks, and very little said to refute any of it aside from " I like the rule, it's cool because paint. ".

As well all the people saying how great the rule is apparently only play against other painted armies with amazing minded people so why would painted armies become more common when they are already the current norm ? The rule would do absolutely nothing for them.

In the case of the visually impared people you can solve your "situation" by a plethora of options:

1.- You can pay someone to apply the minimal amount of paint required. Given how simple battle ready can be, the expense is pretty minimal compared to how much you have to spend in the minis to begin with. At any FLGS you can find people that can charge you like what...4$ per mini to basically apply two bases and a shade? If you are nice, even less than that. Hell, if I know you and you are decent enough as to have a nice functional conversation about wh40k, I'd do it for free. I can do a couple of units in one afternoon at that simplicity level. You could have an entire army in a month. Which bring us to solution 2.

2.- You can find someone to help you for free. Honestly, if you were in my gaming group and you say..."I can't paint because I have visual impairment", the crew would manage an afternoon to help you paint said two base coats and a shade, given you are a basic pleasant fellow and not a complete TFG. The guy that actually introduced me to this hobby, both painting and gaming, lost vision in one eye and lost depth perception. Guess what, he hasn't painted a mini since then, he got them all painted by someone else since then.

3.- So you somehow have hundreds or more dollars/euros to blow on new units and an army but not on painting them. (Really? this hobby isn't cheap and the only gatekeep is money, find some and you have your minis painted, by commission) Get a patreon, or a fundme, or something like that "I'm a visually impaired dude that buys minis but somehow I'm too cheap to pay someone to paint them, help me out". Playing that card can net you the couple hundred you need to paint your minis. Done, there you go, you have a painted army.

3.- If you cannot actually work any of the previous 3, get a new hobby, maybe one that comes with prepainted minis. Really, I know people that have like 5 different greytide armies with tons of models. If instead of buying the entire GW catalog they would spend SOME of that money towards having a decent army at least, then they wouldn't have to suffer that basic -10VP penalty in close games.

Not even visual impairment is an excuse in this hobby really. If you can't paint and you decided to blow your money in a box of new figurines to chase some meta instead of bringing what you already own to standard playing level, then the joke's on you and I get those 10VP, yes.

PS But yeah, in a casual game, if you are missing some minis or units you haven't painted, it's ok, we are friends, you'll get into painting those sometime. That's what casual is all about. Formal competitive environment? Said ad nauseam but I think having your minis painted is a requisite in most already. Informal competitive environment? Well yes, I'll take the 10VP unless the guy is nice, is missing a couple of minis, he just purchased a new unit, etc etc etc. But I'm bored of the massive greytide lazy owners already. At least spray your minis and shade them. One hour per unit, there you go.

 Kithail wrote:

Not even visual impairment is an excuse in this hobby really. If you can't paint and you decided to blow your money in a box of new figurines to chase some meta instead of bringing what you already own to standard playing level, then the joke's on you and I get those 10VP, yes.

I have no problem with the rule, but I most definitely have a problem with your attitude.You are being extremely rude and condescending here. I'd say more, but I am afraid the moderation would not appreciate me expressing my opinion candidly.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
GW: Warhammer is for Everyone!
Also GW: Unless you're disabled, then you can sod right off and even if you do try you'll have a disadvantage (was going to make a golfing joke here but decided against it).

15 pages. God damn this has to be the most polarizing topic ever.

I think that we're all adults. My gak isn't all painted. I wouldn't get the 10 points right now. gak the pandemic should help me get painting done, but the kids murdered that. I don't care. If I got to roll dice and did my best and my opponent enjoyed it then that's all I care about in the moment.

If someone is disabled we're capable of just giving them the points.

The hobby is multi-faceted which includes, but is not limited to : strategy, painting, common sense, and humanity.

P.S. many tournaments since forever have had a best overall and a best general. Also I might be hyper competitive, but god damn if I don't appreciate a beautiful army.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
GW: Warhammer is for Everyone!
Also GW: Unless you're disabled, then you can sod right off and even if you do try you'll have a disadvantage (was going to make a golfing joke here but decided against it).

15 pages. God damn this has to be the most polarizing topic ever.

I think that we're all adults. My gak isn't all painted. I wouldn't get the 10 points right now. gak the pandemic should help me get painting done, but the kids murdered that. I don't care. If I got to roll dice and did my best and my opponent enjoyed it then that's all I care about in the moment.

If someone is disabled we're capable of just giving them the points.

The hobby is multi-faceted which includes, but is not limited to : strategy, painting, common sense, and humanity.

P.S. many tournaments since forever have had a best overall and a best general. Also I might be hyper competitive, but god damn if I don't appreciate a beautiful army.

the argument also goes the other way - not having stuff painted doesn't matter, we can give out extra points for finished armies if we want to.


There is a big difference between a house rule between friends and a rule legitimised by GW publishing it in the rulebook. It clearly says what GW considers the right way to play. You're throwing the requirement to find away around penalising someone on the player rather than GW straight up telling everyone not to do it.


Regardless of disability (which is a legitimate concern and is much bigger than just penalising people for incomplete paint jobs), this also affects people for whom time is a luxury, and money as well. It says that only those who have the time to paint models and the physical ability, are able to fully enjoy the game rules without penalty.

VPs are no different to a rule that said 'unpainted armies are at -1 to hit'. They're a component of the game that is used to play and is being withheld based on a very prescriptive determination of how it should be played.


I love fully painted armies. I also want people to feel welcome into the game and enjoy the aspects they like and the freedom to enjoy it the way they wish.



This will do a range of things, but i actually think the worst outcome is this one (apart from being turned off by knowing that not only is there a lot of work in painting, but they are going to be penalised for not doing it):

Players, in their haste not to be penalised in pick up games down the local, rush paint jobs to avoid VP penalties and end up with ugly but legal forces on the table. Lowest bar paint jobs become the norm.



I'd rather play a half painted army that the player didn't rush and enjoyed doing (even if it is't high quality) than a paint job applied under protest and pressure to meet a minimum requirement so their enjoyment of playing isn't affected.






It's this kind of thing that makes me want a separation between casual gaming and tournament gaming completely, While this is understandable and i encourage in a tournament (where you're going in as a competitor and thus should expect prescriptions on how you play baked into the rules), it is not a good look for the casual side of the game, regardless of its intentions.

The main problem here is making it a part of the rules. If it was a side comment about how the game is best enjoyed, fine. If it was a tournament or event pack enforcing it, fine. But this is a core rule. It's hardwired into the game. Can you house rule it? Of course just like you can ignore any rule.

But you shouldn't have to. This has no business being an actual rule in the main rules of the game. That moves it from optional to required by default for all matched play games (and others) and lots of people want to play using the rules as they are with no house rules whatsoever.

You shouldn't have to house rule this gak in the first place because it shouldn't be a rule.

Hey all, if we can dial things back a bit and tone it down, that'd be wonderful. There's some pretty absurd hyperbole going on here all-round. This thread is generating entirely too many reports, we're talking about a painting score in a social tabletop game, not a point of criminal law.

My criminal law discussions were more civil than this.

 Hellebore wrote:

There is a big difference between a house rule between friends and a rule legitimised by GW publishing it in the rulebook.

People have been house ruling since time immemorial. No one is going to screw over a disabled person. We're all rational and capable of understanding the issues they face.

Frankly, there's vastly more people who are just lazy. Including me.

I also want people to feel welcome into the game and enjoy the aspects they like and the freedom to enjoy it the way they wish.

I'm in absolute agreement.

Players, in their haste not to be penalised in pick up games down the local, rush paint jobs to avoid VP penalties and end up with ugly but legal forces on the table. Lowest bar paint jobs become the norm.

I feel like this is really just an exaggeration. Never have I ever cared what happens outside a tournament and I've not seen anyone else act in that manner. Maybe I'm just lucky? Who cares if I won, but you "actually" won, because you were painted in a casual game. That just isn't a thing that would happen in my 25+ years of gaming.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Hellebore wrote:

There is a big difference between a house rule between friends and a rule legitimised by GW publishing it in the rulebook.

People have been house ruling since time immemorial. No one is going to screw over a disabled person. We're all rational and capable of understanding the issues they face.

Frankly, there's vastly more people who are just lazy. Including me.

I also want people to feel welcome into the game and enjoy the aspects they like and the freedom to enjoy it the way they wish.

I'm in absolute agreement.

Players, in their haste not to be penalised in pick up games down the local, rush paint jobs to avoid VP penalties and end up with ugly but legal forces on the table. Lowest bar paint jobs become the norm.

I feel like this is really just an exaggeration. Never have I ever cared what happens outside a tournament and I've not seen anyone else act in that manner. Maybe I'm just lucky? Who cares if I won, but you "actually" won, because you were painted in a casual game. That just isn't a thing that would happen in my 25+ years of gaming.

It's not local pugs that'll cause this particular issue, it's local events.

Ice_can wrote:

. . .
Your trying to find a case where it has a meaningful possitive impact on the game and there aimply won't be one.
. . .

I think it will result in more painted models on tables, and I think that is a positive thing.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

Ice_can wrote:

That it makes people feel excluded from a hobby they are working hard to take part in, or they have to walk around with a sign saying sorry I can't paint my army better, Not good.

This is maybe the best argument I've read so far. But why is that different than getting blown away by a power list?

Like I've DEFINITELY seen players with lovingly painted armies get blasted off the table by grey plastic netlists. This is a rule that slightly rewards the hobbyist, but certainly wont save them from the power list.

I could rewrite your sentence about the described situation:
". . .it makes people feel excluded from a hobby they are working hard to take part in, or they have to walk around with a sign saying sorry I can't financially support a more competitive army."

You know what stops armies from getting blasted off the table? Better rules writing.

No it won't. Some people will always put more time and energy into winning than others. It is inevitable that some players are just going to lose, hard. People can lose chess in spectacular fashion.

No. I don't like to play against unpainted armies, period. It doesn't matter to me whether I get 10 extra points that are denied to my opponent; I still won't enjoy the game, so this rule has more or less zero impact on how I will play and enjoy the game.

I think my own stance has somewhat changed.

Did this need to be written as a rule that gave VPs? Perhaps not. But, should painting be encouraged? Yes, absolutely, to the same extent that building your models is encouraged.
Having this rule be part of the "tournament" ruleset would be better too, although, as many people have said, tourneys already impose their own painting rules.

Does it need a VP bonus? Maybe not. Should painting be encouraged and emphasised, and not just a "it's got nothing to do with the game!" - yes.

I'd also like more promotion and encouragement of modifying/customising rules for their own experiences.

I don't know if it needs to be tied to scoring, but I do think that more emphasis needs to be put on actually painting stuff. It might encourage new players to take it slow and not buy more than they can handle, which would be healthier. The next step is pushing more small point games.

What a BS rule. Not going to enforce it myself, but if other players in the game insist, I'll take -10VP then.

For me, painting my (new) minis takes time. I will not be rushing my painting and risking ruining the models just to get those 10VP.

Day by day it is starting to sound more like that idea I had about having two separate "armies", one for playing and one for painting/modelling, might ultimately be worth pursuing.. I can just buy some easy to build monopose gak, gobble it with thick blobs of paint, and claim that 10VP.. and leave my lovingly kitbashed "proper" models out of the tabletop until M22.765 when I estimate their painting to finally come to completion.

Painting is all well and good. Tying it to your chance of victory makes it another point of contention in an already contentious game. Easy to pull out or modify, also easy to feel unwelcome in a FLGS because someone wants to play by a perfectly legal, clearly-stated rule.

Armies are a commitment. I played a bunch of early games with unpainted Necrons, because I wanted to actually play and get some games in. I slowly paint, and I slowly add more units. To me, you either require it (as many tournaments do), or you don't. Maybe you even throw in a free CP as a nice bonus.

But to tie the paintedness of your army directly to your odds of winning is... weird. Yes, you disadvantage people who are running around buying the latest hotness. You also disadvantage the people who just haven't had the time but still want to participate.

I don't like it because it's a rule that will never feel fun. Whenever it gets applied, someone is going to be disappointed - and maybe that drives them to actually get their army painted, or maybe it just drives them out.