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.

 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?

If they're thinking "strategically", rather than tactically, maybe paint your models, given that if they only play Matched Play games, it appears that the strategic imperative would be to secure 10% of the possible VP in all their games moving forwards...

Play to 100% of your objectives, not 90%

 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.

No, what we seem to have is a vocal minority trying to insist that their point of view is the correct one. Again.

 Mr.Omega wrote:
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.

The people who see it as a penalty are ignoring the wording that explicitly makes it a bonus, not a penalty.

 AngryAngel80 wrote:
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

The rule is hardly a personal dig. If it said in the same section "Should your opponent be Matt Ward, he suffers a 50VP penalty at the end of the game for crimes against the setting", that would be a personal dig...

 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).

And yet, despite this statement, we can take it as read that you'll be enforcing this bonus should you play Matched Play games during 9th?

 Crimson wrote:

 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.

+1

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
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.

Encouraging paitning without a rules hook is what GW has been doing since I started playing back in 2nd edition - why do you think you only tend to see unpainted models in their publications in the context of either an assembly/conversion guide, or at the start of a painting guide?

The problem with such implicit encouragement is that a segment of the customer base ignores it, at this has led to the dreaded Grey Tide armies, which aren't how GW envisions the game being played. So now they've added a rules hook to it, potentially to see if the 10VP bonus is enough to turn some of the Grey Tide into proper armies...

Will it work? I don't know, but I'm interested to see whether the Grey Tide has receded by the end of the edition.

For the most part I've seen some pretty reasonable responses.

I've also seen some minds changed however little or large from the long talk. That is actually really inspiring to hear. It means the talk wasn't all for nothing and some people took in the points, weighed them and thought on it.

You know Dakka, I'm going to say this right here, thank you. Some faith in people has been restored that we can fight tooth and nail but actually listen to each other, change some minds and even agree. That while painting should be something we endorse and aim for, it should be a good thing and not something that would divide us but enrich us and our games together.

Thank you again fellow Dakkaheads. At even this long point in this contentious topic, I'm glad to see some of us do have more that unites us in the game than will ultimately divide us. Even if it took a hard day or two of jawing at each other, with our fingers to get there.

Actually a little proud of us tonight or this morning, depending on where all we are sitting right now.

Archebius wrote:

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

This is the core point for me. Either it makes no difference whatsoever, or somebody wins despite getting outplayed and the other player loses despite playing better. that's definitely not the kinda game i'm looking to play, and not why im in the hobby. thankfully the majority of my group seem to think its a silly rule.

 Red Corsair wrote:
.

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.

Your example is wrong. Both kids mowed the lawn, one did it in up and down lines, the other in checkerboard. You took $5 from the first kid and gave it to the 2nd because it matched your aesthetic more, yet the goal here is shortening the grass.

Sure GW is a hobby company, who sell paints, but they also sell flocking and terrain. Without being too hyperbolic is 10th ed going to award extra hobby based VP for basing your models, using undercoat, contrast, layer and washes? Using only company approved glue, clippers and brushes?

Mostly GW is a table top game system company. Without that core no one would buy their models even. Forcing other aspects of their company into the tabletop is not kosher.

It's like the company I work for insists the guys doing the core business aren't the income generators, but HO is. During shutdown we haven't been able to provide our core business and cash flow has dried up, where's HOs income generation? . Your company can have many aspects but your core is your core.

This rule won't affect how the game is played. So what's the point in making it a rule? Because gatekeeping. If meeting Battle Ready is so easy it won't stop meta chasers and if Grey Tides didn't care before I doubt they will now anyway.

Kayback wrote:

Mostly GW is a table top game system company. Without that core no one would buy their models even. Forcing other aspects of their company into the tabletop is not kosher.

were to you get that from

GW is now trying for years to be the "Hobby" Company, and "the GW Hobby" is collecting, painting, and playing GW stuff

GW never saw themself or advertised themself as a "tabletop game company", the game was never the important part and I guess you were not there were only painted miniatures were allowed to be used in a GW store to Play

this is nothing new, they just enforce it in a different way now

 kodos wrote:

Kayback wrote:

Mostly GW is a table top game system company. Without that core no one would buy their models even. Forcing other aspects of their company into the tabletop is not kosher.

were to you get that from

GW is now trying for years to be the "Hobby" Company, and "the GW Hobby" is collecting, painting, and playing GW stuff

GW never saw themself or advertised themself as a "tabletop game company", the game was never the important part

No a certain CEO decieded they weren't and then wondered why people slowly spent less and less and fewer and fewer people remained in the hobby as he ran the compnay into the ground for his own ego.

We're a model company rules dont matter=WFB died, 40k became a joke, someone's hobby project 30k actually became the company's lifeline.

I just realized that none of my models are battle-ready, can you guess why?



I guess I'll just lose 10 point every game and start fielding grey models again.

I think it’s a silly rule, and the only time it will be a concern is at organized events with *PRIZING*.

I say that, because my sense of winning or losing a game is internal. Did I accomplish my goals in the game? Did I do that better than my opponent? I won the game.

You want ten more points for a painted army? Good for you. Have 20. Have 100. Have 54321 points just for showing up. You score one-jillion points.

But I scored more points in the game, and that’s what matters to me. So claim your one-jillion point victory to whomever you wish. I’ll just point out I scored more points in the game.

And that’s why it’s a silly rule. Because the rule could say “if your army isn’t painted, your win doesn’t count” and I would still have won the game. It could say “if your army isn’t painted you’re a stinky doo-doo head” and it would have the same impact on who scored more points in the game.

If prizes are on the line, you make your wager with your entry fee and you live and die by the sword. Otherwise, who cares? Stinky doo-doo head!

 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).

If you play a disabled opponent you can make reasonable adjustments if you’re a decent human, including such things as waiving the painted requirement and granting them the VPs. Damn, solved it without needing any salt, would you look at that.

Well my mind has been changed by an internet forum


I now think this should not be a rule.

 JohnnyHell 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).

If you play a disabled opponent you can make reasonable adjustments if you’re a decent human, including such things as waiving the painted requirement and granting them the VPs. Damn, solved it without needing any salt, would you look at that.

The point is it's far less problematic to make the adjustment from the other perspective and thus the argument is pointless.

Why didn't you just offer +10vp to people out of the kindness of your heart when it wasn't a rule? Because obviously it matters more than people will admit.

Choosing to graciously offer that bonus to an opponent because of their effort is a very different proposition than choosing NOT to punish someone for not putting in the legislated effort.

One is magnanimous and the other is a dodgy power imbalance.

 Jidmah wrote:
I just realized that none of my models are battle-ready, can you guess why?

Spoiler:

I guess I'll just lose 10 point every game and start fielding grey models again.

Aahhh yes, the infamous black bases, welcome friend, to the club that get's shafted because we don't want to base
(or can't really. or don't want to because snow base looks wierd on desert table or green table for that matter...)

Not Online!!! wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
I just realized that none of my models are battle-ready, can you guess why?

Spoiler:

I guess I'll just lose 10 point every game and start fielding grey models again.

Aahhh yes, the infamous black bases, welcome friend, to the club that get's shafted because we don't want to base
(or can't really. or don't want to because snow base looks wierd on desert table or green table for that matter...)

I actually like black bases

Heck, those death guard are on bases that were primed white and then painted black again.

Kayback wrote:

 Red Corsair wrote:
.

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.

Your example is wrong. Both kids mowed the lawn, one did it in up and down lines, the other in checkerboard. You took $5 from the first kid and gave it to the 2nd because it matched your aesthetic more, yet the goal here is shortening the grass.

No, the example was spot on.

If neither child does any chores (doesn't paint their army), then they each get the same basic standards, but nothing extra (access to the base 90VP).

If, as indicated above, only one child does their chores (paints their army to this Battle Ready standard), then that child gets the $10 (10VP) bonus, while the one who doesn't, does not.

If both children do their chores (paint their armies), they both get the $10 (10VP).

In neither instance has anything been taken from child B to give to child A. A pot of $20 was available to the two of them, if they did tasks to earn it. No matter how you spin it, at no point are we taking money/VP from B to give to A.

 Dysartes wrote:

Kayback wrote:

 Red Corsair wrote:
.

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.

Your example is wrong. Both kids mowed the lawn, one did it in up and down lines, the other in checkerboard. You took $5 from the first kid and gave it to the 2nd because it matched your aesthetic more, yet the goal here is shortening the grass.

No, the example was spot on.

If neither child does any chores (doesn't paint their army), then they each get the same basic standards, but nothing extra (access to the base 90VP).

If, as indicated above, only one child does their chores (paints their army to this Battle Ready standard), then that child gets the $10 (10VP) bonus, while the one who doesn't, does not.

If both children do their chores (paint their armies), they both get the $10 (10VP).

In neither instance has anything been taken from child B to give to child A. A pot of $20 was available to the two of them, if they did tasks to earn it. No matter how you spin it, at no point are we taking money/VP from B to give to A.

Except both mowed the lawn, but one did it with a painted lawnmower
Oh and I fully agree with the assessment that painting is a chore, not a fun part of the hobby.

 Jidmah wrote:

 Dysartes wrote:

Kayback wrote:

 Red Corsair wrote:
.

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.

Your example is wrong. Both kids mowed the lawn, one did it in up and down lines, the other in checkerboard. You took $5 from the first kid and gave it to the 2nd because it matched your aesthetic more, yet the goal here is shortening the grass.

No, the example was spot on.

If neither child does any chores (doesn't paint their army), then they each get the same basic standards, but nothing extra (access to the base 90VP).

If, as indicated above, only one child does their chores (paints their army to this Battle Ready standard), then that child gets the $10 (10VP) bonus, while the one who doesn't, does not.

If both children do their chores (paint their armies), they both get the $10 (10VP).

In neither instance has anything been taken from child B to give to child A. A pot of $20 was available to the two of them, if they did tasks to earn it. No matter how you spin it, at no point are we taking money/VP from B to give to A.

Except both mowed the lawn, but one did it with a painted lawnmower
Oh and I fully agree with the assessment that painting is a chore, not a fun part of the hobby.

*points at Red Corsair's example*

No, only one kid mowed the lawn. Mowing the lawn was an additional step to earn an additional reward. Like painting your army to earn a 10VP bonus in every Matched Play game for an edition.

Living in the house is the baseline - shelter, food, clothes, etc would be the base 90VP.

 JohnnyHell 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).

If you play a disabled opponent you can make reasonable adjustments if you’re a decent human, including such things as waiving the painted requirement and granting them the VPs. Damn, solved it without needing any salt, would you look at that.

It’s also making the assumption there are no other routes to a painted army.

Me? I pay my excellent painter friend to do Nice Thing Models, such as Ltd Eds. And since the advent of Contrast, I’ve found a method which suits my limited tolerance for spending time painting. Managed 20 Ossiarchs in a day....

For a disabled person? I’m sure friends and/or family would be happy to assist them in painting their army. This is after all a highly social hobby.

 Jidmah wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
I just realized that none of my models are battle-ready, can you guess why?

Spoiler:

I guess I'll just lose 10 point every game and start fielding grey models again.

Aahhh yes, the infamous black bases, welcome friend, to the club that get's shafted because we don't want to base
(or can't really. or don't want to because snow base looks wierd on desert table or green table for that matter...)

I actually like black bases

Heck, those death guard are on bases that were primed white and then painted black again.

i know, i did the same for my whole R&H army, specifically because it is a base type that fits on every table, and also because i notoriously often destroy minis via basing process.

 jhnbrg wrote:
I find it amusing that so many are against painting their minis but nobody cares about the pay to win part of the game.

I never field unpainted miniatures and find it annoying playing against unpainted or proxy armies.

Miniature games are about the visual impact after all, if you cant be bothered to paint there are lots of other games instead.

Nothing against painting and i paint a lot. About 9k-10k painted orks, 3.5k painted sisters etc.

Problem with being core rule as core rule that is ignore a lot is silly rule. Also would be nice to have for once unified rules rather than various house rules.

Also makes balance reports harder. How many wins are due to painted army bonus?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Eihnlazer wrote:
So seriously, whats different about this rule than any of the major tournaments saying you have to have a painted army to even attend?

Paint your mini's guys, or get someone else to paint them.

One is core rule.

Other is supplemantory rule.

One doesn't affect win rate of army thus being neutral for factoring in game balance. Other affects winrate

 Eldarsif wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

The thread probably move on a bit, but I did thought I would respond to this.
This is a TFG rule, a good group doesn’t really need it, they will discuss and help players get though why they may not paint. My own group is more passive, but everyone is encouraged to paint. And we do painting prizes and painting completions.
A bad group will just have it as a passive aggressive push to paint things, and it has even come up here I this thread that they can just paint it with a spray can, a wash and some dry brushing. Not so they feel good about there army, but to satisfy the rule and there thoughts on what effort they should put in.
It ignores the why, and does not even try to fix the issues people may have, and effects the game play negatively.

I have rushed an army to have it painted before, when I could do a all weekend paint. The army end up being the one I hated the most, I didn’t enjoy playing it as much and when GW change it forcing me to paint new things. I just shelved it with little to no attachment.

 Jidmah wrote:

 Dysartes wrote:

Kayback wrote:

 Red Corsair wrote:
.

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.

Your example is wrong. Both kids mowed the lawn, one did it in up and down lines, the other in checkerboard. You took $5 from the first kid and gave it to the 2nd because it matched your aesthetic more, yet the goal here is shortening the grass.

No, the example was spot on.

If neither child does any chores (doesn't paint their army), then they each get the same basic standards, but nothing extra (access to the base 90VP).

If, as indicated above, only one child does their chores (paints their army to this Battle Ready standard), then that child gets the $10 (10VP) bonus, while the one who doesn't, does not.

If both children do their chores (paint their armies), they both get the $10 (10VP).

In neither instance has anything been taken from child B to give to child A. A pot of $20 was available to the two of them, if they did tasks to earn it. No matter how you spin it, at no point are we taking money/VP from B to give to A.

Except both mowed the lawn, but one did it with a painted lawnmower
Oh and I fully agree with the assessment that painting is a chore, not a fun part of the hobby.

I enjoy painting, its a good way to wind down. On the other hand i think its a chore keeping up with all the new rules coming out at a fast pace.

The thing is that i am forced to learn them to have a decent game for me and my opponent.

Not Online!!! wrote:

Spoiler:

 Jidmah wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
I just realized that none of my models are battle-ready, can you guess why?




I guess I'll just lose 10 point every game and start fielding grey models again.

Aahhh yes, the infamous black bases, welcome friend, to the club that get's shafted because we don't want to base
(or can't really. or don't want to because snow base looks wierd on desert table or green table for that matter...)

I actually like black bases

Heck, those death guard are on bases that were primed white and then painted black again.

i know, i did the same for my whole R&H army, specifically because it is a base type that fits on every table, and also because i notoriously often destroy minis via basing process.

OK, now i'm morbidly curious - how do you destroy models by basing them?

 Dysartes wrote:

Kayback wrote:

 Red Corsair wrote:
.

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.

Your example is wrong. Both kids mowed the lawn, one did it in up and down lines, the other in checkerboard. You took $5 from the first kid and gave it to the 2nd because it matched your aesthetic more, yet the goal here is shortening the grass.

No, the example was spot on.

.

Nope. Both children are cutting the grass, IE playing the Tabletop game. Youre giving extra money/VP to the one with racing stripes on his lawnmower.

If you're not cutting the grass you aren't playing. Both showed up, both tabled an army, both threw the dice.

Giving one +10 is no different than - 5/+5. The result is the same. For the same effort *in the moment* you're penalizing one and rewarding the other for something not directly related to the game there and then.

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.

Likewise. Everyone has a distinctive painting style. Why on earth would you have a mix of styles? In the nicest possible way I want nobody but me painting my minis and I don’t want to paint anyone else’s for the same reason.

I find black bases... very weird.

People often accuse me of being lazy on basing - but its really not hard to paint a base a certain colour, then cover it with one of GW's textures. Done. Then if you *really* want shade/dry brush it. (Hey, at least its not goblin green.)

Going the full hog with stones, flock bushes, sand etc can make a model look better, but I'm not that bothered about it.

Kayback wrote:

 Dysartes wrote:

Kayback wrote:

 Red Corsair wrote:
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.

Your example is wrong. Both kids mowed the lawn, one did it in up and down lines, the other in checkerboard. You took $5 from the first kid and gave it to the 2nd because it matched your aesthetic more, yet the goal here is shortening the grass.

No, the example was spot on..

Nope. Both children are cutting the grass, IE playing the Tabletop game. Youre giving extra money/VP to the one with racing stripes on his lawnmower.

If you're not cutting the grass you aren't playing. Both showed up, both tabled an army, both threw the dice.

Giving one +10 is no different than - 5/+5. The result is the same. For the same effort *in the moment* you're penalizing one and rewarding the other for something not directly related to the game there and then.

Another example: You have two kids. One is a perfectly healthy child. The other, obviously though no fault of their own, suffers from cerebral palsy which makes controlling the lawn-mower difficult. The healthy child mows the lawn neatly in a spiral pattern, the child with cerebral palsy mows the lawn just as well but does it in not in such a neat pattern. The parent then docks the disabled child's pay for not mowing the lawn "correctly".

For all GW's bluster about how "Warhammer is for everyone", they seem content with putting in a literally discriminatory rule in their game.

 jhnbrg wrote:
I enjoy painting, its a good way to wind down. On the other hand i think its a chore keeping up with all the new rules coming out at a fast pace.

The thing is that i am forced to learn them to have a decent game for me and my opponent.

Now imagine only being allowed to paint 90% of your miniature because you don't like gaming

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Another example: You have two kids. One is a perfectly healthy child. The other, obviously though no fault of their own, suffers from cerebral palsy which makes controlling the lawn-mower difficult. The healthy child mows the lawn neatly in a spiral pattern, the child with cerebral palsy mows the lawn just as well but does it in not in such a neat pattern. The parent then docks the disabled child's pay for not mowing the lawn "correctly".

For all GW's bluster about how "Warhammer is for everyone", they seem content with putting in a literally discriminatory rule in their game.

Which is why you're going to backtrack on years of, "I adhere to the rules precisely as they are defined, because we don't get to pick and choose which rules we play by"? Good on you for finally seeing the light Bacon.

 Ginjitzu wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Another example: You have two kids. One is a perfectly healthy child. The other, obviously though no fault of their own, suffers from cerebral palsy which makes controlling the lawn-mower difficult. The healthy child mows the lawn neatly in a spiral pattern, the child with cerebral palsy mows the lawn just as well but does it in not in such a neat pattern. The parent then docks the disabled child's pay for not mowing the lawn "correctly".

For all GW's bluster about how "Warhammer is for everyone", they seem content with putting in a literally discriminatory rule in their game.

Which is why you're going to backtrack on years of, "I adhere to the rules precisely as they are defined, because we don't get to pick and choose which rules we play by"? Good on you for finally seeing the light Bacon.

No, I didn't say that. I am going to follow the rules, and not pick and choose.

I don't AGREE with the rule, I feel it is discriminatory and a bad rule. I will still abide by it, just as I have abided by rules I don't agree with, or rules that are bad, in the past.

That seems to be a fundamental error people make when it comes to my stance. Following a rule/law doesn't mean you agree with it. I don't agree with a lot of drug laws, for example. That doesn't mean I deal drugs.

Tyel wrote:
I find black bases... very weird.

People often accuse me of being lazy on basing - but its really not hard to paint a base a certain colour, then cover it with one of GW's textures. Done. Then if you *really* want shade/dry brush it. (Hey, at least its not goblin green.)

Going the full hog with stones, flock bushes, sand etc can make a model look better, but I'm not that bothered about it.

I have multiple pots of Armageddon Dust from the conquest magazine and it's literally easier to cover a base in that stuff than painting white base black again.

Yet, GW still decided that my DG models are the same as grey unpainted minis because I didn't paint my miniatures the way they want.

Well, jokes on them, I can now just not paint anything ever again and suffer no consequences whatsoever.