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.
2020/07/03 10:24:36
Subject: Will you use the '+10 VPs if your whole army is painted' 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.
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.
Honestly, your example adds nothing. You’re trying to find axes to grind. You’ve never fought for disabled rights before trying to use this to soapbox from so it’s just plain disingenuous.
This rule is only a sticking point if you lack the empathy to make reasonable adjustments for a disabled opponent. It’s a non-problem unless you insist on being a douche and enforcing all Matched Play Rules to the letter instead of being a good human. That’s all there is to it.
Stormonu wrote: For me, the joy is in putting some good-looking models on the board and playing out a fantasy battle - not arguing over the poorly-made rules of some 3rd party who neither has any power over my play nor will be visiting me (and my opponent) to ensure we are "playing by the rules"
2020/07/03 10:28:35
Subject: Will you use the '+10 VPs if your whole army is painted' rule?
Dakka does have White Knights and is also rather infamous for it's Black Knights. A new edition brings out the passionate and not all of them are good at expressing themselves in written form. There have been plenty of hysterical responses from both sides so far. So we descend into pointless bickering with neither side listening to each other. So posting here becomes more masturbation than conversation.
ERJAK wrote: Forcing a 40k player to keep playing 7th is basically a hate crime.
2020/07/03 10:30:44
Subject: Will you use the '+10 VPs if your whole army is painted' rule?
JohnnyHell wrote: Honestly, your example adds nothing. You’re trying to find axes to grind. You’ve never fought for disabled rights before trying to use this to soapbox from so it’s just plain disingenuous.
This rule is only a sticking point if you lack the empathy to make reasonable adjustments for a disabled opponent. It’s a non-problem unless you insist on being a douche and enforcing all Matched Play Rules to the letter instead of being a good human. That’s all there is to it.
Because it's never been an issue with the rules before. You don't know my life, my health, or my previous activities, experiences, or advocacy in the real world.
I've never seen you fight for, idk, First People's rights on this forum before. Does that mean you're against First People's rights? No, of course not, but that is the logic you're positing here. I know you have a personal vendetta with me, but you should keep it to PMs if you want and don't spew nonsense and try to derail threads.
The point is the rules shouldn't require you to "make reasonable adjustments for a disabled opponent", the rules shouldn't discriminate against them in the first place.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2020/07/03 10:34:29
2020/07/03 10:30:55
Subject: Will you use the '+10 VPs if your whole army is painted' rule?
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.
I'm sure the kid with palsey takes great comfort in your "dem's da rulez" *shrug* stance.
2020/07/03 10:31:23
Subject: Re:Will you use the '+10 VPs if your whole army is painted' rule?
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.
Well yes, if someone tries to pull off that rule from those models, that'd be a TFG manouver. There is effort clearly put on those models.
I don't see how people start pulling exceptions to discard the rule. Exceptions are exactly that, exceptions. You paint yet you don't base your models. Maybe you like or prefer black bases. Guess what, this rule is not and should not be about you, and trying to apply it to you is a dick move. The one in a thousand case of a disabled person unable to paint (there are alternative solutions to this issue but well I will not dwelve into it further) then well, we do an exception around you, of course. I for one would not apply this rule on a disabled person, (yet I would vocally offer the solutions I previously stated). I have seen an epidemic of greytide armies lately, and I mean armies in plural as in several belonging to the same person. People that play and I am not sure they even own a brush. As I said, there's a growing market for people who paint for profit, to different levels of expertise. Put apart some of your hobby money to pay for paint instead of buying yet more miniatures. If you own a large greytide, or several, in some cases including Forgeworld models, clearly money is not an issue to you. That, or keep it in your garage to play with your friends, noone is going to chase you down.
2020/07/03 10:34:04
Subject: Will you use the '+10 VPs if your whole army is painted' rule?
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.
I'm sure the kid with palsey takes great comfort in your "dem's da rulez" *shrug* stance.
Except my stance isn't "dem's da rulez" *shrug* , it's "Sadly, those are what the rules say, I don't agree with them, but I don't make the rules."
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/07/03 10:34:08
2020/07/03 10:35:44
Subject: Re:Will you use the '+10 VPs if your whole army is painted' rule?
Kithail wrote: Well yes, if someone tries to pull off that rule from those models, that'd be a TFG manouver. There is effort clearly put on those models.
I don't see how people start pulling exceptions to discard the rule. Exceptions are exactly that, exceptions. You paint yet you don't base your models. Maybe you like or prefer black bases. Guess what, this rule is not and should not be about you, and trying to apply it to you is a dick move.
The thing is that there actually has been an issue with a TO that told me that he wouldn't allow my army because it was not based. I have no problem with skipping a single event with an organizer like that, but having something so subjective hard-coded into every mission is just dumb.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Galas wrote: Please guys. I would sincerely ask to stop using disabled people like some kind of cheap argumentative missile to gain internet points.
I hate painting as one could have but is just disgusting to use that "shield" to put yourself back with your opinion.
This.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2020/07/03 10:49:40
7 Ork facts people always get wrong: Ragnar did not win against Thrakka, but suffered two crushing defeats within a few days of each other. A lasgun is powerful enough to sever an ork's appendage or head in a single, well aimed shot. Orks meks have a better understanding of electrics and mechanics than most Tech Priests. Orks actually do not think that purple makes them harder to see. The joke was made canon by Alex Stewart's Caphias Cain books. Gharkull Blackfang did not even come close to killing the emperor. Orks can be corrupted by chaos, but few of them have any interest in what chaos offers. Orks do not have the power of believe.
2020/07/03 10:55:54
Subject: Will you use the '+10 VPs if your whole army is painted' rule?
Kithail wrote: Well yes, if someone tries to pull off that rule from those models, that'd be a TFG manouver. There is effort clearly put on those models.
I don't see how people start pulling exceptions to discard the rule. Exceptions are exactly that, exceptions. You paint yet you don't base your models. Maybe you like or prefer black bases. Guess what, this rule is not and should not be about you, and trying to apply it to you is a dick move.
The thing is that there actually has been an issue with a TO that told me that he wouldn't allow my army because it was not based. I have no problem with skipping a single event with an organizer like that, but having something so subjective hard-coded into every mission is just dumb.
I ran into a similar situation with an opponent who claimed my vanguard veterans weren't WYSIWYG because I used assault marines (of all things!) legs and torsos to kitbash them. They have Forgeworld raven guard heads and pauldrons and some of them have combat shields that I bought as bits instead of tower shields mostly because I prefer the pentagon aesthetic of the former over the "ironcross" shape of the latter .But I got backed by most people present, though. Everyone has run into people like that from time to time. I got the rule is a general sideline trying to get people to paint at least a bit. Hell lately I am satisfied with playing against PRIMED models at least.
2020/07/03 11:57:35
Subject: Will you use the '+10 VPs if your whole army is painted' rule?
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.
No, in the stated example the starting position - i.e., playing the game - is living in the house. In the context of the example, mowing the lawn was an additional optional task with a specified bonus - equivalent, very clearly, to painting your army being an additional optional task which gives you a bonus.
It's also not a situation where A is denying B anything. Had B completed their additional optional task, they too would be rewarded equally.
You keep trying to reframe the task as the game, when it isn't. The base position is the game, the extra element is the bonus.
Kayback wrote: 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.
Assuming you have legal access to two children, test your statement above. I assure you, the reaction to one being given ten and the other nothing will be poor, but will still be more positive than taking five from one to give to the other.
And the result is not the same - assuming both sides score the maximum, we go from a 100 vs. 90 score to a 95 vs. 85 score - and, as a result, the pool grows to 190VP in scenario A, while staying at 180 for scenario B.
At no point in these rules are we taking anything from player B. Any of the 90VP they earn, they keep.
If they choose not to paint their army, they're just missing out on a bonus. For all you "strategists" out there, the right thing to do would be to get painting, rather than keep complaining on here. Securing 10VP per game for a whole edition would be the strategic thing to do, no?
Gamgee on Tau Players wrote:we all kill cats and sell our own families to the devil and eat live puppies.
Kanluwen wrote: This is, emphatically, why I will continue suggesting nuking Guard and starting over again. It's a legacy army that needs to be rebooted with a new focal point.
Confirmation of why no-one should listen to Kanluwen when it comes to the IG - he doesn't want the IG, he want's Kan's New Model Army...
tneva82 wrote: You aren't even trying ty pretend for honest arqument. Open bad faith trolling.
- No reason to keep this here, unless people want to use it for something...
2020/07/03 12:12:47
Subject: Re:Will you use the '+10 VPs if your whole army is painted' rule?
Well yes, if someone tries to pull off that rule from those models, that'd be a TFG manouver. There is effort clearly put on those models.
Why it is a TFG manoeuvre? It's literally the rule. You can't praise the rule in one instant and then go on to criticise people for having the gall to actually follow it.
And if you think black bases shouldn't make a model count as unpainted, how about filing that complaint to GW? You know, since it's their rules that specify bases need to be painted in order for any model to count as painted.
blood reaper wrote: I will respect human rights and trans people but I will never under any circumstances use the phrase 'folks' or 'ya'll'. I would rather be killed by firing squad.
the_scotsman wrote: Yeah, when i read the small novel that is the Death Guard unit options and think about resolving the attacks from a melee-oriented min size death guard squad, the thing that springs to mind is "Accessible!"
Argive wrote: GW seems to have a crystal ball and just pulls hairbrained ideas out of their backside for the most part.
You're not. If you're worried about your opponent using 'fake' rules, you're having fun the wrong way. This hobby isn't about rules. It's about buying Citadel miniatures.
Please report to your nearest GW store for attitude readjustment. Take your wallet.
2020/07/03 12:16:58
Subject: Re:Will you use the '+10 VPs if your whole army is painted' rule?
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?
Recipe for such a desaster:
- shortisghtedness and glasses not put on because glasses get annoying.
- Bad luck.
- used glue, blocked.
- sand.
- a cat.
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.
2020/07/03 12:39:45
Subject: Re:Will you use the '+10 VPs if your whole army is painted' rule?
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?
Recipe for such a desaster:
- shortisghtedness and glasses not put on because glasses get annoying.
- Bad luck.
- used glue, blocked.
- sand.
- a cat.
Gluing models to cats is generally a bad idea, true
Gamgee on Tau Players wrote:we all kill cats and sell our own families to the devil and eat live puppies.
Kanluwen wrote: This is, emphatically, why I will continue suggesting nuking Guard and starting over again. It's a legacy army that needs to be rebooted with a new focal point.
Confirmation of why no-one should listen to Kanluwen when it comes to the IG - he doesn't want the IG, he want's Kan's New Model Army...
tneva82 wrote: You aren't even trying ty pretend for honest arqument. Open bad faith trolling.
- No reason to keep this here, unless people want to use it for something...
2020/07/03 12:50:15
Subject: Will you use the '+10 VPs if your whole army is painted' rule?
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.
I'm sure the kid with palsey takes great comfort in your "dem's da rulez" *shrug* stance.
Except my stance isn't "dem's da rulez" *shrug* , it's "Sadly, those are what the rules say, I don't agree with them, but I don't make the rules."
Just stop already. Being dogmatic doesn’t make sense here. If you can employ empathy to assist a fellow human, do. If your strict adherence to 40K rules takes priority then I’m sorry to tell you the rules aren’t the issue. Just drop this very tacky tack.
Stormonu wrote: For me, the joy is in putting some good-looking models on the board and playing out a fantasy battle - not arguing over the poorly-made rules of some 3rd party who neither has any power over my play nor will be visiting me (and my opponent) to ensure we are "playing by the rules"
2020/07/03 12:59:26
Subject: Re:Will you use the '+10 VPs if your whole army is painted' rule?
Well yes, if someone tries to pull off that rule from those models, that'd be a TFG manouver. There is effort clearly put on those models.
Why it is a TFG manoeuvre? It's literally the rule. You can't praise the rule in one instant and then go on to criticise people for having the gall to actually follow it.
So much this, like I said earlier the rule is just fostering a weird strain of elitism. Reject the rule outright? Oh you're probably just a WAAC douche, why do you care about who wins or loses anyway? And then another day, you haven't been lenient / generous enough to let the rule slide for a specific opponent? Well you're just being TFG and people should avoid playing against you.
Rules should not create this kind of dilemma that has to be navigated before each game. Even if most people navigate it smoothly, the fact that it's there waiting to trip someone up is reason enough to be dismayed that it made it into print.
2020/07/03 13:01:27
Subject: Will you use the '+10 VPs if your whole army is painted' rule?
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
Who said i dont like gaming?
I find it hard to keep up with all the new rules. I have played every edition of 40k atleast once (7:th).
There are a lot of barriers in these type of games (money, time, people to play with) and i just cant understand why painting should be excluded.
As for your example, it would be more like 100% but i miss out on the bonus miniatures.
2020/07/03 13:02:09
Subject: Re:Will you use the '+10 VPs if your whole army is painted' rule?
I haven't read through all posts, but would like to give my personal opinion:
While I myself have all my minis painted with painted bases to a standard that would earn these 10 points I'm very reluctant towards that rule. As others said, matching the requirement doesn't necessarily mean "I have really put effort into it" while there are various cases were someone put serious effort into his minis, but would not match the rule (black bases, paint schemes with only two colors [could work on Necrons or Tyranids for example] etc.). Of course any decent human being would differentiate in these cases, but unfortunatly there will be those that come with army primed with two different colored dots on their model insisting of getting those 10 points because their opponent liked black bases more and "ITS DA RULES!!!.
Yes the other guy would know for himself that this was unfair and he "should" not have a 10 points disadvantage, but the feeling would still suck.
Meanwhile I totally get the sentiment that it would be preferable to see fully painted armies face each other and with preferable I mean "nicer to look at" and from GWs point of view "more likely to attract people seeing this game". I'm just... not convinced that granting a flat 10 VP is the way to get there. This critique would be more constructive if I had a well working alternative proposal, but I unfortunatly cannot think of one. Free pretzels for anyone showing up with a fully painted army? A bag of gummibears if he arguably did it the best he could?
~7510 build and painted
1312 build and painted
1200
2020/07/03 13:13:13
Subject: Will you use the '+10 VPs if your whole army is painted' rule?
So many people seem to think this isn't going to be enforced outside of tournaments but I get the feeling we're going to see that rule enforced a lot more than tournaments since it's not a tournament only rule it's baked into the rules themselves.I can see it being enforced every game that uses matched play especially if you have someone with a fully painted army playing someone who may have a unit WIP or whatnot. Even more so if the 10 VPs are significant:
"Good game Bob! So let's see... You have 85 VP and I have 80 but that 5 man squad over there is only primed and base coated. So since my army is fully painted that's 10 VP for me. Guess I win!"
We're going to see a lot of that I suspect given how reluctant many players are to deviate from "official" rules.
- Wayne
Formerly WayneTheGame
0033/09/03 13:23:34
Subject: Will you use the '+10 VPs if your whole army is painted' rule?
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.
I'm sure the kid with palsey takes great comfort in your "dem's da rulez" *shrug* stance.
Except my stance isn't "dem's da rulez" *shrug* , it's "Sadly, those are what the rules say, I don't agree with them, but I don't make the rules."
Just stop already. Being dogmatic doesn’t make sense here. If you can employ empathy to assist a fellow human, do. If your strict adherence to 40K rules takes priority then I’m sorry to tell you the rules aren’t the issue. Just drop this very tacky tack.
Genuine question that i'll preface by saying I'm a chilled person mostly and would always give someone with difficulties a break, but I'm actually struggling to think what kind of limitations someone might have that would prevent them from painting at all (I mean literally at all, not just haphazardly slapping paint on) but still facilitate them carefully picking up and moving minis/rolling dice.
Probably being naive so please educate me.
2020/07/03 13:24:20
Subject: Will you use the '+10 VPs if your whole army is painted' rule?
it's "Sadly, those are what the rules say, I don't agree with them, but I don't make the rules."
But GWs stance has always been that you should house rule to your hearts content as long as your opponent agrees, so why are you so inflexible?
While BCB is an extreme example there are a LOT of people who don't want to house rule things or ask "mother may I" to adjust things in the rules to suit them. The fact you can doesn't mean people will let you, and technically it's not them being TFG for wanting to play the game by the rules in the book instead of change things willy-nilly, even if the rule is stupid.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/07/03 13:25:14
- Wayne
Formerly WayneTheGame
2020/07/03 13:26:37
Subject: Will you use the '+10 VPs if your whole army is painted' rule?
Sure, but there is a difference between not wanting to and taking the position that you couldn't possibly because you didn't write them, even though those that did write them explicitly told you you can house rule
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/07/03 13:26:59
2020/07/03 14:11:40
Subject: Re:Will you use the '+10 VPs if your whole army is painted' rule?
Well yes, if someone tries to pull off that rule from those models, that'd be a TFG manouver. There is effort clearly put on those models.
Why it is a TFG manoeuvre? It's literally the rule. You can't praise the rule in one instant and then go on to criticise people for having the gall to actually follow it.
And if you think black bases shouldn't make a model count as unpainted, how about filing that complaint to GW? You know, since it's their rules that specify bases need to be painted in order for any model to count as painted.
Because any rule, as any law, is open to exceptions and interpretations. Guess what, if your drunk friend slaps you, he committed a crime, but most likely than not you won't report him to the police. If an unknown drunk does that, it's likely you'll press those assault charges.
That's why we have juries and judges. And lawyers. Rules are supposed to be interpreted. And have exceptions. Lawful neutral environments belong to fantasy settings.
2020/07/03 14:13:44
Subject: Will you use the '+10 VPs if your whole army is painted' rule?
BaconCatBug wrote: it's "Sadly, those are what the rules say, I don't agree with them, but I don't make the rules."
But GWs stance has always been that you should house rule to your hearts content as long as your opponent agrees, so why are you so inflexible?
Because House Rules, without exception, boil down to "Buff units I like, Nerf units I don't like."
If I wanted to play a wishy-washy game with no rules I'd play Calvinball or Dungeons and Dragons or just go play pretend with the local community theatre group. When I play a board game, I want to use a set of rules and mechanics in order to achieve a win state and avoid a failure state.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/07/03 14:14:43
2020/07/03 14:15:36
Subject: Will you use the '+10 VPs if your whole army is painted' rule?
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.
I'm sure the kid with palsey takes great comfort in your "dem's da rulez" *shrug* stance.
Except my stance isn't "dem's da rulez" *shrug* , it's "Sadly, those are what the rules say, I don't agree with them, but I don't make the rules."
Just stop already. Being dogmatic doesn’t make sense here. If you can employ empathy to assist a fellow human, do. If your strict adherence to 40K rules takes priority then I’m sorry to tell you the rules aren’t the issue. Just drop this very tacky tack.
Genuine question that i'll preface by saying I'm a chilled person mostly and would always give someone with difficulties a break, but I'm actually struggling to think what kind of limitations someone might have that would prevent them from painting at all (I mean literally at all, not just haphazardly slapping paint on) but still facilitate them carefully picking up and moving minis/rolling dice.
Probably being naive so please educate me.
40k army’s are big, I like many people like a variety so switch around what I like to paint. With assistance I can paint one mini a week(I don’t really have any schedule I can keep), so a new army could be a year worth of painting if I worked only on that army. And only for this one game. For me playing is a big part of what I enjoy, as I don’t really get to exercise my mind much at all. Why painting I can do all the time when it’s best convenient, games themselves are very difficult to get in and take up the same time.
I would also like to point out, I don’t want to really have to bring this up for games. Even with people I know at a club, it’s not fun to try and bargain for a pass on a rule like this. So if it does come up, I would likely just accept it and feel crappy about the hobby as a whole. I won’t paint more warhammer, I will paint infinity or warmachine or frostgrave.
It’s hard to explain, I not sure my English is good enough.
2020/07/03 14:16:01
Subject: Will you use the '+10 VPs if your whole army is painted' rule?
BaconCatBug wrote: it's "Sadly, those are what the rules say, I don't agree with them, but I don't make the rules."
But GWs stance has always been that you should house rule to your hearts content as long as your opponent agrees, so why are you so inflexible?
Because House Rules, without exception, boil down to "Buff units I like, Nerf units I don't like."
Not even getting into that, I've met a ton of people who just don't like to change the rules. They want to be playing "standard" and "official" rules, no matter how dumb they are so it's consistent. That's the issue everyone seems to be missing with this rule. The fact it exists as an OFFICIAL rule from GW, rather than something in a tournament pack, means by default it's going to be there, and you need to "Mother may I" to remove it, which not everyone is okay with just because they don't want to adjust the rules so it's not consistent.
- Wayne
Formerly WayneTheGame
2020/07/03 14:22:42
Subject: Will you use the '+10 VPs if your whole army is painted' rule?
Dudeface wrote: Genuine question that i'll preface by saying I'm a chilled person mostly and would always give someone with difficulties a break, but I'm actually struggling to think what kind of limitations someone might have that would prevent them from painting at all (I mean literally at all, not just haphazardly slapping paint on) but still facilitate them carefully picking up and moving minis/rolling dice.
Probably being naive so please educate me.
Very poor vision? Blindness is not a binary state, you can have varying stages of it. You might be able to see models just fine as they are quite big, compared to the millimetre details on some models.
As for moving models, again, moving models within an inch of each other doesn't really need that fine of motor skill, but painting millimetre sized details on a model does.
2020/07/03 14:23:36
Subject: Re:Will you use the '+10 VPs if your whole army is painted' rule?
Kithail wrote: Because any rule, as any law, is open to exceptions and interpretations.
Show me one in the rulebook and we'll talk.
Kithail wrote: Guess what, if your drunk friend slaps you, he committed a crime, but most likely than not you won't report him to the police. If an unknown drunk does that, it's likely you'll press those assault charges.
I don't even know what point you're trying to make here.
it sounds like "this rule is an excuse for me to be a dick to people I don't like".
Having seen some of your other posts, you don't need a rule for that.
Kithail wrote: That's why we have juries and judges. And lawyers.
What?
Yet you specifically gave an analogy that didn't require or involve any of those.
blood reaper wrote: I will respect human rights and trans people but I will never under any circumstances use the phrase 'folks' or 'ya'll'. I would rather be killed by firing squad.
the_scotsman wrote: Yeah, when i read the small novel that is the Death Guard unit options and think about resolving the attacks from a melee-oriented min size death guard squad, the thing that springs to mind is "Accessible!"
Argive wrote: GW seems to have a crystal ball and just pulls hairbrained ideas out of their backside for the most part.
You're not. If you're worried about your opponent using 'fake' rules, you're having fun the wrong way. This hobby isn't about rules. It's about buying Citadel miniatures.
Please report to your nearest GW store for attitude readjustment. Take your wallet.
~7510 build and painted
1312 build and painted
1200 
