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.

 vipoid wrote:

 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.

Do I have to introduce you to the simple concepts of RAI and RAW and FAQs and the like?

The rule is supposed to be always applied. YET certain circumstances might force it to waive it. You have a disability. You are a starting player who is still painting, etc etc. But if you own 4 3k points grey tides, then of course please give me my 10vp extra each time we play.

Go google "aggravating circumstances" and "mitigating factors", read about them and please try to understand my posture again.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

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.

If you can read a tape measure then anything of equivalent size should be possible to paint surely? The rules don't require the service studs on the heads are painted, just that it's basically been painted to some degree, marine armour red, gun silver or w/e and not even neatly.

Again I'm happy for anyone to be in the game and would assist anyone but I just aren't aware would prevent you form loosely slapping paint on something to make it "battle ready" that doesn't remove the vision/fine motor skills to read a tape measure accurately or move a grot. Again i'm not talking about painting leather straps/belt buckles etc. just blocking in base colours.

I realise I might have a looser definition of battle ready than some though which helps.

Look, if you feel the need to pull out this rule on your opponent at a friendly game or pick-up game to have some fun on a Saturday... if this is the hill you're dying on to win THAT game... you're probably not the person a whole lot of people would want to be playing with in the first place. I mean, it really makes you "that guy". There's no defensible position for using this rule to make someone feel bad about winning/losing a game.

What's important to realize is that while there was a "required painting" regulation enforced at the highest tiers of organized play, there was no standardization. There was no way to know what was permissible or what was not. It was a lot of guess and check. Especially between these different events. Maybe unbased models would be allowed here... but basing was enforced there. Perhaps 3 dots of colored paint just made the cut here, but over there they wanted "no shown primer" or something. All this rule does is ESTABLISH A STANDARD. Now we all know what the minimal acceptable qualifications are. And now if you want to maximize the scoring potential of an army, you know that not only is unit composition vital, but also assembly AND painting will play a hand in you realizing that full potential.

If anything, this rule makes EVERY TOURNAMENT MORE ACCESSIBLE. As now, there is no penalty for showing up with a gray tide. Previously, you'd be barred from entry at all, now you're just put at a "disadvantage". So... technically, every event just became easier to access for all players, even the new ones who haven't had years (or hundreds of dollars) to paint their armies up. Now they are technically included as well.

So let's keep going on at how this rule will be used to shame people at local pick-up games where the results literally mean nothing past your ego. Let's keep on about how crappy people will flaunt this over their "buddies" and make a world where that is socially acceptable. Continue to make victims out of people who will more likely respond "well, if this is how you need to behave to feel good about yourself..." and simply tally this fictitious predator up as a guy they just won't play against.

The heart of this rule is to formalize that painting is a part of the hobby, and the expectation for participation at organized events (you know, where those VPs actually matter). They've tried for YEARS to encourage gamers to voluntarily paint. I'm sure they've had a ton of inner discussions exactly like this on the merits of awarding tangible awards for painting as opposed to just hinting that it was the right thing to do for the hobby. The fact that they've put it down as a written rule should tell you how much they care about that aspect of the game, how important that phase of the hobby is to their overall vision of the game.

Should this rule be used to exclude new players at local clubs and slather them with L's to prop up our egos with W's? Heck no, that literally makes you "that guy". Just like bringing your full tournament "net list" to a game vs a guy with a Start Collecting box and smashing him with stupid rule interactions that require a law degree to unravel. If you can let off of the gas pedal to make the game fun and engaging for that guy by playing down to his army on the table... you can make the experience rewarding by NOT USING THIS RULE TO FLIP THE EXPERIENCE TO A NEGATIVE ONE.

People have agency.

And this rule will be the ultimate TFG detector. It'll bring them all out to the surface where we can properly tell them "that's not cool man, that's not how you treat people in this hobby". Maybe it'll help clean up some of those scummy people.

...why is everyone making this out to be an end-of-battle "gotcha" moment - it makes more sense to address the Battle Ready status of the armies before the game kicks off, so both players know where they stand.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
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.

D&D is "a wishy-washy game with no rules"? What are you smoking, BCB?

This is my favourite thread on Dakka rn. Loving all the righteous indignation and the community imploding in on itself over something that has been an integral part of wargaming since its inception in the 19th century.

You don’t want to paint? There’s plenty of board, computer and prepainted games out there for ya! GW indicated quite some time ago that that is the way they want the wind to blow (in the current SM codex and in the WHW tournament pack) so this should not be a surprise.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

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.

I would be up for trying to paint a model with my vision somehow impaired. Imo there are techniques capable of getting reasonable results under the circumstances, such as spraying, drybrushing and dip-washing.

 Grimtuff wrote:
This is my favourite thread on Dakka rn. Loving all the righteous indignation and the community imploding in on itself over something that has been an integral part of wargaming since its inception in the 19th century.

You don’t want to paint? There’s plenty of board, computer and prepainted games out there for ya! GW indicated quite some time ago that that is the way they want the wind to blow (in the current SM codex and in the WHW tournament pack) so this should not be a surprise.

To be fair we've all be shut inside so long that going bananas is our default setting! I'm sure on a normal sunny day in July no one would have worried for 2 seconds over this rule

 Grimtuff wrote:
This is my favourite thread on Dakka rn. Loving all the righteous indignation and the community imploding in on itself over something that has been an integral part of wargaming since its inception in the 19th century.

Part of the hobby, but not part of the game. There is a difference, and if this really was your fav thread on Dakka currently then surely having read the thread you would have realised that by now.

 Grimtuff wrote:
You don’t want to paint?

Again, did you read the thread? There are some here who have made it clear that it isn't a simple matter of wanting to or not wanting to paint.

Except, for good or ill it IS part of the game now, and has been since the 2.0 SM dex.

GW married paint schemes to rules in there. That is the way they want the wind to blow in their game.

 Kithail wrote:

Do I have to introduce you to the simple concepts of RAI and RAW and FAQs and the like?

Do you understand that not every rule has different RAI from RAW? Hence why those FAQs don't clarify every single rule in the entire rulebook.

For once, GW's rules are actually clear on this issue - if the base isn't painted, then the rest of the model might as well be grey plastic for all the difference it makes.

Again, if you don't think this is reasonable, then tell GW to change their rules for what constitutes Battle Ready models.

 Kithail wrote:

The rule is supposed to be always applied. YET certain circumstances might force it to waive it. You have a disability. You are a starting player who is still painting, etc etc. But if you own 4 3k points grey tides, then of course please give me my 10vp extra each time we play.

You seem to be proving the exact point I was making.

 Kithail wrote:
Go google "aggravating circumstances" and "mitigating factors", read about them and please try to understand my posture again.

Given that one of your previous posts was a massive rant about how aggravating circumstances don't count, and that disables people can basically go F themselves if they don't have a fully-painted army, you'll forgive me if I take this comment with a massive pinch of salt.


Further, I'm still unclear on why this rule needs to exist in the first place. I don't believe any other rule relating to scoring VPs needs to take disabilities or similar factors into account. You know, because they're based on what actually happened in the specific game you're playing, not on whether or not your army is painted to GW's arbitrary standards.

But I guess it wouldn't be dakkadakka without people being told that they're having fun wrong.

Purifying Tempest wrote:Should this rule be used to exclude new players at local clubs and slather them with L's to prop up our egos with W's? Heck no, that literally makes you "that guy". Just like bringing your full tournament "net list" to a game vs a guy with a Start Collecting box and smashing him with stupid rule interactions that require a law degree to unravel. If you can let off of the gas pedal to make the game fun and engaging for that guy by playing down to his army on the table... you can make the experience rewarding by NOT USING THIS RULE TO FLIP THE EXPERIENCE TO A NEGATIVE ONE.

People have agency.

This is the most important rule for a reason. Just because a rule says XYZ doesn't mean that, if you and your opponent agree, you have to do it. Nothing's forcing you to take those extra VPs, just like how I can *choose* to make a bad tactical move or not use an obvious ability or stratagem or something like that. I can waive things in order to promote a game experience I prefer.
Example: playing a game against Death Guard, my Firstborn Ultramarines do exceptionally well, and essentially pincer the DG into a killzone, leaving only Typhus alive. I *could* have just fired everything at him, shot him from a safe distance, or even charged in with my Terminators and Calgar to make short work of him. I ignored my shooting phase, and went straight to charging with Calgar alone, and we got a mutual kill. Was it the tactical move to do? No, certainly not. But was it more fun and enjoyable? Yes, by several degrees.

The same should be said of this rule, like any GW rule. Use your initiative, and find the approach that is the most fun. If your idea of fun is RAW, no slacking, 'dems the rules', that's fine - but that says more about your own mentality.

Insectum7 wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

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.

I would be up for trying to paint a model with my vision somehow impaired. Imo there are techniques capable of getting reasonable results under the circumstances, such as spraying, drybrushing and dip-washing.

Yeah, there are loads of ways you can pull off a good looking army with very little technical skill. Ghostly armies can be as simple as a contrast spray, and something like aethermatic blue contrast over the top. Or, grey spray, wash with black or green, chuck on a drybrush of a light grey, and you've got animated statues.

If people want to go for the millimetre scale details, they're welcome, but they don't *have* to.

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, your changing the entire premise. It's called making a strawman. The entire rule is not qualitative, it's quantitative. Did you paint your army? Yes or No.

Your taking my fair example and trying to rephrase it to be how well was the job done. A subjective metric, not objective.

Try an honest argument next time.

 Kithail wrote:
Go google "aggravating circumstances" and "mitigating factors", read about them and please try to understand my posture again.

Given that one of your previous posts was a massive rant about how aggravating circumstances don't count, and that disables people can basically go F themselves if they don't have a fully-painted army, you'll forgive me if I take this comment with a massive pinch of salt.

 Jidmah wrote:

 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.

I mean we had a person who is literally almost blind say the rule is bad, what more does the pro-side want?

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.

Stop being dishonest.

Fine, we can alter the example, but in a fair way. Both kids mow one acre for $10 each. I offer an additional $10 for each acre after the first. Kid A does an additional acre while kid B plays video games. Kids B isn't losing anything, instead kid A is EARNING more then kid B. It's a carrot based on merit.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 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.

False. You need to assemble your models. Learn the rules. Physically be capable of remaining concious or taking actions leaning over/across the table etc.

No, whats happening here is your %100 using a corner case to win an argument, which is pretty terrible.

Likewise you have no idea what health state anyone here is in that doesn't wish to share. I don't want to take the conversation down the path of who has more authority based on their immutable characteristics. So please stop.

The game already require dispensations for certain life circumstances, acting like the rules are required for you to be a human being is a very strange stance to take.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Purifying Tempest wrote:Should this rule be used to exclude new players at local clubs and slather them with L's to prop up our egos with W's? Heck no, that literally makes you "that guy". Just like bringing your full tournament "net list" to a game vs a guy with a Start Collecting box and smashing him with stupid rule interactions that require a law degree to unravel. If you can let off of the gas pedal to make the game fun and engaging for that guy by playing down to his army on the table... you can make the experience rewarding by NOT USING THIS RULE TO FLIP THE EXPERIENCE TO A NEGATIVE ONE.

People have agency.

This is the most important rule for a reason. Just because a rule says XYZ doesn't mean that, if you and your opponent agree, you have to do it. Nothing's forcing you to take those extra VPs, just like how I can *choose* to make a bad tactical move or not use an obvious ability or stratagem or something like that. I can waive things in order to promote a game experience I prefer.
Example: playing a game against Death Guard, my Firstborn Ultramarines do exceptionally well, and essentially pincer the DG into a killzone, leaving only Typhus alive. I *could* have just fired everything at him, shot him from a safe distance, or even charged in with my Terminators and Calgar to make short work of him. I ignored my shooting phase, and went straight to charging with Calgar alone, and we got a mutual kill. Was it the tactical move to do? No, certainly not. But was it more fun and enjoyable? Yes, by several degrees.

The same should be said of this rule, like any GW rule. Use your initiative, and find the approach that is the most fun. If your idea of fun is RAW, no slacking, 'dems the rules', that's fine - but that says more about your own mentality.

Insectum7 wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

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.

I would be up for trying to paint a model with my vision somehow impaired. Imo there are techniques capable of getting reasonable results under the circumstances, such as spraying, drybrushing and dip-washing.

Yeah, there are loads of ways you can pull off a good looking army with very little technical skill. Ghostly armies can be as simple as a contrast spray, and something like aethermatic blue contrast over the top. Or, grey spray, wash with black or green, chuck on a drybrush of a light grey, and you've got animated statues.

If people want to go for the millimetre scale details, they're welcome, but they don't *have* to.

Honestly your anecdote is stupid. It's basically saying "hey I won the game anyway, so I'll gloat by doing something stupid in game". That's not agency at all.

 Sentineil wrote:
Does painting your bases black not meet the criteria for battle ready?

They all just come from the a jet black marble world

It would, there just looking for ammunition.

 Red Corsair wrote:

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.

Stop being dishonest.

Fine, we can alter the example, but in a fair way. Both kids mow one acre for $10 each. I offer an additional $10 for each acre after the first. Kid A does an additional acre while kid B plays video games. Kids B isn't losing anything, instead kid A is EARNING more then kid B. It's a carrot based on merit.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 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.

False. You need to assemble your models. Learn the rules. Physically be capable of remaining concious or taking actions leaning over/across the table etc.

No, whats happening here is your %100 using a corner case to win an argument, which is pretty terrible.

Likewise you have no idea what health state anyone here is in that doesn't wish to share. I don't want to take the conversation down the path of who has more authority based on their immutable characteristics. So please stop.

The game already require dispensations for certain life circumstances, acting like the rules are required for you to be a human being is a very strange stance to take.

Nope. If you need to make special exceptions to the rule in a ton of circumstances, it means the rule didn't need to exist in the first place. Either the rule should be followed or you can admit it's just a bad rule.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Red Corsair wrote:

 Sentineil wrote:
Does painting your bases black not meet the criteria for battle ready?

They all just come from the a jet black marble world

It would, there just looking for ammunition.

It doesn't count. It looks the same. Unless you think painting the entire army the same exact shade of gray as the plastic makes it count as Battle Ready.

Again, the issue here is not if you can house-rule it away or "agree with your opponent" or anything since you always could do that, and tournaments always had painted as part of the event pack if it was a big event. It's that getting a bonus for having a painted army, irrespective of anything else in the game is now a CORE RULE expected to be used and followed in every game of Warhammer 40,000 by default. Sure you can ignore it. You can also ignore how to set up the game or the mission or anything else in the core rule, but the expectation by default is that you aren't.

That's the underlying issue here. This should not have been a core rule. The fact you can ignore it doesn't mean the rule should exist.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Grimtuff wrote:
This is my favourite thread on Dakka rn. Loving all the righteous indignation and the community imploding in on itself over something that has been an integral part of wargaming since its inception in the 19th century.

Part of the hobby, but not part of the game. There is a difference, and if this really was your fav thread on Dakka currently then surely having read the thread you would have realised that by now.

 Grimtuff wrote:
You don’t want to paint?

Again, did you read the thread? There are some here who have made it clear that it isn't a simple matter of wanting to or not wanting to paint.

Except you and I both know the game is considered part of the hobby to GW. You have even joked about it (HHHobby). They even consider purchasing part of their hhhobby. You don't have to like it but it's already been there for a while.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Grimtuff wrote:
Except, for good or ill it IS part of the game now, and has been since the 2.0 SM dex.

GW married paint schemes to rules in there. That is the way they want the wind to blow in their game.

Also an extremely fair point.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Red Corsair wrote:

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.

Stop being dishonest.

Fine, we can alter the example, but in a fair way. Both kids mow one acre for $10 each. I offer an additional $10 for each acre after the first. Kid A does an additional acre while kid B plays video games. Kids B isn't losing anything, instead kid A is EARNING more then kid B. It's a carrot based on merit.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 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.

False. You need to assemble your models. Learn the rules. Physically be capable of remaining concious or taking actions leaning over/across the table etc.

No, whats happening here is your %100 using a corner case to win an argument, which is pretty terrible.

Likewise you have no idea what health state anyone here is in that doesn't wish to share. I don't want to take the conversation down the path of who has more authority based on their immutable characteristics. So please stop.

The game already require dispensations for certain life circumstances, acting like the rules are required for you to be a human being is a very strange stance to take.

Nope. If you need to make special exceptions to the rule in a ton of circumstances, it means the rule didn't need to exist in the first place. Either the rule should be followed or you can admit it's just a bad rule.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Red Corsair wrote:

 Sentineil wrote:
Does painting your bases black not meet the criteria for battle ready?

They all just come from the a jet black marble world

It would, there just looking for ammunition.

It doesn't count. It looks the same. Unless you think painting the entire army the same exact shade of gray as the plastic makes it count as Battle Ready.

It would lol. I guess you don't know about the Space sharks chapter eh?

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Part of the hobby, but not part of the game.

This is a fallacy. It is a part of the game same way than assembling models is (except the painting requirement is far more lenient.) It is utterly absurd to have a fit about a thing that has been a common part of the wargaming since the 19th century. Sure, it would be nice if common courtesy would be enough to get people to show up only with painted armies like in historical wargames, but as that is evidently not the case this rule is required.

Please do not quote massive slabs of text simply to reply with a single line.

I know about them, and Tyberos is my second favorite Marine character. I also know that it doesn't count under these rules since they use super little color and all. Just grey and black, and it's a shame that poor player didn't color the eyes yet! No 10VP for them!

So winning in 40k is:
30% buying
30% listbuilding
30% tactics
10% painting

Seems about right?

GWs intent is clear that the way to play is either painted or 10 vp down. If you can't paint then just get your stuff commissioned.

Ignoring the arguments for a second, but can y'all break out the spoiler tags for the massive quotes, especially if you're only making a single line jab as a response?

 Dysartes wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

 Dysartes wrote:

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?

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

Having a cat decide that your models that you prepared are toys to be pushed into thined glue that you prepared and forgot is also bad
that was the second incident.....

Not Online!!! wrote:

 Dysartes wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

 Dysartes wrote:

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?

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

Having a cat decide that your models that you prepared are toys to be pushed into thined glue that you prepared and forgot is also bad
that was the second incident.....

My old dog ate 5 Necron Warriors and chewed on the rest at one time. He came out okay at least.

Which was fine since Immortals are cooler anyway.

 jhnbrg wrote:
So winning in 40k is:
30% buying
30% listbuilding
30% tactics
10% painting

Seems about right?

Sure.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

My old dog ate 5 Necron Warriors and chewed on the rest at one time. He came out okay at least.

He was just applying some hardcore weathering.

Will this be like Age of sigmar where having a mustache or drinking a beer while playing grants you special abiliites?

 Crimson wrote:

 jhnbrg wrote:
So winning in 40k is:
30% buying
30% listbuilding
30% tactics
10% painting

Seems about right?

Sure.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

My old dog ate 5 Necron Warriors and chewed on the rest at one time. He came out okay at least.

He was just applying some hardcore weathering.

Ya know if I had a Monolith at the time that would be an interesting idea...