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.

 Shooter wrote:

 Grimtuff wrote:


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.

You get this rule punishes the player with 99 models painted to display level on the battlefield and 1 just primed, as much as it does to an entire army of grey plastic right?

You get that this rule is not binary, right? It has several shades of grey (boom boom!) to it. Show up with a horde of grey that I know you have had for years? No VP for you. Add a mini to your army that you literally bought and assembled that day? Well, I guess we can look the other way...

 Grimtuff wrote:

 Shooter wrote:

 Grimtuff wrote:


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.

You get this rule punishes the player with 99 models painted to display level on the battlefield and 1 just primed, as much as it does to an entire army of grey plastic right?

You get that this rule is not binary, right? It has several shades of grey (boom boom!) to it. Show up with a horde of grey that I know you have had for years? No VP for you. Add a mini to your army that you literally bought and assembled that day? Well, I guess we can look the other way...

I’d assume you’d say something before playing then? If both players don’t consent it really doesn’t count

If they show up with an unpainted army they know exactly what they're getting in for. The rules are right there.

 Grimtuff wrote:
If they show up with an unpainted army they know exactly what they're getting in for. The rules are right there.

The painting has no effect on the gameplay, therefore it has no effect at all unless all players agree to it

DeathKorp_Rider wrote:

 Grimtuff wrote:
If they show up with an unpainted army they know exactly what they're getting in for. The rules are right there.

The painting has no effect on the gameplay, therefore it has no effect at all unless all players agree to it

Do I need to get my opponent's explicit agreement to the movement rules too? Or using six sided dice?

If it's in the rulebook no one can claim they're surprised by this.

DeathKorp_Rider wrote:

 Grimtuff wrote:
If they show up with an unpainted army they know exactly what they're getting in for. The rules are right there.

The painting has no effect on the gameplay, therefore it has no effect at all unless all players agree to it

Given this is codified in the rules, it does now - and, as was pointed out earlier, has arguably done so sine sub-faction bonuses which tie into paint schemes have been a thing during 8th.

The thing is, and I'm certain the "why bother with models at all" people are fully aware, we can play a fully proxied game and the winner will still be the winner.

Now you're giving VPs to the person who painted their proxies.

That's literally how dumb this rule is.

Back in the day we had very limited purchase options here in the ass end of Africa. We often fielded paper cutouts for hard to get minis. Heck I once fielded an army which contained 1 metal Hive Tyrant, 3 plastic Warriors and 9 plastic SC Genestealers, the rest of my 2000pts was paper cut outs. And yeah, I coloured the photocopies in. Should they have rated +10VP?

In a painted army game it cancels out. In a unpainted /unfinished army game it cancels out. Enough people have said they won't enforce it on a couple models, or noobs or the impaired. So tell me again why it is such a critical rule?

 Shooter wrote:

 Grimtuff wrote:


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.

You get this rule punishes the player with 99 models painted to display level on the battlefield and 1 just primed, as much as it does to an entire army of grey plastic right?

An army of fully painted models with black bases also count the same as a half-assembled grey plastic models


The worst about this rule is that while I was fairly motivated to get everything painted before, now I have no motivation at all, since I know painting my army will count for nothing if I haven't gotten around to paint every single model I'm going to field.

The possibility of some TFG pulling a "nuh-uh, your bases aren't painted in the way GW dictates" doesn't help either. I'm probably going stop painting anything for a while now.

I much prefer to play with painted armies, and don't use models until they are painted (not necessarily finished, but certainly "battle ready" by my own painting ability), so I'm in favour of encouraging players to bring painted armies.

More often than not when I play at my local store my opponents have grey plastic at least in part, and sometimes the majority or even all their army. I've never refused a game against a grey plastic army.

That being said, I don't think this is the best approach. Not that I can think of a better one to encourage people to field a painted army.

Aash wrote:


That being said, I don't think this is the best approach. Not that I can think of a better one to encourage people to field a painted army.

GW have clearly tried the 'ol carrot approach for years with it being criminally easy to get an army painted these days with contrast, coloured plastics and different coloured undercoats yet people still dig their heels in (whilst simultaneously calling others "entitled" ) resisting what is a core part of the hobby pie for some unknown reason. So now they're doing the stick approach and quote, unquote "punishing" them for not getting off their collective backsides.

"I don't have time!". Well, make time. I've been around the block enough times to know that gamers are one of the flakiest bunch of people and it extends to all aspects of their lives, they'll try an commit to something then just abandon it. "Can't afford it!". Yes you can. Just don't buy (at least) 2 fething Domino's pizzas a week... "I don't have time!". Yes you do. Maybe you should stop playing WoW all night for once and do some painting instead... The list goes on. I've been in this hobby 23 years and have heard every excuse under the sun for people not wanting to paint.

And as an aside, the sole legally blind person I have met in this hobby still painted his fething models! He was blind on one eye and had half vision in the other and he still painted stuff! Because that was part of the hobby and what drew him in. Despite only having a 1/4 of the vision of everyone else he still painted stuff. The only concession he asked for (from the GW store, not opponents) was for them to have some special whippy sticks set aside with holes bored into the 6" and 12" parts so you could more easily see the typical ranges you use in (circa 3rd ed) 40k.




Then we have this army done by George Dellapina. A man who I am lead to believe is colour-blind. So, yeah...

 Grimtuff wrote:

You get that this rule is not binary, right? It has several shades of grey (boom boom!) to it. Show up with a horde of grey that I know you have had for years? No VP for you. Add a mini to your army that you literally bought and assembled that day? Well, I guess we can look the other way...

Both the RAW and RAI is absolutely binary. there is no other way to read it. the only way out is a house rule to ignore it, which I will always be doing, but sadly TFGs like BCB exist.

resisting what is a core part of the hobby pie for some unknown reason.

it's not an unknown reason. its an incredibly simple, oft repeated, easy to comprehend reason: they don't enjoy painting

Playing RAI is quite literally not binary. The clue is in the final letter of the initialism...

 Grimtuff wrote:
Playing RAI is quite literally not binary. The clue is in the final letter of the initialism...

RAI is 'what did GW really mean for this rule to do' and applies when the wording of a rule or ability is able to be taken in more than one way due to poor technical writing on GWs behalf. that does not apply to something as straight forwardly set out as the new rule regarding painted armies. it's no less binary than the 'your army must include a warlord' rule.

where there is a difference between RAW and RAI, that's when we get FAQs and erratas to clarify things. Do you think GW are going to clarify that they only meant 90% of an army has to be painted? or all models that weren't purchased in the last week?

"Painted" is also hard to define objectively. A model that is painted with 2-3 colors, fully based but all the work done in a rush just to have it legal IMHO is not painted, it's just a plastic model tarnished with paint.

RAW even a model that is just primed, and based, counts as painted. It's actually painted, just in one color.

A full primed army should get the +10VP then.

Goonhammer communicated it best. This will just be used by TFGs to browbeat newer players.

And boy there's a lot on dakkadakka

 Shooter wrote:
... but sadly TFGs like BCB exist.

I love how 'playing by the rules as written' now makes you TFG.

stratigo wrote:
Goonhammer communicated it best. This will just be used by TFGs to browbeat newer players.

And boy there's a lot on dakkadakka

Go on! Name and shame! Who are these supposed TFGs? I wanna know if I made the cut!

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Shooter wrote:
... but sadly TFGs like BCB exist.

I love how 'playing by the rules as written' now makes you TFG.

Technically the rule is 'painted to a battle ready standard'. So it also excludes any models that are painted ABOVE the battle ready standard. So that second layer of highlights just cost you 10 points.

Blackie wrote:"Painted" is also hard to define objectively. A model that is painted with 2-3 colors, fully based but all the work done in a rush just to have it legal IMHO is not painted, it's just a plastic model tarnished with paint.

RAW even a model that is just primed, and based, counts as painted. It's actually painted, just in one color.

A full primed army should get the +10VP then.

This is why I hope they include a definition of the "Battle Ready Standard" within the book - at this point it is a game term, which presumably includes minimum standards, and therefore requires defining inside the book.

stratigo wrote:Goonhammer communicated it best. This will just be used by TFGs to browbeat newer players.

And boy there's a lot on dakkadakka

Any yet most people have said they wouldn't enforce it on a new player, but would enforce it on those who've been fielding a grey tide for years.

As Grim said, the carrot approach has gotten GW nowhere when it comes to "encouraging" people to paint their armies. They appear to have decided it is time to break out the 10VP stick instead.

I'd love to see a Designer's Commentary on this, though

 Grimtuff wrote:

stratigo wrote:
Goonhammer communicated it best. This will just be used by TFGs to browbeat newer players.

And boy there's a lot on dakkadakka

Go on! Name and shame! Who are these supposed TFGs? I wanna know if I made the cut!

There have been tons of elitist donkey caves just in this thread who behave as if having a painted army makes them the second coming of christ. It's not an unrealistic concern.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Dysartes wrote:

Blackie wrote:"Painted" is also hard to define objectively. A model that is painted with 2-3 colors, fully based but all the work done in a rush just to have it legal IMHO is not painted, it's just a plastic model tarnished with paint.

RAW even a model that is just primed, and based, counts as painted. It's actually painted, just in one color.

A full primed army should get the +10VP then.

This is why I hope they include a definition of the "Battle Ready Standard" within the book - at this point it is a game term, which presumably includes minimum standards, and therefore requires defining inside the book.

stratigo wrote:Goonhammer communicated it best. This will just be used by TFGs to browbeat newer players.

And boy there's a lot on dakkadakka

Any yet most people have said they wouldn't enforce it on a new player, but would enforce it on those who've been fielding a grey tide for years.

As Grim said, the carrot approach has gotten GW nowhere when it comes to "encouraging" people to paint their armies. They appear to have decided it is time to break out the 10VP stick instead.

I'd love to see a Designer's Commentary on this, though

Battle ready standard is already defined, it's paint+wash. That's why blending, NMM, OSL, etc causes you to lose the 10 points.

H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Shooter wrote:
... but sadly TFGs like BCB exist.

I love how 'playing by the rules as written' now makes you TFG.

I suspect that comes from how he posts on here more than anything. I would like to think that playing against him wouldn't feel as much like having your fingernails pulled out than reading some of his posts does.

Unrelated point - did Assault weapons get fixed to actually work? I've not downloaded the free rules PDF yet.

Edit 2 - Actually went and looked and, without getting lawyer-y (as I'm not a lawyer) it looks like Assault weapons actually function as intended in 9th. Huzzah?

ERJAK wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Shooter wrote:
... but sadly TFGs like BCB exist.

I love how 'playing by the rules as written' now makes you TFG.

Technically the rule is 'painted to a battle ready standard'. So it also excludes any models that are painted ABOVE the battle ready standard. So that second layer of highlights just cost you 10 points.

As I said above, this is where it'll be interesting to see how a "battle ready standard" is defined in the full book. I suspect it'll be along the lines of "this much work or more" rather than a specific checklist of points that it would be possible to exceed, but I've given too much credit tot he rules team before now and been disappointed, so...

ERJAK wrote:

 Grimtuff wrote:

stratigo wrote:
Goonhammer communicated it best. This will just be used by TFGs to browbeat newer players.

And boy there's a lot on dakkadakka

Go on! Name and shame! Who are these supposed TFGs? I wanna know if I made the cut!

There have been tons of elitist donkey caves just in this thread who behave as if having a painted army makes them the second coming of christ. It's not an unrealistic concern.

I've not seen anyone posting as if they're the second coming - not enough preaching, for one thing - just a few people who are proud to field a fully-painted army and would prefer to face one. As Grim said, if there have been some in here, it should be easy for you to name (and, ideally, quote) some examples, no?

ERJAK wrote:

Spoiler:

 Dysartes wrote:

Blackie wrote:"Painted" is also hard to define objectively. A model that is painted with 2-3 colors, fully based but all the work done in a rush just to have it legal IMHO is not painted, it's just a plastic model tarnished with paint.

RAW even a model that is just primed, and based, counts as painted. It's actually painted, just in one color.

A full primed army should get the +10VP then.

This is why I hope they include a definition of the "Battle Ready Standard" within the book - at this point it is a game term, which presumably includes minimum standards, and therefore requires defining inside the book.

stratigo wrote:Goonhammer communicated it best. This will just be used by TFGs to browbeat newer players.

And boy there's a lot on dakkadakka

Any yet most people have said they wouldn't enforce it on a new player, but would enforce it on those who've been fielding a grey tide for years.

As Grim said, the carrot approach has gotten GW nowhere when it comes to "encouraging" people to paint their armies. They appear to have decided it is time to break out the 10VP stick instead.

I'd love to see a Designer's Commentary on this, though

Battle ready standard is already defined, it's paint+wash. That's why blending, NMM, OSL, etc causes you to lose the 10 points.

Everyone I've seen reference the BRS is referring back to WHC - as I've said, it is something that will need a definition within the rulebook, which may differ from how WHC presented it previously - if only to cover that going beyond the minimum still means you've achieved it.

EDIT - Fixing quote/spoiler tags

 Shooter wrote:

 Grimtuff wrote:

You get that this rule is not binary, right? It has several shades of grey (boom boom!) to it. Show up with a horde of grey that I know you have had for years? No VP for you. Add a mini to your army that you literally bought and assembled that day? Well, I guess we can look the other way...

Both the RAW and RAI is absolutely binary. there is no other way to read it. the only way out is a house rule to ignore it, which I will always be doing, but sadly TFGs like BCB exist.

resisting what is a core part of the hobby pie for some unknown reason.

it's not an unknown reason. its an incredibly simple, oft repeated, easy to comprehend reason: they don't enjoy painting

If thats the reason then losing out on a few VP should not feel unreasonable. Its a part of the hobby the same as now looking for combos and netlisting. I dont enjoy listbuilding and trawling multiple books and update, if this costs me VP so be it.

ERJAK wrote:

 Grimtuff wrote:

stratigo wrote:
Goonhammer communicated it best. This will just be used by TFGs to browbeat newer players.

And boy there's a lot on dakkadakka

Go on! Name and shame! Who are these supposed TFGs? I wanna know if I made the cut!

There have been tons of elitist donkey caves just in this thread who behave as if having a painted army makes them the second coming of christ. It's not an unrealistic concern.

And yet I've never met anyone IRL who was so extreme in their TFG-ness than the internet would have me believe. I've never really even heard of one who's that bad from all the people I've spoken to about the game over the last few decades. TFGs exist, for sure, but even if they're the sort of person who'd use this rule to ding new players I suspect they're already not the sort of person you'd want playing a newbie in the first place.

Not sure I've seen much in the way of elitist posting about painted armies here either. Passionate, maybe, but I think elitist is a stretch. It certainly doesn't describe the majority of the people in favour of this rule.

There was a meme post yesterday about if you don’t paint your minis, why show respect and shake your hand.

A joke post I hope, but lots of comments seem to indicate that they did not think of it as a joke at all.

Dakka all in all I think has been good discussion for the most part.

 Grimtuff wrote:
Playing RAI is quite literally not binary. The clue is in the final letter of the initialism...

RAI is absolutely binary as well. If I bring 250 fully painted models to the table and one model that is not painted because life got in the way of finishing the unit, I can now lose the game to a marine player who slapped a can of black contrast and armageddon dust on his 40 model strong iron hands army. This is 100% the rule as intended.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 jhnbrg wrote:
If thats the reason then losing out on a few VP should not feel unreasonable. Its a part of the hobby the same as now looking for combos and netlisting. I dont enjoy listbuilding and trawling multiple books and update, if this costs me VP so be it.

It's not just a few VP. It's 10% of the VP you can score. The equivalent of destroying five dreadnoughts or daemon princes, three LRBT or a knight. You need to hold an objective marker for two turns to score 10 VP.

Unless you are utterly destroying your opponent, these 10 VP will be game-deciding, not a "fun bonus" like you try to misrepresent it.

It's very much akin to forbidding painters from painting every tenth miniature unless they have won a game of matched play first.

If anything, this rule is a reason for me to stop painting. I need to go buy and build to competitive lists to crush my opponents instead of playing fun stuff to offset this major disadvantage now if I want to have any chance of winning.

 Jidmah wrote:

RAI is absolutely binary as well. If I bring 250 fully painted models to the table and one model that is not painted because life got in the way of finishing the unit, I can now lose the game to a marine player who slapped a can of black contrast and armageddon dust on his 40 model strong iron hands unit. This is 100% the rule as intended.

While that's technically correct, what is actually at stake here? If the other player won by 5 points because of this rule, would you actually feel like you lost?

 harlokin wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:

RAI is absolutely binary as well. If I bring 250 fully painted models to the table and one model that is not painted because life got in the way of finishing the unit, I can now lose the game to a marine player who slapped a can of black contrast and armageddon dust on his 40 model strong iron hands unit. This is 100% the rule as intended.

While that's technically correct, what is actually at stake here? If the other player won by 5 points because of this rule, would you actually feel like you lost?

Yes, because I actually did lose, and the campaign/league system/crusade mode would punish me for it.

 Jidmah wrote:

 Grimtuff wrote:
Playing RAI is quite literally not binary. The clue is in the final letter of the initialism...

RAI is absolutely binary as well. If I bring 250 fully painted models to the table and one model that is not painted because life got in the way of finishing the unit, I can now lose the game to a marine player who slapped a can of black contrast and armageddon dust on his 40 model strong iron hands unit. This is 100% the rule as intended.

Yes? Maybe he only rolled 1s the entire game... I think its a bit of a silly rule but i am positive towards it because it is a small push in the right direction.

Its only 10% of the potential total VP, a bad dice roll at the wrong time will cost you a lot more VPs. Having a painted army is the only factor that you alone can influence.

To me the visual impact of a game is important, the rules change (and faster than ever before) but painted models stay painted.

 Jidmah wrote:

 Grimtuff wrote:
Playing RAI is quite literally not binary. The clue is in the final letter of the initialism...

RAI is absolutely binary as well. If I bring 250 fully painted models to the table and one model that is not painted because life got in the way of finishing the unit, I can now lose the game to a marine player who slapped a can of black contrast and armageddon dust on his 40 model strong iron hands army. This is 100% the rule as intended.

No, that is your interpretation of what the rule is intended to be. Others will think differently, so not binary in the slightest.

 jhnbrg wrote:
Yes? Maybe he only rolled 1s the entire game... I think its a bit of a silly rule but i am positive towards it because it is a small push in the right direction.

Its only 10% of the potential total VP, a bad dice roll at the wrong time will cost you a lot more VPs. Having a painted army is the only factor that you alone can influence.

To me the visual impact of a game is important, the rules change (and faster than ever before) but painted models stay painted.

You keep dodging my question. Do you agree that people should not be allowed to paint 10% of their army unless they have successfully won a game? According to you and Grimtuff, people should not be allowed to fully enjoy one part of the hobby unless they participate in all parts of it.