Will you use the '+10 VPs if your whole army is painted' rule?

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.

**Grimtuff**

ERJAK wrote:
Dysartes wrote:
Jidmah wrote:
As it stands, a single model not being battle ready is the same as fielding a half-assembled grey army that hasn't even been near paint and rewards your opponent with the same amount of VP as destroying a quarter of your army.

Point of order - your opponent gains or loses nothing, regardless of how your models are painted. They suffer losses and achieve gains dependent on how their models are painted.

+ + +

The people that argue that going beyond BR status means you wouldn't get the 10VP are being willfully awkward - and, again, this is why I hope a definition is provided within the rulebook itself, if only in case WHC or that specific page disappear for some reason.

Let me quote the definition from the WHC article:

What is Battle Ready?
If a model is Battle Ready, it means it’s ready to game with. Battle Ready models have their main areas coloured and an simple finish on their bases.

Both sentences have relevance in the definition - there's no way a model which has OSL, highlighting and/or a (finished) scenic base doesn't qualify for the first sentence, and doing additional elements over the main area doesn't mean that you've not coloured that area first. Arguing that doing too much work is going to deny you access to the 10VP is ludicrous.

Actually, it say 'simple finish on their base' a complex finish on their base would still discount them.

This is why you don't make rules around painting.

Lets analyse the likely scenarios where you will be playing a stranger who will try and pull these shenanigans and see the likely outcomes:

Playing in an FLGS
Playing in a GW store
Playing in a Tournament
Playing amongst friends at home.

In every single one of those the owner/judge/other friends would tell said person to shut the feth up and stop being a bellend. I honestly don't know why you think people will get anywhere with that argument.

**Crimson**

Insectum7 wrote:
^Don't play with those people.

Yeah. It has been long been clear that inane rules-lawyering and ignoring blindingly obvious intent can cause problems. But it is the people who do this who are the problem, if you play with normal, sensible people it is not an issue.

**Twilight Pathways**

Asmodai wrote:

game rules can't regulate human behaviour.

But that's not a reason to welcome arbitrary, antagonistic rules that bestow points for aesthetic decisions made before the game started.

Asmodai wrote:

In a tournament, you can call a judge or TO to red card them and have them removed from the venue.

"excuse me judge, my opponent is playing by the rules, I think that's very unfair and would like them disqualified" ?

**Insectum7**

Twilight Pathways wrote:

Asmodai wrote:

In a tournament, you can call a judge or TO to red card them and have them removed from the venue.

"excuse me judge, my opponent is playing by the rules, I think that's very unfair and would like them disqualified" ?

More like :

"Excuse me judge, my opponent is ignoring the intent of the rules to claim an unfair advantage."

**Twilight Pathways**

So the claimed intent of the rule in this case would be the interpretation which benefits the complainant (an interpretation made out of thin air, because it 'seems unfair' - *not* based on any ambiguous wording)? Not sure that would work in a tournament. Of course, depends on the tournament, and also one would hope that the TO explicitly enforced that interpretation as a house-rule anyway, but really, they shouldn't have to be house-ruling basic stuff like this imo.

**Kithail**

I find amazing that people refuse to understand that "battle ready" is an "at least" status. A minimum. A starting point.

I don't think it is related to a lack of ability to understand but an outright refusal or denial to try to understand it.

**Crimson**

Twilight Pathways wrote:
So the claimed intent of the rule in this case would be the interpretation which benefits the complainant (an interpretation made out of thin air, because it 'seems unfair' - *not* based on any ambiguous wording)? Not sure that would work in a tournament. Of course, depends on the tournament, and also one would hope that the TO explicitly enforced that interpretation as a house-rule anyway, but really, they shouldn't have to be house-ruling basic stuff like this imo.

Just stop. This is BCB style 'assault weapons don't work' or in older editions 'models without eyes cannot shoot' type of stuff. No one in real life takes that sort of stuff seriously, there is no arguments about it. It is just completely inane internet posturing and engaging it doesn't strengthen you case one bit.

**JNAProductions**

So, the crowd of people who have a burning hatred for those who don't paint, you seem to have missed this example:

What if you couldn't paint one in ten models unless you had won a game within the past week?

That'd be ridiculous, right? Who cares how good your gameplay is when it comes to painting? They're part of the same general hobby, but they don't directly affect one another. Right?

**Kithail**

JNAProductions wrote:
So, the crowd of people who have a burning hatred for those who don't paint, you seem to have missed this example:

What if you couldn't paint one in ten models unless you had won a game within the past week?

That'd be ridiculous, right? Who cares how good your gameplay is when it comes to painting? They're part of the same general hobby, but they don't directly affect one another. Right?

Maybe I'd hire a guy to win a game for me with my minis

**Insectum7**

Twilight Pathways wrote:
So the claimed intent of the rule in this case would be the interpretation which benefits the complainant (an interpretation made out of thin air, because it 'seems unfair' - *not* based on any ambiguous wording)? Not sure that would work in a tournament. Of course, depends on the tournament, and also one would hope that the TO explicitly enforced that interpretation as a house-rule anyway, but really, they shouldn't have to be house-ruling basic stuff like this imo.

Frankly, this argument is TFG behavior.

It's pretty clear what the intent of the rule is. But I'm sure we can start a new thread and poll about it, if you like.

**Slayer-Fan123**

Sgt_Smudge wrote:
ccs wrote:
Purifying Tempest wrote:
DeathKorp_Rider wrote:
I never paint my armies because I neither want to paint nor have the money to have someone else do it. If I’m playing casually and someone tries to pulls this on me I will not be happy. Painting shouldn’t be required

Then what is required? Where is the line? What if I hate assembling?

The minimum on our tables is assembled models. Paint optional.
Why do they need to be assembled? Why is paint optional, but assembling isn't?

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.
Playing RAW with utter inflexibility? Absolutely.

You'd have a point if this was a RAW vs RAI. There's no second interpretation for the rule. You're either choosing to follow it because it's a good rule, or you choose not to follow it because it's a bad rule. Someone has even ONE unpainted model in 100, they're automatically not given the 10VP.

Where's the room for interpretation?

**Crimson**

JNAProductions wrote:
So, the crowd of people who have a burning hatred for those who don't paint,

No one has done that.

you seem to have missed this example:

What if you couldn't paint one in ten models unless you had won a game within the past week?

That'd be ridiculous, right? Who cares how good your gameplay is when it comes to painting? They're part of the same general hobby, but they don't directly affect one another. Right?

Because it is absurd nonsense. It relies on the assumption that painting the models is not commonly expected in tabletop wargames, just like assembling them and that is false. T

**Grimtuff**

JNAProductions wrote:
So, the crowd of people who have a burning hatred for those who don't paint, you seem to have missed this example:

What if you couldn't paint one in ten models unless you had won a game within the past week?

That'd be ridiculous, right? Who cares how good your gameplay is when it comes to painting? They're part of the same general hobby, but they don't directly affect one another. Right?

We haven't missed it, it's just incredibly stupid. Keep clutching at them straws though!

**Crimson**

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Someone has even ONE unpainted model in 100, they're automatically not given the 10VP.

And if someone is even one point above the point limit the army is illegal. So what? Some people might be flexible about the paint limitation just like some people might be flexible about the point limit. Or not. It is not a big deal either way.

**Insectum7**

JNAProductions wrote:
So, the crowd of people who have a burning hatred for those who don't paint, you seem to have missed this example:

What if you couldn't paint one in ten models unless you had won a game within the past week?

That'd be ridiculous, right? Who cares how good your gameplay is when it comes to painting? They're part of the same general hobby, but they don't directly affect one another. Right?

It's not a missed example, it just doesn't make any sense. You are already expected to prepare models for the game anyways, this is just an additional step in model preparation.

**Slayer-Fan123**

Grimtuff wrote:
JNAProductions wrote:
So, the crowd of people who have a burning hatred for those who don't paint, you seem to have missed this example:

What if you couldn't paint one in ten models unless you had won a game within the past week?

That'd be ridiculous, right? Who cares how good your gameplay is when it comes to painting? They're part of the same general hobby, but they don't directly affect one another. Right?

We haven't missed it, it's just incredibly stupid. Keep clutching at them straws though!

Well it's still an equivalent. The example does go both ways.

**JNAProductions**

Grimtuff wrote:
JNAProductions wrote:
So, the crowd of people who have a burning hatred for those who don't paint, you seem to have missed this example:

What if you couldn't paint one in ten models unless you had won a game within the past week?

That'd be ridiculous, right? Who cares how good your gameplay is when it comes to painting? They're part of the same general hobby, but they don't directly affect one another. Right?

We haven't missed it, it's just incredibly stupid. Keep clutching at them straws though!

Insectum7 wrote:
JNAProductions wrote:
So, the crowd of people who have a burning hatred for those who don't paint, you seem to have missed this example:

What if you couldn't paint one in ten models unless you had won a game within the past week?

That'd be ridiculous, right? Who cares how good your gameplay is when it comes to painting? They're part of the same general hobby, but they don't directly affect one another. Right?
It's not a missed example, it just doesn't make any sense. You are already expected to prepare models for the game anyways, this is just an additional step in model preparation.

But why is THAT ridiculous, but having to paint models to score points in-game is not ridiculous?

I'm perfectly willing to agree that both are aspects of the greater wargaming hobby.
I'm perfectly willing to agree that the game is improved by painted models-though how much varies from player to player. For me, it's a very minor improvement, for instance.
I'm perfectly willing to respect your right to turn down a game because my models are not painted.

But this rule is a bad one-it forces people who might not care about the painting aspect to crappily apply paints to their models to earn points, if they're playing someone who enforces it.

And with all the talk of exceptions or excuses for the rule, WHY EVEN INCLUDE IT?

**Grimtuff**

Look, I see what you're doing. You're dong the typical "throw irrelevant questions at the politician" tactic seen quite frequently.

Just... stop.

**Slayer-Fan123**

Crimson wrote:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Someone has even ONE unpainted model in 100, they're automatically not given the 10VP.

And if someone is even one point above the point limit the army is illegal. So what? Some people might be flexible about the paint limitation just like some people might be flexible about the point limit. Or not. It is not a big deal either way.

Then that player needs to redo their army. I construct my army to the point level and always have. All the players I have met would laugh at you wanting to score one more upgrade in your army via "please it's only one point over!"

One point over can either be a Plasma Gun or a whole Custodes to meet the minimum squad requirement! If the upgrade was that important you should've been more careful at list construction.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Grimtuff wrote:
Look, I see what you're doing. You're dong the typical "throw irrelevant questions at the politician" tactic seen quite frequently.

Just... stop.

He asked relevant questions you're ignoring. You choosing to ignore them (also ignoring the new rule whenever you feel like it) is an admittance to the rule not being good.

**Not Online!!!**

Grimtuff wrote:
Look, I see what you're doing. You're dong the typical "throw irrelevant questions at the politician" tactic seen quite frequently.

Just... stop.

he is right though, painting and playing are 2 completely seperate disciplines so to speak, why should one influence the other but the other not the one.

**Crimson**

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Then that player needs to redo their army. I construct my army to the point level and always have. All the players I have met would laugh at you wanting to score one more upgrade in your army via "please it's only one point over!"

One point over can either be a Plasma Gun or a whole Custodes to meet the minimum squad requirement! If the upgrade was that important you should've been more careful at list construction.

Cool. Then you can apply the same logic to the one unpainted model. Problem solved.

**Kithail**

Crimson wrote:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Someone has even ONE unpainted model in 100, they're automatically not given the 10VP.

And if someone is even one point above the point limit the army is illegal. So what? Some people might be flexible about the paint limitation just like some people might be flexible about the point limit. Or not. It is not a big deal either way.

Now this is a example open to everybody about how we can debate about how rules are open to interpretation.

You might not like my attitude but I like yours

**Apple fox**

Grimtuff wrote:
Look, I see what you're doing. You're dong the typical "throw irrelevant questions at the politician" tactic seen quite frequently.

Just... stop.

I think people should try and answer it, and why it is different.

Outside of tournaments which already had rules to deal with it, and local groups which will probably deal with it the same way they did before. What real value does that rule have ?

**Crimson**

Not Online!!! wrote:

he is right though, painting and playing are 2 completely seperate disciplines so to speak,

They are not. Not in tabletop wargmes and never have been. Visuals have always been an integral part of the game. That is why we play using representative little sculptures instead of abstract markers. That is why we use terrain that looks like actual buildings and hills, and not with cardboard boxes. The idea that the visuals are separate of the game is an utter fallacy, and blatantly obvious one. I really don't understand why people keep repeating it as it is blindingly obvious nonsense.

**Grimtuff**

Not Online!!! wrote:
Grimtuff wrote:
Look, I see what you're doing. You're dong the typical "throw irrelevant questions at the politician" tactic seen quite frequently.

Just... stop.

he is right though, painting and playing are 2 completely seperate disciplines so to speak, why should one influence the other but the other not the one.

Because GW say so. If they don't like it they can bugger off and go find another game. That's what you're supposed to tell these so-called "haters" right? That's what was said to me several times on this forum over the years. Right?

**JNAProductions**

Grimtuff wrote:
Not Online!!! wrote:
Grimtuff wrote:
Look, I see what you're doing. You're dong the typical "throw irrelevant questions at the politician" tactic seen quite frequently.

Just... stop.

he is right though, painting and playing are 2 completely seperate disciplines so to speak, why should one influence the other but the other not the one.

Because GW say so. If they don't like it they can bugger off and go find another game. That's what you're supposed to tell these so-called "haters" right? That's what was said to me several times on this forum over the years. Right?

That's a poor answer and you know it.

You've yet to provide any kind of real answer about why people should be FORCED to mix the two aspects of the hobby. If you enjoy both, that's great! Have fun painting and playing. But I, for one, don't enjoy painting. Why should I be penalized in the gameplay because I don't like a different aspect of the hobby?

**Apple fox**

Crimson wrote:
Not Online!!! wrote:

he is right though, painting and playing are 2 completely seperate disciplines so to speak,

They are not. Not in tabletop wargmes and never have been. Visuals have always been an integral part of the game. That is why we play using representative little sculptures instead of abstract markers. That is why we use terrain that looks like actual buildings and hills, and not with cardboard boxes. The idea that the visuals are separate of the game is an utter fallacy, and blatantly obvious one. I really don't understand why people keep repeating it as it is blindingly obvious nonsense.

I think trying to define tabletop war games so rigidly in these times to be a bit of a mistake. Even visuals being integral part of the game can be interpreted broadly. I am a painter, I hate building minis broadly, but I like making minis unique.
And when I watch batreps I find most rather boring to watch as I really want to see the tactics and thoughts involved presented the best they can.
Minis looking good in a batrep is only interesting to me in the first 5 mins, then I don’t care.
For me the hobby’s are very seperate in the way I approach it.
I actuly think the game would be better if GW was to think of 40k as tokens at times, how they look in formations from above and as they monuver.

This hobby can be a lot of things to a lot of people.

**Crimson**

JNAProductions wrote:

You've yet to provide any kind of real answer about why people should be FORCED to mix the two aspects of the hobby.

For the same reason they're 'forced' to assemble their models or indeed use models instead of bottle caps and soda cans.

**Aelyn**

Crimson wrote:
Not Online!!! wrote:

he is right though, painting and playing are 2 completely seperate disciplines so to speak,

They are not. Not in tabletop wargmes and never have been. Visuals have always been an integral part of the game. That is why we play using representative little sculptures instead of abstract markers. That is why we use terrain that looks like actual buildings and hills, and not with cardboard boxes. The idea that the visuals are separate of the game is an utter fallacy, and blatantly obvious one. I really don't understand why people keep repeating it as it is blindingly obvious nonsense.

Any evidence supporting the idea that painting models has always been "an integral part of the game" as opposed to "another, separate, aspect of the overall Warhammer hobby"?

Because I've seen you make this claim a ton of times but never once seen you provide meaningful evidence supporting it.

**JNAProductions**

Crimson wrote:
JNAProductions wrote:

You've yet to provide any kind of real answer about why people should be FORCED to mix the two aspects of the hobby.

For the same reason they're 'forced' to assemble their models or indeed use models instead of bottle caps and soda cans.

Because that's what the majority of people want and find the minimum standards. Yes, it's arbitrary, but this is a luxury after all.

I'd rather play against models than tokens, but if another group (say, a group of teenagers who are just starting out) can't afford/doesn't care about using models? They're perfectly free to use bottlecaps and soda cans.

Again-if you refuse to play against unpainted minis, that's totally fine. You can have that standard. But don't force your standards on others.