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.

 Crimson wrote:
"I like fantasy LARPs but I hate making or getting costumes. Why should I be forced to get a costume? Why are these elitist gatekeepers upset if I show up wearing my jeans and T-shirt?"

This is what I'm hearing. It just doesn't make any sense.

To continue with this analogy, your local LARP has not required costuming for the several decades that it has existed. Costuming has always been appreciated, and many LARPers enjoy costuming, but no one has been turned away for wearing jeans and a T-shirt.

Then suddenly someone changed the policy and basically told all the jeans-wearers that they have to invest a bunch of time and/or money to be allowed to continue LARP'ing. Or, if they insist on not spending hundreds of dollars and/or hours of sewing time on garb, their characters will permanently lose some hit points. This is to "encourage" players to conform to the personal preferences of the new LARP organizer because clearly all those jean-clad tourists are having bad wrong fun.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

TangoTwoBravo wrote:

Seriously folks, the rule does not stop people playing with unpainted or partially painted miniatures. It gives encouragement for those who care about VPs to get their army to Battle Ready condition. I have a feeling in some communities this will be a big Nothing-Burger in the long term, but for some it may just give them the push to finish their army.

"It gives punishments to those who care about VPs to make their army look the way I've decided their army should look."

Or put another way...

"They're having fun wrong. I care about painted models, so my opponent should have to as well. Because they enjoy the hobby in a different way than me, I'm using negative reinforcement to make them conform to my personal preferences."

Not a shot at you, but that's how I read what the bolded part conveys.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

TangoTwoBravo wrote:
stop people playing with unpainted or partially painted miniatures. It gives encouragement for those who care about VPs to get their army to Battle Ready condition. I have a feeling in some communities this will be a big Nothing-Burger in the long term, but for some it may just give them the push to finish their army.

the problem is that these 10vps could affect the outcome of a game.

Lets say youre playing in a league in a store, painting isnt required by the leagues rules but it leads to situations where someone that did win the most games ended up losing because his models weren't all painted. Or even worse , a TFG starts telling his opponents how their minis dont meet the required standard.

Now, somebody being overbearing to declare that his opponent's models are not "Battle Ready" when a reasonable person would say that they were would be a problem, but not a fault of the rule. The GW Battle Ready standard is out there on the webz. I am sure that a third party could provide a quick check. Sure its takes some element of judgement, but I trust our community.

Regarding being in a league and not winning because you didn't play with painted minis, well, I guess you paint your minis if you really want to win?

Wyldhunt wrote:

 Crimson wrote:
"I like fantasy LARPs but I hate making or getting costumes. Why should I be forced to get a costume? Why are these elitist gatekeepers upset if I show up wearing my jeans and T-shirt?"

This is what I'm hearing. It just doesn't make any sense.

To continue with this analogy, your local LARP has not required costuming for the several decades that it has existed. Costuming has always been appreciated, and many LARPers enjoy costuming, but no one has been turned away for wearing jeans and a T-shirt.

Then suddenly someone changed the policy and basically told all the jeans-wearers that they have to invest a bunch of time and/or money to be allowed to continue LARP'ing. Or, if they insist on not spending hundreds and/or hours of sewing time on garb, their characters will permanently lose some hit points. This is to "encourage" players to conform to the personal preferences of the new LARP organizer because clearly all those jean-clad tourists are having bad wrong fun.

Let's fix your example so that it matches what's happening, shall we? The LARP organisers announce an incentive to get people to sort their costumes out - when their character's costume reaches a defined standard, their character gains some bonus hit points.

Wyldhunt wrote:

TangoTwoBravo wrote:

Seriously folks, the rule does not stop people playing with unpainted or partially painted miniatures. It gives encouragement for those who care about VPs to get their army to Battle Ready condition. I have a feeling in some communities this will be a big Nothing-Burger in the long term, but for some it may just give them the push to finish their army.

"It gives punishments to those who care about VPs to make their army look the way I've decided their army should look."

Or put another way...

"They're having fun wrong. I care about painted models, so my opponent should have to as well. Because they enjoy the hobby in a different way than me, I'm using negative reinforcement to make them conform to my personal preferences."

Not a shot at you, but that's how I read what the bolded part conveys.

That would be because you've made your mind up regarding the rule, and are seeing it through that filter - nobody is getting VPs docked for not being painted. Nobody is being prevented from playing for not being painted.

If you happen to have achieved an agreed standard - which needs to be defined in the rulebook, rather than a WHC post - you get a bonus award.

If you're feeling negative, than GW have switch from a carrot to a stick to get people to paint. If you're not, then they've just increased the size of the carrot to make it meaningful in each game.

Wyldhunt wrote:

"They're having fun wrong. I care about painted models, so my opponent should have to as well. Because they enjoy the hobby in a different way than me, I'm using negative reinforcement to make them conform to my personal preferences."

Correct, you are having fun wrong. Why should I have to look at a sea of grey plastic when you get to look at a lovingly painted army? Why is that fair?

BaconCatBug wrote:The GAME portion should be totally independent from the HOBBY portion.

So why do I need to assemble anything?

Unusual Suspect wrote:

If they're not assembled but still follow those rules, no, they shouldn't need to be assembled.

So why is there so much pushback against unassembled models?

Because the vast majority of unassembled models don't actually conform to the TLOS requirements, and thus have an actual effect in game, perhaps?

But why *should* it have an effect in game? After all, we all seem fine with complaining about GW's rules, even though they're written in as "actual effects". Why are some effects more important than others?
All GW would need to do is change how models are "visible", and then those requirements change.

Painting an army, meanwhile, has no interaction with any other part of the game's mechanics, except where GW forcibly inserted it into the scoring process.

Painting models helps identify them for the sake of faction rules. It also helps with visual enjoyment, and as you've said scoring process, whether you like it or not.

Was there a point to the bolded part? Y'know that's WHY folks are complaining about it, right?

You saying forcibly inserted, but I could say the same about needing to physically see the model.

But yeah, so long as your miniatures conform to the requirements of fair play

But why do those requirements exist? GW could easily just say the base dimensions, how tall the model is, and have the "visible" part be a cylinder from the model's base up to the model's height. No need for a model then.

So why force me to build a model at all? Why do the rules require LOS?

What makes you think I want to stop you?

Just seems like there's a double standard between painting and assembling. I'm just here to set the record clear on being fair between them. People seem to believe that all elements of the hobby should be enjoyable in isolation - which is fair enough - so I don't need to build any models.

 Grimtuff wrote:

Wyldhunt wrote:

"They're having fun wrong. I care about painted models, so my opponent should have to as well. Because they enjoy the hobby in a different way than me, I'm using negative reinforcement to make them conform to my personal preferences."

Correct, you are having fun wrong. Why should I have to look at a sea of grey plastic when you get to look at a lovingly painted army? Why is that fair?

You're actually embracing the wrongbadfun argument? That's a bold move, Cotton.

Wyldhunt wrote:If you were playing me, no; you wouldn't need to glue on bolters. Now, if you were fielding something like a devastator squad with 4 different heavy guns + a sergeant, there would be more reason for you to glue guns onto that particular unit (for the sake of avoiding confusion). I'm perfectly alright with facing the paper cut out army someone else suggested or most non-modeled armies as long as their lack of conventional modeling doesn't have a strong negative impact on our game experience.

I can avoid confusion by showing you my army list, or having a piece of paper next to where the empty bases are that says what they are and carrying, and I can cross out the models who get killed.

But sure - if you're fine playing against my bases only army, that puts that to rest.

Unless you're mixing multiple subfactions in the same army (running Iron Hands + White Scars for instance), the paintjob shouldn't be needed to identify special rules. After all, if you're facing my Iybraesil army, you have no idea whether I'm using custom craftworld traits or one of the main 5 based on the paintjob. If someone is mixing subfactions, then there's more of a reason to represent those differences through paint job in the same way that there's more of a reason to glue on the devastators' weapons. And even then, a color around the rim of their bases or a chunk of blue tack on subfaction B's bases would convey that information just as well.

And similarly, I don't need to glue weapons on to my models, because what the model has shouldn't be needed to identify special rules, right? If I'm mixing weapons, I can represent that by, as you said, put a chunk of blue tack on the bases of the "models" carrying plasma guns, for example.

And it does, but it's easier for assembly to actually matter mechanically (line of sight stuff) than for a paintjob to do so.

But why does the game "mechanically" require LOS? You could run the game with LOS rules being that every model has a certain height in inches, and the vertical height up from the base in those inches is the "model". All you need is the base.

Wyldhunt wrote:

 Crimson wrote:
"I like fantasy LARPs but I hate making or getting costumes. Why should I be forced to get a costume? Why are these elitist gatekeepers upset if I show up wearing my jeans and T-shirt?"

This is what I'm hearing. It just doesn't make any sense.

To continue with this analogy, your local LARP has not required costuming for the several decades that it has existed. Costuming has always been appreciated, and many LARPers enjoy costuming, but no one has been turned away for wearing jeans and a T-shirt.

Then suddenly someone changed the policy and basically told all the jeans-wearers that they have to invest a bunch of time and/or money to be allowed to continue LARP'ing. Or, if they insist on not spending hundreds of dollars and/or hours of sewing time on garb, their characters will permanently lose some hit points. This is to "encourage" players to conform to the personal preferences of the new LARP organizer because clearly all those jean-clad tourists are having bad wrong fun.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

TangoTwoBravo wrote:

Seriously folks, the rule does not stop people playing with unpainted or partially painted miniatures. It gives encouragement for those who care about VPs to get their army to Battle Ready condition. I have a feeling in some communities this will be a big Nothing-Burger in the long term, but for some it may just give them the push to finish their army.

"It gives punishments to those who care about VPs to make their army look the way I've decided their army should look."

Or put another way...

"They're having fun wrong. I care about painted models, so my opponent should have to as well. Because they enjoy the hobby in a different way than me, I'm using negative reinforcement to make them conform to my personal preferences."

Not a shot at you, but that's how I read what the bolded part conveys.

I am not judging their models according to my tastes. We aren't saying whose is better painted. We are, I suppose, judging whether either of us has painted to Battle Ready. It's a forgiving standard if my read of the WH Community bit is correct. I'm not breaking out a magnifying glass. If they are playing grey plastic then so be it. Whether we use the VP will depend on the context of the game. Who is counting VPs in pickup games?

I don't see how my statement could be taken as meaning that I think people are having their fun wrong, but I do appreciate that you are not taking a shot at me and I am not offended. If people don't care they don't care. Many don't! And that is great. If they do care and don't paint then they do have a problem - and not one of my making. And one solution to their problem is paint. I truly hope everybody has fun playing, however they go about it.

At the end of the day, this rule will have no impact. People will self-select into groups that do or do not care about having painted models.

Also, it's 10% of the points. If you were playing a game that came down to a 10% margin of victory, you were probably having a great time regardless of whether or not this rule decided the winner.

But why *should* it have an effect in game? After all, we all seem fine with complaining about GW's rules, even though they're written in as "actual effects". Why are some effects more important than others?
All GW would need to do is change how models are "visible", and then those requirements change.

Cool. Die on that hill, if you wish. As it is, the rules currently do take TLOS into consideration (and not tacked on for scoring purposes, but as an integral part of the game that would require actual mechanical changes to avoid non-TLOS models from having an in-game effect.)

You saying forcibly inserted, but I could say the same about needing to physically see the model.

Then go do that, if you think that's what's best for the game and gameplay.

But the consequences of non-TLOS unassembled models affects the actual game, and is not just a "forcibly inserted" scoring mechanic.

Paint the cow any color you like, it still isn't resembling a horse to me.

But why do those requirements exist? GW could easily just say the base dimensions, how tall the model is, and have the "visible" part be a cylinder from the model's base up to the model's height. No need for a model then.

Sounds great to me. I'd support that change. Would make proxying much easier. Would open the hobby to more gamers, who may well get invested into other aspects of the hobby after being drawn in by the game itself.

So why force me to build a model at all? Why do the rules require LOS?

Damned if I know. Like I said, I'd totally support that sort of abstracted change (so long as you have the necessary character markers/bases).

Just seems like there's a double standard between painting and assembling. I'm just here to set the record clear on being fair between them. People seem to believe that all elements of the hobby should be enjoyable in isolation - which is fair enough - so I don't need to build any models.

There is a different standard because, on the whole, there's a tangible difference in game mechanics in one situation... and no tangible difference in the other.

It's only a double standard if they aren't distinguishable, and while they are alike in some ways, they are SUFFICIENTLY distinguishable now that a double standard argument falls flat.

 beir wrote:

Also, it's 10% of the points. If you were playing a game that came down to a 10% margin of victory, you were probably having a great time regardless of whether or not this rule decided the winner.

This is absolutely true! My best games are always the close-fought ones, regardless of whether I won or lost!

 Dysartes wrote:

Let's fix your example so that it matches what's happening, shall we? The LARP organisers announce an incentive to get people to sort their costumes out - when their character's costume reaches a defined standard, their character gains some bonus hit points.

...

If you're feeling negative, than GW have switch from a carrot to a stick to get people to paint. If you're not, then they've just increased the size of the carrot to make it meaningful in each game.

The thing is that using VP as the incentive is functionally the same as using it as a punishment. You can have an incentive that isn't also functionally a punishment, but that's not the case here. Using the LARP example, you could hand out neat little trinkets with no in-game effect as a reward for players who do show up in garb. It doesn't make the garbed-up players more likely to win, and it doesn't change the experience of the people wearing jeans. It's purely an incentive. But if you instead give bonus hp to the people wearing garb, you're functionally making the people in jeans more likely to lose a fight. Unless the jeans wearers happen to be the sort to enjoy being at a disadvantage, you're actively worsening their experience, functionally punishing them for not spending time and money the way you want.

In my case, this isn't actually a huge deal for me personally. I enjoy painting. My stuff will (probably) all get painted eventually. But in the meantime, it creates these awkward moments where I have to decide if I should refrain from playing with new models for a few extra months because I haven't found the time and enthusiasm to enjoy painting those particular models. Or if my opponent loses by 5 points but also has a fully painted army, we have that awkward moment of, "Well, I guess you technically win. If you want to consider that a win."

I do worry about newbies who might be turned off of the game because their nervousness about painting for the first time (a common experience) now translates into them having the disadvantages of being both new to the game and actively penalized 10 points. And framing the rule as the game encouraging you to play "right" adds this subtext that people are playing "wrong" if they don't have a fully painted army. Which... just isn't true.

In short no I won't use this rule because I paint all my friends models and my own

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Wyldhunt wrote:If you were playing me, no; you wouldn't need to glue on bolters. Now, if you were fielding something like a devastator squad with 4 different heavy guns + a sergeant, there would be more reason for you to glue guns onto that particular unit (for the sake of avoiding confusion). I'm perfectly alright with facing the paper cut out army someone else suggested or most non-modeled armies as long as their lack of conventional modeling doesn't have a strong negative impact on our game experience.

I can avoid confusion by showing you my army list, or having a piece of paper next to where the empty bases are that says what they are and carrying, and I can cross out the models who get killed.

But sure - if you're fine playing against my bases only army, that puts that to rest.

Unless you're mixing multiple subfactions in the same army (running Iron Hands + White Scars for instance), the paintjob shouldn't be needed to identify special rules. After all, if you're facing my Iybraesil army, you have no idea whether I'm using custom craftworld traits or one of the main 5 based on the paintjob. If someone is mixing subfactions, then there's more of a reason to represent those differences through paint job in the same way that there's more of a reason to glue on the devastators' weapons. And even then, a color around the rim of their bases or a chunk of blue tack on subfaction B's bases would convey that information just as well.

And similarly, I don't need to glue weapons on to my models, because what the model has shouldn't be needed to identify special rules, right? If I'm mixing weapons, I can represent that by, as you said, put a chunk of blue tack on the bases of the "models" carrying plasma guns, for example.

And it does, but it's easier for assembly to actually matter mechanically (line of sight stuff) than for a paintjob to do so.

But why does the game "mechanically" require LOS? You could run the game with LOS rules being that every model has a certain height in inches, and the vertical height up from the base in those inches is the "model". All you need is the base.

As someone whose first exposure to GW games was using poker chips with tape and marker writing on them to play their LotR game, I'm personally fine with all that. I've played games where my highschool friend's shoe represented a dragon. As a starving college kid, I used (sometimes very slapdash) papercraft to represent the transports my drukhari desperately needed but which I couldn't responsibly afford. More recently, I've faced armies of necron legs with no torsos attached. I would understand if someone else wouldn't be okay playing with or against those proxies, but I was. The 10 VP thing just creates another minor mechanical conversation to have with your opponent in advance and adds this annoying implied "Tsk tsk" from GW.

Unusual Suspect wrote:As it is, the rules currently do take TLOS into consideration (and not tacked on for scoring purposes, but as an integral part of the game that would require actual mechanical changes to avoid non-TLOS models from having an in-game effect.)

And as it is, the rules take painting into consideration.

Look, we can play the "this rule is valid and this other one is tacked on" all day long, but quite frankly, it's a stupid argument. Either all rules should be ignorable up to discretion (my stance on the matter), or none should be.

You saying forcibly inserted, but I could say the same about needing to physically see the model.

But the consequences of non-TLOS unassembled models affects the actual game, and is not just a "forcibly inserted" scoring mechanic.

It only affects the "actual game" because that's how LOS rules work right now. Similarly, painting your models affects the actual game, because that's how scoring works. You can't appeal to the integrity of the game while saying that parts of it are forcibly inserted without destabilising your own position.

Otherwise, what's to stop me saying that LOS rules are forcibly inserted? Nothing.

But why do those requirements exist? GW could easily just say the base dimensions, how tall the model is, and have the "visible" part be a cylinder from the model's base up to the model's height. No need for a model then.

Sounds great to me. I'd support that change. Would make proxying much easier. Would open the hobby to more gamers, who may well get invested into other aspects of the hobby after being drawn in by the game itself.

Great! So, why do I need to build my models again? Unless your stance has changed?

So why force me to build a model at all? Why do the rules require LOS?

Damned if I know.

Exactly. There's no reason I should have to build my models, to use the same logic that we don't need to paint them.

Like I said, I'd totally support that sort of abstracted change (so long as you have the necessary character markers/bases).

Great - we're in agreement.

Just seems like there's a double standard between painting and assembling. I'm just here to set the record clear on being fair between them. People seem to believe that all elements of the hobby should be enjoyable in isolation - which is fair enough - so I don't need to build any models.

There is a different standard because, on the whole, there's a tangible difference in game mechanics in one situation... and no tangible difference in the other.

Game mechanics can change. What's to stop me saying that the current LOS rules aren't "forcibly inserted" and should have no "tangible difference" on the actual game?
As it current stands, painting does have a tangible difference in the game - but you're saying it shouldn't, which is fine. But by that same standard, if I deem LOS shouldn't be important, my point has equal weight to yours.

It's only a double standard if they aren't distinguishable, and while they are alike in some ways, they are SUFFICIENTLY distinguishable now that a double standard argument falls flat.

I disagree. Unassembled models don't affect the strategy of the game, and any rules that say so are "forcibly inserted".
After all, I don't want my brilliant strategic win thwarted by factors that don't immediately relate to the game mechanics, so some people have said.

On a more general "mechanics" point: I'm not really a fan of a bineric "10 points or non" and I have the impression I'm not alone with that.
An easy fix (that would also adress the "but I only have 1 model unpainted!" issue) would be something like:
"For every 10% of the armies models that is painted to battle ready standards, you receive 1 VP".
=> a fully painted army vs. a grey plastic horde would still be +10 VP for the first one
=> an almost complete army with only up to 10% unfinished modles would loose out only 1 VP. I think that should mostly be acceptable.

On an additional note I personally would also advocate for "Bases are considered battle ready if they are:
a) transparent
b) one clean color without paint spots (so the standard black, but at least take care that it doesn't look dirty
c) painted/textured etc.

Wyldhunt wrote:I do worry about newbies who might be turned off of the game because their nervousness about painting for the first time (a common experience) now translates into them having the disadvantages of being both new to the game and actively penalized 10 points.

I don't know anyone who plays with ALL the rules when dealing with newbies. Anything outside the most basic stratagems, subfaction rules, even detachments - I wouldn't bother with them for a newbie. We have the power to ignore rules for our mutual benefit, if that makes the game more enjoyable.

I'd be more worried about OP units or TFGs than I do about this rule.

Wyldhunt wrote:As someone whose first exposure to GW games was using poker chips with tape and marker writing on them to play their LotR game, I'm personally fine with all that.

Perfect. I just want to set the record straight on not needing to engage with things I don't want to extending to assembling too. Painting=assembling=playing, and none should be needed to do the other, yes?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Pyroalchi wrote:
On an additional note I personally would also advocate for "Bases are considered battle ready if they are:
a) transparent
b) one clean color without paint spots (so the standard black, but at least take care that it doesn't look dirty
c) painted/textured etc.

Absolutely. Most reasonable people would see this as the case anyways.

 Unusual Suspect wrote:

 Grimtuff wrote:

Wyldhunt wrote:

"They're having fun wrong. I care about painted models, so my opponent should have to as well. Because they enjoy the hobby in a different way than me, I'm using negative reinforcement to make them conform to my personal preferences."

Correct, you are having fun wrong. Why should I have to look at a sea of grey plastic when you get to look at a lovingly painted army? Why is that fair?

You're actually embracing the wrongbadfun argument? That's a bold move, Cotton.

Also bold to assume that I'm getting something out of looking at your paint job. ;D (I kid. I'm sure your models look lovely.)

The issue here is that you seem to have this assumption that seeing grey armies or an army with a couple of grey models is somehow inherently inferior to a painted army. You're acting like your opponent owes you the time and money it would take to paint their army in a certain way. For many of us, a grey army is not an offensive thing. If you personally are so turned off by grey models that it ruins your gaming experience, that's fair enough. Just be aware that your position is not shared by everyone and that the 10 VP rule is punishing people for not sharing your position.

To my mind, lore is a big part of the fun of 40k. For me, lore is probably a bigger deal than paint jobs. I love having a backstory for all my armies and will generally come up with at least a short backstory for why my army is fighting my opponent's. But I don't expect my opponent to do the same, I don't expect GW to penalize my opponent 10 VP for not writing a paragraph of fluff, and I certainly don't expect GW to create guidelines for whether or not my opponent's fluff is good enough to earn those 10 VP.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Painting models helps identify them for the sake of faction rules.

This is false, or at least not always true.

People are free to use whatever paint scheme they like and make it count as whatever existing chapter/klan/etc they want to play. Can I field yellow ultramarines? Absolutely, no rule says they must be blue. Not even the new rule about bringing painted stuff. Do I want to mix up Evil Sunz and Bad Moons? Lore says they're red and yellow rispectively but nothing, not even at the most important events, prevents me to field yellow orks as Evil Sunz and red orks as Bad Moons.

The majority of the armies were painted when different klans/obsessons/etc didn't exist, so using an official paint scheme wasn't a thing; not everyone is SM. Yet.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Wyldhunt wrote:I do worry about newbies who might be turned off of the game because their nervousness about painting for the first time (a common experience) now translates into them having the disadvantages of being both new to the game and actively penalized 10 points.

I don't know anyone who plays with ALL the rules when dealing with newbies. Anything outside the most basic stratagems, subfaction rules, even detachments - I wouldn't bother with them for a newbie. We have the power to ignore rules for our mutual benefit, if that makes the game more enjoyable.

I'd be more worried about OP units

We also have the power to tone down lists, and avoid OP units if that makes the game more enjoyable.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Wyldhunt wrote:I do worry about newbies who might be turned off of the game because their nervousness about painting for the first time (a common experience) now translates into them having the disadvantages of being both new to the game and actively penalized 10 points.

I don't know anyone who plays with ALL the rules when dealing with newbies. Anything outside the most basic stratagems, subfaction rules, even detachments - I wouldn't bother with them for a newbie. We have the power to ignore rules for our mutual benefit, if that makes the game more enjoyable.

Fair enough. It's ultimately a pretty minor issue despite my salt. I just worry about those conversations when the newbie is trying to figure out the score and feels like you're "taking it easy on them" for ignoring the 10 VP thing, or the slight awkwardness when they ask, "Would I have to paint all my models to play?"

Wyldhunt wrote:As someone whose first exposure to GW games was using poker chips with tape and marker writing on them to play their LotR game, I'm personally fine with all that.

Perfect. I just want to set the record straight on not needing to engage with things I don't want to extending to assembling too. Painting=assembling=playing, and none should be needed to do the other, yes?

Totally. Obviously you have to find an opponent who's on the same page. I don't expect people to let me field a shoe as a wave serpent, and if my opponent is genuinely bothered by me having a grey model somewhere in my army, that's fair enough. I just object to GW mechanically disapproving of how people enjoy their hobby And to the aforementioned impact on newbs.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Unusual Suspect wrote:As it is, the rules currently do take TLOS into consideration (and not tacked on for scoring purposes, but as an integral part of the game that would require actual mechanical changes to avoid non-TLOS models from having an in-game effect.)

And as it is, the rules take painting into consideration.

Look, we can play the "this rule is valid and this other one is tacked on" all day long, but quite frankly, it's a stupid argument. Either all rules should be ignorable up to discretion (my stance on the matter), or none should be.

It only affects the "actual game" because that's how LOS rules work right now. Similarly, painting your models affects the actual game, because that's how scoring works. You can't appeal to the integrity of the game while saying that parts of it are forcibly inserted without destabilising your own position.

Otherwise, what's to stop me saying that LOS rules are forcibly inserted? Nothing.

But the rules don't take them into consideration in the same way, and pretending they do is just... odd.

Painting doesn't affect how the game PLAYS, it affects how it is scored. Non-TLOS affects how the game PLAYS.

Great! So, why do I need to build my models again? Unless your stance has changed?

You don't, if you've got something that works with the current TLOS gameplay rules (not scoring rules, just to repeat), or if you have alternative rules to TLOS that both players agree to you.

As a default, though, your models should conform to default gamePLAY mechanics.

I disagree. Unassembled models don't affect the strategy of the game, and any rules that say so are "forcibly inserted".
After all, I don't want my brilliant strategic win thwarted by factors that don't immediately relate to the game mechanics, so some people have said.

TLOS and non-TLOS will require different mechanics, which will almost certainly affect the strategy of the game.

Painting and non-painting will not have an effect on gameplay strategy.

I'm fine agreeing to disagree on the lot of this, though. I feel like we're both probably arguing past each other towards others arguments at this point.

Cheers

Hopefully the pandemic lasts long enough to force GW to close all their retail stores so this rule will mean donkey. It really doesn't matter though because in the United States we do not follow rules, especially those dictated by foreigners! lol

Tournaments its a fine rule. Most Tournaments forced painting anyway so it won't matter all that much casually just ignore it.

[Unpainted models look bad, by that same logic you can say models add nothing to the game so I'm just going to use proxies. Paint enriches the game the same way models, terrain, lore, and all non numerical rule components of this hobby do. You don't have to paint but your army will look bad and now you will be down 10vp in some circumstances. If your main interest in rules there are far better games, if you don't care about good rules then why so angry about losing vp for paint.

I will clarify the record on the LARP thing - most all that me or my wife have participated in had VERY tangible rewards for dressing in character to a minimal standard.

Currently, a caster gets an extra spell of their maximum level, other classes get to activate abilities extra times, or get granted extra points of armor for dressing "appropriately".

Some people will do the bare minimum to get by, no matter how much you encourage them to go "all the way". Dangling the carrot helps motivate them a little more, give them another reason to engage with their minis (or garb) and get intimate with it.

In terms of 40K: put on lore videos while painting, learn more about your army. Talk with your friends about lore on hobby night. Where did this generic headquarters come from? Why did he get a plasma pistol? All sorts of things you can be doing while getting some quality one-on-one time with those models. All of it is healthy for the players and the hobby. And I'm sure the tip-of-the-top best players who meta chase and commission won't care... but this is the average player. Engage with your army a little more outside of the glue phase, see if that excites you a little more.

I'm still full on the opinion of: this will help color the tables at all sorts of organized events. Reasonable players will play with it reasonably throughout their personal games, but it provides some much-needed standards for organized play.

I'm also certain most players will agree. They'll be able to engage in enough diplomacy at the table top to come to an agreement on what they'll do. Even if I enforce it, and you hate the rule and never want to... worst case is we both walk away saying we won the game. At the end of the day, who cares about the result of our pick-up game at the GW shop (outside of if we had a good time and put on a good show for the spectators)? Those 10 VPs either way literally mean nothing. This only matters at organized play where a multitude of players compete for whatever reason and we use records and VPs to organize how the players rate and are rewarded.

Anyways, time to go back into lurk mode and watch this crazy continue. I just wanted to clear up the record on LARPs not awarding costuming, because it is factually wrong. They very much award and encourage players for helping the immersion of the game and build that experience for everyone around them (and new people watching).

Wyldhunt wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Wyldhunt wrote:I do worry about newbies who might be turned off of the game because their nervousness about painting for the first time (a common experience) now translates into them having the disadvantages of being both new to the game and actively penalized 10 points.

I don't know anyone who plays with ALL the rules when dealing with newbies. Anything outside the most basic stratagems, subfaction rules, even detachments - I wouldn't bother with them for a newbie. We have the power to ignore rules for our mutual benefit, if that makes the game more enjoyable.

Fair enough. It's ultimately a pretty minor issue despite my salt. I just worry about those conversations when the newbie is trying to figure out the score and feels like you're "taking it easy on them" for ignoring the 10 VP thing, or the slight awkwardness when they ask, "Would I have to paint all my models to play?"

Here's a question for you - if you were playing a newbie who is still learning the game, would you be playing full Matched Play? Odds are you're already playing with a reduced version of the rules while they learn the basics, so Matched Play VPs being one of the omissions would make sense.

And given the game has various recognised points values within it now for game size, setting someone a goal of a 500 point Matched Play list to paint to for their first MP goals doesn't seem that unreasonable, does it?

Blackie wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Painting models helps identify them for the sake of faction rules.

This is false, or at least not always true.

People are free to use whatever paint scheme they like and make it count as whatever existing chapter/klan/etc they want to play. Can I field yellow ultramarines? Absolutely, no rule says they must be blue. Not even the new rule about bringing painted stuff. Do I want to mix up Evil Sunz and Bad Moons? Lore says they're red and yellow rispectively but nothing, not even at the most important events, prevents me to field yellow orks as Evil Sunz and red orks as Bad Moons.

The majority of the armies were painted when different klans/obsessons/etc didn't exist, so using an official paint scheme wasn't a thing; not everyone is SM. Yet.

I think Smudge's point there was more than having different subfactions as different colour schemes helps to differentiate them, rather than mandating colours for specific subfactions.

Blackie wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Wyldhunt wrote:I do worry about newbies who might be turned off of the game because their nervousness about painting for the first time (a common experience) now translates into them having the disadvantages of being both new to the game and actively penalized 10 points.

I don't know anyone who plays with ALL the rules when dealing with newbies. Anything outside the most basic stratagems, subfaction rules, even detachments - I wouldn't bother with them for a newbie. We have the power to ignore rules for our mutual benefit, if that makes the game more enjoyable.

I'd be more worried about OP units

We also have the power to tone down lists, and avoid OP units if that makes the game more enjoyable.

Exactly - people can ignore this rule to make the game more enjoyable, if they so wish.
Take control from GW. Find enjoyment how YOU want to find it.

Wyldhunt wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Wyldhunt wrote:I do worry about newbies who might be turned off of the game because their nervousness about painting for the first time (a common experience) now translates into them having the disadvantages of being both new to the game and actively penalized 10 points.

I don't know anyone who plays with ALL the rules when dealing with newbies. Anything outside the most basic stratagems, subfaction rules, even detachments - I wouldn't bother with them for a newbie. We have the power to ignore rules for our mutual benefit, if that makes the game more enjoyable.

Fair enough. It's ultimately a pretty minor issue despite my salt. I just worry about those conversations when the newbie is trying to figure out the score and feels like you're "taking it easy on them" for ignoring the 10 VP thing, or the slight awkwardness when they ask, "Would I have to paint all my models to play?"

I'd tell them the same thing I'd say when confronted with things like "so I HAVE to pick a subfaction" or "I have to know all these extra rules" or "I need to build my army in detachments?" - that 'no, you don't have to, these are rules for other ways the game is played, and you don't have to worry about them at all right now. Talk with your opponent on what kind of game you want, and manage your expectations accordingly - you'll find your own favourite way to play, and I encourage you to embrace that'.

Unusual Suspect wrote:Painting doesn't affect how the game PLAYS, it affects how it is scored. Non-TLOS affects how the game PLAYS.

Only because the rules are written that way! Why *should* LOS affect how the game is played? They only affect things because the rules say they do - for both painting and assembly.

If we can say for one that it "shouldn't" affect features of the game, why not for the other?

Great! So, why do I need to build my models again? Unless your stance has changed?

You don't, if you've got something that works with the current TLOS gameplay rules (not scoring rules, just to repeat), or if you have alternative rules to TLOS that both players agree to you.

But WHY are the current TLOS rules the way they are? As I might see it, they're just "forcibly inserted".

As a default, though, your models should conform to default gamePLAY mechanics.

And by that same virtue, when scoring the game, your models should conform to the default SCORING mechanics, no?
Also, I don't class the scoring any different to the gameplay. It's all one thing in my eyes.

I disagree. Unassembled models don't affect the strategy of the game, and any rules that say so are "forcibly inserted".
After all, I don't want my brilliant strategic win thwarted by factors that don't immediately relate to the game mechanics, so some people have said.

TLOS and non-TLOS will require different mechanics, which will almost certainly affect the strategy of the game.

Painting and non-painting will not have an effect on gameplay strategy.

You're not answering my question though - WHY are the current LOS rules the way they are, in such a way that promotes assembling my models? Should those rules not be amended so that I don't feel pressured to assemble anything?

 Dysartes wrote:

Wyldhunt wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Wyldhunt wrote:I do worry about newbies who might be turned off of the game because their nervousness about painting for the first time (a common experience) now translates into them having the disadvantages of being both new to the game and actively penalized 10 points.

I don't know anyone who plays with ALL the rules when dealing with newbies. Anything outside the most basic stratagems, subfaction rules, even detachments - I wouldn't bother with them for a newbie. We have the power to ignore rules for our mutual benefit, if that makes the game more enjoyable.

Fair enough. It's ultimately a pretty minor issue despite my salt. I just worry about those conversations when the newbie is trying to figure out the score and feels like you're "taking it easy on them" for ignoring the 10 VP thing, or the slight awkwardness when they ask, "Would I have to paint all my models to play?"

Here's a question for you - if you were playing a newbie who is still learning the game, would you be playing full Matched Play? Odds are you're already playing with a reduced version of the rules while they learn the basics, so Matched Play VPs being one of the omissions would make sense.

And given the game has various recognised points values within it now for game size, setting someone a goal of a 500 point Matched Play list to paint to for their first MP goals doesn't seem that unreasonable, does it?

I'd be fine with omitting the 10VP rule for newbies. I'd also be fine with omitting it for someone that has been active in the hobby for decades. While a good paint job is always nice, I'm not interested in making someone else's experience less enjoyable because they failed to paint something. And if someone made a big deal about winning a game because my army wasn't fully painted, I'd probably think less of that person in the future.

Painting 500 points isn't terribly difficult. Punishing people for not doing so just strikes me as gatekeepy. I know there are groups out there who straight up insist that all models be painted, and that's fine. If the paint job is that big a deal to them, I wish them well. But they are gatekeeping the hobby against new people who might be interested in joining the hobby. Adding an element of gatekeeping to a core part of the game just seems mildly bad for the hobby as a whole. If the rules said you were required to insult your opponent's mother before the game if any of their models were unpainted as a way of encouraging them to paint, I wouldn't see the encouragement to paint an army as being worth the bad feels the insult might produce.

 Insectum7 wrote:

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.

You're saying it's TFG behaviour to enforce this rule at a tournament where they haven't houseruled it away or amended it in some way? I don't see how. I personally wouldn't enforce or use it if at all possible (although If everyone else at the tournament was, that opens up a question of certain matches having distorted results I guess?) but if someone *did* enforce it I really don't get how that would make them TFG. If you get called out for following a really basic rule, surely that just shows it shouldn't have been a rule in the first place.

Regarding the thread / poll comment, this rule is unprecedented in the history of 40k due to the way it deals with awarding VPs, so it's obviously polarising and more than merits a thread to discuss it.

 Pyroalchi wrote:
On a more general "mechanics" point: I'm not really a fan of a bineric "10 points or non" and I have the impression I'm not alone with that.
An easy fix (that would also adress the "but I only have 1 model unpainted!" issue) would be something like:
"For every 10% of the armies models that is painted to battle ready standards, you receive 1 VP".
=> a fully painted army vs. a grey plastic horde would still be +10 VP for the first one
=> an almost complete army with only up to 10% unfinished modles would loose out only 1 VP. I think that should mostly be acceptable.

On an additional note I personally would also advocate for "Bases are considered battle ready if they are:
a) transparent
b) one clean color without paint spots (so the standard black, but at least take care that it doesn't look dirty
c) painted/textured etc.

Dude honestly I think you nailed it. I honestly think you did a /thread on this one. I agree you fixed the issue.