Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 vipoid wrote:

Sunny Side Up wrote:

No. It shouldn't.

Building, Painting, Lore and Gaming are clearly and openly advertised as a whole.

If all of these are supposed to be equally important even in game, then why is painting not codified into the rules but lore isn't?

If anything, the indication seems to be that lore is utterly irrelevant. It's not even worth a measly 1VP.

It should be. If genuinely competitive people were ever to get interested in 40K, I'd expect them to set up event rules that test peoples skills, abilities and drive to compete across all these aspects, including writing/creative story-creation (and it's reflection in the competitive painting and gaming) instead of chickening out of the actual skill-based stuff as seems to be norm in 40K.

Unfortunately, people seem biased towards awarding the highest proportion of the "win" to the part that is the least skill-based (e.g. dice rolling and finding rule-loopholes), mostly because the vast majority of 40K players just cannot compete on actual skill-based tasks.

like i said Arbitrary. Pretty much sums it up in one word

EDIT: Nevermind, misread your post.

 vipoid wrote:

Sunny Side Up wrote:

No. It shouldn't.

Building, Painting, Lore and Gaming are clearly and openly advertised as a whole.

If all of these are supposed to be equally important even in game, then why is painting not codified into the rules but lore isn't?

Except both are. I can cite numerous examples.

Red paint job upgrade for Orks,
That certain trait in the SM codex 2.0 where if your chapter is painted as one with a known heritage you have to use that chapter trait.

The former had been in the game since 1999 and a decade beyond, yet no one had a problem with it there. "hOw DaRe YoU tElL mE I lItErAlLy HaVe To PaInT mY tRuKk To GeT tHe UpGrAdE?" Nope, never heard that in that codex's tenure. Ever.

As for background being linked to the game? Are you joking? Literally every unit entry is formatted to be how rare/elite/common a unit is in the background. There were even 0-1 choices in editions past to even hammer home how rare some units were. All parts of the hobby pie are intrinsically linked. The game has never been separate from the hobby, but apparently people have short memories or something.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Sunny Side Up wrote:


It should be. If genuinely competitive people were ever to get interested in 40K, I'd expect them to set up event rules that test peoples skills, abilities and drive to compete across all these aspects, including writing/creative story-creation (and it's reflection in the competitive painting and gaming) instead of chickening out of the actual skill-based stuff as seems to be norm in 40K.

Unfortunately, people seem biased towards awarding the highest proportion of the "win" to the part that is the least skill-based (e.g. dice rolling and finding rule-loopholes), mostly because the vast majority of 40K players just cannot compete on actual skill-based tasks.

That literally used to the be the case for many actual GW GTs, you had to write a portion of background for your army. I know I had to for the ol' combat patrol doubles at Warhammer World.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
I bet Kithail thinks Counts-As is terrible too.

Define it properly. Once upon a time because you want to try and see if this unit works in your army before buying it? Not terrible.

Nice conversion with effort poured into it? No way, that's actually amazing.

You have two units of boyz that permacounts as Meganobz? Yeah, that's terrible. Go buy the proper minis or just modify your list eventually.

A pepsi can that counts as a Greater Demon? No.

Kayback wrote:


You literally have no idea whats going on in other people's lives or what they've had to do to attend the game being played.


Painting takes time and money and skill. Not everyone has those in abundance. Demanding that I spend extra hours and extra money to do something which does not impact the game is wrong. Don't like playing grey tides? Don't.

you literally have no idea what's going in my life neither. Believe me, I don't play wh40k for a living.

This game takes time and money already. It's not like you are picking your minis for free. If you have two large grey armies you have the money. Most greytides I have met are usually a larger collection than mine. And include the latest models, which I usually have to wait weeks and sometimes months to field because I am still painting them. Don't you think your instant access to metachanges is already an advantage that me, the painter cannot afford to have? I think getting the tiebreaker, (because those 10VP are a tiebreaker) just restores the balance.

Blastaar wrote:


You made more of an "effort" to paint your models, therefore you deserve 10 VPs just 'cause? Do you believe that players paint their minis to appease or entertain their opponents, not for their own pleasure? Yeah, you're being elitist, and I would refuse to play with you. Whether a model is painted or not has nothing to do with one's skill at the game, and no-one has an obligation to paint their army to make others happy. Who are you, or GW, to tell players what they can do with their own minis? Playing according to a set of rules is one thing- a game needs structure to exist-but codifying a judgment about people who, for whatever reason, use unpainted minis, is divisive, likely to turn away new players, and simply mean-spirited.

Well, everyone who makes the effort to bring their army to standard deserve the 10VPs, not just me. I paint because I like it on one hand, but do not even try to think it doesn't become a chore from time to time. It does, especially when painting larger repetitive units. And if playing this game the way it has always been played and the way it is designed to be played makes me an elitist then so be it.

 Jidmah wrote:

It's also funny how half the people with the holier-than-though attitude about their painted army are playing marines which are ridiculously easy and faster to paint compared to most other armies. You literally just have to prime them in the color of your choice, highlight weapons and shoulder pads and you are battle ready. And if that weren't enough, you also have half the model count of most other armies.

I have a Sororitas horde infantry army. Unless you play something MASSIVE infantry Guard or HORDE tyranids/orks, I think we are even. And even then, I'd counter with that each sororitas model has way more detail and is harder to paint than gaunts OR boyz.

 AngryAngel80 wrote:


That is true, but if this scoring is sprung to steal the win from someone who played harder for it. It can sour an otherwise close and very fun game. Not everyone is a good sport, and I believe we all have seen people who are terrible sports, win or lose.

Played....Harder? What did you do? Did you spend more Tantric Chi to get more sixes? On one hand your crowd says that it is too hard and too consuming to paint and on the other you dismiss that effort like it is comparable to move the minis and roll some dice?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Sunny Side Up wrote:


It should be. If genuinely competitive people were ever to get interested in 40K, I'd expect them to set up event rules that test peoples skills, abilities and drive to compete across all these aspects, including writing/creative story-creation (and it's reflection in the competitive painting and gaming) instead of chickening out of the actual skill-based stuff as seems to be norm in 40K.

Unfortunately, people seem biased towards awarding the highest proportion of the "win" to the part that is the least skill-based (e.g. dice rolling and finding rule-loopholes), mostly because the vast majority of 40K players just cannot compete on actual skill-based tasks.

There you nailed it. Copying list building and dice rolling take no effort, or at least WAY less considerable effort than painting a full army. Finally the rules are indeed taking into account and rewarding said effort.

AND REGARDING THE ELITIST COMMENTS:

It is NOT about "I have a painted army so I am better than you, peasant". I want YOU to have your army painted as well. If you want to feel elite, you want to remain as such, but in this case it is not about looking down, it is about raising people to the standard of others. I want people to paint their minis, at least to a minimum standard (which is now easier than ever) and get to the same point. As I said before, this is not about new players neither, new players with unfinished units is perfectly understandable, I am talking about the people that has never painted, and have no desire to do so.

 Grimtuff wrote:
Mate, you're the one that is expressing concern over it despite myself and numerous other people ITT telling you a plain black base is fine. If you think it isn't then you know what you have to do. It's not difficult.

yeah, except battle ready means it was based. If you leave the bare plastic base then it isnt based, so no pts for you.

 Grimtuff wrote:

As for background being linked to the game? Are you joking? Literally every unit entry is formatted to be how rare/elite/common a unit is in the background.

This is demonstrably untrue. hence why every non-troop, non-transport unit is arbitrarily limited to 3-per-army, regardless of how common or uncommon they are in the lore.

Furthermore, this at best represents something which changes nothing because it merely restricts a player's choices. Unlike painting, it requires no specific effort on the part of the player.

Moreover, you seem to be entirely dodging the question. If the lore is as important as you claim, why aren't armies awarded bonus VPs for being constructed in line with the fluff and/or for the player writing lore for their army and its leaders?

I have to be honest here - it seems like you yourself simply value painting over lore and are happy that the game now reflects that, yet at the same time you resent anyone who values lore above painting and so don't want the game to also cater to those people. Hence why it is perfectly fine for armies painted to an arbitrary standard to get bonus VPs, but not acceptable for armies with strong lore behind them to get bonus VPs.

 Grimtuff wrote:

Except both are. I can cite numerous examples.

Red paint job upgrade for Orks,
That certain trait in the SM codex 2.0 where if your chapter is painted as one with a known heritage you have to use that chapter trait.

The former had been in the game since 1999 and a decade beyond, yet no one had a problem with it there. "hOw DaRe YoU tElL mE I lItErAlLy HaVe To PaInT mY tRuKk To GeT tHe UpGrAdE?" Nope, never heard that in that codex's tenure. Ever.

Orks paint upgrade are nothing but lore blurbs in current times. And i'm pretty sure if you paint your marines as ultramarines you can use them as any chapter, the only paint restriction is if you soup chapters in your army, they have to be differentiable.


@grimtuff , my goal is to have my armies fully painted, i'm a slow painter, i have other obligations/hobbies that take time and my mental isnt strong enough to paint 20 marines one after the other, i need variety.

Do you really feel i should be punished for not respecting "the spirit of 40k"?

Sunny Side Up wrote:


Building, Painting, Lore and Gaming are clearly and openly advertised as a whole. Participating in it requires you to partake in all of them. If you don't like that, you can always play chess.

That's not right, people can collect without gaming, enjoy the lore without collecting, and game without following the lore. People can make up their own lore, or use none at all and just treat it as a mechanical game. Telling people how they have to engage in the hobby to be considered 'proper' hobbyists and not be ostracised from the community is the very definition of elitism.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:


Do you really feel i should be punished for not respecting "the spirit of 40k"?

Yes.

Is that the answer you want? Bye then. I'm done with you.

 Grimtuff wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:


Do you really feel i should be punished for not respecting "the spirit of 40k"?

Yes.

Is that the answer you want? Bye then. I'm done with you.

Phew, glad i don't play with you then.

I love how a rule designed to reward people who put in the effort is flipped to be a PUNISHMENT to those that don't want to do it.

lol.

Its PUNISHMENT for me to have to chase around the meta and continuously buy new models to have good games too because the balance is utter garbage, but we all seem to embrace that punishment with the continued chorus of git gud and learn to play and build better lists if you want a good game.

I guess some of you better get to picking up a paintbrush. It takes all of 15-20 minutes to spray paint a squad of marines and dip them in some shade and paint their guns black and they are at that point just fine battle ready.

Or you can house rule it... but as I have been told MANY times over the past decade... that wouldn't be "real 40k".

 vipoid wrote:

 Grimtuff wrote:

As for background being linked to the game? Are you joking? Literally every unit entry is formatted to be how rare/elite/common a unit is in the background.

This is demonstrably untrue. hence why every non-troop, non-transport unit is arbitrarily limited to 3-per-army, regardless of how common or uncommon they are in the lore.

Furthermore, this at best represents something which changes nothing because it merely restricts a player's choices. Unlike painting, it requires no specific effort on the part of the player.

Moreover, you seem to be entirely dodging the question. If the lore is as important as you claim, why aren't armies awarded bonus VPs for being constructed in line with the fluff and/or for the player writing lore for their army and its leaders?

I have to be honest here - it seems like you yourself simply value painting over lore and are happy that the game now reflects that, yet at the same time you resent anyone who values lore above painting and so don't want the game to also cater to those people. Hence why it is perfectly fine for armies painted to an arbitrary standard to get bonus VPs, but not acceptable for armies with strong lore behind them to get bonus VPs.

Armies aren't awarded bonus VPs for being constructed in line with the fluff, but are awarded CPs (for being battle forged and structured as detachments), detachment abilities for all being unified detachments, and various other little things like that.

 auticus wrote:
I love how a rule designed to reward people who put in the effort is flipped to be a PUNISHMENT to those that don't want to do it.

lol.

Its PUNISHMENT for me to have to chase around the meta and continuously buy new models to have good games too because the balance is utter garbage, but we all seem to embrace that punishment with the continued chorus of git gud and learn to play and build better lists if you want a good game.

I guess some of you better get to picking up a paintbrush. It takes all of 15-20 minutes to spray paint a squad of marines and dip them in some shade and paint their guns black and they are at that point just fine battle ready.

Or you can house rule it... but as I have been told MANY times over the past decade... that wouldn't be "real 40k".

unless your painting standard is higher than that.

My models are at the very least basecoated with an airbrush with 2 tones. I still don't consider them "done" at all.

 Kithail wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:

It's also funny how half the people with the holier-than-though attitude about their painted army are playing marines which are ridiculously easy and faster to paint compared to most other armies. You literally just have to prime them in the color of your choice, highlight weapons and shoulder pads and you are battle ready. And if that weren't enough, you also have half the model count of most other armies.

I have a Sororitas horde infantry army. Unless you play something MASSIVE infantry Guard or HORDE tyranids/orks, I think we are even. And even then, I'd counter with that each sororitas model has way more detail and is harder to paint than gaunts OR boyz.

1. I do, in fact, play orks.
2. Liar, liar, pants on fire. According to yourself, you are running a Raven Guard successor chapter called "Shade Harriers". Which do have a cool paint scheme that is probably a PITA to paint because of all that white, but still no sororitas horde and definitely no harder to paint than white Death Guard. Which are a ridiculously easy to paint compared to orks.

Red paintjob for orks is long gone. And even when it was in the codex it didn't require to actually paint the model in red. It was just one of those inivisible upgrades (I mean that didn't require to be represented by a specific bitz) like armor plates and such that you could take for a vehicle, nothing more.

Old metal sisters aren't harder to paint or much more detailed than ork boyz.

Rihgu wrote:


Armies aren't awarded bonus VPs for being constructed in line with the fluff, but are awarded CPs (for being battle forged and structured as detachments), detachment abilities for all being unified detachments, and various other little things like that.

yeah but i don't get more VPs if my kabal of the flayed skull has no model on foot.
And i don't get VPs if i decide to run a terminator only first company list.
And i don't get VPs if i run no demons in my nightlords list
And i don't get VPs if i run an aspect host with my biel-tan

The detachments are not representations of the fluff of the armies, theyre restrictions that are there only for one aspect of the hobby : the game .

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 auticus wrote:
I love how a rule designed to reward people who put in the effort is flipped to be a PUNISHMENT to those that don't want to do it.

lol.

Its PUNISHMENT for me to have to chase around the meta and continuously buy new models to have good games too because the balance is utter garbage, but we all seem to embrace that punishment with the continued chorus of git gud and learn to play and build better lists if you want a good game.

I guess some of you better get to picking up a paintbrush. It takes all of 15-20 minutes to spray paint a squad of marines and dip them in some shade and paint their guns black and they are at that point just fine battle ready.

Or you can house rule it... but as I have been told MANY times over the past decade... that wouldn't be "real 40k".

unless your painting standard is higher than that.

My models are at the very least basecoated with an airbrush with 2 tones. I still don't consider them "done" at all.

We can find 1000 ways to circle round and round on it. Base coat and shade is the first two levels of any painted model. Just base coat and shade and then get back to them as you go along. If you are fine with fielding bare grey plastic, then fielding a partially painted miniature shouldn't be a bother either other than one simply just doesn't want to be forced to do so (but I say don't do it then just give up the 10 points no biggie). From a painter's standpoint, I have tabletop qualitied a good dozen armies and then went back and made them better but they were painted for events so I could play them. And basecoat and shade isn't tabletop quality. Basecoat and shade is the bare minimum of effort.

 auticus wrote:
I love how a rule designed to reward people who put in the effort is flipped to be a PUNISHMENT to those that don't want to do it.

100 max VP. 10 are painting. so Max VP for unpainted is lower then max VP for painted. Ergo yes, it is a "punishment"

lol.

Its PUNISHMENT for me to have to chase around the meta and continuously buy new models to have good games too because the balance is utter garbage, but we all seem to embrace that punishment with the continued chorus of git gud and learn to play and build better lists if you want a good game.

Funny, that are some of my gripes aswell,especially the balance, or design choices for certain factions and one of the reasons why i am highly unlikely to buy 9th ed rules.

I guess some of you better get to picking up a paintbrush. It takes all of 15-20 minutes to spray paint a squad of marines and dip them in some shade and paint their guns black and they are at that point just fine battle ready.

Considering alot here have stated to be slow painters, some even running painting blogs, that is a non argument auticus and you know it and not at all said.

Or you can house rule it... but as I have been told MANY times over the past decade... that wouldn't be "real 40k".

Funnily i do houseruling too, wouldn't be the first edition i just kink out dents GW leaves in there and it's balance. So, erm, what group are you talking about?

 Jidmah wrote:

2. Liar, liar, pants on fire. According to yourself, you are running a Raven Guard successor chapter called "Shade Harriers". Which do have a cool paint scheme that is probably a PITA to paint because of all that white, but still no sororitas horde and definitely no harder to paint than white Death Guard. Which are a ridiculously easy to paint compared to orks.

i mean, he could very well have more than one army.

Funnily i do houseruling too, wouldn't be the first edition i just kink out dents GW leaves in there and it's balance. So, erm, what group are you talking about?

I invite you to come over to the states and set up shop and then try to get your houseruling on and see how that goes for you.

While its possible, in my region anyway many groups will ride you out of the store for trying that. Your private games are a bit easier to do that but public store games with houserules are largely a big no no here.

100 max VP. 10 are painting. so Max VP for unpainted is lower then max VP for painted. Ergo yes, it is a "punishment"

Anything that does not reward you can be deemed a "punishment". If thats your mindset, then anything that prevents you from getting a full score despite a minimal effort would be a "punishment". But thats just how the current gen of players sees things. Just like having to maneuver and position troops is a "punishment" if you like melee armies since shooting doesn't require it.

The word "punishment" is thrown about in here so often that it long ago lost its meaning other than "its something I don't like and makes me not want to play".

 auticus wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 auticus wrote:
I love how a rule designed to reward people who put in the effort is flipped to be a PUNISHMENT to those that don't want to do it.

lol.

Its PUNISHMENT for me to have to chase around the meta and continuously buy new models to have good games too because the balance is utter garbage, but we all seem to embrace that punishment with the continued chorus of git gud and learn to play and build better lists if you want a good game.

I guess some of you better get to picking up a paintbrush. It takes all of 15-20 minutes to spray paint a squad of marines and dip them in some shade and paint their guns black and they are at that point just fine battle ready.

Or you can house rule it... but as I have been told MANY times over the past decade... that wouldn't be "real 40k".

unless your painting standard is higher than that.

My models are at the very least basecoated with an airbrush with 2 tones. I still don't consider them "done" at all.

We can find 1000 ways to circle round and round on it. Base coat and shade is the first two levels of any painted model. Just base coat and shade and then get back to them as you go along. If you are fine with fielding bare grey plastic, then fielding a partially painted miniature shouldn't be a bother either other than one simply just doesn't want to be forced to do so (but I say don't do it then just give up the 10 points no biggie). From a painter's standpoint, I have tabletop qualitied a good dozen armies and then went back and made them better but they were painted for events so I could play them. And basecoat and shade isn't tabletop quality. Basecoat and shade is the bare minimum of effort.

yeah but theres a difference between slapping a basecoat and dipping in shade vs basecoating every detail and applying precise shading in how much time it consumes. I don't just drown my minis in shade so shading actually takes quite a while.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:

2. Liar, liar, pants on fire. According to yourself, you are running a Raven Guard successor chapter called "Shade Harriers". Which do have a cool paint scheme that is probably a PITA to paint because of all that white, but still no sororitas horde and definitely no harder to paint than white Death Guard. Which are a ridiculously easy to paint compared to orks.

i mean, he could very well have more than one army.

True, but I think he would have posted at least once in a topic regarding adeptus sororitas. All his posts about tactics, army lists, painting and rules are about marines.

And it's not like I was trying to find this information - I actually was curious to get a picture of those sisters to see whether he had metal miniatures or already painted a horde of plastic sisters.

 Blackie wrote:
Red paintjob for orks is long gone. And even when it was in the codex it didn't require to actually paint the model in red. It was just one of those inivisible upgrades (I mean that didn't require to be represented by a specific bitz) like armor plates and such that you could take for a vehicle, nothing more.

Yes it did. What part of "all weapons and wargear must be represented on the model" do you not understand? WYSIWYG used to be a thing back in the day.

Like I said, short memories...

 auticus wrote:

Funnily i do houseruling too, wouldn't be the first edition i just kink out dents GW leaves in there and it's balance. So, erm, what group are you talking about?

I invite you to come over to the states and set up shop and then try to get your houseruling on and see how that goes for you.

While its possible, in my region anyway many groups will ride you out of the store for trying that. Your private games are a bit easier to do that but public store games with houserules are largely a big no no here.

I certainly won't go over, thank you, and that is just a community issue and difference, we do it plenty over here.

And you still haven't told me why i am in that supposed group.
Broad brushes broad strokes i heard.

And again if it were TRULY in the heart of the hobby, then not only painting would've needed to be rewarded but ALSO conversion and LORE.
Yet we got nothing in that regard?

Which is why i still deem this rule arbitrary as all.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 auticus wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 auticus wrote:
I love how a rule designed to reward people who put in the effort is flipped to be a PUNISHMENT to those that don't want to do it.

lol.

Its PUNISHMENT for me to have to chase around the meta and continuously buy new models to have good games too because the balance is utter garbage, but we all seem to embrace that punishment with the continued chorus of git gud and learn to play and build better lists if you want a good game.

I guess some of you better get to picking up a paintbrush. It takes all of 15-20 minutes to spray paint a squad of marines and dip them in some shade and paint their guns black and they are at that point just fine battle ready.

Or you can house rule it... but as I have been told MANY times over the past decade... that wouldn't be "real 40k".

unless your painting standard is higher than that.

My models are at the very least basecoated with an airbrush with 2 tones. I still don't consider them "done" at all.

We can find 1000 ways to circle round and round on it. Base coat and shade is the first two levels of any painted model. Just base coat and shade and then get back to them as you go along. If you are fine with fielding bare grey plastic, then fielding a partially painted miniature shouldn't be a bother either other than one simply just doesn't want to be forced to do so (but I say don't do it then just give up the 10 points no biggie). From a painter's standpoint, I have tabletop qualitied a good dozen armies and then went back and made them better but they were painted for events so I could play them. And basecoat and shade isn't tabletop quality. Basecoat and shade is the bare minimum of effort.

yeah but theres a difference between slapping a basecoat and dipping in shade vs basecoating every detail and applying precise shading in how much time it consumes. I don't just drown my minis in shade so shading actually takes quite a while.

My dude I've been painting miniatures for about 30 years now and did commission painting for many years from tabletop quality on up. You are still describing a partially painted figure vs a fully painted figure. If you are fine running about with grey plastic, there shouldn't be an issue running around with a basecoated and one layer of shade applied miniature. You can get back to applying all of the precise shading later.

The only thing that you are arguing against is that goes against your workflow. Fair enough. Your best bet then is to houserule 40k to not use the rule and not attend events that require painting, which is also perfectly fine.

 Grimtuff wrote:

 Blackie wrote:
Red paintjob for orks is long gone. And even when it was in the codex it didn't require to actually paint the model in red. It was just one of those inivisible upgrades (I mean that didn't require to be represented by a specific bitz) like armor plates and such that you could take for a vehicle, nothing more.

Yes it did. What part of "all weapons and wargear must be represented on the model" do you not understand? WYSIWYG used to be a thing back in the day.

Like I said, short memories...

All my trukks and battlewagons are painted both red and battle ready!

Still 0 VP for me, because I have an unpainted plane and a primed weirdboy

Anything that does not reward you can be deemed a "punishment". If thats your mindset, then anything that prevents you from getting a full score despite a minimal effort would be a "punishment". But thats just how the current gen of players sees things. Just like having to maneuver and position troops is a "punishment" if you like melee armies since shooting doesn't require it.

The word "punishment" is thrown about in here so often that it long ago lost its meaning other than "its something I don't like and makes me not want to play".

Why do you think "" these were there?

 Jidmah wrote:

 Kithail wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:

It's also funny how half the people with the holier-than-though attitude about their painted army are playing marines which are ridiculously easy and faster to paint compared to most other armies. You literally just have to prime them in the color of your choice, highlight weapons and shoulder pads and you are battle ready. And if that weren't enough, you also have half the model count of most other armies.

I have a Sororitas horde infantry army. Unless you play something MASSIVE infantry Guard or HORDE tyranids/orks, I think we are even. And even then, I'd counter with that each sororitas model has way more detail and is harder to paint than gaunts OR boyz.

1. I do, in fact, play orks.
2. Liar, liar, pants on fire. According to yourself, you are running a Raven Guard successor chapter called "Shade Harriers". Which do have a cool paint scheme that is probably a PITA to paint because of all that white, but still no sororitas horde and definitely no harder to paint than white Death Guard. Which are a ridiculously easy to paint compared to orks.

Yeap, I'm painting the sororitas. Don't call people liars dude, that's bad taste. It's a lot of models. My plan for 8th was an infantry brigade. That's over 80 models alone, closest to 100. No, I haven't finished them, and if I bring them to the table now, I'll be giving the 10VPs no problem, no questions asked. However, I give it a couple of months before I reach the battle ready level with a playable list.

Not talking about ORKZ in general but BOYZ in particular. I have painted boyz before, and it is easier to do them than battle sisters. And yes, I can concur with you that marines are easier than both.

Thanks for your comment on the paint scheme, but I eventually mutated it into a shade of light grey easier to manage. Still keeping certain details white, but yes, I haven't found any brand of decent white paint.

Not Online!!! wrote:

 auticus wrote:

Funnily i do houseruling too, wouldn't be the first edition i just kink out dents GW leaves in there and it's balance. So, erm, what group are you talking about?

I invite you to come over to the states and set up shop and then try to get your houseruling on and see how that goes for you.

While its possible, in my region anyway many groups will ride you out of the store for trying that. Your private games are a bit easier to do that but public store games with houserules are largely a big no no here.

I certainly won't go over, thank you, and that is just a community issue and difference, we do it plenty over here.

And you still haven't told me why i am in that supposed group.
Broad brushes broad strokes i heard.

And again if it were TRULY in the heart of the hobby, then not only painting would've needed to be rewarded but ALSO conversion and LORE.
Yet we got nothing in that regard?

Which is why i still deem this rule arbitrary as all.

I mean you can argue it until your face turns blue. I've been set on fire in these forums and ridden out because I can't stand the bad balance and being told to git gud and go buy new miniatures every 6 months to keep up and just learn to play and build lists better by staying on top of what is busted because thats "official 40k (or aos)". Doesn't change the fact that its the rule, and you have to follow the rules or you have to house rule and play an unofficial version of the rules.

If you do it plenty there (houserule) then this rule shouldn't affect you anyway so who cares?