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.

 JNAProductions wrote:

Purifying Tempest wrote:
You do realize the car purchase analogy totally destroys your argument, right? It does prove you've never actually purchased a new car and are more or less taking out of your fourth point of contact. When purchasing a new car, most of the negotiation is over the options package you purchase on the car. Every car has options, and practically no car sells without ANY options at all. Beyond even that, I can get luggage racks installed, ball hitches, refine transmission for hauling, bigger cooling upgrades. There's tons of packages and post-sale upgrades. You think street racing cars are stock factory? All of those cases directly prove the point for house ruling to make the basic package match your intended use.

Do you have to go out and install those options yourself?

Or does the manufacturer/seller do it for you?

Because to me, that comparison seems a lot more like "Hey, we'll be using the Matched Play and Crusade rules", not "I'm going to patch the rules that don't work properly on their own."

The dealer will do some, aftemarket shops can do some, also you can do some. I just installed a tow hitch on my car to mount a bike rack. My brother did his own stereo and speaker swap. He also dissasembled, cleaned, and reassembled his engine. Another friend of mine stenciled and painted his motorcycle.

 Insectum7 wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:

Purifying Tempest wrote:
You do realize the car purchase analogy totally destroys your argument, right? It does prove you've never actually purchased a new car and are more or less taking out of your fourth point of contact. When purchasing a new car, most of the negotiation is over the options package you purchase on the car. Every car has options, and practically no car sells without ANY options at all. Beyond even that, I can get luggage racks installed, ball hitches, refine transmission for hauling, bigger cooling upgrades. There's tons of packages and post-sale upgrades. You think street racing cars are stock factory? All of those cases directly prove the point for house ruling to make the basic package match your intended use.

Do you have to go out and install those options yourself?

Or does the manufacturer/seller do it for you?

Because to me, that comparison seems a lot more like "Hey, we'll be using the Matched Play and Crusade rules", not "I'm going to patch the rules that don't work properly on their own."

The dealer will do some, aftemarket shops can do some, also you can do some. I just installed a tow hitch on my car to mount a bike rack. My brother did his own stereo and speaker swap. He also dissasembled, cleaned, and reassembled his engine. Another friend of mine stenciled and painted his motorcycle.

Okay. I legitimately did not know that-I'm not very experienced with cars.

I like this rule because it encourages the rules lawyer-y, power gamer-y types to paint their armies.

Casual gamers will just house rule it out. No big deal.

Let me expand the analogy a little:

Manufacturer options and post-sale upgrades: these are like errata and FAQs. Some are purely cosmetic, some are to make a feature act correct, some completely change how the vehicle performs/operates. It could be anything from rack rails to haul luggage (a change to allow your car to perform a little bit better in an unintended role) to replacing defective engine seals (an overhaul that will extend the life of your car, increase performance immediately to get back to the baseline, you know... fix things that were fundamentally broken on shipping).

3rd Party Mechanic fixes and upgrades: So I want to boost the performance by adding a part to the car. The manufacturer won't do it because it could have serious consequences on the performance/metrics of the car and thus will put certain specs out of safety/regulatory constraints and violate parts of their warranty. You still really want it, though, so you take it to a mechanic to get the upgrade done. Like engine tuning for street racing falls in this category. 90%+ of those modifications will not be done by the manufacturer, as it is way out of the regulatory boundaries. It still takes a skilled tradesman to do it, and you're not comfortable doing it yourself... or simply don't have the time. This is where things like ITC fit. Industry standard, but not officially supported by the parent company. Beta rules could also fit in here, but this is more like: we universally agree that assembly is required, but many tournaments except for the top have a really lax painting standard. Those are all typically considered "globally acceptable options". But really, this is the category ITC, NOVA, LVO, etc fit into.

Then there is the DiY. I'm skilled enough to install these things. I have a garage and the tools necessary. I am a subject matter expert with the required time (though it may take me however months to install the part). I don't want to commission a mechanic to do it for me, I'd rather save the money or have the satisfaction of the sexy engine purr when I turn the engine over the first time... because it was all done by my hands. I want to do the detailing myself because it is truly unique and no one else will ever have a paint job like that, and I'll have a heck of a story to share at the bar after a show. This is exactly where house ruling fits in. The base product wasn't my intended use, but it was a "close enough" state that with a little work, I can get it the rest of the way. I didn't buy a car chassis with the intention of going home with a truck for hauling. I bought the truck chassis, because it gets me most of the way there, and then added options and/or work to get that extra hauling capacity to pull the stuff I needed to... or get those off-road wheels put in to get into the field for loading without getting mired by the rain.

Like, there's no way your car analogy does not prove a point for house-ruling. No car with no added options or upgrades will normally fill the intended use of the options. The source of the options is irrelevant. They're still options added onto the base vehicle. Heck, by your logic, any codex that suspends a rule (battle focus for running and shooting?) should be trumped by the holy gospel contained within the CRB, as Codexes are "add-on options" and should not have to override the base state of the CRB. I'll give you that the CRB/Codex argument is a bit flaky, but it is the extreme conclusion of the argument you are making.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 JNAProductions wrote:
Okay. I legitimately did not know that-I'm not very experienced with cars.

This came while I was typing, I'll keep it there for clarity purpose... but I am not continuing to browbeat you after the fact Do not take it that way, please!

As a disabled Warhammer player (not just vision, but motor control, and also a terminal fething illness so my time allotment in life has meaning) do you know why you don't see many disabled players?

Things like this whole fething thing.

To the people who are saying "you spend time on here, take that time and go paint!" I come here to learn about developments in the game and talk stratagey and lore, that's not painting.

To the people who say "just take your time and you'll get better." Pleas see my Intro to this post, I'd rather spend my time actually playing. Also my disabilities have all progressed since my early 20's when I first (poorly) painted my Necron (an army lauded as one of, if not the, easiest to pain forces), and I am no longer capable for painting to even that basic level in any reasonable kind of timeframe.

This all means that for those who see the 10Vp for painted rule as no issue, it means I'll always be down points in a game.

I'm not a competitive player, my local community (all 3 stores) are hardcore competitive having training matches for sending groups to big events on other countries.

If this rules was strictly a part of Matched Play, which, from what I understand of 9th is the basis for the upcoming tournament rules, that'd be ok with me. BUT! The same rule exists in Crusade, which up until learning that, has had me VERY excited for the new edition as is seems to be a real, official version of the many, many, many, times I've tried to create a similar system over the years.

I'm actually starting to pass out, so I'll stop here, I hope this has added to the conversation. For mmore on how the actual painting part goes, please see my earlier posts.

 Blndmage wrote:
As a disabled Warhammer player (not just vision, but motor control, and also a terminal fething illness so my time allotment in life has meaning) do you know why you don't see many disabled players?

Things like this whole fething thing.

To the people who are saying "you spend time on here, take that time and go paint!" I come here to learn about developments in the game and talk stratagey and lore, that's not painting.

To the people who say "just take your time and you'll get better." Pleas see my Intro to this post, I'd rather spend my time actually playing. Also my disabilities have all progressed since my early 20's when I first (poorly) painted my Necron (an army lauded as one of, if not the, easiest to pain forces), and I am no longer capable for painting to even that basic level in any reasonable kind of timeframe.

This all means that for those who see the 10Vp for painted rule as no issue, it means I'll always be down points in a game.

I'm not a competitive player, my local community (all 3 stores) are hardcore competitive having training matches for sending groups to big events on other countries.

If this rules was strictly a part of Matched Play, which, from what I understand of 9th is the basis for the upcoming tournament rules, that'd be ok with me. BUT! The same rule exists in Crusade, which up until learning that, has had me VERY excited for the new edition as is seems to be a real, official version of the many, many, many, times I've tried to create a similar system over the years.

I'm actually starting to pass out, so I'll stop here, I hope this has added to the conversation. For mmore on how the actual painting part goes, please see my earlier posts.

I mentioned it earlier, but maybe it got passed over in the heat of things. I will legit paint a batch of necrons for you.

I can't solve your local meta problems though. It's a shame you having trouble getting the sort of games you're looking for. I'd offer my local FLGS but it's quarantined because. . . 'murica. Sigh.

 Blndmage wrote:
As a disabled Warhammer player (not just vision, but motor control, and also a terminal fething illness so my time allotment in life has meaning) do you know why you don't see many disabled players?

Things like this whole fething thing.

To the people who are saying "you spend time on here, take that time and go paint!" I come here to learn about developments in the game and talk stratagey and lore, that's not painting.

To the people who say "just take your time and you'll get better." Pleas see my Intro to this post, I'd rather spend my time actually playing. Also my disabilities have all progressed since my early 20's when I first (poorly) painted my Necron (an army lauded as one of, if not the, easiest to pain forces), and I am no longer capable for painting to even that basic level in any reasonable kind of timeframe.

This all means that for those who see the 10Vp for painted rule as no issue, it means I'll always be down points in a game.

I'm not a competitive player, my local community (all 3 stores) are hardcore competitive having training matches for sending groups to big events on other countries.

If this rules was strictly a part of Matched Play, which, from what I understand of 9th is the basis for the upcoming tournament rules, that'd be ok with me. BUT! The same rule exists in Crusade, which up until learning that, has had me VERY excited for the new edition as is seems to be a real, official version of the many, many, many, times I've tried to create a similar system over the years.

I'm actually starting to pass out, so I'll stop here, I hope this has added to the conversation. For mmore on how the actual painting part goes, please see my earlier posts.

Disabled army veteran.

I cannot move fast without losing one of my knees and crashing to the ground with a mangled leg dangling under me. Sometimes when walking, just a little pressure the wrong way puts me on the ground and in INTENSE pain for weeks.

I cannot stand for very long before my knees are howling in pain and I have to sit down. I frequently have to park my butt on a bench or a chair when playing games. It ain't because I'm lazy, it is because I genuinely suffer when on my feet for too long.

I've lost a good portion of my hearing. You have to speak up when around me, which seems to be akin to pulling teeth these days. You may have to repeat yourself several times and enunciate certain sounds so I can understand what you're trying to say.

I'm also legally blind without my glasses, I cannot function without them, and spend some time frequently cleaning them because I am a greasy Italian. This isn't a disability, persay, but it is an inconvenience at times.

I live with my limitations, mostly in silence. They are not badges or awards I wave for pity points in society. I park at the back of the parking lot while young, agile, capable kids drive their parent's cars and park in handicapped spots (though, I do love the places that have veteran parking, good on those businesses!).

If any of the above limitations comes into play in company I am not familiar with, I pause and explain the situation kindly. I ask for a little more time. I ask for people to repeat themselves and then tell them I spent time behind the breeches of howitzers with no hearing protection. I ask for short breaks and casually chat and chill because I need to be off of my feet due to injury.

You want to know what? When I approach these people in those ways, 0% of them have a problem with accommodating. 0% of them have issues playing with me. 0% of them have ridiculed me for my injuries.

If what is happening to you is true, those people are abhorrent and have no place in the hobby. But having listened to your unflinching criticism and unwavering attitude and mass of people that you have a problem with, I think the problem is more how you're approaching the average person and engaging them with your issues. I think a little bit of toughening up is in order, and also a little accommodating on your side to allow people in unfamiliar and uncomfortable situations adapt to meet you somewhere in the middle. I bet you'll find out those jerkwads aren't nearly as bad as you're claiming they are. They are probably a little frustrated and confused on how to deal with you and the tantrums have led them to isolate away from you as opposed to offering the olive branch anymore.

Purifying Tempest wrote:

 Blndmage wrote:
As a disabled Warhammer player (not just vision, but motor control, and also a terminal fething illness so my time allotment in life has meaning) do you know why you don't see many disabled players?

Things like this whole fething thing.

To the people who are saying "you spend time on here, take that time and go paint!" I come here to learn about developments in the game and talk stratagey and lore, that's not painting.

To the people who say "just take your time and you'll get better." Pleas see my Intro to this post, I'd rather spend my time actually playing. Also my disabilities have all progressed since my early 20's when I first (poorly) painted my Necron (an army lauded as one of, if not the, easiest to pain forces), and I am no longer capable for painting to even that basic level in any reasonable kind of timeframe.

This all means that for those who see the 10Vp for painted rule as no issue, it means I'll always be down points in a game.

I'm not a competitive player, my local community (all 3 stores) are hardcore competitive having training matches for sending groups to big events on other countries.

If this rules was strictly a part of Matched Play, which, from what I understand of 9th is the basis for the upcoming tournament rules, that'd be ok with me. BUT! The same rule exists in Crusade, which up until learning that, has had me VERY excited for the new edition as is seems to be a real, official version of the many, many, many, times I've tried to create a similar system over the years.

I'm actually starting to pass out, so I'll stop here, I hope this has added to the conversation. For mmore on how the actual painting part goes, please see my earlier posts.

Disabled army veteran.

I cannot move fast without losing one of my knees and crashing to the ground with a mangled leg dangling under me. Sometimes when walking, just a little pressure the wrong way puts me on the ground and in INTENSE pain for weeks.

I cannot stand for very long before my knees are howling in pain and I have to sit down. I frequently have to park my butt on a bench or a chair when playing games. It ain't because I'm lazy, it is because I genuinely suffer when on my feet for too long.

I've lost a good portion of my hearing. You have to speak up when around me, which seems to be akin to pulling teeth these days. You may have to repeat yourself several times and enunciate certain sounds so I can understand what you're trying to say.

I'm also legally blind without my glasses, I cannot function without them, and spend some time frequently cleaning them because I am a greasy Italian. This isn't a disability, persay, but it is an inconvenience at times.

I live with my limitations, mostly in silence. They are not badges or awards I wave for pity points in society. I park at the back of the parking lot while young, agile, capable kids drive their parent's cars and park in handicapped spots (though, I do love the places that have veteran parking, good on those businesses!).

If any of the above limitations comes into play in company I am not familiar with, I pause and explain the situation kindly. I ask for a little more time. I ask for people to repeat themselves and then tell them I spent time behind the breeches of howitzers with no hearing protection. I ask for short breaks and casually chat and chill because I need to be off of my feet due to injury.

You want to know what? When I approach these people in those ways, 0% of them have a problem with accommodating. 0% of them have issues playing with me. 0% of them have ridiculed me for my injuries.

If what is happening to you is true, those people are abhorrent and have no place in the hobby. But having listened to your unflinching criticism and unwavering attitude and mass of people that you have a problem with, I think the problem is more how you're approaching the average person and engaging them with your issues. I think a little bit of toughening up is in order, and also a little accommodating on your side to allow people in unfamiliar and uncomfortable situations adapt to meet you somewhere in the middle. I bet you'll find out those jerkwads aren't nearly as bad as you're claiming they are. They are probably a little frustrated and confused on how to deal with you and the tantrums have led them to isolate away from you as opposed to offering the olive branch anymore.

First, I respect you posting here. As we both know, living with disabilities is hard. Your vision is most definetly a disability, society has just normalized glasses as prosthetics.
Use the disability spots! There there for you!
I'm not "waving them [my disabilities] around for pity points". Don't stay silent. Speak up. Tell people about your lived experience and you, and others can get help in managing your disabilities and make it so that future generantions don't suffer in silence.

In what way have I thrown "tantrums"?
I also don't play with my local community because I'm a trans woman, and have had threats against me even showing up at the store to play, by men who are leaders of the local groups.
I don't need "a little toughening up" I've been disabled my entire life, died at least twice from complications and it's shaped my entire life.

Double post, can't find the delete

The easiest way to end this pointless arguing? Just get rid of the rule. Then people will complain about something else.

Blindmage, your local community seems insanely toxic and I'm distraught to hear that this sort of crap is going on and is allowed to continue. (Though I'm not exactly surprised. World is a gakky place.) I really hope that you have some reasonable people you can play with and with whom you can also agree how to handle the painting issue.

 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".

You do realize not everyone against this rule would ever tell a player to get good or learn to play right ? I have a couple marine forces who only use first born and I'll never add primaris too, I'm not doing any meta list chasing and I do think that is all garbage and a sign GW pays lip service to balance. Just because people you deal with that are that blind as to love every rule GW puts out and try and bludgeon people with it doesn't mean we all are. If I think a rule is crap, I say it, as I do with this one. If it really pains you so much, just don't play people with un painted armies, doesn't need to be a rule in place to " reward " someone for painting their army. Painting your army is the reward in and of itself, saying you need to be rewarded for it is a daft mentality.

Why isn't the reward of having your beautiful army good enough ? Why isn't the effort put forth to enjoy your creation somehow diminished by someone else having grey hordes ? Do you or others resent them for not painting and putting forth that effort ? As I said in other posts, I have never cared what my opponents army looked like, I like my army and painted or not I appreciate it.

That is why it feels like a " punishment " the granting of 10 points all the time because it smacks of smug entitlement. " Well I wasn't a lazy git and painted my stuff, so I deserve more points because I'm awesome and you are lazy no goodnik. " Paint doesn't factor into any game effects, it doesn't mix up LOS, it doesn't let us hide with camo, it's just an additional bonus and if you love it great, if not that should be equally great. No one should feel they deserve extra points for an action they undertook willingly to make their own items more pleasing to them. It's just the game, not a painting competition where that effort would ideally be rewarded.

Aye, Blindmage. You seem to have an unfortunately harsh and toxic group on your hands, and I'm genuinely sorry you have to deal with that.

 auticus wrote:
I guess to me if its ok for people to shout that bad balance is fun and good for the community and making people buy armies every 6 months to a year to be able to play a game where they aren't being tabled in a turn or two, then its also ok for when a rule comes down to support the hobby side that they also adhere to that as well.

I don't think the bad balance and bad rules longterm improve 40k and its community as a whole either. But as you've seen, that seems to be something no one cares about and in fact people fight very passionately to enforce and support.

But they are VERY passionate about being told they have to spend 20 minutes to spray paint and shade dip their models or lose out on 10 victory points as that is unjust and a punishment.

Some like myself call out the bad balance too, we are not all enemies in this thread. I think what you've had to deal with is equally crap and I have been attacked, lambasted and mocked for harping on GW ideas of balance and power creep. I don''t see how some bad apples make this rule any less punitive to the people it annoys. No one should feel they need to have to re buy whole armies every half a year or ever unless they really want to and people shouldn't play a game at a penalty because of having even one un painted model.

Thank you for those offering simpathy for my local scene. I'm in the capital of my province, the other city nearby (the one most folks know) is way worse a place for folks like me, I've asked around.

I'm playing solo narritive games right now, working on doing stop motion stuff with my minis, etc, finding ways to enjoy the hobby alone.

 auticus wrote:
Yeah. I also do not buy the "punishment" mindset. Sorry not sorry.

This has seeped into professional life as well, where rewarding a teammate for doing great work is seen as punishment to other people who didn't get the reward.

I think its absurd and part of the whole everyone gets a trophy culture we've embraced over the past 20 years or so. Everyone doesn't get a trophy. Thats life.

I have to call this out, you don't think getting 10 free points for even absolute min effort of painting is a participation trophy ? This is a participation trophy if I've ever seen one. As even you say, to do this to min level required, you just get 10 points from now till they decide this rule is stupid and take it away based on no in game effort. I'd also say, this isn't a job, it's a game. Games about playing the game. The hobby side rewards you for the effort given because you want to do it not because it should have any say in who wins the game.

DeathKorp_Rider wrote:
The easiest way to end this pointless arguing? Just get rid of the rule. Then people will complain about something else.

Nah, the easiest way to end the pointless arguing is to accept the rule exists, make exceptions where RL calls for it, and move on.

Blndmage wrote:I'm playing solo narritive games right now, working on doing stop motion stuff with my minis, etc, finding ways to enjoy the hobby alone.

How have you found the solo narrative stuff? I've tried it for Kill Team, but there's only so far it goes.

Love the stop motion idea - if I had the skill/patience/equipment for it, I'd like the sound of that.

 AngryAngel80 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".

You do realize not everyone against this rule would ever tell a player to get good or learn to play right ? I have a couple marine forces who only use first born and I'll never add primaris too, I'm not doing any meta list chasing and I do think that is all garbage and a sign GW pays lip service to balance. Just because people you deal with that are that blind as to love every rule GW puts out and try and bludgeon people with it doesn't mean we all are. If I think a rule is crap, I say it, as I do with this one. If it really pains you so much, just don't play people with un painted armies, doesn't need to be a rule in place to " reward " someone for painting their army. Painting your army is the reward in and of itself, saying you need to be rewarded for it is a daft mentality.

Why isn't the reward of having your beautiful army good enough ? Why isn't the effort put forth to enjoy your creation somehow diminished by someone else having grey hordes ? Do you or others resent them for not painting and putting forth that effort ? As I said in other posts, I have never cared what my opponents army looked like, I like my army and painted or not I appreciate it.

That is why it feels like a " punishment " the granting of 10 points all the time because it smacks of smug entitlement. " Well I wasn't a lazy git and painted my stuff, so I deserve more points because I'm awesome and you are lazy no goodnik. " Paint doesn't factor into any game effects, it doesn't mix up LOS, it doesn't let us hide with camo, it's just an additional bonus and if you love it great, if not that should be equally great. No one should feel they deserve extra points for an action they undertook willingly to make their own items more pleasing to them. It's just the game, not a painting competition where that effort would ideally be rewarded.

Let me explain my wiev on this and then i will leave this thread.

I like the idea of bonus points for painting. In NO way do i feel smug or superior because i always field painted armies, thats just the way i enjoy this hobby. For a number of editions GW has leaned more and more towards tournament style of rules with a side order of ccg (without really succeding).

As a more casual player i am constantly told to "git gud" and buy into the latest meta if i want to win. If i want to stand a chance of winning a game some negotiation beforehand is reqiured. Cool, no problem, i can do that.
Why doesnt this work if you dont want to use the bonus points?

I see this rule as GW trying to steer the game a little bit back to what it once where and i really really would like that.

That a number of posters are here only to troll and stir up gak doesnt help at all.

 Blndmage wrote:
Thank you for those offering simpathy for my local scene. I'm in the capital of my province, the other city nearby (the one most folks know) is way worse a place for folks like me, I've asked around.

I'm playing solo narritive games right now, working on doing stop motion stuff with my minis, etc, finding ways to enjoy the hobby alone.

I've already said I feel for you. I don't think people should be like you're describing I can't say I'm surprised as people will make fun of anyone for whatever reason. Hair color, if you are big or small, thin or fat, disabled or not, doesn't matter. People can be awful.

It's why I disagree with this rule, it's never needed to exist, it doesn't need to exist. Even the supporters say it adds nothing of substance, and 10 points is nothing at all, so if it is so much nothing, why need it ? If most games are blow outs why would someone grey hording the meta waste any time to paint when they are just going to push you around with their wallet anyways ? The only people it would punish are slow painters, noobs, those who find it hard to paint, etc, etc. The power gamers will still crush you with flavor of the month, or show up with the most ugly, but battle ready armies.

So if it adds nothing, cut it away. As all it really seems to be adding is a bad taste in many mouths.

 AngryAngel80 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".

You do realize not everyone against this rule would ever tell a player to get good or learn to play right ? I have a couple marine forces who only use first born and I'll never add primaris too, I'm not doing any meta list chasing and I do think that is all garbage and a sign GW pays lip service to balance. Just because people you deal with that are that blind as to love every rule GW puts out and try and bludgeon people with it doesn't mean we all are. If I think a rule is crap, I say it, as I do with this one. If it really pains you so much, just don't play people with un painted armies, doesn't need to be a rule in place to " reward " someone for painting their army. Painting your army is the reward in and of itself, saying you need to be rewarded for it is a daft mentality.

Why isn't the reward of having your beautiful army good enough ? Why isn't the effort put forth to enjoy your creation somehow diminished by someone else having grey hordes ? Do you or others resent them for not painting and putting forth that effort ? As I said in other posts, I have never cared what my opponents army looked like, I like my army and painted or not I appreciate it.

That is why it feels like a " punishment " the granting of 10 points all the time because it smacks of smug entitlement. " Well I wasn't a lazy git and painted my stuff, so I deserve more points because I'm awesome and you are lazy no goodnik. " Paint doesn't factor into any game effects, it doesn't mix up LOS, it doesn't let us hide with camo, it's just an additional bonus and if you love it great, if not that should be equally great. No one should feel they deserve extra points for an action they undertook willingly to make their own items more pleasing to them. It's just the game, not a painting competition where that effort would ideally be rewarded.

The beauty of all gaming forums is that we have no end to our metaphors, and anything we don't like we have a skill at making it seem like it came from the depths of a horror movie to punish us, or to paint the other side as smug entitled jackasses.

Come to think of it thats how our political system works as well. Nevermind its not just gaming forums, I take that back.

Why isn't the reward of having your beautiful army good enough ?

I didn't write the rule. But... why isn't the fact i spent $800 on a necron force good enough that I have to sit through getting tabled in 1 or 2 turns because I chose the wrong faction? And that I need to get good or learn to play because I chose to like the wrong faction?

Right see that merry go round is a big circle where we can come up with all kinds of things back and forth, but ultimately gets us nowhere. The rule is what it is. Much like the library of rules in 40k that I absolutely hate exist and I have to deal with (or not play, which is largely what I have had to do for some time until they decide to make my factions not gimp so that I don't waste an afternoon getting throttled because I chose the wrong army and won't go round spending another grand just to have close competitive games again in a system that is mostly flaming garbage that encourages that behavior in the first place)

 jhnbrg wrote:

 AngryAngel80 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".

You do realize not everyone against this rule would ever tell a player to get good or learn to play right ? I have a couple marine forces who only use first born and I'll never add primaris too, I'm not doing any meta list chasing and I do think that is all garbage and a sign GW pays lip service to balance. Just because people you deal with that are that blind as to love every rule GW puts out and try and bludgeon people with it doesn't mean we all are. If I think a rule is crap, I say it, as I do with this one. If it really pains you so much, just don't play people with un painted armies, doesn't need to be a rule in place to " reward " someone for painting their army. Painting your army is the reward in and of itself, saying you need to be rewarded for it is a daft mentality.

Why isn't the reward of having your beautiful army good enough ? Why isn't the effort put forth to enjoy your creation somehow diminished by someone else having grey hordes ? Do you or others resent them for not painting and putting forth that effort ? As I said in other posts, I have never cared what my opponents army looked like, I like my army and painted or not I appreciate it.

That is why it feels like a " punishment " the granting of 10 points all the time because it smacks of smug entitlement. " Well I wasn't a lazy git and painted my stuff, so I deserve more points because I'm awesome and you are lazy no goodnik. " Paint doesn't factor into any game effects, it doesn't mix up LOS, it doesn't let us hide with camo, it's just an additional bonus and if you love it great, if not that should be equally great. No one should feel they deserve extra points for an action they undertook willingly to make their own items more pleasing to them. It's just the game, not a painting competition where that effort would ideally be rewarded.

Let me explain my wiev on this and then i will leave this thread.

I like the idea of bonus points for painting. In NO way do i feel smug or superior because i always field painted armies, thats just the way i enjoy this hobby. For a number of editions GW has leaned more and more towards tournament style of rules with a side order of ccg (without really succeding).

As a more casual player i am constantly told to "git gud" and buy into the latest meta if i want to win. If i want to stand a chance of winning a game some negotiation beforehand is reqiured. Cool, no problem, i can do that.
Why doesnt this work if you dont want to use the bonus points?

I see this rule as GW trying to steer the game a little bit back to what it once where and i really really would like that.

That a number of posters are here only to troll and stir up gak doesnt help at all.

I hear what you are saying and I don't agree with those who say git gud or beat the issue with money. That is a GW problem of balance lip service and trying to sell pay to win. They have never had a good balance and the primaris v first born are a perfect sign of just how crap they are and how transparent with their aims.

I don't think you should have to negotiate for a fun game, at least not more than once. I mean I play with the same group mostly and tend to field pretty casual lists. Hell I usually field at least 10 if not more Ogryn for my guard list, that is pretty casual.

I see what you would like the rule to do, I just don't think it'll work that way. If anything, people will be like " Well if you have those extra points, I'll just bring a harder list " or You'll see the most lazy, but battle ready armies tossed up on the field which will be little better than bare plastic.

Some do like to stir the gak, but others really just don't think this is a good rule and feel it will won't lead to good things. Some of us do actually want good balance and don't condone the git gud mentality either. I can only speak for myself on that but I'm pretty consistent in wanting positive changes and good additions to the game, I just don't think this rule is a either of those. Though you seem pretty chill, so if you wanted the extra 10 points I'd happily give it up, though I'd rather the game was good and fun without it.

 auticus wrote:
Yeah. I also do not buy the "punishment" mindset. Sorry not sorry.

This has seeped into professional life as well, where rewarding a teammate for doing great work is seen as punishment to other people who didn't get the reward.

I think its absurd and part of the whole everyone gets a trophy culture we've embraced over the past 20 years or so. Everyone doesn't get a trophy. Thats life.

Yup, which is why I described them as entitled earlier.

They are OK with the core rules not rewarding their fellow gamer for their extra effort so long as it means they don't have to ask for an exception, because they are too prideful.

It's a carrot based on merit, but folks hate those in the current year for some reason. Like you said, it's got to be the whole "everyone gets a trophy" policies over the last 2 decades.

The rule actually is making it OK for unpainted armies to be played, something that was also never officially codified. Sure you may have never abide by that, but GW certainly always intended on the game to be played with painted models. But rather then seeing the glass half full, it's not only half empty but bone dry if you listen to the hyperbole in here.

I wish the rule were implemented in a different way. You can reward your opponent +10VP at the end of the game for having a fully painted army to at least the BRS. That would have put the sportsmanship element front and center and exposed the TFG type front and center. It's always easier to complain when you are allowed the space to frame yourself as the victim. Put the ball in their court and it gets much harder to complain about being a decent sport to the other guy for his extra hard work.

I also like the other posters suggestion for granularity, luckily we are all adults where I game so we will do just that.

 Blndmage wrote:
Double post, can't find the delete

Don't worry, you didn't miss it, there isn't a delete function for us lowly peons.

 auticus wrote:

 AngryAngel80 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".

You do realize not everyone against this rule would ever tell a player to get good or learn to play right ? I have a couple marine forces who only use first born and I'll never add primaris too, I'm not doing any meta list chasing and I do think that is all garbage and a sign GW pays lip service to balance. Just because people you deal with that are that blind as to love every rule GW puts out and try and bludgeon people with it doesn't mean we all are. If I think a rule is crap, I say it, as I do with this one. If it really pains you so much, just don't play people with un painted armies, doesn't need to be a rule in place to " reward " someone for painting their army. Painting your army is the reward in and of itself, saying you need to be rewarded for it is a daft mentality.

Why isn't the reward of having your beautiful army good enough ? Why isn't the effort put forth to enjoy your creation somehow diminished by someone else having grey hordes ? Do you or others resent them for not painting and putting forth that effort ? As I said in other posts, I have never cared what my opponents army looked like, I like my army and painted or not I appreciate it.

That is why it feels like a " punishment " the granting of 10 points all the time because it smacks of smug entitlement. " Well I wasn't a lazy git and painted my stuff, so I deserve more points because I'm awesome and you are lazy no goodnik. " Paint doesn't factor into any game effects, it doesn't mix up LOS, it doesn't let us hide with camo, it's just an additional bonus and if you love it great, if not that should be equally great. No one should feel they deserve extra points for an action they undertook willingly to make their own items more pleasing to them. It's just the game, not a painting competition where that effort would ideally be rewarded.

The beauty of all gaming forums is that we have no end to our metaphors, and anything we don't like we have a skill at making it seem like it came from the depths of a horror movie to punish us, or to paint the other side as smug entitled jackasses.

Come to think of it thats how our political system works as well. Nevermind its not just gaming forums, I take that back.

Why isn't the reward of having your beautiful army good enough ?

I didn't write the rule. But... why isn't the fact i spent $800 on a necron force good enough that I have to sit through getting tabled in 1 or 2 turns because I chose the wrong faction? And that I need to get good or learn to play because I chose to like the wrong faction?

Right see that merry go round is a big circle where we can come up with all kinds of things back and forth, but ultimately gets us nowhere. The rule is what it is. Much like the library of rules in 40k that I absolutely hate exist and I have to deal with (or not play, which is largely what I have had to do for some time until they decide to make my factions not gimp so that I don't waste an afternoon getting throttled because I chose the wrong army and won't go round spending another grand just to have close competitive games again in a system that is mostly flaming garbage that encourages that behavior in the first place)

I'm literally saying I agree that GW has crap balance and that isn't allowable or should be endorsed. I don't get how I can agree with you any more while still saying I don't think this rule is good either.

You shouldn't be punished based on faction either, I think that is terrible and it sucks. The rule is what it is but saying you've had to eat crap from sucky people doesn't mean you should gleefully support others distaste of a rule that is no less dim and adds nothing but derision and division from the player base. If you feel no one stood up to say that stuff sucks with you I am doing so, right now. Taking joy in other peoples upset because you've been upset isn't any good way to view things though.

 JNAProductions wrote:
What is wrong with people enjoying the hobby in different ways?

Someone who loves the lore, but doesn't own a single model-are they wrong?
Someone who loves to paint, but doesn't play a game or give a rat's ass about the lore-are they wrong?
Someone who loves to convert models, but hates to paint-are they wrong?
Someone who loves to game with their friends, but doesn't like painting or care much for the lore-are they wrong?

I hate to dribble when I play basketball, they should totally fix the core rules for everyone that plays that sport in a league to accommodate my preferences because I am entitled and shouldn't have to be treated as the exception

Stop willfully creating fake scenarios.

All your examples don't require a social contract except for the last where you would find out how to be an adult and decide as a group of friends rather then make demands.

 Red Corsair wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
What is wrong with people enjoying the hobby in different ways?

Someone who loves the lore, but doesn't own a single model-are they wrong?
Someone who loves to paint, but doesn't play a game or give a rat's ass about the lore-are they wrong?
Someone who loves to convert models, but hates to paint-are they wrong?
Someone who loves to game with their friends, but doesn't like painting or care much for the lore-are they wrong?

I hate to dribble when I play basketball, they should totally fix the core rules for everyone that plays that sport in a league to accommodate my preferences because I am entitled and shouldn't have to be treated as the exception

Stop willfully creating fake scenarios.

All your examples don't require a social contract except for the last where you would find out how to be an adult and decide as a group of friends rather then make demands.

False equivalency. It's more like "I don't like orange basketballs, your team will take a 10 point penalty if you don't provide me pink basketballs to use."

You shouldn't be punished based on faction either, I think that is terrible and it sucks. The rule is what it is but saying you've had to eat crap from sucky people doesn't mean you should gleefully support others distaste of a rule that is no less dim and adds nothing but derision and division from the player base. If you feel no one stood up to say that stuff sucks with you I am doing so, right now. Taking joy in other peoples upset because you've been upset isn't any good way to view things though.

Oh I don't think its a horrible rule. I've played in events with this very rule, and ran some events with this very rule (it took different forms). I played Battlefleet Gothic which had this rule. I did the traveling tournament circuit thing for years where you HAD to have painted miniatures.

So I'm not just posting this to say I take joy in other people being upset. I don't take joy from it. I'm pointing out the blown up hypocrisy of some people, many in this very thread I've read over the years on dakka and other places, upset at an official rule when they have contributed in the past to blasting people for using houserules or for telling them to git gud because of bad balance issues.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Red Corsair wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
What is wrong with people enjoying the hobby in different ways?

Someone who loves the lore, but doesn't own a single model-are they wrong?
Someone who loves to paint, but doesn't play a game or give a rat's ass about the lore-are they wrong?
Someone who loves to convert models, but hates to paint-are they wrong?
Someone who loves to game with their friends, but doesn't like painting or care much for the lore-are they wrong?

I hate to dribble when I play basketball, they should totally fix the core rules for everyone that plays that sport in a league to accommodate my preferences because I am entitled and shouldn't have to be treated as the exception

Stop willfully creating fake scenarios.

All your examples don't require a social contract except for the last where you would find out how to be an adult and decide as a group of friends rather then make demands.

False equivalency. It's more like "I don't like orange basketballs, your team will take a 10 point penalty if you don't provide me pink basketballs to use."

Actually, it's more like "I expect my basketballs to be inflated, and you take a 10-point penalty if you provide deflated basketballs."

Y'know, since prettiness is basically the reason we play minis games instead of using cardboard chits.

 auticus wrote:

You shouldn't be punished based on faction either, I think that is terrible and it sucks. The rule is what it is but saying you've had to eat crap from sucky people doesn't mean you should gleefully support others distaste of a rule that is no less dim and adds nothing but derision and division from the player base. If you feel no one stood up to say that stuff sucks with you I am doing so, right now. Taking joy in other peoples upset because you've been upset isn't any good way to view things though.

Oh I don't think its a horrible rule. I've played in events with this very rule, and ran some events with this very rule (it took different forms). I played Battlefleet Gothic which had this rule. I did the traveling tournament circuit thing for years where you HAD to have painted miniatures.

So I'm not just posting this to say I take joy in other people being upset. I don't take joy from it. I'm pointing out the blown up hypocrisy of some people, many in this very thread I've read over the years on dakka and other places, upset at an official rule when they have contributed in the past to blasting people for using houserules or for telling them to git gud because of bad balance issues.

Well was it always a baked in rule in BFG ? If it was, people knew what they were buying into yeah ? This has never been a point granting rule in 40k and what events enforce is different from the core missions all holding this as a scoring device. I don't recall any threads saying how unfair it is tournaments require you to bring painted armies, I know I've never disagreed with it.

Two wrongs though will never make a right and the people who said that to you are just as bad as those who want to support this simply because " Dems the rules ".

To clarify, no one I've heard thinks this or more stringent rules shouldn't be used in tournaments, some events, personal groups, etc. We just disagree with its inclusion as a core scoring mechanic when its never been a part of the game before as well has no in game benefit other than meeting an arbitrary standard that could change when the wind blows.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Red Corsair wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
What is wrong with people enjoying the hobby in different ways?

Someone who loves the lore, but doesn't own a single model-are they wrong?
Someone who loves to paint, but doesn't play a game or give a rat's ass about the lore-are they wrong?
Someone who loves to convert models, but hates to paint-are they wrong?
Someone who loves to game with their friends, but doesn't like painting or care much for the lore-are they wrong?

I hate to dribble when I play basketball, they should totally fix the core rules for everyone that plays that sport in a league to accommodate my preferences because I am entitled and shouldn't have to be treated as the exception

Stop willfully creating fake scenarios.

All your examples don't require a social contract except for the last where you would find out how to be an adult and decide as a group of friends rather then make demands.

False equivalency. It's more like "I don't like orange basketballs, your team will take a 10 point penalty if you don't provide me pink basketballs to use."

Actually, it's more like "I expect my basketballs to be inflated, and you take a 10-point penalty if you provide deflated basketballs."

Y'know, since prettiness is basically the reason we play minis games instead of using cardboard chits.

Not to butt in, but, How you going to play basketball with deflated balls ? That seems more like showing up with built models as opposed to just piles of bits.

the very fact this debate has gone on so long shows we all didn't get into this game because we craved prettiness. We enjoy it, yes but I'd never pressure someone to paint their army, everyone I've ever played with does but at their own pace and I still don't think rules should pressure you to do it beyond your own, self set, pace. As well I'd say many play this game because if they want to play any table top mini/war game its simply the only game in town in a great many instances. Which leads to such varying views on the utmost importance of painted models.