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.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
I thought Warhammer was for everyone? I guess not.

underrated post IMO

For umpteen years this debate has raged across the internet and now GW has basically said, yes this is a debate we want to be happening. Which is bizarre in itself but as BCB points out also contrary to their own brand ambitions or perhaps it just shows that their branding is all pose.

Could we stop using analogies? We get a new one every other page, and then we get it twisted in 5 different ways to fit different sides, before we finally realise it wasn't appropriate in the first place, or dismiss it as not relevant.

 Manchu wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
I thought Warhammer was for everyone? I guess not.

underrated post IMO

For umpteen years this debate has raged across the internet and now GW has basically said, yes this is a debate we want to be happening. Which is bizarre in itself but as BCB points out also contrary to their own brand ambitions or perhaps it just shows that their branding is all pose.

I'm sorry but, how do you figure that? The games have always been presented as being played with painted models.

Until now,painting was part of the hobby,not the game,is the difference I see it as.What about unpainted terrain?is that gonna be classed as invisible,no longer blocks los?Read it here first!

 Insectum7 wrote:
I'm sorry but, how do you figure that? The games have always been presented as being played with painted models.

It seem that there is a section of the playerbase who have managed to remain oblivious of this fact for thirty years.

Regarding the "warhammer is for everyone" - not all gamemodes require painted models. Open Play exists. Narrative exists.

As I understand, isn't it only Matched and Crusade that have rules for this? There's more than just those modes.

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Manchu wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
I thought Warhammer was for everyone? I guess not.

underrated post IMO

For umpteen years this debate has raged across the internet and now GW has basically said, yes this is a debate we want to be happening. Which is bizarre in itself but as BCB points out also contrary to their own brand ambitions or perhaps it just shows that their branding is all pose.

I'm sorry but, how do you figure that? The games have always been presented as being played with painted models.

Sure the sales catalogs show painted models. But there was no paint to win rule. This is ... quite a step. In the direction of an existing dumpster fire of an ongoing fight that only the least plugged in staffers could fail to know about.

 Crimson wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
I'm sorry but, how do you figure that? The games have always been presented as being played with painted models.

It seem that there is a section of the playerbase who have managed to remain oblivious of this fact for thirty years.

Still waiting for you to provide any evidence to support your assertions BTW. It didn't escape my notice that when I challenged you earlier, you continued to assert your position without providing evidence then went quiet for a bit.

In fact, the 7th edition 40K hardback rulebook bundle actively implies that while it's satisfying to play a game with painted models, it's not necessary to paint your models to play:

A Galaxy Of War, p2 wrote:As each collection grows, it does so along one of three common paths: legends, gaming and painting.

A Galaxy Of War, p5 wrote:None of this is to say that you should feel you're not doing things properly if you don't pursue all three aspects of Warhammer 40,000...
You can pursue one aspect or all three... This is your hobby, and how you pursue it is yours to decide.

There. Direct quotes from a GW publication, dated 2014, confirming that at that time GW considered it perfectly acceptable to play the game without painting your models.

Just to say it, we all know the " Warhammer is for everyone " this is little but empty posturing, there are a great many hurdles to this game and hobby that make it exclusive as past times go. Most people we try to get to play scoff at the price of start up, idea of time invested just to be table ready and all the painting demand does it make it even less approachable.

I got into this hobby not even wanting to model, I had friends who pulled me in kicking and screaming. However once I got a taste, I loved it. Now I engage in all the aspects but as the very same quotes above me point out, painting has never been mandatory just desired.

Honestly, who doesn't wish they had a full painted army ? Who doesn't rather have everything looking nice ? Desire is one thing for views. It shouldn't be and has never been with this game a point based issue outside perhaps tournaments. Which absolutely no one has complained about.

Core game rules is a step too far though, and while I'm sure people wish those who dislike it would just stop bringing it up. This is a process, if we don't like it, say it. I encourage anyone who takes issue with this to mail them, put thoughts to words and say it's not appreciated. They'll either listen at a certain point, or admit what we may feel already that they only pay lip service to caring about their fans in the first place.

Edit: Also at this point is more for others on the fence, or who want to read the issues for and against the rule. I think its a bit of a fallacy to assume debates are only had to win or lose sometimes they are about to really work over the subject matter. Bring it to light and see it from all the angles.

Well was it always a baked in rule in BFG ? If it was, people knew what they were buying into yeah ?

Kind of like when I buy an army and then it gets turned into a tepid steaming bowl of crap with a new edition? And I'm expected to just pony up and buy a new army?

Same thing I suppose.

Aelyn wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
I'm sorry but, how do you figure that? The games have always been presented as being played with painted models.

It seem that there is a section of the playerbase who have managed to remain oblivious of this fact for thirty years.

Still waiting for you to provide any evidence to support your assertions BTW. It didn't escape my notice that when I challenged you earlier, you continued to assert your position without providing evidence then went quiet for a bit.

In fact, the 7th edition 40K hardback rulebook bundle actively implies that while it's satisfying to play a game with painted models, it's not necessary to paint your models to play:

A Galaxy Of War, p2 wrote:As each collection grows, it does so along one of three common paths: legends, gaming and painting.

A Galaxy Of War, p5 wrote:None of this is to say that you should feel you're not doing things properly if you don't pursue all three aspects of Warhammer 40,000...
You can pursue one aspect or all three... This is your hobby, and how you pursue it is yours to decide.

There. Direct quotes from a GW publication, dated 2014, confirming that at that time GW considered it perfectly acceptable to play the game without painting your models.

It's also not necessary to use models at all, blank bases or flat cardboard proxies work fine. Why can't I split modeling off from the game by that same logic? Because it's stupid and you can break the hobby down into any number of categories and pick and choose whichever to discard.

 auticus wrote:

Well was it always a baked in rule in BFG ? If it was, people knew what they were buying into yeah ?

Kind of like when I buy an army and then it gets turned into a tepid steaming bowl of crap with a new edition? And I'm expected to just pony up and buy a new army?

Same thing I suppose.

I don't expect you to do any of that and in fact agree with you that's a crap process GW does. I don't support it and never will.

Aelyn wrote:

In fact, the 7th edition 40K hardback rulebook bundle actively implies that while it's satisfying to play a game with painted models, it's not necessary to paint your models to play:

A Galaxy Of War, p2 wrote:As each collection grows, it does so along one of three common paths: legends, gaming and painting.

A Galaxy Of War, p5 wrote:None of this is to say that you should feel you're not doing things properly if you don't pursue all three aspects of Warhammer 40,000...
You can pursue one aspect or all three... This is your hobby, and how you pursue it is yours to decide.

There. Direct quotes from a GW publication, dated 2014, confirming that at that time GW considered it perfectly acceptable to play the game without painting your models.

Good find, I'll give you that.

Still, as you note, the preceding paragraph says: "Gaming is much more satisfying with with fully painted army than one of bare plastic and resin." That has always been the optimal way to play to GW. Of course they're not gonna tell paying customers that they cannot play in another manner. And indeed, you still can. Unpainted armies are no banned. The rules merely codify this attitude: 'you don't need to paint if you don't want to, but let's face, it is better if you do.'

 Irkjoe wrote:

Aelyn wrote:
In fact, the 7th edition 40K hardback rulebook bundle actively implies that while it's satisfying to play a game with painted models, it's not necessary to paint your models to play:

A Galaxy Of War, p2 wrote:As each collection grows, it does so along one of three common paths: legends, gaming and painting.

A Galaxy Of War, p5 wrote:None of this is to say that you should feel you're not doing things properly if you don't pursue all three aspects of Warhammer 40,000...
You can pursue one aspect or all three... This is your hobby, and how you pursue it is yours to decide.

There. Direct quotes from a GW publication, dated 2014, confirming that at that time GW considered it perfectly acceptable to play the game without painting your models.

It's also not necessary to use models at all, blank bases or flat cardboard proxies work fine. Why can't I split modeling off from the game by that same logic? Because it's stupid and you can break the hobby down into any number of categories and pick and choose whichever to discard.

Yep, as long as you have some way of addressing LoS and ensuring it's clear which unit is which, blanks bases or cardboard proxies are also not inherently "wrong".

Besides, the point of my post was that I didn't break the hobby down into those categories - GW did. It was a counterexample to the "GW have always expected people to play with painted models" mantra some people have been pushing. GW have previously said it's fine to pursue gaming without painting in the 40K hobby.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Crimson wrote:

Aelyn wrote:

In fact, the 7th edition 40K hardback rulebook bundle actively implies that while it's satisfying to play a game with painted models, it's not necessary to paint your models to play:

A Galaxy Of War, p2 wrote:As each collection grows, it does so along one of three common paths: legends, gaming and painting.

A Galaxy Of War, p5 wrote:None of this is to say that you should feel you're not doing things properly if you don't pursue all three aspects of Warhammer 40,000...
You can pursue one aspect or all three... This is your hobby, and how you pursue it is yours to decide.

There. Direct quotes from a GW publication, dated 2014, confirming that at that time GW considered it perfectly acceptable to play the game without painting your models.

Good find, I'll give you that.

Still, as you note, the preceding paragraph says: "Gaming is much more satisfying with with fully painted army than one of bare plastic and resin." That has always been the optimal way to play to GW. Of course they're not gonna tell paying customers that they cannot play in another manner. And indeed, you still can. Unpainted armies are no banned. The rules merely codify this attitude: 'you don't need to paint if you don't want to, but let's face, it is better if you do.'

I've never disputed it's more satisfying experience overall, I've just disputed that it should be a requirement or even an expectation. While it may make for a more satisfying experience, it doesn't necessarily make for a more satisfying game, and I am of the opinion that game rules should be designed in support of the actual game itself, not the broader experience.

But now the new scenarios are blurring the lines between the different parts of the hobby, and that's what I object to; the rule imposes an in-game penalty for an out-of-game approach to the hobby. And yes, in a zero-sum game, giving one player a bonus is equivalent to giving the other a penalty.

 Crimson wrote:

Aelyn wrote:

In fact, the 7th edition 40K hardback rulebook bundle actively implies that while it's satisfying to play a game with painted models, it's not necessary to paint your models to play:

A Galaxy Of War, p2 wrote:As each collection grows, it does so along one of three common paths: legends, gaming and painting.

A Galaxy Of War, p5 wrote:None of this is to say that you should feel you're not doing things properly if you don't pursue all three aspects of Warhammer 40,000...
You can pursue one aspect or all three... This is your hobby, and how you pursue it is yours to decide.

There. Direct quotes from a GW publication, dated 2014, confirming that at that time GW considered it perfectly acceptable to play the game without painting your models.

Good find, I'll give you that.

Still, as you note, the preceding paragraph says: "Gaming is much more satisfying with with fully painted army than one of bare plastic and resin." That has always been the optimal way to play to GW. Of course they're not gonna tell paying customers that they cannot play in another manner. And indeed, you still can. Unpainted armies are no banned. The rules merely codify this attitude: 'you don't need to paint if you don't want to, but let's face, it is better if you do.'

You're really reaching, they are more saying " Feel free to buy and play but do so 10 points down ! " that is neither fun nor accepting. It's more a passive attack on you for not having every model painted or having wrong fun. At that point can I make 10 points with having a 30 page printed out and perfectly bound back story ? I mean forging narratives are huge with the game. How about 10 points for a super fluffy list !

Isn't gaming the most satisfying with a good story, background and pleasing set up as well as fully painted ?

Un painted armies were never banned from being used so acting like this rule is good because it doesn't ban you is silly. The rule shows some sorta attitude, but it isn't a good one. In fact, I bet this rule makes doves cry.

 AngryAngel80 wrote:

You're really reaching, they are more saying " Feel free to buy and play but do so 10 points down ! " that is neither fun nor accepting. It's more a passive attack on you for not having every model painted or having wrong fun.

Consider it balancing the reaction time advantage in meta chasing that skipping the painting gives.

At that point can I make 10 points with having a 30 page printed out and perfectly bound back story ? I mean forging narratives are huge with the game. How about 10 points for a super fluffy list !

Isn't gaming the most satisfying with a good story, background and pleasing set up as well as fully painted ?

This was actually touched upon in the balancing thread. I strongly feel that rules should be written so that they encourage fluff appropriate builds. So yes, I am in favour of effectively giving fluffy armies an advantage in the game.

Un painted armies were never banned from being used so acting like this rule is good because it doesn't ban you is silly.

In AOS they kinda are. The default state is having a painted army and you need to ask your opponents permission to use unpainted. I'm not sure if that is better approach. Though I'm fine with either.

Aelyn wrote:
But now the new scenarios are blurring the lines between the different parts of the hobby, and that's what I object to; the rule imposes an in-game penalty for an out-of-game approach to the hobby. And yes, in a zero-sum game, giving one player a bonus is equivalent to giving the other a penalty.

Apparently there's a term for this sort of thinking - zero-sum bias.

Here's the thing - these 10VP (and, indeed, the VP scored within a game as a whole) do not represent a zero-sum game. If there was a finite shared pool of VPs that were pulled from, and which could be emptied to prevent your opponent scoring, then perhaps this thinking might have merit.

But it doesn't.

If both sides put the effort in, both sides can score the 10VP. If neither side does, neither do. If only one does, they do see a benefit - but they're not taking those VPs away from their opponent's score to add to their own.

Sheesh.

 Manchu wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Manchu wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
I thought Warhammer was for everyone? I guess not.

underrated post IMO

For umpteen years this debate has raged across the internet and now GW has basically said, yes this is a debate we want to be happening. Which is bizarre in itself but as BCB points out also contrary to their own brand ambitions or perhaps it just shows that their branding is all pose.

I'm sorry but, how do you figure that? The games have always been presented as being played with painted models.

Sure the sales catalogs show painted models. But there was no paint to win rule. This is ... quite a step. In the direction of an existing dumpster fire of an ongoing fight that only the least plugged in staffers could fail to know about.

Honestly I think this is much better than the "you have to play the chapter that you painted" rule which I think was in place for the 40K tournament scene at some point.

I just don't see 10 out of a possible 100 points as being "paint to win", especially when
A: tournaments have been running with painting requirements for decades.
B: you can waive the rule among friends
and
C: you can still get roflstomped by a grey horde

Despite the controversy, I think it will result in more models on the table being painted.

 Crimson wrote:

 AngryAngel80 wrote:

You're really reaching, they are more saying " Feel free to buy and play but do so 10 points down ! " that is neither fun nor accepting. It's more a passive attack on you for not having every model painted or having wrong fun.

Consider it balancing the reaction time advantage in meta chasing that skipping the painting gives.

At that point can I make 10 points with having a 30 page printed out and perfectly bound back story ? I mean forging narratives are huge with the game. How about 10 points for a super fluffy list !

Isn't gaming the most satisfying with a good story, background and pleasing set up as well as fully painted ?

This was actually touched upon in the balancing thread. I strongly feel that rules should be written so that they encourage fluff appropriate builds. So yes, I am in favour of effectively giving fluffy armies an advantage in the game.

Un painted armies were never banned from being used so acting like this rule is good because it doesn't ban you is silly.

In AOS they kinda are. The default state is having a painted army and you need to ask your opponents permission to use unpainted. I'm not sure if that is better approach. Though I'm fine with either.

So let me get this straight, this is somehow good because a game I don't play bans unpainted models ? I don't give good goram what AoS does or doesn't allow. I'm Warhammer Old World Boyo, AoS can vanish back into the eye of terror at the back end of space for all I care about it. So the default state of that less than enticing game doesn't change my point of view, neither should it be used as cudgel to imply we should be grateful here in 40k land.

Well when my huge and impressive back story, and army list selection can earn me more points, I'll re think this painting points thing, until then, hell no, it stinks and it needs to keep its hiney where it belongs, in the hobby section and out of core game rules.

 Dysartes wrote:

Aelyn wrote:
But now the new scenarios are blurring the lines between the different parts of the hobby, and that's what I object to; the rule imposes an in-game penalty for an out-of-game approach to the hobby. And yes, in a zero-sum game, giving one player a bonus is equivalent to giving the other a penalty.

Apparently there's a term for this sort of thinking - zero-sum bias.

Here's the thing - these 10VP (and, indeed, the VP scored within a game as a whole) do not represent a zero-sum game. If there was a finite shared pool of VPs that were pulled from, and which could be emptied to prevent your opponent scoring, then perhaps this thinking might have merit.

But it doesn't.

If both sides put the effort in, both sides can score the 10VP. If neither side does, neither do. If only one does, they do see a benefit - but they're not taking those VPs away from their opponent's score to add to their own.

Sheesh.

The results of a game are zero-sum, and that's what the VPs are used to define. For one player to win, the other has to lose. Admittedly, I was making the unspoken assumption that we were talking about a single game and the ultimate criteria we were looking at was who won or lost that game, as opposed to (for example) a campaign where the number of VPs you get in a game informs your progression rather than your win/loss record.

Zero-sum bias is a thing, but this is not an example of it.

 Manchu wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
I thought Warhammer was for everyone? I guess not.

underrated post IMO

For umpteen years this debate has raged across the internet and now GW has basically said, yes this is a debate we want to be happening. Which is bizarre in itself but as BCB points out also contrary to their own brand ambitions or perhaps it just shows that their branding is all pose.

This is a silly. If it's for everyone, then is it also for people who don't buy models at all? Or use 3rd party models? Or who don't follow rules? Or who flip tables?

When GW says its for everyone, they're talking about every kind of person. Any age/race/color/creed/nationality/etc. Warhammer is for everyone, and Warhammer includes following the rules and using the proper models. And now, clearly, it also includes using painted models in matched play.

 Drudge Dreadnought wrote:

 Manchu wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
I thought Warhammer was for everyone? I guess not.

underrated post IMO

For umpteen years this debate has raged across the internet and now GW has basically said, yes this is a debate we want to be happening. Which is bizarre in itself but as BCB points out also contrary to their own brand ambitions or perhaps it just shows that their branding is all pose.

This is a silly. If it's for everyone, then is it also for people who don't buy models at all? Or use 3rd party models? Or who don't follow rules? Or who flip tables?

When GW says its for everyone, they're talking about every kind of person. Any age/race/color/creed/nationality/etc. Warhammer is for everyone, and Warhammer includes following the rules and using the proper models. And now, clearly, it also includes using painted models in matched play.

So it's not for disabled people who have enough motor function to assemble models but not paint them. Gotcha.

Also, it's fairly easy to have friends glue models together, it's no more difficult than lego. Painting is another thing entirely.

Off topic, you think GW is expensive, check out some lego kits, my word.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Drudge Dreadnought wrote:

 Manchu wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
I thought Warhammer was for everyone? I guess not.

underrated post IMO

For umpteen years this debate has raged across the internet and now GW has basically said, yes this is a debate we want to be happening. Which is bizarre in itself but as BCB points out also contrary to their own brand ambitions or perhaps it just shows that their branding is all pose.

This is a silly. If it's for everyone, then is it also for people who don't buy models at all? Or use 3rd party models? Or who don't follow rules? Or who flip tables?

When GW says its for everyone, they're talking about every kind of person. Any age/race/color/creed/nationality/etc. Warhammer is for everyone, and Warhammer includes following the rules and using the proper models. And now, clearly, it also includes using painted models in matched play.

So it's not for disabled people who have enough motor function to assemble models but not paint them. Gotcha.

Also, it's fairly easy to have friends glue models together, it's no more difficult than lego. Painting is another thing entirely.

You're an expert on rules. You know full well that a general rule does not have to include every exception.
Why aren't you complaining that movement rules don't make exceptions for disabled people who can't move models?
Why aren't you complaining that there's no version of the rules in audio format or braille for the blind?
Why is there no shorthand sign language way to play the game for those who can't speak?

You aren't, so its not really about disabled people. So spare us all your sanctimoniousness. If getting other people to glue models together is an option, then surely just talking to your opponent or TO about waving the rule in certain cases is also an option.

You can say you just don't like the rule because you think its inconvenient. You don't have to do this silly hyperbole.

AngryAngel80 wrote:Off topic, you think GW is expensive, check out some lego kits, my word.

Oof, tell me about it! I swear they were never so much when I was a kid!

How the hell has this thread reached 32 pages? The constant arguing in this thread is Exhibit A for why this rule shouldn't exist.

Those of you actually arguing that your opponent has an obligation to paint their minis to make you happy are selfish. It is no-one's damn business what someone does with their own minis.

It is no-one's damn business what someone does with their own minis.

I don't care if other people don't paint their own minis. But in 9th edition that will cost you a sweet 10 victory points

Blastaar wrote:
How the hell has this thread reached 32 pages? The constant arguing in this thread is Exhibit A for why this rule shouldn't exist.

Those of you actually arguing that your opponent has an obligation to paint their minis to make you happy are selfish. It is no-one's damn business what someone does with their own minis.

The rule doesn't say anything about making your opponent happy. It's not me who is demanding that people paint their minis. The rule is an incentive to earn some extra victory points if you do. Its not my business at all if my opponent feels like picking up those VPs or not. There's no arm twisting going on.

I mostly play WiP models, and so do my regular opponents.

So noone is getting bonus points. That's cool. Let's just roll some dice and chill.

 Nightlord1987 wrote:
I mostly play WiP models, and so do my regular opponents.

So noone is getting bonus points. That's cool. Let's just roll some dice and chill.

In the hypothetical case that this rule encourages a couple of people in your group to finish off enough WIP models to field BRS armies, Nightlord, would you have a problem with them getting the 10VPs?