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.

yukishiro1 wrote:

 some bloke wrote:
I'm amazed that this rule exists. once you agree to a game, the outcome should be decided entirely by the game, and not by whether one player has everything painted and the other doesn't.

Yeah, that's what it comes down to for me. If they wanted to encourage painting, they should have just said that the game is played with painted models, period, and that if your models aren't painted, check with your opponent that they are ok with that before playing.

Once you accept a game with someone, it shouldn't be a factor in the outcome. You either agree to play with someone or you don't.

What they should of said is:

Warhammer 40K players have different standards. If you and your opponent can't agree on the standards for your game, you are not obliged to play them.

 UncleJetMints wrote:
I am talking about specific people in my group who will use this rule to deny people with painted armies 10 VP because "technically you didn't base your models when you used the GW scenic bases" or "I actually only lost 70-30 cause my army is fully painted and yours isn't."

Ascribing motive to them, now? I know a few jerks in my area, I don't play with them because they're after some totally different experience at the table than I am. They want to smash you off ASAP with questionable ruling combinations and argue about how I should allow it even though it is a crappy interaction that was never intended. But it was worded!

I'm going to have issues with them outside of this rule.

But if this rule, which has never come up yet because the edition hasn't been released... if that imaginary scenario you found yourself in where "that guy" is lauding over you 100-0 and mocking because you gave him 10 free VP over you... if that's the line that makes you not play those guys that you were seemingly ok or borderline before... well, it looks like your projection of how they're going to enforce this rule is making you discount them before even giving them the chance. It kinda makes you "that guy".

Pretty sure nothing is going to change on the tabletop and 99.9% of this entire thread has been useless banter cooked up to be something bigger because there's been no hot takes from the Community site or leaks since. This is literally the lull in the news cycle.

But seeing how people are balkanizing over how we're going to 100% ignore or 100% enforce this stupid rule is just showing how little people are willing to listen and compromise. Even when they say they are. I've given exception for every reasonable excuse, EVEN time. But people are still crossing their arms over the chests and harumphing... or clutching their pearls and refusing to budge.

The rule is a rule. And like Kirioth said in his video: you go to a tournament, you deal with it... like it or not, it is a rule. If you're not in a tournament, just don't be a jerk to your mates. Play with it where appropriate, suspend it whenever else. It isn't a big deal. But don't assume that your mates suspending it for you because you're 10 years behind and just got slapped with the rule is a free pass to never paint. The game is a part of the hobby, the hobby encompasses everything from purchasing to playing and all the stops in between. GW just doubled down on that by allowing players who participate in more phases of the hobby overall to gain a small advantage in another aspect of the greater hobby.

It blows my mind that this is being taken seriously, let alone as a thirty-five page heated debate.

If you're playing competitively, most competitive events already have minimum painting standards, right?

And if you're playing casually, then you're playing for fun, so what does it matter if your opponent adds some numbers to their number and reveals that now their number is bigger than your number?

So like... the only way this matters is if you are really invested in the outcome of a casual game, and scoring higher in game-related VP isn't enough to feel like you won, because your opponent may technically get a higher number from this arbitrary bonus and so the rulebook says they were the Official Winner of this not-tournament-play casual game?

I genuinely don't get it. I took the bonus VP to be a tongue-in-cheek encouragement to paint your models.

I genuinely don't get it. I took the bonus VP to be a tongue-in-cheek encouragement to paint your models.

that was my initial reaction until i realized that literally 1/10th or 2 secondaries are hidden behind it.

Tongue in cheek would be like i dunno 3?

 Vankraken wrote:

Asmodios wrote:
This poll is far too simple to correctly answer because this works like every other rule in the game which depends on the setting.
>hosting an escalation league where the whole point is to get an army painted-yes
>playing a game with a buddy who wants to try new models-No
>some kid wants to try his first game with the models he just slapped together- NO
>going to play at a tournament using official GW rules_ Yes
I'm surprised that of all the new rules this one is receiving so much much time being discussed. Just use the rule in the appropriate setting. GW thugs aren't going to show up to your house and beat you for not using this rule when having a casual game with buddies

I don't think it's an issue with "GW thugs" enforcing their silly rules but an issue with the attitude and message that having official rules for painted models sends. If people don't want to play against unpainted models then they are 100% within their right to refuse a game. People are also within their right to not paint models. The issue is having the rules punish using unpainted models which goes against the spirit of the game.

It wouldn't surprise me if they make some rule about using unofficial models/parts (aka 3rd party stuff) being penalized in the future if they don't get enough backlash from this sort of stuff.

First off if you read the rule it is not "punishing" anyone for not having painted models. It is actually rewarding someone for painting their models which is a big difference. Also just like people are entitled to "100% within their right to refuse a game" people are also 100% within their right to not use this rule. If it bothers you so much dont play a game where this rule is being used.

 catbarf wrote:
It blows my mind that this is being taken seriously, let alone as a thirty-five page heated debate.

If you're playing competitively, most competitive events already have minimum painting standards, right?

And if you're playing casually, then you're playing for fun, so what does it matter if your opponent adds some numbers to their number and reveals that now their number is bigger than your number?

So like... the only way this matters is if you are really invested in the outcome of a casual game, and scoring higher in game-related VP isn't enough to feel like you won, because your opponent may technically get a higher number from this arbitrary bonus and so the rulebook says they were the Official Winner of this not-tournament-play casual game?

I genuinely don't get it. I took the bonus VP to be a tongue-in-cheek encouragement to paint your models.

People who get extremely hung up on 10VP are exactly the ones who need some encouragement to paint their models

Meanwhile everyone else with in-progress, partially painted armies will just house rule it out. It's really not a huge deal unless you refuse to house rule and you're trying so hard to win that you think a 10 VP handicap ruins your game.

 catbarf wrote:
It blows my mind that this is being taken seriously, let alone as a thirty-five page heated debate.

If you're playing competitively, most competitive events already have minimum painting standards, right?

And if you're playing casually, then you're playing for fun, so what does it matter if your opponent adds some numbers to their number and reveals that now their number is bigger than your number?

So like... the only way this matters is if you are really invested in the outcome of a casual game, and scoring higher in game-related VP isn't enough to feel like you won, because your opponent may technically get a higher number from this arbitrary bonus and so the rulebook says they were the Official Winner of this not-tournament-play casual game?

I genuinely don't get it. I took the bonus VP to be a tongue-in-cheek encouragement to paint your models.

It seems the only real issue is that the rule exists and affirms the idea that models should be painted. Paint having no affect on the game is no longer a valid excuse.

 catbarf wrote:
It blows my mind that this is being taken seriously, let alone as a thirty-five page heated debate.

If you're playing competitively, most competitive events already have minimum painting standards, right?

And if you're playing casually, then you're playing for fun, so what does it matter if your opponent adds some numbers to their number and reveals that now their number is bigger than your number?

So like... the only way this matters is if you are really invested in the outcome of a casual game, and scoring higher in game-related VP isn't enough to feel like you won, because your opponent may technically get a higher number from this arbitrary bonus and so the rulebook says they were the Official Winner of this not-tournament-play casual game?

I genuinely don't get it. I took the bonus VP to be a tongue-in-cheek encouragement to paint your models.

Yeah this. It's only 10 friggin VPs and if you're truly a casual player you shouldn't care.

I'm actually pretty happy for the rule. Previously in tournies and against people I was less familiar with I would always ensure I was fully painted. Now with this I don't feel guilty and have no need to apologise for playing unpainted models... the opponent gets compensated.

Let's face it. There are people out there who are only in the game to chase the dopamine hit of an official, GW-sanctioned victory over their opponent. These are the rules lawyer-y, power gamer-y types who always show up with the latest meta cheese list along with an army of completely unpainted models. This rule hits them the hardest because house ruling out the 10VP somehow detracts from the legitimacy of their victory.

Casual circles on the other hand will have no problem playing without the rule because there's more to the hobby than rules-lawyering your way to a 'win'.

If nearly half the playing population are just flat-out not going to use the rule, and the slightly more than half that do want to use it have a million and one exceptions to it, why is it a good rule?

Again-no one is saying "My Plasma guys aren't going to blow up on a hit-roll of 1 when overcharging." No one is saying "My Marines actually have an 8" move." Those rules are fine, and universally accepted. Maybe you should think about why THIS rule isn't.

I think this rule will curb the greytide power gamers. It won't stop power gamers who paint, nor will it affect casual gamers/slow painters who are fine with house rules. But it will discourage the power gaming greytiders. The ones who really, desperately crave every last VP they can get to win, at the expense of everything else in the hobby.

 slave.entity wrote:
I think this rule will curb the greytide power gamers. It won't stop power gamers who paint, nor will it affect casual gamers/slow painters who are fine with house rules. But it will discourage the power gaming greytiders. The ones who really, desperately crave every last VP they can get to win, at the expense of everything else in the hobby.

Do you consider bad paintjobs better than no paintjobs?

 JNAProductions wrote:

 slave.entity wrote:
I think this rule will curb the greytide power gamers. It won't stop power gamers who paint, nor will it affect casual gamers/slow painters who are fine with house rules. But it will discourage the power gaming greytiders. The ones who really, desperately crave every last VP they can get to win, at the expense of everything else in the hobby.

Do you consider bad paintjobs better than no paintjobs?

Of course.

As I said it before, the same people that think painting is petty are really really invested in the pettiness of their 10vps. In their "generalship", "tactical sense" and "mastery of strategy".

 Kithail wrote:
As I said it before, the same people that think painting is petty are really really invested in the pettiness of their 10vps. In their "generalship", "tactical sense" and "mastery of strategy".

isnt it fair for someone to expect their tactical sense to be the main reason for a win/loss in a wargaming game?

 Kithail wrote:
As I said it before, the same people that think painting is petty are really really invested in the pettiness of their 10vps. In their "generalship", "tactical sense" and "mastery of strategy".

I don't think painting is petty-I just don't think it's for me.

And, while I'd much prefer a close game than a one-sided stomp (regardless of who's doing the stomping, me or my opponent), I'd like the game to be determined by the game, and not by outside factors. And yes, that does mean that I dislike how unbalanced GW makes everything-I'd much rather that you could pick any faction and do just as well with it as any other, rather than getting buttsmashed because you like playing murder clowns, or stomping everyone because you like the poster boys.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 Kithail wrote:
As I said it before, the same people that think painting is petty are really really invested in the pettiness of their 10vps. In their "generalship", "tactical sense" and "mastery of strategy".

isnt it fair for someone to expect their tactical sense to be the main reason for a win/loss in a wargaming game?

If this is true of someone then 40k is definitely not the proper game for that outlet. Unless we consider spreadsheeting netlists and maximizing on probability scores of d6 to be a tactical power. (i don't). There are many other games that reward tactical sense a lot more than 40k comes close to doing.

 slave.entity wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:

 slave.entity wrote:
I think this rule will curb the greytide power gamers. It won't stop power gamers who paint, nor will it affect casual gamers/slow painters who are fine with house rules. But it will discourage the power gaming greytiders. The ones who really, desperately crave every last VP they can get to win, at the expense of everything else in the hobby.

Do you consider bad paintjobs better than no paintjobs?

Of course.

I for one would much rather play against a grey horde than an eye-searing monstrosity of an army only painted to hit the bare minimum requirements, any day.

I'd also much rather play with a partly-unpainted army while slowly painting it up to my desired standard a unit at a time, rather than feeling I'm punished if I don't paint the entire thing to an arbitrary "good enough" standard (which does not match my preferred painting standard) before I can even get a feel for the army.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 Kithail wrote:
As I said it before, the same people that think painting is petty are really really invested in the pettiness of their 10vps. In their "generalship", "tactical sense" and "mastery of strategy".

isnt it fair for someone to expect their tactical sense to be the main reason for a win/loss in a wargaming game?

Which amounts to "check the metablowing list, buy those models, bring them unpainted before anyone else, roll a bucket of dice".

C'mon, don't overstimate what "tactical sense" in the current state of the game is.

 auticus wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 Kithail wrote:
As I said it before, the same people that think painting is petty are really really invested in the pettiness of their 10vps. In their "generalship", "tactical sense" and "mastery of strategy".

isnt it fair for someone to expect their tactical sense to be the main reason for a win/loss in a wargaming game?

If this is true of someone then 40k is definitely not the proper game for that outlet. Unless we consider spreadsheeting netlists and maximizing on probability scores of d6 to be a tactical power.

40k does have some tactical elements to it, and it remains the most easily accessible wargame for most people.

And even then, building a list is as tactical as playing the list.

 Kithail wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 Kithail wrote:
As I said it before, the same people that think painting is petty are really really invested in the pettiness of their 10vps. In their "generalship", "tactical sense" and "mastery of strategy".

isnt it fair for someone to expect their tactical sense to be the main reason for a win/loss in a wargaming game?

Which amounts to "check the metablowing list, buy those models, bring them unpainted before anyone else, roll a bucket of dice".

C'mon, don't overstimate what "tactical sense" in the current state of the game is.

Yes, because clearly anyone who doesn't enjoy painting is also a meta-chasing dingus, and is in no way, shape, or form capable of attempting to bring a list that's reasonably powerful but not some cheesed-out monster. -_-

 Kithail wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 Kithail wrote:
As I said it before, the same people that think painting is petty are really really invested in the pettiness of their 10vps. In their "generalship", "tactical sense" and "mastery of strategy".

isnt it fair for someone to expect their tactical sense to be the main reason for a win/loss in a wargaming game?

Which amounts to "check the metablowing list, buy those models, bring them unpainted before anyone else, roll a bucket of dice".

C'mon, don't overstimate what "tactical sense" in the current state of the game is.

i don't play meta lists and i purposefully play unoptimised lists, in these cases yes, tactical decision do matter

Tactically, painting your models gives you a better chance of winning the game now.

How about that for a strategy?

Purifying Tempest wrote:
Tactically, painting your models gives you a better chance of winning the game now.

How about that for a strategy?

I'd like the rules that govern victory in a game to be related to the game, not aesthetics.

Purifying Tempest wrote:
Tactically, painting your models gives you a better chance of winning the game now.

How about that for a strategy?

Fair enough, its still not a decision that happens on the tabletop so its less tactical than positioning, target priority or determining what are acceptable casualties.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 auticus wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 Kithail wrote:
As I said it before, the same people that think painting is petty are really really invested in the pettiness of their 10vps. In their "generalship", "tactical sense" and "mastery of strategy".

isnt it fair for someone to expect their tactical sense to be the main reason for a win/loss in a wargaming game?

If this is true of someone then 40k is definitely not the proper game for that outlet. Unless we consider spreadsheeting netlists and maximizing on probability scores of d6 to be a tactical power.

40k does have some tactical elements to it, and it remains the most easily accessible wargame for most people.

And even then, building a list is as tactical as playing the list.

After having played a few dozen wargames in my life time, we will agree, in my case strongly, to disagree. Building a list in 40k with its obvious skews and imbalances is as tactical as an infantryman being able to tie his boots and make sure that his rifle is off of safety before engaging with the enemy.

THe onus of skill is on the limited handful that figured out "holy cow this thing is super powerful and way undercost!" and then next to no skill for the rest of the community that simply goes "copy/paste".

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 Kithail wrote:
As I said it before, the same people that think painting is petty are really really invested in the pettiness of their 10vps. In their "generalship", "tactical sense" and "mastery of strategy".

isnt it fair for someone to expect their tactical sense to be the main reason for a win/loss in a wargaming game?

It is the main reason. 90% of the points available are for your tactical and strategic decisions.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 auticus wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 Kithail wrote:
As I said it before, the same people that think painting is petty are really really invested in the pettiness of their 10vps. In their "generalship", "tactical sense" and "mastery of strategy".

isnt it fair for someone to expect their tactical sense to be the main reason for a win/loss in a wargaming game?

If this is true of someone then 40k is definitely not the proper game for that outlet. Unless we consider spreadsheeting netlists and maximizing on probability scores of d6 to be a tactical power.

40k does have some tactical elements to it, and it remains the most easily accessible wargame for most people.

And even then, building a list is as tactical as playing the list.

And yes, 90% of your win is still based on that. Only 1 in each 10 points is related to something else

 Insectum7 wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 Kithail wrote:
As I said it before, the same people that think painting is petty are really really invested in the pettiness of their 10vps. In their "generalship", "tactical sense" and "mastery of strategy".

isnt it fair for someone to expect their tactical sense to be the main reason for a win/loss in a wargaming game?

It is the main reason. 90% of the points available are for your tactical and strategic decisions.

Have you missed the comparisons?

What was it, 5 Dreadnoughts have to be killed to be worth 10 points?
3 Leman Russes?
An entire Imperial Knight?