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.

 auticus wrote:

 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".

i dont netlist, heck i don't even build oprimized lists anymore and neither do most people at my store. I dont come from a competitive environment. So yes, tactical decision does matter when playing dual powerscourge helbrute and raptors (for example).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kithail wrote:

 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

10% points difference is usually how my games end, so yes, this new rule will affect most of my games in the future.

 Insectum7 wrote:

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

I have to wonder were this inane idea comes from that just because me and my mates are on the more casual side of listbuilding and playing we don´t care about winning or having a fair and even playing field when we play. If casual gamers really were like that the first iteration of AoS rules wouldn't have been universally despised. 10% of total victory points isn't minor either especially when so far it looks capping out on the other 90 is by no means a done deal, so in practice those 10 VP could be more like 15-20% of total points. which I'd say is a gross disadvantage to go up against.

 UncleJetMints wrote:
I'm not responding to this anymore because it comes of as you thinking I'm attacking people who just want to play against painted armies. I'm not. 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."

Outside of an event where the VP are tracked, does it really matter in the latter case if the result was 70-20 or 70-30? The player with 70VP still won by a large margin, for crying out loud.

In the case of scenic bases, assuming they're painted, I'd expect them to count as fine for BRS purposes, assuming a definition is given in the full rulebook (as we can't assume the WHC post will be there forever).

 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?

Well, I'd've thought their strategy would play a significant part - and the strategic move here is to get your models painted to BRS, so you're going to start the game with 10VP. After all, even if your tactics fail you during the game, you've secured that objective before you've even shown up.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

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.

List selection, picking secondary objectives and - now - painting your army are strategic moves towards victory. What happens on the table are the tactical moves.

 JNAProductions wrote:

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.

Have a general question for someone with your viewpoint. Most competitive events already fell in line with a painting standard that would flat out not let you play with unpainted models (aka what the ITC uses and most tournaments ran with). So most games being played with grey armies one way or the other are pickup games. My question then is that even if your opponent were to calculate the extra 10 points for getting their army painted why would it matter? If those points are one and done and not what carries you to another round or affects your rating ect. then why do you even care how your opponent calculates as you could determine your parameter for if you won or lost? Generally curious, because if you have unpainted army chances are you aren't playing in tournaments anyway and then who really cares what the guy across from you calculated as a win? you are simply using your own metric where painting doesn't matter so that 10 points is never added

 Castozor wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

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

I have to wonder were this inane idea comes from that just because me and my mates are on the more casual side of listbuilding and playing we don´t care about winning or having a fair and even playing field when we play. If casual gamers really were like that the first iteration of AoS rules wouldn't have been universally despised. 10% of total victory points isn't minor either especially when so far it looks capping out on the other 90 is by no means a done deal, so in practice those 10 VP could be more like 15-20% of total points. which I'd say is a gross disadvantage to go up against.

So you're casual players, you play a casual game, at the end of it one player has 75 VPs and the other player has 70 VPs. But the underdog is painted, so the book says they get a bonus 10, which makes them technically the winner with 80 VPs.

Is the 75 VP player really going to get bent out of shape about technically losing, despite being the winner from a strictly gameplay standpoint? Because that doesn't sound terribly casual to me.

It's not like the rulebook is giving painted armies bonus CP or anything that actually affects the gameplay.

Asmodios wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:

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.

Have a general question for someone with your viewpoint. Most competitive events already fell in line with a painting standard that would flat out not let you play with unpainted models (aka what the ITC uses and most tournaments ran with). So most games being played with grey armies one way or the other are pickup games. My question then is that even if your opponent were to calculate the extra 10 points for getting their army painted why would it matter? If those points are one and done and not what carries you to another round or affects your rating ect. then why do you even care how your opponent calculates as you could determine your parameter for if you won or lost? Generally curious, because if you have unpainted army chances are you aren't playing in tournaments anyway and then who really cares what the guy across from you calculated as a win? you are simply using your own metric where painting doesn't matter so that 10 points is never added

I would like to play by the rules as best I can. I'm not BCB, but the rules are common ground to be enjoyed with others.

And let's be honest-if, by the rules, you win by 3 points, and I say "But I really won, because you only got 10 points because of painted models," you're gonna think I'm an ass.

That's by and large my main issue with the rule-it's an invitation for TFG to, well, be that fething guy. It's an invitation to check every model of your opponent's for proper base painting, it's an invitation to mock someone for losing because their models weren't painted, it's an invitation to be smug in a loss because you only lost because your models aren't painted.

It adds virtually nothing-since I guarantee you, people who only paint because of this are not going to have good paintjobs, unless they blow money on commissions-and invites a whole mess of issues.

I don't anticipate it being an issue in my local GW, because it's a very friendly place-but not everyone is as fortunate as I am.

How is an extra 10 VP when determining the winner not affecting the game? Feth they could have made the rule painted armies get another 1/2 CP, and you know what? That would probably decide less games than an extra 10 VP for free. A technical loss is still a loss.
Edit: and to add to what was said above, so far all I'm seeing now is TFG behaviour from BOTH sides of the fence on this issue. That alone should be reason enough to damn the existence of this rule.

 catbarf wrote:

 Castozor wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

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

I have to wonder were this inane idea comes from that just because me and my mates are on the more casual side of listbuilding and playing we don´t care about winning or having a fair and even playing field when we play. If casual gamers really were like that the first iteration of AoS rules wouldn't have been universally despised. 10% of total victory points isn't minor either especially when so far it looks capping out on the other 90 is by no means a done deal, so in practice those 10 VP could be more like 15-20% of total points. which I'd say is a gross disadvantage to go up against.

So you're casual players, you play a casual game, at the end of it one player has 75 VPs and the other player has 70 VPs. But the underdog is painted, so the book says they get a bonus 10, which makes them technically the winner with 80 VPs.

Is the 75 VP player really going to get bent out of shape about technically losing, despite being the winner from a strictly gameplay standpoint? Because that doesn't sound terribly casual to me.

It's not like the rulebook is giving painted armies bonus CP or anything that actually affects the gameplay.

this is my confusion as well. I consider myself and my group very casual. If my brother "won" because his army was painted i wouldn't be mad it actually wouldn't matter at all. The only time we really care about who one its if there is a blowout game that was over turn 1 so both the winner and loser didn't have an engaging game. If the victory came down to a coinflip I think it is given to the person who put countless hours into finishing their army is a great idea for motivating everyone in the group to do the little extra. Heck we have had a member for years that just doesn't want to paint any army he brings..... he also is the last person who would care if someone "technically" won because they painted their army


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 JNAProductions wrote:

Asmodios wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:

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.

Have a general question for someone with your viewpoint. Most competitive events already fell in line with a painting standard that would flat out not let you play with unpainted models (aka what the ITC uses and most tournaments ran with). So most games being played with grey armies one way or the other are pickup games. My question then is that even if your opponent were to calculate the extra 10 points for getting their army painted why would it matter? If those points are one and done and not what carries you to another round or affects your rating ect. then why do you even care how your opponent calculates as you could determine your parameter for if you won or lost? Generally curious, because if you have unpainted army chances are you aren't playing in tournaments anyway and then who really cares what the guy across from you calculated as a win? you are simply using your own metric where painting doesn't matter so that 10 points is never added

I would like to play by the rules as best I can. I'm not BCB, but the rules are common ground to be enjoyed with others.

And let's be honest-if, by the rules, you win by 3 points, and I say "But I really won, because you only got 10 points because of painted models," you're gonna think I'm an ass.

That's by and large my main issue with the rule-it's an invitation for TFG to, well, be that fething guy. It's an invitation to check every model of your opponent's for proper base painting, it's an invitation to mock someone for losing because their models weren't painted, it's an invitation to be smug in a loss because you only lost because your models aren't painted.

It adds virtually nothing-since I guarantee you, people who only paint because of this are not going to have good paintjobs, unless they blow money on commissions-and invites a whole mess of issues.

I don't anticipate it being an issue in my local GW, because it's a very friendly place-but not everyone is as fortunate as I am.

I mean i wouldn't be mad at all if some guy im having a 1 off with game wins because of a rule. The fact that you would get so upset that the rulebook says someone technically won because they painted their models is just confusing to me. I don't get upset when i lose a close game so i don't see why i would be upset if i lost because of a paint job. Actually, for anything id see it as great motivation to finish off that new unit i decided to bring out. It actually would come off to me a TFG behavior if some guy lost it because i added up 10 paint points in a casual game. My opponent could decided he gets an extra 100000 points for having drilled out barrels in his gun it wouldnt actually change my outlook on whether i won or lost a game

 Castozor wrote:
How is an extra 10 VP when determining the winner not affecting the game? Feth they could have made the rule painted armies get another 1/2 CP, and you know what? That would probably decide less games than an extra 10 VP for free. A technical loss is still a loss.

This is the mentality GW is discouraging with this rule. GW does not want players to place the importance of 'technical victories' above basic ideas core to the spirit of the hobby, like painting your minis.

GW is basically saying, if a technical victory is what you want, then paint your minis first. Or, be like everyone else and enjoy playing in a relaxed manner with whatever house rules you prefer.

Either way they are discouraging technical victory achieved at the expense of hobbying.

 slave.entity wrote:

 Castozor wrote:
How is an extra 10 VP when determining the winner not affecting the game? Feth they could have made the rule painted armies get another 1/2 CP, and you know what? That would probably decide less games than an extra 10 VP for free. A technical loss is still a loss.

This is the mentality GW is discouraging with this rule. GW does not want players to place the importance of 'technical victories' above basic ideas core to the spirit of the hobby, like painting your minis.

GW is basically saying, if a technical victory is what you want, then paint your minis first. Or, be like everyone else and enjoy playing in a relaxed manner with whatever house rules you prefer.

Either way they are discouraging technical victory achieved at the expense of hobbying.

How are they DISCOURAGING a technical victory from hobbying, when the rule literally gives a technical victory from hobbying?

 JNAProductions wrote:

 slave.entity wrote:

 Castozor wrote:
How is an extra 10 VP when determining the winner not affecting the game? Feth they could have made the rule painted armies get another 1/2 CP, and you know what? That would probably decide less games than an extra 10 VP for free. A technical loss is still a loss.

This is the mentality GW is discouraging with this rule. GW does not want players to place the importance of 'technical victories' above basic ideas core to the spirit of the hobby, like painting your minis.

GW is basically saying, if a technical victory is what you want, then paint your minis first. Or, be like everyone else and enjoy playing in a relaxed manner with whatever house rules you prefer.

Either way they are discouraging technical victory achieved at the expense of hobbying.

How are they DISCOURAGING a technical victory from hobbying, when the rule literally gives a technical victory from hobbying?

Re-read what I wrote. 'At the expense of' hobbying, not 'from' hobbying.

Noticing a false dichotomy being promoted in this thread between casual and WAAC tournament player. Also some strange definitions of casual and treating casual players like they are a homogenous group (along with authoritative claims about what a casual player would, wouldn't, should, and shouldn't do).
The repeated assertion that casual players do not care about a fair game and whether they won or lost is too broad imo. Casual play can also encompass friendly games which aren't WAAC, netlisted or bad-natured, yet the players nevertheless want to engage in something at least attempting to approximate a tactical battle, without points being given out like candy due to out-of-game decisions.

Hobbying should be something you do for fun, not for getting technical victories especially when, you guessed it, the people most kicked in the shins by technical victories are the ones who place "playing the game" over the overall hobby.

Twilight Pathways wrote:
Noticing a false dichotomy being promoted in this thread between casual and WAAC tournament player. Also some strange definitions of casual and treating casual players like they are a homogenous group (along with authoritative claims about what a casual player would, wouldn't, should, and shouldn't do).
The repeated assertion that casual players do not care about a fair game and whether they won or lost is too broad imo. Casual play can also encompass friendly games which aren't WAAC, netlisted or bad-natured, yet the players nevertheless want to engage in something at least attempting to approximate a tactical battle, without points being given out like candy due to out-of-game decisions.

A way more eloquent expression of my thoughts than I could ever manage. Thank you sir!

 JNAProductions wrote:

 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?

Immaterial. You can get 90 possible points over the course of the game due to your tactical and strategic decisions. I don't care how you get them. From experience my army could chew through three Leman Russes in a turn, no biggie.

You could apparently just stand on an objective and get the points, too.

Twilight Pathways wrote:
Noticing a false dichotomy being promoted in this thread between casual and WAAC tournament player. Also some strange definitions of casual and treating casual players like they are a homogenous group (along with authoritative claims about what a casual player would, wouldn't, should, and shouldn't do).
The repeated assertion that casual players do not care about a fair game and whether they won or lost is too broad imo. Casual play can also encompass friendly games which aren't WAAC, netlisted or bad-natured, yet the players nevertheless want to engage in something at least attempting to approximate a tactical battle, without points being given out like candy due to out-of-game decisions.

Yes. Clearly GW wants 'official' play to reward painted minis, and prefers to relegate unpainted minis to casual play.
"Friendly games which aren't WAAC, netlisted or bad-natured" using unpainted models is what GW has implicitly defined as casual play in 9th edition.

 slave.entity wrote:

Twilight Pathways wrote:
Noticing a false dichotomy being promoted in this thread between casual and WAAC tournament player. Also some strange definitions of casual and treating casual players like they are a homogenous group (along with authoritative claims about what a casual player would, wouldn't, should, and shouldn't do).
The repeated assertion that casual players do not care about a fair game and whether they won or lost is too broad imo. Casual play can also encompass friendly games which aren't WAAC, netlisted or bad-natured, yet the players nevertheless want to engage in something at least attempting to approximate a tactical battle, without points being given out like candy due to out-of-game decisions.

Yes. Clearly GW wants 'official' play to reward painted minis, and prefers to relegate unpainted minis to casual play.

That's not what this rule does, though.

Before, tournament play 100% required painted minis. (At least for big tournaments.) Now, there's a rule that you can show up with unpainted ones, you just start 10 points down. If anything, it makes it MORE likely that tournaments will allow unpainted minis, since there's an already-existing mechanism to differentiate between the two.

 Castozor wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

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

I have to wonder were this inane idea comes from that just because me and my mates are on the more casual side of listbuilding and playing we don´t care about winning or having a fair and even playing field when we play. If casual gamers really were like that the first iteration of AoS rules wouldn't have been universally despised. 10% of total victory points isn't minor either especially when so far it looks capping out on the other 90 is by no means a done deal, so in practice those 10 VP could be more like 15-20% of total points. which I'd say is a gross disadvantage to go up against.

I'm not saying you don't care about winning. But if you're playing is a casual environment it's just as easy to house-rule it away, or simply claim tactical victory rather than technical victory, or whatever. As a casual player the game is wide open to custom rules and negotiation.

 slave.entity wrote:

Twilight Pathways wrote:
Noticing a false dichotomy being promoted in this thread between casual and WAAC tournament player. Also some strange definitions of casual and treating casual players like they are a homogenous group (along with authoritative claims about what a casual player would, wouldn't, should, and shouldn't do).
The repeated assertion that casual players do not care about a fair game and whether they won or lost is too broad imo. Casual play can also encompass friendly games which aren't WAAC, netlisted or bad-natured, yet the players nevertheless want to engage in something at least attempting to approximate a tactical battle, without points being given out like candy due to out-of-game decisions.

Yes. Clearly GW wants 'official' play to reward painted minis, and prefers to relegate unpainted minis to casual play.
"Friendly games which aren't WAAC, netlisted or bad-natured" using unpainted models is what GW has implicitly defined as casual play in 9th edition.

And thank the heavens they did. Wouldn't want unpainted armies giving you bad feels, but unfluffy riptide drone spam and 3 smash captains leading a knight and some conscripts is fair game and the intended gaming experience. If they want to go down this dumb path of enforcing an overall holistic hobby they could at least penalize unfluffy lists too. But that'd be hard and as we know GW likes easy fixes.

 Castozor wrote:
Hobbying should be something you do for fun, not for getting technical victories especially when, you guessed it, the people most kicked in the shins by technical victories are the ones who place "playing the game" over the overall hobby.

GW wants hobbying to be part of technical victories. And yeah, they are specifically kicking those people in the shins, those people who are chasing technical victories without any consideration for the hobby. This is their stance.

 Castozor wrote:

 slave.entity wrote:

Twilight Pathways wrote:
Noticing a false dichotomy being promoted in this thread between casual and WAAC tournament player. Also some strange definitions of casual and treating casual players like they are a homogenous group (along with authoritative claims about what a casual player would, wouldn't, should, and shouldn't do).
The repeated assertion that casual players do not care about a fair game and whether they won or lost is too broad imo. Casual play can also encompass friendly games which aren't WAAC, netlisted or bad-natured, yet the players nevertheless want to engage in something at least attempting to approximate a tactical battle, without points being given out like candy due to out-of-game decisions.

Yes. Clearly GW wants 'official' play to reward painted minis, and prefers to relegate unpainted minis to casual play.
"Friendly games which aren't WAAC, netlisted or bad-natured" using unpainted models is what GW has implicitly defined as casual play in 9th edition.

And thank the heavens they did. Wouldn't want unpainted armies giving you bad feels, but unfluffy riptide drone spam and 3 smash captains leading a knight and some conscripts is fair game and the intended gaming experience. If they want to go down this dumb path of enforcing an overall holistic hobby they could at least penalize unfluffy lists too. But that'd be hard and as we know GW likes easy fixes.

Actually GW has taken a step to address this issue by making you pay for detachments as well as giving a negative for soup. They are literally trying to promote more balanced armies in the 9th ed rules

Twilight Pathways wrote:
Noticing a false dichotomy being promoted in this thread between casual and WAAC tournament player. Also some strange definitions of casual and treating casual players like they are a homogenous group (along with authoritative claims about what a casual player would, wouldn't, should, and shouldn't do).
The repeated assertion that casual players do not care about a fair game and whether they won or lost is too broad imo. Casual play can also encompass friendly games which aren't WAAC, netlisted or bad-natured, yet the players nevertheless want to engage in something at least attempting to approximate a tactical battle, without points being given out like candy due to out-of-game decisions.

Exactly my thought! Well typed.

Asmodios wrote:

 Castozor wrote:

 slave.entity wrote:

Twilight Pathways wrote:
Noticing a false dichotomy being promoted in this thread between casual and WAAC tournament player. Also some strange definitions of casual and treating casual players like they are a homogenous group (along with authoritative claims about what a casual player would, wouldn't, should, and shouldn't do).
The repeated assertion that casual players do not care about a fair game and whether they won or lost is too broad imo. Casual play can also encompass friendly games which aren't WAAC, netlisted or bad-natured, yet the players nevertheless want to engage in something at least attempting to approximate a tactical battle, without points being given out like candy due to out-of-game decisions.

Yes. Clearly GW wants 'official' play to reward painted minis, and prefers to relegate unpainted minis to casual play.
"Friendly games which aren't WAAC, netlisted or bad-natured" using unpainted models is what GW has implicitly defined as casual play in 9th edition.

And thank the heavens they did. Wouldn't want unpainted armies giving you bad feels, but unfluffy riptide drone spam and 3 smash captains leading a knight and some conscripts is fair game and the intended gaming experience. If they want to go down this dumb path of enforcing an overall holistic hobby they could at least penalize unfluffy lists too. But that'd be hard and as we know GW likes easy fixes.

Actually GW has taken a step to address this issue by making you pay for detachments as well as giving a negative for soup. They are literally trying to promote more balanced armies in the 9th ed rules

So a fluffy Deathwing force is punished, because they don't take Troops and therefore take a Vanguard over a Patrol or something, but a force of primarily Riptides and Drones with a token Troops presence to hold some objectives isn't.

Great job, GW.

Castozor wrote:How is an extra 10 VP when determining the winner not affecting the game? Feth they could have made the rule painted armies get another 1/2 CP, and you know what? That would probably decide less games than an extra 10 VP for free. A technical loss is still a loss.
Edit: and to add to what was said above, so far all I'm seeing now is TFG behaviour from BOTH sides of the fence on this issue. That alone should be reason enough to damn the existence of this rule.

Twilight Pathways wrote:Noticing a false dichotomy being promoted in this thread between casual and WAAC tournament player. Also some strange definitions of casual and treating casual players like they are a homogenous group (along with authoritative claims about what a casual player would, wouldn't, should, and shouldn't do).
The repeated assertion that casual players do not care about a fair game and whether they won or lost is too broad imo. Casual play can also encompass friendly games which aren't WAAC, netlisted or bad-natured, yet the players nevertheless want to engage in something at least attempting to approximate a tactical battle, without points being given out like candy due to out-of-game decisions.

Caring about whether you won or lost the scenario is part of a casual play mindset. Caring about whether a completely-unrelated-to-gameplay bonus turns a victory into a defeat by sheer technicality is not a casual play mindset.

If I score higher VPs in-game, and my buddy informs me that technically I lost because he got a painting bonus... so what? We both know who really won the battle. Our casual game isn't being reported for tournament rankings or anything. It is completely immaterial who 'actually' won.

I would posit that if you obviously beat your opponent on scenario objectives, winning the battle by all practical measures, but then get bent out of shape because a throwaway sentence says that they actually technically won on the basis of a gimmick, you're not a casual player.

Again: The bonus VP for painting doesn't actually affect the battle. It doesn't affect whether your troops live or die, or how effective your weapons are, or whether you're able to accomplish the actual in-game objectives. It makes exactly zero difference until you go to tally the score, at which point you can clearly see who actually scored more VP in-game, and then decide to get upset about whether the inanimate rulebook declares who 'really' won.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

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!

I was honestly shocked, it made me, for one of the rare times think of GW as cheap.

 AngryAngel80 wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

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!

I was honestly shocked, it made me, for one of the rare times think of GW as cheap.

To really see how expensive GW kits are, compare them to gunpla kits.

 slave.entity wrote:

 Castozor wrote:
Hobbying should be something you do for fun, not for getting technical victories especially when, you guessed it, the people most kicked in the shins by technical victories are the ones who place "playing the game" over the overall hobby.

GW wants hobbying to be part of technical victories. And yeah, they are specifically kicking those people in the shins, those people who are chasing technical victories without any consideration for the hobby. This is their stance.

And their stance is dumb, as pointed out before do I get to win painting competitions now because I beat that Golden Demon level painter in a game? No of course not because that'd be silly. It might be an overall hobby for SOME people but each individual part has its own standards by which success is measured. Or rather used to have individual standards because we now have this abomination of a rule. I don't chase for technical victories either but it would stand to reason that to win a game you win by being better at the game, not because you decided to wear pink socks that morning.

In GW's eyes if both players have equal battle scores, the 'winner' from a purely technical standpoint is the one who has the fully painted army.

If you won a game by 4 points, but your opponent's army is fully painted, then from a purely technical standpoint, GW would grant victory to your opponent.

That is how much GW values having painted minis. Of course GW's rulebooks always encourage players to play with whatever house rules they prefer, but if you want their official stance on it, the official, GW-sanctioned, 'right' way to play, then they are telling us having painted minis is a core part of the game and is worth 10 extra victory points.

Not Online!!! wrote:

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?

Also tongue in cheek would be saying if it was a total tie, the full painted army would win the tie breaker. I also wouldn't care if that was the case either.

 Castozor wrote:

 slave.entity wrote:

 Castozor wrote:
Hobbying should be something you do for fun, not for getting technical victories especially when, you guessed it, the people most kicked in the shins by technical victories are the ones who place "playing the game" over the overall hobby.

GW wants hobbying to be part of technical victories. And yeah, they are specifically kicking those people in the shins, those people who are chasing technical victories without any consideration for the hobby. This is their stance.

And their stance is dumb, as pointed out before do I get to win painting competitions now because I beat that Golden Demon level painter in a game? No of course not because that'd be silly. It might be an overall hobby for SOME people but each individual part has its own standards by which success is measured. Or rather used to have individual standards because we now have this abomination of a rule. I don't chase for technical victories either but it would stand to reason that to win a game you win by being better at the game, not because you decided to wear pink socks that morning.

Exactly, 40k as a whole is a venn diagram with the following options:

Lore Fan
Hobby fan (painting and modeling goes here)
Game fan

players can be in any of these in any combination.
Why isn't GW giving 10pts for fluffy armies then?
If a player cannot name all the campaigns his army took place in, does that mean he's not enjoying his hobby the proper way?

 Castozor wrote:

And their stance is dumb, as pointed out before do I get to win painting competitions now because I beat that Golden Demon level painter in a game? No of course not because that'd be silly. It might be an overall hobby for SOME people but each individual part has its own standards by which success is measured. Or rather used to have individual standards because we now have this abomination of a rule. I don't chase for technical victories either but it would stand to reason that to win a game you win by being better at the game, not because you decided to wear pink socks that morning.

You are free to disagree with their official stance and in fact GW always encourages players to modify and change their rules in whatever way best suits them.