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:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
"Hi my name is Timmy I made my first small army I haven't been able to afford the paints yet."
"Ok Timmy let's have a game."
AFewHoursLater.Spongebob
"Well, good work Timmy, you outplayed me during the game, but I am afraid you lose because you are new and didn't paint your army yet. Sorry, I guess Warhammer isn't for you!"

Old argument. TFGs gonna TFG.

Following the rules is being TFG now?

Because this isn't some minor, "technically it doesn't work that way" rule. This is a very plain and clear rule with no wiggle room.

Being blind to how your enforcement of the rules is impacting how another player enjoys the game, within the context of that game (friendly casual vs organized event). Being blind to the fact that you're unreasonably being a jerk vs providing motivation. When you willfully ignore your opponent's experience strictly to enhance yours makes you TFG.

If I FORCE someone to take a L at a friendly table because he had 1 unpainted model and it changed the game... and that guy slumps his shoulders and walks away with a big NPE in what would have otherwise been a REALLY great game... that makes me TFG.

If my opponent wants me to enforce the rule negatively against him because he wants to lose the game as a reminder to get to his backlog... and I enforce it and accept the VPs... I'm not TFG.

If a new player started 2 weeks ago and is in "new experience" shock and I enforce this rule on him in a manner to make him feel worse? I'm TFG.

If he's been around a month and I want to encourage him to paint instead of buying $100s of extra plastic in a hurry.... I may pull the rule out to test how he feels about it and inform him that it is something out there to be aware of. Because painting a $500 army is a lot easier and more likely to happen at that stage than him buying 2500 points and being under a mountain of plastic. But I'd TALK to him about it. Does not make me TFG.

But why include the rule if half the time it's gonna be making you TFG?

Again, if you only want to play painted minis, that's fine. I don't think you should be forced to play in a game you won't have fun in. But why should I or anyone else who doesn't enjoy speed-painting be forced to do so to have a fair game? (As much as 40k can be fair, at least.)

 Castozor wrote:

 Grimtuff wrote:

 Castozor wrote:

 slave.entity wrote:
As Castozor correctly pointed out:

"the people most kicked in the shins by technical victories are the ones who place "playing the game" over the overall hobby"

And I'll reiterate, why pick solely painting as the measure by which being a hobbyist is judged? I play against friends with fully painted, but horribly unfluffy armies whereas I field my DG with at least 30 Plague Marines if not more. Because they are good? No of course not they are overpriced wet noodles but that is how GW decided a fluffy DG list looks like. Were is my free VP candy? And were was this overall hobby approach for the prior 30ish years? You can't expect people to blindly follow along if you make a massive upset like this.

Sounds like you need to do your homework, as this "hobby approach" is ingrained in GW. They even had the quote in White Dwarf once of "Painting runs through our hobby like letters in a stick of Blackpool rock". Numerous times in battle reports they field what are; essentially illegal armies, but fudge it because spectacle. All of those aforementioned batreps having accompanying short stories attached too. It is quite obvious this is not how the company is wired, it was founded by people distributing D&D in the UK and writing Fighting Fantasy books (what does that tell you about how customisable they want their own games to have been?).

GW have always, always wanted you to go to the beat of their drum.

You mean the same GW that once decided conversions are totally rad and cool but now seems to shun any kind of option that does not come in the kit and/or that is not sold by them? That GW? The "hobbyist" GW died a long time ago, if they really wanted to be a complete hobbyist approach GW they would not axe legend options, restrict datasheet options to what's available in their kits an whatsnot. GW can't have their cake and eat it too if they want me to embrace their new idiocy. Dock points for being unfluffy too, not just for painting, give me back my Ork bikers characters, include all weapon options in a Killa Kan kit. I'm not going to take this "hobbyist" approach from the same company that out of pure greed decides to kill any and all kind of hobby expressionism that doesn't benefit their bottom line.

Dude, you only started playing 2 years ago. Most of those things you want "back" were gone before you even set foot in this hobby...

Yes, GW talks out of both sides of their mouth. Guess what? This is how they want their game to be played and they have said as much multiple times. You don't like it? Discuss it with your group. That is what they would tell you to do, but apparently because it's not printed in black and white this is somehow blasphemy against the holy writ the same GW have given as some kind of edict to their masses.

So you don't actually have a reubttal to the point that GW is actively working against kitbashing, converting, and having plenty of options... You just think Castozar is too new to the hobby to be able to say that.

Great stuff.

 JNAProductions wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
"Hi my name is Timmy I made my first small army I haven't been able to afford the paints yet."
"Ok Timmy let's have a game."
AFewHoursLater.Spongebob
"Well, good work Timmy, you outplayed me during the game, but I am afraid you lose because you are new and didn't paint your army yet. Sorry, I guess Warhammer isn't for you!"

Old argument. TFGs gonna TFG.

Following the rules is being TFG now?

Because this isn't some minor, "technically it doesn't work that way" rule. This is a very plain and clear rule with no wiggle room.

One can follow the rules and still be a bellend, or is the concept of "lawful evil" new to you?

Sgt_Smudge wrote:It's called "The Most Important Rule" - surprised you've not read it.

TMIR doesn't say "Make up whatever you want", it says "If the game breaks, roll off to continue." This VP rule doesn't break the game, you can't invoke TMIR on it. When you can invoke TMIR is explicitly defined. "Because I want to" is not one of those times.

Dysartes wrote:As an unrelated aside, do you believe the fix to Assault weapons means they'll work properly in 9th without crashing the game?

Yes, 9th edition has fixed the broken RaW for Assault Weapons, Pistols, Fall Back, Minimum Ranges, Unchargable Wave Serpents and "Disembarking is Reinforcements". So overall I feel vindicated.

 JNAProductions wrote:

Spoiler:

 Grimtuff wrote:

 Castozor wrote:

 Grimtuff wrote:

 Castozor wrote:

 slave.entity wrote:
As Castozor correctly pointed out:

"the people most kicked in the shins by technical victories are the ones who place "playing the game" over the overall hobby"

And I'll reiterate, why pick solely painting as the measure by which being a hobbyist is judged? I play against friends with fully painted, but horribly unfluffy armies whereas I field my DG with at least 30 Plague Marines if not more. Because they are good? No of course not they are overpriced wet noodles but that is how GW decided a fluffy DG list looks like. Were is my free VP candy? And were was this overall hobby approach for the prior 30ish years? You can't expect people to blindly follow along if you make a massive upset like this.

Sounds like you need to do your homework, as this "hobby approach" is ingrained in GW. They even had the quote in White Dwarf once of "Painting runs through our hobby like letters in a stick of Blackpool rock". Numerous times in battle reports they field what are; essentially illegal armies, but fudge it because spectacle. All of those aforementioned batreps having accompanying short stories attached too. It is quite obvious this is not how the company is wired, it was founded by people distributing D&D in the UK and writing Fighting Fantasy books (what does that tell you about how customisable they want their own games to have been?).

GW have always, always wanted you to go to the beat of their drum.

You mean the same GW that once decided conversions are totally rad and cool but now seems to shun any kind of option that does not come in the kit and/or that is not sold by them? That GW? The "hobbyist" GW died a long time ago, if they really wanted to be a complete hobbyist approach GW they would not axe legend options, restrict datasheet options to what's available in their kits an whatsnot. GW can't have their cake and eat it too if they want me to embrace their new idiocy. Dock points for being unfluffy too, not just for painting, give me back my Ork bikers characters, include all weapon options in a Killa Kan kit. I'm not going to take this "hobbyist" approach from the same company that out of pure greed decides to kill any and all kind of hobby expressionism that doesn't benefit their bottom line.

Dude, you only started playing 2 years ago. Most of those things you want "back" were gone before you even set foot in this hobby...

Yes, GW talks out of both sides of their mouth. Guess what? This is how they want their game to be played and they have said as much multiple times. You don't like it? Discuss it with your group. That is what they would tell you to do, but apparently because it's not printed in black and white this is somehow blasphemy against the holy writ the same GW have given as some kind of edict to their masses.

So you don't actually have a reubttal to the point that GW is actively working against kitbashing, converting, and having plenty of options... You just think Castozar is too new to the hobby to be able to say that.

Great stuff.

Yes, it's called having perspective. JFC, some of ya'll need some fething general life lessons. I suggest you get out more.

The quote that is not yours presents several common situations.

A full half of them make using this rule a TFG behavior. See the issue?

Am I being TFG for saying "If you overcharge your plasma, you blow up on a 1 when rolling to-hit"?
Am I being TFG for saying "Your Marines only move 6" normally, same as my Guardsmen"?
Am I being TFG for saying "You Advanced to get in range, so your Meltas have a -1 to-hit and your Bolters can't fire at all"?

 JNAProductions wrote:
But why include the rule if half the time it's gonna be making you TFG?

Again, if you only want to play painted minis, that's fine. I don't think you should be forced to play in a game you won't have fun in. But why should I or anyone else who doesn't enjoy speed-painting be forced to do so to have a fair game? (As much as 40k can be fair, at least.)

Why include a rule if half the time it is going to make you "TFG?"

Probably because they find little value in the attitudes brought to the hobby by those who refuse to play by it. Maybe to GW, refusing to paint your minis because it is tedious and boring is considered TFG behavior by them. Perhaps kicking butt on the table isn't the only thing they consider on the tabletop as part of the "tabletop experience".

If they make a rule to help clean that behavior up, and you find yourself deficient and on the wrong side of the rule... maybe you're a bit of TFG to the hobby. I don't pretend to speak for GW and why they do what they do. It is clear to me, however, that they consider Lore, Assembly/Conversion/Painting, and Gaming all EQUAL parts of the army.

You get bonus rules based off of your army's lore.
You get a few VPs for showing pride and heraldry on the tabletop.
You get even more VPs for playing well on the table and having a good keen mind combined with a good unit selection.

All 3 of those things must be had to succeed in their hobby. The standard is completely defined now. There is no confusion where their expectations lay.

At least they didn't EXCLUDE you for being sub-standard by their expectations. They simply set you a little behind the person who is achieving their standard.

Purifying Tempest wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
But why include the rule if half the time it's gonna be making you TFG?

Again, if you only want to play painted minis, that's fine. I don't think you should be forced to play in a game you won't have fun in. But why should I or anyone else who doesn't enjoy speed-painting be forced to do so to have a fair game? (As much as 40k can be fair, at least.)

Why include a rule if half the time it is going to make you "TFG?"

Probably because they find little value in the attitudes brought to the hobby by those who refuse to play by it. Maybe to GW, refusing to paint your minis because it is tedious and boring is considered TFG behavior by them. Perhaps kicking butt on the table isn't the only thing they consider on the tabletop as part of the "tabletop experience".

If they make a rule to help clean that behavior up, and you find yourself deficient and on the wrong side of the rule... maybe you're a bit of TFG to the hobby. I don't pretend to speak for GW and why they do what they do. It is clear to me, however, that they consider Lore, Assembly/Conversion/Painting, and Gaming all EQUAL parts of the army.

You get bonus rules based off of your army's lore.
You get a few VPs for showing pride and heraldry on the tabletop.
You get even more VPs for playing well on the table and having a good keen mind combined with a good unit selection.

All 3 of those things must be had to succeed in their hobby. The standard is completely defined now. There is no confusion where their expectations lay.

At least they didn't EXCLUDE you for being sub-standard by their expectations. They simply set you a little behind the person who is achieving their standard.

I have my standards. You have yours.

I am fine with you having your standards. You're not fine with mine being different from yours.

Which sounds like more of TFG to you?

This is probably the best rule in the history of 40K. I'll use it ever game. I really don't have as much fun playing against unpainted models/armies. Usually it's too much to keep track of and I've been cheated in the past by players who just pushed grey plastic around saying the units are this then later they're something else or have more models or what ever. I'd rather play with and against painted armies every time.
minimum 3 colors and a base with nicely paint HQ models is easy enough and perfectly fine minimum amount of effort.

 warhead01 wrote:
This is probably the best rule in the history of 40K. I'll use it ever game. I really don't have as much fun playing against unpainted models/armies. Usually it's too much to keep track of and I've been cheated in the past by players who just pushed grey plastic around saying the units are this then later they're something else or have more models or what ever. I'd rather play with and against painted armies every time.
minimum 3 colors and a base with nicely paint HQ models is easy enough and perfectly fine minimum amount of effort.

No one was forcing you to play them, you know. You could've just said "Sorry, I'd rather not play against unpainted minis."

 JNAProductions wrote:

Asmodios wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
"Hi my name is Timmy I made my first small army I haven't been able to afford the paints yet."
"Ok Timmy let's have a game."
AFewHoursLater.Spongebob
"Well, good work Timmy, you outplayed me during the game, but I am afraid you lose because you are new and didn't paint your army yet. Sorry, I guess Warhammer isn't for you!"

Old argument. TFGs gonna TFG.

Following the rules is being TFG now?

Because this isn't some minor, "technically it doesn't work that way" rule. This is a very plain and clear rule with no wiggle room.

Yes in the same way bringing the top tournament list against Timmy in his first game would be a TFG move despite it being "allowed in the rules". If you really can't tell the difference you should do the hobby a favor and steer new player towards other people in your club

Except there's no rule that states you MUST bring top level lists. This is a binary "Yes/no" for paint.

Additionally, while TFGs will be jerks no matter what, why give them more ammo?

You are the type of player that would be against Timmy and not let him move his one unit he forgot to because technically he just declared a target for shooting and "lol better luck next time Timmy I can't help that its in the rules". If you really don't have the mental/ social capacity to understand how to properly have a teaching game with a new opponent you are the guy who everyone thinks is TFG at the club.

I made no such standards. GW did. They expect a certain amount of effort to "max out" your score on the tables that care about the score.

I'm willing to accept those standards and play accordingly.

You're tell me that you don't have to and I should lower my standards from what was put forth by GW to your lowered standard because you cannot be bothered to elevate yours.

You know, the same attitude that manifests when I get the crap kicked out of me on the table and subsequently told to "git gud", "bring better models", or "follow a netlist".

No. No I am not. Thank you for assuming I'm an donkey-cave, though-really makes a positive impression.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Purifying Tempest wrote:

Spoiler:

 JNAProductions wrote:

Purifying Tempest wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
But why include the rule if half the time it's gonna be making you TFG?

Again, if you only want to play painted minis, that's fine. I don't think you should be forced to play in a game you won't have fun in. But why should I or anyone else who doesn't enjoy speed-painting be forced to do so to have a fair game? (As much as 40k can be fair, at least.)

Why include a rule if half the time it is going to make you "TFG?"

Probably because they find little value in the attitudes brought to the hobby by those who refuse to play by it. Maybe to GW, refusing to paint your minis because it is tedious and boring is considered TFG behavior by them. Perhaps kicking butt on the table isn't the only thing they consider on the tabletop as part of the "tabletop experience".

If they make a rule to help clean that behavior up, and you find yourself deficient and on the wrong side of the rule... maybe you're a bit of TFG to the hobby. I don't pretend to speak for GW and why they do what they do. It is clear to me, however, that they consider Lore, Assembly/Conversion/Painting, and Gaming all EQUAL parts of the army.

You get bonus rules based off of your army's lore.
You get a few VPs for showing pride and heraldry on the tabletop.
You get even more VPs for playing well on the table and having a good keen mind combined with a good unit selection.

All 3 of those things must be had to succeed in their hobby. The standard is completely defined now. There is no confusion where their expectations lay.

At least they didn't EXCLUDE you for being sub-standard by their expectations. They simply set you a little behind the person who is achieving their standard.

I have my standards. You have yours.

I am fine with you having your standards. You're not fine with mine being different from yours.

Which sounds like more of TFG to you?

I made no such standards. GW did. They expect a certain amount of effort to "max out" your score on the tables that care about the score.

I'm willing to accept those standards and play accordingly.

You're tell me that you don't have to and I should lower my standards from what was put forth by GW to your lowered standard because you cannot be bothered to elevate yours.

You know, the same attitude that manifests when I get the crap kicked out of me on the table and subsequently told to "git gud", "bring better models", or "follow a netlist".

And what if GW said you can't paint squad Sergeants unless you win a game? Would you be perfectly willing to accept that?

 JNAProductions wrote:

Purifying Tempest wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
But why include the rule if half the time it's gonna be making you TFG?

Again, if you only want to play painted minis, that's fine. I don't think you should be forced to play in a game you won't have fun in. But why should I or anyone else who doesn't enjoy speed-painting be forced to do so to have a fair game? (As much as 40k can be fair, at least.)

Why include a rule if half the time it is going to make you "TFG?"

Probably because they find little value in the attitudes brought to the hobby by those who refuse to play by it. Maybe to GW, refusing to paint your minis because it is tedious and boring is considered TFG behavior by them. Perhaps kicking butt on the table isn't the only thing they consider on the tabletop as part of the "tabletop experience".

If they make a rule to help clean that behavior up, and you find yourself deficient and on the wrong side of the rule... maybe you're a bit of TFG to the hobby. I don't pretend to speak for GW and why they do what they do. It is clear to me, however, that they consider Lore, Assembly/Conversion/Painting, and Gaming all EQUAL parts of the army.

You get bonus rules based off of your army's lore.
You get a few VPs for showing pride and heraldry on the tabletop.
You get even more VPs for playing well on the table and having a good keen mind combined with a good unit selection.

All 3 of those things must be had to succeed in their hobby. The standard is completely defined now. There is no confusion where their expectations lay.

At least they didn't EXCLUDE you for being sub-standard by their expectations. They simply set you a little behind the person who is achieving their standard.

I have my standards. You have yours.

I am fine with you having your standards. You're not fine with mine being different from yours.

Which sounds like more of TFG to you?

You don't seem fine with us having our standards. You seem to be having a conniption about it.

But they never said that. As I said, get some bloody perspective. This is GW's raison d'etre. I've been around a lot of GW staff and people that have worked at WHW. I've lived with GW staff. I'm friends with ex-GW staff. The attitude Purifying Tempest describes is one that permeates throughout the company.

If you don't like it then you know where the door is. That is what I have been told in the past on these very forums. So, now the boot is on the other foot. Tough. gak.

The best thing about a standard is... it is a standard. Arbitrary as it is, it is at least enforced evenly over everyone.

I don't know what you're wanting me to answer with. I've been constantly in favor of enforceable standards that put forth a clear understanding of what is expect.

If you find yourself on the wrong end of the enforcement of the standard, you know exactly what you need to do to get into compliance. If the effort isn't worth it you, then the 10 VP boost obviously is not something you're concerned with. And this is fine.

 Insectum7 wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:

Purifying Tempest wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
But why include the rule if half the time it's gonna be making you TFG?

Again, if you only want to play painted minis, that's fine. I don't think you should be forced to play in a game you won't have fun in. But why should I or anyone else who doesn't enjoy speed-painting be forced to do so to have a fair game? (As much as 40k can be fair, at least.)

Why include a rule if half the time it is going to make you "TFG?"

Probably because they find little value in the attitudes brought to the hobby by those who refuse to play by it. Maybe to GW, refusing to paint your minis because it is tedious and boring is considered TFG behavior by them. Perhaps kicking butt on the table isn't the only thing they consider on the tabletop as part of the "tabletop experience".

If they make a rule to help clean that behavior up, and you find yourself deficient and on the wrong side of the rule... maybe you're a bit of TFG to the hobby. I don't pretend to speak for GW and why they do what they do. It is clear to me, however, that they consider Lore, Assembly/Conversion/Painting, and Gaming all EQUAL parts of the army.

You get bonus rules based off of your army's lore.
You get a few VPs for showing pride and heraldry on the tabletop.
You get even more VPs for playing well on the table and having a good keen mind combined with a good unit selection.

All 3 of those things must be had to succeed in their hobby. The standard is completely defined now. There is no confusion where their expectations lay.

At least they didn't EXCLUDE you for being sub-standard by their expectations. They simply set you a little behind the person who is achieving their standard.

I have my standards. You have yours.

I am fine with you having your standards. You're not fine with mine being different from yours.

Which sounds like more of TFG to you?

You don't seem fine with us having our standards. You seem to be having a conniption about it.

I have said, repeatedly, in this thread, that if you refuse a game with me because my minis are not painted, that is fine. My response would be "Well, darn. That stinks."
And then I'd probably ask to see your models anyway, because I do like cool paintjobs-I just don't like painting myself.

But I do not want to penalized in a game (or, if you must, I don't want to be playing a 90 point game while my opponent has a cap of 100) for not enjoying painting. I do not want to be forced to do something I dislike to properly enjoy the part of the hobby I do like.

Yet, in this very thread, people have said I'm wrong for that.

You're wrong because you're not being penalised. You have it bass ackwards, but then again you have willingly entered into a hobby that involves painting yet do not wish to participate despite it being a core foundation of the hobby so this might have doomed from the start...

 JNAProductions wrote:

Spoiler:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:

Purifying Tempest wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
But why include the rule if half the time it's gonna be making you TFG?

Again, if you only want to play painted minis, that's fine. I don't think you should be forced to play in a game you won't have fun in. But why should I or anyone else who doesn't enjoy speed-painting be forced to do so to have a fair game? (As much as 40k can be fair, at least.)

Why include a rule if half the time it is going to make you "TFG?"

Probably because they find little value in the attitudes brought to the hobby by those who refuse to play by it. Maybe to GW, refusing to paint your minis because it is tedious and boring is considered TFG behavior by them. Perhaps kicking butt on the table isn't the only thing they consider on the tabletop as part of the "tabletop experience".

If they make a rule to help clean that behavior up, and you find yourself deficient and on the wrong side of the rule... maybe you're a bit of TFG to the hobby. I don't pretend to speak for GW and why they do what they do. It is clear to me, however, that they consider Lore, Assembly/Conversion/Painting, and Gaming all EQUAL parts of the army.

You get bonus rules based off of your army's lore.
You get a few VPs for showing pride and heraldry on the tabletop.
You get even more VPs for playing well on the table and having a good keen mind combined with a good unit selection.

All 3 of those things must be had to succeed in their hobby. The standard is completely defined now. There is no confusion where their expectations lay.

At least they didn't EXCLUDE you for being sub-standard by their expectations. They simply set you a little behind the person who is achieving their standard.

I have my standards. You have yours.

I am fine with you having your standards. You're not fine with mine being different from yours.

Which sounds like more of TFG to you?

You don't seem fine with us having our standards. You seem to be having a conniption about it.

I have said, repeatedly, in this thread, that if you refuse a game with me because my minis are not painted, that is fine. My response would be "Well, darn. That stinks."
And then I'd probably ask to see your models anyway, because I do like cool paintjobs-I just don't like painting myself.

But I do not want to penalized in a game (or, if you must, I don't want to be playing a 90 point game while my opponent has a cap of 100) for not enjoying painting. I do not want to be forced to do something I dislike to properly enjoy the part of the hobby I do like.

Yet, in this very thread, people have said I'm wrong for that.

That still means you're complaining about a standard. A standard which you are free to ignore. You aren't forced to do anything. What you choose to do about the rule is up to you and your group.

 JNAProductions wrote:

 warhead01 wrote:
This is probably the best rule in the history of 40K. I'll use it ever game. I really don't have as much fun playing against unpainted models/armies. Usually it's too much to keep track of and I've been cheated in the past by players who just pushed grey plastic around saying the units are this then later they're something else or have more models or what ever. I'd rather play with and against painted armies every time.
minimum 3 colors and a base with nicely paint HQ models is easy enough and perfectly fine minimum amount of effort.

No one was forcing you to play them, you know. You could've just said "Sorry, I'd rather not play against unpainted minis."

Mostly your right. I've given up on pickup games but I did start going to a few local tournament over the last few years, maybe attending 4 or 5 and found I was one of only 5 or 6 people to bring painted armies out of about 28 to 30 people attending. Most of the people bringing unpainted models were the people who seemed far more interesting in winning, as in waac players. I had to just accept it especially if it was ,and is has happened, in game 1. On top of that my local tournaments are an hour and a half drive. So, ya. I more or less don't take games with unpainted armies as my close circle of friends have painted armies and or are actually painting more models. And as far as they go I figure who ever hosts the games can decide what the house rules are, which I view as completely different that a book rule. I don't care one way or another what other people do in their own games, that's their business. If this rule makes a tournament more enjoyable for me than I am all for it. If it tuns out our TO is using it I'll consider attending again.
Thing is I don't know what that sounds like to anyone who doesn't actually know me and I will add that I try to encourage people to paint and have painted armies for friends for free as well as takes commissions and over all try to make painting a positive thing when I talk about it with randos. I don't berate them. I just have my preferences.

 Grimtuff wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:

Spoiler:

 Grimtuff wrote:

 Castozor wrote:

 Grimtuff wrote:

 Castozor wrote:

 slave.entity wrote:
As Castozor correctly pointed out:

"the people most kicked in the shins by technical victories are the ones who place "playing the game" over the overall hobby"

And I'll reiterate, why pick solely painting as the measure by which being a hobbyist is judged? I play against friends with fully painted, but horribly unfluffy armies whereas I field my DG with at least 30 Plague Marines if not more. Because they are good? No of course not they are overpriced wet noodles but that is how GW decided a fluffy DG list looks like. Were is my free VP candy? And were was this overall hobby approach for the prior 30ish years? You can't expect people to blindly follow along if you make a massive upset like this.

Sounds like you need to do your homework, as this "hobby approach" is ingrained in GW. They even had the quote in White Dwarf once of "Painting runs through our hobby like letters in a stick of Blackpool rock". Numerous times in battle reports they field what are; essentially illegal armies, but fudge it because spectacle. All of those aforementioned batreps having accompanying short stories attached too. It is quite obvious this is not how the company is wired, it was founded by people distributing D&D in the UK and writing Fighting Fantasy books (what does that tell you about how customisable they want their own games to have been?).

GW have always, always wanted you to go to the beat of their drum.

You mean the same GW that once decided conversions are totally rad and cool but now seems to shun any kind of option that does not come in the kit and/or that is not sold by them? That GW? The "hobbyist" GW died a long time ago, if they really wanted to be a complete hobbyist approach GW they would not axe legend options, restrict datasheet options to what's available in their kits an whatsnot. GW can't have their cake and eat it too if they want me to embrace their new idiocy. Dock points for being unfluffy too, not just for painting, give me back my Ork bikers characters, include all weapon options in a Killa Kan kit. I'm not going to take this "hobbyist" approach from the same company that out of pure greed decides to kill any and all kind of hobby expressionism that doesn't benefit their bottom line.

Dude, you only started playing 2 years ago. Most of those things you want "back" were gone before you even set foot in this hobby...

Yes, GW talks out of both sides of their mouth. Guess what? This is how they want their game to be played and they have said as much multiple times. You don't like it? Discuss it with your group. That is what they would tell you to do, but apparently because it's not printed in black and white this is somehow blasphemy against the holy writ the same GW have given as some kind of edict to their masses.

So you don't actually have a reubttal to the point that GW is actively working against kitbashing, converting, and having plenty of options... You just think Castozar is too new to the hobby to be able to say that.

Great stuff.

Yes, it's called having perspective. JFC, some of ya'll need some fething general life lessons. I suggest you get out more.

You are still wrong anyway, yes I've only been playing 40k for 2 years but I played both LotR and WHFB (before they nuked that game anyway) before and how exactly does that counter any of the points I brought up? Me not having experienced those times does not mean GW is right for completely changing tracks all of a sudden. And again, why painting only and not fluff? I should be penalized but mister "let me spam drones and riptides" is not because he has the money for commission painting?

 warhead01 wrote:
This is probably the best rule in the history of 40K. I'll use it ever game. I really don't have as much fun playing against unpainted models/armies. Usually it's too much to keep track of and I've been cheated in the past by players who just pushed grey plastic around saying the units are this then later they're something else or have more models or what ever. I'd rather play with and against painted armies every time.
minimum 3 colors and a base with nicely paint HQ models is easy enough and perfectly fine minimum amount of effort.

Your issue seems to be more with people outright cheating than people not painting. My army is 90% unpainted at times but I can assure you I would NEVER cheat my opponents by nudging unit sizes or load outs.

 Grimtuff wrote:
You're wrong because you're not being penalised. You have it bass ackwards, but then again you have willingly entered into a hobby that involves painting yet do not wish to participate despite it being a core foundation of the hobby so this might have doomed from the start...

I started in 7th edition. Where, to quote the rulebook...

At its heart, Warhammer 40,000 is a collecting hobby. Most collections begin slowly...

-Snipped text for irrelevancy-

What you're glimpsing is merely a vast array of choice and possibility, to be engaged with (or not) at whatever speed you wish.

Bolding mine. Page 2, A Galaxy At War.

On to Page 5...

The three aspects of the Warhammer 40,000 hobby are so deep that you can spend a lifetime exploring only one, discovering new possibilities at each step. However, the absolute apex is to pursue all three, embracing all the opportunities presented by painting, by gaming, and by the far future's many legends. Gaming is much more satisfying with a fully painted army...

-More snipped text-

Ultimately, however, it's your choice how to proceed. You can pursue one aspect or all three, guided by the most nebulous of whimsies, or the most careful of plans. Tread the bone-strewn dust of distant worlds, become a mighty warlord and crush all before you, or marshal the finest armies the galaxy has ever seen. This is your hobby, and how you pursue it is yours to decide. Whichever path you select, and for however long you choose to walk it, your collection will make the journey with you.

So what are you waiting for?

Bolding is mine again.

Notice how it encourages painting, but does NOT require it. Painting is something for you to ENJOY, not to be forced to do to enjoy a separate pillar of the hobby.

^And the hobby still doesn't require painting.

 slave.entity wrote:
GW is trying to exclude players who ONLY take the rules super seriously and ignore the rest of the hobby.

Don't you think that this is very much a cornerstone of the issue? Why on earth should GW (and by extension, anyone else) be actively trying to exclude anyone just for enjoying their products 'wrong'?


The only thing this rules does is divide people, giving ammunition for both sides of the debate to fight over and encourage gaming groups to become more exclusionary and 'clique-y' for those not conforming - we've already seen it here in this thread. How can this ever be considered a good thing?

10% of the potential points within a game is significant and so cannot be written off as 'tongue in cheek' or an unimportant bonus (if it were 1VP it might get away with that definition). And given that the only time this rule will apparently be enforced is to serve as a means of exclusion, why on earth should it exist? How is a rule that, in a vast number of cases, doesn't get applied any better at encouraging people to paint than GW's metric tonne of visual media, in literally *all* of which the models are painted?

It doesn't matter where you stand on the painting/not painting debate; the rule is arbitrary and divisive, and will add nothing good to the game or its communities.

If someone claiming 10 vp per the rules for having the painted army makes one TFG, what about the guys that show up to for fun events with their ITC tournament armies?

Because I see a lot of you all cheerleading that very thing here when it comes up.

"You have no right to tell someone what they can and cannot play at an event, they paid for those models and *lovingly painted them*"

But thats not TFG? What is the definition of TFG? Someone you don't like?

 JNAProductions wrote:

Spoiler:

Asmodios wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:

Asmodios wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
"Hi my name is Timmy I made my first small army I haven't been able to afford the paints yet."
"Ok Timmy let's have a game."
AFewHoursLater.Spongebob
"Well, good work Timmy, you outplayed me during the game, but I am afraid you lose because you are new and didn't paint your army yet. Sorry, I guess Warhammer isn't for you!"

Old argument. TFGs gonna TFG.

Following the rules is being TFG now?

Because this isn't some minor, "technically it doesn't work that way" rule. This is a very plain and clear rule with no wiggle room.

Yes in the same way bringing the top tournament list against Timmy in his first game would be a TFG move despite it being "allowed in the rules". If you really can't tell the difference you should do the hobby a favor and steer new player towards other people in your club

Except there's no rule that states you MUST bring top level lists. This is a binary "Yes/no" for paint.

Additionally, while TFGs will be jerks no matter what, why give them more ammo?

You are the type of player that would be against Timmy and not let him move his one unit he forgot to because technically he just declared a target for shooting and "lol better luck next time Timmy I can't help that its in the rules". If you really don't have the mental/ social capacity to understand how to properly have a teaching game with a new opponent you are the guy who everyone thinks is TFG at the club.

No. No I am not. Thank you for assuming I'm an donkey-cave, though-really makes a positive impression.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Purifying Tempest wrote:

Spoiler:

 JNAProductions wrote:

Purifying Tempest wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
But why include the rule if half the time it's gonna be making you TFG?

Again, if you only want to play painted minis, that's fine. I don't think you should be forced to play in a game you won't have fun in. But why should I or anyone else who doesn't enjoy speed-painting be forced to do so to have a fair game? (As much as 40k can be fair, at least.)

Why include a rule if half the time it is going to make you "TFG?"

Probably because they find little value in the attitudes brought to the hobby by those who refuse to play by it. Maybe to GW, refusing to paint your minis because it is tedious and boring is considered TFG behavior by them. Perhaps kicking butt on the table isn't the only thing they consider on the tabletop as part of the "tabletop experience".

If they make a rule to help clean that behavior up, and you find yourself deficient and on the wrong side of the rule... maybe you're a bit of TFG to the hobby. I don't pretend to speak for GW and why they do what they do. It is clear to me, however, that they consider Lore, Assembly/Conversion/Painting, and Gaming all EQUAL parts of the army.

You get bonus rules based off of your army's lore.
You get a few VPs for showing pride and heraldry on the tabletop.
You get even more VPs for playing well on the table and having a good keen mind combined with a good unit selection.

All 3 of those things must be had to succeed in their hobby. The standard is completely defined now. There is no confusion where their expectations lay.

At least they didn't EXCLUDE you for being sub-standard by their expectations. They simply set you a little behind the person who is achieving their standard.

I have my standards. You have yours.

I am fine with you having your standards. You're not fine with mine being different from yours.

Which sounds like more of TFG to you?

I made no such standards. GW did. They expect a certain amount of effort to "max out" your score on the tables that care about the score.

I'm willing to accept those standards and play accordingly.

You're tell me that you don't have to and I should lower my standards from what was put forth by GW to your lowered standard because you cannot be bothered to elevate yours.

You know, the same attitude that manifests when I get the crap kicked out of me on the table and subsequently told to "git gud", "bring better models", or "follow a netlist".

And what if GW said you can't paint squad Sergeants unless you win a game? Would you be perfectly willing to accept that?

You might not think your TFG but if you are truly incapable of realizing that you don't NEED to enforce every rule to the letter against little Timmy (i mean thats your argument you've stated here) You are TFG. The fact that you think any normal person, who isn't TFG, would apply this rule to the kid who just finished assembling his models and wants to play his first game shows that you don't have a good grasp on normal human interaction.

 Insectum7 wrote:
^And the hobby still doesn't require painting.

But if you want to fully enjoy the gaming aspect, it does.

However you want to look at it-playing a 90 point game while your opponent plays 100, being 10% of the max down, 5 Dreadnoughts-you cannot have a fair match (again, as much as any 40k match is fair) without either waiving the rule (in which case, why have it?), or painting your forces, if your opponent happens to enjoy painting as well as gaming.

 auticus wrote:


But thats not TFG? What is the definition of TFG? Someone you don't like?

It's a word that has lost all meaning in nerd circles, much like "Neckbeard". Surprised that one hasn't been tossed around yet ITT.