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.

One of the basic concepts of 9th edition is to remove the event packs, so I kind of understand the existence of this rule. Almost all events had some requirements on models being painted, so since those requirements are no more, they have put a basic requirement in the common tournament package. It is actually more permissive than the other ones, which were actually "No full paint, no game". This one at least allows you to go to an even without a full painted army, accepting that you are not really competing but it's more of a trial run. From this point of view, I understand the existence of this rule.
What I cannot understand is why it is in the basic matched play rules. Assuming that this was the logic, it should have been a rule of CA2020, which are the rules for events. Why is it in the basic matched play rules that are meant for friendly games???

 Void__Dragon wrote:

tneva82 wrote:


Eeeh...gw made that core rule. Not optional. Trying to claim you won despite not having painted army would make you cheating tfg waac.

Complain to gw. They made rule. It's not tournament rule or optional. It's core rules.

Are you ignoring maximum point limit rule as well? Paying cp for stratagems? -1 to hit for moving and shooting heavy with infantry?

Gw says so. It's not optional rule. Gw says it's part of gw"s scenarios. Either you make your own scenarios and house　rule it or use it. Or you are the waac donkey-cave

Anyone who would tell little Timmy who wanted to try out the new models he just bought in a game at their FLGS that they lose because they didn't paint their models in a casual game is a scumbag, an donkey-cave, and an idiot. And personally, I don't know about you guys, but if I saw such poor sportsmanlike behavior I'd walk up to said scumbag and break his jaw tbqh.

Yeah, sure mate. Take you internet toughguy hat off, you know that act doesn't work in 2020...

yukishiro1 wrote:
Of course it would.

I've been wrong in the past, but I don't think anyone really has an actual problem figuring out whether something qualifies or not. Anyone who actually tries to nickle and dime people on this is just not someone you should be playing with.

It's one of those "know it when you see it" sort of things. Anyone can tell within five seconds of looking at someone's army whether it complies. Is it more than just spray-canned a single color? Then it's fine.

Except that's not how rules work. If it's a rule then it needs to be clearly defined. Strength 3 vs toughness 3 doesn't wound on 'like...idk 2, 5 and 3 when I'm hungry'; it wounds on a 4+

That's why including it in the rules is stupid. Once it is a rule it has to be treated like a rule. If you say battle ready standard and define battle ready standard as 'all areas covered and a simple finish on the base' then a complex finish on the base disqualifies you as much as not having anything on your base. The same way a meltagun doesn't get to wound a leman russ on a 3 because 'idk man, it kinda feels like melta should do that'.

The rules on page 12 (German Grand Tournament book) actually say that "Battle ready" is the minimal standard.

So a complex finish will not disqualify you from 10 points.

a_typical_hero wrote:
The rules on page 12 (German Grand Tournament book) actually say that "Battle ready" is the minimal standard.

So a complex finish will not disqualify you from 10 points.

Example of a better written rule.

So far the only standard we have includes Technical paint on the base.

Yeah you're into WAAC and "that guy" territory but RAW/RAI.

It’s a terribly written rule, but I understand the sentiment. TOs will obviously apply discretion as to whether they enforce, but I suspect larger tournaments will stick to their current “all armies must be painted and based”. I won’t be fighting to play this rule in a friendly game, but then again if an opponent insists, I don’t really mind, as it’s a game.

GW’s problem is a terrible description of battle ready; the definition should be along the lines of “painted and based in a cohesive scheme using a combination of colours.”

 Void__Dragon wrote:

yukishiro1 wrote:
As lame as it'd be to be the guy who insisted on taking 10 points off little Timmy in those circumstances, being the guy who responded to that with violence is surely even lamer.

I'm sure little Timmy appreciates your flaccid and impotent moral support.

One sword keeps another in the sheath.

Feelings aren't swords.

Legal-e-tea wrote:
GW’s problem is a terrible description of battle ready; the definition should be along the lines of “painted and based in a cohesive scheme using a combination of colours.”

It literally says "completely painted model with a detailed base or a base done with technical paints" (translated from my German version). Right below is a picture showing 8 different examples, 4 each for contrast and classical method of painting.

Not meant to poke at you, but I don't see how the description is "terrible"?

The German version sounds better than the English one (and what a classic GW mess that is - the rules are now different in different languages?).

yukishiro1 wrote:
The German version sounds better than the English one (and what a classic GW mess that is - the rules are now different in different languages?).

that's due to literal & direct translations, no language translates 100% into another. If you are writing something, which in one language means one thing, but by directly translating, causes it to have an entirely different meaning.

English has far too many interpretations of what word means what in which order, which makes it a complete headache if you are doing any sort of technical translations.

The English one says "Battle Ready means your models are fully painted with a detailed or textured base."

So, no matter how much extra work you put into it, it will still be a fully painted model with a detailed/textured base.

Anyways, I have found the perfect loophole in that rule for me. I bought a bunch of cheap acrylic paints and some brushes and whenever I paint models, I let my 4 year old daughter run wild with paint on models not in queue for painting.
We are having fun painting together, I get my 10 VP for having my models fully painted and I get to annoy paint elitists with abstract kindergarten art.

 Jidmah wrote:
The English one says "Battle Ready means your models are fully painted with a detailed or textured base."

So, no matter how much extra work you put into it, it will still be a fully painted model with a detailed/textured base.

Anyways, I have found the perfect loophole in that rule for me. I bought a bunch of cheap acrylic paints and some brushes and whenever I paint models, I let my 4 year old daughter run wild with paint on models not in queue for painting.
We are having fun painting together, I get my 10 VP for having my models fully painted and I get to annoy paint elitists with abstract kindergarten art.

If she puts it on thick enough, you even get the textured base.

 Jidmah wrote:
The English one says "Battle Ready means your models are fully painted with a detailed or textured base."

Oh, that's interesting, the Battle Ready rule is different in the CA2020 book than it is on their website, and it isn't defined in the core rulebook at all, unless I can't find it.

The webpage says: "Battle Ready models have their main areas coloured and an simple finish on their bases." Which is less clear.

Racerguy180 wrote:

yukishiro1 wrote:
The German version sounds better than the English one (and what a classic GW mess that is - the rules are now different in different languages?).

that's due to literal & direct translations, no language translates 100% into another. If you are writing something, which in one language means one thing, but by directly translating, causes it to have an entirely different meaning.

English has far too many interpretations of what word means what in which order, which makes it a complete headache if you are doing any sort of technical translations.

That is soooo true. There are some amusing videos around of people who take the rather literal translation a computer would do, like say, Google Translate, and then have it translated back to English to show just how odd those Translations go. One of my favorites is has Google Translator put songs through multiple translations and then back in to English, and then she sings them. Some of the results I had to stop several times to catch my breath from laughing to hard.

And yeah, English is a lousy language to do a ruleset in, but it is one that the creators know and use.

As a new player this rule is actually quite a blocker to learning how to play the game. I have only played a few games so far and in all of them I have had unpainted models as I was learning what each unit was and what it did. I play one new unit a game to get a feel for it and it is tacked together and in grey primer. This allows me to get a feel for the unit and the rules before I commit to how I build and paint it. Knowing I would have this army a long time I didn't want to rush into a paint job just so I could play a game.

Luckily I took my time and I'm really happy with the look I have picked for my models but it took time and testing. No one I played against cared my models were grey, they were happy to help someone join the hobby. Of the games I have played I have only won one and it was only by a few points this rule would have robbed me of that first victory. It discourages people from playing by putting a new player at a disadvantage or it means they spend so long painting they loose interest in playing or they rush it and end up with an army they don't like the look of. None of which are good.

Also if seasoned players are confused by what Battle Ready is what hope do new players have?

 Void__Dragon wrote:

Anyone who would tell little Timmy who wanted to try out the new models he just bought in a game at their FLGS that they lose because they didn't paint their models in a casual game is a scumbag, an donkey-cave, and an idiot. And personally, I don't know about you guys, but if I saw such poor sportsmanlike behavior I'd walk up to said scumbag and break his jaw tbqh.

No, you wouldn't.

Ridiculous threats of improbable violence don't add anything productive to your argument. Don't do this.

tneva82 wrote:
Eeeh...gw made that core rule. Not optional. Trying to claim you won despite not having painted army would make you cheating tfg waac.

Claiming that after the game, with no prior discussion of the rule, potentially does. In practice though, I suspect this rule will be largely regarded in casual play as somewhat akin to the original AoS rules that gave bonuses to people with moustaches or the like, and people will just ignore it.

Being a core rule doesn't actually force anyone to use it.

yukishiro1 wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
The English one says "Battle Ready means your models are fully painted with a detailed or textured base."

Oh, that's interesting, the Battle Ready rule is different in the CA2020 book than it is on their website, and it isn't defined in the core rulebook at all, unless I can't find it.

The webpage says: "Battle Ready models have their main areas coloured and an simple finish on their bases." Which is less clear.

No matter how you look at it, an article released on the community page of the game long before this edition's release is not a rule.

Shouldn't be a rule and only serves to justify "That Guy" or elitist behavior. Tournaments and organized events can do what they want regarding painting standards but FLGS pick up game are no place to punish people for not having models painted. The community shot down the larping rules for AoS so hopefully people will do the right thing and condemn this rule as well.

 Jidmah wrote:

yukishiro1 wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
The English one says "Battle Ready means your models are fully painted with a detailed or textured base."

Oh, that's interesting, the Battle Ready rule is different in the CA2020 book than it is on their website, and it isn't defined in the core rulebook at all, unless I can't find it.

The webpage says: "Battle Ready models have their main areas coloured and an simple finish on their bases." Which is less clear.

No matter how you look at it, an article released on the community page of the game long before this edition's release is not a rule.

Yeah, but it's all we had until CA2020. I was saying it's interesting, because I didn't realize that they actually do define it in CA2020. But that's technically only for tournaments, so it remains undefined in the core rulebook and the eternal war missions, unless I just glazed over it in the main rulebook.

insaniak wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
Eeeh...gw made that core rule. Not optional. Trying to claim you won despite not having painted army would make you cheating tfg waac.

Claiming that after the game, with no prior discussion of the rule, potentially does.

Springing it on someone at the end of the game, without mentioning it beforehand, would seem a bit weird - surely the best time to confirm the Battle Ready status of each army is during initial set-up, so both players know where they stand regarding this tertiary objective before the game begins?

yukishiro1 wrote:But that's technically only for tournaments, so it remains undefined in the core rulebook and the eternal war missions, unless I just glazed over it in the main rulebook.

Silly question, as I've yet to have a look myself - is it actually a factor in the scoring for the Eternal War missions? I seem to recall it only applies to one format of the game, not all of them, so wouldn't be surprised if it only cropped up for one mission type.

It really should've been defined, with examples, in the core rulebook, though.

It's in Eternal War, Crusade, and CA2020 Missions. The only thing it isn't in is the Open Play missions.

That's the point.

It is a fine rule in the GT book, it makes the events more accessible to new players, but it has no place in the BRB.

yukishiro1 wrote:
Yeah, but it's all we had until CA2020. I was saying it's interesting, because I didn't realize that they actually do define it in CA2020. But that's technically only for tournaments, so it remains undefined in the core rulebook and the eternal war missions, unless I just glazed over it in the main rulebook.

That rule is not part of the mission pack, it is written in its own chapter. RAW it's as much a rule for regular matched play games as the updated point values from the same publication are.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Nevelon wrote:
If she puts it on thick enough, you even get the textured base.

GW non-flying bases are textured by default

 insaniak wrote:

Being a core rule doesn't actually force anyone to use it.

No, but it does mean it's in use unless you explicitly ask to ignore it. So there would be no springing it on someone because it's a core rule that's always in effect unless you specifically agree to ignore it for every game you play.

Yep you have to houserule it out for it not to be in effect.

And that of course... is the slippery slope

 auticus wrote:
Yep you have to houserule it out for it not to be in effect.

And that of course... is the slippery slope

Except you know that gamers are selective about "good" houserules and "bad" houserules. Getting rid of those silly AOS rules at launch (the joke rules)? Good house rule those were stupid anyway. Making forests block LOS? Bad house rule and not fair how dare you change the rules. This rule? Maybe good house rule. Just constant double standards.

If this is restricted to tournaments I’d be fine with it. I’ve know a few people enter army’s for FLGS tournaments that weren’t painted and every time someone was told they can’t use that army, there was always a “where in the rules does it say that”.

But for core play, it’s a hell no. Places will have to say yes this rule applys or no it doesn’t. Then there always be exceptions. Any store isn’t going to penalise someone who’s just got started with the hobby, but when do you turn around and say well you have to start painting them and basing them. When I was you I spent what I had on figures not paints. I imagine it’s still the same in a lot of cases.

All that can come from this rule is toxicity and ill feelings. The best case scenario for this rule is that it’s ignored in all places.

Wayniac wrote:

 auticus wrote:
Yep you have to houserule it out for it not to be in effect.

And that of course... is the slippery slope

Except you know that gamers are selective about "good" houserules and "bad" houserules. Getting rid of those silly AOS rules at launch (the joke rules)? Good house rule those were stupid anyway. Making forests block LOS? Bad house rule and not fair how dare you change the rules. This rule? Maybe good house rule. Just constant double standards.

How is that a double standard?

It'd be a double standard if, say, forests block LoS for you, but not for me. But just thinking some houserules are good, and some aren't? That's not a double standard, that's just thinking about the quality of game adjustments.

Templarted wrote:
The best case scenario for this rule is that it’s ignored in all places.

I'd argue the best case is that people get their damned armies painted and based, but to each their own.

 Dysartes wrote:

Templarted wrote:
The best case scenario for this rule is that it’s ignored in all places.

I'd argue the best case is that people get their damned armies painted and based, but to each their own.

Do you really want to have people paint because they feel forced to, and therefore probably do a poor job and possibly quit the hobby entirely?

I can 100% understand wanting to play against well-painted armies, since that improves the experience, but if you're picky enough that you refuse to play unpainted ones, just start a gaming club with a minimum painting standard. It's what my local GW manager does-he won't play an unpainted army at all (excepting demo games, where someone might want to use their free Intercessor or whatever that's barely painted) but he still games. He just has friends who all have the same standards he does.