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

And that of course... is the slippery slope

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/slippery-slope

 Jidmah 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

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/slippery-slope

Except in this case there is something to consider. They have literally introduced an off-table element into scoring on table points. It's conceivable they can introduce other off table elements which give you on table points.

 JNAProductions wrote:

 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?

You aren't forced to do anything, you are choosing to paint because you care about vp. Just tell yourself it was only a technical win and make sure your opponent knows that paint adds nothing to the game for you.

I don't think that this will be a problem in actual games. In yesterday's match at the FLGS my opponent (we've had plenty of games before including tournies) had a handy app to track all our VPs. I wasn't keeping exact score myself. At the end he announced that I had won, while my rough calculus told me that I had lost. He looked at the iPad and said that I had the 10 VPs for Battle Ready while his army was still a WIP. He was ahead on Primary and Secondary by 7 points but I was now ahead by 3. We laughed and we had our post-game analysis (my third Secondary was just plain dumb for the situation). His armies are usually stunningly painted and no doubt this one will be in a few weeks.

If this rule means that a few more armies get finished then its a good thing.

If its a tourney then I imagine that they'll just go with the GW scoring for now with no drama. Everyone knows the rules - want to guarantee 10 VPs each match? Get painting. In pickup games winning and losing doesn't usually factor in. If the score in a pickup game is close enough that 10 VPs matter then it was a great game and people aren't going to get all excited. I think that most of us have enough EQ to sense if we are even going to get into VP counting in the first place. If its a new kid that has a grey army for his first game I highly doubt we are using Primaries and Secondaries and are just playing to learn.

 Irkjoe wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:

 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?

You aren't forced to do anything, you are choosing to paint because you care about vp. Just tell yourself it was only a technical win and make sure your opponent knows that paint adds nothing to the game for you.

Or just don’t count it as a rule and the person who wins has done so regardless of the colour of the plastic they play with.

TangoTwoBravo wrote:
I don't think that this will be a problem in actual games. In yesterday's match at the FLGS my opponent (we've had plenty of games before including tournies) had a handy app to track all our VPs. I wasn't keeping exact score myself. At the end he announced that I had won, while my rough calculus told me that I had lost. He looked at the iPad and said that I had the 10 VPs for Battle Ready while his army was still a WIP. He was ahead on Primary and Secondary by 7 points but I was now ahead by 3. We laughed and we had our post-game analysis (my third Secondary was just plain dumb for the situation). His armies are usually stunningly painted and no doubt this one will be in a few weeks.

Yeah, this is why I don't get it.

If it's a casual game? Well, if you scored more VPs than the opponent but technically lost because of the painting bonus, who cares? You know who actually won. You're playing for fun. Why get so bent out of shape about it?

If it's a tournament game? There will be painting requirements to start with, so neither of you will be getting VPs the other isn't.

I just cannot wrap my head around why this matters to anyone.

Templarted wrote:

 Irkjoe wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:

 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?

You aren't forced to do anything, you are choosing to paint because you care about vp. Just tell yourself it was only a technical win and make sure your opponent knows that paint adds nothing to the game for you.

Or just don’t count it as a rule and the person who wins has done so regardless of the colour of the plastic they play with.

The only time it would ever count for anything is in tournament play which already requires paint. Why does 10vp that we all acknowledge doesn't come from any on table play somehow lessen your game by giving your opponent a technical victory in non tournament play? It seems to me that the real issue is that gw enshrined it as an actual rule and it bothers people who love to use "offical rules" as a club to hear anything about painting from the same source.

 catbarf wrote:

TangoTwoBravo wrote:
I don't think that this will be a problem in actual games. In yesterday's match at the FLGS my opponent (we've had plenty of games before including tournies) had a handy app to track all our VPs. I wasn't keeping exact score myself. At the end he announced that I had won, while my rough calculus told me that I had lost. He looked at the iPad and said that I had the 10 VPs for Battle Ready while his army was still a WIP. He was ahead on Primary and Secondary by 7 points but I was now ahead by 3. We laughed and we had our post-game analysis (my third Secondary was just plain dumb for the situation). His armies are usually stunningly painted and no doubt this one will be in a few weeks.

Yeah, this is why I don't get it.

If it's a casual game? Well, if you scored more VPs than the opponent but technically lost because of the painting bonus, who cares? You know who actually won. You're playing for fun. Why get so bent out of shape about it?

If it's a tournament game? There will be painting requirements to start with, so neither of you will be getting VPs the other isn't.

I just cannot wrap my head around why this matters to anyone.

If it doesn't matter, than why waste the text on it?

Especially since TFG can easily use this rule as a cudgel.

it's easy, if someone spent the time and effort to paint their stuff and another did not, the one who took the time should be rewarded for it. If you're mad about losing due to unpainted minis, the easiest way to avoid it in the future is
PAINT
YOUR
ARMY

seems pretty easy to me.



I have no problem playing against piles of grey. but would I rather play against an(at minimum) even minimally painted one over unpainted? feth yeah, not even a choice.

Racerguy180 wrote:
it's easy, if someone spent the time and effort to paint their stuff and another did not, the one who took the time should be rewarded for it. If you're mad about losing due to unpainted minis, the easiest way to avoid it in the future is
PAINT
YOUR
ARMY

seems pretty easy to me.



I have no problem playing against piles of grey. but would I rather play against an(at minimum) even minimally painted one over unpainted? feth yeah, not even a choice.

Which is exactly why you're not allowed to paint your squad leaders until you win a game with them!

The easiest way to avoid that in the future is to:
PLAY
SOME
GAMES!

Seems pretty easy to me.

/sarcasm

Edit: More seriously, I don't find painting well to be easy. I'm not good at it, and moreover, I don't ENJOY it. Why should I have to do something I don't enjoy to play a fair game?

If you refuse to play games with unpainted minis, that's fine-I won't say you have to play me, or say you're rude or anything for that. That's your standard. But let me have my standard, and don't punish me in an unrelated area for it.

It sets an expectation. GW is telling you they, and by extension your opponent, expect you to show up with a fully assembled, painted, and based army. They are telling you the expected way to engage with the hobby is to do it all, not just show up with bases of half assembled models and call it good enough.

Outside of an organized event, you are free to ignore them. You can decide that those 10 points don't count and add the game to your win column when you technically lost by 3 points because your army was not Battle Ready and your opponent's was. You can give you army the benefits of winning the Crusade Game even if you technically lost because your army was not Battle Ready and your opponent's was. Nobody is going to break down your door and confiscate your models if you don't play by GW's rules.

But every time you look at the victory conditions of the game, you will know that the expectation is to play with a fully assembled, painted, and based army. What you do with that is up to you, not GW.

 JNAProductions wrote:


Edit: More seriously, I don't find painting well to be easy. I'm not good at it, and moreover, I don't ENJOY it. Why should I have to do something I don't enjoy to play a fair game?

You don't. You can play chess, or many other strategy or tactical games on both tabletop and on computer that are actually balanced and are not build around the visual spectacle of two painted armies clashing on a thematic terrain. I am utterly flabbergasted by the amount of people who chose this hobby that has always been about visuals and are now suddenly shocked that they're supposed to paint their models.

 Crimson wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:


Edit: More seriously, I don't find painting well to be easy. I'm not good at it, and moreover, I don't ENJOY it. Why should I have to do something I don't enjoy to play a fair game?

You don't. You can play chess, or many other strategy or tactical games on both tabletop and on computer that are actually balanced and are not build around the visual spectacle of two painted armies clashing on a thematic terrain. I am utterly flabbergasted by the amount of people who chose this hobby that has always been about visuals and are now suddenly shocked that they're supposed to paint their models.

I have fun playing it. My friends play it too, and while chess is a great game, it doesn't scratch the same itch 40k does.

Why is my fun bad, and yours good?

 JNAProductions wrote:
I have fun playing it. My friends play it too, and while chess is a great game, it doesn't scratch the same itch 40k does.

Why is my fun bad, and yours good?

So why you need those ten points to have fun then?

 Crimson wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
I have fun playing it. My friends play it too, and while chess is a great game, it doesn't scratch the same itch 40k does.

Why is my fun bad, and yours good?

So why you need those ten points to have fun then?

Two things:

1) I like to have as fair a game as possible. I know, 40k and balance go together like orange juice and toothpaste, but still.
2) There are people who will use this rule as a cudgel to say I'm playing 40k wrong. And that ticks me off.

 Irkjoe wrote:

Templarted wrote:

 Irkjoe wrote:


Or just don’t count it as a rule and the person who wins has done so regardless of the colour of the plastic they play with.

The only time it would ever count for anything is in tournament play which already requires paint. Why does 10vp that we all acknowledge doesn't come from any on table play somehow lessen your game by giving your opponent a technical victory in non tournament play? It seems to me that the real issue is that gw enshrined it as an actual rule and it bothers people who love to use "offical rules" as a club to hear anything about painting from the same source.

It bothers me that it’s enshrined in rules. Mostly because people will be petty enough to use it to say they’ve won. The rules redundant in tournament play, all it is going to do is cause hassle in games. I’ve seen how competitive people get over very casual games.

 JNAProductions wrote:

1) I like to have as fair a game as possible. I know, 40k and balance go together like orange juice and toothpaste, but still.

Then paint your models. Or alternatively, just keep your own tally of wins and losses without the paint score. It's not like 'winning' really matters outside your own head expect in tournaments.

2) There are people who will use this rule as a cudgel to say I'm playing 40k wrong. And that ticks me off.

You are. It has always been intended to be played with painted models, tabletop wargames have since their inception in the 19th century. And you are allowed 'to play it wrong' if you have fun that way, but that doesn't chance what the exception is.

 catbarf wrote:

TangoTwoBravo wrote:
I don't think that this will be a problem in actual games. In yesterday's match at the FLGS my opponent (we've had plenty of games before including tournies) had a handy app to track all our VPs. I wasn't keeping exact score myself. At the end he announced that I had won, while my rough calculus told me that I had lost. He looked at the iPad and said that I had the 10 VPs for Battle Ready while his army was still a WIP. He was ahead on Primary and Secondary by 7 points but I was now ahead by 3. We laughed and we had our post-game analysis (my third Secondary was just plain dumb for the situation). His armies are usually stunningly painted and no doubt this one will be in a few weeks.

Yeah, this is why I don't get it.

If it's a casual game? Well, if you scored more VPs than the opponent but technically lost because of the painting bonus, who cares? You know who actually won. You're playing for fun. Why get so bent out of shape about it?

If it's a tournament game? There will be painting requirements to start with, so neither of you will be getting VPs the other isn't.

I just cannot wrap my head around why this matters to anyone.

This. But we'll be rehashing this same thread every 3 months or so anyway.

Then paint your models. Or alternatively, just keep your own tally of wins and losses without the paint score. It's not like 'winning' really matters outside your own head expect in tournaments.

I ain't sure about other places, but winning games means you win prizes or get more play time at the store. So it is not just in people heads, there are physical benefits from winning.

Karol wrote:

Then paint your models. Or alternatively, just keep your own tally of wins and losses without the paint score. It's not like 'winning' really matters outside your own head expect in tournaments.

I ain't sure about other places, but winning games means you win prizes or get more play time at the store. So it is not just in people heads, there are physical benefits from winning.

Normally only in tournaments and those have always enforced painting standards.

I never played in real tournaments, only in one store event. But I assume it could be different in other places. Still not paying for the table or having priority to to reserve one is, at least to me, a big substential thing, not just something in ones head.

 JNAProductions wrote:
Especially since TFG can easily use this rule as a cudgel.

How? How on earth is this a problem? How does it matter?

Are you saying that you would go play a casual, pick-up game at a local shop, win by 5VPs, hear your opponent tell you that you actually lost because his army is painted and yours isn't, and then you would genuinely feel like you lost and seethe with anger at GW/TFG/the cosmos because you lost the game? The fact that you scored higher on objectives means nothing, and your victory is only meaningful if the book says so?

Who

cares?

Like, give me a scenario where this would actually legitimately impact your play experience, because I'm failing to see how this could be a problem unless you're really hung up over whether toy soldier game book says you won toy soldier game in a context where it doesn't matter at all.

Karol wrote:
I never played in real tournaments, only in one store event. But I assume it could be different in other places. Still not paying for the table or having priority to to reserve one is, at least to me, a big substential thing, not just something in ones head.

Tying table reservations to winning or losing a game sounds utterly bizarre to me and I have never heard of such a thing before. Paying for tables seems pretty unusual too, albeit not completely unheard of.

 catbarf wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
Especially since TFG can easily use this rule as a cudgel.

How? How on earth is this a problem? How does it matter?

Are you saying that you would go play a casual, pick-up game at a local shop, win by 5VPs, hear your opponent tell you that you actually lost because his army is painted and yours isn't, and then you would genuinely feel like you lost and seethe with anger at GW/TFG/the cosmos because you lost the game? The fact that you scored higher on objectives means nothing, and your victory is only meaningful if the book says so?

Who

cares?

Like, give me a scenario where this would actually legitimately impact your play experience, because I'm failing to see how this could be a problem unless you're really hung up over whether toy soldier game book says you won toy soldier game in a context where it doesn't matter at all.

Would it hurt me? No. I've been playing for a while, and I've got a reasonably thick skin.

But you're telling me you cannot think of TFG doing something like, say, mocking you for not having a painted army and declaring himself the victor? Again, that wouldn't really bother me (though I would note to not play that person again) but for someone who's just starting, that's an early experience, and no one can say "He's not even following the rules, ignore him," because guess what? He IS following the rules.

Moreover, it seems like a lot of the people who support this rule don't even support using it all the time. There's a million and one exceptions they have, to the point where I question why it should even be included as a CORE RULE. As a tournament rule? Okay, sure. Including a bit in the rulebook that says "This game is best played with fully painted minis on a battlefield with great terrain,"? Totally fine.

But as a core rule that says you start with a points deficit if you're not painted and your opponent is? That's the equivalent of saying you can't paint your squad leaders unless you play a game with them first. It's stupid.

 Crimson wrote:

Karol wrote:
I never played in real tournaments, only in one store event. But I assume it could be different in other places. Still not paying for the table or having priority to to reserve one is, at least to me, a big substential thing, not just something in ones head.

Tying table reservations to winning or losing a game sounds utterly bizarre to me and I have never heard of such a thing before. Paying for tables seems pretty unusual too, albeit not completely unheard of.

I will agree with this, though. Occasionally, it'll be "I want to face the winner!" but usually it's just first-come, first-served. Win or lose, if the shop is crowded, neither of you are playing afterwards, since another two or more people need the table next.

 JNAProductions wrote:

But you're telling me you cannot think of TFG doing something like, say, mocking you for not having a painted army and declaring himself the victor? Again, that wouldn't really bother me (though I would note to not play that person again) but for someone who's just starting, that's an early experience, and no one can say "He's not even following the rules, ignore him," because guess what? He IS following the rules.

Here mocking is the issue, as that is being rude. This has nothing to do with the actual rule, your opponent can be rude in myriad ways if they happen to be a jackass.

But as a core rule that says you start with a points deficit if you're not painted and your opponent is? That's the equivalent of saying you can't paint your squad leaders unless you play a game with them first. It's stupid.

This is a false equivalency. Painting just for fun is solo activity, gaming is group activity. The paint points are to encourage you to paint your models and thus enhance the gaming experience of your opponent.

 Crimson wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:

But as a core rule that says you start with a points deficit if you're not painted and your opponent is? That's the equivalent of saying you can't paint your squad leaders unless you play a game with them first. It's stupid.

This is a false equivalency. Painting just for fun is solo activity, gaming is group activity. The paint points are to encourage you to paint your models and thus enhance the gaming experience of your opponent.

And someone who sits at the shop and just paints, doesn't game, is discouraging to me when I show up to game. This is not a hypothetical situation, by the way-it's happened to me plenty of times on slower days.

Should I demand a rule where you cannot paint squad leaders unless you use them in a game? No-the two parts of the hobby, while both under the same umbrella of the gaming hobby, are not directly related.

 JNAProductions wrote:
And someone who sits at the shop and just paints, doesn't game, is discouraging to me when I show up to game. This is not a hypothetical situation, by the way-it's happened to me plenty of times on slower days.

Should I demand a rule where you cannot paint squad leaders unless you use them in a game? No-the two parts of the hobby, while both under the same umbrella of the gaming hobby, are not directly related.

I am sure this somehow made sense in your head, but I literally do not understand what you're trying to say. How is someone painting discouraging you? I don't get it.

 Crimson wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
And someone who sits at the shop and just paints, doesn't game, is discouraging to me when I show up to game. This is not a hypothetical situation, by the way-it's happened to me plenty of times on slower days.

Should I demand a rule where you cannot paint squad leaders unless you use them in a game? No-the two parts of the hobby, while both under the same umbrella of the gaming hobby, are not directly related.

I am sure this somehow made sense in your head, but I literally do not understand what you're trying to say. How is someone painting discouraging you? I don't get it.

Because I cannot game. It's discouraging to arrive at a gaming store and not be able to game.

Clearly, there should be a rule that FORCES them to game, if they want to paint their models. /s

Let me ask you this: If you were to play a game against an unpainted force, would an extra 10 points make you feel any better about it? Or would you still dislike the game, because it's an eyesore to you? And your opponent-do you think they'd enjoy playing 10 points down, relative to you, when you don't even want to be playing it in the first place?

 JNAProductions wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:

But as a core rule that says you start with a points deficit if you're not painted and your opponent is? That's the equivalent of saying you can't paint your squad leaders unless you play a game with them first. It's stupid.

This is a false equivalency. Painting just for fun is solo activity, gaming is group activity. The paint points are to encourage you to paint your models and thus enhance the gaming experience of your opponent.

And someone who sits at the shop and just paints, doesn't game, is discouraging to me when I show up to game. This is not a hypothetical situation, by the way-it's happened to me plenty of times on slower days.

Should I demand a rule where you cannot paint squad leaders unless you use them in a game? No-the two parts of the hobby, while both under the same umbrella of the gaming hobby, are not directly related.

JNA,

I respect that you do not like to paint, but both your points above make little sense to me. I can't see how the guy who only comes to the store to paint is hurting your gaming experience. He's minding his own business. When you put a unpainted army on the table against another player, however, I think we can understand how your unpainted army might degrade your opponent's experience, or those of spectators.

Regarding your second point, you can demand all you want but your specific demand in this case is rather bizarre. Your demand, if I understand it correctly, is that we can only paint a squad leader after they have been on the table and can presumably be considered veterans? That makes, well, no sense to me at all. I get adding battle honours and kill markers to models to signify memorable events, but that's peripheral to the hobby. Painting, on the other hand, is absolutely a key part of the overall 40K hobby, and they've set the bar quite low with Battle Ready. You don't have to do it, you just forfeit the opportunity to gain those 10 easy VP. Up to you.

 JNAProductions wrote:
Because I cannot game. It's discouraging to arrive at a gaming store and not be able to game.

Clearly, there should be a rule that FORCES them to game, if they want to paint their models. /s

Oh right, this was nonsense.

Let me ask you this: If you were to play a game against an unpainted force, would an extra 10 points make you feel any better about it? Or would you still dislike the game, because it's an eyesore to you? And your opponent-do you think they'd enjoy playing 10 points down, relative to you, when you don't even want to be playing it in the first place?

Personally I try avoid playing against unpainted armies. But in leagues I sometimes have and they have had similar extra points for paint rule. But it is not about winning or losing, it is about encouraging the people to bring painted models in the first place. In leagues with such a rule overwhelming majority of armies are painted, which makes the league better experience to everyone.