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.

No, I'm not demanding that, because it's exactly as stupid as saying you earn free points for painting.

If I'm to face an opponent who does not face unpainted minis, and they forget to ask if my army is painted before we start setting up, I'd expect them to say something along the lines of "Oh crap, sorry! I didn't realize your minis weren't painted. I don't like playing against grey armies, so I'm actually gonna have to not play." Which, yeah, would be mildly irksome, but certainly not worth getting mad over, and certainly not rude on their part.

How bout this;
If GW had packed their advertising, codexes, and the like with half assembled unpainted models, would anyone ever have given a gak?

The well painted & based models, with excellent terrain is what really sold the models.

 JNAProductions wrote:

If I'm to face an opponent who does not face unpainted minis, and they forget to ask if my army is painted before we start setting up, I'd expect them to say something along the lines of "Oh crap, sorry! I didn't realize your minis weren't painted. I don't like playing against grey armies, so I'm actually gonna have to not play." Which, yeah, would be mildly irksome, but certainly not worth getting mad over, and certainly not rude on their part.

So you wouldn't mind them declining a game but would mind them taking the ten points that the rules give them to them? So you would rather not play at all than face a possibility of losing on technicality in a casual no-stakes game?

 Crimson wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:

If I'm to face an opponent who does not face unpainted minis, and they forget to ask if my army is painted before we start setting up, I'd expect them to say something along the lines of "Oh crap, sorry! I didn't realize your minis weren't painted. I don't like playing against grey armies, so I'm actually gonna have to not play." Which, yeah, would be mildly irksome, but certainly not worth getting mad over, and certainly not rude on their part.

So you wouldn't mind them declining a game but would mind them taking the ten points that the rules give them to them? So you would rather not play at all than face a possibility of losing on technicality in a casual no-stakes game?

Yes?

When playing Crusade, it's not a no-stakes game, by the way.

which is just like losing on objectives, a technicality.

I’m saying that the rule doesn’t make the game more fun.

The person with an unpainted army is grumpy because their opponent starts 10 points ahead.
The person who prefers to play painted armies is grumpy because they’re playing a grey army.
No one is happy. The game is not improved by its presence.

 JNAProductions wrote:
I’m saying that the rule doesn’t make the game more fun.

The person with an unpainted army is grumpy because their opponent starts 10 points ahead.
The person who prefers to play painted armies is grumpy because they’re playing a grey army.
No one is happy. The game is not improved by its presence.

It will increase the number of painted armies being played thus improving the gaming experience. You may quibble about how it is implemented, but the intent is not a mystery and it will no doubt have the desired effect.

Honestly if your enjoyment of the game hinges on how well painted the opposing team is vs how well the game is played then I hate to say it but I think you're in the wrong game.

There are far more things involved in the table top experience that's more important than if your opponent has spare time to put pigment on plastic.

Quite honestly there is ZERO effect on the tabletop for painted or unpainted models, they play exactly the same. Yet there is now 10 VP in it. For .... what?

And the low bar for Battle Ready is its own failing. So you're OK with a spray of base coat, some trim and a layer of paint on the base. You'd prefer to play a "painted" army that's bad over grey or undercoated models? I'd prefer a well painted army than a badly painted one. But I prefer to play a grey army in a good game than a Golden Daemon winner army in a bad game.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Racerguy180 wrote:
which is just like losing on objectives, a technicality.

Except that's a table top mechanism, painting isn't. You be happy if I brought my pots and finished painting while we played?

 JNAProductions wrote:
No, I'm not demanding that, because it's exactly as stupid as saying you earn free points for painting.

Given the time/effort involved in getting a completed army - or the money, if using commission painters - I'd hardly call the 10VP free, JNA.

 Dysartes wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
No, I'm not demanding that, because it's exactly as stupid as saying you earn free points for painting.

Given the time/effort involved in getting a completed army - or the money, if using commission painters - I'd hardly call the 10VP free, JNA.

They aren't earned while playing the game though.

We have come the point where TFG has a fully painted army and brags about his technical win in casual games.

Has something changed since the last 20 page thread we had discussing this exact topic, or is it just a slow day for complaints and we need to rehash this to vent?

 Sentineil wrote:
Has something changed since the last 20 page thread we had discussing this exact topic, or is it just a slow day for complaints and we need to rehash this to vent?

Always a topic you can try and “win”, bonus points if it’s one that isn’t actually really a problem.

 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

His point was how 40k gamers are almost always adamantly against house rules and anything that isn't "official". So by them saying not to use this rule, it opens up other house rules to fix the game which traditionally they have been against because if you introduce house rules you aren't playing "correctly".

Another thread where we strawman a fictitious victim being preyed upon by some horribly sociopathic TFG so we can virtue signal about our huge hearts and how we would stand up to the tyrant and the bully, if only they would exist. And even, earlier in this thread, literally punch them if afforded the opportunity.

All the while, their piles of unpainted minis languish in sorrow, waiting for a coat of primer or anything... an ounce of love. But no, instead of indulging in some other activity that they we may find we get better at if we only practiced... we engage in hyperbolic, and borderline deranged, arguments on the internet to win some internet debate points that are as substantial to our lives as the 10 VP we'd get for painting.

Ah well, I had 2 minis unpainted from my first Crusade game... still won, barely, but didn't actually get any perks since neither of us exfiltrated a unit from the table to give honors to...

Soon, there will be 1 unpainted mini... just as soon as I turn this thread off and get to work.

By the way: I bet not a single person here started off good at painting. I'm sure we all have memories of our awful first models. The big difference between those painters and the others who cannot be bothered because they "can't paint gud" is perseverance.

Anyways, happy Sunday, dakka! I got a model to paint!

Wayniac wrote:

 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

His point was how 40k gamers are almost always adamantly against house rules and anything that isn't "official". So by them saying not to use this rule, it opens up other house rules to fix the game which traditionally they have been against because if you introduce house rules you aren't playing "correctly".

And that, my friend, is exactly what the slippery slope fallacy is. You assume A -> B where there is no middle ground between A and B. The only way for a slippery slope comparison to not be a fallacy is by proving that the middle ground - which is ignoring the battle ready rule and have no other house rules - is so unlikely that it can be discounted as not relevant.

So both of you are, by definition, wrong.

It's either all ok to ignore, or none of it is.

If you want to house rule the Battle Ready rule, you have to let me house rule my tacticals to have 600 wounds each. Why is your house rule valid but mine not?

 BaconCatBug wrote:
It's either all ok to ignore, or none of it is.

If you want to house rule the Battle Ready rule, you have to let me house rule my tacticals to have 600 wounds each. Why is your house rule valid but mine not?

Because, BCB, one makes for a more fun game for both parties.

The other does not.

BaconCatBug wrote:It's either all ok to ignore, or none of it is.

If you want to house rule the Battle Ready rule, you have to let me house rule my tacticals to have 600 wounds each. Why is your house rule valid but mine not?

Add this one to the "BCB has no idea what a house rule actually is" list.

House rules are mutually agreeable. If both players consent to a house rule, then there's no problem, and it gets play liked any other rule. If one player is adding rules that the other doesn't agree to, then the house rule isn't implemented. Simple as.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

BaconCatBug wrote:It's either all ok to ignore, or none of it is.

If you want to house rule the Battle Ready rule, you have to let me house rule my tacticals to have 600 wounds each. Why is your house rule valid but mine not?

Add this one to the "BCB has no idea what a house rule actually is" list.

House rules are mutually agreeable. If both players consent to a house rule, then there's no problem, and it gets play liked any other rule. If one player is adding rules that the other doesn't agree to, then the house rule isn't implemented. Simple as.

And then the person who disagrees is painted to be TFG, when it should be the opposite.

Rules that mostly serve to provoke arguments are bad rules. This falls into that category. Said as someone who enjoys painting as much as playing (despite not being very good at it) and who hates playing against the grey tide. I want my opponent to paint his minis because he wants to paint his minis and because he wants to be polite to the person he's playing with, not because he needs to get 10VPs for it so he'll do the absolute minimum half-arsed job to comply with the letter rather than the spirit of the rule.

Honestly, I think I'd rather play the grey tide than some models that have been brutalized to technically comply with the rule. And to be clear, by that I don't mean someone who just isn't a good painter who tried their best. I mean the guy who is only painting to get the 10VPs and does his whole army in an hour in the sloppiest way possible just to be able to say he gets the points.

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

And that of course... is the slippery slope

Indeed, I wasn't suggesting that it should be ignored without prior discussion. I thought that was clear from my post.

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

I would absolutely agree. But a rule trying to enforce that, outside of organised play, is unnecessary and weird.

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..

They are. They are rewarded with the experience of getting to use the pretty, painted models that they've spent their time and effort on.

The whole point of painting is to make the miniatures look better. Your models being prettier than your opponents' shouldn't win you games.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Why is your house rule valid but mine not?

Because rational human beings are capable of discussing and assessing the viability of proposed rules changes and deciding which changes benefit the game experience and which don't.

Neither player has the right to insist on their house rule being used... it's something to discuss with your opponent, or agree as a group. But one house rule being accepted doesn't mean that any other rules change you can think of should also be accepted. That would be absurd.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Racerguy180 wrote:
which is just like losing on objectives, a technicality.

Losing on objectives in an objective-based game is not a technicality.

Losing because your opponent got bonus points for spelling his name correctly on the test paper most certainly is.

Kayback wrote:

 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.

List construction, army purchase/loan and model assembly are also off table elements that gatekeep your access to victory points.

If they wanted to give you +10VP for only using GW models or for subscribing to the app or whatever else, they could have done that, whether or not they did this. The slippery slope argument is usually bad because usually there's no reason this particular thing made the slope any more or less slippery than it already was.

I dont paint my army to win games, if it does great, if it doesnt who cares. I paint them cuz I want them to look good on the tabletop.

If you dont paint your minis & then lose due to it, really the only person you can really blame....

Battle ready standard only matters if the game has a stake, such as at a tournament. At which point, it would be the Organizer’s decision as to whether or not a given paint job qualifies, and a person would know that going into the tournament.

Battle Ready paint will always be a subjective score, outside of the objectively measurable in-game scoring mechanisms. I’ve said this before, but I don’t consider a mini “complete” without a textured base. So a clear base doesn’t do it for me (exceptions to deliberately clear flying stand bases... because I’m capricious) and a plain black base also wouldn’t work. But in a no stakes game, I wouldn’t care about the points, just like always. In a tournament, I’d abide by the TO’s decision. So again, no need for my personal subjective opinion.

Starting to feel like we've made a mountain out of a molehill here. I was against the Battle Ready Standard +10VP thing to begin with, but the more I think about it, the more I realise it doesn't matter.

Every tournament I've been to has had a requirement for painting, so that strikes me as a non-issue. Tournaments that didn't have a painting requirement before are likely to house rule this out anyway.

And in casual games, it simply doesn't matter who the rules say "won" the game, other than for simple bragging rights.

I might walk away from a game with a "win" because I got the +10VP for having a painted army - the winner of the game by the rules. You might walk away from the game with a "win" because you outplayed me on objectives - a moral victory of sorts.

Likewise, you could "win" a game on VPs but having only got there because you were rolling nothing but 6s for saves and 1s for morale, but I could have played a far better tactical game than you. By the rules, you "win" the game, but I walk away satisfied that my tactics were sound.

In other words: in a casual game, don't worry about what the numbers say. Worry instead about what you got out of the game.

 Cheex wrote:
Starting to feel like we've made a mountain out of a molehill here. I was against the Battle Ready Standard +10VP thing to begin with, but the more I think about it, the more I realise it doesn't matter.

Every tournament I've been to has had a requirement for painting, so that strikes me as a non-issue. Tournaments that didn't have a painting requirement before are likely to house rule this out anyway.

And in casual games, it simply doesn't matter who the rules say "won" the game, other than for simple bragging rights.

I might walk away from a game with a "win" because I got the +10VP for having a painted army - the winner of the game by the rules. You might walk away from the game with a "win" because you outplayed me on objectives - a moral victory of sorts.

Likewise, you could "win" a game on VPs but having only got there because you were rolling nothing but 6s for saves and 1s for morale, but I could have played a far better tactical game than you. By the rules, you "win" the game, but I walk away satisfied that my tactics were sound.

In other words: in a casual game, don't worry about what the numbers say. Worry instead about what you got out of the game.

Rules like this can directly effect how much that a person can get out of the game, in the same way the age of sigma silly rules did. When you start referring to people within the game itself as a win condition you need to look at there factors.

As evendence when suddenly it’s bad form to use the rule against new players, but this means you have to discuss.
But it’s also to the point, you brush away above how people may feel about a casual game. And then at the end say to worry about what you got out of it. Casual or not people can be effected by the rules, and there effects when you take factors out of the game itself as a win condition can effect that person in ways that the game does not normally effect them.

For some players, these are shame points. Paint your army or don’t get them, no matter what the hobby means or how you enjoy them. Regardless of the circumstances surrounding it.

Apple fox wrote:
For some players, these are shame points. Paint your army or don’t get them, no matter what the hobby means or how you enjoy them. Regardless of the circumstances surrounding it.

Absolutely fair point, and along the lines of why I was against the Battle Ready bonus to begin with.

Personally, I feel like this sort of thing should have been introduced as a tiebreaker instead of a flat VP gain, if at all.

Apple fox wrote:

 Cheex wrote:
Starting to feel like we've made a mountain out of a molehill here. I was against the Battle Ready Standard +10VP thing to begin with, but the more I think about it, the more I realise it doesn't matter.

Every tournament I've been to has had a requirement for painting, so that strikes me as a non-issue. Tournaments that didn't have a painting requirement before are likely to house rule this out anyway.

And in casual games, it simply doesn't matter who the rules say "won" the game, other than for simple bragging rights.

I might walk away from a game with a "win" because I got the +10VP for having a painted army - the winner of the game by the rules. You might walk away from the game with a "win" because you outplayed me on objectives - a moral victory of sorts.

Likewise, you could "win" a game on VPs but having only got there because you were rolling nothing but 6s for saves and 1s for morale, but I could have played a far better tactical game than you. By the rules, you "win" the game, but I walk away satisfied that my tactics were sound.

In other words: in a casual game, don't worry about what the numbers say. Worry instead about what you got out of the game.

Rules like this can directly effect how much that a person can get out of the game, in the same way the age of sigma silly rules did. When you start referring to people within the game itself as a win condition you need to look at there factors.

As evendence when suddenly it’s bad form to use the rule against new players, but this means you have to discuss.
But it’s also to the point, you brush away above how people may feel about a casual game. And then at the end say to worry about what you got out of it. Casual or not people can be effected by the rules, and there effects when you take factors out of the game itself as a win condition can effect that person in ways that the game does not normally effect them.

For some players, these are shame points. Paint your army or don’t get them, no matter what the hobby means or how you enjoy them. Regardless of the circumstances surrounding it.

I've seen this paint shame nonsense pop up several times in facebook groups across multiple games always as an excuse to not paint. Nobody is emitting shame at you, it's just an excuse because you can't reconcile not wanting to paint and paint being a part of the game. And I'm not sure what you mean by rules "effecting" people but if this rule or any makes you legitimately feel bad then you have bigger problems than this hobby.