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.
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.
The irony is palpable.
Clocks for the clockmaker! Cogs for the cog throne!
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.
The irony is palpable.
I don't think so. Shame comes from within, not from other people. You feel it because you're unsure or know you're wrong.
I think that this might actually help out at local tournaments. I attend four tournaments a year in my town, with between 30 and 40 players. Our awesome TO tries to encourage all players to arrive with painted models, but its hard to disqualify somebody the morning of a tourey. I was the local TO for Flames of War and Team Yankee for three years and I feel the pain.
Now, with the +10VP integrate into each game there is an incentive for all players to hit the Battle Ready standard for the tournament. Guess we'll see.
I think the real gaming world is less grim and angsty than what gets described in the Dakkaverse, because in the real world we have to coexist with each other at the FLGS. This means that real players work it out in a sporting, human fashion - I'd rather lose a game than an opponent. The fighting is so vicious here at Dakka because the stakes are so low.
Happy painting everyone!
All you have to do is fire three rounds a minute, and stand
JNAProductions wrote: You're denying reality if you think other people cannot influence someone's emotions.
Now I didn't say that, I said that you cannot be shamed by someone else into feeling bad about your unpainted models or anything really. The shame you feel comes from yourself because you recognize an actual problem not me putting bad feelings in your head. And if paint really didn't matter to you why would you care at all?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/08/10 02:47:46
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.
I am disabled in such a way that hinders my ability to paint, how should I consider a rule that targets specifically my inability to do one thing In the game itself.
I actually really enjoy painting, and want to paint every one of my models to the best of my ability. Why is it so easy for people to assume the positions of others to respond.
Much like this rule, I have to constantly talk about personal issues to get a understand of my position. At the table it’s the same, not everyone will understand why this rule is such a hinderance.
There is a simple solution to all of this. I like to call it the cultist of shame. Just have one model like a cultist or grot that you leave unpainted. If your opponent doesn’t have a fully painted army, just field the cultist of shame and now no one gets the extra 10 VP. Problem solved. This is literally only an issue if you are a fanatic about enforcing the rule book or you really really care about points in toy soldiers.
evil_kiwi_60 wrote: There is a simple solution to all of this. I like to call it the cultist of shame. Just have one model like a cultist or grot that you leave unpainted. If your opponent doesn’t have a fully painted army, just field the cultist of shame and now no one gets the extra 10 VP. Problem solved. This is literally only an issue if you are a fanatic about enforcing the rule book or you really really care about points in toy soldiers.
Let's play chess, except I want to house rule all my pawns to be queens. If you don't agree you're a fanatic about enforcing the rule book pr you really really care about points in toy soldiers.. /s
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/08/10 03:47:01
evil_kiwi_60 wrote: There is a simple solution to all of this. I like to call it the cultist of shame. Just have one model like a cultist or grot that you leave unpainted. If your opponent doesn’t have a fully painted army, just field the cultist of shame and now no one gets the extra 10 VP. Problem solved. This is literally only an issue if you are a fanatic about enforcing the rule book or you really really care about points in toy soldiers.
You're not really enforcing this rule anymore than you are enforcing how to resolve a hit roll - it's a rule, and thus must be used. Cover is not optional, armour saves are not optional. There is no heirarchy of rules and their level of use-ness, they're either in the rulebook and must be used, or they're not. This rule is not in a section specifically called 'optional rules you are not required to use'. It's as mandatory as any other rule in the core rules section.
This particular rule does a few things:
It's a literal game penalty for not engaging with the hobby in a way prescribed by the company
It says that there is a 'correct' way to engage with the hobby (you don't get penalised if you do it right)
It therefore creates a minimum amount of time investment in the hobby, or be penalised
It says that other parts of the hobby are less important than this one thing, because nothing else inflicts a penalty
It means that people who can afford to buy painted armies will not care, while those who are time poor and are trying to enjoy the hobby in the way that works for them, will be penalised
It puts pressure on people who, being time poor but still wanting to play the game,will paint their armies quickly and poorly in order to get to the part they might like more
It turns painting into a chore that you have to perform in order to avoid penalty, rather than a joy you can do at your own leisure as you work around your lifestyle and time constraints
And that's before you get into the ableism inherent in this.
This is a tournament rule that, due to the paradigm of 9th trying to be a book that applies to all methods of playing the game, now will affect the average player for no reason whatsoever.
I see no upside to this, not even the encouragement to paint. Because we all know it's human nature that when something becomes a chore under threat of punishment we do the minimum amount required so we don't have to think about it.
evil_kiwi_60 wrote: There is a simple solution to all of this. I like to call it the cultist of shame. Just have one model like a cultist or grot that you leave unpainted. If your opponent doesn’t have a fully painted army, just field the cultist of shame and now no one gets the extra 10 VP. Problem solved. This is literally only an issue if you are a fanatic about enforcing the rule book or you really really care about points in toy soldiers.
Let's play chess, except I want to house rule all my pawns to be queens. If you don't agree you're a fanatic about enforcing the rule book pr you really really care about points in toy soldiers.. /s
Wow you completely missed the point there, didn’t you? Your example doesn’t really apply here. I haven’t suggested a single house rule. The rules do allow you to field unpainted models in games. You can completely avoid this mess of by fielding a single unpainted model that will be most likely removed by the end of turn one. If your opponent has a fully painted army, don’t field the unpainted model. It’s not a house rule, it’s a simple courtesy that you can follow at almost no cost. Great strawman there though. If I ever need some scarecrows, I know who can build them quickly lol.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also I’m guessing none of y’all give mulligans in your games then? The rules don’t allow your opponent to cast that psychic power they forgot or move a unit they missed behind a building. If you show that courtesy imagine the anarchy we’d descend into.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/08/10 04:07:09
BaconCatBug wrote: Let's play chess, except I want to house rule all my pawns to be queens. If you don't agree you're a fanatic about enforcing the rule book pr you really really care about points in toy soldiers.. /s
BaconCatBug wrote: Let's play chess, except I want to house rule all my pawns to be queens. If you don't agree you're a fanatic about enforcing the rule book pr you really really care about points in toy soldiers.. /s
No, thanks.
Goodness, that was easy.
I'm not sure what the point is though - saying you won't play someone because they house rule? Not using this particular paint penalty is a house rule, so you're agreeing that you wouldn't play someone because they aren't using the rules as written.
You can make value judgements about what a rules, how it compares to others etc, but that's not an objective truth.
Not playing someone because they refuse to use a paint penalty rule is no different than not playing someone because they refuse to use the new Blast rule, or the maximum -1 to hit penalty rule.
The point that BCB keeps trying to make is that if you use one house rule, the universe will collapse in a heap of illogic if you refuse to also use a different house rule.
The reason that point is ridiculous is that people are capable of rational thought, and of making judgements about the value of individual house rules.
And if two players disagree about whether or not a particular rule should be used, then it's not the end of the world if they choose to not go ahead with the game. You'll have a much better time playing the game with like-minded people.
It is logic without reason. I can only suggest trying it sometime to see how... fruitless... it is. After that, the arguments are hollow and you need not worry about them.
That said, worrying so deeply about this rule is also fruitless. Think of it logically, but apply reason.
Logic: I play this game to have fun. It is not fun for the game’s victory condition to hinge on a non-game-state-related qualification. Therefore it is reasonable to ignore this rule, because it is illogical to enforce it.
Logic: Even if my opponent wishes to claim a victory in a no-stakes (ego and bragging rights aside) game due to paint score, that does not alter the points earned as part of the game. Therefore, it is reasonable to internally recognize one’s victory, if only internally, and attain a sense of victory.
If, and only if, the game has material stakes does this rule matter. As with all games with stakes, if the participant enters freely of their own will, knowing the paint score will be applied, they are still free to enter, though may be at a disadvantage for doing so. All rules are arbitrary. If this rule is enforced as part of that set of arbitrary conditions all participants mutually agree to as part of placing their stake, then gambler beware.
Logic: If I don’t wish to participate in a game with material stakes, I can choose not to. Therefore it is reasonable for me to ignore this rule by choosing to not engage in a game with material stakes.
Logic and reason. There really isn’t a reason to be upset about this.
insaniak wrote: The point that BCB keeps trying to make is that if you use one house rule, the universe will collapse in a heap of illogic if you refuse to also use a different house rule.
The reason that point is ridiculous is that people are capable of rational thought, and of making judgements about the value of individual house rules.
And if two players disagree about whether or not a particular rule should be used, then it's not the end of the world if they choose to not go ahead with the game. You'll have a much better time playing the game with like-minded people.
My point is you cannot be logically consistent. Why are you the arbiter of what is and isn't a valid house rule? Why do you get to decide that my house rule is invalid, but I can't decide yours is?
The other point is that those who want to play by the rules are treated as TFG, despite them being in the right for refusing to use house rules.
If you propose a House Rule, and I refuse, I get made out to be the bad guy who ruined the fun for my opponent.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2020/08/10 04:32:10
greatbigtree wrote: It is logic without reason. I can only suggest trying it sometime to see how... fruitless... it is. After that, the arguments are hollow and you need not worry about them.
That said, worrying so deeply about this rule is also fruitless. Think of it logically, but apply reason.
Logic: I play this game to have fun. It is not fun for the game’s victory condition to hinge on a non-game-state-related qualification. Therefore it is reasonable to ignore this rule, because it is illogical to enforce it.
Logic: Even if my opponent wishes to claim a victory in a no-stakes (ego and bragging rights aside) game due to paint score, that does not alter the points earned as part of the game. Therefore, it is reasonable to internally recognize one’s victory, if only internally, and attain a sense of victory.
If, and only if, the game has material stakes does this rule matter. As with all games with stakes, if the participant enters freely of their own will, knowing the paint score will be applied, they are still free to enter, though may be at a disadvantage for doing so. All rules are arbitrary. If this rule is enforced as part of that set of arbitrary conditions all participants mutually agree to as part of placing their stake, then gambler beware.
Logic: If I don’t wish to participate in a game with material stakes, I can choose not to. Therefore it is reasonable for me to ignore this rule by choosing to not engage in a game with material stakes.
Logic and reason. There really isn’t a reason to be upset about this.
Logics would dictate that removing emotions is itself illogical, if I lose most of my games to paint rule. But still say I won as the rule is dumb, I would probably sound like a rather sore loser.
Despite my circumstance, why should I belittle another player ? In the end, I just get to feel bad and they get more fun in a game due to there ability to sit for long periods of time ?
BaconCatBug wrote: Why are you the arbiter of what is and isn't a valid house rule? Why do you get to decide that my house rule is invalid, but I can't decide yours is?
What on earth are you talking about? In order for a house rule to apply, both players need to agree to use it. I'm not the arbiter of what is and isn't a valid house rule. If I'm setting up a game with you, then we both have to agree on any house rules.
The other point is that those who want to play by the rules are treated as TFG, despite them being in the right for refusing to use house rules.
You're not 'in the right' for refusing to use house rules. You're just choosing to play the game as written. That's only the 'right' way to play the game if both players agree to play that way.
If you propose a House Rule, and I refuse, I get made out to be the bad guy who ruined the fun for my opponent.
If the house rule is being suggested because the other player feels that the game will not be fun without it, then sure, they're going to feel that you refusing the rule is a problem. You'll just have to live with the pain of someone with absolutely no impact on your life disapproving of you and carry on as best you can. Go find someone else to play who wants to play the game the same way you do.
It is illogical to remove emotions... that’s part of the point I’m trying to make. Logic (impartial) without reason (at least partially subjective) is fruitless.
You needn’t claim victory over your opponent *outwardly* for losing due to paint score. I’m talking about internal sense. You can have an internal sense of victory, knowing that you achieved more in-game points. Painted armies were worth 0 VP in the past. They could be worth 200 VP in the future and it would be impossible for an Unpainted army to “defeat” a Painted one... but would that change the number of points earned in the game? Would you still not know that you outperformed your opponent on the tabletop?
I haven’t had the perception you belittle another player for being able to paint. For me, I assume your games aren’t for material stakes? No money or prizing on the line? If so, you’re just playing for your own enjoyment and sense of accomplishment, right? That’s why it’s reasonable to not care about the paint score. It doesn’t matter to *you* if someone else claims victory due to paint score. *You* know you outperformed them in the game.
Irkjoe wrote:Now I didn't say that, I said that you cannot be shamed by someone else into feeling bad about your unpainted models or anything really. The shame you feel comes from yourself because you recognize an actual problem not me putting bad feelings in your head. And if paint really didn't matter to you why would you care at all?
Why do I now have a mental image of that "Walk of Shame" scene from GoT? Admittedly, things definitely sounds like they'd look worse with gamers doing it.
Hellebore wrote:It's a literal game penalty for not engaging with the hobby in a way prescribed by the company
It says that there is a 'correct' way to engage with the hobby (you don't get penalised if you do it right)
Point of order - as written, there is no penalty aspect to this. The person who doesn't achieve BRS isn't having VPs they already scored taken away from them - the person who has put the effort in is getting a reward instead.
A very vocal group want to push this narrative of it being a penalty, but it isn't.
greatbigtree wrote:It is logic without reason. I can only suggest trying it sometime to see how... fruitless... it is. After that, the arguments are hollow and you need not worry about them.
That said, worrying so deeply about this rule is also fruitless. Think of it logically, but apply reason.
Logic: I play this game to have fun. It is not fun for the game’s victory condition to hinge on a non-game-state-related qualification. Therefore it is reasonable to ignore this rule, because it is illogical to enforce it.
I'm not seeing the logic here between steps A & B - as has been pointed out by other posts, a host of other "out of game" factors influence your ability to score VPs as well, but you're not claiming they should be ignored as well.
Gamgee on Tau Players wrote:we all kill cats and sell our own families to the devil and eat live puppies.
Kanluwen wrote: This is, emphatically, why I will continue suggesting nuking Guard and starting over again. It's a legacy army that needs to be rebooted with a new focal point.
Confirmation of why no-one should listen to Kanluwen when it comes to the IG - he doesn't want the IG, he want's Kan's New Model Army...
tneva82 wrote: You aren't even trying ty pretend for honest arqument. Open bad faith trolling.
- No reason to keep this here, unless people want to use it for something...
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.
Hey, if you're cool with me throwing sand on the bases, spraying the models with two clashing random colors, & then applying some equally random color to their bases....
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.
Gamgee on Tau Players wrote:we all kill cats and sell our own families to the devil and eat live puppies.
Kanluwen wrote: This is, emphatically, why I will continue suggesting nuking Guard and starting over again. It's a legacy army that needs to be rebooted with a new focal point.
Confirmation of why no-one should listen to Kanluwen when it comes to the IG - he doesn't want the IG, he want's Kan's New Model Army...
tneva82 wrote: You aren't even trying ty pretend for honest arqument. Open bad faith trolling.
- No reason to keep this here, unless people want to use it for something...
It is illogical to remove emotions... that’s part of the point I’m trying to make. Logic (impartial) without reason (at least partially subjective) is fruitless.
You needn’t claim victory over your opponent *outwardly* for losing due to paint score. I’m talking about internal sense. You can have an internal sense of victory, knowing that you achieved more in-game points. Painted armies were worth 0 VP in the past. They could be worth 200 VP in the future and it would be impossible for an Unpainted army to “defeat” a Painted one... but would that change the number of points earned in the game? Would you still not know that you outperformed your opponent on the tabletop?
I haven’t had the perception you belittle another player for being able to paint. For me, I assume your games aren’t for material stakes? No money or prizing on the line? If so, you’re just playing for your own enjoyment and sense of accomplishment, right? That’s why it’s reasonable to not care about the paint score. It doesn’t matter to *you* if someone else claims victory due to paint score. *You* know you outperformed them in the game.
The rules state I lost, I am gaming for enjoyment of the hobby. The game starts and ends reminding me that I am sick, and in pain. And if I refer or discuss the game the ultimate end is that ether we remove it and I won, or they won with it in.
Trying to get around that by saying well, you outperformed so it’s all good. Does not make me feel better, as when I am playing the game. I am trying to present myself as best. I don’t want a discussion at the table, nor do I want to have to say “well I won, but painting score pushed them over to win”
This is why these discussions always eventually come back to players just lazy and don’t paint, it’s easy to look good when that’s the position the other side holds. But in reality I think that’s the smallest part of this discussion.
Hellebore wrote:It's a literal game penalty for not engaging with the hobby in a way prescribed by the company
It says that there is a 'correct' way to engage with the hobby (you don't get penalised if you do it right)
Point of order - as written, there is no penalty aspect to this. The person who doesn't achieve BRS isn't having VPs they already scored taken away from them - the person who has put the effort in is getting a reward instead.
A very vocal group want to push this narrative of it being a penalty, but it isn't.
I feel like maybe this is a bit of a semantic argument, because the outcome is being penalised, regardless of the implementation. You are denied access to a component of the scoring system because you do not meet a specific criteria, which was not part of the actions of the game itself.
It doesn't really matter how it's couched - it's the outcome that's relevant. You can focus on one side of the rule when you phrase it all you want, the result is that the other side of the rule is still penalised by the outcome.
'Because you were a good boy and cleaned your room, you get your dinner', doesn't change the fact that whoever didn't do that activity is penalised by the absence of dinner.... :p
Hellebore wrote:It's a literal game penalty for not engaging with the hobby in a way prescribed by the company
It says that there is a 'correct' way to engage with the hobby (you don't get penalised if you do it right)
Point of order - as written, there is no penalty aspect to this. The person who doesn't achieve BRS isn't having VPs they already scored taken away from them - the person who has put the effort in is getting a reward instead.
A very vocal group want to push this narrative of it being a penalty, but it isn't.
I feel like maybe this is a bit of a semantic argument, because the outcome is being penalised, regardless of the implementation. You are denied access to a component of the scoring system because you do not meet a specific criteria, which was not part of the actions of the game itself.
It doesn't really matter how it's couched - it's the outcome that's relevant. You can focus on one side of the rule when you phrase it all you want, the result is that the other side of the rule is still penalised by the outcome.
'Because you were a good boy and cleaned your room, you get your dinner', doesn't change the fact that whoever didn't do that activity is penalised by the absence of dinner.... :p
Failing to meet the criteria to get an award, and then not getting an award, is not being penalised. I do think your example is a touch skewed, though, unless we're dealing with the parents from a variety of Roald Dahl books - cleaning your room resulting in getting your just dessert with dinner, while everyone gets the main course, feels a bit more apt for this comparison, but it's your metaphor.
It's the same as getting a bonus at work, based on what you've achieved - if I know up front I need to sell X widgets to achieve a bonus, and I sell X-1 widgets while my colleague sells X+1, I'm not being penalised by not getting a bonus when my colleague does. They've done what they needed to to meet the threshold for a reward, while I haven't. However, assuming a sane pay structure, I'm also not losing the pay/salary I'm entitled to for the time I've worked, so I still have my base pay available to me.
Gamgee on Tau Players wrote:we all kill cats and sell our own families to the devil and eat live puppies.
Kanluwen wrote: This is, emphatically, why I will continue suggesting nuking Guard and starting over again. It's a legacy army that needs to be rebooted with a new focal point.
Confirmation of why no-one should listen to Kanluwen when it comes to the IG - he doesn't want the IG, he want's Kan's New Model Army...
tneva82 wrote: You aren't even trying ty pretend for honest arqument. Open bad faith trolling.
- No reason to keep this here, unless people want to use it for something...
evil_kiwi_60 wrote: There is a simple solution to all of this. I like to call it the cultist of shame. Just have one model like a cultist or grot that you leave unpainted. If your opponent doesn’t have a fully painted army, just field the cultist of shame and now no one gets the extra 10 VP. Problem solved. This is literally only an issue if you are a fanatic about enforcing the rule book or you really really care about points in toy soldiers.
Let's play chess, except I want to house rule all my pawns to be queens. If you don't agree you're a fanatic about enforcing the rule book pr you really really care about points in toy soldiers.. /s
A nice slice of whataboutism coupled with a false equivalence. Sigh.
Chess is entirely irrelevant to the 40K situation. You’d do well to discuss situations rather than constantly attempt to distract or deride. That just leads to thread lock. Chess is rarely (though not never) house ruled, so it’s a deliberately absurd example which illuminated nothing about the 40K discussion. It’s just a distraction.
You’ve been told so many times that i can’t count them anymore that house ruling one rule the two players in that game both find un-fun does not automatically lead to 600W Marines that auto-hit and anarchy. Slippery slope fallacies have always been and will always be just that... fallacies.
To directly answer your ludicrous example, no-one would ever play you at chess if you make such ridiculous demands. But the thread is about 40K.
This topic keeps coming up and is full of inane posturing for internet points every time. The simple fact is that if both participants don’t want to use the fully-painted=10VP rule they can skip it. If only one player is determined they shouldn’t use it then they need a discussion to convince the other party, else the rules would require painting. If the two players are incapable of an amicable pre-game discussion that might cater for a new player, a disabled player, all the whatabouts posited upthread etc etc etc then it’s indicative of the fact there’ll be bigger issues in that game and they probably shouldn’t play each other.
Rules are just guidance on how to have fun with your space toys. In practice people do what makes the game fun, and house ruling is common. And the game doesn’t break and the universe doesn’t explode and Space Marines don’t get W600 each.
Besides, who’s running Tacs? Is your TTS broken???
Stormonu wrote: For me, the joy is in putting some good-looking models on the board and playing out a fantasy battle - not arguing over the poorly-made rules of some 3rd party who neither has any power over my play nor will be visiting me (and my opponent) to ensure we are "playing by the rules"
Gamgee on Tau Players wrote:we all kill cats and sell our own families to the devil and eat live puppies.
Kanluwen wrote: This is, emphatically, why I will continue suggesting nuking Guard and starting over again. It's a legacy army that needs to be rebooted with a new focal point.
Confirmation of why no-one should listen to Kanluwen when it comes to the IG - he doesn't want the IG, he want's Kan's New Model Army...
tneva82 wrote: You aren't even trying ty pretend for honest arqument. Open bad faith trolling.
- No reason to keep this here, unless people want to use it for something...
evil_kiwi_60 wrote: There is a simple solution to all of this. I like to call it the cultist of shame. Just have one model like a cultist or grot that you leave unpainted. If your opponent doesn’t have a fully painted army, just field the cultist of shame and now no one gets the extra 10 VP. Problem solved. This is literally only an issue if you are a fanatic about enforcing the rule book or you really really care about points in toy soldiers.
Let's play chess, except I want to house rule all my pawns to be queens. If you don't agree you're a fanatic about enforcing the rule book pr you really really care about points in toy soldiers.. /s
A nice slice of whataboutism coupled with a false equivalence. Sigh.
Chess is entirely irrelevant to the 40K situation. You’d do well to discuss situations rather than constantly attempt to distract or deride. That just leads to thread lock. Chess is rarely (though not never) house ruled, so it’s a deliberately absurd example which illuminated nothing about the 40K discussion. It’s just a distraction.
You’ve been told so many times that i can’t count them anymore that house ruling one rule the two players in that game both find un-fun does not automatically lead to 600W Marines that auto-hit and anarchy. Slippery slope fallacies have always been and will always be just that... fallacies.
To directly answer your ludicrous example, no-one would ever play you at chess if you make such ridiculous demands. But the thread is about 40K.
This topic keeps coming up and is full of inane posturing for internet points every time. The simple fact is that if both participants don’t want to use the fully-painted=10VP rule they can skip it. If only one player is determined they shouldn’t use it then they need a discussion to convince the other party, else the rules would require painting. If the two players are incapable of an amicable pre-game discussion that might cater for a new player, a disabled player, all the whatabouts posited upthread etc etc etc then it’s indicative of the fact there’ll be bigger issues in that game and they probably shouldn’t play each other.
Rules are just guidance on how to have fun with your space toys. In practice people do what makes the game fun, and house ruling is common. And the game doesn’t break and the universe doesn’t explode and Space Marines don’t get W600 each.
Besides, who’s running Tacs? Is your TTS broken???
The problem is it entirely places the blame on the ones most effected to bring up things outside the game, Entirely to justify why this rule may not be good. The reason this rule keeps coming up is that it can be very personal, and confrontational to bring it up. This isnt like many other things in the game, It can entirely be dictated by external influence. So many people in support of the rule are so quick to say it can be dismissed if you dont like it, or that its not a big deal. Rules are a guide to healthy play and a fun enviroment, but this rule almost entirely creates conflicts. And seems to be used as a passive aggressive move for TFG to avoid having discussion about why players may not be painting there models.
Its not hard to come up with reasons why this rule may not be a healthy discussion at the table for a wargame, but little real reason the rule is good or healthy at all.
I didn’t defend the rules. It’s simply not a problem between reasonable humans demonstrating empathy.
Stormonu wrote: For me, the joy is in putting some good-looking models on the board and playing out a fantasy battle - not arguing over the poorly-made rules of some 3rd party who neither has any power over my play nor will be visiting me (and my opponent) to ensure we are "playing by the rules"
That is like saying you don't have to worry about being robbed or beaten, among good people. Technicly true, but if you live on an island alone.
If people are given an option to be donkey-caves, they are going to be donkey-caves. It is something people learn around the age of 2-3.
If you have to kill, then kill in the best manner. If you slaughter, then slaughter in the best manner. Let one of you sharpen his knife so his animal feels no pain.
