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.

The rules says he gets the points. I don't see what is there to argue about.

It feels bad, if you have colour coded the bases of your 6x5 man terminator units with a mono colour and the rules, supposably, require highlights and scenic bases. But my dudes have bigger problems then my opponent getting 10VP, because I don't have stones and skulls on my bases.

 AnomanderRake wrote:
It seems to me that the painted armies bonus ought to be a tournament thing where you say up-front "we want people to bring painted armies so we're going to hand out a game penalty to people who don't". If you're doing a casual 1v1 with no money on the line and someone demands ten free points at the end of the game because they've had their army longer than yours or because they slapped three-colour minimum haphazardly onto everything they're just being an ass.

Played in an AoS tournament a few years ago with no painting requirement. The Daughters of Khane had just came out. I have my well painted and based Iron Jawz on the table. Spent a lot of time painting them. My opponent uses half assembled, lots of blu-tak, Daughters. His Cauldron was constantly falling apart and half way through, he just gave up and there it was, a large base with a pair of legs on it. I had no idea what half his models were because they had no weapons. So when I thought I was charging a unit of Wyches, it turned out to be a unit of Slaughters (maybe? I don't know).

If that was a 40K game, you well better believe I'd have insisted on 10 points for having a painted army.

The 10 points for a painted army was a HUGE step back for tournament play as its a concession by GW to allow unpainted armies. All it does is encourage those crappy, "throw contrast paint on it" armies that look like garbage so they can get an extra +10 points.

For garage play? Kitchen table play? The "Hey! I see you have a 40K army, wanna game?" games? Why are you tracking points anyways? Who cares?

Cronch wrote:


Of course there's also people who are physically unable to paint much, but I guess they should bring a doctor's notice to the game, the silly things.

There's people who can't put the miniatures together, too. So clearly if someone shows up with a bunch of empty bases with maybe a leg here and there glued on, that shouldn't be a big deal either, right?

The rule's stupid because if you don't want to play someone's unpainted army you should just not play their army; the decision should be before the game starts, and it shouldn't impact the scoring if you do agree to play.

But it's equally silly to wring your hands about accessibility only when it comes to painting. Painting is one of the least of the accessibility problems with wargaming. It'd be a very rare condition indeed that would allow someone to assemble miniatures but not to paint them to the very basic standards GW requires to get the 10 points. For every 1 person who genuinely can't paint their minis because of a disability, there's 100 or 1000 who just don't like to - and that's fine, but it's distasteful to hide behind the disabilities of others as an excuse.

I think it's important to remember here that GW has no quality standards for the painting requirement. You can paint really bad; it still counts. You just have to do it. Spray primer in the main color, wash the entire model, then splotch on two contrast paints vaguely onto the other two primary colors, cover the entire base with any textured paint, and you are done. Contrary to some of what's been claimed here, there is no highlighting requirement and no requirement to create scenic bases, and there certainly isn't any requirement that your paint stay within the lines.

Like everything else in a GW hobby, getting the 10 points for a painted army is about spending $ on paint and a modicum of time on getting the models ready (or paying someone else to do that for you, if you are unable or unwilling to do it yourself), not about passing some quality test.

I would insist that s/he have the points, but then I would not be in such a situation because I would not play with unpainted models.

Nah, with how many snap fit models GW makes nowadays, it really isn't hard to make an army real fast with minimal or zero glue.

Painting on the other hand requires a ton of money, and time, which more or less equals to more money. And you realy have to want to do it. I saw an army of DG being assembled over a few hours, and it was done. To finish a 2000+pts army with 70+ models one had to be some sort of master of air brush and a time mage, at the same time.

It is seriously a bit odd to me. No one forces people, techincally to play the game within a specific way. In theory you can get an open or narrative or crusade game, and not just the 2250pts match played expiriance. With painting there is no such option. No I don't like it, no I just started my army. It is straight army unpainted your opponent just won, unless your army is like the top 3 of all armies.

Don't know why GW did that. It is as if they wanted to force people in to buying paints, brushs etc.

 addnid wrote:
If you don’t want to paint then pay someone to do it. GW models are not meant to be fielded unpainted. People who are too lazy to paint should just go play a game that doesn’t require painting. 10 points is not much.
There are so many games which don’t require painting anything

+1 with Racerguy

So what's your opinion on really poorly painted stuff?

Racerguy180 wrote:
If you have no desire to paint you're army, why the feth are you playing a game that has painting as part of it?

Go play with some cardboard chits instead, would probably save money.

Because 8th didn't have such rules and the state of paint on the model has no impact on the game. That could be one reason, and from what I understand w40k never had rules like that before. And according to the goons a 10VP difference from the start more or less auto loses the game to the person with the unpainted army.

If you don’t want to paint then pay someone to do it.

I see a rich persons problem. Imagine this, you struggle to save money to slowly build an army, and now someone comes and tells you have to pay western prices, because eastern europe studios paint for western people, for it. Which means it practicaly doubles the cost of your army. That is unthinkable levels of gate keeping. And what is worse, the stores are of course loving it, because they want to sell paints and often have dudes doing commissions.

If you lost by a couple of points against a grey plastic army, you'd want your free 10 points as well.

It takes less time to spray and dip a space marine army than it does to put the models together. Sure, they'll look unfinished or just bad. But painted is painted, anything is better than grey plastic.

Eh, sometimes over the editions you'll find a something in an Ork army that requires (or at least heavily implies) a paint requirement - "Red ones go fasta!".

Cynista wrote:

It takes less time to spray and dip a space marine army than it does to put the models together. Sure, they'll look unfinished or just bad. But painted is painted, anything is better than grey plastic.

But the 9th edition rules say that models must be painted to a battlefield standard. No where does it define what that means? Is it the old three colour minimum, table top quality or I've spent 10 hours on one guardsman?

 BlackLobster wrote:

Cynista wrote:

It takes less time to spray and dip a space marine army than it does to put the models together. Sure, they'll look unfinished or just bad. But painted is painted, anything is better than grey plastic.

But the 9th edition rules say that models must be painted to a battlefield standard. No where does it define what that means? Is it the old three colour minimum, table top quality or I've spent 10 hours on one guardsman?

Battle Ready is a standard which is sort-of defined in a WHC article, though I don't have the link to hand.

I completely agree that, as it is being used as a term in the rulebook, it should be defined within the rulebook.

Karol wrote:
Nah, with how many snap fit models GW makes nowadays, it really isn't hard to make an army real fast with minimal or zero glue.

Painting on the other hand requires a ton of money, and time, which more or less equals to more money. And you realy have to want to do it. I saw an army of DG being assembled over a few hours, and it was done. To finish a 2000+pts army with 70+ models one had to be some sort of master of air brush and a time mage, at the same time.

This just isn't true, though. Painting to the extremely rudimentary standards GW requires takes about the same active time that assembling any standard GW multi-part kit does. You can primer a whole army in 5-10 minutes. You can wash that whole army for about 1 minute per model. Splashing two contrast paints vaguely onto the right areas to represent the two other major colors on the model besides the base coat takes you maybe 2-3 minutes per model.

You're looking at maybe 5ish minutes per infantry model, with an hour or two of drying time total spread out over a couple stages.

Will it look terrible? Absolutely. And that's honestly the biggest problem with the rule: it encourages bad painting to get the points, because it's fast and easy, instead of encouraging better painting over a longer period of time. But it'll get you the 10 points if you really care about it.

 BlackLobster wrote:
But the 9th edition rules say that models must be painted to a battlefield standard. No where does it define what that means? Is it the old three colour minimum, table top quality or I've spent 10 hours on one guardsman?

"Combat ready means that your models are fully painted and have a detailed or textured base." Page 12, German Grand Tournament 2020 book.

Included are 7 examples, 3 for Contrast and 4 for classic paints. There is no doubt what "combat ready" means.

 Yarium wrote:
I mean, why not give him the points? If he beats you because he’s painted and you’re not, then that’s a moment to CHEER! Not jeer. You laugh and say you had him beat, but his painting literally won it for him. And if you win, you laugh and say “Once again the hordes of grey are victorious!”. In a casual game, it really, absolutely, does NOT matter.

Now, in a tourney game or league or whatever? Well, it’s in the rules, so do it, and that win is legit. You can STILL laugh like before, but now the win counts.

So either way, do it. Why not?

The only reason he would ask is because he KNOWS your stuff isn't painted. He's deliberately putting you on the back foot for no reason in a friendly game.

This is just a new form of list tailoring. It's like if you play a guy you know LOVES his guard tanks so you take 3 units of eradicaters and 3 units off Sisters of battle retributors. Or a guy who plays green tide so you bring 200 stormbolters.

EDIT: too late.

If it is a tournament then my opponent has every right to ask for those 10 points and I would even prefer to give it to them because that is the rule.

If it is a casual game I don't care nearly enough about winning to bother disagreeing with it.

a_typical_hero wrote:

 BlackLobster wrote:
But the 9th edition rules say that models must be painted to a battlefield standard. No where does it define what that means? Is it the old three colour minimum, table top quality or I've spent 10 hours on one guardsman?

"Combat ready means that your models are fully painted and have a detailed or textured base." Page 12, German Grand Tournament 2020 book.

Included are 7 examples, 3 for Contrast and 4 for classic paints. There is no doubt what "combat ready" means.

Fair play. It is in my copy of the Grand Tournament book, which I had forgotten about. I can't find that in the core rules though and not everyone will have a copy of the Grand Tournament book.

Even so, looking at those examples, that still requires a level of painting expertise that not everyone has.

 Dysartes wrote:
Battle Ready is a standard which is sort-of defined in a WHC article, though I don't have the link to hand.

'Introducing: Battle Ready' on Warhammer Community. It's the first result on Google if you search for 'Battle Ready Games Workshop', 'Battle Ready Warhammer', Battle Ready 40K' or 'Battle Ready Age of Sigmar'

ccs wrote:

 addnid wrote:
If you don’t want to paint then pay someone to do it. GW models are not meant to be fielded unpainted. People who are too lazy to paint should just go play a game that doesn’t require painting. 10 points is not much.
There are so many games which don’t require painting anything

+1 with Racerguy

So what's your opinion on really poorly painted stuff?

Better than unpainted. At least they did it, which is better than not trying at all. I keep my RTB-01 beakies that I painted in 1990 around and play with them/look at them when working on my current Salamanders often. They look terrible, ya know. But they remind me that it takes practice and give me inspiration to attempt new techniques.

Kinda gotta start somewhere.

yukishiro1 wrote:

Cronch wrote:


Of course there's also people who are physically unable to paint much, but I guess they should bring a doctor's notice to the game, the silly things.

There's people who can't put the miniatures together, too. So clearly if someone shows up with a bunch of empty bases with maybe a leg here and there glued on, that shouldn't be a big deal either, right?

The rule's stupid because if you don't want to play someone's unpainted army you should just not play their army; the decision should be before the game starts, and it shouldn't impact the scoring if you do agree to play.

But it's equally silly to wring your hands about accessibility only when it comes to painting. Painting is one of the least of the accessibility problems with wargaming. It'd be a very rare condition indeed that would allow someone to assemble miniatures but not to paint them to the very basic standards GW requires to get the 10 points. For every 1 person who genuinely can't paint their minis because of a disability, there's 100 or 1000 who just don't like to - and that's fine, but it's distasteful to hide behind the disabilities of others as an excuse.

I think it's important to remember here that GW has no quality standards for the painting requirement. You can paint really bad; it still counts. You just have to do it. Spray primer in the main color, wash the entire model, then splotch on two contrast paints vaguely onto the other two primary colors, cover the entire base with any textured paint, and you are done. Contrary to some of what's been claimed here, there is no highlighting requirement and no requirement to create scenic bases, and there certainly isn't any requirement that your paint stay within the lines.

Like everything else in a GW hobby, getting the 10 points for a painted army is about spending $ on paint and a modicum of time on getting the models ready (or paying someone else to do that for you, if you are unable or unwilling to do it yourself), not about passing some quality test.

Full disclosure. I have an annoying defect in my neck that makes painting (and gluing, but gluing takes significantly less time per model!) a literal pain in the neck after about 30-40 minutes, and the longer i don't stop, the worse it gets. It doesn't prevent me from painting in a technical sense, but it means a 10-man unit can take between a month and three depending on details. And sure, I could just slop paint on, but I *can* paint to a better standard, and I don't want to just fingerpaint-tier the expensive models. So instead I paint super-slow.

Then you have people who might paint slow or not at all due to other reasons, be it working long hours, kid, depression etc. I feel like telling all of them "just ruin your models, as long as they have paint on them it's ok" is kind of mean? Painting is separate hobby to playing games.

a_typical_hero wrote:

 BlackLobster wrote:
But the 9th edition rules say that models must be painted to a battlefield standard. No where does it define what that means? Is it the old three colour minimum, table top quality or I've spent 10 hours on one guardsman?

"Combat ready means that your models are fully painted and have a detailed or textured base." Page 12, German Grand Tournament 2020 book.

Included are 7 examples, 3 for Contrast and 4 for classic paints. There is no doubt what "combat ready" means.

The examples do jack gak for the definition other than to say that those exact 7 models are 'combat ready'. Also define 'textured'. GW standard black bases have a pebbly texture to them out of the box, does that count? If not, why? It's a texture, the definition just says 'detailed OR textured' GW black bases are textured, why wouldn't they count? What about themed resin bases that aren't painted? They're not part of the model (the definition accidentally defines the model and the base as being distinct from each other) so they don't have to be painted, and even out of the mold gray they're both detailed AND textured. Would they count? If not, why not?

What if you don't paint the inside of a vehicle? That's not fully painted, even if you glued whatever ramp/doorway it has shut. What if you painted it after assembling it and there's a grey spot in a hard to reach area under a cloak or armor plate? That's not fully painted. What if you painted all the rivets on the armor silver except one? That's not fully painted. What if you paint your army with heavy OSL to make it look like the army is walking at night with the only light source being their own weapons and electronics, the shadows would be black where things are supposed to be colors, that's not fully painted.

Cronch wrote:

Full disclosure. I have an annoying defect in my neck that makes painting (and gluing, but gluing takes significantly less time per model!) a literal pain in the neck after about 30-40 minutes, and the longer i don't stop, the worse it gets. It doesn't prevent me from painting in a technical sense, but it means a 10-man unit can take between a month and three depending on details. And sure, I could just slop paint on, but I *can* paint to a better standard, and I don't want to just fingerpaint-tier the expensive models. So instead I paint super-slow.

Then you have people who might paint slow or not at all due to other reasons, be it working long hours, kid, depression etc. I feel like telling all of them "just ruin your models, as long as they have paint on them it's ok" is kind of mean? Painting is separate hobby to playing games.

Oh I agree - see my other posts, that's my big problem with the rule. It encourages you to do stuff badly, instead of taking the time to do it right, because you get rewarded in the meantime for doing it badly while getting punished in the meantime for doing it well.

My comment was more directed at pointing out that, whether you like the results or not, painting to the very low standard required by GW is not a major accessibility issue, at least not compared to the many other, greater ones inherent in the hobby.

Racerguy180 wrote:
If you have no desire to paint you're army, why the feth are you playing a game that has painting as part of it?

Go play with some cardboard chits instead, would probably save money.

Painting is never and has never been part of the game. It's a cute little sidequest for weirdos.

ERJAK wrote:

a_typical_hero wrote:

 BlackLobster wrote:
But the 9th edition rules say that models must be painted to a battlefield standard. No where does it define what that means? Is it the old three colour minimum, table top quality or I've spent 10 hours on one guardsman?

"Combat ready means that your models are fully painted and have a detailed or textured base." Page 12, German Grand Tournament 2020 book.

Included are 7 examples, 3 for Contrast and 4 for classic paints. There is no doubt what "combat ready" means.

The examples do jack gak for the definition other than to say that those exact 7 models are 'combat ready'. Also define 'textured'. GW standard black bases have a pebbly texture to them out of the box, does that count? If not, why? It's a texture, the definition just says 'detailed OR textured' GW black bases are textured, why wouldn't they count? What about themed resin bases that aren't painted? They're not part of the model (the definition accidentally defines the model and the base as being distinct from each other) so they don't have to be painted, and even out of the mold gray they're both detailed AND textured. Would they count? If not, why not?

What if you don't paint the inside of a vehicle? That's not fully painted, even if you glued whatever ramp/doorway it has shut. What if you painted it after assembling it and there's a grey spot in a hard to reach area under a cloak or armor plate? That's not fully painted. What if you painted all the rivets on the armor silver except one? That's not fully painted. What if you paint your army with heavy OSL to make it look like the army is walking at night with the only light source being their own weapons and electronics, the shadows would be black where things are supposed to be colors, that's not fully painted.

Has anyone ever tried to disqualify you or anyone you know for any of those reasons? Honestly? This feels like a bad-faith strawman.

Someone trying to rules-lawyer your compliance to get the points is totally different than the requirement itself. I think we all agree that if someone's like "hey! I can spot a point on this model where the wash didn't reach! no 10 points for you!" you should laugh at them for being That Guy. The rule isn't designed to be applied that way. You should be able to tell within 10 seconds of looking across someone's army whether they qualify. Are all the models painted? Do they each have three colors on them? Did you do something to the bases? If so, you get the points. It doesn't need to be more complicated than that, and rules-lawyering compliance OR non-compliance should be laughed out of the store as bad-faith gaming, just like any other kind of gotcha rules-lawyering is.

Don't play with weasels. A weasel weaseling over paint is no different than a weasel weaseling over any other aspect of the game.

ccs wrote:

 addnid wrote:
If you don’t want to paint then pay someone to do it. GW models are not meant to be fielded unpainted. People who are too lazy to paint should just go play a game that doesn’t require painting. 10 points is not much.
There are so many games which don’t require painting anything

+1 with Racerguy

So what's your opinion on really poorly painted stuff?

The guy tried, and perhaps he is starting 40k (we all started out as bad painters, nearly all. I was terrible for a year). I really is completely different than the many many lazy people who just don’t bother. Good or bad, a paint job shows someone at least tried.

 addnid wrote:
If you don’t want to paint then pay someone to do it. GW models are not meant to be fielded unpainted. People who are too lazy to paint should just go play a game that doesn’t require painting. 10 points is not much.
There are so many games which don’t require painting anything

+1 with Racerguy

You ever priced out how much it costs to get an army painted, even to a basic 3 color standard? It ranges anywhere from equal to or triple the cost of the army. You gonna donate 2 grand to get my army painted because you're an elitist?

Also GW models not 'meant' to fielded painted is utter, laughable garbage. GW doesn't give a feth if you buy their models, eat them, then gak them into an incinerator, as long as you buy them first.

Oh, and one of those games just happens to be called 40k.

ERJAK wrote:
The examples do jack gak for the definition other than to say that those exact 7 models are 'combat ready'.

How about the 129 videos on GW's 'How to Paint: Battle Ready' playlist on YouTube?

I assume most people will be able to read the text, look at the models and get the idea of what battle ready means.

Your examples are needlessly nitpicky and back in the day would have been answered with "Common sense" in the White Dwarf's FAQ section.

yukishiro1 wrote:

ERJAK wrote:

a_typical_hero wrote:

 BlackLobster wrote:
But the 9th edition rules say that models must be painted to a battlefield standard. No where does it define what that means? Is it the old three colour minimum, table top quality or I've spent 10 hours on one guardsman?

"Combat ready means that your models are fully painted and have a detailed or textured base." Page 12, German Grand Tournament 2020 book.

Included are 7 examples, 3 for Contrast and 4 for classic paints. There is no doubt what "combat ready" means.

The examples do jack gak for the definition other than to say that those exact 7 models are 'combat ready'. Also define 'textured'. GW standard black bases have a pebbly texture to them out of the box, does that count? If not, why? It's a texture, the definition just says 'detailed OR textured' GW black bases are textured, why wouldn't they count? What about themed resin bases that aren't painted? They're not part of the model (the definition accidentally defines the model and the base as being distinct from each other) so they don't have to be painted, and even out of the mold gray they're both detailed AND textured. Would they count? If not, why not?

What if you don't paint the inside of a vehicle? That's not fully painted, even if you glued whatever ramp/doorway it has shut. What if you painted it after assembling it and there's a grey spot in a hard to reach area under a cloak or armor plate? That's not fully painted. What if you painted all the rivets on the armor silver except one? That's not fully painted. What if you paint your army with heavy OSL to make it look like the army is walking at night with the only light source being their own weapons and electronics, the shadows would be black where things are supposed to be colors, that's not fully painted.

Has anyone ever tried to disqualify you or anyone you know for any of those reasons? Honestly? This feels like a bad-faith strawman.

Someone trying to rules-lawyer your compliance to get the points is totally different than the requirement itself. I think we all agree that if someone's like "hey! I can spot a point on this model where the wash didn't reach! no 10 points for you!" you should laugh at them for being That Guy. The rule isn't designed to be applied that way. You should be able to tell within 10 seconds of looking across someone's army whether they qualify. Are all the models painted? Do they each have three colors on them? Did you do something to the bases? If so, you get the points. It doesn't need to be more complicated than that, and rules-lawyering compliance OR non-compliance should be laughed out of the store as bad-faith gaming, just like any other kind of gotcha rules-lawyering is.

Don't play with weasels. A weasel weaseling over paint is no different than a weasel weaseling over any other aspect of the game.

It's an inherent flaw in the idealogy. The rule is so poorly defined that if it comes down to those 10 points, there are a dozens ways even 'complete' armies could be disqualified just based on a judicious reading of the rules and strong oratory. If it has to be redefined before every game/event so it's actually applicable, the rule shouldn't exist.

The painting for points thing has already been abused in large tournaments to hand suspicious victories to friendly individuals. So the precedent for abuse is always there.

The complaint that the rule isn't particularly clear is valid - not the weird weasel stuff, but that it's unclear what exactly GW expects. I think that's intentional on GW's part, but they should have been upfront about it. There should be a paragraph in the book that basically says:

"Look, this rule is about making a decent effort, not about results. You can look at our tutorials as an example of the process, but you shouldn't take them as a requirement as to quality. Don't tell someone else their paint-job doesn't measure up because they couldn't color in the lines. This is about process, not results. If someone makes a good faith effort to meet the requirements, they meet the requirements, period. The only reason someone should be denied the 10 points if it it is clear they have not made a real attempt to paint a battle-ready force."


Automatically Appended Next Post:

ERJAK wrote:

It's an inherent flaw in the idealogy. The rule is so poorly defined that if it comes down to those 10 points, there are a dozens ways even 'complete' armies could be disqualified just based on a judicious reading of the rules and strong oratory. If it has to be redefined before every game/event so it's actually applicable, the rule shouldn't exist.

The painting for points thing has already been abused in large tournaments to hand suspicious victories to friendly individuals. So the precedent for abuse is always there.

So I will take that as a "no, it hasn't ever happened to me or anyone I know."

Don't play with weasels. Especially hypothetical ones. Anyone who would try to weasel you out of your 10 points for any of the nonsense reasons you suggested like not having paint on the inside of your vehicle is not someone you should ever play with period, and if anything you should thank the paint rule for letting you know how toxic they are before you wasted more time on them.