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.

My opinion?

You guys with grey plastic armies better learn how to use a brush.

 Dysartes wrote:

 BlackLobster wrote:
Outside of a tournament, league or competition match I don't use that rule. It's frankly silly outside of those gaming environments. Someone who has not painted their army or has no desire to paint their army should not be penalised because of it.

They're not being penalised - the player who has put the effort in to achieve the standard is getting a bonus. Subtle difference, but still a difference.

What standard? you can take 2 spray cans and spray them super quick to look like gak and you would get your ten points.


The rule is slowed. It should be up to tournement organizers to say if they want painted armies only or not. That way organizers can, themselves, deem if an army is painted or not, so even if you spray your minis 2 different colors super quick, you would still not be allowed to play because they say no. But the rule is right now that you could just spray super quickly your army or the units that needs to be painted, and they'd look like dog gak, and you would technically be getting your 10 points.


This 10+ points for a painted army incentivizes people to paint their army like garbage just to avoid being penelized. I always take my sweet ass time painting minis because i want them to look good, so why should i be penelized for not painting like an idiot like some does because all they want is to play?

Again i dont show up at a tournement with an unpainted army, never have, never will, but not everything i have is unpainted, and i use unpainted minis outside of competitive plays (because im new and started 8 months ago, which is also why i havent done tournements yet). If some scrub whos played a long time wants to gain 10 points, outside of the a tournement scenario, and say i shouldnt because im unpainted? i will probably pack up my gak and go home because thats just toxic, and clearly, hes one of those types that wants to win at all cost.

Nothing good comes from playing with types like that.

And it doesnt matter if thats the rule because its a stupid rule. If the rule stated that people with blond hair automatically loses 5 points per turn i would also call that a stupid rule and not follow it. I think GW forgets that some of us are new to warhammer, and painting a 2k army takes a lot of time if you dont want them to look like horse gak. We new players dont need this new rule to make the game further unpleasant by making us "technically" lose ten points in casual games.

Luckily ive never met anyone who has even remotely mentioned the 10 points, because the people i play with arent asinine, they're good people. The winner is the guy who played best, not the player who happened to have played the longest and has fully painted armies.

You're welcome to refuse to play people who insist on playing by the rules as written because you don't like them. That's the great thing about a tabletop game - unlike computer games, you can pick and choose whatever rules you want, with the only limitation being that you need to find another player who agrees with you.

That said, I think you'd be behaving just as strangely as they were, because in a casual game, it doesn't matter who technically wins anyway. If they want to "win" because they painted their minis, why would you care? By the same token, it's rather pathetic on their part to insist on it, because why would they care?

If either one of you is refusing to play a game over the application of the painting rule - for or against - it's probably a sign that person may not be cut out for the hobby.

yukishiro1 wrote:
You're welcome to refuse to play people who insist on playing by the rules as written because you don't like them. That's the great thing about a tabletop game - unlike computer games, you can pick and choose whatever rules you want, with the only limitation being that you need to find another player who agrees with you.

That said, I think you'd be behaving just as strangely as they were, because in a casual game, it doesn't matter who technically wins anyway. If they want to "win" because they painted their minis, why would you care? By the same token, it's rather pathetic on their part to insist on it, because why would they care?

If either one of you is refusing to play a game over the application of the painting rule - for or against - it's probably a sign that person may not be cut out for the hobby.

If i play a game, be it football, Golf or what ever, warhammer in this case, i want to win. I play for fun, but i have more fun when i win. I would feel sad if i lost most battles. Atm i lose about 60% of them, which i dont mind.

I always play my best, so i can tell myself, that i lost because i was outplayed. I dont bring super armies, i often bring fun armies, but when the minis are down, i do the best i can to win. Which doesnt happen that often, again im new. This is purely from a tactical point of view, because ive never played with anyone before that didnt allow me, and vice versa me allowing him, to go back and undo a mess up. Warhammer is about communication and friendliness, and ive only ever met nice people in the game, and i try to be super nice to others too.

So basically im talking about a scenario ive never been in right now.

anyway im pretty large with most things, but i dont want to "lose" because i lost 10 points to a rule that only benefits him, in that scenario in a casual game.

And i would never claim ten points against someone who has a non painted army. In fact i wouldnt even mention the ten points at all because the rule is stupid.


So yea, there "technically" is a winner and a loser, and i want to win. I dont want to lose because someone wants to try so hard to win that they wanna claim a point advantage before the game even starts.

So you want to win, but you want to play by the rules you like, not the actual rules of the game?

That's fine - again, that's the beauty of a tabletop game, you can refuse to play except by your own version of the rules if you want - but be honest about what you're doing. You are saying that anyone who plays by the real rules of the game is a bad sport who you won't play with, because winning while playing by your own version of the rules is what you want to do, and if they won't play along with that, you don't want to play with them.

You being so bothered by them technically "winning" is pretty much exactly the same as them insisting on technically winning. Both of you are so insistent on winning that you're willing to give up having a fun game because of it. There's no moral high ground there - it's the collision of two WAACs who want to play by different rules.

Man the effort you people put into defending these laughable rules is amazing.

yukishiro1 wrote:
So you want to win, but you want to play by the rules you like, not the actual rules of the game?

That's fine - again, that's the beauty of a tabletop game, you can refuse to play except by your own version of the rules if you want - but be honest about what you're doing. You are saying that anyone who plays by the real rules of the game is a bad sport who you won't play with, because winning while playing by your own version of the rules is what you want to do, and if they won't play along with that, you don't want to play with them.

You being so bothered by them technically "winning" is pretty much exactly the same as them insisting on technically winning. Both of you are so insistent on winning that you're willing to give up having a fun game because of it. There's no moral high ground there - it's the collision of two WAACs who want to play by different rules.

I want to win because i played better in a fair match, he wants to win by a technicality and play an unfair game.

And ive never met anyone so rigid who wanted to win like that, luckily because it would be the last time i ever played said person. Every single person plays this game to win, or at least one wouldnt play with the intention of losing. Even when you bring a foolish army that is most likely going to lose, you still try to win.

But yes, they technically win, but since this would be discussed before the battle begins i would just not accept the battle. Because i dont play with rigid people who cant bend that ONE rule to make the match fair. That one rule, that gives one person, an advantage, so he wins more easily, which isnt even based around his army or anything.


The rule might as well state that if you wear blue jeans or you're a ginger, then you automatically get 10 points, and anyone else gets nothing. Would you follow a rule like that? Maybe you would, i wouldnt. But hey! its in the rules right? so he wouldnt be a weirdo for following it, right? its just the rules.

But yea. if a person wants that 10 points to have a game advantage for no reason so he can win more easily because hes uncertain about his own ability to win, then im not playing him. I wanna play to have fun, but i still do what i can to win. the two are not mutually exclusive. The match should be as fair as possible, so when one decides to not be fair, then the game is put off for me. Just like if you allow your opponent to go back to the psychic phase because he forgot something, and in the next round you forget it, and he wont let you do it? yea. No fairness, and thus, no battle. Although in that case i would finish the game because we already started, but about the 10 points, the game wouldnt have started yet, so i wouldnt accept it at all.

And besides, the mood would just be sour, and i dont really feel like chatting with someone like that, and warhammer takes a few hours. Normally people talk warhammer or other things, and the mood is over all pretty great playing warhammer, but when one wants to not play fair, how could the mood ever be great?


I dont care what they do at a tournement however, i wouldnt complain there. Ive never been to one, and had i joined a tournement and my army wasnt painted, id accept that i lost 10 points. but not for casual games.

Beardedragon wrote:


I want to win because i played better, he wants to win by a technicality.

And ive never met anyone so rigid who wanted to win like that, luckily because it would be the last time i ever played said person.

They want to win by the actual rules of the game. You want to win by your own version of the rules that removes a rule you don't like and that is disadvantageous to you.

GW obviously disagreed that it's a technicality, since it's in the actual rules of the game. So the other dude just wants to play the actual game; you want to play your own game. It takes some chutzpah to then argue that he's the one being a bad sport for wanting to play by the actual rules of the game, not your made-up version of the rules.

If I had a game against you and you said "ok just heads up ahead of time, I don't play by the painting rules, and if you do, I don't want to play with you because I won't be able to enjoy a game if I technically lose it because of the painting rules," I'm polite so I'd shrug and say "ok, we'll play without those rules if it makes you happy, it doesn't bother me" but I'd note you down as someone who doesn't share my values, and I wouldn't seek you out for a game in future. Not because of your stance on the rule, but because of the "winning is so important to me I'll actually call you the bad sport if you don't go along with my version of the rules, the only impact of which is that my chance of winning is higher."

Make of that what you will.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Beardedragon wrote:

The rule might as well state that if you wear blue jeans or you're a ginger, then you automatically get 10 points, and anyone else gets nothing. Would you follow a rule like that? Maybe you would, i wouldnt. But hey! its in the rules right? so he wouldnt be a weirdo for following it, right? its just the rules.

But yea. if a person wants that 10 points to have a game advantage for no reason so he can win more easily because hes uncertain about his own ability to win, then im not playing him. I wanna play to have fun, but i still do what i can to win. the two are not mutually exclusive. The match should be as fair as possible, so when one decides to not be fair, then the game is put off for me.

If it's the rules of the game, it's the rules of the game, whether you think they're fair or not. If you want to depart from the rules of the game and refuse to play anyone who doesn't agree to your departure, that's fine. But it's a bit rich to them turn around and say they're the one being stubborn, not you.

Own your desires. You want to win so badly that playing the game as written upsets you to the point where you'd rather not play than play as written. That's ok, assuming you can find someone else who feels the same way you do. So why insist on trying to dress yourself up as the morally superior one?

I'd never demand the points from an opponent.

I prefer to play with painted armies. However, given my current arm situation, if getting a game in means my army is not fully painted, so be it. They can have the points if they want.

Wait, it's actually in the modern rules that you gain 10 VP for having a painted army if your opponent does not?

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Man the effort you people put into defending these laughable rules is amazing.

It's a bad rule. I think lots of the rules in 40k are bad rules; it doesn't mean I announce loudly that anyone who doesn't go along with my version of how the game should be played is a bad sport who I won't play with.

Now if my opponent and I both agree that a given rule is bad and we'd rather play with a modified version of it...awesome! That's what tabletop gaming is all about. The widely-adopted "ruins block LOS on the first floor" is a great example of the community deciding there was a better way to play 8th edition 40k than the rules as written. I'm all for that.

But to insist that my way is not only better but that anyone who refuses to amend the rules in the way I want is a bad sport, while I am not? That's kinda laughable. In this case, it's doubly laughable because the rule doesn't actually have any impact on the actual game. If you think it's silly, just tell yourself afterwards "I actually won that game, because he only won because of the paint score." Refusing to play over a rule that literally doesn't impact the game is weird WAAC behavior, no matter in which direction you're going with it.

 Just Tony wrote:
Wait, it's actually in the modern rules that you gain 10 VP for having a painted army if your opponent does not?

nah both get 10 points for a painted army. But if you have a painted army and he dont, then you would get 10 points and he wouldnt, and thus you would have an advantage.

 Just Tony wrote:
Wait, it's actually in the modern rules that you gain 10 VP for having a painted army if your opponent does not?

Well, no. You get 10VP for having a painted army; so do they (I think it's technically at the end of the game, not the start, but it doesn't really matter). But yes, if one player is playing with a painted army and the other player isn't, the matched play rules currently result in the player with the painted army getting 10 more VP in the final scoring.

From page 283 of the Core Rules ('Determine Victor'):

Each player can score a maximum of 45 victory points from primary objectives and a maximum of 45 victory points from secondary objectives (from a maximum of 15 victory points from each of the 3 secondary objectives you have selected), for a total of 90 possible victory points from mission objectives (any excess victory points awarded are discounted). If every model in a player’s army was painted to a Battle Ready standard, that player is awarded a bonus 10 victory points. This gives the player a maximum total score out of 100 victory points.

yukishiro1 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Man the effort you people put into defending these laughable rules is amazing.

It's a bad rule. I think lots of the rules in 40k are bad rules; it doesn't mean I announce loudly that anyone who doesn't go along with my version of how the game should be played is a bad sport who I won't play with.

Now if my opponent and I both agree that a given rule is bad and we'd rather play with a modified version of it...awesome! That's what tabletop gaming is all about. The widely-adopted "ruins block LOS on the first floor" is a great example of the community deciding there was a better way to play 8th edition 40k than the rules as written. I'm all for that.

But to insist that my way is not only better but that anyone who refuses to amend the rules in the way I want is a bad sport, while I am not? That's kinda laughable. In this case, it's doubly laughable because the rule doesn't actually have any impact on the actual game. If you think it's silly, just tell yourself afterwards "I actually won that game, because he only won because of the paint score." Refusing to play over a rule that literally doesn't impact the game is weird WAAC behavior, no matter in which direction you're going with it.

if you want to have a 10 point lead before the game even starts, then yes, its a bad rule, and yes, you dont play fairly because your opponent doesnt get it. Thus you play with an unfair advantage just because your army is painted.

So yes, i will actually very boldly claim, that the person is wrong, and i am in the right to ditch the rule. I will rarely state this, but in this case, i will.


ANY person, who wants to advocate to have an advantage that makes him win officially, more easily, for no other reason than having a painted army, then that person, should feel bad and i will not play him. I went and said it. He wants to have an unfair advantage? So be it, but it wont be against me.

You said the rule is bad, i say the rule is bad, and people who want to play with an unfair advantage, are not showing the type of sportsmanship that this game deserves. I dont see any other way around it other than calling it unsportsman like and unfair. While it changes nothing gameplay wise, it does change the outcome officially, and thus, it should officially not be played with.


Again, if i play at a tournement, i would shut it, but not in casual games. Casual games are the community battles where we have fun, and no one has fun looking at a smug person who wants to defend getting 10 points to get an easier victory. I sadly have a strong sense of justice for right and wrong, and this isnt right towards newer players who dont have fully painted armies. Everyone should throw this rule out the window in community casual battles.

All rules should be upheld at a tournement, but casual battles? no. absolutely not. And GW should feel ashamed for even making this rule to begin with, it does nothing but to make new players feel bad.

There are dozen or worst rules than this one to goes crusading against (that, btw, is totally not influential in casual games, and already there in basically all the tourneys of some relevance as said multiples time).

You want to play with tokens? Be my guest.l there are cardboard versionof 40k with the same LoS of you need them.

I prefer new gamers to know that painting miniatures now a requirement. We needed decades to finally being able to play painted armies, and some of my friends don't do it even know due to bad habit.
Take them when they're young: write it in the rules.

You are saying the real rules of the game are unfair, and anyone who wants to play by them is playing the game wrong and should feel bad about it.

This is exactly why I would not want to play with you. You are exhibiting exactly the sort of WAAC attitude you claim to be against (except that they actually have the rules on their side, whereas you don't). It's hugely ironic.

I think you will find you have trouble enjoying this hobby if you don't find some way to chill out a bit.

 Cybtroll wrote:
There are dozen or worst rules than this one to goes crusading against (that, btw, is totally not influential in casual games, and already there in basically all the tourneys of some relevance as said multiples time).

You want to play with tokens? Be my guest.l there are cardboard versionof 40k with the same LoS of you need them.

I prefer new gamers to know that painting miniatures now a requirement. We needed decades to finally being able to play painted armies, and some of my friends don't do it even know due to bad habit.
Take them when they're young: write it in the rules.

what exactly do you want to write in the rules? that being a new player means you must play uphill battles with a -10 point loss because you cant field a 2k painted army because you only started 6 months ago?

How does that NOT drive people OFF this hobby? Where is the community feeling? Wheres the fairness?

3 pages and still no mod warning / lock?

Im proud of each and everyone of you dakknauts..

yukishiro1 wrote:
You are saying the real rules of the game are unfair, and anyone who wants to play by them is playing the game wrong and should feel bad about it.

This is exactly why I would not want to play with you. You are exhibiting exactly the sort of WAAC attitude you claim to be against (except that they actually have the rules on their side, whereas you don't). It's hugely ironic.

I think you will find you have trouble enjoying this hobby if you don't find some way to chill out a bit.

no i dont. Theres literally only one rule i dont follow, and thats that rule. We always play super large, allowing for a lot of mistakes, that includes myself.

I dont have any trouble in this hobby and as ive already stated numberous times, ive never met anyone who even remotely wanted to claim 10 points. All im saying is out of a hypothetical situation that i will honestly most likely never be in.

I know what WAAC people does and ive never done a single one of them. the only thing i have is a sense of fairness, and that rule isnt fair to new players. So if a person, who has played for a long time, feel the need to uphold a rule that makes the game unfair towards a new player, then that isnt a player i wanna play against.

But i havent met said person yet, and ive had a match against maybe 10 different people so far (i havent had 10 matches only, just against maybe 10 different ones). The only time this rule was ever mentioned was when 9th came out so we knew the rule existed, but no one cared about it.

Why are we reopening this can of worms? Is it because Auspex Tactics released a video on this exact subject earlier today?

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
Why are we reopening this can of worms? Is it because Auspex Tactics released a video on this exact subject earlier today?

i didnt know it had been discussed. Im not a long time warhammer player, i was just curious as to what peoples opinion was to that given situation. I had never experienced it myself, i was actually just curious. A lot of weird things that has happened to the general warhammer player, has never happened to me.

Like this situation, as well as having had a bad experience with warhammer. Ive never had one, ive only ever had good experiences and great battles. Sure ive been absolutely trashed and lost by almost turn 2, but never a bad experience per say. So i was just interested in peoples stories and opinions.

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?

Maybe you don't like painting. Maybe you can't paint. Maybe you have vision of mobility issues that making painting a pain if not impossible.

Racerguy180 wrote:
Go play with some cardboard chits instead, would probably save money.

But what if you like the miniatures.

 addnid wrote:
People who are too lazy to paint should just go play a game that doesn’t require painting.

Hi. I'm colourblind, have unsteady hands, and basically can't see out of one eye.

But no, I'm just 'lazy' about painting.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

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?

Maybe you don't like painting. Maybe you can't paint. Maybe you have vision of mobility issues that making painting a pain if not impossible.

Racerguy180 wrote:
Go play with some cardboard chits instead, would probably save money.

But what if you like the miniatures.

Yeah, I don't have any more time for the moral preening over "you're bad if you don't paint your miniatures" than the moral preening over "you're bad if you want to play by the rules!"

The great thing about tabletop gaming is you can do whatever you want as long as you find a like-minded group of people. I don't understand the need to insist that anyone who does it differently is wrong and morally inferior.

I like playing with painted armies and prefer to play against people who feel the same way (though I'm super understanding that it takes time, and if someone is in the process of painting an army, I'd be very happy to encourage that by playing them in the meantime even if it's not completely done yet). But if other people like playing with grey plastic - great! More power to them. I hope they have fun too. They aren't worse people for it. There's no moral superiority when it comes to tiny plastic soldiers.

 Strg Alt wrote:
You guys with grey plastic armies better learn how to use a brush.

Will learning how to use a brush also magically fix my eyes?

Why should he ask? If his army is fully painted, the rules says he gets those points. That said, I don’t field unpainted models. No reason other than personal pride. If my opponent is unpainted however, I will not accept receiving the 10 points personally as my pride only extends to myself.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Strg Alt wrote:
You guys with grey plastic armies better learn how to use a brush.

Will learning how to use a brush also magically fix my eyes?

FWIW, I'm colorblind too, and it's not been any issue for me at all in painting. If you're concerned about how a particular color combination might look to people with normal vision (why would you be, though? it's you who is looking at them! you should paint what looks good to you), there are a bunch of different ways to figure out how it's going to look to other people - color wheels, a pigment chart, just asking other people, etc.

If you don't want to paint because you don't want to paint that's fine, but it'd be a shame if you didn't get into painting because of fears of whether you can do it colorblind (I am assuming we're talking about the common colorblindness varieties, not a completely inability to see color at all - in that case, I can see why you wouldn't want to bother!).

I take a long time to paint because i want my miniatures to look amazing. Next to that i play Orks, and have over 90 boyz. It takes a long time for me to paint, and given i started recently, i cant be expected to have my army painted fully at this point.

Whether people think its because im lazy or dont give a feth, well, i just want to paint my miniatures perfectly. And that takes time. I know some just wanna play and paint them like gak, and cudos to those guys, but im not one of them.

Some people wanna make the argument that i can just paint them fast? thats never gonna happen because i would end up ruining them. Next to that, i have a life outside of warhammer.


Some people seemingly forget that not all of us are long forgotten veterans. Some of us are new players.

Beardedragon wrote:

yukishiro1 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Man the effort you people put into defending these laughable rules is amazing.

It's a bad rule. I think lots of the rules in 40k are bad rules; it doesn't mean I announce loudly that anyone who doesn't go along with my version of how the game should be played is a bad sport who I won't play with.

Now if my opponent and I both agree that a given rule is bad and we'd rather play with a modified version of it...awesome! That's what tabletop gaming is all about. The widely-adopted "ruins block LOS on the first floor" is a great example of the community deciding there was a better way to play 8th edition 40k than the rules as written. I'm all for that.

But to insist that my way is not only better but that anyone who refuses to amend the rules in the way I want is a bad sport, while I am not? That's kinda laughable. In this case, it's doubly laughable because the rule doesn't actually have any impact on the actual game. If you think it's silly, just tell yourself afterwards "I actually won that game, because he only won because of the paint score." Refusing to play over a rule that literally doesn't impact the game is weird WAAC behavior, no matter in which direction you're going with it.

if you want to have a 10 point lead before the game even starts, then yes, its a bad rule, and yes, you dont play fairly because your opponent doesnt get it. Thus you play with an unfair advantage just because your army is painted.

So yes, i will actually very boldly claim, that the person is wrong, and i am in the right to ditch the rule. I will rarely state this, but in this case, i will.


ANY person, who wants to advocate to have an advantage that makes him win officially, more easily, for no other reason than having a painted army, then that person, should feel bad and i will not play him. I went and said it. He wants to have an unfair advantage? So be it, but it wont be against me.

I agree on being able to not use any rule you want as long as the person you're playing with agrees and vice-versa.
I've never used this rule due to it being stupid (amongst several others), but if that is a rule you agree to before the game(i.e. by not stating otherwise beforehand) tough gak.

Officially its in the matched play rules, easy way to not using it....don't play matched play rules then.

I do question you as to how taking the time to paint your army is EASIER than not. As that statement makes absolutely zero sense.

Beardedragon wrote:

 Dysartes wrote:

 BlackLobster wrote:
Outside of a tournament, league or competition match I don't use that rule. It's frankly silly outside of those gaming environments. Someone who has not painted their army or has no desire to paint their army should not be penalised because of it.

They're not being penalised - the player who has put the effort in to achieve the standard is getting a bonus. Subtle difference, but still a difference.

What standard? you can take 2 spray cans and spray them super quick to look like gak and you would get your ten points.


The rule is slowed. It should be up to tournement organizers to say if they want painted armies only or not. That way organizers can, themselves, deem if an army is painted or not, so even if you spray your minis 2 different colors super quick, you would still not be allowed to play because they say no. But the rule is right now that you could just spray super quickly your army or the units that needs to be painted, and they'd look like dog gak, and you would technically be getting your 10 points.


This 10+ points for a painted army incentivizes people to paint their army like garbage just to avoid being penelized. I always take my sweet ass time painting minis because i want them to look good, so why should i be penelized for not painting like an idiot like some does because all they want is to play?

Again i dont show up at a tournement with an unpainted army, never have, never will, but not everything i have is unpainted, and i use unpainted minis outside of competitive plays (because im new and started 8 months ago, which is also why i havent done tournements yet). If some scrub whos played a long time wants to gain 10 points, outside of the a tournement scenario, and say i shouldnt because im unpainted? i will probably pack up my gak and go home because thats just toxic, and clearly, hes one of those types that wants to win at all cost.

Nothing good comes from playing with types like that.

Luckily ive never met anyone who has even remotely mentioned the 10 points, because the people i play with arent asinine, they're good people. The winner is the guy who played best, not the player who happened to have played the longest and has fully painted armies.

I was wondering what you meant by "slow" until I quoted you and saw what you actually wrote. And calling your imaginary opponent a scrub for taking the 10VP, followed by you calling them toxic? Maybe look in the mirror? Its seems that you are the one who really wants to win, including getting mad at someone playing by the rules. I think you need to chill, especially if you've never actually encountered the situation. You laid down a short post asking for opinion when you clearly had a rant locked and loaded.

In any case it's not two spray cans and done - it's Battle Ready.

You really don't need to worry. If its a casual game then why are you all twisted about 10VP? The sporting thing to do is simply offer the 10VP at the start of the game if your opponent's army is fully painted and yours is not. More likely than not he'll chuckle and say to forget it. If he takes it - oh well. Do you really worry about the score? If its a tourney then get the scoring rubric before the event and play to it without calling other players toxic for following the tourney scoring rules.