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.

Racerguy180 wrote:

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.

mate... i havent even played warhammer 40k for a year and i intend to put my miniatures on display, and i collect orks, not some silly space marine army that has few models. I have over 90 Boyz, and i started out going for a green tide army.

I have a lot of models, so given the small amount of time ive been doing the warhammer tabletop hobby, there simply hasnt been time for me to paint my entire army.

Can i paint it super easy so they look like trash? Yes. Do i want to? no. Because i intend to put them in a display glass, so i make them look perfect. perfect takes time and cant be rushed. Could i paint more than what i do right now? Sure, but i have a life outside of warhammer. and a job. Its a hobby, not a demand.

I paint when i have time and i feel like it. Right now im painting a gargantuan Squiggoth, that thing is massive and takes a lot of time to paint too.

I also have killa kanz thats not painted yet, as well as around 30 boyz.

I have many things that arent painted yet, because ive accumulated a lot of models within small amount of time. Thats really all there is to it. Just painting my Ghazzy alone took a ton of time because i wanted him to be perfect. I take pride in my miniatures, they dont deserve to be rushed.


All my miniatures are primed, however.

yukishiro1 wrote:
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!).

You might want to go back and re-read what I wrote. It wasn't just colourblindness.

 Cybtroll wrote:

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 should go and reread the core book again. The literal first page after the table of contents makes it explicitly clear that painting is not a requirement.

Sterling191 wrote:

 Cybtroll wrote:

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 should go and reread the core book again. The literal first page after the table of contents makes it explicitly clear that painting is not a requirement.

this. Though thats a bit contradictive of the whole 10 points when painted

But yes, it is a hobby after all.

Tamwulf wrote: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?

You'd be surprised at how many people treat every game like a tournament game because the treat every pick up game as if training for the next tournament. When I first started collecting 40K, getting a game could be hard since I didn't have an army at tournament level size. It was only when someone didn't mind goofing off that I could get one in.

Beardedragon wrote:
Have you guys ever played a battle, maybe just a non competitive battle, in which your opponent wanted his 10 points for having painted miniatures, where as you didnt have a fully painted army?


I have never had this happen to me, but i was curious if you guys had met people that was adamant in him getting his 10 points just because, so he would have an advantage of winning on points.


Edit: i really meant in a non competitive situation, so non tournements here. I would not show up to a tournement with an unpainted army myself.

Yes, I give it to them if theyre painted. I've lost like three games this edition by less than the 10 points my opponent got that I didn't.

In all honesty, if someone wanted to stickler for that 10 points I'd do them one better, I'd give them the win. I'd play it out and even if I was crushing them utterly, I'd give them the game win.

In the end, it doesn't matter, if I won it, I won it. I can say they did, doesn't change the fact. If someone wants the win that much it obviously means way more to them than it ever will to me.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

yukishiro1 wrote:
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!).

You might want to go back and re-read what I wrote. It wasn't just colourblindness.

I did read what you wrote. I wasn't trying to be critical at all, I was trying to make clear that being colorblind isn't something you need to think is a reason why you can't paint. If you don't want to paint anyway or you have other reasons why it's difficult for you, I'm not judging you for it or those reasons.

They're entitled to claim the points, but I can't say I'm going to be in a hurry to play them again if they make a big deal of it.

I won't play an army until it's painted personally, so it's moot, but if you're playing casually, it's purely for fun. It's not fun to spend time at a board with somebody who thinks like this; I will not enjoy their company. I'd sooner play against somebody with "Tactical Marine" written on a load of bottle caps than a guy I've seen try to lawyer himself a win from insufficiently colourdy army men.

We had a huge debate about this 10 points awhile back now. I don't think the lines changed. Some people did have opinions moved during the talk and for that I think it was a win.

At this point, going over and over on if its a penalty or not or who will hold people to it or not isn't anything of importance. It's all in how you view it, and if its a bonus or a penalty is more a matter of opinion, in my opinion of course.

For the record, I think its a penalty to unpainted armies. However, if you won the game and lost to pain you'd need to be a real odd duck to feel like you won, because of paint. Feels like a victory you'd give a new player or a kid just starting out so they'd feel like they won even if it was a hard fought loss.

For that, the 10 points for paint is a good thing. Trying to do it just to squeak a win out of a loss just feels gamey and I'd like to think most fair minded folks wouldn't do it.

Cynista wrote:
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.

What if the person on the other side of the table disagrees with you?

Then you're both chumps if you let something so irrelevant get in the way of having a game. It's so silly, because the rule doesn't actually impact the way the game is played in any way. You can play by your rules and say "I won that game by so many points!" and he can play by his and say "No, I won that game by so many points!" and it doesn't matter if you disagree. You can both have won in your own heads.

yukishiro1 wrote:
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?

It hasn't been, any of the times I've encountered armies like that. Hell, my first 6th edition tournament included a game against an army that featured a basecoated Land Raider Crusader with no weapons and a hull held together with rubber bands. It didn't actually have an impact on the game, which was an extremely enjoyable one regardless of his army only being half finished.

I mean, I prefer to play against armies that are assembled and nicely painted... but I also accept that this is merely my preference, and I'd rather just get on with playing the game rather than stressing over whether or not a potential opponent has put in an amount of effort to army building that I personally deem acceptable.


So far as the rule in question goes, in the situation given in the OP, absolutely he could have the points, in the rare situation where I showed up with an unpainted army, because that's the rule. But it's a stupid rule, and I wouldn't enforce it on an opponent outside of a tournament that had specified that it was in use.

Tournament play yes I would want the points open play I probably wouldn’t care unless the person is a jerk or just a Win at all costs player than I’m taking those 10 points. I myself have many units that aren’t painted I see it as a way to run those and know I’m on equal footing.

It is only a technical win. I can't understand why someone would want to win in that manner but who cares. Also it isn't a punishment to reward someone for having a painted army. If you do the work, you get the reward.

As long as you're talking then, perhaps you can answer my question:

 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?

People don't generally come to internet forums to not post. If you don't like what someone else writes, usually the best choice is just not to rise to the bait.

At least prime the army...... takes me like an hour or two to prime a 2K point army and to paint it I’ll get about 45 min to 1 hour. And painting not that much time 30-60 min a night with tricks I’ve seen an army painted up in a few months.

Casualty wrote:
They're entitled to claim the points, but I can't say I'm going to be in a hurry to play them again if they make a big deal of it.

With the big fuss that the OP is making that he's in an unfair situation and so on would be one that I wouldn't be in a rush to play against again either.

Of course, one alternative is to not play against painted armies if your army is unpainted, too.

I'm probably one of the most lazy gamers in my group, that has been playing with grey hordes for YEARS (I also have painted armies but normally I paint them for a big tournament in 3-5 days and I end up so sick of them that stop playing it and jump on the next grey army) but I would never try to justify me.

This game is better with two painted armies in a nice table. For every person involved. But we are all adults here. We can chose when and with who whe play.

I never had an unpainted army. I didn't really care, but since I played at GW stores, the managers tended to enforce that rule to get people to buy paint.

The only time it was really 'too much' to me is when somebody started using tokens in place of some units. I would rather go play a WW2 wargame or something at that point, half the fun is how cool the army looks! Okay it's most of the fun!


also, ten points is like... a commander gets one more piece of wargear, right?

Seems fitting to me to grant an army with full regalia a non-shorted budget

I would only give someone the 10 points if they could prove they were rich and therefore deserved it.

It’s a bad rule that allmost always ends up in a discussion of my ability to paint, game is already hard with there trash rule writing without discussion of my disability’s as well on top of that.

yukishiro1 wrote:
Then you're both chumps if you let something so irrelevant get in the way of having a game. It's so silly, because the rule doesn't actually impact the way the game is played in any way. You can play by your rules and say "I won that game by so many points!" and he can play by his and say "No, I won that game by so many points!" and it doesn't matter if you disagree. You can both have won in your own heads.

Or you could just have a standing house rule that you aren't using the 10pt paint rule.
Saves alot of trouble.

ccs wrote:

yukishiro1 wrote:
Then you're both chumps if you let something so irrelevant get in the way of having a game. It's so silly, because the rule doesn't actually impact the way the game is played in any way. You can play by your rules and say "I won that game by so many points!" and he can play by his and say "No, I won that game by so many points!" and it doesn't matter if you disagree. You can both have won in your own heads.

Or you could just have a standing house rule that you aren't using the 10pt paint rule.
Saves alot of trouble.

Sure. Or that it does apply. People should absolutely play the game they want to play, they just shouldn't get all morally righteous about how if anyone wants to play a different way, they're inferior and should feel bad.

yukishiro1 wrote:

ccs wrote:

yukishiro1 wrote:
Then you're both chumps if you let something so irrelevant get in the way of having a game. It's so silly, because the rule doesn't actually impact the way the game is played in any way. You can play by your rules and say "I won that game by so many points!" and he can play by his and say "No, I won that game by so many points!" and it doesn't matter if you disagree. You can both have won in your own heads.

Or you could just have a standing house rule that you aren't using the 10pt paint rule.
Saves alot of trouble.

Sure. Or that it does apply. People should absolutely play the game they want to play, they just shouldn't get all morally righteous about how if anyone wants to play a different way, they're inferior and should feel bad.

The rule is a feel bad rule, groups that really wanted all painted already had means to do that. And groups that had people that did not paint for one reason or many could talk to them. This is a passive way to avoid talking about it and putting pressure on players to avoid that interaction.

Tournaments already had ways to deal with it, including more positive ways. Like with a lot of these things, the people it does effect the most are left picking up the peace’s and having to work things out. Really don’t need more rules that support dismissive behaviour if GW won’t put in the effort to reinforce positive use of there rules.

Apple fox wrote:

The rule is a feel bad rule, groups that really wanted all painted already had means to do that. And groups that had people that did not paint for one reason or many could talk to them. This is a passive way to avoid talking about it and putting pressure on players to avoid that interaction.

Tournaments already had ways to deal with it, including more positive ways. Like with a lot of these things, the people it does effect the most are left picking up the peace’s and having to work things out. Really don’t need more rules that support dismissive behaviour if GW won’t put in the effort to reinforce positive use of there rules.

Basically this. The game is built upon and is entirely dependent on social skills to come to a reasonable agreement in regards to the match being played and any adjustments to rules or conditions for the game to ensure an enjoyable experience for all parties. This being a rule that has an impact on gameplay is putting gasoline next to a fire as it only serves as justification to start up trouble for people who are willing to put win over fun or lack the ability to connect with others to perhaps understand that not everyone has the means or desire to have a fully painted army.

For the majority of player interactions its a non issue because people have a degree of emotional maturity and empathy for others to understand that penalizing or gaining an advantage because of a model's paint status is not in the spirit of the game. The issue is that GW should know that a non insignificant portion of the 40k community lack these social skills and so it just gives them justification for anti fun behavior. They only have to look at comments on their facebook page to see examples of these sorts of people.

"He wants his 10 points."

Non-wargaming image removed

Which one of you cowards reported my Giga-chad?

I mean it's 100% a garbage rule. But it's a core rule so you need to agree to ignore it or it's in effect. That's really all there is to it. You're free to agree to ignore it In a friendly game because it's stupid, but if you don't clear that with your opponent beforehand they are completely within their rights to claim +10 VP for a fully painted army.