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.

Originally, miniatures wargames were a hobby mix of history, chess, and model train sets.

Now, people want a collectible card game with prepainted plastic models.

And GW has added a rule to remind people what sort of hobby they have chosen.

No doubt, the whiners will get their wish and GW will sell pre painted models to meet their microwave expectations.

Sans disability, grey plastic is not going to get me to a table. It is not the hobby that I chose. Though this hobby is slowly being replaced with something different, I choose not to engage with those who demand it.

Again, if I ever gamed without paint on models, I would insist that my opponent get the points for painting because it is an integral part of the hobby.

 jeff white wrote:
Originally, miniatures wargames were a hobby mix of history, chess, and model train sets.

Now, people want a collectible card game with prepainted plastic models.

And GW has added a rule to remind people what sort of hobby they have chosen.

No doubt, the whiners will get their wish and GW will sell pre painted models to meet their microwave expectations.

Sans disability, grey plastic is not going to get me to a table. It is not the hobby that I chose. Though this hobby is slowly being replaced with something different, I choose not to engage with those who demand it.

Again, if I ever gamed without paint on models, I would insist that my opponent get the points for painting because it is an integral part of the hobby.

I have a disability, this rule has only been used as a way to make me feal worse about this “hobby”of GW. I don’t think I have ever seen a positive use of the rule, as all places have had better ways to incentivise it. In a time where a lot of army’s are being made more horde like as well.
All the historical groups I have play with have been extremely helpful and assisted in the hobby Parts I struggle with, GW created a toxic rule that has been used to shame me. Even on this forum.

The discussions of painting in the hobby as a positive and ways to get people to paint has mostly dry up, people don’t talk as much about it due to this rule as it allways comes back to the rule. Rather than the positive of the hobby itself.

It’s created more toxicity over painting than ever I think, and I have to wonder if that’s intended as part of the hobby.
It’s even been used as a way to Shane and dismiss people who want to take the game itself more serious with less emphasis on the hobby of painting.

I like to paint, I enjoy it a lot when I can. But it will take me a very long time to paint and this rule just makes me enjoy it less. You had all the tools before, GW has just codified the worst of the behaviour.

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.

No. It's asinine and likely would get the asking player laughed out of my LGS. None one gets to dictate how others have fun with their hobby. If they're not interested in painting and only want to play, that is 100% fine.

 jeff white wrote:

And GW has added a rule to remind people what sort of hobby they have chosen.

Yep, in only 2/3 of the play styles in one edition of one of their many games....

The implementation of the rule is bad and incentivizes bad behavior - painting badly to get the points, instead of taking the time to do a better job. I don't think anybody here disagrees with that.

I frequently have idiots making jokes about how I don't deserve the 10 points for having black bases.

If you want to game the system, just spray primer on you miniatures and put a dot of armageddon dust on the base for texture. 10VP archived. If someone argues, you always find a spot on at least one miniature which isn't primed to deny them 10 VP. Stupid rules deserve stupid solution.

i keep seeing people mention three colors along with battle ready as the standard. do you need three colors to be considered battle ready or is there a different number of colors required to be considered battle ready?

yukishiro1 wrote:
The implementation of the rule is bad and incentivizes bad behavior - painting badly to get the points, instead of taking the time to do a better job. I don't think anybody here disagrees with that.

A bold statement, Sir! Especially considering the platform! :-)

I’ll play against unpainted armies, I’ll take the 10 points. Unless we agree to disregard the rule. Remember, short of tournament-like conditions, it’s _your_ game. If you both agree to add/subtract something, it’s not as if the rule police revoke your gaming license :-)

I do remember the suggestion being made early on in the 9th release, that if the 10pts offends you, include an unpainted piece in your army?

If you care, get your army painted. And yes, if I played with an unpainted army and my opponent wants their 10 points, they can have them, they are deserved, imo.

Meh, guys like this are either WAAC offs or they just don't get the idea that some people do not have the time to paint every new model to a decent standard and prefer to take longer to get them all looking decently then slopcoat them to appease people like him.

 Peterhausenn wrote:
i keep seeing people mention three colors along with battle ready as the standard. do you need three colors to be considered battle ready or is there a different number of colors required to be considered battle ready?

Battle ready only requires your model to be "fully painted with a detailed or textured base". Primed and some technical paint with texture on the base fulfill that requirement.

jeff white wrote:Again, if I ever gamed without paint on models, I would insist that my opponent get the points for painting because it is an integral part of the hobby.

The problem is, not everyone is here for the hobby, just the game. To me, the game and the hobby are two separate considerations.

That being said, I did prefer to have as much painted of my army painted as schedule generally permitted. One of the other reasons I had few games.

" No paint on my model ?..you want 10 points ?..At the bottom of this pit you'll find plenty of points...THIS...IS...SPARTA !!! " * Kicks opponent into deep pit to find the 10 points*

The only real way to deal with those points..imo.

I will 100% agree to give them the points.
That will spur me to keep working on my minis.

This is just another way that 9th is for narrative players first. Am I supposed to not allow SM to use Oath of Moment either?

 Insectum7 wrote:
If you care, get your army painted. And yes, if I played with an unpainted army and my opponent wants their 10 points, they can have them, they are deserved, imo.

Why assume that the reason is that people don’t care? If people could just paint up a army most probably would just like that.
It’s this ignoring of the possible reasons that make this rule so toxic.

I ignore that rule. I mean I'd never claim 10 points if my army is 100% battle ready and the opponent's one isn't, and for the same reason I'd expect tolerance from my opponents if I bring unpainted models. Playing in a friendly meta helps, here no one cares about those 10 points.

Points that have nothing to do with the actual game.

The concept of "battle ready" isn't really objective. I've seen armies that were allowed in tournaments, so 100% battle ready, that really looked like gak and mostly painted in a single colour, very distant from the "battle ready" examples you see from GW pictures. IMHO plastic grey armies look better than badly painted ones, even if by the book the latter are considered battle ready.

Playing casually, no - no paint points for you. I'd probably not even play such a person if they continued to push or comment on it.

It takes time to these things assembled and painted, and because of a variety of reasons I actually still have some models all the way back to RT that are still raw metal or maybe just primed and forgotten about.

Now granted, whenever I can, I reach for what I do have painted, but sometimes something may be so new (or extremely old and untried) I haven't finished it yet, but I'd like to try it out on the battlefield - more often than not to see which loadout I want to finalize it with.

Easiest way to deny the opponent the 10 points is to "accidentally" knock one model off their base. Oops, not battle ready anymore! Sorry, i'm clumsy, my bad, but them's the rules!

Unless they were a close friend, wanting to play their army before it was finished (and I would still expect at least it to be primed, and it would be a one off) I would refuse games against unpainted armies unless there was an exceptional reason for it not being painted, such as the person playing it could not paint the army for reason of disability.

I have chosen to play and engage in the hobby how it is intended, not the I just want to play competitive and have the latest toys in the meta version of the game. If you turn up to play with an unpainted army, I think it personally says a hell of a lot...

Now, would I be aggrieved about you playing and others accepting, no, but I just personally would choose not to play against you and I wouldn't. I've spoke in other threads about the spectacle of the game being important to me, how the game looks and the battlefield looks, unpainted armies don't fulfil that criteria for me.

That is me, my opinion and I'm sure some would be unhappy with it, but that's okay, I'd honestly prefer not to play a game than play against an unpainted army.

 vict0988 wrote:
This is just another way that 9th is for narrative players first. Am I supposed to not allow SM to use Oath of Moment either?

I don't think 40k has been more angled toward competitive players than 9th is since I started in 5th.

In my experience most people who don't paint their armies haven't done it not because they can't, but because they don't want to/don't care.
*of course I know some people who genuinely do have more difficulty painting.
The 10pts rule is intended to give competitive players a reason to care as well.

 kirotheavenger wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:
This is just another way that 9th is for narrative players first. Am I supposed to not allow SM to use Oath of Moment either?

I don't think 40k has been more angled toward competitive players than 9th is since I started in 5th.

In my experience most people who don't paint their armies haven't done it not because they can't, but because they don't want to/don't care.
*of course I know some people who genuinely do have more difficulty painting.
The 10pts rule is intended to give competitive players a reason to care as well.

Let's face it, there is a core of players who won't paint the army because they do not want to impede the reselling price.

 endlesswaltz123 wrote:

 kirotheavenger wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:
This is just another way that 9th is for narrative players first. Am I supposed to not allow SM to use Oath of Moment either?

I don't think 40k has been more angled toward competitive players than 9th is since I started in 5th.

In my experience most people who don't paint their armies haven't done it not because they can't, but because they don't want to/don't care.
*of course I know some people who genuinely do have more difficulty painting.
The 10pts rule is intended to give competitive players a reason to care as well.

Let's face it, there is a core of players who won't paint the army because they do not want to impede the reselling price.

Maybe, that's actually something I had never even considered.
Selling my models is like selling off one of my children, it just didn't occur to me.

 kirotheavenger wrote:

 endlesswaltz123 wrote:

 kirotheavenger wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:
This is just another way that 9th is for narrative players first. Am I supposed to not allow SM to use Oath of Moment either?

I don't think 40k has been more angled toward competitive players than 9th is since I started in 5th.

In my experience most people who don't paint their armies haven't done it not because they can't, but because they don't want to/don't care.
*of course I know some people who genuinely do have more difficulty painting.
The 10pts rule is intended to give competitive players a reason to care as well.

Let's face it, there is a core of players who won't paint the army because they do not want to impede the reselling price.

Maybe, that's actually something I had never even considered.
Selling my models is like selling off one of my children, it just didn't occur to me.

It's expensive to keep up with the meta... I find it crazy but people legit switch armies based on what is the current flavour.

EDIT: I'm probably coming across as condescending here, again, whatever people do with their own money, models is their business, I just personally won't play against them. Though, the specific sub set I am talking about above are most likely within the serious competitive crowd anyway and that isn't my thing either, it would be a pointless game for both most likely (unless they are looking to wrack up some easy wins for their record).

 kirotheavenger wrote:

 endlesswaltz123 wrote:

 kirotheavenger wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:
This is just another way that 9th is for narrative players first. Am I supposed to not allow SM to use Oath of Moment either?

I don't think 40k has been more angled toward competitive players than 9th is since I started in 5th.

In my experience most people who don't paint their armies haven't done it not because they can't, but because they don't want to/don't care.
*of course I know some people who genuinely do have more difficulty painting.
The 10pts rule is intended to give competitive players a reason to care as well.

Let's face it, there is a core of players who won't paint the army because they do not want to impede the reselling price.

Maybe, that's actually something I had never even considered.
Selling my models is like selling off one of my children, it just didn't occur to me.

This hobby is broad.
-Building
-Painting
-Playing
-lore related activities.

It works as a holistic experience, just as much as it works for a collector, as it works for a lore nerd as it works for a player.

The rule IS bad from that perspective as it tells people that only want to play within that universe that they "did it wrong and get "punished" for it".
Also the standard implemented is questionable, as someone that has managed to destroy due to clumsiness models via basing it is nonsense, hence why i understand perfectly jids issues with someone complaining in a "whell ackshually" manner against the black bases.
Also the minimal standards don't help for the visuals as pointed out allready by another poster.
And it impedes on resell value.

I happen to like the hobby holistically but i think a painting guide, conversion and build tips in article form would go a longer and better way to improve the visuals of the hobby then the minimal rule application.

 endlesswaltz123 wrote:
Unless they were a close friend, wanting to play their army before it was finished (and I would still expect at least it to be primed, and it would be a one off) I would refuse games against unpainted armies unless there was an exceptional reason for it not being painted, such as the person playing it could not paint the army for reason of disability.

I have chosen to play and engage in the hobby how it is intended, not the I just want to play competitive and have the latest toys in the meta version of the game. If you turn up to play with an unpainted army, I think it personally says a hell of a lot...

Now, would I be aggrieved about you playing and others accepting, no, but I just personally would choose not to play against you and I wouldn't. I've spoke in other threads about the spectacle of the game being important to me, how the game looks and the battlefield looks, unpainted armies don't fulfil that criteria for me.

That is me, my opinion and I'm sure some would be unhappy with it, but that's okay, I'd honestly prefer not to play a game than play against an unpainted army.

I think this is fair, if players want fully painted then that is great. We have fully painted narrative campaigns, I really enjoy running them for people.

The big issue this rule has is it mostly takes away the discussion, it forces it as a situation when a lot of people’s reason may not be visible.
I have had people question my painting ability as not being able to walk shouldn’t stop me from painting, the thing is I can walk. I use assistance for long periods out for the same reason I cannot paint. Half the days I cannot even hold a miniature when I want one, painting is completely out of the question most days. But I love painting, it’s a importent part of my hobby that this rule effects negatively.
Before this rule, there was painting jokes all the time and people understood and where playful about it, no pressure and only tournaments had rules implemented for it.
After, well it’s been a lot worse. It sells a lot of paint probably so GW won’t care about the community damage it causes unless it causes them to have to deal with it.

The moment a rule in a game causes people to have to bring external disability’s or issues into the game, then it’s a bad rule. It’s the same as not being able to grow a beard in Age of Sigmar, possibly worse as at least we can all roll our eyes at that and call GW a little daft for the joke. But this causes damage in the way that people have taken to the discussion surrounding it.

Apple fox wrote:

 endlesswaltz123 wrote:
Unless they were a close friend, wanting to play their army before it was finished (and I would still expect at least it to be primed, and it would be a one off) I would refuse games against unpainted armies unless there was an exceptional reason for it not being painted, such as the person playing it could not paint the army for reason of disability.

I have chosen to play and engage in the hobby how it is intended, not the I just want to play competitive and have the latest toys in the meta version of the game. If you turn up to play with an unpainted army, I think it personally says a hell of a lot...

Now, would I be aggrieved about you playing and others accepting, no, but I just personally would choose not to play against you and I wouldn't. I've spoke in other threads about the spectacle of the game being important to me, how the game looks and the battlefield looks, unpainted armies don't fulfil that criteria for me.

That is me, my opinion and I'm sure some would be unhappy with it, but that's okay, I'd honestly prefer not to play a game than play against an unpainted army.

I think this is fair, if players want fully painted then that is great. We have fully painted narrative campaigns, I really enjoy running them for people.

The big issue this rule has is it mostly takes away the discussion, it forces it as a situation when a lot of people’s reason may not be visible.
I have had people question my painting ability as not being able to walk shouldn’t stop me from painting, the thing is I can walk. I use assistance for long periods out for the same reason I cannot paint. Half the days I cannot even hold a miniature when I want one, painting is completely out of the question most days. But I love painting, it’s a importent part of my hobby that this rule effects negatively.
Before this rule, there was painting jokes all the time and people understood and where playful about it, no pressure and only tournaments had rules implemented for it.
After, well it’s been a lot worse. It sells a lot of paint probably so GW won’t care about the community damage it causes unless it causes them to have to deal with it.

The moment a rule in a game causes people to have to bring external disability’s or issues into the game, then it’s a bad rule. It’s the same as not being able to grow a beard in Age of Sigmar, possibly worse as at least we can all roll our eyes at that and call GW a little daft for the joke. But this causes damage in the way that people have taken to the discussion surrounding it.

Not that I'm the best painter in the world by any means, but if there was a person in a situation similar to yours, if you provide the paint, I don't mind doing my bit and painting some up for you. I don't want to limit yourself if you wanted to do all the painting yourself, good for you, but if you want a hand and want to show me your method so it's consistent then fine. It's a hobby, it should be a community and it should be social, help people out if you can.

Again, that's just me, I wouldn't expect everyone to engage in the hobby in the same way.

 endlesswaltz123 wrote:
Unless they were a close friend, wanting to play their army before it was finished (and I would still expect at least it to be primed, and it would be a one off) I would refuse games against unpainted armies unless there was an exceptional reason for it not being painted, such as the person playing it could not paint the army for reason of disability.

I have chosen to play and engage in the hobby how it is intended, not the I just want to play competitive and have the latest toys in the meta version of the game. If you turn up to play with an unpainted army, I think it personally says a hell of a lot...

Now, would I be aggrieved about you playing and others accepting, no, but I just personally would choose not to play against you and I wouldn't. I've spoke in other threads about the spectacle of the game being important to me, how the game looks and the battlefield looks, unpainted armies don't fulfil that criteria for me.

That is me, my opinion and I'm sure some would be unhappy with it, but that's okay, I'd honestly prefer not to play a game than play against an unpainted army.

So.. when you just started out this hobby, did you have a fully painted army before you engaged in combat? Did your first 2k point army uphold the full standard of being painted at the time? with no models, being unpainted, before you used them in combat? surely you upheld yourself to the standards you put on to others.


Because newer players who just started, will obviously not have a fully painted army in most situations

Beardedragon wrote:

 endlesswaltz123 wrote:
Unless they were a close friend, wanting to play their army before it was finished (and I would still expect at least it to be primed, and it would be a one off) I would refuse games against unpainted armies unless there was an exceptional reason for it not being painted, such as the person playing it could not paint the army for reason of disability.

I have chosen to play and engage in the hobby how it is intended, not the I just want to play competitive and have the latest toys in the meta version of the game. If you turn up to play with an unpainted army, I think it personally says a hell of a lot...

Now, would I be aggrieved about you playing and others accepting, no, but I just personally would choose not to play against you and I wouldn't. I've spoke in other threads about the spectacle of the game being important to me, how the game looks and the battlefield looks, unpainted armies don't fulfil that criteria for me.

That is me, my opinion and I'm sure some would be unhappy with it, but that's okay, I'd honestly prefer not to play a game than play against an unpainted army.

So.. when you just started out this hobby, did you have a fully painted army before you engaged in combat? Did your first 2k point army uphold the full standard of being painted at the time?


Because newer players who just started, will obviously not have a fully painted army in most situations

Yeah, I painted my army before playing. I also built up slowly and didn't play 2000pts straight away. This was in 1997 though, when a 2000pt army could be very small in 2nd edition anyway but still, painted before playing, that was the rules in the GW shop.

I mean, on that note you are making, you just going to let them play with the models on the sprues still? It takes time to build the models, more time to paint them, but if you are going to take the time to build them, I'd prefer if you took the extra time to paint them also.

And again, finally, if you find people that want to play against you with whilst your army is unpainted, that is fine, it's not for me to worry about, but I won't play against you.

 endlesswaltz123 wrote:

Beardedragon wrote:

 endlesswaltz123 wrote:
Unless they were a close friend, wanting to play their army before it was finished (and I would still expect at least it to be primed, and it would be a one off) I would refuse games against unpainted armies unless there was an exceptional reason for it not being painted, such as the person playing it could not paint the army for reason of disability.

I have chosen to play and engage in the hobby how it is intended, not the I just want to play competitive and have the latest toys in the meta version of the game. If you turn up to play with an unpainted army, I think it personally says a hell of a lot...

Now, would I be aggrieved about you playing and others accepting, no, but I just personally would choose not to play against you and I wouldn't. I've spoke in other threads about the spectacle of the game being important to me, how the game looks and the battlefield looks, unpainted armies don't fulfil that criteria for me.

That is me, my opinion and I'm sure some would be unhappy with it, but that's okay, I'd honestly prefer not to play a game than play against an unpainted army.

So.. when you just started out this hobby, did you have a fully painted army before you engaged in combat? Did your first 2k point army uphold the full standard of being painted at the time?


Because newer players who just started, will obviously not have a fully painted army in most situations

Yeah, I painted my army before playing. I also built up slowly and didn't play 2000pts straight away. This was in 1997 though, when a 2000pt army could be very small in 2nd edition anyway but still, painted before playing, that was the rules in the GW shop.

I mean, on that note you are making, you just going to let them play with the models on the sprues still? It takes time to build the models, more time to paint them, but if you are going to take the time to build them, I'd prefer if you took the extra time to paint them also.

if they're on sprue, they're not on the table so i dont understand what you mean.

It doesnt take a lot of time to put things together. It takes a lot of time to paint however. If one wants their models to not look like trash, then yea, painting takes a lot of time. I spent a lot of time painting Ghaz back in the day and while doing so, i couldnt paint any of my boys. Now im painting a Gargantuan Squiggoth, and i definitly will use it in battle before its finished.

I paint all my models, because i want them on display as well, but that doesnt mean ive gotten around to paint them all at this point.

Its easy for Space marine players or players who use elite armies to tell others to start painting, when some of us use horde armies, like i do. I started recently, i cant be asked to have it all painted before i can play. Playing is the core aspect of the game, and before i can engage in a proper battle, i would have to wait a very very very long time before i had 2k painted.

At this point maybe 60% of my army is painted, however the most important parts i have are painted. Thats what ive gotten around to do, its not because i dont want to paint the rest. But i do have a job, and other hobbies next to warhammer. So i wont treat this hobby like a job and force paint everything in a super fast fashion that will give me stress. Ill paint slowly but steadily, and make my miniatures look amazing.


In the end, ive never met anyone who wouldnt play with an army where some of the models arent painted. Sure a painted army looks better, but ive never met anyone declining. In fact when i started i didnt bring unpainted models, but people told me to just bring them so we could up the number from maybe 750 points to 1000. Everyone was like: hey that trukk and Mega Nobz of yours, just bring them even if they aint painted, it'll be more fun. So i did.

We would never fight, because you wouldnt fight me, but i feel like your type is the minority. At least ive never met anyone that feels the way you do.