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.

 kirotheavenger wrote:

 Blackie wrote:
"Playing is the core aspect of the game" isn't an opinion actually, is the only part of the hobby that is shared with another player. Other activities like reading/inventing the lore or painting have nothing to do with the game itself.

The game is not gonna be different if a model is painted or not, the only thing that matters is assembling the models, and they don't even need to be 100% complete.

In that you've made the implicit assumption that "the hobby" and "the game" are one and the same.
TBH, I agree with you. When I'm playing a game it makes no difference to me if we're playing with card chits or painted models (the theatre of my kind is very good). But I don't think the tabletop game is completely separate from building and painting the miniatures, especially amongst the community.

No, I meant to say the opposite, they're not the same thing. The game is just a part of the hobby. For some players building/painting and playing might be completely separate things.

I've met several people who own tons of models, or even complete armies, just for painting them and never played a single game in their life and other dudes that never painted a single model in their life but play regularly.

Personally I enjoy each part of the hobby but I aknowledge that some people might want to focus only to a few parts of the hobby, or even skip some of them completely.

 Blackie wrote:

I've met several people who own tons of models, or even complete armies, just for painting them and never played a single game in their life and other dudes that never painted a single model in their life but play regularly.

Personally I enjoy each part of the hobby but I acknowledge that some people might want to focus only to a few parts of the hobby, or even skip some of them completely.

My apologies, I totally agree then.

Card chits can be used, kind of, but fall down on LoS etc.

Same goes for proxy models. As a deliberately daft and extreme example, a Snotling Proxy Marine army might sound funny, but the smaller models will impact the playing of the game, as they’re easier to entirely hide behind scenery, providing an advantage the Proper Models wouldn’t have.

For the same reason I would insist on at least fully built models, with no modelling for advantage. Extreme example? One tournament years ago saw a most unsporting player build his Orky Trucks with high, advertising van type billboards - all so they could block LoS.

Now, not every proxy or scratch build is going to be Modelled for Advantage. A claim otherwise is clearly deliberately bogus. But there can still be unintended advantage gained.

Pretty much all TTWG rely on visual aids for both players. Tinker with that too much, and things can get out of hand.

Yes, some folk will be pains. Some will model for advantage, others will complain about any non-official Proper Model, even when there’s no actual advantage gained by their opponent.

Painting is clearly the least of worries. Provided I can tell what your army is composed of, and each model is armed with, the paint job doesn’t particularly matter. I for one am not even fussed if your usually Dark Angels Marines are played as Blood Angels in our next game, because it’s the models not the colour that’s important.

But for the purpose of this thread? A rule is a rule. Unless agreed beforehand, it’s kind of a Richard Move to demand one be dropped when setting up, regardless of how commonly it might be dropped.

Oh I agree that chits and crazy conversions/proxies can result in problems for 40k. But in many games chits make no difference at all (for example Blackstone Fortress). Even in 40k, there's little reason players shouldn't be able to use 2d vertical sprites to play.

As you say, they're just visual aids. For games that involve TLoS the overall size of those visual aids matter (hence the sprites), for other games it doesn't (hence the chits).

Moriarty wrote:

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?

House rules aren't a solution since it ignores the grand point.

Hobby time for me is finite, as I imagine it is for many others. So spending five hours painting is five hours not spent playing games and getting practice. You might even say that someone with an unpainted army should be more experienced so the +10 VPs is a catch-up mechanism. It's also a penalty for playtesting proxies in a list until you settle on your choices and paint them.

Those are my weak justifications for the rule as written. In actuality I find the all-or-nothing painting requirement prevents motivation to paint if you have an unpainted army and an event is coming up soon. It would be a much better system if you got +1 VP per fully painted unit, up to a maximum of 10 VPs.

Paint your army if you don't want to lose points.

Keep in mind that this system allows you to participate o. Tournaments which adhere to GW rules, while before (at least to my knowledge) you can't because the requirements was often binary.

We can debate however if a 10% applied to any game is worst that a penalty on the final score. I fell that the current way skew results less and is at least consistent

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

What keeps me working on my minis is wanting to have them look nice.

the 10 point rule keeps me from playing, not incentivizes me to paint.

 Mmmpi wrote:

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

What keeps me working on my minis is wanting to have them look nice.

the 10 point rule keeps me from playing, not incentivizes me to paint.

So you refuse to play out of apparent spite over a 10 point rule that never seems to come up in the real world?

If it makes them happy, just give them the points. Who honestly cares? In a casual game, winning and losing only carry the value you place on it.

If you don't want the painting points, then your goal is to score more objective points. If they do want the painting points, then their goal is to score more total points. If the painting points decide the overall game? Congrats, you both accomplished your personal definitions of success. Who "won" really doesn't matter.

TangoTwoBravo wrote:

 Mmmpi wrote:

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

What keeps me working on my minis is wanting to have them look nice.

the 10 point rule keeps me from playing, not incentivizes me to paint.

So you refuse to play out of apparent spite over a 10 point rule that never seems to come up in the real world?

Two things:

1) It doesn't seem to be spite, it seems to be frustration, or something similar, over starting 10 points down due to something that's not related to the gameplay.

2) If the rule doesn't even get used, why print it?

TangoTwoBravo wrote:

 Mmmpi wrote:

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

What keeps me working on my minis is wanting to have them look nice.

the 10 point rule keeps me from playing, not incentivizes me to paint.

So you refuse to play out of apparent spite over a 10 point rule that never seems to come up in the real world?

Yup. got it in one. Just completely motivated by spite. [SARCASM] I have no other motivations for avoiding a terrible, toxic, and decisive rule besides spite. [SARCASM]

And yes, the rule comes up in the real world, because it's part of the rules. So when I get games in, I either have the rule waived (painted army or not), or I don't play. The same as the people who refuse to play unpainted armies. Oh wait! Are they doing that out of spite too?






It's definitely not spite. I'm trying to get people in my local community used to house ruling it out for the sake of newer players, and people who are only casually involved in the hobby.

 Xenomancers wrote:
Paint your army if you don't want to lose points.

Here's the deal though. Some people paint slow. For whatever reason, they just do.
What the 10point rule does is penalize people who paint slow but want to paint the models well, and incentivizes you to do a slapdash job just to satisfy the rule. Don't bother with primer, don't bother with layering, just slap some contrasts on bare plastic and done, your army is instantly "better experience" to play against than an army with 30 well-painted models and 30 primed models waiting to be painted. Which...really seems backward to me? Why should I bother trying to be better at painting if the game penalizes me for it?

Cronch wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
Paint your army if you don't want to lose points.

Here's the deal though. Some people paint slow. For whatever reason, they just do.
What the 10point rule does is penalize people who paint slow but want to paint the models well, and incentivizes you to do a slapdash job just to satisfy the rule. Don't bother with primer, don't bother with layering, just slap some contrasts on bare plastic and done, your army is instantly "better experience" to play against than an army with 30 well-painted models and 30 primed models waiting to be painted. Which...really seems backward to me? Why should I bother trying to be better at painting if the game penalizes me for it?

this. i paint my horde army as perfect as i can. I take pride in my painted miniatures, and i wont rush them just to cater to some silly rule

 endlesswaltz123 wrote:

I also agree with Mad Doc, I'll take the 3x colours and a painted base as tabletop standard, unless it happens to be a cool mono colour scheme for any reason that works, however I suppose that usually involves shading and highlights anyway so will have the 3x colours technically, if not more.

Hmmm,
1st it was "I won't play against unpainted models" (unless you're my friend).
NOW there's of 3 colors min. you'll accept. (unless a mono scheme works for some reason)

Let me guess though, you're the one who gets to decide if the other guys reason for a mono scheme works aren't you?

And upon encountering a 3 color army painted like gak you'll reveal a further standard.....

We are in control of our games. If you have brand-new players its unlikely we are using scoring in the first place. Its possible to play without Secondaries at all. Or Primaries. Or even Matched Play. Ironically new players might actually "suffer" less since they don't have that big pile of unpainted minis.

I say spite because you seem intent on not playing over 10 VPs. "Cutting off your nose to spite your face" and all that. OK. You quit out of frustration over 10 VPs. Are 10 VP really so damaging that you would refuse to play or walk away from the game? I get it if the opponent is being obnoxious about it, but in that case they would likely be obnoxious about something else.

I think the whole drama is hypothetical - borrowed trouble on the internet. Would I have written that rule in? Probably not. It doesn't come up round these parts. I certainly haven't asked for it. An opponent gave it to me once - he was trying out an online scoring app and he was being thorough with the scores to test it out. We both laughed about it - his army was a beautiful work in progress while mine was an unspectacular Battle Ready force. He wasn't going to rush over 10 VPs and it was pickup game. Tourneys establish the scoring and in pick-up games who really cares?

 Xenomancers wrote:
Paint your army if you don't want to lose points.

Or we can just play "Open" & select to use every rule but this one. Oh look, we're playing 40k by the rules as written by GW. Issue avoided.

ccs wrote:

 endlesswaltz123 wrote:

I also agree with Mad Doc, I'll take the 3x colours and a painted base as tabletop standard, unless it happens to be a cool mono colour scheme for any reason that works, however I suppose that usually involves shading and highlights anyway so will have the 3x colours technically, if not more.

Hmmm,
1st it was "I won't play against unpainted models" (unless you're my friend).
NOW there's of 3 colors min. you'll accept. (unless a mono scheme works for some reason)

Let me guess though, you're the one who gets to decide if the other guys reason for a mono scheme works aren't you?

And upon encountering a 3 color army painted like gak you'll reveal a further standard.....

If playing against a painted army is something you like, presumably yes, you would be the one to decide whether an army is painted to a standard you enjoy playing against. Why wouldn't you be?

I don't know anybody who's like "you know, it's the paint on the models that really makes me want to play, not how that paint makes them look. Dip your models in housepaint for all I care, it's that layer of chemical that does it for me!" If people want to play against painted armies, they presumably want to play against a painted army someone's made a decent effort at, not something someone's technically done the bare minimum on in the most slapdash way possible.

That's different than saying "the highlighting on this guy is bad! I won't play you!" I don't know anyone who assesses quality when deciding whether someone's paint job is good enough to play.

Slow painters and people who are in the hobby since not long. How long does it take to paint 2000 points of stuff for someone that has never painted a model before?

I started as a kid, in an era with no internet at home (so no tutorials, etc...), and I was mostly a painter than a gamer then, and yet it took me approx 3 years to paint 1500-2000 points of orks.

Now with 20 years of experience I could paint 2000 points of orks in an year, if I rush a little bit probably and just at a standard tabletop level, but definitely an entire edition (or two) of 40k to paint a reasonably complete collection of models.

yukishiro1 wrote:
If playing against a painted army is something you like, presumably yes, you would be the one to decide whether an army is painted to a standard you enjoy playing against. Why wouldn't you be?

I don't know anybody who's like "you know, it's the paint on the models that really makes me want to play, not how that paint makes them look. Dip your models in housepaint for all I care, it's that layer of chemical that does it for me!" If people want to play against painted armies, they presumably want to play against a painted army someone's made a decent effort at, not something someone's technically done the bare minimum on in the most slapdash way possible.

That's different than saying "the highlighting on this guy is bad! I won't play you!" I don't know anyone who assesses quality when deciding whether someone's paint job is good enough to play.

Which is why the RULE is bad.

If you only like playing against well-painted armies, a slapdash, awful paintjob won't make it better just because it's technically there. And likewise, 10 points won't make the game any better-you're not concerned about winning or losing, but the aesthetics.

I have zero issues with someone refusing to play me because my army isn't painted, assuming they're polite about it.
I have zero issues with GW saying "This game is best played with painted minis on a cool table!" or something like that.
I do have an issue with the game being impacted by non-gameplay elements, in a way that doesn't really serve to make anyone happier.

Beardedragon wrote:

Cronch wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
Paint your army if you don't want to lose points.

Here's the deal though. Some people paint slow. For whatever reason, they just do.
What the 10point rule does is penalize people who paint slow but want to paint the models well, and incentivizes you to do a slapdash job just to satisfy the rule. Don't bother with primer, don't bother with layering, just slap some contrasts on bare plastic and done, your army is instantly "better experience" to play against than an army with 30 well-painted models and 30 primed models waiting to be painted. Which...really seems backward to me? Why should I bother trying to be better at painting if the game penalizes me for it?

this. i paint my horde army as perfect as i can. I take pride in my painted miniatures, and i wont rush them just to cater to some silly rule

Well, repeat any given task over and over and you eventually gain proficiency in it, so the more you paint, the more you can make the process of getting them good look quicker- so instead of stomping your feet about this, which is something GW has wanted the wind to blow that way with for a long while (just look at the historical WHW tournament rules), with them even having the "3 colour" rule in their stores for decades at this point then you need to go get painting your models.

If you really think GW are not going to die on this hill, you really haven't been paying attention all these years...

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? 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

then why in the hell are they playing with VP???? If you're just starting out you should build/paint the smallest force you can at the appropriate points level, THEN, lather,rinse,repeat until you have whatever points you want.
You'd be surprised how much experience you gain from doing that. Absolutely no one should try to start this game(or any game for that matter) with whatever the tourney(read:douchebag) level is.

Blackie wrote:"Playing is the core aspect of the game" isn't an opinion actually, is the only part of the hobby that is shared with another player. Other activities like reading/inventing the lore or painting have nothing to do with the game itself.

The game is not gonna be different if a model is painted or not, the only thing that matters is assembling the models, and they don't even need to be 100% complete.

Except it'll look terrible. Not much is worse than having a completely painted army, painted terrain, game surface....only to be faced with Grey on the other side of the table. I'll take some effort over ZERO every day of the week.

ccs wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
Paint your army if you don't want to lose points.

Or we can just play "Open" & select to use every rule but this one. Oh look, we're playing 40k by the rules as written by GW. Issue avoided.

Well the easiest way is to stop giving a gak about Primary, Secondary, or any scoring and just let the story emerge from the table and not the amount of VP(cancer in game) you gain.....

Cronch wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
Paint your army if you don't want to lose points.

Here's the deal though. Some people paint slow. For whatever reason, they just do.
What the 10point rule does is penalize people who paint slow but want to paint the models well, and incentivizes you to do a slapdash job just to satisfy the rule. Don't bother with primer, don't bother with layering, just slap some contrasts on bare plastic and done, your army is instantly "better experience" to play against than an army with 30 well-painted models and 30 primed models waiting to be painted. Which...really seems backward to me? Why should I bother trying to be better at painting if the game penalizes me for it?

Well IDK about you but most of the players I play with have fun with this rule and also use it to encourage people to paint. If your army is 85% painted and you are showing real effort - then ofc you count as a painted army. Or like if you painted everything but don't have your army fully based. Also - If it comes down to the difference it is always..."oh you would have won if only you painted those boys up"! I mean...nothing is on the line here except pride. So if you have pride in your army youll work harder to make it look nice.

Heck I used to be the grey army guy...Whole army unpainted. In the past 3-4 years though I have put in made effort into painting. So understand both perspectives. It just feels better to play with a painted army - if you are unpainted - you are really missing out on the game.

 Grimtuff wrote:

Beardedragon wrote:

Cronch wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
Paint your army if you don't want to lose points.

Here's the deal though. Some people paint slow. For whatever reason, they just do.
What the 10point rule does is penalize people who paint slow but want to paint the models well, and incentivizes you to do a slapdash job just to satisfy the rule. Don't bother with primer, don't bother with layering, just slap some contrasts on bare plastic and done, your army is instantly "better experience" to play against than an army with 30 well-painted models and 30 primed models waiting to be painted. Which...really seems backward to me? Why should I bother trying to be better at painting if the game penalizes me for it?

this. i paint my horde army as perfect as i can. I take pride in my painted miniatures, and i wont rush them just to cater to some silly rule

Well, repeat any given task over and over and you eventually gain proficiency in it, so the more you paint, the more you can make the process of getting them good look quicker- so instead of stomping your feet about this, which is something GW has wanted the wind to blow that way with for a long while (just look at the historical WHW tournament rules), with them even having the "3 colour" rule in their stores for decades at this point then you need to go get painting your models.

If you really think GW are not going to die on this hill, you really haven't been paying attention all these years...

i havent paid attention all these years?

No gak, ive been collecting warhammer 40k for 7 months dude.

TangoTwoBravo 796210 11056871 wrote:
So you refuse to play out of apparent spite over a 10 point rule that never seems to come up in the real world?

A 10VP difference in the state of the game right now, means an automatic lost game for all armies save 2. Specially if you go second. I can imagine some people not wanting to play games where they automaticaly lose. You know it is like when you play as child, and the guy whose family owns the playground picks you to be the dead one every game. Very fast you stop wanting to play.


the problem with the rule, is the same thing as always. The way it is defined, it Gate Keeps new people, until they have a painted army want or it. And, what is IMO a bigger problem, it opens the gates to people being donkey-caves to others in more ways in pick up games, and in general everywhere where you are the new player, or where your opponent has a higher store or playgroup standing then you. Because good look getting the 10VP vs the store owners son, and at the same time, some prick can always say that just because your bases are mono colour coded, the whole model is not painted. Or because it has no edge highlights it ain't painted etc etc.

Well, repeat any given task over and over and you eventually gain proficiency in it, so the more you paint, the more you can make the process of getting them good look quicker- so instead of stomping your feet about this, which is something GW has wanted the wind to blow that way with for a long while (just look at the historical WHW tournament rules), with them even having the "3 colour" rule in their stores for decades at this point then you need to go get painting your models.

But it doesn't mean you start to like it. Imagine your back in school and you get beat up, and some tells you that after you get beat up for the the first 2-3 years, your just going to get used to it.

 Grimtuff wrote:

Beardedragon wrote:

Cronch wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
Paint your army if you don't want to lose points.

Here's the deal though. Some people paint slow. For whatever reason, they just do.
What the 10point rule does is penalize people who paint slow but want to paint the models well, and incentivizes you to do a slapdash job just to satisfy the rule. Don't bother with primer, don't bother with layering, just slap some contrasts on bare plastic and done, your army is instantly "better experience" to play against than an army with 30 well-painted models and 30 primed models waiting to be painted. Which...really seems backward to me? Why should I bother trying to be better at painting if the game penalizes me for it?

this. i paint my horde army as perfect as i can. I take pride in my painted miniatures, and i wont rush them just to cater to some silly rule

Well, repeat any given task over and over and you eventually gain proficiency in it, so the more you paint, the more you can make the process of getting them good look quicker- so instead of stomping your feet about this, which is something GW has wanted the wind to blow that way with for a long while (just look at the historical WHW tournament rules), with them even having the "3 colour" rule in their stores for decades at this point then you need to go get painting your models.

If you really think GW are not going to die on this hill, you really haven't been paying attention all these years...

No kidding. I am by no means a great painter. I can get stuff looking good in a pretty short amount of time though.

For example I painted 10 lychgaurd in about 2 hours total (I had already primed them black) and I get complements from the best painters in my club that they look excellent! 2 hours! I get it if you don't have time but this process is so fast. You can get a unit completed in a night.

Beardedragon wrote:

 Grimtuff wrote:

Beardedragon wrote:

Cronch wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
Paint your army if you don't want to lose points.

Here's the deal though. Some people paint slow. For whatever reason, they just do.
What the 10point rule does is penalize people who paint slow but want to paint the models well, and incentivizes you to do a slapdash job just to satisfy the rule. Don't bother with primer, don't bother with layering, just slap some contrasts on bare plastic and done, your army is instantly "better experience" to play against than an army with 30 well-painted models and 30 primed models waiting to be painted. Which...really seems backward to me? Why should I bother trying to be better at painting if the game penalizes me for it?

this. i paint my horde army as perfect as i can. I take pride in my painted miniatures, and i wont rush them just to cater to some silly rule

Well, repeat any given task over and over and you eventually gain proficiency in it, so the more you paint, the more you can make the process of getting them good look quicker- so instead of stomping your feet about this, which is something GW has wanted the wind to blow that way with for a long while (just look at the historical WHW tournament rules), with them even having the "3 colour" rule in their stores for decades at this point then you need to go get painting your models.

If you really think GW are not going to die on this hill, you really haven't been paying attention all these years...

i havent paid attention all these years?

No gak, ive been collecting warhammer 40k for 7 months dude.

Then you should know what the company culture of GW is, you're pretty active on a forum, so you should have a good handle on what they want their version of the hobby to be. Paint your minis or not, but know this- this is not going away.

 Grimtuff wrote:

Beardedragon wrote:

Cronch wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
Paint your army if you don't want to lose points.

Here's the deal though. Some people paint slow. For whatever reason, they just do.
What the 10point rule does is penalize people who paint slow but want to paint the models well, and incentivizes you to do a slapdash job just to satisfy the rule. Don't bother with primer, don't bother with layering, just slap some contrasts on bare plastic and done, your army is instantly "better experience" to play against than an army with 30 well-painted models and 30 primed models waiting to be painted. Which...really seems backward to me? Why should I bother trying to be better at painting if the game penalizes me for it?

this. i paint my horde army as perfect as i can. I take pride in my painted miniatures, and i wont rush them just to cater to some silly rule

Well, repeat any given task over and over and you eventually gain proficiency in it, so the more you paint, the more you can make the process of getting them good look quicker- so instead of stomping your feet about this, which is something GW has wanted the wind to blow that way with for a long while (just look at the historical WHW tournament rules), with them even having the "3 colour" rule in their stores for decades at this point then you need to go get painting your models.

If you really think GW are not going to die on this hill, you really haven't been paying attention all these years...

I've been painting for nearly 20 years, since I was a very small kit with very little understanding of rules. When I was 10, I could paint 20 skinks in an afternoon, because I thought what I painted looked good- I had no point of reference beyond my equally inexperienced friends. Nowadays it'll take me good few months (and that assumes I don't get burned out on the same model over and over and over again, which as I age, I find sets in much faster then when I was a kid of 18 with all the time in the world) because I want them to not look like they belong in an "ebay pro-painted" compilation.

As I mentioned, I do have a minor disability that makes painting have to be split into very short sessions, but even without that, it wouldn't be fast. And as an adult, I have much better appreciation of what the models cost (every single model you buy equals X minutes (or hours, depending on your wages and price of model) of your life that you are not getting back) so doing a turd of a job is not acceptable to me.

I will be honest, if I actually had to play with this rule, I'd probably sell all the GW stuff and move on.

It's a good rule because it incentivizes people who have the ability and wherewithal to paint, resulting in more painted armies. The games look best and are intended to be painted. You cannot break painting off from gaming with the "it's separate and just not for me" argument without doing the same thing for every element of warhammer. I don't want to buy and build models because it's just not fun now play against my cardboard proxies, is the same excuse as playing with your unpainted army. Warhammer is a package deal, you don't have to do anything you don't want to but you aren't being kept down because somebody else does the hard work and gets the reward.

I will also play devils advocate and say that gate keeping the types who don't want to paint is a good thing because they aren't playing in tournaments so they have no reason to be obsessed with 10 vp giving a technical win to their opponents. There's nothing stopping people with painted armies from playing them and just setting the rule aside anyway. They just don't like being told their armies look bad and they know if their positions were reversed they would absolutely hold their opponents to RAW and take the 10 vp. The complaints are all projection.