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.

 Leth wrote:
Seriously It is kinda funny that people are calling it a cash grab when nothing in the rule requires GW paints.

Have you read the rule? 90% of it is just citadel paint advertisement.

i think the issue with "painted armies" according to the rules is just a slab of 3 different paints which dont look any better than an unpainted army.

How do GW make rules around painted armies? Its difficult to make a written rule i think, it would be up to the individual tournement organizer.

Theoretically i can prime my mini, dip the head in yellow paint and left arm in a green paint and voila! its painted!


Given that its impossible to make a written rule for how a painted army is meant to look like, I feel like they should just remove the rule entirely. then it would be up to tournement organizers to say what they want and dont want. On the other hand it starts becoming a discussion with tournement organizers if they say my army isnt painted well enough when ive dipped my miniatures in 3 different paints super fast, and have thus upheld the GW rules.


You CAN paint your army well (and i definitly do) but if you just want to uphold the rules, prime your mini, slab one blue paint on his head, and one red color on his arms and he is technically painted. Bam, done. It looks like trash but hey its painted. Thats how i understand it anyway, could be wrong though.

Beardedragon wrote:
Theoretically i can prime my mini, dip the head in yellow paint and left arm in a green paint and voila! its painted!

I gave two units of boyz to my daughter who painted them using her acrylic paints while I was painting other miniatures. Beautiful kindergarten art, 60 battle ready models and I spend hours with both my daughter and my hobby.

Only downside is that I have to ask her to borrow "her" orks when I want to play

You can choose to houserule the rule away. My local group does not, we abide by it.
So far no game has come up where it would have mattered, but we all consider it just respectful to the other player to field painted armies. We also take some pride in having completed and well painted armies. That's just part of our social contract.

Noone bats an eye at a proxy or a non WYSIWIG model, but we always try to adhere to it as close as possible.
If I put effort and time into my army to make the game look and feel better and you cannot be bothered to do the same for me - I get the 10 VP. It's a reward for me for doing that, not a punishment for you.
That is ofc barring any reason for not having your models painted, be it disability, time constraints, money... whatever. I will not claim the 10 VP if you didn't paint your new model if you were sick and just couldn't or you were excited to field it and just got it 3 days ago.

One player however played like 3 or 4 years with Chaos Marine Bikers without riders. That was annoying and even once put down a Defiler without a torso because he was repainting it. Such behavior now has a consequence I can call upon because its a rule, that, once in place, is just a rule that cannot be argued against.

My ultimate goal is to paint all my armies eventually. The thing is i despise painting the same model over and over. Its just mind numbing to me so i jump around armies/games to keep it fresh.

I almost always have minis that are only primes or basecoated in my armies, be it in 40k or infinity. I'm a slow-ish painter and i have other hobbies. I don't have the time or motivation to paint through 2k+ points to get my 10vps.

The fact that people in here keep treating painted minis as some sort of absolute honestly seems ridiculously gatekeep-y. Not everyone has the time to paint all their minis.

 Leth wrote:
I dont see how it is judging anyone to say "We are playing by the rules that you and I both knew when we started this game"

Seriously It is kinda funny that people are calling it a cash grab when nothing in the rule requires GW paints.

I have been kicked off of streams at tournaments because my army was unpainted, painted armies are more appealing all around.

I didn’t say it was judging to follow a rule, I just said in general I try not to be judgy of people with unpainted armies. Even before this rules people could be right c$&@s about unpainted armies.

My opinion on the rule I said in my previous post, which is I think it’s a bad rule because it is only going to be used by obnoxious people to make them more obnoxious. That is in spite of me preferring to play against painted armies, I still think it’s a crap rule, and since it’s one that doesn’t affect gameplay it’s not just crap but unnecessary.

Is it just possible that some people, some real freaks, i admit, might just simply want to play a tabletop miniatures wargame instead of painting up an army to a degree they may not have time or skill to do?

 Matt Swain wrote:
Is it just possible that some people, some real freaks, i admit, might just simply want to play a tabletop miniatures wargame instead of painting up an army to a degree they may not have time or skill to do?

Except painting your minis is an intrinsic part of the hobby, you may not agree with that nor want to do it, but literally every wargaming company in existence disagrees with you.

Board games explicitly require no painting, nor do several RPGs, where there are even a thorough range of prepaints. (Nolzur’s even provide the same sculpts for those that want to paint them. I’d argue GW is doing a similar thing with its coloured plastic for those that do not want to paint them) Wargaming? Nope. There’s a reason practically every prepainted wargame has flopped, as it deletes a part of the hobby some consider to be immutable.

 Grimtuff wrote:

 Matt Swain wrote:
Is it just possible that some people, some real freaks, i admit, might just simply want to play a tabletop miniatures wargame instead of painting up an army to a degree they may not have time or skill to do?

Except painting your minis is an intrinsic part of the hobby, you may not agree with that nor want to do it, but literally every wargaming company in existence disagrees with you.

Board games explicitly require no painting, nor do several RPGs, where there are even a thorough range of prepaints. (Nolzur’s even provide the same sculpts for those that want to paint them. I’d argue GW is doing a similar thing with its coloured plastic for those that do not want to paint them) Wargaming? Nope. There’s a reason practically every prepainted wargame has flopped, as it deletes a part of the hobby some consider to be immutable.

It's a part of the hobby. Just like you don't need to follow player trades to fully enjoy watching sports, you don't need to have fully painted armies to fully enjoy tabletop wargaming.

I only skimmed the thread. Can only imagine how much fun it's been. Personally, I only play with painted models, but it's never even occurred to me to invoke this rule. Most tournaments will already have a relevant paint standard in order simply to enter, and if it's a pick-up game? I really don't care that much. If the shoe was on the other foot and my army was unpainted ... I still wouldn't care.

If the other person needs to win a game of "war-dollies" so badly that they call out the 10 points for an unpainted army ... they probably already have a much harder life than I do and I'm just going to give it to them because it's really not worth it.

This is such a nothing-burger. Agree that it's a dumb rule, have NEVER seen it brought up IRL and don't understand why there's such an argument over it ....

Tycho wrote:
I only skimmed the thread. Can only imagine how much fun it's been. Personally, I only play with painted models, but it's never even occurred to me to invoke this rule. Most tournaments will already have a relevant paint standard in order simply to enter, and if it's a pick-up game? I really don't care that much. If the shoe was on the other foot and my army was unpainted ... I still wouldn't care.

If the other person needs to win a game of "war-dollies" so badly that they call out the 10 points for an unpainted army ... they probably already have a much harder life than I do and I'm just going to give it to them because it's really not worth it.

This is such a nothing-burger. Agree that it's a dumb rule, have NEVER seen it brought up IRL and don't understand why there's such an argument over it ....

Because the implication is that GW wants to sell you their paints to make your army "Battle Ready" and we have white knights defending them as always instead of admitting it's a bad rule.

I don't get the debate. If it's in the rules that the painted army gets +10 bonus victory points then that is just how the game works. How can someone argue with that?

Heaven forbid GW want to sell you their products? No gak, Sherlock...

You can paint your minis with anything, hell- be like Doomthumbs and paint them with fething berries. GW don’t want to tell you that though, as they don’t sell berries.

Tycho wrote:
:::L and don't understand why there's such an argument over it ....

Because there's people that like painting and people that don't.
People that like it want the rule because it either gives them an edge or they enjoy the hobby more that way. People that don't dont want the rule because they feel it penalizes them.

 Matt Swain wrote:
Is it just possible that some people, some real freaks, i admit, might just simply want to play a tabletop miniatures wargame instead of painting up an army to a degree they may not have time or skill to do?

Sure. They're also free to not feel bad, because they "lost" due to a paint rule. I really just don't understand the ego people put behind this.

You lost, because of that rule - so what? Did you have fun playing the game? Great - move on with your life!

At the same time if someone thinks they're so self important that they need to claim 10 points in a friendly game against someone who is handicapped they should re-evaluate their life.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Matt Swain wrote:
Is it just possible that some people, some real freaks, i admit, might just simply want to play a tabletop miniatures wargame instead of painting up an army to a degree they may not have time or skill to do?

Sure. They're also free to not feel bad, because they "lost" due to a paint rule. I really just don't understand the ego people put behind this.

You lost, because of that rule - so what? Did you have fun playing the game? Great - move on with your life!

At the same time if someone thinks they're so self important that they need to claim 10 points in a friendly game against someone who is handicapped they should re-evaluate their life.

Love the virtue signaling here. If you can't accept the bad rule helps determine the outcome of a game, you're at fault for the feeling. Only CASUAL people and people who ONLY have fun are welcome here!

Guys, it would actually help the discussion if you would stop attributing things like "self important", "obnoxious", "stuck up" or unsensible to the other part of the argument. No wonder this thread is going hot with 13 pages.

This thread is probably full of made-up hilarity that I'm not going to read, because the premise isn't even based in reality.

Quasistellar wrote:
This thread is probably full of made-up hilarity that I'm not going to read, because the premise isn't even based in reality.

Pretty much this ...

There are a lot of strong opinions in this thread, as well as a lot of scenarios that seem theoretical rather than based on fact.

I will bring up a real scenario that is happening now at my local gaming store. We have just kicked off a narrative crusade league that will last for the next 9 weeks. One of the rules in this league is that if you paint a unit to battle-ready standard during the course of the league, that unit gets +10xp, which is quite a large amount. This rule does not apply to units that are already painted. I suspect it is both to encourage painted armies, as well as to help the store make sales, as there is no entry fee for the league itself. There are 65(!) armies signed up for this league. So far no one has complained that they are at a disadvantage if they don't/can't paint their models. At the other end, there has yet to be anyone who has quickly painted up an army to nab 10xp for all their units. I think this will be a good example of whether the gaming community can enjoy a narrative experience without trying to abuse the system for an advantage.

Oh, and painted armies do get +10VP for each game, again with no complaints. I will admit this is a more narratively driven campaign and not a one-off tournament, but so far it is convincing me that the actual gaming community doesn't behave in the way that some of the examples in this thread makes it seem like they do.

 Yarium wrote:
If you care so much about these points in a friendly game that you are getting up in arms about these points means you're probably on your way to being a TFG

I agree with your breakdown of the potential scenarios. Seems to me like the reason the rule exists is to provide extrinsic motivation to the sort of player who takes whether they ackshually won their no-stakes casual-play game this seriously. If the fear of losing ten meaningless points is what it takes to get their army painted, mission accomplished.

And if I see someone seriously declare victory because their painting puts them ahead on VP against a kid who just started or someone with a genuine disability that prevents them from painting, then I know they're exactly the sort of person I want to avoid playing against. Win-win.

I would prefer that my opponent had a painted army. But who am I to judge. They may have just started the hobby. Now If I knew them for ten years I would probably just bust their stones about it. I would not care about the ten points. I get why stores want armies painted. It helps bring in sales of paints and modeling tools. I still remember the first painted mini I saw. I was hooked instantly.

 Mmmpi wrote:

I can easily get the 10 points. I chose not to use a rule that only serves to make the game *even more* divisive than it already is. If you really don't like playing unpainted armies, no one is making you. But if you spent so much time painting that you just suck at the game, well, I don't feel the need to give you a crutch.

The rule is terrible. It punishes people for not following a strict outlook on a hobby pushed by elitists donkey ditches like yourself. There are two types of people supporting the rule. 1. It's a bad rule, but a rule. 2. It's the greatest thing ever, and now I can make people do the warhammer thing like I want them to.

You fall in the 2nd category.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Spoiler:

 Irkjoe wrote:

yukishiro1 wrote:
It's a bad rule regardless, because it encourages shoddy painting jobs instead of taking your time to do a better job. If they were trying to encourage people to take the painting side of the hobby seriously, they failed pretty hard.

I mean as someone who really prefers to play against painted armies...I can tell you I'd much rather play someone who has a beautiful army that's half-finished than someone who dumped their minis in a gallon can of red paint, then a gallon can of wash, then splashed on some white and black in a couple spots and called it a day.

This doesn't make sense, would somebody who really cares just ruin their expensive models and "call it a day" over 10 vp? Not only that, a basic paint job is trivial with everything available now. You have washes, shades, contrasts, airbrushes, and every color of spray paint. It's not hard; if you still can't do it and you can't reconcile the 10vp maybe you're in the wrong hobby.

You can also just get it painted by somebody else.

Yes. There are people who would do that. There are also people who would pressure others into doing that, both out of misguided attempts to help, and out of maliciousness.

NOT EVERYONE FINDS A BASIC PAINT JOB TRIVIAL.

Why should they have to reconcile 10 VP? It's not their fault the person on the other side of the table is a jerk.

And no. It's been discussed why hiring someone isn't a valid alternative for many people.

I suggest you go back and reread the thread before you start on things that have already been discussed.

Personal attacks, excuses, and emotional arguments. First, I don't care if the game is divisive for some; it's your problem if you're spending your time on something you don't like. Second, if you're not playing in tournaments then what is your problem with the rule? It's not a crutch at all because it isn't changing the gameplay in my favor. I gain no advantage on table, just 10 vp at the end resulting in a technical loss at worse. You even admit that you could paint your army easily but don't just because you don't like the rule. Were you painting lots of armies before the rule and just stopped out of spite?

There is never going to be a solution that works for everyone and everything I listed is reasonable. It's your problem if you can't/won't paint it yourself or pay to have it commissioned.

This is a miniature hobby and it is transparent that they are meant to be painted. If the painting is separate from the game then so is the building, the reading, etc. I can pick whatever I want and if you don't like my army of blank bases then you're an elitist.

Grimtuff wrote:

 Matt Swain wrote:
Is it just possible that some people, some real freaks, i admit, might just simply want to play a tabletop miniatures wargame instead of painting up an army to a degree they may not have time or skill to do?

Except painting your minis is an intrinsic part of the hobby, you may not agree with that nor want to do it, but literally every wargaming company in existence disagrees with you.

You mean like X-Wing, Star Trek Attack Wing, Star Wars Armada, any Clix game, or AT-43?

Yes, painting is part of the hobby, but the game isn't necessarily part of the hobby unless shoe-horned in like the rule under discussion.

Grimtuff wrote:Board games explicitly require no painting, nor do several RPGs, where there are even a thorough range of prepaints. (Nolzur’s even provide the same sculpts for those that want to paint them. I’d argue GW is doing a similar thing with its coloured plastic for those that do not want to paint them) Wargaming? Nope. There’s a reason practically every prepainted wargame has flopped, as it deletes a part of the hobby some consider to be immutable.

I can think of a couple board games that are much poorer if you don't paint the pieces like any tabletop game, usually produced by Soda Pop Miniatures/Ninja Division.

 Jidmah wrote:

Beardedragon wrote:
Theoretically i can prime my mini, dip the head in yellow paint and left arm in a green paint and voila! its painted!

I gave two units of boyz to my daughter who painted them using her acrylic paints while I was painting other miniatures. Beautiful kindergarten art, 60 battle ready models and I spend hours with both my daughter and my hobby.

Only downside is that I have to ask her to borrow "her" orks when I want to play

That's adorable. Many props to you, and here's hoping your daughter finds this a hobby she loves as she grows older!

If someone who values the painting aspect of the hobby chooses to half-ass their painting so that they can claim 10VP sooner, it really sounds like they don't actually value the painting aspect of the hobby.

'You scored 80VP and I scored 75VP, but your army is only half-painted and mine's technically sufficient three-color slop, so TECHNICALLY I won the battle'

Cool, that and a dollar will get you a cup of coffee. Your first-place prize for winning our beer-and-pretzels toy soldier game is nothing. Why should I care if the rules say your painting reverses the outcome of our already-decided battle? It's not like it's giving you +1 to your hit rolls or anything that actually matters in-game.

I think this thread is an excellent example of the way that peoples' feelings depend much less on the actual impact of something, and much more on whether it makes them feel judged or not. This rule is completely irrelevant in any way that actually matters objectively, but it clearly arouses huge passions among people who feel like they are being negatively judged by it, and produces a lot of strife in the community between the warring camps.

That's a good clue it's a really bad rule for a game company to have: you shouldn't be alienating your customers for something that has no actual impact except in peoples' heads.

yukishiro1 wrote:
I think this thread is an excellent example of the way that peoples' feelings depend much less on the actual impact of something, and much more on whether it makes them feel judged or not. This rule is completely irrelevant in any way that actually matters objectively, but it clearly arouses huge passions among people who feel like they are being negatively judged by it, and produces a lot of strife in the community between the warring camps.

That's a good clue it's a really bad rule for a game company to have: you shouldn't be alienating your customers for something that has no actual impact except in peoples' heads.

You are right about it having no impact but if you feel judged by your models you have bigger problems. And we are only a "community" in the absolute loosest sense of the word. My community is the local people I know and play with not you. People who throw this word around always use it to back themselves up with the implication that they somehow represent a large amount of people. So thank you self anointed angels for watching out of the warhammer community, taking the heavy duty upon yourself to save us all.

The warring camps only exist online, in reality we either wouldn't play or we would both knowing that the 10 vp really didn't matter. My painted army would still look better though.

You clearly haven't been reading my posts in the thread if you think I feel judged.

tneva82 wrote:

Racerguy180 wrote:

Easy way to not be under the constrictions/rigidity of matched play....is surprisingly not to play matched play. Can't get any easier than that..

In case you haven't noticed it painted army=10 pts isn't matched play rule. It's for every scenario in 40k...

Literally only way to avoid it is to rewrite 40k for your games.

Ummm no.

How do the VP matter if you're not using VP????? That would literally be impossible.

To paraphrase Whose Line Is It Anyway? - "the game is made up and the points don't matter".

The only way for this to really be a problem for some is if you were playing for $€£¥ and lost 1 million dollars cuz you didn't paint your minis.

All others are just whining, since it has no real world effect.....other than bruised ego cuz you wost a wittle wame ob toy soljerz...boo hoo