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.
Gert wrote: *GW makes 40k to sell minis*
*GW puts rule in 40k to promote painting said miniatures*
Internet people: This is unbelievable, how could GW do this
And we wouldn't want to disappoint the great GW by playing the game how we want
Ghorros wrote: The moral of the story: Don't park your Imperial Knight in a field of Gretchin carrying power tools.
Marmatag wrote: All the while, my opponent is furious, throwing his codex on the floor, trying to slash his wrists with safety scissors.
If GW made a rule that said “You cannot paint a model until it wounds an enemy model or scores any Victory Points,” how would you feel about that?
That’s how I feel about “You have to paint your models to earn something in-game.”
I mean those are utterly different concepts with wildly different outcomes. Like not even close to the same thing. You've pointed at an apple and called it a whale.
Why?
In one, it’s painting to gain an advantage in game. In the other, it’s in-game to affect your painting.
Why is “Paint to play” okay, but “play to paint” bad?
Clocks for the clockmaker! Cogs for the cog throne!
As someone infamous in my local community for not having painted minis, I like such a rule. It makes me feel better about my opponent putting up with my unpainted army.
And honestly speaking; I don't think the problem is in GW letting players win games thanks to having painted models when their opponents don't, I think the problem is people CARING so much that they might lose a game to not being painted. Seriously, it. Is. A. Game. Grow up and get the hell over it.
Gert wrote: *GW makes 40k to sell minis*
*GW puts rule in 40k to promote painting said miniatures*
Internet people: This is unbelievable, how could GW do this
If their intent is to promote painting the miniatures, they missed. What they've done is punish NOT painting the miniatures.
What if I have a hand tremor? What if I'm colorblind? What if I'm broke? What if I work two jobs? What if I don't like my painting style? What if I just don't want to paint my minis?
GW makes the minis and the rules, so they're perfectly within their rights to put this rule in. "Within their rights" doesn't mean "correct to do so."
If someone plays a game with me and says "Hey I can't paint my army due to a disability, can we scrap the 10pts for painted rule", I'm gonna say yes. I think the biggest point you STILL seem to be missing on purpose is you can house rule literally anything you don't like. GW literally encourages you to do so.
Gert wrote: *GW makes 40k to sell minis*
*GW puts rule in 40k to promote painting said miniatures*
Internet people: This is unbelievable, how could GW do this
And we wouldn't want to disappoint the great GW by playing the game how we want
Lmao I keep forgetting you can't ever express an opinion that isn't "GW BAD ".
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/05/18 18:11:34
NinthMusketeer wrote: As someone infamous in my local community for not having painted minis, I like such a rule. It makes me feel better about my opponent putting up with my unpainted army.
And honestly speaking; I don't think the problem is in GW letting players win games thanks to having painted models when their opponents don't, I think the problem is people CARING so much that they might lose a game to not being painted. Seriously, it. Is. A. Game. Grow up and get the hell over it.
And in the same vein: they are toy models, why do people CARE so much about them being painted. Grow up and get the hell over it.
Ghorros wrote: The moral of the story: Don't park your Imperial Knight in a field of Gretchin carrying power tools.
Marmatag wrote: All the while, my opponent is furious, throwing his codex on the floor, trying to slash his wrists with safety scissors.
Gert wrote: *GW makes 40k to sell minis*
*GW puts rule in 40k to promote painting said miniatures*
Internet people: This is unbelievable, how could GW do this
If their intent is to promote painting the miniatures, they missed. What they've done is punish NOT painting the miniatures.
What if I have a hand tremor? What if I'm colorblind? What if I'm broke? What if I work two jobs? What if I don't like my painting style? What if I just don't want to paint my minis?
GW makes the minis and the rules, so they're perfectly within their rights to put this rule in. "Within their rights" doesn't mean "correct to do so."
If someone plays a game with me and says "Hey I can't paint my army due to a disability, can we scrap the 10pts for painted rule", I'm gonna say yes. I think the biggest point you STILL seem to be missing on purpose is you can house rule literally anything you don't like. GW literally encourages you to do so.
I'm not forgetting it. I'm saying this rule is elitist and bad. I'm GOING to house rule it, by God. I'm not going to play with anyone who doesn't. I'm well aware that the rules are mutable, and I plan to utilize that fact to its fullest advantage.
This rule is still stupid, and the people defending it are still acting like elitist snobs. The fact that I and mine can choose to ignore it doesn't change that.
EDIT: I'm still not finding this rule in the book, so I must be missing something. Maybe there's something about the way it's written that makes it less elitist?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/05/18 18:15:02
Death Guard - "The Rotmongers"
Chaos Space Marines - "The Sin-Eaters"
Dark Angels - "Nemeses Errant"
Deathwatch
I'm fine with it. If it wouldn't cause a revolt and lower sales I'd be fine with it being a higher VP total. A ton of us could use the incentive to restrict purchases to hobby progress.
BlaxicanX wrote: A young business man named Tom Kirby, who was a pupil of mine until he turned greedy, helped the capitalists hunt down and destroy the wargamers. He betrayed and murdered Games Workshop.
Gert wrote: [spoiler]Lmao I keep forgetting you can't ever express an opinion that isn't "GW BAD ".
Oh yes of course, suggesting that we don't have to follow the exact way GW has stated is the ideal way to play is the same as saying "GW BAD ".
You said it yourself, they make 40k to make money and they encourage you to paint so that you can buy all their paints that are perfect for the job. Again, not saying this is a bad thing, it's perfectly reasonable. Doesn't mean you have to follow their way of hobbying though.
Ghorros wrote: The moral of the story: Don't park your Imperial Knight in a field of Gretchin carrying power tools.
Marmatag wrote: All the while, my opponent is furious, throwing his codex on the floor, trying to slash his wrists with safety scissors.
Fully done with this nonsense. Getting called elitist because I paint my models for a miniatures-based tabletop game is literally impossible to argue against. Not because it's a good argument but because anyone making it is clearly not having the discussion in good faith or even intends to take another viewpoint into consideration.
Gert wrote: Fully done with this nonsense. Getting called elitist because I paint my models for a miniatures-based tabletop game is literally impossible to argue against. Not because it's a good argument but because anyone making it is clearly not having the discussion in good faith or even intends to take another viewpoint into consideration.
I'm not calling you elitist for painting your models. That's a straw man argument, making YOU the one not having the discussion in good faith. I'm calling people elitist for punishing others for NOT painting their models.
Death Guard - "The Rotmongers"
Chaos Space Marines - "The Sin-Eaters"
Dark Angels - "Nemeses Errant"
Deathwatch
NinthMusketeer wrote: As someone infamous in my local community for not having painted minis, I like such a rule. It makes me feel better about my opponent putting up with my unpainted army.
And honestly speaking; I don't think the problem is in GW letting players win games thanks to having painted models when their opponents don't, I think the problem is people CARING so much that they might lose a game to not being painted. Seriously, it. Is. A. Game. Grow up and get the hell over it.
And in the same vein: they are toy models, why do people CARE so much about them being painted. Grow up and get the hell over it.
Nice try, but that is not analogous. If a movie came out with half the scenes being arbitrarily in black & white, people would have a problem with it. Because the visuals are a core piece of the experience.
Gert wrote: Fully done with this nonsense. Getting called elitist because I paint my models for a miniatures-based tabletop game is literally impossible to argue against. Not because it's a good argument but because anyone making it is clearly not having the discussion in good faith or even intends to take another viewpoint into consideration.
Well looky what we've got here:
Ghorros wrote: The moral of the story: Don't park your Imperial Knight in a field of Gretchin carrying power tools.
Marmatag wrote: All the while, my opponent is furious, throwing his codex on the floor, trying to slash his wrists with safety scissors.
Gert wrote: Fully done with this nonsense. Getting called elitist because I paint my models for a miniatures-based tabletop game is literally impossible to argue against. Not because it's a good argument but because anyone making it is clearly not having the discussion in good faith or even intends to take another viewpoint into consideration.
You aren’t acting elitist because you like painting.
You’re acting elitist because you say everyone else has to like painting too.
Clocks for the clockmaker! Cogs for the cog throne!
NinthMusketeer wrote: Nice try, but that is not analogous. If a movie came out with half the scenes being arbitrarily in black & white, people would have a problem with it. Because the visuals are a core piece of the experience.
Perhaps for you and I, but not for everyone.
Ghorros wrote: The moral of the story: Don't park your Imperial Knight in a field of Gretchin carrying power tools.
Marmatag wrote: All the while, my opponent is furious, throwing his codex on the floor, trying to slash his wrists with safety scissors.
Gert wrote: Fully done with this nonsense. Getting called elitist because I paint my models for a miniatures-based tabletop game is literally impossible to argue against. Not because it's a good argument but because anyone making it is clearly not having the discussion in good faith or even intends to take another viewpoint into consideration.
I'm not calling you elitist for painting your models. That's a straw man argument, making YOU the one not having the discussion in good faith. I'm calling people elitist for punishing others for NOT painting their models.
Any reward to painted models will by extension be a punishment to non-painted models and you phrasing it that way creates a negative connotation via wording that does not exist in practice. That's bad faith.
If GW made a rule that said “You cannot paint a model until it wounds an enemy model or scores any Victory Points,” how would you feel about that?
That’s how I feel about “You have to paint your models to earn something in-game.”
I mean those are utterly different concepts with wildly different outcomes. Like not even close to the same thing. You've pointed at an apple and called it a whale.
What's the different concept here?
CaptainStabby wrote: If Tyberos falls and needs to catch himself it's because the ground needed killing.
jy2 wrote: BTW, I can't wait to run Double-D-thirsters! Man, just thinking about it gets me Khorney.
vipoid wrote: Indeed - what sort of bastard would want to use their codex?
MarsNZ wrote: ITT: SoB players upset that they're receiving the same condescending treatment that they've doled out in every CSM thread ever.
I go out of my way to get my minis painted, though it can take a month and a half just ro get one squad done, but I have played with unpainted models to try them out so I have to say yes in offical tournaments, no/ask your opponent in casual games.
NinthMusketeer wrote: Nice try, but that is not analogous. If a movie came out with half the scenes being arbitrarily in black & white, people would have a problem with it. Because the visuals are a core piece of the experience.
Perhaps for you and I, but not for everyone.
And that is good for you, but the game is not advertised as a fight between unpainted miniatures. That is not the experience being presented as what Warhammer is.
"You're elitist for following the rules of the game"
But... Gert has said he WOULD play without the rule? If asked? So how is he being elitist when GW wrote the rule?
NinthMusketeer wrote: Nice try, but that is not analogous. If a movie came out with half the scenes being arbitrarily in black & white, people would have a problem with it. Because the visuals are a core piece of the experience.
Perhaps for you and I, but not for everyone.
And that is good for you, but the game is not advertised as a fight between unpainted miniatures. That is not the experience being presented as what Warhammer is.
Neither are proxies or conversions. Or using homemade terrain. Or using non-GW paints.
Clocks for the clockmaker! Cogs for the cog throne!
NinthMusketeer wrote: Any reward to painted models will by extension be a punishment to non-painted models and you phrasing it that way creates a negative connotation via wording that does not exist in practice. That's bad faith.
That's the rule as it stands. That's why it's a bad rule. You said it yourself, any reward will by extension be a punishment, so why is me calling it that such a bad thing?
Death Guard - "The Rotmongers"
Chaos Space Marines - "The Sin-Eaters"
Dark Angels - "Nemeses Errant"
Deathwatch
Rihgu wrote: "You're elitist for following the rules of the game"
But... Gert has said he WOULD play without the rule? If asked? So how is he being elitist when GW wrote the rule?
If you have to go out of your way to get rid of a rule with houseruling on more than an occasion, there was actually a problem with that core rule to begin with. Yes or no?
CaptainStabby wrote: If Tyberos falls and needs to catch himself it's because the ground needed killing.
jy2 wrote: BTW, I can't wait to run Double-D-thirsters! Man, just thinking about it gets me Khorney.
vipoid wrote: Indeed - what sort of bastard would want to use their codex?
MarsNZ wrote: ITT: SoB players upset that they're receiving the same condescending treatment that they've doled out in every CSM thread ever.
NinthMusketeer wrote: Nice try, but that is not analogous. If a movie came out with half the scenes being arbitrarily in black & white, people would have a problem with it. Because the visuals are a core piece of the experience.
Perhaps for you and I, but not for everyone.
And that is good for you, but the game is not advertised as a fight between unpainted miniatures. That is not the experience being presented as what Warhammer is.
Neither are proxies or conversions. Or using homemade terrain. Or using non-GW paints.
Actually, a lot of GW marketing shows conversions, some show proxies, and much of it shows homemade terrain. I can't tell, but I assume that last point is correct - GW probably uses GW paints in all of their material.
KingGarland wrote: I go out of my way to get my minis painted, though it can take a month and a half just ro get one squad done, but I have played with unpainted models to try them out so I have to say yes in offical tournaments, no/ask your opponent in casual games.
This is my personal way of doing it, keep it painted only in tournaments but in casual just do whatever. If you're wanting a really cool narrative based game then sure, insist on a painted army but if you're just wanting a game for the sake of a game then I see no problem with stuff not being painted.
Ghorros wrote: The moral of the story: Don't park your Imperial Knight in a field of Gretchin carrying power tools.
Marmatag wrote: All the while, my opponent is furious, throwing his codex on the floor, trying to slash his wrists with safety scissors.
NinthMusketeer wrote: Any reward to painted models will by extension be a punishment to non-painted models and you phrasing it that way creates a negative connotation via wording that does not exist in practice. That's bad faith.
That's the rule as it stands. That's why it's a bad rule. You said it yourself, any reward will by extension be a punishment, so why is me calling it that such a bad thing?
Because it is using specific words to imply a negative consequence being imposed when that is not actually the case; one side is being rewarded and by extension that penalizes the other party. That distinction is unimportant in many contexts but is somewhat critical here.
NinthMusketeer wrote: Nice try, but that is not analogous. If a movie came out with half the scenes being arbitrarily in black & white, people would have a problem with it. Because the visuals are a core piece of the experience.
Perhaps for you and I, but not for everyone.
And that is good for you, but the game is not advertised as a fight between unpainted miniatures. That is not the experience being presented as what Warhammer is.
Neither are proxies or conversions. Or using homemade terrain. Or using non-GW paints.
Actually, a lot of GW marketing shows conversions, some show proxies, and much of it shows homemade terrain. I can't tell, but I assume that last point is correct - GW probably uses GW paints in all of their material.
'Eavy Metal painters do actually supplement their painting with other products (ever noticed how certain effects look different when using only the recommended colours?) but one can understand why they wouldn't advertise that.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/05/18 18:29:06
Gert wrote: *GW makes 40k to sell minis*
*GW puts rule in 40k to promote painting said miniatures*
Internet people: This is unbelievable, how could GW do this
If their intent is to promote painting the miniatures, they missed. What they've done is punish NOT painting the miniatures.
Is a sports team punished for losing a game? Or are they simply rewarded for winning?
What if I have a hand tremor? What if I'm colorblind? What if I'm broke? What if I work two jobs? What if I don't like my painting style? What if I just don't want to paint my minis?
GW makes the minis and the rules, so they're perfectly within their rights to put this rule in. "Within their rights" doesn't mean "correct to do so."
Where there's a will there's a way. If there isn't a will, you miss out on 10 points. . . Unless you play with people that don't care, in which case the rule doesn't matter by choice.
What would really be "elitist" is if only the person with the better painted army got the points, but that's not the case.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/05/18 18:30:51
If that really motivates you to field a fully painted army, why the heck not! I've played too many games with unfinished armies (that's not going to change any time soon), and fully painted armies on a fully painted board with nice terrain is what we all aspire to. It wont matter to me personally however, as I'd rather play with unfinished minis than rush the painting stage and ruin expensive pieces of plastic & resin.. If I lose by those VP's in my mind it was a draw, but am big enough to let you win "officially".
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2021/05/18 18:36:44
"The larger point though, is that as players, we have more control over what the game looks and feels like than most of us are willing to use in order to solve our own problems"
Gert wrote: *GW makes 40k to sell minis*
*GW puts rule in 40k to promote painting said miniatures*
Internet people: This is unbelievable, how could GW do this
If their intent is to promote painting the miniatures, they missed. What they've done is punish NOT painting the miniatures.
Is a sports team punished for losing a game? Or are they simply rewarded for winning?
What if I have a hand tremor? What if I'm colorblind? What if I'm broke? What if I work two jobs? What if I don't like my painting style? What if I just don't want to paint my minis?
GW makes the minis and the rules, so they're perfectly within their rights to put this rule in. "Within their rights" doesn't mean "correct to do so."
Where there's a will there's a way. If there isn't a will, you miss out on 10 points. . . Unless you play with people that don't care, in which case the rule doesn't matter by choice.
What would really be "elitist" is if only the person with the better painted army got the points, but that's not the case.
Disingenuous argument. Sports teams are not punished for losing, but imagine if they were docked points (or their opponents were granted extra points, however you want to look at it) for being dressed differently. As has been brought up above.
Also, yes, that would be really elitist; that doesn't make this NOT elitist.
Death Guard - "The Rotmongers"
Chaos Space Marines - "The Sin-Eaters"
Dark Angels - "Nemeses Errant"
Deathwatch
Gert wrote: *GW makes 40k to sell minis*
*GW puts rule in 40k to promote painting said miniatures*
Internet people: This is unbelievable, how could GW do this
If their intent is to promote painting the miniatures, they missed. What they've done is punish NOT painting the miniatures.
Is a sports team punished for losing a game? Or are they simply rewarded for winning?
What if I have a hand tremor? What if I'm colorblind? What if I'm broke? What if I work two jobs? What if I don't like my painting style? What if I just don't want to paint my minis?
GW makes the minis and the rules, so they're perfectly within their rights to put this rule in. "Within their rights" doesn't mean "correct to do so."
Where there's a will there's a way. If there isn't a will, you miss out on 10 points. . . Unless you play with people that don't care, in which case the rule doesn't matter by choice.
What would really be "elitist" is if only the person with the better painted army got the points, but that's not the case.
Disingenuous argument. Sports teams are not punished for losing, but imagine if they were docked points (or their opponents were granted extra points, however you want to look at it) for being dressed differently. As has been brought up above.
Also, yes, that would be really elitist; that doesn't make this NOT elitist.
".
