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.

 Dysartes wrote:
Stats question, especially for those who like getting nose-deep into the tournament scene's data - what proportion of games reported during 9th are landing within a 10 point spread, where the painting points would have an impact? Would be better if we could narrow it down to events where a painted army isn't required, but that might be tricky.

Goonhammer's done the math with the available data from tournaments and reports. Turns out the winner/loser difference is 25-30 points. In the vast majority of games between competent players, an early advantage almost necessarily snowballs. Once you've crippled an enemy early, you can control objectives better and score your secondaries in peace. What's funny though, of course, is that bad players will only score sub 50 points, while a skilled player losing will still typically score 60-70. A match between two bad players will be much tighter and the extra is worth proportionately two or three times as much. So if you're single-mindedly serious about playing competitively that you don't engage in other aspects of the hobby, then just play well and the 10VP will rarely matter. Otherwise if you're playing poorly and don't engage with any other hobby parts, what are you doing?

Nobody is gatekeeping beginners with this rule who isn't already a jerk. This rule is not discriminating against the disabled any more than the very nature of assembling plastic models. I initially thought the rule was bunk, but all it does in practice is let casual players dip their toes into tournaments and encourage a 3 color paint job expectation generally. New players with no expectation of getting to top tables can experience a tournament run. More games will be played with more painted models, which will just look nicer and be a better experience. I think those two things improve the over-all experience of the hobby.

With regards to the argument "it's a bad rule if its defense is that you can just ignore it", in casual games none of the scoring matters. The defense is not "you can just ignore this part of the rule you don't like" (which, of course, you can do too), but that scoring doesn't matter and you should evaluate a casual one-off game on different metrics. Metrics like: did I have fun? Did I learn anything, and what could I have done differently?

The score is not the game. If you're really not having fun because the numbers don't add up at the end to your liking, what are you doing with those 3 hours?

We had a thread like this one at the start of 9th and I realize I forgot the rule even exists because we usually play with painted models and even if some aren't painted nobody so far mentioned the rule outside of making fun of it...

Sgt. Cortez wrote:
We had a thread like this one at the start of 9th and I realize I forgot the rule even exists because we usually play with painted models and even if some aren't painted nobody so far mentioned the rule outside of making fun of it...

This is I think at least the third time we've had this fething thread since 9th dropped.

 posermcbogus wrote:

Sgt. Cortez wrote:
We had a thread like this one at the start of 9th and I realize I forgot the rule even exists because we usually play with painted models and even if some aren't painted nobody so far mentioned the rule outside of making fun of it...

This is I think at least the third time we've had this fething thread since 9th dropped.

I thought at first someone had necroed the old one because it had so many pages already, but skimming through them I realized people just brought up the same arguments again

 posermcbogus wrote:

Sgt. Cortez wrote:
We had a thread like this one at the start of 9th and I realize I forgot the rule even exists because we usually play with painted models and even if some aren't painted nobody so far mentioned the rule outside of making fun of it...

This is I think at least the third time we've had this fething thread since 9th dropped.

Don't worry, in a few days the usual screaming about how OP the newest codex is will resume. Shortly after that'll come the wailing & gnashing of teeth concerning tournament stats using said codex.

tneva82 wrote:

Rihgu wrote:

Because those are the rules, I guess. As long as your opponent is fine with it you can use whatever house rules you want.

Does make balancing game harder though as these will affect game results. Hello to game imbalance.

If the game is close enough that the 10 points sway the result, then it sounds fairly balanced, if I'm honest.

Might mean you're not playing 40k if something is that balanced, though

 posermcbogus wrote:
Let's all just look at the last thread, please, and let this poor, sad topic die a death until GW either forgets to copy/paste it into 10th ed/ remembers to copy/paste it into 10th ed.

AOS3 in a couple of months may well make for an interesting bellweather in this regard...

 DarkHound wrote:

 Dysartes wrote:
Stats question, especially for those who like getting nose-deep into the tournament scene's data - what proportion of games reported during 9th are landing within a 10 point spread, where the painting points would have an impact? Would be better if we could narrow it down to events where a painted army isn't required, but that might be tricky.

Goonhammer's done the math with the available data from tournaments and reports. Turns out the winner/loser difference is 25-30 points. In the vast majority of games between competent players, an early advantage almost necessarily snowballs. Once you've crippled an enemy early, you can control objectives better and score your secondaries in peace. What's funny though, of course, is that bad players will only score sub 50 points, while a skilled player losing will still typically score 60-70. A match between two bad players will be much tighter and the extra is worth proportionately two or three times as much. So if you're single-mindedly serious about playing competitively that you don't engage in other aspects of the hobby, then just play well and the 10VP will rarely matter. Otherwise if you're playing poorly and don't engage with any other hobby parts, what are you doing?

Thanks for that, DarkHound - I don't tend to delve into the tournament data, but in terms of a large pool of games with, in theory, accurate VP counts it is pretty handy.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

Apple fox wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

 Blndmage wrote:

 Mastiff wrote:

It also means that the people who have the money to pay for someone else to paint their models get the points by buying them.

$20 for a rattle can, $10 for contrast paint and a few hours.

Let’s stop pretending the “three colour” rule is only open to the rich elites who can pay others. They’re not asking for Golden Demon quality work, and Bezos and Musk aren’t cruising tournaments eating your lunch, roaring off in self-driving dogecoin-fueled Teslas as they high-five each other for sticking it to another peasant.

Take an evening, spray your minis, and you too can achieve the near-impossible goal of gaining a ten pt. cushion in your games.

Disabled gamers say hi.

It's not as easy as it sounds when you can't stand, or bend your legs, or see well, or have motor control issues (shakes).

For many of us, simply getting our models assembled is a HUGE task.

There's a surprisingly large number of us.

The rules are rigged against dyslexic people because they are written down, and punish people who are bad at math because of how useful averages are during gameplay. They discriminate against people with bad eyesight who won't be as able to determine line of sight in game. People with back problems are punished by the size of the board they must lean over, and don't get me started on the blind...

I mean god forbid you ask that the result of a casual game with literally nothing on the line remain a tie instead of going to your opponent, due to the unique difficulty you have in painting. Now, you must go through the tremendous suffering of an occasional tiebreaker in matches that, again, have nothing riding on victory or defeat. How horrid the world is.

I have serious back issues and find it very difficult and tiring to play the game, but that is very different from a rule that effect painting like this.
You are using other disability’s to gatekeep against disabled people, you may be specifically the reason this rule is so awful to deal with.

HAH! You have no idea what I've had to deal with in my life. And you know what? Toxicity towards the disabled is a grot next to the warboss of toxic attitude generated by people who care so much about winning that they can't handle a paint-score tiebreaker. Believe it or not, the only reason this rule is awful to deal with is the people who oppose it. People who light themselves on fire then complain that it's their clothes' fault for being flammable. The win means literally nothing beyond what you personally assign to it. Any and all negative feelings from losing due to a paint rule have one source: yourself.

Sorry? The bad attitude of people who are overly competitive are worse than negative attitudes towards disabled people??

The point that the rule has not taken into consideration customers who aren’t physically able to paint their models proves 2 things A) the general lack of empathy and consideration towards disabled people in society B) this rule is BS

It’s as simple as that, it’s just another example of how GW don’t think about their customers but this is a worse example than any other I have seen.

I'm afraid this topic has become somewhat toxic and that was never my intention.

Perhaps unintentionally, this thread has become more about the player than the rule and I don't particularly like that.

In my original post I did express that the rule was somewhat discriminative against hobbyists with less spare time on their hands and i stand by that.

I have seen a few people suggest speed painting etc and have even had a jab taken at me for being a perfectionist for spending 3 hours on one mini. I'm certainly not a perfectionist, i'm just a slow painter, and I prefer not to use contrast methods for entire models. That's just me. I didn't buy the models to rush them to get them on the table, but I would like to be able to play them on the table in the meantime without being put to a disadvantage. Is that such a crime?

Of course, it doesn't matter who wins and loses. I can get just as much enjoyment out of a game that I lose.

As it goes - the BEST games i have had (in this edition and previous versions) have been very close, and that is where this rule causes the most issues - potentially giving the best games a rather bitter ending.

We're also only talking about being on the losing end of the rule. Frankly, if my OP beat me fair and square but I won on points because my army was painted, i would not want to 'steal' it. I would rather shake my opponent's hand and say well done. Painting an army is a cool achievement yes, but it shouldn't reward anybody with some sense of entitlement.

P.s. apologies to all the people who have replied with "this again". I did run a search within the "40k You Make Da Rules" section where this thread was originally posted for 'Painted Bonus' and it returned no results.

3 hours per mini is nothing. Especially if we’re talking something other than astartes with lists of small details, like plague marines.

And if your trying to be more expressive than following a GW colour scheme

 Crafter91 wrote:

Perhaps unintentionally, this thread has become more about the player than the rule and I don't particularly like that.

I think that's inevitable, because the rule insidiously makes it about the player. Essentially, if you say you think it's a bad rule you are liable to get hit with flying goalposts in the form of "it's just a game, why you so upset about rules in a game LOL!". Conversely, it's then brought up as some kind of character judgement in the form of 'anyone insisting on enforcing this rule is just being a tool and you shouldn't play them'. Not divisive at all /s

 Crafter91 wrote:



As it goes - the BEST games i have had (in this edition and previous versions) have been very close, and that is where this rule causes the most issues - potentially giving the best games a rather bitter ending.

We're also only talking about being on the losing end of the rule. Frankly, if my OP beat me fair and square but I won on points because my army was painted, i would not want to 'steal' it. I would rather shake my opponent's hand and say well done. Painting an army is a cool achievement yes, but it shouldn't reward anybody with some sense of entitlement.

P.s. apologies to all the people who have replied with "this again". I did run a search within the "40k You Make Da Rules" section where this thread was originally posted for 'Painted Bonus' and it returned no results.

But this is not a case of sometimes lose. A 10VP difference on start of the game is very big,and that is when two armies of similar power are playing. If someone plays are lower win rate army, with lets say more model to paint in the form of GSC, the player specially if they are new are deeply discouraged to play at all. their faction is not only on the backfoot rules wise, but now their opponent get to dunk on them even harder, just because they started their army two or more editions ago, and their armies are mostly painted.


The speed painting thing also irks me. For my army it works. GK are mono metalic with few other metalic bits and even fewer leather or parchment stuff. But if someone decides to play a non power armoured army, or even something like DG or 1ksons, the army will just look very bad. But somehow having a bad painted army, you spend your time and money on, is better , because people with painted armies feel better about themselfs. Great, makes as much sense as if in sports, the team with the official Nike sponsored geat got a big boost score wise.

 Crafter91 wrote:
Perhaps unintentionally, this thread has become more about the player than the rule and I don't particularly like that.

Ultimately the rule is about the player and the effort they are willing to put in, which is why the thread devolved into a conversation about the player.

You are in charge of your enjoyment of the hobby in all of it's forms (building, painting, gameplay, lore, etc). If you don't like an aspect of the hobby then do something about it! If you want to play the game outside of the established rules, then find other people who agree with you and are willing to house rule in the same way - you evidently care about the 10 points from (not) painting and place stock in the number calculated at the end of a game. Don't limit your enjoyment because someone put words on a page, speak with the other human you are playing against and come to a consensus on what you both want before the game starts.

Firstly, this again.

Secondly, it’s very idiotic to put this as a rule. Anyone who enforces this rule in casual play isn’t someone you’d really want to be against in casual play. They’re the type to use any excuse to win, it just adds to the toxicity. Tournaments on the other hand, fair enough, they have enough reasons to try and limit meta chasing, plus it’s not a good look for the tournament to have grey plastic in the winners pictures.

To those who say "What about disabled players who can't assemble their models?" I say "I'm totally fine playing against chits or bases or similar to accommodate someone who can't assemble models."

For me, I do prefer to play against actual models, not blank bases or poker chips or anything like that, but if someone wants to enjoy the game but can't assemble models... I ain't gonna be the guy who denies them their good time.

 JNAProductions wrote:
To those who say "What about disabled players who can't assemble their models?" I say "I'm totally fine playing against chits or bases or similar to accommodate someone who can't assemble models."

For me, I do prefer to play against actual models, not blank bases or poker chips or anything like that, but if someone wants to enjoy the game but can't assemble models... I ain't gonna be the guy who denies them their good time.

Just because you would play against it, doesn't mean that the rule isn't elitist gatekeeping. Why does it even exist if people are going to willfully ignore it/say it doesn't matter?

Rihgu wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
To those who say "What about disabled players who can't assemble their models?" I say "I'm totally fine playing against chits or bases or similar to accommodate someone who can't assemble models."

For me, I do prefer to play against actual models, not blank bases or poker chips or anything like that, but if someone wants to enjoy the game but can't assemble models... I ain't gonna be the guy who denies them their good time.

Just because you would play against it, doesn't mean that the rule isn't elitist gatekeeping. Why does it even exist if people are going to willfully ignore it/say it doesn't matter?

There is no rule (to my knowledge) you actually have to have models. The game needs SOMETHING to represent your army, but models aren’t in the rules, if I recall correctly.

It’s just what the large majority of people expect, and enjoy doing.

JNAProductions wrote:To those who say "What about disabled players who can't assemble their models?" I say "I'm totally fine playing against chits or bases or similar to accommodate someone who can't assemble models."

For me, I do prefer to play against actual models, not blank bases or poker chips or anything like that, but if someone wants to enjoy the game but can't assemble models... I ain't gonna be the guy who denies them their good time.

I think most people would be reasonable about accommodating players with disabilities. For that matter, I think most players are fine about accommodating unpainted minis, or waiving the 10VP rule (which, in practice, just means in the one out of one hundred games where it's relevant, not saying 'ackshually you lost!!!' during the final VP tally).

The point is more that the rules require you to assemble your models to play (since line of sight is explicitly based on the physical models), and yet you don't see people say stuff like this about that requirement:

mrFickle wrote:The point that the rule has not taken into consideration customers who aren’t physically able to paint their models proves 2 things A) the general lack of empathy and consideration towards disabled people in society B) this rule is BS

It’s as simple as that, it’s just another example of how GW don’t think about their customers but this is a worse example than any other I have seen.

For some reason requiring you to assemble your minis is fine and people with disabilities that make it difficult can be helped out, but mildly encouraging you to paint your models is an assault on the disabled. Which makes me think the argument isn't particularly sincere.

For casual games we don't use painted points except to point out how close a game can be if one had been painted or not. In tourneys the painted points count.

I just don't get how people are still arguing this point still.

 JNAProductions wrote:

Rihgu wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
To those who say "What about disabled players who can't assemble their models?" I say "I'm totally fine playing against chits or bases or similar to accommodate someone who can't assemble models."

For me, I do prefer to play against actual models, not blank bases or poker chips or anything like that, but if someone wants to enjoy the game but can't assemble models... I ain't gonna be the guy who denies them their good time.

Just because you would play against it, doesn't mean that the rule isn't elitist gatekeeping. Why does it even exist if people are going to willfully ignore it/say it doesn't matter?

There is no rule (to my knowledge) you actually have to have models. The game needs SOMETHING to represent your army, but models aren’t in the rules, if I recall correctly.

It’s just what the large majority of people expect, and enjoy doing.

It's actually on the first page of the rules, under Army.

Each player in a game of Warhammer 40,000 commands an army of Citadel miniatures, hereafter referred to as 'models'

I *REALLY* hate it when people use disabled people to defend a position like this, doubly so in a game where it's literally moving toy soldiers around.

If someone is truly disabled to the point where they cannot assemble/paint models, there are services or friends out there. I've helped friends who have had surgeries that can't get their army done before, I'm sure many of you too.

In those cases, exceptions can be made. If asked for, I would offer that an exception likely should be made.

That said, this is not a commonplace issue, it's just not. I have worked with people with intellectual, physical, or neurological (whether genetic or inflicted later) disabilities my entire life. They are aware of their limitations, and the honus are on them to ask for assistance if they need it. They know this. In fact, it has been my experience (and the training handed out by the APA as well as the AMA) that the proactive offer of help can be seen as discriminatory and derogatory towards their conditions or situations.

People with a disability don't want to be treated differently than anyone else.

I'm sure the concerns brought up by so many here are founded in a good heart, or at least, I am going to assume so, but saying things like its gatekeeping, or that it is a barrier to entry, sounds like your just using that specific situation, and person, to make a point about a game that honestly, given real-life, doesnt matter.

Dude we literally have disabled people here who said they don't like the rule. What hiding are you talking about?

Rihgu wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:

Rihgu wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
To those who say "What about disabled players who can't assemble their models?" I say "I'm totally fine playing against chits or bases or similar to accommodate someone who can't assemble models."

For me, I do prefer to play against actual models, not blank bases or poker chips or anything like that, but if someone wants to enjoy the game but can't assemble models... I ain't gonna be the guy who denies them their good time.

Just because you would play against it, doesn't mean that the rule isn't elitist gatekeeping. Why does it even exist if people are going to willfully ignore it/say it doesn't matter?

There is no rule (to my knowledge) you actually have to have models. The game needs SOMETHING to represent your army, but models aren’t in the rules, if I recall correctly.

It’s just what the large majority of people expect, and enjoy doing.

It's actually on the first page of the rules, under Army.

Each player in a game of Warhammer 40,000 commands an army of Citadel miniatures, hereafter referred to as 'models'

So, by the rules, a requirement to have assembled, Citadel miniatures is not "elitist gatekeeping" but painting somehow is. . . Even though you can explicitly still play the game without painted models?

 Insectum7 wrote:

Rihgu wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:

Rihgu wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
To those who say "What about disabled players who can't assemble their models?" I say "I'm totally fine playing against chits or bases or similar to accommodate someone who can't assemble models."

For me, I do prefer to play against actual models, not blank bases or poker chips or anything like that, but if someone wants to enjoy the game but can't assemble models... I ain't gonna be the guy who denies them their good time.

Just because you would play against it, doesn't mean that the rule isn't elitist gatekeeping. Why does it even exist if people are going to willfully ignore it/say it doesn't matter?

There is no rule (to my knowledge) you actually have to have models. The game needs SOMETHING to represent your army, but models aren’t in the rules, if I recall correctly.

It’s just what the large majority of people expect, and enjoy doing.

It's actually on the first page of the rules, under Army.

Each player in a game of Warhammer 40,000 commands an army of Citadel miniatures, hereafter referred to as 'models'

So, by the rules, a requirement to have assembled, Citadel miniatures is not "elitist gatekeeping" but painting somehow is. . . Even though you can explicitly still play the game without painted models?

By definition the gatekeeping here is using the official Citadel models, which goes hand in hand with the turds that enforce WYSIWYG, which definitely applies to the crowd in favor of the painting rule.

There is no WYSIWYG rule, so people enforcing a made up house rule are probably not the same camp as people enforcing an actual real rule.

But who could really know!

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

By definition the gatekeeping here is using the official Citadel models, which goes hand in hand with the turds that enforce WYSIWYG, which definitely applies to the crowd in favor of the painting rule.

Mmm, yeah. . . I sure look forward to games vs. 3rd party, non-WYSIWYG, unpainted models. Yeah that shows the game off real nice and is so easy on the eyes to read and see what's what.

When this thread popped up at the beginning of 9th I said it was a well-intentioned, but silly rule. Most tournaments will already have their own painting standards that over-rule this, and for casual play it literally doesn't matter. I have painted models. You don't? Guess what? That's fine by me. lol I don't need 10 points because we enjoy the hobby differently, or because you just got your models or whatever.

I still feel this way. Nothing's really happened to make me feel otherwise.

 Insectum7 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

By definition the gatekeeping here is using the official Citadel models, which goes hand in hand with the turds that enforce WYSIWYG, which definitely applies to the crowd in favor of the painting rule.

Mmm, yeah. . . I sure look forward to games vs. 3rd party, non-WYSIWYG, unpainted models. Yeah that shows the game off real nice and is so easy on the eyes to read and see what's what.

So this is what 40k has become?

Unpainted proxies, otherwise you are an gatekeeping elitist turd...

 jhnbrg wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

By definition the gatekeeping here is using the official Citadel models, which goes hand in hand with the turds that enforce WYSIWYG, which definitely applies to the crowd in favor of the painting rule.

Mmm, yeah. . . I sure look forward to games vs. 3rd party, non-WYSIWYG, unpainted models. Yeah that shows the game off real nice and is so easy on the eyes to read and see what's what.

So this is what 40k has become?

Unpainted proxies, otherwise you are an gatekeeping elitist turd...

Yeah heaven forbid people either don't have time or they want to extensively playtest before buying expensive models.

So yes, you are a gatekeeping elitist.

 jhnbrg wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

By definition the gatekeeping here is using the official Citadel models, which goes hand in hand with the turds that enforce WYSIWYG, which definitely applies to the crowd in favor of the painting rule.

Mmm, yeah. . . I sure look forward to games vs. 3rd party, non-WYSIWYG, unpainted models. Yeah that shows the game off real nice and is so easy on the eyes to read and see what's what.

So this is what 40k has become?

Unpainted proxies, otherwise you are an gatekeeping elitist turd...

It's the way of the internet. Two people with light but opposing views push the philosophy of the opposing view into more and more extreme versions of those views in an effort to paint the opposing view as wholly "wrong". All it does is make people more and more extreme. It's sort of an antagonistic version of the "no true scotsman".

Do people engaging in "extensive playtesting" care about the 10 points for painted/unpainted?