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.
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.
I am not gatekeeping anyone, i am just fed up with people pretending this is a serious sport.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Rihgu wrote: Do people engaging in "extensive playtesting" care about the 10 points for painted/unpainted?
If people see 10 points as more important than a good looking game, maybe tabletop gaming is not a good choice?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/05/19 18:44:01
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.
I am not gatekeeping anyone, i am just fed up with people pretending this is a serious sport.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Rihgu wrote: Do people engaging in "extensive playtesting" care about the 10 points for painted/unpainted?
If people see 10 points as more important than a good looking game, maybe tabletop gaming is not a good choice?
Look, man, the dude's a habitual hateposter - hashing the buzz is what he does. If that's an issue, just ignore and and move on
I think the rule is silly and have never once given it a second thought until I see threads about it on the interwebs.
That said, I would rather prefer playing against painted models than unpainted models if I had my 'druthers, because for me personally the spectacle and narrative experiences are both improved by two painted armies rather than one or zero.
Unit1126PLL wrote: I think the rule is silly and have never once given it a second thought until I see threads about it on the interwebs.
That said, I would rather prefer playing against painted models than unpainted models if I had my 'druthers, because for me personally the spectacle and narrative experiences are both improved by two painted armies rather than one or zero.
But that's my $0.02.
It's about as sensible opinion as one can have on it to be honest.
Thanks for getting this thread back on track. Please refrain from being rude in the future if your opinion differs to other people, this includes referring to them as turds... If you see such a post please hit the yellow triangle of friendship and then not reply to that post.
Thanks,
ingtær.
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, it’s a really bizarre argument. The game is Warhammer 40k, it’s not really gatekeeping or elitism to expect people to use models that actually represent what they’re meant to. I don’t want to play games against poker chip armies, coke bottle wraith knights or Lego mini figure Hormagants.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Dude we literally have disabled people here who said they don't like the rule. What hiding are you talking about?
As of right now, there are almost 15,000 users online on dakka.
According to the CDC, there are about 10% of people in the population of the US suffer from some form of the six main forms of disability. now take from that ten percent of the population, and figure out how many people are interested in tabletop gaming. Then, figure out how many people have disabilities that would prevent them from assembling, painting, or otherwise enjoy the hobby.
The point is this, out of the 15,000 users online right now, there are what, 2 or maybe 3 that have openly expressed that their disability would interfere with their enjoyment of hte hobby? So assuming more people would not want to discuss that and we have what, ten people, out of 15,000? Even if I grant you a factor of 100, and there are 200 to 300 out of what, 15000+ people (using this site alone as some kind of random proxy of a test population) and its STILL very clear, that the times where this is relevant are so incredibly rare that exceptions could be made on a case by case basis, but for everyone else, it is what it is.
When people hold up a disabled person as the poster child as to why a policy is bad or good, it's disgusting.
I lost 2 patients in the clinic last week. one to a genetic disorder, one to disease. I worked with their families through the grief as a grief coordinator, and neither of them would want anyone to use them as a poster child for anything, let alone something they "couldn't" do. I appreciate the concern, and I have no doubt that it comes from a good place, but this isn't the way to do it.
Unit1126PLL wrote: I think the rule is silly and have never once given it a second thought until I see threads about it on the interwebs.
That said, I would rather prefer playing against painted models than unpainted models if I had my 'druthers, because for me personally the spectacle and narrative experiences are both improved by two painted armies rather than one or zero.
But that's my $0.02.
It's about as sensible opinion as one can have on it to be honest.
Most definitely. While I do not find it a silly rule myself I cannot disagree with his approach; it is entirely friendly and well-reasoned.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Dude we literally have disabled people here who said they don't like the rule. What hiding are you talking about?
As of right now, there are almost 15,000 users online on dakka.
According to the CDC, there are about 10% of people in the population of the US suffer from some form of the six main forms of disability. now take from that ten percent of the population, and figure out how many people are interested in tabletop gaming. Then, figure out how many people have disabilities that would prevent them from assembling, painting, or otherwise enjoy the hobby.
The point is this, out of the 15,000 users online right now, there are what, 2 or maybe 3 that have openly expressed that their disability would interfere with their enjoyment of hte hobby? So assuming more people would not want to discuss that and we have what, ten people, out of 15,000? Even if I grant you a factor of 100, and there are 200 to 300 out of what, 15000+ people (using this site alone as some kind of random proxy of a test population) and its STILL very clear, that the times where this is relevant are so incredibly rare that exceptions could be made on a case by case basis, but for everyone else, it is what it is.
When people hold up a disabled person as the poster child as to why a policy is bad or good, it's disgusting.
I lost 2 patients in the clinic last week. one to a genetic disorder, one to disease. I worked with their families through the grief as a grief coordinator, and neither of them would want anyone to use them as a poster child for anything, let alone something they "couldn't" do. I appreciate the concern, and I have no doubt that it comes from a good place, but this isn't the way to do it.
As someone who deals with disability, I do not want the other 90% of players having rules adjusted to suit what is difficult for me.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/05/19 22:45:15
Octopoid wrote: 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?
I don't have my mini-rulebook to hand, for some reason, but it crops up late in the sequence for Matched Play games - it might show up for Crusade as well, but I can't remember off-hand.
p283 in the Indomitus BRB. It shows up under "Determine Victor"
At the end of the battle, the player with the most victory points is the winner. If players are tied, the battle is a draw.
Each player can score a maximum of 45 victory points from primary objectives and a maximum of 45 victory points from secondary objectives (from a maximum of 15 victory points from each of the 3 secondary objectives you have selected), for a total of 90 possible victory points from mission objectives (any excess victory points awarded are discounted). If every model in a player's army was painted to a Battle Ready standard, that player is awarded a bonus 10 victory points. This gives the player a maximum total score out of 100 victory points.
It's literally just an additional 10 points out of the potential 90. If you don't meet the criteria of Battle Ready(based+3 color minimum)? You wouldn't get that 100 point cap and would be going out of 90 instead of 100.
So if it's just you soldiers you agree that things like this are silly (they're just toy soldiers after all, and gatekeeping is bad last I checked), which means it shouldn't have been a rule to begin with.
Thanks for playing.
It ain't a rule. It's a bonus when determining victory points.
It's effectively extra credit.
It's a rule. It's literally in the rule book under scoring points. You even quoted it.
Octopoid wrote: Thank you for quoting the rule! Yup, that's a BS rule that rewards those who have more time, effort, money, and/or investment in the game, and punishes the casual, poor, or busy player. I'll be ignoring that firmly for the rest of my gaming time, and will shout from the rooftops that it's a bad rule until the day I die.
Casual players don't get bent out of shape if the rulebook says that they 'actually' lost a closely-fought no-stakes non-competitive pick-up game.
Poor players aren't buying armies at GW prices. The cost of paint to get to a battle-ready standard is negligible in comparison.
Busy players aren't playing the game. You can paint a Marine army to the three-color standard in the time it takes to play a 2K game.
The players this affects are those who take their winning and losing a bit too seriously and resent the social expectation that models be painted now codified as a (extremely mild) rule. And then using these casual, poor, and busy players as a shield.
I know plenty that do get unhappy when the game they won is a loss because they didn't "drybrush enough".
Octopoid wrote: Thank you for quoting the rule! Yup, that's a BS rule that rewards those who have more time, effort, money, and/or investment in the game, and punishes the casual, poor, or busy player. I'll be ignoring that firmly for the rest of my gaming time, and will shout from the rooftops that it's a bad rule until the day I die.
Casual players don't get bent out of shape if the rulebook says that they 'actually' lost a closely-fought no-stakes non-competitive pick-up game.
Poor players aren't buying armies at GW prices. The cost of paint to get to a battle-ready standard is negligible in comparison.
Busy players aren't playing the game. You can paint a Marine army to the three-color standard in the time it takes to play a 2K game.
The players this affects are those who take their winning and losing a bit too seriously and resent the social expectation that models be painted now codified as a (extremely mild) rule. And then using these casual, poor, and busy players as a shield.
I know plenty that do get unhappy when the game they won is a loss because they didn't "drybrush enough".
Well someone's houserule about drybrushing fortunately has nothing to do with the rule GW wrote.
Octopoid wrote: Thank you for quoting the rule! Yup, that's a BS rule that rewards those who have more time, effort, money, and/or investment in the game, and punishes the casual, poor, or busy player. I'll be ignoring that firmly for the rest of my gaming time, and will shout from the rooftops that it's a bad rule until the day I die.
Casual players don't get bent out of shape if the rulebook says that they 'actually' lost a closely-fought no-stakes non-competitive pick-up game.
Poor players aren't buying armies at GW prices. The cost of paint to get to a battle-ready standard is negligible in comparison.
Busy players aren't playing the game. You can paint a Marine army to the three-color standard in the time it takes to play a 2K game.
The players this affects are those who take their winning and losing a bit too seriously and resent the social expectation that models be painted now codified as a (extremely mild) rule. And then using these casual, poor, and busy players as a shield.
I know plenty that do get unhappy when the game they won is a loss because they didn't "drybrush enough".
Well someone's houserule about drybrushing fortunately has nothing to do with the rule GW wrote.
Despite that being quoted from the rules several pages back?
Despite that being quoted from the rules several pages back?
Does the rule mandate drybrushing?
I don't use that technique that much so I guess I give up 10 pts too. Rip.
It mandates painting, and it mandates 'tabletop quality'. So my sarcastic reference to not drybrushing enough would be covered by this abortion of a rule.
They did a whooooooole article on it. When the scoring modifier was introduced in the rulebook? They had to frigging answer questions from people trying to claim that if you did "Parade Ready"(which is literally just picking out details a bit more!), you wouldn't get the +10 points to your VP total.
The Warhammer Community article predates 9th edition by over a year (the article is dated May 2019 and 9th edition was released in July 2020).
Misread the above post.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/05/19 23:49:52
'It is a source of constant consternation that my opponents cannot correlate their innate inferiority with their inevitable defeat. It would seem that stupidity is as eternal as war.'
- Nemesor Zahndrekh of the Sautekh Dynasty Overlord of the Crownworld of Gidrim
They did a whooooooole article on it. When the scoring modifier was introduced in the rulebook? They had to frigging answer questions from people trying to claim that if you did "Parade Ready"(which is literally just picking out details a bit more!), you wouldn't get the +10 points to your VP total.
They did a whooooooole article on it. When the scoring modifier was introduced in the rulebook? They had to frigging answer questions from people trying to claim that if you did "Parade Ready"(which is literally just picking out details a bit more!), you wouldn't get the +10 points to your VP total.
you calling it a lie doesn't make it a lie.
nice try though. if you're scraching at this over a sarcastic comment you might as well just log off now.
They did a whooooooole article on it. When the scoring modifier was introduced in the rulebook? They had to frigging answer questions from people trying to claim that if you did "Parade Ready"(which is literally just picking out details a bit more!), you wouldn't get the +10 points to your VP total.
Ah, the add to sell Technical paint....
Someone whose looking to meet the minimum Battle Ready requirement isn't really going to want to glue sand on their bases and then paint the bases. The Technical paint gives them a one and done method for them.
'It is a source of constant consternation that my opponents cannot correlate their innate inferiority with their inevitable defeat. It would seem that stupidity is as eternal as war.'
- Nemesor Zahndrekh of the Sautekh Dynasty Overlord of the Crownworld of Gidrim
They did a whooooooole article on it. When the scoring modifier was introduced in the rulebook? They had to frigging answer questions from people trying to claim that if you did "Parade Ready"(which is literally just picking out details a bit more!), you wouldn't get the +10 points to your VP total.
Ah, the add to sell Technical paint....
Someone whose looking to meet the minimum Battle Ready requirement isn't really going to want to glue sand on their bases and then paint the bases. The Technical paint gives them a one and done method for them.
that doesn't mean it's not a bare faced attempt to sell overpriced paint.
