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.

yeah, obviously. miniature wargaming as a hobby is international and is based around the average salaries of the primary countries it is being sold to (basically, US/Canada, western europe, and some other countries like Australia/Japan). the price for commission painting is the same.

Quite simply it makes exactly as much sense to be pursuing miniature wargaming as a hobby in a country where you cannot earn anywhere near enough to afford it as it does for me to attempt to make yacht racing my hobby.

...The materials cost of getting an army painted to gw's standard as shown above is absolutely minimal though. I've commission painted whole 2000 point armies before. you go through approximately 1 5$ spray primer can, 1 5$ brush (if you aren't just using your last, beat-up brush to do your base coats) and about 3 pots of paint, total. You "need" to buy a 200$ airbrush and compressor to paint your army just as much as you "need" to choose to play a ridiculously overpriced luxury hobby on a microbudget.

Karol wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:
Honest question?
What stops the local community from just, i dunno, help out?
Like someone can't really build the models because of chitters, i like building, i happen to love it, let me keep some bits that are left over and i will build you your army no strings attached.
Someone surely will love to paint, why not hand it to them and give them instructions for a sheme?


Assuming you go to a FLG with a decent to great community preferable, why not?

Why would someone who is in their mid 20s or early 30s invest in to the army of some teen, who has high chance of not playing in 2 years time? Specially when their armies are painted and there is enough of them to play against each other. And the only people liking to paint I have seen are those that paint comissions, and they do it all the time. You can of course have them paint your stuff. At the same rates as people that pay comissions do, minus the postal charge. But it still comes out at crazy end cost, practicaly can buy half or more of another army, if you do that.

I have helped younger players many times with painting, miniatures, extra bits and stuff. without ever expecting anything in return, most people i know that are in this hobby would do the same. If your enjoyment in table top gaming only comes from winning on the actual table top, then it can be a rather rough experience i suppose.

A finnished unit or model have a value that is not tied to the constantly changing rules and meta.

Karol wrote:
This is a not a me problem. My army is painted, unless I play against some donkey-cave, who claims that a base done in all yellow, red and blue makes the model unpainted somehow.

And again there is a problem of cost here. Maybe when people earn 5-6times as much as here, they have no problems with painting or giving up stuff for free.

Again people look at this from, or at least I think so, a 30+ year olds point of view. Can paint, can order commision. Now go tell someone who has a 20-30$ monthly hobby budget that they are suppose to spend 8$+ per model on comissions. Or teach them how to explain to your parents at 14-15 why you need money to buy 200$ of paints, a compressor and a paint brush, and use it every day for the next few months for your 70-80 model army to be finished, before GW decides to nerf it in to the ground and make you quit the game.

The point you're responding to here wasn't saying people should pay to get other people's models painted. It was saying maybe a sufficiently friendly gaming community would help out a new player by helping them to build or paint their models, for free (I know, helping people just to be friendly doesn't seem to happen where you are but trust me it's a thing in the rest of the world). In my time I have helped out fellow gamers by giving them spare brushes and bases and at one point I even helped someone who had nowhere to safely spray undercoat by spraying his models for him at home. Took me about 25 minutes total for his entire army.

Karol this may surprise you but I was eighteen once too... I was even younger if you can believe that...

I've been a dirt poor student. For my first few years in the hobby I was the kid who had 2 paint brushes (non gw!)And half a dozen pots of paint to use for my army. (Chaos black, scorched brown, snot green, blood angels red, dark angels green and boltgun metal). My army was cobbled together from summer job money and birthday/Xmas gifts (my folks would rather spend money on 'crafty' stuff than yet another playstation game'.

I didn't have decent money to invest in my hobby until my mid twenties. And I played tau who back in fourth, who were the bottom of the pile for the whole edition.

You absolutely can be involved in this hobby on a budget. You absolutely can paint your stuff on a budget. Fair enough for someone with a disability, but outside of that, painting doesn't have to be a barrier.

I had great peers who gave to their community - one guy gave a whole sm army to our uni club. Plenty others give time, advice and cameraderie.now that I'm the age my gaming heroes were then, I'm.more than happy to pass that on to the next generation.

 the_scotsman wrote:
yeah, obviously. miniature wargaming as a hobby is international and is based around the average salaries of the primary countries it is being sold to (basically, US/Canada, western europe, and some other countries like Australia/Japan). the price for commission painting is the same.

Quite simply it makes exactly as much sense to be pursuing miniature wargaming as a hobby in a country where you cannot earn anywhere near enough to afford it as it does for me to attempt to make yacht racing my hobby.

That is true. What I am just saying that if someone at the start of 8th told the people who started alongside of me that they have to paint their armies or they are going to be losing most, if not all of their games, most people wouldn't have started to play at all. Plus it is a problem when GW starts to design their game in the way of, if army X doesn't work or isn't fun, the people in the hobby are expected to change to a different army or different game withing 2-3 months. This can not realisticly be done, by most people no matter where they play. And adding additional cost is just an extra not needed burden. for 8th editions rules like that did not exist, and people painted their armies, if they wanted to. The hobby didn't turn in to a no one paints their army ever.

Karol this may surprise you but I was eighteen once too... I was even younger if you can believe that...

I need a few years to reach 18, but as I said a painted army is not a problem for me. My stuff is painted. Excluding the game vs 6 specific people who claim that a colour coded base makes the whole model not painted, because it does not have a scenic base. In my eyes w40k is expensive enough, and forcing people to spend even more is not a good way to grow the player base. And that is assuming someone has an army, which is fun to play at the given time. Because forcing someone to paint an army, they don't have fun playing, just so other people can have more fun, is in my opinion a very harsh thing to do.

My army was cobbled together from summer job money and birthday/Xmas gifts (my folks would rather spend money on 'crafty' stuff than yet another playstation game'.

Okey, but did you want to have a painted army? Because that is crucial thing. Everything can be delayed, and be okey, as long as someone wants or like to do it. Going to school, even if it is hard, is okey , if in the end this means you do the things you want to do. It is way different if you have to do something you don't want to do, and get nothing in return. In fact you do it only, because other people like it.

If your enjoyment in table top gaming only comes from winning on the actual table top, then it can be a rather rough experience i suppose.

Lets better not go down the road of why I play the game. Because I can tell you that winning is not the reason for it. If it was I would have quit a long time ago, because I have not won a game of w40k in almost 4 years.

A finnished unit or model have a value that is not tied to the constantly changing rules and meta.

Only if you value painting. If not then it can have the reverse effect. A painted army or unit, goes down in resell price, because there is a low chance that the buyer will want to buy your entire army, and if he buys just a few models he will probably want to strip them to fit his army, or he will not care if he doesn't care about models being painted.

 Sarigar wrote:
I think there is a lot of hyperbole in the thread to support one's opinion for the sake of arguement/debate.

I'm yet to see this topic be an issue in the past year. I've attended several one and two day events, play weekly as well as play in a local league. Tourneys are the only venue I experienced that specify whether painted/not painted is required and whether the 10 points for painting will be in effect or not; everyone is aware prior to registering for the event.

If folks are really experiencing some of the issues posted, recommend they find other like minded players to spend their time with.

Quoted for truth. This rule has had zero impact on gaming in my area except to help get more people engaged in painting their armies for a tourney that uses the rule. For friendly games no one cares.

Slipspace 798409 11128833 wrote:
The point you're responding to here wasn't saying people should pay to get other people's models painted. It was saying maybe a sufficiently friendly gaming community would help out a new player by helping them to build or paint their models, for free (I know, helping people just to be friendly doesn't seem to happen where you are but trust me it's a thing in the rest of the world). In my time I have helped out fellow gamers by giving them spare brushes and bases and at one point I even helped someone who had nowhere to safely spray undercoat by spraying his models for him at home. Took me about 25 minutes total for his entire army.

It is not a question of friendly or not friendly, but of money. Maybe if you are a close friend or a younger sibling of a friend it is different. But no one is going to paint or give out stuff to someone they don't know or like, specially when there is a huge chance that in a year or two they will not be playing anymore. You would be litteraly wasting money, and each place in the world has a different tier of how much money wasting is acceptable and how much is not.

I mean to give an example in my primary school, parents weren't okey to pool money for kids whose parents couldn't afford school dinner. And the poor people didn't want to accept the social help dinners, because every kid would see whose parents could afford and whose parents couldn't afford the real thing. So in the end, there was no school dinner for anyone. Those who could afford it got fat on KFC and those whose only meal was the school dinner went around hungry.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Eldarsif wrote:


Quoted for truth. This rule has had zero impact on gaming in my area except to help get more people engaged in painting their armies for a tourney that uses the rule. For friendly games no one cares.

Well I just took a look at your signature. Imagine this kind of a world. Where practicaly no one, besides most veteran players has more then one army to play with. You don't think it would create a bit different set of problems for people ? Of course a ton of problems are gone if you can own 10+ armies. Painting problem? There is no problem, just use the painted army. Army is bad and unfun? Just take the ones that are fun at the moment. Someone has a too powerful or too weak army? Adjust with one of the according armies you have. Ah and even with the wealth difference between different countries don't tell me that 14-15year old new players start in Canada with 5-6 armies.

Karol wrote:

I need a few years to reach 18, but as I said a painted army is not a problem for me. My stuff is painted. Excluding the game vs 6 specific people who claim that a colour coded base makes the whole model not painted, because it does not have a scenic base. In my eyes w40k is expensive enough, and forcing people to spend even more is not a good way to grow the player base. And that is assuming someone has an army, which is fun to play at the given time. Because forcing someone to paint an army, they don't have fun playing, just so other people can have more fun, is in my opinion a very harsh thing to do.

As far as I'm.concerned it's one of the bedrock of the hobby. You shouldn't get into it if you don't like painting (or at least are able to tolerate it) for the same reason you shouldn't take up fishing if you don't like being near water.

There's plenty other things to do with your time...

Karol wrote:

Okey, but did you want to have a painted army? Because that is crucial thing. Everything can be delayed, and be okey, as long as someone wants or like to do it. Going to school, even if it is hard, is okey , if in the end this means you do the things you want to do. It is way different if you have to do something you don't want to do, and get nothing in return. In fact you do it only, because other people like it.

Plenty things in life you do because you have to not because you enjoy them.

Actuslly For years I struggled with the painting side. I was a kid. I was impatient. I wanted to be out. It was only in my mid twenties I really learned to love the painting side-after I'd completely burned out of the competitive scene and got back in with warmachine minis. Before then painting was something I did because it had to be done - and I'll be honest, I kept it bloody simple because I didn't want to engage more than I had to - undercoat of chaos black, da green for the armour and a red dot for the eyes. And done! Years later I went back over them.and added scorched brown for thr fatigues and snot green for camo effects on my hammerheads (even then, pretty basic).

These days its a totally different story but the point is, dealing with the painting side is very manageable.

Okey, but you do know you are telling this to a person who isn't 16 yet. Telling someone like me that ALL they have to do is wait for 10 years and then the hobby gets better, is not going to convince many people that this is a good option. How many people that started 10 years ago still play the game in your community?

Plus nowadays you can't just keep it simple. The rules for painted is not just put 3-4 colours and it counts as painted. Plus someone who starts playing today can't come back later to finish the model, because even a single unfinished model makes the whole army count as unpainted.

As far as I'm.concerned it's one of the bedrock of the hobby. You shouldn't get into it if you don't like painting (or at least are able to tolerate it) for the same reason you shouldn't take up fishing if you don't like being near water.

For eight editions it wasn't. Unless I don't know about some rules before 8th ed, but I doubt this is the case. So for eight editions you could just buy an army and play with it, and was never required to paint it, unless you wanted to attend big tournaments.

A lot of people get into the game in high school, then quit and come back when they have more free time/money after college. That's the story for a lot of my personal playgroup.

it is also still NOT *required* to paint your army. You just do not get 10 points. You may still play.

Unless you're in a tournament (where you're using their rules anyway) what does it matter? If those 10 points made the difference, you still know who won the 'battle' and if it was you and your models were unpainted then you can know you were the better player.

Personally I wouldn't turn up with unpainted models (unless I'd just bought one, and wanted to play it and just hadn't had the time yet!) but I would not force my opponent to do the same; even though I'd prefer they did - makes the battle more cinematic and cool looking. Because lets face it, WH40K is not the greatest game ever, so making it a more fun experience by looking cinematic helps my enjoyment. It may not help yours and that's fine, you can enjoy the hobby any way you want.

But if you beat me by 9 points and 10 of those were because I had 1 unpainted miniature, I'm still going to feel like I won the battle anyway - because I pretty much did.

The only reason I PLAY 40k is for the cinematics of it. Take away the spectacle, and you've got nothing redeeming...

Game isn't a great game, but it does what I need it to do.

Karol wrote:
Okey, but you do know you are telling this to a person who isn't 16 yet. Telling someone like me that ALL they have to do is wait for 10 years and then the hobby gets better, is not going to convince many people that this is a good option. How many people that started 10 years ago still play the game in your community?

I was your age too once upon a time.

I'm not saying 'wait ten years until it gets better', I'm saying when I was your age I didn't enjoy painting either but I kept it basic and I got on with it which was un answer to your point that it was too much.

As to folks still playing, all bar one of my group have been involved since they were teenagers. Two of them are in their fifty's/sixties and have been wargaming since the 70s. Back home in Ireland, the folks I played with were playing on some cases since 2nd Ed. I've lost touch with a lot of them but I seriously doubt they've put their doods away.

Karol wrote:


Plus nowadays you can't just keep it simple. The rules for painted is not just put 3-4 colours and it counts as painted. Plus someone who starts playing today can't come back later to finish the model, because even a single unfinished model makes the whole army count as unpainted.

Course you can. Battle ready is still 3 colours. PLus these days you have contrast paint and washes and sprays. Its never been easier to paint decently. And you don't need to spend ridiculous £££s to do it. When I was getting into the game, that fancy stuff was only just coming in- we had to use inks. I still have some of my old pots too! They're probably worth a bit now too, haha!

And of course you can come back later. Saying otherwise is silly. Plan ahead. Take a break, come back. Batch paint. Do it over a few weeks. I painted a few hundred lotr models (speed painting) a few years back over the course of a few weeks. It wasn't actually burdensome on my time either.

Want the points? Put some work in. Wear the uniform. You'd expect no different for your sports scholarship.

Karol wrote:

For eight editions it wasn't. Unless I don't know about some rules before 8th ed, but I doubt this is the case. So for eight editions you could just buy an army and play with it, and was never required to paint it, unless you wanted to attend big tournaments.

You could always ignore the painting, you still can. Nothing stopping you. And my opinion for the previous eight editions is the same as it is now. nd it's got nothing to do with what the rulebook says, or doesn't say. I just think its silly to engage on a hobby with such an obviously labour-intensive craft element when you are not interested in the crafty side of it. I'd say the same for the lore. If you're only here for 'playing a game', frankly there's better games out there and better ways of spending your time, and if that's all you want, in my mind you're better doing that than this. If you want the most out of your hobby for the longest period of time, you're not gonna get that by ignoring or not having an interest in some of the biggest parts of it.

And just one last thing. A lot of people get into thr hobby as kids/teenagers, lose interest when they discover girls/boys/beer/teenage rebellion etc and after college, when they've mellowed a bit, remember the fun stuff they did as kids and get back into those hobbies as grown ups, with a grown ups perspective. Walking away and taking a break isn't forever.

Karol wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:
Honest question?
What stops the local community from just, i dunno, help out?
Like someone can't really build the models because of chitters, i like building, i happen to love it, let me keep some bits that are left over and i will build you your army no strings attached.
Someone surely will love to paint, why not hand it to them and give them instructions for a sheme?


Assuming you go to a FLG with a decent to great community preferable, why not?

Why would someone who is in their mid 20s or early 30s invest in to the army of some teen, who has high chance of not playing in 2 years time? Specially when their armies are painted and there is enough of them to play against each other. And the only people liking to paint I have seen are those that paint comissions, and they do it all the time. You can of course have them paint your stuff. At the same rates as people that pay comissions do, minus the postal charge. But it still comes out at crazy end cost, practicaly can buy half or more of another army, if you do that.

If folks are really experiencing some of the issues posted, recommend they find other like minded players to spend their time with.

And how do you do that when a lot of the stores went bankrupt post covid? But even before that people were lucky, if they had one store in range to go play to. Although I do understand this can be different in places like UK that has more stores, then the number of stores combined from multiple countries around here.

Wait, what sort of hypothetical player are we talking about? It seems like a brand new player who plays only pickup games and doesn't have or make friends that are interested in the game. I would suspect that someone like that would eventually lose interest regardless. If they integrated themselves into a friendly community then people would help them in ways to keep them engaged. If you can't find a friendly community then you are unlikely to stick around regardless of if you are winning games or not.

Yes and that is why most people don't play for longer then one edition. But even if this is true, why should their expirance be made even worse then it already is?

Imagine not being able to keep up with all the new codex releases and the huge amount of different books with special rules. That will be a much rougher handicap than being 10 points behind from unpainted models.

So it is okey to add more, things that will drive away people ?

Hyperbole much? Not sure what to say to you. I've played in seven 9th edition tournaments in three states and play weekly at local game shops. Prior to that, I've managed to find great 40K gaming groups in every state I lived in with no real issue over the past 30 years. If you have so much trouble finding like minded folks to game with, the issue may not rest with them.

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Mmmpi wrote:

Ok.

The discussion is about the trash rule existing and the toxic players who push for it.

So much griping for a rule that neither prevents you from playing, nor forces you to act on or even play with.

That last part depends on my opponent. Thanks for trying.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Racerguy180 wrote:
The only reason I PLAY 40k is for the cinematics of it. Take away the spectacle, and you've got nothing redeeming...

Game isn't a great game, but it does what I need it to do.

That's for you. As gets repeated over and over, what you like isn't what everyone likes. While no one is making you play against unpainted stuff, no one should have any reason to follow your preferences without actually wanting to.

This dumb thread still delivers. I particularly like the made up scenarios and offenses taken at things that don’t happen in real life.

This is truly a productive discussion that should happen regularly on Dakka and never devolves into a 30 page insult fest.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
I have gotten a bit lost on this discussion. Can the people against this rule articulate exactly why it is bad?

To clarify certain things beforehand:

-Obviously at a tourney whatever they say goes, and major tourneys already require paint anyways.

-People who have difficulty due to a disability are both a tiny fraction and would easily be able to get it house ruled out (save perhaps against TFG but then the experience is already ruined).

-This is casual play, there is no material benefit to victory or consequence to loss.

Mostly, it’s a feel bad rule. For my own situation, my collection tends to be in flux as I periodically buy new models and like to try them out before they’re “finished” - often so I see which load-out I want before I “seal the deal.” Coupled with both procrastination and a half-dozen other projects/activities taking up my time, someone pressing to slap with a penalty because I haven’t been keeping up with one of my least favorite portion of the hobby just makes me not want to play someone who will press the issue. I get enough flak about my black bases as it is when I do finish my minis, being further judged that I’m not making painting my minis my life’s work just grinds my gears.

Racerguy180 wrote:
The only reason I PLAY 40k is for the cinematics of it. Take away the spectacle, and you've got nothing redeeming...

Game isn't a great game, but it does what I need it to do.

Agreed. The one thing I've always said 40K does better than any other wargame is create one hell of a spectacular looking tabletop. Otherwise you've got things like One Page Rules-Grimdark Future for better/cheaper casual play, or virtually any other wargame for greater tactical depth per unit of currency and unit of rules.

 CEO Kasen wrote:

Racerguy180 wrote:
The only reason I PLAY 40k is for the cinematics of it. Take away the spectacle, and you've got nothing redeeming...

Game isn't a great game, but it does what I need it to do.

Agreed. The one thing I've always said 40K does better than any other wargame is create one hell of a spectacular looking tabletop. Otherwise you've got things like One Page Rules-Grimdark Future for better/cheaper casual play, or virtually any other wargame for greater tactical depth per unit of currency and unit of rules.

This is probably going to be pretty unpopular opinion to put on the 40k section of the Dakka, but... it really doesn't? (And this off topic, so may be worth spinning off on its own thread).

I mean, if you want the very specific cross-section of gothic and not-that-advanced scifi that 40k gives, then sure. But when it comes to spectacular looking games, that just a matter of opinion.

I'd like a definition of what's meant when you say "spectacle."

40k regularly puts way too many models on too small of a table space, and ends up just looking like big blobs of footsloggers or car parks that empty out over the course of six or so turns. Sure, there are some centerpiece models, but if I'd want something like that I think Titanticus is a way better option (and has the benefit of being a good ruleset). Or Middle Earth SBG, with its clashing lines of troops and big heroes fighting duels against each other with, again, the added bonus of probably GW's best ruleset currently.

If I wanted something to really evoke 40k, I'd probably stick with a small skirmish ruleset to get that Black Library novel feel, or dive down to 6mm or even 3mm minis to recreate those sweeping images with hordes of troops that inspired hobbyists in previous editions. And both of those are done better by other companies.

 Stormonu wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
I have gotten a bit lost on this discussion. Can the people against this rule articulate exactly why it is bad?

To clarify certain things beforehand:

-Obviously at a tourney whatever they say goes, and major tourneys already require paint anyways.

-People who have difficulty due to a disability are both a tiny fraction and would easily be able to get it house ruled out (save perhaps against TFG but then the experience is already ruined).

-This is casual play, there is no material benefit to victory or consequence to loss.

Mostly, it’s a feel bad rule. For my own situation, my collection tends to be in flux as I periodically buy new models and like to try them out before they’re “finished” - often so I see which load-out I want before I “seal the deal.” Coupled with both procrastination and a half-dozen other projects/activities taking up my time, someone pressing to slap with a penalty because I haven’t been keeping up with one of my least favorite portion of the hobby just makes me not want to play someone who will press the issue. I get enough flak about my black bases as it is when I do finish my minis, being further judged that I’m not making painting my minis my life’s work just grinds my gears.

You test loadouts in games where the points matter? Presumably tournament games?

Also, it's not a penalty to be slapped with, it's unearned points.

infinite_array wrote:

I mean, if you want the very specific cross-section of gothic and not-that-advanced scifi that 40k gives, then sure. But when it comes to spectacular looking games, that just a matter of opinion.

I'd like a definition of what's meant when you say "spectacle."

40k regularly puts way too many models on too small of a table space, and ends up just looking like big blobs of footsloggers or car parks that empty out over the course of six or so turns.

Spectacle is having a PF Salamanders Lieutenant punching the last wound off a knight and the explosion taking out 3 other units and then 2 of those going boom.

Sounds pretty spectacular to me.

The only ones putting too many models on too small of a board are doing it to themselves. I prefer 1500pts on an 8x4 with tons of terrain and I understand not everyone has access to that.

I'd say the rule is bad purely because it is largely irrelevant but causes pages upon pages of heated arguments anyway. I am not sure which side is more toxic, the players who want to get rewarded for showing up with a painted army or the players who want to deny the reward from the other player.

In general I understand the encouragement to field painted armies but on the other hand I don't think that anything that happens outside the game should have an effect on the result of a game. That being said, if winning or losing because of the rule takes away the enjoyment of the game itself, there is a good chance that one or both of the players didn't enjoy the game to begin with.

Rihgu wrote:

 Stormonu wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
I have gotten a bit lost on this discussion. Can the people against this rule articulate exactly why it is bad?

To clarify certain things beforehand:

-Obviously at a tourney whatever they say goes, and major tourneys already require paint anyways.

-People who have difficulty due to a disability are both a tiny fraction and would easily be able to get it house ruled out (save perhaps against TFG but then the experience is already ruined).

-This is casual play, there is no material benefit to victory or consequence to loss.

Mostly, it’s a feel bad rule. For my own situation, my collection tends to be in flux as I periodically buy new models and like to try them out before they’re “finished” - often so I see which load-out I want before I “seal the deal.” Coupled with both procrastination and a half-dozen other projects/activities taking up my time, someone pressing to slap with a penalty because I haven’t been keeping up with one of my least favorite portion of the hobby just makes me not want to play someone who will press the issue. I get enough flak about my black bases as it is when I do finish my minis, being further judged that I’m not making painting my minis my life’s work just grinds my gears.

You test loadouts in games where the points matter? Presumably tournament games?

Also, it's not a penalty to be slapped with, it's unearned points.

It's a penalty.

jullevi wrote:
I'd say the rule is bad purely because it is largely irrelevant but causes pages upon pages of heated arguments anyway.

Yep. As these threads show, you can't fight human nature. You can tell people it's totally irrelevant in any way that matters at all till you're blue in the face (and I do...), but it doesn't seem to convince anyone who's upset by it. It's not a rational thing, it's that it makes people feel judged for not painting their models, and when people feel judged they react in irrational if predictable ways that no amount of rational discourse can overcome.

yukishiro1 wrote:

jullevi wrote:
I'd say the rule is bad purely because it is largely irrelevant but causes pages upon pages of heated arguments anyway.

Yep. As these threads show, you can't fight human nature. You can tell people it's totally irrelevant in any way that matters at all till you're blue in the face (and I do...), but it doesn't seem to convince anyone who's upset by it. It's not a rational thing, it's that it makes people feel judged for not painting their models, and when people feel judged they react in irrational if predictable ways that no amount of rational discourse can overcome.

Because it's not totally irrelevant...

A hobby issue is being pushed on people. Saying 'just ignore the rule' only works if you have people willing to ignore it. So yeah, as people have been saying over and over, it's a rational thing, and claiming that they aren't is just you being emotionally hurt because you refuse to understand what people are saying.

The lack of rational discourse is coming from the tools constantly chanting "no, play exactly how we say".

As we've been over literally fifteen times in this thread alone, it doesn't matter if other people ignore the rule or not. You ignore it in your head, they don't ignore it in theirs. If the game is closer than 10VP, you won in your head, they won in theirs. Everybody's happy.

In any situation where the win or loss actually matters, you have a TO that calls the shots, so it doesn't matter there either.

It's objectively, verifiably 100% irrelevant. But people don't work that way. I don't expect the sixteenth time is goin to convince you if the first fifteen didn't.

yukishiro1 wrote:
As we've been over literally fifteen times in this thread alone, it doesn't matter if other people ignore the rule or not. You ignore it in your head, they don't ignore it in theirs. If the game is closer than 10VP, you won in your head, they won in theirs. Everybody's happy.

In any situation where the win or loss actually matters, you have a TO that calls the shots, so it doesn't matter there either.

It's objectively, verifiably 100% irrelevant. But people don't work that way. I don't expect the sixteenth time is goin to convince you if the first fifteen didn't.

As we've been over literally sixteen times in this thread alone, it does matter.

It is objectively, verifiable 100% a real issue. Because people do work that way. And the reason it won't convince me or anyone else is because, as you've been told repeatedly, you're absolutely wrong.

Because at the end of the day, no one is going to go "sure, you indeed did win, despite having less points".

It doesn't matter whether someone else acknowledges your win or not. Unless you're so lacking in self-confidence that you need someone else to verify your victory for you? Which would be a you problem, not a them problem.

You won in your head because you don't give them the 10VP, they won in their head because they do. Everybody's happy...unless you can't be happy unless you force the other player to play by your version of the rules. Which is hugely ironic in the context of the thread.

yukishiro1 wrote:
It doesn't matter whether someone else acknowledges your win or not. Unless you're so lacking in self-confidence that you need someone else to verify your victory for you? Which would be a you problem, not a them problem.

You won in your head because you don't give them the 10VP, they won in their head because they do. Everybody's happy...unless you can't be happy unless you force the other player to play by your version of the rules. Which is hugely ironic in the context of the thread.

Again, the world doesn't work that way. Self confidence has nothing to do with it, and you absolutely know it.

You don't 'win in your head'. You win on the table. If you're going to just 'win in your head', just don't bother playing, why would you need to?

No, everybody isn't happy. Your high horse scenario very rarely plays out in the real world the way you think it does.

And yeah...forced. Because people are going to force people do to it. Rather than say that they'll only play against people who don't use it, just like people used to say they'd only play against painted armies.

Whether it works that way or not is 100% up to you, because you're the only master of your own head. The other guy think you lost by 9 points because he had a painted army, but you don't have to accept that yourself, any more than he has to accept that the 10VP rule doesn't apply because you don't like it.

Of course you win in your head. There's no magical 40k fairy who waves her wand and proclaims you the winner, to be written down in the annals of 40k history for all time. It's 100% up to you how you interpret the score of the game. You have to play the actual game by the same set of rules, but how you interpret the final score doesn't depend on your opponent.

Two people get together and play a game, and if you can't enjoy that game unless you not only win according to your own criteria but also force your opponent to acknowledge those criteria too, that's a you problem, not a game problem, and it makes you exactly like the people you're ranting about.

But thank you for doing an excellent job of illustrating my point.