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.

Plus the way it is said how the model is suppose to look and count as painted. You could zenith spray the models with 3 colour and then dry brush with with grey, and do the same for the bases. And the models will be painted. Will look rather peculiar, but they will count as painted.

Apple fox wrote:

 Jammer87 wrote:

Spoiler:

BrianDavion wrote:

 Ventus wrote:

Seabass wrote:
What people are saying (other than me saying to not use people with a disability as a shield) is that it is so rare, in terms of the population of miniature gamers, that reasonable accommodations can be made on a case by case basis but the rule itself is not exclusionary by its design.

Rare... by what metric? I have encountered FAR more persons with disabilities in miniatures games than I have, just as an example, people who refuse to play against grey plastic.

The hypocritical screed about using disability as a shield doesn't really bear responding to.

sure but of those people with disabilities how many fall into the very small catagory of "are capable of taking tinsy bits of plastic and glueing them together, but are literally incapable of grabbing a spray can, spraying a mini, tossing some leadbletcher on the guns, and then maybe hitting the whole thing with a shade?"

I'm not saying "your minis must be painted" but I suspect the number of people who can't do a token quick paint job yet can still assmble their minis are a absolutely tiny number of people.

I mean I enjoy fighting a painted army, it looks good, but obviously one shouldn't expect every painted army to be worthy of a golden deamon winner

I was wondering this as well. How are you having issues painting the miniature, but you could assemble it? I don’t have a disability, but recent models have so many tiny detailed bits that fit in tiny spots. I would 100% rather paint than assemble. Quick easy paint job- rattle can black primer, rattle can white zenithal, contrast paint (5-10 colors). Battle ready - keep your 10 VPs.

I prefer not to play with/against unpainted armies due to one experience. Guy told me he didn’t care about painting so his army wouldn’t be painted. I said no issue. He then PROCEEDED TO DUMP A PILE OF BROKEN MINIATURES AND BASES OUT OF A TACKLE BOX. After finding enough bases with tau and kroot legs he set them up in his area. Nothing was represented on the miniature. Sometimes it seemed like he gave and took upgrades where he could. After the battle was over he just used his forearm to sweep them into his box. My experience with this individual painted in my mind that many people who leave their miniatures grey don’t really care about them. Tools for a game vs the hobby experience. He tried to pick up some of my guys and I don’t know if I’ve ever been so rude during a game before.

I cannot use spray cans today, or anytime again soon and I need to paint in bed most of the time now. The issues are that it’s very different and these rules don’t make it easier to discuss it, but create ways to avoid that discussion.
Even this guideline ignores real discussion to a degree, written by people who like a lot of players really need to deal with these issues.
If Players want GW to weigh in on these issues, then GW really should step up there game. Trial these rules and guidelines in places they can get feedback so we are not left discussing there failures for potentially years.

If you can’t use a rattle can and have to paint in bed how can you play a game for 90+ minutes? I’m not trying to be mean but if someone is incapable of standing for more than a couple minutes and concentrating how are they capable of pushing miniatures around a table?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Voss wrote:

My experience with this individual painted in my mind that many people who leave their miniatures grey don’t really care about them.

So... if I give you a blue lemur, you'll be convinced forever that all lemurs are blue?

Does the lemur have a tacklebox?

 Jammer87 wrote:

Apple fox wrote:

 Jammer87 wrote:

Spoiler:

BrianDavion wrote:

 Ventus wrote:

Seabass wrote:
What people are saying (other than me saying to not use people with a disability as a shield) is that it is so rare, in terms of the population of miniature gamers, that reasonable accommodations can be made on a case by case basis but the rule itself is not exclusionary by its design.

Rare... by what metric? I have encountered FAR more persons with disabilities in miniatures games than I have, just as an example, people who refuse to play against grey plastic.

The hypocritical screed about using disability as a shield doesn't really bear responding to.

sure but of those people with disabilities how many fall into the very small catagory of "are capable of taking tinsy bits of plastic and glueing them together, but are literally incapable of grabbing a spray can, spraying a mini, tossing some leadbletcher on the guns, and then maybe hitting the whole thing with a shade?"

I'm not saying "your minis must be painted" but I suspect the number of people who can't do a token quick paint job yet can still assmble their minis are a absolutely tiny number of people.

I mean I enjoy fighting a painted army, it looks good, but obviously one shouldn't expect every painted army to be worthy of a golden deamon winner

I was wondering this as well. How are you having issues painting the miniature, but you could assemble it? I don’t have a disability, but recent models have so many tiny detailed bits that fit in tiny spots. I would 100% rather paint than assemble. Quick easy paint job- rattle can black primer, rattle can white zenithal, contrast paint (5-10 colors). Battle ready - keep your 10 VPs.

I prefer not to play with/against unpainted armies due to one experience. Guy told me he didn’t care about painting so his army wouldn’t be painted. I said no issue. He then PROCEEDED TO DUMP A PILE OF BROKEN MINIATURES AND BASES OUT OF A TACKLE BOX. After finding enough bases with tau and kroot legs he set them up in his area. Nothing was represented on the miniature. Sometimes it seemed like he gave and took upgrades where he could. After the battle was over he just used his forearm to sweep them into his box. My experience with this individual painted in my mind that many people who leave their miniatures grey don’t really care about them. Tools for a game vs the hobby experience. He tried to pick up some of my guys and I don’t know if I’ve ever been so rude during a game before.

I cannot use spray cans today, or anytime again soon and I need to paint in bed most of the time now. The issues are that it’s very different and these rules don’t make it easier to discuss it, but create ways to avoid that discussion.
Even this guideline ignores real discussion to a degree, written by people who like a lot of players really need to deal with these issues.
If Players want GW to weigh in on these issues, then GW really should step up there game. Trial these rules and guidelines in places they can get feedback so we are not left discussing there failures for potentially years.

If you can’t use a rattle can and have to paint in bed how can you play a game for 90+ minutes? I’m not trying to be mean but if someone is incapable of standing for more than a couple minutes and concentrating how are they capable of pushing miniatures around a table?

My disability is far more complicated, I get time I can be more active and need to rest before and after. And able to use assistance as well as having my own table at home so can have people here to play. I also don’t want to be stuck at home so place special effort on going out often to a shop or a club for games.

Allmost all of the discussion has been on how to get people to paint, and nothing on how to get people engaged in the hobby. So often it sounds hollow, if people care about the hobby they would understand why others don’t engage.

And I do think painting expectations are important for discussion.

Edit, I also do understand that I am probably at the near extreme end of disability but I think my input here is important and I try to understand and grow reading all the posts

Racerguy180 wrote:
It does colour ones perception now doesn't it.

I have seen players do the dump n sweep before at our flgs & have proceeded to not play them. If you don't give enuff feths to care for your minis, how are you gonna care about our mutual experience playing the game, together?

This is only talking about dump n sweep and not painted/whatever.

Do you mean people that transport their termagants in lunchboxes and sweep/dump them into the box when they die?

If GW had a guideline for painting competitions that you had to win a game with it, I'm sure the painters here would be quite annoyed at that.

Racerguy180 wrote:
I have seen players do the dump n sweep before at our flgs & have proceeded to not play them. If you don't give enuff feths to care for your minis, how are you gonna care about our mutual experience playing the game, together?

Another strange distinction to make. How much time do you spend thinking about the way other people treat their own minis.

I mean, if they were touching your minis without asking, then yeah, I could see why that would impact the game, but a guy chucking his dead Orks or whatever in a box? "I won't play you because you care less about something than I do!"

This is what people have been saying about elitism. That attitude above.

 Jammer87 wrote:
Does the lemur have a tacklebox?

In zoos in Japan they do, as do various other animals.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Apple fox 799052 11158418 wrote:

Allmost all of the discussion has been on how to get people to paint, and nothing on how to get people engaged in the hobby. So often it sounds hollow, if people care about the hobby they would understand why others don’t engage.

And I do think painting expectations are important for discussion.

The how to make them want to paint isn't very convincing either. You pay or you lose your games, is something that may make people not want to play the game. Specially considering how many models one has to paint even for armies like GK and how long it takes to finish and how much it costs.

 Jammer87 wrote:

I prefer not to play with/against unpainted armies due to one experience. Guy told me he didn’t care about painting so his army wouldn’t be painted. I said no issue. He then PROCEEDED TO DUMP A PILE OF BROKEN MINIATURES AND BASES OUT OF A TACKLE BOX.

I knew someone who stored painted miniatures this way. What's your point?

Probably that at this point you should play with token and paper cutout.
Will you play against such an opponent?

A cutout in the end is more accurate and better than a partially assembled unpainted miniature.

 Cybtroll wrote:
Probably that at this point you should play with token and paper cutout.
Will you play against such an opponent?

A cutout in the end is more accurate and better than a partially assembled unpainted miniature.

One of the features of plastic miniature is there durability.

But... this was also used as someone who treats plastic toys roughly, and chooses not to paint is somehow going to treat there opponents or the game the same way.
This is the type of toxicity that is all too common in a lot of discussions on this.
Lazy, don’t care, or somehow not doing the hobby right.

They may enjoy building them, or playing with them even if they do not paint.
Many players like the feel and weight of metal miniatures for just that reason, it’s why so many do put extra weight on GW plastic miniatures.
This really just ends up as hobby gate keeping, and the behaviour this page is trying to offer a solution too.

In the case above, it could just be frustrated and not as mindful of what they are doing.

 Cybtroll wrote:
Probably that at this point you should play with token and paper cutout.

The aforementioned chap did, at one point, have at least one cardboard Rhino and (IIRC) a cardboard Land Raider. He had taken some care in getting the sizes and even the shapes pretty accurate to the models.

I was happy for him to use both.


If you are thinking more along the lines of someone cutting out 2D tokens and putting them on bases, I would play against that as well.

Don't misunderstand me: I'd play against them too. And that's why I find very odd people or company (like GW) pretending to have away over how people play.

My own miniature are always converted and fully painted, because I consiy the hobby much more interesting than the game.
The problem is that GW want to pass marketing and commercial ideas like those are for the good of the game, rather than their own.
That's why I'm always very skeptical of any company that pretend to tell you what's good for you to monetize on it.

H.B.M.C. wrote:If GW had a guideline for painting competitions that you had to win a game with it, I'm sure the painters here would be quite annoyed at that.

Racerguy180 wrote:
I have seen players do the dump n sweep before at our flgs & have proceeded to not play them. If you don't give enuff feths to care for your minis, how are you gonna care about our mutual experience playing the game, together?

Another strange distinction to make. How much time do you spend thinking about the way other people treat their own minis.

I mean, if they were touching your minis without asking, then yeah, I could see why that would impact the game, but a guy chucking his dead Orks or whatever in a box? "I won't play you because you care less about something than I do!"

This is what people have been saying about elitism. That attitude above.

It goes to show a lack of caring about our mutually shared gaming experience. And after I saw them do it, I don't think about them again.

How is it elitism? Is it due to the fact I care about my time and wish to spend it playing the game with someone who does the same?
It's not elitism to have expectations on how someone should behave.
Playing against bases with legs is no fun. If you enjoy it, more power to you.

 kirotheavenger wrote:
I do have games arranged ahead of time.
The problem would be turning up and my opponent going "I don't give permission for you to use the unpainted terminator squad" or whatever.

The only way to mitigate that would be to run through my entire army ahead of time and ask permission, which is possible but a bit of a ballache, especially when 99% of people who just say it's fine anyway.

This issue doesn't even apply to me specifically, every 40k unit I own is painted to some capacity. I shared my journey to illustrate why "just go home" is not that viable for a lot of people.

There's no reason "ask permission to use painted models" should be a thing, the best case scenario is you get permission which was the default anyway.

And whos saying there is such a thing? Aos code doesn't make such a thing. All it says is "talk with opponents like reasonable adults".

tneva82 wrote:
And whos saying there is such a thing? Aos code doesn't make such a thing. All it says is "talk with opponents like reasonable adults".

"Ask your opponent's permission if you wish to use unpainted models or substitute models."

The power is clearly in the hands of player with the battle ready army, it is not two equals discussing what kind of game they want. I don't think things need to be equal though, if you cannot paint then you are not living up the hobby standard GW wants to set and that many people enjoy, asking permission is not the end of the world. You kind of have to do it anyway if you want to play without the 10 point paint score which I would want to if I was bringing my non-battle ready army.

tneva82 799052 11158625 wrote:

And whos saying there is such a thing? Aos code doesn't make such a thing. All it says is "talk with opponents like reasonable adults".

How do you perform that action when you are not an adult, and by definition can't talk like one? Doesn't even matter if one that is reasonable or not? Plus it is a huge gate way for people being donkey-caves to each other. Make someone take a 2 hour trip to the store, oh your army isn't painted to a standard I considered as painted, you can not go wait for a bus home for 30 min, and take a 2 hour trip back, while I and my buddies have a hearty laugh at you.

A rules set like this would in the end make it very hard for people to play without a store near by or a group of friends. Pick up games vs strangers would be a horror, with tons of talking and arguments who thinks whose army is painted, and what is offensive or not.

It goes to show a lack of caring about our mutually shared gaming experience.

Because something that was neither mutual or in the rules for 8 editions out of 9 is hard to be considered a core part of a game, specially when it is a separate activity that has no impact on the game, or rather had no impact on the game for 8 edition out of 9. It makes people enter the world of feelings and what people think is important, and what isn't. And feelings make people act illogical and bad to people they do not care about.

It is like saying that the only way to be a football fan is to be an ultras, and that non ultras at the stadium or people watching it at the fan sites or at homes aren't real football fans. And that somehow being a football fans has to include brawling, because this, unlike siting at home, involves interaction with other fans. Plus the police from time to time.

Awful behavior and rhetoric towards the disabled in this thread.

If a person does not want to play with you, they will find a reason.

If they want to play with you, you will come to an agreement (about points, VP, rules, WYSIWYG, ...).

A code like that existing does not change that in the slightest.

 Ventus wrote:

Seabass wrote:
What people are saying (other than me saying to not use people with a disability as a shield) is that it is so rare, in terms of the population of miniature gamers, that reasonable accommodations can be made on a case by case basis but the rule itself is not exclusionary by its design.

Rare... by what metric? I have encountered FAR more persons with disabilities in miniatures games than I have, just as an example, people who refuse to play against grey plastic.

The hypocritical screed about using disability as a shield doesn't really bear responding to.

call it hypocritical, but you have absolutely 0 basis for that. The APA, AMA and a host of other psychological and medical institutions happen to be the originating point for the position I'm taking. Don't hold people with disabilities to a different standard than other people. All it does is hurt them. Using them as a reason as to why you do not want to engage in the (what otherwise is considered normative behavior) to whatever activity they wish to engage in is just exclusionary and mean. Call me a hypocrite, don't care. calling me a hypocrite without even conceptualizing the statements I've made just makes you wrong, it doesn't make me a hypocrite.

at any given point, roughly 12% of the population have long-term disabilities (according to the CDC in the US). now take that 12% and apply it to the hobby and its population and then take that population, and break it down across the number of disabilities that would actually prevent someone from engaging in the hobby and you will understand quite quickly, that it is a VERY tiny portion of the total number of players at large to whom this would actually apply to. in those rare circumstances, exceptions can be made. I have never advocated for otherwise. I want everyone to play and have fun. Social hobbies can be very rewarding and have great long-term prosocial psychological benefits. However, the hobby has relatively normative values assigned to it, and expectations placed on it. Holding people with a disability to a different standard than you would anyone else is psychologically damaging to them (up to a point, as I have stated, ad nauseam, no blind pilots, reasonable limitations, etc). It excludes them from the activity. IF they request help, we, as a community absolutely should help. IF they need assistance in a physical or psychological aspect of the game, we as a community should absolutely stand up and do the right thing to assist them. But if they do not ask, or if they ask for help, we should hold them to no different standard. This hobby has to be fulfilling for them too. Stepping in and saying "no, it's ok, you don't have to paint your, models, on account of X" will only make you feel good about "helping" them, but it won't make them feel good and will take away their feeling of, or attempt to gain, accomplishment.

I could go on for hours on this. I have written several research papers, on this subject with support from multiple doctors, and I have worked for a long time in the health care field. I'm going to call it here. I am not engaging on this topic anymore unless specifically asked, because there is little point in it. The entirety that needs to be explained on a surface level has already been explained, and any further understanding can be better explained by a google scholar search for "ADA, psychological development, pros and cons" or other permutations of those search terms. You do not have to accept what I am stating, quick scholarly source searches support my position from a multitude of research studies, sources, and positions of authority if you feel like that is important.

 Ventus wrote:
That's a super reasonable take on the disability stuff, but the shopping cart example kinda underlines what I believe is the ridiculous expectation that people have finished armies and need an excuse if they don't have one.

Which I think is rubbish. I wonder where these clubs are where everyone only brings painted minis, I've certainly never visited one.

I dunno, man. GW has always shown painted armies in their magazines, boxes, and websites. Back in the day painting was part of your overall score at a tournament. I used to go to a GW store that only allowed painted minis to be used on their tables (they have since relaxed that- but you are expected to make progress, not show up with a fully grey army every weekend). Even today the overwhelming majority of tournaments have painting requirements. It's so ingrained into the hobby that it isn't something that's ever had to be called out specifically.

I mean, are we being elitist, exclusionary, or hostile to the disabled by expecting people to assemble their models and not just clip the bits off the sprue and pile them onto a base? Is it unfair to poorer hobbyists that we generally expect actual models and not random toys as proxies? There are some commonly-accepted expectations here that are core to the hobby, and we provide exceptions on a case-by-case basis to those with legitimate disabilities that hinder their meeting those expectations. And we can always accommodate players who just want to field an unpainted unit, proxy a toy truck as a Land Raider, or field empty bases to pad out a unit, but all with the understanding that an accommodation is being made.

It seems to me like a subset of players is reacting as if the expectation that minis should be painted is a new idea, rather than an implicit part of the hobby all along that is just now being made explicit, and they feel put on the spot. The whole thing about disabled players looks like fishing for justifications to treat the part of the hobby they don't want to engage with (painting) as somehow different from the parts they're comfortable with (buying and assembling).

And to be clear, I'm not saying- nor do I think anybody else here is saying- that you shouldn't be allowed to play if your army isn't 100% painted. Just that painting is part of the hobby, it makes for a better experience, and the expectation is that you are working towards a fully painted army. If your local group doesn't share that expectation, more power to you- but that's the hobby as GW is framing it and as many players participate in it, and I don't think the idea that painted armies make for a more enjoyable experience is a minority opinion.

 catbarf wrote:
And to be clear, I'm not saying- nor do I think anybody else here is saying- that you shouldn't be allowed to play if your army isn't 100% painted.

I'm very sure that some posters in this thread are implying exactly that, as is the whole "ask for permission" and "lose 10 VP" BS from GW is.

You are not allowed to work towards a fully painted army at your own speed, it's very clearly 100% painted or GTFO. Which is precisely what the people opposed to this notion are complaining about, no one is asking for free pass to run all grey plastic all the time. That is just a polemic pushed by the elitists.

I also want to point out that comparing painting to assembling models is a very dishonest argument. Assembling takes a fraction of the time it takes to assemble models, and time is for most people the one and only reason why they aren't done painting. I can properly assemble a box of plague marines or boyz in half an hour, it takes me days to finish painting them.
Not to mention that the primary reason for people to not run fully assembled models is wanting to paint those models.

 Jidmah wrote:

 catbarf wrote:
And to be clear, I'm not saying- nor do I think anybody else here is saying- that you shouldn't be allowed to play if your army isn't 100% painted.

You are not allowed to work towards a fully painted army at your own speed, it's very clearly 100% painted or GTFO.

You're going to have to quote someone saying this. I'm tired of seeing arguments that say thing this extreme without actually quoting the source.

Either quote it or stop with the hyperbole.

 Jidmah wrote:

 catbarf wrote:
And to be clear, I'm not saying- nor do I think anybody else here is saying- that you shouldn't be allowed to play if your army isn't 100% painted.

I'm very sure that some posters in this thread are implying exactly that, as is the whole "ask for permission" and "lose 10 VP" BS from GW is.

You are not allowed to work towards a fully painted army at your own speed, it's very clearly 100% painted or GTFO. Which is precisely what the people opposed to this notion are complaining about, no one is asking for free pass to run all grey plastic all the time. That is just a polemic pushed by the elitists.

I also want to point out that comparing painting to assembling models is a very dishonest argument. Assembling takes a fraction of the time it takes to assemble models, and time is for most people the one and only reason why they aren't done painting. I can properly assemble a box of plague marines or boyz in half an hour, it takes me days to finish painting them.
Not to mention that the primary reason for people to not run fully assembled models is wanting to paint those models.

First off, having standards isn't elitist and there will always be people left out and screaming how even the most basic requirements aren't fair. Although they should be kept out nobody is saying that, just lose 10 vp, don't play in tournaments, and don't play pickups with "elitists" who only want games against painted armies.

And building is a perfect comparison because the hobby is separate from the game right? If you don't have to paint then I don't have to build, now play my proxies. Time factor is irrelevant, there are plenty of slow builders.

The faux outrage is real.

 catbarf wrote:
I dunno, man. GW has always shown painted armies in their magazines, boxes, and websites. Back in the day painting was part of your overall score at a tournament. I used to go to a GW store that only allowed painted minis to be used on their tables (they have since relaxed that- but you are expected to make progress, not show up with a fully grey army every weekend). Even today the overwhelming majority of tournaments have painting requirements. It's so ingrained into the hobby that it isn't something that's ever had to be called out specifically.

Tournaments can do what they want. A tournament can say "Space Marines are banned", and that would be the law of the land. This isn't that. This is attempting to put, as others have pointed out, the permission to play the game in general in the hands of those with painted armies. The person without the painted army has to ask permission to play. That's the issue.

 catbarf wrote:
It seems to me like a subset of players is reacting as if the expectation that minis should be painted is a new idea, rather than an implicit part of the hobby all along that is just now being made explicit, and they feel put on the spot. The whole thing about disabled players looks like fishing for justifications to treat the part of the hobby they don't want to engage with (painting) as somehow different from the parts they're comfortable with (buying and assembling).

Part of the hobby, yes. No arguments there. Not part of the game, though. Whether my army is painted or not should have no impact on how the game is played, nor the outcome of said game, anymore than your ability to play should have any impact on a painting score.

I can't recall anyone every saying "How dare that person enter the painting competition! They don't even play!" or "You've yet to win a game wiht that army, so the Golden Demon is off limits to you buddy!".

 Irkjoe wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:

 catbarf wrote:
And to be clear, I'm not saying- nor do I think anybody else here is saying- that you shouldn't be allowed to play if your army isn't 100% painted.

I'm very sure that some posters in this thread are implying exactly that, as is the whole "ask for permission" and "lose 10 VP" BS from GW is.

You are not allowed to work towards a fully painted army at your own speed, it's very clearly 100% painted or GTFO. Which is precisely what the people opposed to this notion are complaining about, no one is asking for free pass to run all grey plastic all the time. That is just a polemic pushed by the elitists.

I also want to point out that comparing painting to assembling models is a very dishonest argument. Assembling takes a fraction of the time it takes to assemble models, and time is for most people the one and only reason why they aren't done painting. I can properly assemble a box of plague marines or boyz in half an hour, it takes me days to finish painting them.
Not to mention that the primary reason for people to not run fully assembled models is wanting to paint those models.

First off, having standards isn't elitist and there will always be people left out and screaming how even the most basic requirements aren't fair. Although they should be kept out nobody is saying that, just lose 10 vp, don't play in tournaments, and don't play pickups with "elitists" who only want games against painted armies.

And building is a perfect comparison because the hobby is separate from the game right? If you don't have to paint then I don't have to build, now play my proxies. Time factor is irrelevant, there are plenty of slow builders.

Standards sorta go out the window when some people throw out just paint it fast and done, not so you can be happy. But as a way to dismiss the hobby itself of others.
Or how people can judge others with being lazy and other things, but seem to still paint the other side as the ones who are overthinking it or even from this thread saying that so little people are effected it doesn’t matter.

The first thing I see with this rule was people talking about it in that way. It was nasty how some people where talking about others. The same way it seems someone can judge a persons interactions with others in how they treat there game peaces.

People place different values in different things, painting expectations are important to the hobby but the people are as well. So expecting GW to do that well shouldn’t be too much to expect.
The rule in 40k has been really great at promoting toxicity in the hobby, and even playful painting jokes are much more likely now to have posts that are in line with that.

It should also be noted that the burden is not equal on army’s and factions, both in complexity and numbers. And thenwith GW uprooting some factions and changing them potentially with a few months warning it’s a pot that’s almost garentee to have sour feelings.
This just shifts some of GW poor design and thoughts onto players to pick up the peaces.

Reading through this thread it seems a lot of people are jumping to extremes and assuming worst case scenarios and over-reacting.

Personally I’d welcome this code of conduct in 40K. Most clubs, sports and games have official codes of conduct as far as I know, and I don’t think introducing something like this to 40K would change much, but I can’t see it being harmful.

Regarding the bit about painted miniatures, I’m broadly in favour of it, as I am for the 10 VPs awarded for painted armies. Encouraging players to play with painted armies is a good thing in my book. Whether this is the best way to go about it, I’m not so sure, but I prefer it to outright banning unpainted miniatures.

I paint my miniatures, and I’m quite proud of how they look (they won’t win any competitions but they’ve come a long way since I started out!) I enjoy playing against other painted armies and on a nice tabletop with attractive, painted terrain. My FLGS has really nice tables and terrain to play on, but I can’t remember the last pick up game I played where my opponent’s army was fully painted, which I think is a shame.

When I was starting out in 2nd edition, the local GW had a rule that you could only play with painted minis, and I never played there, instead only at home with my brother or with friends. I wasn’t interested in painting much, and preferred to play, and I wasn’t very good at painting either. On top of having limited pocket money, I’d usually spend it on new minis rather than paint and brushes!

If 10VPs and a code of conduct in favour of painted miniatures was the rule when I started I expect I’d have played at the local GW with my work in progress army lost my 10VPs and probably been more involved in the hobby community, and probably picked up some painting tips.

As it is, when I finished secondary school and moved out for university, I more or less dropped out of the hobby, as I had nowhere to play with my partly painted army.

Perhaps if the rule for painted armies was more of a guideline back then I may have continued rather than stopping the hobby for 15 years or so.

 Jidmah wrote:
I'm very sure that some posters in this thread are implying exactly that, as is the whole "ask for permission" and "lose 10 VP" BS from GW is.

You are not allowed to work towards a fully painted army at your own speed, it's very clearly 100% painted or GTFO. Which is precisely what the people opposed to this notion are complaining about, no one is asking for free pass to run all grey plastic all the time. That is just a polemic pushed by the elitists.

You'll have to explain to me how being allowed to use an unpainted army at the cost of 10VP if an opponent is cool with it equates to '100% painted or GTFO'.

Seems to me to be very clearly the opposite. Conditions are explicitly stated for how you may use unpainted units or armies. And I haven't seen anyone in this thread say they would refuse to play against a less than fully painted army.

 Jidmah wrote:
I also want to point out that comparing painting to assembling models is a very dishonest argument. Assembling takes a fraction of the time it takes to assemble models, and time is for most people the one and only reason why they aren't done painting.

I never said those are equivalent in terms of effort. I said that if expecting models to be painted is unfair to the disabled, then surely expecting models to be assembled, an activity which similarly requires motor skills and precision, is also unfair. Yet I have never seen the implicit requirement that models be assembled challenged on the grounds that it may be unreasonable for the disabled. Nobody puts piles of bits on 25mm bases and argues that they should be allowed to play it because maybe disabled people can't assemble their models.

Rather gives the impression that the people complaining about being expected to paint aren't really concerned with disabled gamers, and it's more about the burden it places on them.

If you're in it for the game and don't care for painting? Fine. I get it. I respect that. I'd never refuse a game on account of paint. Just recognize that you may be detracting from the experience of others (hence establishing painted minis as a standard and suggesting you seek permission), and own that decision; don't bs about the disabled because it sounds better or more justifiable than 'I'm okay with assembly but I don't want to paint'.

 Jidmah wrote:

 catbarf wrote:
And to be clear, I'm not saying- nor do I think anybody else here is saying- that you shouldn't be allowed to play if your army isn't 100% painted.

I'm very sure that some posters in this thread are implying exactly that, as is the whole "ask for permission" and "lose 10 VP" BS from GW is.

Point of order - at no point do you lose 10 VPs if your army isn't "Battle Ready".

Score 90 VPs with your "perfect" Generalship? Congratulations, you still have them regardless of what the status is of your army when it comes to paint.

You might not get the tertiary bonus of 10 VPs for having a Battle Ready army, but that isn't the same as losing 10 VPs - you've worked towards the primary and secondary objectives, and earned your VPs there instead.

Or are you going to say at the end of the game that you "lost" your VPs for the Assassinate Secondary when you never attacked a Character during the game?

 catbarf wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
I'm very sure that some posters in this thread are implying exactly that, as is the whole "ask for permission" and "lose 10 VP" BS from GW is.

You are not allowed to work towards a fully painted army at your own speed, it's very clearly 100% painted or GTFO. Which is precisely what the people opposed to this notion are complaining about, no one is asking for free pass to run all grey plastic all the time. That is just a polemic pushed by the elitists.

You'll have to explain to me how being allowed to use an unpainted army at the cost of 10VP if an opponent is cool with it equates to '100% painted or GTFO'.

Seems to me to be very clearly the opposite. Conditions are explicitly stated for how you may use unpainted units or armies. And I haven't seen anyone in this thread say they would refuse to play against a less than fully painted army.

 Jidmah wrote:
I also want to point out that comparing painting to assembling models is a very dishonest argument. Assembling takes a fraction of the time it takes to assemble models, and time is for most people the one and only reason why they aren't done painting.

I never said those are equivalent in terms of effort. I said that if expecting models to be painted is unfair to the disabled, then surely expecting models to be assembled, an activity which similarly requires motor skills and precision, is also unfair. Yet I have never seen the implicit requirement that models be assembled challenged on the grounds that it may be unreasonable for the disabled. Nobody puts piles of bits on 25mm bases and argues that they should be allowed to play it because maybe disabled people can't assemble their models.

Rather gives the impression that the people complaining about being expected to paint aren't really concerned with disabled gamers, and it's more about the burden it places on them.

If you're in it for the game and don't care for painting? Fine. I get it. I respect that. I'd never refuse a game on account of paint. Just recognize that you may be detracting from the experience of others (hence establishing painted minis as a standard and suggesting you seek permission), and own that decision; don't bs about the disabled because it sounds better or more justifiable than 'I'm okay with assembly but I don't want to paint'.

Asking permission and defining expectations is different.
Asking permission implies a negative, my play experience is less than my opponents and my feelings are less.
If it’s very important to a player shouldn’t they encourage the hobby and the enjoyment of that hobby. And fostering good relationships that promote that.

Equalising it, with neutral words means both players should be reaching out.
Both players should be trying to find a mutual point where there play experience can be the best for both players.

I also think the building thing is really bad, as it’s only ever used as a response and a way to catch people of guard. Only one person seemed to be interested in the difference in this discussion.

Out of curiosity how would the player base react to this thought experiment:

Any code of conduct makes no mention of painted miniatures, and the 10 VPs for battle forged are removed and replaced with:

Stat boosts/special rules for units that are painted to battle ready, maybe a +1 toughness here, or a +3” range there and so on. Or strategems like “veteran Intercessors“ cost 0 CPs of the unit is painted to battle ready. This could be presented as representing the equipment is well maintained and in good working order, or a leadership boost representing a sense of martial pride for the unit in full battle colours. Conversely, stat reductions for unpainted miniatures.

After all there are already in game bonuses for painting, if your army is red marines, they get one bonus, if they are blue marines they get a different bonus. Maybe just remove the faction bonuses for unpainted minis?

Instead of an all or nothing 10 bonus VPs, it would reward players who are making progress with their painting, unit by unit.

It amounts to the same thing, an advantage to a player in the game for painting up their army, but on a sliding scale. At the end of the day, both this hypothetical and and the current 10 VPs rule make the player with a painted army more likely to win