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.
2021/06/28 14:42:09
Subject: Do you think 40k should adopt the player's code from AoS 3.0?
Unit1126PLL wrote: I don't think expecting painted miniatures in a miniatures game is elitist.
It's a basic standard.
At the risk of repeating myself, I will say again: the whole point of playing a Miniatures Game is the cool spectacle. That is what sets it apart from games that use cardboard chits or other abstractions of units and actors in the game.
Therefore, unlike some other tabletop game types, the spectacle is part of the point of playing. Otherwise, there are plenty of other ways to consume Warhammer content that doesn't provide the same spectacle (if that isn't what you care about).
The shopping cart example from upthread is a good example; is it elitist to suggest people put their carts away?
Simply having normative behaviors in a social setting isn't what "elitism" is, especially when those normative behaviors have been standard for decades and are what sets the activity apart from other activities.
It isn't elitist to insist people use golf balls to play golf rather than soccer balls.
Putting a shopping cart away is cleaning up after yourself and takes 1-2 minutes to do. You used the cart WHICH YOU DO NOT OWN and your putting it back so they can be reused without some poor worker having to round up the carts from all over the parking lot (and not obstructing parking with carts cluttering up the place).
A golf ball costs a very tiny amount of money and takes basically an insignificant amount of effort to acquire from a store.
Painting an army is tens to hundreds of hours of dedicated work. That is a LOT of resources of money, time, and personal effort which many people cannot or do not want to spend. Basically its saying the people who are busy in life, have to work a lot to get by, or lack some means (be it motivation, ability, whatever) to do all of that painting then they better just sit on the sidelines because their kind isn't accepted here unless you humble yourself to beg for permission to play from those who has the resources to have fully painted armies. If you make $10 an hour (a very low wage in the states) and your painting up a full army which takes 100 hours in this example then your talking about work that has the opportunity cost of $1000 plus the cost of brushes and paint plus however much that army of models cost (add on top of that the half dozen books GW seems to want its customers to buy with rules scattered about). For somebody who likes painting its not as much of a problem (still have that 100 hours of effort lead time before you can play the game "properly") but for those who do not then it can be the same as working a job.
How can you try to compare tiny things like putting a cart away or using a golf ball in golf to painting an entire army of miniatures? They aren't even remotely in the same ball park of effort/investment.
If you have time to assemble miniatures and play, you have time to paint (even if it's fairly low quality).
Plus, you're exactly right, and that's why I've said repeatedly that I don't insist my opponents have a fully painted army every game but rather that they're making progress. In fact, I even think I've mentioned that I myself have used unpainted miniatures, but I make a point to have another squad done every game I play.
Painting takes tons of time, I get it. I struggle with it too. But it's an expectation in the hobby, and not an unreasonable one. If I play your new Sisters in December 2019 after the special box came out and your army is all grey or just primed? That's fine - heck, I'm impressed you got them assembled for our game. If I play your new Sisters in December 2021 and they're still all grey with no further progress except the addition of more grey units, I'm going to go and suspect that you simply don't care as much about the spectacle of the game as me. Which comes with a host of other assumptions - after all, as I've iterated multiple times, the spectacle is the point vis-a-vis engaging with the hobby through a card game or video game or whathaveyou.
Whether or not a behavior is normative within a group has very little to do with how much time it takes or how inconvenient or wasteful it is.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/06/28 14:43:17
2021/06/28 15:50:21
Subject: Re:Do you think 40k should adopt the player's code from AoS 3.0?
AngryAngel80 wrote: All these rules are, at least a number of them, is about not making people feel bad. So going into a rule to make someone feel lesser when paint doesn't alter the game just alters the experience, it feels sorta dumb.
If you place value on the spectacle of painted armies, going up against partially-assembled grey tide in every game feels bad too. All the rules in the code of conduct are about the experience, not the rules of the game itself.
And saying you should ask for permission before using non-painted models is pretty inoffensive as far as requirements or expectations go. It doesn't say 'only play with fully painted unconverted Citadel™ Miniatures', just ask for permission. 'Hey, is it cool if I use some unpainted models?'. That's it. I do it all the time, in case you're thinking I'm speaking from a position of having fully painted armies.
I have a friend with ADHD. Sometimes he gets distracted and is late to our games, or forgets to bring things. The first rule in the AOS player's code is to arrive on time with everything you need to play. Is he going to feel bad about the code of conduct saying he should be on-time? Probably not. Is it unfair, or 'making someone feel lesser' to say you should be on-time, just because people who are habitually late might feel called out? No.
If someone is so thin-skinned that they will feel bad simply because you imply models are meant to be painted in a hobby that constantly showcases painting and painted models, they are really not worth walking on eggshells to placate.
AngryAngel80 wrote: I suppose though might as well not let those dirty non painters play anyways, they probably can't even buy 3 of every new model that drops, the plebs ! Gatekeeping is fun.
I can tell you with absolute certainty that the people constantly chasing the meta and buying several of every new model are not the ones fielding fully painted armies, so not sure where you're going with this.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/06/28 15:50:49
AngryAngel80 wrote: All these rules are, at least a number of them, is about not making people feel bad. So going into a rule to make someone feel lesser when paint doesn't alter the game just alters the experience, it feels sorta dumb.
If you place value on the spectacle of painted armies, going up against partially-assembled grey tide in every game feels bad too. All the rules in the code of conduct are about the experience, not the rules of the game itself.
And saying you should ask for permission before using non-painted models is pretty inoffensive as far as requirements or expectations go. It doesn't say 'only play with fully painted unconverted Citadel™ Miniatures', just ask for permission. 'Hey, is it cool if I use some unpainted models?'. That's it. I do it all the time, in case you're thinking I'm speaking from a position of having fully painted armies.
I have a friend with ADHD. Sometimes he gets distracted and is late to our games, or forgets to bring things. The first rule in the AOS player's code is to arrive on time with everything you need to play. Is he going to feel bad about the code of conduct saying he should be on-time? Probably not. Is it unfair, or 'making someone feel lesser' to say you should be on-time, just because people who are habitually late might feel called out? No.
If someone is so thin-skinned that they will feel bad simply because you imply models are meant to be painted in a hobby that constantly showcases painting and painted models, they are really not worth walking on eggshells to placate.
AngryAngel80 wrote: I suppose though might as well not let those dirty non painters play anyways, they probably can't even buy 3 of every new model that drops, the plebs ! Gatekeeping is fun.
I can tell you with absolute certainty that the people constantly chasing the meta and buying several of every new model are not the ones fielding fully painted armies, so not sure where you're going with this.
in fact requiring fully painted mini's in accurate colour schemes strikes me as a fantastic way to DFISCHOURAGE rampent meta following.
Opinions are not facts please don't confuse the two
2021/06/29 00:35:15
Subject: Re:Do you think 40k should adopt the player's code from AoS 3.0?
AngryAngel80 wrote: All these rules are, at least a number of them, is about not making people feel bad. So going into a rule to make someone feel lesser when paint doesn't alter the game just alters the experience, it feels sorta dumb.
If you place value on the spectacle of painted armies, going up against partially-assembled grey tide in every game feels bad too. All the rules in the code of conduct are about the experience, not the rules of the game itself.
And saying you should ask for permission before using non-painted models is pretty inoffensive as far as requirements or expectations go. It doesn't say 'only play with fully painted unconverted Citadel™ Miniatures', just ask for permission. 'Hey, is it cool if I use some unpainted models?'. That's it. I do it all the time, in case you're thinking I'm speaking from a position of having fully painted armies.
I have a friend with ADHD. Sometimes he gets distracted and is late to our games, or forgets to bring things. The first rule in the AOS player's code is to arrive on time with everything you need to play. Is he going to feel bad about the code of conduct saying he should be on-time? Probably not. Is it unfair, or 'making someone feel lesser' to say you should be on-time, just because people who are habitually late might feel called out? No.
If someone is so thin-skinned that they will feel bad simply because you imply models are meant to be painted in a hobby that constantly showcases painting and painted models, they are really not worth walking on eggshells to placate.
AngryAngel80 wrote: I suppose though might as well not let those dirty non painters play anyways, they probably can't even buy 3 of every new model that drops, the plebs ! Gatekeeping is fun.
I can tell you with absolute certainty that the people constantly chasing the meta and buying several of every new model are not the ones fielding fully painted armies, so not sure where you're going with this.
in fact requiring fully painted mini's in accurate colour schemes strikes me as a fantastic way to DFISCHOURAGE rampent meta following.
Should players not be expected to keep up with the meta and understand it, to provide good games and a challenge to every game.
GW is the one that creates huge meta shifts, they create a lack of desire for engagement in painting. Should complain to them when people don’t want to do it.
2021/06/29 01:04:23
Subject: Do you think 40k should adopt the player's code from AoS 3.0?
Racerguy180 wrote: Metas change when you need to keep up with the jones', they dont if no one is keeping up with the jones'.
Also don't tournies have painting requirements anyway? so umm... the people fielding unpainted armies cause power level are what? the people seal clubbing newbies at their local games club?
Opinions are not facts please don't confuse the two
2021/06/29 01:54:33
Subject: Do you think 40k should adopt the player's code from AoS 3.0?
Racerguy180 wrote: Metas change when you need to keep up with the jones', they dont if no one is keeping up with the jones'.
Also don't tournies have painting requirements anyway? so umm... the people fielding unpainted armies cause power level are what? the people seal clubbing newbies at their local games club?
If people consider the game a large part of the hobby then improving a list building can be an important aspect of that, if factions can be left behind for years at a time. Then it’s not really that odd they are less committed to parts of the hobby or the hobby’s they don’t like.
Tournament play is not the be all and end of the gaming portion of the hobby.
2021/06/29 03:40:31
Subject: Do you think 40k should adopt the player's code from AoS 3.0?
Racerguy180 wrote: Metas change when you need to keep up with the jones', they dont if no one is keeping up with the jones'.
If Timmy plays his double Land Raider Crusader Black Templars he was in a bad spot 6 months ago. Now he's got more points than he had back then. Timmy having more points means he is a bigger threat in the local meta and people might have to ensure their lists can effectively deal with his Land Raiders.
If Sparky plays his triple Vanguard Veteran Blood Angels he was in a good spot 6 months ago. Now he's got less points than he had back then. Sparky having fewer points means he is a smaller threat in the local meta and any anti-VanVet units people included in their lists become less desirable.
Neither player is creating top meta armies, just picking units they like and coming out better or worse for it and the local meta is adapting to the changing threats, not going out and starting to spam tournament-winning units. GW is just trying to right the imbalance between them created in a previous CA release and changing metas as a result.
2021/06/29 03:48:33
Subject: Do you think 40k should adopt the player's code from AoS 3.0?
And our group has no problem adjusting...cuz we don't. All of us play TAC army's so we already plan to deal with most things. We also adjust games/missions/objectives/everything else.
It's surprisingly easy to "balance" when you don't need to wait from word on high.
2021/06/29 03:56:08
Subject: Do you think 40k should adopt the player's code from AoS 3.0?
Racerguy180 wrote: And our group has no problem adjusting...cuz we don't. All of us play TAC army's so we already plan to deal with most things. We also adjust games/missions/objectives/everything else.
It's surprisingly easy to "balance" when you don't need to wait from word on high.
besides there's a differance between tweeking your list slightly and going out and buying an entire new iron hands army because the new IH suplement dropped
Opinions are not facts please don't confuse the two
2021/06/29 04:17:14
Subject: Do you think 40k should adopt the player's code from AoS 3.0?
Racerguy180 wrote: And our group has no problem adjusting...cuz we don't. All of us play TAC army's so we already plan to deal with most things. We also adjust games/missions/objectives/everything else.
It's surprisingly easy to "balance" when you don't need to wait from word on high.
besides there's a differance between tweeking your list slightly and going out and buying an entire new iron hands army because the new IH suplement dropped
This suddenly becomes they are having the wrong type of fun, why shouldn’t they go and do that if a player wants to. And this doesn’t even cover that some factions are more limited too TAC lists building.
I have myself buy models I would never have buy otherwise to get more options towards that.
2021/06/29 04:28:20
Subject: Do you think 40k should adopt the player's code from AoS 3.0?
We had this discussion locally a few days ago while doing a gaming day. my take was controversial and simple:
play what you want to play, and play it well. learn to use it, learn its strengths and learn its weaknesses, and when you lose games with it, which is going to happen, don't blame the dice, the other player, the board, or anything else, blame yourself and learn from the mistake.
my basic BA list is simple 2 units of assault intercessors in impulsors 1 10 man unit of intercessors with assault bolters 10 sanguinary guard 5 eradicators 2 units of outriders a sanguinary priest, the sanguinor, and a chaplain on a bike with imperium sword and the gift of foresight.
it isn't a particularly good list, but it's well-rounded, and it does a good job. the list is good enough that when I lose with it (which is about half of my games, maybe a little more right now) I can honestly say that it more than likely is not my list, and it's more than likely how I played and the decisions I made.
when do we put that in the Player's code?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/06/29 04:29:21
2021/06/29 06:52:33
Subject: Do you think 40k should adopt the player's code from AoS 3.0?
If you have time to assemble miniatures and play, you have time to paint (even if it's fairly low quality).
Having the time has very little to do with it for me. I paint at my own pace & more importantly at my own whim. That and when there's something seriously wrong & I'm extremely stressed out/depressed....
If I'm not stressed out/depressed or if the whim isn't striking me atm? Then that time you claim I have? It's being invested in something else.
At no point in this process do I ever consider an opponent.
Unit1126PLL wrote: Plus, you're exactly right, and that's why I've said repeatedly that I don't insist my opponents have a fully painted army every game but rather that they're making progress.
What if I'm "making progress" on some other project, just not what I'm playing that game? Say painting an AoS goblin army but playing 40k come game night? Afterall, no matter how much time you think I have there's still a finite amount of it.
Unit1126PLL wrote: Painting takes tons of time, I get it. I struggle with it too. But it's an expectation in the hobby, and not an unreasonable one. If I play your new Sisters in December 2019 after the special box came out and your army is all grey or just primed? That's fine - heck, I'm impressed you got them assembled for our game. If I play your new Sisters in December 2021 and they're still all grey with no further progress except the addition of more grey units, I'm going to go and suspect that you simply don't care as much about the spectacle of the game as me. Which comes with a host of other assumptions - after all, as I've iterated multiple times, the spectacle is the point vis-a-vis engaging with the hobby through a card game or video game or whathaveyou.
{shrugs} Assume whatever will. I assure you that I will not be changing how I approach the painting aspect of this hobby.
2021/06/29 08:01:14
Subject: Re:Do you think 40k should adopt the player's code from AoS 3.0?
AngryAngel80 wrote: All these rules are, at least a number of them, is about not making people feel bad. So going into a rule to make someone feel lesser when paint doesn't alter the game just alters the experience, it feels sorta dumb.
If you place value on the spectacle of painted armies, going up against partially-assembled grey tide in every game feels bad too. All the rules in the code of conduct are about the experience, not the rules of the game itself.
And saying you should ask for permission before using non-painted models is pretty inoffensive as far as requirements or expectations go. It doesn't say 'only play with fully painted unconverted Citadel™ Miniatures', just ask for permission. 'Hey, is it cool if I use some unpainted models?'. That's it. I do it all the time, in case you're thinking I'm speaking from a position of having fully painted armies.
Shock horror about talking like an adults with opponent about game you are going to play.
Because that's what the codes amount to. "TALK WITH YOUR OPPONENT!"
Shock horror. Talking with human being! The indogmity! Where has this world gone to!
2024 painted/bought: 109/109
2021/06/29 09:39:46
Subject: Re:Do you think 40k should adopt the player's code from AoS 3.0?
AngryAngel80 wrote: All these rules are, at least a number of them, is about not making people feel bad. So going into a rule to make someone feel lesser when paint doesn't alter the game just alters the experience, it feels sorta dumb.
If you place value on the spectacle of painted armies, going up against partially-assembled grey tide in every game feels bad too. All the rules in the code of conduct are about the experience, not the rules of the game itself.
And saying you should ask for permission before using non-painted models is pretty inoffensive as far as requirements or expectations go. It doesn't say 'only play with fully painted unconverted Citadel™ Miniatures', just ask for permission. 'Hey, is it cool if I use some unpainted models?'. That's it. I do it all the time, in case you're thinking I'm speaking from a position of having fully painted armies.
I have a friend with ADHD. Sometimes he gets distracted and is late to our games, or forgets to bring things. The first rule in the AOS player's code is to arrive on time with everything you need to play. Is he going to feel bad about the code of conduct saying he should be on-time? Probably not. Is it unfair, or 'making someone feel lesser' to say you should be on-time, just because people who are habitually late might feel called out? No.
If someone is so thin-skinned that they will feel bad simply because you imply models are meant to be painted in a hobby that constantly showcases painting and painted models, they are really not worth walking on eggshells to placate.
AngryAngel80 wrote: I suppose though might as well not let those dirty non painters play anyways, they probably can't even buy 3 of every new model that drops, the plebs ! Gatekeeping is fun.
I can tell you with absolute certainty that the people constantly chasing the meta and buying several of every new model are not the ones fielding fully painted armies, so not sure where you're going with this.
First I disagree with you and second I promise you most of those who can afford to buy 3 or every new model that drops will be the ones with fully painted armies as they can also easily afford to pay someone to paint them.
AngryAngel80 wrote: All these rules are, at least a number of them, is about not making people feel bad. So going into a rule to make someone feel lesser when paint doesn't alter the game just alters the experience, it feels sorta dumb.
If you place value on the spectacle of painted armies, going up against partially-assembled grey tide in every game feels bad too. All the rules in the code of conduct are about the experience, not the rules of the game itself.
And saying you should ask for permission before using non-painted models is pretty inoffensive as far as requirements or expectations go. It doesn't say 'only play with fully painted unconverted Citadel™ Miniatures', just ask for permission. 'Hey, is it cool if I use some unpainted models?'. That's it. I do it all the time, in case you're thinking I'm speaking from a position of having fully painted armies.
Shock horror about talking like an adults with opponent about game you are going to play.
Because that's what the codes amount to. "TALK WITH YOUR OPPONENT!"
Shock horror. Talking with human being! The indogmity! Where has this world gone to!
Shock horror why shouldn't someone have to beg me to use non painted models, they should bow down and accept their shame for daring to not field fully painted. Do these other adults we supposedly play with not have eyes to see the models aren't painted ? If it matters that much to the one who has to play against non painted armies why don't they just say outright " I will not play against un painted armies. " Is that so hard ? I guess so. Shock horror putting your expectations out there first so people know it ahead of time, the indignity.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/06/29 09:43:15
2021/06/29 09:59:45
Subject: Re:Do you think 40k should adopt the player's code from AoS 3.0?
AngryAngel80 wrote: All these rules are, at least a number of them, is about not making people feel bad. So going into a rule to make someone feel lesser when paint doesn't alter the game just alters the experience, it feels sorta dumb.
If you place value on the spectacle of painted armies, going up against partially-assembled grey tide in every game feels bad too. All the rules in the code of conduct are about the experience, not the rules of the game itself.
And saying you should ask for permission before using non-painted models is pretty inoffensive as far as requirements or expectations go. It doesn't say 'only play with fully painted unconverted Citadel™ Miniatures', just ask for permission. 'Hey, is it cool if I use some unpainted models?'. That's it. I do it all the time, in case you're thinking I'm speaking from a position of having fully painted armies.
I have a friend with ADHD. Sometimes he gets distracted and is late to our games, or forgets to bring things. The first rule in the AOS player's code is to arrive on time with everything you need to play. Is he going to feel bad about the code of conduct saying he should be on-time? Probably not. Is it unfair, or 'making someone feel lesser' to say you should be on-time, just because people who are habitually late might feel called out? No.
If someone is so thin-skinned that they will feel bad simply because you imply models are meant to be painted in a hobby that constantly showcases painting and painted models, they are really not worth walking on eggshells to placate.
AngryAngel80 wrote: I suppose though might as well not let those dirty non painters play anyways, they probably can't even buy 3 of every new model that drops, the plebs ! Gatekeeping is fun.
I can tell you with absolute certainty that the people constantly chasing the meta and buying several of every new model are not the ones fielding fully painted armies, so not sure where you're going with this.
First I disagree with you and second I promise you most of those who can afford to buy 3 or every new model that drops will be the ones with fully painted armies as they can also easily afford to pay someone to paint them.
AngryAngel80 wrote: All these rules are, at least a number of them, is about not making people feel bad. So going into a rule to make someone feel lesser when paint doesn't alter the game just alters the experience, it feels sorta dumb.
If you place value on the spectacle of painted armies, going up against partially-assembled grey tide in every game feels bad too. All the rules in the code of conduct are about the experience, not the rules of the game itself.
And saying you should ask for permission before using non-painted models is pretty inoffensive as far as requirements or expectations go. It doesn't say 'only play with fully painted unconverted Citadel™ Miniatures', just ask for permission. 'Hey, is it cool if I use some unpainted models?'. That's it. I do it all the time, in case you're thinking I'm speaking from a position of having fully painted armies.
Shock horror about talking like an adults with opponent about game you are going to play.
Because that's what the codes amount to. "TALK WITH YOUR OPPONENT!"
Shock horror. Talking with human being! The indogmity! Where has this world gone to!
Shock horror why shouldn't someone have to beg me to use non painted models, they should bow down and accept their shame for daring to not field fully painted. Do these other adults we supposedly play with not have eyes to see the models aren't painted ? If it matters that much to the one who has to play against non painted armies why don't they just say outright " I will not play against un painted armies. " Is that so hard ? I guess so. Shock horror putting your expectations out there first so people know it ahead of time, the indignity.
except that some people DO say they won't play unpainted armies and if behoves you to make sure they're not one of those people before you waste your time going to the game hauling models out making a list etc.
Seriously Trev's right, just fething talk to your opponent and eistablish a base line expectation. thats all you need to do. and of course GW expects the default to be painted. it makes sense for several reasons.
1: Painted mini's look better GW would rather any games played in the public sphere be with painted minis, nice terrain etc. because it'll sell the hobby better.
2: GW produces paints, brushes etc. so obviously they want to encourage the purchasing of it.
Opinions are not facts please don't confuse the two
2021/06/29 10:09:14
Subject: Do you think 40k should adopt the player's code from AoS 3.0?
This whole discussion has gone to gak as it does every time because one side is people investing non-trivial amounts of time in painting and complaining about being actively punished for having some unfinished miniatures while the other side claims the moral high ground by equating them with WAACTFG metachasers who never paint anything ever while at the same time screaming about totally not being elitists.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/06/29 10:09:32
7 Ork facts people always get wrong: Ragnar did not win against Thrakka, but suffered two crushing defeats within a few days of each other. A lasgun is powerful enough to sever an ork's appendage or head in a single, well aimed shot. Orks meks have a better understanding of electrics and mechanics than most Tech Priests. Orks actually do not think that purple makes them harder to see. The joke was made canon by Alex Stewart's Caphias Cain books. Gharkull Blackfang did not even come close to killing the emperor. Orks can be corrupted by chaos, but few of them have any interest in what chaos offers. Orks do not have the power of believe.
2021/06/29 10:40:04
Subject: Do you think 40k should adopt the player's code from AoS 3.0?
I do think discussion should be had, I am a painter and hobby focused person.
I think that the way GW has gone about it has been rather daft.
We effectively have all other games painted fully, and no issues but 40k with its churn keeps a lot of people from investing in there army’s.
2021/06/29 10:45:11
Subject: Do you think 40k should adopt the player's code from AoS 3.0?
Jidmah wrote: This whole discussion has gone to gak as it does every time because one side is people investing non-trivial amounts of time in painting and complaining about being actively punished for having some unfinished miniatures while the other side claims the moral high ground by equating them with WAACTFG metachasers who never paint anything ever while at the same time screaming about totally not being elitists.
eh I dunno about that; the over all additude seems to be "it's not a big deal, if you've got unpainted mini's just ask if your opponent is kosher playing against unpainted minis" on one side and on the other is "BUT SOMEONE COULD USE ITAS A WAY TO BE AN donkey-cave ON ME!"
Opinions are not facts please don't confuse the two
2021/06/29 11:28:03
Subject: Do you think 40k should adopt the player's code from AoS 3.0?
Last week locally guy asked for game and stated he preferred painted army. Well no biggie. If I would have had zero armies that were painted he would have understood. As is I have so it was no big deal figuring out list made from painted armies.
He also stated what he would be bringing to try his new army so I made damned sure I don't hard counter him(seriously I could have pretty much auto won had I WANTED to...but what's the fun in that and guy has spent time painting new toy so would be looking to try to use him and not get hard-countered).
Little chat in advance about the game and we had much more enjoyable game as a result. Not too hard to do
Alas such a basic concept such as talking with humans has seems to have been forgotten these days. Now the less contact with other humans you have the better.
2024 painted/bought: 109/109
2021/06/29 12:10:36
Subject: Do you think 40k should adopt the player's code from AoS 3.0?
tneva82 wrote: Last week locally guy asked for game and stated he preferred painted army. Well no biggie. If I would have had zero armies that were painted he would have understood. As is I have so it was no big deal figuring out list made from painted armies.
He also stated what he would be bringing to try his new army so I made damned sure I don't hard counter him(seriously I could have pretty much auto won had I WANTED to...but what's the fun in that and guy has spent time painting new toy so would be looking to try to use him and not get hard-countered).
Little chat in advance about the game and we had much more enjoyable game as a result. Not too hard to do
Alas such a basic concept such as talking with humans has seems to have been forgotten these days. Now the less contact with other humans you have the better.
"Talk with your opponent" or "chat with your players" is the basic concept that all of this so often comes down to. There are a couple of rpg-focused podcasts that I listen to and probably 95% of the discussions eventually boil down to "just talk with your group about it". I read this "Code of Conduct" much like the old Stillmania articles from White Dwarf; they're very reasonable suggestions for creating a good game atmosphere. If you have folks in your local meta that have serious issues with any of those rules(to me they read more like guidelines tbh), then those folks are probably going to be causing problems in other areas of gameplay as well.
I do think discussion should be had, I am a painter and hobby focused person.
I think that the way GW has gone about it has been rather daft.
We effectively have all other games painted fully, and no issues but 40k with its churn keeps a lot of people from investing in there army’s.
What does churn have to do with it? I'm not particularly fond of 3-year edition cycles, but my ork army has seen constant painting progress over the last few editions regardless of what the codex says. If anything, the churn has caused me to buy fewer books and supplements and worry less about what's currently hot or OP in the meta.
2021/06/29 14:42:29
Subject: Re:Do you think 40k should adopt the player's code from AoS 3.0?
AngryAngel80 wrote: Shock horror why shouldn't someone have to beg me to use non painted models, they should bow down and accept their shame for daring to not field fully painted. Do these other adults we supposedly play with not have eyes to see the models aren't painted ? If it matters that much to the one who has to play against non painted armies why don't they just say outright " I will not play against un painted armies. " Is that so hard ? I guess so. Shock horror putting your expectations out there first so people know it ahead of time, the indignity.
I think the idea that 'ask for permission' is tantamount to 'beg' and 'bow down and accept their shame' really says everything. A player can't be courteous and respectful of your play experience if they'd rather crawl across broken glass than ask 'hey, is it alright if I use these unpainted models'?
The player who views the basic courtesy of asking permission as a humiliating act clearly isn't having those conversations about mutual expectations in the first place. They're going to assert their god-given right to play grey tide, plunk down an unpainted army, and if their opponent doesn't like it that's their problem.
And so we have a code of conduct clearly setting standards and expectations, and putting the onus on them to seek permission for not meeting a standard that may impact the opponent's play experience. If you're already being courteous about ensuring your opponent has fun too, then it's really not a big deal.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2021/06/29 14:51:15
Jidmah wrote: This whole discussion has gone to gak as it does every time because one side is people investing non-trivial amounts of time in painting and complaining about being actively punished for having some unfinished miniatures while the other side claims the moral high ground by equating them with WAACTFG metachasers who never paint anything ever while at the same time screaming about totally not being elitists.
Yeah, that's a completely accurate and unbiased summary of the situation alright /s
2021/06/29 15:04:49
Subject: Do you think 40k should adopt the player's code from AoS 3.0?
Seabass wrote: We had this discussion locally a few days ago while doing a gaming day. my take was controversial and simple:
play what you want to play, and play it well. learn to use it, learn its strengths and learn its weaknesses, and when you lose games with it, which is going to happen, don't blame the dice, the other player, the board, or anything else, blame yourself and learn from the mistake.
my basic BA list is simple
2 units of assault intercessors in impulsors
1 10 man unit of intercessors with assault bolters
10 sanguinary guard
5 eradicators
2 units of outriders
a sanguinary priest, the sanguinor, and a chaplain on a bike with imperium sword and the gift of foresight.
it isn't a particularly good list, but it's well-rounded, and it does a good job. the list is good enough that when I lose with it (which is about half of my games, maybe a little more right now) I can honestly say that it more than likely is not my list, and it's more than likely how I played and the decisions I made.
AngryAngel80 wrote: Shock horror why shouldn't someone have to beg me to use non painted models, they should bow down and accept their shame for daring to not field fully painted. Do these other adults we supposedly play with not have eyes to see the models aren't painted ? If it matters that much to the one who has to play against non painted armies why don't they just say outright " I will not play against un painted armies. " Is that so hard ? I guess so. Shock horror putting your expectations out there first so people know it ahead of time, the indignity.
I think the idea that 'ask for permission' is tantamount to 'beg' and 'bow down and accept their shame' really says everything. A player can't be courteous and respectful of your play experience if they'd rather crawl across broken glass than ask 'hey, is it alright if I use these unpainted models'?
The player who views the basic courtesy of asking permission as a humiliating act clearly isn't having those conversations about mutual expectations in the first place. They're going to assert their god-given right to play grey tide, plunk down an unpainted army, and if their opponent doesn't like it that's their problem.
And so we have a code of conduct clearly setting standards and expectations, and putting the onus on them to seek permission for not meeting a standard that may impact the opponent's play experience. If you're already being courteous about ensuring your opponent has fun too, then it's really not a big deal.
So I am a little curious, when the hobby is standardised. My grey knights are painted to a much higher standard the what GW considers basic, but I left the bases bare. This was done for hobby related reasons as I like the bases that way rather than worked in this case, and it is off benefit to one of my opponents as a big consideration.
Sadly this was the army GW broke and needs updating to be used currently, but I would be curious if people should consider it something I need to seek permission to use. Being that I did consider them complete.
Normally a base for each model would take a few hours, I enjoy it in equal part to the painting and much more than I do most GW models being built.
2021/06/29 16:55:36
Subject: Re:Do you think 40k should adopt the player's code from AoS 3.0?
Apple fox wrote: So I am a little curious, when the hobby is standardised. My grey knights are painted to a much higher standard the what GW considers basic, but I left the bases bare. This was done for hobby related reasons as I like the bases that way rather than worked in this case, and it is off benefit to one of my opponents as a big consideration. Sadly this was the army GW broke and needs updating to be used currently, but I would be curious if people should consider it something I need to seek permission to use. Being that I did consider them complete.
Normally a base for each model would take a few hours, I enjoy it in equal part to the painting and much more than I do most GW models being built.
Did you clean up the bases? (e.g. did you make it so that they're at least black/uniform colored and not covered in stray paint from your basecoats or washes or whatever?)
If so, this is what I do, if I don't have a scenic base, so you'd be good to go with me.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/06/29 16:55:50
2021/06/29 17:21:29
Subject: Re:Do you think 40k should adopt the player's code from AoS 3.0?
Apple fox wrote: So I am a little curious, when the hobby is standardised. My grey knights are painted to a much higher standard the what GW considers basic, but I left the bases bare. This was done for hobby related reasons as I like the bases that way rather than worked in this case, and it is off benefit to one of my opponents as a big consideration.
Sadly this was the army GW broke and needs updating to be used currently, but I would be curious if people should consider it something I need to seek permission to use. Being that I did consider them complete.
Normally a base for each model would take a few hours, I enjoy it in equal part to the painting and much more than I do most GW models being built.
Did you clean up the bases? (e.g. did you make it so that they're at least black/uniform colored and not covered in stray paint from your basecoats or washes or whatever?)
If so, this is what I do, if I don't have a scenic base, so you'd be good to go with me.
I actually paint of the base probably 99% of the time unless they is a specific reason. So the bases are left as is after I file them if they have an edge or something.
2021/06/29 17:40:04
Subject: Re:Do you think 40k should adopt the player's code from AoS 3.0?
But you don't know if your opponent does, and it doesn't quite meet the standard of 'painted and based', so you just ask. 99% of the time the response will be 'What? Oh yeah, no problem', but you're being respectful by asking.
I'm sure you have these kinds of basic courtesy interactions on a daily basis. No need to overthink it.
Jidmah wrote: This whole discussion has gone to gak as it does every time because one side is people investing non-trivial amounts of time in painting and complaining about being actively punished for having some unfinished miniatures while the other side claims the moral high ground by equating them with WAACTFG metachasers who never paint anything ever while at the same time screaming about totally not being elitists.
Hyperbole and lies
2021/06/30 02:12:53
Subject: Do you think 40k should adopt the player's code from AoS 3.0?
Jidmah wrote: This whole discussion has gone to gak as it does every time because one side is people investing non-trivial amounts of time in painting and complaining about being actively punished for having some unfinished miniatures while the other side claims the moral high ground by equating them with WAACTFG metachasers who never paint anything ever while at the same time screaming about totally not being elitists.
What standards are acceptable in your opinion? And please explain how painting expectations will impact you because theoretically, if you and I met at a store we wouldn't play because I'm an elitist and nothing else; the end. You just play against somebody who doesn't care or you ignore their 10 vp technical win in a casual game.
All of this talk about people forcing you to paint and that paint has got you down is the purest nonsense.
and suspect that you simply don't care as much about the spectacle of the game as me. Which comes with a host of other assumptions - after all, as I've iterated multiple times, the spectacle is the point vis-a-vis engaging with the hobby through a card game or video game or whathaveyou.
