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.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 Dysartes wrote:

"should" and "does" are not the same thing - you agreed to play a game, that VP structure of which currently "does" include painting as a tertiary objective.

Not the opponent's fault that Jid didn't choose to play to that objective, and it seems a bit off to then be vengeful when as a result of the game doesn't go his way.

IDK about you but i personally would never claim the 10pts if it was what would win me the game. That would be such an unsatisfying victory lol

Then you are cheater.

And having bigger wallet is even less satisfying win and 99% 40k game "skill" is bigger wallet.

tneva82 wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 Dysartes wrote:

"should" and "does" are not the same thing - you agreed to play a game, that VP structure of which currently "does" include painting as a tertiary objective.

Not the opponent's fault that Jid didn't choose to play to that objective, and it seems a bit off to then be vengeful when as a result of the game doesn't go his way.

IDK about you but i personally would never claim the 10pts if it was what would win me the game. That would be such an unsatisfying victory lol

Then you are cheater.

And having bigger wallet is even less satisfying win and 99% 40k game "skill" is bigger wallet.

cheater because i give myself less points?
and stop with your bigger wallet gak, you can win against expensive armies with cheap ones (guard vs custodes). Having more money isnt automatically a win

While the paint job doesn't affect the battle it is in the rules. So you were forewarned that you are getting/spotting points for painting your models. It's your decision to play and your agreement to use the rules, as they are, that are given by GW.

Just like you don't want people to complain about your lack of paint you can't complain about the benefit that they got and you waived.

Full painted; no exceptions. Low levels of terrain (London GT style) is also a big letdown.


This was one of the core reasons why I didn't like Warmachine. Check out these two games



vs.

Leo_the_Rat wrote:
While the paint job doesn't affect the battle it is in the rules. So you were forewarned that you are getting/spotting points for painting your models. It's your decision to play and your agreement to use the rules, as they are, that are given by GW.

Just like you don't want people to complain about your lack of paint you can't complain about the benefit that they got and you waived.

all my armies are painted, so it doesnt affect me. Played at least one game every weekend since the start of 9th and i never ever used this rule (and neither has anyone at my LGS )


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Stevefamine wrote:
Full painted; no exceptions. Low levels of terrain (London GT style) is also a big letdown.


This was one of the core reasons why I didn't like Warmachine. Check out these two games

Spoiler:

vs.

I love how fast people went WAAC because paint jobs provide points.

 TheBestBucketHead wrote:
I love how fast people went WAAC because paint jobs provide points.

Yes WAAC=counting points you have earned. I make sure to tell this to everyone who raises banner or collects data or takes Titian hunter. If you count any of those points throughout the game and it causes me to not win you are a WAAC player

Or you know people could simply keep score by the rules and have a fun game. Funny how all these people who “don’t care/ can’t be bothered” about paint get really upset about and care a lot about the points attached to that paint. Wanting painting points you haven’t earned is no different then wanting the primary points for a round even though you were pushed off an objective

Rules prohibit nice terrain in Warmachine. The game is played in an event style and it's rare that folks have casual or narrative games. The game wants to be 2D and flat in terms of mechanics.

players not building intricate tables?

For 40k I put the example forward because you'll have a far greater time in a game with a terrain table painted even a bit. This is a table I worked on as a teenager at my local GW:



It's the bare minimum for a painting requirement. The armies that play on that should be painted at least.

Grey tide army on a good table? not bad - could work

Grey tide army on a unpainted and boring table of books and cups?

Painted army on a boring kitchen table setup?

Some painting is required for the game we're playing. If you play Warmachine - no need at all to paint anything.

The primary defense against painting miniatures isnt lack of skill it's just a time commitment. Hey the hobby isnt that important for many folks that are involved. It is painting little toy soldiers to roll dice with. I lean on the artistic side of the hobby and thats what I enjoy. Time commitment is a combination of laziness, real life issues, work balance, and so on. Far easier to play a video game or watch a game and simply play an unpainted army against your friends. The art portion of the hobby is my thing.

Is it a question of time commitment to the hobby? and being snobby if someone didn't paint their army? Sure you can view it that way. I personally don't view it as gatekeeping.. but then all tournaments and events would be gatekeepers against the "grey tides" folks.

The 10 VPs rule I do not agree with. There should of course be a painting score at events

 VladimirHerzog wrote:


while that 40k table looks cool as heck, is that really a problem with the game more than with the players not building intricate tables?
I know nothing of Warmachine, could you play with nicer terrain or do the rules prohibit it somehow?

Fair question vlad.

You absolutely can play wmh on nice boards with painted armies- all of my stuff for example is painted. However its true that Most people don't paint or value 3d terrain. 'The game' and how 'the community approached the game' were largely synonymous.

the community itself got fixated on unpainted and 2d terrain to 'help' ease of play and ease of measurement for competitive events - you can argue with the shape/design of pp models, 3d terrain risks them tipping over etc, and if you are anyway at all familiar with wmh, you'll know there were no other kinds of events other than ultra-competitive ones - this was basically decided by the community itself and to a large part represented a large contributing effect in the decline of the game since casual players and pro-painting players were largely driven out. But that's another conversation.

 Dysartes wrote:
...and we're sure it's the people in the pro-painting camp that are the unpleasant ones?

Nah, just I'm just making up nonsense that is just as extreme as their views and see who flips their gak because of it.

 Jidmah wrote:

 Dysartes wrote:
...and we're sure it's the people in the pro-painting camp that are the unpleasant ones?

Nah, just I'm just making up nonsense that is just as extreme as their views and see who flips their gak because of it.

Yes turning down a game is such an “extreme” view. I hope non of these “extremists” are roaming the streets looking for painted armies to play. Actually now that I think about it almost every major tournament is now an “extremist” event. God only knows how such an extreme view as wanting to play Warhammer against other painted armies became so widespread. The world will for sure be a worse place having to gaze at so many fully painted armies

My local 40k group actually split over this argument. The All-Painted-requirement crowd stuck to their Whatsapp group, and from what I can see through lurking, it's just 3-4 people still. The No-Paint-Requirement group shifted over to a Discord server, and has been steadily growing, drawing in more people, etc etc. Pretty active in all of it's channels for art sharing, discussions, etcs. Roughly 3-4x more active members playing games.

People are welcome to play however they want, obviously, and against whoever they want, but it's pretty evident from the thread that all-paint-requirement is in the minority, and for sure matches up with my local experience.

I strive to fully paint my armies, and Contrast has made that far easier these days. But Excluding people from participating in a part of the hobby, that I just can't agree with. I wouldn't want to, and in fact don't play in groups where All-Painted is a requirement. Even though I could make that requirement, because it's exclusionary. That sort of attitude could very easily push out new players who want to ease in to the hobby without that pressure being put on to them. Encourage people, but don't pressure. Not to say that's what particular posters here do, just my own anecdotal experience of how All-Painted groups are.

Hobby points is a double edged sword.

I understand both sides of the argument and think about it as players generally being in one of two camps.
Camp No.1 = The experience is priority.
Camp No.2 = The game is priority.

For those in camp no.1, they want all aspect of W40K to be observed and appreciated.
For those in camp no.2, they want victory/defeat to be based solely on game play.

Each is valid. I'd even say there's a fair amount of people who have a foot in both camps.

The issue is when someone in either camp is too extreme and upholds their preference to the exclusion of all else. The common example being, when camp no.2 does not paint their models because to them W40K is nothing more than a game and the models are nothing more than game pieces. This cheapens the experience for those in camp no.1.

 oni wrote:
Hobby points is a double edged sword.

I understand both sides of the argument and think about it as players generally being in one of two camps.
Camp No.1 = The experience is priority.
Camp No.2 = The game is priority.

For those in camp no.1, they want all aspect of W40K to be observed and appreciated.
For those in camp no.2, they want victory/defeat to be based solely on game play.

Each is valid. I'd even say there's a fair amount of people who have a foot in both camps.

The issue is when someone in either camp is too extreme and upholds their preference to the exclusion of all else. The common example being, when camp no.2 does not paint their models because to them W40K is nothing more than a game and the models are nothing more than game pieces. This cheapens the experience for those in camp no.1.

well according to the poll (which to be fair has a very small sample size) most players do not care on only expect a minimum amount of paint

I actually think the ten points is dumb. I'd rather events simply either require paint or not, and then we all roll dice. Especially in smaller events, it's probably more important to be inclusive to bring in more people, and having a handicap for unpainted seems odd.

Interesting thread this one so far. Both camps have made reasonable requests and then it's turned into a bun fight by the more unreasonable players in each. There is nothing inherently wrong with any of the options here as long as everyone is polite.

Some are saying 'all painted or no game', due to how they enjoy the game. How is this any different from those who only want to play narrative as that's how they enjoy it or any of the other options when setting up a game? As long as you are polite about it then it is not 'gatekeeping' or 'supremacy'. I'd be quite happy for someone to check with me before a game and as long as they were polite and just said 'Sorry mate I'd rather wait until your whole army is painted', there would be no issue. I don't want to force them to waste their time having a game they wouldn't enjoy. However it would be a problem if they told me I was wrong or lazy for not having everything painted yet, and in that instance they should rightfully be called out for being a jerk.

Equally those who just want to get models on the table top or hate painting, there should be no pressure to do so. I'd again quite happily play against anyone in this camp but a pre-game heads up would be appreciated. If only because I tend to find grey plastic armies hard to parse what is what and I'd take a look at the units in the relevant codex before hand to help recognise shapes. But you can't have a go at someone who wants fully painted politely say no, and then say 'I don't enjoy painting you can't make me do it' and then force them to play you in a game they have said they won't enjoy, that is hypocrisy.

As for the poll I'm in the middle. I prefer as much as possible painted on my own side but certainly don't insist on it from other, I've happily fielded the odd unpainted unit, especially when starting out. To be honest for me it is more about identification. Someone earlier in the thread said once they were in a game the 'look' of the game largely fades as they try and focus on remembering rules and working out what to do. This is very much the same for me, so in reality if someone turned up and each unit was a just sprayed a different colour that would do.

VladimirHerzog wrote:paintjob should have zero impact of the points in a game. The game should be purely determined from the skill of the players as generals.

If you want your paintjob to give you points, join the "best painted" part of the tournament with it

In my experience, the sort of player who will get upset about winning a close battle but 'actually' losing due to not getting that 10VP- in casual pick-up games, because tournaments have their own painting/scoring rules- is exactly the sort of player who needs a rule incentive to get their stuff painted. I don't really care whether it's there or not because it's such a complete non-issue in practice; the rule is more symbolic than anything else.

Personally I'm less concerned with immersion than I am with being able to play WYSIWYG and still identify units and wargear. Grey tide- or worse, black primer- is just a pain to keep track of.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 oni wrote:
Hobby points is a double edged sword.

I understand both sides of the argument and think about it as players generally being in one of two camps.
Camp No.1 = The experience is priority.
Camp No.2 = The game is priority.

For those in camp no.1, they want all aspect of W40K to be observed and appreciated.
For those in camp no.2, they want victory/defeat to be based solely on game play.

Each is valid. I'd even say there's a fair amount of people who have a foot in both camps.

The issue is when someone in either camp is too extreme and upholds their preference to the exclusion of all else. The common example being, when camp no.2 does not paint their models because to them W40K is nothing more than a game and the models are nothing more than game pieces. This cheapens the experience for those in camp no.1.

well according to the poll (which to be fair has a very small sample size) most players do not care on only expect a minimum amount of paint

I didn't post this in response to the poll. It was a general response to the last few posts alluding to the merits of receiving victory points.

What would happen if the top ranked 40k player in the world, say, the Rinaldo of 40k, tried to walk into a GW event with a grey army, that he painted, based, and primed and high lighted in full grey paint? Would GW ask them to leave?

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
What would happen if the top ranked 40k player in the world, say, the Rinaldo of 40k, tried to walk into a GW event with a grey army, that he painted, based, and primed and high lighted in full grey paint? Would GW ask them to leave?

yes because most tournaments require a painted army

I think 40k fanfiction writers should get an extra 10 points as well.

mrFickle wrote:
To the people who don't want to paint the minis:

do you also hate assembly and would you rather buy ready to go minis?

So if a 3rd party made GW compatible models that have a bit of colour on them and were monopole would you buy them?

I like assembly. A lot. It's like a collector Lego set or a Gunpla for me.
I legit can't paint though since it strains my tendonitis and carpal far worse than assembly, though the latter does still happen on occasion.

I DID paint stuff a long time ago, though not to good standard. For my current stuff though? I'll eventually hire someone to do it.

 Stevefamine wrote:
Rules prohibit nice terrain in Warmachine.

No they don't. You're cherrypicking examples and making stuff up. The tournament scene uses 2D terrain because its easier to measure stuff in a game where a mm matters. Casual players use 3D terrain like normal people.

mrFickle wrote:
To the people who don't want to paint the minis:

do you also hate assembly and would you rather buy ready to go minis?

So if a 3rd party made GW compatible models that have a bit of colour on them and were monopole would you buy them?

Yes, its why I own several hundred $$$ of pre-painted D&D minis. And I have bought assembled & painted minis off E-bay and used them as-is.

Assembly & painting are, for me, necessary evils at best. I can put together a model fairly well, I can paint to a decent tabletop standard. But why should I have to? I've only learned to do it because of costs, but now I'd rather pay the extra to have someone do it for me at a skill level that often exceeds my own. That frees up my time to do things I enjoy more, like write on stories, play actual games and the like.

I really don't mind playing against grey armies or half-painted ones. Hell, when I am testing out new stuff I will play with it grey and see if it works before committing hours and hours painting it.

I also really don't mind if people have exceptionally high standards and want everything painted. They tend to be the minority so if they don't want to play me when my army is 80-90% painted I can easily find someone else to play with. It's really no skin off my back. If anything they just tend to exclude themselves from the larger pool of prospective players so all in all it is their loss, but loss that they are free to take and we must respect that.

My experience after playing for the past 25 years is that most do not care if your stuff is painted or not as most of the fun comes with rolling dices and seeing what happens while playing the game. Being painted tends to just be the cherry on top.

However, I do like the 10 point rule that tournaments have adopted. It's a nice carrot for people to want to finish their armies without being an all or nothing in the grand scheme of things.

VladimirHerzog wrote:

 Dysartes wrote:

"should" and "does" are not the same thing - you agreed to play a game, that VP structure of which currently "does" include painting as a tertiary objective.

Not the opponent's fault that Jid didn't choose to play to that objective, and it seems a bit off to then be vengeful when as a result of the game doesn't go his way.

IDK about you but i personally would never claim the 10pts if it was what would win me the game. That would be such an unsatisfying victory lol

Or join the cool kids and not use VP at all...

Racerguy180 wrote:

VladimirHerzog wrote:

 Dysartes wrote:

"should" and "does" are not the same thing - you agreed to play a game, that VP structure of which currently "does" include painting as a tertiary objective.

Not the opponent's fault that Jid didn't choose to play to that objective, and it seems a bit off to then be vengeful when as a result of the game doesn't go his way.

IDK about you but i personally would never claim the 10pts if it was what would win me the game. That would be such an unsatisfying victory lol

Or join the cool kids and not use VP at all...

effectively what my games have devolved into lol. We vaguely follow the score then forget on one turn and end up just slapping each other

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
What would happen if the top ranked 40k player in the world, say, the Rinaldo of 40k, tried to walk into a GW event with a grey army, that he painted, based, and primed and high lighted in full grey paint? Would GW ask them to leave?

yes because most tournaments require a painted army

But it is painted, it's just painted grey. If they're still doing the 3-colors-minimum it could be an issue.

I see quite a lot of toxic post in thia topic.

Sad to see how internet brings to the extreme things that should be handle with common sense.

The better the painting and the terrain, the better the game experience (all other thinks being equal), but in real life sometimes you have to make some transactions with unpainted minis and ugly tables.

Is anybody againat this sinple statement? , if not, why all the fuss?

Vatsetis wrote:
I see quite a lot of toxic post in thia topic.

Sad to see how internet brings to the extreme things that should be handle with common sense.

The better the painting and the terrain, the better the game experience (all other thinks being equal), but in real life sometimes you have to make some transactions with unpainted minis and ugly tables.

Is anybody againat this sinple statement? , if not, why all the fuss?

Great point

My D&D group doesnt use minituratures even though a few of our members are painters and terrain builders. We just grid and paper it. You can still game with poker tokens as models and soda cans as drop pods. Far easier. Would D&D be more fun? yes but it would make the prep work 10+ hours extra per session

It seems the thread has a few members that agree on the VPs being a bit dumb. I don't like this either