Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Yeah, I honestly wonder who the 10 VP for painted models rule is FOR.

For people who don't want to paint, it's punitive. For people who want their opponents to have painted armies, it's an allowance to have unpainted models, just at a VP disadvantage. And for people who like to paint, they don't need the encouragement.

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?

100% agree, and i don't think theres many people that won't agree. The reason this thread got so toxic is that some people insulted people with a different POV than them

 JNAProductions wrote:
Yeah, I honestly wonder who the 10 VP for painted models rule is FOR.

For people who don't want to paint, it's punitive. For people who want their opponents to have painted armies, it's an allowance to have unpainted models, just at a VP disadvantage. And for people who like to paint, they don't need the encouragement.

Its for GW who'd released Contrast Paints a year prior under a massive campaign explaining how easy it made army painting.

 JNAProductions wrote:
Yeah, I honestly wonder who the 10 VP for painted models rule is FOR.

As a reward for people engaging in the hobby how GW think they are supposed to. Or are we all forgetting the big "BUILD. PAINT. PLAY." tagline that GW uses quite frequently in a lot of its social media? Or like in the very first page of this document which is meant for school clubs etc.

GW wants you to paint your models. Both of their core games tell you it is an intrinsic part of the hobby. AoS says in their rulebook you have to ask permission, 40k encourages you so you can get maximum VP. If you see it as a "punishment" for not engaging in the hobby how the company that makes the product wants you to then that is on you, not anyone else.

 Grimtuff wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
Yeah, I honestly wonder who the 10 VP for painted models rule is FOR.

As a reward for people engaging in the hobby how GW think they are supposed to. Or are we all forgetting the big "BUILD. PAINT. PLAY." tagline that GW uses quite frequently in a lot of its social media? Or like in the very first page of this document which is meant for school clubs etc.

GW wants you to paint your models. Both of their core games tell you it is an intrinsic part of the hobby. AoS says in their rulebook you have to ask permission, 40k encourages you so you can get maximum VP. If you see it as a "punishment" for not engaging in the hobby how the company that makes the product wants you to then that is on you, not anyone else.

That... That just sounds off.
If you buy a children's toy, intended for youngsters to play with, and convert it into a 40k model, you're not using it as intended by the company. But I hardly think anyone would consider that wrong.

I guess my point is that, does the rule actually make the game BETTER for anyone?

If you like to paint-the rule is unneeded.
If you don't like to paint-the rule is punitive by either forcing you to play at a VP disadvantage, or forcing you to spend time on something you don't enjoy.

It also doesn't encourage GOOD paint jobs, it encourages FAST paint jobs. An army that has all but one squad painted to Golden Daemon levels, but one squad that's just primed and being worked on, earns 0 VP. An army that's horribly painted, but technically meets battle ready on all models, earns 10 VP.

For tournaments, most of them have painting requirements anyway, so it won't affect them. For casual play, the score is kinda meaningless, so it can easily come off as a jerk move to say "I won because I painted and you didn't." It's just a baffling inclusion-like no one at GW thought it through.

Which, given GW's track record... Probably.

GW want you to paint your models. End of. You're pissing into the wind if you think they're going to change their tune on this.

Another example right here-



That's the POS they send out of FLGSs. See the big banner at the top? It's a core value of what they want the GW Hobby (tm) to be.

Okay. GW also wants you to buy thousands of dollars worth of Citadel minis, and paint them with Citadel paints, build them with Citadel clippers and knives and mould removers…
Do you only use stuff you can buy at a GW to bulls your minis?

Whatever point you are trying to make is irrelevant. GW in their games want you to paint your models. End of story. That is what that rule is for.

You can paint your minis with Vallejo, P3, Army Painter or whatever. Do you really think GW in their publications will tell you to paint with anything other than GW paints like you're trying some kind of "gotcha" moment there? But GW want you to paint your models. Nothing is going to change that fact.

Do you really think GW “wants” people to paint their minis, or do you think GW wants you to buy their paint?

 Gordon Shumway wrote:
Do you really think GW “wants” people to paint their minis, or do you think GW wants you to buy their paint?

Yes.

You seem unfamiliar with the culture of GW. Painting is ingrained in the hobby to them, and if you buy their paints to do that, then that's just gravy for them.

 Stevefamine wrote:

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

With D&D I've found using tokens rather than minis reduce the temptation to "fiddle" and speed up combat, but that may be group-specific.

Curse you GW and your nefarious plot to sell an easy-to-use type of paint that produces good-looking models with lower effort and time when compared to the traditional style of acyrlic paints!

I'm a sucker for Contrast, I think it's a great product.

And yes, GW does want you to paint your models. Playing at a GW store, or an FLGS that might not be strictly 40k, where random people wander in to check out whats up? Your models, painted or otherwise are an advertisement for the game at that point. Whether you want them to be or not.

 Gordon Shumway wrote:
Do you really think GW “wants” people to paint their minis, or do you think GW wants you to buy their paint?

Well, GW is like most group of people is not a hivemind. So, certainly there is going to be varying degrees of people in their company ranging from, "yes, GW wants you to paint their miniatures" to "don't give a rat's behind if you throw boxes of models in the trash the moment your money has changed hands."

If I had to speculate, which I do to answer your question, I would hazard to say the GW employees that we are likely to see and/or interact with are genuine that they want to see everyone playing with painted miniatures. Because more often than not, they are fans/superfans of much of the same stuff. Not because maybe you'll buy more Citadel products.

At the same time, those GW employees we don't see probably range from literally not caring to want you to buy more GW product/do advertising of their product for them. Because let's face it, GW probably makes more money from new customers seeing painted models in action than they do with customers buying paint for their models.

Armies of gray on jank looking terrain is going to have the 'normies' likely giving a wide berth around the wargaming tables just in case they have the stereotypical 'nerd stank'. Even if those players are the nicest smelling in the store and a delightful bunch. But well painted armies on nice looking tables are attractive. To the point, many of the places I play have their tables upfront by the windows where foot traffic passes by, and complete randos that might have heard of D&D walk in to check out this world they never fathomed could exist.

The most cynical of GW probably know that. They want you and your painted models working for them, advertising and selling their product. However, I think they are the minority. I truly believe that store runners, video personalities and even many of the authors just like seeing how others paint their models.

 Grimtuff wrote:

That's the POS they send out of FLGSs. See the big banner at the top? It's a core value of what they want the GW Hobby (tm) to be.

You're not wrong, but also I don't like that the Paint part of that banner arbitrarily impacts my VP in the Play part of the banner. It would be annoying if there was also a rule where 10VP depended on you having collected at least $X worth of models, right? Or 10VP if one of the pieces of terrain on the table were from a GW terrain set that you built yourself. I happen to enjoy collecting, building, painting, and playing, but it's annoying to me that people who don't happen to enjoy painting are at a disadvantage when engaging in the playing part of the hobby.

As JNA points out, the game isn't improved by the 10VP for painting rule. It comes across as either a gross money making rule that we should collectively reject out of principle. Or, giving GW the benefit of the doubt, it's a cute way of trying to encourage people to engage with the hobby in a way that they don't want to. Which (slightly) diminishes some peoples' enjoyment of the hobby while arguably not adding to anyone's enjoyment. People understand that the game company wants them to paint their models, but that doesn't mean we're obligated to do so. So let's collectively agree to pretend that the 10VP for painting rule just doesn't exist.

 Wyldhunt wrote:
As JNA points out, the game isn't improved by the 10VP for painting rule. It comes across as either a gross money making rule that we should collectively reject out of principle.

Funny, I have always thought of it as the rule designers built a point scoring system that pays off in 15pt maximum chunks to a total of 90pts, but a 100pts is a much nicer, more impressive total score to possibly have. So what can they make 10pts to make up the difference? It won't match the rest of the 15pts chunks, so it might have to be something arbitrary, and would be nice to be something that ensures a player doesn't ever have a score of zero. Tying it to a painting score, seems perfectly inline with everything I think I know about GW.

Saturmorn Carvilli wrote:

 Wyldhunt wrote:
As JNA points out, the game isn't improved by the 10VP for painting rule. It comes across as either a gross money making rule that we should collectively reject out of principle.

Funny, I have always thought of it as the rule designers built a point scoring system that pays off in 15pt maximum chunks to a total of 90pts, but a 100pts is a much nicer, more impressive total score to possibly have. So what can they make 10pts to make up the difference? It won't match the rest of the 15pts chunks, so it might have to be something arbitrary, and would be nice to be something that ensures a player doesn't ever have a score of zero. Tying it to a painting score, seems perfectly inline with everything I think I know about GW.

Could have just been, "10VP - Tell your opponent 'Good game.'"

Stevefamine - any chance you could put that image of the table you worked on in spoiler tags, dude? It's massively distorting the page on mobile due to its size.

Saturmorn Carvilli wrote:

 Gordon Shumway wrote:
Do you really think GW “wants” people to paint their minis, or do you think GW wants you to buy their paint?

Well, GW is like most group of people is not a hivemind. So, certainly there is going to be varying degrees of people in their company ranging from, "yes, GW wants you to paint their miniatures" to "don't give a rat's behind if you throw boxes of models in the trash the moment your money has changed hands."

If I had to speculate, which I do to answer your question, I would hazard to say the GW employees that we are likely to see and/or interact with are genuine that they want to see everyone playing with painted miniatures. Because more often than not, they are fans/superfans of much of the same stuff. Not because maybe you'll buy more Citadel products.

At the same time, those GW employees we don't see probably range from literally not caring to want you to buy more GW product/do advertising of their product for them. Because let's face it, GW probably makes more money from new customers seeing painted models in action than they do with customers buying paint for their models.

Armies of gray on jank looking terrain is going to have the 'normies' likely giving a wide berth around the wargaming tables just in case they have the stereotypical 'nerd stank'. Even if those players are the nicest smelling in the store and a delightful bunch. But well painted armies on nice looking tables are attractive. To the point, many of the places I play have their tables upfront by the windows where foot traffic passes by, and complete randos that might have heard of D&D walk in to check out this world they never fathomed could exist.

The most cynical of GW probably know that. They want you and your painted models working for them, advertising and selling their product. However, I think they are the minority. I truly believe that store runners, video personalities and even many of the authors just like seeing how others paint their models.

I agree with this, but when I think of GW, I don’t think of store owners, video personalities or authors (who do probably just really like the IP and want to see cool minis). I think of the board members, CEOs, CFOs, and CPOs—the ones who ultimately okay what the product will be and how it will be promoted. Their goal is to make money—full stop. If painted models in stores help them do that, good they will push that.

 Insectum7 wrote:

 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.

Hilariously, while experimenting with spray-coloring terrain I've found a combination of chaos black, army painter metal spray and a no-name dark grey spray that looks almost exactly like GW's plastic color, especially when taking pictures in a well lit room.

Not good enough for my standards, but I guess for some people's immersion that faux plastic look will do wonders since it's three colors.

 Jidmah wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 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.

Hilariously, while experimenting with spray-coloring terrain I've found a combination of chaos black, army painter metal spray and a no-name dark grey spray that looks almost exactly like GW's plastic color, especially when taking pictures in a well lit room.

Not good enough for my standards, but I guess for some people's immersion that faux plastic look will do wonders since it's three colors.

You should post the combo ratios etc + pics.
I've long joked about fielding an army done in grey-scale. Like a B&W movie put onto the table.

I would prefer to play with and against a fully painted army. The higher the quality, the better.

That being said, I do not care one bit if an army is painted or not. I realise that people have other priorities, painting miniatures probably is not at the top of that list. I also really don't care if you use the right miniatures, use your 40k minis in infinity, your WFB orcs in KOW, your star wars minis in 40k, its all the same to me.

 Wyldhunt wrote:

 Grimtuff wrote:

That's the POS they send out of FLGSs. See the big banner at the top? It's a core value of what they want the GW Hobby (tm) to be.

You're not wrong, but also I don't like that the Paint part of that banner arbitrarily impacts my VP in the Play part of the banner. It would be annoying if there was also a rule where 10VP depended on you having collected at least $X worth of models, right?

I've got bad news for you but if you play a 1000/1500/2000 point game.... Your point level your using to gain those victory points is a " rule where 10VP depended on you having collected at least $X worth of models".

Asmodios wrote:

 Wyldhunt wrote:

 Grimtuff wrote:

That's the POS they send out of FLGSs. See the big banner at the top? It's a core value of what they want the GW Hobby (tm) to be.

You're not wrong, but also I don't like that the Paint part of that banner arbitrarily impacts my VP in the Play part of the banner. It would be annoying if there was also a rule where 10VP depended on you having collected at least $X worth of models, right?

I've got bad news for you but if you play a 1000/1500/2000 point game.... Your point level your using to gain those victory points is a " rule where 10VP depended on you having collected at least $X worth of models".

Fine. Collecting at least $X worth of models not being used in your current game then. You know. VP as a reward for being willing to sacrifice enough extra time and money on parts of the game you may or may not actually enjoy that also aren't actually necessary to play the game. Just like paint.

 Wyldhunt wrote:

Asmodios wrote:

 Wyldhunt wrote:

 Grimtuff wrote:

That's the POS they send out of FLGSs. See the big banner at the top? It's a core value of what they want the GW Hobby (tm) to be.

You're not wrong, but also I don't like that the Paint part of that banner arbitrarily impacts my VP in the Play part of the banner. It would be annoying if there was also a rule where 10VP depended on you having collected at least $X worth of models, right?

I've got bad news for you but if you play a 1000/1500/2000 point game.... Your point level your using to gain those victory points is a " rule where 10VP depended on you having collected at least $X worth of models".

Fine. Collecting at least $X worth of models not being used in your current game then. You know. VP as a reward for being willing to sacrifice enough extra time and money on parts of the game you may or may not actually enjoy that also aren't actually necessary to play the game. Just like paint.

But the models are necessary per the rules to score points just like the paint is necessary for those 10 points. The paint "not being necessary" is just as disingenuous as saying the "models are not necessary". You can show up to the LGS with marshmallows stuck to bases and "play a game" but just like not having your models painted you are increasing the likelihood that someone wont want to play with you.

Then we get back to square one of personal choice. Should you be forced to play against marshmallow army guy? According to some posters you would be a model supremacist/gatekeeper/WAAC player. Should someone be forced to play the guy who shows up with a grey army? I think the answer is no because people enjoy different parts of the hobby and if someone is looking for a game against another painted army there isn't anything wrong with that. There also isn't anything wrong with GW encouraging painting just like they encourage the purchase of their miniatures

This is one of those things that seems complicated, but is actually pretty clear. Unless you are prepared to argue that painting your army has no value to others, it's pretty much a given that painting your army is a good thing. It enriches the play experience, it can excite new players to try the hobby, etc. it's a good thing! It's not a big thing, in that the moral value of the act is pretty small compared to the time spent on the act.

However, that doesn't change the fact that not painting your minis has a moral component. If you acknowledge that painting minis is good for the hobby and your opponents, and you don't do so, you are choosing not to do something that could benefit others.

And we all (or nearly all) get it! Painting is a huge commitment of time and resources, and most people (myself included) will happily play you.

but... and this is the rub.. your opponents showing grace and kindness doesn't change that you're not doing what you can do to give them the best games. Look at the responses, and how many are boiled down to "I paint my stuff, and I prefer my opponents do the same, but I'm not that picky." Do not confuse people saying they are okay with you not painting with not painting being okay.

It's funny how many 'literally don't care' but then say they prefer painted armies. Personally, I have never fielded an unpainted model; to me it means the unit is not yet equipped for combat. Yes, that is part of the game's immersion.

I'll play a small game against a friend's unpainted force if it's not quite done or if they want to try something out, but to me such encounters feel more like an experiment than an actual game.

 amanita wrote:
It's funny how many 'literally don't care' but then say they prefer painted armies. Personally, I have never fielded an unpainted model; to me it means the unit is not yet equipped for combat. Yes, that is part of the game's immersion.

I'll play a small game against a friend's unpainted force if it's not quite done or if they want to try something out, but to me such encounters feel more like an experiment than an actual game.

"I don't care"
and
"Painted armies look better"

aren't mutually exclusive statements

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 amanita wrote:
It's funny how many 'literally don't care' but then say they prefer painted armies. Personally, I have never fielded an unpainted model; to me it means the unit is not yet equipped for combat. Yes, that is part of the game's immersion.

I'll play a small game against a friend's unpainted force if it's not quite done or if they want to try something out, but to me such encounters feel more like an experiment than an actual game.

"I don't care"
and
"Painted armies look better"

aren't mutually exclusive statements

Yep. Going by the wording of this thread and it's poll, there is a leap between "I require fully painted armies, no exceptions" and the arguement being made by those voters that it goes both ways, and saying "I don't care if mine or my opponents army is fully painted, but it does look better."

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 amanita wrote:
It's funny how many 'literally don't care' but then say they prefer painted armies. Personally, I have never fielded an unpainted model; to me it means the unit is not yet equipped for combat. Yes, that is part of the game's immersion.

I'll play a small game against a friend's unpainted force if it's not quite done or if they want to try something out, but to me such encounters feel more like an experiment than an actual game.

"I don't care"
and
"Painted armies look better"

aren't mutually exclusive statements

It is when they say they LITERALLY don't care.

 amanita wrote:

It is when they say they LITERALLY don't care.

no it isnt.

I LITTERALLY do not care what your army looks like, i'll play against anyone.
But i can appreciate that a painted army looks better.

Your army being assembled/primed/airbrushed/tabeltop standard/pro painted litterally does not impact my decision of whether or not to play you.