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.

I ask because I know a guy who says he chooses to ignore that rule (tellingly, he often fields unpainted models). I gave him a friendly warning that if he ever beats me by less than 10 VPs on the objectives with a partially-painted army, I am going to claim victory... whether he acknowledges it or not. The rulebook is on my side.

I sort of understand the competitive mentality that victory should be determined solely by what happens once the dice start rolling, but I also think it's good that there's an in-game incentive to paint your models. Especially if both players have been running the same armies for a while and have had ample time to paint them.

I would be willing to waive this rule for someone who is just getting started with their new army and is making steady progress in painting it.

.

I feel most people are pretty content with how this rule has landed.

Most tournaments already had a painting requirement, so having written guidance onto an acceptable 'penalty' gives tournament organizers a way to allow unpainted models while still encouraging fully painted armies if they so choose.

If a local group doesn't like the rule, they disregard it (as usually it's friends/ reasonable people that are just there to have fun).

My group does a modified version. We didn't really love the binary state of it, and as we play the same small group, we modified the rule. If the army is fully painted or they have painted more of their army from the last time they played they get the full 10 points.

Technically I don't use it very often outside of tournaments because I play in a group where nobody uses unpainted models, and in tournaments everyone gets the automatic 10 VP because painting is mandatory. But as a general rule for pickup games it's an excellent rule and the only thing I would even consider doing to change it is making it more than 10 VP.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

patman1440 wrote:
My group does a modified version. We didn't really love the binary state of it, and as we play the same small group, we modified the rule. If the army is fully painted or they have painted more of their army from the last time they played they get the full 10 points.

I like this one and will have to remember it. We don't have any newbies so it isn't needed right now but it sounds like a good way of handling things if it ever comes up.

I think patman1440s idea is a nice middle ground.

My group generally ignores the rule (I was outvoted) and I tend to see many walls of grey plastic. But if I somehow gained dictator powers and was able to force my group into abiding by the rule, do I think it would help? Probably not. I doubt they'd paint their full armies even if it meant going down 10 VP every game. They'd just grumble if they lost because of it.

Its also not very much of an incentive if a large amount of the group likes to feild unpainted minis. That puts most of the players on an equal playing field (unpainted vs unpainted) and you don't want to feel like a jerk for insisting you gain an extra 10 VP because you have painted minis. It's a hard sell.

And its fair to also say that the rule doesnt apply to everybody equally. You already mentioned newer players, but also people who switch armies often are hit by this rule much harder. I have been running my same army for over 2 years and I have a decent size collection of painted models. I have friends who have been through 3 or 4 armies in the same time. Is it fair that I demand they spend 3-4 times as much effort on painting their models? It's not easy to say.

I also personally legitimately enjoy painting. Some of my friends would rather have their teeth pulled. Do I want to be the guy who tells them they have to spend hours on something they hate or else I'm claiming a 10 VP game advantage? No I don't.

I voted yes because I think that in tournaments it *is* a good rule, and you want things to look nice and for tourneys to have a certain atmosphere. But I think for casual games, it depends heavily on the group and the situation. And although I would *like* my friends to paint their models.... I'm fine with ignoring the rule to avoid the social awkwardness of enforcing it.

I think it's a stupid rule. And it's not even a universal rule throughout GW games. So we ignore it.

I don't think painting should play a role in victory within the game. How the game is played should be the only thing that determines victory.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
I don't think painting should play a role in victory within the game. How the game is played should be the only thing that determines victory.

This. Even list-building should be, at most, a way to gain some small advantages.

A well-played game with an okay list should trounce a badly played game with a great list.
And in neither case should the paintjobs matter.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
I don't think painting should play a role in victory within the game. How the game is played should be the only thing that determines victory.

So you advocate both players using the same standard list, so that only how the game is played determines victory?

 Shas'O Ky'husa wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
I don't think painting should play a role in victory within the game. How the game is played should be the only thing that determines victory.

So you advocate both players using the same standard list, so that only how the game is played determines victory?

I'll answer this-HBMC can answer as well, but for me...

As said above, a well-built list shouldn't beat a good player, using a basic list. I'm okay with some minimum competency being needed to make a good list, but said competency should be much closer to "Know the rules well, maybe played a few games," and not what it currently is. And even a tournament-winning list shouldn't give more than a small advantage over a list built with general competency.

 Shas'O Ky'husa wrote:
So you advocate both players using the same standard list, so that only how the game is played determines victory?

I didn't say anything of the kind. Building a list using a Codex is part of the playing the game.

Now, please, go and put words into someone else's mouth.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
I didn't say anything of the kind. Building a list using a Codex is part of the playing the game.

Now, please, go and put words into someone else's mouth.

Then so is painting your models to gain the 10 VP. If you want "choosing a sufficiently powerful faction" to be part of the game then you have no grounds for complaining that painting is part of determining the winner.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 JNAProductions wrote:
I'll answer this-HBMC can answer as well, but for me...

As said above, a well-built list shouldn't beat a good player, using a basic list. I'm okay with some minimum competency being needed to make a good list, but said competency should be much closer to "Know the rules well, maybe played a few games," and not what it currently is. And even a tournament-winning list shouldn't give more than a small advantage over a list built with general competency.

Sounds like the 10 VP is fine then. A fully painted list with a bad player won't beat an unpainted list with a good player.

I think the only way this is fair is if there is also 10VP for fielding conversions and 10VP for fielding fluff-accurate forces. Otherwise the game is just penalizing people who don’t enjoy painting. Either all of the facets of the hobby should be rewarded, or just the game should count towards the game.

patman1440 wrote:

My group does a modified version. We didn't really love the binary state of it, and as we play the same small group, we modified the rule. If the army is fully painted or they have painted more of their army from the last time they played they get the full 10 points.

^That's really cool.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
I think the only way this is fair is if there is also 10VP for fielding conversions and 10VP for fielding fluff-accurate forces. Otherwise the game is just penalizing people who don’t enjoy painting. Either all of the facets of the hobby should be rewarded, or just the game should count towards the game.

Not seeing the problem with penalizing people who don't paint their models. A small penalty for failing to meet the minimum standard is even more generous than not allowing unpainted models at all, which is what many of us (and virtually all tournaments beyond the local store level) set as the standard.

As for conversions and fluff accuracy, no, those are not equivalent. Conversions are optional and often subtle, armies without them can look just as good as armies with them. In fact, in many cases you wouldn't even know if a model is converted or not unless you play that faction and are familiar with all of the details of the kits. And while fluff accuracy is a great goal it's not something that can be reduced to a simple VP score. Everyone has a different idea of what "fluff accurate" means so how do you judge if someone gets the 10 VP or not? With painting it's very easy, with fluff it's just a source of inevitable conflict.

I like the idea of the rule, but I don't like the all-or-nothing nature of it - one model not being Battle Ready denying you the full 10VP.

Had I been writing it, I'd've made two changes.

Firstly, I'd've made sure there was a couple of pages in the damned rulebook explaining what the minimum standards are for Battle Ready, with examples. I understand there may be something to this effect in the most recent matched play mission pack, but that seems a bit late for this edition.

Secondly, I'd've made the VP scale - for every 10% of the points/PL that is Battle Ready (depending on how you're building your army), rounding down, you get 1VP.

For most armies, that means one model that's unpainted is denying you 1, maybe 2VP at most in a 2k game. It also means that making progress towards getting your army fully painted gets you some rewards on this tertiary objective, even if you don't get the full 10VP until you're finished.

 Shas'O Ky'husa wrote:
Then so is painting your models to gain the 10 VP. If you want "choosing a sufficiently powerful faction" to be part of the game then you have no grounds for complaining that painting is part of determining the winner.

You're not very good at making arguments, so to save us both the trouble, I'm just going to stop talking to you.

It's a stupid rule. I say this as someone with 6 fully painted armies, all of which are at least 2000pts and none of them are Knights.

We ignored this rule and will continue to ignore it.

The reward for painting your miniatures is lovely looking models and something cool to display on a shelf at home.

If I win a game because my opponent outplayed me but hadn't painted a model or two, then that wouldn't ring true for me and would be a hollow victory at best.

 Shas'O Ky'husa wrote:

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
I think the only way this is fair is if there is also 10VP for fielding conversions and 10VP for fielding fluff-accurate forces. Otherwise the game is just penalizing people who don’t enjoy painting. Either all of the facets of the hobby should be rewarded, or just the game should count towards the game.

Not seeing the problem with penalizing people who don't paint their models.

Really? No problem at all? So people with disabilities, illnesses or just general life circumstances that get in their way of being able to paint, they should all just suck it up and be penalised for not being able to paint?

 Sim-Life wrote:
Really? No problem at all? So people with disabilities, illnesses or just general life circumstances that get in their way of being able to paint, they should all just suck it up and be penalised for not being able to paint?

In the unlikely event that this comes up maybe the 10 VP can be negotiated. But let's not pretend that people legitimate reasons for being unable to paint are anything other than an incredibly tiny minority compared to the people who simply choose not to.

honestly I think I'd only "remember" this rule if I had an unpleasent experiance with a sore winner with an unpainted army who happened to win by less then 10 VPs. then I absolutely would remember this rule, declare it means I won.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
You're not very good at making arguments, so to save us both the trouble, I'm just going to stop talking to you.

This isn't an airport, you don't have to announce your departure.

But really, your own words speak for themselves. You claim to be opposed to non-game factors deciding the outcome of games but reject the one system where things like "having more money than your opponent" don't decide the outcome of games. And rather than do the honest thing and admit that you just don't like painting you can only flip the table and leave.

 Shas'O Ky'husa wrote:

 Sim-Life wrote:
Really? No problem at all? So people with disabilities, illnesses or just general life circumstances that get in their way of being able to paint, they should all just suck it up and be penalised for not being able to paint?

In the unlikely event that this comes up maybe the 10 VP can be negotiated. But let's not pretend that people legitimate reasons for being unable to paint are anything other than an incredibly tiny minority compared to the people who simply choose not to.

With ~20% of the population of Canada and the States being disabled in one for or another. We're not some small after thought, even though that's always how we're treated.

 Blndmage wrote:
With ~20% of the population of Canada and the States being disabled in one for or another. We're not some small after thought, even though that's always how we're treated.

And what percentage of that 20% has a disability that prevents painting, but not a disability that prevents playing the game at all?

 Blndmage wrote:

 Shas'O Ky'husa wrote:

 Sim-Life wrote:
Really? No problem at all? So people with disabilities, illnesses or just general life circumstances that get in their way of being able to paint, they should all just suck it up and be penalised for not being able to paint?

In the unlikely event that this comes up maybe the 10 VP can be negotiated. But let's not pretend that people legitimate reasons for being unable to paint are anything other than an incredibly tiny minority compared to the people who simply choose not to.

With ~20% of the population of Canada and the States being disabled in one for or another. We're not some small after thought, even though that's always how we're treated.

as part of that 20% Blindmage I find your using that figure to be incrediably dishonest given that I'm comfortable painting and am happy at painting.

with that said obviously no one is going to enforce those kind of rules against people who cannot paint, I don't think anyone's that big a jerk..

I think it's a stupid rule. I feel out of game factors shouldn't give victory points. If I write up lore about my custom faction, 10 victory points. If I animate a story for them, another ten. If I hire a band and play their theme song I wrote, another ten. After all, why stop at painting?

And, I don't think lists should be unbalanced enough for a win to be default, but at least buying the new Angron model won't give you 20 victory points.

If I were playing Infinity, I'd be pretty sure that I could win if I was better than the opponent. I can't be sure of that in any edition of 40k that I've played.

In addition, this rule does nothing. If a person loses because of it, they get annoyed, and feel they won. If a person wins because of it, they might feel justified or not feel like it was a victory. If a person wants to fight only painted armies, this changes nothing. If a person refuses to paint their army, they'll probably not change anything.

In the instance where someone paints their army because of the rule, so they can play in friendly games without losing out on 10 points because their opponents decided to do that, there's a good chance they won't enjoy it.

There's a tiny minority of people that the rule helps, and the only people I see celebrating it tend to not want to play against unpainted minis anyways, so might as well get rid of it.

My dudes are painted, so the rule doesn't effect me. But people who start do not like it, specialy the first few times they hear about it, while they play at a store event or first non demo games.

But a rule is a rule, there is a lot of rules I don't like, but they are put in by GW, so people have to live with it. The reasons why the rules is there and how it impacts the game or people playing it, doesn't matter in the end.

Karol wrote:
My dudes are painted, so the rule doesn't effect me. But people who start do not like it, specialy the first few times they hear about it, while they play at a store event or first non demo games.

But a rule is a rule, there is a lot of rules I don't like, but they are put in by GW, so people have to live with it. The reasons why the rules is there and how it impacts the game or people playing it, doesn't matter in the end.

Depends on what mission pack you play. The Open Play Hostility Mission Pack doesn't have the painted VP rule, or secondaries, just mission specific primaries.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

BrianDavion wrote:

 Blndmage wrote:

 Shas'O Ky'husa wrote:

 Sim-Life wrote:
Really? No problem at all? So people with disabilities, illnesses or just general life circumstances that get in their way of being able to paint, they should all just suck it up and be penalised for not being able to paint?

In the unlikely event that this comes up maybe the 10 VP can be negotiated. But let's not pretend that people legitimate reasons for being unable to paint are anything other than an incredibly tiny minority compared to the people who simply choose not to.

With ~20% of the population of Canada and the States being disabled in one for or another. We're not some small after thought, even though that's always how we're treated.

as part of that 20% Blindmage I find your using that figure to be incrediably dishonest given that I'm comfortable painting and am happy at painting.

with that said obviously no one is going to enforce those kind of rules against people who cannot paint, I don't think anyone's that big a jerk..

I know you're not new here.
I'm very disabled, and terminally ill with blood cancer.

I love 40k, I love playing with my family. Seeing two painted armies on a nice matching themed table is a huge goal. But I'd rather play than paint when I can.

Karol wrote:
My dudes are painted, so the rule doesn't effect me. But people who start do not like it, specialy the first few times they hear about it, while they play at a store event or first non demo games.

But a rule is a rule, there is a lot of rules I don't like, but they are put in by GW, so people have to live with it. The reasons why the rules is there and how it impacts the game or people playing it, doesn't matter in the end.

actually it does matter, and house rules are a common thing in any gaming setting, following the rules blindly is kinda silly. you've proably played games with house rules before without even knowing it (monopoly, for example has a few house rules that are so common most people genuinely think they're part of the rules)

 Shas'O Ky'husa wrote:

 Sim-Life wrote:
Really? No problem at all? So people with disabilities, illnesses or just general life circumstances that get in their way of being able to paint, they should all just suck it up and be penalised for not being able to paint?

In the unlikely event that this comes up maybe the 10 VP can be negotiated. But let's not pretend that people legitimate reasons for being unable to paint are anything other than an incredibly tiny minority compared to the people who simply choose not to.

So you agree there IS in fact a problem with the rule?