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.

GW has long championed The Hobby as a multifaceted activity that includes building, painting, playing and lore. Including facets of those in their Matched Play and Narrative Play rules is hardly a cynical attempt to sell more paint. It is an expression of their vision of the game.

Next thing people are going to complain about how GW doesn't let them use their Aeldari and Adeptus Astartes units in the same army. Lore should not be deciding how my games are played!

 alextroy wrote:
Next thing people are going to complain about how GW doesn't let them use their Aeldari and Adeptus Astartes units in the same army. Lore should not be deciding how my games are played!

Which, amusingly, is exactly what GW would do if it was all a cynical sales strategy. Why tell marine players they shouldn't buy the new eldar kit just because of some stupid lore book from 20 years ago? Shareholders need that money!

ccs wrote:

 Amishprn86 wrote:

I also know people that dont have time but once a week for 4-5 hours, why would i take points away from them?

Yes, those 4-5 hours are better spent playing.

Especially when they busted their asses just to get the models built. They really love the world and the game, let them play with unpainted models, it has no effect in game.

 Amishprn86 wrote:
it has no effect in game.

It absolutely has an effect in game. The other player has to look at those unpainted models and have a less-enjoyable game as a result.

And no, I don't think people are "busting their asses" to get models assembled. Assembling models is trivially easy, especially if you're the kind of person who never paints anything and never bothers to remove mold lines, fill gaps, etc.

 Shas'O Ky'husa wrote:

 Amishprn86 wrote:
it has no effect in game.

It absolutely has an effect in game. The other player has to look at those unpainted models and have a less-enjoyable game as a result.

And no, I don't think people are "busting their asses" to get models assembled. Assembling models is trivially easy, especially if you're the kind of person who never paints anything and never bothers to remove mold lines, fill gaps, etc.

And playing a game against a tool makes the game way less fun than bare plastic. Does that mean you should deduct 50 VP if your opponent is a jerk?
What if your opponent has bad hygiene, but is otherwise really pleasant? Do you deduct points for that?

There's no MECHANICAL impact for whether or not a model is painted. It can affect stuff outside the game, but so can a million other things. Why account for this, and not those?

 JNAProductions wrote:
Why account for this, and not those?

Because painting, unlike those things, is an easily quantifiable yes/no requirement. People can argue about stupid edge cases like "but what if you have resin diorama bases instead of technical paint THATS NOT BATTLE READY" but the reality is everyone with any common sense can recognize if a model is painted to a basic tabletop standard or not. No such agreement exists with things like sportsmanship. Some people believe you're TFG if you don't let your opponent take back a mistake, some people believe you're TFG if you ask to take back a mistake instead of accepting the consequences. So which side is right and decides the scoring system?

And it's not like this is theoretical. Tournaments used to have sportsmanship scoring but in reality nobody could agree on what "good sportsmanship" was and half the players were giving 0/10 to every opponent to maximize their own chances of winning, while the other half gave 0/10 every time they lost because anyone that beats them must be a WAAC TFG with a cheese netlist. All of that got dumped in the trash can in favor of TOs having the ability to remove a player at their discretion if they are guilty of extremely poor sportsmanship.

 Shas'O Ky'husa wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
Why account for this, and not those?

Because painting, unlike those things, is an easily quantifiable yes/no requirement. People can argue about stupid edge cases like "but what if you have resin diorama bases instead of technical paint THATS NOT BATTLE READY" but the reality is everyone with any common sense can recognize if a model is painted to a basic tabletop standard or not. No such agreement exists with things like sportsmanship. Some people believe you're TFG if you don't let your opponent take back a mistake, some people believe you're TFG if you ask to take back a mistake instead of accepting the consequences. So which side is right and decides the scoring system?

But which is more important to the actual enjoyment of the game?

Would you rather play a friendly person who plays the game honestly with unpainted minis. or play someone who yells, screams, cheats, insults you, and more, but has Golden Daemon level paintjobs?

I am 100% fine with encouraging people to paint. I don't like punishing people in-game for not having painted minis, regardless of the reason.

The level of sophism of this last post is out of the charts.

Would you prefer a nice dinner in a luxury restaurant with a bloody dictator or being tortured together with a nobel price winner?

If you answer the first you are a dictatorship simpaticer

 JNAProductions wrote:
But which is more important to the actual enjoyment of the game?

Irrelevant. This is about 10 VP for painted armies, not whether or not other things should be a reason not to play against someone. If you want to start another thread about refusing to play against someone who stinks that's fine but it's completely off-topic here.

Would you rather play a friendly person who plays the game honestly with unpainted minis. or play someone who yells, screams, cheats, insults you, and more, but has Golden Daemon level paintjobs?

I wouldn't play against either of them. What you're posting is a false dilemma.

 Shas'O Ky'husa wrote:

 Sim-Life wrote:
So they don't matter?

Nope. When evaluating a rule you evaluate it in the majority cases, not the incredibly small minority of edge cases. Every rule fails if you look hard enough for an edge case.

It's GW, its 100% a cynical attempt to sell paint and if you genuinly think it isn't (I don't think you do btw) I have a bridge to sell you.

You are going to ignore the non-sales reasons for painting requirements then? And that this is entirely in line with the narrative-focused authors GW has, people who only grudgingly supported competitive play and genuinely believe in painting and story being more important than winning?

If GW were at all narrative focused, the game would actually be immersive. However the rules are not immersive.

Thats a very subjective statement.

That rules are not inmersive to you, dosent mean that they arent inmersive for many.

How do you objectively measure "inmersion"??

EviscerationPlague wrote:
If GW were at all narrative focused, the game would actually be immersive. However the rules are not immersive.

That's because GW is incompetent, not because they aren't trying. GW authors have made it very clear that the game is intended to be focused on the story and competitive play is this weird extra thing that they only grudgingly accept.

 Shas'O Ky'husa wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:
If GW were at all narrative focused, the game would actually be immersive. However the rules are not immersive.

That's because GW is incompetent, not because they aren't trying. GW authors have made it very clear that the game is intended to be focused on the story and competitive play is this weird extra thing that they only grudgingly accept.

Right, time to assemble those sources and prove that then.
And I guess erase any time they wax enthusiastic about the competitive scene and make dedicated tournament books

 Shas'O Ky'husa wrote:

 Amishprn86 wrote:
it has no effect in game.

It absolutely has an effect in game. The other player has to look at those unpainted models and have a less-enjoyable game as a result.

And no, I don't think people are "busting their asses" to get models assembled. Assembling models is trivially easy, especially if you're the kind of person who never paints anything and never bothers to remove mold lines, fill gaps, etc.

Um... yes they do bc when you are literally not home 4-5 days a week traveling for work and and you have a family you don't magically have the other 2-3 days to do what you want. The fact that you dont understand other peoples needs and lives tells me you have no real world experience with people and all your opinions on this matter no longer matters.

I'm guessing you also never timed how long it takes to build 90+ models with 4 hours a week at the most, do me a favor and record building a 2k Necron army before you say its not long to do.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Shas'O Ky'husa wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
But which is more important to the actual enjoyment of the game?

Irrelevant. This is about 10 VP for painted armies, not whether or not other things should be a reason not to play against someone. If you want to start another thread about refusing to play against someone who stinks that's fine but it's completely off-topic here.

And enjoying the looks also doesn't matter bc the game is based off skill not "do I like the way your models looks" What if I painted my models to look like gak, do you still think it matters?

 Amishprn86 wrote:
I'm guessing you also never timed how long it takes to build 90+ models with 4 hours a week at the most, do me a favor and record building a 2k Necron army before you say its not long to do.

I could build that entire army in 4 hours if I didn't care about quality (which is assumed if you aren't going to bother painting them), and probably less. GW models are trivially easy to build if you aren't carefully removing mold lines, filling gaps, etc, to prepare them for painting.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Amishprn86 wrote:
And enjoying the looks also doesn't matter bc the game is based off skill not "do I like the way your models looks" What if I painted my models to look like gak, do you still think it matters?

Yeah, right. 50% of winning at 40k is choosing a faction that has one of the best codices at the moment, 45% is taking the obvious good units from that codex, and maybe 5% at most is on-table skill. Next to those factors the 10 VP for making the game more enjoyable for your opponent is a pretty minor concern.

 Shas'O Ky'husa wrote:

 Amishprn86 wrote:
I'm guessing you also never timed how long it takes to build 90+ models with 4 hours a week at the most, do me a favor and record building a 2k Necron army before you say its not long to do.

I could build that entire army in 4 hours if I didn't care about quality (which is assumed if you aren't going to bother painting them), and probably less. GW models are trivially easy to build if you aren't carefully removing mold lines, filling gaps, etc, to prepare them for painting.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Amishprn86 wrote:
And enjoying the looks also doesn't matter bc the game is based off skill not "do I like the way your models looks" What if I painted my models to look like gak, do you still think it matters?

Yeah, right. 50% of winning at 40k is choosing a faction that has one of the best codices at the moment, 45% is taking the obvious good units from that codex, and maybe 5% at most is on-table skill. Next to those factors the 10 VP for making the game more enjoyable for your opponent is a pretty minor concern.

Having been to a literal build army event called "Army in a weekend" a few times, 3 days of just building and painting, having built and painted 2k in that time using speed tricks that only experience or carelessly insane people will do, I find that a lie. Sure Necron warriors can be built in no time like 1.5min each model, as soon as you get to things like Command Barge, Arks, Wraiths, and Tomb Blades yeah its taking some extra time.

PS: I also only got my army done bc I painted super simple, prime white, only color the carapace, claws, and teeth, then dipped in a wood varnish lol. Build 90 gants (mix of Goyles, T and H, with Tervigons, Tyrants, and.... Tyrannoctyes, its impossible to do in 4hours, the Tyrannoctyes alone was an hour).

Also many event painted armies are not even fully painted.....

As a counterpoint to the various people complaining about unpainted armies. During the various covid lockdowns lack of games prompted me not to bother painting miniatures. Why paint when you can't play. Now I have started playing again I have also started painting again.

Punishing people for an unfinished army can take the fun out of a game to the point they may never get a painted army / leave the hobby and most people generally want to have a pretty painted up army anyway , some people are just slower at it than some others.

Many of you will know someone who seems to have fully painted new armies ready to play a week after release and some that are endlessly painting and never playing because their army isn't quite ready. And the rest of us are somewhere in between but do want a game sometime.

Obviously for tourneys the requirement stands but for a casual game where you just want to crack jokes while laughing because you rolled 3 x 1's out of 4 dice. The paint doesn't matter the experience does and eventually people will get their armies painted anyway. (and still have a plastic pile of shame to be built)

 Amishprn86 wrote:
Having been to a literal build army event called "Army in a weekend" a few times, 3 days of just building and painting, having built and painted 2k in that time using speed tricks that only experience or carelessly insane people will do, I find that a lie. Sure Necron warriors can be built in no time like 1.5min each model, as soon as you get to things like Command Barge, Arks, Wraiths, and Tomb Blades yeah its taking some extra time.

It will take extra time but each of those models takes up a higher percentage of your point total than a single infantry model. And I don't know about Necrons since I don't play that army but I can build a Devilfish/Hammerhead in 10-15 minutes max if I don't care about quality, and a crisis suit in 5 minutes each. Will it look awful? Sure, but that's a given when we're talking about models that will never be painted.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

seburo wrote:
and eventually people will get their armies painted anyway

Counter-point: there are multiple people in this thread (and/or the other ones here on the topic) clearly stating that they do not paint and never will paint their armies. And I've encountered far too many people IRL that will never paint anything, and usually have a bunch of broken models, bases with legs, etc.

 Shas'O Ky'husa wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:
If GW were at all narrative focused, the game would actually be immersive. However the rules are not immersive.

That's because GW is incompetent, not because they aren't trying. GW authors have made it very clear that the game is intended to be focused on the story and competitive play is this weird extra thing that they only grudgingly accept.

And yet the 10VP to someone who's 100% painted is not incompetence? Someone can lose having painted a whole Howling Griffons army with just a single unpainted dude compared to the guy that brought a fully painted Raven Guard or Iron Hands army if they scored a tie for the actual game.

Make no mistake, if you narrative players actually cared about the spectacle and immersion, you'd have asked for better rules to show that in the first place, not a gakky defense for 10VP for being painted like you're doing.

EviscerationPlague wrote:
And yet the 10VP to someone who's 100% painted is not incompetence? Someone can lose having painted a whole Howling Griffons army with just a single unpainted dude compared to the guy that brought a fully painted Raven Guard or Iron Hands army if they scored a tie for the actual game.

Sounds like the Howling Griffons player made a poor decision by including that unpainted model in their army. That isn't incompetence, it's you personally disliking a rule.

Make no mistake, if you narrative players actually cared about the spectacle and immersion, you'd have asked for better rules to show that in the first place, not a gakky defense for 10VP for being painted like you're doing.

Please do some reading on the false dilemma fallacy.

seburo wrote:
Punishing people for an unfinished army can take the fun out of a game to the point they may never get a painted army / leave the hobby and most people generally want to have a pretty painted up army anyway , some people are just slower at it than some others.

The rule isn't a punishment for people not having an unfinished army, it's a bonus for those who can achieve the tertiary objective of fielding a fully-painted army.

If you were arbitrarily docked 10% of the VP you'd earned during a game for not having a fully-painted army? That would be a punishment.

 Shas'O Ky'husa wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:
And yet the 10VP to someone who's 100% painted is not incompetence? Someone can lose having painted a whole Howling Griffons army with just a single unpainted dude compared to the guy that brought a fully painted Raven Guard or Iron Hands army if they scored a tie for the actual game.

Sounds like the Howling Griffons player made a poor decision by including that unpainted model in their army. That isn't incompetence, it's you personally disliking a rule.

How is it not incompetence? Would you disagree that Howling Griffons are a much harder army to paint?

EviscerationPlague wrote:
How is it not incompetence? Would you disagree that Howling Griffons are a much harder army to paint?

What does that have to do with anything? The goal is to have all miniatures be at least tabletop standard, not to provide bonus points for attempting a more difficult scheme.

 Dysartes wrote:
The rule isn't a punishment for people not having an unfinished army, it's a bonus for those who can achieve the tertiary objective of fielding a fully-painted army.

But that has nothing to do with the game. The mission, how you played, the armies you chose, the turn-to-turn events of the game are what determines the outcome. Being painted should play zero role in that.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Dysartes wrote:
The rule isn't a punishment for people not having an unfinished army, it's a bonus for those who can achieve the tertiary objective of fielding a fully-painted army.

But that has nothing to do with the game. The mission, how you played, the armies you chose, the turn-to-turn events of the game are what determines the outcome. Being painted should play zero role in that.

According to GW painting is part of the game.

 Shas'O Ky'husa wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Dysartes wrote:
The rule isn't a punishment for people not having an unfinished army, it's a bonus for those who can achieve the tertiary objective of fielding a fully-painted army.

But that has nothing to do with the game. The mission, how you played, the armies you chose, the turn-to-turn events of the game are what determines the outcome. Being painted should play zero role in that.

According to GW painting is part of the game.

They're wrong and players are free to change the game to reflect that, like most do.

 Sim-Life wrote:
They're wrong and players are free to change the game to reflect that, like most do.

Interestingly the votes in this poll disagree with you, as 52% either like the rule as-is or like the idea of the rule but disagree with the specific implementation of it.

And it's rather arrogant of you to say that you know more about what is or isn't part of the game than the people who own the IP and write the rules.

I dont mind the rule BLACK bit. I don't really care if I win or lose, so if my opponent gets 10VPs cuz he has painted models, good on them!

The way I see it, you either care about those 10VPs, and paint your armies, or you dont. So it serves its purpose, appeals to the ego of the players and takes advantage of their vanity in order to get more painted models on the tabletop.

 Shas'O Ky'husa wrote:

 Sim-Life wrote:
They're wrong and players are free to change the game to reflect that, like most do.

Interestingly the votes in this poll disagree with you, as 52% either like the rule as-is or like the idea of the rule but disagree with the specific implementation of it.

And it's rather arrogant of you to say that you know more about what is or isn't part of the game than the people who own the IP and write the rules.

Well the poll is poorly worded and the wording on the just barely 52% option conflates two options.

GW tries to claim Finecast was a wonderful miracle product that will make our dreams come true and released a literally broken edition that only had a 2 year shelf life before being replaced. GW are not infallible when it comes to their own products.

 Sim-Life wrote:
Well the poll is poorly worded and the wording on the just barely 52% option conflates two options.

The poll is worded just fine. And yes, I combined two options because those are the two options that explicitly endorse painting scoring (with another 7% voting "other", which could include support for it). A majority of people voting in this poll believe that painting scoring is a good idea, so according to the poll your claim that "most people don't want it" is false.

GW tries to claim Finecast was a wonderful miracle product that will make our dreams come true and released a literally broken edition that only had a 2 year shelf life before being replaced. GW are not infallible when it comes to their own products.

"Finecast is good" is a subjective opinion. "Part of the game" is objective fact as determined by the people who write the rules for the game.