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.

 Shas'O Ky'husa wrote:

 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. 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.

I'd go so far as to argue that when 38% of people responding to the poll choose the top option, you can't get away with using "most" when describing the people who don't like the rule, especially when the option explicitly against the rule also scores below 50% of votes.

"A mixed reception" is probably the fairest description.

 Shas'O Ky'husa wrote:

 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.

God you're bad at this.

Shockingly, Sim, just saying someone is bad at something doesn't mean that they are.

Try using your words, and expand on your position.

 Dysartes wrote:
Shockingly, Sim, just saying someone is bad at something doesn't mean that they are.

Try using your words, and expand on your position.

And get drawn into a big stupid argument where someone thinks persistence is a valid form of argument? Nah. I'm good. But here's a free sample of what I WOULD say if I was getting into an argument.

How do feel about the 10 VPs for a fully painted army?

Good rule. There needs to be an in-game incentive to paint your models

This is a biased option. "Good" (A) is an answer. "There needs to be an in-game incentive"(B) is another answer. Combining the two implies that that A is a good solution to B. If you think B you have no option but to agree that A is the implied correct answer.

But as I said, I'm not getting drawn into someone who is clearly trolling by playing the "Jokes on you, I was only pretending to be stupid." game.

 Sim-Life wrote:
This is a biased option. "Good" (A) is an answer. "There needs to be an in-game incentive"(B) is another answer. Combining the two implies that that A is a good solution to B. If you think B you have no option but to agree that A is the implied correct answer.

Ok, so let's split the option into A and B. A disagrees with your claim that "most people don't want this", B also disagrees with your claim. Whether they're separate statements or combined into one response the answer is still the same: 52% of people agree with painting scoring in some form and disagree with you.

But I'm sure you'll follow up with another attempt at substituting insults for an actual argument.

 Shas'O Ky'husa wrote:

 Sim-Life wrote:
This is a biased option. "Good" (A) is an answer. "There needs to be an in-game incentive"(B) is another answer. Combining the two implies that that A is a good solution to B. If you think B you have no option but to agree that A is the implied correct answer.

Ok, so let's split the option into A and B. A disagrees with your claim that "most people don't want this", B also disagrees with your claim. Whether they're separate statements or combined into one response the answer is still the same: 52% of people agree with painting scoring in some form and disagree with you.

But I'm sure you'll follow up with another attempt at substituting insults for an actual argument.

Oh so combining results of the poll is a valid argument? Meaning that the 42% of answers in favor of the rule is now the minority? Cool.

 Sim-Life wrote:
Oh so combining results of the poll is a valid argument? Meaning that the 42% of answers in favor of the rule is now the minority? Cool.

Yes, why do you think otherwise? If you have three different responses that are some form of "yes" then it is absolutely reasonable to add those numbers together when totaling up how many people said "yes".

 Shas'O Ky'husa wrote:

 Sim-Life wrote:
Oh so combining results of the poll is a valid argument? Meaning that the 42% of answers in favor of the rule is now the minority? Cool.

Yes, why do you think otherwise? If you have three different responses that are some form of "yes" then it is absolutely reasonable to add those numbers together when totaling up how many people said "yes".

So you said:

A majority of people voting in this poll believe that painting scoring is a good idea

So now you acknowledge that in fact it is NOT the majority opinion if we combine all the options on the poll against it. Do you see why I say you're bad at this yet?

tauist wrote: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.

3rd option, you paint your armies and don't give a gak about vp....

 Sim-Life wrote:
So you said:

A majority of people voting in this poll believe that painting scoring is a good idea

So now you acknowledge that in fact it is NOT the majority opinion if we combine all the options on the poll against it. Do you see why I say you're bad at this yet?

...

Do you even think about what you're saying? Let's assume we split up the response you objected to, which gives us three responses that are some form of "paint scoring is a good idea":

* Good rule. X%
* There needs to be an in-game incentive to paint your models. (39-X%)
* Not a bad notion, but poorly implemented. 14%

No matter what value you choose for X to split up the 39% between those two options the total of all three explicit "paint scoring is a good idea" responses is 53%. According to this poll a majority of people think paint scoring is a good idea, clearly disproving your claim that "most people don't want this".

Now, if you wanted to go into further detail on the 10 VP option vs. other options you no longer have an explicit majority in favor of the 10 VP option. But that doesn't matter, a vote for "paint scoring, but with a different implementation" is still a vote for paint scoring.

 catbarf wrote:
I voted 'other' because there was no option for 'this rule doesn't actually mean anything'.

If you're playing a casual pick-up game against a stranger then you know who won from the outcome of the tabletop, and whether you technically lost on painting VP is a big fat 'who cares'.

If you're playing a cutthroat tournament where winning or losing 'on paper' matters, they almost always have their own painting requirement rules. Usually it's that every model has to be painted, so if they'll let you play unpainted at a mild VP hit, that makes painting less mandatory.

And most games tend to snowball one way or the other anyways, so coming down to a split of under 10VP is pretty rare to begin with.

The sole reason it's controversial is that it's a shot across the bow for people who feel that painting their army is as ancillary as writing up its backstory or naming their characters, and not something that is generally expected as part of the tabletop experience. It doesn't actually matter in practice, it matters in principle.

Frankly, if someone is playing casual pick-up games against strangers and then getting mad that a hard-fought victory was technically a loss according to words on paper- a 'loss' that has zero impact in the grand scheme of things- then they probably are the sort of hypercompetitive player who needs extrinsic motivation to get their army painted in the first place.

I think this is similar to what I wrote in the first thread when this rule was revealed - and so it would seem to have proved.
I guess the issue is that (at least on Dakka) there are people who somehow take winning those random pick up games seriously (due to ego/identity or something), and so feel the weight of VP justice.
But in that case, well, I guess they can throw 3 colours on a mini and call it good.

Really all these painting threads have just made it clear to me that I've become a paint snob. I'd rather have unpainted or just say sprayed white/black minis to "I did this whole army in a weekend, sure it looks like trash with no highlights or anything, but I only had about 3 minutes per mini...". The former have the promise they could go somewhere - the second are just bad forever.

But equally I can see the reverse - that such allows people to get projects "done". Rather than it being many years on and you are still only at say 1500 points.

 Sim-Life wrote:

 Shas'O Ky'husa wrote:

 Sim-Life wrote:
Oh so combining results of the poll is a valid argument? Meaning that the 42% of answers in favor of the rule is now the minority? Cool.

Yes, why do you think otherwise? If you have three different responses that are some form of "yes" then it is absolutely reasonable to add those numbers together when totaling up how many people said "yes".

So you said:

A majority of people voting in this poll believe that painting scoring is a good idea

So now you acknowledge that in fact it is NOT the majority opinion if we combine all the options on the poll against it. Do you see why I say you're bad at this yet?

Might want to work on your reading comprehension, Sim, though the Shas'O could also work on being clearer.

Shas'o's reply to your post only addresses your point regarding combining poll results - it doesn't address your (inaccurate) comment regarding responses in favour of the poll being a minority. In an ideal world, they would have removed the part of your post they weren't responding directly to for clarity.

Let's look at the poll options:
Good rule. There needs to be an in-game incentive to paint your models. In favour 39% - 47
I like this rule, but only because it works in my advantage, rather than for the principle of it. In favour 2% - 2
Not a bad notion, but poorly implemented, In favour 14% - 17
I only grudgingly abide by this rule and wish they would remove it. Not in favour 4% - 5
I prefer to pretend this rule doesn't exist. Not in favour 34% - 41
Other / show results Neutral/unknown 7% - 8

I've added in bold my view as to whether a given option is in favour of the rule (or the concept of the rule, at least) or not in favour of the rule, and included the votes at the time of writing in italics.

If you think my read on any of the options is inaccurate, feel free to correct me, but that's how they read to me.

If we combine all the in favour votes, we end up with 66/120 (55%), while the tally of those not in favour ends up at 46/120 (38.3%) - the ones for Other sit outside that, and their percentage doesn't change. Even if we exclude the 2 votes from the "in favour" category which are just in it for the VP, we still get 64/120, or 53.3% of votes cast at the time of writing this post as being in favour of the idea of an in-game reward for a painted army.

I'd rather an event just had a rule that unpainted armies can't be used than the wishy washy 10vp thing. Otherwise just not have the rule at all. I know I'd feel awkward pointing out I won by those points because they didn't paint their models.

I love that, on the same forum, with the same people, on similar topics, I've seen both "We can't use a poll from this site as evidence, as Dakka is not representative of the hobby, and the wider culture in general" and "The majority of Dakka agrees with me, so the majority of the hobby agrees with me."

 TheBestBucketHead wrote:
I love that, on the same forum, with the same people, on similar topics, I've seen both "We can't use a poll from this site as evidence, as Dakka is not representative of the hobby, and the wider culture in general" and "The majority of Dakka agrees with me, so the majority of the hobby agrees with me."

The duality of the Dakkanaught.

I'm torn in that I dislike the rule, but it benefits me as I prefer using fully painted, and I feel there should be more incentive for things beyond "winning" and "what's the best list" even in tournaments. I am old enough to remember when RTTs and GTs had comp/sportsmanship scores specifically to ensure the overall winner best represented the HOBBY, not just list building, and I feel those were good things. So something like this I feel is a good way to make it clear there's more to the hobby than just getting "the best" models and winning games.

Wayniac wrote:
I'm torn in that I dislike the rule, but it benefits me as I prefer using fully painted, and I feel there should be more incentive for things beyond "winning" and "what's the best list" even in tournaments. I am old enough to remember when RTTs and GTs had comp/sportsmanship scores specifically to ensure the overall winner best represented the HOBBY, not just list building, and I feel those were good things. So something like this I feel is a good way to make it clear there's more to the hobby than just getting "the best" models and winning games.

Back in the day when GW ran the Nemesis Crown campaign for WHFB they gave people who started and painted armies during the campaign a certificate (gak) and a pin (actually pretty cool) for painting a certain amount. They should give people freebies like that for painting their armies.

If you dont like to paint, or cannot, play a card game, my position. Sorry to offend some few posters, but ... I would not consider a game with anyone who does not invest in this area of the hobby. Too little time in this one life to spend entertaining excuses. Just not for me.

40K is a game, not an art exhibition.

 jeff white wrote:
If you dont like to paint, or cannot, play a card game, my position. Sorry to offend some few posters, but ... I would not consider a game with anyone who does not invest in this area of the hobby. Too little time in this one life to spend entertaining excuses. Just not for me.

If you like to ride BMX bikes but dont Dirt track why even bother?
If you like to skateboard but not Vert why even bother?
If you like electric Guitar but not Acoustic why play them?
If you like working on car engines but not body work them why be a mechanic?

This is how you sound. Just bc someone likes some aspects of a hobby and not others doesn't mean they should stop.

I like the idea of having a motivation to have a fully painted army. I don' t know that awarding victory points was the best way to do it.

Perhaps granting an extra 1or 2 Command Points would have been better.

 oni wrote:
I like the idea of having a motivation to have a fully painted army. I don' t know that awarding victory points was the best way to do it.

Perhaps granting an extra 1or 2 Command Points would have been better.

If that rule was implemented, "Rome would burn" so too speak

 Shas'O Ky'husa wrote:

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.

So why does the person with the more impressive scheme only get the same amount? If a player gets VP just for having three colors, why isn't there a bonus for someone doing a more difficult scheme?

It's the stupidest rule I've seen this decade. Some of us are here to hobby, not to grind out sloppy paintjobs to have an even shot at winning games.

 oni wrote:
I like the idea of having a motivation to have a fully painted army. I don' t know that awarding victory points was the best way to do it.

Perhaps granting an extra 1or 2 Command Points would have been better.

A VP bonus is perfect because it is utterly meaningless. All you need to do to play the hypothetical 'how would this game have gone if it weren't for this rule?' is to just subtract 10VP as appropriate. If you lose the game by 5VP because your opponent's army was painted, congratulations, you actually won. If you're playing a casual game with no stakes that ought to be all you need, unless you really get wrapped around the axle about GW officially declaring you won.

Granting a command point bonus actually affects gameplay and makes it impossible to separate out its effects.

 CynosureEldar wrote:
It's the stupidest rule I've seen this decade. Some of us are here to hobby, not to grind out sloppy paintjobs to have an even shot at winning games.

Painting is part of the hobby mate.

 Grimtuff wrote:

 CynosureEldar wrote:
It's the stupidest rule I've seen this decade. Some of us are here to hobby, not to grind out sloppy paintjobs to have an even shot at winning games.

Painting is part of the hobby mate.

Painting is not part of gaming. If you are painting while playing a game with me, I would ask you to put the brush down and focus on the game at hand.

To SOME folk, painting is an essential part of the overall hobby. For others, it is not.

 JNAProductions wrote:

 Grimtuff wrote:

 CynosureEldar wrote:
It's the stupidest rule I've seen this decade. Some of us are here to hobby, not to grind out sloppy paintjobs to have an even shot at winning games.

Painting is part of the hobby mate.

Painting is not part of gaming. If you are painting while playing a game with me, I would ask you to put the brush down and focus on the game at hand.

To SOME folk, painting is an essential part of the overall hobby. For others, it is not.

That's not what he wrote though. Read it again.

I was responding to you. And to Cynosure? They’re probably like me and don’t enjoy painting. So it’s not part of their hobby.

 JNAProductions wrote:
I was responding to you. And to Cynosure? They’re probably like me and don’t enjoy painting. So it’s not part of their hobby.

Bully for you. That's not what the rest of the wargaming world at large thinks though.