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.

Okay. Why should that matter to me?

Lots of people enjoy painting. That’s good-but I am not one of them.
Some people won’t play against or with unpainted minis-that’s fine, we won’t play each other.

Just because a lot of people like something doesn’t mean I have to.

 JNAProductions wrote:


Just because a lot of people like something doesn’t mean I have to.

I tried helping you with that and got crickets. You clearly don't want to learn, so I suggest you stop pissing into the wind.

 Grimtuff wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:


Just because a lot of people like something doesn’t mean I have to.

I tried helping you with that and got crickets. You clearly don't want to learn, so I suggest you stop pissing into the wind.

Can you explain?

I and several others provided several pieces of advice for you in the other threads on how and why exactly you might not like painting and it can be made far far easier, but it was all ignored.

 Grimtuff wrote:
I and several others provided several pieces of advice for you in the other threads on how and why exactly you might not like painting and it can be made far far easier, but it was all ignored.

Some people just don't like things dude. You can give me all the advice on how to enjoy watching basketball on the TV but I'll never enjoy it.

 Grimtuff wrote:
I and several others provided several pieces of advice for you in the other threads on how and why exactly you might not like painting and it can be made far far easier, but it was all ignored.

Why is "I don't like painting" a problem to be solved?
This is a hobby we participate in for fun-if parts of it aren't fun for you, you don't need to participate in that part of it.

If you love to paint, but hate to game, then I don't expect you to play a game-why would you? It's not fun for you.

Answering to Grimtuff last post:

Because they are either trolling or they are firm
adherents of solipsism.

I really wish it was the former, but I suspect is the latter :(

Vatsetis wrote:
Because they are either trolling or they are firm adherents of solipsism.

I really wish it was the former, but I suspect is the latter :(

I am not trolling. I simply don't like to paint. There is no need to insult me for not having the same interests.

"Not liking to paint" its not an appropiate answer to the current debate unless you are trolling or you either believe yourselve to be the only being with agency in the universe (IE:solipsism).

Vatsetis wrote:
"Not liking to paint" its not an appropiate answer to the current debate unless you are trolling or you either believe yourselve to be the only being with agency in the universe (IE:solipsism).

No? When I participate in the hobby, I am not required to participate in every facet.
Just because I enjoy the game, the lore, and the modeling doesn't mean I need to enjoy the painting, the novels, the comics, the fanworks, or any other facet. If you are offended by me not having painted models, then you don't need to play me-but there's no reason to insult me for enjoying the overall 40k hobby differently from you.

I suppose your words are factually correct.

Thats not what the current debate its about, sadly.

Participate in 90% of the hobby (though more like 66%) and get 90% of the score.

Participate in 100% of the hobby, get 100% of the score. No judgment, no argument, just the way it is.

Fwiw: we've been doing it as progress points for years instead of some totalitarian nonsense that we keep creating into some strawman.

You show effort, you get points, regardless of what condition the army is. You slack off, you stand the CHANCE at getting a light ribbing and some laughing. We know when we don't put in effort we know we could have, and this rule just holds that attitude to account. It is not made to shame anyone else, especially new and/or infirm. Jumping to those lengths typically means your argument is flawed from the start.

Vatsetis wrote:
Answering to Grimtuff last post:

Because they are either trolling or they are firm
adherents of solipsism.

I really wish it was the former, but I suspect is the latter :(

nice projecting LMAO.

Purifying Tempest wrote:
Participate in 90% of the hobby (though more like 66%) and get 90% of the score.

Participate in 100% of the hobby, get 100% of the score. No judgment, no argument, just the way it is.

Fwiw: we've been doing it as progress points for years instead of some totalitarian nonsense that we keep creating into some strawman.

You show effort, you get points, regardless of what condition the army is. You slack off, you stand the CHANCE at getting a light ribbing and some laughing. We know when we don't put in effort we know we could have, and this rule just holds that attitude to account. It is not made to shame anyone else, especially new and/or infirm. Jumping to those lengths typically means your argument is flawed from the start.

So, drop a couple hundred dollars on a painting service, and you've got 100% participation in the hobby?
That's how this works?

I've never come across it being played so must admit I forgot it was a rule.

It mostly seems like a oddly ham fisted way to discourage people being able to put the new hotness on the table straight away. Problem is the latest broken list/faction usually wins by more then 10 VP so it doesn't really discourage much.

It also seems odd to try and force the painting and playing aspects of the hobby to share a scoring system. I doubt anyone looses 10% of their score in Painting Competitions because their latest creation hasn't played a game yet.

If some one was playing it I'd be happy to do so however, it's in the rules.

 catbarf wrote:

 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.

This makes sense, but I think winning the game because of the Painted Army 10VP's can be a feel bad moment for both players. The loser feels cheated out of a win and the winners win feels hallow. I'm sure it has even lead to some salty arguments amongst the players.

I think that because it's impossible to directly correlate an additional 1 or 2 CP to winning that it's a better solution even it is still imperfect.

Voss wrote:

Purifying Tempest wrote:
Participate in 90% of the hobby (though more like 66%) and get 90% of the score.

Participate in 100% of the hobby, get 100% of the score. No judgment, no argument, just the way it is.

Fwiw: we've been doing it as progress points for years instead of some totalitarian nonsense that we keep creating into some strawman.

You show effort, you get points, regardless of what condition the army is. You slack off, you stand the CHANCE at getting a light ribbing and some laughing. We know when we don't put in effort we know we could have, and this rule just holds that attitude to account. It is not made to shame anyone else, especially new and/or infirm. Jumping to those lengths typically means your argument is flawed from the start.

So, drop a couple hundred dollars on a painting service, and you've got 100% participation in the hobby?
That's how this works?

Beautiful thing about a standard is it doesn't care how it is applied. You either met it or you didn't. Your methods of attaining the standard means little to me. If you have short time and deep wallets, whatever man.

I can withhold my judgment on the topic because that is another argument entirely and it is bad form to shift goalposts with the ground erodes under a position.

But surely if its about participation, and bettering yourself and not being lazy, then just buying your way to completion isn't any better than not painting, right?

That's been the crux of the argument the whole time, hasn't it? Non-painters just aren't pulling their own weight and making things bad for everyone?

Same with soldiers who fail a PT test, or cheaters who wish to game the rules for an advantage. None of them are meeting the standard. You know what it is, and how you get there is another topic. Some say hard work, others use other methods. We all live with those decisions, and fortunately it is not me who has to live with the inevitable judgment for your actions (why would I care? The hobby is better, after all, and I upheld my standards).

But still, we're getting off of the topic, and the repeated attempts could be telling.

Last saturday I had a game and the other player and I had one of these rare discussions about this rule.
The discussion followed the same pattern most discussions follow at our gaming tables. One player arguments why the other player should have an advantage, the other player arguments why he doesn't want this advantage and does not like the rule which would favor him.
This time my opponent had most models unpainted and told me I should get 10 VP for my painted army. I did not want them and wanted to play without the rule. After a short argument I was lucky to remember that this meaningless GW "Battle ready" standard grants 10 VP only with textured bases, so I could point to some bases of mine which did not meet GW's painting standard. Therefore I got my will and at last did not get 10 VPs.

If my opponent feels like painting all of his miniatures I will enjoy the looks of them. If he does not paint them, I just don't care, my first priority is playing the game, my second priority is a nice conversation while playing, my third priority is good beer and unhealthy food while gaming. Don't know, perhaps looking at nicely painted miniatures of my opponent is somewhere near priorities 8-10? Doesn't matter enough to me to think about it any further.

Voss wrote:
But surely if its about participation, and bettering yourself and not being lazy, then just buying your way to completion isn't any better than not painting, right?

That's been the crux of the argument the whole time, hasn't it? Non-painters just aren't pulling their own weight and making things bad for everyone?

Why do you put such an effort in being so ofuscated?

Do you really thing that comissioning a paint job and in doing so making the hobby more beutifull for everyone while helping a fellow hobbist (as many comission painters are) is equal to bringing your grey tide to the table and make the table and fellow gamer army look like poo no matter how much effort it was put on them??

This solipsism view (ie: its my hobby and I **** it how I like) is very, very childish.

The unpainted crowd is simply tolerated, sometimes there are good reasons not to paint your minis, but if your "reason" is "I dont care", you are most likely a toxic element amongst your gamming community (just like WAAC or a male chauvinist, which are also usually tolerated in order to maintain a bigger community).

You assume that EVERYONE feels the same you do.
Not everyone does-there are plenty of people fine with grey models.

 JNAProductions wrote:
You assume that EVERYONE feels the same you do.
Not everyone does-there are plenty of people fine with grey models.

But the question is: do we, the community, hold them to a different standard? That's the reduction of the argument isn't it?

Purifying Tempest wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
You assume that EVERYONE feels the same you do.
Not everyone does-there are plenty of people fine with grey models.

But the question is: do we, the community, hold them to a different standard? That's the reduction of the argument isn't it?

And the answer to that is: Wargaming groups are not nearly as homogenous as this question implies.

For some groups, having a fully painted army is an absolute requirement, and that's fine.

For others, what matters is making progress - those models were unpainted last month, now they have the main areas base coated, and next month they'll have shading and the details picked out. And that's fine.

And for some groups, painting is literally irrelevant - they view the painting and the gaming sides of the hobby as completely separate and see no issue with people choosing to play with unpainted models. And that is also fine.

To say "we the community" assumes that all groups are part of the same overall community, and quite frankly they're not. Sure they're on the same Venn diagram and there's definitely an overlap, but they're still distinct. As long as any given group (ie the people in that group) is happy with their approach (the approach taken by others in that group), what right does anyone else (a part of a different group) have to say they're doing it wrong?

And that's the beauty: the answer can be nuanced. We can choose to enforce the standard just as readily as we can disregard it.

At the end of the day, it is simply a matter of how do you feel about it? And what you plan to do about it. I won't make you paint any more than you'll let me skate away with a win because I was fully painted. What ever happened to the convention of both players walking away happy? Why can't the painted guy feel he won because he engaged in all aspects while the unpainted guy knows he was tactically more prepared? I don't think the community exists in a binary, I know I certainly don't. I have my standard, but I'm willing to listen to yours.

At the end of the day, all we can do is be honest with ourselves and our opponents in what will help both of us walk away happy.

GW clearly articulated the issue. Do you and your mates want to enforce it or not? Are you willing to have the hard talk about why? Are you willing to respect "no, I don't agree" for an answer?

GW never articulated an issue. They wanted you to buy their paints LOL

EviscerationPlague wrote:
GW never articulated an issue. They wanted you to buy their paints LOL

Ascribing motive. Not really relevant speculation for the topic either. If anything: GW and FLGS have relaxed over the years and there's now a gateway to bringing an unpainted army into many events they were previously banned in. You just have to accept 90 as a ceiling instead of 100. And fortunately, if you want that 90+, or feel you need it, you know how to go and get it. Why should they have to lower the standard more?

Purifying Tempest wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:
GW never articulated an issue. They wanted you to buy their paints LOL

Ascribing motive. Not really relevant speculation for the topic either. If anything: GW and FLGS have relaxed over the years and there's now a gateway to bringing an unpainted army into many events they were previously banned in. You just have to accept 90 as a ceiling instead of 100. And fortunately, if you want that 90+, or feel you need it, you know how to go and get it. Why should they have to lower the standard more?

Ascribing motive when the company released a new line of paints for supposed "ease of painting" for the edition where you lose points for not painting?

It's pretty fething obvious LOL

Maybe they wanted people to stop barking about the barriers to entry and developed a product that could get results regardless of skill level? Surely they'd monetize it, but ascribing some loony profit above all else motive is pretty disingenuous given that GW has been holding the bar for decades. They've created many tools to assist hobbyists to overcome whatever barriers they may have, shouldn't they make a dollar or two for making the job easier?

Regardless, their stance hasn't changed, they just vocalized it finally and the community has melted down over it between two camps that can't budge from the extremes to meet each other somewhere in between.

Like the other poll about what level of painting do I expect from my opponent? The answer is 0. But it fails to articulate that my standard for myself is closer to an 8 or 9.

Would it make my day if someone made the effort to tickle my eyeballs with paint on their toys? Sure thing, it is a definite feel good for me, and I want to give my opponent that same feeling in case he values that as well.

Would it ruin the game to play against an out of the box mass of grey? Nope. Probably may have a chat about what's holding the player up, but no judgment. It is a simple exchange of dialog where I am happy to hear "I don't like it". Good deal, move on. I can tally the 10 in my head if it makes me feel better, or I can just focus on making the most out of our time together. Like a human would do.

EviscerationPlague wrote:
GW never articulated an issue. They wanted you to buy their paints LOL

And yet third-party tournaments with no sales motive have even stricter rules than GW. The obvious answer here is that profit is not the motive, having more aesthetically appealing armies is.