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.

Can I get a confirmation yet that Shas'O is Canadian Sgt Bob?

 Grimtuff wrote:

 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.

You’re not paying attention to the threads around here if you think it’s as one-sided as everyone else saying painting is a mandatory part of the hobby.

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Can I get a confirmation yet that Shas'O is Canadian Sgt Bob?

I'm not, so please don't try to blame me for someone else's argument.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

DeathKorp_Rider wrote:
You’re not paying attention to the threads around here if you think it’s as one-sided as everyone else saying painting is a mandatory part of the hobby.

40k =/= the wargaming hobby. 40k unfortunately has some level of tolerance for unpainted models (but not in organized events), the miniatures hobby as a whole doesn't. Ask this question in a historical-focused community and the results will be overwhelmingly in favor of painting requirements that are far stricter than a mere 10 VP out of 100.

That exactly what a Canadian guilty person would say

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.

100% of the hobby? Really? You think the hobby is limited to assembling, painting and playing only? Or have you been cosplaying while editing your lore videos about your fanfic-based tattoos?

You have a very narrow idea of what the hobby is and how other people enjoy it. What you like is 100% of the hobby, and everything else doesn’t count, does it?

How about this: making a rule to make many participants in the hobby feel unappreciated is alienating and makes the hobby less welcoming.

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.

Grossly flawed for two reasons:

1. Why does anyone have to participate in 100% of the hobby. Is reading Black Library books part of the hobby, 'cause I don't read them. Do I need to play every game GW makes to get my gamerscore to 1000? Utterly absurd notion.

2. Why should the score for a game factor painting in at all? And if so, why does it not also factor in adherence to fluff? If I haven't marked my troops with the exact canon-specific transfers/decals, should I be marked down?

You can have a painting score to judge painting, and that's it. Paint shouldn't play a role in who wins the damned game.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
2. Why should the score for a game factor painting in at all?

Because you're using those unpainted models in the game. Whether or not you read a 40k novel outside of the game is not directly related to the events happening in the game.

Paint shouldn't play a role in who wins the damned game.

Fortunately there is an easy solution: follow the social norms, bring a fully painted army, and never have to worry about it.

 Shas'O Ky'husa wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
2. Why should the score for a game factor painting in at all?

Because you're using those unpainted models in the game. Whether or not you read a 40k novel outside of the game is not directly related to the events happening in the game.

Paint shouldn't play a role in who wins the damned game.

Fortunately there is an easy solution: follow the social norms, bring a fully painted army, and never have to worry about it.

Well there's people not following societal norms via not showering, but they're still scored the same.

EviscerationPlague wrote:
Well there's people not following societal norms via not showering, but they're still scored the same.

Ok? The solution is to ban those people from the store/club entirely, not to allow them to play but deduct VP. If you want to treat painting the same way we treat nurgle cultists that's fine with me.

 Shas'O Ky'husa wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:
Well there's people not following societal norms via not showering, but they're still scored the same.

Ok? The solution is to ban those people from the store/club entirely, not to allow them to play but deduct VP. If you want to treat painting the same way we treat nurgle cultists that's fine with me.

this.

as for GW putting out contrast paints right along the time they took a stab at "clarifying" panting levels I see that as more GW attempting to advertise to a niche, the "I'd like to paint but I'm bad at it" crowd

BrianDavion wrote:

 Shas'O Ky'husa wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:
Well there's people not following societal norms via not showering, but they're still scored the same.

Ok? The solution is to ban those people from the store/club entirely, not to allow them to play but deduct VP. If you want to treat painting the same way we treat nurgle cultists that's fine with me.

this.

as for GW putting out contrast paints right along the time they took a stab at "clarifying" panting levels I see that as more GW attempting to advertise to a niche, the "I'd like to paint but I'm bad at it" crowd

When at the same time the edition they release it for is the one where you have to paint or lose 10VP?

Holy hell you're naive enough to be sold anything.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Shas'O Ky'husa wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:
Well there's people not following societal norms via not showering, but they're still scored the same.

Ok? The solution is to ban those people from the store/club entirely, not to allow them to play but deduct VP. If you want to treat painting the same way we treat nurgle cultists that's fine with me.

They still score the same when they play a game though despite not being in line with your societal norm, yes or no?

EviscerationPlague wrote:
When at the same time the edition they release it for is the one where you have to paint or lose 10VP?

Holy hell you're naive enough to be sold anything.

Are you just going to continue ignoring the fact that GW is lagging the trend of every major tournament banning unpainted models entirely? Or the fact that contrast requires fewer paint purchases than the traditional system, so GW would be introducing this supposed sales incentive at the same time as a reduction in the sales generated from paint?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

EviscerationPlague wrote:
They still score the same when they play a game though despite not being in line with your societal norm, yes or no?

They don't score at all because they are kicked out of the store/club before getting to play.

But, like I said, if you want to replace the 10 VP with a stricter penalty then I'm fine with treating painting the same way as basic cleanliness. Show up with an unpainted army, get kicked out and told not to come back until you finish painting.

EviscerationPlague wrote:
When at the same time the edition they release it for is the one where you have to paint or lose 10VP?

Ah, this mis-characterisation of the rule again - you don't "lose" 10VP if you don't complete the tertiary objective, you just don't get the 10 bonus VP.

If you fail to make any effort towards a primary or secondary objective in a Matched Play game - that you could've scored if you tried to - are you going to blame GW for you "losing" up to 15VP there, too? Or would you acknowledge the lack of VP as the consequences of your own inactions?

The poll didn't reflect my opinion. "I find it sad that so many people play grey horde or stealth army that GW had to put an in-game benefit in to attempt to curb the behavior."

 Just Tony wrote:
The poll didn't reflect my opinion. "I find it sad that so many people play grey horde or stealth army that GW had to put an in-game benefit in to attempt to curb the behavior."

That fits under “other”

 Dysartes wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:
When at the same time the edition they release it for is the one where you have to paint or lose 10VP?

Ah, this mis-characterisation of the rule again - you don't "lose" 10VP if you don't complete the tertiary objective, you just don't get the 10 bonus VP.

If you fail to make any effort towards a primary or secondary objective in a Matched Play game - that you could've scored if you tried to - are you going to blame GW for you "losing" up to 15VP there, too? Or would you acknowledge the lack of VP as the consequences of your own inactions?

You are being a sophist for no reason. Losing or gaining 10 victory points in this is the same exact thing. It's a zero sum game, the enemy gains 10 victory points, or you lose 10, and it's the same outcome. If both players started with 10 points, then it was taken away, it would be the exact same effect. Painting for an extra 10 points is nowhere near equivalent to not playing the objective, because one happens in the game, and one is an entirely of the board hobby.

My Dark Angels fanfiction should get me 10 victory points, and it's not you losing 10, it's you not getting 10 because of your inaction. Same with me cosplaying a Space Marine, yelling Waaagh, and having a better beard than you.

If those "soft scores" were to be codified into the official rulebook you should sustain the penalty for not fullfilling it.

If you accept the frame of the scoring sistem you accept the 10Pv reward for painted armies.

Do you modify the size of the objectives of the GT missions? No? Well house rulling no painting reward is similar.

Some people might be surprised, but for many having to play against an unpainted army is as uncomfortable as for others might be having to cosplay during a game... The 10pv reward is just a very partial compensation for what they suffer.

 TheBestBucketHead wrote:
My Dark Angels fanfiction should get me 10 victory points

Your fanfiction does not exist on the table. Your unpainted miniatures do.

And I will once again remind you that painted miniatures are the expected standard in miniature wargaming. Virtually all organized events require them, and unlike the mere 10 VP at stake in a non-tournament game there is zero tolerance for failing to meet that rule. And the same is true in historical games, if your army is not painted and historically accurate you don't play. It's only in casual kitchen table 40k that anyone even attempts to use unpainted miniatures. So yes, it is absolutely appropriate to make meeting that expected standard part of the normal scoring system and if you don't like the standard maybe miniature wargaming isn't the right hobby for you. There's no shame in playing map-based wargames with cardboard tokens and there are plenty of great games that use that system.

 Shas'O Ky'husa wrote:

 TheBestBucketHead wrote:
My Dark Angels fanfiction should get me 10 victory points

Your fanfiction does not exist on the table. Your unpainted miniatures do.

And I will once again remind you that painted miniatures are the expected standard in miniature wargaming. Virtually all organized events require them, and unlike the mere 10 VP at stake in a non-tournament game there is zero tolerance for failing to meet that rule. And the same is true in historical games, if your army is not painted and historically accurate you don't play. It's only in casual kitchen table 40k that anyone even attempts to use unpainted miniatures. So yes, it is absolutely appropriate to make meeting that expected standard part of the normal scoring system and if you don't like the standard maybe miniature wargaming isn't the right hobby for you. There's no shame in playing map-based wargames with cardboard tokens and there are plenty of great games that use that system.

They hated Shas'O Ky'husa because he told the truth.

Nah, we hate him cause he's a blatant troll.

 Sim-Life wrote:
Nah, we hate him cause he's a blatant troll.

I do not think you know what trolling is.

 Sim-Life wrote:
Nah, we hate him cause he's a blatant troll.

So says the guy who thinks anger and insults are a substitute for understanding statistics and poll design.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 blood reaper wrote:

 Sim-Life wrote:
Nah, we hate him cause he's a blatant troll.

I do not think you know what trolling is.

For him "trolling" is defined as "anything that makes me face even mild criticism for not painting".

 Shas'O Ky'husa wrote:

Your fanfiction does not exist on the table. Your unpainted miniatures do.

And I will once again remind you that painted miniatures are the expected standard in miniature wargaming. Virtually all organized events require them, and unlike the mere 10 VP at stake in a non-tournament game there is zero tolerance for failing to meet that rule. And the same is true in historical games, if your army is not painted and historically accurate you don't play. It's only in casual kitchen table 40k that anyone even attempts to use unpainted miniatures. So yes, it is absolutely appropriate to make meeting that expected standard part of the normal scoring system and if you don't like the standard maybe miniature wargaming isn't the right hobby for you. There's no shame in playing map-based wargames with cardboard tokens and there are plenty of great games that use that system.

Because events have sponsors, and sports are often stores or paint studios. Of course they, just like GW love the idea of painting models being required. The more a person invests, both time and money, the bigger the chance they will stay no matter what happens to or in the game. And if on top of that you manage to propagate a culture where it is not playing the game that is the game, but everything else then you no longer have to care what rules you write or what state the meta game it is in. If painting is so essential to table top gaming, then why don't other games have VP for paint too?

Also the mere 10VP comment is strange. If you play a game vs a better army, if it gets 10VP and you don't you may as well not play the game at all. Also pre 9th ed, I have seen a ton of unpainted or never finished armies. And no one here plays at home, everyone played at the old store.

 TheBestBucketHead wrote:

 Dysartes wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:
When at the same time the edition they release it for is the one where you have to paint or lose 10VP?

Ah, this mis-characterisation of the rule again - you don't "lose" 10VP if you don't complete the tertiary objective, you just don't get the 10 bonus VP.

If you fail to make any effort towards a primary or secondary objective in a Matched Play game - that you could've scored if you tried to - are you going to blame GW for you "losing" up to 15VP there, too? Or would you acknowledge the lack of VP as the consequences of your own inactions?

You are being a sophist for no reason. Losing or gaining 10 victory points in this is the same exact thing. It's a zero sum game, the enemy gains 10 victory points, or you lose 10, and it's the same outcome. If both players started with 10 points, then it was taken away, it would be the exact same effect. Painting for an extra 10 points is nowhere near equivalent to not playing the objective, because one happens in the game, and one is an entirely of the board hobby.

The baseline maximum VP total for primary and secondary objectives in a Matched Play game is assumed to be 90VP - from memory, some secondaries could cause a lower maximum, but I can't think of any way you could end up with a higher maximum.

If you were losing 10 VP for not being painted, your max available would be 80VP, not 90.

As you score a tertiary objective by having a painted army, your maximum potential score increases from 90 to 100VP.

There's also nothing zero sum about the painting points - if I score them, there's nothing stopping you from scoring them as well, aside from your own actions.

And while I appreciate you calling my arguments clever, I'd strongly disagree with the characterisation of them as deceptive or fallacious. Use of language is important for clarity, and confusing bonus and penalty really muddies the water of the debate.

Karol wrote:
If painting is so essential to table top gaming, then why don't other games have VP for paint too?

Depends on the game. For some they don't have paint scoring because the community standard is that unpainted models are not permitted at all, therefore everyone would get the same 10 VP. For other games, like the FFG Star Wars games, they don't have paint scoring because the models come painted out of the box. For games like Warmachine they don't have paint scoring because they're trying to attract a WAAC audience that hates painting because it reduces the value of their models on ebay when they're trading for the next netlist. But I don't think it's any coincidence that the games with the least painting have the lowest player counts. Look at Warmachine, a failure of a game in the middle of a complete reboot of the rules and a transition to 3d printing because they can no longer afford normal production.

 Shas'O Ky'husa wrote:

 Sim-Life wrote:
Nah, we hate him cause he's a blatant troll.

So says the guy who thinks anger and insults are a substitute for understanding statistics and poll design.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 blood reaper wrote:

 Sim-Life wrote:
Nah, we hate him cause he's a blatant troll.

I do not think you know what trolling is.

For him "trolling" is defined as "anything that makes me face even mild criticism for not painting".

Except I've stated several times that I'm a fairly prolific painter. Also way to resort to "u mad" as a retort. When you actually have an argument that is actually substantial I'll reply but so far you've just been gaking up the forum with opinion stated as fact.

 Dysartes wrote:

 TheBestBucketHead wrote:

 Dysartes wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:
When at the same time the edition they release it for is the one where you have to paint or lose 10VP?

Ah, this mis-characterisation of the rule again - you don't "lose" 10VP if you don't complete the tertiary objective, you just don't get the 10 bonus VP.

If you fail to make any effort towards a primary or secondary objective in a Matched Play game - that you could've scored if you tried to - are you going to blame GW for you "losing" up to 15VP there, too? Or would you acknowledge the lack of VP as the consequences of your own inactions?

You are being a sophist for no reason. Losing or gaining 10 victory points in this is the same exact thing. It's a zero sum game, the enemy gains 10 victory points, or you lose 10, and it's the same outcome. If both players started with 10 points, then it was taken away, it would be the exact same effect. Painting for an extra 10 points is nowhere near equivalent to not playing the objective, because one happens in the game, and one is an entirely of the board hobby.

The baseline maximum VP total for primary and secondary objectives in a Matched Play game is assumed to be 90VP - from memory, some secondaries could cause a lower maximum, but I can't think of any way you could end up with a higher maximum.

If you were losing 10 VP for not being painted, your max available would be 80VP, not 90.

As you score a tertiary objective by having a painted army, your maximum potential score increases from 90 to 100VP.

There's also nothing zero sum about the painting points - if I score them, there's nothing stopping you from scoring them as well, aside from your own actions.

And while I appreciate you calling my arguments clever, I'd strongly disagree with the characterisation of them as deceptive or fallacious. Use of language is important for clarity, and confusing bonus and penalty really muddies the water of the debate.

You are losing VP for not being painted. The max goes from 100 to 90. Why does losing VP have to go from 90 to 80? Or is it that there's a distinction without a difference? And it's not zero sum for painitng points, it's zero sum for the total game points. You say language is important for discussion, then rely on talking points with no actual difference, only semantic issues, instead of the actual arguments being made.

If there are two armies, the total points able to be scored is 100. The one who does not have a painted army can only score 90, and the person who does can score 100, and has a 10 point lead. Whether or not it's a penalty or a bonus, it's a difference that shouldn't be there, because it is not earned by playing the game, it is earned by doing something almost entirely unrelated to the game. Again, if I were to write up lore about my army, make a fanfiction, and dress up in cosplay, while having a better beard, does that mean I should score more points, and thus penalize my opponent?

 TheBestBucketHead wrote:

 Dysartes wrote:

 TheBestBucketHead wrote:

 Dysartes wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:
When at the same time the edition they release it for is the one where you have to paint or lose 10VP?

Ah, this mis-characterisation of the rule again - you don't "lose" 10VP if you don't complete the tertiary objective, you just don't get the 10 bonus VP.

If you fail to make any effort towards a primary or secondary objective in a Matched Play game - that you could've scored if you tried to - are you going to blame GW for you "losing" up to 15VP there, too? Or would you acknowledge the lack of VP as the consequences of your own inactions?

You are being a sophist for no reason. Losing or gaining 10 victory points in this is the same exact thing. It's a zero sum game, the enemy gains 10 victory points, or you lose 10, and it's the same outcome. If both players started with 10 points, then it was taken away, it would be the exact same effect. Painting for an extra 10 points is nowhere near equivalent to not playing the objective, because one happens in the game, and one is an entirely of the board hobby.

The baseline maximum VP total for primary and secondary objectives in a Matched Play game is assumed to be 90VP - from memory, some secondaries could cause a lower maximum, but I can't think of any way you could end up with a higher maximum.

If you were losing 10 VP for not being painted, your max available would be 80VP, not 90.

As you score a tertiary objective by having a painted army, your maximum potential score increases from 90 to 100VP.

There's also nothing zero sum about the painting points - if I score them, there's nothing stopping you from scoring them as well, aside from your own actions.

And while I appreciate you calling my arguments clever, I'd strongly disagree with the characterisation of them as deceptive or fallacious. Use of language is important for clarity, and confusing bonus and penalty really muddies the water of the debate.

You are losing VP for not being painted. The max goes from 100 to 90. Why does losing VP have to go from 90 to 80? Or is it that there's a distinction without a difference? And it's not zero sum for painitng points, it's zero sum for the total game points. You say language is important for discussion, then rely on talking points with no actual difference, only semantic issues, instead of the actual arguments being made.

If there are two armies, the total points able to be scored is 100. The one who does not have a painted army can only score 90, and the person who does can score 100, and has a 10 point lead. Whether or not it's a penalty or a bonus, it's a difference that shouldn't be there, because it is not earned by playing the game, it is earned by doing something almost entirely unrelated to the game. Again, if I were to write up lore about my army, make a fanfiction, and dress up in cosplay, while having a better beard, does that mean I should score more points, and thus penalize my opponent?

If you're playing certain AoS armies, yes. Which is an interesting point for the pedant harping on about this. When AoS launched and had rules benefits for things like having the biggest moustache, being arrogant like a High Elf, complaining about stuff like a Dwarf etc these rules were all totally fine to you guys? I mean GW thought they were good enough to include in the game so that makes them part of the hobby and not taking part in the stupid roleplay rules means you're not playing the game properly?

Stupid roleplay, for you!!

If someone wants to roleplay by the AOS rulebook how dare you judge his hobby!!!

Are you a totalutarian ****head?????

Vatsetis wrote:
Stupid roleplay, for you!!

If someone wants to roleplay by the AOS rulebook how dare you judge his hobby!!!

Are you a totalutarian ****head?????

So when 10th Ed introduces a rule for tyranids that gives VP for the player literally eating killed models then you're on board?