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.

If someone wants to roleplay, I won't judge them. However, if I don't roleplay, I'm penalized. I'm not sure why I'm explaining this to a clear troll account.

I like it. GW games aren't good enough wargames to be serious about. A lot of the attraction is background and look. The parking lot detracts from that, but an unpainted parking lot kills any desire to play.

We're back to trying to (mis)characterize each other and arguing over standards that simply don't exist (strawmanning).

Remember, this isn't about cosplaying, lore, or anything else not listed in the book, those are all brought in to deflect or distract from the real question: do you think it is okay to hold players to a lower standard or do you wish others to hold you to said lower standard?

It is a simple question which should just require a yes or a no. I think many, many people hold themselves to a higher standard than they expect from others, which is why you'll see responses like: my army will be painted, but I don't expect my opponent to do the same. And like I said earlier: the 10VP rule is more inclusive to the community as it allows the ones who hate painting to still play on the table, albeit at a slight disadvantage. I've still yet to be convinced that Johnny's off meta army is going to run a close game against Spike's GT winning list... or enough to make the 10 matter.

You're right. Spike's GT winning list, fully painted, with the extra 10 victory points makes no difference to Johnny's unpainted army. The rule goes both ways. The rule is almost never going to matter, and if it does, it's not a feel good moment for either party.

I don't care what standard people set for me, and my standard for other people is that they do not harm me.

And I don't see how any of my examples were strawmanning. If a rule about beards were included, I'm sure people with amazing beards and painted armies would be very happy. And we have proof that GW would do it, in the Age of Sigmar books. Unless you think shouting Waagh shouldn't benefit the person putting more into the hobby than the other? I mean, if you only participate in 90% of the hobby, you should only get 90% of the points.

Purifying Tempest wrote:
We're back to trying to (mis)characterize each other and arguing over standards that simply don't exist (strawmanning).

No, in game advantages for role playing were a part of the game when AoS launched. They're totally relevant to the conversation because they were rewards for off table actions.

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

It's far more likely the Shas'O and Vatsetis are the same person.

 TheBestBucketHead wrote:
You're right. Spike's GT winning list, fully painted, with the extra 10 victory points makes no difference to Johnny's unpainted army. The rule goes both ways. The rule is almost never going to matter, and if it does, it's not a feel good moment for either party.

I don't care what standard people set for me, and my standard for other people is that they do not harm me.

And I don't see how any of my examples were strawmanning. If a rule about beards were included, I'm sure people with amazing beards and painted armies would be very happy. And we have proof that GW would do it, in the Age of Sigmar books. Unless you think shouting Waagh shouldn't benefit the person putting more into the hobby than the other? I mean, if you only participate in 90% of the hobby, you should only get 90% of the points.

We're strawmanning when we attempt to "win" an argument by trying to shift things in a way to put our opponent in an indefensible position: like saying cosplaying and lore writing are just a slippery slope away if the "pro-painters" have their way. Never once addressing the fact that the painted expectation has been baked into the game's DNA.

I think we all understand it is different strokes for different folks, but don't delude the fact that when you table an unpainted army that you're not meeting an expectation as of as the hobby, and that many times you're expecting an opponent to come off of his standard to entertain the game.

Also: assuming that someone's position is immutable is also a huge mistake. I'm far far less likely to hold a newcomer or infirm person to the same standard in my head that I would hold a ten year veteran. And I think that is a generally shared position as well, and a position that removes so many of the counter arguments.

This is where the internet fails to meet reality: so many of these absolutists fail to live up to their virtue in real life, because our positions are mutable and there is a ton of gray space between the sides where just about everyone lives. That's why I say that the outcome should never be able 10VP, but instead about finding ways for both players to enjoy the table on their own terms: house rules, standards, exclusion of repulsive rules... but that's player by player and game by game.

I don't know a single person that would intentionally poison the feel of the game because a person came to the table gray. It is childish. Now there may be thoughts of condemnation in their head and may think twice about future games, but most people will be courteous enough in the moment to complete the game and try to make it enjoyable. I think that's about as extreme as it gets. But again, I can't worry about what others think and their judgments. All I can do is make sure I meet whatever guidelines the community sets forth.

I've never strawmanned you into saying anything. And you seem to have meant slippery slope, as you clearly said slippery slope just now. Strawmanning is if I pretend you said something you didn't say. Slippery slope is if I say that people who want painted points will want cosplay points, and then yadda, and then yadda yadda.

So, I'm going to give the benefit of the doubt, and assume you misunderstood me, when what I was saying was,

The fact that an off the table activity affects the game is something I am against. To me, painting and having a really nice beard are about the same in what I expect to affect my gaming experience, which is none.

Is that strawmanning or using the slippery slope fallacy? Or is it the slippery slope fallacy when I mention that Games Workshop has done this before, and are liable to do it again?

Fallacies normally compound into each other. Like the strawman who requires cosplay and novelettes to score full points. Then slippery slope that right into my position so that you never have to answer the question of: do you think it is valid to uphold standards? Is it okay for a person to impose their standard on another?

I'm not holding anyone to anything arbitrary. If anything, the only person I take to task for meeting a standard, or not, is myself. But at the end of the day, we all know what it is. GW put it in black and white on glossy paper. So... why is it hard to at least hold oneself to that standard? Or at least acknowledge that like it or not, we aren't meeting it... and why. Your story is your own, and frankly none of my business. But at the end of the day, if you're not looking for the same game I am... isn't it better if we're both honest with each other? If you really hate painting, the onus is on you, because you're in violation of the standard. I can be graceful and accept that in accordance with my own beliefs and my interpretation of your position... and if you callously dip into that well too many times, eventually you'll find one less partner to dance with... and then another... and another... and so on until you're alone on the internet howling about your community being something like the one's Karol brings up. Never once stopping to take accountability in that the reason you've arrived there is that you never showed grace or understanding to other players and went in the direction of absolutism.

Not you specifically, not anyone specifically. Just a very general statement about how being so rigid normally leads to fallout and breakups. Humans have to bend and give, we're all on this rock together. It is how we've evolved over time. Normally autocrats and dictators tend to have some of the worst endings. I work to make my table and community a little better. And I've said many times that I won't hold another player to task for not meeting my expectations, and many times I won't even mention the rule unless it is to someone a bit habitual about breaking it.

I think it is perfectly fine to have standards. And standards are only useful if they are enforced. But that had to be tempered with compassion to understand the point of view opposing yours, which is where I think these threads really go awry.

Standards are necessary for society to function. However, standards from Games Workshop are still arbitrary. Three Colors with Shade and Basing. None of my miniatures are based. I do not get points as per that standard.
However, if your personal standard (you as in the general populace) is to not play against unpainted minis, I don't care, and this discussion has never had anything to do with you. It started because of insults and poor tempers from people who could not fathom the idea that someone dislikes painting minis.
"The standard" itself would be an appeal to popularity fallacy, and you, my friend, seem to only know fallacies by name, and make up their functions as you see fit. If you appeal to popularity, or authority, as in the Games Workshop standard, you need reason to back it up.
Tell me, because you are not forced to play with people, why is your standard, or GW's standard, king?
I refuse to play with people who don't shower, but I don't think you should get 10 points for using soap.

Edit: I should clarify this line.

Tell me, because you are not forced to play with people, why is your standard, or GW's standard, king?

Society has standards, generally, set as laws or social standards, because people have to interact with each other, so the collective gets together and votes, in a modern world, in order to have standards that best represent their needs. However, you are not forced to interact with anyone for 40k. You can play with only your close friends. Tournament standards are fine, because if you want to play in a tournament, you have to interact with others, and thus follow a standard set. Same with even just game stores. But, if neither sets up a standard you must meet, then your standard is arbitrary. In addition, I don't care about Games Workshop, and would be fine if the company failed. Why should I care about the standard they set? I don't even play 40k.
If you hold me to a standard, and I fail to reach it, you can stop talking to me, for any reason, and for any length of time. If I fail to meet Games Workshop's standards in 40k, I lose out on 10 points. But, why? My models are fully painted, but don't use shade or contrast or basing. Why is this not up to standard, despite them being decently painted? Because Games Workshop wanted to sell contrast. Why should their poor standards apply at all? I think it shouldn't be a rule.
However, my issue is due to people insulting the intelligence of people, calling them lazy, insulting my ability to read, etc..

Tresson wrote:

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

It's far more likely the Shas'O and Vatsetis are the same person.

That would be some next level trolling given the discrepancy in English fluency between the two posters.

It's pretty clear SgtBob and Shas'O are the same.

You make a good many points, and I think if we were able to articulate our positions to each other face-to-face, we'd have more in common than not.

In this particular case, popularity is relevant, especially on the micro scale of a local community. What your mates around you want to make the game into is way more important than the opinions of internet warriors who you'll never have to entertain.

That's really all a standard is, too. A collective understanding of what "minimal effort" is defined as. Usually to guard an important pillar, or at least one deemed important.

And at the end of the day, I believe it is less about paint or no paint and more a display of best effort to make the community a hair better by doing what we can. I think people are a bit hasty to pull out negative tags to apply to each other... especially not understanding all of the variables that go into individual positions.

In this case, I've found a peaceful way to exist in the hobby with both camps. And that's simply to do what I believe I can do and not worry about what, or what not, the others have done.

Final thought: appealing to authority is also relevant because we're not arguing the point or morality of the rule. The rule is just that, and calling it out as the standard is perfectly relevant. I'm flexible enough to live in the gray on the rule and either apply it (rarely) or disregard it (frequently), but no matter what I do... i can't change the fact that it is there. And if I bring one model not in compliance to a game where the other player wishes to enforce the rule... all I can do is say "dang, I knew I needed to get that base done". Villainizing the other player just allows me to scapegoat the behavior I knew was substandard from the start. That and ruins the entire experience for me.

I've probably been too on edge, due to dealing with obvious trolls, and personal matters recently. Now that I've actually had a chance to calm down, I think I've been overly rude to you. I'm sorry about that, and I hope you can understand.

Also, I will never base my models, unless I need to, due to issues with the base itself, as basing actually pulls me out of the immersion of a model. I hate seeing trees and rocks everywhere when fighting on a space ship. But that's just me.

 TheBestBucketHead wrote:
I've probably been too on edge, due to dealing with obvious trolls, and personal matters recently. Now that I've actually had a chance to calm down, I think I've been overly rude to you. I'm sorry about that, and I hope you can understand.

Also, I will never base my models, unless I need to, due to issues with the base itself, as basing actually pulls me out of the immersion of a model. I hate seeing trees and rocks everywhere when fighting on a space ship. But that's just me.

Have you considered getting clear acrylic bases? They're great at making your dudes feel like theyre really on the battlefield

 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.

"Not gaining" and "losing" are two different things, that's why. Same reason why "not getting a bonus" and "having your pay docked" are different things.

As stated in the post you replied to, the maximum you can score from Primary and Secondary objectives is 90VP. That's your base position, pre-painting. That's the position you would lose VP from if you were losing them for not being painted, and it is the position you gain them from if you have completed the tertiary objective. But you don't lose VPs for not being painted - you just don't earn them.

And, no, the VP system in a game of 40k is not a zero sum game - see below.

 TheBestBucketHead wrote:
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?

A Matched Play game has a total of 200VP available, if you include the 10VP per side for the tertiary painting objective - if you choose not to use it, there are 180VP available. It just so happens that both players have a hard cap of half of the available VP.

If 40k were a zero sum game, then every VP I earn is one I prevent you from earning. That is the very definition of a zero sum game - if one player gains, the other loses an equal amount, so the sum remains at zero. What Matched Play 40k is is a competitive* non-zero-sum game.

Depending on the scenario, this can be true for Primary objectives - though there is often a way for both sides to score in a given game round - but is false for Secondary objectives (even if they're mirrored), let alone the tertiary painting objective.

As I've stated elsewhere, I do think ti shouldn't be the whole block or nothing - to encourage progress, and assuming the max remained at 10VP, I'd prefer to see it as 1VP per 10% of your points or Power Level (depending on how forces are being assembled) that has reached the Battle Ready marker. Ideally, I'd also move the point where it is determined to before the game, but that's a minor tweak, as well as including a more useful definition of Battle Ready within the core rulebook, if you're going to use the term.

Or look at it this way, when you start the game the painted army already has 10vp and unpainted has 0vp.



Or, ya know don't give a feth about VP in the first place and problem solved, but if you want to play "by the rules" have fun...

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 TheBestBucketHead wrote:
I've probably been too on edge, due to dealing with obvious trolls, and personal matters recently. Now that I've actually had a chance to calm down, I think I've been overly rude to you. I'm sorry about that, and I hope you can understand.

Also, I will never base my models, unless I need to, due to issues with the base itself, as basing actually pulls me out of the immersion of a model. I hate seeing trees and rocks everywhere when fighting on a space ship. But that's just me.

Have you considered getting clear acrylic bases? They're great at making your dudes feel like theyre really on the battlefield

I have thought about that. I've been using the standard Infinity bases, though, as Infinity models have pegs to stands properly on them. I might use clear bases for non metallic minis, however. Maybe for the Horus Heresy if the mechanicum rules are to my liking.

Its a math problem. It doesn't matter when you add or subtract 10. Its entirely the same result.
The game has a hard cap of 90, and it doesn't matter if you don't earn an additional 10, lose 10 from 100, or are robbed of 10. You still get whatever score you got out of 90.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 TheBestBucketHead wrote:
I've probably been too on edge, due to dealing with obvious trolls, and personal matters recently. Now that I've actually had a chance to calm down, I think I've been overly rude to you. I'm sorry about that, and I hope you can understand.

Also, I will never base my models, unless I need to, due to issues with the base itself, as basing actually pulls me out of the immersion of a model. I hate seeing trees and rocks everywhere when fighting on a space ship. But that's just me.

Have you considered getting clear acrylic bases? They're great at making your dudes feel like theyre really on the battlefield

Have to disagree. 'clear' bases look like the models are standing on plastic discs. I find it even more jarring than basic black bases.

 JNAProductions 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.

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.

Then people can paint their armies and then no one is determining a win by who is painted or not.

I've never painted so much in my life, honestly and I'm not an avid painter. It's good for the hobby as a whole.

 TheBestBucketHead wrote:


I have thought about that. I've been using the standard Infinity bases, though, as Infinity models have pegs to stands properly on them. I might use clear bases for non metallic minis, however. Maybe for the Horus Heresy if the mechanicum rules are to my liking.

i just saw off the pegs and pin my models for infinity, acrylic bases should do the trick for most models (maybe the dumb poses like the tech bee would struggle to stay on tho)


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Voss wrote:

Have to disagree. 'clear' bases look like the models are standing on plastic discs. I find it even more jarring than basic black bases.

well, i personally don't like them, but i've seen a few where the bases werent as noticeable (they didnt have the "frosting" from being lasercut on their edges). I was simply suggesting an option for TheBestBucketHead.

The rule is good to have for tournaments and if people are using it in friendly games then they never were friendly to begin with.

 Eldarsif wrote:
The rule is good to have for tournaments and if people are using it in friendly games then they never were friendly to begin with.

On a personal level I would never give a gak if I "lost" a friendly game because of paint. And even if they were dorks I still wouldn't care. It's so irrelevant and you know who actually won.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Eldarsif wrote:
The rule is good to have for tournaments and if people are using it in friendly games then they never were friendly to begin with.

On a personal level I would never give a gak if I "lost" a friendly game because of paint. And even if they were dorks I still wouldn't care. It's so irrelevant and you know who actually won.

Exactly.

It’s great. This game has multiple parts to it and it rewards players for partaking in all aspects of the hobby. If you want those points they are easy to achieve, if you don’t care then it really isn’t a big deal.

Most competitive sports have rules like this. I played college and minor pro hockey and your team had to have matching home/away jerseys if you didn’t you would forfeit the game. Even though I only play mens league now even in a more casual setting all teams have to have matching jerseys. I actually can’t think of a sport that doesn’t have some sort of “way you look rule”

Asmodios wrote:
It’s great. This game has multiple parts to it and it rewards players for partaking in all aspects of the hobby. If you want those points they are easy to achieve, if you don’t care then it really isn’t a big deal.

Most competitive sports have rules like this. I played college and minor pro hockey and your team had to have matching home/away jerseys if you didn’t you would forfeit the game. Even though I only play mens league now even in a more casual setting all teams have to have matching jerseys. I actually can’t think of a sport that doesn’t have some sort of “way you look rule”

Oh no, sports were mentionned on DakkaDakka, what have you done! You summoned he who shall not be named. (oh kurwa)

Asmodios wrote:
It’s great. This game has multiple parts to it and it rewards players for partaking in all aspects of the hobby. If you want those points they are easy to achieve, if you don’t care then it really isn’t a big deal.

Most competitive sports have rules like this. I played college and minor pro hockey and your team had to have matching home/away jerseys if you didn’t you would forfeit the game. Even though I only play mens league now even in a more casual setting all teams have to have matching jerseys. I actually can’t think of a sport that doesn’t have some sort of “way you look rule”

All aspects?
What about the novels?
What about making your own fan content?
What about having an army cohesive with the lore?

None of that is worth points in a game.

lets not go back into that discussion, we know very well whats gonna come of it and nobody's opinion is gonna get changed anyway.

 JNAProductions wrote:

Asmodios wrote:
It’s great. This game has multiple parts to it and it rewards players for partaking in all aspects of the hobby. If you want those points they are easy to achieve, if you don’t care then it really isn’t a big deal.

Most competitive sports have rules like this. I played college and minor pro hockey and your team had to have matching home/away jerseys if you didn’t you would forfeit the game. Even though I only play mens league now even in a more casual setting all teams have to have matching jerseys. I actually can’t think of a sport that doesn’t have some sort of “way you look rule”

All aspects?
What about the novels?
What about making your own fan content?
What about having an army cohesive with the lore?

None of that is worth points in a game.

All of those are actually addressed in other parts of the rules. You can’t take necrons with your space marines (covers the lore). You get charged CP for taking additional detachments (tax for your army not fitting to the desired lot appropriate novel feel of an army). Painting your army is part of your “fan content” either creating a custom force or picking one from the lore. You also didn’t address the point that the visual aspect is literally a part of every competitive sport so why should Warhammer be any different. Actually not painting your army gives a huge tactical advantage over your opponents as it makes it harder to identify and track what your opponent is doing

 TheBestBucketHead wrote:
And I don't see how any of my examples were strawmanning. If a rule about beards were included, I'm sure people with amazing beards and painted armies would be very happy.

It's a straw man argument because having a beard has no effect on the game and "more beards" is not something anyone is asking for. Painting, on the other hand, does have an effect on the game and the long list of events with mandatory painting requirements sent a clear message to GW that we the players want painting to be the expectation. If anything you should be glad that GW only made it 10 VP instead of following the tournament example and not letting you play at all without a fully painted army.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
On a personal level I would never give a gak if I "lost" a friendly game because of paint. And even if they were dorks I still wouldn't care. It's so irrelevant and you know who actually won.

Ah, the last resort of the sore loser, making up excuses for how you really won and it's only because of Reasons that anyone thinks otherwise. You may find this article informative: https://www.sirlin.net/ptw-book/introducingthe-scrub