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.

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.

You will never see Clark Kent and Superman in the same Room.

Sadly, Im Kal-El.

 Shas'O Ky'husa wrote:

 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

For someone that keeps saying "Why are you name calling" calling someone a sore loser and link scrub crap... this is why no one takes you seriously and we think you are a troll. If you feel the need to win on a technicality then you are the scrub.

 Arschbombe wrote:

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.

Perhaps we have multiple personality and therefore some of our "consciences" dont have English as their mother Tongue.

 Amishprn86 wrote:

 Shas'O Ky'husa wrote:

 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

For someone that keeps saying "Why are you name calling" calling someone a sore loser and link scrub crap... this is why no one takes you seriously and we think you are a troll. If you feel the need to win on a technicality then you are the scrub.

Wouldn’t refusing the official rule for paint in the rule book so you could win…… be “winning on a technicality” which per your definition make you a “scrub”

 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.

You could use more neutral bases, no need for trees... There are even transparent bases available.

Asmodios wrote:

 Amishprn86 wrote:

 Shas'O Ky'husa wrote:

 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

For someone that keeps saying "Why are you name calling" calling someone a sore loser and link scrub crap... this is why no one takes you seriously and we think you are a troll. If you feel the need to win on a technicality then you are the scrub.

Wouldn’t refusing the official rule for paint in the rule book so you could win…… be “winning on a technicality” which per your definition make you a “scrub”

He didn't say he refused, he was saying Yes he lost and he doesn't care he lost, bc you know and he knows he would have won if he painted his models. He accepted his lost but felt good about it bc he still bested the other player in skill. How are you a scrub for thinking that way? Its one think to think that way and another thing to push it into your opponents face, that would be poor sportsmanship then.

 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.

100% on the bases. That's something I can never seem to reconcile fwiw: I have an entire adepta sororitas army on scenic bases from secret weapon. 100% not legal for getting 10VP, and I may laugh really hard if someone docks me the points, but at the end of the day it's a big whatever. You want to win that much, congratulations! I've never had anyone indicate anything of the sort, though.

And thanks for the apology, though I don't think there was anything said towards me that would warrant an apology. If there was any slight in anything I said, I offer my apologies as well, and know I've not been trying to get some negative emotional response from anyone

Forum's worst troll here

 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.

Not in the current ruleset, they could in the future... And those "soft scores" could be implemented by GW in a smart or dumb manner... If you indeed have a cristal ball, go and win the lottery and with the price give my a check so I can pay to paint all my unpainted minis

 VladimirHerzog wrote:
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.

How many threads like these have been locked now? I think I have lost count.

 Amishprn86 wrote:

Asmodios wrote:

 Amishprn86 wrote:

 Shas'O Ky'husa wrote:

 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

For someone that keeps saying "Why are you name calling" calling someone a sore loser and link scrub crap... this is why no one takes you seriously and we think you are a troll. If you feel the need to win on a technicality then you are the scrub.

Wouldn’t refusing the official rule for paint in the rule book so you could win…… be “winning on a technicality” which per your definition make you a “scrub”

He didn't say he refused, he was saying Yes he lost and he doesn't care he lost, bc you know and he knows he would have won if he painted his models. He accepted his lost but felt good about it bc he still bested the other player in skill. How are you a scrub for thinking that way? Its one think to think that way and another thing to push it into your opponents face, that would be poor sportsmanship then.

He “doesn’t care” but does care enough to post on a forum and call people that win because of the official rule “scrubs”. You can’t seemingly “not care” that you didn’t win and be upset that you didn’t win because of a “technicality” which isn’t a technicality because it is the rule. If he really doesn’t care then he should have no issue with the rule.

For example I couldn’t go “you are such a scrub for winning off of behind enemy lines it’s such a no skill objective and we both know I won….. also I totally don’t care…. Can’t you tell how little I care by all the complaining”

 Amishprn86 wrote:
For someone that keeps saying "Why are you name calling" calling someone a sore loser and link scrub crap... this is why no one takes you seriously and we think you are a troll. If you feel the need to win on a technicality then you are the scrub.

Maybe you should read the article instead of complaining about "technicalities" like the person it describes. The whole point of the article is that there are winners and losers according to the rules of the game and only sore losers blame "technicalities" for losing.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Amishprn86 wrote:
He accepted his lost but felt good about it bc he still bested the other player in skill. How are you a scrub for thinking that way?

Read the article. It very clearly describes exactly what you're talking about: losing the actual game but using "skill" as an excuse for how you're really the winner of a game that exists only in your own imagination.

 Shas'O Ky'husa wrote:

 Amishprn86 wrote:
For someone that keeps saying "Why are you name calling" calling someone a sore loser and link scrub crap... this is why no one takes you seriously and we think you are a troll. If you feel the need to win on a technicality then you are the scrub.

Maybe you should read the article instead of complaining about "technicalities" like the person it describes. The whole point of the article is that there are winners and losers according to the rules of the game and only sore losers blame "technicalities" for losing.

they didnt blame their loss on anything, they said :

"I lost the game"
"if i had painted my army, i would've won"

its the same as someone saying "damn, i lost by less than 10 points"

 VladimirHerzog wrote:
they didnt blame their loss on anything, they said :

"I lost the game"
"if i had painted my army, i would've won"

its the same as someone saying "damn, i lost by less than 10 points"

No, that's not what was said. Read the original post I replied to:

 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.

That is a clear statement that the loss isn't a "real loss" and "everyone knows who actually won". That's denial, not acceptance of a close loss and regret that they didn't score more VP to win it.

 Shas'O Ky'husa wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:
they didnt blame their loss on anything, they said :

"I lost the game"
"if i had painted my army, i would've won"

its the same as someone saying "damn, i lost by less than 10 points"

No, that's not what was said. Read the original post I replied to:

 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.

That is a clear statement that the loss isn't a "real loss" and "everyone knows who actually won". That's denial, not acceptance of a close loss and regret that they didn't score more VP to win it.

Spot on

Asmodios wrote:

 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

Next time I play against a "Grey Tide" player I will argue that I have a rare visual disorder that dont allow me to visualice properly an unpainted army (due to the lack of contrast)... It really sholves the issue (sure its very unethical to fake a disability, but many posters here seem to have no such limits, so whatever).

CHECK MATE!!

I can't believe the "James Workshop's Favorite" victory points made him win. Well, at least it wasn't a technicality, and was very much related to the game at hand.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Vatsetis wrote:

Asmodios wrote:

 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

Next time I play against a "Grey Tide" player I will argue that I have a rare visual disorder that dont allow me to visualice properly an unpainted army (due to the lack of contrast)... It really sholves the issue (sure its very unethical to fake a disability, but many posters here seem to have no such limits, so whatever).

CHECK MATE!!

I'm sorry, can you tell me what you mean? I'm not sure anyone faked a disability, and if you mean people not being able to visualize, that has not been used as an excuse. Can you provide any amount of context?

 Shas'O Ky'husa wrote:

 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

That "scrub" article displays some disturbing level of sociopathic behaviour. Wikes!

For those that are interested in what an actual game is at a deep cultural level you should read the classic work of Huizinga, "Homo Ludens".


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 TheBestBucketHead wrote:
I can't believe the "James Workshop's Favorite" victory points made him win. Well, at least it wasn't a technicality, and was very much related to the game at hand.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Vatsetis wrote:

Asmodios wrote:

 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

Next time I play against a "Grey Tide" player I will argue that I have a rare visual disorder that dont allow me to visualice properly an unpainted army (due to the lack of contrast)... It really sholves the issue (sure its very unethical to fake a disability, but many posters here seem to have no such limits, so whatever).

CHECK MATE!!

I'm sorry, can you tell me what you mean? I'm not sure anyone faked a disability, and if you mean people not being able to visualize, that has not been used as an excuse. Can you provide any amount of context?

Indeed nobody has declare in this forum to fake a disability to win... Thats my master plan to win in the future against "grey tide" players (if you imitate me, you will be sued).

But quite a few posters in this debate have shown such a lack of limits during the debate (rejecting any form of social standard beyond their own desire) that we have effectively reach anomie.

:(

Vatsetis wrote:

Asmodios wrote:

 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

Next time I play against a "Grey Tide" player I will argue that I have a rare visual disorder that dont allow me to visualice properly an unpainted army (due to the lack of contrast)... It really sholves the issue (sure its very unethical to fake a disability, but many posters here seem to have no such limits, so whatever).

CHECK MATE!!

Holy smokes you must be really upset to misrepresent what I said so badly. Nobody said anything about visual disorders but are you seriously trying to say that a 100% grey model is as easy to distinguish as a painted model from 3 feet away? Is it really easy at a glance to see what weapons/ squads are which when they are 100% the same color standing next to each other? Just like my previous hockey example it wasn’t because anyone had a “visual disability” that teams were required to have a home/ away jersey it’s because during a game you don’t want mistakes being made because people are getting confused in the heat of the moment who is on which team. Not only do paint jobs just help the game look nicer but they help you distinguish which models have what on them and belong to which squads. I’m always shocked how upset some people get that people prefer playing against painted models

 Amishprn86 wrote:

Asmodios wrote:

 Amishprn86 wrote:

 Shas'O Ky'husa wrote:

 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

For someone that keeps saying "Why are you name calling" calling someone a sore loser and link scrub crap... this is why no one takes you seriously and we think you are a troll. If you feel the need to win on a technicality then you are the scrub.

Wouldn’t refusing the official rule for paint in the rule book so you could win…… be “winning on a technicality” which per your definition make you a “scrub”

He didn't say he refused, he was saying Yes he lost and he doesn't care he lost, bc you know and he knows he would have won if he painted his models. He accepted his lost but felt good about it bc he still bested the other player in skill. How are you a scrub for thinking that way? Its one think to think that way and another thing to push it into your opponents face, that would be poor sportsmanship then.

"Sportmanship" is the excuse of "scrubs" aparently.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Asmodios wrote:

Vatsetis wrote:

Asmodios wrote:

 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

Next time I play against a "Grey Tide" player I will argue that I have a rare visual disorder that dont allow me to visualice properly an unpainted army (due to the lack of contrast)... It really sholves the issue (sure its very unethical to fake a disability, but many posters here seem to have no such limits, so whatever).

CHECK MATE!!

Holy smokes you must be really upset to misrepresent what I said so badly. Nobody said anything about visual disorders but are you seriously trying to say that a 100% grey model is as easy to distinguish as a painted model from 3 feet away? Is it really easy at a glance to see what weapons/ squads are which when they are 100% the same color standing next to each other? Just like my previous hockey example it wasn’t because anyone had a “visual disability” that teams were required to have a home/ away jersey it’s because during a game you don’t want mistakes being made because people are getting confused in the heat of the moment who is on which team. Not only do paint jobs just help the game look nicer but they help you distinguish which models have what on them and belong to which squads. I’m always shocked how upset some people get that people prefer playing against painted models

Sorry that my post was so convoluted.

I indeed agree with your remarks, its a very sensible point.

Sorry for muddling the waters, please ignore my comments.

Vatsetis wrote:

 Amishprn86 wrote:

Asmodios wrote:

 Amishprn86 wrote:

 Shas'O Ky'husa wrote:

 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

For someone that keeps saying "Why are you name calling" calling someone a sore loser and link scrub crap... this is why no one takes you seriously and we think you are a troll. If you feel the need to win on a technicality then you are the scrub.

Wouldn’t refusing the official rule for paint in the rule book so you could win…… be “winning on a technicality” which per your definition make you a “scrub”

He didn't say he refused, he was saying Yes he lost and he doesn't care he lost, bc you know and he knows he would have won if he painted his models. He accepted his lost but felt good about it bc he still bested the other player in skill. How are you a scrub for thinking that way? Its one think to think that way and another thing to push it into your opponents face, that would be poor sportsmanship then.

"Sportmanship" is the excuse of "scrubs" aparently.

I'm increasingly convinced that Vasetis was making comparisons to alcohol earlier in the thread because he's drunk when he posts here. It would explain a lot.

Alcohol is for lossers... Real men get high only through their imagination... And perhaps the help of some pills.

Asmodios wrote:

 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

Was this a serious response? The core rules saying Necrons and Marines can't be in the same army covers reading the lore?
Goddamn you people can make a justification of anything stupid.

EviscerationPlague wrote:

Asmodios wrote:

 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

Was this a serious response? The core rules saying Necrons and Marines can't be in the same army covers reading the lore?
Goddamn you people can make a justification of anything stupid.

That 100% is a “lore” based rule in the game. It why you can add allied detachments from armies that lore wise make sense (for example guard and custodes) but can’t have allied detatchments that don’t follow lore (example tyranids and custodes).

Holy smokes you people can make ridiculous statements to try to justify anything

Necrons teamed up with Blood Angels before to kill Tyranids. Brush up on your lore

Vatsetis wrote:

Asmodios wrote:

 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

Next time I play against a "Grey Tide" player I will argue that I have a rare visual disorder that dont allow me to visualice properly an unpainted army (due to the lack of contrast)... It really sholves the issue (sure its very unethical to fake a disability, but many posters here seem to have no such limits, so whatever).

CHECK MATE!!

Taking a disability.
Class act.
Who on here is faking?
How do you know?

I am, i'm not actually a tech priest

I assume no one is faking a disability.

Since its actually hard to demostrate if someone is faking a disability in a gamming context, I made the conjecture that it might be a way to get an "auto win" against an unpainted army in a competitive context.

EviscerationPlague wrote:
Necrons teamed up with Blood Angels before to kill Tyranids. Brush up on your lore

yup and the game rules for allies follow the lore rules 99.9% of the time. Or are you saying there is no correlation between rules and lore? its also why i used custodes in my example instead of blood angles


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Vatsetis wrote:
I assume no one is faking a disability.

Since its actually hard to demostrate if someone is faking a disability in a gamming context, I made the conjecture that it might be a way to get an "auto win" against an unpainted army in a competitive context.

The funny thing about all these arguments from a "competitive" context is that most major tournaments require a painted army. No need to ever think about the grey tide because you aren't going to see it at a tournament

Asmodios wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:
Necrons teamed up with Blood Angels before to kill Tyranids. Brush up on your lore

yup and the game rules for allies follow the lore rules 99.9% of the time. Or are you saying there is no correlation between rules and lore? its also why i used custodes in my example instead of blood angles


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Vatsetis wrote:
I assume no one is faking a disability.

Since its actually hard to demostrate if someone is faking a disability in a gamming context, I made the conjecture that it might be a way to get an "auto win" against an unpainted army in a competitive context.

The funny thing about all these arguments from a "competitive" context is that most major tournaments require a painted army. No need to ever think about the grey tide because you aren't going to see it at a tournament

GoTCHA! I said competitive context not a tournament... For those who "play to win" (true Alphas)... Every game is a competition.

And as Boxer Homer showed... The sweetest victory arrives when the enemy gives up... And if you cant see the enemy army he has no other option but to concede.