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.

Vatsetis wrote:

 Tawnis wrote:
While I get that painted armies look nice and all, and I do prefer playing games where everything is painted, that is often just not an option for me. If I'm lucky I have enough time to get maybe 10 models painted in a month. I also like to play horde armies. This means that while I'm always painting when I can, even after two years of having my current army, it's only about 80% painted.

I know about a dozen other players in my area that like me would like to attend larger tournaments when we are able to make the time work, but we're also fairly competitive and don't want to be told that we lost a game that we actually won, simply because we don't have dozens-hundreds of hours of free time to paint all of our models to battle ready.

So, should there be incentives to fully paint your army? Yes. Should it have any effect whatsoever on the results of a match that should be about skill? No. While I can only speak to my local scene, it is disincentivizing a lot of people from participating in larger events.

If you want to attend a tournament and dont want to have the "handicap" for an uncomplete army, pay a propainter or borrow painted minis for the event.

There are always ways arround if you have the will to do it.

Some of the people in the "unpainted crowd" look as some one that didnt recognize disabled parking laws because "driving has nothing to do with ableism" (or what ever) and sistematically parked his car in disabled only spaces and then complain online about how the they received a fine and the police spoiled their freedoom and fun.

Yeah, let's just force people to throw more money at a hobby that's already prohibitively expensive, that will work. Even if I could afford it, I don't want to. I like to paint, I like my paint style and how my army looks, I just don't have much time to do so because I have a full time job, three kids, and many other responsibilities. If I were to borrow someone else's army, who else am I going to find that has 2k points of Kroot and Vespid that would just be willing to lend them to me on a whim? Or, not taking my corner case into account, you'd still need to find someone with the exact models you want to use, and then, it would prevent you from playing the models that you have spent all your time painting because you can't have a mixed army like that in most tournaments (as far as I've been told, I've never tried myself).

I have zero idea what your second point has to do with anything. How are people incorrectly using disabled parking stalls relevant. If you're trying to make a comparison about people who can't paint, then wouldn't that meant that there should be special rules for people who can't paint thier army? I just don't get what you're trying to get across here.

My point is that some people have a very "isoliationist" attitude toward the hobby and regard any community gamming standard as an attack on their so called rights (desires actually)... Finally enough this people dont just play in their local groups (which will be coherent with their gamming lifestyle) but feal the urge to defend themselves against any perceived online attack.

If people read my threads as if I wasnt a Troll, perhaps they would understand them better.

I had a friend who hated painting but liked tournaments. This was back in the days before commission painters were common. He just undercoated black amd put two different colour blobs on all his models to satisfy the "three colour minimum" requirement.

Thats pretty lame. :(

Vatsetis wrote:
My point is that some people have a very "isoliationist" attitude toward the hobby and regard any community gamming standard as an attack on their so called rights (desires actually)... Finally enough this people dont just play in their local groups (which will be coherent with their gamming lifestyle) but feal the urge to defend themselves against any perceived online attack.

If people read my threads as if I wasnt a Troll, perhaps they would understand them better.

On the other hand, if you evaluated your writing style, and took some time to think about what you were saying and how you were saying it, you might get fewer negative reactions to the often-borderline-offensive crap you say.

For example, comparing non-painters to addicts, drunkards and people with disabilities (or faking it? The parking metaphor was just bizarre and incoherent) is NOT a recommended approach to being seen as reasonable.

English is not everyone's first language...

This may be controversial Tawnis, but I look at your sig and I see that you have tens of thousands of points of models (ETA over 30k). I'm not sure how you got those models, but assuming you bought them, you put a lot of money into acquiring that plastic. Sure, getting new minis is cool, but it looks to me like you could easily scale down somewhat and have plenty of your collection pro-painted if you wanted to prioritize that. It's a little hollow for you to throw out money as an issue, at least in your case.

Racerguy180 wrote:
English is not everyone's first language...

Right-which is why bad grammar (while something to work on, since English text is how this forum communicates) isn't a big deal.

But the comparisons? Those aren't good, regardless of the quality of writing.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Gene St. Ealer wrote:
This may be controversial Tawnis, but I look at your sig and I see that you have tens of thousands of points of models. I'm not sure how you got those models, but assuming you bought them, you put a lot of money into acquiring plastic. Sure, getting new minis is cool, but it looks to me like you could easily scale down somewhat and have plenty of your collection pro-painted.

And what if Tawmis would rather have more models than less, but better painted models?

 JNAProductions wrote:


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Gene St. Ealer wrote:
This may be controversial Tawnis, but I look at your sig and I see that you have tens of thousands of points of models. I'm not sure how you got those models, but assuming you bought them, you put a lot of money into acquiring plastic. Sure, getting new minis is cool, but it looks to me like you could easily scale down somewhat and have plenty of your collection pro-painted.

And what if Tawmis would rather have more models than less, but better painted models?

More power to them, but I'm not going to feel a lot of sympathy when they say their barrier to painting is the prohibitive cost of pro painting. Plus, we're talking a truly preposterous number of models. It's one thing when you're talking about the difference between 1 and 2k. It's another when you're talking about the difference between 10k and 20.

Vatsetis wrote:
My point is that some people have a very "isoliationist" attitude toward the hobby and regard any community gamming standard as an attack on their so called rights (desires actually)... Finally enough this people dont just play in their local groups (which will be coherent with their gamming lifestyle) but feal the urge to defend themselves against any perceived online attack.

If people read my threads as if I wasnt a Troll, perhaps they would understand them better.

Okay, I get your point now, and while you're not wrong, it goes both ways. If people were more accepting about people who weren't able to (or even just plain didn't want to) paint their armies we wouldn't have an issue either. Sure people that don't want to be paint could be seen as having an isolationist attitude for not wanting to meet standard, but people who insist on painting could be seen as having an elitist attitude for forcing their standard upon others.

For me, people should be free to play however they want to. Yes painted armies look cooler, but it shouldn't be a barrier to equal entry.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Sim-Life wrote:
I had a friend who hated painting but liked tournaments. This was back in the days before commission painters were common. He just undercoated black amd put two different colour blobs on all his models to satisfy the "three colour minimum" requirement.

LoL I had a friend who did the exact same thing. I missed out on months of gaming at our local GW (that's all we knew about at the time) because of their three colour rule. He just spray painted his stuff blue, through on blobs of red and silver and was allowed to play, while I was forced to wait while I painstakingly painted my army to a point I was proud of.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Gene St. Ealer wrote:
This may be controversial Tawnis, but I look at your sig and I see that you have tens of thousands of points of models (ETA over 30k). I'm not sure how you got those models, but assuming you bought them, you put a lot of money into acquiring that plastic. Sure, getting new minis is cool, but it looks to me like you could easily scale down somewhat and have plenty of your collection pro-painted if you wanted to prioritize that. It's a little hollow for you to throw out money as an issue, at least in your case.

Yeah, that's from almost 25 years of collecting a little at a time. The thing is, for the first 15 or so years I was a really gakky painter, and the quality of the work I did then was fine for the time, but isn't up to tabletop standard now. So, everything needs re-painted if I actually want to use them. (I also have to re-base most of them after the base size change, but that's a whole other issue.)


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Gene St. Ealer wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Gene St. Ealer wrote:
This may be controversial Tawnis, but I look at your sig and I see that you have tens of thousands of points of models. I'm not sure how you got those models, but assuming you bought them, you put a lot of money into acquiring plastic. Sure, getting new minis is cool, but it looks to me like you could easily scale down somewhat and have plenty of your collection pro-painted.

And what if Tawmis would rather have more models than less, but better painted models?

More power to them, but I'm not going to feel a lot of sympathy when they say their barrier to painting is the prohibitive cost of pro painting. Plus, we're talking a truly preposterous number of models. It's one thing when you're talking about the difference between 1 and 2k. It's another when you're talking about the difference between 10k and 20.

It's a prohibitive cost now, when I have a family to support, I didn't when I got most of my collection. Even so, I still wouldn't want to because I like painting my own models, I like my person style that I've crafted over my entire life, and don't want to own models painted by anyone else. I just don't have much time to do the actual painting.

I brought up the cost aspect because that is the case now, even though it once wasn't. It is also the case for many of my friends in my local gaming group.

You actually bring up another interesting point though. Having a fully painted rule can disincentivize people from trying out new armies. For an average person (of other people from my gaming groups, not me with my mountain of armies as you pointed out) many of them are interested in trying out new armies, but just see it the painting process of another 2000 points as either to cost prohibitive or too time consuming. It's actually keeping people from buying more GW products, so not a terrible good business idea on their part.

Voss wrote:

Vatsetis wrote:
My point is that some people have a very "isoliationist" attitude toward the hobby and regard any community gamming standard as an attack on their so called rights (desires actually)... Finally enough this people dont just play in their local groups (which will be coherent with their gamming lifestyle) but feal the urge to defend themselves against any perceived online attack.

If people read my threads as if I wasnt a Troll, perhaps they would understand them better.

On the other hand, if you evaluated your writing style, and took some time to think about what you were saying and how you were saying it, you might get fewer negative reactions to the often-borderline-offensive crap you say.

For example, comparing non-painters to addicts, drunkards and people with disabilities (or faking it? The parking metaphor was just bizarre and incoherent) is NOT a recommended approach to being seen as reasonable.

Im very conscious of what I say and how I say it.

Reasonable people will understand my analogies in the context of the current debate.

 Tawnis wrote:

Vatsetis wrote:
My point is that some people have a very "isoliationist" attitude toward the hobby and regard any community gamming standard as an attack on their so called rights (desires actually)... Finally enough this people dont just play in their local groups (which will be coherent with their gamming lifestyle) but feal the urge to defend themselves against any perceived online attack.

If people read my threads as if I wasnt a Troll, perhaps they would understand them better.

Okay, I get your point now, and while you're not wrong, it goes both ways. If people were more accepting about people who weren't able to (or even just plain didn't want to) paint their armies we wouldn't have an issue either. Sure people that don't want to be paint could be seen as having an isolationist attitude for not wanting to meet standard, but people who insist on painting could be seen as having an elitist attitude for forcing their standard upon others.

For me, people should be free to play however they want to. Yes painted armies look cooler, but it shouldn't be a barrier to equal entry.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Sim-Life wrote:
I had a friend who hated painting but liked tournaments. This was back in the days before commission painters were common. He just undercoated black amd put two different colour blobs on all his models to satisfy the "three colour minimum" requirement.

LoL I had a friend who did the exact same thing. I missed out on months of gaming at our local GW (that's all we knew about at the time) because of their three colour rule. He just spray painted his stuff blue, through on blobs of red and silver and was allowed to play, while I was forced to wait while I painstakingly painted my army to a point I was proud of.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Gene St. Ealer wrote:
This may be controversial Tawnis, but I look at your sig and I see that you have tens of thousands of points of models (ETA over 30k). I'm not sure how you got those models, but assuming you bought them, you put a lot of money into acquiring that plastic. Sure, getting new minis is cool, but it looks to me like you could easily scale down somewhat and have plenty of your collection pro-painted if you wanted to prioritize that. It's a little hollow for you to throw out money as an issue, at least in your case.

Yeah, that's from almost 25 years of collecting a little at a time. The thing is, for the first 15 or so years I was a really gakky painter, and the quality of the work I did then was fine for the time, but isn't up to tabletop standard now. So, everything needs re-painted if I actually want to use them. (I also have to re-base most of them after the base size change, but that's a whole other issue.)


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Gene St. Ealer wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Gene St. Ealer wrote:
This may be controversial Tawnis, but I look at your sig and I see that you have tens of thousands of points of models. I'm not sure how you got those models, but assuming you bought them, you put a lot of money into acquiring plastic. Sure, getting new minis is cool, but it looks to me like you could easily scale down somewhat and have plenty of your collection pro-painted.

And what if Tawmis would rather have more models than less, but better painted models?

More power to them, but I'm not going to feel a lot of sympathy when they say their barrier to painting is the prohibitive cost of pro painting. Plus, we're talking a truly preposterous number of models. It's one thing when you're talking about the difference between 1 and 2k. It's another when you're talking about the difference between 10k and 20.

It's a prohibitive cost now, when I have a family to support, I didn't when I got most of my collection. Even so, I still wouldn't want to because I like painting my own models, I like my person style that I've crafted over my entire life, and don't want to own models painted by anyone else. I just don't have much time to do the actual painting.

I brought up the cost aspect because that is the case now, even though it once wasn't. It is also the case for many of my friends in my local gaming group.

You actually bring up another interesting point though. Having a fully painted rule can disincentivize people from trying out new armies. For an average person (of other people from my gaming groups, not me with my mountain of armies as you pointed out) many of them are interested in trying out new armies, but just see it the painting process of another 2000 points as either to cost prohibitive or too time consuming. It's actually keeping people from buying more GW products, so not a terrible good business idea on their part.

I mostly agree with the your first paragraphs.

The rest seems basically as an excuse to make "painting to current standards" a problem when it shouldnt if you had the will and flexibility to solve it.

Vatsetis wrote:


Im very conscious of what I say and how I say it.

Reasonable people will understand my analogies in the context of the current debate.

there is no reasonable person that will agree that there is any correlation whatsoever between someone not painting their minis and alcoholism

Vatsetis wrote:

Voss wrote:

Vatsetis wrote:
My point is that some people have a very "isoliationist" attitude toward the hobby and regard any community gamming standard as an attack on their so called rights (desires actually)... Finally enough this people dont just play in their local groups (which will be coherent with their gamming lifestyle) but feal the urge to defend themselves against any perceived online attack.

If people read my threads as if I wasnt a Troll, perhaps they would understand them better.

On the other hand, if you evaluated your writing style, and took some time to think about what you were saying and how you were saying it, you might get fewer negative reactions to the often-borderline-offensive crap you say.

For example, comparing non-painters to addicts, drunkards and people with disabilities (or faking it? The parking metaphor was just bizarre and incoherent) is NOT a recommended approach to being seen as reasonable.

Im very conscious of what I say and how I say it.

Reasonable people will understand my analogies in the context of the current debate.

I'm not trying to come down on you, but I am actually a writer and I do a lot of technical critiquing of literary work. I've seen some really messed up stuff and I can usually get the gist of what people are trying to get at. Even I couldn't make heads or tails of what you were trying to get at with that handicapped parking bit. (Can't speak to the rest of the comments as I didn't read them.)

While it's not fair to put it all at your feet, some of your stuff was very hard to understand. The onus is on the writer to articulate what they mean; if you bludgeon through literary critiques with veiled insults, you're not going to improve how you get your point across, and thus, you're not going to convince anyone of anything.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Vatsetis wrote:


I mostly agree with the your first paragraphs.

The rest seems basically as an excuse to make "painting to current standards" a problem when it shouldnt if you had the will and flexibility to solve it.

Back in the 90's there just weren't the resources there are now to learn how to paint well, and if you go look at all the old 3rd edition codices, you'll see just how far even the GW standard of painting has come, and I was nowhere near that good.

You are right about one thing though, the painting standards thing is another issue and a bit of a tangent, so I won't bother with that line of argument anymore. It is more of a corner case me problem anyway and I'm trying to argue the broader context.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

Vatsetis wrote:


Im very conscious of what I say and how I say it.

Reasonable people will understand my analogies in the context of the current debate.

there is no reasonable person that will agree that there is any correlation whatsoever between someone not painting their minis and alcoholism

True, I never said such things... Please, re read my posts with calm and without assuming Im your enemy.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Tawnis wrote:

Vatsetis wrote:

Voss wrote:

Vatsetis wrote:
My point is that some people have a very "isoliationist" attitude toward the hobby and regard any community gamming standard as an attack on their so called rights (desires actually)... Finally enough this people dont just play in their local groups (which will be coherent with their gamming lifestyle) but feal the urge to defend themselves against any perceived online attack.

If people read my threads as if I wasnt a Troll, perhaps they would understand them better.

On the other hand, if you evaluated your writing style, and took some time to think about what you were saying and how you were saying it, you might get fewer negative reactions to the often-borderline-offensive crap you say.

For example, comparing non-painters to addicts, drunkards and people with disabilities (or faking it? The parking metaphor was just bizarre and incoherent) is NOT a recommended approach to being seen as reasonable.

Im very conscious of what I say and how I say it.

Reasonable people will understand my analogies in the context of the current debate.

I'm not trying to come down on you, but I am actually a writer and I do a lot of technical critiquing of literary work. I've seen some really messed up stuff and I can usually get the gist of what people are trying to get at. Even I couldn't make heads or tails of what you were trying to get at with that handicapped parking bit. (Can't speak to the rest of the comments as I didn't read them.)

While it's not fair to put it all at your feet, some of your stuff was very hard to understand. The onus is on the writer to articulate what they mean; if you bludgeon through literary critiques with veiled insults, you're not going to improve how you get your point across, and thus, you're not going to convince anyone of anything.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Vatsetis wrote:


I mostly agree with the your first paragraphs.

The rest seems basically as an excuse to make "painting to current standards" a problem when it shouldnt if you had the will and flexibility to solve it.

Back in the 90's there just weren't the resources there are now to learn how to paint well, and if you go look at all the old 3rd edition codices, you'll see just how far even the GW standard of painting has come, and I was nowhere near that good.

You are right about one thing though, the painting standards thing is another issue and a bit of a tangent, so I won't bother with that line of argument anymore. It is more of a corner case me problem anyway and I'm trying to argue the broader context.

Sure, I wasnt trying to be particularly transparent with some of my points.. If soneone dont get a point, just ignored, dont assume its a personal attack.

English is not my mother tongue either. I use complex structures on porpouse to force my skills.

Thanks for your input, nevertheless.

 Sim-Life wrote:
The fact that Shas'O is now calling for people who don't paint to be punished in game for not doing so should prove that he's a troll.

In what weird fantasy world is referencing a popular house rule people used to use "trolling"?

(Probably the same fantasy world where you claim that "most people don't want this" in a poll thread where well over half the votes are for "we want this", make absurd arguments to defend your claim, and then quietly drop it without ever admitting you were wrong.)

Shas, calm down... Some people thing that anyone not on their side are automatically trolls... Dont confront them on this issue or they will get more and more obtuse.

Vatsetis wrote:

Voss wrote:

Vatsetis wrote:
My point is that some people have a very "isoliationist" attitude toward the hobby and regard any community gamming standard as an attack on their so called rights (desires actually)... Finally enough this people dont just play in their local groups (which will be coherent with their gamming lifestyle) but feal the urge to defend themselves against any perceived online attack.

If people read my threads as if I wasnt a Troll, perhaps they would understand them better.

On the other hand, if you evaluated your writing style, and took some time to think about what you were saying and how you were saying it, you might get fewer negative reactions to the often-borderline-offensive crap you say.

For example, comparing non-painters to addicts, drunkards and people with disabilities (or faking it? The parking metaphor was just bizarre and incoherent) is NOT a recommended approach to being seen as reasonable.

Im very conscious of what I say and how I say it.

Reasonable people will understand my analogies in the context of the current debate.

Ah, well. That's clear enough. I'll stop giving you the benefit of the doubt if you're going to claim you're doing it intentionally.

 Shas'O Ky'husa wrote:

 Sim-Life wrote:
The fact that Shas'O is now calling for people who don't paint to be punished in game for not doing so should prove that he's a troll.

In what weird fantasy world is referencing a popular house rule people used to use "trolling"?

(Probably the same fantasy world where you claim that "most people don't want this" in a poll thread where well over half the votes are for "we want this", make absurd arguments to defend your claim, and then quietly drop it without ever admitting you were wrong.)

Putting the whole trolling thing aside, you have to keep in mind the people taking this poll.

Most people on dakka are pretty heavily into their hobbies. Most of the players that will be most effected by this rule are casual players that will just want to go to the occasional event. They aren't on dakka and won't be reflected in this poll. While more people on dakka may want this, it is not reflective on the entire 40k player base.

Sure, almost no one wants to pay taxes or fines even if they are justified... If you make a poll amongst convicted criminals they will (mostly) vote for shorter punishments.

Whats your point, that a "silenced majority" is against following this particular rulling?

If you dont have further evidence to support your POV, its becames sort of a logical fallacy.

 Tawnis wrote:
Most of the players that will be most effected by this rule are casual players that will just want to go to the occasional event.

Fortunately the 10 VP won't be an issue in an event as most events require fully painted armies as a minimum standard to play at all. The 10 VP is only an issue outside of tournament games, and TBH if you're that casual why do you care if you don't win?

Its not an issue on the real world, but they thing its a fancy way to defend their personal freedom against some scary "net trolls".

Im sure they will tell this tale of rethoric heroism to their grand children in decades to come

Vatsetis wrote:
Sure, almost no one wants to pay taxes or fines even if they are justified... If you make a poll amongst convicted criminals they will (mostly) vote for shorter punishments.

Whats your point, that a "silenced majority" is against following this particular rulling?

If you dont have further evidence to support your POV, its becames sort of a logical fallacy.

I'm just making an educated guess based on my local community. My local gaming group is about 80 people large now, but a while back we did a poll to see if people wanted to count those 10 points (back when we had 45 members) and the vote was 37 for not penalizing unpainted armies at all. Everyone who has joined since was aware that this is what we were doing and had no issue. I have no idea what a general poll of all 40k players would actually say. You just want to keep in mind the biases of those being polled. For example, most of the people in my group are parents with little free time to paint, so it would obviously skew the other way.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Shas'O Ky'husa wrote:

 Tawnis wrote:
Most of the players that will be most effected by this rule are casual players that will just want to go to the occasional event.

Fortunately the 10 VP won't be an issue in an event as most events require fully painted armies as a minimum standard to play at all. The 10 VP is only an issue outside of tournament games, and TBH if you're that casual why do you care if you don't win?

If you are playing casual why would you care if you do?

For my part, it's because some of the FLGS's go by the exact rules in the book, so it gets enforced if you want to use their store to play even in small local leagues and events. (Again, this is only my personal experience with a handful of stores, I don't know if this is done nation or worldwide for FLGS's).

 Tawnis wrote:

Vatsetis wrote:
Sure, almost no one wants to pay taxes or fines even if they are justified... If you make a poll amongst convicted criminals they will (mostly) vote for shorter punishments.

Whats your point, that a "silenced majority" is against following this particular rulling?

If you dont have further evidence to support your POV, its becames sort of a logical fallacy.

I'm just making an educated guess based on my local community. My local gaming group is about 80 people large now, but a while back we did a poll to see if people wanted to count those 10 points (back when we had 45 members) and the vote was 37 for not penalizing unpainted armies at all. Everyone who has joined since was aware that this is what we were doing and had no issue. I have no idea what a general poll of all 40k players would actually say. You just want to keep in mind the biases of those being polled. For example, most of the people in my group are parents with little free time to paint, so it would obviously skew the other way.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Shas'O Ky'husa wrote:

 Tawnis wrote:
Most of the players that will be most effected by this rule are casual players that will just want to go to the occasional event.

Fortunately the 10 VP won't be an issue in an event as most events require fully painted armies as a minimum standard to play at all. The 10 VP is only an issue outside of tournament games, and TBH if you're that casual why do you care if you don't win?

If you are playing casual why would you care if you do?

For my part, it's because some of the FLGS's go by the exact rules in the book, so it gets enforced if you want to use their store to play even in small local leagues and events. (Again, this is only my personal experience with a handful of stores, I don't know if this is done nation or worldwide for FLGS's).

Your local (altough sizeable community) isnt very relevant on a global scale.

You have collectively decided not to enforce a rule, great! You can house rule whatever you want... You can even ban LOV arnies from your local community because they look "very soviet" and your community dont want to help spread Communism. Nobody is questioning your methods inside your private community.

But please dont put parenthood as an excuse for not to paint your minis... Many wargaming dads arround the world paint or pay for painted minis... Its a matter of will and priorities.

 Tawnis wrote:
For my part, it's because some of the FLGS's go by the exact rules in the book, so it gets enforced if you want to use their store to play even in small local leagues and events. (Again, this is only my personal experience with a handful of stores, I don't know if this is done nation or worldwide for FLGS's).

But if you're casual why does it matter? So what if you lose a game because of painting, wins and losses don't matter. This kind of thing only matters if you're a big fish in a small pond type of player who loves dominating the local events against non-competitive players but never plays in any large events because they're afraid of losing.

Arent the feelings of such fish species in need to be recognice??

Im sure ShasO is the type of person that kills ants, spiders or even squirrels wihout giving it many thoughts.

Vatsetis wrote:

 Tawnis wrote:

Vatsetis wrote:
Sure, almost no one wants to pay taxes or fines even if they are justified... If you make a poll amongst convicted criminals they will (mostly) vote for shorter punishments.

Whats your point, that a "silenced majority" is against following this particular rulling?

If you dont have further evidence to support your POV, its becames sort of a logical fallacy.

I'm just making an educated guess based on my local community. My local gaming group is about 80 people large now, but a while back we did a poll to see if people wanted to count those 10 points (back when we had 45 members) and the vote was 37 for not penalizing unpainted armies at all. Everyone who has joined since was aware that this is what we were doing and had no issue. I have no idea what a general poll of all 40k players would actually say. You just want to keep in mind the biases of those being polled. For example, most of the people in my group are parents with little free time to paint, so it would obviously skew the other way.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Shas'O Ky'husa wrote:

 Tawnis wrote:
Most of the players that will be most effected by this rule are casual players that will just want to go to the occasional event.

Fortunately the 10 VP won't be an issue in an event as most events require fully painted armies as a minimum standard to play at all. The 10 VP is only an issue outside of tournament games, and TBH if you're that casual why do you care if you don't win?

If you are playing casual why would you care if you do?

For my part, it's because some of the FLGS's go by the exact rules in the book, so it gets enforced if you want to use their store to play even in small local leagues and events. (Again, this is only my personal experience with a handful of stores, I don't know if this is done nation or worldwide for FLGS's).

Your local (altough sizeable community) isnt very relevant on a global scale.

You have collectively decided not to enforce a rule, great! You can house rule whatever you want... You can even ban LOV arnies from your local community because they look "very soviet" and your community dont want to help spread Communism. Nobody is questioning your methods inside your private community.

But please dont put parenthood as an excuse for not to paint your minis... Many wargaming dads arround the world paint or pay for painted minis... Its a matter of will and priorities.

Yes, that's true, and the exact point I was trying to make. You were citing the dakka poll here which doesn't have much bigger of a sample size. My point was that neither poll reflects the greater community and there is no way to know based on the information we have here.

It's not an excuse not to paint my mini's. That was never the case. I love painting, I just have very little time to do so, and don't like being penalized for that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Shas'O Ky'husa wrote:

 Tawnis wrote:
For my part, it's because some of the FLGS's go by the exact rules in the book, so it gets enforced if you want to use their store to play even in small local leagues and events. (Again, this is only my personal experience with a handful of stores, I don't know if this is done nation or worldwide for FLGS's).

But if you're casual why does it matter? So what if you lose a game because of painting, wins and losses don't matter. This kind of thing only matters if you're a big fish in a small pond type of player who loves dominating the local events against non-competitive players but never plays in any large events because they're afraid of losing.

No, it matters if you care about people being rated on their skill, even at a local league level. I would find it just as unfair if I "won" against an unpainted army by 5 points. Winning on a technicality tastes like ash.

You also didn't answer my question. Why does it matter to you if you're are also casual? And if you're not, then you are already playing in the high end that requires painting, so why be part of the debate?

 Tawnis wrote:
No, it matters if you care about people being rated on their skill, even at a local league level. I would find it just as unfair if I "won" against an unpainted army by 5 points. Winning on a technicality tastes like ash.

But why does it matter in a casual environment? "Winning on a technicality tastes like ash" is the kind of thing I expect from hardcore tournament players, who care very much about having everyone recognize their superior skill.

Why does it matter to you if you're are also casual?

Because games are better with fully painted armies and "please paint" hasn't worked to fix the problem. It's clear that there needs to be a more direct incentive.

Answering Tawnis last post:

-I have never said that I gave this poll any degree of representation... Thats enterely your own assumption.

-Nobody like to be penalized for not following a rule they dont like... Thats why they are called rules and penalties.

Vatsetis wrote:
Answering Tawnis last post:

-I have never said that I gave this poll any degree of representation... Thats enterely your own assumption.

-Nobody like to be penalized for not following a rule they dont like... Thats why they are called rules and penalties.

\

Oh, gak, I'm sorry. I got you and Shas'O mixed up since I was talking to you both. My bad.

But it's not an in game rule. It's completely dependent upon how much extra free time you have to paint, or how much extra money you have to throw at a pro painter, or maybe having a friend who has a painted army you can borrow. A game should not be decided by external factors from before the game even takes place. People deserve to play a fair game, neither side should get to have a handicap.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Shas'O Ky'husa wrote:

 Tawnis wrote:
No, it matters if you care about people being rated on their skill, even at a local league level. I would find it just as unfair if I "won" against an unpainted army by 5 points. Winning on a technicality tastes like ash.

But why does it matter in a casual environment? "Winning on a technicality tastes like ash" is the kind of thing I expect from hardcore tournament players, who care very much about having everyone recognize their superior skill.

Why does it matter to you if you're are also casual?

Because games are better with fully painted armies and "please paint" hasn't worked to fix the problem. It's clear that there needs to be a more direct incentive.

Because I feel bad if I win an game because of something my opponent potentially couldn't control, my mentality is that of a hardcore tournament player? Sorry, I can't follow your logic.

They look better sure, but they don't play better. Not everyone is in your situation, or thinks the way you do. If you only want to play with other people who have painted, more power to you, but you shouldn't get to force that onto everyone.