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.

 Tawnis wrote:

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.

ShasO now also considers me a troll (our marriege of convenience seems as its going to end in a sour divorce).

The 10vp for painted armies ia only "external" because you considered it in that manner... Currently Is just an integral part of the official scoring system, no matter what some people might think about it.

So call "fair games" exist only as an abstraction... Players attention is very frecuently affected by many external factors that affect different players performance in difference manner... Lack of sleep or water, loud noises in the room, fatigue accumulation over many hours, general heath and cognitive issues that greatly affect concentration on the tabletop... None of that is fair in any manner, so the extra allegedly unfairness of the paintingb tax is just another drop of vwater in an ocean of imbalance.

If someone walks in to a casual game dehydrated and exhausted, jumping at every loud noise, and fatigued after playing many hours, I'd worry about more than the game.

Vatsetis wrote:

 Tawnis wrote:

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.

ShasO now also considers me a troll (our marriege of convenience seems as its going to end in a sour divorce).

The 10vp for painted armies ia only "external" because you considered it in that manner... Currently Is just an integral part of the official scoring system, no matter what some people might think about it.

So call "fair games" exist only as an abstraction... Players attention is very frecuently affected by many external factors that affect different players performance in difference manner... Lack of sleep or water, loud noises in the room, fatigue accumulation over many hours, general heath and cognitive issues that greatly affect concentration on the tabletop... None of that is fair in any manner, so the extra allegedly unfairness of the paintingb tax is just another drop of vwater in an ocean of imbalance.

It may be part of the official scoring system, but it is hardly integral.

Okay, technically yes, even chess isn't 50/50, but that's not the point. The idea is to make any game as fair as possible. Just because there are other external factors that are unavoidable doesn't mean that more should be added. Yes the factors you mention can and do have an effect on how a game can go, it's also a dice game and subject to the whims of random chance.

Be honest, if you had a painted army and you beat someone who had an unpainted army by 2VP. Do you honestly think, "yeah I deserved that win because I painted my army and my opponent (for whatever reason that you may never know) did not. (Or had only partially painted theirs? I see a lot of work in progress armies on the table)." Are you really okay with your game being decided not by which of you was the better player, but by which of you had more time or money to commit to the hobby?

 Tawnis wrote:
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.

If you aren't a hardcore tournament player then why do you feel so bad about the outcome? Winning or losing doesn't matter, a few minutes later neither of you will care about who won or lost.

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.

I'm not forcing it onto anyone. You're always free to change the rules and not use the 10 VP rule.

Be honest, if you had a painted army and you beat someone who had an unpainted army by 2VP. Do you honestly think, "yeah I deserved that win because I painted my army and my opponent (for whatever reason that you may never know) did not.

Yep, because those are the rules of the game. See the article I posted earlier about the sore loser mentality of inventing an imaginary "right way to play the game" and then deciding the "winner" based on it instead of who won the actual game.

(Not that it really matters, as I don't play against unpainted armies.)

(Or had only partially painted theirs? I see a lot of work in progress armies on the table).

I have already endorsed a modified version of the 10 VP rule where you get the 10 VP if you have a fully painted army or you have made non-trivial progress on painting since your last game.

 TheBestBucketHead wrote:
If someone walks in to a casual game dehydrated and exhausted, jumping at every loud noise, and fatigued after playing many hours, I'd worry about more than the game.

Well those are regular issues in many tournaments... Perhaps not in game #1 but certainly in game #5.

And I can assume many people go sometimes to casual games with insomnia or are more sensitive than others to loud noises in a LGS.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Tawnis wrote:

Vatsetis wrote:

 Tawnis wrote:

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.

ShasO now also considers me a troll (our marriege of convenience seems as its going to end in a sour divorce).

The 10vp for painted armies ia only "external" because you considered it in that manner... Currently Is just an integral part of the official scoring system, no matter what some people might think about it.

So call "fair games" exist only as an abstraction... Players attention is very frecuently affected by many external factors that affect different players performance in difference manner... Lack of sleep or water, loud noises in the room, fatigue accumulation over many hours, general heath and cognitive issues that greatly affect concentration on the tabletop... None of that is fair in any manner, so the extra allegedly unfairness of the paintingb tax is just another drop of vwater in an ocean of imbalance.

It may be part of the official scoring system, but it is hardly integral.

Okay, technically yes, even chess isn't 50/50, but that's not the point. The idea is to make any game as fair as possible. Just because there are other external factors that are unavoidable doesn't mean that more should be added. Yes the factors you mention can and do have an effect on how a game can go, it's also a dice game and subject to the whims of random chance.

Be honest, if you had a painted army and you beat someone who had an unpainted army by 2VP. Do you honestly think, "yeah I deserved that win because I painted my army and my opponent (for whatever reason that you may never know) did not. (Or had only partially painted theirs? I see a lot of work in progress armies on the table)." Are you really okay with your game being decided not by which of you was the better player, but by which of you had more time or money to commit to the hobby?

As with almost everthing in RL, it depends of the context. Most probably I wouldnt brag about it, and invite the losser toba cold drink.

Uh, you do realize that in this context... the player who won by two is totally correct UNLESS there was a prearranged agreement to not use the painting points right?

Literally, by the book. There is no technicality in play except for the one that allows the looser to justify to himself that he is the superior table jockey and only lost because of a stupid rule?

I bet a lot of NFL teams believe they could have won some massive games if the overtime rules didn't suck.

And this talk about worldwide meta vs local meta is backwards, too. I'd argue your local neta is way more important to you as a player than what chuds half the world away do. It's cool to monitor and get ideas of things that work and don't work, but I'm not thinking it is healthy to let people in Australia determine how we play in the midwest. I'm pretty sure they care 0 about my enjoyment, just as I care very little about theirs in comparison to my local area.

If you feel the need to invoke how games are played thousands of miles away... chances are you're on the outs locally and are trying to change your locals because.... whatever

A lot of the people on the 10vp for painting side would probably do well in Karol's meta, it seems.

It's a rule that does nothing but make a player who didn't paint all of their models with basing feel bad, because they lost due to a the enemy having done something outside of the game to earn an in game benefit. I imagine those Football players that bought an ornate football for the 10 extra points feel very justified.

Luckily, I don't play against donkey-caves, but if I were playing with someone, and we both scored exactly 90 points, and I told them it was a good fight, and then they said "With the extra 10 victory points, I've won. Good game." I'd view them ass an donkey-cave regardless, because they invoked a rule that only exists to make someone feel bad.

It's a small thing, sure, and it wouldn't happen to me. But if it did, in some parallel universe, where most people didn't ignore the rule, in which even the people who support the rule say they'd ignore it for a lot of circumstances, and I had an army with a unit that wasn't painted, I'd know that my opponent was someone I wouldn't play again.

"But people wouldn't use the rule if it was just one unit, or if you were making progress, or yadda yadda."
Then we know who really won, obviously. The person should have painted all of his minis for months before going out to play if he didn't want to rely on the painter's pity. The benevolent painter, who only wants what is best for the hobby, and other players.

Note, I am not talking about people who paint, just the people who see this rule as actually mattering.

Just remember, we all know who won, we watched the game. We saw the actions.
It was the person who played best. The one with the painted minis drew the attention, and won, by a mere 5 points. It was a close game. I'm glad he managed to put up with the unpainted masses long enough to win*. He truly earned it.

 TheBestBucketHead wrote:
A lot of the people on the 10vp for painting side would probably do well in Karol's meta, it seems.

It's a rule that does nothing but make a player who didn't paint all of their models with basing feel bad, because they lost due to a the enemy having done something outside of the game to earn an in game benefit. I imagine those Football players that bought an ornate football for the 10 extra points feel very justified.

Luckily, I don't play against donkey-caves, but if I were playing with someone, and we both scored exactly 90 points, and I told them it was a good fight, and then they said "With the extra 10 victory points, I've won. Good game." I'd view them ass an donkey-cave regardless, because they invoked a rule that only exists to make someone feel bad.

It's a small thing, sure, and it wouldn't happen to me. But if it did, in some parallel universe, where most people didn't ignore the rule, in which even the people who support the rule say they'd ignore it for a lot of circumstances, and I had an army with a unit that wasn't painted, I'd know that my opponent was someone I wouldn't play again.

"But people wouldn't use the rule if it was just one unit, or if you were making progress, or yadda yadda."
Then we know who really won, obviously. The person should have painted all of his minis for months before going out to play if he didn't want to rely on the painter's pity. The benevolent painter, who only wants what is best for the hobby, and other players.

Note, I am not talking about people who paint, just the people who see this rule as actually mattering.

Just remember, we all know who won, we watched the game. We saw the actions.
It was the person who played best. The one with the painted minis drew the attention, and won, by a mere 5 points. It was a close game. I'm glad he managed to put up with the unpainted masses long enough to win*. He truly earned it.

What a reasonable post.

Since Im in the "pro 10 vp" camp with some passion I assume I eat for breakfast a couple of Polish Mobsters every couple of days... No wonder Im getting fat!!!

The thing is, this is a hobby. Not a MOBA. Tournaments should show the entire hobby, not just who can cheeseweasel better than the next guy. That's why it's a good rule. If you don't care about the models and might as well be using tokens, then why are you playing Warhammer and not a more suitable game?

Wayniac wrote:
The thing is, this is a hobby. Not a MOBA. Tournaments should show the entire hobby, not just who can cheeseweasel better than the next guy.

Almost every major tournament has a minimum painting requirement. Many tournaments do include awards for best painted. I'm not sure they should go further than that, since 40k tournaments are expressly about the gaming side of the hobby.

Slipspace wrote:

Wayniac wrote:
The thing is, this is a hobby. Not a MOBA. Tournaments should show the entire hobby, not just who can cheeseweasel better than the next guy.

Almost every major tournament has a minimum painting requirement. Many tournaments do include awards for best painted. I'm not sure they should go further than that, since 40k tournaments are expressly about the gaming side of the hobby.

Which is why the +10 VP thing exists. Personally I feel it should have been tournament specific though.

Wayniac wrote:

Slipspace wrote:

Wayniac wrote:
The thing is, this is a hobby. Not a MOBA. Tournaments should show the entire hobby, not just who can cheeseweasel better than the next guy.

Almost every major tournament has a minimum painting requirement. Many tournaments do include awards for best painted. I'm not sure they should go further than that, since 40k tournaments are expressly about the gaming side of the hobby.

Which is why the +10 VP thing exists. Personally I feel it should have been tournament specific though.

I'd be way more fine with it if it were a tournament only rule. It's a lot more lenient than not letting them play, at least, and you still get people with fully painted armies for those nice pictures. But in a casual gaming environment, if someone told me that they won, and I can't dispute it because it's a rule in the game (will literally never happen to me, and exceedingly rare, if it happens at all), I'd get annoyed, despite being fine with losing. I've lost games of Infinity due to rolling terribly, and I've won games of Infinity despite succeeding exactly 3 rolls and most of my army being gone. I can't imagine claiming a win against a casual opponent due to paint.

Wayniac wrote:

Which is why the +10 VP thing exists. Personally I feel it should have been tournament specific though.

making it tournament exclusive wouldve been irrelevant since all the major ones require painted armies anyway.

The real solution is for stores to give incentives to painting, have a monthly painting comp with randomly drawn winners and a nice prize. That way, even Timmy who paints terribly but at least painted his intercessor squad has a reason to do it.

And players that don't enjoy painting still don't have to in order to maximize their points in a game.

The outcome of a game shouldn't be impacted by something outside the game. (in my eyes, that rule makes as much sense as the "longest beard goes first" from early AoS)

 TheBestBucketHead wrote:

Wayniac wrote:

Slipspace wrote:

Wayniac wrote:
The thing is, this is a hobby. Not a MOBA. Tournaments should show the entire hobby, not just who can cheeseweasel better than the next guy.

Almost every major tournament has a minimum painting requirement. Many tournaments do include awards for best painted. I'm not sure they should go further than that, since 40k tournaments are expressly about the gaming side of the hobby.

Which is why the +10 VP thing exists. Personally I feel it should have been tournament specific though.

I'd be way more fine with it if it were a tournament only rule. It's a lot more lenient than not letting them play, at least, and you still get people with fully painted armies for those nice pictures. But in a casual gaming environment, if someone told me that they won, and I can't dispute it because it's a rule in the game (will literally never happen to me, and exceedingly rare, if it happens at all), I'd get annoyed, despite being fine with losing. I've lost games of Infinity due to rolling terribly, and I've won games of Infinity despite succeeding exactly 3 rolls and most of my army being gone. I can't imagine claiming a win against a casual opponent due to paint.

So you have issues about a theoretical problem that might never happend to you in years upon years of 40K gamming?

Can you sleep by night "knowing" that an advance alien race "might" invade the earth and abduct your friends and family at any moment??

Yes, actually. I sleep well at night knowing that the likelihood is extremely low, and that FTL is currently viewed as impossible, and that we haven't discovered aliens, the possibility of them showing up is basically none.

However, if aliens abducted one in a billion people every decade, I'd be worried and have a problem with it.

Not sure what this has to do with me saying my thoughts on a rule in a wargame, though, unless you think that was a gotcha?

Im must recognise that was a great riposte!!!

Slipspace wrote:

Wayniac wrote:
The thing is, this is a hobby. Not a MOBA. Tournaments should show the entire hobby, not just who can cheeseweasel better than the next guy.

Almost every major tournament has a minimum painting requirement. Many tournaments do include awards for best painted. I'm not sure they should go further than that, since 40k tournaments are expressly about the gaming side of the hobby.

Exactly this. Out of game rewards for painting are great. Painting is part of the hobby, but it's a separate part from the wargaming side. You're not going to dock people in the painting competition for not fielding their army on the table if they only like to paint.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Vatsetis wrote:


So you have issues about a theoretical problem that might never happend to you in years upon years of 40K gamming?

Can you sleep by night "knowing" that an advance alien race "might" invade the earth and abduct your friends and family at any moment??

Regardless of how infrequent these things happen, it's the principal of the thing. How would you feel if the situation was revered? If the rule was instead you lost the 10 points for having a painted army? (Yes I know that would never happen and that is not the point) the point is that you are being told that the way you like to play your hobby puts you at a disadvantage in your games. People's right to play with their armies of bare plastic is equal to your right to play with your painted army. We may both like to see fully painted armies on both sides of the table, but it is not right for us to push that desire onto others. People should play their hobby their way.

Drawing parallels to thing that have nothing to do with wargaming can go both ways.

Applying any arbitrary outside rule to ingame makes just as much sense as the painting rule. If you're bot wearing a bright shirt, you loose 10VP. Oh, you don't own a bright shirt, well you should go out and buy one then, or borrow one from a friend. You don't like to wear bright shirts? Well too bad for you, that's the rule we decided on. If you think that's too silly to relate to, Vlad brought up the old longest beard rule from AoS. That's a totally arbitrary thing for in game effects, would you be okay playing with that? Keep in mind, it was an official GW rule, just like this one.

It's a bad meta rule because it causes division in the community. Or maybe it's a good rule because it means more people are talking about 40k, more often.

 Bloviator wrote:
It's a bad meta rule because it causes division in the community. Or maybe it's a good rule because it means more people are talking about 40k, more often.

Outside of threads like this (play MY way! or else I'll be mean on the internet), I don't think it gets talked about at all.

 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.

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?

Winning by rules is not technicality.

I i call it technicality win by you when you win by secondary points. Feel bad about winning by rules. Painting army requires more skill than that anyway so the 10 pts is more of being rated by skill anyway.

tneva82 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.

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?

Winning by rules is not technicality.

I i call it technicality win by you when you win by secondary points. Feel bad about winning by rules. Painting army requires more skill than that anyway so the 10 pts is more of being rated by skill anyway.

I suppose calling it a technicality is not technically (ha ha) correct. Still it's the closest I could think of to what I meant. Knowing that my opponent should have won our game but didn't because for whatever reason they couldn't or didn't paint their army is not fair. Yes, I know that it is a rule, but the topic at hand is how we fell about it. It is unfair. I love to paint, and I love to see painted armies on the table, but I shouldn't be able to put my opponent at a disadvantage because of that.

I don't understand your second point at all. You call it technicality win if you win on secondaries? That's even less of a technicality than my example. Or were you being sarcastic, it's hard to tell?

Also, yes painting requires skill, but that has nothing to do with the game on the tabletop. Aside from the time or cost prohibitiveness of having a painted army, some people just don't want to have their models painted for whatever reason. And that reason doesn't matter, because they have every right to enjoy the game they love in the same way you do. If GW wants to say that they game MUST have painted models, they should do it themselves, and people like me and you who want to re-paint them can do so. They've been on this big kick lately that units only get rules for what's in the box, so since there's no painted models in the box, there should be no extra rules for painted models.

Yes, I know that last examples is stretching this to the extreme, but the point is, I see the existing system as the opposite extreme. Why does any of it even matter. Why are so many people so vehemently determined to punish people who don't (or often can't) get a painted army together? I have yet to hear any example that's not either "it's in the rules" which is BS, it's a stupid rule that you don't need to use and I don't see why you'd defend it unless you do use it. Or "because I like to see painted armies" shocking news people, so do I; but it's not all about me and you, it's about everyone who plays and lots of people don't give a damn.

I think the "10 extra vp for people that care" painting rule is excellent mainly because it makes mad people that argue as "negative liberty" fundamentalist... So based on simple philosophical terms it must be something good for humanity.

tneva82 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.

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?

Winning by rules is not technicality.

I i call it technicality win by you when you win by secondary points. Feel bad about winning by rules. Painting army requires more skill than that anyway so the 10 pts is more of being rated by skill anyway.

No, painting an army WELL requires more skill.
Merely achieving Battle Ready does not. It won't look good to most people, but it'll be Battle Ready.....

A battle ready army looks decent on the table.

Painting is not an "all or nothing" dicotomy... Pretending that if you cannot achieve an optimal level of painting in every mini in your army it is worthless to try its pure nihilism.

A mediocre painted army is nevertheless a qualitative improvement over a "grey tide".

The rule is stupid and has always been stupid, that's why 90% of small tournaments just lie about it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Vatsetis wrote:
A battle ready army looks decent on the table.

Painting is not an "all or nothing" dicotomy... Pretending that if you cannot achieve an optimal level of painting in every mini in your army it is worthless to try its pure nihilism.

A mediocre painted army is nevertheless a qualitative improvement over a "grey tide".

Until it's time to move the goalposts.

And you took that statistic out of thin air?

Why not 99% or 75%???

Vatsetis wrote:
I think the "10 extra vp for people that care" painting rule is excellent mainly because it makes mad people that argue as "negative liberty" fundamentalist... So based on simple philosophical terms it must be something good for humanity.

The only thing I'm mad about is how terrible your sentence structure is.

If it was 10VP for writing coherent sentences, you would be excluded.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Vatsetis wrote:
And you took that statistic out of thin air?

Why not 99% or 75%???

Obviously. Nobody's reporting how much they lie about the paint score. That's the point of lying.

Duh. Get mad about it, though.

ERJAK wrote:
The rule is stupid and has always been stupid, that's why 90% of small tournaments just lie about it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Vatsetis wrote:
A battle ready army looks decent on the table.

Painting is not an "all or nothing" dicotomy... Pretending that if you cannot achieve an optimal level of painting in every mini in your army it is worthless to try its pure nihilism.

A mediocre painted army is nevertheless a qualitative improvement over a "grey tide".

Until it's time to move the goalposts.

I was answering the previous post.

I just follow the flow of the debate.

Call me a troll for such horrible sin if you like.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

ERJAK wrote:

Vatsetis wrote:
I think the "10 extra vp for people that care" painting rule is excellent mainly because it makes mad people that argue as "negative liberty" fundamentalist... So based on simple philosophical terms it must be something good for humanity.

The only thing I'm mad about is how terrible your sentence structure is.

If it was 10VP for writing coherent sentences, you would be excluded.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Vatsetis wrote:
And you took that statistic out of thin air?

Why not 99% or 75%???

Obviously. Nobody's reporting how much they lie about the paint score. That's the point of lying.

Duh. Get mad about it, though.

Thanks for editing so quickly your post, altough I see that you called me "******".

Voss wrote:

 Bloviator wrote:
It's a bad meta rule because it causes division in the community. Or maybe it's a good rule because it means more people are talking about 40k, more often.

Outside of threads like this (play MY way! or else I'll be mean on the internet), I don't think it gets talked about at all.

People just don't participate. Putting a painting requirement on a tournament just reduces the number of people who care to attend. That's fine on a large event, but a 10 person locals dropping to 4...not so good.

ERJAK wrote:

Vatsetis wrote:
I think the "10 extra vp for people that care" painting rule is excellent mainly because it makes mad people that argue as "negative liberty" fundamentalist... So based on simple philosophical terms it must be something good for humanity.

The only thing I'm mad about is how terrible your sentence structure is.

If it was 10VP for writing coherent sentences, you would be excluded.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Vatsetis wrote:
And you took that statistic out of thin air?

Why not 99% or 75%???

Obviously. Nobody's reporting how much they lie about the paint score. That's the point of lying.

Duh. Get mad about it, though.

Nevertheless you perfectly understand the sense of my words.

You are welcome.