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.

 Shas'O Ky'husa wrote:

 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.

Why not put in a 10pt VP prize for taking a LESS painted army? It makes more economic sense than for a painted army.

If you have more unpainted models than previously, that means you bought new models. Purchasing new models has ACTUAL value in the real world, instead of asinine imagined value that painting does.

By buying models you are supporting both your local game store and the hobby as a whole. By using only models you have painted you're strangling small businesses. So, the only logical incentive structure, ESPECIALLY for small local business, is to give 10VP for those who have either NO painted models or who have less painted models than they have previously.

Then institute a 10VP penalty for those selfish people who aren't supporting their local stores by just using their same painted crap over and over again.

There's ZERO economic value in playing painted models and as a result is ZERO reason to incentivize it.

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.

Dude, sometimes a spade is just a spade, there's not hidden meaning or deep philosophical agenda. On that subject, you should really know what you're bringing up before you try to use it as a point, if people arguing this point were truly negative liberty fundamentalists, the argument would be something along the lines of "why should GW give us a rulebook that tells us how we have to play, we should get to decide our own points and stats and everything else, ect..."

I know you're ESL, so I try not to read too much into your subtext as it could be lost in translation, but from this, you're basically saying that the only reason you like and defend this rule is to piss off people that you don't like? And above that, you feel that way based of a dislike of a philosophical ideology that you either don't understand or can't articulate well in English.

Not really sure if that is the case, but if it is, then I can't say much to that; it's a level of callus stupidity beyond what I'm capable of reasoning with.

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

Why not 99% or 75%???

Anecdote, i've never seen a small event have the 10VP painting rule, and I have seen some large events allow 1/2 paint armies to get it.

 Amishprn86 wrote:

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

Why not 99% or 75%???

Anecdote, i've never seen a small event have the 10VP painting rule, and I have seen some large events allow 1/2 paint armies to get it.

Small events can't afford it. The majority of people in most communities don't have fully painted armies. And even if they DO, that might not be want they want to USE. So if you're looking online, see a post for a locals tournament and then see the '10VP for painting', a lot of people just won't bother.

 Tawnis 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.

Dude, sometimes a spade is just a spade, there's not hidden meaning or deep philosophical agenda. On that subject, you should really know what you're bringing up before you try to use it as a point, if people arguing this point were truly negative liberty fundamentalists, the argument would be something along the lines of "why should GW give us a rulebook that tells us how we have to play, we should get to decide our own points and stats and everything else, ect..."

I know you're ESL, so I try not to read too much into your subtext as it could be lost in translation, but from this, you're basically saying that the only reason you like and defend this rule is to piss off people that you don't like? And above that, you feel that way based of a dislike of a philosophical ideology that you either don't understand or can't articulate well in English.

Not really sure if that is the case, but if it is, then I can't say much to that; it's a level of callus stupidity beyond what I'm capable of reasoning with.

Second time I ve been called stupid in the last hour... can people rise a bit their stakes and starts attacking my family or nation?

The extreme formalism of your reasoning defines standard logic.

When I said a couple of days ago that this debate has entered anomie, I was unfortunatly right.

 Shas'O Ky'husa wrote:

 Tawnis wrote:


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.)

Except that's not a different way to play the game. You objectively lost the actual game itself, but only get to declare yourself a winner because you were able to spend either more time or money outside of the game to have your army painted. You could also be seen as the one "deciding the winner" based on an external factor beyond the game itself and using GW's poor attempt at forcing people to paint their armies as justification.

What I don't understand is why you're even here arguing this point? You said yourself that you only ever play with people who have fully painted armies, so this rule has zero effect on you and your gaming. Why do you feel the need to push rules that try to force everyone else to play the way you think is best? Just let people do their own thing, it doesn't effect you at all.

Also, to your second point about not playing against unpainted armies, I just want to clarify something. If your closest friend (that does not already play 40k) decided to start playing, and went out to buy 2000k points of models and built them, then asked you for a few games to learn the ropes, you'd tell them no. Not until they spend hundreds of hours painting, or paying someone else to do it for them do they earn the privilege of facing off against you? Or, would you insist that you loan them a painted army, even though they want to play the one they just spent a whole bunch of money on and time building? Is there a third option I'm missing that doesn't sound like a dick move?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Vatsetis wrote:

 Tawnis 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.

Dude, sometimes a spade is just a spade, there's not hidden meaning or deep philosophical agenda. On that subject, you should really know what you're bringing up before you try to use it as a point, if people arguing this point were truly negative liberty fundamentalists, the argument would be something along the lines of "why should GW give us a rulebook that tells us how we have to play, we should get to decide our own points and stats and everything else, ect..."

I know you're ESL, so I try not to read too much into your subtext as it could be lost in translation, but from this, you're basically saying that the only reason you like and defend this rule is to piss off people that you don't like? And above that, you feel that way based of a dislike of a philosophical ideology that you either don't understand or can't articulate well in English.

Not really sure if that is the case, but if it is, then I can't say much to that; it's a level of callus stupidity beyond what I'm capable of reasoning with.

Second time I ve been called stupid in the last hour... can people rise a bit their stakes and starts attacking my family or nation?

The extreme formalism of your reasoning defines standard logic.

When I said a couple of days ago that this debate has entered anomie, I was unfortunatly right.

I wasn't necessarily calling you stupid, I was stating what your message implied, and hoping that it was some kind of translation misunderstanding... and then if it was not, then yes, I suppose I was. But since you say my reasoning was flawed, then I can't have been calling you stupid, so which is it? Or did you just not understand what I meant?

Also, would you care to explain your rebuttal? You say that my reasoning defies logic, but then just don't explain. I elaborated at length as to the issues I had with your arguments, just pointing and saying "Well that defies logic" and walking away isn't going to help you convince anyone.

I legitimately want to know why you think the way you do, it just seems like every time you try to articulate what you mean, you try to sound insightful and eloquent, but it just comes across sounding pompous and arrogant. (Not saying that you are those things, just that it's the way you're unintentionally coming across.)

Just speak plainly, why does this rule matter to you so much? Why are you willing to die on a hill defending it? How would it damage your enjoyment of the hobby if the rule didn't exist?

huh. trolls for the sake of being trolls and cause issues and problems within a established community, all for and based around real world ideology.

Sigh. How boring.

Explained in simple terms, If the "defend painters" rule didnt exist, it would empower that part of the community that (IMHO) has no empathy for their fellow gamers and that dont care about the aesthetic of the hobby.

I want my hobby to be played by empathic and creative people, therefore I will happily die on that hill.

And after being treated as a punching ball (something that I might partly deserve) by so many posters I really going to bleed over this issue.

It is clear enough?

ERJAK wrote:


Small events can't afford it. The majority of people in most communities don't have fully painted armies. And even if they DO, that might not be want they want to USE. So if you're looking online, see a post for a locals tournament and then see the '10VP for painting', a lot of people just won't bother.

I cannot recall a small tournament in my area ever awarding 10vp's for painting.

What they will usually do is have best general, best painted, and best overall. on rare occasions this will be the same person for 2-3 categories, but usually its a different person for all 3.

Almost none of the people i have ever played with have had any issues whatsoever with part painted, or totally unpainted forces. the biggest issues usually arise from proxies or counts as, since these can often lead to confusion for both parties. and i think i would only have access to one or two opponents if I insisted on playing against fully painted forces,

steelhead177th wrote:
huh. trolls for the sake of being trolls and cause issues and problems within a established community, all for and based around real world ideology.

Sigh. How boring.

For ideology there is no effective divide between the "real world" and "fictional ones".

They are both cultural products of brain activity.

 Tawnis wrote:
You objectively lost the actual game itself

The actual game itself contains 10 VP for having a fully painted army. Please stop being a sore loser and coming up with reasons why you "really won", especially in a casual environment where winning and losing doesn't matter.

If winning and losing doesn't matter, why are you so adamant about getting the points? Why does the rule matter? If you want to win, do it on the board. You cannot in one hand say that you really won due to the painting rule, and on the other say that winning in this situation doesn't matter. You cannot both be a WAAC player, then say that you don't care about who wins or loses.

 TheBestBucketHead wrote:
If winning and losing doesn't matter, why are you so adamant about getting the points? Why does the rule matter? If you want to win, do it on the board. You cannot in one hand say that you really won due to the painting rule, and on the other say that winning in this situation doesn't matter. You cannot both be a WAAC player, then say that you don't care about who wins or loses.

Funny, but you're the one adamantly arguing that the game needs to be changed to accommodate your desire to win. You can make up all the scrub concepts about "winning on the board" or "not using cheap netlists" or whatever, but at the end of the day according to the rules of the actual game you still lost. Winning because of painting VP is not WAAC, it's just playing the game as published by GW instead of some house ruled alternate game.

Vatsetis wrote:
Explained in simple terms, If the "defend painters" rule didnt exist, it would empower that part of the community that (IMHO) has no empathy for their fellow gamers and that dont care about the aesthetic of the hobby.

I want my hobby to be played by empathic and creative people, therefore I will happily die on that hill.

And after being treated as a punching ball (something that I might partly deserve) by so many posters I really going to bleed over this issue.

It is clear enough?

Yes, that actually is, thank you. Now I can actually address your argument rather than us dancing around the issue and getting nowhere. First off, it's not a "defend painters" rule, no one is trying to tell you to stop painting, you are free to paint as much as you want with no penalty.

You say that people who don't paint their armies have no empathy for their fellow gamers? Okay, lets put aside the people who choose not to paint the armies for the time being and just focus on the others for a moment.
People that love to paint and spend what little free time they may have learning how, then painstakingly working on their army, but only get a few hours a week of free time, so it takes them bloody forever to actually finish anything. Those people lack empathy?
Or people that hate painting? They should be forced to do something they can't stand for your visual benefit, or to pay a very expensive premium to take part in an evenly matched game or they lack empathy too?
Or someone that has just gone out and got a new army and is excited to play it right away to test it out instead of waiting months to get all their painting done, they lack empathy?
None of these people think about poor old you and the visual appeal they bring you when they put their army on the table.

You were perfectly clear this time, you only want the hobby to be played by people who think and feel about the hobby the same way you do. The thing is, you are no more special than anyone else that plays this hobby. The person across the table has just as much right to enjoy the game with their unpainted or partially painted army as you do with your fully painted one.

I apologize for my insinuation earlier that you were stupid, that is not the case. However, I can stand by the statement that you are incredibly selfish. A game is not about your sole enjoyment, it is about the enjoyment of everyone playing it. You sir, are the one with no empathy for your fellow gamers.

Perhaps he just wants a morale reward for the extra effort put in painting his army.

You know presentation is also part of exam marks (if you dont do a academically anemic standard multiple answers test)?

Certainly many posters feel entitled to attack my poor English gramnar.

Aesthetic is part of live, its is constantly evaluated... No surprise its also part of a miniature wargame.

You're sounding an awful lot like Karol with that talk. If painting to win makes you happy, play with the rule all you want. But I'm not requesting that my armies get a free ten victory points, you are. I'm not requesting to daddy James Workshop that, since I've painted all my minis, can I get a free 10 victory points?

All I request is an even playing field, where the game is decided with skill, not paint, stupid wombo combos, or broken codexes. That's why I play other games. But feel free to win at any cost, my friend.

 Akor Doomflayer wrote:

 Tawnis wrote:
You objectively lost the actual game itself

The actual game itself contains 10 VP for having a fully painted army. Please stop being a sore loser and coming up with reasons why you "really won", especially in a casual environment where winning and losing doesn't matter.

I'm not being a sore looser. I often play with fully painted armies. I feel just as bad if I am given the win in a game I objectively lost because I had painted my army and my opponent didn't. I have conceded those games in the past because this rule is bs. If I win a game, I want to earn it, not have it given to me because of a factor outside of the game itself.

Aesthetic is great. That's why I enjoy the Golden Demon award winning models. They look beautiful. That's why I paint my models. So they look nice. That's why I encourage my friends to paint their models. Because they look nice.
Not to win.

 Tawnis wrote:
The person across the table has just as much right to enjoy the game with their unpainted or partially painted army as you do with your fully painted one.

Does the person who hates assembling and wants to use an army of bases with legs have an equal right to play the game? Does the person who paints their army as WWII Germans (complete with all the offensive iconography) have an equal right to play the game? Does the person who shows up with a space marine tactical squad, a necron vehicle, a couple of tyranid monsters, a squad of chaos demons, and an eldar transport with ork passengers have an equal right to play? Where are you allowed to draw the line and say sorry, you're not meeting the minimum standards and don't get to play?

 Tawnis wrote:

Vatsetis wrote:
Explained in simple terms, If the "defend painters" rule didnt exist, it would empower that part of the community that (IMHO) has no empathy for their fellow gamers and that dont care about the aesthetic of the hobby.

I want my hobby to be played by empathic and creative people, therefore I will happily die on that hill.

And after being treated as a punching ball (something that I might partly deserve) by so many posters I really going to bleed over this issue.

It is clear enough?

Yes, that actually is, thank you. Now I can actually address your argument rather than us dancing around the issue and getting nowhere. First off, it's not a "defend painters" rule, no one is trying to tell you to stop painting, you are free to paint as much as you want with no penalty.

You say that people who don't paint their armies have no empathy for their fellow gamers? Okay, lets put aside the people who choose not to paint the armies for the time being and just focus on the others for a moment.
People that love to paint and spend what little free time they may have learning how, then painstakingly working on their army, but only get a few hours a week of free time, so it takes them bloody forever to actually finish anything. Those people lack empathy?
Or people that hate painting? They should be forced to do something they can't stand for your visual benefit, or to pay a very expensive premium to take part in an evenly matched game or they lack empathy too?
Or someone that has just gone out and got a new army and is excited to play it right away to test it out instead of waiting months to get all their painting done, they lack empathy?
None of these people think about poor old you and the visual appeal they bring you when they put their army on the table.

You were perfectly clear this time, you only want the hobby to be played by people who think and feel about the hobby the same way you do. The thing is, you are no more special than anyone else that plays this hobby. The person across the table has just as much right to enjoy the game with their unpainted or partially painted army as you do with your fully painted one.

I apologize for my insinuation earlier that you were stupid, that is not the case. However, I can stand by the statement that you are incredibly selfish. A game is not about your sole enjoyment, it is about the enjoyment of everyone playing it. You sir, are the one with no empathy for your fellow gamers.

Its obvious I lack emparhy, thats why I continue in this debate... Because Im a callous, insensitive troll.

Nevertheless after it has been stablish my selfish, even sociopathic nature, would you mind to answer a simple question?

In which manner the fun of those gamers unable to paint their armies is diminished by the fact that their maximum points is 90VP rather than 100VP?

They all have the right to play. You have the right to refuse playing them.

 TheBestBucketHead wrote:
But I'm not requesting that my armies get a free ten victory points, you are.

I'm not requesting anything. The rules are the rules, and those rules contain 10 VP for painting. You're the one requesting a house ruled game where you don't apply that rule.

All I request is an even playing field, where the game is decided with skill, not paint, stupid wombo combos, or broken codexes. That's why I play other games. But feel free to win at any cost, my friend.

Ah yes, the familiar complaint of the sore loser. You didn't really lose, your opponent was a WAAC TFG who played without honor and didn't earn their win with Real Skill. Perhaps, before throwing around WAAC labels, you should consider why it's so important to you that you change the scoring rules instead of accepting the game as it is, win or lose?

Vatsetis wrote:
In which manner the fun of those gamers unable to paint their armies is diminished by the fact that their maximum points is 90VP rather than 100VP?

Assuming their opponent has a painted army? An inherently unfair battle, in which they are always at a deficit of 10 points. A game that is by all definitions uneven. A game that is diminished by the fact that they are now informed by the player and the rules that Games Workshop does not care about them unless their miniatures are painted, and only cares if they are for marketing.

 TheBestBucketHead wrote:
You're sounding an awful lot like Karol with that talk. If painting to win makes you happy, play with the rule all you want. But I'm not requesting that my armies get a free ten victory points, you are. I'm not requesting to daddy James Workshop that, since I've painted all my minis, can I get a free 10 victory points?

All I request is an even playing field, where the game is decided with skill, not paint, stupid wombo combos, or broken codexes. That's why I play other games. But feel free to win at any cost, my friend.

Troll, Stupid... And now Im Karol!!!

Hope none of you get my IP adress or I might be "Swated" to protect the sanity of the dakkanouts.

 Akor Doomflayer wrote:

 TheBestBucketHead wrote:
But I'm not requesting that my armies get a free ten victory points, you are.

I'm not requesting anything. The rules are the rules, and those rules contain 10 VP for painting. You're the one requesting a house ruled game where you don't apply that rule.

All I request is an even playing field, where the game is decided with skill, not paint, stupid wombo combos, or broken codexes. That's why I play other games. But feel free to win at any cost, my friend.

Ah yes, the familiar complaint of the sore loser. You didn't really lose, your opponent was a WAAC TFG who played without honor and didn't earn their win with Real Skill. Perhaps, before throwing around WAAC labels, you should consider why it's so important to you that you change the scoring rules instead of accepting the game as it is, win or lose?

I know why it's important to me. Because I value fairness and equality, even in something as small as a war game. Why do you value the 10 points so highly that you're willing to diminish the fun of others by taking the points and then pretending to not care about winning or losing?

 TheBestBucketHead wrote:
A game that is diminished by the fact that they are now informed by the player and the rules that Games Workshop does not care about them unless their miniatures are painted, and only cares if they are for marketing.

So now failing to score a mere 10 VP means that GW doesn't care about someone? That seems a bit hyperbolic. Does GW also not care about someone if their codex isn't the most recent one and they're facing a similarly "unfair" game?

Vatsetis wrote:

 TheBestBucketHead wrote:
You're sounding an awful lot like Karol with that talk. If painting to win makes you happy, play with the rule all you want. But I'm not requesting that my armies get a free ten victory points, you are. I'm not requesting to daddy James Workshop that, since I've painted all my minis, can I get a free 10 victory points?

All I request is an even playing field, where the game is decided with skill, not paint, stupid wombo combos, or broken codexes. That's why I play other games. But feel free to win at any cost, my friend.

Troll, Stupid... And now Im Karol!!!

Hope none of you get my IP adress or I might be "Swated" to protect the sanity of the dakkanouts.

You're not Karol. The other guy is. Don't worry, I figure you're not in the capital wasteland fighting off hordes of ravening Warhammer players with your miniatures.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Akor Doomflayer wrote:

 TheBestBucketHead wrote:
A game that is diminished by the fact that they are now informed by the player and the rules that Games Workshop does not care about them unless their miniatures are painted, and only cares if they are for marketing.

So now failing to score a mere 10 VP means that GW doesn't care about someone? That seems a bit hyperbolic. Does GW also not care about someone if their codex isn't the most recent one and they're facing a similarly "unfair" game?

If you were playing Tyranids for most of the game's lifespan, Squats for almost all of it, Orks for a lot of it, then yes. They care less about your fun than other people's, because you brought in less sales. And, if you're playing with one codes that is absurdly powerful and one that is weak, yes. It is unfair. You're not going to make me fall into a hypocritical gotcha.

 TheBestBucketHead wrote:
I know why it's important to me. Because I value fairness and equality, even in something as small as a war game.

The game is perfectly fair in this case. Both players have the exact same opportunity to earn the 10 VP. You don't get to choose not to pursue a known victory condition and then complain that you scored less VP as a result of that choice.

Why do you value the 10 points so highly that you're willing to diminish the fun of others by taking the points and then pretending to not care about winning or losing?

Because that's what the game rules say. You don't choose to take the points or not, the score is what it is. And the fact that winning or losing doesn't really matter doesn't change the facts of who won the game. You can play a casual game of basketball where the winner is quickly forgotten but that doesn't change the fact that at the end of the game the score was 45-39. And you certainly aren't going to say "well, winning doesn't matter so I'm not going to count the points for the basket I just made".

"I don't care about winning, I'm just glad that Games Workshop added this rule so I can win."
I don't care that it's a rule. It's stupid. There are a lot of stupid rules in 40k, and this one isn't even the one I complain about the most. But you know what? Your exact excuses mean that you're not an donkey-cave for bringing a meta WAAC list, let's say 7th edition TauDar, to fight a low tier list in a casual meta. It's in the rules.

 Akor Doomflayer wrote:

 Tawnis wrote:
The person across the table has just as much right to enjoy the game with their unpainted or partially painted army as you do with your fully painted one.

Does the person who hates assembling and wants to use an army of bases with legs have an equal right to play the game? Does the person who paints their army as WWII Germans (complete with all the offensive iconography) have an equal right to play the game? Does the person who shows up with a space marine tactical squad, a necron vehicle, a couple of tyranid monsters, a squad of chaos demons, and an eldar transport with ork passengers have an equal right to play? Where are you allowed to draw the line and say sorry, you're not meeting the minimum standards and don't get to play?

Finally, at least one argument that makes logical sense. I was almost about to bail and write this all off.

For the first, obviously no because you need to be able to visually determine what each model has to actually play the game.
Again no for the same reason on top of the obvious other issues.
Yes, it's called Open Play, so long as your opponent agrees to play that type of game go nuts, there are rules for that.

I the line would be clear identification of what you are using. Before GW implemented this stupid rule that worked just fine.

By GW rules, just like painting, everything must be a WYSIWYG GW only model. Do you also have issues with heavy conversions, or 3rd party models? Because by your painting logic, those disqualify a person as well.