How do feel about the 10 VPs for a fully-painted army?

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.

**TheBestBucketHead**

Also, me being against the rule in no way benefits me. I don't play 40k. I'm invested in the Warhammer IP and want a good system to be released in it that I can sink my teeth into.

**Tawnis**

Vatsetis wrote:
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?

For the record, I don't think you're a troll. Just that, from what you've said, you only care about your own fun. (And I suppose the fun of those that think exactly the same way that you do.)

The manner in which they are walking into a game that should be a fair match but is already stacked against them. Would you want to race someone in a 100 meter dash if they started 10 meters ahead? Yeah sure, you can still win, but it sure feels like a slap in the face when the other person says "oh don't be mad that I get a head start, the people in charge said it was okay." Or "I'm just here to have fun, but the rules are the rules, I'm sorry it gives me an unfair advantage, but there's really nothing I could possibly do about it." or "You know, if you spent a hundred hours making your own cloths from scratch, you'd be able to start up here with me." or even "You wouldn't be bothered by my unfair advantage if you didn't care so much about winning."

**TheBestBucketHead**

I probably won't post anymore in this discussion. I'll just leave by saying that I've yet to see an argument against my cosplay and roleplay bonuses that don't apply to the painting victory point bonus, outside of the fact that there's no rules for it, despite the fact that rules for them existed before. In addition, just saying that something is the rules doesn't protect against the criticism of painting points being an out of game activity benefiting the in game army. In another addition, if you ever don't apply the rule because of any reason, including if someone is working on their army, you're breaking the rule, and admitting that their fun can be ruined by it. I don't think someone's enjoyment should be reliant on their enemy's pity or spending months painting before playing.

Farewell.

**Akor Doomflayer**

TheBestBucketHead wrote:
"I don't care about winning, I'm just glad that Games Workshop added this rule so I can win."

Nice straw man, but I'm glad GW added the rule so that unpainted armies are discouraged. In my ideal world I would never benefit from the 10 VP because everyone would bring a fully painted army.

**Tawnis**

Akor Doomflayer wrote:
TheBestBucketHead wrote:
"I don't care about winning, I'm just glad that Games Workshop added this rule so I can win."

Nice straw man, but I'm glad GW added the rule so that painted armies are discouraged. In my ideal world I would never benefit from the 10 VP because everyone would bring a fully painted army.

All the matches would be fair, so long as everyone hobbies the exact way you want them to hobby.

**Akor Doomflayer**

TheBestBucketHead wrote:
I'll just leave by saying that I've yet to see an argument against my cosplay and roleplay bonuses that don't apply to the painting victory point bonus, outside of the fact that there's no rules for it, despite the fact that rules for them existed before.

Then you haven't been looking, because there have been at least two arguments: that very few people, if any, were asking for cosplay bonuses while many people were asking for painting requirements and enforcing painting rules stricter than what GW did, and that unpainted models have an aesthetic impact on the on-table game while cosplaying doesn't.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Tawnis wrote:
All the matches would be fair, so long as every hobbies the exact way you want them to hobby.

Yep. Like it or not painting is an expected part of the miniatures hobby. Isolated 40k groups that refuse to paint are the minority. Go try to play with unpainted miniatures in a historical group and you'll be laughed out of the room and wish it was a mere 10 VP.

And your reply here doesn't change the fact that it's a straw man argument, as removing unpainted armies from the game is not the same thing as seeking more wins.

**Vatsetis**

Tawnis wrote:
Vatsetis wrote:
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?

For the record, I don't think you're a troll. Just that, from what you've said, you only care about your own fun. (And I suppose the fun of those that think exactly the same way that you do.)

The manner in which they are walking into a game that should be a fair match but is already stacked against them. Would you want to race someone in a 100 meter dash if they started 10 meters ahead? Yeah sure, you can still win, but it sure feels like a slap in the face when the other person says "oh don't be mad that I get a head start, the people in charge said it was okay." Or "I'm just here to have fun, but the rules are the rules, I'm sorry it gives me an unfair advantage, but there's really nothing I could possibly do about it." or "You know, if you spent a hundred hours making your own cloths from scratch, you'd be able to start up here with me." or even "You wouldn't be bothered by my unfair advantage if you didn't care so much about winning."

If I knew the rules of the race before hand and implies that the rewarded runner did and effort that I couldnt bother to do... Well I certainly would not be specially pissed of by that allegedly unfair" situation".

For most working people the odds they have too face every day are far more dare than those meaningless 10 vp... When every day, every week, every month, year after year you play a rigged game, a game in which you might be able due to pure luck and determination to as best achieve a "minor defeat"... Well you will be happy to accept those odds.

Complaining for the 10 meters ahead its a joke... When the standard in every day life (and dont fool yourselve games are a social construct and there is no great barrier between them and the rest of social life) experience is dragging 30, 50 or 90 meters behind the "competition".

Life is one thing alone, learning to be a better losser.

**Tawnis**

Akor Doomflayer wrote:
TheBestBucketHead wrote:
I'll just leave by saying that I've yet to see an argument against my cosplay and roleplay bonuses that don't apply to the painting victory point bonus, outside of the fact that there's no rules for it, despite the fact that rules for them existed before.

Then you haven't been looking, because there have been at least two arguments: that very few people, if any, were asking for cosplay bonuses while many people were asking for painting requirements and enforcing painting rules stricter than what GW did, and that unpainted models have an aesthetic impact on the on-table game while cosplaying doesn't.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Tawnis wrote:
All the matches would be fair, so long as every hobbies the exact way you want them to hobby.

Yep. Like it or not painting is an expected part of the miniatures hobby. Isolated 40k groups that refuse to paint are the minority. Go try to play with unpainted miniatures in a historical group and you'll be laughed out of the room and wish it was a mere 10 VP.

And your reply here doesn't change the fact that it's a straw man argument, as removing unpainted armies from the game is not the same thing as seeking more wins.

Yes, people who refuse to paint are the vast minority, however, there are plenty of people, like myself, that love to paint but have very little free time to do so. It is rare that I see total bare plastic armies around, but I see A LOT of partially painted WIP armies that people want to get on the table and play before they've contributed their requisite 100+ hours of painting to be battle ready. And even if that weren't the case, the people in that vast minority still should have every right to play an fair game regardless of your aversion to grey plastic.

Depends on the miniature hobby. Yes you are correct about historical groups, but on the flip side, BattleTech allows you to play with cardboard cutouts if you want (so long as the unit's facing is clear), it's in their rules, and people are okay with that.

You're right, it's not. Removing unpainted armies from the game would be preventing people who hobby differently than you from playing at all. Also it would make the barrier to entry for new players even more massive than it already is.

**Akor Doomflayer**

Tawnis wrote:
there are plenty of people, like myself, that love to paint but have very little free time to do so.

If you have time to play you have time to paint.

It is rare that I see total bare plastic armies around, but I see A LOT of partially painted WIP armies that people want to get on the table and play before they've contributed their requisite 100+ hours of painting to be battle ready.

You and I have very different experiences then. In every group I've been around, in various stores in multiple states, the people who had unpainted armies never painted anything. Maybe they had 1-2 models they (badly) painted years ago but the rest was gray plastic forever, often with broken parts everywhere because of being carelessly tossed into a box between games, bases with legs because "assembling is hard", etc. It was very rare to see someone who was making a genuine attempt at painting but hadn't finished yet. And if you look through this thread you see more of the same, quite a few people declaring that they do not like painting and will never paint anything.

Depends on the miniature hobby. Yes you are correct about historical groups, but on the flip side, BattleTech allows you to play with cardboard cutouts if you want (so long as the unit's facing is clear), it's in their rules, and people are okay with that.

Is that because people like cardboard cutouts or because the complicated legal history of the IP and sales, canceled games, etc, have created so many supply problems that the current owners of the IP had to accept cardboard tokens as a last resort? It may look ugly as hell and make the game less appealing but it's better than not playing the game at all because half the product line is out of stock and/or unavailable because of IP issues.

You're right, it's not. Removing unpainted armies from the game would be preventing people who hobby differently than you from playing at all. Also it would make the barrier to entry for new players even more massive than it already is.

Which is why 10 VP is a good compromise. You're allowed to play but you have a clear incentive to fix the unpainted miniature problem ASAP.

**VladimirHerzog**

Did Bob make a third account now?

**Racerguy180**

Don't play with VP AND PROBLEM SOLVED!!!!!!!

**Gordon Shumway**

VladimirHerzog wrote:
Did Bob make a third account now?

Ha, ha, I was just about to post this! Sure looks like it. Isn’t there some sort of rule against that?

**Sim-Life**

Gordon Shumway wrote:
VladimirHerzog wrote:
Did Bob make a third account now?

Ha, ha, I was just about to post this! Sure looks like it. Isn’t there some sort of rule against that?

Yeah but the mods seem unwilling to even suspend anyone now for some reason.

**jeff white**

Akor Doomflayer wrote:
TheBestBucketHead wrote:
"I don't care about winning, I'm just glad that Games Workshop added this rule so I can win."

Nice straw man, but I'm glad GW added the rule so that painted armies are discouraged. In my ideal world I would never benefit from the 10 VP because everyone would bring a fully painted army.

Perhaps you meant to type that unpainted are discouraged and painted encouraged? That is how i read the post...

**Akor Doomflayer**

jeff white wrote:
Akor Doomflayer wrote:
TheBestBucketHead wrote:
"I don't care about winning, I'm just glad that Games Workshop added this rule so I can win."

Nice straw man, but I'm glad GW added the rule so that painted armies are discouraged. In my ideal world I would never benefit from the 10 VP because everyone would bring a fully painted army.

Perhaps you meant to type that unpainted are discouraged and painted encouraged? That is how i read the post...

Yes. Fixed.

**Vatsetis**

So its clear that indepently from any poll results, what actual tournaments or communities do worlwide or any other esoteric considerations the "Dont enforce a 10 VP reward on painted armies" team have clearly won this debate.

And they have won simply because they have by far the best arguments that I will sum up:

-I dont like to paint.
-I hate painting.
-I love painting but Im so slow that I will never reach the tabletop ready standard for my army.
-I dont care.
-I have a family.
-I have a disability that prevents me from painting.
-Get out of my proper... I mean hobby!
-Painting is not a part of "MY" hobby.
-Pro painters are expensive.
-Im the only one allowed to paint my miniatures even if I dont actually want to paint them.
-Winning any tipe of game due to painting scores is unfair.
-I dont like to paint... Etc.

From a rethoric point of view this is an unbreakable fortress, time to accept the defeat.

**Sim-Life**

All of those arguments are better than the pro-10 VP sides single argument of "I personally get to decide what the hobby entails for literally everyone else".

**a_typical_hero**

I don't think people need a good reason if they don't paint their armies let alone a reason at all.

It's your stuff, do whatever you want with it. Same with the playing partner. If they don't want to play you, they don't have to justify themselves.

If playing with that one person is absolutely vital to you, talk it out and see if you can find a compromise.

**Vatsetis**

Actually people dont need a reason to do almost anything... Only trolls look for the hidden meaning behind human behaviour.

Without trolls humanity will be happy and careless.

We live in sad and salty times

**jeff white**

Sim-Life wrote:
All of those arguments are better than the pro-10 VP sides single argument of "I personally get to decide what the hobby entails for literally everyone else".

Trouble for your position is that no one can provide an argument that compels me, or anyone else, to actually engage in a game with anyone else who doesnt paint their models. Nothing. It is my choice. I choose not to engage with people who do not paint. OK, the occasional new model try out is sometimes OK with me, for a quick game (very quick) to try out rules and wargear before committing to a certain modeled loadout, but... yeah, no. You got nothing.

For my part, I am also less likely to want to spend time with anyone who pays other people to paint for them. Why? Because painting and converting models by hand is part of the hobby and some of the things that I both admire in other hobbyists as well as like to talk about during gametime. Not having such conversations takes away from the experience for me, enough to CHOOSE NOT TO SPEND MY TIME WITH THOSE PEOPLE.

There is no argument that can compel me to do so.

**Vatsetis**

Its not an all or o nothing think... You can paint some of your minis and hire a propainter for other.

Why do some people seem so hellbent on playing only in a very concrete and static manner... Dont you have any level of flexibility when playing 40K? You only play the sane people over an over again ussing the same format? As if it was some sort of ritual?

**Sim-Life**

jeff white wrote:
Sim-Life wrote:
All of those arguments are better than the pro-10 VP sides single argument of "I personally get to decide what the hobby entails for literally everyone else".

Trouble for your position is that no one can provide an argument that compels me, or anyone else, to actually engage in a game with anyone else who doesnt paint their models. Nothing. It is my choice. I choose not to engage with people who do not paint. OK, the occasional new model try out is sometimes OK with me, for a quick game (very quick) to try out rules and wargear before committing to a certain modeled loadout, but... yeah, no. You got nothing.

For my part, I am also less likely to want to spend time with anyone who pays other people to paint for them. Why? Because painting and converting models by hand is part of the hobby and some of the things that I both admire in other hobbyists as well as like to talk about during gametime. Not having such conversations takes away from the experience for me, enough to CHOOSE NOT TO SPEND MY TIME WITH THOSE PEOPLE.

There is no argument that can compel me to do so.

Sure. You do that. It's your hobby, do what you want, but it makes you look like an ass, not them.

**oni**

Done keeping up with this.

Though, this thread has me thinking... Maybe the tournament scene took off like it did because people were fed-up with playing against unpainted, half assembled, little to no effort given armies.

At this point I hope the Rules Team makes it 20 VP's.

The bottom line is and always will be... Paint your gak or don't fething show up at the table.

**The_Real_Chris**

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

I can't either - but then every tourney small or large I have heard of has the three colours minimum rule. Don't meet that, lose points overall in other ways.

I think all those talking oddly about sales, enjoyment etc - the company has decided (correctly I think), its toys look better when not grey plastic. That is an important aspect of the sales and attraction parts. So getting the players to improve that marketing by painting their armies makes sense.

**Akor Doomflayer**

Sim-Life wrote:
Sure. You do that. It's your hobby, do what you want, but it makes you look like an ass, not them.

Oh look, right on schedule you're back to demonstrate the entitled no-painting attitude that someone is an "ass" if they won't play against your unpainted armies. How quickly the whole "your hobby is your hobby, you're allowed to do what you want" thing disappears when someone's hobby choices don't align with yours...

**Slipspace**

jeff white wrote:
Sim-Life wrote:
All of those arguments are better than the pro-10 VP sides single argument of "I personally get to decide what the hobby entails for literally everyone else".

Trouble for your position is that no one can provide an argument that compels me, or anyone else, to actually engage in a game with anyone else who doesnt paint their models.

That goes for pretty much anything. I can't compel anyone to play me, nor do I expect the reverse. It's absolutely fine to refuse a game that you won't find enjoyable, as long as it's done in a respectful way.

**Vatsetis**

So the conclusion is people are entitled to play who ever they want (or dont play if they dont feel in the mood to do so).

Woa!!!

What a deep conclusion after only 13+ pages of thread.

Internet is indeed a fountain of wisdom!!!

**Sim-Life**

Akor Doomflayer wrote:
Sim-Life wrote:
Sure. You do that. It's your hobby, do what you want, but it makes you look like an ass, not them.

Oh look, right on schedule you're back to demonstrate the entitled no-painting attitude that someone is an "ass" if they won't play against your unpainted armies. How quickly the whole "your hobby is your hobby, you're allowed to do what you want" thing disappears when someone's hobby choices don't align with yours...

Well first of all Bob/Shas'O/whatever your name is now, as I've said multiple time all my armies (6 armies all between 2000pts and 6000pts at last count) are fully painted so this is nothing to do with "my unpainted armies". Secondly people with unpainted armies are not refusing games with people because their armies are painted. The only people imposing standards and refusing games are those demanding painted armies. The obstacle is elitism from people with painted armies, not the other way around.

**Apple fox**

Akor Doomflayer wrote:
Sim-Life wrote:
Sure. You do that. It's your hobby, do what you want, but it makes you look like an ass, not them.

Oh look, right on schedule you're back to demonstrate the entitled no-painting attitude that someone is an "ass" if they won't play against your unpainted armies. How quickly the whole "your hobby is your hobby, you're allowed to do what you want" thing disappears when someone's hobby choices don't align with yours...

That has been fine the entire time, it’s even been expressed a bit in this thread.
But Jeff has told people to play other games, as well as been rude about not wanting to play unpainted.
He suggested quitting 40k and playing card games, which I think comes of as rather disrespectful for a number of reasons.
But for me, what prevents me painting, prevents me from handling cards.

Considering the rule itself was effectively redundant in events and tournaments where painting rules are common in different ways already.
It really only effected the casual on a wide degree I would think. Where all parts of the hobby would be expected to be more casual and friendly.
I have found the rule anything but friendly, often if it has come up mostly putting people in very awquard position socially.
The rule as it is I think subverts any real positive change in the community’s, and leads to what I think is quite nasty behaviour. Effectively trying to put a rule in for what should be a very social position for the hobby.

**Akor Doomflayer**

Sim-Life wrote:
The only people imposing standards and refusing games are those demanding painted armies

What's your point? Why are you calling someone an ass for not playing against an unpainted army? Why are you such a shameless hypocrite about "everyone should be able to do what they want" but then judging people for saying nah, I'd rather not play against that? Do you think that people with unpainted armies are entitled to have games regardless of their opponent's enjoyment?

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Apple fox wrote:
But Jeff has told people to play other games, as well as been rude about not wanting to play unpainted.

None of that was in the post in question.

Where all parts of the hobby would be expected to be more casual and friendly.

And they are. That's why the rule is a mere 10 VP instead of an absolute ban on unpainted models as it is in a more competitive context.