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.

**Tallonian4th**

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.

That is perfectly reasonable, in the same way people who don't paint shouldn't be forced to. We all enjoy this hobby differently. As long as this like many things is agreed pre-game I can't see how there can be a problem.

This (seemingly at this point endless) argument is against those who try to make people with un-painted armies feel bad or like they are doing something wrong.

It hasn't helped that GW have muddied the waters by bringing in a crossover rule between two different parts of the hobby. This can cause conflict in close games if it's not handled properly. It seems to be a well meaning attempt to encourage painted armies but mostly is just a potential point of friction.

**Akor Doomflayer**

Tallonian4th wrote:
This (seemingly at this point endless) argument is against those who try to make people with un-painted armies feel bad or like they are doing something wrong.

If you don't paint your models you are doing something wrong. You're making a less enjoyable game for your opponent and going against the social norm that miniatures games involve fully painted armies. Whether that transgression is severe enough to merit being kicked out of the hobby entirely is up for debate but it's still not something we should endorse. Meet the expectations and the 10 VP is not an issue.

**FezzikDaBullgryn**

Bob, can you have the common decency to at least try to appear like a different person every time you switch accounts? It's so obviously you, that every day feels like arguing with Alpharius. Sgt Bob, Shas'O, and not DoomFlayer. Just pick one, and have the courage to be that personality.

**EviscerationPlague**

Akor Doomflayer wrote:
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?

I am. The only reason someone should refuse a game is because the pair can't agree on a point level. Everything else is pure "I'm better than everyone else, so you can only run what I want you to run and you need to paint too".

**Akor Doomflayer**

EviscerationPlague wrote:
I am. The only reason someone should refuse a game is because the pair can't agree on a point level. Everything else is pure "I'm better than everyone else, so you can only run what I want you to run and you need to paint too".

At least you're honest about your entitlement issues.

**ccs**

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".

I never said I couldn't (or dont) achieve quality results.
I simply said that one can achieve BR that looks like crap & takes virtually no effort.
It will NOT be better than Grey plastic, just more colorful.
If you think a gak paint job is preferable then you've poor standards & should just accept someone's non-BR stuff.

**Gordon Shumway**

Maybe we should award BobshasDoom 10VP if they maintain the same avatar in the boards. It is the norm and the rule here, and we all know how much they care about that.

**Tallonian4th**

Akor Doomflayer wrote:
Tallonian4th wrote:
This (seemingly at this point endless) argument is against those who try to make people with un-painted armies feel bad or like they are doing something wrong.

If you don't paint your models you are doing something wrong. You're making a less enjoyable game for your opponent and going against the social norm that miniatures games involve fully painted armies. Whether that transgression is severe enough to merit being kicked out of the hobby entirely is up for debate but it's still not something we should endorse. Meet the expectations and the 10 VP is not an issue.

What are you on about 'the social norm'? There is no social norm when it comes to how people individually enjoy a hobby. You cannot state your opinion as fact, you don't like unpainted, but that is not true of everyone. Now if you prefer not to play against unpainted models, fair enough, no one should make you do so and a respectful declining of the match is all that is needed. But in the same way you don't have to play them, you can't make them do something they may not want to, or may even want to but other life priorities preclude them from doing. They are not wrong and you are incredibly rude in your assertations.

**Sim-Life**

Akor Doomflayer wrote:
EviscerationPlague wrote:
I am. The only reason someone should refuse a game is because the pair can't agree on a point level. Everything else is pure "I'm better than everyone else, so you can only run what I want you to run and you need to paint too".

At least you're honest about your entitlement issues.

Says the guy who thinks he's entitled to dictate how others engage in the hobby? Again, the players rejecting others are the PAAC players (painted at all cost), not the other way around.

**Akor Doomflayer**

Sim-Life wrote:
Says the guy who thinks he's entitled to dictate how others engage in the hobby? Again, the players rejecting others are the PAAC players (painted at all cost), not the other way around.

Who cares about who is rejecting who? You aren't entitled to a game with someone and they aren't being an ass just because they won't play a game they don't enjoy. But it's nice to see you doubling down on your hypocrisy, complaining about "dictating how others engage in the hobby" while insulting people for not engaging in the hobby in the way you expect.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Tallonian4th wrote:
There is no social norm when it comes to how people individually enjoy a hobby.

There absolutely are social norms. For example, it is a social norm that you do not paint your models like Nazis. Occasionally people will publicly violate that norm, and we judge them appropriately.

The correct thing to say here is that there are social norms in the hobby, and you just don't think that painting is one of them. And the broader wargaming hobby would disagree with you. Across all genres and eras the standard expectation is that you paint your armies.

**steelhead177th**

nice to know thata single person is representing the broader wargaming hobby across the world. I didn't realize that a single person has the knowledge of everyone that participates in wargaming and is capable of speaking for so many. I also didn't realize I was reading the posts of such a person.

Or, maybe you are wrong and this isn't binary, and you aren't going to sway everyone to agree with you. Maybe people will play with others that may or may not paint, and you have no say on this matter if it doesn't directly involve you.

I don't understand where several people are coming from with such positions. "my way is the only way" smacks of narcissism. you might want to watch out for that.

**JNAProductions**

oni wrote:
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.

Why should your desires be mandated for everyone?
If you only want to play against and with painted minis, that's fine. But if me and my gamemates don't care, why should we have to follow your standards?

**a_typical_hero**

Personal anecdote: In ~20 years of playing 40k with lots of different people in different places, from my own basement, to a local hobby store, to a youth centre and a tabletop club house currently... expecting a fully painted army is not the social norm here.

Sure the "grey people" usually admire a fully painted army and I assume everybody would agree that it helps with immersion and looks cool on the table. But nobody is being a dick about it if the opponent is having a grey horde.

**Vatsetis**

ccs wrote:
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".

I never said I couldn't (or dont) achieve quality results.
I simply said that one can achieve BR that looks like crap & takes virtually no effort.
It will NOT be better than Grey plastic, just more colorful.
If you think a gak paint job is preferable then you've poor standards & should just accept someone's non-BR stuff.

This is epic level sophism... "I dont paint my minis because I dont want to spoil their aesthetic"... Ummmm... Are you a MP or a Lawyer??

Automatically Appended Next Post:

a_typical_hero wrote:
Personal anecdote: In ~20 years of playing 40k with lots of different people in different places, from my own basement, to a local hobby store, to a youth centre and a tabletop club house currently... expecting a fully painted army is not the social norm here.

Sure the "grey people" usually admire a fully painted army and I assume everybody would agree that it helps with immersion and looks cool on the table. But nobody is being a dick about it if the opponent is having a grey horde.

Dont agree with the general POV but this is probably the most sensible post in a while.

**Tallonian4th**

Akor Doomflayer wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Tallonian4th wrote:
There is no social norm when it comes to how people individually enjoy a hobby.

There absolutely are social norms. For example, it is a social norm that you do not paint your models like Nazis. Occasionally people will publicly violate that norm, and we judge them appropriately.

The correct thing to say here is that there are social norms in the hobby, and you just don't think that painting is one of them. And the broader wargaming hobby would disagree with you. Across all genres and eras the standard expectation is that you paint your armies.

Wow what a shoddy reply. Well done on instantly invoking Godwin's law almost immediately, because of course those who are unable or don't enjoy painting are as bad as Nazis. Shows how badly you've lost if that's your first go to.

I was actually with you on the fact that you shouldn't have to play un-painted armies if you don't want to, in the same way others shouldn't have to paint if they don't want to. But you managed to totally ignore a reasonable middle ground which benefits as many as possible to impose your views as fact upon everyone. It's a waste of time even trying to debate you as debate requires each side to listen to one another.

I can say only this, I hope you never play against a painted model ever again.

**Asmodios**

EviscerationPlague wrote:
Akor Doomflayer wrote:
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?

I am. The only reason someone should refuse a game is because the pair can't agree on a point level. Everything else is pure "I'm better than everyone else, so you can only run what I want you to run and you need to paint too".

Actually forcing someone to play against you is the ultimate form of entitlement. Player 1"Sorry I'm looking to play against another painted army i enjoy the look of the game just as much as the play so its important to me"....Player 2 "actually you are a jerk for not playing me, I am entitled to your time. You must play me whether you enjoy it or not. You have to accept the way I enjoy the hobby while simultaneously I disregard how you enjoy it"

Not wanting to play against a grey tide is 100% legitimate and there is nothing wrong with it. Just like there isnt anything wrong with you not wanting to paint.... you might just limit your potential opponent pool

**Vatsetis**

Forcing some one to play a hideous grey tide army against their will its probably a felony outside "gangland Poland" and "ganland USA" were LGS are in fact coverups for Organized crime.

**JNAProductions**

Yes, Evisceration is wrong for saying you have to play someone who you don't want to play. And that can be beyond a painting disagreement-maybe you don't like them much, maybe you're tired and don't have the energy to game, but refusing a game politely isn't a problem.

**EviscerationPlague**

JNAProductions wrote:
Yes, Evisceration is wrong for saying you have to play someone who you don't want to play. And that can be beyond a painting disagreement-maybe you don't like them much, maybe you're tired and don't have the energy to game, but refusing a game politely isn't a problem.

No, they're entitled jackasses because muh paint, and they need to be called out on it.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Asmodios wrote:
EviscerationPlague wrote:
Akor Doomflayer wrote:
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?

I am. The only reason someone should refuse a game is because the pair can't agree on a point level. Everything else is pure "I'm better than everyone else, so you can only run what I want you to run and you need to paint too".

Actually forcing someone to play against you is the ultimate form of entitlement. Player 1"Sorry I'm looking to play against another painted army i enjoy the look of the game just as much as the play so its important to me"....Player 2 "actually you are a jerk for not playing me, I am entitled to your time. You must play me whether you enjoy it or not. You have to accept the way I enjoy the hobby while simultaneously I disregard how you enjoy it"

Not wanting to play against a grey tide is 100% legitimate and there is nothing wrong with it. Just like there isnt anything wrong with you not wanting to paint.... you might just limit your potential opponent pool

No it isn't an actual reason. With how bad the rules are to begin with, choosing the draw the line at "I don't like how my opponent's army looks" is pure entitlement and childish. Yes you are childish if you believe what you're posting.

**Asmodios**

EviscerationPlague wrote:
JNAProductions wrote:
Yes, Evisceration is wrong for saying you have to play someone who you don't want to play. And that can be beyond a painting disagreement-maybe you don't like them much, maybe you're tired and don't have the energy to game, but refusing a game politely isn't a problem.

No, they're entitled jackasses because muh paint, and they need to be called out on it.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Asmodios wrote:
EviscerationPlague wrote:
Akor Doomflayer wrote:
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?

I am. The only reason someone should refuse a game is because the pair can't agree on a point level. Everything else is pure "I'm better than everyone else, so you can only run what I want you to run and you need to paint too".

Actually forcing someone to play against you is the ultimate form of entitlement. Player 1"Sorry I'm looking to play against another painted army i enjoy the look of the game just as much as the play so its important to me"....Player 2 "actually you are a jerk for not playing me, I am entitled to your time. You must play me whether you enjoy it or not. You have to accept the way I enjoy the hobby while simultaneously I disregard how you enjoy it"

Not wanting to play against a grey tide is 100% legitimate and there is nothing wrong with it. Just like there isnt anything wrong with you not wanting to paint.... you might just limit your potential opponent pool

No it isn't an actual reason. With how bad the rules are to begin with, choosing the draw the line at "I don't like how my opponent's army looks" is pure entitlement and childish. Yes you are childish if you believe what you're posting.

you are calling people "childish" because they wont play a board game with you. The lack of awareness might be one of the funniest things ive ever read i thank you for this

**Vatsetis**

So if a player you dont know much goes to the gamming night and can choose to play with his finely painted army against another player with a similarly painted army (because he wants to post pics of the game into his social media, for instance) it must INSTEAD play against agrey pile of junk against his will, just so the entitled greyman dosent fill excluded???

Seems very reasonable, does your "gamming" community also practice kidnapping just like XIX century robber barons?

**JNAProductions**

EviscerationPlague wrote:
JNAProductions wrote:
Yes, Evisceration is wrong for saying you have to play someone who you don't want to play. And that can be beyond a painting disagreement-maybe you don't like them much, maybe you're tired and don't have the energy to game, but refusing a game politely isn't a problem.

No, they're entitled jackasses because muh paint, and they need to be called out on it.

If someone refuses to game with you because your models aren't painted, and they do so politely? That's fine.
Seriously-it's not your hobby, exclusively. It's everyone's hobby who participates in it-people can value different parts of it. If you don't value painting, like me, then you don't need a painted force. But if someone DOES value painted armies, then that's also fine.

**EviscerationPlague**

Asmodios wrote:
EviscerationPlague wrote:
JNAProductions wrote:
Yes, Evisceration is wrong for saying you have to play someone who you don't want to play. And that can be beyond a painting disagreement-maybe you don't like them much, maybe you're tired and don't have the energy to game, but refusing a game politely isn't a problem.

No, they're entitled jackasses because muh paint, and they need to be called out on it.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Asmodios wrote:
EviscerationPlague wrote:
Akor Doomflayer wrote:
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?

I am. The only reason someone should refuse a game is because the pair can't agree on a point level. Everything else is pure "I'm better than everyone else, so you can only run what I want you to run and you need to paint too".

Actually forcing someone to play against you is the ultimate form of entitlement. Player 1"Sorry I'm looking to play against another painted army i enjoy the look of the game just as much as the play so its important to me"....Player 2 "actually you are a jerk for not playing me, I am entitled to your time. You must play me whether you enjoy it or not. You have to accept the way I enjoy the hobby while simultaneously I disregard how you enjoy it"

Not wanting to play against a grey tide is 100% legitimate and there is nothing wrong with it. Just like there isnt anything wrong with you not wanting to paint.... you might just limit your potential opponent pool

No it isn't an actual reason. With how bad the rules are to begin with, choosing the draw the line at "I don't like how my opponent's army looks" is pure entitlement and childish. Yes you are childish if you believe what you're posting.

you are calling people "childish" because they wont play a board game with you. The lack of awareness might be one of the funniest things ive ever read i thank you for this

Denying a game because your opponent has some unpainted models is just as snobbish as not playing them because they aren't wearing an expensive brand of shirt. So yes, you are childish

**Asmodios**

JNAProductions wrote:
EviscerationPlague wrote:
JNAProductions wrote:
Yes, Evisceration is wrong for saying you have to play someone who you don't want to play. And that can be beyond a painting disagreement-maybe you don't like them much, maybe you're tired and don't have the energy to game, but refusing a game politely isn't a problem.

No, they're entitled jackasses because muh paint, and they need to be called out on it.
If someone refuses to game with you because your models aren't painted, and they do so politely? That's fine.
Seriously-it's not your hobby, exclusively. It's everyone's hobby who participates in it-people can value different parts of it. If you don't value painting, like me, then you don't need a painted force. But if someone DOES value painted armies, then that's also fine.

I feel bad for you reasonable "no paint" guys... because 50% of the reason i turn down a no paint game is because i wanna take cool pics and tell a story with the game.... the other 50% is to avoid entitled people like this that think the world revolves around them and im some sort of slave that has to play them

**EviscerationPlague**

Asmodios wrote:
JNAProductions wrote:
EviscerationPlague wrote:
JNAProductions wrote:
Yes, Evisceration is wrong for saying you have to play someone who you don't want to play. And that can be beyond a painting disagreement-maybe you don't like them much, maybe you're tired and don't have the energy to game, but refusing a game politely isn't a problem.

No, they're entitled jackasses because muh paint, and they need to be called out on it.
If someone refuses to game with you because your models aren't painted, and they do so politely? That's fine.
Seriously-it's not your hobby, exclusively. It's everyone's hobby who participates in it-people can value different parts of it. If you don't value painting, like me, then you don't need a painted force. But if someone DOES value painted armies, then that's also fine.

I feel bad for you reasonable "no paint" guys... because 50% of the reason i turn down a no paint game is because i wanna take cool pics and tell a story with the game.... the other 50% is to avoid entitled people like this that think the world revolves around them and im some sort of slave that has to play them

The game doesn't tell a story to begin with, so nice try.

**Asmodios**

EviscerationPlague wrote:
Asmodios wrote:
EviscerationPlague wrote:
JNAProductions wrote:
Yes, Evisceration is wrong for saying you have to play someone who you don't want to play. And that can be beyond a painting disagreement-maybe you don't like them much, maybe you're tired and don't have the energy to game, but refusing a game politely isn't a problem.

No, they're entitled jackasses because muh paint, and they need to be called out on it.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Asmodios wrote:
EviscerationPlague wrote:
Akor Doomflayer wrote:
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?

I am. The only reason someone should refuse a game is because the pair can't agree on a point level. Everything else is pure "I'm better than everyone else, so you can only run what I want you to run and you need to paint too".

Actually forcing someone to play against you is the ultimate form of entitlement. Player 1"Sorry I'm looking to play against another painted army i enjoy the look of the game just as much as the play so its important to me"....Player 2 "actually you are a jerk for not playing me, I am entitled to your time. You must play me whether you enjoy it or not. You have to accept the way I enjoy the hobby while simultaneously I disregard how you enjoy it"

Not wanting to play against a grey tide is 100% legitimate and there is nothing wrong with it. Just like there isnt anything wrong with you not wanting to paint.... you might just limit your potential opponent pool

No it isn't an actual reason. With how bad the rules are to begin with, choosing the draw the line at "I don't like how my opponent's army looks" is pure entitlement and childish. Yes you are childish if you believe what you're posting.

you are calling people "childish" because they wont play a board game with you. The lack of awareness might be one of the funniest things ive ever read i thank you for this

Denying a game because your opponent has some unpainted models is just as snobbish as not playing them because they aren't wearing an expensive brand of shirt. So yes, you are childish

so me wanting to be able to take cinematic photos for my gaming group is the exact same thing as not liking somebody's clothing?

Automatically Appended Next Post:

EviscerationPlague wrote:
Asmodios wrote:
JNAProductions wrote:
EviscerationPlague wrote:
JNAProductions wrote:
Yes, Evisceration is wrong for saying you have to play someone who you don't want to play. And that can be beyond a painting disagreement-maybe you don't like them much, maybe you're tired and don't have the energy to game, but refusing a game politely isn't a problem.

No, they're entitled jackasses because muh paint, and they need to be called out on it.
If someone refuses to game with you because your models aren't painted, and they do so politely? That's fine.
Seriously-it's not your hobby, exclusively. It's everyone's hobby who participates in it-people can value different parts of it. If you don't value painting, like me, then you don't need a painted force. But if someone DOES value painted armies, then that's also fine.

I feel bad for you reasonable "no paint" guys... because 50% of the reason i turn down a no paint game is because i wanna take cool pics and tell a story with the game.... the other 50% is to avoid entitled people like this that think the world revolves around them and im some sort of slave that has to play them

The game doesn't tell a story to begin with, so nice try.

clearly your games dont tell a story because the hostages you have taken to play are spending the whole game looking for a safe exit

**BrookM**

And, given the amount of alerts this topic keeps on generating, we're done here.