Do you consider the "Painted Army" points on your matches?

[KenaiPhoneix]

Yesterday I finally managed to finish 10th edition rules (its been some busy weeks), and came across the "Painted Army" rule that stays that every player that has huis army painted gets 10 more victory points. I know this is nothing knew, I previously have read it on the 9th (no idea about previous editions) but I think it was more of a "Please buy citadel paints" or a nice incentive encourage players to paints their armies, but that nobody actually followed.

 

Im not that much of guy that goes to stores to play 40k (time, transport difficulty, etc) so almost all of my battles have been against friends, and most of them me teaching them to play with my already painted armies. But a couple of months ago a friend of mine (that is more "try hard" than me) went to a store to get a match and told me how he managed to tie one match because he got the 10 points because his army was painted and his opponent didn't.

 

That got me thinking: Do people really enforce that rule (besides official tournaments of course)? 

 

Personally I don't care if my opponent army is painted or not. My armies are always painted because I painted when I assemble them (and as best as I can, which is not very much lol) , and I now it is REALLY COOL playing on a full setting watching 2 full painted armies clash with each other. But I can understand if my opponent didn't have the time or the resources to actually have its faction fully painted, so I never had the though of actually punish him because of this and take away a close fight just because I just so happen to have every unit painted. I find it unfair in my opinion (and Im a guy that losses most of its matches, so those 10 points would benefit me)

 

So what do you guys do when you are on a friendly match agains an unpainted/grey army? Do you usually enforce that rule?

[Captain Idaho]

Honestly I think it is a silly rule. In a casual game you wouldn't feel like you beat someone if you lost by 9 points but had a painted army and he didn't.

 

In a tournament... well most tournaments require painted armies anyway.

 

It's a nice idea to encourage painted armies but sometimes you just won't get that out of people.

 

I do enjoy a fully painted army though. It looks great, much better than the sum of its parts like.

[Wormwoods]

As someone who has to fight a lot of unpainted plastic I kind of wish it was enforced. Jokes aside, no, my game group doesn't take the paint into account for points. 

 

That said, paint your armies. Come on. 

[NovemberIX]

Wait, that was a real thing in the books? I skipped 9th and 10th hasn't convinced me back, so I'm ignorant of anything in the rule books but that just seems asinine.

 

On the specific question, I'd not take the 10 points, it's too meta gamey for me and ignored the actual narrative itself. I said it in another thread, I play this game to move small plastic space people around small plastic building while making pew pew sounds. If my oppo wants to run around in bare ceramite, that's on them, I care about telling/being part of a story.

 

Admittedly, my gaming group are folks with a preference for painted models, if there's anything un or under painted, it's probably the terrain we use.

[Jorin Helm-splitter]

We do not use that rule, but my playgroup tends to play with fully painted models so its moot point for us. I do like the idea of the rule because it encourages people to paint, and 40k is more fun for me when the armies are painted. I also think that in the games that are close enough for this rule to matter, both players are probably going walk away happy. 

 

 

[Lord_Ikka]

I add in the 10 VP automatically when I play casually, as I'm not going to police someone for not painting their stuff. In a tournament setting, it is also pretty useless- every single tournament I've been to that has had more than 12 players has required armies to be painted to Battle Standard minimums. If they aren't painted, they aren't playing. So honestly, it is pretty much just a gimmick to make sure that Primary and Secondary points stay 10VP away from each other without having to re-work the system.

[Rogue]

I choose not to play with unpainted models in my own armies - primarily to push myself to get stuff painted. But if my opponent turns up with unpainted stuff, that's their choice, and I wouldn't impose a 10-point penalty on them. Frankly, I'd much rather play against an unpainted army than not play at all (or annoy my friends).

 

That said, I had a game a while ago against someone with a couple of unpainted units, and he insisted that I score the painting points and him not. It made no difference to the outcome, but I think that's the only time we've ever used the painted model score as a differentiator. 

[MARK0SIAN]

A big part of my enjoyment of the hobby is the visual aspect of it so I much prefer seeing and playing fully painted armies. I wouldn’t penalise someone in a one off situation if their army wasn’t painted as there could be a million real life reasons that got in the way. 
 

However, if I was playing someone regularly and they kept their army unpainted and made no effort to get it finished then I would probably start applying the penalty. After all, table top standard isn’t too difficult. Either prime and apply contrast then pick out a few details or use a colour primer and a wash then pick out some details. 

[Cleon]

I'd agree with the general context above - painted is a better game experience, but on the other hand, when a new game is launched or someone is newly getting into an existing game you don't want to punish people who are new or are just slower at painting (or chose a massive horde army). But if they aren't going to do any painting at all and are only in it for the game, well then the 10 points is part of the game I guess....

[Warhead01]

I prefer playing with and against painted armies. I'll take the points. 
There's always a hand full of people who will say they don't like painted models or some reason they can't or other people shouldn't have to paint their models. This is a given, it will happen in any conversation about this topic online.  
To which I would say, find don't paint your stuff. you do you. But if it's a rule in the game, the 10 points thing, don't cry if the other player wants that 10 points. 

What's silly about it is having to monetize painting with 10 points.  it's very very sad when people can't be bothered for any reason to paint their armies. and I get it, I have a friend who is color blind. He would just buy painted units from Ebay.  There's a whole can of worms around that as far as how the army wouldn't look quite right. But are the models painted or not. I don't even think he plays any more and it wasn't a rule when he was playing.  and back in the day, when he was playing, our house rule at that shop was a painted army got one dice reroll per game at tournaments, or one per turn, if the army was fully painted.  Which was just a 3 color minimum as was the style at the time. 

Also, I don't get mad about another player who is slowly painting their models. It's going to be obvious if you keep playing with them as you will see unit after unit come to completion and there's no shame in that. it's about the effort put in.  And to complete this tangent, this is one reason I would be for pre painted kits. Just so people would have painted armies even if they didn't want to paint them. I'd still paint my own but I'd be looking at a lot less grey plastic across the table.  

 

[Karhedron]

I enjoy painting my armies but I appreciate not everyone does. I would never count paint points in a friendly game and only if a tournament enforced it.

[Remain_Indoors]

I use it. Not to punish my regular opponents for fielding non-painted stuff, because they never do, but to push myself to get stuff finished for my armies. I'm a horrendous hobby butterfly, so i need every incentive i can to stick to a project.

[LameBeard]

My son has an upcoming tournament (non-GW game, urgh) and is being very lax about painting (it is not insisted upon, only encouraged for this tournament). I think turning up with painted models shows respect for your opponent. Kids these days …

 

but I don’t think the 10vp system is the best way to encourage it. Maybe points at the level of the tournament rather than the match would work, something like the early Lord of the Rings tournament rules …

[Rain]

I’m not a very good painter, especially compared to some of the uber-talented people that post their stuff online, but I have never gamed with models that were not tabletop standard and based. I hate basing, so my dudes are all on a gray lunar waste, but I still do it.
 

The whole fun of the game for me is the drama of two painted armies duking it out on some nice terrain, so I do my part in that. I honestly have no idea why anyone would play this game without painting their minis or at least buying painted minis. The game itself is kind of a mess, it is entirely held up by the (mostly) excellent and unique lore and quality of models, which only really comes out when said models are painted.

[Gattopardo]

I much prefer playing with and against painted armies, and rarely use anything unpainted myself. 

 

I don't think a VP bonus is really the answer though. To be honest I'd rather have a game against someone whose models aren't fully painted, than no game at all. 

 

Part of the problem is the pace of GW's releases, their marketing hype and strategy always being focused on the new hotness, and the constant state of change and impermanence of the rules (largely to cater to competitive balance concerns). Basically, it's not possible to keep up with these while painting to anything like a decent standard. So if GW wanted to encourage more painted armies (which would be better for the long term health of the community, but probably bad for short term sales) then they would need to find a way to have a much more stable and slower changing ruleset, IMO.

[Emperor Ming]

Its a ton of effort and cash to get a 2k army built and painted

 

Should be a medal really not ten pts

[Marshal Rohr]

I think the longest running houserule in the hobby is ‘you should paint your models, but it’s fine if you don’t’

[Orion]

Is anyone a massive RAW stickler, but doesn't play the painted for 10vp? Or wysiwyg?
Because that seems like a hypocrisy. 

 

I like the points for painted. Growing up frequenting GW stores I used to find it depressing constantly fighting grey hordes.

These days people at my local seems a lot better at having painted armies.

[Rogue]

Hypocrisy or expedience? 

 

Rules are abstract - everyone can access them (for free, at the moment), and whether or not you happen to have a personal copy, following the game rules is what makes the game.

 

Models are practical - and having a vast supply of every possible option and combination just isn't practical for most people, so I'm happy to be flexible with wysiwyg and grey models, because the rules still work and the game still happens even if the playing pieces have the wrong guns or grey armour.

 

Ideal world, we all play the rules perfectly, with totally wysiwyg armies painted to an excellent standard. Real world, I'll take an imperfectly modelled game every time.

[Orion]

12 minutes ago, Rogue said:

Hypocrisy or expedience? 

 

Rules are abstract - everyone can access them (for free, at the moment), and whether or not you happen to have a personal copy, following the game rules is what makes the game.

 

Models are practical - and having a vast supply of every possible option and combination just isn't practical for most people, so I'm happy to be flexible with wysiwyg and grey models, because the rules still work and the game still happens even if the playing pieces have the wrong guns or grey armour.

 

Ideal world, we all play the rules perfectly, with totally wysiwyg armies painted to an excellent standard. Real world, I'll take an imperfectly modelled game every time.

I just think if you're going to have uptight blanket standards then it's a little ridiculous to omit one rule because you don't like it. That is hypocrisy.

And honestly, models are the game. You don't need every combination, but I don't think it's unreasonable to ask you to have the right ones.

If you wanna play some gamey meta bs then paint it up (and try to enjoy the process)

[Bryan Blaire]

1 hour ago, JayJapanB said:

I just think if you're going to have uptight blanket standards then it's a little ridiculous to omit one rule because you don't like it. That is hypocrisy.

And honestly, models are the game. You don't need every combination, but I don't think it's unreasonable to ask you to have the right ones.

If you wanna play some gamey meta bs then paint it up (and try to enjoy the process)

Can you point to the RAW for WYSIWYG in 9th or 10th Edition WH40K rules?  Please cite the page number it is on, because the Wargear Options from the Datasheets rules (pg. 38) states

“WARGEAR OPTIONS:
Some datasheets have a bullet-pointed list of wargear options. When you include such a unit in your army, you can use these options to change the weapons and other wargear of models in the unit.”  Note that it doesn’t state that you must model such wargear options on the models in the unit…

 

Let’s make sure we aren’t being hypocritical.

 

Using the VP for painted armies would be playing RAW.  It would also be RAW to say that armies are composed of Citadel miniatures - pg. 5, Core Rules, Core Concepts:

“ARMIES

Each player in a game of Warhammer 40,000 commands an army of Citadel miniatures, hereafter referred to as models.”

Edited July 16, 2023 by Bryan Blaire

[Dont-Be-Haten]

On 7/14/2023 at 5:51 PM, Captain Idaho said:

Honestly I think it is a silly rule. In a casual game you wouldn't feel like you beat someone if you lost by 9 points but had a painted army and he didn't.

 

In a tournament... well most tournaments require painted armies anyway.

 

It's a nice idea to encourage painted armies but sometimes you just won't get that out of people.

 

I do enjoy a fully painted army though. It looks great, much better than the sum of its parts like.

I feel like it helps encourage people to paint their armies and should be used as an incentive to get your army painted. I've played so many grey hordes and primed models lately, I'd really like for more armies to be painted/mostly painted like mine are.

 

Using the rule or not? Idk I'm more casual these days, but I sure do like playing other painted armies at locals and not just at events.

[Bazza]

When playing with friends I don't push for it as long as they're making an effort. If they just don't bother then I probably would, to try nudge them to work on it, because it does add a lot to the game. 

 

I'm playing a lot of 10th with my son atm and when I told him about the 10 VP for painted he thought I was making it up. But it's lit a fire under him to get painting again and now he's realizing how great it feels to field an army you've painted and you're proud of. For now I'm fielding a few unpainted models from my queue so I don't have to stick him with the 10 pt deficit because he would insist. It's definitely done its job of getting him engaged with that part of the hobby though. 

[Tyriks]

My group chose to use the rule in 9th as incentive to get more stuff painted. Now in 10th people are dusting off armies they haven't played in years so people have been using more unpainted models but I think once everyone settles on what they want to focus on this edition we'll talk it over again. I really don't enjoy painting much (often not at all but sometimes a certain mood strikes me), but I do appreciate fielding a fully painted army enough that the incentive helps motivate me to get it done.

[Xenith]

Basically yes. In practice, we just score the VP, however if the painted v unpainted points would change a win to a loss and vice versa, we add them on, as incentive to get paint on things, and the person that put the effort into painting a full army gets the moral, and actual victory.