In the 9th edition rules there is a new addition that says that you get 10 victory points if your army is painted to a battlefield standard. I think it is a bit of a silly rule especially as it is technically part of the rules system now. Such a rule... the requirement of a three colour minimum.. used to be a part of every tournament. After all, you want your models too look good to anyone walking past rather than grey plastic.
It has always caused some consternation among a lot of Warhammer players that painting your models is just as big a part of the hobby as setting up a table and fighting it out against your friends. That painting was a requirement to play Warhammer. As some one who doesn't really enjoy the painting element (although these days my space marine force is fully painted) and for many years never had a painted army, I find it unfair to push this sort of element onto the fun and friendly casual game. But that is what is happening under 9th edition.
I personally would not use this rule and if playing against someone who had an unpainted army - whether due to time or a lack of desire to do so - I would simply say we're not using that rule. Let's just play. In competitive tournaments, leagues and the like, I can see that makes sense to use this to make people play painted forces or risk not winning over all (most likely) but it should not have been included as part of the core rules.
Why?
Two reasons.... firstly, by the wording this means that tournaments can be played by opponents who do not paint their models. They will be down on points but it does not stop them playing. I'm sure most TO's will stick to a rule of painted armies so this isn't such a deal.
Secondly.... no where does it say what the definition of "painted to a battlefield standard" actually means. Is that the same as the old three colour minimum? Or does it imply something more? I would assume that the model itself must be painted with suitable colours and not just slapped on. Does it require models to be based? Probably not.
I don't think this was well thought out by Games Workshop and I'm sure that it was included solely to try and nudge players into buy their paints as a money making exercise. Painted model is always going to look better than the basic grey. I just don't like the concept that GW are trying push everyone into an area of the hobby that not everyone is interested in. Surely, having people play the game is a better way forward?
What are your thoughts on this?
Tbh I’m all for it. I’ve played with unpainted units before and always felt guilty. Yes, painting is a part of the hobby I adore, but I think this works nicely. It doesn’t force you to have a painted force, it rewards you for doing so. If someone wants to turn up with a grey plastic army then fine, they can still win the game but they’d would stand a better chance of doing so if the army is painted.
ReplyDeleteI can understand the reward for painting an army but my opposition is that it likewise penalises players who aren't into that side of the hobby and just enjoy playing.
DeleteGW have stated the standard of painting required for the ten points, they called it "battle ready", if you search the community pages there's stuff about it. I think the main reason for the painting points is to try and move GW games more towards other, historical games where playing with unpainted models is a rarity.
ReplyDelete