So previously, I briefly covered the two main ways to generate victory points through Primary and Secondary objectives. The final way is to have a painted army, which generates 10VP at the end of the game.
I have very mixed feelings about this and each time I come back to it I change my mind over whether or not it is a good thing.
Pro
- It rewards players for painting their armies
- GW prides itself on having beautifully painted armies as a showcase to people who are new to the hobby, consequently when playing in public it encourages players to use painted models
- It discourages grey netlists
- Fully painted games feel better
- In a number of tournaments there is already a requirement to have painted armies
Cons
- It can be a blocker for people getting in to the hobby
- Some people have difficulties painting and this is discriminatory towards them
I have not implemented this rule (yet). I certainly think that it should be something that people think about and talk about. I really can't see this being a problem within my own gaming group. We might wind each other up if one of us has a painted army and the other doesn't, however for pick-up games this might be problematic.
In only one game that I have played, we used this rule and it swung from a defeat to a 7pt victory for me, did I feel like I won? No. Did it leave a bad taste in both our mouths? Yes.
What is painted?
Historically we had rules like 3 colour minimum, which had a bit of abuse when it came to some lovely monochromatic armies that were 2 colours, but fully painted. GW helpfully has provided an handy guide:
You can read more about it here (https://www.warhammer-community.com/2019/05/21/introducing-battle-readygw-homepage-post-1fw-homepage-post-1/).
Essentially, base coat, shade and the base itself. It doesn't need washes or highlights and I think is readily attainable, certainly, this is the minimum standard I aim for.
Duncan's famous first miniature meeting the battle ready requirement:
Comments
Post a Comment