Painting for Advantage

[amysrevenge]

4 minutes ago, PVG said:

When you go to a tournament you go to win,

 

Hahaha no you don't.  Or, rather, maybe a quarter of the people who attend go to win, and the rest either go to have a good time, or lie to themselves about their chances of winning

[RuneBrush]

7 minutes ago, PVG said:

I respectfully disagree. The goal of wargaming is to play a wargame, that is the start and finish of the objective when playing the game. Fun is what you have while doing it but it's a byproduct not the main objective. If someone turns up and says "I want to play dubstep on my mp3 player all game because I'm playing Noise marines" then I will kindly tell him to go find someone else to play. His enjoyment of the game doesn't matter to me enough to tolerate his behaviour in that case. When you start being "inclusive" you stop being what your original intention to be.

We can use tournaments as a good example here. When you go to a tournament you go to win, which can mean playing broken lists and having comp scores for painting. Well lets be more inclusive, no more painting comp, models don't have to be fully build and we're going to use some home brew war scrolls because Bob really likes his Skaven riding Lizardmen conversions.

Not everything you do has to be inclusive at the expense of it's own existence. If you want your casual games where points don't exist and you play entirely free form then go for it, but some things should be exclusively for one group or another. I'm personally never going to play balls to the wall AoS tournament style but I want that to exist because it makes for an interesting community for people who are interested in it. I don't want it to water it's self down to be inclusive of me. I want it to say "Hey dude, you're not good enough for this. Get stuffed". It gives you something to strive for, so you can be one of the best people at playing or painting or whatever. In short, having standards and making people raise themselves up to meet them is better than having no standards and leaving people stagnant in their wargaming development.

Completely get where you're coming from (and we're deviating massively off track as all good topics do) but I think we need to take it one step further back.  Wargaming is itself a hobby, if you don't get any enjoyment out of it then it is strictly speaking no longer a hobby.  Being inclusive means accepting that within this hobby we have painters, gamers, modellers and all sorts - each person gets enjoyment in a different way and are all mixed together in the cauldron of playing games.

We all give up our own precious time to play games.  If I don't have an opponent then I'm not able to play a game, if the reason I don't have an opponent is because I insist on being a moron then I've scuppered myself.  Which is another way of saying that if I want to play games, I need to make an attempt to be inclusive and ensure that my opponents enjoy the experience of the game as much as I do.  I'm not saying it's a "bend over backwards" situation and there will be odd games (more likely due to the nature of tournaments) where both player and army stinks (sometimes literally too).

I'm personally not interested in playing really hard meta games, which is why I've so far avoided anything that is labelled as a "Grand Tournament" because I know that my army isn't competitive enough, nor am I a good enough player to go against some of the top players when they have their game face on.  That's not to say I'll never play GT's, nor that I wouldn't enjoy them, but at this moment in time I'm happy to leave them to others.  Yes, I do want to win my games, but more importantly I want to come away in the knowledge that both I and my opponent would happily play a grudge match at another event - preferably without my opponent fielding a horrendously filthy army next time because I'd upset them!

[Lord Aquillor]

26 minutes ago, PVG said:

I respectfully disagree. The goal of wargaming is to play a wargame, that is the start and finish of the objective when playing the game. Fun is what you have while doing it but it's a byproduct not the main objective. If someone turns up and says "I want to play dubstep on my mp3 player all game because I'm playing Noise marines" then I will kindly tell him to go find someone else to play. His enjoyment of the game doesn't matter to me enough to tolerate his behaviour in that case. When you start being "inclusive" you stop being what your original intention to be.

We can use tournaments as a good example here. When you go to a tournament you go to win, which can mean playing broken lists and having comp scores for painting. Well lets be more inclusive, no more painting comp, models don't have to be fully build and we're going to use some home brew war scrolls because Bob really likes his Skaven riding Lizardmen conversions.

Not everything you do has to be inclusive at the expense of it's own existence. If you want your casual games where points don't exist and you play entirely free form then go for it, but some things should be exclusively for one group or another. I'm personally never going to play balls to the wall AoS tournament style but I want that to exist because it makes for an interesting community for people who are interested in it. I don't want it to water it's self down to be inclusive of me. I want it to say "Hey dude, you're not good enough for this. Get stuffed". It gives you something to strive for, so you can be one of the best people at playing or painting or whatever. In short, having standards and making people raise themselves up to meet them is better than having no standards and leaving people stagnant in their wargaming development.

This is what's wrong with some in the wargamming community and why many people get turned off to tournaments, 40k, general neck-beardiness.  The point of a game is entertainment.  I'm sure if this wasn't fun and entertaining, than people would not play.  This has proven itself time and time again in my experience.  

 

Again... just don't be a tool, and let everyone have fun with their plastic army men.  We are just a bunch of big kids playing pretend, no need to get up at arms over something trivial. 

[deynon]

1 hour ago, PVG said:

I respectfully disagree. The goal of wargaming is to play a wargame, that is the start and finish of the objective when playing the game. Fun is what you have while doing it but it's a byproduct not the main objective. If someone turns up and says "I want to play dubstep on my mp3 player all game because I'm playing Noise marines" then I will kindly tell him to go find someone else to play. His enjoyment of the game doesn't matter to me enough to tolerate his behaviour in that case. When you start being "inclusive" you stop being what your original intention to be.

We can use tournaments as a good example here. When you go to a tournament you go to win, which can mean playing broken lists and having comp scores for painting. Well lets be more inclusive, no more painting comp, models don't have to be fully build and we're going to use some home brew war scrolls because Bob really likes his Skaven riding Lizardmen conversions.

Not everything you do has to be inclusive at the expense of it's own existence. If you want your casual games where points don't exist and you play entirely free form then go for it, but some things should be exclusively for one group or another. I'm personally never going to play balls to the wall AoS tournament style but I want that to exist because it makes for an interesting community for people who are interested in it. I don't want it to water it's self down to be inclusive of me. I want it to say "Hey dude, you're not good enough for this. Get stuffed". It gives you something to strive for, so you can be one of the best people at playing or painting or whatever. In short, having standards and making people raise themselves up to meet them is better than having no standards and leaving people stagnant in their wargaming development.

Ehm... if you want to show how great you are as a player... you don't care a cent about what colour the opponent army is. Technically you don't even care even about the model itself, but only about bases and rules.

You go to tournaments to win? Sorry, but conversions are rare in such tournaments as the painting, grey is sovrain... if there is painting.

Do you want the objects represented? Beh, the artifact are choosen just before the game and not on the list, so:

1) prepare yourself to have a model for each choice 

2) prepare yourself to be avoid to use certain artifacts if you can't show that those are wearing it

3) prepare to define exactly how that artifact has to be represented

4) pray to never find me in a TO^^

About the one playing the mp3... you go way... you haven't even considered to say him: ok, take the headset and hear yourself cause I don't like such a thing. 

If you want to be really closed as mantality prepare yourself to apply the rules so not to be able to play at least half of the warscroll battalions. Beg to not being a Stormcast eternal so.

[Galas]

As I said earlier, Warhammer was born to tell histories, to be an extension of the Roleplay Hobby were this was born. Basically, the Games Workshop mentality was all the time to make a system to make the battles of your histories come to live.

This "The base of a wargame its to play a wargame and win" may be correct to other games like Kings of War or Warmachine, both games that where born with the pure competitive mindset (And thats not bad. What its incorrect its to judge a game for what it was not meant to achieve) but not to Warhammer.

 

Warhammer was born for the narrative players, painting, conversion, etc... was the base concept of this game. Competition was a side effect.

Kings of War/Warmachine was born for the competitive players, to make a good and engaging system. The paint, conversion, and fluffly part was a side efect.

 

And thats the reason Warhammer for all this years was all this imbalanced and have tons of options, both things totally opossed to a good competitive game: Because for a narrative standpoint of view, you need options to reflect your dudes.

Your dudes guys. In the beginning, thas was all about your dudes, not you.

 

EDIT: As mentioned above, I can't understand the people that defend pure competitive mindset and then was upset if people doesn't paint his armys, or don't use the apropiate models. For a pure competitive game, actually, playing with only bases with the untis names writed in little pieces of paper on top of it, its the same.  In fact, I think that its better to clarity, to have a Base with a paper with "Orruk Boy with Spear and Shield" 

 

[Captain Marius]

I play aos to have fun, i get more fun out of a close game with fully painted armies that represent an army from the fluff, rather than getting owned by some lame combo allowed by the rules (3+ frostlords, hurricanums, bloodsecrators, kurnoth hunters with bows etc) or vice versa. Winning is secondary to the story of the game for me.

[Slivarth]

First of all, a short disclaimer - my point of view is not based on a first hand experience: I have never been a competitive player and I avoid organized tournaments (mostly due to time constraints than any prejudice) but I like to follow such 'scene' from time to time - usually by reading about winning combos and army lists that are 'hot this particular season'.

However, I am certain that if I ever considered taking part in an event like this, any mention of forced adherence to 'official' painting schemes or 100% WYSIWYG would be a strong deterrent for me.

I wargame to create 'my guys', I need my own backstory for my forces, my choice of colours, my personal touch on minis I purchased for my hard-earned cash.

If people are willing to follow and copy what others have created, it is their choice, I usually find official armies/chapters/tribes, etc. bland. I will not, however, criticise anyone who wants guidance and pre-planned solutions.

What's more, I am more than happy to explain to my opponent what all my minis represent/do at any time. I like clarity and expect the same from others.

Unpainted armies break 'immersion' but let's be honest - that's not the top priority when competitive play is concerned, is it?

Also what would be the definition of a 'properly painted mini' especially when contrasted with a 'proxy' or 'counts-as' model? What about 'converted' spectrum? It all very fuzzy - I imagine any realistic TO will not want to add MORE confusion and double or triple the amount of cases when a dispute needs to be resolved during play. 

That said, I have total respect for sticking to the rules when situation calls for it - in case of a tournament, using strange amalgamation of special rules and abilities - when they are clearly impossible to achieve according to battletomes or common sense or have not been properly paid for in terms of army building - should not be used. But then again, one may expect such things to be prevented before the event - army lists should be submitted early enough for the organizers to approve/amend them.

 

[Travis Baumann]

I went and dropped the $70 for the hardcover "Warhammer Age of Sigmar: Mighty Battles In An Age of Unending War" yesterday, which I suppose is the grand canon of this current world setting (barring FAQ's of course).

Page 88, 2nd paragraph:

"Some factions, the Stormcast Eternals amongst them, use proud heraldry to unite them better on the battlefield.  You might want to paint your collection to match those we have created for Warhammer: Age of Sigmar; you may be inspired by a photo or piece of artwork, or choose to replicate a particular faction's look.  Alternatively, you might wish to create a brand new colour scheme of your own devising - and the icons to go with it.  After all, the armies that fight for control of the Mortal Realms are without number."

From the page prior:

"There's no right or wrong way to go about this - you should go wherever your inspiration takes you, and do whatever you think makes your miniatures look great.  Take your time to consider.  The paint scheme you select will help you to imbue your models with the character and story, and to define who they are.  Why has this particular chamber of Stormcast Eternals got pockmarked, battle-scarred armour?  Why do they paint the shafts of their hammers in shining sliver?  What are they doing in a mysterious landscape of glowing ice sculptures and blue flame?"

Getting back to the original post... these two paragraphs sum up GW's intention.  TO's can do what they want if they run their own thing I guess but strict adherence to any sort of shown color scheme was not GW's intent... just a launching point for our own imaginations which I always loved about their stuff.

BTW, I am actually really enjoying reading this book. Darn expensive but I am starting to get over my original apprehension of the current lore.

[VBS]

1 hour ago, Travis Baumann said:

Getting back to the original post... these two paragraphs sum up GW's intention.  TO's can do what they want if they run their own thing I guess but strict adherence to any sort of shown color scheme was not GW's intent... just a launching point for our own imaginations which I always loved about their stuff.

I think your book quotes sum it up. There is actually no such thing as "painting for advantage". There is no gaming rule preventing you to paint your Stormcasts pink and then justifying it through personal fluff if you wish to. Hell, look at Space Marines. You can have Imperial Fists (game-wise) painted green (fluff-wise) just by inventing a new chapter! So why not the same for AoS? 

If some tournament wants to prevent that by imposing their own perception of the hobby, well that's fine. But it's also sad coz they're being unnecessarily fussy over some plastic toys that live in our imagination. 

[Sleboda]

9 hours ago, Lord Aquillor said:

The point of a game is entertainment.  

Maybe, but the object is to win.  Fun (or entertainment) is a given.  It's assumed before you roll a single die. Rather than repeat myself too much and put up a wall of text, I'll link to this old thingie I wrote once when I was bored.

 

The summary of it is that we have lots of things we choose to do for fun, but what makes a game different from going to a movie, making love, or building a treefort is that it has rules, is a competition, and has a winner and a loser. If you have picked "game" as the fun thing to do, then understand that certain qualities define that thing and to be so "inclusive" so as to change that definition means you have rendered it no longer the thing it was - in this case, the game you picked (or a game at all in some cases).

 

When AoS came out, it was a cooperative exercise in story telling. With matched play it has become a game. I liked AoS at the start, and I like it now, but matched play is a bolt-on to the experience that changes a lot.

[Galas]

Then exactly whats the point of play with painted pieces of plastic with a defined form, instead of just bases with what they represent writed on it?

I don't want to attack competitive players. If you feel attacked in one of my other posts, please, accept my apologies. 

I'm just pointing the incoherence in reasoning where one person defend that this is just a game played in a set of rules with the only, and objetive... objetive (Sorry redundance) of winning... but at the same time defend things that go against clarity in a game, like paint or using models instead of tokens. 

I, as a narrative player have accepted that when I go to tournaments, even going with fluffly list, I like to win. Yeah. Winning is fun. Winning with a strugle where you feel that have acomplised something hard its even better and more fun. I don't like to win a race against a cripple.

Then, maybe its time to the more competitive mind-set players, to go down on the high horse of the "Truth" and accept that they aren't only playing to win. They want pretty armys clashing in battles. Thats why most tournaments have a 3 colours rule. Then, when the comunity accept as a whole that the reason we play this, instead of chess,  is because we love beautiful armies fighting, and no JUST the OBJETIVE TRUTH of a competition, that its to win , we can accept that rules as the one discused in this treath go against one thing, that even the most competitive players, look in this hobby.

Creativity, Imagination, etc...

 

EDIT: I wrote this because of the last sentence of the text you written. I will copy it there.
 

Quote

To say that Warhammer is somehow not about winning is factually incorrect.  You can get so much more out of the game, to be sure, but it is a game, it is a competition, it is governed by rules - it is entirely set up to determine who the winner is in everything from movement distances to turn limits, from missile ranges to victory points.  Bring more to the table if you like, please (!), but be mindful of reality.  Most importantly, if nothing else comes from reading this, don’t be disdainful toward others who are treating the game as what it is and would rather you did too.  Don’t ask them to abandon the ship of truth to spend time vacationing with you on Fantasy (Battle) Island.

 

[HeadHunter]

On 3/7/2017 at 11:25 AM, Criti said:

That said, to the original point, I don't care HOW models are painted, just that they are painted.

We could have thousands of Stormhosts out there.  It saysright in the Battletome that only Sigmar knows the true number.  With that possibility, it stands to reason there's someone out there with green armour who fights like a Hammer of Sigmar.

Well spoken. Is there anything more that really needs to be said on the topic?  Is it any different from debating whether models must be painted yellow (or blue with red gloves) to use Imperial Fist Chapter tactics?

Can anyone here name all 1000 Space Marine Chapters? Or how many Stormhosts there are and what their Battalion abilites are?
Does it truly matter that much to anyone that someone paints their little plastic dollies in a way that differs from your own expectations?

If Stormhost X is supposed to be red and blue but someone who paint theirs green and yellow wants to use those rules, what exactly does it cost you to let them?  Sure, it's up to the TO whether it'll be allowed at an event - but I sure hope that event doesn't have a Sportsmanship prize, because that kind of restriction is the exact opposite.

[CoffeeGrunt]

What if you read a Black Library novel and became enamoured with a Stormhost created for that story and their struggles, converting a unique set of Heroes to represent the protagonists and painting them in their scheme? 

How is that going against the fluff? Especially when there's a scene where the Hero draws a load of, say, Orks into a trap where they have Vanguards ready to pour shots into them. You then decide that, oh, this battalion represents that perfectly! I'll run that as the core! 

This is a very popular thing to do for fluff lovers. I've seen custom converted Gotrek and Felix models in WHFB, I've seen First Claw of the Night Lords lovingly converted and distributed as sergeants in a list of as a kill team, and that labour of love is what makes the hobby for me, not breaks it. 

[PVG]

There's a lot of talking past each other going on here. We have people discussing tournaments and then people discussing casual games. What GW says in any of their books doesn't matter if the tournament organizer decides to over rule it. Lots of rules are changed in many of the larger tournaments and have standard set ups which spread to smaller tournaments.

What you do at your private games is your concern and yours alone. What is trying to be hashed out here is what should happen at public events?

[Galas]

I don't know others! I was discusing the abstract nature of this hobby and the meta-mentality of Casual vs Competitive.

[DynamicCalories]

11 hours ago, PVG said:

There's a lot of talking past each other going on here. We have people discussing tournaments and then people discussing casual games. What GW says in any of their books doesn't matter if the tournament organizer decides to over rule it. Lots of rules are changed in many of the larger tournaments and have standard set ups which spread to smaller tournaments.

What you do at your private games is your concern and yours alone. What is trying to be hashed out here is what should happen at public events?

The original point really does just come back to TOs though. If they want to enforce a rule that an army has to be painted the colours dictated in GW fluff to get its abilities, that is their prerogative. I can't image it would be very popular.

Should a painter get more points if his models match their formation rules or chamber rules?

Possibly?

It's a totally personal preference. If it's written in the rules pack, and the pack was released ahead of time, it could encourage some fun painting, but I think in the end the desire to create a unique army, and the affect of skill and novelty will always win out over hard and fast adherence to rules.  Consistency is key, and as long as proxies are clearly defined (that Nurgle Warriors with Scythes as Halberds is a good example). But, it's a hypothetical that's in the hands of the TO. If it's in the pack and you don't like it, either don't go, or accept that you may take some point losses for painting. It's only one Tournament after all, not the entire hobby.

[Rob P]

How about additional points for scheme matching rule set (if I understand Ben Curry's comments it's small fry points) but alternative equivalent points for 500 word background?

[deynon]

3 hours ago, Rob P said:

How about additional points for scheme matching rule set (if I understand Ben Curry's comments it's small fry points) but alternative equivalent points for 500 word background?

the same Bg that was "copy and paste" or the one that was never read?

[CoffeeGrunt]

Yeah I don't think anyone has the time or inclination to wade through 100+ 500 word essays which will ultimately be more-or-less the same. I mean, you have to pay teachers for that and it still isn't much fun.

[deynon]

30 minutes ago, CoffeeGrunt said:

Yeah I don't think anyone has the time or inclination to wade through 100+ 500 word essays which will ultimately be more-or-less the same. I mean, you have to pay teachers for that and it still isn't much fun.

t just that. Once it was a must to have it. It even gave points flr the tournament.  Then it become disbanded cause there were clones of each other or simply fake ones (really). So I become dismissed . It was fun to write the hostory of own army.

But the compettivie gamers were against it like there were ignorant about the painting.

A competitive gamer cares less about how or what colours an army is painted. A part of them simply win or pay to have an army paiinted if it's the case.

I'm a comptitive gamer too, but I still like to have an hobbystic part. I like to apply and discuss rules cause are the bases of the game.

But I don't find a unit painted in a way or in another an advantage (ok... orks would say different if it's referred about red...but even Orks copied the idea from the Blood Angels cause they were red and fast^^).

I find more advantageous playing the chavalry on the old bases cause it brings more models in CaC than the painting of a unit sincerely.

Moreover an evented scheme give more liberty than a fixed one...quite useless.

[Arkiham]

indeed, i was listening to some podcasts and a couple have mentioned an increasing lack of effort put into the models painting and even the models preparation for lately, eg the sheffield slaughter, some barely hit the 3 colour standard (which seriously isn't asking much. )

crudely splashing some paint on a model or dry bushing 3 colours onto it is disrespectful to the game, the tournament and the hobby. 

perhaps painting scores should have a greater role in the overall winners scoring. as should sportsmanship, generalship ( winning ) and army character. i know not everyone is an amazing painter but it would perhaps act as a counter of sorts to those who just bash out the latest top tier army to try and win being forced to devote some time into it

 

perhaps, more prizes are a good incentive.

sportsmanship ( being a good player )

best general ( most major wins )

best army split into two categories

1 for staying correct to the lore, to the colour schemes, using units which would make up those battalions etc rather than throwing everything together and winning

2 This would be for custom paint jobs, kitbashing, maybe proxies, making up your own lore etc.

 

having armies which strictly follow the fluff set up should be rewarded, not sidelined. 

[Galas]

I always look at the Warhammer Lore as an excuse to create a setting to then, create your own storys (Respecting the lore, obviosly. But thats the reason why the lore always has: a thousand chapters, a thousand stormhost, etc, etc...) . But I understand why in itself its important, and oficial-fluff armys tend to have character.

But yes, in the 90's all the Tournaments here had like 3-4 prizes, and surprisingly, the prize to the one who win more games was the less wanted!

One year, the dude that win the "Most Fluffy Army" give the judges a partchmen (A real partchmen! Like... medieval scriptures!) sealed with a red wax seal (With the Reikland emblem on it! )with his army history hand-writen in it!

The army was beautifull painted and converted. Thats the kind of Tournament I love, not the ones based on only hard-score based in the one that win most games. That only move forward to the degradation of the hobby. To the new shiny toy buyed and put together  fastest as possible to use the most OP rules.

[deynon]

@Arkiham who decide the best setting? Having the army to win diesn't mean t's a bad Bg...

Those prizes and points has always been flyffy. I have seen too many of them  going arvitrarily to somepne. Being a fair oppinent doesn't mean  to be spirtive and viceversa. The sportive points has quite often been used to force the hand of the opponent. Each pther give the max ti the other one so not to be underpounted too.

In a competitive way such a thing are merely a thing to step on, not invaludae anything. And if you value performances such things does not match. And if you valid aspect... they have only to invest money to adapt.

The setting is useles cause you can't value the Bg, everything can be justified.

@Galas never happened they were valued nore. First cause they were less amount as prizes, second cause they were too easily to move around and keep. The match results are the only objective thing. The other prizes are easy to counterfait.

The Bg? Too easy

The paint and conversion? Simply buy

The sporsmanship? Sereously?

I like to  modufy my miniatures and I'm a competitive player, but sincerely, hpw can my painting match prifessional bought one?

[Arkiham]

50 minutes ago, deynon said:

@Arkiham who decide the best setting? Having the army to win diesn't mean t's a bad Bg...

Those prizes and points has always been flyffy. I have seen too many of them  going arvitrarily to somepne. Being a fair oppinent doesn't mean  to be spirtive and viceversa. The sportive points has quite often been used to force the hand of the opponent. Each pther give the max ti the other one so not to be underpounted too.

In a competitive way such a thing are merely a thing to step on, not invaludae anything. And if you value performances such things does not match. And if you valid aspect... they have only to invest money to adapt.

The setting is useles cause you can't value the Bg, everything can be justified.

@Galas never happened they were valued nore. First cause they were less amount as prizes, second cause they were too easily to move around and keep. The match results are the only objective thing. The other prizes are easy to counterfait.

The Bg? Too easy

The paint and conversion? Simply buy

The sporsmanship? Sereously?

I like to  modufy my miniatures and I'm a competitive player, but sincerely, hpw can my painting match prifessional bought one?

Sorry Im really struggling to follow any of that.

I got the general idea I guess but a lot of it sounds like rubbish , who is going to go and buy themselves a trophy? Or take anyone seriously who buys a professionally painted army and plays it as their own.

Sportsman ship is vital to the game, would you rather play against an opponent who is nice or one who cries murder and that you're cheating when ever a roll doesn't got their way..

 

[deynon]

12 minutes ago, Arkiham said:

Sorry Im really struggling to follow any of that.

I got the general idea I guess but a lot of it sounds like rubbish , who is going to go and buy themselves a trophy? Or take anyone seriously who buys a professionally painted army and plays it as their own.

Sportsman ship is vital to the game, would you rather play against an opponent who is nice or one who cries murder and that you're cheating when ever a roll doesn't got their way..

 

More than you can think would buy. to be competitive. Cause it's competitive. If you don't gain the podium so where is competitive? Moreover the prizes are better which way? They uy and then recover the money thought the prizes.

If sportmanship is vital it doesn't have to be judged. Cause it's a basic. The points about it doesn't make the players nicer or more virtuous.

I'm used to dice not going my way, so usually I laugh at them...I can cry ... from laughing^^ The last time my opponent gifted me a set od dice cause it had pity of my rolls^^

If someone is the way you describe is not competitive one, is a cryboy and such one doesn't get anyway anything, both points or not.