Switch Theme:

Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit  [RSS] 

Hardboy tournament paintjobs: what do you think? @ 2009/09/30 23:06:03


Post by: Augustus


What do you think about the hardboy armies not being painted:

Bad
Good
Indifferent

and why?

Perhaps if you have actually been to any hardboy round(s), what were your impressions?


Hardboy tournament paintjobs: what do you think? @ 2009/09/30 23:14:35


Post by: Cheese Elemental


Well, we don't have 'Ard Boyz over here, but I'd hate to see a tournament army unpainted. Fortunately, I haven't seen one like that yet.


Hardboy tournament paintjobs: what do you think? @ 2009/09/30 23:24:26


Post by: pombe


Though I'm not a tournament player, I'm glad that GW has decided to split the tournament circuit to appease the different crowds.

The 'ard Boyz Tournament is focused purely on the win. Period. If you play by the rules (ie. don't cheat and use GW models) then winning is all that matters. They make it clear that this is what it is.

There are events that focus on other aspects of the hobby, so I figure everyone should be happy?


Hardboy tournament paintjobs: what do you think? @ 2009/09/30 23:44:37


Post by: the_Armyman


I think it's ridiculous and GW should be ashamed. Minimum three colors and based is not difficult. Have some respect for your opponent and paint your friggin' army.


Hardboy tournament paintjobs: what do you think? @ 2009/09/30 23:47:18


Post by: LunaHound


Augustus wrote:What do you think about the hardboy armies not being painted:

Bad
Good
Indifferent

and why?

Perhaps if you have actually been to any hardboy round(s), what were your impressions?


My following answer is based on the assumption that "hardboy" tournaments are based on the gaming aspect as priority.

With that said , i chose " indifferent " as in its fine if its painted , you wont get bonus . And its fine if its unpainted , you wont get deducted points.

the_Armyman wrote:I think it's ridiculous and GW should be ashamed. Minimum three colors and based is not difficult. Have some respect for your opponent and paint your friggin' army.


I believe you should check out the dakka poll , only 26% of people that touches warhammer in painting aspect
and ontop of that , even less than that have a FULL army painted .

I think you should respect the other 74%'s reason to play / collect warhammer without forcing painting on them ( 3 color choice is bad for many reasons )
that is of course unless im wrong about what hardboy tournament is about.

Thanks for reading ^-^v



Hardboy tournament paintjobs: what do you think? @ 2009/09/30 23:48:48


Post by: mikhaila


Part of 'ardboyz though, is playing with very large armies. Fantasy was 3500 last year, 3k this year.

It's a different format, and works fine.

I run about a dozen large tournaments at my shop each year. Always require full painting and basing. Hosting GW 'ardboy events doesn't detract from that.


Hardboy tournament paintjobs: what do you think? @ 2009/09/30 23:51:45


Post by: deffskullz


meh IMO i rarely play a game without my army completely painted my first daemonhunters army was played with only 1 unpainted model =P
but i think that some people dont grasp/like/want/dont feel its worth doing. I respect that but i feel that it adds a lot to the game
to me, It adds to the game to see 2 painted armies, but i dont feel that people should be forced to paint if they dont want to


Hardboy tournament paintjobs: what do you think? @ 2009/10/01 00:16:24


Post by: artyboy


I don't really care either way. I usually field fully painted armies and I have several of them. I strive to paint all of my armies. I did, however, show up at 'ard boyz with a dark elf force that was maybe 10-20% painted at the most. I've seen some really horribly painted armies where the person at least tried. To be honest I would have rather those armies not be painted. They were that painful to look at.


Hardboy tournament paintjobs: what do you think? @ 2009/10/01 00:28:16


Post by: Shadowbrand


I saw an Ard boy game this summer.
Needless to say I won't enter one until a more few years of experience.
That and so I mature alittle I picked a fight because someone went flying rodent gak over the fact I called him slowed for questioning how I was gonna use my defiler.
Summer was crazier then usual and I love how hot it is in southern BC.


Hardboy tournament paintjobs: what do you think? @ 2009/10/01 03:54:46


Post by: carmachu


the_Armyman wrote:I think it's ridiculous and GW should be ashamed. Minimum three colors and based is not difficult. Have some respect for your opponent and paint your friggin' army.


Then go play some tournment that has a painting requirement. Let folks that just want to play the game.....play the game.

I dont care either way myself. Painted armies are nice, playing is much better overall.


Hardboy tournament paintjobs: what do you think? @ 2009/10/01 04:00:01


Post by: whitedragon


carmachu wrote:
the_Armyman wrote:I think it's ridiculous and GW should be ashamed. Minimum three colors and based is not difficult. Have some respect for your opponent and paint your friggin' army.


Then go play some tournment that has a painting requirement. Let folks that just want to play the game.....play the game.

I dont care either way myself. Painted armies are nice, playing is much better overall.


+1 baby! The nature of 'Ard Boyz is that it doesn't have to be painted.


Hardboy tournament paintjobs: what do you think? @ 2009/10/01 04:05:08


Post by: Sincity


A painting requirement at 'ard boyz is like a comp score at gold demons.


Hardboy tournament paintjobs: what do you think? @ 2009/10/01 05:31:21


Post by: the_Armyman


Pfft. Why bother painting anything? Houses are just for living in. Cars are just for driving from point A to point B. Why bother with anything aesthetic if the only reason is to look pretty? My point is twofold:

1. GW used to promote the hobby. 'Ard Boyz is a good example of how far they've fallen.
2. Just because 'Ard Boyz doesn't require a painted army, doesn't mean you can't take a little pride in what you have.

The paint on stock cars or the bright uniforms/helmets of sports teams have no bearing on their performance, but what kind of crappy place would it be to turn on the TV and see a NASCAR race with primer gray cars or a bunch of football players in white t-shirts?

Sincity wrote:A painting requirement at 'ard boyz is like a comp score at gold demons.


I'll probably get flamed for making this comparison, but it's a real shame that honesty and integrity don't have a place in competition. If you want proof, ask the people who entered the Golden Demons in Chicago...


Hardboy tournament paintjobs: what do you think? @ 2009/10/01 05:38:08


Post by: PanamaG


Its not disrespectful to my opponent not to paint my army, I dont play the game for my opponents entertainment.

If you dont like it, dont play in it. I know youre going to come here and gripe about it anyway, but just stick to RTTs and GTs that require painting. I dont think painting should have anything to do with the SCORE because it isnt about how you paint its about who is the best player.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
the_Armyman wrote:Cars are just for driving from point A to point B.


Exactly, its why I dont wash my car.


Hardboy tournament paintjobs: what do you think? @ 2009/10/01 05:45:52


Post by: augustus5


I can't fathom how it is considered disrespectful to your opponent to bring an unpainted army to the table.

I've done it in the past. I have never been bothered to see a field of grey in front of me.

For a number of years when I first played I didn't paint anything. I had no desire to paint. I was into the fluff of the game and wanted to play against all comers to improve my game. I enjoyed seeing nicely painted armies but I'm always more excited about playing against different builds than the best painted armies.

I think the people who poo-poo about unpainted armies sound somewhat elietist. The hobby as a whole includes painting but the game doesn't really need to include it. I think most people who are in this hobby long enough eventually get around to wanting to paint.


Hardboy tournament paintjobs: what do you think? @ 2009/10/01 06:28:58


Post by: LunaHound


the_Armyman wrote:Pfft. Why bother painting anything? Houses are just for living in. Cars are just for driving from point A to point B. Why bother with anything aesthetic if the only reason is to look pretty? My point is twofold:

1. GW used to promote the hobby. 'Ard Boyz is a good example of how far they've fallen.
2. Just because 'Ard Boyz doesn't require a painted army, doesn't mean you can't take a little pride in what you have.

The paint on stock cars or the bright uniforms/helmets of sports teams have no bearing on their performance, but what kind of crappy place would it be to turn on the TV and see a NASCAR race with primer gray cars or a bunch of football players in white t-shirts?

Sincity wrote:A painting requirement at 'ard boyz is like a comp score at gold demons.


I'll probably get flamed for making this comparison, but it's a real shame that honesty and integrity don't have a place in competition. If you want proof, ask the people who entered the Golden Demons in Chicago...


What aspect of miniature wargaming is most important to you?
Social life 16% [ 98 ]
Painting 27% [ 164 ]
Collecting 9% [ 57 ]
Playing the actual games 29% [ 175 ]
Background/Fiction 13% [ 80 ]
Other (Write in) 6% [ 34 ]


Stop k just STOP . Im having a hard time understanding why are you so intolerant or why are you having trouble accepting
not ALL people get into warhammer due to painting . Just accept the other 73%'s existence and move on.

Sincity wrote:A painting requirement at 'ard boyz is like a comp score at gold demons.

QTF


Hardboy tournament paintjobs: what do you think? @ 2009/10/01 06:36:15


Post by: Jimi Nemesis


the_Armyman wrote:I think it's ridiculous and GW should be ashamed. Minimum three colors and based is not difficult. Have some respect for your opponent and paint your friggin' army.


So My Blood Angels should not be allowed in? Blood Red and Boltgun metal not good enough?

Seriously, some Armies DON"T HAVE three colours.


Hardboy tournament paintjobs: what do you think? @ 2009/10/01 06:37:22


Post by: LunaHound


Jimi Nemesis wrote:
the_Armyman wrote:I think it's ridiculous and GW should be ashamed. Minimum three colors and based is not difficult. Have some respect for your opponent and paint your friggin' army.


So My Blood Angels should not be allowed in? Blood Red and Boltgun metal not good enough?

Seriously, some Armies DON"T HAVE three colours.


poor Necron players T-T

Let me tell a little story to our readers ...

Long ago , there was a poor farmer enjoying his salad after a hard day's work . it was delicious and refreshing.
his land lord dropped by and made fun of the quality of the farmer's meager meal before stomping off his fat elephant like legs out the straw door.

On the way home the land lord was enjoying his happy meal , as he saw a giant limo drive by . Inside was some billionair dinning on his 20 course meal
with 30 bottles of best wines.

Do i seriously need to explain myself anymore after this armyman?


Hardboy tournament paintjobs: what do you think? @ 2009/10/01 06:49:03


Post by: The Defenestrator


Jimi Nemesis wrote:
So My Blood Angels should not be allowed in? Blood Red and Boltgun metal not good enough?

Seriously, some Armies DON"T HAVE three colours.


aww, poor guy thinks a two-tone army only takes two colours.

seriously though, I'm not personally offended by unpainted armies. I'm embarassed for my opponent and his grey tide, but it's no skin off my back. I hide in shame on the days I bring a squad to the FLGS with a couple guys with unfinished basing, but that's just me. Y'know, come to think of it, I actually prefer when my opponent fields a grey army. Then I can prove myself a superior painter AND general!


I kid, of course; I'm mediocre to middling at both aspects.


Hardboy tournament paintjobs: what do you think? @ 2009/10/01 07:01:41


Post by: Kingsley


I would prefer to play against and with fully painted, based, etc. armies. That said, allowing unpainted armies reduces barriers to entry for players and makes an event more competitive, at least in theory.


Hardboy tournament paintjobs: what do you think? @ 2009/10/01 07:07:26


Post by: Khornholio


How about terrain of cornflakes boxes and a couple of crushed soda cans for maximum appeal?


Hardboy tournament paintjobs: what do you think? @ 2009/10/01 07:20:10


Post by: darkkt


I love the beercan terrain - some of my best (undercoated) Black Legion battles have been against Imperial guard that look shockingly like gaunts, gaining important cover saves from the Beercan forest!

Painting is fun.
Gaming with painted models is fun.
Gaming without painted models is still fun.

Nuff said!


Hardboy tournament paintjobs: what do you think? @ 2009/10/01 11:03:05


Post by: Sidstyler


Personally, I think everyone should make an effort to paint their stuff. That said, my Tau are still unpainted, though now that I've actually settled on a scheme I hope to get some work done this weekend...

I don't think there's anything wrong with not painting your army. Yeah, you probably should, but I for one realize that some people just aren't interested in it, or aren't good at it, or don't have time for whatever reason. I'm personally ashamed of my unpainted army, but I won't hold it against anyone else if they don't paint theirs.

Painting is fun.
Gaming with painted models is fun.
Gaming without painted models is still fun.


This. Except personally I don't think painting is all that fun.


Hardboy tournament paintjobs: what do you think? @ 2009/10/01 12:37:42


Post by: Howard A Treesong


I don't think unpainted models should be allowed in a professional tournament. I'm amazed this is even allowed. What you do privately under house rules is your own bag, but in a public tournament it's just not on IMO. For a start it looks bad in a number of ways. It's not great publicity if the tournament looks like a bunch of people playing on a sunday afternoon trying out their latest purchases hastily put together. I cannot believe they would ever use photos of unpainted miniatures in any promotional material later on. Secondly, tournaments should be a visual feast to immerse yourself in gaming. Unpainted miniatures have no soul whatsoever, just a mass of grey and silver. Might as well use crude proxies if that's the case, except you can't because you need to use GW miniatures. I think that turning up to a tournament with an unpainted army sends out a very bad personal image; you care only about putting together an army to win, so much so that you can't even paint your stuff, you're purely invested in winning. If someone looks over the tournament rules and says "There's nothing in here saying that you *must* paint the figures, ha! That'll save me a lot of unnecessary effort" I'd seriously question the probability of them playing the game in a good sportsman like manner.

Tournaments are booked months in advance so there's no excuse whatsoever to field an unpainted army, it's doesn't do your army service and it doesn't show respect for your opponent or the integrity and public image of the Tournament.


Hardboy tournament paintjobs: what do you think? @ 2009/10/01 13:41:34


Post by: warboss


the stated purpose of the hardboyz is to simply find the best general supposedly. if that's true, then there is no place for a painting score. that being said, i also think that they should require that all armies be painted to a 3 color minimum (just not scored or factored into any victory points). the ONLY thing i have always complimented GW on is/was their insistance on painted armies in their stores and tournies (i haven't played/shopped in a gw store for 5 years so don't know if that hasn't changed).


Hardboy tournament paintjobs: what do you think? @ 2009/10/01 14:46:04


Post by: Saldiven


Hey, I'll be honest. I frankly hate painting. I find it completely tedious and a waste of time that I could be using to go to the gym, work on my ballroom dance, run at the park, hang with a girl, or just about anything else.

Now, I do have two armies painted to RTT standards, but I only got them that far because I had to. The second army I finished by pulling an all nighter the night before the first tourney I played with that army. That should tell you how much I hate painting.

But that's just my opinion. I respect good painters a lot. One of the local guys at our store is the most amazing painter I've ever known. I never belittle his love of painting, and I often show off his stuff to new people to maybe inspire them to that part of the hobby.

Myself, I love the social aspect of the hobby and the actual playing of the game.

I don't belittle painters, I don't belittle fluff experts, I don't belittle the people who have to own the biggest possible army imaginable. That's what they like.

Why is it that the people who are all into the painting aspect of the hobby are the ones who bash those who don't love painting?


Hardboy tournament paintjobs: what do you think? @ 2009/10/01 15:06:27


Post by: Bat Manuel


The 'Ard Boyz tournament is only around to sell more models. Most people don't own the correct 3000 or so points to make the ruthless cutthroat list needed to compete so they dropped the painting requirement so these people could run out and slap some models together for the tournament. They also don't have an entry fee to encourage people to do this and GW wouldn't make any money with that anyway. They also give out product as prizes which is essentially nothing to them.

Don't try to impose normal tournament standards on this farce. Anyone who thinks the 'Ard Boyz tournament is about anything besides selling more models is kidding themselves. That being said they are generally a good time and last Saturday I was 20 models shy of being painted...everyone else had a fully painted army.


Hardboy tournament paintjobs: what do you think? @ 2009/10/01 15:29:58


Post by: Zero_Cool


I run a monthly tournament at my LGW store. For those I impose a minimum 3 color and based requirement for the entire army (I have been known to let a few figs slide for the first event of the series). Last event had 30 people - it was awesome to see 30 painted armies battling it out on the tables. The tournament also awards points for painting and composition of armies and at the end of the day awards an "Overall Champion" and a "Best General".

That said, 'Ardboys is a tournament to crown the best general, period. May the hardest list and the best tactical mind (along with a little dice luck) win. There is no requirement for painting because that is not factored into what the tournament is looking to find - and this is OK.

As was pointed out above, the vast majority of Warhammer players do NOT paint. For them it is not a needed part of playing the game (note I did note say anything about the hobby). These players still buy and play with GW miniatures and play by current GW rules, so why shouldn't they (and by they I mean thier unpainted armies) be allowed in a tournament that is clearly designed to test only how well they can compete at the game rules?

Not to be too mushy here, but everyone who wants to participate in this hobby/game should be allowed under whatever capacity they can. The 'Ardboys tournament is the one setting that some players can compete in because it has no painting requirement.

I do like the comparison to Golden Demon. Golden Demon is a painting competition, crowning some of the best painters in the world. Nowhere in the entry rules does it say that the model must conform to current codex rules and I'll venture to say that some of the entrants and some of the winners do not even play the games. They enjoy the painting side and have a competition to show thier skills.

'Ardboys is a gaming competition only and as such needs no painting requirement. Think of it as the Golden Demon of gameplay.


Hardboy tournament paintjobs: what do you think? @ 2009/10/01 15:41:09


Post by: Malecus


+1 to Saldiven for his "to each their own and let's all get along" stance, we could use more people like that in the hobby.

Personally, I have a lot of models to work with. A LOT (see signature). I'm lucky enough to have the expendable income to feed my habit of buying models, and friends that love to play both Fantasy and 40k. What I don't have is time to paint it all.. or even assemble it *Mutters about all the Tau, Marine, and Vampire sprues in the closet at home*. When our local group got back into Fantasy, the most intense and frequent competition I faced came from 4 players: Player 1 already had 6000+ points of Lizardmen, all fully painted, and wanted to play them all. Player 2 was new to Fantasy, sets his own work schedule, and picked up Ogres (Yay, 20-30 model armies), and then later bought an all mounted Chaos army from the FLGS owner. Player 3 had multiple armies to choose from, all painted, and all of at least 3000 points, because his brother used to play and still loves to paint, but not play. Player 4 has access to 2500-5000 points of every army in print, and could care less about painting, even for tournaments with painting scores. I picked up Empire (100's of models) and Vampire Counts (100's of models), having played both in previous editions and knowing the armies. I've since pretty much given up on my Counts as too cheesy to enjoy playing. But when my opponents don't care about painting or are already painted and don't care about mine, I'm not going to sit there and paint while saying "sorry, can't play yet", because I don't enjoy the painting. It's a good distraction when I find time at home in the evenings, but I'm in a wargaming hobby for the wargaming. Imagine that.

Every tournament I enter with a painting requirement, I pick my list at least two weeks in advance, and do my very best to paint everything that will be used in that tournament. For my Empire, I didn't quite make the cut last time, as there's a lot of models there to paint, but I'll have it done next time. For my 40k Orks (also 100's of models), it's a lot easier, because I caught up at 1850, and at that point value, against local players, my list changes very little, at most by one unit per tournament, making it easy to paint in those two weeks. Do I want to paint my armies? You bet. Not because I'm good at it or will win any awards, but because I have pride in my armies (and don't want to be beaten in painting scores as bad as I beat others in round scores).

Did it bother me to assemble Kommandos on site of the semi's last year to use that day, or Zaggstrukk the night before this year's semis? Not at all, because I hadn't needed or wanted them before, and I bought them specifically for the tournament (the whole goal of the 'ard Boyz: get us to buy more models). Was I embarrassed to be in the battle bunker this year for the 40k finals with 3 plastic-grey Battlewagons, a handful of my Nobs and Lootas unpainted as well? Maybe a little, but only because of how well done some of the other armies were. But I'll be -ed if I'm going to leave any of my units at home for a national tournament, with no painting scores, just because I haven't painted them yet. So if those same exact models aren't painted next year, tell me I'm a bad hobbyist, and I disrespect my opponents by bringing my "green with some grey tide" to the table. But otherwise, who are you to judge me for not having a finished paint job when it isn't required?

(Please excuse the following semi-sarcasm / Devil's Advocate section) Should I think less of my opponents with the immaculate paint schemes and an army list typed into notepad with no details, stat lines, or page references? That has a much larger effect on me and my gameplay than their paintjob. I guess I'll go start a thread on how ArmyBuilder should be required at 'ard Boyz tournaments. And at the Hardboy tournaments too, wherever those are.


Hardboy tournament paintjobs: what do you think? @ 2009/10/01 15:41:55


Post by: chaplaincliff


Zero_Cool wrote:I run a monthly tournament at my LGW store. For those I impose a minimum 3 color and based requirement for the entire army (I have been known to let a few figs slide for the first event of the series). Last event had 30 people - it was awesome to see 30 painted armies battling it out on the tables. The tournament also awards points for painting and composition of armies and at the end of the day awards an "Overall Champion" and a "Best General".

That said, 'Ardboys is a tournament to crown the best general, period. May the hardest list and the best tactical mind (along with a little dice luck) win. There is no requirement for painting because that is not factored into what the tournament is looking to find - and this is OK.

As was pointed out above, the vast majority of Warhammer players do NOT paint. For them it is not a needed part of playing the game (note I did note say anything about the hobby). These players still buy and play with GW miniatures and play by current GW rules, so why shouldn't they (and by they I mean thier unpainted armies) be allowed in a tournament that is clearly designed to test only how well they can compete at the game rules?

Not to be too mushy here, but everyone who wants to participate in this hobby/game should be allowed under whatever capacity they can. The 'Ardboys tournament is the one setting that some players can compete in because it has no painting requirement.

I do like the comparison to Golden Demon. Golden Demon is a painting competition, crowning some of the best painters in the world. Nowhere in the entry rules does it say that the model must conform to current codex rules and I'll venture to say that some of the entrants and some of the winners do not even play the games. They enjoy the painting side and have a competition to show thier skills.

'Ardboys is a gaming competition only and as such needs no painting requirement. Think of it as the Golden Demon of gameplay.


QFT, this needs to be stated over and over, at my FLGS we have many an army that is in process of being painted or just someone doesn't have the time to paint them, I love to paint myself but i have had a backlog of a 5500 point black templar army i am trying to get done, it is a long road but will get done some day, but the elitest 'must be painted' mentality will chase new gamers away, we must help those new to the hobby and game by encougement, not back handing them because they don't have a painted army or ecen a fully painted army. hell, I know one persone that doesn't even have a single model primed, he has alot of magnets in the army, but not a single drop of paint, why? he loves the game and doesn't enjoy the painting, so he goes as far as he wants and plays in 'ard boys every year and does well, Bravo Zulu to him and all the other strickt gamers, and for those in my shoes, Bravo Zulu to you for at least putting forth an effort, and those that don't field an army pre-paint Bravo Zulu, they are beautiful and a joy to play against.


Hardboy tournament paintjobs: what do you think? @ 2009/10/01 15:51:54


Post by: ArbitorIan


As long as the tournament is purely about the gaming aspect, then I don't see any reason why the models have to be painted. As long as they're publicizing it purely about PLAYING rather than paining, that's fine, and I agree that the idea of a purely-playing tournament would be a great way to get people involved who are new and don't have painted armies, or paint really slowly, or whatever.

Having said that...

- I don't have NEARLY as much fun playing against an identical grey tide. I really don't. I wouldn't want to play someone with an unpainted army, it spoils the feel of the game for me. I think it isn't too far off the mark to say that you should be respectful to your opponent and paint your army. I wouldn't enter 'Ard Boyz for exactly this reason.

- The name 'Ard Boyz' is a bit insulting if you're more of a 'hobby' type, like myself. It implies that it's where you find THE BEST players, because it's only about the playing. It degrades the concept of the Grand Tournaments by allowing people to dismiss them as 'soft' tournaments, like if you win the GT it's one thing, but you can only really 'prove' yourself by playing in 'Ard Boyz. I don't think it's very healthy.

- I suggested it would be good for getting 'new' players who don't have a painted army, but BECAUSE it's all about the winning, you lose this crowd. Someone has already posted here saying he won't enter again until he gets better - is that really an attitude we want to encourage with a tournament. 'Hey, you're new, enter Ard Boyz and you'll get ground into the dust by all the ultra-competitive types'. The large points values also discriminate against new players.

Howard A Treesong wrote:I don't think unpainted models should be allowed in a professional tournament. I'm amazed this is even allowed. What you do privately under house rules is your own bag, but in a public tournament it's just not on IMO. For a start it looks bad in a number of ways. It's not great publicity if the tournament looks like a bunch of people playing on a sunday afternoon trying out their latest purchases hastily put together. I cannot believe they would ever use photos of unpainted miniatures in any promotional material later on.


This is a really important point that few people have touched upon. Since you can't use any pictures from it, Ard Boyz is a very bad way of promoting the hobby. It gives no publicity to the hobby.


I think there IS a place for non-painted tournaments, but they should be on more of a local level, and intended to attract new players. And of course, if a gaming group wants to do a huge, ultra-competitive, non-painting tournament, then great.

But i don't think it should be something organised or supported by GW, as i don't think it's a very good advertisement for the hobby...


Hardboy tournament paintjobs: what do you think? @ 2009/10/01 16:24:36


Post by: NecronLord3


I think 'Ard Boyz is GW's way of playtesting existing codexes. Encourage the Cheese and what ever makes it to the top, gets nerfed next edition!


Hardboy tournament paintjobs: what do you think? @ 2009/10/01 19:02:40


Post by: KingCracker


I think that in a tourny setting you should at least paint your minis in block colors. Whats so hard about a base coat, metal color, second color? I think if you want to play in a tournament, that means your taking this hobby to the next level. From Average player, to a semi serious one. And saying that, I think you should (however much you like or dislike it) have a painted army.


I guess its a respect thing. Im not talking detail, or GD winner. Thats for the guys that CAN paint or can take the time to do it. Just a super basic color is all Im talking about


Hardboy tournament paintjobs: what do you think? @ 2009/10/01 19:59:38


Post by: Mannahnin


Lots of good comments in this thread so far.

The poll appears to be misinterpreted, however. The question asked appears to be what people’s PRIMARY interest in the game is. And over a quarter said painting, so that’s a pretty sizeable number. The question was NOT “do you paint your armies”, which question I certainly hope would be answered “yes” by the vast majority of players.

For my money, painting is not necessary in ‘ard boyz, by its nature. That said, I find a painted army both more enjoyable (to field OR face), AND better in practical terms for game play, as it makes it easier to recognize wargear and weapons on the models.

I also appreciate the comments on the lack of a painting requirement reducing one bar to entry. I know I faced a couple of players in rounds two and final who clearly were not in it for painting, and probably did not have enough painted models to even attend an event which required it. I harbor some hope that by fielding a painted army against them, they might be encouraged by my example.

I know that when I was first getting into the hobby I really didn’t enjoy painting, but playing against some of the nice armies at my local store shamed me into it, even without my opponents being dicks about it. I always remember that experience when I face people with unpainted armies, and try to encourage them, without badgering or hectoring them about it.


Hardboy tournament paintjobs: what do you think? @ 2009/10/01 20:04:06


Post by: barlio


I am generally in the "3-color" crowd, but with Ard Boyz I understand that the armies and games are about bringing the pain. In a format like this I would be fine playing against a naked army, but in standard tournaments I want to face the minimum painting requirements (at the very least). I say this because I am now only able to make it to tournaments on rare occasions and I want to face nice looking armies. Of course what's the saying, "wish in one hand...".

I think that if you do have a fully painted army you should get one "free" battle point. If you put the work in then you should at least get a cookie.

Do you guys have to pay for entry into Ard Boyz tourneys? Our local store has no entry fee and they provide pizza. Not a bad deal at all.


Hardboy tournament paintjobs: what do you think? @ 2009/10/01 20:17:55


Post by: Mannahnin


'ard boyz is supposed to be free. I do know of one store in a neighboring state that did charge for the preliminary round, purely so they could offer big prizes in round one.

This year the GW prize support for round one and for the final was pretty scant, compared to previous years.


Hardboy tournament paintjobs: what do you think? @ 2009/10/01 20:23:59


Post by: carmachu


the_Armyman wrote: Cars are just for driving from point A to point B. Why bother with anything aesthetic if the only reason is to look pretty?


How about yes? My car gets me and the kids where i want to go safely. I dont care if its dirty on the outside or pretty or souped up. reliability is all I care about with safety. Looking good? Dont care.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Howard A Treesong wrote:I'd seriously question the probability of them playing the game in a good sportsman like manner.


Wow, if I ever play you in a tournment and know tahts your view, I'd ding you sports score right there for eliteism.


Tournaments are booked months in advance so there's no excuse whatsoever to field an unpainted army,


I dont know, but work, family, social and family obligations seems like good ones, among other reasons....But hey, go with your elite self.


Hardboy tournament paintjobs: what do you think? @ 2009/10/01 20:34:13


Post by: Arschbombe


I think 'Ard Boyz is fine as the one big tourney that doesn't require paint. A painting requirement would probably discourage people from participating since most tournies run 1500-2000 instead of the 'Ard Boyz 2500. Not having the paint requirement lets people add 500-1000 points to their armies in a short period of time and not have to worry about having it painted for the big show.


Hardboy tournament paintjobs: what do you think? @ 2009/10/01 20:36:16


Post by: gorgon


The purpose of the 'ard boyz is to sell stuff. Not requiring painting just encourages players to run out and buy that unit of X and slap it down on the table without having to sweat the paint job. IIRC, the 'ard boyz is sponsored by the regional sales guys and not the promotions team, right? That explains many things when you think about it...sales-driven and not promotion-driven.

My personal opinion?

I find it weird that people would be attracted to miniatures wargaming and have zero interest in the visuals. I mean, you can find far better *games* than miniatures wargames, which -- let's face it -- have a lot dodgy rulesets across the board. The point of little soldiers is to add a visual component and appeal superior to that of say, a chit-based game.

To me, it's like someone who owns a convertible yet never lowers the roof, even in nice weather. Sure, you're free to enjoy driving the car however you want. But why would you own a *convertible* if that's how you're going to use it?

You can do whatever you want. And I totally get the fact that people have armies in progress and such. Welcome to my life. But those who literally have no intention of ever painting a single miniature? I just don't get it.


Hardboy tournament paintjobs: what do you think? @ 2009/10/01 20:43:33


Post by: Bookwrack


the_Armyman wrote:I'll probably get flamed for making this comparison, but it's a real shame that honesty and integrity don't have a place in competition.

This may come as an extreme shock to you, but the above actually has nothing at all to do with painting.

And, what may be an even greater shock, there is no one true way to enjoy the game. Just because someone enjoys it in a different way than you doesn't make them wrong.


Hardboy tournament paintjobs: what do you think? @ 2009/10/01 20:54:38


Post by: BlackSpike


Does the 'ArdBoyz tournament require WYSIWYG models?
The point of WYSIWYG (at least a major point) is so your opponent can tell what is in your army, and what each model can do.
I, personally, find it much harder to distingush between 2 WYSIWYG unpainted grey-plastic models than I can between two painted but not WYSIWYG models.
I'd prefer people to say "The green one has a melta-gun, the red one is the sergeant" rather than "They are WYSIWYG, just unpainted.". Across the table, i can't tell one grey model from another!


Hardboy tournament paintjobs: what do you think? @ 2009/10/01 20:57:15


Post by: studderingdave


im going to ardboyz with a fully painted army. i wouldnt enter a tourney with anything unpainted. thats just me.


Hardboy tournament paintjobs: what do you think? @ 2009/10/01 20:57:34


Post by: Arschbombe


gorgon wrote:I find it weird that people would be attracted to miniatures wargaming and have zero interest in the visuals. I mean, you can find far better *games* than miniatures wargames, which -- let's face it -- have a lot dodgy rulesets across the board. The point of little soldiers is to add a visual component and appeal superior to that of say, a chit-based game.
...
But those who literally have no intention of ever painting a single miniature? I just don't get it.


Those are my thoughts as well.


Hardboy tournament paintjobs: what do you think? @ 2009/10/01 21:00:38


Post by: Unevenscore


As for the topic, 'Ard boys not having a paint requirement is fine, since its about the "game". Personally painting is one of my favorite things to do/ways to relax. I am about 5-6 (out of ten) in our group painting-wise but am 3-4 with a full finished army. One of our group paints really well, but painting puts him on edge, another has OCD and paints marines piece by piece. They also have started multiple armies for both 40k and WFB. I have finished my marines and started orks...glad I love painting. Playing against a fully painted army is nifty but not a huge deal. The fun of the game usually takes precedent. We all show off our paintjobs, but its more a extension of the hobby, so we can think 40K more often.
Basically have fun with your hobby however you enjoy it, and try not to be a jerk about it.


Hardboy tournament paintjobs: what do you think? @ 2009/10/01 21:10:06


Post by: carmachu


ArbitorIan wrote:

- I don't have NEARLY as much fun playing against an identical grey tide. I really don't. I wouldn't want to play someone with an unpainted army, it spoils the feel of the game for me. I think it isn't too far off the mark to say that you should be respectful to your opponent and paint your army. I wouldn't enter 'Ard Boyz for exactly this reason.


The fun comes from the guy(or gal) across the table. Not because there is a pretty army on the table. An A-hole with a golden deamon quality army is still an A-hole.


Hardboy tournament paintjobs: what do you think? @ 2009/10/01 21:17:57


Post by: combatmedic


As long as the item the unit is equipped with is identifiable, as opposed to "this dudes closed fist in the air "counts as" a powerfist k?" I could care less. I paint my army (albeit slowly now that I re-did the paint scheme) because I find it enjoyable and enjoy seeing my personalized army on the field. I dont play to look at paint jobs. I play to play.


Hardboy tournament paintjobs: what do you think? @ 2009/10/01 22:40:19


Post by: Howard A Treesong


carmachu wrote:Automatically Appended Next Post:
Howard A Treesong wrote:I'd seriously question the probability of them playing the game in a good sportsman like manner.


Wow, if I ever play you in a tournment and know tahts your view, I'd ding you sports score right there for eliteism.


Tournaments are booked months in advance so there's no excuse whatsoever to field an unpainted army,


I dont know, but work, family, social and family obligations seems like good ones, among other reasons....But hey, go with your elite self.


Elitism? I don't think so. I'm merely pointing out that the sort of person who takes a well rounded approach to the hobby though painting and converting their models, building terrain and playing the games is likely to more fun than someone who turns up solely to play. I think someone who enjoys painting will enjoy the spectacle of the game and will play more for fun. SOmeone turning up with an unpainted army only has one interest in the hobby, to win.

Strangely, I have work a family and a social life and find time to paint. Not a huge amount, but I think that if I knew a Tournament was coming around this time next year I;d be able to paint an army to even basic standards. I love how people start crying about "elitism" in defence to the accusation that they aren't even fielding an army in a presentable manner. Painting serves several practical purposes, it makes it easier to identify specific troop types (especially in something like a Space Marine army) and wargear.


Hardboy tournament paintjobs: what do you think? @ 2009/10/01 22:46:16


Post by: Augustus


Sincity wrote:A painting requirement at 'ard boyz is like a comp score at gold demons.


Really? Don't you think, beyond painting, composition, subject, and theme are part of Golden Demon judging? If this line of thinking were true, all golden demon entries could be the same model, or not even a model, or not even GW models... because only painting matters, heck, it could be a flat panel painted to look like a space marine....

If only the painting mattered...

Right?


Hardboy tournament paintjobs: what do you think? @ 2009/10/01 23:25:44


Post by: BlackSpike


IMHO, someone going to the bother of becoming one of the best 40k Generals could go to the bother of getting their mate to slap 3-colour table-top quality paint on their miniatures.
If I turned up at Wembley to watch the top teams of the Premiership duke it out, and they were playing shirts-vs-skins, with jumpers for goal-posts, I would be most disappointed.

As mentioned, a lot of the fun is playing against a fun opponent, but for me, the fun is enhanced by fielding a well-painted/converted army with an interesting story, and playing against one, too.
Sure, 'ArdBoyz is about the Play-To-Win, but that doesn't mean everything else falls by the wayside.


Hardboy tournament paintjobs: what do you think? @ 2009/10/01 23:37:48


Post by: the_Armyman


augustus5 wrote:I can't fathom how it is considered disrespectful to your opponent to bring an unpainted army to the table.


It speaks of effort and an investment of time in the hobby. Sorta like when a bunch of grease monkeys show off their classic cars on a Saturday night and the guy who spent 200k drives up in his custom hot rod that be bought. You can appreciate the money spent, but he brings nothing to the table (in a figurative sense). In our example, you bring nothing to the table in a literal sense!

LunaHound wrote:Stop k just STOP . Im having a hard time understanding why are you so intolerant or why are you having trouble accepting not ALL people get into warhammer due to painting . Just accept the other 73%'s existence and move on.


Funny how when the shoe is on the other foot and someone other than you acts all sanctimonious, you're incensed, Luna. Frankly, I will not stop speaking my opinion despite your "official" poll that I am obviously in the minority.

I'm not elitist. I've played against unpainted armies, but I certainly don't relish it and it makes the conversation with my opponent rather dull. I'd rather play the 12 year old who sloppily paints his stuff than an adult who merely flashes his debit card, purchases his 2,000 points of metal and plstic, glues his little figs together and does nothing else before showing up for open gaming. If some of you are getting your panties in a bundle because someone has the audacity to ask you to paint your minis, I'm not too bothered by it. Just tell yourselves that you'll never meet me IRL, so my opinion matters only as much as your own in this thread.


Hardboy tournament paintjobs: what do you think? @ 2009/10/02 00:01:34


Post by: Gornall


My fun != your fun. If I don't have the desire/time/whatever to paint my army, that's my business. If you don't want to play me because of it, that's your business. TBH, I think that's your loss, however, as despite my half-to-3/4 painted army, I'm a pretty fun guy to play against. I know the rules (and how to amicably settle disputes), can carry on a conversation with you while playing, can win/lose graciously, and will have even showered that morning. To me, those type of things have more of an impact on how much I enjoy a game than whether or not the armies are painted.

I think 'Ard Boyz is fine, as there are plenty of major events out there that either require minimum painting or have it as part of the scoring system. Having at least one large event that doesn't require it isn't going to hurt anything. If anything, it gave me a taste of the tournament scene and the incentive to get my army painted well enough to play in more tournaments

As an extra, I think the "committment" argument is a little off. I can spend just as many hours making, testing, and tuning my lists or reading up on tactics/strategies online as people can on painting. Because I allocate my hobby time differently doesn't mean I'm any less committed to the hobby as someone who spends more of that time painting.


Hardboy tournament paintjobs: what do you think? @ 2009/10/02 00:48:40


Post by: Horst


I hate playing against unpainted armies.

I don't mind playing against work in progress armies. I don't mind playing against a mostly unpainted army. as long as you paint a little more each week, or each month, or whatever, but as long as progress is being made. After a few games where I see you have a pure unpainted grey army, i'm going to try to avoid you, because you obviously have no interest in this hobby, just the gaming part of it, and that is not the type of person i'd choose to play.


Hardboy tournament paintjobs: what do you think? @ 2009/10/02 01:02:42


Post by: avantgarde


I fething hate people who have no interest in the gaming part of the hobby. Like guys who just buy models to paint. I want to punch them in the face.


Hardboy tournament paintjobs: what do you think? @ 2009/10/02 01:04:56


Post by: Sincity


Augustus wrote:
Sincity wrote:A painting requirement at 'ard boyz is like a comp score at gold demons.


Really? Don't you think, beyond painting, composition, subject, and theme are part of Golden Demon judging? If this line of thinking were true, all golden demon entries could be the same model, or not even a model, or not even GW models... because only painting matters, heck, it could be a flat panel painted to look like a space marine....

If only the painting mattered...

Right?


I'm going to type very slow so as not to lose you.


"A painting requirement at 'ard boyz" means if you impose a painting requirement at 'ard boyz
"is like" means ... well if you don't know what is like means , then you should stop reading now.
"a comp score at gold demons" means if you were to impose an army comp on the Gold Demon entry.

You know , min. one HQ and two troop slots.

That would be stupid , yes? Or is that what you want to see? Maybe the Gold Demons should be 1500pt entries , after all how dare those painters DISRESPECT the hobby by bringing an non-compliant entry.

If the gamers have to play by the rules then so should the painters .

If only the (sn)HOBBY matters ....

Right ?


Hardboy tournament paintjobs: what do you think? @ 2009/10/02 21:59:39


Post by: Augustus


Sincity wrote:I'm going to type very slow so as not to lose you.


I'm afraid I'm going to dignify this with a response.

The point is, composition (speaking of artisitic composition) IS a part of the Golden demon judging, and that everyone doesn't enter the same model, it's not only about painting.

It was just a hypothetical question, obviously you took it personally enough to write a flame.

I can recognize the appeal, to have a tournament with no painting requirement and no sportsmanship, of course. What a great opportunity to try out things that wouldn't, or even couldn't, take the field normally. Furthermore I even respect the idea that some tournament players hate soft scores, and that collusion is removed as an issue in the hardboy.

The irony is, removal of the painting requirement encourages people to play armies that are borrowed, assembled, half built, and what is conceived as an event with "the best" players ends up looking like amateur night at the local LGS, when even the highest levels are filled with people who couldn't be bothered.

Couldn't the event be the same, score wise, with at least a minimum 3 color rule? And essentially be no different? If a little more virtuous?


Hardboy tournament paintjobs: what do you think? @ 2009/10/02 22:06:38


Post by: Kilkrazy


I can't help it, the reason I play tabletop wargames rather than card games or hexmap wargames is because I like pushing painted figures around.

Why bother playing with figures at all?

Just stick a load of printed cards on stands with the unit designation on them. It's equally non-elitist, in fact its more non-elitist tahn unpainted models because you don't even need to buy models or make the effort to assemble them. You just print a bunch of pictures grabbed off the Internet onto card.


Hardboy tournament paintjobs: what do you think? @ 2009/10/02 22:07:01


Post by: LunaHound


the_Armyman wrote:Funny how when the shoe is on the other foot and someone other than you acts all sanctimonious, you're incensed, Luna. Frankly, I will not stop speaking my opinion despite your "official" poll that I am obviously in the minority.


First of all , i dont know what you mean .

2ndly , its not about majority or minority . The poll is simple without any additional motives.

Its simply listed to point out to you , other type of people associates with warhammer OUTSIDE of the painting purpose exists.
You either accept they exist and respect their reasons for been associated with warhammer ,

or you dont.

Its actually as simple as that , not sure how many ways you want me to explain myself.

a) You want to be in a tournament just for painting? Go for it! Golden Demons
b) You want to be in a tournament where they mix judging criterias? Sure go for it as well! Most tournaments are like this!
c) You want to be in a tournament where you are there for actual battle purpose only? Go for it!

Why try to mix A and B into C? when they already exist for the people that prefer them?
Let the Type C people enjoy what they do will you?

dietrich wrote:I think it's good to have tournaments with different formats and/or scoring requirements. It allows people that don't want to ever paint to have an outlet. And it allows for people that don't want to paint a grey-plastic horde to not attend. And people that want painting incorporated into their score have most of the other traditional 40k events. I'm not bashing either side. I think there's more than one way to have a 40k tourney, and I'm glad there are tourneys that require painted armies, and ones that don't.


Exactly , my example sort of was trying to convey what dietrich wrote.

Kilkrazy wrote:I can't help it, the reason I play tabletop wargames rather than card games or hexmap wargames is because I like pushing painted figures around.

Why bother playing with figures at all?

Just stick a load of printed cards on stands with the unit designation on them. It's equally non-elitist, in fact its more non-elitist tahn unpainted models because you don't even need to buy models or make the effort to assemble them. You just print a bunch of pictures grabbed off the Internet onto card.


Apparantly lack of painting = lack of realism . Its all preference i guess?

Im sure some people would for example require to play with state of the art 3d holographic video games

While some other will find tetris fun.



Hardboy tournament paintjobs: what do you think? @ 2009/10/02 22:08:35


Post by: dietrich


I think it's good to have tournaments with different formats and/or scoring requirements. It allows people that don't want to ever paint to have an outlet. And it allows for people that don't want to paint a grey-plastic horde to not attend. And people that want painting incorporated into their score have most of the other traditional 40k events. I'm not bashing either side. I think there's more than one way to have a 40k tourney, and I'm glad there are tourneys that require painted armies, and ones that don't.


Hardboy tournament paintjobs: what do you think? @ 2009/10/02 22:18:01


Post by: Polonius


I'm a big fan of painted armies. I have close to 11,000pts of painted IG, and 6000 pts of Space Marines. I feel that 40k is a hobby as well as a game, and I enjoy pretty much every aspect of that hobby, from painting to creating background to army list creation and playing the game. The hobby is a big tent, and I don't see any reason to shut out anybody.

Here's the problem: we have events that involves painting alone (golden demons and no shortage of local painting contests), so what's wrong with having an event that only involves gameplay? Particularly one that's once a year and would be less legitimate if the painting requirements were enforced.

As a wise man once said, If I expected everybody I played to only use painted miniatures I'd spend a lot of time looking for games.


Hardboy tournament paintjobs: what do you think? @ 2009/10/02 22:32:59


Post by: Augustus


Polonius wrote:Here's the problem: we have events that involves painting alone (golden demons and no shortage of local painting contests), so what's wrong with having an event that only involves gameplay?

What's wrong is the distinction between no POINTS for painting versus no painting requirement at all.

Polonius wrote:Particularly one that's once a year and would be less legitimate if the painting requirements were enforced.


Would it? Can that honestly be quantified?
I think legitimacy is a separate issue. It needs a context.

To be clear, what if there were a new hardboy standard for a 3 color minimum on all models, WYSIWYG at the hardboy, that was worth ZERO points, and all the actual competitive scores were otherwise the same?


Hardboy tournament paintjobs: what do you think? @ 2009/10/02 22:40:27


Post by: Horst


aren't most tournaments like that, augustus?

3 paint minimum required, but painting score doesn't effect your overall chance of winning?

I know most tournaments I go to have like 3 different 1st prizes.... overall battle performance, battle performance + painting skill, and sportsmanship....

I definitely agree that no tournament should include a painting score in all categories for winning... I take pride in my painting skills, but I know it doesn't even compare to some people at these tournaments, and never will, and I shouldn't be unable to ever win because of it.

However, you don't want to go too far in the other direction and disregard painting totally, it lessens the hobby overall. A happy medium is to require a painted army to play at all, and then leave it at that. Add a category of judging for painting if you want, but allow some prize to be solely on battle skill.


Hardboy tournament paintjobs: what do you think? @ 2009/10/02 22:44:33


Post by: Da Boss


At golden daemon, you don't get points for how competative your miniature's loadout is. 'Ardboyz is just the same.


Hardboy tournament paintjobs: what do you think? @ 2009/10/02 22:52:35


Post by: BlackSpike


Do Golden Demon entries have to be "game legal"?
I have never entered, as my painting-fu is weaker than grot-ale!
I know there are several categories, but the main ones?


Hardboy tournament paintjobs: what do you think? @ 2009/10/02 23:05:03


Post by: Augustus


Horst wrote:aren't most tournaments like that, augustus?

3 paint minimum required, but painting score doesn't effect your overall chance of winning?...

I think painting counts for overall or outright at most events, (there's a shortage of GW run events this year I think). Generally:

OLD RTTs and GTs (I think):
Overall (Battle, Paint, Sports)
Painted (Paint)
Sportsman (Sports)
General (Battle Points only)

Most events:
1st (Battle, Paint, sports and comp)
2nd (Battle, Paint, sports and comp)
3rd (Battle, Paint, sports and comp)

Hardboy
1st (Battle)
2nd (Battle)
3rd (Battle)


Hardboy tournament paintjobs: what do you think? @ 2009/10/02 23:09:05


Post by: Horst


the only tournaments i've EVER seen that have no painting component at all are the yearly GW 'ardboyz tournaments, and we all know thats nothing more than a ploy to sell miniatures.


Hardboy tournament paintjobs: what do you think? @ 2009/10/02 23:12:04


Post by: BlackSpike


To continue the comparisons of 'Ardboy vs Golden Demon, i've just checked the 2008 Golden Demon rules.
Some entries (Units, specifically) state that the units must be game-legal.
This leads me to believe that although the competition is judged on the painting quality, there is a basic level of game-based qualification, that although it does not affect the points, must be met to enter the competition.

IMHO, 'ArdBoyz could work the same way, with the points being awarded for actual battle results, but with a basic painting-based entry requirement of "Army must be at lest 3-colour painted"


Hardboy tournament paintjobs: what do you think? @ 2009/10/02 23:13:46


Post by: Augustus


Exactly what I was proposing.


Hardboy tournament paintjobs: what do you think? @ 2009/10/02 23:19:05


Post by: Kirika


Whole idea of hardboy tournaments is to generate sales for GW because of the larger then normal points values of tournaments. If people aren't going to play because they can't or won't paint this loses money for GW so unpainted is the way they will stay so that GW makes the max amount of money.

People who like to paint have the GTs with their paint scores to play in.


Hardboy tournament paintjobs: what do you think? @ 2009/10/02 23:39:42


Post by: warboss


Augustus wrote:Exactly what I was proposing.


BlackSpike wrote:To continue the comparisons of 'Ardboy vs Golden Demon, i've just checked the 2008 Golden Demon rules.
Some entries (Units, specifically) state that the units must be game-legal.
This leads me to believe that although the competition is judged on the painting quality, there is a basic level of game-based qualification, that although it does not affect the points, must be met to enter the competition.

IMHO, 'ArdBoyz could work the same way, with the points being awarded for actual battle results, but with a basic painting-based entry requirement of "Army must be at lest 3-colour painted"


Augustus wrote:Exactly what I was proposing.


i completely agree (and did so on the first page... so first!) a three color entry standard with no score for painting (just the minimum requirement) is a very low entry barrier. primer = base color, two color highlights on each model. that 3000pt army could be done in one 8 hour stint. that way, gw could at least take some pics of the whole tabletop to actually promote the event for the next year.


Kirika wrote:Whole idea of hardboy tournaments is to generate sales for GW because of the larger then normal points values of tournaments.


and having a painting requirement for a tourny run by a company that sells a complete line of paints/brushes/bases/flock/etc won't? would all the players buy exclusively gw hobby supplies? nope, but i bet you some would and with GW's financial status not all that great ANY purchases help.



Hardboy tournament paintjobs: what do you think? @ 2009/10/03 00:29:37


Post by: carmachu


BlackSpike wrote:To continue the comparisons of 'Ardboy vs Golden Demon, i've just checked the 2008 Golden Demon rules.
Some entries (Units, specifically) state that the units must be game-legal.
This leads me to believe that although the competition is judged on the painting quality, there is a basic level of game-based qualification, that although it does not affect the points, must be met to enter the competition.

IMHO, 'ArdBoyz could work the same way, with the points being awarded for actual battle results, but with a basic painting-based entry requirement of "Army must be at lest 3-colour painted"


Why? Every other tournament have a paint requirement. Let there be one thats JUST about playing. If its not your cup of tea....dont enter.

Golden demons is about painting. You dont hear people whining its all about painting, and maybe the cotestats should actually enter the tournment or play the game.

Let each have their own.


Hardboy tournament paintjobs: what do you think? @ 2009/10/03 00:31:32


Post by: LunaHound


carmachu wrote:
Why? Every other tournament have a paint requirement. Let there be one thats JUST about playing. If its not your cup of tea....dont enter.

Golden demons is about painting. You dont hear people whining its all about painting, and maybe the cotestats should actually enter the tournment or play the game.

Let each have their own.


I totally agree.

This is why i keep bringing up the poll . Because reading from people's responses its almost like they believe its
only a myth that some people didnt get into warhammer for painting aspects.


Hardboy tournament paintjobs: what do you think? @ 2009/10/03 00:44:13


Post by: carmachu


the_Armyman wrote:
I'm not elitist. I've played against unpainted armies, but I certainly don't relish it and it makes the conversation with my opponent rather dull. I'd rather play the 12 year old who sloppily paints his stuff than an adult who merely flashes his debit card, purchases his 2,000 points of metal and plstic, glues his little figs together and does nothing else before showing up for open gaming. If some of you are getting your panties in a bundle because someone has the audacity to ask you to paint your minis, I'm not too bothered by it. Just tell yourselves that you'll never meet me IRL, so my opinion matters only as much as your own in this thread.


Actually, in this thread? You are an elitest. You think people dont bring anything to the table by showing up with an unpainted army at a tournment or playing, you obviously miss the whole point of the hobby. Your example above CLEARLY shows your elitism.

The game(not the hobby) was since time immortal, from RT to 5th, about having fun. Some folks like to paint, some folks like to model, some folks like to play. Some like all aspects. To each their own. The fact you look down on folks, as clearly seen in this thread, shows a pretty good lack of class on your part.

I'd never want to play someone like you with a well painted army. Give me someone that wants to throw dice and have fun with bare plastic or even proxied models any day.


Hardboy tournament paintjobs: what do you think? @ 2009/10/03 00:50:40


Post by: warboss


having a minimal painting requirement does not make the tourny "about" painting, just like having a playable model requirement in the golden demons (except in the open category) doesn't make it "about" playing. there is a DIFFERENCE between acknowledging a part of the hobby and making it a focus. having a pathetic painting standard like three colors for the hard boyz is the former.


Hardboy tournament paintjobs: what do you think? @ 2009/10/03 00:55:45


Post by: carmachu


LunaHound wrote:

I totally agree.

This is why i keep bringing up the poll . Because reading from people's responses its almost like they believe its
only a myth that some people didnt get into warhammer for painting aspects.


I come from a time of playing where we didnt even base the models. It wasnt required. I HATE painting. I Dont care for it. I'd rather pay someone else to do it.

I enjoy pushing models around the table with good company, sometimes in a beer and prezels fashion, sometimes ina much more cutthroat fashion- but either way against enjoyable company. Thats what I liek and get out of the game. And a bit of creating and coverting models...thats what I enjoy, and thats what I want to get out of the game.

If you like painting? Cool. If you like all aspects, hey knock yourself out. But understand- some folks just want to play and have fun. And thats alright too. Even in a tournment setting set up that way. I dont whine that many tournments have a painting score- those are the rules. Stop complaining about Hard Boyz not having one. Its not for you if your complaining about the lack of it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
warboss wrote:having a minimal painting requirement does not make the tourny "about" painting, just like having a playable model requirement in the golden demons (except in the open category) doesn't make it "about" playing. there is a DIFFERENCE between acknowledging a part of the hobby and making it a focus. having a pathetic painting standard like three colors for the hard boyz is the former.


Why? Its not about having painted models any more than Golden demons is about playing. Let folks that enjoy playing and not much else have their fun if they want it.


Hardboy tournament paintjobs: what do you think? @ 2009/10/03 01:37:24


Post by: malfred


carmachu wrote:

Why? Its not about having painted models any more than Golden demons is about playing. Let folks that enjoy playing and not much else have their fun if they want it.


This.

I don't want to force someone else to paint just to play against me.


Hardboy tournament paintjobs: what do you think? @ 2009/10/03 01:49:06


Post by: warboss


carmachu wrote:
Why? Its not about having painted models any more than Golden demons is about playing. Let folks that enjoy playing and not much else have their fun if they want it.


agreed. and when you play with your opponent for fun you should be able to dictate the rules between yourselves without anyone else getting involved. a tournament (as stated multiple times) is ultimately about selling more models as well as about "the hobby" and "the fun" AND marketing. it's a profit engine whose side goal for the company is to advertise their product (both at the event and later in various publications). grey armies don't accomplish that last part. if you and i were playing a game together, i wouldn't care it you played only with figs assembled from the waist down because you don't like that aspect of the hobby. as long as i can reasonably easily tell what they are, i'm cool with facing them on the table. a hard boyz tourny is not a friendly game. a minimal painting standard for hard boyz would be nice but i'd be opposed to using painting for any scoring; that's my $0.02.


Hardboy tournament paintjobs: what do you think? @ 2009/10/03 01:54:09


Post by: LunaHound


carmachu wrote:
LunaHound wrote:

I totally agree.

This is why i keep bringing up the poll . Because reading from people's responses its almost like they believe its
only a myth that some people didnt get into warhammer for painting aspects.


I come from a time of playing where we didnt even base the models. It wasnt required. I HATE painting. I Dont care for it. I'd rather pay someone else to do it.

I enjoy pushing models around the table with good company, sometimes in a beer and prezels fashion, sometimes ina much more cutthroat fashion- but either way against enjoyable company. Thats what I liek and get out of the game. And a bit of creating and coverting models...thats what I enjoy, and thats what I want to get out of the game.

If you like painting? Cool. If you like all aspects, hey knock yourself out. But understand- some folks just want to play and have fun. And thats alright too. Even in a tournment setting set up that way. I dont whine that many tournments have a painting score- those are the rules. Stop complaining about Hard Boyz not having one. Its not for you if your complaining about the lack of it.



Wait , did you quote me because you agree with what i said or you dont? Im confuesd now ><


Hardboy tournament paintjobs: what do you think? @ 2009/10/03 03:14:27


Post by: the_Armyman


LunaHound wrote:
the_Armyman wrote:Funny how when the shoe is on the other foot and someone other than you acts all sanctimonious, you're incensed, Luna. Frankly, I will not stop speaking my opinion despite your "official" poll that I am obviously in the minority.


First of all , i dont know what you mean .


Of course you don't. That's the trick to being holier-than-thou: you never seem to understand what anyone means when they have the audacity to think counter to you.

a) You want to be in a tournament just for painting? Go for it! Golden Demons
b) You want to be in a tournament where they mix judging criterias? Sure go for it as well! Most tournaments are like this!
c) You want to be in a tournament where you are there for actual battle purpose only? Go for it!

Why try to mix A and B into C? when they already exist for the people that prefer them?
Let the Type C people enjoy what they do will you?


Once again, I'm not sure you're understanding the whole point of this Intrawebz forum thing. A person creates a thread. I type my opinion in the thread. Here comes the really hard part: my opinion may run counter to yours. Let the bawing commence. I am of the opinion that it's relatively pointless to spend all this money on a hobby and then never do anything to actually take part in said hobby. 'Ard Boyz, in it's current incarnation, adds nothing to the hobby and doesn't interest me in the least. I don't care if you don't agree. I don't care if the people who have a gazillion points of unpainted Space Marines agree. In the end, I'm not going to kick in their door and force them to paint, and they're not going to discourage me from spending hours painting a single fig.


Hardboy tournament paintjobs: what do you think? @ 2009/10/03 03:15:35


Post by: carmachu


warboss wrote: a hard boyz tourny is not a friendly game. a minimal painting standard for hard boyz would be nice but i'd be opposed to using painting for any scoring; that's my $0.02.


IF were going to insist on a minium painting score for Hardboyz- which is a tournment designed to just be played, because some of you insist that its part of the hobby, then let me ask this:

Should we then turn back the clocks on Golden Demons then, as it use to be models taken from an army that they played. Because playing IS part of the hobby after all. So, for random example, no more Jennifer Haley(or other painters) showing up with a handful of painted models. If you dont play the games, as it IS part of the "hobby" *rolls eyes*, you cant enter Golden Demons.


Any takers? ANyone? Why? Why Not?


Let the people that want to play hard, play hard with no painting. Let those of you that want soft scores- painting comp, whatever, enter those tournments. Everyone wins, everyone has fun.

And for the record I have NO plans to enter a Hard Boyz, Golden Demons, RT, GT or the local weekly tournment at the store nearby. I dont care about tournments much. To each his own-painters, players, fluff guys, converters and folks that like to do it all....


Automatically Appended Next Post:
the_Armyman wrote: I am of the opinion that it's relatively pointless to spend all this money on a hobby and then never do anything to actually take part in said hobby.


Thats because your a sucker thats fallen into GW stuff as "THE HOBBY!!!!!"

Its a game to have fun with. And everyone views their fun in a different light. You like it all around. SOme like to just paint. I prefer to play with some good folks.

Neither is right, neither is wrong. However you dont seem to want to have any room that yeah maybe just playing the game with some models, painted or not, tournment wise? Is not ONLY fun, but actually part of "THE HOBBY!!!!"


Hardboy tournament paintjobs: what do you think? @ 2009/10/03 03:32:33


Post by: the_Armyman


carmachu wrote:
the_Armyman wrote: I am of the opinion that it's relatively pointless to spend all this money on a hobby and then never do anything to actually take part in said hobby.


Thats because your a sucker thats fallen into GW stuff as "THE HOBBY!!!!!"


Wargaming is "THE HOBBY", bro, not the company calling itself Games Workshop. And I've never seen a historical gamer NOT paint their stuff. From my experience, unpainted armies seems to be relatively unique to sci-fi and fantasy genre wargames.


Hardboy tournament paintjobs: what do you think? @ 2009/10/03 03:58:45


Post by: Polonius


the_Armyman wrote:
Once again, I'm not sure you're understanding the whole point of this Intrawebz forum thing. A person creates a thread. I type my opinion in the thread. Here comes the really hard part: my opinion may run counter to yours. Let the bawing commence. I am of the opinion that it's relatively pointless to spend all this money on a hobby and then never do anything to actually take part in said hobby. 'Ard Boyz, in it's current incarnation, adds nothing to the hobby and doesn't interest me in the least. I don't care if you don't agree. I don't care if the people who have a gazillion points of unpainted Space Marines agree. In the end, I'm not going to kick in their door and force them to paint, and they're not going to discourage me from spending hours painting a single fig.


You're allowed your opinion, no doubt, but I think it's ok for people to point out areas in whcih your opinion is flawed.

First, I'd argue that just because you don't paint your models doesn't mean you aren't taking part in the hobby.

Second, while you might think that 'Ard Boys adds anything to your hobby (a fine opinion), it's simply improper to state that it adds nothing to the hobby as a whole. If even one person gets something out if it, than the hobby as a whole is richer.



Hardboy tournament paintjobs: what do you think? @ 2009/10/03 04:06:06


Post by: Sidstyler


I'm just going to say what I always say in threads like this...if you don't like my unpainted army, then why not paint them for me if it bothers you so much? lol

And for you smart asses who come in demanding payment, no, that's not how this works. You're painting my army for yourself, since I couldn't care less if it's painted or not. This is for your benefit, not mine, so have at it.



Anyway, I notice a lot of people in these threads start going on and on about the "three color minimum", too, but I know for a fact that if anyone did do that you would still bitch because they clearly aren't putting enough effort into it. Three colors wouldn't be good enough for you either, so why should I bother with it at all, especially if I don't have to, since I'm going to have to listen to your bitching either way?


Hardboy tournament paintjobs: what do you think? @ 2009/10/03 04:11:08


Post by: Polonius


Sidstyler wrote:
Anyway, I notice a lot of people in these threads start going on and on about the "three color minimum", too, but I know for a fact that if anyone did do that you would still bitch because they clearly aren't putting enough effort into it. Three colors wouldn't be good enough for you either, so why should I bother with it at all, especially if I don't have to, since I'm going to have to listen to your bitching either way?


While I agree in principle, a decent three color job really is pretty quick and looks much better than primer black or bare plastic grey. An ork with green skin, brown armor/pants, and a metal weapon looks dramatically better than a primed ork.

I view painting requirements the same way I view adult swim at a pool: a great way to give some people what they want, and serve their interests, but there's nothing wrong with allowing more people to play at other events.


Hardboy tournament paintjobs: what do you think? @ 2009/10/03 04:16:04


Post by: LunaHound


the_Armyman wrote:
Of course you don't. That's the trick to being holier-than-thou:


I still dont know what the feth you are talking about .
Not enough calcium intake?

All i know is you are getting angry at me for telling you to accept the other type of players that exists
that didnt get into warhammer for painting.
Thats also why i kept refering to the dakka poll , so you know
im not making up these "players that plays warhammer for gaming aspect "

Do we understand each other atleast at this point?


Hardboy tournament paintjobs: what do you think? @ 2009/10/03 04:58:43


Post by: Sidstyler


Polonius wrote:While I agree in principle, a decent three color job really is pretty quick and looks much better than primer black or bare plastic grey. An ork with green skin, brown armor/pants, and a metal weapon looks dramatically better than a primed ork.


Agreed, but that wasn't the point. If someone did slap three colors on their models so they would be "painted", they would still get complaints because they aren't detailed enough, and people would still be demanding that they put more time and effort into their army because it's insulting to them to play such a horrendously painted army.

You can't win, unless you're a Golden Demon level painter, and even then you see tools left and right going over your work with a fine tooth comb looking for imperfections. "OMFG IS THAT A MOLD LINE?!!!?"


Hardboy tournament paintjobs: what do you think? @ 2009/10/03 05:06:16


Post by: Sincity


BlackSpike wrote:To continue the comparisons of 'Ardboy vs Golden Demon, i've just checked the 2008 Golden Demon rules.
Some entries (Units, specifically) state that the units must be game-legal.
This leads me to believe that although the competition is judged on the painting quality, there is a basic level of game-based qualification, that although it does not affect the points, must be met to enter the competition.

IMHO, 'ArdBoyz could work the same way, with the points being awarded for actual battle results, but with a basic painting-based entry requirement of "Army must be at lest 3-colour painted"


What I'm saying is , if you force a paint requirement on an 'ard Boyz type event then you should also force a force organization chart on Gold Demons. You know 1 HQ and 2 troops to be a single entry also a entry point value must be in effect , say 1000 pt per entry. And o yea they must be on the base supplied with the model.

Sounds crazy ? So do you people that want to have a paint requirement in a GAMERS tourny.


Hardboy tournament paintjobs: what do you think? @ 2009/10/03 05:11:32


Post by: Gornall


While 3-colors minimum seems like a reasonable requirement to you, that doesn't mean everyone shares that opinion. Personally, while I think that having (well) painted armies is a great thing, I'd hate to prevent someone from participating in an event because their army isn't painted.

As for the people who can't understand why someone would play 40k and not ever paint, it's the same reason some people paint tons and tons of figs but never play. Different strokes for different folks.

I don't think having a minimum requirement of 3 games a week before you could paint a unit would go over really well.

Leave at least one event for people who don't want/don't have time to paint. Doing that doesn't hurt anyone and allows everyone to enjoy the hobby in their own way.


Hardboy tournament paintjobs: what do you think? @ 2009/10/03 05:18:13


Post by: Horst


you know, EVERY SINGLE tournament i've ever been to, outside of 'ardboyz, has a minimum painting requirement.

and EVERY SINGLE one of those tournaments has armies show up that have unpainted miniatures in them.

They get a 0 for their paint score, and as such, are ineligible to win overall, though they can still win the best general prize and get a good share of the loot.

I've never seen a tournament where people were turned away because their army wasn't painted, even when its a tournament that requires it.


Hardboy tournament paintjobs: what do you think? @ 2009/10/03 05:24:36


Post by: malfred


Horst wrote:the only tournaments i've EVER seen that have no painting component at all are the yearly GW 'ardboyz tournaments, and we all know thats nothing more than a ploy to sell miniatures.


It's all a ploy to sell miniatures.



Hardboy tournament paintjobs: what do you think? @ 2009/10/03 05:40:39


Post by: Niccolo


I always enjoy a wide range of tournament requirements. Comp, no comp, painting, no painting, objectives, VPs, open list, closed list etc. While I always feel embarrassed when I show up with unpainted models, that doesn't mean that everyone does. As long as the event announces its requirements in advance, I hope each tournament is a unique experience. The lack of GTs and their army scores to counterbalance the 'Ard Boys is what makes this seem more of an issue.


Hardboy tournament paintjobs: what do you think? @ 2009/10/03 06:18:38


Post by: Sidstyler


As for the people who can't understand why someone would play 40k and not ever paint, it's the same reason some people paint tons and tons of figs but never play.


Good point. All you painters who never play the game are a disgrace to the hobby, and I for one am personally insulted by your actions.


Hardboy tournament paintjobs: what do you think? @ 2009/10/03 06:20:37


Post by: Horst


I agree, painting 40k miniatures for the joy of painting IS stupid. there are much better scale models out there, that are far more detailed.

40k should only be partaken of by people who both like playing and painting.


Hardboy tournament paintjobs: what do you think? @ 2009/10/03 06:26:50


Post by: LunaHound


Sidstyler wrote:
Agreed, but that wasn't the point. If someone did slap three colors on their models so they would be "painted", they would still get complaints because they aren't detailed enough, and people would still be demanding that they put more time and effort into their army because it's insulting to them to play such a horrendously painted army.
You can't win, unless you're a Golden Demon level painter, and even then you see tools left and right going over your work with a fine tooth comb looking for imperfections. "OMFG IS THAT A MOLD LINE?!!!?"


Sidstyler i wanted to quote you because i think your example is exactly what i was saying back in page 1.
though no one understood me lol. Part i underlined from your quote = what i wrote below:

LunaHound wrote:

Long ago , there was a poor farmer enjoying his salad after a hard day's work . it was delicious and refreshing.
his land lord dropped by and made fun of the quality of the farmer's meager meal before stomping off his fat elephant like legs out the straw door.

On the way home the land lord was enjoying his happy meal , as he saw a giant limo drive by . Inside was some billionair dinning on his 20 course meal
with 30 bottles of best wines.


Hardboy tournament paintjobs: what do you think? @ 2009/10/03 07:57:37


Post by: Augustus


Sincity wrote:
BlackSpike wrote:To continue the comparisons of 'Ardboy vs Golden Demon, i've just checked the 2008 Golden Demon rules.
Some entries (Units, specifically) state that the units must be game-legal.
This leads me to believe that although the competition is judged on the painting quality, there is a basic level of game-based qualification, that although it does not affect the points, must be met to enter the competition.

IMHO, 'ArdBoyz could work the same way, with the points being awarded for actual battle results, but with a basic painting-based entry requirement of "Army must be at lest 3-colour painted"


What I'm saying is , if you force a paint requirement on an 'ard Boyz type event then you should also force a force organization chart on Gold Demons.

They do have requirements, it's got to be GW miniatures, and more requirements for units, and mounted, and banner etc. That's why I can't enter my Warjack, or my Tiger Tank, or my Model Airplane, or my still life acrylic portrait of fruit, or my niece's Easter eggs. If it was your way those would all be valid entries, they are all painted and its only about the paint! The Hard boy is the event that sticks out.

Sincity wrote:You know 1 HQ and 2 troops to be a single entry also a entry point value must be in effect , say 1000 pt per entry. And o yea they must be on the base supplied with the model.

Sounds crazy ? So do you people that want to have a paint requirement in a GAMERS tourny.

That's actually not to far from the GD unit requirements, that were already quoted in this thread.

Having a "painted army" is exactly like playing with "only GW minis" in the game, it's not in the rules but you have to do it.


Hardboy tournament paintjobs: what do you think? @ 2009/10/03 08:16:12


Post by: Polonius


I think the point with the Golden Demon comparisons is that it's a GW activity that really only tests one aspect of the hobby. Sure, you have to paint a legal model and come up with a story, but it's all about the paint.

Is it so ridiculous that there should be an event that's all about game play? There is simply no requirement other than have built armies and win?

This isn't a GT, or a campaign game, or a big apoc battle for a battle report. It's meant to be a big stupid unbalanced event. I'm kind of surprised that there are people that think having even one event without paint requirements is a problem.


Hardboy tournament paintjobs: what do you think? @ 2009/10/03 08:22:07


Post by: Sidstyler


it's not in the rules but you have to do it.


No, I don't have to do gak. All I'm obligated to do is play the game by the rules, and even the rulebook says that isn't all that important.


Hardboy tournament paintjobs: what do you think? @ 2009/10/03 09:21:10


Post by: BlackSpike


Sidstyler wrote:I'm just going to say what I always say in threads like this...if you don't like my unpainted army, then why not paint them for me if it bothers you so much? lol

And for you smart asses who come in demanding payment, no, that's not how this works. You're painting my army for yourself, since I couldn't care less if it's painted or not. This is for your benefit, not mine, so have at it.

Anyway, I notice a lot of people in these threads start going on and on about the "three color minimum", too, but I know for a fact that if anyone did do that you would still bitch because they clearly aren't putting enough effort into it. Three colors wouldn't be good enough for you either, so why should I bother with it at all, especially if I don't have to, since I'm going to have to listen to your bitching either way?


I've stated why I prefer to play vs painted armies.
It is not about "effort" or "respect", it is about making it easier to see what you have got.
I can't see the point in painstakingly making models WYSIWYG if all I can see from across the table is a wall of grey plastic.
I will, and do, play vs unpainted armies. I prefer painted one.

As for the "fact" that I would still complain, you are wrong. If I call "3-colour is fine" then 3-colour is fine, and you'd be right to lambaste me as a hypocrite if I complained at your 3-colour plaint job. (Unless you've done a slap-dash, spiteful, "just throw 3 tubs of paint over the army, no matter how it lands. That's not a paint job. That's a TFG move)

It's true that you will have to listen to someone bitching, thats called life. You can't please all the people all the time.

Sincity wrote:What I'm saying is , if you force a paint requirement on an 'ard Boyz type event then you should also force a force organization chart on Gold Demons. You know 1 HQ and 2 troops to be a single entry also a entry point value must be in effect , say 1000 pt per entry. And o yea they must be on the base supplied with the model.

Sounds crazy ? So do you people that want to have a paint requirement in a GAMERS tourny.

As I said, there is already a Game-based requirement on Golden Demon. Not the one you ask for, but it's there. And the competition is split into several Warhammer 40k and Warhammer Fantasy sections, not WhateverSciFiYouWant and WhatEverFantasyYouWant. You'll not notice many Wild West gunsligers in the competition. Or English Civil War models. The game-based requirement is there.

But this is all just my opinion.
I'm not attending any competitive event to do with Games Workshop related hobbies, paint or play. I'm just not that good at either.


Hardboy tournament paintjobs: what do you think? @ 2009/10/03 13:39:12


Post by: carmachu


the_Armyman wrote:

Wargaming is "THE HOBBY", bro, not the company calling itself Games Workshop. And I've never seen a historical gamer NOT paint their stuff. From my experience, unpainted armies seems to be relatively unique to sci-fi and fantasy genre wargames.


Then you need to get out more. Over the years I've seen folks playing with unpainted stuff from RPG's to battletech to historical to PP and FoW and GW. The "HOBBY" is bigger than your small minded view of whats best.


Hardboy tournament paintjobs: what do you think? @ 2009/10/03 14:49:19


Post by: Trench-Raider


You know, in today's enviorment there really is no excuse not to have a painted army. There are several painting services in third world countries that offer good quality an are inexpensive to use. Several of our local gamers, for example, have used one based in Sri Lanka and have been very happy with the results.

When you can get stuff painted to a decent wargame standard for less than 2$ a figure, why would anyone chose not to have a painted army? Plus you get to joke about how your figures were painted by children chained to a painting desk and "paid" with a half a bowl of stale rice a day!

TR


Hardboy tournament paintjobs: what do you think? @ 2009/10/03 17:16:04


Post by: carmachu


Trench-Raider wrote:You know, in today's enviorment there really is no excuse not to have a painted army. There are several painting services in third world countries that offer good quality an are inexpensive to use. Several of our local gamers, for example, have used one based in Sri Lanka and have been very happy with the results.

When you can get stuff painted to a decent wargame standard for less than 2$ a figure, why would anyone chose not to have a painted army? Plus you get to joke about how your figures were painted by children chained to a painting desk and "paid" with a half a bowl of stale rice a day!

TR


You know, with the internet, and discount places like, malestrom, warstore, chaosorc and places like bartertown and ebay, there really is no excuse not to have an army if your planning on entering the Golden demons. Some places have have deeper discounts, and you can pick up armies on the cheap through ebay, and hell trade in those old models on bartertown and have on complete one......


Hardboy tournament paintjobs: what do you think? @ 2009/10/03 19:10:59


Post by: Kilkrazy


There have been painting competitions for many decades. They are nothing per se to do with wargaming, just that once people started wargaming shows they often incorporated a painting competition too.

GW took that up and held the Golden Daemon alongside the playing competition. Just because there is a painting competition without games doesn't mean there should be a games competition without painting. That would be a syllogism.

I don't believe the hobby is that big a tent. The hobby is about playing games with painted military miniatures. If you don't paint your figures, you aren't inside the tent, you are in a different tent next door where they play games with unpainted miniatures. It is in many ways a similar hobby, but it is different to the painted figures hobby and it has more in common with map and computer based wargames. I don't look down on map games, I used to play loads of map games.

I would just rather not play a tabletop game than play with unpainted figures.

But, as they say, "Hey, that's just me".

I mean, some people think the idea of pre-painted figures is heretical, while I think they are a good way of getting people playing quickly with attractive models. I am focussed on an attractive battlefield, not how people get to it.


Hardboy tournament paintjobs: what do you think? @ 2009/10/03 19:38:01


Post by: Sincity


Sincity wrote:[What I'm saying is , if you force a paint requirement on an 'ard Boyz type event then you should also force a force organization chart on Gold Demons.


They do have requirements, it's got to be GW miniatures, and more requirements for units, and mounted, and banner etc. That's why I can't enter my Warjack, or my Tiger Tank, or my Model Airplane, or my still life acrylic portrait of fruit, or my niece's Easter eggs. If it was your way those would all be valid entries, they are all painted and its only about the paint! The Hard boy is the event that sticks out.

Sincity wrote:You know 1 HQ and 2 troops to be a single entry also a entry point value must be in effect , say 1000 pt per entry. And o yea they must be on the base supplied with the model.




None of your examples would be allowed to be an entry , none of them can be found in any codex or army book. Strawman , and discarded.

You will not find a rule to have your minis painted ANYPLACE in ANY of the HOBBIES rulebooks , codeii or army books. However , you will find MANDITORY force org. requirements in all of the above. So , really , Gold Demons is the is the non conforming sister in the hobby.

Time to bane the Gold Demons.



Hardboy tournament paintjobs: what do you think? @ 2009/10/03 21:46:06


Post by: Sidstyler


Trench-Raider wrote:You know, in today's enviorment there really is no excuse not to have a painted army. There are several painting services in third world countries that offer good quality an are inexpensive to use. Several of our local gamers, for example, have used one based in Sri Lanka and have been very happy with the results.


Except painting services are also forbidden. For some people it isn't enough that the models are painted, they have to be painted BY YOU or it doesn't count.

Not to mention at tournaments and the like you'll still be penalized as if you were playing with an unpainted army (unless you lie), so once again, why bother?


Hardboy tournament paintjobs: what do you think? @ 2009/10/04 00:45:28


Post by: carmachu


Kilkrazy wrote:There have been painting competitions for many decades. They are nothing per se to do with wargaming, just that once people started wargaming shows they often incorporated a painting competition too.

GW took that up and held the Golden Daemon alongside the playing competition. Just because there is a painting competition without games doesn't mean there should be a games competition without painting. That would be a syllogism.



That would be incorrect. The Golden Demons started WAY back when(I still have the WD's), that folks took models out of their army for the painting competetion. I see no reason why we shouldnt go back to that standard. Golden Demons evolved. I dont see why tournments cant or dont.



I don't believe the hobby is that big a tent. The hobby is about playing games with painted military miniatures. If you don't paint your figures, you aren't inside the tent, you are in a different tent next door where they play games with unpainted miniatures. It is in many ways a similar hobby, but it is different to the painted figures hobby and it has more in common with map and computer based wargames. I don't look down on map games, I used to play loads of map games.

I would just rather not play a tabletop game than play with unpainted figures.

But, as they say, "Hey, that's just me".


SO you are an elitest. The "Hobby" is alot of things. Its different things for different people. Do you scold folks that buy models and dont play?


Hardboy tournament paintjobs: what do you think? @ 2009/10/04 01:19:14


Post by: Polonius


Kilkrazy wrote:
I don't believe the hobby is that big a tent. The hobby is about playing games with painted military miniatures. If you don't paint your figures, you aren't inside the tent, you are in a different tent next door where they play games with unpainted miniatures. It is in many ways a similar hobby, but it is different to the painted figures hobby and it has more in common with map and computer based wargames. I don't look down on map games, I used to play loads of map games.


I dunno. I think the core of the GW hobby is building your own army, however you wish to do that. Conversions, painting, or just collecting are all parts of it. Painting is a big part of it, but to say that playing 40k is closer to chits than to 40k with painted figures is a bold statement.

By your logic, putting three colors of paint on a model magically changes the hobby a person is in?


Hardboy tournament paintjobs: what do you think? @ 2009/10/04 01:36:55


Post by: Trench-Raider


Except painting services are also forbidden. For some people it isn't enough that the models are painted, they have to be painted BY YOU or it doesn't count.

Not to mention at tournaments and the like you'll still be penalized as if you were playing with an unpainted army (unless you lie), so once again, why bother?


You sure about that? I'm not one of these hard core competition players, but every tournament I've played at just asks on the score sheet about the quality and complete nature of your opponent's army, not if he actually did the brush work on it.

Now don't get me wrong. I could see GW banning professionally painted armies as a case could be made that such an army just might cut into their profits for their grossly over-priced hobby supplies. But I don't think this is the case. Can someone confirm this for us?
In any event, it's an unenforcible rule. (much more so than the "play with GW models only" rule)

TR


Hardboy tournament paintjobs: what do you think? @ 2009/10/04 12:05:21


Post by: malfred


As far as I know, it's never been verboten that you bring a painted army by someone else,
but they ask you sometimes to verify that you painted your army (kind of like telling an online
photo album that you have the right to post certain pictures) in order to keep you from
winning overall or best painted. Of course, in an extreme situation where painters don't
want to play and players don't want to paint, you get someone representing a painted
army with the painter's army so they both can get recognition...


Hardboy tournament paintjobs: what do you think? @ 2009/10/04 14:09:06


Post by: Redbeard


Horst wrote:I agree, painting 40k miniatures for the joy of painting IS stupid. there are much better scale models out there, that are far more detailed.


There are some better models out there, but in terms of overall quality of sculpts, GW stuff is pretty close to the top, at least in the 30mm sci-fi/fantasy ranges. I didn't get into GW games until about 5 years ago, because I didn't like the cartoony sculpts compared to (at the time) companies like Grenadier or Ral Partha. That's changed. And while there are some specialist stores that put out excellent sculpts (Hasslefree minis rock), overall, browsing online and at Games Plus, there aren't that many companies out there that are doing as detailed models in this scale as GW is currently.


Trench-Raider wrote:You know, in today's enviorment there really is no excuse not to have a painted army. There are several painting services in third world countries that offer good quality an are inexpensive to use. Several of our local gamers, for example, have used one based in Sri Lanka and have been very happy with the results.


Or better yet, just sit down and do it. I painted an entire 4500+ point army last week, using little more than foundation paints and washes. You can get a tabletop quality level with very little effort, and that's all that the 3rd-world services do.


Sidstyler wrote:
Except painting services are also forbidden. For some people it isn't enough that the models are painted, they have to be painted BY YOU or it doesn't count.

Not to mention at tournaments and the like you'll still be penalized as if you were playing with an unpainted army (unless you lie), so once again, why bother?



malfred wrote:As far as I know, it's never been verboten that you bring a painted army by someone else, but they ask you sometimes to verify that you painted your army (kind of like telling an online photo album that you have the right to post certain pictures) in order to keep you from
winning overall or best painted. Of course, in an extreme situation where painters don't want to play and players don't want to paint, you get someone representing a painted army with the painter's army so they both can get recognition...


The most successful method of handling this in tournaments, IMHO, was the one used at the GTs last year. They asked if you painted your own stuff, but that didn't prevent you from getting a paint score, and the paint score still contributed to the overall award, so that people who didn't want to paint weren't ruled out from that. But they did reserve the best appearance awards for those people who actually painted their own stuff. This seems like a good approach to me, as it removes the incentive for people who just want to play to lie about their own work, as they're still in the running for the overall prize, but it also rewards the people who do their own work.


Hardboy tournament paintjobs: what do you think? @ 2009/10/04 14:51:58


Post by: artyboy


the_Armyman wrote:Pfft. Why bother painting anything? Houses are just for living in. Cars are just for driving from point A to point B. Why bother with anything aesthetic if the only reason is to look pretty?


You've got me. I don't understand the point of flashy paintjobs on houses, artwork hanging all over the walls or cars that look like they should be headed for the racetrack. IMO, keeping something clean is enough to show that you take pride in it.

the_Armyman wrote:My point is twofold:

1. GW used to promote the hobby. 'Ard Boyz is a good example of how far they've fallen.
2. Just because 'Ard Boyz doesn't require a painted army, doesn't mean you can't take a little pride in what you have.

The paint on stock cars or the bright uniforms/helmets of sports teams have no bearing on their performance, but what kind of crappy place would it be to turn on the TV and see a NASCAR race with primer gray cars or a bunch of football players in white t-shirts?

Sincity wrote:A painting requirement at 'ard boyz is like a comp score at gold demons.


I'll probably get flamed for making this comparison, but it's a real shame that honesty and integrity don't have a place in competition. If you want proof, ask the people who entered the Golden Demons in Chicago...


So now you're comparing a 3 color paintjob to wraps on nascar cars and sport team uniforms? The purpose of all of that flashiness is so that you can tell who's who and for corporate sponsors to advertise. When it comes to Warhammer I do take pride in my paintjobs. That's only because I'm pretty good at it. I know a lot of guys who don't have time for it or who just aren't good painters. They don't take pride in their paintjobs. They take pride in winning or they don't care about the game period and they play because they like the people.



Hardboy tournament paintjobs: what do you think? @ 2009/10/04 15:01:09


Post by: warboss


Redbeard wrote:
Or better yet, just sit down and do it. I painted an entire 4500+ point army last week, using little more than foundation paints and washes. You can get a tabletop quality level with very little effort, and that's all that the 3rd-world services do.



agreed. a simple base coat (skip the primer since they don't care about the paint job/durability and pick your base coat from a color you want to use) sprayed on and a few details in two other colors. for instance, spray an assembled marine in black, color the bolter silver/boltgun metal, and a SINGLE shoulder pad grey. you've just met the minimum painting standard! whoa is me! i've just been forced to spend an average of less than one 1 minute on a figure usable for a multistage national tournament! the pain! the pain! the colors burns my precious! no one is even asking you to color only between the lines. as long as you're close (don't glob the paint over the shoulder pad, arm, and half the chest when you are aiming for the pad only), no one will CARE if you go over the detail a bit and NOT do a correction. the point is for the minis to look OK from a 3ft away perspective. as stated before, the golden demons DO have a gameplay requirement in that they're required to be a playable legal 40k/fantasy entry (sorry, no warmachine warjacks please!). adding the miniscule standard above would be the equivalent. NEITHER requirement would be used for scoring (how effective your unit is in 40k for golden demons or your painting quality in the hard boyz proposal).

<sarcasm>
frankly, if it's just about the gameplay and purchasing the models, why should i be required to ASSEMBLE models???? i should just be able to bring the sprues (to prove i bought the whole model) and play with the correct base and a stick of the same height as each type of unit (so that i'm not accused of modelling for LOS or other in game benefit, i would place the stick vertically on the base when LOS issues came up). i have no need for the assembling aspect of this ridiculous "hobby" you speak of and frankly don't enjoy it. why should i be forced to glue my models just for your enjoyment???? that's ridiculous. if i were to assemble the model, you would just chide me for not converting parts of it so why should i even do that minimum effort!? you all are simply elitist because i'm not into your precious part of the hobby (assembling). i've spent the money on GW minis and spent just as much time making up my list. why shouldn't i be able to play with my army of bases, toothpicks cut to various sizes, and a bunch of sprues in a suitcase next to me??
</sarcasm>

ridiculous? yes, but it's simply taking the argument i've read over the past several pages to the next level. the hobby ideally involves the following in the stated order: buying, assembly, painting, playing. if you want to ignore the third, why should you pay homage to the second? gw only cares about the first (buying) and you only care about the last (playing).

*edited to make sarcasm more obvious*


Hardboy tournament paintjobs: what do you think? @ 2009/10/04 15:05:17


Post by: Kilkrazy


carmachu wrote:

SO you are an elitest. The "Hobby" is alot of things. Its different things for different people. Do you scold folks that buy models and dont play?


No, I just don't play games with them.

It doesn't make me better or worse than people who play with unpainted figures, just different.


Hardboy tournament paintjobs: what do you think? @ 2009/10/04 16:10:56


Post by: Redbeard


warboss wrote:
frankly, if it's just about the gameplay and purchasing the models, why should i be required to ASSEMBLE models????


Wow, now we're getting in deep. If it is all about the game, why even bother with models at all? Plenty of excellent games can be played with cardboard counters, or folded pieces of paper. Cheap Ass Games has made a business out of making fun games without significant overhead.

GW has brainwashed you into believing that you can only play with their models. That's clearly not true. If you only want to play, make cardboard counters to be your guys and have at. The real elitism here seems to be based on spending. Did you buy enough product for me to deem it worth playing you?

We're not here because we want to play a strategy game, we're here because we want to play a miniatures game. We want to play with toy soldiers. We don't have an emotional attachment to bits of plastic, we have an attachment to the 3rd Company of the Ultramarines, or the Bad Moon Clan, or the pestulant worship of Father Nurgle. This is a game that has a tactile, visceral appeal. And painting the models is part of that. It's part of playing a miniatures game. GW pushes these 'ardboyz events trying to get you to believe that what's important is having the models. You spend, they profit, and that's that. But fielding an unpainted army is no better than fielding a cardboard counter army. Both miss out on what a miniature game should be - a game that has both a strategic and an artistic appeal.


Hardboy tournament paintjobs: what do you think? @ 2009/10/04 23:43:41


Post by: Afrikan Blonde


I don't think there is any reason to require painting for Ard Boyz. I am sure people would still play but you would end up seeing some shoddy looking armies. Ard Boyz is all about GW making some nice profit and the players seeing who can win the most. It works well and everyone is happy.


Hardboy tournament paintjobs: what do you think? @ 2009/10/05 00:16:44


Post by: ryzouken


Warboss wrote:
the hobby ideally involves the following in the stated order: buying, assembly, painting, playing. if you want to ignore the third, why should you pay homage to the second? gw only cares about the first (buying) and you only care about the last (playing).


Because assembly (can be) straightforward and easy while painting is a pain in the ass. The best quality I can manage, after days of working on a model, is only tabletop quality and the first time I showed it to people, all I got were complaints. No one complains about my awesome conversion work, the models with dynamic poses all WYSIWYG and awesome, but as soon as I apply paint to it in order to conform to your standards, all I get is complaints about what I did wrong and how I didn't apply washes or shading or highlights or this or that.

If you're able to put out Golden Daemon work, you can play in any tournament (or not play at all) with minimal harassment. If you can't paint that well, shouldn't there be a single tournament where you can play without taking sh*t for it?

EDIT: damn quote function...


Hardboy tournament paintjobs: what do you think? @ 2009/10/05 00:28:42


Post by: carmachu


Kilkrazy wrote:

No, I just don't play games with them.

It doesn't make me better or worse than people who play with unpainted figures, just different.



Which is the whole point. Different people have different attactions to the game. I dont see why you(or armyman) or others just dont let them be and have their tournment they can enter, just as painters have golden demons, without attaching other strings to said tournment.

Dont like hard boyz? Great. Dont show up. Go play an RT or GT or something that you like. Let folks have their enjoyment in an unpainted tournment if there is one and leave'em alone.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
warboss wrote:[
ridiculous? yes, but it's simply taking the argument i've read over the past several pages to the next level. the hobby ideally involves the following in the stated order: buying, assembly, painting, playing. if you want to ignore the third, why should you pay homage to the second? gw only cares about the first (buying) and you only care about the last (playing).

*edited to make sarcasm more obvious*


Mostly because even hard boyz and otehr tournments have a WYSIWYG requirement. So yes you have to assemble the models and have them be what is what.


Hardboy tournament paintjobs: what do you think? @ 2009/10/05 02:47:30


Post by: Gornall


Redbeard wrote:We're not here because we want to play a strategy game, we're here because we want to play a miniatures game.


I'm here because I want to play a strategy game. Sorry, but that's the truth. I like playing 40k because the potential games and scenarios are endless. Minitures provide a much quicker, easier way to keep track of units and weapon loadouts than cardboard counters would ever provide. Yes, painting the figures makes the battles more pleasing to the eye, but to me, it doesn't provide anything to the wargame aspect beyond what the minitures themselves contribute.

I'm sorry that my idea of what makes 40k fun is different from yours. That doesn't make it any more right or wrong. Just different. If you want to look down on my half-painted army, that's fine by me. Just don't expect me to care.

Once again, I don't think anything is added to the hobby by telling a whole segment of players that they're "doing it wrong" and second-class citizens. I think everyone should be able to participate in events that fit their interest. 'Ard Boyz fits those of us who are into the "gaming" aspect of the hobby. There are many events that cater to a more "hobby"-oriented approach, so I don't see how it hurts to leave this one event as it is.


Hardboy tournament paintjobs: what do you think? @ 2009/10/05 06:44:29


Post by: smart_alex


Purpose of ard boyz is not painting. ITs who can PLAY the best.


Hardboy tournament paintjobs: what do you think? @ 2009/10/05 10:40:08


Post by: Howard A Treesong


carmachu wrote:SO you are an elitest. The "Hobby" is alot of things. Its different things for different people. Do you scold folks that buy models and dont play?


This is a strawman I've seen pop up time and again on this topic. In a painting competition you can't tell whether a person plays games or not, and it's not important either. Loads of painting competitions are set up to be independent of any kind of roleplaying, some people enter gaming miniatures, others do not. It's only GW that limit their competitions to gaming figures, and that's because they limit stuff to their own ranges which are nearly all gaming pieces. But even in GD, not all the compeitions are for game legal pieces anyway, you have large scale forgeworld pieces and conversions that would not fit on the battle field in any army. And as I said, whether or not a person plays the game makes no difference to your appreciation of their painted entry to a competition.

Now compare to gaming. Seriously, does an unpainted army have no impact on the quality of the game? Really? Unpainted armies look fugly and I can't believe anyone who can seriously claim that a game could looks just as good with an unpainted army. Part of the experiance of the game is in watching it unravel and experiance it in front of you, "getting into it" so to speak. Of course painted miniatures affect this. No one would turn up to a historical wargame and watch the battle of waterloo fought out with unpainted miniatures and think it wasn't any less enjoyable to watch and take part in than if all the miniatures had been painted in full colour uniforms.

So painting competitions are not affected by whether the entrant plays or not, you probably wouldn't even know unless you ask. The quality of gaming on the other hand is connected to painting, you can see if an army is painted or not straight away and a game full of painted miniatures is much more thrilling and realistic than a load of plastic and grey.

You can paint and not game, but gaming and not painting just looks dumb.


Hardboy tournament paintjobs: what do you think? @ 2009/10/05 11:56:33


Post by: The Defenestrator


Redbeard wrote:This is a game that has a tactile, visceral appeal. And painting the models is part of that. It's part of playing a miniatures game. GW pushes these 'ardboyz events trying to get you to believe that what's important is having the models. You spend, they profit, and that's that. But fielding an unpainted army is no better than fielding a cardboard counter army. Both miss out on what a miniature game should be - a game that has both a strategic and an artistic appeal.
This. Oh lordy is it ever this.

It's beyond me why one would spend hundreds and hundreds (or in the case of some 'ard boyz armies, thousands) of dollars on GW miniatures and not paint them. If they're going to be plain, visually indecipherable blobs you're better off spending 50 bucks for 2500 points worth of appropriate bases and write the model's names and wargear on them. Maybe clip some toothpicks to the right height for TLOS, and you're set. It's going to look the same to me from across the table anyway, right? Miniature war gaming is fundamentally a visual game. That's a very large part of why the entire hobby didn't collapse horribly when Vassal came on the scene; sliding little representative icons of your units doesn't compare.

I'd like to add the caveat that I don't think I've ever let the above opinions interfere with my enjoyment of the hobby; I like painting, I like fielding a painted army. I'd like it if other people liked fielding a painted army (and thankfully nearly everyone I know does, to varying degrees of seriousness), but if you don't I'll still play with you. Unless, of course, there's someone next to you with a painted army who I haven't played before either.


Hardboy tournament paintjobs: what do you think? @ 2009/10/05 12:15:54


Post by: Voodoo Boyz


I'm shocked people are upset that GW held an explicit no-comp, no holds barred tournament, at an artificially inflated points level - that had no painting requirement.

Oh boo-hoo, people didn't have to paint their mini's to play in a tournament specifically designated for them to play in.

QQ more, it makes my morning that much more enjoyable.


Hardboy tournament paintjobs: what do you think? @ 2009/10/05 12:42:05


Post by: BigJon


IMO this is a hobby not just a game, an apart of that hobby is painting your models and in a tournament setting its a must to promote the hobby.


Hardboy tournament paintjobs: what do you think? @ 2009/10/05 14:18:09


Post by: carmachu


Howard A Treesong wrote:

This is a strawman I've seen pop up time and again on this topic. In a painting competition you can't tell whether a person plays games or not, and it's not important either.


And in hardboyz, its how well you play not either you paint or not, its not important.


You can paint and not game, but gaming and not painting just looks dumb.


Logical fallacy right there. Painting isnt really required to play. Hell I do recall a time when BASING was optional.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
BigJon wrote:IMO this is a hobby not just a game, an apart of that hobby is painting your models and in a tournament setting its a must to promote the hobby.


Must promote the hobby? What are you going to do, hold a gun to my head an make me?

Thats the silliest thing I've seen in ages.


Hardboy tournament paintjobs: what do you think? @ 2009/10/05 15:00:21


Post by: Redbeard


I don't think anyone is saying that 'ardboys should have a painting (or comp, for that matter) score associated with it. Just that the base requirement for playing should be a painted army, not just a purchased army.

The Adepticon Gladiator, for example, has no comp score, no painting score, but has a 3-color painting requirement. And, it's far more enjoyable to play in.

I don't hear anyone arguing that they should have to buy the models to play in 'ardboyz. I don't hear anyone complaining that they had to assemble the models to play. Why is the next step such a big deal?


Hardboy tournament paintjobs: what do you think? @ 2009/10/05 16:45:04


Post by: Gornall


Redbeard wrote:Why is the next step such a big deal?


If we go by your progression of "Buy, Assemble, Paint, Play", then why isn't the next step after painting such a big deal? Should people have to forfeit their armies if they don't play a minimum number of games a week because they're not participating in the full hobby? They should just go out and paint a bunch of watercolors if they want to focus on the artistic part of the hobby only. Yeah, this is a strawman argument, but so is the idea that by not painting, the people playing with unpainted armies are better off playing with cardboard counters.

From a practical standpoint, GW isn't going to place a painting requirement on 'Ard Boyz as it could potentially limit the number of models people rush out to buy to field their killer army. GW doesn't want any barriers to entry on that competition besides cash. No matter how "easy" a 3-color minimum is, if it prevents someone from buying 2500 points of the new army on the block, then that is something GW wants to avoid. Frankly, I like the idea of 'Ard Boyz because it means I don't have to rush my painting (yes, I do paint... just slowly) to meet some entry standard just so I can play. I can focus my prep time for the tournament on testing and tweaking my list and getting practice games against some of the armies I expect to see in the tournament, rather than frantically trying to get 3 colors on all the units that I want to try out.

I guess I'm lucky in that I play at a FLGS where there are people taking part in all different aspects of the hobby. There are fluff bunnies, painting masters, future Creeds, conversion artists, narrative story-tellers, and social gamers. I think each person makes "the hobby" richer and more fun, and if we threw out all the people that didn't cover every single aspect of it, guess what... my FLGS would be very, very empty.


Hardboy tournament paintjobs: what do you think? @ 2009/10/05 17:14:40


Post by: Redbeard


Gornall wrote:
If we go by your progression of "Buy, Assemble, Paint, Play", then why isn't the next step after painting such a big deal?


It isn't. I would much prefer it if the Golden Demon competition was limited to people who actually gamed with their figures. I'd actually stand half-a-chance


Should people have to forfeit their armies if they don't play a minimum number of games a week because they're not participating in the full hobby? They should just go out and paint a bunch of watercolors if they want to focus on the artistic part of the hobby only. Yeah, this is a strawman argument, but so is the idea that by not painting, the people playing with unpainted armies are better off playing with cardboard counters.


There are two logical problems with your arguments - besides the strawman thing.

First, no one is saying that people should forfeit their armies if they don't paint them. You're drawing an invalid comparison here.

Second, if you're not going to enjoy the tactile nature of a miniature, you ARE better off playing with cardboard counters. It's really a simple concept. You can spend $400 on an army, or you can spend $4 on some cardboard. If all you need is something to represent the position of a game-piece, the cardboard will do the job - and do it just as well as the overpriced plastic men. You're $396 better off by using the cardboard.


From a practical standpoint, GW isn't going to place a painting requirement on 'Ard Boyz as it could potentially limit the number of models people rush out to buy to field their killer army. GW doesn't want any barriers to entry on that competition besides cash.


Clearly. But that doesn't mean that the community has to take the same approach. GW is a corporation that produces stuff. They cannot dictate community standards. If the community wants to self-regulate a painting requirement and ignore them, the community is able to do so.


I guess I'm lucky in that I play at a FLGS where there are people taking part in all different aspects of the hobby. There are fluff bunnies, painting masters, future Creeds, conversion artists, narrative story-tellers, and social gamers. I think each person makes "the hobby" richer and more fun, and if we threw out all the people that didn't cover every single aspect of it, guess what... my FLGS would be very, very empty.


And yet, you expect all of them to pay for armies and to assemble armies. Would you let someone play games who said, "I'd really love to play this game, it looks like a lot of fun, but I cannot afford it, I've been out of work for two years. I made these cardboard cut-outs?" Would you let someone play who said, "Gee, I really just don't like assembling the models, I get glue all over my hands. I bought my army, but I'd rather just field the empty bases?"

Some of us just think that not painting is the same as not assembling. The model isn't game-ready until it is painted. Unless you answered yes to the two above questions, you do have a standard that you hold members at your FLGS to, so you can't pull the morally-superior "we let people do whatever they like" crap. Rather than try to justify not painting, why not envision how much cooler it would be if every game you played was against a painted army. It's not about throwing out people who don't enjoy every aspect of the game, it's simply about holding people to a certain minimum standard. You already do that, just raise the minimum a little.


Hardboy tournament paintjobs: what do you think? @ 2009/10/05 17:17:10


Post by: Augustus


Gornall wrote:From a practical standpoint, GW isn't going to place a painting requirement on 'Ard Boyz as it could potentially limit the number of models people rush out to buy to field their killer army. GW doesn't want any barriers to entry on that competition besides cash. No matter how "easy" a 3-color minimum is, if it prevents someone from buying 2500 points of the new army on the block, then that is something GW wants to avoid. Frankly, I like the idea of 'Ard Boyz because it means I don't have to rush my painting...

Im not so sure, I was at the hradboy all 3 rounds, I don't think most people rushed out to buy anything, it was pretty clear most people were just borrowing things from friends and using things they already had.

Furthermore would a painting requirement keep people out? They announced at the hardboy finals this year that 90 invitees were asked to come, and there were only 64 participants, thats about 1/3 no shows already, with the most open rules for painting.

I wonder why those people didn't come? Perhaps because they didn't like the 1st 2 rounds of the event enough to travel to the finals?

Why could that be?...

Its pretty humorous to see this ironic pattern in the discussion:

(1) "Painting standards keeps people out, and that is bad, we should include everyone!"
(2) "Well, I dont like playing without a 3 color standard"
(1) "Fine then stay home!"

So it IS ok to exclude the disciplined people? They must be snHobbs afterall!


Hardboy tournament paintjobs: what do you think? @ 2009/10/05 17:21:45


Post by: Kilkrazy


carmachu wrote:
Kilkrazy wrote:

No, I just don't play games with them.

It doesn't make me better or worse than people who play with unpainted figures, just different.



Which is the whole point. Different people have different attactions to the game. I dont see why you(or armyman) or others just dont let them be and have their tournment they can enter, just as painters have golden demons, without attaching other strings to said tournment.

Dont like hard boyz? Great. Dont show up. Go play an RT or GT or something that you like. Let folks have their enjoyment in an unpainted tournment if there is one and leave'em alone.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
warboss wrote:[
ridiculous? yes, but it's simply taking the argument i've read over the past several pages to the next level. the hobby ideally involves the following in the stated order: buying, assembly, painting, playing. if you want to ignore the third, why should you pay homage to the second? gw only cares about the first (buying) and you only care about the last (playing).

*edited to make sarcasm more obvious*


Mostly because even hard boyz and otehr tournments have a WYSIWYG requirement. So yes you have to assemble the models and have them be what is what.


The question was asked, and I answered.


Hardboy tournament paintjobs: what do you think? @ 2009/10/05 17:39:11


Post by: Polonius


Augustus wrote:Im not so sure, I was at the hradboy all 3 rounds, I don't think most people rushed out to buy anything, it was pretty clear most people were just borrowing things from friends and using things they already had.

Furthermore would a painting requirement keep people out? They announced at the hardboy finals this year that 90 invitees were asked to come, and there were only 64 participants, thats about 1/3 no shows already, with the most open rules for painting.

I wonder why those people didn't come? Perhaps because they didn't like the 1st 2 rounds of the event enough to travel to the finals?

Why could that be?...

Its pretty humorous to see this ironic pattern in the discussion:

(1) "Painting standards keeps people out, and that is bad, we should include everyone!"
(2) "Well, I dont like playing without a 3 color standard"
(1) "Fine then stay home!"

So it IS ok to exclude the disciplined people? They must be snHobbs afterall!


this is frankly a pretty ridiculous post. First, I'm shocked only 26 invitees didn't travel all the way to chicago for a single day of gaming. I qualified for nationals last year, I didn't go because I had to defend a paper that following week and wanted the time to work on it. Not everybody can spend the cash to fly to chicago (which you'd have to from the west). I'd imagine distaste for unpainted armies was a minor factor in most decisions.

As for the latter half of your post... well, let's start with the straw man up front. Most people here are saying that having a single even without a painting standard isn't a bad thing, not a general attack on them. The idea isn't just some general desire to include more people, but to allow people to bring what they think are the best armies unfettered by needs to paint.

I like that by the very end, you tip your hand with the crack about "disciplined people." I really don't think people with painted armies are morally superior in that way. I wish they were, because then I'd be like a saint. I think it's pretty demonstrable that some people can paint much faster than others. I can churn out a table top IG squad in a few hours, other people simply can't.

Finally, how is anybody excluded by not mandating painting? I think this is the weird heart of the matter, that you and others seem to think it's ok to tell others to paint an entire warhammer army, but us asking you to deal with playing unpainted stuff a few afternoons a year is beyond the pale? I hear the stuff about WYSWYG being easier with paint, and I get that it's a richer experience, and those are all true, but this isn't about any of that. It's simply about some old school gamer elitism.

I hear some posters saying that it's not really 40k if they're not painted. Well, what if hard boys wasn't 40k, but instead played a game called "Grim Darkness." Now, the first rule of Grim Darkness is that models don't have to be painted. The second is that for all other rules, use the 40k rulebook. So, maybe it's a counter exclusion. If the people willing to play without painted models aren't really hobbyists, we'll start our own hobby. With hookers. And blackjack.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Redbeard wrote:And yet, you expect all of them to pay for armies and to assemble armies. Would you let someone play games who said, "I'd really love to play this game, it looks like a lot of fun, but I cannot afford it, I've been out of work for two years. I made these cardboard cut-outs?" Would you let someone play who said, "Gee, I really just don't like assembling the models, I get glue all over my hands. I bought my army, but I'd rather just field the empty bases?"

Some of us just think that not painting is the same as not assembling. The model isn't game-ready until it is painted. Unless you answered yes to the two above questions, you do have a standard that you hold members at your FLGS to, so you can't pull the morally-superior "we let people do whatever they like" crap. Rather than try to justify not painting, why not envision how much cooler it would be if every game you played was against a painted army. It's not about throwing out people who don't enjoy every aspect of the game, it's simply about holding people to a certain minimum standard. You already do that, just raise the minimum a little.


Your logic runs out of gas at assembly. A models size and presence on the battlefield is important for Line of sight. Empty bases (which I've faced in two tournaments btw and the world didn't explode) simply aren't WYSIWYG.

I don't deny that a painted army looks a lot better, but WYSIWYG is a big tenet of 40k, and that involves models with the right gear glued on. Painting adds color. Assembly is what is needed to play, which is why it's required.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
The Defenestrator wrote:
It's beyond me why one would spend hundreds and hundreds (or in the case of some 'ard boyz armies, thousands) of dollars on GW miniatures and not paint them. If they're going to be plain, visually indecipherable blobs you're better off spending 50 bucks for 2500 points worth of appropriate bases and write the model's names and wargear on them. Maybe clip some toothpicks to the right height for TLOS, and you're set. It's going to look the same to me from across the table anyway, right? Miniature war gaming is fundamentally a visual game. That's a very large part of why the entire hobby didn't collapse horribly when Vassal came on the scene; sliding little representative icons of your units doesn't compare.


Have you ever watched black and white Television or movies? Either stuff from before color, or back when your TV only showed black and white? Did you get any enjoyment out of the visuals? Or did the knowledge that there is color, HD, etc out there make it impossible to watch?

As I've stated before, 40k is a hobby where a person dreams up an army concept, and then builds that army, and can play it in games. I'm a painter, it's how I got into the hobby, but the real appeal to me was that I could create my vision of an army. Not painting an army isn't going the full distance towards that vision, but so is not doing extensive conversions or having elaborate bases. My point is that a person might be able to hold the vision of their army in their head with a built but unpainted army.

And, as a side note, as for the question of why play 40k if you just want a strategy game... get serious. If you want to play a non-computer wargame, 40k is one of your few options.


Hardboy tournament paintjobs: what do you think? @ 2009/10/05 17:58:05


Post by: Gornall


Second, if you're not going to enjoy the tactile nature of a miniature, you ARE better off playing with cardboard counters. It's really a simple concept. You can spend $400 on an army, or you can spend $4 on some cardboard. If all you need is something to represent the position of a game-piece, the cardboard will do the job - and do it just as well as the overpriced plastic men. You're $396 better off by using the cardboard.


I do enjoy the minis. To you, the unpainted minis are practically cardboard, but to me, having a unique 3D representation offers a significantly more pleasing and useful model than a cardboard cutout. To ME, the model itself offers a significant portion of the creative or artistic part of the hobby, and the painting is just icing on the cake. I know you disagree with me on that, and that's fine and dandy. My argument is that 40k is a fairly big hobby and there is room for both of us in it.

And I have no problems playing people with proxies/scratch-built/shadow-based stuff. As long as it's clear what things are and they are a reasonable size for TLOS, I really don't care. Of course, the game might look like complete poo, but that doesn't mean we both didn't have a blast in the game trying to outmanuever/outthink each other. However, if the "proxies" are so extensive that it's impossible to keep track of what is what (or sizes for TLOS), then that affects the game playability. This is an important distinction, as an unpainted army is still playable (just not as pleasing to the eye), but a shadow-base army is often not going to be usable, simply because it is impossible to tell what pieces are what.

I will be the first to admit that two painted armies squaring off in a hard fought battle simply looks awesome and shows the hobby at probably its best. However, that doesn't mean anything less than that isn't fun for the people involved and can't show the hobby in a positive light. You can talk about holding people to a higher standard, and in many cases I would agree with you... but when dealing with a hobby consisting of little plastic men, I just don't see the big deal. I say live and let live. This is something a lot of people do to blow off steam. When you start turning it into work (and if you ask some people, they consider painting work), then you have to wonder why you would spend money to do something that isn't fun.

Im not so sure, I was at the hradboy all 3 rounds, I don't think most people rushed out to buy anything, it was pretty clear most people were just borrowing things from friends and using things they already had.

Furthermore would a painting requirement keep people out? They announced at the hardboy finals this year that 90 invitees were asked to come, and there were only 64 participants, thats about 1/3 no shows already, with the most open rules for painting.

I wonder why those people didn't come? Perhaps because they didn't like the 1st 2 rounds of the event enough to travel to the finals?

Why could that be?...


Maybe they had something to do that weekend, couldn't afford plane tickets, couldn't get off work, etc, etc. Implying that 1/3 of the people didn't go to the finals because there were too many unpainted armies is a bit silly. I was at the first two rounds, and I saw a mix of painted and --gasp!-- unpainted armies there and everyone seemed to be having a blast. I for one was happy that I didn't have to have my army painted, as otherwise I wouldn't have been able to participate.

Its pretty humorous to see this ironic pattern in the discussion:

(1) "Painting standards keeps people out, and that is bad, we should include everyone!"
(2) "Well, I dont like playing without a 3 color standard"
(1) "Fine then stay home!"


Having a higher standard straight up says "You can't come unless you do this, this, and this first." What I'm saying is that by making it open, you're giving people the choice to come or not. Yeah, you might not like not having a 3-color minimum, but that doesn't mean you still couldn't come if your love of tournament games outweighed your dislike of unpainted armies. The only person that could exclude you from that event is yourself. Also, there are already events for those who like painting/converting only (GD), and those who like to cover the breadth of the hobby (tournaments with paint requirements/scores). It only makes sense to have an event or two for the other end of the spectrum ('Ard Boyz).


Hardboy tournament paintjobs: what do you think? @ 2009/10/05 19:21:09


Post by: Augustus


Polonius wrote:this is frankly a pretty ridiculous post. First, I'm shocked only 26 invitees didn't travel all the way to chicago for a single day of gaming. I qualified for nationals last year, I didn't go because I had to defend a paper that following week and wanted the time to work on it. Not everybody can spend the cash to fly to chicago (which you'd have to from the west). I'd imagine distaste for unpainted armies was a minor factor in most decisions.

Perhaps, I don't know why the other 26 people didn't come either, just wanted to imply a reason might be because the hardboy looks like amature night.

Polonius wrote:I like that by the very end, you tip your hand with the crack about "disciplined people." I really don't think people with painted armies are morally superior in that way.

I do, and I'm not afraid to say it.

Polonius wrote:Finally, how is anybody excluded by not mandating painting? I think this is the weird heart of the matter, that you and others seem to think it's ok to tell others to paint an entire warhammer army, but us asking you to deal with playing unpainted stuff a few afternoons a year is beyond the pale? I hear the stuff about WYSWYG being easier with paint, and I get that it's a richer experience, and those are all true, but this isn't about any of that. It's simply about some old school gamer elitism.

Thats one perspective, elitism, I'll even accept being called an elitist, that fine. Allow me to retorte where the elitist are, isn't the point of the hardboy to find the best player? Now that's elitism for sure, the shoe is on the other foot now.

I also contend that there's a significant difference between a minimum standard to entry, and scoring painting at the hardboy, which I am not advocating at all. Your otherwise eloquent argument basicaly boils down to: "let the people who can't paint have a place to shine, and leave them alone". That's lowering a standard, not raising one.

Polonius wrote:Have you ever watched black and white Television or movies? Either stuff from before color, or back when your TV only showed black and white? Did you get any enjoyment out of the visuals? Or did the knowledge that there is color, HD, etc out there make it impossible to watch?

Unpainted armies are NOT vintage, classic etc., this is an absurd comparison. Unless someone had an antique warhammer army, playing with 80s era figures would be the equivalent of watching black and white movies, which is not what we are talking about.


Hardboy tournament paintjobs: what do you think? @ 2009/10/05 19:22:39


Post by: Redbeard


Polonius wrote:
Your logic runs out of gas at assembly. A models size and presence on the battlefield is important for Line of sight. Empty bases (which I've faced in two tournaments btw and the world didn't explode) simply aren't WYSIWYG.

I don't deny that a painted army looks a lot better, but WYSIWYG is a big tenet of 40k, and that involves models with the right gear glued on. Painting adds color. Assembly is what is needed to play, which is why it's required.


WYSIWYG is a tenet of 40k only because it helps them sell models. Oddly enough, it's not a factor in fantasy, and they manage to have good games without it. And, if I fold a piece of paper in half and write on it, "tactical marine, Bolter" or "Sternguard, combi-melta" it's plenty clear what that card represents.

To address your other point - line of sight is important, I agree. But, it can also be attained by using folded pieces of card rather than miniatures, for a fraction of the cost. Neither purchasing nor assembling plastic or metal men is important if all you want to do is play the game. You do them because you believe that this is a minimum standard to playing. I believe painting should also be considered a minimum standard. It was when I started playing...

Gornall wrote:
This is something a lot of people do to blow off steam. When you start turning it into work (and if you ask some people, they consider painting work), then you have to wonder why you would spend money to do something that isn't fun.


Out of respect for your opponent and the game in general. There are parts of every hobby that are less fun (or more work-like) than other parts. If you're in a band, you have rehersals as well as shows. If you're in a sports league, you have practices and drills as well as games. If you're into hunting, you have to dress your kills as well as actually hunt.

Seriously, it doesn't take all that long, most people who do like to paint are all too happy to help you get started, and when you're done, you have something you can take real pride in on the table.


Hardboy tournament paintjobs: what do you think? @ 2009/10/05 19:46:39


Post by: gorgon


Gornall wrote:This is something a lot of people do to blow off steam. When you start turning it into work (and if you ask some people, they consider painting work), then you have to wonder why you would spend money to do something that isn't fun.


For me, this ultimately leads back to the question of why they're in the hobby in the first place. Note that's not a "paint or get out" comment. I honestly don't understand why someone with no interest or intent to paint would choose this hobby.

Again, to me it's like owning a convertible but never putting the top down. It's a perfectly usable car and you're free to drive it however you wish...but what's the point? Why own a convertible? Wouldn't those people be better suited for a car without that component?

I just don't get it. It's kind of a terrible hobby if you take the painting component completely out of it.


Hardboy tournament paintjobs: what do you think? @ 2009/10/05 19:59:01


Post by: Polonius


Augustus wrote:
Polonius wrote:this is frankly a pretty ridiculous post. First, I'm shocked only 26 invitees didn't travel all the way to chicago for a single day of gaming. I qualified for nationals last year, I didn't go because I had to defend a paper that following week and wanted the time to work on it. Not everybody can spend the cash to fly to chicago (which you'd have to from the west). I'd imagine distaste for unpainted armies was a minor factor in most decisions.

Perhaps, I don't know why the other 26 people didn't come either, just wanted to imply a reason might be because the hardboy looks like amature night.


I think it was a weak point that looked more like sophistry. Of course it's possible that a lack of painted armies kept people at home. It's also possible that fear of the Lake Michigan Monster kept them away.

Polonius wrote:I like that by the very end, you tip your hand with the crack about "disciplined people." I really don't think people with painted armies are morally superior in that way.

I do, and I'm not afraid to say it.


By that logic, are better players morally superior? What about those with the time and money to attend a few dozen tournaments a year? Are the better educated morally superior? I'm not an expert on morality, but this is very thin ice.

Polonius wrote:Finally, how is anybody excluded by not mandating painting? I think this is the weird heart of the matter, that you and others seem to think it's ok to tell others to paint an entire warhammer army, but us asking you to deal with playing unpainted stuff a few afternoons a year is beyond the pale? I hear the stuff about WYSWYG being easier with paint, and I get that it's a richer experience, and those are all true, but this isn't about any of that. It's simply about some old school gamer elitism.

Thats one perspective, elitism, I'll even accept being called an elitist, that fine. Allow me to retorte where the elitist are, isn't the point of the hardboy to find the best player? Now that's elitism for sure, the shoe is on the other foot now.

I also contend that there's a significant difference between a minimum standard to entry, and scoring painting at the hardboy, which I am not advocating at all. Your otherwise eloquent argument basicaly boils down to: "let the people who can't paint have a place to shine, and leave them alone". That's lowering a standard, not raising one.


Elitism has, at least to me and I think most people, the connotation not just of favoring the elite, but favoring an elite that's not based on the criteria for actual value. In an 'Ard boys environment, the idea is to find the best 40k player, not the best hobbyist. Limiting that pool to those with painted armies is elitism in the sense that it restricts the competition, not to the best players, but by some standard unconnected with the standard for the actual competition.

mandating painted armies is a standard. I don't think it's always a good one, and certainly not always a necessary one. It also comes by way of raising another standard, namely that of allowing the best possible armies to be played. Which, ironically, is the very standard the competition is meant to measure?

It's like in ski jumping, when the first skiers used a v-technique, some wanted to ban that formation, saying that the standard was parrallel skis. Somebody pointed out that ski jumping is about jumping far on skis, and not allowing jumpers to go farther defeats some of the purpose.

Polonius wrote:Have you ever watched black and white Television or movies? Either stuff from before color, or back when your TV only showed black and white? Did you get any enjoyment out of the visuals? Or did the knowledge that there is color, HD, etc out there make it impossible to watch?

Unpainted armies are NOT vintage, classic etc., this is an absurd comparison. Unless someone had an antique warhammer army, playing with 80s era figures would be the equivalent of watching black and white movies, which is not what we are talking about.


You missed the point. The question was why build but not paint. I contend that there is still a strong visual component to built, but unpainted stuff. Certainly stronger than card stock.


Hardboy tournament paintjobs: what do you think? @ 2009/10/05 20:14:32


Post by: Redbeard


Polonius wrote:
Elitism has, at least to me and I think most people, the connotation not just of favoring the elite, but favoring an elite that's not based on the criteria for actual value. In an 'Ard boys environment, the idea is to find the best 40k player, not the best hobbyist. Limiting that pool to those with painted armies is elitism in the sense that it restricts the competition, not to the best players, but by some standard unconnected with the standard for the actual competition.


So does restricting the pool to those players who have assembled models, or, for that matter, GW models. My brother has been out of work for several years, and can barely afford rent. He's also a damn good tabletop general, and enjoys 40k. He is restricted from 'ardboyz, not because of any lack of talent, but because he cannot afford a 2500 point army that averages over $1000 worth of toy soldiers.

If the goal is to find the best player, then I contend that even owning models is irrelevant. Folded pieces of card, with the right dimensions, and equipment written on them suffice perfectly well.

If the goal is to find the best player within a pool of people who have purchased and assembled GW models, then I contend that this pool should also include having painted them to a basic tabletop standard. Not to score the painting, but because this step should be considered as valuable to the community.



The question was why build but not paint. I contend that there is still a strong visual component to built, but unpainted stuff. Certainly stronger than card stock.


I see this distinction as arbitrary. The emphasis should either be entirely on playability, in which case card stock is clearly the best way to play this game, or it should be based on the visceral appeal of miniatures, in which case painting should be the standard. To require assembly but not painting is not optimal for any approach to the game, other than perhaps putting the most money in GW's pocket.


Hardboy tournament paintjobs: what do you think? @ 2009/10/05 20:15:05


Post by: Polonius


Redbeard wrote:WYSIWYG is a tenet of 40k only because it helps them sell models. Oddly enough, it's not a factor in fantasy, and they manage to have good games without it. And, if I fold a piece of paper in half and write on it, "tactical marine, Bolter" or "Sternguard, combi-melta" it's plenty clear what that card represents.

To address your other point - line of sight is important, I agree. But, it can also be attained by using folded pieces of card rather than miniatures, for a fraction of the cost. Neither purchasing nor assembling plastic or metal men is important if all you want to do is play the game. You do them because you believe that this is a minimum standard to playing. I believe painting should also be considered a minimum standard. It was when I started playing...

Selling models is good for the hobby though. I'm not a Bedouin, I know that GW needs to stay in business. Buying the models is key to that. Which is why all official GW events (which hard boys is) mandate using GW models.

So, it's an official event, so you have to use GW models. You still need WYSIWYG to play the game. Fantasy is different because every model in a block is armed the same. It's a bad argument. You don't have 25 empire swordsmen, but one with a melta gun. And you better believe that command figures have to be WYSIWYG.

As for it being a standard when you started playing, depending on when that was, it could have been a much easier standard to reach. 1000pts in 2nd ed was, what? 15 models and a tank? You could play with much smaller forces. Even a big game of 2nd ed used a small handful of model.

This whole argument has a bit of a "back in my day we didn't do that" kind of vibe. And that's what it boils down to. You hear "respect" and "standards" thrown around a lot, but this isn't about a sweeping change, its about a single event. I mean, kids should be respectful and not eat too much candy, but Halloween is a fun event despite all that. You shouldn't get drunk before noon, but it's ok on St. Patricks day. Communities have standards and rules, but it's not unusual to allow exceptions.

I think you can adopt a "the hobby is deteriorating and won't somebody think of the children" mentality, or you can acknowledge that there is fun to be had in violating standards.




Hardboy tournament paintjobs: what do you think? @ 2009/10/05 20:17:26


Post by: Gornall


Redbeard wrote: Out of respect for your opponent and the game in general. There are parts of every hobby that are less fun (or more work-like) than other parts. If you're in a band, you have rehersals as well as shows. If you're in a sports league, you have practices and drills as well as games. If you're into hunting, you have to dress your kills as well as actually hunt.

Seriously, it doesn't take all that long, most people who do like to paint are all too happy to help you get started, and when you're done, you have something you can take real pride in on the table.


I respect those players who put the extra time and effort into painting their armies. I give them mad props for all the skill and dedication it takes to paint up an army to those kind of standards. However, that doesn't mean I have to do everything I can to fit their expectation of what the hobby is. I argue that I put just as much time and dedication into researching tactics and strategies, refining armylists, playing practice games, and other things to improve my gameplay as most put into painting their armies. I think that someone who looks down on my "dedication" or "respect" of the hobby is slightly missing the point.

I'm not saying that I can't or won't paint. I actually have 3000+ points of SM painted to a tabletop standard, and I'm working on a Grey Knight army painted to a higher standard based on my experience with the first army. However, I don't have a natural painting or artistic ability, so it takes me a long time to knock out a figure or a unit. Because of this, I don't want to feel rushed to slap paint on a figure just so I can use it. I'd rather be able to use and play with my armies as I slowly paint them to MY acceptable standard rather than some arbitrary 3-color standard someone else thinks is a good minimum.


Hardboy tournament paintjobs: what do you think? @ 2009/10/05 20:28:41


Post by: Polonius


Redbeard wrote:
Polonius wrote:
Elitism has, at least to me and I think most people, the connotation not just of favoring the elite, but favoring an elite that's not based on the criteria for actual value. In an 'Ard boys environment, the idea is to find the best 40k player, not the best hobbyist. Limiting that pool to those with painted armies is elitism in the sense that it restricts the competition, not to the best players, but by some standard unconnected with the standard for the actual competition.


So does restricting the pool to those players who have assembled models, or, for that matter, GW models. My brother has been out of work for several years, and can barely afford rent. He's also a damn good tabletop general, and enjoys 40k. He is restricted from 'ardboyz, not because of any lack of talent, but because he cannot afford a 2500 point army that averages over $1000 worth of toy soldiers.

If the goal is to find the best player, then I contend that even owning models is irrelevant. Folded pieces of card, with the right dimensions, and equipment written on them suffice perfectly well.

If the goal is to find the best player within a pool of people who have purchased and assembled GW models, then I contend that this pool should also include having painted them to a basic tabletop standard. Not to score the painting, but because this step should be considered as valuable to the community.


Well, I address this below, but there's a realism that needs to be brought into play. Gw wants to make money, and wants people to buy stuff. By the same token, having the event on a Saturday precludes any person that can't get that day off, or travel to the finals. Some restrictions are inherent in any activity. Adding ones not related to the competition seems unnecessary.

As I argue above, as a GW events models are requires. WYSIWYG is still required to make it playable. Painting... isn't essential to playing.



The question was why build but not paint. I contend that there is still a strong visual component to built, but unpainted stuff. Certainly stronger than card stock.


I see this distinction as arbitrary. The emphasis should either be entirely on playability, in which case card stock is clearly the best way to play this game, or it should be based on the visceral appeal of miniatures, in which case painting should be the standard. To require assembly but not painting is not optimal for any approach to the game, other than perhaps putting the most money in GW's pocket.


First off, card stock isn't the best way to play the game, even if gameplay were the key. 3d models are easier to see from all angles, and are less likely to get blown over.

I think you're being deliberately obtuse to make the claim that there is no visual component in unpainted miniatures. A spikey chaos marines still looks different from a termagant.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
Gornall wrote:
I'm not saying that I can't or won't paint. I actually have 3000+ points of SM painted to a tabletop standard, and I'm working on a Grey Knight army painted to a higher standard based on my experience with the first army. However, I don't have a natural painting or artistic ability, so it takes me a long time to knock out a figure or a unit. Because of this, I don't want to feel rushed to slap paint on a figure just so I can use it. I'd rather be able to use and play with my armies as I slowly paint them to MY acceptable standard rather than some arbitrary 3-color standard someone else thinks is a good minimum.


This also touches on a factor, which is that many people try to paint to their top standard on each model before moving to the next. I think more people should work on getting base coats on models first, fi they're a slow painted. I have 2k of eldar painted about 3 colors. It's a crappy paint job, but it looks better than bare plastic.


Hardboy tournament paintjobs: what do you think? @ 2009/10/05 20:35:50


Post by: Gornall


Redbeard wrote:I see this distinction as arbitrary. The emphasis should either be entirely on playability, in which case card stock is clearly the best way to play this game, or it should be based on the visceral appeal of miniatures, in which case painting should be the standard. To require assembly but not painting is not optimal for any approach to the game, other than perhaps putting the most money in GW's pocket.


I see the 3-color minimum as arbitrary. Who decided that 3-colors makes a model look that good? Personally, I'd rather see a model not painted at all (or painted to a high tabletop standard) than a quickly/sloppy painted 3-color mini that was done just to meet the standard. Slapping three quick colors on a model to meet a arbitrary standard does nothing (IMO) but hack off the player who had to take time to do it so they can play and annoy the painter who thinks it's a disgrace to look at. Having said that, does that mean a better minimum standard would be to require everyone to have their army judged on entry and if it didn't receive a certain score or higher it would not be allowed to participate? How good is good enough?

And decision to require assembly but not painting is optimal for the "I like seeing cool-looking 3D models as I play a wargame" approach to the game, which happens to be what I enjoy. To me, the value added from going to 3D minitures from card stock >>>>>>>>> going from unpainted to painted 3D minitures. But that's me personally. If your brother wants to play with cardstock or Vassal, that's his perogative. If he can make cardstock figures that are as easy to see what equipment the "figure" is carrying and TLOS at a glance as 3D figures (3D models or pictures offer a faster reference than reading words for me), I honestly wouldn't mind playing against him. He can take up his 'Ard Boyz complaint with GW, because that's not a rule I set.


Hardboy tournament paintjobs: what do you think? @ 2009/10/05 20:39:56


Post by: JohnHwangDD


Gornall wrote:I see the 3-color minimum as arbitrary. Who decided that 3-colors makes a model look that good?

That would be GW, as they decided that primer grey and primer black armies simply wouldn't cut it for their official events.

It's not a high standard, and there's only 2-color to go down to from 3 colors. 3-color is not intended to be good. It's saying, bring something tabletop so the army looks like an army.


Hardboy tournament paintjobs: what do you think? @ 2009/10/05 20:42:19


Post by: Mannahnin


Polonius-

But you already conceded the point that painting the models, at least minimally, enhances playability. If the models have a bit of paint and contrast on them, WYSIWYG is better served, as the models/equipment are more recognizable.

The difference between cardboard stand-ins with the equipment written on them, and unpainted models, and models painted to a minimal degree, is really just a difference of DEGREE of representationalism. All three are steps along a continuum, and IMO a bit of painting better serves the game, even aside from aesthetic considerations, or of the greater questions about what the hobby is “supposed” to be.

As for your point about GW being served better by people actually buying the figures, as opposed to letting people use cardboard stand-ins, sure. But they’d be better served yet if they could actually take pictures at the event and show them off online and in White Dwarf. With unpainted stuff, or some of the frankly terrible-looking armies I saw, in which the player clearly hadn’t really tried, that possibility is lost.


Hardboy tournament paintjobs: what do you think? @ 2009/10/05 20:45:04


Post by: Gornall


Polonius wrote:This also touches on a factor, which is that many people try to paint to their top standard on each model before moving to the next. I think more people should work on getting base coats on models first, fi they're a slow painted. I have 2k of eldar painted about 3 colors. It's a crappy paint job, but it looks better than bare plastic.


I agree somewhat with you. I think a good basecoat goes a long way and it would probably be best to give all my models a basecoat when I start an army. However, I personally get bored if do too much of the same type of painting, so I paint individual units to completion. That way, not only does each unit look consistent (since I painted all of its figures at the same time), but it also gives me variety as I paint and a sense of accomplishment when I finish, which provides more motivation to get going on the next unit.


Hardboy tournament paintjobs: what do you think? @ 2009/10/05 20:50:17


Post by: Cannerus_The_Unbearable


There is no moral law saying I have to paint hobby miniatures to play a game with them. That being said, I'm fully painted because I want to be. For me to assume that my opponent has to be is a waste of my energy and proves I'm exceedingly picky in general. Like the roommate who screams when you don't clean your dishes immediately after using them, just get over it.


Hardboy tournament paintjobs: what do you think? @ 2009/10/05 20:51:15


Post by: Redbeard


Polonius wrote:
First off, card stock isn't the best way to play the game, even if gameplay were the key. 3d models are easier to see from all angles, and are less likely to get blown over.


How often are you playing outdoors? And you say I'm being deliberately obtuse...


This also touches on a factor, which is that many people try to paint to their top standard on each model before moving to the next. I think more people should work on getting base coats on models first, fi they're a slow painted. I have 2k of eldar painted about 3 colors. It's a crappy paint job, but it looks better than bare plastic.


This - and people need to realize that there are ways to paint models ridiculously fast, that give good results. Choose a simple paint-scheme, learn to drybrush, and apply a simple wash, and you're more than halfway there. I think this is what really gets me about it. Painting doesn't need to be a chore, and it doesn't need to take a long time to look good. I've painted over 15,000 points of guys already this year. Guys like Augustus and Centurian99 knock out army after army using simple techniques that work. And, for the most part, you can do it while you watch TV. I watched an entire season of Sanctuary, and every NFL game played so far this year (Yay NFL.com) while painting last week. I've got a full-time job and family commitments, as well as regular gaming nights with friends and somehow find time to get stuff painted. It's really not such an outrageous concept to ask people to spend a few more hours prepping their guys before a tournament.


Hardboy tournament paintjobs: what do you think? @ 2009/10/05 20:54:19


Post by: iamthecougar


the_Armyman wrote:Pfft. Why bother painting anything? Houses are just for living in. Cars are just for driving from point A to point B. Why bother with anything aesthetic if the only reason is to look pretty? My point is twofold:

The paint on stock cars or the bright uniforms/helmets of sports teams have no bearing on their performance, but what kind of crappy place would it be to turn on the TV and see a NASCAR race with primer gray cars or a bunch of football players in white t-shirts?


Actually the paint on cars is to stop the body from decaying be them old cars that rusted or new plastic ones that literally dry rot. And the point of bright colored uniforms in sports games is so that you can tell who is on which team stopping you from letting an opponent at your quarterback because you can't see his face under the helmet negatively affecting your performance. Besides we all know that if you have two identical cars and one is painted red and the other black the red one will go faster.


Hardboy tournament paintjobs: what do you think? @ 2009/10/05 20:54:55


Post by: Polonius


Mannahnin wrote:Polonius-

But you already conceded the point that painting the models, at least minimally, enhances playability. If the models have a bit of paint and contrast on them, WYSIWYG is better served, as the models/equipment are more recognizable.


So do squad markings, fancy conversions, etc. My point is that assembled WYSIWYG models are required to be playable. You can't really run a good tournament without them. The rest is nice but not required.

The difference between cardboard stand-ins with the equipment written on them, and unpainted models, and models painted to a minimal degree, is really just a difference of DEGREE of representationalism. All three are steps along a continuum, and IMO a bit of painting better serves the game, even aside from aesthetic considerations, or of the greater questions about what the hobby is “supposed” to be.


I agree. I don't see that as reason enough to never have any events that don't' require that bit of paint. And the cardboard is not a viable option for any official event, so I think we can stop with that, can't we?

As for your point about GW being served better by people actually buying the figures, as opposed to letting people use cardboard stand-ins, sure. But they’d be better served yet if they could actually take pictures at the event and show them off online and in White Dwarf. With unpainted stuff, or some of the frankly terrible-looking armies I saw, in which the player clearly hadn’t really tried, that possibility is lost.


So, again, what is it? Do models need to be painted, or do they need to look good? Do you require three colors? What about primer? What about a sprayed on base coat? What about bases? Do they count as a third color? Do you know how bad an army painted as fast as possible to meet any technical three color standard would look?

There is no shortage of events they can show pictures of. Absent making paint part of the score, you're going to see a lot of bad paint jobs at hard boys.


Hardboy tournament paintjobs: what do you think? @ 2009/10/05 20:55:26


Post by: Kilkrazy


I have thought for a couple of years that while Golden Daemon and the Internet did painting a favour by creating a gold standard, they also did wargaming a disfavour by giving the impression that all wargaming armies have to look fantastic in 2x magnification.

To me, if it's painted to a basic tabletop standard, that's good enough. It's nice to see stuff done to an even higher standard, but I'm not interested in entire armies of Golden Daemon figures.


Hardboy tournament paintjobs: what do you think? @ 2009/10/05 20:59:51


Post by: Polonius


Redbeard wrote:
Polonius wrote:
First off, card stock isn't the best way to play the game, even if gameplay were the key. 3d models are easier to see from all angles, and are less likely to get blown over.


How often are you playing outdoors? And you say I'm being deliberately obtuse...


Or under an air vent. Or with a cross breeze in store without air conditioning. Or knocked over.

You made an absolute statement. All I need to do is show any counterexample to disprove it.

This - and people need to realize that there are ways to paint models ridiculously fast, that give good results. Choose a simple paint-scheme, learn to drybrush, and apply a simple wash, and you're more than halfway there. I think this is what really gets me about it. Painting doesn't need to be a chore, and it doesn't need to take a long time to look good. I've painted over 15,000 points of guys already this year. Guys like Augustus and Centurian99 knock out army after army using simple techniques that work. And, for the most part, you can do it while you watch TV. I watched an entire season of Sanctuary, and every NFL game played so far this year (Yay NFL.com) while painting last week. I've got a full-time job and family commitments, as well as regular gaming nights with friends and somehow find time to get stuff painted. It's really not such an outrageous concept to ask people to spend a few more hours prepping their guys before a tournament.


And you really need to realize that the ability to paint quickly is a factor of hand eye coordination and abiilty, not just dedication. Yes, more people could paint than do. But it's like how I got through law school studying 15 hours or so a week: most people can't do that.

Listen, I like painted armies. I like paint requirements for most tournaments. I just don't the outrage over hard boys as anything other than boring old elitism for no real purpose.


Hardboy tournament paintjobs: what do you think? @ 2009/10/05 21:01:33


Post by: Gornall


Polonius wrote: So, again, what is it? Do models need to be painted, or do they need to look good? Do you require three colors? What about primer? What about a sprayed on base coat? What about bases? Do they count as a third color? Do you know how bad an army painted as fast as possible to meet any technical three color standard would look?


Prime, dip, dip, done.


Hardboy tournament paintjobs: what do you think? @ 2009/10/05 21:02:45


Post by: Polonius


Gornall wrote:
Polonius wrote: So, again, what is it? Do models need to be painted, or do they need to look good? Do you require three colors? What about primer? What about a sprayed on base coat? What about bases? Do they count as a third color? Do you know how bad an army painted as fast as possible to meet any technical three color standard would look?


Prime, dip, dip, done.


I read a rumor of a guy that did something like that. Primed the model white, and got a pot of three colors of paint. dunked the models in the first, dipped above the knees in the second, and did the head in the third. Three colors, no primer!


Hardboy tournament paintjobs: what do you think? @ 2009/10/05 21:08:30


Post by: Redbeard


That's still better than one of the armies at 'ard-boyz, where the player had taken a third of the army and sprayed it with high-gloss red paint, a third with high-gloss blue, and a third with high-gloss yellow.

3 colors is per-model, not per-army, I think

---
I don't think it is elitism to want to see a minimal painting standard at tournaments. Those opposed to the idea keep tossing that word around, and that's incorrect. Elitism would be demanding that all armies be painted to a golden demon standard. There's nothing elite about managing to get an army to a tabletop standard.


Hardboy tournament paintjobs: what do you think? @ 2009/10/05 21:14:13


Post by: Gornall


Redbeard wrote:I don't think it is elitism to want to see a minimal painting standard at tournaments. Those opposed to the idea keep tossing that word around, and that's incorrect. Elitism would be demanding that all armies be painted to a golden demon standard. There's nothing elite about managing to get an army to a tabletop standard.


The terms "respect" and "dedication" are also being thrown around incorrectly, IMO. How is it any less "respectful" to the hobby to paint at a pace and speed you can manage/enjoy (and playing partially painted in the mean time) than dunking a figure into 3 pots of paint to meet the minimum standard?


Hardboy tournament paintjobs: what do you think? @ 2009/10/05 21:14:52


Post by: Polonius


Redbeard wrote:
---
I don't think it is elitism to want to see a minimal painting standard at tournaments. Those opposed to the idea keep tossing that word around, and that's incorrect. Elitism would be demanding that all armies be painted to a golden demon standard. There's nothing elite about managing to get an army to a tabletop standard.


Watch yourself. We're not talking about tournaments in general, we're talking about a single tournament a year. You can call it whatever you want, but I think finding one aspect of the hobby (painting) to be so important that it trumps all other aspects and should be expected with no exceptions to be... clinging to a standard even when the reasons and goals of that standard aren't part of the activity in question? Maybe it's not elitism, but it's something. Missing the point?


Hardboy tournament paintjobs: what do you think? @ 2009/10/05 21:23:10


Post by: Mannahnin


I think we’re hitting a point of differing worldviews.

Like Gorgon’s point about the convertible. Some people don’t see much sense in playing a game with expensive, well-sculpted model soldiers and then not painting them. But some people apparently feel happy enough that way.

When I started painting, I could barely stand it. But I still felt really good when I got a unit done. Nowadays it’s much more enjoyable. Actually assembling the models is the more annoying chore for me.

I generally think I come down on the side of being okay with ‘Ardboys where it is, largely because of the attitudes displayed in this thread. Some people really don’t get into painting, and aren’t willing to invest even minimal effort to learn & execute decent speed-painting techniques. I think it’s nice to have an event they can play in. But I do think it’d be a better event if it had a three-color minimum.


Hardboy tournament paintjobs: what do you think? @ 2009/10/05 21:23:17


Post by: RustyKnight


Gornall, just give in. You can't convince someone who thinks you are an undisciplined savage while they are a double plus good moral super hero.


Hardboy tournament paintjobs: what do you think? @ 2009/10/05 21:33:25


Post by: Redbeard


Polonius wrote:
Watch yourself.


Watch what? I don't even know waht you mean by this.


We're not talking about tournaments in general, we're talking about a single tournament a year.


It may be one tournament a year. It's also the biggest GW-run tournament of the year, with multiple rounds, and prize support far in excess of any other tournament. The adepticon gladiator gave away a reaver titan, but that pales in comparison to the 'ard boyz prize support, where they gave away (if my math is correct) 30 full armies (one for the winner of each 2nd round tournament).


You can call it whatever you want, but I think finding one aspect of the hobby (painting) to be so important that it trumps all other aspects and should be expected with no exceptions to be... clinging to a standard even when the reasons and goals of that standard aren't part of the activity in question?


I disagree with your notion that this aspect is being considered so important that it trumps any other aspect. I think it should be considered on the same level as buying and assembling the models, part of the basic preparation required to attend the event. You're playing in a massively public event and the quality of the experience should be high. The photos from the event should be worth publishing for the added publicity that this would give GW. As you said, it's good when they make money, and this adds to that aspect of 'ard boyz.



Hardboy tournament paintjobs: what do you think? @ 2009/10/05 21:35:25


Post by: LunaHound


The majority of the arguments presented are " what *i* think looks better "
well , you guys just have to accept everyone have different opinions to how they play their games.

Some are fine with just assembled minis , while some like yourselves , want them painted.
Its really not that hard what im trying to say .


-I rather play a gray plastic unpainted army then a hastily colored army.
-Im sure the guy rather own a gray plastic unpainted army then a hastily colored army that will sell for even less after he is done with it.

"Painted minis will enhance playing experience " again , thats YOUR opinion .
I can dig up some painfully badly painted minis , painted so badly that you cant even recognize what you are looking at.
would you then prefer playing that?

Some people view warhammer as some sort of intricately made game pieces , just like chess pieces they look fine without
been realistic or painted. Or else , thats like saying in white dwarf battle reports , GW shouldnt use marks and icon to represent units .
But they do , because our brain can relate icons of units to the actual units tactically . In other words , for actual gamers ,
they just dont care that much about paintings.

In other words , its very very simple guys.
You enjoy painting , you have your golden demon and other tournaments that gives you points for painting.
Let the other people that dont care for painting get what they want .

In BLUNT EXAMPLE:

This is why there is Gay Bars and Bars . figure out the relation between the 2 .


Hardboy tournament paintjobs: what do you think? @ 2009/10/05 21:36:33


Post by: Polonius


Mannahnin wrote:I think we’re hitting a point of differing worldviews.

Like Gorgon’s point about the convertible. Some people don’t see much sense in playing a game with expensive, well-sculpted model soldiers and then not painting them. But some people apparently feel happy enough that way.


Well, to use the convertabile analogy, what if you wanted a sports car (or table top war game), but the only one available (widely played) was also a convertible (game that has painting as a big part). Are you still dumb to buy the convertible? Or is it still the best car (hobby) for you?

When I started painting, I could barely stand it. But I still felt really good when I got a unit done. Nowadays it’s much more enjoyable. Actually assembling the models is the more annoying chore for me.

I generally think I come down on the side of being okay with ‘Ardboys where it is, largely because of the attitudes displayed in this thread. Some people really don’t get into painting, and aren’t willing to invest even minimal effort to learn & execute decent speed-painting techniques. I think it’s nice to have an event they can play in. But I do think it’d be a better event if it had a three-color minimum.

Why? Why is it a better event? It's an event you'd like more, but that doesn't make it better. Not ever event has to portray the hobby in the best possible light. Allowing people to have fun is also a good thing.

How many people feeling slightly happier because they're playing an army that has three colors instead of bare painted make up for other people staying at home because they couldn't finish the last squad?


Hardboy tournament paintjobs: what do you think? @ 2009/10/05 21:46:41


Post by: P1NK3Y3


LunaHound wrote:The majority of the arguments presented are " what *i* think looks better "
well , you guys just have to accept everyone have different opinions to how they play their games.

Some are fine with just assembled minis , while some like yourselves , want them painted.
Its really not that hard what im trying to say .


-I rather play a gray plastic unpainted army then a hastily colored army.
-Im sure the guy rather own a gray plastic unpainted army then a hastily colored army that will sell for even less after he is done with it.

"Painted minis will enhance playing experience " again , thats YOUR opinion .
I can dig up some painfully badly painted minis , painted so badly that you cant even recognize what you are looking at.
would you then prefer playing that?

Some people view warhammer as some sort of intricately made game pieces , just like chess pieces they look fine without
been realistic or painted. Or else , thats like saying in white dwarf battle reports , GW shouldnt use marks and icon to represent units .
But they do , because our brain can relate icons of units to the actual units tactically . In other words , for actual gamers ,
they just dont care that much about paintings.

In other words , its very very simple guys.
You enjoy painting , you have your golden demon and other tournaments that gives you points for painting.
Let the other people that dont care for painting get what they want .

In BLUNT EXAMPLE:

This is why there is Gay Bars and Bars . figure out the relation between the 2 .


All's I can really say is.

SECONDED.


Hardboy tournament paintjobs: what do you think? @ 2009/10/05 21:47:19


Post by: Polonius


Redbeard wrote:Watch what? I don't even know waht you mean by this.


We're not talking about tournaments in general, we're talking about a single tournament a year.


It may be one tournament a year. It's also the biggest GW-run tournament of the year, with multiple rounds, and prize support far in excess of any other tournament. The adepticon gladiator gave away a reaver titan, but that pales in comparison to the 'ard boyz prize support, where they gave away (if my math is correct) 30 full armies (one for the winner of each 2nd round tournament).


I meant, watch what you're arguing. You made a statement about tournaments in general, and I'm arguing that having an exception for a single tournament is different than enforcing a general standard.

Well, it's the biggest GW tournament now, there used to be GTs, and it's not nearly the most prestigious. It's still a single event in the overall 40k calender.

I disagree with your notion that this aspect is being considered so important that it trumps any other aspect. I think it should be considered on the same level as buying and assembling the models, part of the basic preparation required to attend the event. You're playing in a massively public event and the quality of the experience should be high. The photos from the event should be worth publishing for the added publicity that this would give GW. As you said, it's good when they make money, and this adds to that aspect of 'ard boyz.

Everything you just said was pure opinion. Hard Boys experience is high, because you're playing other top players, not just locals. That's the point of the event. And by everybody's admission, a minimum paint requirement wouldn't exactly make for good pictures. So what does that leave?

The argument you're making is that the event that's meant to reward game play alone would be better if the models simply looked differently. I don't see it.


Hardboy tournament paintjobs: what do you think? @ 2009/10/05 21:48:28


Post by: Oldgrue


Polonius wrote: We're not talking about tournaments in general, we're talking about a single tournament a year.... Missing the point?


That said, it is once a year for the premier supercompetitive event and advertized months in advance. Much like any other scheduled event a dress code of sorts should be expected. Whether its Preakness, Bike Week, a Jimmy Buffet concert, or the Policeman's Ball the event has certain expectations. Failing to meet that dress code is considered rude to the host and other participants.

Many of the participants for this event prepare over the course of the year for the event -army lists, practice, tweaking of units for performance. Certainly somewhere amongst this a participant can schedule time to lay a coat of paint or two down - not GD quality mind you but enough to make a basic show of respect for the organizer and participants.

Holding people to a minimum standard of behavior isn't oppression, or unreasonable.


Hardboy tournament paintjobs: what do you think? @ 2009/10/05 21:49:31


Post by: Mannahnin


Polonius wrote:Well, to use the convertabile analogy, what if you wanted a sports car (or table top war game), but the only one available (widely played) was also a convertible (game that has painting as a big part). Are you still dumb to buy the convertible? Or is it still the best car (hobby) for you?


Good point. I do think that the vast majority of even those people, IME, would enjoy the game and hobby more with painted models.

When I started painting, I could barely stand it. But I still felt really good when I got a unit done. Nowadays it’s much more enjoyable. Actually assembling the models is the more annoying chore for me.

Polonius wrote:I generally think I come down on the side of being okay with ‘Ardboys where it is, largely because of the attitudes displayed in this thread. Some people really don’t get into painting, and aren’t willing to invest even minimal effort to learn & execute decent speed-painting techniques. I think it’s nice to have an event they can play in. But I do think it’d be a better event if it had a three-color minimum.

Why? Why is it a better event? It's an event you'd like more, but that doesn't make it better. Not ever event has to portray the hobby in the best possible light. Allowing people to have fun is also a good thing.



Not just me. IMO everyone who has enough aesthetic sense to enjoy looking at GW models has enough
aesthetic sense to enjoy them more with even a half heated paint job.

Every event put on by GW should make an effort to portray the hobby in a positive light (I think you’re stretching things with that “best possible light” business). And I think that playing with unpainted plastic detracts from that. Encouraging people to have more fun by participating in the aesthetic side of the hobby is a good thing too.


Polonius wrote:How many people feeling slightly happier because they're playing an army that has three colors instead of bare painted make up for other people staying at home because they couldn't finish the last squad?


If you can afford the time and money to build the army, and travel to events, and the time to learn the rules and play enough to be competitive, you can afford the time to paint to a minimum three color standard.



Hardboy tournament paintjobs: what do you think? @ 2009/10/05 21:52:13


Post by: Polonius


Oldgrue wrote:
Polonius wrote: We're not talking about tournaments in general, we're talking about a single tournament a year.... Missing the point?


That said, it is once a year for the premier supercompetitive event and advertized months in advance. Much like any other scheduled event a dress code of sorts should be expected. Whether its Preakness, Bike Week, a Jimmy Buffet concert, or the Policeman's Ball the event has certain expectations. Failing to meet that dress code is considered rude to the host and other participants.

Many of the participants for this event prepare over the course of the year for the event -army lists, practice, tweaking of units for performance. Certainly somewhere amongst this a participant can schedule time to lay a coat of paint or two down - not GD quality mind you but enough to make a basic show of respect for the organizer and participants.

Holding people to a minimum standard of behavior isn't oppression, or unreasonable.


No, but what does it gain? Somebody really has to explain why it's better to have this single tournament require painting, when we know the super competitive types will game the painting requirement anyway. Also, is this going to be enforced? what if one model isn't painted? What then?

Hard boys isn't a dress formal, it's a kegger. Nobody cares if you wear club clothes to a kegger, but nobody cares if you wear a t-shirt and cargo pants.

You need models because GW needs to sell stuff.

You need to build them so they're WYSIWYG.

You need to paint them... so.... what? So people feel a little better?


Hardboy tournament paintjobs: what do you think? @ 2009/10/05 21:56:36


Post by: LunaHound


Mannahnin wrote:
Not just me. IMO everyone who has enough aesthetic sense to enjoy looking at GW models has enough
aesthetic sense to enjoy them more with even a half heated paint job.


I have to disagree with you there , im no golden demon painter but i do believe i paint enough to express my opinion .
As i said earlier , there obviously is a BIG difference between a 3 color paint job by a professional painter ,
compared to 3 color job by someone that really DONT CARE for painting.

With that said , both parties aka me and the armies owner would definately prefer unpainted plastic.
-because hastily painted 3 color job can look bad
-not to mention resale value will go down.


Hardboy tournament paintjobs: what do you think? @ 2009/10/05 21:57:49


Post by: Polonius


Mannahnin wrote:
Not just me. IMO everyone who has enough aesthetic sense to enjoy looking at GW models has enough
aesthetic sense to enjoy them more with even a half heated paint job.

Every event put on by GW should make an effort to portray the hobby in a positive light (I think you’re stretching things with that “best possible light” business). And I think that playing with unpainted plastic detracts from that. Encouraging people to have more fun by participating in the aesthetic side of the hobby is a good thing too.


I'd argue that showing people that you don't need to paint to enjoy the hobby has benefits too. That aside from the pockets where noboy cares, there are still big events that they can play in.

I'd challenge the idea that painting is inherently fun for everybody. A lot of people simply don't like it.


Polonius wrote:How many people feeling slightly happier because they're playing an army that has three colors instead of bare painted make up for other people staying at home because they couldn't finish the last squad?


If you can afford the time and money to build the army, and travel to events, and the time to learn the rules and play enough to be competitive, you can afford the time to paint to a minimum three color standard.

That's a ducked question. Stuff comes up. A guy finds out a week before hard boys he can go, but doesn't have a painted army. Do you feel good about yourself telling him he can't go? So that three guys dont' have to look at his army?

Seriously, what's the value to the hobby of having painted stuff, and what's the value of having people actually playing?

This is a general question: do you think the hobby would be better off if nobody was allowed in unless they were going to fully paint an army? Should people that don't want to paint simply not join the hobby? Would that be better to the hobby, to the community?

If your answer is yes, than that's sad, but I guess people need to feel superior about something. If the answer is no, than there is some value to recruiting people that don't want to paint, so there is value in allowing those people access to a single event.


Hardboy tournament paintjobs: what do you think? @ 2009/10/05 22:01:01


Post by: Mannahnin


Polonius wrote:
I disagree with your notion that this aspect is being considered so important that it trumps any other aspect. I think it should be considered on the same level as buying and assembling the models, part of the basic preparation required to attend the event. You're playing in a massively public event and the quality of the experience should be high. The photos from the event should be worth publishing for the added publicity that this would give GW. As you said, it's good when they make money, and this adds to that aspect of 'ard boyz.

Everything you just said was pure opinion. Hard Boys experience is high, because you're playing other top players, not just locals. That's the point of the event. And by everybody's admission, a minimum paint requirement wouldn't exactly make for good pictures. So what does that leave?


By whose admission? Three color paint jobs would at least allow for some photos of games in progress which wouldn't look terrible in White Dwarf. You're not necessaily looking for closeups. Just some decent player-height table views.

Polonius wrote:The argument you're making is that the event that's meant to reward game play alone would be better if the models simply looked differently. I don't see it.


This is where I feel like you're color blind. Would a pro football game be every bit as enjoyable to watch or participate in if all the players wore identical white jerseys with black numbers?


Hardboy tournament paintjobs: what do you think? @ 2009/10/05 22:02:21


Post by: Kilkrazy


It's better because this hobby is about playing tactical wargames with painted figures.

Obviously no-one can make the Hardboys do that, but it doesn't mean we have to approve if they don't.

It's a bit old skool but there you are.

The oldest known military miniatures in the world are painted.



Hardboy tournament paintjobs: what do you think? @ 2009/10/05 22:02:46


Post by: Polonius


The problem is that all of the arguments for why painting is good aren't met by a simple three color standard. Why have a rule that limits who can participate but doesn't actually help the situation? A lot of legal armies under that standard would be jarringly ugly. I don't like rules that hurt but don't help.

I understand that for a lot of people the visual, storytelling component is the key for why they enjoy 40k. I like that too, but I can assure you, that's not what Hard Boys is about. It's about playing to win. You strip away comp, you strip away theme, you strip away narrative, and you leave a pure core of game play.


Hardboy tournament paintjobs: what do you think? @ 2009/10/05 22:03:32


Post by: LunaHound



I cant believe how many pages this is going.

The idea behind this whole thing is really really basic.

Its not regarding whether you like painted minis , its not regarding whether you like playing against people with painted minis.

What it is , IS:

Whether you can tolerate the idea that There are OTHER individuals that exists , that dont care for painting.
and whether you can tolerate them having THEIR tournaments on the things THEY find important . AKA GAME GENERALSHIP .


Hardboy tournament paintjobs: what do you think? @ 2009/10/05 22:03:50


Post by: Gornall


Polonius wrote:This is a general question: do you think the hobby would be better off if nobody was allowed in unless they were going to fully paint an army? Should people that don't want to paint simply not join the hobby? Would that be better to the hobby, to the community?

If your answer is yes, than that's sad, but I guess people need to feel superior about something. If the answer is no, than there is some value to recruiting people that don't want to paint, so there is value in allowing those people access to a single event.


While the text after the question is loaded, I do think its a valuable question. Should those who do not like to paint leave/not join the hobby? I know you think that it's easy to paint and stuff, but some people find it boring, tedious, difficult, and non-value-adding. Is 40k better off without them?


Hardboy tournament paintjobs: what do you think? @ 2009/10/05 22:06:06


Post by: Kilkrazy



We people who are interested in playing with painted figures aren't interested in playing with unpainted figures.

We think it's silly and dull.

We think the point of playing tabletop figure wargames is to play with painted figures.

We know there are plenty of games which you play with counters, or stand-up cards or on computer, and we play those kinds of games as well. When we want to play tabletop wargames, we want to play with painted figures.

No-one is ever going to convince us it's better to play with unpainted figures. We know it's worse.


Hardboy tournament paintjobs: what do you think? @ 2009/10/05 22:06:09


Post by: Gornall


Mannahnin wrote:Would a pro football game be every bit as enjoyable to watch or participate in if all the players wore identical white jerseys with black numbers?


Would it still have the cheerleaders?


Hardboy tournament paintjobs: what do you think? @ 2009/10/05 22:07:41


Post by: Polonius


Mannahnin wrote:
By whose admission? Three color paint jobs would at least allow for some photos of games in progress which wouldn't look terrible in White Dwarf. You're not necessaily looking for closeups. Just some decent player-height table views.


In theory. Required three color jobs under duress aren't going to pretty, even from a distance, all the time.

I also don't envy the TOs that have to enforce this. Even GTs allowed people to paly with unpainted stuff.

Polonius wrote:The argument you're making is that the event that's meant to reward game play alone would be better if the models simply looked differently. I don't see it.


This is where I feel like you're color blind. Would a pro football game be every bit as enjoyable to watch or participate in if all the players wore identical white jerseys with black numbers?


False comparison. First, Hard boys isn't for spectators. Second, the models are shaped differently, so even if two black primed armies fought, you could tell them apart.

Look, it's prettier to have painted armies. I don't deny that. But it's not about prettiness.

Look at it this way. There is body building and there is weight lifting. Both are about having muscles, but one is purely focused on effect, the other is focused on aesthetics. Would olympic weightlifting be better if every entrant had to have below a certain body fat % or some other aesthetic measure?


Hardboy tournament paintjobs: what do you think? @ 2009/10/05 22:08:46


Post by: Mannahnin


Gornall wrote:
Mannahnin wrote:Would a pro football game be every bit as enjoyable to watch or participate in if all the players wore identical white jerseys with black numbers?


Would it still have the cheerleaders?


Yes, but they’d be forbidden to wear makeup, and they’d have to wear identical shapeless jumpsuits.


Hardboy tournament paintjobs: what do you think? @ 2009/10/05 22:09:05


Post by: Polonius


Kilkrazy wrote:
We people who are interested in playing with painted figures aren't interested in playing with unpainted figures.

We think it's silly and dull.

We think the point of playing tabletop figure wargames is to play with painted figures.

We know there are plenty of games which you play with counters, or stand-up cards or on computer, and we play those kinds of games as well. When we want to play tabletop wargames, we want to play with painted figures.

No-one is ever going to convince us it's better to play with unpainted figures. We know it's worse.


Again, you're ducking the question. Is it bad for the hobby as a whole to allow people to play with unpainted minis in any venue? should people that don't paint be forced out of the hobby?



Hardboy tournament paintjobs: what do you think? @ 2009/10/05 22:09:24


Post by: RustyKnight


People that don't like to paint should be shunned as lepers until they see the hideous errors in their disgusting, primitive, harmful ways. Only the true, superior hobbyists should be allowed to play, all others should have their models confiscated and melted.

I don't paint because I am horrible at it and don't want to ruin figures and I find it boring. Luckily, the FLGS isn't full of bigotry.


Hardboy tournament paintjobs: what do you think? @ 2009/10/05 22:11:18


Post by: Polonius


you guys need to stop hiding behind the "painting is better for the hobby" stuff. Of course it is.

the question is if it's so much better that any event that doesn't require it should be eliminated.

That's my point with the question about non-painters being forced out. At some point, if you allow people that don't want to paint into the hobby, they'll want events. I don't see the problem with allowing it in small doses.



Hardboy tournament paintjobs: what do you think? @ 2009/10/05 22:13:22


Post by: Kilkrazy


Polonius wrote:you guys need to stop hiding behind the "painting is better for the hobby" stuff. Of course it is.

the question is if it's so much better that any event that doesn't require it should be eliminated.


I would if it were possible, but it isn't.


Hardboy tournament paintjobs: what do you think? @ 2009/10/05 22:14:28


Post by: Gornall


Kilkrazy wrote:
We people who are interested in playing with painted figures aren't interested in playing with unpainted figures.

We think it's silly and dull.

We think the point of playing tabletop figure wargames is to play with painted figures.

We know there are plenty of games which you play with counters, or stand-up cards or on computer, and we play those kinds of games as well. When we want to play tabletop wargames, we want to play with painted figures.

No-one is ever going to convince us it's better to play with unpainted figures. We know it's worse.



We people who are interested in playing with unpainted figures aren't interested in playing with painted figures. (not enough value-added for effort in our opininons)

We think painting is silly and dull.

We think the point of playing tabletop figure wargames is to play with figures (painted or not).

We know there are plenty of games which you play with counters, or stand-up cards or on computer, and we play those kinds of games as well. When we want to play tabletop wargames, we want to play with figures (painted or not).

No-one is ever going to convince us it's better or worse to play with unpainted figures. We know it's worse to look at. However, looks don't matter that much to us as we're going for gameplay anyway.


Hardboy tournament paintjobs: what do you think? @ 2009/10/05 22:14:42


Post by: Polonius


Kilkrazy wrote:
Polonius wrote:you guys need to stop hiding behind the "painting is better for the hobby" stuff. Of course it is.

the question is if it's so much better that any event that doesn't require it should be eliminated.


I would if it were possible, but it isn't.


What about people that simply don't like painting? Should they not be allowed in the greater hobby?


Hardboy tournament paintjobs: what do you think? @ 2009/10/05 22:16:56


Post by: LunaHound


Polonius wrote:
What about people that simply don't like painting? Should they not be allowed in the greater hobby?


To GW , they would say yes.

Thats 100s of dollars of primer / glue / paint / flocking material they wont get out of the player.
If it turns into an accepted trend , they'll be losing tons of money.


Hardboy tournament paintjobs: what do you think? @ 2009/10/05 22:18:11


Post by: Polonius


I mean this, where do you people that hated unpainted armies stand on hobbyists that don't want to paint?

Should they be shunned from the community entirely?

Should they be denied access to all events, and cajoled to paint their stuff?

Should they be treated like people that just like a different side of the hobby and maybe still like the rest of the stuff?



Hardboy tournament paintjobs: what do you think? @ 2009/10/05 22:19:55


Post by: Augustus


Polonius wrote:You need to paint them... so.... what? So people feel a little better?

so....

...you can tell armys apart when both sides are playing the same army
...you can tell squads apart in the same army when the units interpenetrate
...you can distinguish otherwise identical transports and avoid the shell game
...gw can sell more paint
...wysiwyg can be even more obvious
...the game can be recorded with photos of a complete game for ads etc.
...you can get more respect from some opponents for the time you spent preparing
...gain a psychological advantage with presence attack
...possbily end up being credited in white dwarf
...inspire the other participants
...feel more comradely because everyone had to work hard(er) to meet the entry requirements


Hardboy tournament paintjobs: what do you think? @ 2009/10/05 22:26:05


Post by: LunaHound


Augustus wrote:
Polonius wrote:You need to paint them... so.... what? So people feel a little better?

so....

...you can tell armys apart when both sides are playing the same army ( not really , this only applies if the paint job is not a bad one )
...you can tell squads apart in the same army when the units interpenetrate ( same as above )
...you can distinguish otherwise identical transports and avoid the shell game ( same )
...gw can sell more paint ( hehehe of course , but thats not really our responsibility )
...wysiwyg can be even more obvious ( depends , badly painted i wouldnt think so )
...the game can be recorded with photos of a complete game for ads etc. ( i would love to see them take pics of badly painted 3 color jobs )
...you can get more respect from some opponents for the time you spent preparing ( i respect my opponents to how they behave , not how much time they spent painting )
...gain a psychological advantage with presence attack ( again , depends . I know i feel sad when my favorite painted model dies , thus i might biasely try to keep it alive via other unit's expense )
...possbily end up being credited in white dwarf ( lol )
...inspire the other participants ( this i agree with )
...feel more comradely because everyone had to work hard(er) to meet the entry requirements ( Sure if its the *requirement )


Hardboy tournament paintjobs: what do you think? @ 2009/10/05 22:26:56


Post by: Polonius


Augustus wrote:
so....

...you can tell armys apart when both sides are playing the same army
...you can tell squads apart in the same army when the units interpenetrate
...you can distinguish otherwise identical transports and avoid the shell game
...gw can sell more paint
...wysiwyg can be even more obvious
...the game can be recorded with photos of a complete game for ads etc.
...you can get more respect from some opponents for the time you spent preparing
...gain a psychological advantage with presence attack
...possbily end up being credited in white dwarf
...inspire the other participants
...feel more comradely because everyone had to work hard(er) to meet the entry requirements


...Useful if both armies are unprimed or primed the exact same paint. It's pretty unlikely though.
...Not fixed with a three paint minimum
...ditto. Also doesn't everybody just put a representative of the squad on the transport?
...you don't have to buy GW paint
...helpful but not required.
...that's nice, but required to play the game
...sure, that's how it works. maybe a little. But not required to play the game
...not required to play
....not required to play
...not required to play

See what I did? Three colors won't help game play in any way other than if two identically primed armies fight. It also won't help with another of those factors except the first.


Hardboy tournament paintjobs: what do you think? @ 2009/10/05 22:28:12


Post by: Oldgrue


Polonius wrote:No, but what does it gain?


1. A minimum level of behavior. This might seem unreasonable, but we expect several other minimum levels of behavior. Personal Hygiene, and dress standards are maintained at these events.

2. Where no one cares if its 'club clothes' or 'cargo pants' the folks at a kegger expect clothing of some sort. Its not unreasonable.

3. Minimum paint standards help differentiate units. Two units of the same sort of models when unpainted don't look like two units. This is generally considered cheating even if the two units are WYSIWYG.

Someone is always going to attempt to push minimum expectations but this is no reason to submit to the removal of them. These minimum expectations help make the event more enjoyable for everyone. Its a game, so people hopefully enjoy themselves.








Hardboy tournament paintjobs: what do you think? @ 2009/10/05 22:29:22


Post by: Polonius


Again, why insist on a rule that's not going to actually result in decent looking armies?

If you're going to have a serious paint requirement, it should be that all models be based, and the base colors on all parts of the model are appropriately painted.

It's a bad rule that for hard boys does more harm than good.

I think it's bad rule universally, because a zeroed paint score should tank any player at an RTT or GT, and I've never seen a tourney not allow unpainted models.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oldgrue wrote:
Polonius wrote:No, but what does it gain?


1. A minimum level of behavior. This might seem unreasonable, but we expect several other minimum levels of behavior. Personal Hygiene, and dress standards are maintained at these events.

2. Where no one cares if its 'club clothes' or 'cargo pants' the folks at a kegger expect clothing of some sort. Its not unreasonable.

3. Minimum paint standards help differentiate units. Two units of the same sort of models when unpainted don't look like two units. This is generally considered cheating even if the two units are WYSIWYG.

Someone is always going to attempt to push minimum expectations but this is no reason to submit to the removal of them. These minimum expectations help make the event more enjoyable for everyone. Its a game, so people hopefully enjoy themselves.


1. Societal expecations and taboos come from a useful place. Hygiene prevents disease and offense to others, and minimum dress is usually required by law and not having to look at naked gamers. Painted armies simply aren't as offensive as a naked smelly guy next to you. I don't care how seriously you take the game.

2. But the kegger doesn't have rules above society in general, is the point. You dont' have to get dressed up to go to the kegger. You still have to wear pants, but if not, you'll be arrested. In this analogy pants are assembled models.

3. Good luck telling my two Pratorian IG squads apart then. they're fulling based, flocked, and have squad markings. Still, nobody can tell two units apart, because they're uniform.

In this case, the minimum expectations don't make the game more enjoyable for everyone, or at least not noticeably so. And the whole point of hard boys is to allow people to play hard, and play to win. mandating painting might make a few people happier, but most people won't care and a few won't go at all. How is that useful?


Hardboy tournament paintjobs: what do you think? @ 2009/10/05 22:35:01


Post by: Gornall


Polonius wrote:Again, why insist on a rule that's not going to actually result in decent looking armies?


This is one of the concerns I have. If you impose a 3-color minimum on all events, then people who game the requirement by dipping models in paint will be good to go, but those who are slowly painting their armies to a tabletop+ standard would be hosed? How does that make for a better event?


Hardboy tournament paintjobs: what do you think? @ 2009/10/05 22:35:56


Post by: Mannahnin


LunaHound wrote:
Mannahnin wrote:Not just me. IMO everyone who has enough aesthetic sense to enjoy looking at GW models has enough aesthetic sense to enjoy them more with even a half hearted paint job.


With that said , both parties aka me and the armies owner would definately prefer unpainted plastic.
-because hastily painted 3 color job can look bad


If a person doesn't care enough about the hobby to invest a certain minimum effort, then the event is probably better off without them. At least until they choose to care a little more, and invest a little more effort.

I played nine games at 'Ard Boyz. Only one of them was against an unpainted army. And that player had a noticeably different attitude about the game, and had the least command of the rules, of any of the people I faced. He had less investment in the hobby, and it showed.


LunaHound wrote:Its not regarding whether you like painted minis , its not regarding whether you like playing against people with painted minis.

What it is , IS:

Whether you can tolerate the idea that There are OTHER individuals that exists , that dont care for painting.
and whether you can tolerate them having THEIR tournaments on the things THEY find important . AKA GAME GENERALSHIP .


Lunahound, I’m sorry, but you’re simply wrong.

I am perfectly willing to accept if people put on a tournament with no painting at all. I will be saddened by it, and think that they would enjoy it more if it included painting, but I would certainly tolerate the event existing.

Your question of whether I can tolerate such players existing makes me wonder if perhaps you are taking this a bit too seriously?

The question, however, was whether people feel that the ‘Ardboyz tournament, which is a GW-run event, and this year their ONLY competitive tournament event in the United States, would be improved by certain minimal painting standards. Certainly it’s possible to have different opinions on this subject. But the fact that I think that it would indeed be a better event does not mean that I am intolerant of anyone. You seem to be focusing on a different question than the original poster asked, as well as distorting and misrepresenting the results of that poll you posted earlier.


Polonius wrote:I also don't envy the TOs that have to enforce this. Even GTs allowed people to paly with unpainted stuff.


No, they were forbidden. They did make a couple of exceptions for people who had disasters occur, or children who still should have known better.

Polonius wrote:False comparison. First, Hard boys isn't for spectators. Second, the models are shaped differently, so even if two black primed armies fought, you could tell them apart.


First, football as a game is originally for the participants. Speaking of games in the local neighborhood, I’ll tell you right now that they’re more fun if you’re wearing team jerseys than it is if you’re going shirts & skins.

Second, if two of the same army face one another, they can indeed get confused. Further, unpainted units in the same army are easier to confuse with one another.

Polonius wrote:Look at it this way. There is body building and there is weight lifting. Both are about having muscles, but one is purely focused on effect, the other is focused on aesthetics. Would olympic weightlifting be better if every entrant had to have below a certain body fat % or some other aesthetic measure?


Okay, within the framework of that metaphor, weightlifting is Chess, and body building is 40k. Except that 40k is really a mixed looks/play endeavor.

Polonius wrote:Again, you're ducking the question. Is it bad for the hobby as a whole to allow people to play with unpainted minis in any venue?


No. IMO it is acceptable to field some unpainted models while you’re getting your army/units painted. Many groups & players have a fairly informal standard of being contented to face an unfinished army as long as they can see some work being done on it from week to week. It is better for the hobby if everyone paints their models.

You’re also expanding the question. The original post was about the ‘ardboyz, currently GW’s biggest competitive tournament in the US, and a potential showcase for the game.

Polonius wrote:Should people that don't paint be forced out of the hobby?


No, they should be encouraged and supported and helped to participate more fully.


Hardboy tournament paintjobs: what do you think? @ 2009/10/05 22:36:44


Post by: Polonius


Gornall wrote:
Polonius wrote:Again, why insist on a rule that's not going to actually result in decent looking armies?


This is one of the concerns I have. If you impose a 3-color minimum on all events, then people who game the requirement by dipping models in paint will be good to go, but those who are slowly painting their armies to a tabletop+ standard would be hosed? How does that make for a better event?


I had a dark eldar army I painted three color legal. I hated playing it, and eventually sold it, because it looked like trash. Three colors doesn't always mean good looking.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Mannahnin wrote:
Polonius wrote:Again, you're ducking the question. Is it bad for the hobby as a whole to allow people to play with unpainted minis in any venue?


No. IMO it is acceptable to field some unpainted models while you’re getting your army/units painted. Many groups & players have a fairly informal standard of being contented to face an unfinished army as long as they can see some work being done on it from week to week. It is better for the hobby if everyone paints their models.

You’re also expanding the question. The original post was about the ‘ardboyz, currently GW’s biggest competitive tournament in the US, and a potential showcase for the game.

Polonius wrote:Should people that don't paint be forced out of the hobby?


No, they should be encouraged and supported and helped to participate more fully.


I'm expanding the question because I think it's the root of the question on the table. The only reason to have a problem with unpainted armies at hard boys is if you think it's so antithetical to the hobby that it's bad for the hobby as a whole, which raises the question of what role, if any, people that simply don't' want to paint armies have in the hobby as a whole.

Let's say I have a friend that is interested in the fluff, likes to model, likes to play, but wont' paint. He will never paint a single mini, let alone his army. Should I tell him not start the hobby? Would his involvement hurt the hobby? If so, why?


Hardboy tournament paintjobs: what do you think? @ 2009/10/05 22:44:31


Post by: Augustus


Polonius wrote:Again, why insist on a rule that's not going to actually result in decent looking armies?


I answered this question, and you are ducking it now. More succinctly, for these game defining technical reasons:

(1) To tell armys apart that use otherwise identical figs
(2) To define otherwise identical transports vfriendly or enemy
(3) To Define comingled friendly squads

How about these reasons. None of these are for "feeling good", paint points, just for outright well defined play.


Hardboy tournament paintjobs: what do you think? @ 2009/10/05 22:46:25


Post by: Gornall


Mannahnin wrote:I played nine games at 'Ard Boyz. Only one of them was against an unpainted army. And that player had a noticeably different attitude about the game, and had the least command of the rules, of any of the people I faced. He had less investment in the hobby, and it showed.


Ouch... that generalization hurts (it couldn't have been he was newer to the hobby or anything besides he's a "bad hobbyist"). From my experience at the first 2 rounds of 'Ard Boyz, I played both painted and unpainted armies and didn't notice any difference between the people (I had pretty awesome experiences all around). However, I do have to say that my best experience was against a guy with a partially painted army and my least favorite (but still very good) were against people with high-quality painted armies. What does this mean... absolutely nothing!


Hardboy tournament paintjobs: what do you think? @ 2009/10/05 22:46:28


Post by: Polonius


Mannahnin wrote:
Polonius wrote:I also don't envy the TOs that have to enforce this. Even GTs allowed people to paly with unpainted stuff.


No, they were forbidden. They did make a couple of exceptions for people who had disasters occur, or children who still should have known better.


That policy was not always enforced. I've seen the evidence.

First, football as a game is originally for the participants. Speaking of games in the local neighborhood, I’ll tell you right now that they’re more fun if you’re wearing team jerseys than it is if you’re going shirts & skins.

Second, if two of the same army face one another, they can indeed get confused. Further, unpainted units in the same army are easier to confuse with one another.


Again, there is this insistence that because having the rule makes things slightly better it should be enacted. Yes, jerseis make pick up football more fun. It's still fun without them though.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
Augustus wrote:
Polonius wrote:Again, why insist on a rule that's not going to actually result in decent looking armies?


I answered this question, and you are ducking it now. More succinctly, for these game defining technical reasons:

(1) To tell armys apart that use otherwise identical figs
(2) To define otherwise identical transports vfriendly or enemy
(3) To Define comingled friendly squads

How about these reasons. None of these are for "feeling good", paint points, just for outright well defined play.


But none of those require three colors. I'd be fine with a rule stating that all models must be either painted or have some ID on them. Rules should so what they intend to, with as little infringement as possible, particularly in an environment like hard boys that's trying to cast a wide net.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Gornall wrote:
Mannahnin wrote:I played nine games at 'Ard Boyz. Only one of them was against an unpainted army. And that player had a noticeably different attitude about the game, and had the least command of the rules, of any of the people I faced. He had less investment in the hobby, and it showed.


Ouch... that generalization hurts (it couldn't have been he was newer to the hobby or anything besides he's a "bad hobbyist"). From my experience at the first 2 rounds of 'Ard Boyz, I played both painted and unpainted armies and didn't notice any difference between the people (I had pretty awesome experiences all around). However, I do have to say that my best experience was against a guy with a partially painted army and my least favorite (but still very good) were against people with high-quality painted armies. What does this mean... absolutely nothing!


Yeah, I didn't know how to respond to that one either. The biggest tool I ever met playing 40k had a gorgeously painted army. I guess that means people that paint are all jerks.


Hardboy tournament paintjobs: what do you think? @ 2009/10/05 22:53:43


Post by: Augustus


Polonius wrote:
Augustus wrote:
Polonius wrote:Again, why insist on a rule that's not going to actually result in decent looking armies?


I answered this question, and you are ducking it now. More succinctly, for these game defining technical reasons:

(1) To tell armys apart that use otherwise identical figs
(2) To define otherwise identical transports vfriendly or enemy
(3) To Define comingled friendly squads

How about these reasons. None of these are for "feeling good", paint points, just for outright well defined play.


But none of those require three colors. I'd be fine with a rule stating that all models must be either painted or have some ID on them. Rules should so what they intend to, with as little infringement as possible, particularly in an environment like hard boys that's trying to cast a wide net.


Agreed.


Hardboy tournament paintjobs: what do you think? @ 2009/10/05 22:56:15


Post by: Polonius


Even with squad markings, my praetorians are hard to tell apart. I paint the interior of the right epaulette the platoon color, and the left one the squad color. I paint both on the base as well to help tell them apart.

My ex girlfriends demonettes only had a rhinestone on the base. We didnt like any way to mark them, so each squad had a different color little gem on the rim of the base.


Hardboy tournament paintjobs: what do you think? @ 2009/10/05 22:56:47


Post by: JohnHwangDD


I don't know why this is 7 pages.

Do painted armies look better? Yes.

Should people be encouraged to paint? Yes.

Does GW require some minimal painting for all other event? Yes.

Does modern spray & wash allow people to meet this requirement more easily than ever before? Yes.

Great!


IMO, it'd be great to deny prizes to unpainted armies, however defined.

____

Also, the discussion about cardboard chits and such has no bearing when we're talking about events that require GW models to play.


Hardboy tournament paintjobs: what do you think? @ 2009/10/05 22:57:23


Post by: Cannerus_The_Unbearable


I have a fully painted Chaos army. I have a barely painted Eldar army that's still in progress. So if I play with my barely/un painted eldar army I'm automatically a jerk, have no grasp of the game, etc.

There is nothing saying anyone has to paint. It looks nice, yes, but that's all. Some people like the game more than painting, and that does not infer anything specifically about them.


Hardboy tournament paintjobs: what do you think? @ 2009/10/05 23:03:44


Post by: Oldgrue


Polonius wrote:Again, why insist on a rule that's not going to actually result in decent looking armies?


Three colors isn't a serious requirement. Differentiating multiple units of the same sort isn't a serious requirement, its courtesy.

Frankly, I think my stuff looks like reheated crap and its not from bad photography. Expecting similar levels of painting excludes more people than a minimum paint level will. Three colors is simple enough for most anyone with the cognitive facility to play the game without a helper . Even me.

Set the expectation, then let the social group increase it.


Hardboy tournament paintjobs: what do you think? @ 2009/10/05 23:35:02


Post by: Redbeard


LunaHound wrote:
Whether you can tolerate the idea that There are OTHER individuals that exists , that dont care for painting.
and whether you can tolerate them having THEIR tournaments on the things THEY find important . AKA GAME GENERALSHIP .


I could certainly appreciate them having their tournament on what they find important. What I object to is that Games Workshop is sponsoring their biggest tournament, with the most prize support, as this sort of event. I would prefer it if the company sponsored event (the only one this year, I might add), was done in such a way that the armies on the table looked decent.

That doesn't mean I don't think that there should be tournaments without painting requirements, only that I don't think GW should be sponsoring them.


Polonius wrote:
the question is if it's so much better that any event that doesn't require it should be eliminated.

That's my point with the question about non-painters being forced out. At some point, if you allow people that don't want to paint into the hobby, they'll want events. I don't see the problem with allowing it in small doses.


Again, it isn't about any event, it's about the biggest company sponsored event - and the only one they ran this year. Independents can do whatever they want on their dime.

When you consider that money being spent to run the 'ard boyz tournament is coming from GW's budget, which in turn comes from sales of things including paint and basing materials (which have got to have some of their highest margins), I don't think it unreasonable to expect that paint and basing materials be used on the models in the event. In short, as a customer, paying their elevated prices, I'm subsidizing 'ard boyz. GW doesn't show pictures of unpainted models on their website or promotional materials, why should anyone expect to see those things at a company run event?


Augustus wrote:
...you can tell armys apart when both sides are playing the same army
...you can tell squads apart in the same army when the units interpenetrate
...you can distinguish otherwise identical transports and avoid the shell game


And here are several additional benefits of painting that do directly impact game-play, so there we go. If assembling the models is necessary in order to have your line-of-sight issues resolved, then painting in necessary in order to tell the models apart and know what is going where. Good call Augustus.


Hardboy tournament paintjobs: what do you think? @ 2009/10/05 23:38:48


Post by: malfred


Kilkrazy wrote:It's better because this hobby is about playing tactical wargames with painted figures.

Obviously no-one can make the Hardboys do that, but it doesn't mean we have to approve if they don't.

It's a bit old skool but there you are.

The oldest known military miniatures in the world are painted.



I'm wondering if those were done as a hobby, though. I imagine it was the painter's
job to do that, which is a bit different.

Nice example, though.


Hardboy tournament paintjobs: what do you think? @ 2009/10/05 23:50:49


Post by: Polonius


Polonius wrote:
the question is if it's so much better that any event that doesn't require it should be eliminated.

That's my point with the question about non-painters being forced out. At some point, if you allow people that don't want to paint into the hobby, they'll want events. I don't see the problem with allowing it in small doses.


Again, it isn't about any event, it's about the biggest company sponsored event - and the only one they ran this year. Independents can do whatever they want on their dime.

When you consider that money being spent to run the 'ard boyz tournament is coming from GW's budget, which in turn comes from sales of things including paint and basing materials (which have got to have some of their highest margins), I don't think it unreasonable to expect that paint and basing materials be used on the models in the event. In short, as a customer, paying their elevated prices, I'm subsidizing 'ard boyz. GW doesn't show pictures of unpainted models on their website or promotional materials, why should anyone expect to see those things at a company run event?


So, is the problem an unpainted event, or is the problem the lack of GTs that require paint? I agree to the extent that there should be GW events that highlight the entire hobby, and hard boys doesn't do that. I'm not sure you can make hard boys really be the representative of the hobby... it's simply too focused on battle points. You can't make an apple an orange.

Like I've been saying all along, Hard Boys is part of a balanced breakfast. I'm used to their being 4+ GTs a year, not to mention all kinds of Indy GTs.

And, I'm guessing GW has ran the numbers to see what's more likely: that a fully unpainted tournament get people to buy more models, or requiring three paints require people to buy more GW paints. Buying a single landraider to fill out an ard boys army brings in more revenue than buying three pots of paint at the craft store to meet the requirements. Even if using GW paints, there's no way they're making more on three paints than on extra units.

At your last point, they don't' show anything but well painted armies on the website and white dwarf. I've been painting for 8 years, and my stuff isnt' as good as they stuff they show. I mean, this is literally an event that prides itself on not having a paint component, do you really think anybody expects well painted armies?



Hardboy tournament paintjobs: what do you think? @ 2009/10/06 00:13:53


Post by: Cannerus_The_Unbearable


@Red: You're the only one so far whose point I actually get. The "painters" funding the "non-painters" to have the only big event could be annoying. It shouldn't be that way next year according to GW jargon at least :p


Hardboy tournament paintjobs: what do you think? @ 2009/10/06 01:43:39


Post by: Sincity


Oldgrue wrote:
Polonius wrote: We're not talking about tournaments in general, we're talking about a single tournament a year.... Missing the point?


That said, it is once a year for the premier supercompetitive event and advertized months in advance. Much like any other scheduled event a dress code of sorts should be expected. Whether its Preakness, Bike Week, a Jimmy Buffet concert, or the Policeman's Ball the event has certain expectations. Failing to meet that dress code is considered rude to the host and other participants.

Many of the participants for this event prepare over the course of the year for the event -army lists, practice, tweaking of units for performance. Certainly somewhere amongst this a participant can schedule time to lay a coat of paint or two down - not GD quality mind you but enough to make a basic show of respect for the organizer and participants.

Holding people to a minimum standard of behavior isn't oppression, or unreasonable.


And the standard , at 'ard boyz was paint not required. Glad to see at least one of you paint nazis coming around , and before you spout pho-indignation .... don't.


Hardboy tournament paintjobs: what do you think? @ 2009/10/06 01:45:45


Post by: DarthDiggler


3 color paint jobs are easy to pull off and will have zero effect on telling units apart in the same army. Spray black, slap shadow grey over armor, paint the head enchanted blue. No difference to any model and all bolter marines look identical.

The fear of identical armies colliding on the tabletop will only occur with 2 identical armies that are not painted. The painted player will never run into this fear so it should be moot for the painting faction.

The Ard Boyz champion didn't even spray a base color on his models. I'm sure there is anecdotal evidence of painted armies run by players who have no idea what the rules are. If I had a nickel for every time I played in a tournament against a beautifully painted army run by an old GW veteran player who thought this was still 2nd edition I would have a lot of nickels.

An army sprayed black, with silver guns and a different colored dot on the right shoulder would satisfy a lot of the propainting arguments, yet if those pictures are published in White Dwarf I'm sure an editor would be fired.

The argument that GW should require painting in their tournaments is a hotly debated topic between GW England and GW US. The Ard Boyz is a trade sales event, run by them and funded by them. It generates a healthy volume of sales for the trade accounts. That is why the 1st and 2nd rounds are usually not allowed at GW stores. The idea is to drive sales at independent retail trade sales accounts. Let me state this again. This format is designed to drive sales at independent stores, privately owned by private citizens. Ard Boyz is designed to generate sales at these local brick and mortar stores. I don't know about you, but supporting the local brick and mortar non-GW stores is a good thing and GW trade sales are doing this for them (and GW).

If this tournament were to go the way of required painting, even basic 3 colors, it would lower envolvement, lower participation and lower sales at privately owned brick and mortar stores. The impulse buy would be gone and much more hardocre planning would need to be done to successfully participate. Players wouldn't be able to see the allure of a free 2500pt army for winning the 2nd round and buy up 9 Valkyries in a month, assemble them and play (true story). Players wouldn't go out and buy that one predator because it fits snuggly in their army (that's me). Players wouldn't load up on so many chimeras, so many tanks and especially so many Orks. Who would have 30 Meganobz all painted and ready to go in a one week timeframe when painting is required?

Local sales are the driving force behind this tournament and anything that increases sales is good. Most people wouldn't buy new models is painting were required, I feel they would try to make due with what they have as best they could.

As an aside I know Redbeard has enough models to field most anything in 3000pts let alone 2500pts, what about the other propainting posters? John and Oldgrue seem to have huge armies already from their sig information. I wonder how many of you have huge painted armies that can easily satisfy your painting requirement and not have to buy very many models, if any at all, to play armies in the Ard Boyz. Since sales are the main reason behind this, would you still buy several hundred dollars worth of merchandise to participate in the next Ard Boyz in spring 2010? Or do you already have what you need and wouldn't buy anything?


Hardboy tournament paintjobs: what do you think? @ 2009/10/06 01:56:57


Post by: Redbeard


DarthDiggler wrote:
As an aside I know Redbeard has enough models to field most anything in 3000pts let alone 2500pts, what about the other propainting posters? John and Oldgrue seem to have huge armies already from their sig information. I wonder how many of you have huge painted armies that can easily satisfy your painting requirement and not have to buy very many models, if any at all, to play armies in the Ard Boyz. Since sales are the main reason behind this, would you still buy several hundred dollars worth of merchandise to participate in the next Ard Boyz in spring 2010? Or do you already have what you need and wouldn't buy anything?


I get bored easily. I painted 5500 points of guys last week so I could take something new to the AWC tournament next weekend. I'd probably buy something new for 'ard boyz as well.


Hardboy tournament paintjobs: what do you think? @ 2009/10/06 03:02:14


Post by: DarthDiggler


5500 pts? Boy, Chris raised the pts. limit a bit did he?


Hardboy tournament paintjobs: what do you think? @ 2009/10/06 03:13:53


Post by: LunaHound


Redbeard wrote:
DarthDiggler wrote:
As an aside I know Redbeard has enough models to field most anything in 3000pts let alone 2500pts, what about the other propainting posters? John and Oldgrue seem to have huge armies already from their sig information. I wonder how many of you have huge painted armies that can easily satisfy your painting requirement and not have to buy very many models, if any at all, to play armies in the Ard Boyz. Since sales are the main reason behind this, would you still buy several hundred dollars worth of merchandise to participate in the next Ard Boyz in spring 2010? Or do you already have what you need and wouldn't buy anything?


I get bored easily. I painted 5500 points of guys last week so I could take something new to the AWC tournament next weekend. I'd probably buy something new for 'ard boyz as well.


Though im sure even you 'll realize given the same amount of time spent , not everyone will yield the same results.
especially some people that hates painting / dont have a habit painting , will not yield even 10% of the positive paint jobs.


Hardboy tournament paintjobs: what do you think? @ 2009/10/06 03:46:35


Post by: artyboy


Darthdiggler nailed it on the head. 'Ard boyz tournaments generate more revenue than any GT could ever hope to. That's why they get such great prize support. Even if someone plays their "normal" army they might still need to buy a few units that they wouldn't normally field so that they can be competitive. Now GW can get those sales and the person buying the models doesn't have to worry about painting them to get them ready for a tournament.


Hardboy tournament paintjobs: what do you think? @ 2009/10/06 03:54:24


Post by: carmachu


Redbeard wrote:I don't think anyone is saying that 'ardboys should have a painting (or comp, for that matter) score associated with it. Just that the base requirement for playing should be a painted army, not just a purchased army.

The Adepticon Gladiator, for example, has no comp score, no painting score, but has a 3-color painting requirement. And, it's far more enjoyable to play in.

I don't hear anyone arguing that they should have to buy the models to play in 'ardboyz. I don't hear anyone complaining that they had to assemble the models to play. Why is the next step such a big deal?


Why? Why should the base requriement for playing be painting? As you pointed out, Adept Gladiator had its requirements. No comp, no paint score, but 3 color minimium. And thats fine. I'm sure GT's have both COmp and painting score. And its ok.

But god forbid that there is ONE tournment without a painting score and its a crime. Why can you not just leave it alone and let folks play in ONE tournment that has a different requirement. Why can you not let folks play in one without insisting on painting?

Its elitism right to its core.

Its a big deal becuase you and others just want it your way and no other. Right now if someone or group wanted to sponsor a "GW 40K half assembled tournment" I'd be perfectly ok with it. Not my cup a tea, but if folks want to slug it out with half assembled models, knock yourself out.

Hell if someone wants to have a "Golden demons tournment" where your army must include one model that was entered and reached honorable mentioning or better to play, Have at it. Again not my cup of tea, but go have fun.

You want a tourney with comp, no comp, sports, no sports, painting, 3 color minium or not at all.....Go at it and have fun. Some of them will appeal to some of you, some of the requirements(or lack there of) wioll have you turn up your nose.


The whole point I'm making redbeard is everyone has a point in the game that they like and enjoy. And there are torunments that will fit your enjoyment. But folks like yourself and others dont seem to want to let others have THEIR enjoyment, and seem to want only YOUR brand of fun.

And thats not right. If you dont like a unpainted tournment, dont enter. Go play a GT. But let others who do get enjoyment from just slugging it out, have their fun. You all seem to brand anything not of your liking "wrong fun".


Automatically Appended Next Post:
gorgon wrote:

For me, this ultimately leads back to the question of why they're in the hobby in the first place. Note that's not a "paint or get out" comment. I honestly don't understand why someone with no interest or intent to paint would choose this hobby.


Conversion work, fliuff, actual game play, or just beer and preztels fun with a good friends.

There are more than a few reasons to actually be in it then painting. I actually got in it almost 20 years ago because of the fluff and spending time with a good friend. Many a Saturdays wasted on alot of fun between RT /2nd and space hulk. We almsot never painted our stuff much then either.


Hardboy tournament paintjobs: what do you think? @ 2009/10/06 04:34:24


Post by: Redbeard


carmachu wrote:
The whole point I'm making redbeard is everyone has a point in the game that they like and enjoy. And there are torunments that will fit your enjoyment. But folks like yourself and others dont seem to want to let others have THEIR enjoyment, and seem to want only YOUR brand of fun.

And thats not right. If you dont like a unpainted tournment, dont enter. Go play a GT. But let others who do get enjoyment from just slugging it out, have their fun. You all seem to brand anything not of your liking "wrong fun".


No, it's not wrong fun. I have no problem with people playing their way, or independent entities running whatever rules they choose to run.

My issue is with it being company sponsored. GW is running one tournament this year, and it's 'ard boyz. Look at the responses to this poll. nearly a full half of respondents are in favour of painted armies. Less than 20% want an unpainted tournament. Why should the only GW sponsored tournament offered cater to a minority of the players?

You say go play a GT? They cancelled the GTs. If 'go play a GT' were still an option, I'd be okay with 'ard boyz being unpainted. Again, it's a minority who are in favour of the unpainted tournament - why should the only company sponsored event cater to a minority of players?


Hardboy tournament paintjobs: what do you think? @ 2009/10/06 04:41:36


Post by: Malecus


It isn't that GW collectively decided that they were only going to run 'ard Boyz. Trade/Sales didn't back out of supporting their tournament. The promotions department (or whoever is normally in charge) backed out of the GT's. Complain to them if you want, but leave your "I'm paying for you to play with unpainted miniatures" conspiracy theories at home, please.

The fact that Trade/Sales continued to support this tournament in economic hard times, combined with Darth's very valid points about the reasons behind the tournament and what it can do for local stores is why I want GW to be one of my primary product lines if I ever get the chance to run my own shop.


Hardboy tournament paintjobs: what do you think? @ 2009/10/06 04:59:14


Post by: Oldgrue


Sincity wrote: Glad to see at least one of you paint nazis coming around , and before you spout pho-indignation .... don't.

(snark)
I'm angry about soup! Pho indignation indeed!
(/snark)

That'd presume you're right and I came close to agreeing with it. The lack of standard was a bad idea in my opinion. The winner certainly wasn't surprised he'd be participating.
84 infantry and 10 vehicles isn't so hard to slap a lick of paint on and he certainly took the time to assemble the army. Perhaps he just 'didn't have enough time' Each round of the tourney was so closely spaced that he couldn't *possibly* have made the time to do that over the course of two months. I'd expect at least a painted army as a matter of course rather than exception. Its part of being an adult.

To be fair, I do have some hefty armies in my pocket. I'd likely build a whole new army for tournament and get it painted to my grainy but functional standard out of pride. An unpainted army just looks bad. Whether or not I'll ever see these people again is irrelevant: I have a standard I expect of myself.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
@Polonius
Cajoled, or socially pressured? The person with 'Gamer Funk' is guided back to acceptable hygiene levels in public. The loud grabby child is guided to acceptable behavior.

Each of these behaviors are acceptable in their own environment - at home. In public, or in competition, there should be a different expectation.
Meet minimum standards of behavior, or don't expect to be welcomed.



Hardboy tournament paintjobs: what do you think? @ 2009/10/06 05:13:07


Post by: DarthDiggler


Redbeard wrote:You say go play a GT? They cancelled the GTs. If 'go play a GT' were still an option, I'd be okay with 'ard boyz being unpainted. Again, it's a minority who are in favour of the unpainted tournament - why should the only company sponsored event cater to a minority of players?


First I wouldn't call it a minority of players. More than half would accept the status quo and that is with a poorly worded poll which can confuse people into thinking this is about all tournaments, not just Ard Boyz.

I think the real dagger to the propainted crowds argument is what Redbeard says above. The GT's were cancelled for a number of reasons. Was one of them the big firestorm when the best painted army was discovered not to be painted by the owner? There have always been whispers, but someone was finally caught. In running tournaments around Chicago and Adepticon, it has been my experience that the most bitter players, the most bitter controversies and the biggest cries come from the painting first crowd. I don't mean to paint a broad brush and I know a lot of awesome painters who don't cause a stink (Redbeard is one of them), but hell hath no fury like a painter scorned in a tournament. I have never seen or heard of the complaining after a tournament like it comes from the painters. Why did he get a higher score than me? I had shading he didn't. My conversions were better. Whoever scored painting doesn't know what they are doing, etc..

And if GW didn't cater to a minority of players, then there wouldn't be Bloodbowl, Epic, LOTR, Fantasy, etc... If 700,000 players out of 1 million are your painting first crowd, do you alienate the other 300,000 and threaten to lose 30% of your sales just to please 70%?


Hardboy tournament paintjobs: what do you think? @ 2009/10/06 05:52:44


Post by: Polonius


Oldgrue wrote:
@Polonius
Cajoled, or socially pressured? The person with 'Gamer Funk' is guided back to acceptable hygiene levels in public. The loud grabby child is guided to acceptable behavior.

Each of these behaviors are acceptable in their own environment - at home. In public, or in competition, there should be a different expectation.
Meet minimum standards of behavior, or don't expect to be welcomed.



I love posts like this that don't actually say anything. My point was that there was solid value in those other areas of minimum standards. Paint has some reasons, but not in a hard boys style tournament. There is no need for it.


Hardboy tournament paintjobs: what do you think? @ 2009/10/06 06:07:41


Post by: Manchu


Ah, the unpainted army controversy! Another age-old dakka chestnut. I guess the question really comes down to this: is 40k really separable into (a) hobby and (b) game or is it an indivisible experience? If you take out the game is it just collecting? Is collecting destructive to the genre? Probably not. If you take out the painting, is it just power gaming? Is power gaming destructive to the genre? That's a tougher question, especially when you wonder if power gaming isn't inevitable whether there's a hobby involved or no (don't even consider how much the wealth factor effects this past time). Seems like people are mostly annoyed that GW would even allow unpainted entry into one of their tournaments because it seems transparently greedy at the expense of sportsmanship. I don't like the idea personally and I think it's silly in the longterm for GW to encourage it (or maybe they're just accepting the fact that so few of their customers actually get around to painting) but I think it's clear that people who paint aren't necessarily the best gamers and maybe that's where a lot of the real hurt is coming from--spending forever on an army just have it crushed by someone who can't even be bothered.


Hardboy tournament paintjobs: what do you think? @ 2009/10/06 06:09:36


Post by: Red9


DarthDiggler wrote:If 700,000 players out of 1 million are your painting first crowd, do you alienate the other 300,000 and threaten to lose 30% of your sales just to please 70%?
O are do you alienate 70% to lose 30% of you sales?


Hardboy tournament paintjobs: what do you think? @ 2009/10/06 06:11:17


Post by: LunaHound


Red9 wrote:
DarthDiggler wrote:If 700,000 players out of 1 million are your painting first crowd, do you alienate the other 300,000 and threaten to lose 30% of your sales just to please 70%?
O are do you alienate 70% to lose 30% of you sales?


But we all saw the numbers in the poll thread ?


Hardboy tournament paintjobs: what do you think? @ 2009/10/06 06:12:56


Post by: Manchu


I don't think that poll thread means as much as you're making it out to, Luna.

I mean, look at the poll in this thread.


Hardboy tournament paintjobs: what do you think? @ 2009/10/06 06:13:40


Post by: LunaHound


Manchu wrote:I don't think that poll thread means as much as you're making it out to, Luna.


k :<


Hardboy tournament paintjobs: what do you think? @ 2009/10/06 06:21:33


Post by: Orkeosaurus


The problem with the other poll is it's not a matter of one or the other in this instance.

It's fully possible to value gaming more than painting but value painting enough to seek out painted armies to play against.


Hardboy tournament paintjobs: what do you think? @ 2009/10/06 06:24:07


Post by: Manchu


Dead on, Orkesaurus. But apply that sentiment to the question of official GW tournament rules.


Hardboy tournament paintjobs: what do you think? @ 2009/10/06 06:27:09


Post by: Polonius


Based on what I'm reading, it seems that people are annoyed that the only Official GW tournaments this year catered to the power gamers who don't need to paint, leaving the "real" hobbyists feeling unloved.

It's understandable, but I think there's more of a visceral emotional component here than I originally thought.

The problem is that there would not be much good to try to make Ard boys into a Gt-lite. It's just not what it is.


Hardboy tournament paintjobs: what do you think? @ 2009/10/06 06:35:57


Post by: Manchu


That's exactly what I meant by the "real hurt," Polonius.


Hardboy tournament paintjobs: what do you think? @ 2009/10/06 06:42:35


Post by: Polonius


Manchu wrote:That's exactly what I meant by the "real hurt," Polonius. So could we agree that the main question here is why there should ever be an unpainted tourney?


Well, I dont' know if you're read the full thread, but that's kind of what we've been talking about.

The answer, for Hard boys at least, is that it removes as many barriers as possible from allowing as many people to field the armies they actually think are best. With no paint scores, there are going to be a lot of ugly armies, so it's hard to imagine any paint requirement actually working well to make the armies appealing, so why require it?

What I'd rather see would be unpainted armies only be able to take two thirds the prize money, with the rest going to the top finishing fully painted army's player.


Hardboy tournament paintjobs: what do you think? @ 2009/10/06 06:54:37


Post by: Manchu


Right, I deleted that question out of the post because it was meaningless in context. But on to your suggestion: wouldn't that ultimately be the equivalent of putting a paint score back into the mix? Finishing first but ending up with the third place prize = finishing in third place, no? If you want to know who does the best game-wise just look at the scores without the painting component, right? I suppose the idea is that at least you could enter an unpainted army in the first place. But I think there is more to those who say "no unpainted armies in the first place" than the feeling unloved hurt you and I are talking about. For them, 40k is an over-arching, demanding hobby and people who don't accept that are lazy, unworthy outsiders. As has been brought up earlier in the thread, what's next? Not assembling your army? It's a reductive but still valid point.


Hardboy tournament paintjobs: what do you think? @ 2009/10/06 07:20:07


Post by: Polonius


Manchu wrote:Right, I deleted that question out of the post because it was meaningless in context. But on to your suggestion: wouldn't that ultimately be the equivalent of putting a paint score back into the mix? Finishing first but ending up with the third place prize = finishing in third place, no? If you want to know who does the best game-wise just look at the scores without the painting component, right? I suppose the idea is that at least you could enter an unpainted army in the first place. But I think there is more to those who say "no unpainted armies in the first place" than the feeling unloved hurt you and I are talking about. For them, 40k is an over-arching, demanding hobby and people who don't accept that are lazy, unworthy outsiders. As has been brought up earlier in the thread, what's next? Not assembling your army? It's a reductive but still valid point.


Well, replace the half prize idea with whoever has the highest ranked painted army gets a bonus blister or something. I dunno, some motivation to actually paint the damn things.

As for assembly, that's actually not a good point. Assembly is necessary for tlos and WYSIWYG, and actual models are a standard GW rule for all events, which only makes sense from a business perspective.

I'd quibble in that I think some of the painting supporters don't see the hobby as over-arching. It's been either explicitly said or heavily implied by many posters that the people that play with unpainted armies aren't even in the same hobby. 40k isn't overarching so much as multi-faceted, and not pursuing all facets means you can't be in the hobby. Thus, an event rewarding such behavior is an enormous slap in the face, as not only are people allowed to engage in "wrong fun", but Gw is sponsoring it!



Hardboy tournament paintjobs: what do you think? @ 2009/10/06 07:20:14


Post by: P1NK3Y3


enter my own opinion:

Now, I know I mean absolutely nothing to the vast majority of people here. Here goes:

Should there be a painting requirement? I agree and disagree. Unpainted armies are not bad, but painted armies are more enjoyable to play against, generally the people who paint their armies have a certain level of pride for themselves and respect for the game as a hobby. But, really, I don't want to be fearful of reprisal or poor treatment because my army isn't painted. It's not fair, I play the game to enjoy the game, I participate with the hobby when I have the time to do so. To me, it feels defeatist to force myself to paint my army so I can play with the people that think they are higher transcended beings because they: painted their army first, have been playing longer, are older, or are better painter than I will ever be. But for those people who when I play them do everything to make my game as enjoyable as possible, losing or winning and go out of their way to make the hobby more enjoyable for everyone. I would do it for them in a heartbeat.

Right now, the people taking part in this thread, some of them I would rather play them with an unpainted army out of spite just by how they're carrying on. As far as I'm concerned the game and the hobby are two different pieces of the same puzzle. Some people prefer the game more than the hobby, and vice versa, but respect should transcend both of these sides.

I'm really sorry those that feel they should be rewarded for their hobby in terms of the game are hurt. I disagree with your, feelings, but honestly. Think that a lot of this animosity is a bit misplaced. That being said, I should probably shut my trap before I put my foot into it, likely more than I already have.

Play the game for the game. Enjoy the hobby for the hobby. Put both together for double the fun.


Hardboy tournament paintjobs: what do you think? @ 2009/10/06 07:34:11


Post by: Manchu


Polonius wrote:As for assembly, that's actually not a good point. Assembly is necessary for tlos and WYSIWYG, and actual models are a standard GW rule for all events, which only makes sense from a business perspective.

Does GW not also sell paints, brushes, basing kits, etc? You're saying that assembly is necessary in order to fulfill rules that are part of what makes 40k what it is. Soooo . . . what about the rule that models should have three colors and basing? I acknowledged that the argument is reductive but so is the premise (i.e., not painting your army).

Polonius wrote:I'd quibble in that I think some of the painting supporters don't see the hobby as over-arching. It's been either explicitly said or heavily implied by many posters that the people that play with unpainted armies aren't even in the same hobby. 40k isn't overarching so much as multi-faceted, and not pursuing all facets means you can't be in the hobby. Thus, an event rewarding such behavior is an enormous slap in the face, as not only are people allowed to engage in "wrong fun", but Gw is sponsoring it!

That is certainly a quibble. Other than word choice, I'm not sure that we disagree.


Hardboy tournament paintjobs: what do you think? @ 2009/10/06 08:04:03


Post by: Drk_Oblitr8r


I don't mind either way.

But I HATE basing, it bugs me, and I consider it a waste of time. It will rarely match up with the terrain or board.

For example, made effort to base your models with grass? Good work, but their standing in lava. Does grass grow in lava?


Hardboy tournament paintjobs: what do you think? @ 2009/10/06 10:32:46


Post by: Howard A Treesong


It's a bit disappointing that we even need "painting requirements". Do some people have so little interest and pride in their armies that they don't want them to be painted? In part, my objection to this is that I simply cannot get my head around it, I've never heard it expressed so strongly before. I've never seen such a large group of players who are so resistant to the basic task of painting an army as well as gaming with it.

Apparently, to expect someone to paint their miniatures before using them "elitist". WTF?! Some people need to look out to the wider hobby, it's practically unheard of to leave miniatures unpainted in the vast area of the gaming hobby outside GW. Painting miniatures before playing is "normal". Apparently the GW hobby is the exception. I'm wondering if it's the end result of their "buy buy buy" pressure selling to shift as many of the latest cool miniature combined with this faux urgency to encourage players to rush them to the tabletop any way they can so they can "win win win".

As I said earlier I'm not an elitist. On the occasion when I can get a game these days, I just want a mate or two around, have a few beers and crisps and enjoy a game and watch a cheesy action movie. I don't enjoy games that are full of unpainted miniatures because it's dull, it just becomes about rolling dice to determine a winner instead of the visual feast it should be.


Hardboy tournament paintjobs: what do you think? @ 2009/10/06 10:34:18


Post by: Kilkrazy


^^ What he said.


Hardboy tournament paintjobs: what do you think? @ 2009/10/06 11:13:34


Post by: Howlingmoon


DarthDiggler wrote:
Redbeard wrote:You say go play a GT? They cancelled the GTs. If 'go play a GT' were still an option, I'd be okay with 'ard boyz being unpainted. Again, it's a minority who are in favour of the unpainted tournament - why should the only company sponsored event cater to a minority of players?


First I wouldn't call it a minority of players. More than half would accept the status quo and that is with a poorly worded poll which can confuse people into thinking this is about all tournaments, not just Ard Boyz.

I think the real dagger to the propainted crowds argument is what Redbeard says above. The GT's were cancelled for a number of reasons. Was one of them the big firestorm when the best painted army was discovered not to be painted by the owner? There have always been whispers, but someone was finally caught. In running tournaments around Chicago and Adepticon, it has been my experience that the most bitter players, the most bitter controversies and the biggest cries come from the painting first crowd. I don't mean to paint a broad brush and I know a lot of awesome painters who don't cause a stink (Redbeard is one of them), but hell hath no fury like a painter scorned in a tournament. I have never seen or heard of the complaining after a tournament like it comes from the painters. Why did he get a higher score than me? I had shading he didn't. My conversions were better. Whoever scored painting doesn't know what they are doing, etc..

And if GW didn't cater to a minority of players, then there wouldn't be Bloodbowl, Epic, LOTR, Fantasy, etc... If 700,000 players out of 1 million are your painting first crowd, do you alienate the other 300,000 and threaten to lose 30% of your sales just to please 70%?


You do realize that outside of Fantasy and LotR, none of those games that you listed are supported right?

On Topic: I see this as a "Tournament Crowd" issue. IE: It's something I will generally ignore, because I refuse to play in anything even vaguely resembling a tournament*. Let the WAAC Howler Monkeys wail and gnash their teeth at each other away from the rest of us.

* that includes any kind of campaign or anything with an entrance fee or anything with any kind of prize. At the very second that money or product becomes involved, it's no longer about having fun, it's about being a WAAC Howler monkey.

the only exception I would consider making is if all prizes are raffle/door prize style drawing where it becomes a random give-a-way.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Howard A Treesong wrote:
Apparently, to expect someone to paint their miniatures before using them "elitist". WTF?! Some people need to look out to the wider hobby, it's practically unheard of to leave miniatures unpainted in the vast area of the gaming hobby outside GW. Painting miniatures before playing is "normal". Apparently the GW hobby is the exception. I'm wondering if it's the end result of their "buy buy buy" pressure selling to shift as many of the latest cool miniature combined with this faux urgency to encourage players to rush them to the tabletop any way they can so they can "win win win".


And it's a fairly new exception at that. GW used to require fully painted and based models to play at the stores. Then it became "3 colors", after the tournament crowd cried. then it became "primed" after more crying.

Then it was just "show progress".

I guess now it's "just buy more Space Marines".


Hardboy tournament paintjobs: what do you think? @ 2009/10/06 12:15:05


Post by: Kilkrazy


While I object to you calling tournament players WAAC Howler Monkeys (cos most of them aren't) I do think there is a grain of truth in the idea that GW are trying to rush out the sales of figures as opposed to painting them.

I was surprised to hear that GW set up Hard Boys. I thought it was an independent tournament.

I think Hard Boys is GW-US's way of doing some kind of event in a year when GW-UK stopped them doing a GT, and they wanted to do something for tournament players. (Which is fair enough.)

Not mandating painted armies clearly goes against the GW mantra about "The Hobby" however as it's not an official GT, I supposed it has some deniability if Head Office come knocking.

I'm not saying I condone it, but I can see the logical reasons which would explain why they've done it.

BTW UK based shops require painted armies on veterans' night.



Hardboy tournament paintjobs: what do you think? @ 2009/10/06 12:28:53


Post by: Howard A Treesong


Kilkrazy wrote:^^ What he said.


An unpainted miniature is little better than one still in the box. I don't know about you, but I have to show reasonable progress at "making stuff" if I am to justify buying new stuff, not only to myself but to the wife as well. "Making stuff" means finishing the model, things left primered or half painted after 6 months don't really cut it. I imagine many people have similar arrangements with their partners which partly goes to prevent them ending up under a sea of unbuilt models.


Hardboy tournament paintjobs: what do you think? @ 2009/10/06 12:31:14


Post by: DarthDiggler


Kilkrazy wrote:I think Hard Boys is GW-US's way of doing some kind of event in a year when GW-UK stopped them doing a GT, and they wanted to do something for tournament players. (Which is fair enough.)



I posted this earlier -

The Ard Boyz is a trade sales event, run by them and funded by them. It generates a healthy volume of sales for the trade accounts. That is why the 1st and 2nd rounds are usually not allowed at GW stores. The idea is to drive sales at independent retail trade sales accounts. Let me state this again. This format is designed to drive sales at independent stores, privately owned by private citizens. Ard Boyz is designed to generate sales at these local brick and mortar stores. I don't know about you, but supporting the local brick and mortar non-GW stores is a good thing and GW trade sales are doing this for them (and GW).

If this tournament were to go the way of required painting, even basic 3 colors, it would lower envolvement, lower participation and lower sales at privately owned brick and mortar stores. The impulse buy would be gone and much more hardocre planning would need to be done to successfully participate. Players wouldn't be able to see the allure of a free 2500pt army for winning the 2nd round and buy up 9 Valkyries in a month, assemble them and play (true story). Players wouldn't go out and buy that one predator because it fits snuggly in their army (that's me). Players wouldn't load up on so many chimeras, so many tanks and especially so many Orks. Who would have 30 Meganobz all painted and ready to go in a one week timeframe when painting is required?

Local sales are the driving force behind this tournament and anything that increases sales is good. Most people wouldn't buy new models is painting were required, I feel they would try to make due with what they have as best they could.


Hardboy tournament paintjobs: what do you think? @ 2009/10/06 12:34:01


Post by: Howlingmoon


You do realize that 'Ard Boys has been around for quite a while right?

Like to the tune of over 5 years right?

'Ard Boys is 'Ardly (see what i did there?) new, and was supposed to be the "alternative" to the "stricter" Rogue Trader and GT Events ("Stricter" as in "OMG paint your models and try really hard to come with a list that isn't WAAC Howler Monkey Madness.")

But I guess 'Ard Boys serves a purpose*. Where else do you get to hear about threats of violence over toy soldiers these days?

*Even if that purpose is only to show why generalizations such as "WAAC Howler Monkeys" will never go away.

Now it's the only "alternative".


Hardboy tournament paintjobs: what do you think? @ 2009/10/06 13:11:01


Post by: carmachu


Redbeard wrote:


My issue is with it being company sponsored. GW is running one tournament this year, and it's 'ard boyz. Look at the responses to this poll. nearly a full half of respondents are in favour of painted armies. Less than 20% want an unpainted tournament. Why should the only GW sponsored tournament offered cater to a minority of the players?



What you leave out is that over half dont care or like it. SO its not exactly minority of players. Most eitehr dont care either way or like it.

Why should they? GW is changing with the times. I recall a time when Golden demons was choosen from an army that you played in the tournment, and that there was an award for best general in addition to sportsmen, painting, and overall.


You say go play a GT? They cancelled the GTs. If 'go play a GT' were still an option, I'd be okay with 'ard boyz being unpainted. Again, it's a minority who are in favour of the unpainted tournament - why should the only company sponsored event cater to a minority of players?


There were years of RT's GT's and the like. I hope they bring them bakc for the folks that enjoyed them. But I dont think I ever heard as much whining that people had to paint to enter them as much as I hear in this thread whining people arent painting to play.

Apparantly GW thinks its not a minority of players and wants to have a tournment of actual playing. And of course, the bottom line is to sell more models, just like the GT's and RT's were used for.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kilkrazy wrote:
We people who are interested in playing with painted figures aren't interested in playing with unpainted figures.

We think it's silly and dull.

We think the point of playing tabletop figure wargames is to play with painted figures.

We know there are plenty of games which you play with counters, or stand-up cards or on computer, and we play those kinds of games as well. When we want to play tabletop wargames, we want to play with painted figures.

No-one is ever going to convince us it's better to play with unpainted figures. We know it's worse.


And thats fine. But thats not the question. Its not whether its better to play with unpainted figs.

The question is will you finally have tolerance to having ONE tournment for players that dont want or dont have a painting requirement.

Or will you whine bitch and moan that it shouldnt ever be allowed. Or need three colors.


Hardboy tournament paintjobs: what do you think? @ 2009/10/06 13:26:08


Post by: warboss


DarthDiggler wrote:3 color paint jobs are easy to pull off and will have zero effect on telling units apart in the same army. Spray black, slap shadow grey over armor, paint the head enchanted blue. No difference to any model and all bolter marines look identical.


yeah, i guess if you PURPOSELY wanted to make everything the same. however, using common sense and the three color minimum, it's no more trouble to simply spray one color, add boltgun metal to the bolter, and then paint one squads left shoulder(pad) red... and other squad's right shoulder pad red... and another squad's left knee pad red... and another squad's right knee pad red... and now you have four tactical marine squads "painted" with no more effort than your example yet they're individually identifiable.

Howard A Treesong wrote:Apparently, to expect someone to paint their miniatures before using them "elitist". WTF?! Some people need to look out to the wider hobby, it's practically unheard of to leave miniatures unpainted in the vast area of the gaming hobby outside GW. Painting miniatures before playing is "normal". Apparently the GW hobby is the exception. I'm wondering if it's the end result of their "buy buy buy" pressure selling to shift as many of the latest cool miniature combined with this faux urgency to encourage players to rush them to the tabletop any way they can so they can "win win win".

As I said earlier I'm not an elitist. On the occasion when I can get a game these days, I just want a mate or two around, have a few beers and crisps and enjoy a game and watch a cheesy action movie. I don't enjoy games that are full of unpainted miniatures because it's dull, it just becomes about rolling dice to determine a winner instead of the visual feast it should be.


lol, what i think is "elitist" is polonius and his assembly-fascist friends who state that assembly is required for true LOS and wysiwig. poppycock! i should just be able to play with my weapons clipped from the sprue and placed on the base with a toothpic handy for height references and LOS. (ps. for all the sarcasm impaired, that was sarcatic and simply taking the same argument to the next logical step) if someone is willing to spend over $500 (which is what a 2000pt army costs) AND spend hours clipping and gluing the pieces together, they won't be permanently harmed by applying the three color minimum for a multistage national event taking less than 1 minute per figure to do so.


Hardboy tournament paintjobs: what do you think? @ 2009/10/06 14:25:38


Post by: Kilkrazy


Howard A Treesong wrote:
Kilkrazy wrote:^^ What he said.


An unpainted miniature is little better than one still in the box. I don't know about you, but I have to show reasonable progress at "making stuff" if I am to justify buying new stuff, not only to myself but to the wife as well. "Making stuff" means finishing the model, things left primered or half painted after 6 months don't really cut it. I imagine many people have similar arrangements with their partners which partly goes to prevent them ending up under a sea of unbuilt models.


A figure in the box can still be sold as MIB.

The time I built up an excess stock of models I just sold the spare kits on eBay.

Nowadays I specifically aim to complete one project quickly before I go to the next. It is much easier to buy stuff than finish it, though.


Hardboy tournament paintjobs: what do you think? @ 2009/10/06 14:44:37


Post by: gorgon


Polonius wrote:
Mannahnin wrote:I think we’re hitting a point of differing worldviews.

Like Gorgon’s point about the convertible. Some people don’t see much sense in playing a game with expensive, well-sculpted model soldiers and then not painting them. But some people apparently feel happy enough that way.


Well, to use the convertabile analogy, what if you wanted a sports car (or table top war game), but the only one available (widely played) was also a convertible (game that has painting as a big part). Are you still dumb to buy the convertible? Or is it still the best car (hobby) for you?


That's a terrible analogy because that's not reality whether you're talking about cars or wargames.

I "get" 'Ard Boyz. I'm not really interested in that tournament, but I usually have so many things in progress that I usually don't have fully painted armies when I game among friends. So I understand the appeal of a tourney with relaxed painting rules. What I don't get are those for whom the 'Ard Boyz experience reflects their entire involvement in the hobby. None of the arguments presented so far have convinced me that it's not a strange hobby to adopt if you never intend to paint. *shrug*



Hardboy tournament paintjobs: what do you think? @ 2009/10/06 14:46:54


Post by: Gornall


warboss wrote: if someone is willing to spend over $500 (which is what a 2000pt army costs) AND spend hours clipping and gluing the pieces together, they won't be permanently harmed by applying the three color minimum for a multistage national event taking less than 1 minute per figure to do so.


Show me someone who spent 1 min per figure painting, and I'll show you a figure that probably (unless the painter has amazing skill) looks like crap and adds very little visual appeal over an unpainted one (IMO... I prefer neatly assembled/primed figures over sloppily painted ones).

Everyone keeps talking about the "next logical step". If you set the minimum as 3-colors and people game the system enough, then doesn't the next logical step become "tabletop" quality? Oh wait, maybe that isn't good enough, so now every figure needs to receive a certain painting score from a panel of judges to be usable. Etc, etc. The next logical step argument cuts both ways and is pretty pointless for either.

I think ideally 'Ard Boyz should be left as is. It offers a type of tournament that a large number of people enjoy (myself included): all gaming and no fluff/hobby component. At the same time, however, GTs should be brought back to offer a more comprehensive format (gaming and hobby both) to complement the GD competetions. That way EVERYONE can participate in the events they enjoy.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
gorgon wrote: I "get" 'Ard Boyz. I'm not really interested in that tournament, but I usually have so many things in progress that I usually don't have fully painted armies when I game among friends. So I understand the appeal of a tourney with relaxed painting rules. What I don't get are those for whom the 'Ard Boyz experience reflects their entire involvement in the hobby. None of the arguments presented so far have convinced me that it's not a strange hobby to adopt if you never intend to paint. *shrug*


It doesn't matter if you think it's a strange hobby to take up if you never intend to paint. If there are people out there having fun without painting, then more power to them. Who are we to dictate how the hobby should be done to anyone? If you don't want to play with/against unpainted minis, then don't. Choice is a wonderful thing.

This argument shouldn't be about painting or not in general, but rather on whether 'Ard Boyz lack of painting requirement should be left alone or not. I think it should be left as is for the reasons you touched on in your first couple of sentences. Personally, my experience at 'Ard Boyz was so enjoyable that it made me want to seek out other tournaments and events, which in turn is pushing me to try to finish painting my army before diving headlong into another project. Ain't that something... a no painting-required tournament is pushing me to paint more.


Hardboy tournament paintjobs: what do you think? @ 2009/10/06 15:01:00


Post by: warboss


Gornall wrote:
warboss wrote: if someone is willing to spend over $500 (which is what a 2000pt army costs) AND spend hours clipping and gluing the pieces together, they won't be permanently harmed by applying the three color minimum for a multistage national event taking less than 1 minute per figure to do so.


Show me someone who spent 1 min per figure painting, and I'll show you a figure that probably (unless the painter has amazing skill) looks like crap and adds very little visual appeal over an unpainted one (IMO... I prefer neatly assembled/primed figures over sloppily painted ones).


of course it's not going to win any awards... but they're not giving out awards at ard boyz for painting, are they? hell, those of us in the pro camp don't want them to even SCORE it. we just would prefer if they had a minimum entry requirement. as for the less than one minute per figure, that's averaged and not all at once. i never thought i'd have to say this but you don't HAVE to watch the paint dry. you CAN do other things in the meantime (although if you want to sit there and watch it you can.. i guess). have you seen some of the nid dipped armies out there that a base coated (sprayed), had a few details like teeth and claws painted, and then dipped? you can pretty well stay in the lines and get each nid done in around a minute or two averaged out (not including drying time - see above). they actually look good enough for tabletop viewing. sure, they'll have a bit of paint bleeding over from a claw onto the hand or maybe a smudge onto the face from the teeth but that's not noticeable from your opponent's perspective (2-4 ft away). congrats, gw can now take pictures of the armies on the table while both opponents smile happily as they shake hands in the post game wrap up (or at least that's how every WD battle report i remember ended way back when i had a subcription to the catal... i mean magazine).


Hardboy tournament paintjobs: what do you think? @ 2009/10/06 15:21:04


Post by: NAVARRO


Always the same old boring cliche of calling elitists to people that prefer to keep the hobby not only like their personal preferences demands or even GW demands but by the incredible old small lead soldiers armies origins demands... Dont fool yourselfs this hobby includes and IS designed for painting, period.
Thats not elitism its tradicionalism and if you guys want tournaments with proxies, cards, unpainted plastics, soda caps, videogames whatever its your perrogative and go for it, just dont think for a second thats the how this hobby was designed.

People can play basketball without the ball cant they? they are enjoying themselves and thats good... just dont call a regular/ normal basketball player that plays with a ball a elitist because its freaking hilarious.

Its as slowed to call people elitists for defending the basics of normal standarts of this hobby as is calling lazy asses and facilitists to people that dont want to paint or be apart of this hobby.


Hardboy tournament paintjobs: what do you think? @ 2009/10/06 15:53:37


Post by: Malecus


Look... I want to play Warhammer 40k. You know, the game that has 1/3rd of a ruleset in a big book, and another 1/3rd of a ruleset in all the little codices, and a guy named Jervis that says you shouldn't need more than 2/3rds of a ruleset to have a good time?

Now I've seen plenty of examples in those books about how great models can look when painted. Yes, I want them to look cool. Yes, I see a difference between a painted and an unpainted army. Mine don't look that great, in part because they're far from finished, but I'm working on that.

The rules for the game say nothing about having to have your models painted. Yours are, that's great. You did a good job. Now my paint job is never going to match yours, so if I want to enter just about any tournament other than 'Ard Boyz, I pay $X to enter, and $X/5 or something similar goes towards the top prize which includes a painting score so I'll have to pull off something amazing to win by getting a larger game score margin than your painting margin, and another $X/5 or so goes towards just the painting awards that I can't win unless I'm the only guy that shows up, and maybe not even then. So cry me a river if there's one tournament where the painting doesn't matter, and I'm not paying for your award.


Hardboy tournament paintjobs: what do you think? @ 2009/10/06 16:02:05


Post by: JohnHwangDD


Malecus wrote:Now my paint job is never going to match yours, so if I want to enter just about any tournament other than 'Ard Boyz, I pay $X to enter, and $X/5 or something similar goes towards the top prize which includes a painting score so I'll have to pull off something amazing to win by getting a larger game score margin than your painting margin,

Well, be thankful that most GT-style tournaments have Battle Points count a lot more than Paint with a lot more than 5x variance...


Hardboy tournament paintjobs: what do you think? @ 2009/10/06 16:19:54


Post by: gorgon


Gornall wrote:It doesn't matter if you think it's a strange hobby to take up if you never intend to paint. If there are people out there having fun without painting, then more power to them. Who are we to dictate how the hobby should be done to anyone? If you don't want to play with/against unpainted minis, then don't.


Which is fine. However, that attitude gets people labeled "elitists" or "snobs" by some of the same people saying "leave us alone and let us have our fun." Again, no specific problem here with 'Ard Boyz, but some of the argumentation gets highly hypocritical.


Hardboy tournament paintjobs: what do you think? @ 2009/10/06 16:27:33


Post by: Redbeard


carmachu wrote:
What you leave out is that over half dont care or like it. SO its not exactly minority of players. Most eitehr dont care either way or like it.


I didn't leave this out at all. At the time of this post, 35% don't care - they're either not attending anyway, or will do what it takes to play. 18% are happy that there is no painting requirement, while 48% think unpainted armies are bad.

18% is a minority, and more than twice as many people are in the painted army camp.


As for Darth's point that it's a sales event and people wouldn't buy stuff if it had to be painted, I don't buy it. People are making the effort to paint their stuff in order to play in the monthly AWC tournaments that Zero_Cool is running in Chicago, and that's a much smaller event than 'ard boyz. If painting is the requirement, people will still want to participate, and they'll get their crap painted. I remember a few years ago, Marcus Kim had his army stolen, and ended up painting their Team Tournament army in the couple of nights before the event. In your example of someone buying 9 valks to use in 'ard boyz, it would only take them maybe two or three more hours to prime them, drybrush them, and pick out a couple of details than it does to assemble them.

Again, look at the numbers in the poll. Of the people who cared enough to vote, for each person you potentially lose due to having a painting requirement, you potentially gain 2.5 who would otherwise have sat out because they didn't want to play against unpainted armies.


Hardboy tournament paintjobs: what do you think? @ 2009/10/06 16:35:04


Post by: Gornall


gorgon wrote:Which is fine. However, that attitude gets people labeled "elitists" or "snobs" by some of the same people saying "leave us alone and let us have our fun." Again, no specific problem here with 'Ard Boyz, but some of the argumentation gets highly hypocritical.


I'm not sure that I understood what you meant in this post. If you mean that calling anyone elitists/snobs/etc doesn't help anything, than yes I agree. If you want to play against armies that are painted for whatever reason (narrative, artistic appeal, better pictures for batreps, etc) instead of an unpainted army, that is your choice and you should not be criticised for that decision. People should respect other people enough to realize that my version of fun != your version of fun.

EDIT:

If GW were to start running GTs and other official events that require/reward painting, would everyone be alright with 'Ard Boyz being left as is? (Therefore leaving events for everyone?)


Hardboy tournament paintjobs: what do you think? @ 2009/10/06 16:49:08


Post by: Augustus


artyboy wrote:Darthdiggler nailed it on the head. 'Ard boyz tournaments generate more revenue than any GT could ever hope to. That's why they get such great prize support. Even if someone plays their "normal" army they might still need to buy a few units that they wouldn't normally field so that they can be competitive. Now GW can get those sales and the person buying the models doesn't have to worry about painting them to get them ready for a tournament.

Right, because you and Darth know how much revenue the hardboy generates? You... work for the company and have seen the numbers then?

I call shenanigans!

That's just a convenient assumption the "unpainted is good" crowd would like to asume is true. None of us non insider GW guys has any real idea. That's also ridiculous because there are no entry fees at the hardboy, in fact I suspect that hardboy probably makes little to nothing, and that the GW guys run it for love of the game. Its probably the only one (GW US event) left because it is the cheapest to run...

Here is a more reasonable possibility for prizes: they have better prizes at the hardboy, perhaps because they run it in house (in their own store) and don't have to pay for a venue space (hotel). I don't know for sure either, but this is more realistic than: hardboy guys buy so much stuff that they can give away a load of prizes.


Hardboy tournament paintjobs: what do you think? @ 2009/10/06 16:49:51


Post by: NAVARRO


Gornall wrote:
gorgon wrote:Which is fine. However, that attitude gets people labeled "elitists" or "snobs" by some of the same people saying "leave us alone and let us have our fun." Again, no specific problem here with 'Ard Boyz, but some of the argumentation gets highly hypocritical.


I'm not sure that I understood what you meant in this post. If you mean that calling anyone elitists/snobs/etc doesn't help anything, than yes I agree. If you want to play against armies that are painted for whatever reason (narrative, artistic appeal, better pictures for batreps, etc) .


Its not "whatever reason" its not like people now invented it or just defend it because they want to impose something personal to others... its THE reason wich is part and defines the hobby for many many years before even GW existed. Thats is what it seems hard to assimilate for some.
People that want a diferent take on this hobby are just as legit as next one ...but please just dont invert the situations and label people who like to play a game the way it was designed for like intolerant elitists...


Hardboy tournament paintjobs: what do you think? @ 2009/10/06 16:57:17


Post by: Gornall


From pure anecdotal evidence from what I saw around here, there were quite a few people who made signficant purchases to get ready for 'Ard Boyz. Whether or not having no painting requirement helped spur those purchases, I couldn't honestly say. However, I can say it did for me, as I bought probably $300+ of stuff to make my army more competitive, knowing that it could use it now and paint it at my own speed.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
NAVARRO wrote:Its not "whatever reason" its not like people now invented it or just defend it because they want to impose something personal to others... its THE reason wich is part and defines the hobby for many many years before even GW existed. Thats is what it seems hard to assimilate for some.
People that want a diferent take on this hobby are just as legit as next one ...but please just dont invert the situations and label people who like to play a game the way it was designed for like intolerant elitists...


That's exactly what I said. There is no reason to call someone who wants to play the game in what they consider a more pure fashion an elitist. By the same token, there is no reason to call someone with an un/half-painted army a lazy, undisciplined, slob.


Hardboy tournament paintjobs: what do you think? @ 2009/10/06 17:14:43


Post by: Necros


IMO an army should be painted no matter what. Even if you just paint your marines all ultramarine blue and don't do any detail, at least it's better than bare metal/plastic. Building an army should take more effort than loading up Army Builder.


Hardboy tournament paintjobs: what do you think? @ 2009/10/06 17:29:12


Post by: P1NK3Y3


Actually, boredom got the best of me, I should just keep my trap shut and watch this unfold.

Sorry I posted anything.


Hardboy tournament paintjobs: what do you think? @ 2009/10/06 17:53:40


Post by: Saldiven


NAVARRO wrote:People can play basketball without the ball cant they? they are enjoying themselves and thats good... just dont call a regular/ normal basketball player that plays with a ball a elitist because its freaking hilarious.


Basketball, in different parts of the country and the world, is played with 1+ people per side. It's played on dirt, asphalt, concrete, tile, wood and other surfaces. Some courts have hoops with cloth nets, chain nets, or no nets. Some don't even have a hoop; instead, there is a box nailed to a post or a wall. Some people play on a 10" rim while others use a lower rim. In some locations, there are referees, others play "call your own," and others use a "call goes to the loudest complainer" method. Some locations, palming a ball while pivoting/turning in the midst of a dribble is considered a traveling violation, in others, traveling is virtually never called. In some leagues, an offensive player has to all but shoot a person in the head to have an offensive foul called, while other groups call more evenly on offensive/defensive fouls. Some locations have nice, new Spalding basketballs, while others make due with balls that barely bounce made from local materials they have on hand.

Playing 40K without painting is not like playing basketball without a ball. Playing without painting would be more like playing outside with no lines on the court, no net on the rim, and nobody in uniform. In other words, it would be like playing basketball without any of the cosmetic things that don't really have anything to do with how the game is actually played.

That aside, the reason that those of us who, frankly, abhor painting call the painting protagonists "elitists" is simply because they are the ones telling us what is the "right" way to play the game.

Go to rural China and tell the avid basketball players there that they're not playing right because they don't have lines on the court, nets on the rim, uniforms, a referee, or even a decent ball. They don't care. They're having fun, and they neither need nor seek your approval to do so.


Hardboy tournament paintjobs: what do you think? @ 2009/10/06 18:00:26


Post by: Polonius


I'm genuinely a little depressed by this thread. Let me make a few things clear up front: I think people should paint their armies, I think painted armies look better, and I seldom if ever play with unpainted stuff. I like having paint requirements for big RTTs, GTs, indy GTs and the like. Those are events that really celebrate the full hobby, and as such it's not totally out of line to expect hobbyists, not just players, to show up.

I got into GW stuff through painting, but I stayed because of the game play and the idea of army building. Where I live, if I wanted to only play against painted stuff I'd play less than I already do, and I have enough imagination to enjoy the games regardless. For me, having players that don't paint is more useful than painters that don't play.

When I heard about hard boys, I was excited, because I'm a player. There's a reality to tournaments, where you don't always bring the best stuff, because it's not painted to match, or painted at all. Suddenly that was removed. So in the first year I could use a primed terminator squad, in the second I was able to field some pretty rough looking eldar. In 9 games over those two years, I think I played mostly painted stuff, but the unpainted stuff seemed to make my opponents army's better. Which was the whole point of the exercise.

The point was, it was an event aimed at a group of players that got very little love from GW before: competitive players that weren't big into painting. It was fun, it was a huge success. Some of that success, especially this year with the winning army being IG, probably was due to not requiring paint. It simply allowed more players, harder lists, and better competition.

This isn't assault on "standards," it's not a change in "traditionalism," and it's not a sign of disrespect or what not to allow this. It's a single event that's designed to operate differently than nearly any other miniatures wargame. It is a feast day, of sorts, where taboos are lifted, and rules aren't enforced. All cultures have them, and they're not the end of society. You can prank co-workers on April Fools. You can dress like a weirdo on halloween. If you go to an NFL game, you can paint your face and scream all game. You can't do that in other public areas, but we don't have thousands of middle age men painted and screaming at malls because we allow it at sporting events.

The charges of elitism aren't about painting standards in general, or at least shouldn't be in my opinion. They're leveled at the idea that having even a single event that flaunts convention is somehow awful even when that event does not need or grade painting. Yes, there is a little bit of "live and let live" going on here. There is an understanding maybe that there are people more interested in gaming than painting. There are people that are invested in their armies that don't need to paint them. There are, in fact, people that enjoy the hobby in different ways.

The most insidious part of this argument has been the way that it was made clear by several posters that players who don't paint aren't part of the hobby. That stunned me. Sure, they're not getting the most out of the hobby, but I assume that people that don't paint are making a rational choice as to why they don't. That, despite the hobby being centered on a game, wanting to enjoy the game for itself is somehow unthinkable. They were literally told to go play other games.... which is ridiculous when you realize that 40k is the only wargame played universally.

When you look at the views of those arguing against non-painted stuff at hard boys, it might go beyond elitism and into outright prejudice. It's not "we shouldn't allow those people to play with us" it's "we shouldn't allow those people to even join the community."

I think I've said my piece in this thread, and I'll respond to any responses, but honestly I'm going to do some thinking about the community and the people in it. I've seen a bit of an ugly side here, and it bugs me. What bugs me further is that I've never encountered this attitude in real life, only here, which makes me wonder if this is just part of where I live, if Dakka just supports a bunch of cranky grognards, this is just a manifestation of internet tough guy syndrome, or a combination of all three.

I know I'm taking this perversely personally (which is odd because these bans don't even apply to me, as I paint my stuff), but as I've said several times in this thread I resent rules that don't do good. Rules (and laws) should further the good of the community, they should make things better for the common good, and protect the interests of all. Painting standards in events that judge paint do that, as the community benefits from painted armies at those events. In Hard Boys, there is no real need for a paint requirement (absent the ID discussed above), as painting is not a factor, and the aim of the event is to be as inclusive as possible. Such a rule hurts, not helps, as it precludes people and armies from participating, making the event less competitive.

Rules with no benefit are, in my experiences, the hall mark of petty tyrants. They are laid down not to benefit anybody, but simply to remind people of the power of the ruler. I resent petty tyranny, and I take it's application pretty personally.


Hardboy tournament paintjobs: what do you think? @ 2009/10/06 18:00:53


Post by: Saldiven


Gornall wrote:That's exactly what I said. There is no reason to call someone who wants to play the game in what they consider a more pure fashion an elitist. By the same token, there is no reason to call someone with an un/half-painted army a lazy, undisciplined, slob.


They reason they're called elitists is because they are the ones telling the non-painters that not painting your armies is playing the wrong way. Nobody ever said to the painters that how they chose to enjoy the game was wrong; it was the painters who derided the non-painters for somehow being in the wrong.

As a disclaimer, I only own two armies. A Dark Eldar army I've had for about 8 years and a C:CSM 3.5 Alpha Legion army I've had for about 3-4 years. Both are painted. However, I absolutely hate, abhor, loath, and detest painting. My utter dislike for the (for myself) complete waste of time that is miniature painting is the reason I only own two armies. I know if I buy another army, people I know will give me crap for not taking the time to paint it up; I really no longer have any desire to paint miniatures.

I know and admire several high quality painters. I often refer newer players to those painters to get pointers about how to develop their skills. I don't have anything in the world against people who enjoy painting until I hear them start in on someone who either is not good at or doesn't like painting their miniatures. I want to tell them, "Well, if that guy's miniatures being painted is so dang important to you, why don't you paint them? And, no, you don't get paid, because YOU are the one that wants them painted."


Hardboy tournament paintjobs: what do you think? @ 2009/10/06 18:15:47


Post by: pombe


I like looking at painted miniatures, and I'm proud of the miniatures that I have painted.

But it's clear, I think, what the majority of the players want, considering the emergence of 'Ard Boyz tournaments and the decline of the GTs. People have spoken with their money.

Sure, the increased points limits play a big role in generating revenue for GW, but I think the elimination of Soft Scores also drives 'Ard Boyz's popularity, since Soft Scores were always controversial due to their subjective nature.

And there are those players who ONLY care about building armies on paper/Army Builder/XL and beating their opponent in a game. If GW miniatures came pre-assembled at the same retail price as models on sprue, it's a sure bet that this demographic of players would buy the pre-assembled miniatures. If GW didn't insist on tournament players using GW miniatures and following WYSIWYG rules, I would bet these players would not do these things either.

And you know what?

That is perfectly fine with me.

I have played against beautifully painted armies owned by TFG(s) and I still claw at my eyes over the experiences.

I have played against 100% proxied unpainted (and partially unassembled!) armies with Lego vehicles against the coolest of people, and I would gladly do so again, even at sponsored tournaments that I paid to enter.

Just because I bring painted armies doesn't mean I require my opponent to do the same. In fact, I've found that my enjoyment of the game has nearly nothing to do with how well painted my opponent's army is, but rather with how cool my opponent is.


Hardboy tournament paintjobs: what do you think? @ 2009/10/06 18:18:49


Post by: gorgon


Saldiven wrote:They reason they're called elitists is because they are the ones telling the non-painters that not painting your armies is playing the wrong way. Nobody ever said to the painters that how they chose to enjoy the game was wrong; it was the painters who derided the non-painters for somehow being in the wrong.


I'm not going back through all 9 pages to check this. However, I guarantee you that in the many previous incarnations of this thread, we've seen exchanges like this:

A: I don't paint my miniatures.

B: I think it's an important part of the hobby.

A: I should be free to enjoy the hobby however I want.

B: Fine, I'll probably do that too and choose not to play you.

A: Elitist snob!!!


Live and let live means that NO ONE calls each other names.

Edit:
@Polonius: Stop with the hyperbole...prejudice, tyranny, etc. We're talking about social norms involving toy soldiers, for chrissakes.


Hardboy tournament paintjobs: what do you think? @ 2009/10/06 18:32:27


Post by: Gornall


pombe wrote:In fact, I've found that my enjoyment of the game has nearly nothing to do with how well painted my opponent's army is, but rather with how cool my opponent is.

+1

I'm not going back through all 9 pages to check this. However, I guarantee you that in the many previous incarnations of this thread, we've seen exchanges like this:

A: I don't paint my miniatures.

B: I think it's an important part of the hobby.

A: I should be free to enjoy the hobby however I want.

B: Fine, I'll probably do that too and choose not to play you.

A: Elitist snob!!!


Live and let live means that NO ONE calls each other names.

+1 Had "A" said "NP, that's your choice." at the end, then life would be hunky-dory IMO. However, "B" saying to "A", "You're doing it wrong and I don't think you deserve to play in 'Ard Boyz." is likely to get a big ol' FU in return.


Hardboy tournament paintjobs: what do you think? @ 2009/10/06 18:34:01


Post by: Polonius


gorgon wrote:Edit:
@Polonius: Stop with the hyperbole...prejudice, tyranny, etc. We're talking about social norms involving toy soldiers, for chrissakes.


I call 'em like I see 'em. There is a dislike over a philosophy or way of life that manifests itself even in areas where such dislike is not useful. That's prejudice, man.

And I said petty tyranny. Social norms are rules, and the idea of clinging to rules for their own sake, absent any benefit, is a sign of injustice, and if not tyranny, an overly authoritative body politic.

And if they're just toy soldiers, why are you so bent out of shape with how people want to play them? I've explained why I'm emotionally invested, but don't' pretend that you're not. You're posting repeatedly to support the idea that allowing a single event in which people can play with their toy soldiers in a certain is wrong, and somehow I'm the person that's lost perspective? Check yourself.



Hardboy tournament paintjobs: what do you think? @ 2009/10/06 18:36:25


Post by: P1NK3Y3


<_< omg.. I actually got my self-esteem again.. and I don't feel like I'm a loser for having an opinion.

Have not realized that almost all of the people here who have been "discussing" the side of "unpainted armies are good" are actually people who paint their armies? A lot of them are in a way defending peoples right to choose to paint or not paint their armies and then defending their right to be able to have full access to all the facets of the game, that being able to play with more people via tournaments and even having the ability to win in those tournaments.

Here are some indisputable facts that a lot of the people here know.

Painted armies are good.
Unpainted armies aren't bad, but I think they would look better painted.

Painted armies are better than unpainted armies, but this isn't a war over should the hobby be taken seriously this is a war over, should that hobby be taken into account when people are trying to win the GAME.

The poll should have been:
Do you think 'Ard Boyz should have a painting requirement?
Yes, please explain why.
No, please explain why.
I don't care either way, I'm just here to have fun.

Instead, a lot of the people here have created this void between the two arguing parties, whereas a lot of them agree on facts core to both arguments.


Addendum for elitism.
dictionary.com wrote:
e·lit·ism or é·lit·ism (ĭ-lē'tĭz'əm, ā-lē'-)
n.
1. The belief that certain persons or members of certain classes or groups deserve favored treatment by virtue of their perceived superiority, as in intellect, social status, or financial resources.
2.
1. The sense of entitlement enjoyed by such a group or class.
2. Control, rule, or domination by such a group or class.


In this situation, I'm splitting the hobby into two defined groups, the people who paint and the people who don't paint. In this argument, people are clearly stating that the people who don't paint should not be allowed to play in 'Ard Boyz by imposing a painting requirement. That is a form of elitism, what a lot of people are doing, is that they're taking their being called elitist personally and blowing it out of proportion. It would be like if I called you Racists, but in regards to painting, so like Paintists. You're forcing people who should have the same rights and opportunities as you to not, by imposing limitations. Now in these situations, they're not unattainable limitations, but to some they might be.

Down with Paintism.. <_<


Hardboy tournament paintjobs: what do you think? @ 2009/10/06 18:40:19


Post by: Augustus


I'm encouraged by this poll. I was pleasantly surprised to see the clear majority say that unpainted armies are bad.

I have always supported miniatures wargaming as a positive experience and a great community especially for young people because of the dedication needed to play. This includes the discipline to read the rules and know them, the financial commitment, where expense is a significant barrier, and the discipline to complete a painted army.

The immediate respect between players who have both spent many times longer to prepare then will ever be spent playing creates a bond of comradery between them that transcends who wins the game. The real travesty being players who play unpainted will never know this.

The answer isn't to cry foul and say there needs to be an event with lower standards.

It's particularly sad when the last company sponsored event left has such a low standard. Perhaps if there were more events, this wouldn't be such a polarized issue.

I have spent much time in the last 10 years teaching quick methods for army painting classes, working with children's groups and young players, giving lectures and teaching painting at the LGS's in my area. I even paint other peoples example figures sometimes! The idea is to bring people up!

The key difference between positions is you have to earn it, all the time. Lowering the standard, even once, just leaves the door open and degrades the entire social experience.

I think this is especially important, keeping a high standard, because of public opinion of gamers, as typically, un disciplined, uncouth, introverted, a-social people. As an older player, and as a person who has seen, and had to deal with the stereotypes, I think maintaining standards is vital.

If the hearts and minds of people are ever going to be changed, about our hobby, it's up to us to do so.

PS (This is an awesome thread, what a great discussion, my thanks to all the writers and participants, whatever your take was!)


Hardboy tournament paintjobs: what do you think? @ 2009/10/06 18:55:39


Post by: Gornall


Augustus wrote:It's particularly sad when the last company sponsored event left has such a low standard. Perhaps if there were more events, this wouldn't be such a polarized issue.


I guess my difference of opinion comes from I don't see this as a "low standard". I see it as a difference in emphasis. I think 'Ard Boyz was designed to emphasize and showcase the gameplay aspect of the hobby. Likewise GDs emphasize and showcase the painting aspect. GTs provide a middle ground that showcases the hobby as a whole. I do think it is sad that GW's only sponsored event only emphasized/showcased one aspect of the hobby... the gameplay aspect. Hopefully next year that will change.


Hardboy tournament paintjobs: what do you think? @ 2009/10/06 19:01:09


Post by: gorgon


Gornall wrote:However, "B" saying to "A", "You're doing it wrong and I don't think you deserve to play in 'Ard Boyz." is likely to get a big ol' FU in return.


But is that what the "B"s have been saying in this thread? Or are they just saying "good event, but it'd be a better event with some level of painting requirement"? You may feel like there's no difference. I disagree. I don't have any issues with 'Ard Boyz as is, but I dunno that a 3-color minimum creates a hardship for anyone or creates any real barrier to entry either.

I'm sure there are comments here up and down the "B" continuum and some deservedly provoke a defensive response. But in a very general, overall sense I feel like *some* of the defensiveness is over the top from the "A"s. I'm gathering that's it's partially about built-up frustration regarding norms within the hobby community and not only this specific question about the 'Ard Boyz.

However -- one-track mind that I am -- that still leads me back to wondering why someone would choose this hobby if group norms were going to be a problem for them? If said group is your friends that play exclusively in your basement, then fine, there IS no issue.

The catch here is that we're talking about a public event that pulls a wide range of people. And thus established, wider group/community norms generally start to come into play. And no matter what anyone says, painting has been part of miniatures wargaming and there are significant numbers of people who feel painting is a requirement. In other words, it's not as if anyone would have been surprised if the 'Ard Boyz had a painting requirement from the get-go.

Maybe I just give up too easily, but I can't see myself getting involved in something in which I know I'm gonna be banging my head into a wall over and over again. *shrug*




Hardboy tournament paintjobs: what do you think? @ 2009/10/06 19:05:13


Post by: Howlingmoon


Gornall wrote:
Augustus wrote:It's particularly sad when the last company sponsored event left has such a low standard. Perhaps if there were more events, this wouldn't be such a polarized issue.


I guess my difference of opinion comes from I don't see this as a "low standard". I see it as a difference in emphasis. I think 'Ard Boyz was designed to emphasize and showcase the gameplay aspect of the hobby. Likewise GDs emphasize and showcase the painting aspect. GTs provide a middle ground that showcases the hobby as a whole. I do think it is sad that GW's only sponsored event only emphasized/showcased one aspect of the hobby... the gameplay aspect. Hopefully next year that will change.


You're right. I don't see this as a "Low Standard". I see GW allowing unpainted models as "No Standard".

I'm not a GD level painter, and I probably never will be. But, I have a standard that I strive to meet and I believe that GW moving away from having any standard at all degrades the hobby as a whole. But then again, so does the target audience and the 'Ard Boys crowd (IMNSHO), so I guess it's par for the course.


Hardboy tournament paintjobs: what do you think? @ 2009/10/06 19:17:59


Post by: Frazzled


Is it just me, or am I noticing a distinct lack of consensus in this thread?



Hardboy tournament paintjobs: what do you think? @ 2009/10/06 19:37:37


Post by: gorgon


Polonius wrote:I call 'em like I see 'em. There is a dislike over a philosophy or way of life that manifests itself even in areas where such dislike is not useful. That's prejudice, man.

And I said petty tyranny. Social norms are rules, and the idea of clinging to rules for their own sake, absent any benefit, is a sign of injustice, and if not tyranny, an overly authoritative body politic.

And if they're just toy soldiers, why are you so bent out of shape with how people want to play them? I've explained why I'm emotionally invested, but don't' pretend that you're not. You're posting repeatedly to support the idea that allowing a single event in which people can play with their toy soldiers in a certain is wrong, and somehow I'm the person that's lost perspective? Check yourself.


Some advice -- tomorrow, hopefully after a good night's sleep, sit down and read my posts and your posts and tell me which set is more emotional.

I've posted repeatedly that I have no personal problem with 'Ard Boyz mainly because *I* don't always have an entirely painted army either. Hey, I'm a slow painter. Do I think that painting is part of the hobby? Yes, I do, and I think events with painting requirements tend to raise the visual appeal of said event. Do I advocate browbeating, namecalling or discrediting of those without painted armies? No. And I don't think I've done that. At least that wasn't my intent.

As I said in another post, I'm fine with 'Ard Boyz as is but don't see the notion of a low painting requirement as an unreasonable request, given our hobby. I've said umpteen times I personally don't get the attraction to the hobby if painting's not a piece of it. I don't think I ever said that those who choose not to paint should somehow have their miniatures stripped from them and gaming license revoked. So feel free to paint me as "bent out of shape" and some kind of extremist in this discussion, LOL.

Note that your definition of tyranny above also rests upon the notion that painting is "absent any benefit." To you, this may be true. Others feel differently. So what's tyranny to you represents justice and defense of traditional values to others. Which I think you'll find is usually how it goes in groups and communities. That's probably coming across poorly as a dismissive "that's life, kid." That's not really my intent, although it's also not far from the truth as I see it. Perhaps it's because I'm an older guy who is too emotionally invested elsewhere to "fight the fight." I probably just take a more functional approach and consider if X group has Y norms, do I want to be a part of X group or not?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote:Is it just me, or am I noticing a distinct lack of consensus in this thread?



Yikes, man. I feel like I'm just right of center on this topic, but I'm getting painted as freakin' Pat Buchanan out here, LOL.


Hardboy tournament paintjobs: what do you think? @ 2009/10/06 19:45:58


Post by: carmachu


gorgon wrote: None of the arguments presented so far have convinced me that it's not a strange hobby to adopt if you never intend to paint. *shrug*



How's it any stranger to someone who just paints a couple of figures an enters a GD(or even better doesnt enter) and never plays?

People have different levels of fun, and different levels of enjoyment. *shrug*


Automatically Appended Next Post:
gorgon wrote:

Which is fine. However, that attitude gets people labeled "elitists" or "snobs" by some of the same people saying "leave us alone and let us have our fun." Again, no specific problem here with 'Ard Boyz, but some of the argumentation gets highly hypocritical.


Not really. Folks want to be left alone to enjoy their variant of fun. In the case of hardboyz playing without painting. The attituide come from they "you must paint!" side.

This speaking from someone who has several painted armies, but ultimately I dont care about painting. I'd rather play.


Hardboy tournament paintjobs: what do you think? @ 2009/10/06 19:56:28


Post by: Manchu


Polonius wrote:For me, having players that don't paint is more useful than painters that don't play.

To me this cuts to the heart of the larger "hobby or game" argument and a I completely agree with Polonius. Pity we don't live closer together, mate.

Unfortunately, that point doesn't completely address the issue of 'Ard Boys. Good thing Polonius kept writing:

Polonius wrote:The charges of elitism aren't about painting standards in general, or at least shouldn't be in my opinion. They're leveled at the idea that having even a single event that flaunts convention is somehow awful even when that event does not need or grade painting.

I responded to this poll by choosing the "don't like unpainted armies" option but as I read more of this thread, I can't help but wonder what this one event does to destroy the hobby. The one convincing argument in that regard is that 'Ard Boys is the last remaining big GW-sponsored event in the US and allowing unpainted armies at this last universal, official event undermines the hobby. If that's the case, however, shouldn't it be instructive about what GW thinks of as the reality of the hobby in the US--namely, as Polonius remarked, players who don't paint are more useful to GW and, in their view, to the hobby than painters who don't play?



Hardboy tournament paintjobs: what do you think? @ 2009/10/06 20:00:04


Post by: Polonius


gorgon wrote:
Polonius wrote:I call 'em like I see 'em. There is a dislike over a philosophy or way of life that manifests itself even in areas where such dislike is not useful. That's prejudice, man.

And I said petty tyranny. Social norms are rules, and the idea of clinging to rules for their own sake, absent any benefit, is a sign of injustice, and if not tyranny, an overly authoritative body politic.

And if they're just toy soldiers, why are you so bent out of shape with how people want to play them? I've explained why I'm emotionally invested, but don't' pretend that you're not. You're posting repeatedly to support the idea that allowing a single event in which people can play with their toy soldiers in a certain is wrong, and somehow I'm the person that's lost perspective? Check yourself.


Some advice -- tomorrow, hopefully after a good night's sleep, sit down and read my posts and your posts and tell me which set is more emotional.


I think mine have become more emotional, but I was just pointing out that there is clearly an emotional/ideological bent to the posts made by you and others.

I've posted repeatedly that I have no personal problem with 'Ard Boyz mainly because *I* don't always have an entirely painted army either. Hey, I'm a slow painter. Do I think that painting is part of the hobby? Yes, I do, and I think events with painting requirements tend to raise the visual appeal of said event. Do I advocate browbeating, namecalling or discrediting of those without painted armies? No. And I don't think I've done that. At least that wasn't my intent.


Apologies for painting you with the same brush. However, you seem to be carrying the idea of "standards," and that's part of what I'm discussing.

As I said in another post, I'm fine with 'Ard Boyz as is but don't see the notion of a low painting requirement as an unreasonable request, given our hobby. I've said umpteen times I personally don't get the attraction to the hobby if painting's not a piece of it. I don't think I ever said that those who choose not to paint should somehow have their miniatures stripped from them and gaming license revoked. So feel free to paint me as "bent out of shape" and some kind of extremist in this discussion, LOL.


Again, I was responding your posts, which are more moderate, but also addressing the far more reactionary aspects in this thread. Others have, not you, but they have implied that non-painters should be shown the door.

If your goal was simply to point out that painted miniatures are a good standard for play, than you can stop posting: we all agree. I don't see much of the appeal in gaming with unpainted stuff, but I can at least see that it's possible for it to exist.

Note that your definition of tyranny above also rests upon the notion that painting is "absent any benefit." To you, this may be true. Others feel differently. So what's tyranny to you represents justice and defense of traditional values to others. Which I think you'll find is usually how it goes in groups and communities. That's probably coming across poorly as a dismissive "that's life, kid." That's not really my intent, although it's also not far from the truth as I see it. Perhaps it's because I'm an older guy who is too emotionally invested elsewhere to "fight the fight." I probably just take a more functional approach and consider if X group has Y norms, do I want to be a part of X group or not?


No, I know that's exactly how life works, which is why I picked the wording I did. Painting has benefit, no doubt, which is why the standard is good and useful. What I argue is that there are times and places where when the reason for a standard is eliminated, so can the standard. Wearing a coat and tie to work is good because it presents a professional image. Having casual Fridays in an office where nobody meets with clients on Fridays eliminates some of the reason. It doesn't make the office less professional, and often has a benefit. That's what I argue for with Hard Boys. That there is more benefit to eliminating the standard, in this one instance, than there is in maintaining it. Keeping it in the face of that imbalance is simply having rules for rules sake.


Frazzled wrote:Is it just me, or am I noticing a distinct lack of consensus in this thread?



Yikes, man. I feel like I'm just right of center on this topic, but I'm getting painted as freakin' Pat Buchanan out here, LOL.


I apologize for the confusion, I do, but when you carry water for the other side, you sometimes get hit.


Hardboy tournament paintjobs: what do you think? @ 2009/10/06 20:01:48


Post by: gorgon


carmachu wrote:
gorgon wrote: None of the arguments presented so far have convinced me that it's not a strange hobby to adopt if you never intend to paint. *shrug*



How's it any stranger to someone who just paints a couple of figures an enters a GD(or even better doesnt enter) and never plays?


See, I'm actually not sure that folks at either extreme end and I share the same hobby. I feel like I can relate to someone who's 90/10, 10/90 or anything in between. Things get foggy for me at 100/0 and 0/100.

While I think you can make the case that a miniature painter picks GW miniatures because they're among the best around, the case IMO feels weaker for the pure gamer who picks GW games.

I dunno. I've probably mucked around enough in this thread. Time for me to get out before I start sinking, LOL.


Hardboy tournament paintjobs: what do you think? @ 2009/10/06 20:05:17


Post by: Polonius


gorgon wrote:

While I think you can make the case that a miniature painter picks GW miniatures because they're among the best around, the case IMO feels weaker for the pure gamer who picks GW games.


Simple reality. If you want to play a wargame, GW is often your best choice for a wide spread of opponents. It's why people run windows: it's universally accepted.

GW games also allow a deeper level of customization and personalization than historicals and even pre-painted stuff.


Hardboy tournament paintjobs: what do you think? @ 2009/10/06 20:11:26


Post by: Horst


I don't understand why so many people are saying "LULZ GOLDEN DAMEONS DUNT RECKWIRE U 2 PLAYZ"...

you cannot compare the golden daemon competition to any kind of tournament, for a simple reason... the golden daemon scoring system is entirely subjective, while a tournament is normally objective.

In the golden daemon competition, its a matter of opinion which model is painted better, because each model is often very well done. In a tournament, there are scores for battle points and comp (objective when compared to a rubric).

The argument isn't that painting should be judged in a tournament... in fact I think it shouldn't be, because I can't paint very well. I just think its a bare minimum requirement that you paint your damn army. Is it really so much to ask? These tournaments are often announced months in advance. Do you really mean to tell me you can't spend an hour a day painting in front of the television? an hour a day, for 2 months, would get almost any army fully painted. Sure, it might not be to a perfect standard, but it would look respectable and playable.

This is a major problem with the world, nowadays. A new codex comes out, and people say, "Screw my old army, i'm going to be a powergaming git and jump on the bandwagon! Tournament in 2 weeks? Who cares! I need my uber cheese army of doom! So what if its not fun for my opponent, as long as I win its fun for me!" Nobody has any patience, or foresight. People that go out and buy models AT A TOURNAMENT to play there sicken me. They are a degradation to the hobby, and their exclusion from it would benefit it as a whole.

I understand the whole "they can play the way they want" argument, I do, so don't bother making it again. But the truth is, almost 50% of this poll don't like playing against unpainted armies. Now that GW has discontinued the GT's, the only national GW tournament is 'ardboyz. By allowing mouth breathers who want to slap together an army, and say they are ready to play, to compete, it causes that 50% of the game to just say "screw this" and not bother competing.


Hardboy tournament paintjobs: what do you think? @ 2009/10/06 20:15:28


Post by: Gornall


gorgon wrote: As I said in another post, I'm fine with 'Ard Boyz as is but don't see the notion of a low painting requirement as an unreasonable request, given our hobby. I've said umpteen times I personally don't get the attraction to the hobby if painting's not a piece of it.


Given YOUR (and many other's) VIEW of the hobby. I have a strong attraction to the hobby because of the tactical implications and the customization possibilities. Not to mention the fluff and the narrative aspects. All of which are completely independent of painting (which I admittedly do, just very slowly). The point is, just because you can't see how other people could be attracted to the hobby without taking part in the painting aspect doesn't mean they aren't. It simply means they are wired differently than you are and are getting their fun in another way. I don't see anything wrong with that. To each their own.

While you see a 3-color minimum at 'Ard Boyz as a reasonable request, I don't see it that way. I see it as taking an event aimed at those people who would much rather play than paint and changing it to where it would exclude them unless they "come around" to your view of what the hobby is. I don't think anyone in the "non-painting" camp is asking for all GTs/RTs or even open play to no longer have a painting component. I think we just want 'Ard Boyz left alone, as it is the only large event that is aimed at us. That way everyone will have events that fit their interests.

@Gorgon I think you've been more than reasonable in your arguments.


Hardboy tournament paintjobs: what do you think? @ 2009/10/06 20:22:21


Post by: fire4effekt


Your going to a huge national tournament, get some respect for your models and paint em you lazy slacker.


Hardboy tournament paintjobs: what do you think? @ 2009/10/06 20:38:22


Post by: JohnHwangDD


Frazzled wrote:Is it just me, or am I noticing a distinct lack of consensus in this thread?


No worse than a RAW v RAI YMDC thread...



Hardboy tournament paintjobs: what do you think? @ 2009/10/06 20:40:59


Post by: Gornall


JohnHwangDD wrote:
Frazzled wrote:Is it just me, or am I noticing a distinct lack of consensus in this thread?


No worse than a RAW v RAI YMDC thread...



LOL... Yup, no locks or bans yet. Give it time though.


Hardboy tournament paintjobs: what do you think? @ 2009/10/06 20:51:47


Post by: Mannahnin


Polonius wrote:So, is the problem an unpainted event, or is the problem the lack of GTs that require paint? I agree to the extent that there should be GW events that highlight the entire hobby, and hard boys doesn't do that. I'm not sure you can make hard boys really be the representative of the hobby... it's simply too focused on battle points. You can't make an apple an orange.


Please refer to the GW UK GTs, which are exactly what you just described. Battle is the only thing scored, but painting is still required.

Normally I agree with you on a lot of things, but on this one I feel like you’re somehow misreading the posts in this thread, and something is distorting your perception of what the “pro-painting” side has actually posted. I can think of maybe TWO posters in this thread who had anything negative to say about people who choose not to paint their figures. Despite that, you (a rational, sharp guy) choose to apply terms like Elitism and Prejudice to everyone on this side of the debate as a group.

Please note that I did not draw a generalization about the unpainted guy I played. I’m sorry if it felt that way. I noted it as a data point. I made no statement about it being a general trend, but mentioned it because it did seem to be illustrative that the player who had the least paint was also the player who had the least investment in the hobby, including the least rules knowledge. This doesn’t make him a bad person. I played two people who attempted to cheat, too, and both of those guys had fully-painted GT-quality armies. IME people who attempt to cheat are vanishingly rare (and I’ve played a lot of tournament and competitive games in the last ten years), and there doesn't seem to be any correlation between whether they paint well or not.

P1NK3Y3, thanks for quoting the dictionary for us. If you think elitism is an applicable word, please be so kind as to point out where I’ve asked for special treatment. No one in this thread has demanded that Ard Boyz change its rules. Nor have they suggested that its rules be changed with insufficient notice for people to get some minimal painting done. No one I’m aware of is calling Trade Sales and asking for the rules to be changed. This is a discussion about what people think would make a more enjoyable event.

Sincity wrote:And the standard , at 'ard boyz was paint not required. Glad to see at least one of you paint nazis coming around , and before you spout pho-indignation .... don't.


Soup jokes/spelling digs aside, thanks for the Godwin’s Law point. Good job.

Carmachu wrote: But god forbid that there is ONE tournment without a painting score and its a crime. Why can you not just leave it alone and let folks play in ONE tournment that has a different requirement. Why can you not let folks play in one without insisting on painting?

Its elitism right to its core.

Its a big deal becuase you and others just want it your way and no other.


BUZZ. Wrong answer, Carmen. Enhance your calm. No one here has opined that it is a “crime” that there are events without painting requirements. No one here is going to go lobby against or complain about a private event that works that way. We’re not even COMPLAINING about ‘ardboyz. It was a fun event, even as it was. What we are doing is expressing that we think it would be more enjoyable, and more in keeping with the tradition of wargaming, for a GW event, specifically the only large, competitive, potential showcase event they’re running in the US this year, to require at least minimal painting. This is constructive feedback and discussion about preferences. There’s no need to get a persecution complex over it.

I agree with Gorgon that multiple posters on the “painting optional” side appear to be overreacting. And I have to wonder if some of that is coming from a pre-existing internal discomfort they already had with this aspect of the hobby. You can see it in terms like “hate” applied to painting.

I sure didn’t enjoy painting when I first tried it. It was hard work. But I enjoyed the results, and felt pride and accomplishment in return for the investment of effort. As I continued, painting because progressively easier and faster, and my results got better, and it became more pleasant and even more satisfying. That's a good outcome, and one I think a lot more people could share if they invested a little more effort. In the larger miniatures wargaming community, it is an assumed norm.

Within the historical wargaming community, it is very common to meet gamers who NEVER field an unpainted model. This is the tradition of miniatures wargaming. It’s about the visuals as much as the tactics. Maybe more about the visuals, honestly. And GW’s design philosophy and priorities are completely in line with this. The miniatures are more important than the rules, they always make clear. I'm not sure why as many GW players don't paint as apparently don't. It's strange.

I think Darth has made some excellent points about the rationale behind ‘Ard Boyz and its intent within the Trade Sales structure. I don’t know if I agree completely with his conclusions, however. As Redbeard pointed out, using spray primer and drybrushing, it would take barely any more time or effort to paint 9 Valkyries to a minimal standard than it would to assemble them. I also tend to disagree about his picking any one group of players out as more likely to complain than others. Gamers love to complain. The stink at the end of last year’s ‘Ard Boys made perfectly clear that you can have all the drama with none of the painting, if you like.

gorgon wrote:
carmachu wrote:
gorgon wrote: None of the arguments presented so far have convinced me that it's not a strange hobby to adopt if you never intend to paint. *shrug*



How's it any stranger to someone who just paints a couple of figures an enters a GD(or even better doesnt enter) and never plays?


See, I'm actually not sure that folks at either extreme end and I share the same hobby. I feel like I can relate to someone who's 90/10, 10/90 or anything in between. Things get foggy for me at 100/0 and 0/100.


Hit the nail on the head, there. Someone who doesn't play, and just paints a couple of figures is not a Miniatures Wargamer.


Hardboy tournament paintjobs: what do you think? @ 2009/10/06 20:53:32


Post by: JohnHwangDD


Agreed. A non-player occasional painter of figs is a painter, not a gamer.


Hardboy tournament paintjobs: what do you think? @ 2009/10/06 21:00:56


Post by: gorgon


Okay, I lied. One more post.

I think I've always viewed the miniature wargaming hobby as the point at which painting and gaming intersect. And I suspect this discussion is making many seem more polarized than they really are. As in some of those strongly on the non-paint side might tell you that ideally they'd like their miniatures to be painted but that it's something they're just not focused on right now. I get that. Put them in the 10/90 or 5/95 camp. On the other side you have the GD painter who every once in a while still gets an urge to play. They fit in the 90/10 camp or whatever. And I get that too.

It's when one of those numbers gets to zero that I'm not sure we're really experiencing the same hobby anymore. I feel like it becomes only a game, or only an exercise in painting. And it's fine if that's their preference. But I guess I feel like they're missing out on something richer by not experiencing both sides, even if only a tiny bit.

So I guess that's why I can see some value in introducing a minimum requirement for 'Ard Boyz -- not as some kind of enforced conformism for conformism's sake, but as a reminder of the wider, more immersive hobby it can be. There's obviously no way to enforce the inverse of that on GD, but I've always wondered how many of the GD painters actually game once in a while. Frankly, I liked that competition better back when I knew the people painting were also people playing and not pro artists who didn't give a $hit.

Hopefully I've articulated my viewpoint a little better this time. Now I'll bow out.


Hardboy tournament paintjobs: what do you think? @ 2009/10/06 21:21:06


Post by: Polonius


Mannahnin wrote:
Polonius wrote:So, is the problem an unpainted event, or is the problem the lack of GTs that require paint? I agree to the extent that there should be GW events that highlight the entire hobby, and hard boys doesn't do that. I'm not sure you can make hard boys really be the representative of the hobby... it's simply too focused on battle points. You can't make an apple an orange.


Please refer to the GW UK GTs, which are exactly what you just described. Battle is the only thing scored, but painting is still required.


Ok, i'm referring to them... waiting for some relevance. US GTs have always been about the hobby as a whole, which made Hard Boys a distinct new element. I didn't know that the UK Gts didn't score paint, but they're still the flagship event for GW in the UK. And IMO Hard boys is not meant to, nor should it be, the flag ship event in the US. The fact that it is is unfortunate, but there is no standard you can impose on Hard boys that will truly make it represenetative. People will grudgingly paint three colors on their models, and they will look bad. If that's what you call representative of the hobby, then fine, but I'd rather make it clear "this event is only about game play".

Normally I agree with you on a lot of things, but on this one I feel like you’re somehow misreading the posts in this thread, and something is distorting your perception of what the “pro-painting” side has actually posted. I can think of maybe TWO posters in this thread who had anything negative to say about people who choose not to paint their figures. Despite that, you (a rational, sharp guy) choose to apply terms like Elitism and Prejudice to everyone on this side of the debate as a group.


And you're drawing a very fine line between "saying something bad" and being prejudicial. I think that not wanting to have any official events where people with unpainted stuff can play is a bit prejudicial. I think I've made a compelling argument, and I think that there is some backing up by some posters who see exactly how barely nude the contempt a few people here have is.

I don't mean to paint everybody with the same brush, but when you hold the same policy views as those that hate, and you hold those views for basically the same, just not as extreme a reason, then you can't be too upset that you get tagged with the same label.

Please note that I did not draw a generalization about the unpainted guy I played. I’m sorry if it felt that way. I noted it as a data point. I made no statement about it being a general trend, but mentioned it because it did seem to be illustrative that the player who had the least paint was also the player who had the least investment in the hobby, including the least rules knowledge. This doesn’t make him a bad person. I played two people who attempted to cheat, too, and both of those guys had fully-painted GT-quality armies. IME people who attempt to cheat are vanishingly rare (and I’ve played a lot of tournament and competitive games in the last ten years), and there doesn't seem to be any correlation between whether they paint well or not.


The ethical and moral courage you show in not thinking he's a bad person for having an unpainted army moves me. Seriously, you need to point that out?

P1NK3Y3, thanks for quoting the dictionary for us. If you think elitism is an applicable word, please be so kind as to point out where I’ve asked for special treatment. No one in this thread has demanded that Ard Boyz change its rules. Nor have they suggested that its rules be changed with insufficient notice for people to get some minimal painting done. No one I’m aware of is calling Trade Sales and asking for the rules to be changed. This is a discussion about what people think would make a more enjoyable event.


You're making distinctions without differences. Wanting to make events exclusive to your status is a form of special treatment. I thought the whole point of this thread was to see who wanted the rules changed.

You're basically saying that while you argue that painted armies are bad, and people that don't paint generally have less knowledge, and you'd really rather not have them play at your events, and you'd rather the one event that allowed them remove them... you're not elitist, prejudiced, or asking for special treatment?

Carmachu wrote: But god forbid that there is ONE tournment without a painting score and its a crime. Why can you not just leave it alone and let folks play in ONE tournment that has a different requirement. Why can you not let folks play in one without insisting on painting?

Its elitism right to its core.

Its a big deal becuase you and others just want it your way and no other.


BUZZ. Wrong answer, Carmen. Enhance your calm. No one here has opined that it is a “crime” that there are events without painting requirements. No one here is going to go lobby against or complain about a private event that works that way. We’re not even COMPLAINING about ‘ardboyz. It was a fun event, even as it was. What we are doing is expressing that we think it would be more enjoyable, and more in keeping with the tradition of wargaming, for a GW event, specifically the only large, competitive, potential showcase event they’re running in the US this year, to require at least minimal painting. This is constructive feedback and discussion about preferences. There’s no need to get a persecution complex over it.


Again with the "dont' get so heated up" BS. That's universal internet speak for "I'm getting called on stuff, so I'll minimize it."

What people are saying is that their preferences and tradition are more important than the best possible competition, in the one event that's billed as pure competition. That lead to the game/hobby divide, and Killkrazy ready to start rounding up people that play unpainted armies for relocation to clicks gaming.

I agree with Gorgon that multiple posters on the “painting optional” side appear to be overreacting. And I have to wonder if some of that is coming from a pre-existing internal discomfort they already had with this aspect of the hobby. You can see it in terms like “hate” applied to painting.


Well, i lvoe painting and use painted stuff exclusively. It's a personal standard, but not one that I see necessary to apply to others. We're over reacting because there are posters who have literally said that they're not in the same hobby as a person that doesn't want to paint.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
gorgon wrote:Okay, I lied. One more post.

I think I've always viewed the miniature wargaming hobby as the point at which painting and gaming intersect. And I suspect this discussion is making many seem more polarized than they really are. As in some of those strongly on the non-paint side might tell you that ideally they'd like their miniatures to be painted but that it's something they're just not focused on right now. I get that. Put them in the 10/90 or 5/95 camp. On the other side you have the GD painter who every once in a while still gets an urge to play. They fit in the 90/10 camp or whatever. And I get that too.

It's when one of those numbers gets to zero that I'm not sure we're really experiencing the same hobby anymore. I feel like it becomes only a game, or only an exercise in painting. And it's fine if that's their preference. But I guess I feel like they're missing out on something richer by not experiencing both sides, even if only a tiny bit.

So I guess that's why I can see some value in introducing a minimum requirement for 'Ard Boyz -- not as some kind of enforced conformism for conformism's sake, but as a reminder of the wider, more immersive hobby it can be. There's obviously no way to enforce the inverse of that on GD, but I've always wondered how many of the GD painters actually game once in a while. Frankly, I liked that competition better back when I knew the people painting were also people playing and not pro artists who didn't give a $hit.

Hopefully I've articulated my viewpoint a little better this time. Now I'll bow out.


That's a fine viewpoint, but here's the reality: what is a person that enjoys miniatures wargaming, but doesn't like painting, supposed to do? Play AT-43 with the 12 people nationally that like it?

If you want to war game, 40k is your best bet.

I still stand by my argument that a person can build an army, develop a background, enjoy the fluff, and even model the army appropriately and thus have pride in ownership of having their own army, without having to paint it. That's an aspect that other games don't have.

If all you like is painting, there are tons of minis companies. If you like building an army and playing it, you're options dwindle to almost nothing.


Hardboy tournament paintjobs: what do you think? @ 2009/10/06 21:36:08


Post by: Manchu


I've yet to see a convincing demonstration that 'Ard Boyz is really bad for the hobby. Seriously, if you're so convinced then why is GW allowing it? Greed, you say? GW just wants people to spend more money. (This thread is tied up with other controversies, obviously.) Isn't that ultimately good for the hobby--i.e., GW is more successful, more popular, more accessible? It encourages people to be lazy perhaps? Well, people are already lazy. I wonder how many people are as assiduous as Polonius in only playing with painted armies period (not just at tournaments, where it's usually required). My guess is that the supposedly majority painting crowd is actually the minority. The majority, however, don't bother with dakka (unless they're dug in over in the rules threads) because they're too busy actually playing the game or have somewhere along the line lost interest (but hey, they still bought minis at some point).


Hardboy tournament paintjobs: what do you think? @ 2009/10/06 21:38:07


Post by: JohnHwangDD


Polonius wrote:what is a person that enjoys miniatures wargaming, but doesn't like painting, supposed to do? Play AT-43 with the 12 people nationally that like it?

He can always use a painting service to paint for him. Good, consistent tabletop-quality results every time.

Failing that, he can find a group that doesn't care so much about painting. Hell, we've had a guy play an army of pants (legs on bases)...


Hardboy tournament paintjobs: what do you think? @ 2009/10/06 21:39:10


Post by: Polonius


Manchu wrote:I've yet to see a convincing demonstration that 'Ard Boyz is really bad for the hobby. Seriously, if you're so convinced then why is GW allowing it? Greed, you say? GW just wants people to spend more money. (This thread is tied up with other controversies, obviously.) Isn't that ultimately good for the hobby--i.e., GW is more successful, more popular, more accessible? It encourages people to be lazy perhaps? Well, people are already lazy. I wonder how many people are as assiduous as Polonius in only playing with painted armies period (not just at tournaments, where it's usually required). My guess is that the supposedly majority painting crowd is actually the minority. The majority, however, don't bother with dakka (unless they're dug in over in the rules threads) because they're too busy actually playing the game or have somewhere along the line lost interest (but hey, they still bought minis at some point).


Well, in Mannahiens revisionist history of this thread, nobody is saying anything bad about hard boys, unpainted armies, or anything. They're just saying it's more enjoyable to play painted armies. Of course, they then go on to say it's more enjoyable because it's a sign of respect, painted armies are a sign that a person is a real hobbyist, and that unpainted armies make events bad.

But they're not saying anything bad or complaining.


Hardboy tournament paintjobs: what do you think? @ 2009/10/06 21:41:42


Post by: Manchu


JohnHwangDD wrote:He can always use a painting service to paint for him. Good, consistent tabletop-quality results every time.

Doesn't that get very expensive, though? (Not rhetorical; I really don't know.) I mean, it's already expensive enough.

As to just finding that easy-going group, would that it were so easy. This hobby attracts a lot of detail-obsessed TFGs that are genetically unable to take it easy. Treasure your gamer friends! People over 18 who are actually fun to play with are not so readily available in my experience.


Hardboy tournament paintjobs: what do you think? @ 2009/10/06 21:43:11


Post by: JohnHwangDD


@Polonius: Of *course* people with painted models are morally-superior, more handsome, make more money, better lovers *and* well-hung.

People who lack painted models are cretins, beastly, hard-scrabble animals who need Enzyte to even have something to grip, and Viagra for anything but a wet noodle.

This isn't self-evident?




[sarcasm above, for those who couldn't figure it out]
____

@Manchu: It depends on the service and quality one expects, along with the total volume of stuff to be painted. If you're looking for basic work, you can probably get a local kid to paint for not too much. If you're looking for more, there are services that will do it all for a price.

Personally, if I ever win the lottery, I will hire an art student for a summer and have them prep, build & paint & detail my stuff. $5k to be fully-build & fully-painted to spec by someone with actual art training? Yes, please.

Group-wise, as it ages, it mellows, so it should get easier with age.


Hardboy tournament paintjobs: what do you think? @ 2009/10/06 21:45:05


Post by: Kilkrazy


Way to polarise the debate, John!

What's wrong with wanting to play with painted figures?


Hardboy tournament paintjobs: what do you think? @ 2009/10/06 21:46:32


Post by: Manchu


Kilkrazy wrote:What's wrong with wanting to play with painted figures?

Nothing. What's wrong with wanting to play before everything is painted?


Hardboy tournament paintjobs: what do you think? @ 2009/10/06 21:48:33


Post by: Polonius


Kilkrazy wrote:Way to polarise the debate, John!

What's wrong with wanting to play with painted figures?


Are you really going to try to reframe the debate like this?

That's a very poorly worded post.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
JohnHwangDD wrote:@Polonius: Of *course* people with painted models are morally-superior, more handsome, make more money, better lovers *and* well-hung.

People who lack painted models are cretins, beastly, hard-scrabble animals who need Enzyte to even have something to grip, and Viagra for anything but a wet noodle.

This isn't self-evident?



Oh, I know that. But I'm a big believer in noblesse oblige.

which is why not only do I let people with unpainted armies play, I offer to show their wives or girlfriends a night with a real man, to take some of the burden off his shoulders.



Hardboy tournament paintjobs: what do you think? @ 2009/10/06 21:52:07


Post by: Saldiven


Kilkrazy wrote:Way to polarise the debate, John!

What's wrong with wanting to play with painted figures?


Absolutely nothing wrong with YOU wanting to play with painted minis. Don't try to tell me that YOU want ME to play with painted minis.


Hardboy tournament paintjobs: what do you think? @ 2009/10/06 21:53:41


Post by: JohnHwangDD


Kilkrazy wrote:Way to polarise the debate, John!

What's wrong with wanting to play with painted figures?


____

Polonius wrote:
JohnHwangDD wrote:@Polonius: Of *course* people with painted models are morally-superior, more handsome, make more money, better lovers *and* well-hung.

People who lack painted models are cretins, beastly, hard-scrabble animals who need Enzyte to even have something to grip, and Viagra for anything but a wet noodle.

This isn't self-evident?



Oh, I know that. But I'm a big believer in noblesse oblige.

which is why not only do I let people with unpainted armies play, I offer to show their wives or girlfriends a night with a real man, to take some of the burden off his shoulders.

Thank you, sir - gracious and generous, as befits a man with painted models.



Hardboy tournament paintjobs: what do you think? @ 2009/10/06 21:55:22


Post by: Howard A Treesong


Saldiven wrote:They reason they're called elitists is because they are the ones telling the non-painters that not painting your armies is playing the wrong way. Nobody ever said to the painters that how they chose to enjoy the game was wrong; it was the painters who derided the non-painters for somehow being in the wrong.


Well that's because the non-painters haven't got a leg to stand on so they resort to name calling. I'd be fascinated to know what comparable criticism the non-painters could come up with about those that paint their figures before playing.


Hardboy tournament paintjobs: what do you think? @ 2009/10/06 21:58:17


Post by: Manchu


I think what's being said is that stereotypical paint-obsessed hobbyists are less enjoyable to game with because they're elitists.


Hardboy tournament paintjobs: what do you think? @ 2009/10/06 22:00:15


Post by: carmachu


Horst wrote:

you cannot compare the golden daemon competition to any kind of tournament, for a simple reason... the golden daemon scoring system is entirely subjective, while a tournament is normally objective.


Not really. Only the battle points are objective. There's been many an arguement over the "soft scores", being composition, Sportsmenship and painting that are quite subjective. And further some of those scores-comp and sports, have been used to game the system in order to win or get your buddy to win....ie tank your opponent.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Mannahnin wrote:
I sure didn’t enjoy painting when I first tried it. It was hard work. But I enjoyed the results, and felt pride and accomplishment in return for the investment of effort. As I continued, painting because progressively easier and faster, and my results got better, and it became more pleasant and even more satisfying. That's a good outcome, and one I think a lot more people could share if they invested a little more effort. In the larger miniatures wargaming community, it is an assumed norm.


For you. Fo rme, after almost 20 years. Still not. Still dont like it, still dont care about painting. Its not where my enjoyment of the game comes from. I'd rather throw money at blue table or someone and let them paint it and just enjoy the parts of the game that I usually do.....playing. WIth good people. *shrug*


Within the historical wargaming community, it is very common to meet gamers who NEVER field an unpainted model. This is the tradition of miniatures wargaming. It’s about the visuals as much as the tactics. Maybe more about the visuals, honestly. And GW’s design philosophy and priorities are completely in line with this. The miniatures are more important than the rules, they always make clear. I'm not sure why as many GW players don't paint as apparently don't. It's strange.


Becuase people have different priorities of what they like. I have several painted armies.....but thats not really a prority or parts of the game I like. YOu...take pride in painting. Great. Have fun. I dont. I know I'm not alone in not caring about painting....its not where I'm at, and frankly never will be.


Hardboy tournament paintjobs: what do you think? @ 2009/10/06 22:18:49


Post by: Oldgrue


Polonius's point about being a 'feast day' of sorts has a lot of merit. I'll even concede my position on painting precisely to that point:

There are certain minimum standards that should be applied even in this sort of event:

Assembled Miniatures - part of the rules directly rely on this. Assembly at tournament levels shouldn't be too unreasonable. Blatant 'Assembly for game advantage' (how thin can a chimera be assembled?) should be disqualified by the tournament organizer.
Unit Differentiation - some obvious method to differentiate same units. It takes moments with a sharpie to put visible dots on a model.

So long as these minimum standards can be met in the sense of fair play. I reserve the right to tease, cajole, and gently mock regarding spraypaint being too hard to use. I also accept the consequences of a righteously indignant tabling.

And I'm still upset about the soup.


Hardboy tournament paintjobs: what do you think? @ 2009/10/06 22:54:01


Post by: Kilkrazy


carmachu wrote:

Becuase people have different priorities of what they like. I have several painted armies.....but thats not really a prority or parts of the game I like. YOu...take pride in painting. Great. Have fun. I dont. I know I'm not alone in not caring about painting....its not where I'm at, and frankly never will be.


That's fine, and you are welcome.

The difference is you can indulge your desire to play games without painting the figures by buying pre-painted, or by having them pro painted, or by playing games which don't use miniatures.

The people on my side of the fence can only indulge our desire to play games with painted figures if people use painted figures.

This surely makes it clear why we are against people playing the game without painted figures.

So I'm glad you have some painted armies because those are what I would want to play against if we have a game.


Hardboy tournament paintjobs: what do you think? @ 2009/10/06 23:14:32


Post by: Mannahnin


Polonius wrote:People will grudgingly paint three colors on their models, and they will look bad. .


There was a guy at ‘Ard Boyz who painted a third of his army solid, gloss head-to-toe Fire Engine Red. Another third the same kind of Canary Yellow. The last third Sky Blue. It certainly made his ork mobs easier to distinguish from one another. It still looked poor, and even a three-color minimum would look better. Yes, there will tend to be a few people out there who only grudgingly meet the minimum requirements. A larger number of people will exceed the minimum when you set the bar low.

Polonius wrote:And you're drawing a very fine line between "saying something bad" and being prejudicial. I think that not wanting to have any official events where people with unpainted stuff can play is a bit prejudicial.


Are we talking about having no official events without painting? I could swear that I opined that if there’s only ONE big official event for the year, it should require some paint. IMO it doesn’t make sense for GW events in general to not require painting, but it would certainly make MORE sense if one event did not out of a larger number of events. In a larger philosophical sense I do think it’s odd for a miniatures wargame to ever have a big event without it, but again, that’s not the original point of the thread.


Polonius wrote:I don't mean to paint everybody with the same brush, but when you hold the same policy views as those that hate, and you hold those views for basically the same, just not as extreme a reason, then you can't be too upset that you get tagged with the same label.


Sure, exactly; since I’m standing here with the KKK, I should expect to be called a bigot. Wait.

I could swear we were talking about miniature wargaming. There’s no real hate here. I don’t think it in any way justifies general namecalling because one or two people said something that offended. If you feel differently, feel free to keep it up, but I don’t think it helps your argument.


Polonius wrote:The ethical and moral courage you show in not thinking he's a bad person for having an unpainted army moves me. Seriously, you need to point that out?


Apparently, because neither you nor Gornall seemingly understood, and Gornall took it personally. Your sarcasm makes me sad. Quite literally. I’ve read your posts for a long time and I honestly expect better from you.

Polonius wrote:You're making distinctions without differences. Wanting to make events exclusive to your status is a form of special treatment.


I don’t think the distinctions I’ve drawn would make no difference. Wanting some or most miniatures wargaming events which are officially put on by a company which produces a miniatures wargame to represent the miniatures wargaming hobby by requiring painted figures, does not seem to me in any way elitist. Why should players who don’t choose to participate in a core, expected activity within the hobby expect to be catered to? They're perfectly free to put on their own events. But I don't think it's good for GW to encourage or support it at a high-profile national event.


Polonius wrote:You're basically saying that while you argue that painted armies are bad, and people that don't paint generally have less knowledge, and you'd really rather not have them play at your events, and you'd rather the one event that allowed them remove them... you're not elitist, prejudiced, or asking for special treatment?


Pretty much, yeah. Bearing in mind that I’d be very happy for said people to play at “my” events if they painted up to an easily-met minimum standard. And that I've run local tournaments which did allow un- or partially painted armies. And that the ONE event we’re talking about is the only national competitive event put on in my country this year by the manufacturer of the game. Out of a pool of ONE, yes, I certainly think it makes more sense for it to have a minimum painting requirement.

Polonius wrote:Again with the "dont' get so heated up" BS. That's universal internet speak for "I'm getting called on stuff, so I'll minimize it."


You can stuff that in your hat, sir. IMO Carmachu was in the wrong, and I told him both that he was wrong and he should stop taking the discussion so personally. I’ve been chatting with him on this forum and another since 1999 or 2000. I reserve the right to tell him if I think he’s off base. If you think that’s “BS”, then I can only conclude that you’re taking the discussion too seriously and being irrational.

Polonius wrote:What people are saying is that their preferences and tradition are more important than the best possible competition, in the one event that's billed as pure competition.


Please feel free to speak to any of the several thousand gamers who’ve attended the GW UK GTs, or the Adepticon Gladiator, to be disabused of your misapprehensions. I disagree that requiring a little paint would in any way detract from the best possible competition.

Polonius wrote: We're over reacting because there are posters who have literally said that they're not in the same hobby as a person that doesn't want to paint.


And you’re choosing to inflame things by equating that with being ”rounded up” and “relocated”. It’s silly.

The miniatures wargaming hobby is (traditionally) one in which hobbyist gamers paint and model armies, and face them off in battle. However it happened, some players have elected to skip the painting part, and I don’t think it’s unreasonable to wonder why, and to think that’s generally a bad thing, and something we shouldn’t encourage.


Hardboy tournament paintjobs: what do you think? @ 2009/10/06 23:17:48


Post by: LunaHound


Mannahnin wrote:
Polonius wrote:People will grudgingly paint three colors on their models, and they will look bad. .


There was a guy at ‘Ard Boyz who painted a third of his army solid, gloss head-to-toe Fire Engine Red. Another third the same kind of Canary Yellow. The last third Sky Blue. It certainly made his ork mobs easier to distinguish from one another. It still looked poor, and even a three-color minimum would look better. Yes, there will tend to be a few people out there who only grudgingly meet the minimum requirements. A larger number of people will exceed the minimum when you set the bar low.



Or you realize not everyone is a natural born painter.

Especially ones that have NO habit of painting.


Hardboy tournament paintjobs: what do you think? @ 2009/10/06 23:20:31


Post by: Mannahnin


Bad argument. It is a skill, but it's not a hard one to learn. Especially given the multiple easy techniques and tools (like drybrushing, washes, etc) that are out there.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And with that, I'm off for the night.


Hardboy tournament paintjobs: what do you think? @ 2009/10/06 23:28:51


Post by: LunaHound


Mannahnin wrote:Bad argument. It is a skill, but it's not a hard one to learn. Especially given the multiple easy techniques and tools (like drybrushing, washes, etc) that are out there.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And with that, I'm off for the night.


The people that have 0 interest in painting will have no knowledge of even the basic techniques .

Thats like asking a cavemen to make a fire when the concept is unknown to them.

*Yes the example is abit extreme , but just trying to state a point that even 3 color basics
does not mean its a easy thing to do , for people that dont have habit /or care for painting .


Hardboy tournament paintjobs: what do you think? @ 2009/10/06 23:49:49


Post by: NAVARRO


Saldiven wrote:
NAVARRO wrote:People can play basketball without the ball cant they? they are enjoying themselves and thats good... just dont call a regular/ normal basketball player that plays with a ball a elitist because its freaking hilarious.


Basketball, in different parts of the country and the world, is played with 1+ people per side. It's played on dirt, asphalt, concrete, tile, wood and other surfaces. Some courts have hoops with cloth nets, chain nets, or no nets. Some don't even have a hoop; instead, there is a box nailed to a post or a wall. Some people play on a 10" rim while others use a lower rim. In some locations, there are referees, others play "call your own," and others use a "call goes to the loudest complainer" method. Some locations, palming a ball while pivoting/turning in the midst of a dribble is considered a traveling violation, in others, traveling is virtually never called. In some leagues, an offensive player has to all but shoot a person in the head to have an offensive foul called, while other groups call more evenly on offensive/defensive fouls. Some locations have nice, new Spalding basketballs, while others make due with balls that barely bounce made from local materials they have on hand.

Playing 40K without painting is not like playing basketball without a ball. Playing without painting would be more like playing outside with no lines on the court, no net on the rim, and nobody in uniform. In other words, it would be like playing basketball without any of the cosmetic things that don't really have anything to do with how the game is actually played.

That aside, the reason that those of us who, frankly, abhor painting call the painting protagonists "elitists" is simply because they are the ones telling us what is the "right" way to play the game.

Go to rural China and tell the avid basketball players there that they're not playing right because they don't have lines on the court, nets on the rim, uniforms, a referee, or even a decent ball. They don't care. They're having fun, and they neither need nor seek your approval to do so.


Can I assume you missed the point?
You can play basket ball nakid mate with no ball and just trowing cans inside a hole... I say if its your thing good for you! I just find ridiculous you with your cans looking down at regular/ traditional/ more common/ respectfull of the rules players and call them elitist bastards Its not them being diferent or picky or intolerant man... Its you just being diferent by option.
And if you really want to get stuck to irrelevant details on my argument I would say unpainted minis is like playing basket ball with a rugby ball, doesnt change the point I was aiming though

I think the debate is simple, in fact very simple... there is a Hobby activity carved and defined before all of us was even born it has clear practices on wich little lead men armies are designed to be painted with their uniforms and used on strategic battles... you can choose not to paint or even have any minis but that kind of auto excludes you from that particular hobby activity... I see no problem there.
Are people elitits because they do the casual normal thing that is painting the miniatures that were designed to be painted?
I find the decision not to paint or not to assemble or use proxies a adulteration of what this hobby was designed for as such i avoid them and dont understand a company with GW pro hobby gospel background falling into this.

Besides people stop being so defensive about " you cant tell me how to play with my hobby"... its not the people telling you to paint... its you that bought a miniature designed to paint for a game designed for painted miniatures that doesnt seem to understand the basics of this hobby activity... if you have to moan about it address it to the societies who carved this formula many years ago... and no its not GW, they only picked something already created and gave it some twists.