I have an idea for a tourney I am thinking of running this new concept for painting requirements.

For the sake of the argument, assume the following:

A standard tourney like an old RTT:

Sheets w/ checkboxes;
scores for sports,
book missions w/ teirs for the majority of the score
no painting requirement but: 10 point chart for boolean painting scores (Maybe worth 10% of total score, but minor)

and this:

Armies that do not meet the 3 color standard (any 3 colors AT ALL on EVERY model) will be intentionally paired and must play on (one of the) special boards:

The special boards would be (set up to be balanced) covered in newspaper, and the terrain would be bottles, card board boxes and cans, with forests made from torn comic strip pages and crumpled paper balls. This would not be a surprise, it would be listed in advance.

What do you think?

Awesome....

Well, that at least makes it so that the people who didn't paint get shunned, so it gets a cookie.

I am a little concerned about a few details, like an odd number of unpainted armies, or the reality of say just 2, making them play the same board over and over, or play eachother for 3 rounds.

I wouldn't want to do that to anyone.

Also I wouldn't want to make some one with a compliant army play on the paper either, but pairing winners/losers could force that.

I have a couple logistical issues to work out first I guess.

I think its a terrible idea.

If people are already getting punished for not painting why would you punish them more?

All this will do is reduce the number of players you get, and honestly I would not be surprised if you permanently lose a couple players.

I think it's an awesome idea on paper, but would not go down well in practice.

Clthomps wrote:I think its a terrible idea.
If people are already getting punished for not painting why would you punish them more?

To make a point.

All this will do is reduce the number of players you get,

I suppose that is possible. The event I am cosidering will probably sell out anyway, most events do in my area.

and honestly I would not be surprised if you permanently lose a couple players.

That could be bad, it might be to hard to do this in a non punitive way, but then, if they aren't painted armies, couldn't a sold out event stand their loss?

Is there a difference between playing a painted army and playing an unpainted army? Sorry, I just don't get it. o-o;

insaniak wrote:I think it's an awesome idea on paper, but would not go down well in practice.

Agreed. Maybe have one board like that, and just rotate the unpainted armies onto it? I think one board would be funny, half a dozen would be like a SNL skit - they make the same joke over and over until it's not funny.

Why don't you simply require that all figures be fully painted to a 3-color standard? That way you don't have to humiliate anyone to make your point, they just can't participate in the tournament unless they meet the standard. Give everyone plenty of warning... and go. If there's no minimum painting requirement in a tourney like 'Aard Boyz, I see no problem with the inverse... a tournament that has a strict minimum painting requirement.

I agree with Gitsplitta, in most GW tourneys I have played in, the three color standard has been used. I wouldn't recommend making the unpainted armies play on special tables as if they've come for a nice day out, you've kind of ruined it a bit for them ^^

I love the first part of the idea... I always thought it would be cool to have a 'speed-painting' round before the actual games begin, where everyone scraps together some arts n crafts terrain, or finishes a slop job on their greys beforehand... and THEN play with all the bottles n cans n boxes we all just made somewhat 40k-ish (my best one was a pile of back-yard rocks in a pile topped with 4 beer cans next to each other like silos... with plastic straws connecting them all and painted all rusty metal-like... some kind of nuclear reactor...), sort of haphazzard terrain but at least now the nike shoebox looks like a bunker or a wall or whatever instead of saying Nike on the side. Maybe some little bit of overall points to whoever made the most viable half-assed terrain in an hour... and then we all play in the new home-made arts and crafts sandbox we all invented together. It would make for some cool gamer solidarity.

Great Unclean One wrote:I agree with Gitsplitta, in most GW tourneys I have played in, the three color standard has been used. I wouldn't recommend making the unpainted armies play on special tables as if they've come for a nice day out, you've kind of ruined it a bit for them ^^

Like they are kind of ruining it for everyone else who has to play them?

Well, how about a V2 idea:

Same general rules but:

No painting requirements
Bonus paint points by the 10 point boolean sheet

Pair round one by paint scores! Put the 2 low pairs on 2 paper tables

Strike the paper for round 2 and 3

rest is normal?

another thought: 3 color standard = black undercoat, silver drybrush, red trim. Not that hard to do Doom Eagles. I did about 50 of them in 1 afternoon as a bday present foor my brother. Or... the orky version: black undercoat, green face n arms, metal weapons, random color pants. Damn I could do an army of that in an hour. Not a very difficult requirement but an excellent Idea, from a distance it still looks colorful, and everyone gets encouraged to start painting even if they aren't any good. My friend Jason who used to be an 'outrider' back in GW days insisted that at least the entrants made some attempt like flocking the base or something (black bases suck... at least paint them some color or other so the fig stands out... was his theory)

Augustus wrote:I have an idea for a tourney I am thinking of running this new concept for painting requirements.

For the sake of the argument, assume the following:

A standard tourney like an old RTT:

Sheets w/ checkboxes;
scores for sports,
book missions w/ teirs for the majority of the score
no painting requirement but: 10 point chart for boolean painting scores (Maybe worth 10% of total score, but minor)

and this:

Armies that do not meet the 3 color standard (any 3 colors AT ALL on EVERY model) will be intentionally paired and must play on (one of the) special boards:

The special boards would be (set up to be balanced) covered in newspaper, and the terrain would be bottles, card board boxes and cans, with forests made from torn comic strip pages and crumpled paper balls. This would not be a surprise, it would be listed in advance.

What do you think?

I have over 6.5k worth of Dark Angels. I go to university and work a full time job on top of my hobby. When I am not with my G/F or working/studying, I am painting. I constantly try to fit in time to paint.

While I do agree this would be a lolzy idea, especially if these players have nothing painted or put all most no efforts into it, but is it fair to players that don't have the time to paint a 2.5k army? I mean, I have a low model count with my Deathwing 'Ard Boyz list, and almost all of it was painted, but that was 4 months of prep! I don't move on to another model until it is absolutely finished *Perfectionism sucks sometimes!*.

IMHO, I think if a player is attempting to continuously paint there army, it is fine. In this instance, if under 30-40% of there army is completely untouched, gak table them, but that is still a tad bit harsh IMO.

Guitardian wrote:another thought: 3 color standard = black undercoat, silver drybrush, red trim. Not that hard to do...

Yes that's a fine example of what would qualify in the rules I am proposing.

I think your idea is one of those "worst of both worlds" scenarios where you would be perceived much more positively by simply enforcing a painting requirement and / or including a painting score.

I find it hard to 'repaint' figs. Yeah they're never finished, but the project always has to have an order to it to begin with (i.e. black base, base coat, brush up, wash, brush up again)... So redoing something means redoing all of those stages. That's why I like to paint squads all-at-once like an assembly line... cuz if I go back to it, I've already forgotten the specific order I did things for the rest of the squad, and it ends up not blending in if I do something like washing after drybrushing instead of before and so on.

Requiring 3 colors and based is all you need to do.

Even for people who want 'detailed' paintshcemes and are slow painters I bet some point in your painting the model is 3colors and based.

My orks get:
*Black basecoat
*Goblin green skin
*Ink wash
*basic eyes and teeth
*Grey base

BAM! Tabletop quality. And when I want to highlight the skin, paint the pants and other details later, I can... because my 3 colors was just the early steps of my regular paintjob.

So there really is never any valid excuse on why a player cannot meet 3colors and based for a tourney.

Painting as a requirement should either be enforced or ignored. Honestly I spent about 4 years organizing tourneys and except for a few people who just deserved ridicule for absolute refusal to try with no excuse most unpainted armies represented a few things. Either it was a new army bought to win, a new army that was just released and wants to be played with, or an army in progress where someone wants to take time to finish it well.

So I used to ask. If for instance it was a newly released army, I had no issue. I would usually let it fly for one tourney, then wanted to see progress. If there was constant progress in the painting of an army I was okay too. I had a golden demon painter who loved to play but painted one army each year. About 3 months into our season he would show up with a 50% painted army and each month we would slober over the new pieces, and after the Grand Tourney he would have the painted army until 3 months into the following season.

We were good with this becase he was always painting, helping us, and practicing for grand tournament.

Also the armies with black undercoat, red eyes and silver guns disappeared and we got more painted armies over all.

nkelsch wrote:Requiring 3 colors and based is all you need to do.....

Dave47 wrote:...perceived much more positively by simply enforcing a painting requirement and / or including a painting score.

I see a pattern growing here, allow me to comment.

I agree, enforce the 3 color standard in the first place, makes sense.

Why that isn't really an option is because of the competing concerns for including everyone (stipulated by the venue) and requiring a standard (stipulated by the judge). This thread was an attempt to get opinions on a compromise between the 2 positions:

The venue wants no one to be turned away
The judge wants to run a quality event

So how about the version 2 idea?

Augustus wrote:
The venue wants no one to be turned away
The judge wants to run a quality event

So how about the version 2 idea?

If the Venue wants no one to be turned away... then you have to allow totally unpainted armies and probably proxies as well.

If the TO wants to run a quality event, then there needs to make a softscore which makes unpainted armies and proxies basically unable to compete and win any prizes so unpainted players will choose voluntarily to not come to the event or not take prizes from people who followed the rules. Then the TO is not turning anyone away but the lack of 3colors and based means the person cannot compete.

I think the version 2 idea could work. I agree with dietrich that it's one of those ideas which will provoke a reaction/get a laugh at first, but keeping it going for a prolonged period would get old and less amusing. The bad SNL skit analogy is a clever one.

Augustus wrote:Why that isn't really an option is because of the competing concerns for including everyone (stipulated by the venue) and requiring a standard (stipulated by the judge). This thread was an attempt to get opinions on a compromise between the 2 positions:

The venue wants no one to be turned away
The judge wants to run a quality event

In what way is it a quality event if you're intentionally degrading the experience for a number of your participants?

edit: I can see potential problems with version 2 where two excellent players, neither of which have painted their armies, get paired up when they might not have done so if the pairing of the first round was random, and fight to a draw, knocking them both out of contention.

But things like that are pretty minor.

Another idea to consider is a simple rule that was suggested at my FLGS...if your army is not 100% painted to a 3-color standard, you cannot take the Best Overall prize. Yuo can take Best General, just not Best Overall.
Essentially, you forfeit the top honor if you don't get some paint on your figs. You still get something for being the best at the gaming part, but not the hobby part.

Clthomps wrote:I think its a terrible idea.

If people are already getting punished for not painting why would you punish them more?

All this will do is reduce the number of players you get, and honestly I would not be surprised if you permanently lose a couple players.

You say it like it would be a bad thing.

So, the worst case scenario for V2 is that everyone shows up with painted armies, four people with painted armies get assigned to play on the paper tables, and the point gets completely lost.

Setting out one paper table might be a way to prove a point, and just strange enough to write off as "Well, the tournament organizer was pressed for time, too. Heh." Setting out two paper tables and forcing people to play on those tables is digging into the passive aggressive "I can't turn you away, but I want to make leave" territory.

A much better compromise between the two positions would simply be to set minimum play requirements: All figures must be assembled and properly representative; figures don't have to be painted, but must be clearly marked for squad membership; no invisible models on empty bases; etc. It is possible to eliminate a lot of the functional problems with unpainted armies without needing to have everything fully painted, and almost anyone would be willing to concede that a person can't actually play the game without assembling their figures. Then again, one of the things which I think is really obnoxious is the person with the fully painted set of models that doesn't understand the need for squad markings, and the mischief that results when a model "accidentally" switches between squads.

I love this idea.

Also, add in that if you lose your first game you are given a magic the gathering starter pack and you have to go play that instead.

People who lose are obviously bad and don't belong at a tournament. You wouldn't want them ruining everyone elses experience.

This idea screams of "painted army elitism."

It's like you're telling the guys, "We think so little of you because you do not paint your army that you don't even deserve regular terrain."

Honestly, and this is no slight on you - merely fact, there's only one place locally who runs tournaments regularly. If they ever held a tournament like this, I would never play in one of their tourneys again (and I've never played in a tourney that I didn't have a completely painted army).

Eric

MagickalMemories wrote:This idea screams of "painted army elitism."

It's like you're telling the guys, "We think so little of you because you do not paint your army that you don't even deserve regular terrain."

Exactly. Works for me.

Frazzled wrote:

MagickalMemories wrote:This idea screams of "painted army elitism."

It's like you're telling the guys, "We think so little of you because you do not paint your army that you don't even deserve regular terrain."

Exactly. Works for me.

But does it work for the SHOP OWNER who has now lost all the sales these non-painters USED to spend in his store?

I buy online, but I also pay where I play. If where I play does not want me playing there because they feel their idea of the game is superior to mine, then there's no way I'm supporting THEM.

Eric

Or....

You could charge $20/head for unpainted armies, which is used towards the purchase of a can of Army Painter, the use of which is mandatory on any unpainted models prior to game play. Make an event out of that 'stage' of the tournament alone.

Alternately, rather than penalize unpainted armies, provide bonus points for painted armies. My 40K club provides no bonus points for unpainted armies, a small bonus for armies that are about 50% painted, a mid-range bonus for almost completely painted armies, a large bonus for completely painted armies, and a cumulative bonus if you have a display board. I was very tentative to play in the local tournaments with my WIP Eldar until I was advised this was their policy.

Edit: Having a prize for best painted model/unit and most improved (either in quality or quantity of miniatures painted) also helps! My favorite system allowed players to rank their 1st, 2nd, and 3rd choices and had the winner of the last painting contest sit the next contest out to help others have a chance.

Have some pre qualifying-qualifying - painted armies (to the accepted tourney standard) get a bye.

Reward the painted rather than penalising the unpainted.

This is just a stupid stupid idea. Taking one group of people you don't like and making them into pariahs. How does that even come close to making it a quality event? And where does one draw the line? I don't like people who play Guard Leaf Blower armies, so I'm going to put them on open table with no terrain, and only allow them to play each other at my next tournament.

If you want people to have painted armies, fine, require it to play. But don't let people come without painted armies just to try and publicly humiliate them because you don't consider them acceptable enough to be with everyone else.

Aduro wrote:This is just a stupid stupid idea. Taking one group of people you don't like and making them into pariahs. How does that even come close to making it a quality event? And where does one draw the line? I don't like people who play Guard Leaf Blower armies, so I'm going to put them on open table with no terrain, and only allow them to play each other at my next tournament.

QFT.

I don't like people who use custom dice that are hard to read - they make the game less enjoyable. In my next tournament, everyone who uses non-standard die that have a facing are going to play a table constructed out of unwanted dice that aren't glued together so that their models will invariably fall and break and they will lose their dice and contribute to the table building. We'll all laugh behind them.

There's going to be a second set of tables too. These are for the people who are too lazy and uninterested in the hobby to make awesome conversions, which everyone knows is the most important part of the hobby. Everyone unsporting enough to not have at least one conversion on EVERY model in their army is going to play on these tables. The tables are going to be made out of empty product boxes with terrain being the same. If you're not willing to create cool minis and convert them, then you're not going to get to play on tables that have custom-built terrain either. Your standard army gets to play on the boxes that they came out of.

In short, we have another thread where someone has decided that their thoughts about what is important in this hobby outweigh everyone elses.

@OP: You want to have a quality event?

1. Write balanced missions.
2. Do not use composition scoring as part of the tournament scoring.
3. Do not assign sportsmanship scores. Instead, announce at the start that everyone is required to act like an adult and cheating or rude behavior will result in ejection from the event and public humiliation.

You're talking about hosting a tournament right? Those are your tournament needs. If you want to punish people who don't paint, then host a painting display event, where whomever has the best looking army wins their own prize. RTTs include painting as part of the scoring, and if you are so vehemently opposed to people playing in a tournament with an army that doesn't meet your appearance requirements, simply stack the scores for painting. If an RTT has an overall paint score of 20 points, make it 40 points instead, where everyone with a painted army can get most of it, but the truly exceptional ones get extra points, and the unpainted armies get so little that they can't win the tournament.

[ ]20 points: Is every model in the army painted with at least 3 colors?
[ ]10 points: Is every model in the army based/flocked?

The other 10 points are the "usual" painting requirements; display board, shading, converting, etc.

Now, anyone who shows up to play and doesn't have a painted army suffers a 30 point gap; which is a game or a game and a half depending on your scoring, and are pretty much out of the running to win. You've made a message that everyone is welcome, but preferences still apply.

But you absolutely should NOT implement segregation in your event. That's how America got black toilets and white toilets, black drinking fountains and white drinking fountains in the first place, and anyone who is going to define a class of people, label them as inferior, and TREAT them as inferior deserves to burn in hell.

@Augustus.

Damian, if you do this, I will make the trip to Denver and volunteer to play on the paper if need be.

Dashofpepper wrote:But you absolutely should NOT implement segregation in your event. That's how America got black toilets and white toilets, black drinking fountains and white drinking fountains in the first place, and anyone who is going to define a class of people, label them as inferior, and TREAT them as inferior deserves to burn in hell.

What about white supremacists?

I think te initial concept is too extremem to do much besides drive people out. It's a hobby; villify people and they will go spend their money on kayaking or whiskey or women, and leave wargaming behind them. Use the carrot, the stick is for other things than hobbies.

Dashofpepper wrote:In short, we have another thread where someone has decided that their thoughts about what is important in this hobby outweigh everyone elses.

Painted figures is important in the hobby and has been a key core component for 25 years.

You have to have standards and enforce them. If you want to allow unpainted models and proxies, then say so, but people will avoid your events as they do not wish to play against unpainted models.

Even with appearance scores, that doesn't mean everyone will be painted if they can still make a cash grab at a prize which still means I, someone who enjoys playing against painted armies and seeks out those events may still be forced to play against some unpainted army or even worse... proxies. If I showed up to an event that required 3 colors and based, I would be pissed. If I was at an event that I knew going in that the event allowed proxies or unpainted models, then it is buyer beware and I can choose to leave.

And comparing people who choose not to paint via thier own actions and comparing it to racial discrimination is insulting to the civil rights movement and the true travesties that have happened to real people. Being denied a tourney because you didn't meet the minimal effort to participate is not the same as being denied to a tourney because of your skin color.

A good event needs to set minimal rules that they are willing to enforce and then people who enjoy playing under those rules will participate and everyone will be like-minded. Setting rules and then not enforcing them makes it a bad event.

MagickalMemories wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

MagickalMemories wrote:This idea screams of "painted army elitism."

It's like you're telling the guys, "We think so little of you because you do not paint your army that you don't even deserve regular terrain."

Exactly. Works for me.

But does it work for the SHOP OWNER who has now lost all the sales these non-painters USED to spend in his store?

I buy online, but I also pay where I play. If where I play does not want me playing there because they feel their idea of the game is superior to mine, then there's no way I'm supporting THEM.

Eric

If I were a tournament player in the tourney that concern would mean less than nothing to me. There is a painting requirement. Abide by it.

Don't bring an unpainted army to a regular tournament and whine when its treated as FAIL.
Don't bring your fluffy heavy weapon free guard list to ArdBoyz and whine when its treated as FAIL.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nkelsch wrote:

Dashofpepper wrote:In short, we have another thread where someone has decided that their thoughts about what is important in this hobby outweigh everyone elses.

Painted figures is important in the hobby and has been a key core component for 25 years.

You have to have standards and enforce them. If you want to allow unpainted models and proxies, then say so, but people will avoid your events as they do not wish to play against unpainted models.

Even with appearance scores, that doesn't mean everyone will be painted if they can still make a cash grab at a prize which still means I, someone who enjoys playing against painted armies and seeks out those events may still be forced to play against some unpainted army or even worse... proxies. If I showed up to an event that required 3 colors and based, I would be pissed. If I was at an event that I knew going in that the event allowed proxies or unpainted models, then it is buyer beware and I can choose to leave.

And comparing people who choose not to paint via thier own actions and comparing it to racial discrimination is insulting to the civil rights movement and the true travesties that have happened to real people. Being denied a tourney because you didn't meet the minimal effort to participate is not the same as being denied to a tourney because of your skin color.

A good event needs to set minimal rules that they are willing to enforce and then people who enjoy playing under those rules will participate and everyone will be like-minded. Setting rules and then not enforcing them makes it a bad event.

What he said. You want Ardboyz you play Ardboyz. If the tournament requires a minimum of play you do that or you don't qualify to play.

nkelsch wrote:

Dashofpepper wrote:In short, we have another thread where someone has decided that their thoughts about what is important in this hobby outweigh everyone elses.

Painted figures is important in the hobby and has been a key core component for 25 years.

You have to have standards and enforce them. If you want to allow unpainted models and proxies, then say so, but people will avoid your events as they do not wish to play against unpainted models.

Even with appearance scores, that doesn't mean everyone will be painted if they can still make a cash grab at a prize which still means I, someone who enjoys playing against painted armies and seeks out those events may still be forced to play against some unpainted army or even worse... proxies. If I showed up to an event that required 3 colors and based, I would be pissed. If I was at an event that I knew going in that the event allowed proxies or unpainted models, then it is buyer beware and I can choose to leave.

And comparing people who choose not to paint via thier own actions and comparing it to racial discrimination is insulting to the civil rights movement and the true travesties that have happened to real people. Being denied a tourney because you didn't meet the minimal effort to participate is not the same as being denied to a tourney because of your skin color.

A good event needs to set minimal rules that they are willing to enforce and then people who enjoy playing under those rules will participate and everyone will be like-minded. Setting rules and then not enforcing them makes it a bad event.

So are conversions. Let's ostracize everyone who doesn't put the time and effort into making every single fig a unique model!!

And again, if he were to simply now allow unpainted figures I'd have no problem. It's the length and effort he wants to go to for the purpose of humiliating those who don't paint their things to his standard.

How is it humiliating to play on an unpainted and unattractive (but functional for game purposes) game table, if you have already voluntarily chosen to field an unpainted army?

Clearly you're not humiliated by your own failure to paint, so why would you be humiliated by the TO's action?

The choice to field an unpainted army is a violation of community norms, and detracts from the enjoyment of virtually everyone you play against. This is just making that point in an unusual and attention-catching way. I agree that it would be tiresome and impractical to do it for the whole event, but doing it in the first round could be a viable way of encouraging some of these folks to put in a little more effort.

I say you also go the other way as well. Have one or two tables with just amazing painted terrain. And have the armies with the best paint scores rotate through it.

Yeah. Just like Xmas dinner, the kids get to eat at the kids table so the grownups can interact. I could bring some god-awful paintjobs from my past to a game but still know and be respected for "at least I tried", because it improves everyone's experience when everything at least has a half-assed paint job instead of just ugly metal chess-pieces. If you don't want to meet the requirements you can play at the kiddie table with the bricks and shoe boxes and stuff... If you want to play on the cool table, bring an army worthy of it. That is my opinion on this matter. It might encourage some otherwise good players to at least make an attempt as they spend the day moving their half ass crap around the bricks and shoe boxes with the kiddies while all the armies which actually had some effort going into them get to play on the effort terrain boards. It's mean, I know, but you get out of it what you put in. Even the most basic attempt, like spraying all your dark angels dark green and a cursory red gun, would be acceptable to me. Not respected, but respectable that at least you tried.

Really? You don't see how setting one select group of people aside, demonstrating that you don't think they're as good as everyone else, and drawing attention to them in an unusual way is at all public humiliation?

It's purposeful and public ridicule because they don't have the time to paint everything or find it part of their personal enjoyment.

Dashofpepper wrote:
But you absolutely should NOT implement segregation in your event. That's how America got black toilets and white toilets, black drinking fountains and white drinking fountains in the first place, and anyone who is going to define a class of people, label them as inferior, and TREAT them as inferior deserves to burn in hell.

We're talking about a behavior characteristic here, not a genetic trait (like race). I doubt people who have unpainted armies are born with a trait that makes them not paint their armies. They CHOOSE not to paint it. Which is fine. They are free to do so. But in turn it is okay for a tournament organizer to CHOOSE to have rules penalizing them.

Aduro wrote:

nkelsch wrote:

Dashofpepper wrote:In short, we have another thread where someone has decided that their thoughts about what is important in this hobby outweigh everyone elses.

Painted figures is important in the hobby and has been a key core component for 25 years.

You have to have standards and enforce them. If you want to allow unpainted models and proxies, then say so, but people will avoid your events as they do not wish to play against unpainted models.

Even with appearance scores, that doesn't mean everyone will be painted if they can still make a cash grab at a prize which still means I, someone who enjoys playing against painted armies and seeks out those events may still be forced to play against some unpainted army or even worse... proxies. If I showed up to an event that required 3 colors and based, I would be pissed. If I was at an event that I knew going in that the event allowed proxies or unpainted models, then it is buyer beware and I can choose to leave.

And comparing people who choose not to paint via thier own actions and comparing it to racial discrimination is insulting to the civil rights movement and the true travesties that have happened to real people. Being denied a tourney because you didn't meet the minimal effort to participate is not the same as being denied to a tourney because of your skin color.

A good event needs to set minimal rules that they are willing to enforce and then people who enjoy playing under those rules will participate and everyone will be like-minded. Setting rules and then not enforcing them makes it a bad event.

So are conversions. Let's ostracize everyone who doesn't put the time and effort into making every single fig a unique model!!

And again, if he were to simply now allow unpainted figures I'd have no problem. It's the length and effort he wants to go to for the purpose of humiliating those who don't paint their things to his standard.

Well it certainly is better than my idea of beating all the unpainted minis with a hammer.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Aduro wrote:Really? You don't see how setting one select group of people aside, demonstrating that you don't think they're as good as everyone else, and drawing attention to them in an unusual way is at all public humiliation?

It's purposeful and public ridicule because they don't have the time to paint everything or find it part of their personal enjoyment.

yes its public humiliation. Thats the idea. Again you're assuming we think thats a bad thing.

Aduro wrote:Really? You don't see how setting one select group of people aside, demonstrating that you don't think they're as good as everyone else, and drawing attention to them in an unusual way is at all public humiliation?

It's purposeful and public ridicule because they don't have the time to paint everything or find it part of their personal enjoyment.

It doesn't have to be everything, but I have played against a dreadnought that was just feet glued to a base. There has to be some kind of standard. Isn't it public ridicule in the first place to bring half-ass stuff like that to a competative setting in the first place? They can still be part of the tournament, but the 'good' tables get the 'good' armies, while the chesspiece armies get the chesspiece terrian boards. I don't really see the problem. If someone has no issue with the aesthetic of the game, why would they care if they were shoving their game pieces around a big elaborate castle or around a box that says 'nike' on the side?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Just another thought: we ostracise people who come with a prepainted army off of ebay but absolutely no clue how to play, don't know their own codex, and still want to participate. This isn't a carnival game for a stuffed teddy bear thing, it takes work to learn, to participate. If someone shows up clueless with a beautiful army, he would be shunned (not necessarily socialy, but as far as the game goes) for being no fun to play against. People go to tournaments to compete, not to explain rules. There's plenty of kitchen floor space at home if you don't want to put some effort into your labor of love. I guess I could enter my neighbor's 5 yr old son who just likes my 'cool spacemen' too and wouldn't be able to tell a Carnifex from a Lascannon. I doubt if anyone would relish getting matched up with him either. It IS elitist, but it really doesn't take much just to do the basics.

If you don't want people without fully painted armies to play, then just require the tournament to have fully painted armies. I've said repeatedly that I would be fine with that. It's this passive aggressive bull crap where you're going to let them come, but then tell them you don't think they're as good as everyone else that's just stupid childish behavior.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Wow, so you shun new players too, just because they're able to afford expensive armies from the start, great way to build the hobby.

Aduro wrote:If you don't want people without fully painted armies to play, then just require the tournament to have fully painted armies. I've said repeatedly that I would be fine with that. It's this passive aggressive bull crap where you're going to let them come, but then tell them you don't think they're as good as everyone else that's just stupid childish behavior.

+eleventy-one

This is PRECISELY how it should be handled, if you're trying to be mature about it.

Eric

Well they do have separate categories for 'young bloods' in painting competitions. Is this really so different?

It isn't ostracising people who don't know how to play. I'd be happy to teach them, but not at a tournament. There's plenty of time for home games before you introduce them to the big bad word of competative hobbyists.

You have two choices:

*Enforced Basic standards

or

*Deterrence and punishments

I prefer basic standards being enforced. But if the venue prohibits turning anyone away with basic standards, all that is left is deterrents. I think people feel deterrents or punishments are fundamentally unfair... But some think any restriction is unfair. basically anything that impacts them is unfair.

I prefer 3 colors and based because I find the contrast of basic paint makes the game smoother and models easier to play against. I find unpainted minis hard to see what things are and slows down the game as well as really really really impacts the enjoyment of the game. Unpainted minis are basically as hard to deal with as proxies and makes the whole thing a cluster-F***.

If the minimal standard is enforced, I can show up knowing what to expect. if no standard is enforced but people are punished, I have to make a judgement by showing up to see if this event with painting scores but allows unpainted models is 80% painted, or 10% painted and if I will spend all day playing against unpainted models and basically be the only painted army there (which has hap pend to me before)

I choose enforceable minimum standards over punishment, but it seems like some people nerdrage to stores over not having minimal standards.

Ever have to keep asking which set of grey legs glued to a base is supposed to be the Space Wolf with the flamer?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I still think an arts-n-crafts session for an hour would be a better idea than segregation. It encourages people to work on stuff so they can participate. Turn all those shoeboxes into castles.. finish up your model that has no arms, basecoat a squad, something... just to get people into that side of the hobby... so rather than being an ostracised 'kiddie' table, it would be a 'works in progress' table. That would in fact encourage people to get into the hobby. And the veterans can always go and offer to help and offer pointers, rules advice, painting advice between turns. If I was a little kid I would be stoked to go to that kind of event.

OK A few points:


If everyone showed up with the minimum 3 color standard there wouldn't be ANY paper tables, I would strike them and set up nice terrain instead.

I would set up N tables for round N = (number of unpainted armies)/2

There won't be any public ridicule.

I like the idea of some really nice terrain as a bonus, I am working on a cathedral for just such an idea, how about some carrot and some stick as well?

Which leads me to idea 3:

Pair round 1 by paint scores.
Use N tables of paper w N=Ua/2
Strike Paper tables round 2
Pair by points
Allow high score of painting in each pairing to pick the table by order of score best to worst in rounds 2 and 3.

?

Oh yes, and

Love ya Frazzled! Thanks for jumping in!

Aduro wrote:Really? You don't see how setting one select group of people aside, demonstrating that you don't think they're as good as everyone else, and drawing attention to them in an unusual way is at all public humiliation?

It's purposeful and public ridicule because they don't have the time to paint everything or find it part of their personal enjoyment.

Setting aside the main discussion in this thread, you have to admit that the above isn't really an excuse given the painting tools and products accessible to us and a 3-color standard as a goal.

Back OT, I think the idea is funny, but personally I wouldn't want to implement it and create bad feelings/negativity at the event.

I'd like to play on that table actually.

The Last Stand on Demon World Craptacula

MagickalMemories wrote:This idea screams of "painted army elitism."

It's like you're telling the guys, "We think so little of you because you do not paint your army that you don't even deserve regular terrain."

OK, I started this thread to get input and I appreciate hearing what you all think.

Thanks for the comments, I like to see the discussion continue and hear from more folks.

Nothing is planned I'm considering a variety of ideas.

I will be honest and say I agree with you, that is what I am saying "We think so little of you because you do not paint your army that you don't even deserve regular terrain." but understand, beyond the paper table round there is not going to be any descrimination mockery I wouldn't stand for that sort of thing in an event I ran, and I wouldn't do it.

I don't really want the thread to degerate into a discussion of the merrits of painting, so I will just make 3 simple points:

If you didn't paint your army why would unpainted terrain bother you?
Isn't it worse to tell people with unpainted armies they can't even come at all, that's really segregation?
Any 3 colors on any model isn't my standard, it's a common community standard, and in effect this event would be removing it actually.

Highest score in painting gets to pick the table eh? Not a bad idea... incentive without ostracising... So if you bring an army of greys you can expect the shoebox table, If you bring a 3 color you might get to play on the cool cathedral table?

Aduro wrote:Really? You don't see how setting one select group of people aside, demonstrating that you don't think they're as good as everyone else, and drawing attention to them in an unusual way is at all public humiliation?

It's purposeful and public ridicule because they don't have the time to paint everything or find it part of their personal enjoyment.

1. I don’t think it’s cruelty or a judgment on them as human beings. You and Dash are dramatizing the issue by making it out to be denigration of human beings, which it is not.
2. Even if it were mildly unpleasant, it is not necessarily inappropriate to point out to them in this way that they are impinging on everyone else’s enjoyment, and that they are basically “mooching” visual enjoyment from the work put in by others- opponents who paint their own armies, and organizers/store owners who make and paint nice terrain. Maybe having the point made in this new and unusual way would get through to some folks and make them realize that the visual aspect of the game IS important to them after all, and that they are being selfish by deriving pleasure from that while expecting everyone else to go to the effort without doing so themselves.

We all know it will never be me, but I'm really liking the idea of the highest paint score getting to pick the table.

Frazzled wrote:I'd like to play on that table actually.

The Last Stand on Demon World Craptacula

If I ever ran another tournament I think this would inspire me to create a whole list of strange tables.

Planet Craptacula
Weinerdog World
Alice in Wonderland
Planet Disco

yea baby yea!

Frazzled wrote:What he said. You want Ardboyz you play Ardboyz. If the tournament requires a minimum of play you do that or you don't qualify to play.

exactly. people need to stop bitching about painting and comp requirements or the lack thereof and simply vote with their wallets/attendance. if the tourney says ahead of time that you play on an unfinished table if you bring an unfinished army, you have no right to complain as you knew ahead of time and still chose to attend. one of the reasons i skipped ard boyz was because i consider painting an important part of the hobby and it isn't acknoweledged at all in ard boyz.

Mannahnin wrote:
...they are impinging on everyone else’s enjoyment, and that they are basically “mooching” visual enjoyment from the work put in by others- opponents who paint their own armies, and organizers/store owners who make and paint nice terrain. Maybe having the point made in this new and unusual way would get through to some folks and make them realize that the visual aspect of the game IS important to them after all, and that they are being selfish by deriving pleasure from that while expecting everyone else to go to the effort without doing so themselves.

Or they want to play a game and don't care about the painted aspect? How are they being selfish again? Isn't anyone in favor of this being selfish by saying they need to invest the time/money to have their army painted? Nobody has the inalienable right to play anywhere or against anyone, but people shouldn't be dicks to each other. Anyone encouraging someone to be a dick to somebody for something that isn't illegal or "commonly morally reprehensible" (things like saying rude things to women in a non-joking fashion, using explicit language in front of of little kids and the like) is acting like twice the dick themselves.

Edit: If it really pisses in your Froot Loops that much to play unpainted armies, don't allow them. No petty table-swapping, just be up front about it like you have a pair.

Mannahnin wrote:Even if it were mildly unpleasant, it is not necessarily inappropriate to point out to them in this way that they are impinging on everyone else’s enjoyment, and that they are basically “mooching” visual enjoyment from the work put in by others- opponents who paint their own armies, and organizers/store owners who make and paint nice terrain. Maybe having the point made in this new and unusual way would get through to some folks and make them realize that the visual aspect of the game IS important to them after all, and that they are being selfish by deriving pleasure from that while expecting everyone else to go to the effort without doing so themselves.

Well stated, more eloquently than I had written. This is a good example of what I am trying to do.

That sounds like an elitist idea coming from an elitist (which frankly is an unwarranted attitude). Trash the idea.

You judge painting at painting tourneys, you judge sportsmanship at a game tourneys. Keep the two separate.

edit: I totally agree with the post directly below me (by MagickalMemories)

Augustus wrote:

MagickalMemories wrote:This idea screams of "painted army elitism."

It's like you're telling the guys, "We think so little of you because you do not paint your army that you don't even deserve regular terrain."

OK, I started this thread to get input and I appreciate hearing what you all think.

Thanks for the comments, I like to see the discussion continue and hear from more folks.

Nothing is planned I'm considering a variety of ideas.

I will be honest and say I agree with you, that is what I am saying "We think so little of you because you do not paint your army that you don't even deserve regular terrain." but understand, beyond the paper table round there is not going to be any descrimination mockery I wouldn't stand for that sort of thing in an event I ran, and I wouldn't do it.

I don't really want the thread to degerate into a discussion of the merrits of painting, so I will just make 3 simple points:

If you didn't paint your army why would unpainted terrain bother you?
Isn't it worse to tell people with unpainted armies they can't even come at all, that's really segregation?
Any 3 colors on any model isn't my standard, it's a common community standard, and in effect this event would be removing it actually.

Augustus, let me preface by saying I've never had issue with you, and I don't now. I'm simply being as frank as you and am not taking your comments personally. I hope you return the feeling after my post.

I emboldened the most important phrase above.
IMO, if you truly feel this way, you do not belong in a position of organizing events for anyone beyond yourself. I say that because whichever store/convention you are oganizing events for is going to suffer the brunt of your admitted elitism. If you want to organize your own event, that's cool. If this is at a store or Con, though, you're going to have quite a few ticked off people - even some of those with painted armies. Those people back up their opinions with their wallets.

To reiterate (for everyone's benefit) - I've NEVER taken an unpainted army to a tournament.

I would express my dissatisfaction to the event organizer (you), as well as whoever is hosting the event.

You can say, "Isn't it worse to tell people with unpainted armies they can't even come at all, that's really segregation?" but that's just hiding behind semantics - even if you don't realize it.

It's one thing to say, "To play in this event, you must meet this minimum criteria. Period. End of story."

It's something different to advertise that unpainted armies will be allowed, then drop this bombshell on them when they arrive.
Sure. You won't allow others to mock them for being on the substandard tables, but you're definitely mocking them. In essence, your rule is, "Don't point and laugh at the peons we're putting on display by showing them we think they're lower than us."

Doing what you suggest is the equivalent of handing them helmets and reflector tape and telling them that it's required uniform for those with unpainted armies, and they must wear it at all times during the tournament.


As for pairing them based on painted/unpainted... That's like saying there's a tournament for "us," and a tournament for "them."


Thanks for listening (reading).
Eric

Mannahnin wrote:
2. Even if it were mildly unpleasant, it is not necessarily inappropriate to point out to them in this way that they are impinging on everyone else’s enjoyment, and that they are basically “mooching” visual enjoyment from the work put in by others- opponents who paint their own armies, and organizers/store owners who make and paint nice terrain. Maybe having the point made in this new and unusual way would get through to some folks and make them realize that the visual aspect of the game IS important to them after all, and that they are being selfish by deriving pleasure from that while expecting everyone else to go to the effort without doing so themselves.

I find this alarming.

So, it's okay for you, as a "HAAC" to "mooch" enjoyment from them by pointing out that they are subpar and wrong for deriving pleasure from playing the game in a way that makes them happy because you happen not to like it?

How is that any better?

You're ruining their experience because of your own selfish bias.

warboss wrote:

Frazzled wrote:What he said. You want Ardboyz you play Ardboyz. If the tournament requires a minimum of play you do that or you don't qualify to play.

exactly. people need to stop bitching about painting and comp requirements or the lack thereof and simply vote with their wallets/attendance.

But that is NOT what is being proposed by the OP.
He's not saying, "meet the minimum or you don't play." He's saying "meet this standard that I have set, or you have to play at the substandard table that looks like I threw a bunch of trash on and called it terrain."

Eric

Which do you prefer? No one's forcing you to play. Play on planet Craptacula or don't enter the tourney, or you know bring the community standard of three colors.

I still like the idea of alternate worlds more and more though. Planet Disco is particularly enticing. I feel Jungle Boogie coming on...

MagickalMemories wrote:
I find this alarming.

So, it's okay for you, as a "HAAC" to "mooch" enjoyment from them by pointing out that they are subpar and wrong for deriving pleasure from playing the game in a way that makes them happy because you happen not to like it?

How is that any better?

You're ruining their experience because of your own selfish bias.

Sorry, I show up at an event with a fully painted and WYSIWYG army and 100% out there would enjoy playing against that army. My actions and my army infringes on *NOBODIES* fun.

I show up at an event with unpainted greys or proxies, then 100% of the people would not enjoy playing against that army. My Actions directly infringes upon other people's fun.

I cannot be mad at an opponent for fielding unpainted trash if the event allows it. Doesn't mean I will enjoy playing against it and I can choose to not participate. But this requires people to have a pair and set standards and enforce them and realize someone will always dislike the event in some way and could choose not to participate.

But that is NOT what is being proposed by the OP.
He's not saying, "meet the minimum or you don't play." He's saying "meet this standard that I have set, or you have to play at the substandard table that looks like I threw a bunch of trash on and called it terrain."

Eric

What he is saying is he wants a minimum standard, but the venue refuses to allow him to have one. Which means he has to let people of any standard show up and play. The problem with that is when that is the case, people like me will purposefully refuse to participate to the event degrades even further and now his event is a joke and he is working all weekend to support an event with unpainted proxies and garbage because people who enjoy painting and want a minimal standard have opted out and won't participate. His event would be seen as a bad event.

'ardboyz is a trainwreck and a terrible experience compared to almost every other event out there. People TOLERATE 'ard boyz as it has national prize support, is free and is the only way to get to regionals, where the quality and enforcement of things tightens up. If you had a 'ardboyz tourney, stand alone and asked people to pay to enter, it would be a horribly disastrous and poor quality event. I am going to *PAY* to enter an event where I play against 80% unpainted and unWYSIWYG armies and spend a day in horrible rule arguments? Nope. I can wait 3 weeks and pay to enter a different tourney where everything will be WYSIWYG and paitned and have quality enforcement and I know what to expect. Vote with my wallet.

He wants to still fill the wishes of the venue which is 'everyone can play' but still try to keep people who explicitly enjoy playing at painted and WYSIWYG events interested in some way. Which is going to be hard to do without pissing on someone in some way. It is really hard to get people to voluntarily show up with painted armies when you can't enforce a minimum standard... Which is actually important to many people.

Frazzled wrote:Which do you prefer? No one's forcing you to play. Play on planet Craptacula or don't enter the tourney, or you know bring the community standard of three colors.

I still like the idea of alternate worlds more and more though. Planet Disco is particularly enticing. I feel Jungle Boogie coming on...

Frankly, I don't care if someone paints his army or not. I paint my armies as an added benefit to the hobby. I play 40k for the game, though. If one is such an elitist that he can't stand to play against an unpainted army, then he should start a "painted armies only" tourny. After all, no one's forcing him to play

Austragalis wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Which do you prefer? No one's forcing you to play. Play on planet Craptacula or don't enter the tourney, or you know bring the community standard of three colors.

I still like the idea of alternate worlds more and more though. Planet Disco is particularly enticing. I feel Jungle Boogie coming on...

Frankly, I don't care if someone paints his army or not. I paint my armies as an added benefit to the hobby. I play 40k for the game, though. If one is such an elitist that he can't stand to play against an unpainted army, then he should start a "painted armies only" tourny. After all, no one's forcing him to play

Er I think thats the point of this thread. painted only, like most tournaments.

Augustus wrote:There won't be any public ridicule.

Augustus wrote:I will be honest and say I agree with you, that is what I am saying "We think so little of you because you do not paint your army that you don't even deserve regular terrain." but understand, beyond the paper table round there is not going to be any descrimination mockery I wouldn't stand for that sort of thing in an event I ran, and I wouldn't do it.

These are the two quotes which really, really bother me. So there won't be any other mockery aside from the paper tables?

As a player, I would complain to the store owner. If I were a store owner and someone running an event tried to do this, I would positively enjoy the act of banning the tournament organizer from doing anything at my store ever again.

solkan wrote:

Augustus wrote:There won't be any public ridicule.

Augustus wrote:I will be honest and say I agree with you, that is what I am saying "We think so little of you because you do not paint your army that you don't even deserve regular terrain." but understand, beyond the paper table round there is not going to be any descrimination mockery I wouldn't stand for that sort of thing in an event I ran, and I wouldn't do it.

These are the two quotes which really, really bother me. So there won't be any other mockery aside from the paper tables?

As a player, I would complain to the store owner. If I were a store owner and someone running an event tried to do this, I would positively enjoy the act of banning the tournament organizer from doing anything at my store ever again.

As would I. At a tourny, everyone should be held to the same standard (which is the entire point of a tournament), which is "you come here to play, you play like man."

Austragalis wrote:As would I. At a tourny, everyone should be held to the same standard (which is the entire point of a tournament), which is "you come here to play, you play like man."

And one of those standards is enforcing WYSIWYG and minimal painting standards. But the person who is not allowed to play nerdrages and gets his way in. The people who don't like the lowered standards just take thier money and play elsewhere as there doesn't seem to be a shortage of events that require painting as it seems to be the requirement of every event I have seen except 'ardboyz which explicitly says upfront it does not require painting.

I remember when unpainted minis were not allowed due to theft reasons... Every model had to be at least primed in order to distinguish them from people popping open a blister and gluing it together in the bathroom.

I think OP needs to find a new venue that allows him to enforce standards. Not all tourneys need to be at a game store. You can often find conference centers or convention centers that will rent small rooms for decent money. Just takes some organization and planning.

Is your army painted Solkan?

To MagickalMemories,

We are all just speaking academically in a forum about possibilities for an event that hasn't even happened. What kind of poster would I be if I openly solicited comments and then flamed those who disagree or were equally frank? I would hope my demeanor here speaks to my intent.

MagickalMemories wrote:It's one thing to say, "To play in this event, you must meet this minimum criteria. Period. End of story."

It's something different to advertise that unpainted armies will be allowed, then drop this bombshell on them when they arrive.
Sure. You won't allow others to mock them for being on the substandard tables, but you're definitely mocking them. In essence, your rule is, "Don't point and laugh at the peons we're putting on display by showing them we think they're lower than us."

It is perhaps a third thing to say, everyone is welcome, armies that do not meet the standard will play games on unpainted terrain round 1 before people even signup. There is no concept of surprising people about it attached to this idea. In fact quite the reverse, to encourage people beforehand and announce that there is a consequence.

Some in this thread have reacted very negatively to this concept. I was and am still curious how many folks might react so negatively, but I am still not convinced everyone in thread understands the intent, for example with the bombshell comments above.

I am also surprised at the vehemance for the paper table, is it that big of an issue, words like punishment, discrimination and elitism have been put forth. Is it not just that those who put no effort forth for painting would gain none in return and be treated in kind?

I find it perplexing that a player who was not concerned with painting enough to meet a simple 3 color standard would feel so ostricized by playing on unpainted terrain. I think this may make the point by itself, that it is an issue people care about regardless of what their personal painting progress might be.

MagickalMemories you are defending a hypocritical viewpoint to the point of audacity. If you think that un painted armies have a place in a quality event and that unprepared players need to be accommodated then I say you do not belong in a quality tournament.

Here is a new angle, lets say I went to a Magic the Gathering tourney, purchased the correct amount of cards to play, then took out a sharpie and changed the titles to the legal cards I wanted them to be and used them in sleeves.

I paid the money
I have the cards
I am playing by the rules
Couldn't I play in the tournament?

How do you think Magic judges would respond to that?

Austragalis wrote:

solkan wrote:

Augustus wrote:There won't be any public ridicule.

Augustus wrote:I will be honest and say I agree with you, that is what I am saying "We think so little of you because you do not paint your army that you don't even deserve regular terrain." but understand, beyond the paper table round there is not going to be any descrimination mockery I wouldn't stand for that sort of thing in an event I ran, and I wouldn't do it.

These are the two quotes which really, really bother me. So there won't be any other mockery aside from the paper tables?

As a player, I would complain to the store owner. If I were a store owner and someone running an event tried to do this, I would positively enjoy the act of banning the tournament organizer from doing anything at my store ever again.

As would I. At a tourny, everyone should be held to the same standard (which is the entire point of a tournament), which is "you come here to play, you play like man."

but if its not painted. you can't play, play like a girl.

Augustus wrote:
Here is a new angle, lets say I went to a Magic the Gathering tourney, purchased the correct amount of cards to play, then took out a sharpie and changed the titles to the legal cards I wanted them to be and used them in sleeves.

I paid the money
I have the cards
I am playing by the rules
Couldn't I play in the tournament?

How do you think Magic judges would respond to that?

HAHHAHAHA, It is not uncommon for players to have whole decks in those card protector sleeves and then use known counterfeit or cards printed off the internet in those events. Of course official events they do require the appropriate product, but in many events I have seen people refuse to let people inspect the authenticity of thier cards and places be cool with known counterfeiters and bogus cards. With the way Upper Deck knowingly counterfeited thier own Yu-gi-oh cards, it is almost assumed most players cards are flat out fake nowadays and they don't even try.

Comes down to Squeaky wheel gets the grease. Someone nerdrages over not being allowed to play and makes a scene and now everyone plays regardless of rules, standards or what the participants who paid for a legit event were promised.

Indeed?

That's appalling. I thought there was a different standard in those events.

Alas I do not know.

Augustus, we are responding to your idea, not to your tone. Your idea is to openly ridicule players who do not conform to YOUR stringent standards. You say you want to "let people know that there are consequences." Consequences to what? Offending you, one player out of many? That is very narcissistic to say the least.

The reason why people are so offended by your "paper table" idea is indeed because a gross level of elitism. You are substituting the entire spirit of a tournament, allowing players to test their mettle against one another on an even playing field, for a spirit of ridicule, judgmentalism, and stratification.

As an example, it would be like if you attended a martial arts tournament using cheaper equipment, so the competitors using more expensive gear force you to only fight against competitors also using cheaper gear. That is totally against the intent of the tourny, and is disgusting to boot.

As another example, it would be like going to a banquet and they test you on your knowledge of culinary arts beforehand. If you didn't know so much, you get mac n cheese. If you proved to be well versed, you are given fillet mignon.

Augustus, your example of the Magic tournament is flawed outright because that player is breaking the rules of the tournament. Altering your cards is in no way similar to playing a game according to the rules while using unpainted minis.

Frazzled, my painting ability is not related to my playing ability.

I posted a request for a poll.

Paper Terrain at a Tourney?

If table(s) of newspaper, boxes and books terrain were set up at a Tournament (RTT standard style) for armies that did not meet a 3 color standard to be paired on round one (and announced in advance) would that be:

(1) Terrible
(2) Great
(3) No opinion

nkelsch wrote:
I show up at an event with unpainted greys or proxies, then 100% of the people would not enjoy playing against that army. My Actions directly infringes upon other people's fun.

nkelsch wrote:
'ardboyz is a trainwreck and a terrible experience compared to almost every other event out there. People TOLERATE 'ard boyz as it has national prize support, is free and is the only way to get to regionals, where the quality and enforcement of things tightens up. If you had a 'ardboyz tourney, stand alone and asked people to pay to enter, it would be a horribly disastrous and poor quality event. I am going to *PAY* to enter an event where I play against 80% unpainted and unWYSIWYG armies and spend a day in horrible rule arguments? Nope. I can wait 3 weeks and pay to enter a different tourney where everything will be WYSIWYG and paitned and have quality enforcement and I know what to expect. Vote with my wallet.

Way to project, buddy. I'm glad you get to speak for everyone, including the people who blatantly disagree with you. And I'd never seen a card gaming event that allowed counterfeits or wouldn't immediately disqualify someone for having them in their deck. I've been to many fairly large events and a nationals or two as well lots of small tournaments. I honestly believe you're making stuff up about that and would appreciate you not trashing one someone else's hobby because you can't get over the fact that not everyone likes toy soldiers in the way that you do.

As a player who has shown up to a tournament with an army that is not up to a 3 color standard, and having played against similar opponents, I would have to say I would not at all find it frustrating to play on the "paper table".

I may not want to finish painting my army before the tournament, and if I still wanted to participate (knowing about this paper table), I'd go and suffer the consequences. I see where this would be an issue if it was sprung on the competitors with no forewarning, but the idea is that it's not, as to be used as a tool to try to get more painted armies on the tables.

I think it's completely valid to do occasionally, because it would get old real quick and lose it's effectiveness. Beyond that, I think it's perfectly legitimate and ok if a TO does that. And if the OP is who I think it is, I may go play just to look at said table.

Austragalis, I find your entire argument to be based on a false premise- that the visual spectacle of the game is not a big part of it, and its enjoyment.

Part of the point of miniatures wargaming, indeed a large point of it, is the pleasure derived from the spectacle of the armies. If the game was all, then computers certainly do a superior job of providing tactical challenges. But they manifestly lack the tactile element.

It is my suspicion that most players who themselves fail to paint still DO derive enjoyment from the visual aspects of the game. That these players do enjoy looking at and playing against and with nice armies and terrain. Despite their protestations to the contrary; that they are only interested in the game.

Especially as the idea is described- the table in question will be totally game-functional. The same proportion of difficult terrain, LOS-blocking, area, etc. It just won’t be pretty. If the players really DO only care about the game part, and not give a fig for the visuals, then this should be perfectly fine for their purposes. OTOH, if they actually care about the visuals more than they’re admitting (maybe even to themselves), then perhaps this is a unique way of making them aware of that.

Augustus wrote:Some in this thread have reacted very negatively to this concept. I was and am still curious how many folks might react so negatively, but I am still not convinced everyone in thread understands the intent, for example with the bombshell comments above.

To be perfectly frank, in this context, your intent matters not one iota. All that matters is the effect that your actions will have, and some of the posts here are very good indicators of the kinds of negative reactions that you might encounter.

Augustus wrote:I am also surprised at the vehemance for the paper table, is it that big of an issue, words like punishment, discrimination and elitism have been put forth. Is it not just that those who put no effort forth for painting would gain none in return and be treated in kind?

I find it perplexing that a player who was not concerned with painting enough to meet a simple 3 color standard would feel so ostricized by playing on unpainted terrain. I think this may make the point by itself, that it is an issue people care about regardless of what their personal painting progress might be.

Some people simply do not have time to paint. They have kids. They have wives. They have jobs. They have friends. They have second jobs. They are not necessarily unconcerned with painting; all that you can actually know about their armies and how they view them is that they're unpainted.

Augustus wrote:MagickalMemories you are defending a hypocritical viewpoint to the point of audacity. If you think that un painted armies have a place in a quality event and that unprepared players need to be accommodated then I say you do not belong in a quality tournament.

If you have advertised that unpainted armies are allowed at your event then, yes, you need to be prepared to accomodate them. Treating them like second class citizens is doing nothing of the kind.

Augustus wrote:Here is a new angle, lets say I went to a Magic the Gathering tourney, purchased the correct amount of cards to play, then took out a sharpie and changed the titles to the legal cards I wanted them to be and used them in sleeves.

I paid the money
I have the cards
I am playing by the rules
Couldn't I play in the tournament?

How do you think Magic judges would respond to that?

Having not played MtG competetively, but having played (and judged) Yu-Gi-Oh! at a regional level, I'll twist it around to that: no, you wouldn't be allowed to play, because you've marked your cards. Which means that your deck is illegal. Which means that it would have been disqualified.

Much like you could disqualify an unpainted army. Or, rather, can't. So would you be disqualified? No. You'd be allowed to play. But at the same time, unless I was being paid to run the tournament by someone else, I wouldn't run it in such a way. And to twist it back to your proposition:

Would I ever have made bad players, or players with messed up cards, sit down at a kiddie table with no chairs because I prefer people to be good players and good players generally prefer playing against good players, meaning that bad players, or players with messed up cards, degrade the experience of good players? Feth no.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Mannahnin wrote:Especially as the idea is described- the table in question will be totally game-functional. The same proportion of difficult terrain, LOS-blocking, area, etc. It just won’t be pretty. If the players really DO only care about the game part, and not give a fig for the visuals, then this should be perfectly fine for their purposes. OTOH, if they actually care about the visuals more than they’re admitting (maybe even to themselves), then perhaps this is a unique way of making them aware of that.

If the goal is to eliminate unpainted armies from the tournament, having those with unpainted armies only realise that they want to paint their armies halfway through round 1 seems to be exactly opposite to the desired result.

I have no issue with playing on a paper table. With paper terrain. I play for the joy of combat....what your army looks like is irrelevant to me, which is probably part of why I don't mind playing with garishly painted models.

Here's one of my trukks coming along right now.



That's a wooden table in the background with borrowed terrain; houses on that table are stacks of books. I don't object to any of that.

I *DO* object to segregation. It *IS* segregation. You're setting aside a group of people and declaring them not good enough, not worthy of the same respect other players get; and that isn't determined by their valuation of the the table they are playing on, but of yours. YOU don't value the table they are on, you think it is inferior and unworthy and you're planning on placing them there in that spirit. That's the problem.

The idea is as absurd as putting people on a table where the terrain is made out of GW product boxes because they didn't convert any models. You don't convert, you don't get to play with converted terrain.
-------------------------

You know what idea you should really turn this into? The gaming tournament aspect itself. If people didn't come with a painted army, they play on the crappy table in your world. How about this: If people don't come to the tournament with a competitive army, they go play Yu-Gi-Oh in the corner with each other while wearing dunce caps. Or how about this one: If you haven't won an RTT or a GT in the last 12 months, then you only get to play 1000 point lists, and you do it on the kiddie table over in the corner.

You don't enjoy playing against people that don't paint their army.

I don't enjoy playing against people who suck at 40k.

Do you see any threads where tournament gamers and competitive players are whining that 40k players who aren't tactically elite are playing in their tournaments, and since they don't want to turn anyone away, they're going to set up kiddie tables in the corner for the people who aren't good enough to play in the real tournament? They'll have their own prize bracket too - McDonalds' happy meal toys.

Dashofpepper wrote:I play for the joy of combat....what your army looks like is irrelevant to me, which is probably part of why I don't mind playing with garishly painted models.

And here I was thinking that it was because it distracts your opponent. But that would take some kind of tactical geniu...

CREEEEEEEEED!

Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:

Way to project, buddy. I'm glad you get to speak for everyone, including the people who blatantly disagree with you. And I'd never seen a card gaming event that allowed counterfeits or wouldn't immediately disqualify someone for having them in their deck. I've been to many fairly large events and a nationals or two as well lots of small tournaments. I honestly believe you're making stuff up about that and would appreciate you not trashing one someone else's hobby because you can't get over the fact that not everyone likes toy soldiers in the way that you do.

Be aware of the upperdeck situation where Upperdeck was taking its contract to make and sell licensed American cards and sold counterfeit cards that are practically indistinguishable overseas where they were not licenced to sell them.

This has made Yu-Gi_oh virtually impossible to distinguish counterfeit from legitimate cards and has made that particular card game almost impossible to enforce for stores that run them.

So I do know what I am talking about... people use proxies and counterfeits at card tourneys all the time, some because it can't be enforced, some because the organizers don't care.

Some people simply do not have time to paint. They have kids. They have wives. They have jobs. They have friends. They have second jobs. They are not necessarily unconcerned with painting; all that you can actually know about their armies and how they view them is that they're unpainted.

All worthless excuses. Who are you to say your life and your time is more valuable than mine? All that is 'fair' is setting a standard. If you can't handle it in your life to meet that standard, then that is on you. Everyone has time to paint. Some people are too lazy to paint and don't feel it is important and want everyone else to accept it.

I know lots of people with fully painted armies and they have kids... and wives, and jobs, and friends and second jobs, and 3rd jobs, and pets and voluneer work and school/college, and medical disabilities and ailing family members. We all have responsibilities and somehow we are able to handle them and still devote time to our hobbies. So no pity for your 'I can't paint' excuses.

And in a game as unbalanced, fundamentally flawed and incapable of being played actually competitive as 40k... It is a sick joke that someone can throw down plastic and claim to want a true competitive game experience in a game that uses dice and is as flawed as 40k. Without the appearance aspect of the models, the game would not exist on its own as it is not quality enough to. We tolerate the rules, flaws and all because we enjoy seeing grey space vikings kill terminator robots with green guns and the rules gives us a way to cause that to happen. If this game truley was a quality game that could be played competitively then they would have translated it into video game mechanics and people would be playing it competitively on TV the way they do with Starcraft in korea.

GW rules have been an excuse to push painted models around a table while socializing. That is what the hobby has been for 25+ years now. Models are capable of being painted and sculpted well. The game is not capable of being balanced and being played competitively in any fair reasonable sense.

nkelsch wrote:

Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:

Way to project, buddy. I'm glad you get to speak for everyone, including the people who blatantly disagree with you. And I'd never seen a card gaming event that allowed counterfeits or wouldn't immediately disqualify someone for having them in their deck. I've been to many fairly large events and a nationals or two as well lots of small tournaments. I honestly believe you're making stuff up about that and would appreciate you not trashing one someone else's hobby because you can't get over the fact that not everyone likes toy soldiers in the way that you do.

Be aware of the upperdeck situation where Upperdeck was taking its contract to make and sell licensed American cards and sold counterfeit cards that are practically indistinguishable overseas where they were not licenced to sell them.

This has made Yu-Gi_oh virtually impossible to distinguish counterfeit from legitimate cards and has made that particular card game almost impossible to enforce for stores that run them.

So I do know what I am talking about... people use proxies and counterfeits at card tourneys all the time, some because it can't be enforced, some because the organizers don't care.

Wait, what in the hell?

Things have changed since I got out of the game.

Just to run with this, if a card is indistinguishable from real cards, there's no gameplay reason to DQ them. On the other hand, if they allow you to stack the deck, then it's a problem, because how do we know after the fact that you stacked or not? People get lucky. And if you bought these counterfeit cards without knowing that they were counterfeit, you're hosed.

Glad I stopped playing when I did, I guess.

Dashofpepper wrote:...isn't determined by their valuation of the the table they are playing on, but of yours.

Yes, I am going to be the judge, and make a judgment, potentially. I can tell you don't like the idea, I put you in the NO bucket already after post 1.

Dashofpepper wrote:
You're setting aside a group of people and declaring them not good enough
YOU don't value the table they are on,
you think it is inferior and unworthy
you're planning on placing them there in that spirit.
You don't convert, you don't get to play with converted terrain
you haven't won an RTT or a GT in the last 12 months, then you only get to play 1000 point lists
you do it on the kiddie table over in the corner.
You don't enjoy playing against people that don't paint their army.

There are a lot of you's in there. Lets keep it civil.

The line goes both ways. Dis including people with any criteria is segregation.

What about proxies?
What about those with not enough points?
What about out dated codices?
What about non GW models?
What about those with bigger armies?
What about those with forgeworld models?
What about people with all the right models and no army list?

As a judge I am going to segregate all those people as well and dis include them, because I am going to make a judgment and have a standard.

Apparently that makes one an elitist? Having a standard. I dare say the 3 color standard is a common one, and is not mine, and the idea I am proposing is actually more inclusive than that standard is.

Do you see any threads where tournament gamers and competitive players are whining that 40k players who aren't tactically elite are playing in their tournaments,...

All the time, any of the sportsmanship/comp threads? As in the 1337 players who want the sports and comp gone?

Taking umbrage with the concept that some players will get "less" than others? Remember the paper tables will still be functionally equivalent to everyone else at the tourney, and everyone will be scored with the same criteria. It's the same chance at success. The inflammatory idea you suggest playing at 1K, etc is not the same chance for success. If you see (paper tables) as "less" I can recognize that criticism and noted. That sort of thing is what I was after in the first place.

For the sake of our exchange lets scrap the paper table idea, lets assume you convinced me of the error of my ways.

Idea 4:

What do you think about pairing by painting score round 1, then pairing by points and letting the best painter of the round 2 and 3 pairings pick their table? (And announcing criteria beforehand of course). More to your liking?

WARBOSS TZOO wrote:Just to run with this, if a card is indistinguishable from real cards, there's no gameplay reason to DQ them. On the other hand, if they allow you to stack the deck, then it's a problem, because how do we know after the fact that you stacked or not? People get lucky. And if you bought these counterfeit cards without knowing that they were counterfeit, you're hosed.

Glad I stopped playing when I did, I guess.

Well, in the metadeck environment, the rules still matter so counterfeiting doesn't mean you can take more than a specific number of cards in your deck as allowed by rules. It does allow rare cards to be easily bought from ebay because they virtually flooded the market with basically legitimate cards that were sold unlicensed which makes them technically counterfeit.

Combine that with all the other counterfeiting out there and realize these events are still majority kids with parents who will complain to a store owner, half the time the store allows the kids to play regardless simply because it is easier to just disqualify them on the scoresheet and let them play than to throw them out.

There was also a break in the pokemon realm when nintendo took publishing away from WoTC there was a flood of the market of legitimate indistinguishable counterfeits... almost as if WoTC let slip some originals to hurt nintendo as Nintendo was pulling back as a cashgrab as they felt they could make more money this way. This means WoTC is just as capable as pulling what Upperdeck did at any time. The only difference is they own the original property so they are only hurting themselves if they do it. Unless they make money off the collectors market and the backend counterfeit market... which Upperdeck did.

It is really really really hard to enforce now... Obvious fakes are no longer the issue and as long as you drop $$ on boosters when you show up, they really don't go to deep into what cards you play with. Event organizers paid by a company may, but store owners don't.

nkelsch wrote:
All worthless excuses. Who are you to say your life and your time is more valuable than mine? All that is 'fair' is setting a standard. If you can't handle it in your life to meet that standard, then that is on you. Everyone has time to paint. Some people are too lazy to paint and don't feel it is important and want everyone else to accept it.

I'm glad you get to judge that. What makes you morally superior to someone who doesn't paint an army of fictional toy soldiers? What makes someone lazy for not investing time into a hobby? If you have golf clubs and never use them does that make you a bad person? Is there a reason you're being ridiculously unreasonable?

And those cards aren't counterfeit, as they're exactly the same as "legal" ones. It is impossible to distinguish them, therefore they are the same. They are printed the same way ont he same presses. The only thing counterfeit was how they overproduced and made extra on the side. It's just a fancy way of saying they violated their contract. What's the nicest way to say "you're a moron" without actually breaking rule #1?

nkelsch wrote:
Combine that with all the other counterfeiting out there and realize these events are still majority kids with parents who will complain to a store owner, half the time the store allows the kids to play regardless simply because it is easier to just disqualify them on the scoresheet and let them play than to throw them out.

Because all card game players are kids, just like 100% of people who go to tournaments will have a bad time playing an unpainted army, and everyone hates ard boyz and never has fun. Any more sweeping generalizations you'd like to make before your discredit yourself completely?

nkelsch wrote:All worthless excuses. Who are you to say your life and your time is more valuable than mine? All that is 'fair' is setting a standard. If you can't handle it in your life to meet that standard, then that is on you. Everyone has time to paint. Some people are too lazy to paint and don't feel it is important and want everyone else to accept it.

I know lots of people with fully painted armies and they have kids... and wives, and jobs, and friends and second jobs, and 3rd jobs, and pets and voluneer work and school/college, and medical disabilities and ailing family members. We all have responsibilities and somehow we are able to handle them and still devote time to our hobbies. So no pity for your 'I can't paint' excuses.

And, hey, if we were talking about someone bitching because they weren't allowed into a tournament because of this, then sure, I agree. There was a standard set which they didn't make.

But here there is no such standard, because they are being allowed to play.

...GW rules have been an excuse to push painted models around a table while socializing. That is what the hobby has been for 25+ years now. Models are capable of being painted and sculpted well. The game is not capable of being balanced and being played competitively in any fair reasonable sense.

Holy false dichotomy, Batman! It isn't either "HAAC" or "WAAC". You can enjoy pushing toy soldiers around a table in an entirely uncompetitive way and not care about painting or how your army looks!

Augustus wrote:Here is a new angle, lets say I went to a Magic the Gathering tourney, purchased the correct amount of cards to play, then took out a sharpie and changed the titles to the legal cards I wanted them to be and used them in sleeves.

I paid the money
I have the cards
I am playing by the rules
Couldn't I play in the tournament?

How do you think Magic judges would respond to that?

Both the bolded sections are incorrect - you have some cards, but not the cards (that are supposed to be in your deck), and you are not playing by the rules (as a direct corollary of the previous issue)

You would not be allowed to play.

Thing is, I wouldn't mind going to a tournament which had tables with newspaper quicksand, book-stack buildings, and so forth. I might be a little surprised, but it wouldn't be an issue. If, however, I went to an event where there were some nicely modelled tables, some thrown-together, and I was told that the presence (or lack thereof) of paint would determine what I played on... I wouldn't return to the venue, regardless of whether my army was painted or not.

If it was announced ahead of time that what you're proposing would be done, that's more reasonable. However, there are still logistical issues - for example, what do you do in rounds 2+ when, possibly, unpainted armies would be matched against painted ones? Force the painted army to play on the other table? Make an exception for unpainted armies which are doing well (or unusually poorly, maybe)? Or just replace the thrown-together tables with painted ones after round one? The first option actively defeats the purpose, the second makes it so that your point is diluted. As for the third... Seems like a lot of effort to make a point, especially when that point would ostracise people.

I have no problem with having a painting award, or the Idea 4 just posted recently. In fact, I personally like the idea of giving tangible advantages to painted armies - my local GW has been running a 500 point campaign (well, starting at 500) and giving fully painted (3C+B) armies an additional 100 points. It acts as encouragements for the kids who, frankly, make up the majority of people in the store. If you're doing this to enhance the experience of people with painted armies, go right ahead! If you're doing it to decrease the enjoyment of those who don't, that's another matter entirely.

Basically, positive reinforcement good, negative reinforcement bad

Aelyn wrote:Basically, positive reinforcement good, negative reinforcement bad

Seriously. Make people want to have painted armies because they get something good out of it, not to avoid something they don't like.

WARBOSS TZOO wrote:
Seriously. Make people want to have painted armies because they get something good out of it, not to avoid something they don't like.

What is this... *sniff*... this reeks of compromise!

Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:

nkelsch wrote:
All worthless excuses. Who are you to say your life and your time is more valuable than mine? All that is 'fair' is setting a standard. If you can't handle it in your life to meet that standard, then that is on you. Everyone has time to paint. Some people are too lazy to paint and don't feel it is important and want everyone else to accept it.

I'm glad you get to judge that. What makes you morally superior to someone who doesn't paint an army of fictional toy soldiers? What makes someone lazy for not investing time into a hobby? If you have golf clubs and never use them does that make you a bad person? Is there a reason you're being ridiculously unreasonable?

Who are you to sday that you have the right to be welcome at 100% of events and that painting shouldn't be required? Who are you to say that you should be exempt to rules because your time is more important than other people?

There are valid reasons to exlcude people from events. Because the people who want to participate in the events are drawn to them by the expectation that all opponents will have painted and WYSIWYG figures. If an event says I am paying money to enter a painted and WYSIWYG event, then allowing someone who doesn't meet that standard is a problem. And people who can;t meet the standard, regardless of thier personal justification (OH NOES I HAVE KIDZ NOOOOOOOO!) are not welcome. It is that simple.

And those cards aren't counterfeit, as they're exactly the same as "legal" ones. It is impossible to distinguish them, therefore they are the same. They are printed the same way ont he same presses. The only thing counterfeit was how they overproduced and made extra on the side. It's just a fancy way of saying they violated their contract. What's the nicest way to say "you're a moron" without actually breaking rule #1?

No... that is you putting your moral approval of counterfeiting on the situation. Legally those cards are counterfeits and are not allowed in events. Just because a counterfeit is indistinguishable doesn't make it ok or legal.

Store owners simply don't want to be in the position of playing baby police with potential customers by fighting about counterfeits that a customer may have no idea what they are talking about... The same way they don't want to turn away someone making a scene about not being allowed to participate because his models are not painted. Store owners and often the store person running the event would rather just make everyone happy and allow people to break the rules or relax the standards instead of tell people they can't participate.

Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:

WARBOSS TZOO wrote:
Seriously. Make people want to have painted armies because they get something good out of it, not to avoid something they don't like.

What is this... *sniff*... this reeks of compromise!

So you basically punish people who want to play against painted armies by forcing them to play against unpainted armies by relaxing the standards. I don't see how I am being 'rewarded' for painting by being given opponents who show up with unpainted models and proxies... Especially when I pay money for an event. This just means when I have a choice of events, I will choose the event with basic standards because those who cannot be bothered to meet the basic standards will all go to the other event.

How about you REWARD them by allowing them to participate. You bring a painted army... you get to play in this event! REWARD!

nkelsch wrote:

Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:

nkelsch wrote:
All worthless excuses. Who are you to say your life and your time is more valuable than mine? All that is 'fair' is setting a standard. If you can't handle it in your life to meet that standard, then that is on you. Everyone has time to paint. Some people are too lazy to paint and don't feel it is important and want everyone else to accept it.

I'm glad you get to judge that. What makes you morally superior to someone who doesn't paint an army of fictional toy soldiers? What makes someone lazy for not investing time into a hobby? If you have golf clubs and never use them does that make you a bad person? Is there a reason you're being ridiculously unreasonable?

Who are you to sday that you have the right to be welcome at 100% of events and that painting shouldn't be required? Who are you to say that you should be exempt to rules because your time is more important than other people?

There are valid reasons to exlcude people from events. Because the people who want to participate in the events are drawn to them by the expectation that all opponents will have painted and WYSIWYG figures. If an event says I am paying money to enter a painted and WYSIWYG event, then allowing someone who doesn't meet that standard is a problem. And people who can;t meet the standard, regardless of thier personal justification (OH NOES I HAVE KIDZ NOOOOOOOO!) are not welcome. It is that simple.

All well and good.

Not really any reason to treat those with unpainted armies like second rate citizens if you do let them attend, though.

nkelsch wrote:

Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:

WARBOSS TZOO wrote:
Seriously. Make people want to have painted armies because they get something good out of it, not to avoid something they don't like.

What is this... *sniff*... this reeks of compromise!

So you basically punish people who want to play against painted armies by forcing them to play against unpainted armies by relaxing the standards. I don't see how I am being 'rewarded' for painting by being given opponents who show up with unpainted models and proxies... Especially when I pay money for an event. This just means when I have a choice of events, I will choose the event with basic standards because those who cannot be bothered to meet the basic standards will all go to the other event.

How about you REWARD them by allowing them to participate. You bring a painted army... you get to play in this event! REWARD!

This is why, if you want to make people play with painted armies, you should do this by entry restrictions.

OP: Look at it this way (and this is a hypothetical situation) - a few people bring unpainted armies to this sort of segregated tournaments. One of them is a decent player, but nothing special, and the rest are... Well, they enjoy their Tau Close Assault armies. Most people, however, have brought well-painted armies, and are reasonably good players - generally better than the best of the unpainted players.

One person plays very well with his nicely-painted army, and scores Massacre, Massacre, Major Win. However, the average player with Plastic Marines of Doom has scored three Massacres because his opponents thought that Assault weapons meant they could only be used as clubs in assaults. You've got a situation where the best player is forced into second place because of a tournament set-up which, in theory, is designed so he can enjoy the tournament more. Do you think he'll find that an enjoyable situation to be in?

nkelsch wrote:Who are you to sday that you have the right to be welcome at 100% of events and that painting shouldn't be required? Who are you to say that you should be exempt to rules because your time is more important than other people?

Quote me on either of those, sweeping generalization boy I think "only painted armies" is fine, as I stated a page or two earlier. I don't like these sort of passive-aggressive "on the rag" restrictions though. Be a man, set a damn entry requirement, don't be a whiny wuss.

nkelsch wrote:Because the people who want to participate in the events are drawn to them by the expectation that all opponents will have painted and WYSIWYG figures.

Do we really need a sweeping generalization counter? I might start one.

nkelsch wrote:If an event says I am paying money to enter a painted and WYSIWYG event, then allowing someone who doesn't meet that standard is a problem. And people who can;t meet the standard, regardless of thier personal justification (OH NOES I HAVE KIDZ NOOOOOOOO!) are not welcome. It is that simple.

Fair enough, set a real standard and enforce it. No disagreement here.

nkelsch wrote:
No... that is you putting your moral approval of counterfeiting on the situation. Legally those cards are counterfeits and are not allowed in events. Just because a counterfeit is indistinguishable doesn't make it ok or legal.

There is no physical difference between the cards. Maybe that makes them all illegal and counterfeit.

nkelsch wrote:
Store owners simply don't want to be in the position of playing baby police with potential customers by fighting about counterfeits that a customer may have no idea what they are talking about... The same way they don't want to turn away someone making a scene about not being allowed to participate because his models are not painted. Store owners and often the store person running the event would rather just make everyone happy and allow people to break the rules or relax the standards instead of tell people they can't participate.

Sweeping generalization +2. All store owners are alike, after all Because not having your models painted is the equivalent of something illegal now. There are two recommendations I'm going to make for you; one involves a "chill pill," and the other involves a stick up a certain location requiring removal.

WARBOSS TZOO wrote:
Not really any reason to treat those with unpainted armies like second rate citizens if you do let them attend, though.

I agree... I like upfront standards that are enforced where people can choose to participate or not participate. Let's people know to bring painted armies or warns people to stay away or potentially show up and check out the painting level before participating in an event they will find themselves not enjoying.

My problem is with the people who show up knowing it requires painting, then complain to the store owner that they shouldn't be expected to meet the standard and then the TO is overruled and paying customers like themselves have had thier experience degraded... This is what it sounds like the OP is in that situation being unable to run an event that excludes anyone for any reason...

How about painted armies may take a 'sideboard' of units they may swap in? Those who don't paint use static lists? If you want the advantage and flexibility of a sideboard, paint. The games are still fundamentally equal points. Not sure that a sideboard would make me want to play unpainted armies, but maybe it would encourage painting and make people lean towards painted forces than a box of greys they are working on.

Augustus wrote:

The line goes both ways. Dis including people with any criteria is segregation.

What about proxies?
What about those with not enough points?
What about out dated codices?
What about non GW models?
What about those with bigger armies?
What about those with forgeworld models?
What about people with all the right models and no army list?

All of the "you" in my posting isn't specifically pointed at you, it is pointed at an idea....its pointed at discrimination and the attempts to separate and declare inferior a group of people. If you happen to be the vessel championing this evil scourge at this moment in time, then I understand why you feel targeted here. I don't have any problem with you, I don't know who you are, but I will fight discrimination in all its forms regardless of who is proclaiming its utility.

As for the suggestions you just posted.....all of those are answered in the rulebook or in a tournament rulepacket. You can also address painting in the rule packet.

As I've stated multiple times here, the problem isn't in the requirements for attending the tournaments. You can require anything you want. Your standards are yours to choose. If you wish people to have three color painted armies, go for it. Disallowing proxies...go for it. You have to have some kind of standard, regardless of your note that the owner wants everyone to be included. Does that mean that you allow a paper army? Scraps of paper labeled with representation? Of course not, and I have no doubt that neither your tournament nor any other tournament will allow it. Painting requirements are an easy rule to include as well, and serve the same purpose as the rest of the requirements in a tournament rule packet - to institute some uniform measures and standards for armies and players that show up.

The ONLY objection I have, or that anyone has here is treating a section of the gaming community as inferior. You may choose to disallow a group to participate in an event based on the completion of their models, the state of the models, the legality of the models they wish to use....or even against individuals who cheat, cause problems, etc......but you simply cannot host an event, take a portion of the players there, and demean them. It is despicable, horrendous, abominable, and antithetical to every modicum of respect and behavior.

If you don't want me to say "YOU" then don't propose and represent ideas that require a response to YOU.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Augustus wrote:

Do you see any threads where tournament gamers and competitive players are whining that 40k players who aren't tactically elite are playing in their tournaments,...

All the time, any of the sportsmanship/comp threads? As in the 1337 players who want the sports and comp gone?

You're taking my post drastically out of context. The SECOND part of that was the important part....the part about

....and insisting that when those players who up to tournaments, they are relegated to kiddie tables to play for McDonald happy meal toys.

Anyone is welcome to whine about a tournament, and who participates, and whether that person fully appreciates the hobby in the same respect that you do.

Once you take action about treating those people poorly when they attend an event, then the unforgivable behavior sets in.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Augustus wrote:
Idea 4:

What do you think about pairing by painting score round 1, then pairing by points and letting the best painter of the round 2 and 3 pairings pick their table? (And announcing criteria beforehand of course). More to your liking?

Pair however you like. I have no objection to that. Pairing by painting is going to screw with the points, and you're likely to drive away competitive players who also have painted armies. I'm a good player. A VERY good player. I don't show up to tournament to find out if I'm better at playing than people with similarly painted armies, I go to find out if I can beat everyone who's there, and I want to play against the best the tournament has to offer.

Dashofpepper wrote:Pair however you like. I have no objection to that. Pairing by painting is going to screw with the points, and you're likely to drive away competitive players who also have painted armies. I'm a good player. A VERY good player. I don't show up to tournament to find out if I'm better at playing than people with similarly painted armies, I go to find out if I can beat everyone who's there, and I want to play against the best the tournament has to offer.

WAAC!!!111 Why don't you take your loaded dice and your entirely proxied, non-WYSIWYG army and learn to do things the RIGHT way! SOME of us have standards and you automatically ruin the experience for everyone else there, even if they say they're ok with you.

Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:

Dashofpepper wrote:Pair however you like. I have no objection to that. Pairing by painting is going to screw with the points, and you're likely to drive away competitive players who also have painted armies. I'm a good player. A VERY good player. I don't show up to tournament to find out if I'm better at playing than people with similarly painted armies, I go to find out if I can beat everyone who's there, and I want to play against the best the tournament has to offer.

WAAC!!!111 Why don't you take your loaded dice and your entirely proxied, non-WYSIWYG army and learn to do things the RIGHT way! SOME of us have standards and you automatically ruin the experience for everyone else there, even if they say they're ok with you.

Be careful when trying to parody the hobbyist side of this... debate. Some people might think you were being serious

(For the record, I don't really fall entirely on one side of the painted-or-not debate, so I suspect my lack of vitriol may disqualify me from posting futher in this thread)

I have known and played against Augustus for quite a few years now. He is a top notch player who brings nothing less than excellence to table in conversion and paint scores. Somethings he does blow the mind, like his Necrons for Adepticon, his Warlord Titan and so forth.

Augustus, and his group, the Rocky Mountain Cavaliers have been the Colorado detachment of the WC's rival for years now. So, if anyone out there would level a negative tag on him, I think it would be me, especialy considering our debate with Ghengis Con some 5 years ago. However, I will not label a negative tag on him as elitist. Damian(augustus) only wishes to enjoy the hobby in its fullest. That means good games with good looking armies. Now, goodlooking doesnt mean GD standard, but instead means effort.

The paper terrain is a mirror for these players to understand that if they do not take the effort for a 3 color minimum(all you have to do is spray paint them and wash them and you have a 3 color minimum) then Augustus wants to show them what level of effect that has on their opponents. As in, playing on a make shift table as opposed to the other tables.

On the note of the other tables. Augustus' terrain is marvelous. If he does, and I know he will, produce enough custom tables, this will be the best tourney in regards to terrain. So, playing on paper table isnt just playing on a paper table to exclude, but instead an incentive to get that 3 color minimum to play a tourney on Augustus' terrain.

I for would gladly put one of my many painted armies(I have a wife, 2 kids and 2 jobs) which all look great on a paper table, just so that those who have unpainted armies would try and put forth the effort to paint said armies. The more players with painted armies means more enjoyment by all. I love tourneys for the games, and to look at the armies.

Also, as I know Augustus, these paper tables won't just be paper. They will be done to a level of any normal RTT terrain as in coverage and effectiveness for play, just that they will be card board and paper for the effect. TBH, it would be more funny than anything else.

They are right actually. Just ban unpainted armies. Put the notice in any advertisement-minimum painting standard required to enter the tournament. If someone shows up with an unpainted army-point and laugh at them.

Then get the banana.

1. Require three colors
2. Score them out of overall

Then have the crap table set up with crap armies, but don't make anyone actually play on it.

malfred wrote:1. Require three colors
2. Score them out of overall

Then have the crap table set up with crap armies, but don't make anyone actually play on it.

No they should not be permitted. Otherwise they just pollute up the games. Again, if you don';t want to paint, fine. Play Ardboyz.

Gitsplitta wrote:Why don't you simply require that all figures be fully painted to a 3-color standard? That way you don't have to humiliate anyone to make your point, they just can't participate in the tournament unless they meet the standard. Give everyone plenty of warning... and go. If there's no minimum painting requirement in a tourney like 'Aard Boyz, I see no problem with the inverse... a tournament that has a strict minimum painting requirement.

This is probably the best idea. Simply do not allow any games to be played by someone who has any unpainted miniatures. If someone shows and it becomes apparent that their mini's are unpainted, either do not let them play at all, don't let them use any unpainted miniatures during the game, or give them no battle points for any game they play with unpainted minis. All of these are perfectly within your rights as TO if armies being fully painted is that important to you for your tournament.

Regardless of what you do, just make sure that any rules regarding painting are clearly presented to all potential competitors prior to their signing up for the tournament.

Frazzled wrote:They are right actually. Just ban unpainted armies. Put the notice in any advertisement-minimum painting standard required to enter the tournament. If someone shows up with an unpainted army-point and laugh at them.

Then get the banana.

Or give them some paint to borrow while the big kids play with their hobby.

It isn't that I object to unpainted armies and cereal boxes and proxies and whatever else for friendly home games on kitchen floors or wherever, but the sense of all-encompassing care taken with something like a tournament should prompt people to have a bar to be reached before they even consider competing. I don't petition the olympic figure skating team to be a part of the games, just because they are hosting them, and I borrow my GFs ice skates do I? I wouldn't consider entering into a xgames extreme biking showoff match just because I have a rusty tricycle somewhere in an old garage and expect to be taken seriously either... I could go on and on with analogies but the point is: there's a place for sub-par hobbyists and its called HOME, or game night at your FLGS, not a tournament where a standard is expected for those participating, that contributes to the aesthetic that is so much part of the hobby. That's why we are using miniatures not pennies and corn flakes and such to represent our game pieces.

Frazzled wrote:

malfred wrote:1. Require three colors
2. Score them out of overall

Then have the crap table set up with crap armies, but don't make anyone actually play on it.

No they should not be permitted. Otherwise they just pollute up the games. Again, if you don';t want to paint, fine. Play Ardboyz.

TO has said that the venue wants an open event, so they are playing.

Maybe give painted armies first priority to register?

Guitardian wrote:

Frazzled wrote:They are right actually. Just ban unpainted armies. Put the notice in any advertisement-minimum painting standard required to enter the tournament. If someone shows up with an unpainted army-point and laugh at them.

Then get the banana.

Or give them some paint to borrow while the big kids play with their hobby.

It isn't that I object to unpainted armies and cereal boxes and proxies and whatever else for friendly home games on kitchen floors or wherever, but the sense of all-encompassing care taken with something like a tournament should prompt people to have a bar to be reached before they even consider competing. I don't petition the olympic figure skating team to be a part of the games, just because they are hosting them, and I borrow my GFs ice skates do I?

You could, if you wanted to. You'd probably be eliminated from the trials for not being very good at figureskating.

I wouldn't consider entering into a xgames extreme biking showoff match just because I have a rusty tricycle somewhere in an old garage and expect to be taken seriously either...

But, again, you could enter. I doubt anyone would stop you from trying to qualify.

I could go on and on with analogies but the point is: there's a place for sub-par hobbyists and its called HOME, or game night at your FLGS, not a tournament where a standard is expected for those participating, that contributes to the aesthetic that is so much part of the hobby. That's why we are using miniatures not pennies and corn flakes and such to represent our game pieces.

You expect a certain aesthetic. The other guy might just have come for the organised gaming.

If the painting is the point 40k for you then why don't you sit down with the little kids with some borrowed paint while the big kids play some wargames?

We are in agreement G. The painting standard we're talking here is minimal. If I can do it literally anyone can, and there are now alternatives for those who don't want to, or can't paint.


Having said that, I still like the idea of alternate worlds. Demon worlds have so many opportunities. Even a Pandora like table with multiple heights and air islands for TOs who really like to work on tables.

WARBOSS TZOO wrote:

Guitardian wrote:

Frazzled wrote:They are right actually. Just ban unpainted armies. Put the notice in any advertisement-minimum painting standard required to enter the tournament. If someone shows up with an unpainted army-point and laugh at them.

Then get the banana.

Or give them some paint to borrow while the big kids play with their hobby.

It isn't that I object to unpainted armies and cereal boxes and proxies and whatever else for friendly home games on kitchen floors or wherever, but the sense of all-encompassing care taken with something like a tournament should prompt people to have a bar to be reached before they even consider competing. I don't petition the olympic figure skating team to be a part of the games, just because they are hosting them, and I borrow my GFs ice skates do I?

You could, if you wanted to. You'd probably be eliminated from the trials for not being very good at figureskating.

I wouldn't consider entering into a xgames extreme biking showoff match just because I have a rusty tricycle somewhere in an old garage and expect to be taken seriously either...

But, again, you could enter. I doubt anyone would stop you from trying to qualify.

I could go on and on with analogies but the point is: there's a place for sub-par hobbyists and its called HOME, or game night at your FLGS, not a tournament where a standard is expected for those participating, that contributes to the aesthetic that is so much part of the hobby. That's why we are using miniatures not pennies and corn flakes and such to represent our game pieces.

You expect a certain aesthetic. The other guy might just have come for the organised gaming.

If the painting is the point 40k for you then why don't you sit down with the little kids with some borrowed paint while the big kids play some wargames?

While correct on all counts sir, you are especially correct with this last thing you brought up. I and many others enjoy showing others how to paint at least on a rudimentary level ("here's your base coats, here's your wash, here's your drybrush" kind of techniques) and wouldn't mind, like I said before, having an arts-n-crafts kind of session before the actual win-or-your-out games begin. When I said the "big kids table" I didn't mean an age brackett so much as a "how much did you do to qualify entering" bracket. Like I said, and you pointed out... I can try out for the xgames but if I suck I won't get in. On the other hand, if I go to it and make friends with a friendly athlete who teaches me tricks while I'm there, then I would still get a positive experience from attending, even if I wasn't playing with the big boys. That IMO is what the side table of books and coffee mugs and shoeboxes etc would be for. I wouldn't mind helping lil kids/newbies/half-interested-girlfriends and so on to paint in between matchups, I actually enjoy doing that and so do lots of gamers.

Frazzled wrote:We are in agreement G. The painting standard we're talking here is minimal. If I can do it literally anyone can, and there are now alternatives for those who don't want to, or can't paint.

It doesn't matter in this case, Frazz. I'm all for having a painted army requirement. I
understand the concerns for it, even though I don't share those concerns. However,
Augustus posted this earlier on:

The venue wants no one to be turned away

So they're in. Making them play on crap tables, while not turning them away, is just
as good as turning them away. Augustus should check with the venue to see if
poking fun at the non-painters fulfills their requirement. My guess is that it does
not.

Painting workshop before the tournament is neat. I might have to steal that idea
for the local warmachine events.

On the 'alternate worlds' idea that Frazz has: I'm not so sure planet made of giant books and newspaper trees really goes with the 40k imagery, but hey it IS the warp after all so anything is possible.

"Sir I've detected the enemy position!"
"where?"
"right over there... their scouts are hiding in that crumpled spot right between Hagar the Horrible and Beetle Baily"
"Got it, commence the attack."

well.. the warp is wierd, so it works for me.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
To tell you the truth I for one would play on anything if I wanted a game. I would like the pretty, well sculpted table, and an opponent's army who actually looks the part, so the whole thing looks cool... but a game is a game, and I'd be happy to use the newspapers if I just wanted some gaming for a day and that's where I got assigned to play on.

Arts n Crafts session at tournaments WOOT!
everybody builds terrain out of the random scraps before the contest begins. Dead simple setup so that nobody is excluded and everyone is encouraged.

Why not just provide 3 colors of spray paint, let's say neon orange, green and yellow. If their army is not up to the three paint standard, hit the models from the left, right and front. Voila! You now have a 3 color standard army to play against.

Personally, I'd find it more irritating than a primed or unprimed army, but if 3 color is your deal then that will meet the requirements. The irritation of having to prime over it to salavage the models ought to deter anyone from trying it again. Conversely, they may embrace this radical idea and become a proponent of terrible looking paintjobs.

Guitardian wrote:When I said the "big kids table" I didn't mean an age brackett so much as a "how much did you do to qualify entering" bracket. Like I said, and you pointed out... I can try out for the xgames but if I suck I won't get in.

But if you show up to the OP tournament, even if your army is unpainted, you will get in.

And it's good that you're willing to help out with the kids having a good time and good figs.

How much time would everyone allow for painting before the tournament?

MagickalMemories wrote:This idea screams of "painted army elitism."

It's like you're telling the guys, "We think so little of you because you do not paint your army that you don't even deserve regular terrain."

Is that better or worse than saying "We think so little of you because you do not paint your army that you don't even deserve to play at all"? I really don't know. It seems more inclusive in some ways, but it also seems more like segregation.

Maybe it is a preemptive way to address one of a tournament organizer's worst duties - having to deal with the guy who, although the event says painting is a requirement, shows up with unpainted models. Clearly, the guy who is blatantly trying to break the tournament entry rules is a jerk, but he's such a jerk that he's going to see if he can get away with it, and force the TO, or his opponent, to call him on it. A lot of people (both TOs and opponents) don't want to engage in this conflict, so they just let it go. This does, however, cut into the enjoyment of the people who came to an event expecting the rules to be enforced.

Mannahnin wrote:
Part of the point of miniatures wargaming, indeed a large point of it, is the pleasure derived from the spectacle of the armies. If the game was all, then computers certainly do a superior job of providing tactical challenges. But they manifestly lack the tactile element.

Agree 100% here. I really cannot comprehend people who pay the prices that quality miniatures (GW or otherwise) cost, and then not only don't paint them, but carry on believing that 40k (or whatever wargame) has such an amazing tactical level that tournaments are all about winning and strategerie and not about the visual appeal.

Dashofpepper wrote:
You know what idea you should really turn this into? The gaming tournament aspect itself. If people didn't come with a painted army, they play on the crappy table in your world. How about this: If people don't come to the tournament with a competitive army, they go play Yu-Gi-Oh in the corner with each other while wearing dunce caps. Or how about this one: If you haven't won an RTT or a GT in the last 12 months, then you only get to play 1000 point lists, and you do it on the kiddie table over in the corner.

You don't enjoy playing against people that don't paint their army.

I don't enjoy playing against people who suck at 40k.

Do you see any threads where tournament gamers and competitive players are whining that 40k players who aren't tactically elite are playing in their tournaments, and since they don't want to turn anyone away, they're going to set up kiddie tables in the corner for the people who aren't good enough to play in the real tournament?

Well, I see tournaments being organized this way. If you're not tactically elite enough to win in 'ard boyz round one, you don't get to play in 'ard boyz round two. If you're not tactically elite enough to win at BoLScon day one, you get moved to the kiddie tournament for day two. So, actually, yes, people are doing exactly what you're suggesting.

Hell, the whole system of matching people based on battle points accumulated has the effect of moving the not-so-good players to have to play among each other in later rounds of a tournament, while the so-called good players (or those who lucked into favourable matchups, perhaps) get to play the other good players.

Have you people never heard of ASL? Avalon Hill's Panzer games? I mean, you want to prove what a strategic badass you are, there are a multitude of games better suited to that approach. Miniature wargames are about the spectacle, and are better suited to drinking some beers than boasting about how powerful your list is. Wargaming tournaments have, historically, been about getting together with like-minded enthusiasts and playing a few friendly games over the course of an afternoon. Neither the tournament structure (play three games, and the #2 player rarely, if ever, has actually played the #1 player) nor the rules system are designed for the sort of uber-competitive mentality espoused in some circles, and I say this as a successful tournament player.

I mean, really now, someone is the second coming of Napoleon because they could number crunch it and come to the same conclusion that everyone else on the internet did about how Chimeras are a good buy in the new guard codex, and happen to win the first-turn roll three times in an afternoon?

Redbeard wrote:I mean, really now, someone is the second coming of Napoleon because they could number crunch it and come to the same conclusion that everyone else on the internet did about how Chimeras are a good buy in the new guard codex, and happen to win the first-turn roll three times in an afternoon?

There's not exactly a shortage of players who'd say YES to that.

I think you shouldn't be allowed to play if you've not got a painted army. Full stop

And painted doesn't mean sprayed black, it means each figure painted to a tabletop standard, not just three colours or whatnot, but a fully painted and finished figure with shading, basing and detailing.

[quote=Redbeard
Have you people never heard of ASL? Avalon Hill's Panzer games? I mean, you want to prove what a strategic badass you are, there are a multitude of games better suited to that approach.

lunarman wrote:I think you shouldn't be allowed to play if you've not got a painted army. Full stop

And painted doesn't mean sprayed black, it means each figure painted to a tabletop standard, not just three colours or whatnot, but a fully painted and finished figure with shading, basing and detailing.

You shouldn't be allowed to play if every model in your army isn't heavily converted tbqh. Kitbashes don't count; every conversion has to be from scratch except for the figure you're basing it on.

WARBOSS TZOO wrote:

lunarman wrote:I think you shouldn't be allowed to play if you've not got a painted army. Full stop

And painted doesn't mean sprayed black, it means each figure painted to a tabletop standard, not just three colours or whatnot, but a fully painted and finished figure with shading, basing and detailing.

You shouldn't be allowed to play if every model in your army isn't heavily converted tbqh. Kitbashes don't count; every conversion has to be from scratch except for the figure you're basing it on.

You should also have to have detailed pre-sketches of each figure to make the sure the figure looks like your concept art. The sketches must be on grid paper; anything less would be a travesty.

lunarman wrote:I think you shouldn't be allowed to play if you've not got a painted army. Full stop

They'll be playing in the event. Venue wants it open.

All the paint vs. no-paint arguments don't really matter in this thread. Augustus needs
feedback on what to do when he gets armies with no-paint because they'll be allowed to
play.

malfred wrote:Maybe give painted armies first priority to register?

3 weeks before the event...

RandomGuy: hey, i want to sign up for your tourny.
TO: sure, but we're only allowing people with painted armies to sign up early. is your army painted?
RandomGuy: um... *thinking* yeah, sure... it is. three color minimum and all.

day of the event...

RandomGuy: i'm here to play.
TO: hey, the glue on your army is still wet! you said your army is painted.
RandomGuy: *thinking* um, i decided to bring a different one... yeah, that's it.




if you make people presubmit their lists for comp scoring and such, i could see it working but then you can't change your mind on what you're bringing (which i'm not a fan of). there's nothing stopping people from simply lying about bringing a painted army unless they have to submit lists early.

malfred wrote:All the paint vs. no-paint arguments don't really matter in this thread. Augustus needs feedback on what to do when he gets armies with no-paint because they'll be allowed to play.

I think the question that naturally follows is what the desired result should be.

If he's looking to knock those people out of contention, it's easy enough to structure paint scoring to do that (forgive me if it's already been mentioned that paint won't be scored and I missed it). Another old way of doing it is that the TO is allowed to ask players to remove any unpainted minis from the tabletop. So yeah, you can bring a mostly unpainted army, you just won't be able to field most of it. But I don't know if that would be acceptable to the venue owner given their desire to open the event up to unpainted in the first place.

malfred wrote:Augustus needs
feedback on what to do when he gets armies with no-paint because they'll be allowed to
play.

And as folks keep saying here, the only fair way to enforce painting and not close off the event is to score the event according to what you find important. Since the painting portion here is obviously more important than the tournament given that pairing by paint scores is what's being discussed, then replace battle points with paint score.

The primary score each game is your opponent judging your painting; there's a 5 point bonus for the game itself and who won.

Proportion it. If painting scores are 10% of the overall score, then 10% of the effort of the tournament and expectations should be in painting. If you want painting to be mandatory, make painting scores 50% of the tournament. Problem solved.

No one has suggested that painting is more important than gaming, they've just stated that it is important.

I believe in all of the above being an important aspect of the hobby.

But if someone doesn't care to paint their stuff it stands to reason that they don't care if they are playing on the pretty table or on the shoeboxes and pop cans. It can't hurt to have a spare 'unfinished' table for 'unfinished' armies to duke it out on if there's the table space for it. If anything it just means the TO is putting as little effort into it as his players. It might be nice even to have several of those tables that double as arts-n-craft stations between games, and only a couple of 'deluxe' tables for the few people that do want the visual appeal depending on the proportion of aesthetic players to grey and metal players.

Guitardian wrote:I believe in all of the above being an important aspect of the hobby.

But if someone doesn't care to paint their stuff it stands to reason that they don't care if they are playing on the pretty table or on the shoeboxes and pop cans. It can't hurt to have a spare 'unfinished' table for 'unfinished' armies to duke it out on if there's the table space for it. If anything it just means the TO is putting as little effort into it as his players. It might be nice even to have several of those tables that double as arts-n-craft stations between games, and only a couple of 'deluxe' tables for the few people that do want the visual appeal depending on the proportion of aesthetic players to grey and metal players.

How dare you presume what players are putting into their armies? I guess armies out of new codexes shouldn't be seen on tournaments tables for weeks-months afterwards (if you're a serious painter) and for months to a year afterwards by the casual painter?

If an RTT has a painting requirement, fine. I will bring a painted army or not attend. If a tournament doesn't have a painting requirement and armies are judged on the spot as unworthy of a real table....I'm asking for a refund and walking out.

If someone doesn't care to paint their stuff it stands to reason that they don't care if they are playing on the pretty table or on the shoeboxes and pop cans....

If someone doesn't care to covert their stuff it stands to reason that they don't care if they are playing on table with home-made terrain or the one made out of product boxes.

If someone doesn't care to make their army competitive and capable of beating mine, it stands to reason that they don't care if they are playing in the kiddie room in the back where people stick their kids while they game right? If you wanted to play in the tournament on equal footing you would have brought a decent list.

If someone doesn't care to wear deoderant to the tournament and wear a fresh change of clothes, it stands to reason that they don't care if they play inside the dumpster out back with the rest of the stink, right?

If someone doesn't care enough to shave their beard before coming to the tournament, it stands to reason that they don't mind if everyone calls them a hippie for the duration right?
------------------------------------------------------------------
If you have a fully painted painted army that is not heavily converted and don't a GT win or multiple RTT wins under your belt with that army to demonstrate its competitiveness then you announcing that you're ok with playing on the cardboard product box in the kiddie room in the back with McDonald toys for prize support.

Same logic.

------------------------------------------------------------------
This entire mentality is wrong. It is elitist, it is discriminatory, and it revolves around putting a group of people into a substandard category in your eyes and giving them poor treatment. It doesn't matter...it DOES NOT FETHING MATTER if they care about playing on a cardboard table, it matters that you do. It matters that you are intentionally treating them in a manner you consider to be inferior because they shouldn't care by your judgmental standards. If you have a mentally challenged person in your household who can't tell the difference between rancid meat and good meat, is it ok to feed them the rancid meat because they don't know the difference?

Being proud of your hobby is great. Being proud of your painting is great. Being proud of your gaming abilities is also great. Discriminating against people who don't meet your standards of enjoyment of the hobby and treating them the way you would not want to be treating is NOT FETHING GREAT!

Dashofpepper wrote:...If a tournament doesn't have a painting requirement and armies are judged on the spot as unworthy of a real table....I'm asking for a refund and walking out.

Perfect

Dashofpepper wrote:Discriminating against people who don't meet your standards of enjoyment of the hobby and treating them the way you would not want to be treating is NOT FETHING GREAT!

You scream a lot, we get it.

Dash: They're being told in advance if this is what he's doing.

Calm down pepper. I am not discriminating, just saying, if you want to play football you had better be prepared or you will be ridiculed, unless most of the other players haven't a clue what they are doing, or are ill prepared either. Another analogy I know, but they all amount to the same question and conundrum: what are the rules, and is it feasable to slack the rules a bit? and if so what disservice does that do to the people who expect all the rules to be valued as much as they put the effort to do? Side tables of half-made terrain make for plenty of fine games on your kitchen floor, but you don't show up at a pro sports even without your jersey either, you can play football in your back yard. It is NOT elitism and yes you don't have to shout, it is just an expected standard, and an alternative for those who either can not, or just refuse to, meet that standard.

I want everybody to play, and to paint, and to chat, and to attend... but when you are looking for an aesthetic in the game on a beautiful board with beautiful figures, it's nice to know that the other guy was meeting that same ideal. If not, he can have the cheerios box table, I don't see that as elitist, just a matter of aesthetics. All the matchups are random enough anyways, why not just add the 'unpainted proxies play on cheerios boxes' while painted stuff goes on the table someone might actually want to take a photo on as another way to distribute matchups.

I see batreps on here on full terrain boards with full based and painted armies and they ALWAYS catch more attention than the newspaper and boxes and half-built proxy armies on the linoleum battle reports. Why bother to take photos anyway if you have nothing anyone would care to check out. That's why painted gamers seem to be kind of irked by unpainted gamers.

As to 'what if your codex just came out?' well... sorry for picking flavor of the month I guess. First I checked Blood Angels were around in 1990, and Genestealers and Space Wolves all around the same time, and I bought a Guard fig in 1989. If I didn't have that guard fig painted now, and if it wasn't made of lead, and so on, I would be pretty embarrassed putting it in a tournament setting.

If you have to repaint just to use codex revisions for a codex-creep advantage then you didnt have it painted in the first place. They've all been around for a long long time so that is no excuse for having an unpainted BA army just because their new codex just came out. If you played BA you would already have them.

On the other hand, if you just got them because they are flavor of the month then you should take your munchkin WAAC army to the 'dont care what it looks like' table and let the aesthetic players enjoy their colorful miniatures displays blowing each other up on the colorful tables. So yeah. I guess it is elitist. I'm an elitist kind of guy, and being such makes me feel... i dunno... kind of elitist.

To me it seems like it shouldn't be seen as 'elitist' so much as "yes we'll slack the rules for entry for you, that's why we set up these ad-hoc tables so more people can play with whatever they can bring."

Augutus' idea is far more simple than most seem to be seeing.

1. The rules are posted clearly in advance
2. You are allowed to bring an unpainted army as opposed to most GT type events
3. If you decide to attend and bring a non painted army, you will have consequences as stated far before the tourney(see 1.)
4. If you do not like the consequences as stated in 1. you do not have to attend the tourney.

So in conclusion, you may attend or not attend the event. If you attend, you except the consequences for the event. If you do not agree with them then you do not have to attend.

Its like the Ard Boyz, if you didnt like mission 3 then dont play.

And for anyone who says that things like the ard boyz and augustus' proposed event, need to consider that there arnt that many events, need to consider that there are currently 2 GT sized events in Denver. Next year there will be 3, and Augustus' would make 4. There is no shortage of gaming in CO. So, you can easily skip this one and attend Tacticon, or wait for Air Force Academy, or Ghengis, or ConQuest.

malfred wrote:Dash: They're being told in advance if this is what he's doing.

Yes, because announcing in advance that you're an elitist jerk and that while you're planning on allowing inferior people to play in your event, you plan on labeling and discriminating against them and treating them unequally makes it perfectly OK.

A lot of selective reading going on here, folks feel free to read the rest of my post(s) where I outlined quite clearly the problems here and gave analogies and other examples of where this leads within our own hobby.

Common sense and equal treatment for everyone are lacking in this thread and apparently unwelcome; I'm bowing out.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Guitardian wrote:
As to 'what if your codex just came out?' well... sorry for picking flavor of the month I guess. First I checked Blood Angels were around in 1990, and Genestealers and Space Wolves all around the same time, and I bought a Guard fig in 1989. If I didn't have that guard fig painted now, and if it wasn't made of lead, and so on, I would be pretty embarrassed putting it in a tournament setting.

If you have to repaint just to use codex revisions for a codex-creep advantage then you didnt have it painted in the first place. They've all been around for a long long time so that is no excuse for having an unpainted BA army just because their new codex just came out. If you played BA you would already have them.

Yes, because we've all been playing 40k for years.....

Painting an army takes time and money, and a lot of the time skill. What if they dont have either its a bit unfair for them to get thrown in the corner as if they are the scum of the hobby geeks while people look down their noses thinking they are greater then them.

What about the people who just appear with black undercoat and 2 coloured dots on there models. What then? They dont care either but they get treated like an adult.

If I was to go to that tournament I just rip off the stuff and play on the flat table. That what the problem is, instead of just giving them an empty table you are dressing it up to deliberately belittle them in front of everyone.

I think its a horrible idea tbh. And I agree with DoP up there.

I also have to agree with Dash. Make the 3 colour painting as a requirement to attend. Many tourneys do this so make it clear you are going to enforce it for entry into the tourney. The painting requirement helps me to get my models to at least the 3 colour standard.

What Dash is saying (not to put words in his mouth) I think is that you are creating discrimination as though it is or should be a normal part of a tourney - an us and them grouping. It doesn't matter that you advertise it ahead of the tourney. Many statements in this thread make it clear the intent is to segregate those deemed inferior.

This does not sit well with me. I understand the feeling those players that have painted up their armies nicely and then see unpainted armies on the table across from them. I have felt a little annoyed when painting requirements have been listed for a tourney (making me hurry up to make sure I meet the standard) and then the requirement is dropped at the last minute so that many unpainted armies show up.

The answer is to make a tourney requirement and stick to it. Everyone is happy and knows what to expect and no discrimination.

Swiss style pairing already segregates those deemed inferior. This is no differant than the seperation of an open tourney vs an invitational.

In an invitational you must fulfill certain criteria along the lines of battle scores to attend.

In an open everyone can attend.

This is the same thing only you are pairing based on apperance rather than battle.

In a normal tourney, you have your tables numbered from 1-whatever. Usualy your top tabels are your best looking and your last are almost remnants. This is in no way differant than that. The people with the best battle scores are on the best terrain and those with the lowest generally are on the sub par tables.

I thought this was a really funny idea, then I wondered if you're serious.

This idea confuses me, is there a paining requirement or isn't there? what if I have a single solitary unpainted model? Do I have to use the crap board, or do I get a board with like one coke bottle on it?

Also, it's kinda sad, but I'd almost prefer the crap terrain, as it might be easier to play on than say, terrain with Tau Buildings

Holy basement dwellers batman, this idea is horrible. It reeks of cry babies, elitists, and all around jerks. I mean seriously, you guys are playing a game. Not a normal game, but a game with a near 100 page long rulebook, plus special rules for your armies made of over priced models. But if that isnt enough, you spent hours and hours painting them.

HOLY gak, YOUR A BIG fething DEAL!!!!!11

If, in some way, unpainted armies offend your delicate sensibilities. If it ruins this true gentlemans game for you, dont allow them in your tournament. That way you dont have to withstand the utter horror and dehumanizing effects of unpainted miniatures.

BUT WAIT IGtS, THE VENUE WANTS THE THING TO BE OPEN FOR EVERYONE

OH NOES!! Guess you have to grow a pair, man up, and play against unpainted armies. I know thats hard to do. Some of you gamers might leave with post traumatic stress syndrome. But its the only way.

But wait theres more, time to go down the list of outright silly things and refute them.

This gem is from guitardian.

As to 'what if your codex just came out?' well... sorry for picking flavor of the month I guess. First I checked Blood Angels were around in 1990, and Genestealers and Space Wolves all around the same time, and I bought a Guard fig in 1989. If I didn't have that guard fig painted now, and if it wasn't made of lead, and so on, I would be pretty embarrassed putting it in a tournament setting.

If you have to repaint just to use codex revisions for a codex-creep advantage then you didnt have it painted in the first place. They've all been around for a long long time so that is no excuse for having an unpainted BA army just because their new codex just came out. If you played BA you would already have them.

I know right. Like, I have a friend who just started playing the game. And he started space wolves. Must be because he is a win at all costs player. But my other friend, he has played guard since third edition, so its ok. Starbomber has played for about 6 months now, but plays orks. Its clearly because hes a power gamer that he runs battle wagons. Not because he has a mental black that anything not in vehicles can still be good. Everyone who starts up a new army does so because its flavor of the month.

bs

I started eldar 3 years ago because I decided I needed a new army, looked around, and said "I really like how they look, and they play different than anything I have owned". It was only later I made them competitive. I started bugs with the new codex. I had always liked the bugs, but felt their playstyle was too limited. The new book gave them many more ways to play, thus I started them. But wait, I am a win at all costs player. So thats the only reason.

here is one from anime-wrecking crew guy

Swiss style pairing already segregates those deemed inferior.

Youre 100% correct there. What ive always done is pair lowest to highest after each mission. That way, in round 3, the player with least points plays the guy with highest points. It lets the players know I think everyone has an equal chance of winning.

from dash

If someone doesn't care to wear deoderant to the tournament and wear a fresh change of clothes, it stands to reason that they don't care if they play inside the dumpster out back with the rest of the stink, right?

i fully support this.


Actually here is my own idea. Its for an ard boyz style event, only we pair lowest to highest. Because if you cant win games it should be drilled into your skull that everyone thinks you suck. Or even better, as soon as you lose a game you get sent home right away. We dont want losers like you at our events!.


All seriousness aside, the logical thing is just to make painting scores part of overall, and a low prize for best general. Something like this for prize amounts.

$100 for best overall
$60 best painted
&60 best sportsman
&25 best general.

I am playing in an event in 3 weeks. Its labeled as a hobbyist event. There are 15 battle points, and 60 painting available. I have no chance of winning, but could care less. Nobody is telling me I am less of a player because of it. The newspaper and cardboard table terrain is just being a jerk. They have made it clear I cannot place by not having a well painted army. Not just three colors, but excellent details and conversions. They did not say "lol I hate unpainted armies, so you play on the uglee tables!!!".

There are different ways to say things. Lets assume a friend of mine, having been in a rush out the door that morning, forgot to brush his teeth. I can tell him this in two ways.
1-Holy gak, what did you do, eat some roadkill. Your breath is horrible. Bonus points for doing this in front of everyone. Public humiliation works best. And mommy didnt hug me enough as a child.

2-I can lean over, whisper to him that his breath stinks, and thats it. Its embarrassing for him, but it wasnt rude of me.

Augustus is a masterful troll.

Maybe make the open a qualifier for a different event, where painting WILL be required then?

I keep seeing the word 'discrimination' thrown around...
I think people don't know the definition of the word.

Refusing/unable to paint your minis is not a class, not a race, not a gender, not a religion... It is an action and a decision, unless you had both your thumbs blowwn off by a firework accident or something.

"treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction in favor of or against, a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing belongs rather than on individual merit."

Showing up with a painted army is individual merit based upon your own actions. Not what a group of people did, not because of a protected class. You are being judged and treated differently 100% based upon you, your actions and your choices.

But even that isn't fair I suppose?

And when there are standards, anyone who is too lazy to meet the standard is apparently elitist too. Jobs that require High School Diplomas are 'elitist' as well because I didn't feel like going to school my senior year? Maybe they are also discriminating against people like me... High school drop outs. It isn't like I am being held to a standard based upon my own actions and merit. And you will be paid less, treated poorly and given less responsibility because of it if you are given a job. Because that is not discrimination, that is holding people to thier own level of effort and merit.

It never ends for some people. First they complain about not being able to participate because they refuse to paint for <excuse goes here>. The venue then caves to these loudmouth vocal minority and then they are allowed to crash events and force change in the requirements (unfairly to the people who paid to play in a painted event) but then they lose appearance points or some other penalty because of it and they complain about how the game (and $$ prizes) should be based on raw gaming skill because. (in a game where there is very little skill and most 'skill' is dice based or you can download skill off BoLS armylists)

Treating people differently because they do not show up with a painted army is not discrimination... it is treating them with as much respect and attention that they treat the hobby they participate in. If you don't like that... go play 'ard boyz. Some of us do not enjoy playing against unpainted armies or proxies and pay extra and seek out events that we will enjoy.

I prefer standards, but when people complain to store owners to get standards revoked and force the TO to run events he doesn't agree with, I am totally fine with dressing up like ghosts using sheets covered in paint splatter and going "oooooooooooooOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOoooooooooooo!" and chasing those people out of the store with paintbrushes.

If you make the painting pairings one round only, instead of random, and the trash tables are only there for one event - fine, if it is made clear *ahead* of time.

I really dont get the crying and moaning from some people here: if you dont like the conditions of entry, dont go. Its not rocket science.

Dash - the tabels are just as functional as normal tables, they just arent as deserving of PRETTY tables. You have stated "the game" is all you care about - meaning no penalising is going on. You also missed that the paintring pairings were suggested as first round only.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

I really dont get the crying and moaning from some people here: if you dont like the conditions of entry, dont go. Its not rocket science.

It IS the venue's (and Augustus's) choice to run the tournament this way. I just keep
stressing that as an open event this one is not very open and it might run counter to
the venue's goal (attract all players).

But we don't know the venue's full intentions behind that goal. If it's "leave a loophole
so players can't complain they were barred" then this fits the bill. Augustus runs the
event how he likes it, and everyone is happy.

If the goal is "encourage anyone to come to event" then this isn't very encouraging or
appealing.

Again, I agree that the event should be run how Augustus wants it (it's his time and
effort going into this) but the store owner has a say.

Augustus, do you know why he wants the event open to all? And what does he think
about your idea?

malfred wrote:If the goal is "encourage anyone to come to event" then this isn't very encouraging or
appealing.

The issue is, not allowing the TO to set a minimum standard doesn't accomplish this as many players will be driven away and will not be "encoraged to come to the event."

No standards = "Encourage people who are usually excluded from most events and very vocal about it to come to your event while driving others away to other events."

He should tell the store that, then, and work it out there.

nkelsch wrote:Refusing/unable to paint your minis is not a class, not a race, not a gender, not a religion... It is an action and a decision, unless you had both your thumbs blowwn off by a firework accident or something.

In what way is your religion not an ongoing action and decision by you?

You're right, and in more enlightened countries, it's not treated as a protected class either.

WARBOSS TZOO wrote:

nkelsch wrote:Refusing/unable to paint your minis is not a class, not a race, not a gender, not a religion... It is an action and a decision, unless you had both your thumbs blowwn off by a firework accident or something.

In what way is your religion not an ongoing action and decision by you?

WTF does his religion have to do with this?
okay... logical breakdown:

everyone wants to play
some want a certain standard
standard is either met or not met (aka proxies/paintblobs/grey n metal/etc)

If there are lots of beautiful terrain boards then everyone is happy
If there are only so many tables, and so much space, set up ad-hoc boards for the people who didn't meet the entrance standards

so everyone can play!

the non-aesthetics don't care, and the aesthetics can have their pretty boards.

I still want to emphasize that the ad-hoc tables would be great also for temporary arts n crafts stations for people with unfinished armies to finish, or build some terrain, in between rounds.

I can't see how it is an embarrassment to play on gak terrain if you bring a gak collection of miniatures. You dont have to paint it all awesome, just an effort (my stuff sucks by GW standards BTW and I have a busy life and limited resources too but I still manage to get my stuff legit by the hobbyists standard). If you don't care at all about the aesthetic appeal that so many players enjoy (why they dick around with little toys like this in the first place) then maybe chess is a better tournament for you.

The idea here is to encourage people to get their stuff done, while at the same time letting them play in the tournament.

It is not discriminatory if I require someone trying out for my band to know how to play bass, or to meet a certain standard of sociability (aka can he 'hang') it is just making for a better band. Requiring a painting standard does the same discretionary filtering.
Neither do I go to get a job at Mens Warehouse wearing a T-shirt and jeans.

What the was proposed, is to set up a side table for those who DONT (for whatever excuse here) meet the basic requirements, so that they can at least participate, albeit on an ad-hoc table. Pair off the painters and the unpainters in the first round and see where it goes from there. Maybe you'll get the 1st place win as a duel between the lead painter player and the lead non-painter proxy player... I dunno like the AFC vs the NFC.

At any rate, at least everyone is given the option to compete even if they cannot meet the standards established.
I don't see how this is a bad thing.

Lesson of the day: Analogies suck because they have the word anal in them.

and abstractions are awesome because they have abs of awe?

Guitardian wrote:

WARBOSS TZOO wrote:

nkelsch wrote:Refusing/unable to paint your minis is not a class, not a race, not a gender, not a religion... It is an action and a decision, unless you had both your thumbs blowwn off by a firework accident or something.

In what way is your religion not an ongoing action and decision by you?

WTF does his religion have to do with this?

He brought it up as something that it's wrong to discriminate against because it's not an action that you take or a decision that you make, and I said that both of those premises are wrong.

I can't see how it is an embarrassment to play on gak terrain if you bring a gak collection of miniatures. You dont have to paint it all awesome, just an effort (my stuff sucks by GW standards BTW and I have a busy life and limited resources too but I still manage to get my stuff legit by the hobbyists standard).

So you'd be fine with me painting in combinations that make your eyes bleed and have so much paint slathered on that you can barely make out wysiwig?

WARBOSS TZOO wrote:
WTF does his religion have to do with this?

He brought it up as something that it's wrong to discriminate against because it's not an action that you take or a decision that you make, and I said that both of those premises are wrong.

Basically... RELIGION is a protected class which is unlawful to discriminate against, just like the other examples. Instead of basing your treatment of me by my actions and discriminating on my personal actions and merit, you would be making a discrimination based upon a class of people which I am a part of.

Painting your minis is a merit based classification 100% directly based upon your actions or in-actions. It is not a protected class or even a non protected class (like people who wear blue shirts or something).

I don't like the idea of good tables for good players or vice versa. OTOH, I do think incentives should be built in with advanced knowledge that a painted army should be a wanna-have for any player rather than a grey "super-list" army.

The old RTT is good. I had a system that came out to about 45% game result and 55% sportsmanship, army balance and painting. You could play and compete with a grey hoard but your margin for error was close to nil so you better plan on winning all 3-4 rounds of the tourney and being a good sport to balance out not having a fully painted army.

Don't turn people away or shame them for not being painted but provide a built-in bonus for those who are putting in the time and effort to paint theirs.

nkelsch wrote:Instead of basing your treatment of me by my actions and discriminating on my personal actions and merit...

Ah, but I am discriminating based on your personal actions and merit. You personally chose to continue your association with and belief in the dogma of X religious group. Religion is not inherent and (relatively) unchangeable. Gender, sexuality, ethnicity, on the other hand, are.

DAaddict wrote:

Don't turn people away or shame them for not being painted but provide a built-in bonus for those who are putting in the time and effort to paint theirs.

This.

WARBOSS TZOO wrote:

nkelsch wrote:Instead of basing your treatment of me by my actions and discriminating on my personal actions and merit...

Ah, but I am discriminating based on your personal actions and merit. You personally chose to continue your association with and belief in the dogma of X religious group. Religion is not inherent and (relatively) unchangeable. Gender, sexuality, ethnicity, on the other hand, are.

And legally, you cannot discriminate based upon what I believe or associate with when it comes to religion, only by my actions. So if I *DO* something, you can discriminate. Otherwise, you cannot. Not liking religion doesn't allow you to legally discriminate.

But way to take this down that path by being ignorant of the basic concept of civil rights and how 'not painting your figures' could in nay way be legitimately compared to actual discrimination... because it can't regardless of your stance on religion.

All US, UK and all of europe prevent discriminating against people based on religion. Good luck telling someone they can't shop at your store or board a plane because of their religion.

nkelsch wrote:

WARBOSS TZOO wrote:

nkelsch wrote:Instead of basing your treatment of me by my actions and discriminating on my personal actions and merit...

Ah, but I am discriminating based on your personal actions and merit. You personally chose to continue your association with and belief in the dogma of X religious group. Religion is not inherent and (relatively) unchangeable. Gender, sexuality, ethnicity, on the other hand, are.

And legally, you cannot discriminate based upon what I believe or associate with when it comes to religion, only by my actions. So if I *DO* something, you can discriminate. Otherwise, you cannot. Not liking religion doesn't allow you to legally discriminate.

But way to take this down that path by being ignorant of the basic concept of civil rights and how 'not painting your figures' could in nay way be legitimately compared to actual discrimination... because it can't regardless of your stance on religion.

All US, UK and all of europe prevent discriminating against people based on religion. Good luck telling someone they can't shop at your store or board a plane because of their religion.

Quick question, because the point seems to have gone over your head:

Is belonging to a religion a decision or an action?

I'm pretty sure it's Obama's fault at this point.

Guitardian wrote:I'm pretty sure it's Obama's fault at this point.

It's always the Dark Lord's fault.

nkelsch wrote:
All US, UK and all of europe prevent discriminating against people based on religion. Good luck telling someone they can't shop at your store or board a plane because of their religion.

That is not strictly speaking true. In France, for example, the traditional Muslim burkahs are forbidden in some places. While they may not be telling someone that they cannot attend school because of their religion, they are telling them that they cannot attend school while wearing clothing that their religion requires. The effect is the same.

For the most part, laws against religious discrimination are only enforced when it comes to protecting the Judeo-Christian faiths. Members of the American Armed Services have been discriminated against when they have wanted to display pagan symbols (pentagrams) on their military tombstones, by way of example.

This has very little to do with painting at a tournament though. On-topic, really, it seems like Augustus is looking for a way to discourage unpainted armies without actually banning them (as the venue operator does not want to exclude them), and he wants to do so in a way that still retains a more traditional scoring structure (rather that just boosting the painting scores). I think, really, what needs to happen is that Augustus and the venue owner need to work out this difference of opinion. If it's the TO's call, the Venue Owner should allow the TO to set the conditions for entry. If it's the Venue Operator's call, then Augustus should either honor the Venue Operator's wishes without trying to work around it, or should step down and allow the Venue Operator to run the event.

WARBOSS TZOO wrote:
Quick question, because the point seems to have gone over your head:

Is belonging to a religion a decision or an action?

Having a belief is not an action. Doing something based on that belief is an action. You may take actions based upon what they do, not what is going on up inside their head.

And the point has gone over your head... It *IS* a protected class in 99% of the countries that people who play this game an talk on these boards... Which means saying 'I dun paint mah figurez, dizcriminatuhnZ!' is laughable as it is not a protected class... or a class at all. It is merit based.

This is just silly. Next you'll suggest we build a special enclosure for the non-painted armies and their generals. The generals will be provided paint and brushes, then forced to paint their armies prior to being let out. Any models not finished by the end of the tournament will be showered with gasoline and incinerated in a small BBQ. It will be termed the final solution. I do nazi what the problem is with this approach. It will be a hit luring players in and forcing them to paint it. To keep track of how many paintless folks you corral, you should probably stamp their hands, or write a number on their forearm or something.

Not to be inhumane, make sure you provide them with a lot of juice, which you can also keep within the corral. It will help them concentrate in their camp.

In short, I invoke Godwin's Law. We're in a toilet bowl of circular arguments.

Redbeard wrote:

nkelsch wrote:
All US, UK and all of europe prevent discriminating against people based on religion. Good luck telling someone they can't shop at your store or board a plane because of their religion.

That is not strictly speaking true. In France, for example, the traditional Muslim burkahs are forbidden in some places. While they may not be telling someone that they cannot attend school because of their religion, they are telling them that they cannot attend school while wearing clothing that their religion requires. The effect is the same.

Effect is the same, and the country still legally doesn't discriminate based upon protected class, they simply ruled clothing and dress codes is not free speech. while the effect is the same, different laws.

Oh good lord with the melodrama...
It's not like freeing the slaves or something! sheeessh!

Extra tables means people can be in it despite 'standards' (making host and unpainted players happy) and still have place to play (making people in general happy) while still not annoying elitists (making elitists happy) while also saving work for the TO (making TO happy)...

everyone's happy!


Automatically Appended Next Post:
This isn't exactly gassing jews here

anooci wrote:Is there a difference between playing a painted army and playing an unpainted army? Sorry, I just don't get it. o-o;

That is like asking if there is a difference between a blank canvass and a painting

I started a similar thread to this not too long ago and the same debates appeared ... to me this is not just a game ... it is also a HOBBY, a hobby that requires PAINTING ... i am all for this idea.

Unpainted armies still get to play ... but if you want to play with nice looking armies ... on nice looking tables ... then paint your damn army.

I've been following this for quite some time, and this what I'm seeing:

People with fully painted armies whining about how elitest and discrimantory they think the idea of having players with unpainted armies play on an "unfinished" table is.

I play an unpainted army; it's the only one I have. It's been a work in prgoress for painting for 6 months, but I still have not been able to sit down and get all of the models in my army up to a three color standard. I played in 'Ard Boyz, and was happy to do so because they allowed me to play below the three color standard.

As much as playing on a paper table may be "shameful", "elitest", "discrimenating", "stupid", or just "down-right-wrong", I don't see it that way. Because the event will be open to people like me, and I'll be glad to attend. I'll finally be able to start getting some experience uner my belt that I desperately need right now as a new player.

On top of that, it looks like no one is reading Augustus' propistion. The idea is that the players with the unpainted armies play one round on the paper table, not the whole tourney. And it's going to be posted in advance so that people like me can try to rush paint the rest of their army if they're not comfortable with the consequences.

I also don't accept the whole "i play an unpainted army because i dont have time to paint" ...

Well you had time to build your 2000 point army ... maybe next time you should only build 1000 and paint it ... then when that is done ... build the other 1000 and then paint that. (holds especially true when i see a heavily converted, yet under/unpainted army!)

So unless you are playing with your models in blisters and boxes ... this reasoning just doesn't hold up.

nkelsch wrote:

WARBOSS TZOO wrote:
Quick question, because the point seems to have gone over your head:

Is belonging to a religion a decision or an action?

Having a belief is not an action.

But it is a decision, yes?

Doing something based on that belief is an action. You may take actions based upon what they do, not what is going on up inside their head.

And the point has gone over your head

Not if the point is still the one that you haven't seen it hasn't. You stated that object X does not belong to category Y because it has attributes A, B, and C. You then listed, as belonging to category Y, an object which has attributes A, B, and C. I objected to your definition on the basis that two objects have the same relavent attributes and yet one belongs to category Y and one does not. You did not argue against this, you simply refered to the law in place of an argument, and then you continued to argue against an argument about what should be with what is.

In short, you don't understand what's going on here.

.. It *IS* a protected class in 99% of the countries that people who play this game an talk on these boards... Which means saying 'I dun paint mah figurez, dizcriminatuhnZ!' is laughable as it is not a protected class... or a class at all.

It is a class. If I have an unpainted army, I belong to the class of people who own unpainted armies.

It is discrimination. It's legal discrimination, but it is still discrimination. The existence of classes of people that you cannot discriminate against outright implies that there are classes of people against whom it is completely legal to discriminate. Nobody here has so much as hinted that such action as the OP has suggested would be illegal, and it's outright lunacy to argue against that in place of what people have actually posted.

Cheers WARBOSS TZOO!

Thanks for not loosing focus on the OP ... far too often does this happen!

And also props for being able to recognize the difference between discrimination and LEGAL discrimination


I put in a DAMN lot of time making sure that my armies look good ... and I NEVER field a unit until I consider it D O N E!

So yeah ... am i going to turn down a game against someone with a different philosophy? OF COURSE NOT! .... but ... would i prefer to play a game against someone with a similar philosophy ... um ... yeh.

Bear LaMorte wrote:I also don't accept the whole "i play an unpainted army because i dont have time to paint" ...

Well you had time to build your 2000 point army ... maybe next time you should only build 1000 and paint it ... then when that is done ... build the other 1000 and then paint that. (holds especially true when i see a heavily converted, yet under/unpainted army!)

So unless you are playing with your models in blisters and boxes ... this reasoning just doesn't hold up.

That list took nearly 2 years for me to build, and it's still not all built, and 80% of my 1500 point list is up to barely 3 colors. But you aslo don't understand my personal curcumstances (let alone everyone you don't know who has an un-under painted army), so who are you to say I'm not giving it my all?

I like to game more than model/paint, so it'd make more sense for me to do that. But now that I'm coming out of my noob shell, yes, I am working more on the painting.

The idea is if I'm ok with playing on that table because of my army, why isn't it ok to have that table?

darkdm wrote:

Bear LaMorte wrote:I also don't accept the whole "i play an unpainted army because i dont have time to paint" ...

Well you had time to build your 2000 point army ... maybe next time you should only build 1000 and paint it ... then when that is done ... build the other 1000 and then paint that. (holds especially true when i see a heavily converted, yet under/unpainted army!)

So unless you are playing with your models in blisters and boxes ... this reasoning just doesn't hold up.

That list took nearly 2 years for me to build, and it's still not all built, and 80% of my 1500 point list is up to barely 3 colors. But you aslo don't understand my personal curcumstances (let alone everyone you don't know who has an un-under painted army), so who are you to say I'm not giving it my all?

I like to game more than model/paint, so it'd make more sense for me to do that. But now that I'm coming out of my noob shell, yes, I am working more on the painting.

The idea is if I'm ok with playing on that table because of my army, why isn't it ok to have that table?

I never said anything about giving your all ... nor did i mention your personal circumstances ... nor did I mention you specifically ... nor did I say that I am against the separate table idea. In fact, if you read my prior post you'll find the exact opposite.

All i am saying is, paint your army ... I am not saying have it done by tomorrow, or on so-and-so date ... I am saying just get it done ... don't settle for adequate ... push your abilities and efficiencies ... at a pace that you are comfortable with.

Its not like I was painting at the level I currently am when I first started. FAR FROM IT!!! But if you don't invest the time to advance your technique and efficiency then what is the point? Again ... this is a hobby, not just a game ... Play a game that isn't a hobby if you don't want to paint. And to all those who are WIP painters, good for you , honestly, I appreciate EFFORT.

And just to be clear, i LIKE the separate table idea.

Meh. I have 4 armies now and not a one is fully painted. I have a bad habit of building the army, painting a fig or two, and then moving on to the next thing while playing the occasional game with the older armies. To attempt to remedy this I've decided not a single unpainted daemon of mine will hit the table; however; my Tau are my favorite tournament army (its half painted :3)and if the tournament had a requirement of painting or you have to spend a game on a joke table (thats what it is ) I would be fine with it as long as it wasn't every game. Slackers need love too.

Here are some closing thoughts I have had after seeing how this thread went.

More people do not like the idea than those who do.

The camp against paints the issue as one of social equality with an entitlement mentality. Despite the concept originally being a more inclusive compromise with a lower standard.

Generally the community supports this view, with a few exceptions.

All things considered, this being the predominate view, not only do I intend to abandon the paper tables, but I also think the painting standards entirely.

After having refined and proposed 4 different concepts and solicited input and been called:

elitist
prejudiced
segregationist
troll
etc.

I feel my desire to run an event at all disappearing.

Thanks for your input everyone, having seen how people would react to a compromise of standard I no longer think it is worth my time to even make paper tables, much less go to the effort for good terrain and run an event. You have saved me the effort.

With religion in the discussion now, I suggest this thread be locked, there isn't anymore purpose here. Have fun with legions of metal and plastic.

Augustus wrote:Here are some closing thoughts I have had after seeing how this thread went.

More people do not like the idea than those who do.

The camp against paints the issue as one of social equality with an entitlement mentality. Despite the concept originally being a more inclusive compromise with a lower standard.

Generally the community supports this view, with a few exceptions.

All things considered, this being the predominate view, not only do I intend to abandon the paper tables, but I also think the painting standards entirely.

After having refined and proposed 4 different concepts and solicited input and been called:

elitist
prejudiced
segregationist
troll
etc.

I feel my desire to run an event at all disappearing.

Thanks for your input everyone, having seen how people would react to a compromise of standard I no longer think it is worth my time to even make paper tables, much less go to the effort for good terrain and run an event. You have saved me the effort.

With religion in the discussion now, I suggest this thread be locked, there isn't anymore purpose here. Have fun with legions of metal and plastic.

If this is what you got out of this thread, you entirely missed the point, and I'm sorry for you.

Having standards is not a problem.
Not having standards, but then demeaning a group of people who don't fit your personal standards if fethed up.

That is all. That is all the objection that has been raised in this thread - asking that you treat everyone equally shouldn't be a hard task to accomodate. I'm not sure why you're not getting the picture, but 6 pages later you've made it clear that you don't.

Augustus wrote:
The camp against paints the issue as one of social equality with an entitlement mentality. Despite the concept originally being a more inclusive compromise with a lower standard.

Are you sure you don't have an entitlement mentality to play against only painted armies?

Augustus wrote:
I feel my desire to run an event at all disappearing.

WAAC - 1, HAAC - 0, apparently. Because we needed sides to begin with


Also, no one with an unpainted army gives a crap if someone else thinks their reason for it not being painted is good enough or not. I could be into racing and say that because your car doesn't have a supercharger it's not good enough and you shouldn't even drive. You really wouldn't care.

My closing thoughts... I REALLY want to invest in a godzilla suit and a camcorder right now.

Guitardian wrote:My closing thoughts... I REALLY want to invest in a godzilla suit and a camcorder right now.

http://godzillabukkake.com/

Closed at OP request.