(Hopefully this is the correct forum)

After being away from WH for a while I'm starting to get back into it. Years ago GW had a policy that one's army had to have at least two colors and be based (or have over half of the army painted). They changed that--I assume to sell bulk figures of whatever the current trend was and actually have people be able to use them. I get it from a financial standpoint. In any case, I went to a local hobby store the other week to pick up some glue and a 24 person 40k tourny waw going on. Over half of the armies were mech IG with the rest mostly DE or Marines. What really struck me is that the majority of armies were almost completely unpainted (or maybe like 1 tank would be painted). I get that people sometimes just want to play, but I feel it sort of ruins the immersion and people should make at least some effort on that component of the hobby.

Right forum, nice job, newbie!

Also,

I'm a dedicated painting/modeller of 40k and love the game but would have to give an admant NO to your question. It's hard enough to get a game in, let alone require that your opponent has every model painted. However, encouraging players to play painted armies for tournaments is the current standard (at least in my area), granting extra points if you go the extra mile.

That said, I try my best not to bring gray-plastic or only-primed models to the table - they've got basecoats at the very least. In fact, my Crimson Fists have yet to see the table, awaiting their final details and mattecoats before deployment.

I like to see fully painted armies across the table from me. I spend a lot of time and a lot of money making my army have a unique appearance, and I would prefer it if my opponent did the same. Do I expect it? No.

But when die-hard tournament winners complain about expecting the most competitive armies when they go to tournaments, I feel like I have a completely legitimate reason to behave similarly. I usually get destroyed in most tournament games, but the army that destroys me looks like crap and I know mine looks better. For me, that's a win, it's a hobby, afterall.

Short answer: No, armies should not be required to be painted.

I know this subject has came up before however if supercow is new (as he may well be) isn't it better to join in as well as point out this subject is a fairly common one?

Calling him Newbie also sounds fairly patronising IMHO.

Just for the record, I would say it completely depends on you and also your opponent/s.

If your happy to play a game against a half painted or non painted army then go for it.

If not then you will be limiting your possible gaming circle.

I do feel, and I'm sure most people would agree, that it's a better visual spectacle when 2 fully painted armies face off against each other. However out of my gaming group of friends, under half of them can put together a fully painted army over 1500pts. This would mean that I would miss out on the experience of playing against a lot of armies and army builds if I was only played fully painted armies.

Tournaments yes. Friendly or pick up games no.

- MightyG

SuperCow wrote:(Hopefully this is the correct forum)

After being away from WH for a while I'm starting to get back into it. Years ago GW had a policy that one's army had to have at least two colors and be based (or have over half of the army painted). They changed that--I assume to sell bulk figures of whatever the current trend was and actually have people be able to use them. I get it from a financial standpoint. In any case, I went to a local hobby store the other week to pick up some glue and a 24 person 40k tourny waw going on. Over half of the armies were mech IG with the rest mostly DE or Marines. What really struck me is that the majority of armies were almost completely unpainted (or maybe like 1 tank would be painted). I get that people sometimes just want to play, but I feel it sort of ruins the immersion and people should make at least some effort on that component of the hobby.

Big tournaments have 90% of the armies painted well.

as far as your local FLGS.....

Like most people have said, GTs or big tournaments should have a painting requirement. It is their goal to provide an environment that fosters and promotes the hobby as a whole, not just the game play portion. Smaller local tournaments shouldn't really have painting requirements, but they should at least provide a point bonus or something similar to motivate. The gaming store I go to most of the time gives prizes for 1st, 2nd and favorite opponent. They choose to promote fair play and a good attitude rather than painting. They also have seperate painting competitions every other month or so to cover that side of the hobby. It's possible your local gaming club does the same.

When it comes down to it though, if a local gaming store properly markets all aspects of the hobby then usually everything falls into place (ie: people having painted armies at tournaments). If a gaming club fails to recognize certain aspects of the hobby then it could go the other way (ie: non painted armies and people with bad gaming etiquette.)

personally I don't think it matters, I enjoy painting and do it when I can, if someone else hates it they shouldn't be forced to do it.

Maybe we can set up separate events for those who want to play games and snobs who look down their nose at those who don't include painting as part of "the hobby."

For tournaments, yes. Grey plastic all looks the same and it's very hard to tell what I'm looking at. Since WYSIWYG is necessary in competitive environments, and painting helps with the "what you see" part, I'd say it's obligatory for tournaments.

FLGS? No way.

I personally won't put it on the table if it isn't painted.

No, painting takes up alot of time and in the current market, that time is needed elsewhere making money to support this hobby But I do admit to loving to paint my stuff before I actually field it

Should, however, you deeply and passionately feel that an army must be painted and are loathe to fight against an unpainted army, just convince everyone that painted models do better on the battlefield and with a painted army one is more likely to win. Sound odd? Then answer me how many times you refer to the dice gods during a single game, hmmmm???

augustus5 wrote:Maybe we can set up separate events for those who want to play games and snobs who look down their nose at those who don't include painting as part of "the hobby."

Most people believe those latter events should be called, 'tournaments'.

Azure wrote:Should, however, you deeply and passionately feel that an army must be painted and are loathe to fight against an unpainted army, just convince everyone that painted models do better on the battlefield and with a painted army one is more likely to win. Sound odd? Then answer me how many times you refer to the dice gods during a single game, hmmmm???

Having your freshly painted model get blown away on turn 1 is very disheartening, it's like losing a child.

Oaka wrote:
Having your freshly painted model get blown away on turn 1 is very disheartening, it's like losing a child.

I know the pain... I've had this happen to my Monolith, 3 times T..T And my friends wonder why I can never finish the stupid thing

Both yes,

In a word, its often quite annoying to have to play fully grey armies. Sure the player might not want to put in the effort to paint, but to do so shows a lack of respect if the opposing player has a lick of paint on his models.

Painting your models also effectively marks them out as what they are. I've had a guy claim that unpainted SW's were GK's in an apoc game. Called him out on the WYSIWYG.

Sure the player might not want to put in the effort to paint, but to do so shows a lack of respect if the opposing player has a lick of paint on his models.

You could make a very similar argument about people who go to tournaments just for "fun", bringing their fun lists with them (and consequently bitching about how "cheese" everything is when they get stomped on). Sure, those players might not want to put in the effort to learn how their army works and what's the most efficient use of points, but people who don't aim to play their best and field competent lists are being disrespectful and wasting the other players money and time by giving him an easy massacre instead of a challenging game.

So I'd say I'm all for painting requirements, if you can somehow also enforce a "competence requirement" to go with it. Fair?

RTT/casual play no, GT level yes.

I think painting being required forces people to paint.......and part of me wants to see it. Some hate it and it could mean that numbers go down at events. I will say though, if a tourney doesnt require painting, why require assembling? I dont enjoy painting is not an excuse IMO. I may not like assembling, so can I just put out my bases and plastic sprues. Maybe just a pile of parts, the wysiwyg elements, and glue them in a heap. Im not saying this to be a total a$$ but if you dont see the point of painting, you shouldnt be surprised if someone doesnt see the point of assembling. Its an extreme, but the funny look you give someone for trying to pull that is how some folks look at your bare plastic. Now that being said, I dont mind an army that looks like its being WORKED on, as in it seems to be progressing.


With the current state of colored primer and washes, I dont see a reason why 3 color standard is a problem. Now playtesting, playing for fun, army in progress, thats fine; having the same grey/white minis for month after month with no progress, its hard to find excuses. Just my opinion, and keep in mind Im fairly spoiled as most players in my area (a good 50-80 players) have at least 1 army to 3 color standard.

Sidstyler wrote:

Sure the player might not want to put in the effort to paint, but to do so shows a lack of respect if the opposing player has a lick of paint on his models.

You could make a very similar argument about people who go to tournaments just for "fun", bringing their fun lists with them (and consequently bitching about how "cheese" everything is when they get stomped on). Sure, those players might not want to put in the effort to learn how their army works and what's the most efficient use of points, but people who don't aim to play their best and field competent lists are being disrespectful and wasting the other players money and time by giving him an easy massacre instead of a challenging game.

So I'd say I'm all for painting requirements, if you can somehow also enforce a "competence requirement" to go with it. Fair?

A tournament is a tournament, it's about competition, not *fun lists* and if someone did bring a fun list to a tournament, it's their call. Basic painting, which in my LGS is 3 colours and base is easy to achieve. Skill in painting is not equative to skill in gaming.

augustus5 wrote:Maybe we can set up separate events for those who want to play games and snobs who look down their nose at those who don't include painting as part of "the hobby."

We already have those, Its called tournments for the former, and Golden Demons for the latter....


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Norbu the Destroyer wrote:
With the current state of colored primer and washes, I dont see a reason why 3 color standard is a problem.

Work, kids, job, house hold matience. Called in last minute for work....there are a host of reasons why I'd rather PLAY the damn game with unpainted models then take that time and paint them, if free time is limited.

I will say though, if a tourney doesnt require painting, why require assembling? I dont enjoy painting is not an excuse IMO. I may not like assembling, so can I just put out my bases and plastic sprues.

Thats a stupid example. Just pulling out bases and laying sprues out would violated WYSIWYG and you'd have problems measuring. You may not like grey plastic assembled, but you can tell what is what, and have no measuing issues.

@carmachu

Yes those are some good excuses as to why you couldnt find the extra 4-5 minutes to put a layer of colored primer down, maybe another 20-30 minutes to wash the minis, and the final 1-2 hours to paint the guns gunmetal, not pretty, but painted.

And yes the sprues is an extreme....a "stupid example" as you put it, but thats why I said why not just pile up the bits to make a model WYSIWYG on the base.


I understand painting is a pain in the ass, but for a few years I have preached to people just get 3 colors so people can at least see what the model is (Death company primed black in a sea of red type of thing) . Most people say, " I dont want to hurry my paint scheme because my models will look like crap and I have this paint scheme I want to paint them so I wont rush it" only they never get to it. They just have the same grey/white minis game after game, month after month. "Paint that army at least a base color" Ill say and more delusional " no way I have this awesome paint scheme in my mind, so I cant rush it" is all you here. I understand the time constraints of the real world, but the OP asked about tournies and I gave my opinion as to why I lean to painting should be a requirement for tournies. If people want to play plastic vs plastic 1v1 go for it.

Painting is part of the hobby, just as competition and generalship is. You don't have to be very good at either, but you aren't participating in the hobby if you aren't at least giving both an effort.

If you want to eschew one or the other at the local and casual level (to include local, casual tournaments or gaming events), cool. Don't call it a full blow "Grand" Tournament if you aren't requiring fully painted, though.

Tourneys = 3 colors and based

Everything else = Whatever the two players agree to

Tourneys without painting are an exception, never the rule and have a time and place... but right now are not the norm or the majority nor should they be. 'Ard boyz seems to be 'good enuff' to provide people who do not enjoy painting a tourney experience. I don't see much call or expectation that more events go unpainted, but I would defer to Tourney organizers to see what their feedback is.

I never field a proxy or unpainted models out of respect for my opponents. I won't expect concessions or force burdens on others.

Norbu the Destroyer wrote:@carmachu

Yes those are some good excuses as to why you couldnt find the extra 4-5 minutes to put a layer of colored primer down, maybe another 20-30 minutes to wash the minis, and the final 1-2 hours to paint the guns gunmetal, not pretty, but painted.

And yes the sprues is an extreme....a "stupid example" as you put it, but thats why I said why not just pile up the bits to make a model WYSIWYG on the base.

Because a pile isnt a model that can be seen. YOu dont need paint to be WYSIWYG. Your pile isnt.

And its not just 4-5 minutes, 20-30...takes a touch longer depending.

But all told thats what, 2.5 to 3 hours....thats an actual game you could get in. When time is short, I know what I'm choosing.

I understand painting is a pain in the ass, but for a few years I have preached to people just get 3 colors so people can at least see what the model is (Death company primed black in a sea of red type of thing) . Most people say, " I dont want to hurry my paint scheme because my models will look like crap and I have this paint scheme I want to paint them so I wont rush it" only they never get to it. They just have the same grey/white minis game after game, month after month. "Paint that army at least a base color" Ill say and more delusional " no way I have this awesome paint scheme in my mind, so I cant rush it" is all you here. I understand the time constraints of the real world, but the OP asked about tournies and I gave my opinion as to why I lean to painting should be a requirement for tournies. If people want to play plastic vs plastic 1v1 go for it.

You can see the model just fine eitehr bare, or primed. If I'm going to spend my limted time of 2.5-3 horus you had above, I'd rather get a game in then paint. And folks are right, why should they satisfy YOUR 3 color mantra when they want it better, done at thier time.

Tournments are bot different and the same. Every tournment is different. Some have painting requirements. Others such as hard boyz, do not. Much like sportsmenship, its up to the TO to decide what they want in a tournment.

Just some food for thought...

Having a Miniature paibted helps alot with bringing out special weapons etc - true plastic plastic armies look like a big grey blob, painted armies are far easier to judge by looking at, it's far easier to keep track of special characters and weapons, yadda yadda.

WYSIWYG and at least 3 Colours is what is required at every tourney here in germany I've been to. Applying 3 Colours, and god behold putting a wash on or even dipping minis is NOT time consuming, it takes 5min / model or even less.

There's only excsuses for unpainted models,



Also, look at it this way:

For some people, to enjoy the hobby they need only play, but feel no need for painting (for whatever reason)
For some people, to enjoy the hobby means to have two painted armies face off.

See the problem? The first group not painting can be considered disrespectful by the second, the second group not wanting to game disrespectful by the first.


I'm not a nazi when it comes to that, sone unpainted models, bo basing - I don't care, you did put effort into it and both can enjoy the game.



TLDR: paint your fething minis, it's for the benefit and enjoyment of all!


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Addendum: Claiming that painting time = list game time is a logical fallacy, painting can be spread over weeks.

Example:
Day 1: apply primer to 30 guardsmen, time: 20min
Day 2: apply some green tone to clothes, time: 40min
Day 3: apply elf-flesh to fleshparts, time: 30min
Day 4: apply devlan mud, time: 15min
Day 5: slight drybrush, bleached bone: 15min
Day 6: chainmail on weapons: 15min
Day 7: devlan mud on weapons: 15min
DONE, congratulations, you painted 30 veterans, this took 2hrs30min. This goes to the guy above me:
"lol i could play instead of painting" is a logical fallacy, NOT wanting to paint your minis and searching for excuses is just lazy.

Everyone can spare the time to paint 30 guardsmen in a week.

Hell, and if it took you 3 weeks, then you soend 6 weeks on infantry, another 3 on tanks, 9 weeks and you get a full army, that's an average of 7 minutes every day...

And: you could naturally STILL play while everything is WIP


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oh, Finak:



TLDR: You don't loose a single game while painting an army. Painttime UNEQUAL Gametime.

@archont:

You have committed a logical fallacy. It usually takes me around 4 hours per model to paint. Not everything, but when I want everything to look good but am a slow painter, then this time frame you list is totally unreasonable. 30 guardsmen? probably at least 30 hours. I don't have that time in a month. That's in addition to about 3 hours for assembly.

I have more time than some, and I am probably toward the slow end of the painting spectrum. My main point is that it's not just excuses. Bring your nose down out of the air and deal with it. If you don't want to play someone, then don't. I know I won't be the one with a problem if you refuse to play me just because not everything is painted.

That said, I have no intention of going to a tourney if I don't have a fully painted army. So it will be a while.

Useless thread is useless.

"Should" is subjective. People have different opinions on the matter. None of them matter except those of yourself, your opponent and the venue your game is taking place in. This thread can result in nothing but the conclusion that people will see this issue differently. Lets skip the whole thread part of it, and just except that each person will have a different level of painting, or not painting, that they personally feel is acceptable.

Don't like what you are seeing in your flgs? Talk to your opponents about it or the proprietary/TO. Only they can address local concerns.

MVBrandt wrote:Painting is part of the hobby, just as competition and generalship is. You don't have to be very good at either, but you aren't participating in the hobby if you aren't at least giving both an effort.

If you want to eschew one or the other at the local and casual level (to include local, casual tournaments or gaming events), cool. Don't call it a full blow "Grand" Tournament if you aren't requiring fully painted, though.

Painting might be part of your hobby, but it's not part of everyone's hobby. Believe it or not, some people just really like playing the game and don't care for the painting aspect. Yet, there are always those who try and tell us that we somehow don't honor "the hobby" because we don't paint our armies. Or we're lazy because we don't put the same effort in that they do.

Also, unless you can paint to a professional standard, painting your miniatures lowers the resale value of them. I like start new army projects a few times each year. I don't always want to hold onto my old armies, or sometimes I need to sell some models to help fund a new army. Why should I feel it necessary to paint models I may be parting with in six months to a year? The only stuff I bother paining any more is stuff I know I want to stick with because I really am into the fluff, or love the sculpt of the model itself.

How is it disrespectful to sit down and play a game with somebody with an unpainted army (heaven forbid!)? That's a load of crap, and these threads pop up every few weeks with people acting like snobs toward others who don't share their view that painting must be a part of the "hobby". Get over yourself already. Go form a club that only allows people with painted armies in and be happy. We'll be happy that you aren't around looking down your nose at us while we're playing games, whether at tourneys or pickup, with others who paint if they want to or don't paint if they don't want to.

I dont think that armies should have to be painted to compete in a tournament BUT painting should be scored since its part of the hobby. In freindly play i dont mind so much if my foes army is unpainted but its just like playing on a game board with just books for hills and some kitchen sponges and tupperwear for terrain. It just looks like Gak.

Tournament players who rush out and buy a new army every time a new win button codex comes out will hate painting be scored because they dont care about the hobby, they only care about winning and since these same players usually whine about sportsmanship or army composition scores, they will be the ones to grumble the most at tournis over painting. I for one feel like grumbling when i see their all grey plastic space wolves with mold lines and excess glue dripping everywhere. It makes the game less fun to face one of these armies. A great example of this was a recent battle rep in which two top WAAC gamers both fielded armies that I would be embarrassed to field. One players ork army was so pathetic I would never have fielded it. Conversions were done with bits of sprue glued on haphazardly. Haveing armies like these in events lowers the standards of the event. Events with painting standards represent the hobby to a much higher degree.

Score painting and make the points worth enough that someone who fields a WAAC list that is unpainted will have a slim chance of winning top prize. Just my two cents.

Again, who decided painting is part of "the hobby"? Nicely painted figures look fantastic, and enhance the visual aspect of the game, but how is it determined that painting must be part of the hobby?

I'm all for tournament organizers creating tournaments and making painting a requirement or making it not a requirement. I don't understand how anyone can say that all[u] tourneys should include paint/no paint as a requisite.

I don't understand how people can say that all tournaments should be for ultra competitive, hard as Chuck Norris' abs lists of uber spammy boringness. I have virtually no time to game and when I do I want to play lots of different armies back to back. The only way I can do this is by playing in tournaments, and I want to play nice, fun lists. Probably 50% of my limited playing time has been at Dakka tournaments which have been relatively friendly affairs with (on the whole) nicely painted armies, played for a fun, enjoyable time in a tournament setting...

Oh, wait, what were you saying about painting not being part of the hobby?

Oaka wrote:

augustus5 wrote:Maybe we can set up separate events for those who want to play games and snobs who look down their nose at those who don't include painting as part of "the hobby."

Most people believe those latter events should be called, 'tournaments'.

Doctadeth wrote:A tournament is a tournament, it's about competition, not *fun lists* and if someone did bring a fun list to a tournament, it's their call. Basic painting, which in my LGS is 3 colours and base is easy to achieve. Skill in painting is not equative to skill in gaming.

carmachu wrote:We already have those, Its called tournments for the former, and Golden Demons for the latter....

But this isn't the case. A tournament is never just a 'competition'. A tournament, whatever it's defining feature (playing games against others) is primarily a convention or an excuse to get together. I love going to tournaments. I never, ever, expect to WIN any of them. I'll take the army I think I'll have the most fun with. The reason I go is to get some games in against different people, with different armies that I don't usually see in my local gaming group, to see some great ideas for armies, good conversions, and to show off MY models.

And the thing is, the VAST majority of people I meet at these events are exactly the same as me - it's only a tiny majority who are primarily there 'for the competition'.

So no, a Warhammer tournament is not primarily a competition, at least not in the minds of 99% of the attendees and most of the tournament organisers themselves.

(Carmachu, I agree that you could have a 'painting competition' as an event, but since there's no interactive activities (i.e you don't paint 'with' or 'against' other people) it doesn't work as well as a social event - which is what a tournament is.)

carmachu wrote:Work, kids, job, house hold matience. Called in last minute for work....there are a host of reasons why I'd rather PLAY the damn game with unpainted models then take that time and paint them, if free time is limited.

Ok, well let's say I have very little free time. To really know the rules, I have to read the rulebook a good few times, then all the relevant codexes a good few times and commit the vast majority of this to memory. I don't have time for that, so I therefore have the right to turn up at the tournament with only a vague understanding of the rules, and just check the book five or six times a turn. That's ok, right?

augustus5 wrote:Painting might be part of your hobby, but it's not part of everyone's hobby. .... Again, who decided painting is part of "the hobby"? Nicely painted figures look fantastic, and enhance the visual aspect of the game, but how is it determined that painting must be part of the hobby?

And the same with playing. GAMES WORKSHOP decided that painting is part of the hobby. The same people who decided that playing games with your toy soliders was part of the hobby. Painting has always been 'part of the hobby'. Now, you don't have to do it if you don't want to, like anything else. But you can't argue that it's not part of 'the hobby'..

painted for tournaments - yes.

painted for casual play - no, not really.

I think the excuses you hear about not painting minis, are really lack of interest in doing it, combined with poor time management, and quite a bit of lack of painting knowledge/experience thrown in. Add to that the worry, that you will sink a bunch of time in and get a result that you do not like.

So instead of harassing people with the unpainted armies, perhaps offer a paint lesson. This offer extended from a local guy, helped me get started on painting, and over the hurdle that it was going to be too tough/take too much time/look terrible.

Shadowseer_Kim wrote:painted for tournaments - yes.

painted for casual play - no, not really.

I hear this a lot but I don't really get it. Given that tournament players are changing their armies much more often than casual players, why should painting be more required for tournaments?

augustus5 wrote:Again, who decided painting is part of "the hobby"? Nicely painted figures look fantastic, and enhance the visual aspect of the game, but how is it determined that painting must be part of the hobby?

I'm all for tournament organizers creating tournaments and making painting a requirement or making it not a requirement. I don't understand how anyone can say that all[u] tourneys should include paint/no paint as a requisite.

You can run your tourneys however you see fit. I am not going to travel and pay hundreds of dollars to play against greys. Right now this seems to be the attitude of most tourney goers... And TOs know their audience.

And frankly I don't give a damn about your resale value. Of all the entitled excuses, that one really holds no water with me. If you don't want to paint, that's cool but expect to be excluded from many if not most well run events.

What people do in private games is really their own thing but I think the extra effort should be made at a public event like a tournament where you are playing strangers. Considering the cost and effort people put in to attending the event and creating good lists I would have thought the least you could expect was that everyone paints their armies and there's some decent terrain to play over.

Games with unpainted figures look poor, where's the spectacle or interest in a field of grey? If an event is charging entry then everyone attending should make it a good one in every respect. That means good hygiene, being polite, no rule-lawyer douchbaggery and making the tabletop look good.

augustus5: can't you understand?
For people like me, the visuals are important, I need it to have fun.
For people like you, the gaming is the main part of the fun.

It's a compromise on both sides:
You shpuld paint your stuff at least with 3 colours, we won't be nazis and compromise to play a sloppily painted army...

Can't you understand the concept of both sides compromising? (<-- I'm not exactly sure that word means what I intend to say in english. "to settle" is probably appropiate: We settle to play you, you settle to paint at least a bit. If not: Have fun playing plastic tides. In my club, you would not get to use any of the tables or terrain I painstakingly created.)

What frustrates me as someone who participates in this hobby is, again, two-fold.

Players who willfully and knowingly take bad lists, don't try to play the game at all (which involves at least trying to win, as it is a game with w/l/d), and use that as a shield and even as a sword with which to stab at people who DO play to win ... these players frustrate me a little, b/c they're willfully ignoring a part of the hobby and then using it to go after other people to boot. But, it's their choice I guess.

Players who willfully and knowingly refuse to paint models in a hobby that involves purchasing, assembling, and painting models ... ALSO frustrate me. It especially bothers me when they use their choice - again - as both a shield and a sword, saying they don't "need" to paint their models (I mean, duh, jeesh, nobody is saying you NEED to), and even going after people as terrible for being fluffier more appearance-oriented players. Again, though, personal choices here.

The people I respect the most in this hobby are the ones who paint and model to the best of their ability, AND play the game to the best of their ability, while respecting or even loving the fluff (or parts of it). These three things largely represent the hobby, and it's a hobby you all choose to participate in. If all you want to do is paint, don't call yourself someone who participates in the 40k (or Fantasy or whatever) hobby; instead, you're simply some guy who paints miniatures for a hobby. That's fine. If all you want to do is play a game competitively ... lord pick a game other than 40k (or Fantasy or whatever) that's more like ... a computer game ... or a board game ... or any of the wide # of board games out there not using expensive models built and costed for the explicit purpose of being painted.

Finally, never forget the social. There's no requirement, as some people love to expound (IMO), to be responsible for your OPPONENT'S fun ... it's psychological immaturity par excellence to believe you can somehow "make" other people feel a certain way, or perfectly know what someone else's social needs are in order to have fun ... be responsible for your own happiness, BUT be willing to acknowledge the fact that this is a SOCIAL hobby; it is driven by the in-person interactions over the table, or over the paint station, or whatever ... for these reasons and many others, while you shouldn't feel the need to provide another human being with happiness (they should be self-loving enough to tackle their own), do RESPECT them.

The "painted or not" debate often comes down as much to the social for me as it does to the actual question of painting ... b/c the way people TREAT those who OVER or UNDER fixate on painting is often a source of the problem ... the harder you go at someone with an "abnormal" choice (keeping that in quotes for a reason), the more likely they are by human nature to entrench, get defensive, and feel put upon.

IMO we should all encourage and feel encouraged to participate in ALL parts of a hobby, but maybe not so ... belabored to by people we aren't even sure are our peers.

/endrant

I can see why people don’t necessarily want to paint up an army that they may not stick with. I wonder why they bought it in the first place, but it’s their money and they’d get some of it back resale, etc. So fair enough.

Equally I can see people fielding unpainted and semi-painted models in an ‘army in progress’, or just when they tweak their list a bit with a new model. And they might want to experiment with that model before painting it, I suppose, in a manner similar to the ‘whole army unpainted’ above.

But I’d wonder a bit about someone who never fielded a painted army at all, who had never found an army they liked enough to paint it up.

I’d like everyone I play against to field painted models. Well painted, simply painted, badly painted, doesn’t really matter. It’s making the effort. Otherwise we could resort to 3D cuboid counters labeled appropriately (actually, I’m not sure that wouldn’t be as decent a proxy – and cheaper – as fielding an ‘experimental’ unpainted army). But if someone comes along with an unpainted army, so long as they’re happy to keep me clear on what’s what (are they Death Company or Assault Squad? Or whatever), then fair enough.

archont wrote:We settle to play you, you settle to paint at least a bit. If not: Have fun playing plastic tides. In my club, you would not get to use any of the tables or terrain I painstakingly created.)

How completely benevolent of you oh supreme leader, to come down to my level!

Go . yourself. I wouldn't want to play a douchebag like you.

My work day begins at 0400, and I generally am not done with chores / farm / maintenance until nearly 2000 each night. Given some time to sleep, that means I generally have about 2 hours to myself each day. That's it. Weekends? I've worked just about every weekend since 2011 started. I was also sent to another state on business for 3 weeks, that's how my job is.

I hate painting. Hate it. It's not fun, it's not enjoyable, there is not a single aspect of painting my models that appeals to me. I get eye strain headaches from trying to see the details (my vision isn't the best), my hands shake constantly and frankly, I just could not care any less about my army being painted.

Combine those two. I get only a handful of hours each week to myself, slightly more if I'm willing to cut my sleep down to 4 hours a night. I'd much rather spend those few hours getting in a game, having fun and perhaps walking away with a new story... than spend it doing something I hate. Who the . do you think you are to tell me otherwise?

archont wrote:augustus5: can't you understand?
For people like me, the visuals are important, I need it to have fun.
For people like you, the gaming is the main part of the fun.

It's a compromise on both sides:
You shpuld paint your stuff at least with 3 colours, we won't be nazis and compromise to play a sloppily painted army...

Can't you understand the concept of both sides compromising? (<-- I'm not exactly sure that word means what I intend to say in english. "to settle" is probably appropiate: We settle to play you, you settle to paint at least a bit. If not: Have fun playing plastic tides. In my club, you would not get to use any of the tables or terrain I painstakingly created.)

archot, I'm not asking you to compromise your hobby for me. Just don't ask me to compromise my hobby for you. If you don't want to play against my grey army then more power to you. And if that's the case I have no ill will toward you. But why is the crux of compromise put upon the non-painters? Can't we choose to play the game the way we want without others having to tell us in a new thread every week that we are lazy or don't honor the hobby in some way?

It's always the painters coming and bringing these threads up to crap on the non-painters. Right now I have two fully painted armies that look great. I also have one partially painted that I may or may not finish due to lack of motivation, and one completely grey army that will be lucky to get a coat of primer. So what? I can take that grey army and play it at my FLGS and at appropriate events and be happy with it. I don't complain if I miss out on an event because of a painting requirement. So why should I have to listen to others complain about my army? People who wish to only play painted armies can also choose not to go to competitions that have no paint requirement.

I also feel lucky to be a part of a FLGS without any draconian requirements for sitting down and using a table or terrain.

arbitorian wrote:And the same with playing. GAMES WORKSHOP decided that painting is part of the hobby. The same people who decided that playing games with your toy soliders was part of the hobby. Painting has always been 'part of the hobby'. Now, you don't have to do it if you don't want to, like anything else. But you can't argue that it's not part of 'the hobby'..

I don't try to impose my vision of what my hobby is on anybody else. I'd like it if they offered me the same courtesy. I'm content to miss an event here or there because of a paint requirement if the army I'm into playing at the time isn't painted. I also do paint some of my armies fully. But painting will never be the focus of my hobby, nor is it a requisite for me to enjoy a game.

Steamdragon: do realise please that other people would report you for a "go feth yourself" - even if it's thinly disguised.


I feel symapthi (spelling?) for your work situation.
I've been through worse, be it 60hrs a week and caring for my granddad on his deathbed during the nights or my time with the military.
Still in that time I took 20min every night before bed and painted dark eldar minis, and lo and behold: a month later the army was decently pretty (though lacking my signature tribal freehands) and ready to play.

Breaking your post down, you told me to feth myself, because you don't feel like painting for whatever reason, and that I am evil and mean for painting and playing.


Be aware that I play against WIP armies on a regular basis, or a grey squad or two when someone is experimenting with his build. As long as people at least give it a try and make any progress whataoever, I am happy

Some guy above said that he's slow, taking 3hrs for an infantryman. If such is his high standards he'll only get a high five every two weeks when another gorgeous mini is done.



You would get neither high fives, nor tables nor terrain, be it at the club I frequent (--> because I built all the terrain and tables ), or the tourneys I support (--> with tables & terrain)

Know why? Black spraycoat & drybrush is doeable, even with problems and in a situation such as yours.



Have a good day, and my best wishes for an improvement in your living conditions.


Guess I'll go feth myself while painting now

I thought we were talking about Tourney play? You can non-paint your ass off at FLGS or home or whatever. Whatever you and your opponent agree to is fine.

'Event play' is different. Events have rules and standards and if you can't meet those standards you can't participate. Part of the 'draw' of the event is people expect a standard and if the standard is not met by everyone at the event, then there is disappointment.

Right now, if you want to really get into 'competitive play' unless you want to limit yourself to just 'ard boyz, then you gotta paint some models. It is really simple.

*If you hate painting but want to participate in competitive play then you can airbrush your models (or even spray paint) and do a simple scheme. It is a sacrifice to meet the minimum standard to be welcome everywhere.
*If you are wishywashy and haven't chosen an army and are worried about re-sale value, you probably are not skilled enough with that list to enjoy a true competitive event. So buy/sell armies until you find one you are happy with and then slap 3 colors on them or your super fancy paintjob.
*If you are a slow painter, and just started then realize it may take a year or so to paint and go to a competitive event. If you are a slow painter playing for years, you may not be able to use your new units until they are painted. Get a core painted up and use those.
*If you are 'super busy' just remember, every time you use the busy excuse you are basically telling people 'my time is more important than yours.' If you are super busy, then don't attend tourneys. If you want to make tourneys a priority then you have to prioritize *YOUR* time to make minimal standards a priority. The nice thing is you do it once you then have access to so many events. Personally, I feel tourneys are *BETTER* for the busy person as you can hop in on the weekend and get a lot of quality gaming in one day.
*Remember, everyone works, everyone has Jobs and Family. That guy who paints isn't sitting at home all day painting models while you slave away your life at work. Throwing your responsibilities in your opponents face is always insulting. Just accept tourneys have standards you are unwilling to meet and move on. If you want to participate, find a tourney format you can accept or meet the standards. Don't put your behavior on others by making excuses.

*For WAAC flavor of the moth, codex hopping, net-list players who buy and sell full armies like they are stocks on the stock market. Go F yourself and your resale value. I really do not care that the Leafblower you downloaded and bought loses value on eBay if you paint it and now you want to play Longfang spam or GKs. Nothing is stopping your lazy codex hopping to the next big thing, but don't expect events to bend over backwards to lower standards to accommodate that behavior.

If you boil it down, Tourneys = Follow TO standard, which is usually minimal but painted models. No one is hunting non-painters down and dragging them to prison for playing with unpainted models, they just can't participate in most events.

No

I wouldn't stop you entering a painting competition because your peice isn't competitive.

While you may enjoy going to a tournament to meet other plays the point of a tournaments is for gaming, painting competitions are from modeling.

ArbitorIan wrote:
(Carmachu, I agree that you could have a 'painting competition' as an event, but since there's no interactive activities (i.e you don't paint 'with' or 'against' other people) it doesn't work as well as a social event - which is what a tournament is.)

Never been to a GT where Goldne Demons are/were held? I say there was alot of interaction, discussion of various painted models, styles of painting and a variety of topics.

But thats your problem, you have a very narrow defination, and a confusing one, of a tournment. You start by saying there is no interactivities, but then try and say its a social event- GD events can and have both social aspects AND you are working against other folks. Not the same way as playing, but to say its not interactive is just false.

Ok, well let's say I have very little free time. To really know the rules, I have to read the rulebook a good few times, then all the relevant codexes a good few times and commit the vast majority of this to memory. I don't have time for that, so I therefore have the right to turn up at the tournament with only a vague understanding of the rules, and just check the book five or six times a turn. That's ok, right?

Whatever floats your boat. You realize that some of us that have actually, you know, PLAYED in tournments have run up against inexperienced guys, right? Ones that havent played their army or 40K in general alot to get tings smoothed over, and either vague or misunderstood ideas on the rules? Some of us use it as a teaching tool to help them(instead of just beating the crap out of them).

So yes, its ok for inexperienced folks to show up to tournments and play. In fact it happens more then you think, from local tournies to GT's of old. Any other false logic you wish for me to demolish?

And the same with playing. GAMES WORKSHOP decided that painting is part of the hobby. The same people who decided that playing games with your toy soliders was part of the hobby. Painting has always been 'part of the hobby'. Now, you don't have to do it if you don't want to, like anything else. But you can't argue that it's not part of 'the hobby'..

But its not part of THEIR hobby(the person). GW can decide whatever it wants for "THE HOBBY!!!!", However, just like some folks that just want to paint, or some folks that just want to build and covert, or some folks want to play the game, and some folks like to play in tournments, everyone has their favorite part they wish to devote to. And some folks like to do all of the above.

And its ok to just focus on what aspects of the game you wish. Because not every aspect of the GW hobby has always been- at one point in the GW Hobby! (tm) basing was optional. In fact most folks didnt do it, or didnt do it beyond MAYBE painting the base green. Now, we see very elaborate basing, or decrative bases.

carmachu wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:

Norbu the Destroyer wrote:
With the current state of colored primer and washes, I dont see a reason why 3 color standard is a problem.

Work, kids, job, house hold matience. Called in last minute for work....there are a host of reasons why I'd rather PLAY the damn game with unpainted models then take that time and paint them, if free time is limited.

Fine, roll into your FLGSs on 40k night, play with your friends or even attend a smallish scale local tourney. But some tourneys are organized for the sake of showing off the hobby or for those players who want the experience of playing with and against fully painted armies or seeing fully painted armies. Honestly my time is pretty strapped too, but Norbu makes a valid point. Painting effort doesn't equate skill. All these TOs are asking for is a little effort on a players part to make the hobby more fascinating, not that the individual armies place in a Golden Daemon.

I honestly doubt that you (or most of us if I happen to be wrong about you) were hooked by this game because you saw two dudes at a table with unpainted, unprimed armies. At some point you saw a radically painted single mini or army and was just wowed. Be it by a local painter/gamer or by one of the painters in the magazines and you just wanted to be part of that on some level....the painted stuff is what I like to be a part of. Would you ever pick up a White Dwarf if all it ever featured were unpainted, unprimed grey plastics in its articles?? Hell no. Would the game or codices be interesting or worth playing if the fluff were stripped out and we had no background from start to finish? Hell no. It's the paint and the fluff that we've had for 20 years that makes this game worth playing at its core (rules and the company's efforts) and by the way it inspires its participants to create their various takes on the game.

-MightyG

archont wrote:

Can't you understand the concept of both sides compromising? (<-- I'm not exactly sure that word means what I intend to say in english. "to settle" is probably appropiate: We settle to play you, you settle to paint at least a bit. If not: Have fun playing plastic tides. In my club, you would not get to use any of the tables or terrain I painstakingly created.)

Ahhhh so your TFG of the painting world in your club I see. Given your attitude here, I wouldnt WANT to play you or on yoru table with my nicely painted armies.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

MightyGodzilla wrote:
Fine, roll into your FLGSs on 40k night, play with your friends or even attend a smallish scale local tourney. But some tourneys are organized for the sake of showing off the hobby or for those players who want the experience of playing with and against fully painted armies or seeing fully painted armies. Honestly my time is pretty strapped too, but Norbu makes a valid point. Painting effort doesn't equate skill. All these TOs are asking for is a little effort on a players part to make the hobby more fascinating, not that the individual armies place in a Golden Daemon.

And again, I dont play in FLGS anymore. Among a variety of reasons. Tournments, ALL tournments have a variety of requirements. Ones that I like I play, ones I dont- whether they requrei some bizarre sportsmenship design, or painting or strange missions that make not sense, I avoid.

Paint DOES require skill. Sorry, anyone that says otherwise is either foolish or just dipping.

I honestly doubt that you (or most of us if I happen to be wrong about you) were hooked by this game because you saw two dudes at a table with unpainted, unprimed armies. At some point you saw a radically painted single mini or army and was just wowed.

And once again your foolishness rises to the occassion. Or you bought into the GW hype nonsense.

No I didnt get wowed by some radically painted single mini or army. Sorry. *I* started back in the golden ages, during RT, where it was the background and fluff that drew me in, lost and the damned, slaves to darknesss, the RT book. Guy had some very badly painted ORANGE Blood angels and set up a cool senario(yes I said orange, thats the color BA were back then). It was alot of fun to PLAY THE GAME, and painting was secondary or terciary.

But you illistrate my point quite clearly: YOU assume that YOUR aspect of the hobby is the one folks like, need, or should follow. You and the OP. And clearly, by the example above, thats not the case at all. Not everyone gets into the game for the same reasons, yet you keep trying to say it is.

Forcing someone to play by your elitist rules in regards to painting is horribly lame. The only people I tend not to play against are children (like under 13) because that's just not very interesting to be honest

I probably got one of the largest collections of fully painted battle-ready models that I know of and I'll play people with unpainted models, totally awfully painted models or models painted by a golden demon winner

The paint job of the models has absolutely no correlation to the game itself. Do I enjoy playing games with painted models more? Yes, when they're my own ones. I couldn't care less if someones army is painted across the board UNLESS we're taking photos

After years of gaming Ive come to the conclusion that people who refuse to play unpainted armies usually just want to find reasons to not play games in general, due to whatever reason.

Playing only your friends is perfectly legit but being condescending to others because they dont fit YOUR view of the game makes you an ass. Accept that and move on

When I played historical wargames using the WRG rules (in the 80s), hardly anyone ever fieded unpainted miniatures and there seemed to be a very strong 'ethic' that miniatures should be painted before being brought to the table in any tournament, and really should be in casual play too. These people weren't elitist, they just regarded being painted as a rule of the game. In Warhammer games, unpainted or semi-painted seems more common. As i said above, I don't really have much of a problem with that (though I do prefer to play against a painted army). But I wonder if it's just the greater numbers of players that makes unpainted/semi-paintedd seem more common, or whether there's a difference in attitude).

Kirasu wrote:Forcing someone to play by your elitist rules in regards to painting is horribly lame.

Nobody is 'forced' to do anything, but it's hardly unreasonable to expect people to meet certain requirements for public events as opposed to private ones. If you're picking on someone arriving at your local club with unpainted figures then there's probably a problem, but no one forces anyone to go to tournaments.

Why is painting 'elitist'? Figures are models that are supposed to be painted by long tradition. I've never been to a wargames show where people had unpainted figures anywhere but on the stalls.

4M2A wrote:While you may enjoy going to a tournament to meet other plays the point of a tournaments is for gaming, painting competitions are from modeling.

Is it really though? I thought a tournament was an ideal opportunity to look at all aspects of a hobby. Everyone expects models to be assembled, why not painted as well? If it's about gaming and winning why do many tournaments award points for sportsmanship, fluff and painting?

Sorry. *I* started back in the golden ages, during RT, where it was the background and fluff that drew me in, lost and the damned, slaves to darknesss, the RT book. Guy had some very badly painted ORANGE Blood angels and set up a cool senario(yes I said orange, thats the color BA were back then). It was alot of fun to PLAY THE GAME, and painting was secondary or tertiary.

During RT models were made of lead. No one wants to handle bare lead so I don't recall it ever being acceptable to plonk it on the table in that condition.

carmachu wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:

MightyGodzilla wrote:
Fine, roll into your FLGSs on 40k night, play with your friends or even attend a smallish scale local tourney. But some tourneys are organized for the sake of showing off the hobby or for those players who want the experience of playing with and against fully painted armies or seeing fully painted armies. Honestly my time is pretty strapped too, but Norbu makes a valid point. Painting effort doesn't equate skill. All these TOs are asking for is a little effort on a players part to make the hobby more fascinating, not that the individual armies place in a Golden Daemon.

And again, I dont play in FLGS anymore. Among a variety of reasons. Tournments, ALL tournments have a variety of requirements. Ones that I like I play, ones I dont- whether they requrei some bizarre sportsmenship design, or painting or strange missions that make not sense, I avoid.

Paint DOES require skill. Sorry, anyone that says otherwise is either foolish or just dipping.

I honestly doubt that you (or most of us if I happen to be wrong about you) were hooked by this game because you saw two dudes at a table with unpainted, unprimed armies. At some point you saw a radically painted single mini or army and was just wowed.

And once again your foolishness rises to the occassion. Or you bought into the GW hype nonsense.

No I didnt get wowed by some radically painted single mini or army. Sorry. *I* started back in the golden ages, during RT, where it was the background and fluff that drew me in, lost and the damned, slaves to darknesss, the RT book. Guy had some very badly painted ORANGE Blood angels and set up a cool senario(yes I said orange, thats the color BA were back then). It was alot of fun to PLAY THE GAME, and painting was secondary or terciary.

But you illistrate my point quite clearly: YOU assume that YOUR aspect of the hobby is the one folks like, need, or should follow. You and the OP. And clearly, by the example above, thats not the case at all. Not everyone gets into the game for the same reasons, yet you keep trying to say it is.

Hey it's why I put in the "or most of us if I happen to be wrong about you." And let me say LOL on you for trying to pull the age card. I got into 40K in 1989-1990, I'm 37 year old single dad going on 38 with a 17 year old player who at age 7 used to steal my warlocks and return them to me with globs of paint on them asking me to field them in the next game. And while my foolishness may rise to the occasion, I didn't buy into the hype - I'm a free thinker who is attracted to certain things. For all original colors you're remembering, for all the books you're name dropping....it is both the fluff and for a great many the fact that it's a paintable hobby that draws (the passerbys) and keeps most of us (veterans) in.

Paint DOES require skill. Sorry, anyone that says otherwise is either foolish or just dipping.

...but at Tourneys even dipping counts. And I certainly don't mind playing against people who've gone through even that most basic effort. And the OP is referring to tourneys.

As a whole this is a hobby. For the almost 25 years it's been successfully marketed as such. You buy in to one aspect, I buy into both. You've previously stated that you bow out of tourneys that don't meet your personal requirements, and I respect your descision to do so. You don't to the FLGS anymore. You're that guy who plays with his friends at one of your houses. No big deal, I'm that guy too, and I have many friends who fit that bill. But tourneys is a different story and I agree with what they say about colors. And if I can't get my Eldar army in because of the rules, I bring in the Dark Angels...just the way it is for me.

But honestly nether of us would have a game to play if GW had chosen to keep its efforts solely at unpainted lead minis and no fluff. No fluff, because if you say "why paint?", I raise at "why fluff?" I daresay they wouldn't have lasted past 1995, and your stuff would be gathering dust in the closet if you hadn't bothered to throw them away. You say, "It was alot of fun to PLAY THE GAME, and painting was secondary or terciary," and I agree. It is fun to play the game, playing the game is what keeps me painting. And while painting is secondary for me as well, I realize that in a tourney setting (to once again loop it back to the OP) it's a requirement. And if you can't or don't want to abide by that requirement, just peek in while you're buying your stuff and say hi to us.

Kirasu wrote:Forcing someone to play by your elitist rules in regards to painting is horribly lame.

Playing only your friends is perfectly legit but being condescending to others because they dont fit YOUR view of the game makes you an ass. Accept that and move on

Um, we are talking about tourneys, back on topic maybe? At a tourney there is no 'refusing to play' because a standard is set and everyone has to meet that standard. If you show up to an event and refuse to follow all of the rules put on by the event organizer you are a 'bad person' (tm) regardless if you are refusing to use painted models, refusing to WYSIWYG, refusing to follow rules, refusing to bathe or whatever. Events have rules, and you follow them or not participate.

If events require painting they require painting. Most major and well-run events require painting and non-painting are an exception right now. If you want to participate you can either paint... or not attend. You can't rail against elitist gaming rights in the name justice or show up demanding to be allowed in (which is what I see at smaller RTT events who try to have a standard.)

You know I don't have a problem playing against any opponent painted army wise. From unpainted, to primed, to fully painted. Hell I even play against a guy who uses Star Wars PPMs as Imperial Guard. I think that playing against painted armies is funner and enriches, but if they're not painted, so what.

All that being said, I wonder what the turnout would be like if someone hosted The Grey Tourney? A GT scale tournament with no painting restrictions. No ill talk against my unpainted plastic brethren.

If its just a friendly game I don't care if they are painted as long as at least some of them are painted.

nkelsch wrote:

Kirasu wrote:Forcing someone to play by your elitist rules in regards to painting is horribly lame.

Playing only your friends is perfectly legit but being condescending to others because they dont fit YOUR view of the game makes you an ass. Accept that and move on

Um, we are talking about tourneys, back on topic maybe? At a tourney there is no 'refusing to play' because a standard is set and everyone has to meet that standard. If you show up to an event and refuse to follow all of the rules put on by the event organizer you are a 'bad person' (tm) regardless if you are refusing to use painted models, refusing to WYSIWYG, refusing to follow rules, refusing to bathe or whatever. Events have rules, and you follow them or not participate.

If events require painting they require painting. Most major and well-run events require painting and non-painting are an exception right now. If you want to participate you can either paint... or not attend. You can't rail against elitist gaming rights in the name justice or show up demanding to be allowed in (which is what I see at smaller RTT events who try to have a standard.)

Same thing, its a rule designed to discriminate against players who dont follow a set of arbitrary restrictions that in no way impact the game. If a tournament makes you paint your army then people who dont have painted armies who *Want* to play in the event will simply prime + 2 quick colors to conform to GWs "3 color minimum". You can do an entire army in about 20 minutes like that. Now, if you say it has to be a reasonable paint job you're yes being elitist and restricting those who are allowed to play based upon relative painting skill.. Okay, lets say then its not based upon a reasonable paint job but on "effort shown". What doees that mean? I can paint an entire army to well above table top in an extremely short time which means I spent a lot less effort than someone newer who takes a week to paint 1 unit

Where do the restrictions end? A gw 3 color minimum is easily overcome by a "non painter" thus reducing the entire purpose of such a restriction which is to limit the undesirables isnt it? Those who dont enjoy the game in the same way shouldnt be allowed right?

The best way Ive found to encourage both painting AND attendance is to charge two different amounts for entry. My stores tournaments are 15$ for painted armies (just painted, quality is irrelevant) and 10$ for painted armies with the extra money going to the best painted. By allowing unpainted armies with fully painted armies we've found that *Gasp* that at least SOME of the unpainted players want to aspire to be a painted army (thus reducing their money cost and gaining some prestige in the process, that doesnt impact their ability to play in the event). I suppose Im more of an inclusive person than an exclusionary person

I assume that this discussion relates to tournaments? It's an assumption based on the topic being in the tournament section.

-Tournaments will state whether they have a painting requirement, or not. If you don't want to abide by the tournament rules, or don't think you'll enjoy the tournament, then you obviously would be better off not playing.

-If you'd like to see a different type of tournament, you should run them yourself, or talk to the TO running tournaments about trying something different, or talk to your club about running something different, or another store, or another TO...But don't just bash the tournament that you can't play in.

-If you choose to not make painting part of your hobby, then you have also chosen to not make playing in tournaments that require painting part of your hobby.

-If you want to complain about their being no painting for 'Ardboyz, you've missed the point of having a touranment without paint requirements.

-If you've made it a rule that you don't play with unpainted models, that's a personal choice. No one should have a problem with it. Similarly you shouldn't have a problem with people who play with unpainted models.

-Painting at the minimum level doesn't take skill. It takes practice or work. Skill develops from those. Painting to a minimum standard for most tournaments that require painting takes very little work.

MightyGodzilla wrote:
Hey it's why I put in the "or most of us if I happen to be wrong about you." And let me say LOL on you for trying to pull the age card. I got into 40K in 1989-1990, I'm 37 year old single dad going on 38 with a 17 year old player who at age 7 used to steal my warlocks and return them to me with globs of paint on them asking me to field them in the next game. And while my foolishness may rise to the occasion, I didn't buy into the hype - I'm a free thinker who is attracted to certain things. For all original colors you're remembering, for all the books you're name dropping....it is both the fluff and for a great many the fact that it's a paintable hobby that draws (the passerbys) and keeps most of us (veterans) in.

Then you know, that "THE HOBBY" was very very very different back then then it was today. I doubt its a paintable hobby that draws or keeps folks in, looking around. Some love painting. Some, dont care. Yet everyone, for the most part, keeps PLAYING. And there in lies the draw.

...but at Tourneys even dipping counts. And I certainly don't mind playing against people who've gone through even that most basic effort. And the OP is referring to tourneys.

And yet, dipping is still something thats a skill. Its not something you can just do. You have to learn it and learn well. Like painting.

As a whole this is a hobby. For the almost 25 years it's been successfully marketed as such. You buy in to one aspect, I buy into both. You've previously stated that you bow out of tourneys that don't meet your personal requirements, and I respect your descision to do so. You don't to the FLGS anymore. You're that guy who plays with his friends at one of your houses. No big deal, I'm that guy too, and I have many friends who fit that bill. But tourneys is a different story and I agree with what they say about colors. And if I can't get my Eldar army in because of the rules, I bring in the Dark Angels...just the way it is for me.

If tournies are different, explain hard Boyz tounments then? If painting is dire, and thats how their marked, explain how GW is marketing tournments, at the highest points in 40k to DATE, that doesnt have a painting requirement.

I was ALWAYS that guy who played in our houses. History has shown FLGS are useless for the most part. We're back to basements becuase of that.

And dont get me wrong. I have painted armies. I've sold or traded them. I just dont care about painting. Some armies get done. I have others that they will never get painted, but still played.

But honestly nether of us would have a game to play if GW had chosen to keep its efforts solely at unpainted lead minis and no fluff. No fluff, because if you say "why paint?", I raise at "why fluff?" I daresay they wouldn't have lasted past 1995, and your stuff would be gathering dust in the closet if you hadn't bothered to throw them away. You say, "It was alot of fun to PLAY THE GAME, and painting was secondary or terciary," and I agree. It is fun to play the game, playing the game is what keeps me painting. And while painting is secondary for me as well, I realize that in a tourney setting (to once again loop it back to the OP) it's a requirement. And if you can't or don't want to abide by that requirement, just peek in while you're buying your stuff and say hi to us.

The problem is your equating the GW of THEN to the GW corporate of NOW. Two very different companies. If GW in 1990 was the GW of 2011, I dont think I would have gotten into them, painting or no.

Its not always a requirement, I hate to tell you, even for tournments. Hard Boyz has shown us that. And dont expect me to show up at your FLGS for a hi, last time I did that that didnt have the new releases. Online is SO much better.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nkelsch wrote:]Um, we are talking about tourneys, back on topic maybe? At a tourney there is no 'refusing to play' because a standard is set and everyone has to meet that standard.

Then you arent paying attention. Archont is playing TFG of painting, refusing to play with you, or with his club, OR with any tables there or terrain, because your army is not painted.

Solution = simple painting score at tournis. I much rather play a painted army than a non painted army. THe excuses that people have made about not having enough time or resale etc are just that ... excuses. Primer comes in a million colors. Spray primer, pick out a couple of details. Wash. Done. Good enough for me.

Anyone who is in the habit of swapping their army every few months, usually falls into the powergaming side of the warhammer spectrum. Boring WAAC gamers. They are not better players, they just field whatever is the best army at the time. You can play that way if you want but it does not make you fun to play, and i would rather see people rewarded at tournis for having a beautifuly painted, modellied, and well played army than a slipshod grey creation bought only to win.

In freindly play grey armies are ok but if you play one I will still kid you about it if you make no effort at painting it. Its ok.

Painting scores really don't work.

Firstly you are determining the winner (of a event meant to test people tacticaly) on something that has no effect on who is better at gaming. At a competitive tournament your meant to bring a competitive list - the point is to win. You wouldn't expect anyone to bring a 3 colour model to a painting contest so why bring a bad list to a tournament?

Secondly a lot of people who play competitively just send their armies of to commision painters. This means you jst awarding points depending on whether people have enough money to get a commission.

If you want to encourage painted armies include a prize for best painted army but don't let it change the tournament results.

I'll say this: i'm more likely to go out of my way (time, travel, and money-wise) to go to a tournament that enforces painting.

carmachu wrote:And yet, dipping is still something thats a skill. Its not something you can just do. You have to learn it and learn well. Like painting.

You do not have to be skilled at all to dip models.) It takes about as much skill as rolling dice.

It may be beyond your skill level. Doesn't mean it's that difficult for anyone else.

sennacherib wrote:Solution = simple painting score at tournis. I much rather play a painted army than a non painted army. THe excuses that people have made about not having enough time or resale etc are just that ... excuses. Primer comes in a million colors. Spray primer, pick out a couple of details. Wash. Done. Good enough for me.

If you'd much rather play a painted army than a non-painted army then more power to you. I don't see non-painters starting new threads every week QQing about paint requirements at tourneys. We simply don't play in said tourney. What business is it of yours what someone's reason is for not painting their army?

sennacherib wrote:Anyone who is in the habit of swapping their army every few months, usually falls into the powergaming side of the warhammer spectrum. Boring WAAC gamers. They are not better players, they just field whatever is the best army at the time. You can play that way if you want but it does not make you fun to play, and i would rather see people rewarded at tournis for having a beautifuly painted, modellied, and well played army than a slipshod grey creation bought only to win.

I start new armies all the time, and I grow bored with some of my armies after a short period of time. Since getting back into the game in 2006, I have built every army available, save for Blood Angels and Witch Hunters. I'm not a WAAC player. I appreciate the thrill of competitive gaming in tourneys but mostly play with a small group of friends or occasionally at game night at my FLGS. I'm certainly not a flavor of the month player either; I just traded off my new Dark Eldar army for an Eldar army. I believe there is a place for paint scores in some tourneys and there is a place for no paint scores at others. And what's wrong with people who play to win anyway? I can appreciate somebody who wants to play at the highest level of competition, in the same way I appreciate those who aspire to paint at the highest level. I don't fall into either category, but I don't QQ about either group. Both groups are simply trying to enjoy their hobby the way they like, without asshats coming in and imposing arbitrary requisites for how they must enjoy their hobby.

sennacherib wrote:In freindly play grey armies are ok but if you play one I will still kid you about it if you make no effort at painting it. Its ok.

I honestly don't think you'd kid me about my grey army to my face. I don't think you have the courage to do so. It's easy to be pompous on the internet but harder to do when you're looking somebody in the eye.

4M2A wrote:Painting scores really don't work.

They don't work for you.) They work just fine for many tournaments around the world.

mikhaila wrote:

You do not have to be skilled at all to dip models.) It takes about as much skill as rolling dice.

It may be beyond your skill level. Doesn't mean it's that difficult for anyone else.

I disagree. You still have to base the models. But hey, whatever.

mikhaila wrote:I assume that this discussion relates to tournaments? It's an assumption based on the topic being in the tournament section.

-Tournaments will state whether they have a painting requirement, or not. If you don't want to abide by the tournament rules, or don't think you'll enjoy the tournament, then you obviously would be better off not playing.

-If you'd like to see a different type of tournament, you should run them yourself, or talk to the TO running tournaments about trying something different, or talk to your club about running something different, or another store, or another TO...But don't just bash the tournament that you can't play in.

-If you choose to not make painting part of your hobby, then you have also chosen to not make playing in tournaments that require painting part of your hobby.

-If you want to complain about their being no painting for 'Ardboyz, you've missed the point of having a touranment without paint requirements.

-If you've made it a rule that you don't play with unpainted models, that's a personal choice. No one should have a problem with it. Similarly you shouldn't have a problem with people who play with unpainted models.

-Painting at the minimum level doesn't take skill. It takes practice or work. Skill develops from those. Painting to a minimum standard for most tournaments that require painting takes very little work.

All points QFT.

Polonius wrote:I'll say this: i'm more likely to go out of my way (time, travel, and money-wise) to go to a tournament that enforces painting.

And I would agree with this too. At the type of tourneys that interest me the most a minimum of effort has been put into painting. And when I say minimum, that's exactly what I mean, minimum. Me, per se, I don't think dipping takes skill at all - it's just (maybe colored) basecoat, dip.

Although I agree with the decision to enforce a painting requirement I think there should seperate scoring and prizes for tactics and painting.

@Carmachu
I see eye to eye with you on some thing, on others I disagree, and I'm good to leave it at that. For me playing the and the visual nature that the game includes run neck and neck, and I know I'm not alone. GW is a different beast than it was 20 years ago to be true - I don't think GW has made great descisions in its effort to keep abreast of the information age we now have, and there are a host of other mistakes they've made that I've spoken up on. But if they were never more than glued metals and no fluff they'd have never gotten anywhere. Case in point around the same time as Magic the Gathering came out a card game called WizWar was created by Tom Jolly and picked up by (I believe)Steve Jackson games.

....you should be wondering what the point is.

The point was Wiz War was just words on the cardstock, MTG well was MTG. Both are great games, but only MTG is thriving 20 years later (even with its own faults and shortsights). I just think that the more senses something appeals to you on, that the more likely you are to pick it up and play with it again.

- MightyG

Hey, I'm not a snob or an elitist. I come to play, to have fun, to challenge myself, and to see and enjoy new players and armies.

Playing against painted armies is part of that. Not the biggest part, but still a part.

I'm a compentent player, and I bring good lists and generally play them well. I know I'm not going to win out most of the time, so for me I enjoy other aspects of the day.

carmachu wrote:

mikhaila wrote:

You do not have to be skilled at all to dip models.) It takes about as much skill as rolling dice.

It may be beyond your skill level. Doesn't mean it's that difficult for anyone else.

I disagree. You still have to base the models. But hey, whatever.

Spreading elmers glue with a paint brush is somehow a skill?

I teach a couple hundred 6-12 year olds a year how to do that during their first painting class.

mikhaila wrote:

Spreading elmers glue with a paint brush is somehow a skill?

I teach a couple hundred 6-12 year olds a year how to do that during their first painting class.

Someone still had to teach you first right?

Still a skill, no matter how much you try and deny it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

MightyGodzilla wrote:
@Carmachu
I see eye to eye with you on some thing, on others I disagree, and I'm good to leave it at that. For me playing the and the visual nature that the game includes run neck and neck, and I know I'm not alone. GW is a different beast than it was 20 years ago to be true - I don't think GW has made great descisions in its effort to keep abreast of the information age we now have, and there are a host of other mistakes they've made that I've spoken up on. But if they were never more than glued metals and no fluff they'd have never gotten anywhere. Case in point around the same time as Magic the Gathering came out a card game called WizWar was created by Tom Jolly and picked up by (I believe)Steve Jackson games.

....you should be wondering what the point is.

The point was Wiz War was just words on the cardstock, MTG well was MTG. Both are great games, but only MTG is thriving 20 years later (even with its own faults and shortsights). I just think that the more senses something appeals to you on, that the more likely you are to pick it up and play with it again.

- MightyG

Your ignoring alot of history with magic there. Plus the marketing he went on, and how it was a VERY different game from anything out there at the time. MTG was to its time like D&D was to its time, like RT 40k was for its time- a first for something, for the most part.

Notice how MtG changed much more when L5R came about(and eventually bought out by them), when it introduced an actual story line that the set was based around them moved the game folward.

Polonius wrote:Hey, I'm not a snob or an elitist. I come to play, to have fun, to challenge myself, and to see and enjoy new players and armies.

Playing against painted armies is part of that. Not the biggest part, but still a part.

I'm a compentent player, and I bring good lists and generally play them well. I know I'm not going to win out most of the time, so for me I enjoy other aspects of the day.

I don't think anything you've said in this thread is snobby or elitist. Everyone has an idea of what the hobby means to them. There are others in this thread that sound like they would either seek to force their version of what the hobby is onto others or look down their noses at those who have a different view of what the hobby is.

I think there is plenty of room for events with painting requirements, events with paint scores, and events without either. If you choose to participate in one form or another, or to not participate in one or another, the choice is yours. I just can't stand being told in a new thread every week that there is something wrong with my vision of my hobby because I don't always paint my armies.

It really is not hard to spray paint black then quickly drybrush, with all the inks now making it so easy to shade. Painting is a hobby, and a huge part of GW since it began. That's why you see "best painted" awards in every big tourney. Lol I don't get how people play with unpainted figures... Do you drive a car that is bare metal or just primed? Lol, or wear clothes that are made from burlap? Haha, well it's just my thought on the matter, and Yes I say full paint or no play.

blasto0341 wrote: It really is not hard to spray paint black then quickly drybrush, with all the inks now making it so easy to shade. Painting is a hobby, and a huge part of GW since it began. That's why you see "best painted" awards in every big tourney. Lol I don't get how people play with unpainted figures... Do you drive a car that is bare metal or just primed? Lol, or wear clothes that are made from burlap? Haha, well it's just my thought on the matter, and Yes I say full paint or no play.

Your examples aren't really all that well thought out. Do they produce bare metal cars? If so you might see some driving around. I don't think everyone would bother painting theirs. I can't remember the last time I walked into a store and saw burlap clothing on the rack. Although what that has to do with whether or not I paint miniatures is beyond me. Go back to the drawing board and come back with a witty response that makes sense.

Could just give the tournament 2 goals.

One prize for winning the game, one for having the coolest army. *shrug*

But having it as a requirement? No, that would just discourage new players that haven't gotten themselves fully into the hobby part from playing in the game-part, and it feels excessively harsh. Depends on the tournament, and who sets the limits for what is painted or not? Basecoated? Basic armor and weapons finnished? Eyes and details? Shading and highlighting?

Personally I've never been in any tournaments (I've been swapping army before ever finnishing one, and never had enough points to play a proper game) as I find the hobby part more important to me, but if someone wants to make an army list and try something out and see how it works in a game, he/she shouldn't have to complete the army painting.

Gotta say... i agree with Blasto0341. also... His army looks amazing and he deserves to win a prize for all the hard work he put in.

@Augustus5. I do have the sachel necessary to tease you to your face about a all plastic army. I wish we knew each other. You would have to accept my good natured jibs. it doesnt have to be done in a mean way, and it dosent take any pompousness either. Its just a prod once in a while and a compliment when you field somethin painted.

carmachu wrote:

mikhaila wrote:Spreading elmers glue with a paint brush is somehow a skill?

Someone still had to teach you first right?

Do you honestly believe that you need to be taught something like that? Are you not able to figure simple things out for yourself?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

augustus5 wrote:I honestly don't think you'd kid me about my grey army to my face. I don't think you have the courage to do so. It's easy to be pompous on the internet but harder to do when you're looking somebody in the eye.

Why would it take courage to make a dig about what chapter your army is or similar?

sennacherib wrote:Gotta say... i agree with Blasto0341. also... His army looks amazing and he deserves to win a prize for all the hard work he put in.

@Augustus5. I do have the sachel necessary to tease you to your face about a all plastic army. I wish we knew each other. You would have to accept my good natured jibs. it doesnt have to be done in a mean way, and it dosent take any pompousness either. Its just a prod once in a while and a compliment when you field somethin painted.

I wouldn't play a TFG who gave me crap about my army not being painted, and I wouldn't put up with many good natured jibs. If you can't mind your own business eventually you'll find yourself in a bad situation with somebody who doesn't put up with your crap. I think you'd find yourself alienated pretty quick at the places I play. People around here don't really worry about what somebody does or does not do with his or her army. We are quick to give proper praise to nicely painted/converted armies, but don't really care if some just enjoy the game/fluff and not the converting/painting aspect.

Scott-S6 wrote:Why would it take courage to make a dig about what chapter your army is or similar?

I don't think the issue is what chapter an army is. Sennacherib wrote, "In freindly play grey armies are ok but if you play one I will still kid you about it if you make no effort at painting it. Its ok." To me, that sounds really arrogant. If somebody were to kid me about "taking no effort at painting..." I'd take offense. While it's okay to rib your friends a bit, it's not something that is generally acceptable when playing somebody in a pickup game. I've never met somebody at the FLGS for a game and made jokes about any aspect of their army and I expect the same courtesy. If somebody doesn't wish to play my grey army I'm fine with it, but don't give me crap about it unless you're ready to get it right back. I find it extremely rude to give a stranger crap, among friends it's acceptable and expected.

If i've gone to the trouble to paint my army, I would expect my opponent to go to the same length.

carmachu wrote:

mikhaila wrote:

Spreading elmers glue with a paint brush is somehow a skill?

I teach a couple hundred 6-12 year olds a year how to do that during their first painting class.

Someone still had to teach you first right?

Still a skill, no matter how much you try and deny it.

Dear Lord, if you think that putting glue and sand on a flat base is a skill, NeverEver try and chew gum! You'll choke to death if no one's taught you how!

Calling something a skill that any un-skilled person can accomplish with ease is just silly. If you don't want to paint or base a model, and never do, no one cares. There's no need to try and elevate stuff you learn in kindergarten to the level of a skill that the average person can't accomplish.

To further Mikhaila's point:

Let's not also pretend that the number of people that simply cannot paint an army is very large.

Yes, there are a variety of sensory, manipulative, or neurological impairments that would make painting minis impossible.

Yes, there are some people so busy with unavoidable time obligations that the only free time they have is a few tournaments a year.

Outside of these very small numbers, most people could find a few minutes here and there to paint minis, at least to a base paint level. They choose not to.

Now, I've got no problem with the idea that a person likes the game and enjoys playing it, but considers spending time painting a waste. That's a fine choice. But it's just that: a choice.

Triple King wrote:If i've gone to the trouble to paint my army, I would expect my opponent to go to the same length.

What gives you that expectation? Is your idea of what constitutes this hobby the official version? If so, can you share a link to the official hobby rules PDF, please?

Polonius wrote:To further Mikhaila's point:

Let's not also pretend that the number of people that simply cannot paint an army is very large.

Yes, there are a variety of sensory, manipulative, or neurological impairments that would make painting minis impossible.

Yes, there are some people so busy with unavoidable time obligations that the only free time they have is a few tournaments a year.

Outside of these very small numbers, most people could find a few minutes here and there to paint minis, at least to a base paint level. They choose not to.

Now, I've got no problem with the idea that a person likes the game and enjoys playing it, but considers spending time painting a waste. That's a fine choice. But it's just that: a choice.

What is wrong with that choice?

augustus5 wrote:

Triple King wrote:If i've gone to the trouble to paint my army, I would expect my opponent to go to the same length.

What gives you that expectation? Is your idea of what constitutes this hobby the official version? If so, can you share a link to the official hobby rules PDF, please?

It's part of custom. Just like there's no written rule that you shouldn't sleep with a girl that dumped your brother.

Part of your custom, or the custom of others. Maybe not everyone's custom. I played D&D with unpainted minis for years before Warhammer 40k was even a concept.

I paint some of my armies; others I never bother. I play with the grey armies in events that I can, and skip those that have a paint requirement without QQing about it.

the real question is: if a guy has an army and NEVER paints it, do you break his chops about it?

if i'm playing the same dude once or twice a month, and his army is never painted, i'm going to break balls--after a time.

i don't expect to face an expertly painted army, like, ever. my armies are usually a WIP and are rarely all finished. my current CSM army is about 65% painted. I go slow, but I get them done eventually. if i can paint my army with two jobs and a family, than the part-timer at walmart or a mom's basement neckbeard can eventually get his done.

mikhaila wrote:

Dear Lord, if you think that putting glue and sand on a flat base is a skill, NeverEver try and chew gum! You'll choke to death if no one's taught you how!

Calling something a skill that any un-skilled person can accomplish with ease is just silly. If you don't want to paint or base a model, and never do, no one cares. There's no need to try and elevate stuff you learn in kindergarten to the level of a skill that the average person can't accomplish.

Dear lord, what a condecening donkey behind one has become. Yes, its a skill, you didnt learn dipping, basing and other items by yoruself. Otherwise why would you say you were teaching folks and kids how to do it.

But hey, once again prove why I dislike FLGS and their owners. Thanks.

I'm not entierly sure if it was in the WH40K rulebook or if it was in LotR, but have you completely forgotten the most important rule?

Sitting there saying 'I spend 90% of my free time on WH40K, modelling, making army lists and painting, if you should even be permitted to play against me then you should do the same' really isn't inviting any newcomers to the game. You kind of sound like some sour old lady who thinks that anyone who haven't done everything you have isn't worth your time. You're quite bluntly rude, if not mean.

Of course the battle is more interesting and fun if everything's painted, but not everyone have the time to do that, and people that are new to the game, as well as those who haven't got the time to paint their minis, and those who have not yet gotten around to buy all the paint and brushes as it -is- financially burdening to some, if not most people, but to say that they shouldn't be allowed to even play because of it? I'm not even sure what to say, but with that attitude I'd prefer playing a game against someone who have a complete grey army but who's there to have fun than with you.

Back in the day, all official tournaments did have a minimum paint requirement. The relaxation of this (see 'Ard Boyz) has led to a rapid decline of the number of painted armies at tournaments. I don't know if this has led to fewer painted armies in friendly games.

For me, the reason I play tabletop wargames is to enjoy the aesthetics of a good looking table with good looking armies on it. Maybe I am just boring and old-fashioned, but you know, I thought that was the point. You can play wargames without any figures at all, and not have the trouble of even assembling them.

Perhaps one day all models will look like this...



Should tournaments be restricted? GW has already decided they shouldn't. The best model soldier company in the world can't be wrong.

Kilkrazy wrote:Back in the day, all official tournaments did have a minimum paint requirement.

Back in they day, golden demons was when you were at the GT and pulled a model from your army to enter, not one you painted specifically for GD....

augustus5 wrote:
If you'd much rather play a painted army than a non-painted army then more power to you. I don't see non-painters starting new threads every week QQing about paint requirements at tourneys. We simply don't play in said tourney. What business is it of yours what someone's reason is for not painting their army?

I don't understand the beef in this thread then?

Isn't this a thread with non-painters QQing about paint requirements at tourneys? If no one has a problem with painting requirements at most tourneys, then what is the beef? no one is talking about strawman arguments of people rolling into fictional FLGS and smashing unpainted models with a hammer.

If non-painters just simply don't play in said tourney then everything is 'working as intended' and all is right in the world...

Most tourney goers, attend tourneys with painting requirements. People who don't like painting find techniques that get the chore over with so they can participate (like Stelek's airbrushing which I think works great and meets the standard)

People who refuse to paint can attend 'ardboyz. If people have a beef with non-painted models, they can avoid 'ardboyz and go somewhere else.

Everyone is happy and the balance of tourneys with requirements seems to meet the request of gamers, which happens to be more 'require painting' than not.

The only people who wouldn't be happy are people who want to play tourneys but are being excluded due to painting restrictions and are on a crusade to have events bend to their will. But you are saying that doesn't exist? Then we all buddies again? I am confused at the people screaming for non-painting acceptance in general when we are talking about tourneys...

I feel that people should paint there armies but if they dont that doesn't bother me to much, maybe they aren't comfortable with there painting.

But when people tell me that there Nobz Choppa counts as a Power Klaw that pisses me off!

carmachu wrote:
Back in they day, golden demons was when you were at the GT and pulled a model from your army to enter, not one you painted specifically for GD....

GD never existed at any US GT I ever attended, and I have been to at least 5 of the Baltimore ones at GW's USHQ. That is a GAMES DAY only event.

And 100% of those GTs required painting. So... how does this mean that tourneys don't traditionally have painting requirements?

Kilkrazy wrote:Back in the day, all official tournaments did have a minimum paint requirement. The relaxation of this (see 'Ard Boyz) has led to a rapid decline of the number of painted armies at tournaments. I don't know if this has led to fewer painted armies in friendly games.

For me, the reason I play tabletop wargames is to enjoy the aesthetics of a good looking table with good looking armies on it. Maybe I am just boring and old-fashioned, but you know, I thought that was the point. You can play wargames without any figures at all, and not have the trouble of even assembling them.

Perhaps one day all models will look like this...



Should tournaments be restricted? GW has already decided they shouldn't. The best model soldier company in the world can't be wrong.

Maybe to some people, the models simply add the aesthetic. I'm not saying that your idea of what pleases you is wrong or right, but it's your idea. I enjoy playing with models more that counters. Models add a 3d element. I don't mind if the models are painted or not. That is simply my opinion.

I think that 40k is big enough to have successful tourneys that cater to the more relaxed gamers and the more serious gamers (competitively and from a converting/painting standpoint). There should not be outcry over unpainted models in a new thread every week. When was the last time a tournament was cancelled due to lack of interest because of a painting requirement? There is no problem. There are only people who choose to paint seeking to thumb their nose at those who don't. That is the only purpose these kinds of threads have from what I can tell.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nkelsch wrote:

augustus5 wrote:
If you'd much rather play a painted army than a non-painted army then more power to you. I don't see non-painters starting new threads every week QQing about paint requirements at tourneys. We simply don't play in said tourney. What business is it of yours what someone's reason is for not painting their army?

I don't understand the beef in this thread then?

Isn't this a thread with non-painters QQing about paint requirements at tourneys? If no one has a problem with painting requirements at most tourneys, then what is the beef? no one is talking about strawman arguments of people rolling into fictional FLGS and smashing unpainted models with a hammer.

If non-painters just simply don't play in said tourney then everything is 'working as intended' and all is right in the world...

Most tourney goers, attend tourneys with painting requirements. People who don't like painting find techniques that get the chore over with so they can participate (like Stelek's airbrushing which I think works great and meets the standard)

People who refuse to paint can attend 'ardboyz. If people have a beef with non-painted models, they can avoid 'ardboyz and go somewhere else.

Everyone is happy and the balance of tourneys with requirements seems to meet the request of gamers, which happens to be more 'require painting' than not.

The only people who wouldn't be happy are people who want to play tourneys but are being excluded due to painting restrictions and are on a crusade to have events bend to their will. But you are saying that doesn't exist? Then we all buddies again? I am confused at the people screaming for non-painting acceptance in general when we are talking about tourneys...

Have you read through this thread or the score of others just like it? The OP closed his post remarking about how people should put effort into painting their minis. These threads are never started by those who don't always paint their figs, but usually by someone wanting once again to tell us all how we should participate in "the hobby."

I'm not complaining about tourneys and their requirements. Not once have I made a remark to that end. I've said time and again that TOs should be free to run their tourneys as they wish and if I or you don't like the way it is run then to simply not participate. I don't see a lot of people here complaining about painting requirements either. I see a lot of complaining about non-painted armies though. I see a lot of people calling out those who choose not to paint as lazy.

Time and time again I'm presented with silly arguments about how easy it would be to basecoat/dip, or basecoat/drybrush my army. Have you considered that I simply may not want to do so? If you don't want to play my army because it ruins your experience I understand. We are all into 40k for various reasons. Just don't get on your high horse and tell me how I need to experience 40k. 'ArdBoyz has proved that there are many who just want to play the game and have little interest in the painting/converting side of things.

carmachu wrote:
Dear lord, what a condecening donkey behind one has become. Yes, its a skill, you didnt learn dipping, basing and other items by yoruself. Otherwise why would you say you were teaching folks and kids how to do it.

My god, how did you ever acquire the skill to put your models together? Was it a long apprenticeship?

It is pretty much clear that people who want to play with painter armies think tournaments should have a painted army requirement. While people who don't mind if armies are painted or not do not want such a restriction.

Fortunately, there are tournaments of both persuasions, so both groups of players are catered for.

With that, I think the thread has run its course.