I am sure this will just derail into a "painting is stupid!" vs "painting is part of the hobby!" argument buuuuuttt...

...how can a tournament be a GT yet not enforce fully painted armies? Shouldn't a GRAND tournament really be the standard by which normal tournaments are judged? They are basically the children of the GW circuit where painting DID matter and WAS 100% necessary. Looking around recently at some GT battle reports started getting me on this train of thought. And yes, Dash was the culprit to set it off.

I dunno, maybe I am just an old guy but it just seems absolutely necessary that if you want to be a forefront event, you should be acting like it, no?

No its not a GT if you have an unpainted models. GT's is design to highlight or display your army that he or she spend hours in painting.

While I don't think it should be a rule, I'd like to see fully painted armies at GT's. However, what with the modern age and the upscaling of the game, I can understand if someone with a unit of, say, 50 skaven clanrats or maybe someone running foot Orks doesn't have a fully painted force.

I would disagree.
A Grand Tournment is simple a large tournment. While I would prefer to see painted army in all their glory, as long as there is not a painting score, there should not be a requirement for painted models. If there is a painting score, i'd prefer to see minimum painting by standard.

A tournment can be run strictly on wins / losses and a scoring system. It would purely establish who over the course of the event scored the most points. You would then have eliminated all the "subjective scores" such as sportsmanship and painting. Sportsmanship and painting after all are based on opinion, not fact. A tournment with a win / points would establish a win based on fact.

So yes, i'd say you could have a Grand Tournment without painting. However, I'd agree... I like the idea of a GT winner also having a painted army.

I agree, to be Grand, it has to be fully painted. If you want to run a "big" tournament, more power to you. If you want to run a Grand tournament, it needs to be a spectacle.

Absolutely needs to be painted models.

I like painted models, prefer painted models. That said though as long as its primed and wysiwyg I personaly would advocate it's allowance

Is a Grant Tournament still a GT if you exclude a class of players simply because they don't share the same interests as you?

Personally, I feel that every model in an army must include at least 20% hand-sculpted green stuff in order to be entered into a Grand Tournament. It's not a 'spectacle' or a 'forefront event' if everyone is running around with standard boring Space Marines.

[/sarcasm]

biccat wrote:Is a Grant Tournament still a GT if you exclude a class of players simply because they don't share the same interests as you?

You know, some events aren't for everyone. I don't complain that 'ard boyz exists just because it doesn't interest me. Grand tournaments exist for people with a certain set of interests. If you don't have those interests, then clearly they're not for you. Go play 'ard boyz. Don't whine that those of us that do have those interests get an outlet for them.

It's no secret that I'm a strong proponent of "LEAVE ME THE HELL ALONE, IF I DON"T WANNA PAINT MY SILVER PANTS BLUE!" lol

That said, I do fall in the camp of "a GT should be all inclusive." While I do NOT think painting should be tied in to your final score, i DO feel it should be a prerequisite for entry.

I also support people running any kind of tourney they way -painting required or painting optional- and not taking flak about it.

Eric

Walls wrote:I am sure this will just derail into a "painting is stupid!" vs "painting is part of the hobby!" argument buuuuuttt...

So why start the thread? There are a few active threads already bashing unpainted armies. How many more do you need to feel satisfied?

Back OT: Tournament organizers should be free to run a tournament in any way they see fit.

The Indy GT that was held in St. Louis this year didn't have a painting requirement, but gave bonus points to fully painted armies, and had prize support for best painted army. That is a pretty fair compromise.

If you want to play with unpainted models, go to the Ard Boyz. Its that kind of mentality that does not push the importance of painting your toy soldiers.

Who is to say that there should be an importance associated with painting your toy soldiers?

You're kidding, right? There's a huge importance in it. As a matter of fact it's 1/3 of the hobby. As a matter of fact it's pushed more in books and magazines then tactica, so could actually be MORE important then generalship. Who is to say? Uh... the game designers?

I am not talking about local game store events with only local guys, I am talking about GRAND TOURNAMENTS. What's so grand about them if they're no better then gaming in your basement with buddies?

I guess if we don't need to paint, who cares about WYSIWYG. I guess I can bring pop cans and toothpicks standing up on bottle caps for an army?

I am glad lots of people agree with me though. Makes me feel better about the health of the hobby.

You're kidding, right? There's a huge importance in it. As a matter of fact it's 1/3 of the hobby. As a matter of fact it's pushed more in books and magazines then tactica, so could actually be MORE important then generalship. Who is to say? Uh... the game designers?

Perhaps the people enjoying the game should have a say in how they enjoy it, no?

One thing I've never understood about this community is why everyone feels the need to strong-arm others into enjoying something in a particular way. Way too many people have a "my way or the highway" approach to this game. Not everyone likes painting. Not everyone like sculpting. Not everyone like competitive lists. Get over it.

To each his own. There's no right way to enjoy the game just like there's no wrong way to enjoy it, no matter how many buddies band together to say so. Let the players define the parameters of events, grand or otherwise.

True, but labelling yourself a GT comes with a hefty set of responsibilities. Allowing non painted, IMO, makes them neglect an important on. Let's not kid ourselves. The GT's are simply bastard children replacing the GW ones. The GW ones could call themselves GRAND tournaments because they demanded grand responsibilities from the players that went far past just being a good player and into the more important realm of being a good hobbyist: playing, painting (at least attempting to) and sportsmanship.

Players can certainly play what they want, when, where, etc... but this isn't about the players. This is about the tournaments calling themselves and claiming to be something they are not.

Walls wrote:You're kidding, right? There's a huge importance in it. As a matter of fact it's 1/3 of the hobby. As a matter of fact it's pushed more in books and magazines then tactica, so could actually be MORE important then generalship. Who is to say? Uh... the game designers?

I am not talking about local game store events with only local guys, I am talking about GRAND TOURNAMENTS. What's so grand about them if they're no better then gaming in your basement with buddies?

I guess if we don't need to paint, who cares about WYSIWYG. I guess I can bring pop cans and toothpicks standing up on bottle caps for an army?

I am glad lots of people agree with me though. Makes me feel better about the health of the hobby.

Painting is actually zero part of the wargaming hobby. That's far less than 1/3.
Also, the game designers never said painted armies were a required part of the wargaming hobby. If they did, there would be a rule against them.

As for WYSISWYG and soda cans, etc... If that's what YOU enjoy doing and your group is okay with it, then I say happy gaming!

Eric

Well, if that's what you believe then you are a gamer, not a hobbyist. I suggest Magic the Gathering would be a better fit for you.

biccat wrote:Is a Grant Tournament still a GT if you exclude a class of players simply because they don't share the same interests as you?

Yeah, damn GTs for excluding me from competing in the tournament with Starcraft 2 in place of Warhammer 40k.



Your argument sucks.

Your armies should be fully painted, any excuses are gak ones. Its a GT for feths sake!

Turning up at a GT with an unpainted army is like turning up at your sisters wedding wearing a pair of board shorts, flip flops and a vest.

Yeah you could do it, but it's a shameless considering how much more effort everyone else in the building put in.

Danny Internets wrote:
Perhaps the people enjoying the game should have a say in how they enjoy it, no?

But different people enjoy the game in different ways. Some people enjoy making spammy beatstick lists and going at it full-bore, and don't care about painting. Others enjoy painting fluffy armies and playing a more laid-back game. Both are enjoying the same game, but neither would really appreciate a game with the other. The hardcore player wouldn't find the fluffy player a challenge, and the fluffy player wouldn't enjoy a game against unpainted models.

Both these players get a say in how they enjoy it, but their say doesn't agree.

One thing I've never understood about this community is why everyone feels the need to strong-arm others into enjoying something in a particular way. Way too many people have a "my way or the highway" approach to this game. Not everyone likes painting. Not everyone like sculpting. Not everyone like competitive lists. Get over it.

I'm not going to play in 'ard boyz, it doesn't appeal to me. I'm not interested in playing against unpainted armies, that's not how I enjoy the game. I'm not at all upset by this. I think 'ard boyz fills a useful need in the community. However, if, in the name of including someone else because they want to use unpainted stuff, you change another event, then you've taken an event away from me. I won't enjoy that event anymore.

Clearly, as you try to get more people together to play games, some compromises are necessary in order that as many people as possible are included. If you don't, you exclude people.

The typical compromise has been that the fluff bunnies try to make better lists, or at least have the decency to lose in the first round and get out of the way of the more competitive players, and that the more competitive players make a legitimate attempt to put a painted army on the table, even it's only three colors.

Some events don't offer compromises. That's fine, that's their right. If you want to attend those events, you play by the rules for that event. 'ard boyz makes no bones about it. It's a competitive event, it's huge, it has good prize support, and there is no painting requirement. It's clearly a good event, it's run for several years and draws a crowd each time. But it's not a Grand Tournament - and it's not billed as such.

I don't see any fluffy players running around trying to get 'ard boyz to change what it is to include them. They're willing to accept that it's an event that isn't designed for them. Why then is it acceptable for competitive players to complain about the events that feature strong soft-score elements and painting requirements and expect those events to change?

There are different ways to enjoy the hobby, and neither are wrong, but they're not mutually inclusive either. I'm not trying to tell anyone else that they should play my way. I'm not advocating to remove the events designed to cater to their style. I am trying to stop them from trying to change the event style that I enjoy into one that I won't enjoy.

Both these players get a say in how they enjoy it, but their say doesn't agree.

Thank you for reiterating my point?

I don't see any fluffy players running around trying to get 'ard boyz to change what it is to include them. They're willing to accept that it's an event that isn't designed for them.

Dude, don't play stupid. You've been on this forum and others a lot of years and you know as well as I do that fluffy players complain loudly every. single. year. about the lack of painting requirements in 'Ard Boyz. But that's not to say they're trying to change them. Similarly, those who complain about mandated painting in other events aren't necessarily trying to change those requirements either.

I'm not advocating to remove the events designed to cater to their style. I am trying to stop them from trying to change the event style that I enjoy into one that I won't enjoy.

The vast majority of events already cater to your style and you want to keep it that way. How egalitarian of you. For the record, I have no problem with painting requirements (what I have a problem with is people saying that painting is *more* important than other things), but let's not pretend you're advocating a live-and-let-live approach here.

To the OP the answer is no.

mattyrm wrote: Your armies should be fully painted, any excuses are gak ones. Its a GT for feths sake!

Turning up at a GT with an unpainted army is like turning up at your sisters wedding wearing a pair of board shorts, flip flops and a vest.

Yeah you could do it, but it's a shameless considering how much more effort everyone else in the building put in.

This is how i would put it, well said!

Danny Internets wrote:To each his own. There's no right way to enjoy the game just like there's no wrong way to enjoy it, no matter how many buddies band together to say so. Let the players define the parameters of events, grand or otherwise.

I'd say this is true about the hobby- but NOT about a tournament.

A tournament involves a tournament organizer, making rules specific to that event. In this case, it's not up to the players to decide how they want to enjoy the game- if they want to attend that particular TO's event, they have to abide by what he lays out.

In the past, in the case of GTs that's been all-painted. I think it should stay this way simply because it is an exclusive event worth making the effort for. I just got my army done up to a 3-color minimum for DakkaCon, and will be doing another push for Battle for Blobs Park. The event gives me a goal to shoot for and helps me finish the army.

If someone doesn't want to paint, that doesn't mean they can't choose how to enjoy the hobby- just that they can't attend that particular event. There's room for all under the tent!





One interesting thing to note- I've found less pressure among warmachine players to have painted your own army. I.e., commission painting doesn't seem to have the stigma it does in warhammer circles. Same for dipping- they just appreciate that you painted it.

On the flip side, I play against a LOT of unpainted warmachine armies... so maybe the lack of pressure to paint causes that as a side effect, too?

But I believe for the Nova Open, the warmachine events do not have a painting requirement, while the warhammer ones do. (Please correct me if I'm wrong). It's an interesting difference in the community mindset in general, from what I've seen... and I'm interested if others have noticed this who play both systems, too.

augustus5 wrote:

Walls wrote:I am sure this will just derail into a "painting is stupid!" vs "painting is part of the hobby!" argument buuuuuttt...

So why start the thread? There are a few active threads already bashing unpainted armies. How many more do you need to feel satisfied?

Walls wrote:You're kidding, right? There's a huge importance in it. As a matter of fact it's 1/3 of the hobby. As a matter of fact it's pushed more in books and magazines then tactica, so could actually be MORE important then generalship. Who is to say? Uh... the game designers?

I am glad lots of people agree with me though. Makes me feel better about the health of the hobby.

Apparently at least one more thread. Maybe this will be the one that finally brings that sweet satisfaction.

I've never understood why either group feels the need to impose their will on the other. I guess it's just that 'My opinion is the only one that matters because it is obviously right, and everyone should pat me on the back for it' mentality. There is room for both painted and unpainted events in this hobby. And players do have a choice in what they participate in.

For the painted crowd, why even have a tournament? Why not just have a painting competition, since that's apparently the most important aspect?

For the people who believe it's not important, why require it as part of your tournament, and then not give a score for it?

At a time when people are leaving the hobby due to bad decisions at GW, is it really the best decision to start trying to push a particular crowd out of the game because their opinion of the hobby doesn't match your own? Comments like "go play Magic, gamer!" just show the childish mentality that permeates this hobby (I guess toy soldiers does bring out the child in people, though), the same mentality that people complaining about a painting requirement for a specific event have.

I find that it is far more important for an event to be well run, with knowledgeable staff, and giving players good return on their entry fee, than for it to have rules on painting. I also find it nice when an event gives out separate prizes for painting.

The problem with having unpainted figures on the table in a tournament is that it doesn't look very 'grand', there's not much a spectacle it's not a celebration of the game. It just looks like the weekend down the gaming club. Why is painting your figures seen to be so different to assembling them?

I am finding that the "unpainted" side seems to be the more belligerent in this thread actually.

I never claimed ALWAYS PAINTED ALWAYS GRRAAAHHHH! I simply made a point about one type of event.

An event can be everything you want it to be. But if they are allowing unpainted models they simply should not be using the GT tag. That is my only argument in this thread, not the huge general broad one you are implying I am making. Besides, why can't a tourney be all what you want AND painted? Does painting crumble all sense of order or something?

Grand tournements are more just a point of statement meaning large tournements. It is meant too be bigger then your local rogue traders and not just set rules. Now personally I have a painting requirement for my Indy GT that I host, and I would prefer a 3 paint minimum, but as I found out this year that rule bite me in the butt. Several of my players did just three colors on their models and wouldn't complete the whole model. The scored basic points on the painting as long as they had 3 paint colors and a based model. Now personally I do prefer painted armies but I am not going too turn down someone from the tourney if they are unpainted because it is a tournement. That said it is a garuntee that they won't win overall because I combine the sportsmanship, painting, and stuff like that into the final score.

I do always say people should play how they want too since they paid for it, but I agree that if you choose not too paint or anything like that then it is more just a game and not a hobbyist. A hobbyist generally is all inclusive into the hobby as wargamming has always been painted and played. You don't play historicals unpainted so why would you play like that with sci-fi. When GW created there niche they had down, conversions, building, painting, theme and all of that fun stuff. In the end as stated play how you feel comfortable playing but just be prepared that you won't be allowed in some events because you don't want too play how the organizers want too play and you have no right too complain about it.

derek wrote:For the painted crowd, why even have a tournament? Why not just have a painting competition, since that's apparently the most important aspect?

For the people who believe it's not important, why require it as part of your tournament, and then not give a score for it?

The thing is derek, as you said, there's room for everyone. Most people don't fall into the extremes that you imply here: those who think painting is the only thing that matters, and those who don't think it matters at all.

Most people like to build/convert/paint and, when they've put in all that work, play against armies that are also finished and painted at a major event. There's plenty of middle ground here and it doesn't have to be a polarizing issue.

However, my view is that if I'm paying $50+ for a tournament entry fee, I'd like to play against painted models. I don't think every tournament needs to be like this, but traditionally GTs where the fees are that high (or much higher) require painting.

I doubt a GT would get much traction if they did not require painting, but perhaps there is a group of people out there that would indeed prefer such an event. I'm not one of them, but it's possible. The only major event I'm aware of that doesn't require painting is 'Ard Boyz. And it's completely free. Are there others? And would you pay the same fee you would to play in a painted event?

More to the point, would you care about painted tables, terrain, and the like? If the visuals don't matter at all, you could make the argument that the terrain doesn't need to be painted. However, I doubt you'll see people paying a GT-like entry fee to attend such an event... but it would be interesting to see if there is such a group willing to pay, if someone wants to try it.

RiTides wrote:

derek wrote:For the painted crowd, why even have a tournament? Why not just have a painting competition, since that's apparently the most important aspect?

For the people who believe it's not important, why require it as part of your tournament, and then not give a score for it?

The thing is derek, as you said, there's room for everyone. Most people don't fall into the extremes that you imply here: those who think painting is the only thing that matters, and those who don't think it matters at all.

I was highlighting what this always boils down to at the extremes, those two questions were not meant to be a catch all. I believe most tabletop gamers fall somewhere in the middle. I personally don't like playing in events where stroking your painting ePeen for the judges best is worth more points than playing the game (I'm sure we've all experienced the "hobbyist" judge that looks down the nose at your less than golden demon paint job), and similarly I don't like showing up to a painted only event, and it not actually being a part what is judged at the event at all.

GT = Fully painted and based or GTfo

Personally I like to see fully painted and good looking models on the table at GT's. That is just me.

derek wrote:[For the painted crowd, why even have a tournament? Why not just have a painting competition, since that's apparently the most important aspect?

For the people who believe it's not important, why require it as part of your tournament, and then not give a score for it?

The "painted crowd" doesn't just want to paint a figure and enter it into a competition, they like to attend a tournament and play games in an enviorment where everyone else has also put in at least the basic effort in getting their armies painted. Most people that attend a GT for the first time come away from it wanting to attend again, and do a better job both in game play and painting. This leads to having a community of people that 1) enjoy playing the game 2) enjoy painting and seeing what other people painted 3) makes friends and likes to see those friends at future GT's.

If someone wants to run a GT and allow unpainted models, that's up to them. Anyone can run a GT, it just takes work. You don't see many of them with no painting requirement because you don't have many people that want to run a GT that way. I don't, so I require painting at my GT's.

If their are people who don't like painting, but want to attend big weekend tournaments anyway, I can respect their point of veiw. At the same time, they have to respect mine that I don't want them attending my events unless they bring an army of painted models.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

derek wrote: I personally don't like playing in events where stroking your painting ePeen for the judges best is worth more points than playing the game (I'm sure we've all experienced the "hobbyist" judge that looks down the nose at your less than golden demon paint job), and similarly I don't like showing up to a painted only event, and it not actually being a part what is judged at the event at all.

Yeah, that's nearly as bad as showing up to an event filled with WAAC net listers too lazy to pick up a paint brush and only worried about flexing their dice rolling muscles and proving how big a guy they are by owning some 12 year old at his first event.
--------------------------------------------------

(Just to make sure no one misses the point, the above statement is sarcasm, as I tried to mirror dereks statement from the other side of the arguement. If find both his and my statements overly dramatic and confrontational, and adding nothing to the conversation. In other words, tone it down a bit, or watch the thread dissolve into chaos.)

Like Mike said it takes a lot of work too run a GT. Tons of people think you can just throw them together and believe me you can, but it will show that you did and your likelyhood of having it again the next year is slim too none. Takes money, months of planning, hard work on many peoples parts, and in the end utter determination because believe me the days leading up too the event suck and you barely sleep and have your nerves on end because of everything that needs too fall into place or the event won't be a success. As such I remember back when (not even more then 10 years ago mind you..in fact less) when it wasn't uncommon for somone too spend a year working on a army just for a GT for games workshop.

mikhaila wrote:


Automatically Appended Next Post:

derek wrote: I personally don't like playing in events where stroking your painting ePeen for the judges best is worth more points than playing the game (I'm sure we've all experienced the "hobbyist" judge that looks down the nose at your less than golden demon paint job), and similarly I don't like showing up to a painted only event, and it not actually being a part what is judged at the event at all.

Yeah, that's nearly as bad as showing up to an event filled with WAAC net listers too lazy to pick up a paint brush and only worried about flexing their dice rolling muscles and proving how big a guy they are by owning some 12 year old at his first event.
--------------------------------------------------

(Just to make sure no one misses the point, the above statement is sarcasm, as I tried to mirror dereks statement from the other side of the arguement. If find both his and my statements overly dramatic and confrontational, and adding nothing to the conversation. In other words, tone it down a bit, or watch the thread dissolve into chaos.)

Honestly, you don't know me from the next random person, so telling me my opinion, which I've formed based on past experience, is overly dramatic is rather rude. On top of that, I think you've completely missed the point of both my original post, and reply in this thread. Everyone always seems to think you can only have things one way or the other, and there is no middle ground. That thought is just silly to me. I've seen both types of events have numerical success. And just from personal experience, even when not requiring painted armies, you'll get the majority of players showing up with them painted to at least a 3 color minimum.

(And for the record, the part about painting competitions was sarcasm too. While I'm not the most motivated painter, I'd rather see something advertised as a GT at least requiring the minimum. And wouldn't show to one without doing so myself, required or not. If I was being what appeared to be confrontational, I apologize, but I don't feel I was being any more so than the person instructing the non painters to go play Magic instead.)

augustus5 wrote:The Indy GT that was held in St. Louis this year didn't have a painting requirement, but gave bonus points to fully painted armies, and had prize support for best painted army. That is a pretty fair compromise.

I get the feeling that alot of people's opinions on the "fairness" of that compromise would be flip-flopped if 'ard boyz compromised and didn't have a painting requirement but gave bonus points to fully painted armies as well as a cash prize to best painted. What's supposedly good for the goose is good for the gander!

Ard boyz should stay unpainted and GT's should stay painted. To me, it's simply not a "GRAND" tournament if I'm facing a bare plastic/metal/resin army. I'm completely fine with playing against unpainted armies in FLGS pickup games but I expect more from tournaments I attend (especially if there's an entry fee). A tournament for me is an event first and foremost and the spectacle of that event includes playing on nice tables with cool terrain against an opponent with a painted army who is fair and amicable during the game under the auspices of a knowledgable organizer. If any one of those criteria isn't met without good reason, I'm not coming back the next time. I have zero problem with the Ard Boyz tourney having no sportmanship or painting scoring/requirement; at the same time, I'll never attend one because it simply doesn't suit my tastes. I just wish the people who disagree with my viewpoint would just leave the tournaments that DO agree alone and stop hounding every thread that mentions anything other than in-game scoring or requirements beyond assembly. People who don't like painting and/or soft scores are a lot more vocal and incessant about every event meeting their view than the other way around.

Vote with your wallet/feet and simply don't attend an event that doesn't meet your expectations. If you're a painting nazi, don't go to a 'Ard Boyz and then complain about the grey hordes you face or jump in a thread about the event to whine about the lack of soft scores at the event at a best general event. If you're a WAAC gamer, don't go to an event that has an overall winner that includes soft scores and THEN cry about your rules lawyering and grey horde getting dinged on points or post in a thread decrying the "evils" of soft scores in an event that clearly advertised their use. There's more than enough room in the hobby for events of both types. IMO, 'Ard Boyz and GTs should represent opposite ends of the spectrum in this matter with independent local events filling in the compromise middle ground.

Cryonicleech wrote:While I don't think it should be a rule, I'd like to see fully painted armies at GT's. However, what with the modern age and the upscaling of the game, I can understand if someone with a unit of, say, 50 skaven clanrats or maybe someone running foot Orks doesn't have a fully painted force.

This.

It was so much easier back in the day to field a painted force the point levels have stayed the same but armies have doubled in size.

I remember years ago when they first released Brets and LM GW made a huge battle scene for gamesday one of its biggest features was a block of saurus 100 strong back in the 90s that was almost undherd of.

Now I regularly face 100 strong units of skaven slaves/gobbos only the diffrence is its on a 6' 4' table....

Another big diffrence was 2nd ediotion 40k if you had 3 tanks that was a huge amount of armor to have on the table.

Now entire companys of mech infantry are common place on the table.

I dont think unpainted armies have developed because of the internet and netlist etc I think its a result of armies getting so large.

But considering its so easy to use army painter products etc to make painting alot quicker even the most ardent anti hobbist should be able to be able to paint a army quickly to a decent 3 color standard with a quick dip.

Peeps also feel better about getting torn apart by a net list when its atleast a nicely painted netlist so I think painting being mandatory at tournies is a must I am a gamer first and painter second but I always remind myself that its the minis that makes these games interesting.

on the note of wysiwyg what is the case if you take say vanguard veterans with different weapons, what do you do then? convert? those models are pretty set tbh

Danny Internets wrote:Not everyone likes painting. Not everyone like sculpting. Not everyone like competitive lists

Thats true, but I would ask, are Grand Tournaments for everyone?

I don't think they should be. I think they should be for people who enjoy ALL aspects of the hobby, have brilliantly painted and converted armies, are friendly and fun to play against, and build fun yet competitive lists.

In a fifty man field, most people know they won't win. After round 2, barely a dozen have even a mathematical shot.

For those that aren't in the winners bracket, there's a lot of value in knowing you'll get games against painted armies on good terrain. For me, and I think for a lot of people, that has value.

There's no rule against having a GT that allows unpainted, but I think that most people expect GTs to require paint. The pool of guys that will travel for two days of gaming against primered armies is smaller than the those that have a painted army and want to play against others.

I have to throw my hat on the side of fully painted. Personally I don't like playing without a fully painted army myself, and I do like to see fully painted armies on the other side of the table. I am a fan of the overall hobby, which is painting, building, collecting, and then playing. GTs are meant to showcase armies, and I for one love to go and see all the different armies painted.

If it's a GT, yeah, I feel they should be painted.

JuBear wrote:Now I regularly face 100 strong units of skaven slaves/gobbos only the diffrence is its on a 6' 4' table....

Not to quibble, but I believe slaves are max 50 (but I believe you when you say you're facing 100 gobbos). Salvage plays skaven with 2 blocks of slaves, and I think he used a dip method on them... no way to paint that many small, 2 point models, and stay sane at least with traditional methods. Thank goodness for modern day painting shortcuts on the chaff

RiTides wrote:

JuBear wrote:Now I regularly face 100 strong units of skaven slaves/gobbos only the diffrence is its on a 6' 4' table....

Not to quibble, but I believe slaves are max 50 (but I believe you when you say you're facing 100 gobbos). Salvage plays skaven with 2 blocks of slaves, and I think he used a dip method on them... no way to paint that many small, 2 point models, and stay sane at least with traditional methods. Thank goodness for modern day painting shortcuts on the chaff

slaves are caped at 50! thanks for the heads up I am going to go have words with my regular skaven oponent

FYI: "Grand Tourney" is an established format set by GW legacy events. People who run GRAND TOURNEYS are purposefully emulating the standards and quality of those events.

You can always have a 2-day tourney with no appearance requirements or scores... it just isn't a GRAND Tourney... It is a 2-day tourney with no appearance requirements or scores. But see how many people will travel 3-4 days and spent 400-1000$ for a 2-day tourney with no appearance requirements or scores. Might be hard to get enough attendance But it is always worth a shot if someone wanted to run it.

I hate painting, and a GT should require painted models. That, along with the size and number of games (ie. 2 days/5+ games) is what makes it a GT.

I don't think painting scores should weigh so heavily on the overall placement of the GT, like many do (at least in the North East WHFB GT community); but it should be required.

Also FYI, Skaven Slaves are NOT capped at 50 models.

Polonius wrote:In a fifty man field, most people know they won't win. After round 2, barely a dozen have even a mathematical shot.

For those that aren't in the winners bracket, there's a lot of value in knowing you'll get games against painted armies on good terrain. For me, and I think for a lot of people, that has value.

There's no rule against having a GT that allows unpainted, but I think that most people expect GTs to require paint. The pool of guys that will travel for two days of gaming against primered armies is smaller than the those that have a painted army and want to play against others.

This. For a lot of us, traveling and booking a weekend away and winding up on a table against unpainted models is kind of like a slap in the face. It's unappealing and a let-down. It's a statement that the person on the other side of the table does not care about the visual spectacle of the game, and put their own personal enjoyment (of time not spent painting) above that of all three or five of their opponents.

Voodoo Boyz wrote:Also FYI, Skaven Slaves are NOT capped at 50 models.

Well, darn- my mistake!

MagickalMemories wrote:

Walls wrote:You're kidding, right? There's a huge importance in it. As a matter of fact it's 1/3 of the hobby. As a matter of fact it's pushed more in books and magazines then tactica, so could actually be MORE important then generalship. Who is to say? Uh... the game designers?

I am not talking about local game store events with only local guys, I am talking about GRAND TOURNAMENTS. What's so grand about them if they're no better then gaming in your basement with buddies?

I guess if we don't need to paint, who cares about WYSIWYG. I guess I can bring pop cans and toothpicks standing up on bottle caps for an army?

I am glad lots of people agree with me though. Makes me feel better about the health of the hobby.

Painting is actually zero part of the wargaming hobby. That's far less than 1/3.

Among most historical wargamers I've met and known of, it is considered inappropriate and verboten to field an unpainted model on the table at any time.

There's a crew of 5-6 hiistoricals players who show up at my FLGS most weeks, and they play different systems and time periods practically every week. American Civil War, English Civil War, Napoleonics, Colonial conflicts (last week they had Boxer Rebellion), and it's always with fully painted armies. I can't guess how many hundreds of painted figs some of these guys have.

as long as the overall score is affected by painting Its ok with me.

Mannahnin wrote:

Polonius wrote:In a fifty man field, most people know they won't win. After round 2, barely a dozen have even a mathematical shot.

For those that aren't in the winners bracket, there's a lot of value in knowing you'll get games against painted armies on good terrain. For me, and I think for a lot of people, that has value.

There's no rule against having a GT that allows unpainted, but I think that most people expect GTs to require paint. The pool of guys that will travel for two days of gaming against primered armies is smaller than the those that have a painted army and want to play against others.

This. For a lot of us, traveling and booking a weekend away and winding up on a table against unpainted models is kind of like a slap in the face. It's unappealing and a let-down. It's a statement that the person on the other side of the table does not care about the visual spectacle of the game, and put their own personal enjoyment (of time not spent painting) above that of all three or five of their opponents.

Bingo! Right on the nail!

Walls wrote:Well, if that's what you believe then you are a gamer, not a hobbyist. I suggest Magic the Gathering would be a better fit for you.

If that's what you believe, then what you're seemingly presenting as fact is wrong. Moreso, it's a relatively pathetically argumentative answer that does nothing to foster friendly discussion/debate on what is supposed to be a friendly discussion/debate website.
M:tG is not a better fit. Not my kind of game.

When did I claim to be a "hobbyist?" When did a "hobbyist," by definition, have a requirement that they be into painting? I cannot find that in any sort of definition anywhere from any aceptably reliable source.

mattyrm wrote:Turning up at a GT with an unpainted army is like turning up at your sisters wedding wearing a pair of board shorts, flip flops and a vest.

What if it's a beach themed wedding and his sister's in a bathing suit?
It's still called a wedding. Changing the requirements doesn't change what you call it.

Redbeard wrote:I don't see any fluffy players running around trying to get 'ard boyz to change what it is to include them. They're willing to accept that it's an event that isn't designed for them. Why then is it acceptable for competitive players to complain about the events that feature strong soft-score elements and painting requirements and expect those events to change?

There are different ways to enjoy the hobby, and neither are wrong, but they're not mutually inclusive either. I'm not trying to tell anyone else that they should play my way. I'm not advocating to remove the events designed to cater to their style. I am trying to stop them from trying to change the event style that I enjoy into one that I won't enjoy.

Overall, I agree with your statements in the post I snipped the above quote from and, while I don't DISAGREE with it I do have commentary based on it.
I don't think that most competetive players want tourneys to change their philosophies (BTW, I don't like lumping all "I don't wanna paint" players into that mold, but am using the term for ease of communication). I think they want more tournaments that don't require a painting level to win the tournament. Their opinion is that a GAME tournament should be based on GAME results (a game which has no rules for painting). If it's a "hobby" tournament, then a painting score is valid as part of the overall score.
My personal opion is that a tournament should qualify itself as being a gaming tournament or hobby tournament and act accordingly. If you're a 40K game tourney, there is no painting requirement or score factored into deciding who wins (I strongly advocate prize support for best painted, though, that EQUALS or nearly equals the prize for winning the tournament as a side-competition). If you're a hobby tourney, then you include the whole deal, hard scores AND soft. I think the former would get a better turn out than the latter, but i admit that is STRICTLY opinion.

I could not agree with the last portion of what I quoted any more.

RiTides wrote:In the past, in the case of GTs that's been all-painted. I think it should stay this way simply because it is an exclusive event worth making the effort for. I just got my army done up to a 3-color minimum for DakkaCon, and will be doing another push for Battle for Blobs Park. The event gives me a goal to shoot for and helps me finish the army

True. If my understanding is correct, however, there is no organized GT system any longer. If that is the case, then I think the term "GT" is a kind of open-bag of goods. Anyone can call their tournament "Grand," now that there is no officail "Grand" when it comes to the tournament scene.

mikhaila wrote:If their are people who don't like painting, but want to attend big weekend tournaments anyway, I can respect their point of veiw. At the same time, they have to respect mine that I don't want them attending my events unless they bring an army of painted models.

I cannot fault this p.o.v. Like you say, YOU are the organizer, so it's your choice. I think too many people -on both sides- tend to overlook that. I hear nothing but great things about you, your shop and your tournaments. If I wanted to play an unpainted army in one of these legendary events, I might request that you take my above suggestion and have a tourney with no paint requirements, but offer equal prize support for the best painted. Maybe even another prize for favorite opponent?
Obviously, since I'm wanting to PLAY in it, I would not offer to help organize/run it but would offer my assistance in a future tourney or two as a barter.
Maybe you'd think about it, maybe not. My point is that I would not expect you to change your regular tournament for people who want to play unpainted armies but, if you were willing, would offer something in exchange for you holding one in the future. Give and take. You know?

I mean, who knows. If someone managed to talk you into that and your turn out was even better, maybe you'd add one or 2 of these a year into your tournament rotation?
LOL... then again, maybe not.

I found your commentary to Derek's statement to be quite valid. No room for that kind of stuff here.
He did have ONE point I agreed with, though:

similarly I don't like showing up to a painted only event, and it not actually being a part what is judged at the event at all.

While I don't argue that TO's organizing events that require painting should have to factor it in to the score, I do find it annoying when there isn't a prize or score acknowledgement.

mannahnin wrote:This. For a lot of us, traveling and booking a weekend away and winding up on a table against unpainted models is kind of like a slap in the face. It's unappealing and a let-down. It's a statement that the person on the other side of the table does not care about the visual spectacle of the game, and put their own personal enjoyment (of time not spent painting) above that of all three or five of their opponents.

Admittedly, I think "slap-in-the-face" is a bit of a drastic p.o.v. to take about it. That said, however, you make a valid point tat I can fuly understand. Your 'let-down' feeling is perfectly valid.
I do have a question about this, though:

It's a statement that the person on the other side of the table does not care about the visual spectacle of the game, and put their own personal enjoyment (of time not spent painting) above that of all three or five of their opponents.

If I'm reading your intent correctly, then my devil's-advocate counter questions would be
Why is your enjoyment any more important than his? Is it fair that he has to do something he does not enjoy so you can feel enjoyment? Why would your enjoyment need to be affected by this?
If a player with a well painted army showed up with a fluffy list, would it be equally approrpiate for that player to be disappointed that his opponents put their own personal enjoyment (for playing tough lists) over his enjoyment for a game that focused on all aspects of the hobby, including fluff? What makes that any less valid a part of a "hobby" tournament than a painting requirement?

Also, if you support painting requirements, do you also support unit limitations so that certain armies match up better with fluff and organizational structures? Where is the difference?

There are no right or wrong answers. They're just "thinking" questions.

mannahnin wrote:Among most historical wargamers I've met and known of, it is considered inappropriate and verboten to field an unpainted model on the table at any time.

That matches my experience with them, as well, for the most part.
It doesn't make it part of THE hobby, though. It makes it part of THEIR hobby. That's my point.

-----------------------------
There's a saying that the difference between tattooed people and non-tattooed is that the tattooed people don't care that the non-tattooed don't have tattoos.
I can see a parallel here. The non-painters seem not to care so much whether or not your army is painted. The other group, however, seems to care a LOT more.


Eric

Redbeard wrote:

biccat wrote:Is a Grant Tournament still a GT if you exclude a class of players simply because they don't share the same interests as you?

You know, some events aren't for everyone. I don't complain that 'ard boyz exists just because it doesn't interest me. Grand tournaments exist for people with a certain set of interests. If you don't have those interests, then clearly they're not for you. Go play 'ard boyz. Don't whine that those of us that do have those interests get an outlet for them.

I have no problem with events excluding certain people. When I run tournaments I require that everyone have table-appropriate basing for their miniatures. If you don't want to play in that environment, then you should leave your models at home or run your own tournaments.

The OP's question was regarding the "Grandness" of a tournament. I think that a "Grand" Tournament is to determine the best-of-the-best, and that means allowing anyone to enter, regardless of whether their miniatures are painted or not. As others have said, painting is only a small part of The Hobby. To exclude these people from a tournament makes about as much sense as excluding Tyrannid players from the tournament.

I enjoy playing against painted models as well, but you know what I dislike more than unpainted models? Really terribly painted models. I would much rather play against a silver & grey horde than against a mass of Testors Enamel. Are you going to establish a painting standard for your Grand Tournament as well?

biccat wrote:

Redbeard wrote:

biccat wrote:Is a Grant Tournament still a GT if you exclude a class of players simply because they don't share the same interests as you?

You know, some events aren't for everyone. I don't complain that 'ard boyz exists just because it doesn't interest me. Grand tournaments exist for people with a certain set of interests. If you don't have those interests, then clearly they're not for you. Go play 'ard boyz. Don't whine that those of us that do have those interests get an outlet for them.

I have no problem with events excluding certain people. When I run tournaments I require that everyone have table-appropriate basing for their miniatures. If you don't want to play in that environment, then you should leave your models at home or run your own tournaments.

The OP's question was regarding the "Grandness" of a tournament. I think that a "Grand" Tournament is to determine the best-of-the-best, and that means allowing anyone to enter, regardless of whether their miniatures are painted or not. As others have said, painting is only a small part of The Hobby. To exclude these people from a tournament makes about as much sense as excluding Tyrannid players from the tournament.

I enjoy playing against painted models as well, but you know what I dislike more than unpainted models? Really terribly painted models. I would much rather play against a silver & grey horde than against a mass of Testors Enamel. Are you going to establish a painting standard for your Grand Tournament as well?

Disagree 100%. If you want a 'grand' tourney with painting optional, then go run one. I suspect you won't get enough people attending to make it 'grand'. If you do, more power to you. Don't tear down other people's events expecting exceptions and trying to redefine the word 'hobby' on the internet.

MagickalMemories wrote:
I cannot fault this p.o.v. Like you say, YOU are the organizer, so it's your choice. I think too many people -on both sides- tend to overlook that. I hear nothing but great things about you, your shop and your tournaments. If I wanted to play an unpainted army in one of these legendary events, I might request that you take my above suggestion and have a tourney with no paint requirements, but offer equal prize support for the best painted. Maybe even another prize for favorite opponent?
Obviously, since I'm wanting to PLAY in it, I would not offer to help organize/run it but would offer my assistance in a future tourney or two as a barter.
Maybe you'd think about it, maybe not. My point is that I would not expect you to change your regular tournament for people who want to play unpainted armies but, if you were willing, would offer something in exchange for you holding one in the future. Give and take. You know?

I mean, who knows. If someone managed to talk you into that and your turn out was even better, maybe you'd add one or 2 of these a year into your tournament rotation?
LOL... then again, maybe not.

You sir, are on quite dangerous ground! Because if I do schedule one, you're now committed to dragging your butt up to it.)

I've regularly run tournaments that don't reguire painting, especially when their a "practice for xxx GT". We have one this next weekend. It's a practice tournament for the Blob's Park tournament run by the Inner Circle club out of Baltimore (SHAMELESS PLUG: IT'S IN A BEER GARDEN!!!, WIN FREE BEERS EVERY GAME!)
We use their rules and format for a 3 game touranment. We don't require painting because many people are testing out lists, or wanting to play with the units they are trying to get ready for the GT.

Might at some point think about a 2 day unpainted event. The challenge is how to make it different from 'ardboyz. Lower points for sure, and an absolute emphasis on WYWIWYG would be needed. 'Ardboyz is always a bit of a challenge at the regional level trying to sort ourt the gits that bring absolutely horrible 'conversions' and 'counts as' because their local store allowed it. Probably a good discussion for another thread.

Models at a GT should definitely be painted.

Playing against the plastic/metal horde is far from "Grand", particularly when you know the reason is so that the kid who buys a FOTM army every time a new codex comes out can't be bothered to paint it.

Polonius wrote:

For those that aren't in the winners bracket, there's a lot of value in knowing you'll get games against painted armies on good terrain.

With all the fuss some players/organizers make over requiring painted armies, I have seen some pretty uninspired and S***** looking terrain being used at events.

If you are gonna make a big argument for the importance of the visual aspect of the game, then the terrain should get just as much attention as the armies imho...

MagickalMemories wrote:

mattyrm wrote:Turning up at a GT with an unpainted army is like turning up at your sisters wedding wearing a pair of board shorts, flip flops and a vest.

What if it's a beach themed wedding and his sister's in a bathing suit?
It's still called a wedding. Changing the requirements doesn't change what you call it.

Yeah cos there are loads of them.

Clearly you know exactly what I meant by my good humoured comment, I shall spell my opinion out for you as well though.

99% of games have no painting requirement. Play in most tourneys, mates garage, GW, FLGS, party at your place, pretty much everywhere you like, with unpainted models.

For the GT put some fething effort in or don't turn up.

nkelsch wrote:Disagree 100%. If you want a 'grand' tourney with painting optional, then go run one. I suspect you won't get enough people attending to make it 'grand'. If you do, more power to you. Don't tear down other people's events expecting exceptions and trying to redefine the word 'hobby' on the internet.

Some people enjoy different parts of the hobby. I'm not "tearing down" other people's events (like refusing to call non-painted events GTs) nor am I expecting exceptions (all of the armies I play are [almost always] fully painted) nor am I trying to redefine the word hobby.

People enjoy different aspects of the hobby. Simply because you enjoy playing painted armies doesn't make people who play unpainted armies inferior.

mikhaila wrote:

I've regularly run tournaments that don't reguire painting, especially when their a "practice for xxx GT". We have one this next weekend. It's a practice tournament for the Blob's Park tournament run by the Inner Circle club out of Baltimore (SHAMELESS PLUG: IT'S IN A BEER GARDEN!!!, WIN FREE BEERS EVERY GAME!)
We use their rules and format for a 3 game touranment. We don't require painting because many people are testing out lists, or wanting to play with the units they are trying to get ready for the GT.

This is a perfect example. The standard is clear, there is an audiance and an expectation for participants and everyone who shows up wants the same thing. I am huge into painting but I would love the opportunity to get 'tourney' practice with a list before a larger event. I wish I would have had some hardcore practice for NOVA like this... It was 3 games before i really got comfortable with some new units I was using.

Might at some point think about a 2 day unpainted event. The challenge is how to make it different from 'ardboyz. Lower points for sure, and an absolute emphasis on WYWIWYG would be needed. 'Ardboyz is always a bit of a challenge at the regional level trying to sort ourt the gits that bring absolutely horrible 'conversions' and 'counts as' because their local store allowed it. Probably a good discussion for another thread.

When it becomes 2-days... you have a few issues:

1. Will you have enough players to support a 6-8 game bracket? Nothing sucks more than playing the same person twice in a tourney. In a 3-game tourney it doesn't take many people to guarantee all unique parings all day. Depending how you rank either by single elimination brackets or swiss rankings... having 5+ games really means having a lot of players.

2. 2-days means overnight stays for non-locals. Since the size probably requires non-locals, you need something to convince non-locals to spend hundreds of dollars to show up. To get that draw you need a few things. For the visual people who like painted armies but don't dream of winning, you need panting requirements. For the people interested in just the Game, you need a large scale and number of participants to make it worth their time. I honestly don't think if the room wasn't packed by general gamers who like appearance, the event can't grow large enough to justify people traveling to these events. Someone can prove me wrong and run the first multi-day unpainted tourney and see how the attendance works. Just an observation based on legacy events and discussions with people at these events.

Personally, I would attend a tourney with unpainted if it was for practicing for another event or local so it had no real cost for me to play. I would not have paid hundreds of dollars to play against greys and the inevitable proxies that are always unenforced at grey events for 14+ hours over 2 days like this past weekend. No way in heck.

mikhaila wrote:
The "painted crowd" doesn't just want to paint a figure and enter it into a competition, they like to attend a tournament and play games in an enviorment where everyone else has also put in at least the basic effort in getting their armies painted.

As one of the "painted crowd" (one who usually places first or second in the painting category) I have to disagree with you here. Seeing other peoples miniatures is fun, but fairly low on my scale of what I go to a Grand Tournament for. For myself it is an excuse to wear a fez, imbibe in alcohol and have 5 laid back, fun games with pleasant gamers of the same mindset.

I still hold my original opinion on what a "Grand Tournment" is: realistically, its just a big tournment. Painting or not does not make or break it. When I attend i'm looking forward to 5-6 games, seeing people I like know, having some laughs. Along with good tactical game play, except for Rd5 where if your at the lower tables your goal is to have some laughs, and try to pull out hysterical scenario's like Warboss's Charging units by themself.

That being said, I paint. I run horde armies IE massed blocks skaven, i'm building massed Ork boys. I am a loyal attendee of Mikhaila's GT's. EVER army there is fully painted. It always is. I do not attend the non painted events. But at the same point, if they were 5-6 games, i'd still call it a Grand Tournment. Its a personal preference. I like going to a GT to plunck down money to play against painted armies. I don't like playing non painted, because I find the time to get it done with my 300+ models. It offends me when someone plays an army of 30 Grey knights saying "I don't have time."

Still, I wouldn't say if that person was going to a large tournment it wouldn't be a "GT." It still would. It just wouldn't be a GT i'd be interested in attending. I don't play Ard Boyz, because you have sea's of grey models. That's not my style even though I could run a sea of painted armies. Still, I wouldn't say Ard Boyz is not a tournments. Its just a different style event, its basically a massive GT.

mikhaila wrote:You sir, are on quite dangerous ground! Because if I do schedule one, you're now committed to dragging your butt up to it.)

IF! IF! I SAID, "IF!!!"
lol

In all honesty, my armies all meet painting standards. Even my yet-unfinished SM's have 4 or 5 colors on them right now. I truly was playing Devil's Advocate.

That said... I really do want to get up to one of your tourneys one day. You're just not so close to St. Louis lol. So I'd have to arrange a vacation around it and bring the family to see some sites during the stay.

mattyrm wrote:For the GT put some fething effort in or don't turn up.

You're putting the burden on the player here. You're forgetting the organizer.
It depends on how the individual defines "grand.' You can see it a lot of different ways. If he defines grand to mean "large," then painting doesn't have to come into that. not if it's a Game tournament. On the other hand, if "grand" is more of a state of mind to him, and he wants a Hobby tournament, then painting definitely should be involved.
I don't see why painting should be required for a (not ANY) GT, if that's the organizer's wishes and it's clearly communicated by them.

...and, for the record, while beach theme specific weddings might not be all too common, "theme" weddings are not that rare and many of them don't wear gowns/tuxes, etc. Just saying.

Eric



Eric

MagickalMemories wrote:
I don't see why painting should be required for a (not ANY) GT, if that's the organizer's wishes and it's clearly communicated by them.

If the TO wishes to have a 2-day tourney and call it a GT, he can... But the trick to having a 2 day event is drawing a large attendance base. I am not convinced the loss of people wanting to play against painted armies would be made up by people who have been excluding due to non-painting. I honestly don't believe a significant number of people who don't paint will drop 500$-1000$ to travel to a tourney.

If someone did run one, I probably would avoid the first year to really see how well it ran and to see if the lack of painting impacted peoples enjoyment overall, the quality of the players and games and the overall sportsmanship of people. If the event didn't suffer and had a majority painted, I may consider it the next year, behind Nova and Adepticon and the 3 or 4 local smaller tourneys on the east coast.

But good luck to them if they did. I just don't believe people will travel for an unpainted tourney...

Ultimately, it's up to GW whether they allow GT organizers to have painting requirements. Historically, GTs were painted-only events and Ard Boyz are historically (albeit much more recent) unpainted-allowed events. If GW starts allowing organizers to run them in different fashions, expect fans of the traditional setup to complain.

@nkelsch: People do travel to semifinals and finals of 'ard boyz and that's unpainted... but the prize support (at least the first year or two.. didn't even bother to look this year) was the justification. I wouldn't personally travel across my metropolitan area for a tourney that didn't at least score painting and add it into the overall score. I most definitely wouldn't travel further at a greater expense to a GT that didn't require painted models. I'm a competent but nothing spectacular painter myself but I simply expect more visual spectacle from tournies than I do from pickup games.

@Warboss
I didn't realize that the GT scene was a GW thing any longer. I thought they got out of them and the trem GT was being openly used by people hosting large tourneys of that sort.
According to some in this thread, it's not a (corporate) GW thing anymore.
Are you certain it still is?

Not trying to put you on the spot. Just looking for info, since that's one of the questions I asked earlier.

Thanks.

Eric

MagickalMemories wrote:@Warboss
I didn't realize that the GT scene was a GW thing any longer. I thought they got out of them and the trem GT was being openly used by people hosting large tourneys of that sort.
According to some in this thread, it's not a (corporate) GW thing anymore.
Are you certain it still is?

Not trying to put you on the spot. Just looking for info, since that's one of the questions I asked earlier.

Thanks.

Eric

Back when I used to attend them, they were run by GW but I know that indies can now run them (I assumed that GW has some goverance over what is called a GT since they advertise them and therefore had some basic standards). I figured that they had a downloadable rules packet like they used to back in the day for the even less important RT tournies. IF GW doesn't have any standards for calling an event a GT, then I think that needs to change. I'm guessing Mikhalia can probably answer that question best since he runs them.

Indy's have the old GW GT beats hands down. GW jumped on the bandwagon and gave some their blessing but they have no say in the actual rules. Which is a good thing for those of us who like to use non-GW miniatures.

warboss wrote:

@nkelsch: People do travel to semifinals and finals of 'ard boyz and that's unpainted... but the prize support (at least the first year or two.. didn't even bother to look this year) was the justification. I wouldn't personally travel across my metropolitan area for a tourney that didn't at least score painting and add it into the overall score. I most definitely wouldn't travel further at a greater expense to a GT that didn't require painted models. I'm a competent but nothing spectacular painter myself but I simply expect more visual spectacle from tourneys than I do from pickup games.

But 'ard boyz is a distributed prelims. Even round 2 is mostly local for people and many people drop round 2 if they would have to spend travel costs. The people who are hardcore into the game travel regardless, it is the casual people who need to populate the 240 'loser' slots while you get your top 16 tables after 4+ games. I think the distributed 'ard boyz is out of necessity. I think it would be a better quality event as a 3 day event. I think the distributed implementation is so loose and poorly run by some stores, it ruins the integrity of the lower brackets.

Actually, I don't want or need painting to be in the score... You can have pure battle points or whatever standard. I just want to play all the games against painted and WYSIWYG models. NOVA would have been unplayable and a worse quality event if my opponents were not painted and WYSIWYG. Having to ask 'what is that' and being unable to distinguish greys slows the game and makes it harder to make instinctual fast decisions... And I don't want to look at greys all day. What is fine for an untimed friendly game becomes a horrible burden in a timed game after 2-3 days and 8 games of fatigue, distraction, lack of food due to lack of extended breaks and so on.

I won't even play someone anymore unless their army is painted. Every time I've let that slip in the past, let a friend run a model or two unpainted, the next week it's five, the week after it's 10 models. Anytime I've played a partially painted force, a month or two could go by and the individual will not have painted anymore simply because nothing has required them to. If you don't give some people something to strive for, they won't.

When I hear Grand Tournament, grand isn't just scale for me, it's quality, quality of games, players, terrain, an event where people value their armies and are proud of their accomplishments. I believe it's in the interest of tournament organizers to have standards. That way when they use images from their prior events to promote their upcomming events its evident that they run a quality tournament. I won't attend a tournament anymore that doesn't require all painted. On the flip side, I don't think painting should have anything to do with scoring a tournament. There should always be a prize for best painted that's either voted on or judged, but that should be entirely seperate.

Another good reason to support a gaming culture that values painted armies and tournaments that require them is it helps employ talented individuals who make a living doing comission work, both painting and converting.

Crablezworth wrote:I won't even play someone anymore unless their army is painted. Every time I've let that slip in the past, let a friend run a model or two unpainted, the next week it's five, the week after it's 10 models. Anytime I've played a partially painted force, a month or two could go by and the individual will not have painted anymore simply because nothing has required them to. If you don't give some people something to strive for, they won't.

Painting your models is kind of like eating your vegetables, for the gamers amongst us. We don't necessarily enjoy it (at least at first), but we're better and better off for doing it. Having the requirement to paint at tournaments is what MADE me into a guy who takes pride in his painting and actually enjoys it, from a guy who was a "pure" gamer, did it out of necessity and found it a chore at first.

Mannahnin wrote:

Crablezworth wrote:I won't even play someone anymore unless their army is painted. Every time I've let that slip in the past, let a friend run a model or two unpainted, the next week it's five, the week after it's 10 models. Anytime I've played a partially painted force, a month or two could go by and the individual will not have painted anymore simply because nothing has required them to. If you don't give some people something to strive for, they won't.

Painting your models is kind of like eating your vegetables, for the gamers amongst us. We don't necessarily enjoy it (at least at first), but we're better and better off for doing it. Having the requirement to paint at tournaments is what MADE me into a guy who takes pride in his painting and actually enjoys it, from a guy who was a "pure" gamer, did it out of necessity and found it a chore at first.

I still to this day hate painting (I hate veggies too), but I force myself to get it done because the end result is immensly rewarding. I get the feeling a lot of people in my area think I'm an elitist because I won't play agaisnt unpainted models. We had a local tournament recently that was supposed to be all painted but I knew deep down it wouldn't be well enforced so I didn't attend and sure enough there were some incomplete armies. They went so far as to gather a bunch of people around a table and helped one of the guys paint his bases. I was very torn, part of me thinks "wow, what a great group of people", the logical side of me thought "that's <redacted; some words are not to be used as pejoratives on Dakka --Janthkin> and sends the wrong message. Don't paint your stuff? no worries, we'll finnish it for you".

MagickalMemories wrote:

mannahnin wrote:For a lot of us, traveling and booking a weekend away and winding up on a table against unpainted models is kind of like a slap in the face. It's unappealing and a let-down. It's a statement that the person on the other side of the table does not care about the visual spectacle of the game, and put their own personal enjoyment (of time not spent painting) above that of all three or five of their opponents.

Admittedly, I think "slap-in-the-face" is a bit of a drastic p.o.v. to take about it. That said, however, you make a valid point tat I can fuly understand. Your 'let-down' feeling is perfectly valid.

Thanks. The phrasing's a bit strong, but that's why I weakened it twice with the "kind of like" qualifiers. It definitely feels like a slap in the face when you've busted your butt to get fully painted and WYSIWYG for an event, and then you get paired against some guy who clearly isn't. Especially in an event which advertises as requiring painting. I've run into that situation a few times, and each time that game was a distinct low point of the event compared to the other games. Even when I had a tight & challenging game, or trounced the guy and it helped catapult me to the top of the standings, I felt disappointed and somewhat sad the whole time looking at the cruddy army in front of me.

On the WYSIWYG note, at a recent event I played against a guy with an unpainted army, which disappointed me, but I got a bit more interested in the tactical side when I saw that it was an unusually-built SW army. It was a different build, featured different characters and weapon loadouts than all the netlists out there, but still looked interesting and potentially strong. Then he started running down the non-WYSIWYG, and it turned out that all the weapons, razorback variants, and characters were actually bog-standard netlist ones. He just hasn't bothered to buy or model them, was using lascannons and plasmacannons for missile launchers, flamers and plasmaguns for meltaguns, razors with TL las turrets or Rhinos with drednought arms as Las/Plas turrets, etc. And I thought to myself "Guy, if you're going to field his kind of an uninspired netlist, at least have the courtesy and respect for me to buy and build the damn models. Invest some personal effort and work into it, and I will at least feel like you did something to earn the army I'm facing. Don't give me this list and then put the burden on me of having to pick out what models represent what, and which plasmagun represents a meltagun and which flamer is just a bolter."

MagickalMemories wrote:I do have a question about this, though:

It's a statement that the person on the other side of the table does not care about the visual spectacle of the game, and put their own personal enjoyment (of time not spent painting) above that of all three or five of their opponents.

If I'm reading your intent correctly, then my devil's-advocate counter questions would be
Why is your enjoyment any more important than his?

1. Because it's not just my enjoyment. It's every one of his opponents, in all likelihood. There could be one or two of them who genuinely don't care, but for the most part we all want to be looking at and playing against painted and attractive armies when we go to any tournament, but especially a big one/one labeled "grand". And part of the social contract of going to one of these things is to put in the effort on your own part for everyone's enjoyment. And that's not just your opponents either. It's everyone else at the tournament who wants to look at all the cool armies on display, or walk around and enjoy watching the games finishing up if their own ends early, or the judges and organizers who put in the work to put this whole thing on for everyone's enjoyment and deserve to got to ogle cool armies like the rest of us, especially given that they're not getting to play.
2. Because like I posted above, IMO painting is kind of like eating your vegetables. When you're starting out in life (or wargaming) as a kid you don't like to do it. But it's good for you, and it makes life better (healthier and consequently more enjoyable), and it's well worth doing. Particularly because you may well develop a taste for them/it, and then you're golden.
3. Because in addition to being kind of like eating your vegetables, it's also kind of like taking a shower, wearing deoderant and pants. It makes other people much more likely to enjoy your company, or at least not actively suffer from being in your (your army's) company.

MagickalMemories wrote: Is it fair that he has to do something he does not enjoy so you can feel enjoyment? Why would your enjoyment need to be affected by this?

I think I've covered your latter question above. As for the former, IMO it is fair. The culture of the hobby/activity in question is one which includes painting as a cornerstone. Attractive armies, the feel and visual spectacle of them on the table, is arguably the central point and purpose of the whole hobby. It's probably the main reason I'm still doing this passionately after 12 years, despite having abandoned Magic: The Gathering tournaments many years ago.

MagickalMemories wrote:If a player with a well painted army showed up with a fluffy list, would it be equally approrpiate for that player to be disappointed that his opponents put their own personal enjoyment (for playing tough lists) over his enjoyment for a game that focused on all aspects of the hobby, including fluff? What makes that any less valid a part of a "hobby" tournament than a painting requirement?

You have a reasonable point there. IMO if a given tournament does make a point of emphasizing its competitive nature, then it would be a bit rude and inappropriate to show up with a handicapped/uncompetitive army. OTOH this one's tougher to judge or adjudicate, as many players are genuinely trying their best tactically, or have different opinions about what works. And sometimes it's not black and white. Some forums/sites will rant and rave about Chaos Space Marines being an entirely uncompetitive codex, and yet some of us manage to regularly win with it. Painted vs. unpainted is easier to judge.

MagickalMemories wrote:There are no right or wrong answers. They're just "thinking" questions.

I appreciate that, and appreciate the good-spirited discussion, thank you!

MagickalMemories wrote:

mannahnin wrote:Among most historical wargamers I've met and known of, it is considered inappropriate and verboten to field an unpainted model on the table at any time.

That matches my experience with them, as well, for the most part.
It doesn't make it part of THE hobby, though. It makes it part of THEIR hobby. That's my point.

But that's where THE hobby comes from. That's the tradition GW and all of us are descended from. And to remove painting from it is to change what the hobby is about.

MagickalMemories wrote:There's a saying that the difference between tattooed people and non-tattooed is that the tattooed people don't care that the non-tattooed don't have tattoos.
I can see a parallel here. The non-painters seem not to care so much whether or not your army is painted. The other group, however, seems to care a LOT more.

As I sit here with my tattoos ( ), I think that that is due to it being central to the preexisting culture. Non-painters are entering a hobby which has always has painting and attractive armies as possibly its central and a defining characteristic, and then deciding that because they don't personally enjoy painting and don't want to learn, that it's optional.

Mannahnin wrote:On the WYSIWYG note, at a recent event I played against a guy with an unpainted army, which disappointed me, but I got a bit more interested in the tactical side when I saw that it was an unusually-built SW army. It was a different build, featured different characters and weapon loadouts than all the netlists out there, but still looked interesting and potentially strong. Then he started running down the non-WYSIWYG, and it turned out that all the weapons, razorback variants, and characters were actually bog-standard netlist ones. He just hasn't bothered to buy or model them, was using lascannons and plasmacannons for missile launchers, flamers and plasmaguns for meltaguns, razors with TL las turrets or Rhinos with drednought arms as Las/Plas turrets, etc. And I thought to myself "Guy, if you're going to field his kind of an uninspired netlist, at least have the courtesy and respect for me to buy and build the damn models. Invest some personal effort and work into it, and I will at least feel like you did something to earn the army I'm facing. Don't give me this list and then put the burden on me of having to pick out what models represent what, and which plasmagun represents a meltagun and which flamer is just a bolter."

So... you thought that... but did you express it to your opponent and the tournament organizer? If you didn't and you'd just prefer to use it as a cautionary tale on the internet weeks/months later, nothing will change. You can BET that the people who want zero soft score requirements or scoring in an event bring it up whenever they get the chance.

Mannahnin wrote:

MagickalMemories wrote:If a player with a well painted army showed up with a fluffy list, would it be equally approrpiate for that player to be disappointed that his opponents put their own personal enjoyment (for playing tough lists) over his enjoyment for a game that focused on all aspects of the hobby, including fluff? What makes that any less valid a part of a "hobby" tournament than a painting requirement?

You have a reasonable point there. IMO if a given tournament does make a point of emphasizing its competitive nature, then it would be a bit rude and inappropriate to show up with a handicapped/uncompetitive army. OTOH this one's tougher to judge or adjudicate, as many players are genuinely trying their best tactically, or have different opinions about what works. And sometimes it's not black and white. Some forums/sites will rant and rave about Chaos Space Marines being an entirely uncompetitive codex, and yet some of us manage to regularly win with it. Painted vs. unpainted is easier to judge.

I dunno... a pairing by rankings 'solves' this because winners quickly play winners and losers play losers. It is not like some hardcore tactical purest will be playing with fumbling scrubs all day and have snorefests. If you are interested in the 'game' you can win and after game 1 and 2 of a 8 game event, you should be playing people of similar skill and power. On the other-hand, if someone wants to play painted armies, they could possibly spend all event being paired up with unpainted greys.

I find the premise of 'not enjoying the game playing against easy opponents' kind of a false premise. It rings hollow to me as when two people play in real life at these events no one is going to be 'yes, I beat my opponent who had a bad list and was stupid... it ruined my whole day.' You take your win, talk shop and move up the rankings to a harder opponent. I think more people are tired of lists being reduced to 'spam or lose' philosophies at these events. Declaring anyone who doesn't take a spammed optimal list is 'ruining your fun' because they are not strong enough is just not reality.

warboss wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:On the WYSIWYG note, at a recent event ...

So... you thought that... but did you express it to your opponent and the tournament organizer? If you didn't and you'd just prefer to use it as a cautionary tale on the internet weeks/months later, nothing will change. You can BET that the people who want zero soft score requirements or scoring in an event bring it up whenever they get the chance.

Of course I spoke to him and them. And I was as nice and constructive about it as possible, as I didn't want to be a jerk to him. He was a newer player, and I believe it was his first tournament. He just very clearly was not being taught right by whoever he normally plays with.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nkelsch wrote:I find the premise of 'not enjoying the game playing against easy opponents' kind of a false premise. It rings hollow to me as when two people play in real life at these events no one is going to be 'yes, I beat my opponent who had a bad list and was stupid... it ruined my whole day.' You take your win, talk shop and move up the rankings to a harder opponent. I think more people are tired of lists being reduced to 'spam or lose' philosophies at these events. Declaring anyone who doesn't take a spammed optimal list is 'ruining your fun' because they are not strong enough is just not reality.

Overall I tend to agree that it's not a big problem for the reasons you gave. Generally if you are a hardcore player and you run into a fluffy bunny, it's only in the first round. OTOH, if you're there for the competition (as I usually am), then it is a bit disappointing when you get an opponent who's not interested in/capable of giving you a challenging game. Still, it can usually still be fun, especially if you're willing to fluff up the game a little and if your opponent's army looks nice.

Mannahnin wrote:Of course I spoke to him and them.

Plenty of people don't and then just complain about it after the fact when its too late to effect a change. I always make it a point to thank a TO for including sportsmanship and painting as part of the scoring, especially if there is a base painting requirement (not too often around here). I also mention at the end that if there wasn't one, I wouldn't be there as a paying player.

Always good to support events and to express your preferences to the organizers. We just always need to remember to do it in polite and supportive ways. Gamers have a tendency to get angry and crusade-y sometimes, which isn't the best approach.

Redbeard wrote:

biccat wrote:Is a Grant Tournament still a GT if you exclude a class of players simply because they don't share the same interests as you?

You know, some events aren't for everyone. I don't complain that 'ard boyz exists just because it doesn't interest me. Grand tournaments exist for people with a certain set of interests. If you don't have those interests, then clearly they're not for you. Go play 'ard boyz. Don't whine that those of us that do have those interests get an outlet for them.

Redbeard is 100% correct here. If you want to play not paint events then Ardboyz is for you. The GT's were created years ago to encompass the hobby as a whole. Multiple prizes for multiple groups, overall winner usually had a decent painted army, and you were required to a 3 color minimum. On more then one occasion I saw staff remove models that did not meet the standard.

I dont complain about your ard stuff....let me have my hobby event please. I want to compete on multiple levels rather then just beat the hell out of each other.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Dice Monkey wrote:

mikhaila wrote:
The "painted crowd" doesn't just want to paint a figure and enter it into a competition, they like to attend a tournament and play games in an enviorment where everyone else has also put in at least the basic effort in getting their armies painted.

As one of the "painted crowd" (one who usually places first or second in the painting category) I have to disagree with you here. Seeing other peoples miniatures is fun, but fairly low on my scale of what I go to a Grand Tournament for. For myself it is an excuse to wear a fez, imbibe in alcohol and have 5 laid back, fun games with pleasant gamers of the same mindset.

And while I agree with a lot of this (expresly the drinking part ) I disagree with your disagreement. I too am one of the painted crowd and typically win the paintng portion of most events I go to. I really enjoy looking at other peoples army at play when it is nicely painted like mine. Most enjoyable games around and something great to talk about after I get by arse handed to me hehehe. Just shows how different opinions can be at the same level

mannahnin wrote:On the WYSIWYG note, at a recent event I played against a guy with an unpainted army, which disappointed me, but I got a bit more interested in the tactical side when I saw that it was an unusually-built SW army. It was a different build, featured different characters and weapon loadouts than all the netlists out there, but still looked interesting and potentially strong. Then he started running down the non-WYSIWYG, and it turned out that all the weapons, razorback variants, and characters were actually bog-standard netlist ones. He just hasn't bothered to buy or model them, was using lascannons and plasmacannons for missile launchers, flamers and plasmaguns for meltaguns, razors with TL las turrets or Rhinos with drednought arms as Las/Plas turrets, etc. And I thought to myself "Guy, if you're going to field his kind of an uninspired netlist, at least have the courtesy and respect for me to buy and build the damn models. Invest some personal effort and work into it, and I will at least feel like you did something to earn the army I'm facing. Don't give me this list and then put the burden on me of having to pick out what models represent what, and which plasmagun represents a meltagun and which flamer is just a bolter."

Well, we're 100% in line here.
I mean, amongst my buddies, we do that ALL the time... and I find that wholly acceptable. For me, even a stranger or semi-stranger at the local FLGS would be okay with this in "fun" games. I'm laid back enough for it.
When a tourney advertises that painting is part of the requirements, though, I think anyone showing up with ANYTHING unpainted should be DQ'ed with no refund and his place should be given to an alternate.
Any non-WYSIWYG models should be disallowed from being included in the unit/army. If that means you're out a special weapon, heavy weapon or major vehicle, then tough!

@Mann
I think it's apparent that we're never going to get our opinions wholly in line. I'll do my best not to judge you on that, if you'll reciprocate. ; )

I do think it's important to note, for the general record, that I do not support all tourneys moving to unpainted standards. I also do not think existing tourneys should change their ways for those who do not paint.
I am just stating that painting is NOT part of gaming and that there should be GAMING tournaments in addition to HOBBY tourneys.
I do find it interesting, though, that most hobbyists who want to play in HOBBY tournaments would probably balk at the idea that someone -whether it be the TO or their opponents- gets to score them based on whether or not their list is fluffy enough & that it affects their overall standing (I am presenting that as opinion, not fact).

I also think that people should be more tolerant of others. All this "refusing to play" people (outside of tourneys) nonsense is just that; nonsense.

I am just stating that painting is NOT part of gaming and that there should be GAMING tournaments in addition to HOBBY tourneys.

I can't agree. Unpainted models impact gameplay. Even an all black army with visual markings on the weapons is leaps and bounds easier to quickly and accurately distinguish models/units/gear from across the table over greys. Some armies become unplayable without unit or squad markings to be clear to opponents. NOVA had many 'simple' paint jobs, I played one of them, and simply being black with all the weapons white/silver was a huge help and his army looked great. The one question asked by all the appearance judges was "how do you expect your opponent to distinguish units?"

If it impacts gameplay, it is part of the game not some unconnected hobby. Unpainted armies impact gameplay. Having to mentally juggle or constantly need to ask for clarification of squads or strain to distinguish greys does hurt. In a timed, fatigue-ridden match in a competition, it simply isnt fair to opponents.

mikhaila wrote:Absolutely needs to be painted models.

Mikhaila is wise. Painted, or it isn't a Grand Tournament. It's just a So-So Tournament.

There are other tournaments that allow unpainted minis. Play in those.

Painted models and only painted models. It's not that hard to at least throw 3 colors on each model.

MagickalMemories wrote:

mannahnin wrote:On the WYSIWYG note, at a recent event ..."

Well, we're 100% in line here.
I mean, amongst my buddies, we do that ALL the time... and I find that wholly acceptable. For me, even a stranger or semi-stranger at the local FLGS would be okay with this in "fun" games. I'm laid back enough for it.
When a tourney advertises that painting is part of the requirements, though, I think anyone showing up with ANYTHING unpainted should be DQ'ed with no refund and his place should be given to an alternate.
Any non-WYSIWYG models should be disallowed from being included in the unit/army. If that means you're out a special weapon, heavy weapon or major vehicle, then tough!

This is definitely part of one's cultural expectations and how you learn the game. FWIW, unless my opponent and I have agreed beforehand to be playing a game which doesn't require painting, or that we're testing out units we haven't actually built yet in prep for an upcoming event, I hate fielding anything unpainted/WYSIWYG against anyone but a close friend. And said close friends retain the right to mess with me about it. In any pickup game with a stranger where we haven't otherwise specified, I'm going to aim to field the best-looking stuff I can. How I learned it, that's just what you do; you field all painted, all WYSIWYG against any stranger, and even if they give permission or say it's okay, etiquette is to at least act embarassed for any unpainted or proxy models. And part of that culture is that for me I don't have to act.

MagickalMemories wrote:@Mann
I think it's apparent that we're never going to get our opinions wholly in line. I'll do my best not to judge you on that, if you'll reciprocate. ; )

Agreed! I hope you don't mind if I try to proselytize for the cult of painting, though

MagickalMemories wrote:I am just stating that painting is NOT part of gaming and that there should be GAMING tournaments in addition to HOBBY tourneys.

I disagree. As others already mentioned, part of painting is also making your squads distinguishable, and your weapons and wargear stand out more. It really does enhance the game aspect as well. BTW, I have to mention that the terminology you're using here also leaves bit of a sour taste in my mouth, to be honest. Strongly reminds me of how Stelek and his devotees used those terms to attempt to denigrate and deride and devalue traditional tournaments that didn't match up to their standards and preferences as pure battles-only events. Yech.

MagickalMemories wrote:I do find it interesting, though, that most hobbyists who want to play in HOBBY tournaments would probably balk at the idea that someone -whether it be the TO or their opponents- gets to score them based on whether or not their list is fluffy enough & that it affects their overall standing (I am presenting that as opinion, not fact).

We had that for years at GW events, both GTs and RTs. Some of it was checklist, some subjective. When I started playing tournaments the Rogue Trader Tournament composition scoring checklist awarded points for things like having all of your units named, having at least a page of army background/fluff included with your army list, having at least two Troops choices at maximum size, and having less than 10% of your army points spent on character & vehicle upgrades.

MagickalMemories wrote:I also think that people should be more tolerant of others. All this "refusing to play" people (outside of tourneys) nonsense is just that; nonsense.

Yes and no. We should definitely be tolerant. That said, if I have the choice of a pickup game with a guy who has a painted army vs. one who doesn't, all else being equal the choice there is obvious. And even if there isn't someone there with a painted army, if my only option for a pickup game is an opposing army with no arms on half the guys, wrong weapons on half the units, and not a lick of paint... well, whether I decide to say yes to that game depends on just how badly I'm jonesing to roll some dice, and/or how badly I need practice for an upcoming tournament.

IF you want it to be a GRAND tournament it should be painted. And not just 3 stripes across the model "painted" but actually *painted* - UK Indy GT last year had some armies where the players literally did just that.

If i've travelled a few hundred miles, paid ££ to spend the nights in a hotel with a Chaos Berzerker list that isnt going to win (although i managed top 10 bottom of day 2 despite a 100 fever ) I expect to see some nice armies and play some great opponents - its all part of the reason I play in tournaments: to see new cool armies, meet new people and have some good games, win or lose.

We've even changed our local, decidedly non-grand (but still well attended) tournament rules to specify that 3 colours means the whole model in an apprropiate scheme, because people were taking the p*ss.

I don't think that painted models are a necessity to the hobby, especially with friends or a local club.

BUT... if you're going to a tournament of any kind I think it would be a minimum common courtesy to have a painted army.

Personally I'd be embarassed to turn up to an even with unpainted models. I know my painting is probably below average but if I was entering a tournament I'd at least give it my best and that includes painting.

One reason people balk at fluff/theme minimums or grading is that it's either purely subjective, arbitrary and uneven, or ludicrusly complex.

Painting, however, can be made objective pretty easily with the various rubrics. Minimum paint is even easier to standardize.

I love hard boys, and I don't really mind playing against unpainted armies, but as my hobby time shrinks, I like to maximize my pleasure. And that means I'm not going to take vacation days and money to travel to play grey primed models.

Mann: I think that if anything, Stelek's terminology is analagous to the way we're clinging to the term "grand tournament" to mean something different, and arguably better (more grand, as it were). I still agree that the painting aspect is intrinsincly linked to gaming (squad recognition, sheer visuals), in a way that theme and comp aren't. But the labels of "hobby event" and "gaming event" are, much like the term "grand tournament," a way of explaining the expectations of the event, both by participants and the TO.

Mannahnin wrote:I disagree. As others already mentioned, part of painting is also making your squads distinguishable, and your weapons and wargear stand out more. It really does enhance the game aspect as well. BTW, I have to mention that the terminology you're using here also leaves bit of a sour taste in my mouth, to be honest. Strongly reminds me of how Stelek and his devotees used those terms to attempt to denigrate and deride and devalue traditional tournaments that didn't match up to their standards and preferences as pure battles-only events. Yech

LOL
Well, that is definitely my intent.
As I'm sure you've figured out, I definitely don't deride any type of tourney as less valid than another. It's all about preferences.
For me, though, I do see different aspects to the game; I see fluff, painting and the game itself (keeping in mind that those are general terms meant to encompass everything associated with them. Painting includes conversions, etc., for example).

In order to play the game, I do not have to have EITHER of the other two (granted, not having your models assembled DOES tend to screw with TLOS lol).
To play the game, you (realistically) just need accurately assembled models and the appropriate "tools" for the game (dice, etc.). Even proxies/counts as can work if properly noted in some fashion.
Realistically speaking, you should be able to look at most unpainted units and discern what they are, if you're familiar with the army. If you aren't, then painting isn't going to tell you the difference, anyway. For anyone reading this who feels like trying to argue that point and think up ways in which they might be confusing - please, don't. I will find easy responses to them and it will serve no purpose to advance the thread. Thanks.

When you start including paint or composition limitations, you get into the Hobby side of things... and I'm not the first one to mention "Hobby." Most of the Cult of Painting on here (good term, BTW) has used that word themselves; "It's part of the hobby."
They don't say, "It's part of the game," because I think we all understand that it isn't. The game has no rules for painted minis. Those are made by the players.

Thus, with no derision, I think it's appropriate to refer to a tourney as a gaming or hobby tournament. If someone tells you it's a hobby tournament with your gray and silver horde, only to get p*ed off when you're turned away. Same for game tournaments. If you show up to one, no getting whiney that people are playing unpainted models.

Just a thought.

Eric

[edit]

mannahnin wrote:We had that for years at GW events, both GTs and RTs. Some of it was checklist, some subjective. When I started playing tournaments the Rogue Trader Tournament composition scoring checklist awarded points for things like having all of your units named, having at least a page of army background/fluff included with your army list, having at least two Troops choices at maximum size, and having less than 10% of your army points spent on character & vehicle upgrades.

And how did you feel about that? Personally, I thought it was atrocious.
I don't believe anyone should be dinged for any codex legal army... ever. I hate comp scores.

MagickalMemories wrote:
And how did you feel about that? Personally, I thought it was atrocious.
I don't believe anyone should be dinged for any codex legal army... ever. I hate comp scores.

100% agreement on comp, but I guess that's a discussion for another thread.

I hear where you're coming from, MM.

But haven't the GT's always been the place to show off your army? With 'Ard Boys and a plethera of other tournaments that don't cater to the fully painted crowd, can't the painters keep one?

MagickalMemories wrote:
To play the game, you (realistically) just need accurately assembled models and the appropriate "tools" for the game (dice, etc.). Even proxies/counts as can work if properly noted in some fashion.
Realistically speaking, you should be able to look at most unpainted units and discern what they are, if you're familiar with the army. If you aren't, then painting isn't going to tell you the difference, anyway. For anyone reading this who feels like trying to argue that point and think up ways in which they might be confusing - please, don't. I will find easy responses to them and it will serve no purpose to advance the thread. Thanks.

we are not talking about playing the game in a vacuum, we are talking about playing the game in a competative fashion in a very extreme situation with extenuating circumstances including time limits.
The mental CPU cycles and time that it takes to process unpainted models and non-WYSIWYG models impacts the game. In a competative environment it is totally unreasonable for you to burden me with indistinguishable models and/or proxies that I have to keep track of when you get to face my easily distinguished, WYSIWYG army.

This idea that it doesn't impact the game is posturing and pushing an agenda... refusal to accept it has any impact even a minimal one means there is no room for discussion and the thread should end.

When you start including paint or composition limitations, you get into the Hobby side of things... and I'm not the first one to mention "Hobby." Most of the Cult of Painting on here (good term, BTW) has used that word themselves; "It's part of the hobby."
They don't say, "It's part of the game," because I think we all understand that it isn't. The game has no rules for painted minis. Those are made by the players.

There are no rules for tournaments, or time limits either... Therefor tournaments are not part of the 'game' and can't ever be played. So it is hard to say that 'game tourneys' should only be 'the game' as boiling down to only what is in the rulebook shows there simply isn't anything there.

Thus, with no derision, I think it's appropriate to refer to a tourney as a gaming or hobby tournament. If someone tells you it's a hobby tournament with your gray and silver horde, only to get p*ed off when you're turned away. Same for game tournaments. If you show up to one, no getting whiney that people are playing unpainted models.

Just a thought.

Eric

The second a game is timed and competative, you have to have appearance and WYSIWYG or the game becomes unplayable and unfair. The only time proxies and unpainted is not a burden is in an untimed environment so people have the time to 'make up' for the time and effort lost in deciphering and clarifying the opponents units and models.

The same can be said for playing against a bad unclear 'counts as' army at these events. Everyone loves seeing a total conversion army, but sometimes they are horrible to play against in a tourney and it is a bitter pill to lose a game simply because you couldn't figure out what you were playing against.

Anything that burdens opponents by not being visually clear and easy to distinguish without constant needing to clarify, I have an issue with for timed events. Right now, this includes unpainted models, WYSIWYG, funky dice, unclear or bad 'counts as' and body odor. Showing up expecting your opponent to suck up a burden because you deem it reasonable is unreasonable. The only person who can set the threshold is TOs... and if they say burdening people with unpainted or non-wysiwyg in a competative event is 'ok' then I won't play there. Drop the whole 'hobby event' verses 'game tourney' argument...

And how did you feel about that? Personally, I thought it was atrocious.

The game was so broken it was unplayable without comp back then. And everyone knew it too. You can't apply the current game design to the quality and balance of the rules now to 15 years ago.

When I started attending the GW GTs in the late 90s, it was all about the spectacle of the event. All the attendees, the rush to get tickets before they sold out (fedexing the application as soon as WD came out), spending the weekend playing games and hanging out at the bars/pubs after.

And each subsequent year, it was fun to guess at what amazing conversions and paintjobs would be brought to the event.

GW GTs has painting, comp and battle points, in varying amounts to determine the overall. It never bothered me what the ratio was, because I was never expecting to win.

Once GW started to relax those standards, the painting quality dropped, conversions dropped off, and it became less of a Hobby Tournament, When that happened, I stopped, because it wasnt fun to play against a Galloper Gun that was a DE Raider (an empire army subbing as DE).

Frankly, it doesn't matter what the tournament is called, I'd still be looking to see what the requirements are, and painting would have to be there (and I'm perfectly fine with sports and comp, even though the latter isnt as necessary these days).

You know, kronk... they have been VERY MUCH that kind of place.
I've got no problem with that... and I've got no problem with the painters keeping them ALL, tbh. My point is that requiring painted models should not be a prerequisite for holding a GT. If my gaming group wanted to start a GT here in St. Louis, we should be able to choose whether painting is required or not... for that matter, the same goes for comp.
At the same time, if an existing GT wants to revoke the painting requirement, they should be able to and not be pressured into stop calling themselves a GT.

Of course, I still believe in WYSIWYG for all tournaments.

Eric


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Cruentus wrote:(and I'm perfectly fine with sports and comp, even though the latter isnt as necessary these days).

Sincere question: Why was it *ever* necessary and what is the difference between then and now?

Eric

MagickalMemories wrote:

Cruentus wrote:(and I'm perfectly fine with sports and comp, even though the latter isnt as necessary these days).

Sincere question: Why was it *ever* necessary and what is the difference between then and now?

Eric

The game was broken up until 5th edition.

3rd edition had abusable abstract LOS, abusable base rules, no real codex balance or design. 1500+ point HQs, and for the most part, all the missions were 'wipe the opponent to the man.' Also if you played RAW you had things like 'unshootable/unassaultable' formations called the funhouse mirror. I could put models on the board in a way you couldn't shoot or assault them due to the rules. There was no real internet community, no FAQs and GWs attitude was 'don't be a beardy git... breaking the game makes you a git.' Hence comp. And 3rd editions comp is basically 5th editions force org and rules making troops necessary for mission victory.

The game was really that bad. It became unplayable at events without 'comp' enforcing some sort of limits... and everyone realized this and there was no issue with it.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Cruentus wrote:(and I'm perfectly fine with sports and comp, even though the latter isnt as necessary these days).

Sincere question: Why was it *ever* necessary and what is the difference between then and now?

Eric

MagickalMemories wrote:As I'm sure you've figured out, I definitely don't deride any type of tourney as less valid than another. It's all about preferences.
For me, though, I do see different aspects to the game; I see fluff, painting and the game itself (keeping in mind that those are general terms meant to encompass everything associated with them. Painting includes conversions, etc., for example).

In order to play the game, I do not have to have EITHER of the other two (granted, not having your models assembled DOES tend to screw with TLOS lol).
To play the game, you (realistically) just need accurately assembled models and the appropriate "tools" for the game (dice, etc.). Even proxies/counts as can work if properly noted in some fashion.

Sure, and I appreciate that you're not trying to be dirisive. But the original concept of a "Grand Tournament" encompasses everything. People were ranked for their achievements in each of these areas, and the winner was someone able to do it all really well.

MagickalMemories wrote:Realistically speaking, you should be able to look at most unpainted units and discern what they are, if you're familiar with the army. If you aren't, then painting isn't going to tell you the difference, anyway. For anyone reading this who feels like trying to argue that point and think up ways in which they might be confusing - please, don't. I will find easy responses to them and it will serve no purpose to advance the thread. Thanks.

I apologize that I'm not willing to oblige your polite request. I hope you'll bear with me, because I think I do have some reasonable examples.

1. Painting is often necessary (or extremely helpful) in distinguishing one squad from another. If I have two units engaged in the same HtH, and those units have different painted squad markings, my opponent and I can easily distinguish between my units and resolve the combat more easily Or if two units have gotten close together in moving, for example if one is trying to screen the other from shooting, or if I have Lashed two of my opponent's units together, painted squad markings help keep things clear and make the game more playable.
2. Painting weapons so they stand out speeds up recognition. Yes, you can pick out a plasmagun from nine bolters in a primed black squad, but it's a lot faster and easier if they're painted.
3. Painted units generally stand out from and contrast with terrain much better, and are easier to distinguish from that terrain when you're bending over the table to get true LOS.

MagickalMemories wrote:When you start including paint or composition limitations, you get into the Hobby side of things... and I'm not the first one to mention "Hobby." Most of the Cult of Painting on here (good term, BTW) has used that word themselves; "It's part of the hobby."
They don't say, "It's part of the game," because I think we all understand that it isn't. The game has no rules for painted minis. Those are made by the players.

As others noted, time limits and tournament structures are not given to us in the rulebook either. IMO painted minis are actually more part of the rules, given that every photo of minis in the rulebook and in examples of play are painted. Another way of looking at the fact there there's not a formal rule in the book of "you must paint your miniatures" is to observe that it's implicit. That it's part and parcel of the game's fundamental assumptions.

MagickalMemories wrote:

mannahnin wrote:We had that for years at GW events, both GTs and RTs. Some of it was checklist, some subjective. When I started playing tournaments the Rogue Trader Tournament composition scoring checklist awarded points for things like having all of your units named, having at least a page of army background/fluff included with your army list, having at least two Troops choices at maximum size, and having less than 10% of your army points spent on character & vehicle upgrades.

And how did you feel about that? Personally, I thought it was atrocious.
I don't believe anyone should be dinged for any codex legal army... ever. I hate comp scores.

I found it challenging, and I enjoyed the challenge. It also opened up my game and my lists in some ways. I don't know if I would have ever fielded a full 10 model unit of Dire Avengers or 22 model unit of Guardian Defenders if they hadn't earned me 2pts in the Rogue Trader tournament structure. And those units were fun to use. They did represent a bit of a handicap to the power of my army, but I had the choice to handicap myself a little for those 2pts, and I consciously played to it to maximize my tournament points, and to help me win the events.

There's a difference between "dinging" someone and giving someone bonus points for fielding an extra-fluffy army. I played in (and run a few) tournaments with Comp scores for quite a few years, and enjoyed them just as much (or far more, in 3rd and 4th editions, which didn't have the inherent Comp 5th has in its scenario rules) as tournaments without Comp.

Cruentus wrote:When I started attending the GW GTs in the late 90s, it was all about the spectacle of the event. All the attendees, the rush to get tickets before they sold out (fedexing the application as soon as WD came out), spending the weekend playing games and hanging out at the bars/pubs after.

And each subsequent year, it was fun to guess at what amazing conversions and paintjobs would be brought to the event.

It was pretty amazing. I remember fedexing my entry form (along with eight or ten other friends from my club) for the 2001 Baltimore GT. It was a heck of an event, and I was pretty awed by the scale of it and the quality of the armies present.

nkelsch wrote:

MagickalMemories wrote:Sincere question: Why was it *ever* necessary and what is the difference between then and now?

The game was broken up until 5th edition.

3rd edition had abusable abstract LOS, abusable base rules, no real codex balance or design. 1500+ point HQs, and for the most part, all the missions were 'wipe the opponent to the man.' Also if you played RAW you had things like 'unshootable/unassaultable' formations called the funhouse mirror. I could put models on the board in a way you couldn't shoot or assault them due to the rules. There was no real internet community, no FAQs and GWs attitude was 'don't be a beardy git... breaking the game makes you a git.' Hence comp. And 3rd editions comp is basically 5th editions force org and rules making troops necessary for mission victory.

The game was really that bad. It became unplayable at events without 'comp' enforcing some sort of limits... and everyone realized this and there was no issue with it.

I wouldn't say it was quite as bad as you've described. 3rd and 4th edition were both still fun tournament games. But the balance was indeed substantially worse. Some kind of comp system to encourage variety, themed, or self-handicapped armies really helped make events more balanced and enjoyable. I never bothered playing Ard Boys, for example, until 5th.

As above; to claim painting has no effect game-wise is an entirely unsupportable position, easily debunked.

If you want a "big" tournament, run a big one. if you want a GRAND tournament, then it better be GRAND in every sense - numbers, quality of armies are both prerequisites for that moniker,

A GT (Grand Tourer) Car isnt just a big car with a nice engine, its more than that.

I think the community has attached signifigance to the term "grand" that it goes beyond "big" or "multi-day."

It's much like a "Supreme" Pizza isn't just one with a lot of toppings, it's almost always going to include both meat and veggies. The ratio and proportions vary, but since I don't like veggies on my pizza, I know never to order one.

Nobody seems to think that the Supreme Pizza is morally superior to the Meat Lover's, but they also know that no matter how many meats you put on a pizza, you'd confuse people if you called it Supreme. (and yes, meat is battle points and veggies are soft scores)

nosferatu1001 wrote:As above; to claim painting has no effect game-wise is an entirely unsupportable position, easily debunked.

This is an absurdly silly claim.

Models don't get better LOS when they're painted, they have the exact same weaponry, and (with the exception of "Red Wunz go Fasta") have the same movement. The in-game effect of painting miniatures is negligible at best.

There's no impact on the mechanics of the game, but on the actual play of the game... there's a notable impact, as Mann quite elegantly noted:

Mannahnin wrote:
1. Painting is often necessary (or extremely helpful) in distinguishing one squad from another. If I have two units engaged in the same HtH, and those units have different painted squad markings, my opponent and I can easily distinguish between my units and resolve the combat more easily Or if two units have gotten close together in moving, for example if one is trying to screen the other from shooting, or if I have Lashed two of my opponent's units together, painted squad markings help keep things clear and make the game more playable.
2. Painting weapons so they stand out speeds up recognition. Yes, you can pick out a plasmagun from nine bolters in a primed black squad, but it's a lot faster and easier if they're painted.
3. Painted units generally stand out from and contrast with terrain much better, and are easier to distinguish from that terrain when you're bending over the table to get true LOS.

Polonius wrote:There's no impact on the mechanics of the game, but on the actual play of the game... there's a notable impact, as Mann quite elegantly noted:

Only if:
1) Squads are painted differently, which I might note, is not a requirement for GT's.
2) Weapons are painted to stand out and be recognizable. Again, not a GT requirement.
3) You paint your models to stand out from the terrain. Once again, not a GT requirement.

I have several squads of Thousand Sons, would I be disqualified because separate units aren't clearly distinguishable?

How about my Terminators, who have various weapons (heavy flamers, combi-weapons) but are all generally painted in the same scheme (boltgun + blue)?

Sure, you can paint your army with no squad markings, so that weapons blend into bodies which blend into terrain.

If can be done, but rarely is.

I'll spot you the first one as being less common among "minimum painted" models, but rarely are weapons painted to completely blend in. Hell, most players paint stuff to stand out so they know what their own army has.

And virtually all armies include some form of contrast, which would stand out in all but the most bizarre terrain. Even say, Black Templars on a city board would be seen thanks to the hard black/white with red.

My point (and I think Mann's as well), is that even a three color marine (Sprayed blue, gold trim, gunmetal bolter, black base) is easier to play against than a grey primed marine. That's a tangible gaming (not hobby) reason.

I disagree. Even if you achieve some in-game benefit from painted models, the aesthetic benefits far outweigh any practical ones.

I have no problem with people insisting on painted armies for aesthetic reasons. And no problem with painted-only tournaments. But lets not pretend that it's for anything other than aesthetics.

The problem (that I see) is that people who 'win' a GT aren't necessarily the best players. They might not even be the best hobbiests, since it's not hard to field a professionally painted and converted army. Yet they're held out as having some sort of weight in the community because they've won a GT.

I'm really quite lazy about painting my minis. I'm more of a gamer than painter. I pretty regularly play at the gaming club with half-painted, unpainted, or proxy minis, especially if I'm trying something new. I don't really enjoy painting as much as I enjoy converting, or playing.

However, I do enjoy the finished result of painting -- pretty minis! And a game with fully painted armies on both sides is *so* much better to look at, and hence, more enjoyable all-round, than a game with the aforementioned mish-mash. So I really like that most tourneys insist on fully painted minis. My gaming club friends like it too, because it means that I finally get around to painting my stuff, when a tournament is coming up (admittedly I was still painting at 1am on the morning of my last one).

biccat wrote:I disagree. Even if you achieve some in-game benefit from painted models, the aesthetic benefits far outweigh any practical ones.

So? I think you're minimizing the interplay between aesthetics that have no impact on a game (hey, that model looks neat) and aesthetics that have an impact on game play (hey, those neat looking plasma guns are still alive). I agree that there's a major aesthetic component to painting standards, and I don't think anybody is arguing against that.

It's just easy to say that painting is somehow completely divorced from gameplay that isn't, in practice, actually true. It's no different from rules in sports about what colors each team can wear, at least in relation to each other. Or Boise State no longer being able to wear all blue on their blue field for WAC games. The colors don't make anybody faster or stronger, yet seem to have an impact.

I have no problem with people insisting on painted armies for aesthetic reasons. And no problem with painted-only tournaments. But lets not pretend that it's for anything other than aesthetics.

I'm not sure what your competiive tournament experience is, but when you're doing multi-day, or even four game single day events, being able to determine what's in what units becomes harder and harder.

I'd agree that it's 80-90% aesthetics, but ease of play is a factor, at least for me. I doubt I'm in the minority of tournament gamers.

The problem (that I see) is that people who 'win' a GT aren't necessarily the best players. They might not even be the best hobbiests, since it's not hard to field a professionally painted and converted army. Yet they're held out as having some sort of weight in the community because they've won a GT.

Are you saying it's possible that a method for ranking competitors might not reflect anything beyond the way those competitors performed in a given period against a set of arbitrary criteria? My mind is blow....

Seriously, I don't know how to respond. The community has grappled with this for about a decade, and seems to have come to the following conclusion: everybody respects those aspects that they respect. There's a reason most GTs give the Best General award. Also a Best Painted, along with overall. Nearly every event has a different combination of hard and soft scores.

Even among pure gaming events, you have people that advocate for nothing other than single elimination, random book missions as the only true 40k competition. You also have people that feel that complex, tested missions like adeption features are the best test of a player.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
I hinted at this earlier with my parsing of the terms "hobby event" and "gaming event," but if I disliked the way that GTs ran (and many people find them flawed), I wouldn't try to change GTs, but rather offer a new brand.

Rather than selling your event as "A GT with no soft scores or paint requirment," why not stress what the event is? The 40k Player's tournament. Or Gaming Championship.

If GW can build a brand with Hard Boys, which is about as well run as a Central American coup, a well run Player's Tournament should succeed.

Can you play pickup sports without shirts and skins? sure... is it easier to make quick decisions and play better if the teams are easily distinguished? yes.

If you are going to argue because one person can make a paintjob impossible to distinguish with painting that no attempt to distinguish should ever be made anywhere and then appearance never has any impact then we have reached an unreasonable point in the conversation. Making up fictional extremes to invalidate everything just means we need to agree to disagree as both sides see the other sides arguments as empty strawman arguments. There is no possible way to convince anyone of anything anymore.

nkelsch wrote:Can you play pickup sports without shirts and skins? sure... is it easier to make quick decisions and play better if the teams are easily distinguished? yes.

If you are going to argue because one person can make a paintjob impossible to distinguish with painting that no attempt to distinguish should ever be made anywhere and then appearance never has any impact then we have reached an unreasonable point in the conversation. Making up fictional extremes to invalidate everything just means we need to agree to disagree as both sides see the other sides arguments as empty strawman arguments. There is no possible way to convince anyone of anything anymore.

My god, that's almost as bad as arguing that if you don't require painted models then everyone will show up with an unpainted mass of plastic and metal, you'll be unable to tell even what army you're playing against, you won't know what anybody is equipped with, and your eyes will bleed from staying up for four days trying to learn the difference between a Plasma Pistol and a Bolt Pistol!

Like I said, I have no problem with a tournament requiring painted figures. But some of the arguments here in favor of painted models border on the absurd.

I agree with biccat. It is easily possible to paint an army and have it be no more or less recognizable as if it was grey plastic.
(And we're not talking about 3 stripes of paint either.)

Examples would be, armies where the guns were all painted silver and washed black (regardless of type), so that everything was silver (albeit nicely shaded) and things like plasma coils and melta cannisters/nozzles were the same color as everything else.

I think you all are arguing against some sort of gold standard that automatically assumes that because it is painted, it somehow looks just like GW's pictures.

There are so many DIY schemes and moderate conversions running around that I just can't see how you can say that "painting" makes it more recognizable.

edit for rudeness. My apologies.

Thank you for making it clear that you intended to break Rule Number One. Let me further remind you that breaking forum rules will result in temporary or even permannet suspension of your account. Thanks ~Manchu

Automatically Appended Next Post:

whitedragon wrote:I agree with biccat. It is easily possible to paint an army and have it be no more or less recognizable as if it was grey plastic.
(And we're not talking about 3 stripes of paint either.)

Examples would be, armies where the guns were all painted silver and washed black (regardless of type), so that everything was silver (albeit nicely shaded) and things like plasma coils and melta cannisters/nozzles were the same color as everything else.

First, I'd argue that a painted/washed gun is easier to distinguish than a flat primed or unprimed model. The increased contrast simply makes detail pop more.

Second, go to a tournament with no paint required. Then go to one with a three color minimum. Which one has more easily distinguishable armies?

The rule could clearly be better, but it still leads to an improved ability to distinguish (which is inherently subjective anyway).

There are so many DIY schemes and moderate conversions running around that I just can't see how you can say that "painting" makes it more recognizable.

It seems to work. yes, you can follow all the painting rules in the world and be, if not less, at least no more distinguishable. It doesn't change that as a general rule, painted armies are more readily distinguishable.

Please remember that using emoticons doesn't actually cancel out the rudeness of a post.

Thanks.

I think there should be tournaments where you have to have fully painted armies ( i also think there should be big tournaments where it doesn't matter whether its painted or not). Both should be WYSIWYG (its hard enough playing and organizing a tourny without having to worry about what represents what). And right now we have both with GTs (painty) and Ard Boyz (non painty).

If some people want more non painted tournies with big prizes, thats fine, just don't call them GTs, they can still have big prizes and turnouts. Calling a tournament a GRAND Tournament is just a simple way to point out that you need your army painted, lets not mess up this simplicity please? This game is complicated enough as it is.

As a player who loves to paint my models with great care I dont think we should lose GTs, this hobby isn't just gameplaying, its modeling + painting + playing + fluff +sportsmanship + community = warhammer 40k.

Polonius wrote:
First, I'd argue that a painted/washed gun is easier to distinguish than a flat primed or unprimed model. The increased contrast simply makes detail pop more.

Second, go to a tournament with no paint required. Then go to one with a three color minimum. Which one has more easily distinguishable armies?

The rule could clearly be better, but it still leads to an improved ability to distinguish (which is inherently subjective anyway).

I don't think we're saying the same thing. While yes, a silver gun sticks out from a blue or red marine, but how do you tell that gun from a plasma or melta if they are both the same color? Its just as difficult. This thread is a good example. I'll link the pictures here to illustrate.
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/393697.page


Ok...this is a sternguard right? That's the GW model he is. But wait, someone said in the above thread they use them all as tactical squad sergeants. So, how do you tell the difference unless someone is strict with their squad markings? (And in my experience they aren't.) Besides, this may even be a DIY chapter, making it all the more difficult.


These are clearly marked as Sternguard, that's ok, but are you really going to tell me the Plasma sticks out more from the tabletop view than the bolter? That's kinda stretching a bit. Yet no one here would have any problems with these figures right?


These guys distinguish the melta vs bolter alot better, but then, would you really call either of these figures "fully painted"? Both with flat black bolters and details that aren't even picked out? (And since they are based, I'm going to say they are finished models as well). These are the type of painted models that would be an utter joy for you to travel to see in a GT vs flat grey or silver unpainted models?


Now, the thread is about sternguard, but this model is a tactical sergeant with a combi-weapon. What visual clues are painted on him to distinguish him as either? I'd say it's just as ambiguous as if he were grey. (And if he was just grey, how could you miss that giant weapon sticking out if you told me you could tell the difference between the plasma and bolter a couple pictures above?)

And then, on a completely different note, I could find pictures of "beautifully painted" armies that people go gaga over, but are so jazzed up that I can hardly tell what's going on modelwise either. (GMM's Mad Max Ork army from Adepticon is one such example I think.) Not saying that people shouldn't go above and beyond, but I'd wager everyone says that's acceptable, until you're across the table from it scratching your head trying to figure out what everything is.

So I guess I just will never understand why everyone is against grey plastic.

EDIT: Because I can't use image tags right.

ajefferism wrote:IAs a player who loves to paint my models with great care I dont think we should lose GTs, this hobby isn't just gameplaying, its modeling + painting + playing + fluff +sportsmanship + community = warhammer 40k.

The dramatic succees of indy GTs shows that they aren't going anywhere.

What has, at least in my experience, diminished greatly are the full blown Rogue Trader style tournaments that used to occur. Events that were one day, required paint, but were still mostly held in stores or club spaces. It now seems like everything is a free for all store tournament, or a major GT. OTOH, I think that's good for the community, as it gets more players into tournaments.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
@Whitedragon: I can't see the images at work, but it seems like you're still missing my point.

Armies will, on the whole, be easier to distinguish with a paint requirement than without. You can come up with all the counterexamples in the world, but if a paint requirement causes one person per event to pick out weapons, add squad markings, or paint his models so they don't blend into grey terrain, than the rule has added gaming benefit.

Polonius wrote:
Armies will, on the whole, be easier to distinguish with a paint requirement than without. You can come up with all the counterexamples in the world, but if a paint requirement causes one person per event to pick out weapons, add squad markings, or paint his models so they don't blend into grey terrain, than the rule has added gaming benefit.

C'mon man, you could turn that statement around the other way to make it read in my favor. Bad form dude, I expect better out of you.

whitedragon wrote:

Polonius wrote:
Armies will, on the whole, be easier to distinguish with a paint requirement than without. You can come up with all the counterexamples in the world, but if a paint requirement causes one person per event to pick out weapons, add squad markings, or paint his models so they don't blend into grey terrain, than the rule has added gaming benefit.

C'mon man, you could turn that statement around the other way to make it read in my favor. Bad form dude, I expect better out of you.

I'm not sure what the problem is. Are you arguing that paint requirements will do nothing to add distinguishabiliity? Or even have a net negative effect?

I argue that as a general rule, having a paint requirement increases distinguishability. Do you think that's not true?

If not, than we agree on everything but degree.

Polonius wrote:

whitedragon wrote:

Polonius wrote:
Armies will, on the whole, be easier to distinguish with a paint requirement than without. You can come up with all the counterexamples in the world, but if a paint requirement causes one person per event to pick out weapons, add squad markings, or paint his models so they don't blend into grey terrain, than the rule has added gaming benefit.

C'mon man, you could turn that statement around the other way to make it read in my favor. Bad form dude, I expect better out of you.

I'm not sure what the problem is. Are you arguing that paint requirements will do nothing to add distinguishabiliity? Or even have a net negative effect?

I argue that as a general rule, having a paint requirement increases distinguishability. Do you think that's not true?

If not, than we agree on everything but degree.

You are correct, I believe the bolded part is not a true statement. And I could say, that if the paint requirement causes one person to be confused by an army that is so cluttered with "cool" that they blend into each other, then the rule has no added benefit.

whitedragon wrote:

Polonius wrote:
I argue that as a general rule, having a paint requirement increases distinguishability. Do you think that's not true?

You are correct, I believe the bolded part is not a true statement. And I could say, that if the paint requirement causes one person to be confused by an army that is so cluttered with "cool" that they blend into each other, then the rule has no added benefit.

Aha, except paint requirments don't allow or require people to convert or use counts as. They are seperate rules. An army that's confusingly painted at a GT will be just as confusing at Hard Boys.

Meaning, adding the rule won't increase the indistinguishability due to paint, while it will decrease the indistinguishability due to primer.

So we have to positions:

*Painting can be confusing and harm gameplay therefor no painting should ever be required.

*Not painting can be confusing and harm gameplay therefor painting should be required.

Each side refuses to accept the premise of the other side... so there is no debate. Confusing armies are confusing regardless.

A vast majority of painted armies are not confusing, all unpainted armies are confusing and take extra effort to distinguish and become a burden to play against which is unreasonable in a timed event. No amount of excuses or examples will change this for me and no amount of me arguing will make you accept the premise that the game is impacted by visual cues that increase mental tactical decisions.

So events should run what they think 'is best' and see what draw it has. Good luck running your 2-3 day 8+ game 'ardboyz style unpainted tourney.

Polonius wrote:
Aha, except paint requirments don't allow or require people to convert or use counts as. They are seperate rules. An army that's confusingly painted at a GT will be just as confusing at Hard Boys.

Meaning, adding the rule won't increase the indistinguishability due to paint, while it will decrease the indistinguishability due to primer.

"Counts as" is allowed or required per the rulebook, and can be invoked whether a model is painted or not.

I'm saying that an army can be equally indistinguishable if it is painted then if it is not, so why all the hate against non-painted, and the thinly veiled argument that it is somehow easier to tell apart painted models. (It isn't).

What you are really saying, is that you'd rather have to play against painted armies than not, but it has nothing to do with whether or not you can distinguish units/wargear, it's just because that's what you want/like better.

whitedragon wrote: somehow easier to tell apart painted models. (It isn't).

Except, it is...

nkelsch wrote:So we have to positions:

*Painting can be confusing and harm gameplay therefor no painting should ever be required.

*Not painting can be confusing and harm gameplay therefor painting should be required.

Each side refuses to accept the premise of the other side... so there is no debate. Confusing armies are confusing regardless.

A vast majority of painted armies are not confusing, all unpainted armies are confusing and take extra effort to distinguish and become a burden to play against which is unreasonable in a timed event. No amount of excuses or examples will change this for me and no amount of me arguing will make you accept the premise that the game is impacted by visual cues that increase mental tactical decisions.

I think my position is that all unpainted armies are inherently indistinguishable. Most painted armies are distinguishable. Therefore, it's better to play against painted armies, and thus big successful events should require such.

whitedragon wrote:
"Counts as" is allowed or required per the rulebook, and can be invoked whether a model is painted or not.

I'm saying that an army can be equally indistinguishable if it is painted then if it is not, so why all the hate against non-painted, and the thinly veiled argument that it is somehow easier to tell apart painted models. (It isn't).

No, i've repeatedly stated that it's possible that a painted model can be just as indistinguishable.

Far more often than not, in my experience, painted armies are easier to distinguish. Maybe you play in an environment where all pianted armies are wacky counts as, but from what I've seen, painted armies are more easily distinguishable.

What you are really saying, is that you'd rather have to play against painted armies than not, but it has nothing to do with whether or not you can distinguish units/wargear, it's just because that's what you want/like better.

No, I'm saying that, while also saying that it's easier to play against painted armies. Maybe it's not universal, but I have an easier time against nearly all painted armies than against unpainted ones. In addition to enjoying it more.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I'm not sure if we're talking at cross purposes here. It's like airbags: sometimes they hurt the driver, but far more often they protect.

Painted armies are far more likely to be helpful to an opponent than hurtful. If I'm really off base here let me know.

I think it's fair to say that someone who values having a painted army is more likely to value things like WYSIWYG and overall organisation.


It's sorta like an individual who obviously doesn't value their personal appearance is far more likely to not value their personal hygiene either.

biccat wrote:

nkelsch wrote:Can you play pickup sports without shirts and skins? sure... is it easier to make quick decisions and play better if the teams are easily distinguished? yes.

If you are going to argue because one person can make a paintjob impossible to distinguish with painting that no attempt to distinguish should ever be made anywhere and then appearance never has any impact then we have reached an unreasonable point in the conversation. Making up fictional extremes to invalidate everything just means we need to agree to disagree as both sides see the other sides arguments as empty strawman arguments. There is no possible way to convince anyone of anything anymore.

My god, that's almost as bad as arguing that if you don't require painted models then everyone will show up with an unpainted mass of plastic and metal, you'll be unable to tell even what army you're playing against, you won't know what anybody is equipped with, and your eyes will bleed from staying up for four days trying to learn the difference between a Plasma Pistol and a Bolt Pistol!

Like I said, I have no problem with a tournament requiring painted figures. But some of the arguments here in favor of painted models border on the absurd.

So its your contention that painting never helps you distinguish bolter from plasma? Ever?

ALL unpainted armies are hard to distinguish, at a distance (e.g. across the table, when youre trying to think about what goes where. Close up? Meh)
SOME painted armies are hard to distinguish, at a distance (same caveats as above)

Guess which is better for a timed environment, where speed of decision making is hampered when you cant tell what the opponent is using? Oh yes, thats right. Painted.

nosferatu1001 wrote:ALL unpainted armies are hard to distinguish, at a distance (e.g. across the table, when youre trying to think about what goes where. Close up? Meh)

No, they're not hard to distinguish. Really, they're not.

Besides, with the 40k mechanics you usually don't need to worry about where a plasma or flamer is within a squad. You can tell what each squad has by looking at your opponent's roster.

And if you think it's hard to tell what weapons an unpainted army has, I'm sure you're downright apoplectic when it comes to "counts-as" armies or conversions.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Guess which is better for a timed environment, where speed of decision making is hampered when you cant tell what the opponent is using? Oh yes, thats right. Painted.

So that's why 'Ard Boyz requires painting? Because 'Ard Boyz is the "gamer" tournament while GTs are the "hobbyist" tournament.

biccat wrote:

Besides, with the 40k mechanics you usually don't need to worry about where a plasma or flamer is within a squad. You can tell what each squad has by looking at your opponent's roster.

There was zero time to look over a roster mid game at NOVA. Thank god we didn't have to because everything was painted and WYSIWYG.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Guess which is better for a timed environment, where speed of decision making is hampered when you cant tell what the opponent is using? Oh yes, thats right. Painted.

So that's why 'Ard Boyz requires painting? Because 'Ard Boyz is the "gamer" tournament while GTs are the "hobbyist" tournament.

'ard boyz is a poorly run, low quality gaming experience in a large number of places with low quality opponents often who barley know what they are doing. Because it is distributed and local, you get such variations in how the game is played, how rules are enforced and the overall quality and skill level of opponents makes it a real hit or mis event and I question the integrity of it since many reports of people breaking the rules, not being WYSIWYG, not having the full number of points, people cheating to help friends, people being jerks and saying 'sorry brah, it's ard boyz.' Don't get me started on the fact 'ard boyz is a 'COMPED' event due to the extreme unbalanced missions that heavily control force org. Adepticon and Nova is way more of a 'gamers' tourney than 'ard boyz ever is as there is way more integrity in how the game is played, scored and showing who is really the best player... If I even if I accepted your BS false premise of 'gamer tourney VS hobby event', 'ard boyz is not the purist implementation of how the game is played and finding the best player.

And appearance directly impacts gameplay. It is hard to distinguish, it really is.

biccat wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:ALL unpainted armies are hard to distinguish, at a distance (e.g. across the table, when youre trying to think about what goes where. Close up? Meh)

No, they're not hard to distinguish. Really, they're not.

Besides, with the 40k mechanics you usually don't need to worry about where a plasma or flamer is within a squad. You can tell what each squad has by looking at your opponent's roster.

And if you think it's hard to tell what weapons an unpainted army has, I'm sure you're downright apoplectic when it comes to "counts-as" armies or conversions.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Guess which is better for a timed environment, where speed of decision making is hampered when you cant tell what the opponent is using? Oh yes, thats right. Painted.

So that's why 'Ard Boyz requires painting? Because 'Ard Boyz is the "gamer" tournament while GTs are the "hobbyist" tournament.

'Ard Boyz is a terrible tournament designed entirely to encourage Americans (who have a weird affection for large-point games) to buy as much stuff as possible. Not having a painting requirement is part of that. Outside the US it's seen as a complete joke.

biccat wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:ALL unpainted armies are hard to distinguish, at a distance (e.g. across the table, when youre trying to think about what goes where. Close up? Meh)

No, they're not hard to distinguish. Really, they're not.

So you can tell, at a glance, what every model in the squad has from a distance of roughly 4 feet and an elevation of, lets be generous, 3'? Not everynoe is as "blessed" as you. Or as full of asinine, easily disproven arguments.

biccat wrote:Besides, with the 40k mechanics you usually don't need to worry about where a plasma or flamer is within a squad. You can tell what each squad has by looking at your opponent's roster.

So, in a timed environment, where speed of play is important, what takes longer: eyeballing the unit on the table to determine its capabiltiies, realising you cant tell what it is armed with, looking up the unit on the potentially difficult to decipher (and having run a few tournies, sometimes VERY difficult to decipher when sat at home, under no pressure, with armybooks to hand when checking lists) army list, double checking to see if there have been any casualties (plasma overheats, unlucky wound allocatons) by getting down close to the models that you cant tell have what from a distance, then going back to the list to see what esle is tthere, vs....just eyeballing the unit, seeing it has 3 plasma as theyre painted to stand out, and calling it job done?

If you expect anyone to take you seriously, please dont suggest the former is ever quicker. It isnt.

biccat wrote:And if you think it's hard to tell what weapons an unpainted army has, I'm sure you're downright apoplectic when it comes to "counts-as" armies or conversions.

Bzzt, stupid argument #3 from you!

No, counts as and conversions I ask what i what. Nicelty done ones, with a sense of theme and logic - not a problem. You do like arguing to extremes, dont you, almost as if arguing inane edge cases makes you look intelligent.

biccat wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:Guess which is better for a timed environment, where speed of decision making is hampered when you cant tell what the opponent is using? Oh yes, thats right. Painted.

So that's why 'Ard Boyz requires painting? Because 'Ard Boyz is the "gamer" tournament while GTs are the "hobbyist" tournament.

So, even if we accepted your specious classifications of "hobby" and "gamer" tournament, there is NO WAY you can call 'ard boyz a "gamer" tournament - its poorly, inconstently run with wide reports of cheating (in game or through games) and is about as good a test of skill as beating up shop newbs usually is. "'Ard Boyz" is seen as a joke anywhere its spoken of, certainly outside of the US.

nosferatu1001 wrote:So you can tell, at a glance, what every model in the squad has from a distance of roughly 4 feet and an elevation of, lets be generous, 3'?

You mean from five feet away? Yes. Yes I can. I'm pretty sure you could too.

nosferatu1001 wrote:If you expect anyone to take you seriously, please dont suggest the former is ever quicker.

If it's as serious a tournament as you're making it out to be (hint: it isn't) you should be adept at picking out units and identifying their threat rating. If you're not, then you're probably not good enough for those extra 3-4 seconds to matter. Sorry.

nosferatu1001 wrote:No, counts as and conversions I ask what i what.

So you're willing to ask what is what (I assume that's what you meant, although it could be "what I want." If you would use appropriate grammar and capitalization this wouldn't be such a guessing game) for a counts-as or converted army, why are you not willing to do so for an unpainted army?

nosferatu1001 wrote:its poorly, inconstently run with wide reports of cheating (in game or through games) and is about as good a test of skill as beating up shop newbs usually is. "'Ard Boyz" is seen as a joke anywhere its spoken of, certainly outside of the US.

Toy soldiers = srs biznez. Srsly.

nkelsch wrote:There was zero time to look over a roster mid game at NOVA. Thank god we didn't have to because everything was painted and WYSIWYG.

Armies usually have no more than 3-4 different units that could be argued as indistinguishable if unpainted. You should be able to remember 3-4 unit loadouts.

Anyway, the absurd arguments and personal attacks are getting a little out of hand. So enjoy your tournament knowing that you're excluding a lot of other players who might be as good or better than you (and I'm suspecting the latter in many cases). I'll keep playing in local events or pick-ups at my FLGS and avoid the drama and unpleasentness that generally goes along with these types of tournaments.

Peace.

So, we're at the point in the debate where when a person says "painting makes things easier to me to play," people are comfortable saying "no it doesn't. You are wrong about what goes on inside your own mind."

Interesting. I'll make sure to run all of my inner thoughts by you guys for review.

I just started seeing this girl, and I think I like her. Got any pointers on how I really feel?

It's also not like "ease on your opponent" doesn't drive other aspects of the hobby. How many tournaments require printed (not hand written) army lists? One GT won't allow dice trays. Adepticon doesn't allow obscene or profane modelling.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

biccat wrote: So enjoy your tournament knowing that you're excluding a lot of other players who might be as good or better than you (and I'm suspecting the latter in many cases). I'll keep playing in local events or pick-ups at my FLGS and avoid the drama and unpleasentness that generally goes along with these types of tournaments.

Peace.

So... this is about you not liking GTs. And enjoying a bit of a persecution complex about big mean TOs excluding all those excellent players.

I'm glad to see that you consider dozens, if not hundreds, of people gathering to play and have a great time "drama and unpleasantness."

biccat wrote:Yes. Yes I can. I'm pretty sure you could too.

Oh look, he knows basic geometry. I was also including height as eye level makes things look a lot different than from above. Unless you only play 2D games? Or are you going to argue an inane edge case again?

biccat wrote:If it's as serious a tournament as you're making it out to be (hint: it isn't) you should be adept at picking out units and identifying their threat rating.

...which i do by kniowing what theyre armed with. A bunch of plasma is more of a threat than melta to my foot GK. If i cant tell the difference at a distance, then i cant be "adept at picking out units and identifying their threat rating", as their threat is unclear. Understand this yet?

biccat wrote:If you're not, then you're probably not good enough for those extra 3-4 seconds to matter. Sorry.

Again, apparently youve not had to deal with atrociously written and laid out army lists. I have. I would bet in far greater numbers than you, by a country mile.

It isnt an extra 3 - 4 seconds, its a lot more.

And, again, you're unable to alter the basic fact that you are unable to tell me I am wrong, because this is my ability to discern 28mm models and not yours, I even said so in my post which you "helpfully" left out

Fact: some painted armies are easier to pick out compared to all unpainted ones. Solid, unarguable with by anyone with a straight face, fact.

biccat wrote:
So you're willing to ask what is what (I assume that's what you meant, although it could be "what I want." If you would use appropriate grammar and capitalization this wouldn't be such a guessing game) for a counts-as or converted army, why are you not willing to do so for an unpainted army?

Seriously? You're just trolling now, arent you?

Do you understnad the difference between "some" and "all"? If not we can explain it again.

biccat wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:its poorly, inconstently run with wide reports of cheating (in game or through games) and is about as good a test of skill as beating up shop newbs usually is. "'Ard Boyz" is seen as a joke anywhere its spoken of, certainly outside of the US.

Toy soldiers = srs biznez. Srsly.

Sorry, who's using correct S P & G now?

Yes, 'ard boyz is a joke if you consider it a real attempt at gauging peoples performance at this game.

biccat wrote:

nkelsch wrote:There was zero time to look over a roster mid game at NOVA. Thank god we didn't have to because everything was painted and WYSIWYG.

Armies usually have no more than 3-4 different units that could be argued as indistinguishable if unpainted. You should be able to remember 3-4 unit loadouts.

....after playing 8 games in 2 days? Oh wait, you've admitted to never being under that time pressure and tiredness before, so we can just ignore your ignorant, baseless opinion!

biccat wrote:Anyway, the absurd arguments and personal attacks are getting a little out of hand. So enjoy your tournament knowing that you're excluding a lot of other players who might be as good or better than you (and I'm suspecting the latter in many cases). I'll keep playing in local events or pick-ups at my FLGS and avoid the drama and unpleasentness that generally goes along with these types of tournaments.

Peace.

Odd, having played for a number of years I can only remember one bit of unpleasentness at any tournament. I see more in pick up games down GW (which i dont usually play in) than I do in tournaments.

Oh wait, youre arguing your opinion of something you dont experience or witness yourself. Guess we can discount it as being valid, then.

<broadcast mode active: lower the temperature, please; if you can't discuss the topic rationally and peacefully, then you'll lose the right to discuss it at all>

biccat wrote:......So enjoy your tournament knowing that you're excluding a lot of other players ......

No, a player that doesn't feel like painting his army is excluding himself from playing in an event that requires painting.

Everyone knows painted armies get better rolls

This thread really should just be - What is your definition of a GT?

Most events that use the title now are nothing like the original events and the tag has evolved to include any large event which is usually multiple days.

Here are some quotes from original GT rules packets...

What are Grand Tournaments about?
- FUN - GT's are for fun. They are an excuse to spend a whole weekend meeting new people, playing exciting games, checking out fantastic armies and new releases, talking with staff and basically knee deep in the hobby you love for a whole weekend. yes, at the end of the weekend we give away some trophies to those people that performed feats of uncommon valor, BUT THIS ISN'T THE POINT NOR THE GOAL. While some people have said that tournaments should be about finding who can win the most - our Grand Tournaments AREN'T about that. If you are concerned about who can win the most games, then please skip coming to the Grand Tournaments and put together your own event.

and...

Don't forget that you are playing with toy soldiers - it's not good for your health or sanity to take this too seriously.

AND...

PS: The first piece of advice we'll give you is to start painting that army! Start putting that extra hour of painting now so that you'll be finished before the tournament arrives.

We can't stress enought how important it is to get your army finished before the event - it will allow you to relax and have fun (rather than staying up all night trying to finish things), and your painting score won't suffer horribly (which will in turn put you in a bad mood too!). Get that army done!

Some events out there now do not have the some of components that were in the original GT events - Battle/Paint Appearance/Army Selection-Theme-Composition/Sportsmanship/Trivia. The beauty of the independent events is that they are all different. This diversity allows all different kinds of players to attend the events that they like.

Forget about the GT title as a topic of debate, as you can see - most events out there are not really what a GT was first created for. For the record, I think using the title is fine most of the time, but if you want to run an event with no painting score come up with something else to call it.

As mentioned before, Games Workshop no longer has a hand in running tournaments; while they may contribute some support (in prizes, products, what have you), they no longer have a strong say in how they are run. They used to, but not anymore.

So really, the term Grand Tournament and how many continue to apply (or would like to see it applied) it today is more as a throwback to when Games Workshop used to run these events. The truth of the matter is that the term "Grand" is just another word. I could run an event and call it the "Awesome Tournament" or the "Super Fantastical Tournament" and it wouldn't make it any different. Your perception of what a "Grand" or "Awesome" Tournament should be doesn't change what it is; and what it is will always be clearly spelled out by the organizers (at least, one would hope considering how much time, effort and cost is required).

So does self-styled Grand Tournament still qualify as a "Grand Tournament" because it doesn't allow unpainted models? Yes it does, because the TO has decreed it thus, and they have chosen to call their event a Grand Tournament. That your perception of what "Grand" should mean doesn't sync up with reality is irrelevant.

If an event organizer outlines that they will only allow painted armies, then only painted armies will be present. If they choose to include appearance scores in overall scores, then armies will be ranked based on performance and appearance. If they choose to allow all armies, painted or otherwise, but also deem that appearance scores will factor into overall scores, then don't be surprised if you happen across unpainted armies; you can also expect they won't rank very well because of a low appearance score. Conversely, if a TO allows all armies, painted or otherwise, and also makes known that the tournament is a battle points only event (that is, appearance doesn't matter), you can't expect much if you enter the tournament and then get your panties in a wad because the person opposite you didn't bother to paint their army.

A tournament organizer sets the standards (regardless of what the tournament is called) and players who attend are entering into an implicit contract to adhere to those standards.

If a tournament rewards painting (and appearance criteria are weighted into overall scores), then the expected protocol is that you will have made effort to put some basic colors onto your army. Should you be disqualified from competing if your army is not painted? No, provided the organizer made it clear that unpainted armies would be acceptable. But the enclosed community of the event is expecting to see fully painted armies; and it would be bad form for you to show up with an unpainted army, as it would be bad form for the community to berate you for it in any other fashion than dinging you on soft scores. It is similarly bad form to attend a tournament weighted on pure battle points and then proceed to berate others for not having painted armies.

As for painted vs unpainted models and their distinguishability, I would say it all depends on the player. I've been in the hobby for 16 years now, and regarding all stock models, I can tell what something is by looking at it, regardless of painting or not.

Does a painted army sometimes help distinguish different units? Sure, it can, if the player took the time to do so (squad markings, color coding, that kind of thing). It can just as easily be as useful as a poopy flavored lolly (a Gaunt-heavy army where every brood is painted the same).

The same principle applies in a counts-as army. If equipment and units are properly explained, and are consistent, then I have no trouble identifying what is what. I may need a friendly reminder as to what is what on occasion (and I may pipe up and ask), but is asking a simple question really inconveniencing me?

Last I checked, this was a gentleman's game, and a large part of this game is the social interaction with other people as you play a game with toy soldiers.

ShatteredBlade wrote:Everyone knows painted armies get better rolls

Hah! If anything my painted armies roll WORSE


-DV8-

ph34r wrote:

biccat wrote:Is a Grant Tournament still a GT if you exclude a class of players simply because they don't share the same interests as you?

Yeah, damn GTs for excluding me from competing in the tournament with Starcraft 2 in place of Warhammer 40k.



Your argument sucks.

I was thinking the same thing. "Gosh, it's just not fair if I want to play Pokemon at the Grand Tournament but those fascist TOs force me to play their game. It's a free country, right?"

Tironum wrote:This thread really should just be - What is your definition of a GT?

Most events that use the title now are nothing like the original events and the tag has evolved to include any large event which is usually multiple days.

Here are some quotes from original GT rules packets...

What are Grand Tournaments about?
- FUN - GT's are for fun. They are an excuse to spend a whole weekend meeting new people, playing exciting games, checking out fantastic armies and new releases, talking with staff and basically knee deep in the hobby you love for a whole weekend. yes, at the end of the weekend we give away some trophies to those people that performed feats of uncommon valor, BUT THIS ISN'T THE POINT NOR THE GOAL. While some people have said that tournaments should be about finding who can win the most - our Grand Tournaments AREN'T about that. If you are concerned about who can win the most games, then please skip coming to the Grand Tournaments and put together your own event.

and...

Don't forget that you are playing with toy soldiers - it's not good for your health or sanity to take this too seriously.

AND...

PS: The first piece of advice we'll give you is to start painting that army! Start putting that extra hour of painting now so that you'll be finished before the tournament arrives.

We can't stress enought how important it is to get your army finished before the event - it will allow you to relax and have fun (rather than staying up all night trying to finish things), and your painting score won't suffer horribly (which will in turn put you in a bad mood too!). Get that army done!

Some events out there now do not have the some of components that were in the original GT events - Battle/Paint Appearance/Army Selection-Theme-Composition/Sportsmanship/Trivia. The beauty of the independent events is that they are all different. This diversity allows all different kinds of players to attend the events that they like.

Forget about the GT title as a topic of debate, as you can see - most events out there are not really what a GT was first created for. For the record, I think using the title is fine most of the time, but if you want to run an event with no painting score come up with something else to call it.

This is a great post! So worth repeating, that I just subjected you all to the long quote

GT had a specific definition in the past. Now, it refers to that... and if someone wants to run an event that divorces from the idea of what they were so fully as to not have painting requirements, the name probably doesn't suit the event very well and (imo) shouldn't be applied.

Forget about the GT title as a topic of debate, as you can see - most events out there are not really what a GT was first created for. For the record, I think using the title is fine most of the time, but if you want to run an event with no painting score come up with something else to call it.