The second annual Crossroads GT Spring Break was this last weekend, and while I yet again didn’t play in the event (due to not getting my DoT painted in time), this go ‘round I made the trek out to Horseheads, NY anyway to drink cider and heckle for my clubmates. And as it turned out, do a bit of impromptu battle reporting … because this:
Chris Tesorio’s “My Little Bre-Pony-A” army was the talk of the tournament, and over the weekend he ended up stampeding his way to 5-0 and winning Best General with a godlike 101/120 BP. Unfortunately for the ponies Crossroads puts a high price on soft scores, so Chris’ 0 for paint dropped him to 40th of about 80 players overall - but after dishing out five brutal beatings in the name of Friendship I doubt it mattered!
In Game Two the ponies ran into one of my clubmate’s ogres, and I instantly knew I had work to do …
PONIES
Prophetess [Twilight Sparkle] - level 4 (LIFE), crown of command, dispel scroll, warhorse Lord [Celestia] - grail vow, virtue of heroism; sword of swift slaying, gromril great helm, dragonbane gem, shield, warhorse Paladin [Luna] - BSB, grail vow, wyrmlance, dragonhelm, luckstone, shield, warhorse Paladin [Cadence] - grain vow, enchanted shield, dawnstone, gauntlet of the duel, lance, warhorse 12 Knights of the Realm [Applejack & co] - full command (banner of eternal flame) 12 Knights of the Realm [Rarity & co] - full command (gleaming pennant) 11 Grail Knights - standard 7 Pegasus Knights [Rainbow Dash & co] - gallant, standard Trebuchet [Pinkie Pie's Party Cannon] Trebuchet [Pinkie Pie's Other Party Cannon] ------------ 2500
OGRES
Slaughtermaster - level 4 (MAW), armor of fortune, great weapon Bruiser - BSB, talisman of preservation, ironcurse, great weapon Firebelly - hellheart, adw 9 Iron Guts - full command (standard of discipline) 8 Ogre Bulls - full command, ironfists 4 Mournfangs - standard (dragonhide banner), musician, ironfists, heavy armor 6 Maneaters - standard (gleaming pennant), musician, ahw, heavy armor [stubborn, swiftstride] Sabretusk Sabretusk Ironblaster Ironblaster ------------ 2500
All the opponents of Breponya got a cup of Pinkie’s Party Punch and their own plastic pony!
DEPLOYMENT After vanguards. All the princesses went into the grail ponies, and the ogre command split between the guts (SM + BSB) and the bulls (FB). (The maneaters are the leftmost block, then bulls and guts moving to the right.) Ponies prayed to their sun god, activating their Friendship fields and giving ogres first turn.
BATTLE Turn 1 Ogres shuffle about, drooling slightly at all that sparkly horseflesh, as their enormous cats romp out to cuddle. A massive 6-5 winds gets things moving with a torrent of spells: the bulls gain stubborn and +1S, the iron guts get regen, braingobbler against a party cannon is dispelled and a fireball into the same fails to cast. Both ironblasters fail to harm the left party cannon (first stuck in the mud, second failed to wound).
Incoming cuddles!
The grail ponies chase off their kitten, while the left lance o’ pony tramples their ferocious feline and reforms. A 5-3 (+1 Ogres) winds sees throne dispelled and dwellers into the gutstar kill only a single iron gut! Then the party cannons open up into the bulls - the first scatters but the second pinholes the firebelly, who fails his LOS! and is splattered in an eruption of glitter and confetti, along with a single bull.
Pegasi Patrol
Turn 2 The mournfangs overcome their nerves and crash into the right PotR lance, while once again the rest of the ogres mill about. Another strong 6-3 (+1 Ogres) winds brings the promise of more tasty buffs: bullgorger onto the mournfangs is dispelled, though trollguts and bulls both receive regen, and the bulls keep up their stubborn. The much reviled double ironblasters continue to fall short of their hype, with the left blaster’s shot caught by a pegasus’ ward and the right’s doing a single wound to a party cannon. But dragonhide mournfangs are pretty broken, right?
The ponies are unable to dent the ogre cav, however despite throwing everything they’ve got into the tiny candy-colored horses, the mournfang only inflict four wounds, not the seven needed to break the lance’s steadfast. The ponies easily hold.
Seeing the perfect opportunity to dispense hot flaming Friendship all over the ogre HQ, Princess Celestia orders her grail ponies into the iron guts …
… as Rainbow Dash leads her pegasi into the maneaters. Magic blows a decent 6-2, but after thrones is dispelled the ponies toss aside their extra dice in the name of putting hoof to face instead. The party cannons announce the looming combat phase by exploding one of the ironblasters - fitting given the carnage to come. Jumping right to the main combat, Princess Luna whips out her (Initiative 5) wyrmlance and burns the regeneration off the ironguts, before the rest of the lance lays in and kills a lot of ogres. Faced with a wall of characters or champions, the ogres manage little in return, and while the bulls are currently sturbbon the guts are certainly not. Ogre HQ breaks and is run down.
Given that this was a Blood & Glory scenario, the grailstar sweeps up 1500+ points in the process, as well as breaking the back of the ogre army.
To add insult to injury, the mournfang lose by a single point of CR, break and are likewise caught in a detonation of raw Friendship. In the pegasi on maneater combat, a couple ogres die for a pegasus and a half, but all parties hold.
Turn 3 Desperate for points, the bulls thunder into the dented PotR lance, dropping a couple but once again unable to break their steadfast. The maneaters similarly hack away at the pegasi to little result but ultimately hold, and the ironblaster sticks another single wound into a party cannon.
Rarity’s PotR lance slams into the flank of the bulls …
… as PON-3 gets the grailstar pointed at the dwindling maneaters. An average 6-1 winds roll sees Twilight Sparkle get throne up, regrow a pony into the damaged PotR lance (Applejack’s if you’re wondering), and also rip a wound off a bull with shield of thorns. The party cannons both unleash on the last ironblaster and reduce it to so much confetti, moments before Rarity and crew rout the bulls and run them down.
Annnnd despite dispatching Fluttershy, the maneaters continue to lose combat but hold on stubborn.
Turn 4 Rainbow Dash and her pegasi go ape and beat the maneaters down to the standard bearer, who continues to stick …
… as the ponies close the noose.
The maneater is kicked to death, in the name of Friendship.
It was delicious! Partially because I wasn't the one who had just been tabled by a bunch of ponies
If you're interested in a few more photos from Crossroads, I took a handful that didn't involve ponies, though they're mostly of a just few armies that really caught my fancy
A buddy of mine just took Best Overall with his Brets at our local GT (he's the other Bret general mentioned in the video), and talking to him it seems like he encountered essentially the same prevailing circumstance that allowed Chris to win with his ponies: people think Brets are gak, and underestimate them.
I mean hell, there's something like 1,500 points in that grail knight unit. Who the hell lets that get a charge off? Would you leave yourself within easy charge range of a 1,500 point black knight bus? What about a 1,500 point dragon prince bus? Or alarielle star? Or gutstar? But it's OK because it's just Brets? Both of those ironblasters should have been laying into the grail knights every damned turn, no exceptions.
This right here is why you can't just accept internet wisdom at face value. Brets are outdated, but if they get the charge and don't rubberlance they're a very solid, very competitive army. Lance formation means fewer bodies are needed to break steadfast, makes it easier for multiple units to get into combat, and minimizes the number of returning attacks. In the hands of a competent general that's a recipe for an ass-whooping right there.
Of course, it only takes one failed charge to screw that up, and a charged lance is a dead lance. Though with an invulnerable character wall along the front I wouldn't be so sure about even that.
One of the problems I would think of playing this list would be remembering what Pony is what character. I don't watch My Little Pony so by giving me the names of each to equate with what character doesn't do me much good. If I line up against someone and they point to a mage I know it is a mage, this one is a the general because the model looks like a "general". Ponies look like Ponies, it would annoy me to play it.
I would have refused to play against that army. I can't believe anyone who paid money to play in a tournament with "a high price on soft scores" would be satisfied playing against an army of horse dolls. The player who brought it should know better, he's obviously no newbie, and the judges who allowed it to participate are a disgrace to their event.
This is the gentleman responsible for the Pony army above. I won't lie, I brought this army expecting a chuckle from everyone. Apparently the WHFB community isn't as accepting as I expected.
I have only been playing for two years now, which makes me practically a baby in this community. I play mostly VC, WoC and Skaven. I've only been to four GTs and didn't expect to place with this army.
I really didn't mean to 'insult' anyone and I think it's pretty childish to be offended because my dollies aren't as rough and tough as your dollies. If you look closely you can see I have banner ponies, ponies with music notes as musicians and characters as champions. If you look at it, you'll notice all my characters are unique looking. They are also different colors, so if I said to you... My general is white, my BSB is purple and my paladin is pink, you'd know who's who. Much easier than... Well, my lord is the one with his sword in the air and my other paladin is the one with his sword facing more forward. As adults, it's pretty easy to spot the difference between brightly colored pieces of plastic.
I have always just enjoyed playing, so I didn't expect such negative back lash. I was not under the impression that grown men playing with dollies was such serious business.
I love the cloud bases! thought they were done very well. I like the whole theme of the army! I'm not a brony, but I am a sucker for themed armies whether they are sharks with lasers, some yellow one eyed goggle wearing pixar movie dudes (no idea what movie that awesome chaos dwarf army is from). army of darkness, or monty python, hell even hello kitty space marines!
I think this sort of thing is creative. I would gladly play against it in a GT. It is fun, themed, fully painted (even if done so by the manufacturer of the ponies)... it's a lot more coherent than a cookie sheet covered with bare pewter and grey plastic models.. It has a lot more life to it.
If you would refuse to play against it, I have to ask if you would refuse to play against someone who showed up with bare plastic models, expecting a 0 on paint, and just wanted to play? If you showed up with pink orcs to a tourney (as opposed to green skinned).. and somebody got mad that your orcs weren't green and refused to play you because that doesn't match the imaginary fluff... how would you feel? Personally I would feel like they are a big baby and want me to play the game how THEY want to play it.. If I went to a tourney and played against someone with models that were painted poorly, I wouldn't be mad that their models were painted poorly, I would just think that their models were painted poorly from lack of time/effort or that they suck at painting. I always find something to compliment them on, and never criticize (unless explicitly asked) as I don't want to be rude..
I personally love seeing zany armies that you never expected to see... If you don't that's your opinion and all, but I don't think its very nice, or fair to call the TO's a disgrace for allowing this guy to play. I will not go as far to say that I think it would of been a disgrace if someone fostered animosity, refused to play against him, and wasted his and their own time (and money) on account of a difference of opinion about toy soldiers... I will however say that I don't think it would be very cool or polite to do. This guy is doing what HE likes. If you like super detailed realistic miniatures, go for it. I just don't see why there is such a hard line stance that he shouldn't be allowed to play, or people should refuse to play him, or be offended etc. He probably had more time in planning the army out, than I see some people put into painting their GW minis.. oh couple coats of spray paint, couple color dabs here, and a dip, bam! terrible looking crap army!
Sorry to rant, I just feel it's unfair to single this guy out, especially when I feel he doesn't deserve it.. I really just see it that if you don't like his army, so be it, he may not like yours.
No fooling, after seeing this and watching that video... I started considering the possibility of going for the blind bags myself. to me, its giggle worthy. Absolutely fun, and while I'm incredibly fresh as a player, id LOVE to face off against these.
I've only vaguely looked into the series, and this just seems brilliant and I'm enjoying it well after hearing about it. an army I considered to run, with a different, bright, yet sensible aesthetic. Just the cannons alone seem fun, never mind the character selection.
im glad the TO allowed it, and the players against it enjoyed the time (and hopefully the punch!).
Narenzade wrote:
I really didn't mean to 'insult' anyone and I think it's pretty childish to be offended because my dollies aren't as rough and tough as your dollies.
I am not offended by your choice of army. I would be offended if I had paid money with the expectation of playing against GT-level armies, and had to face your ponies - not at you, but at the TO who allowed you to play.
Look, GW games are notoriously poor games. If I wanted to play a strategy game for the strategy, I'd play chess, or at least historicals. I play GW games because I like the backgrounds and the fluff. Pretty Ponies are simply not part of that universe. I applaud your creativity and question your sanity, but playing against it is not what I'd be paying to attend.
I was not under the impression that grown men playing with dollies was such serious business.
I guess everyone enjoys their hobbies in their own way. While you may just enjoy playing, I just enjoy the spectacle of two nicely painted and themed armies on the tabletop. Your choice to field your ponies deprives me of the enjoyment that I get from this hobby, therefore, I have no reason to play against you. And that's cool, and you can enjoy your games and I can enjoy mine. But when an event runs that promises one experience that I find enjoyable, and then offers an alternative experience that I find unenjoyable, I think that's a valid reason to be disappointed in the staff running the event.
skyfi wrote:
I think this sort of thing is creative. I would gladly play against it in a GT. It is fun, themed, fully painted (even if done so by the manufacturer of the ponies)... it's a lot more coherent than a cookie sheet covered with bare pewter and grey plastic models.. It has a lot more life to it.
If you would refuse to play against it, I have to ask if you would refuse to play against someone who showed up with bare plastic models, expecting a 0 on paint, and just wanted to play?
At a GT? Absolutely. 100%. I've called judges over at GTs when opponents fielded non-WYSIWYG armies (and the rules of the event required that), and seen my opponents get a game loss as a result, and didn't feel remotely bad about it. I don't know what the rules for this event were, but calling it a GT implies a painting requirement. If there was no such requirement for Crossroads, so be it. But, if there was, as there is at most GTs, then how can you hold a person who expects their opponent to abide by those rules in the wrong? The opponent who shows up with an army that blatantly does not meet the event requirements, and yet expects to play anyway, is the one in the wrong. Getting a 0 for a paint score is not an appropriate consolation when people pay money to attend (and travel, and hotel) an event with rules, only to be faced by an opponent who has decided that he can ignore those rules.
Again, if this event did not actually have rules requiring painted armies, then that's cool, and I'd not attend in the first place.
I would not refuse to play you, but color in a riot of pastel ponies would be tough for my brain to keep track of. I feel the same with some counts as models. Easy solution would be some sort of tag or even some printed sheet with "purple one with sparkles and horn is BSB" might have helped. I was there but did not play you, if I did as long as we could come up with an appropriate way keep things straight and not make it "work" on my part to keep track of ponies, no problem. It was club mates of mine that played you and did the battle report above..
Never watched an episode of My Little Pony, still think this army is awesome.
If there's a tournament that specifically requires lovingly painted, fluff-appropriate miniatures, ok, they shouldn't let this army in, but I can't think of any other case it would be inappropriate.
Redbeard wrote: I would have refused to play against that army. I can't believe anyone who paid money to play in a tournament with "a high price on soft scores" would be satisfied playing against an army of horse dolls. The player who brought it should know better, he's obviously no newbie, and the judges who allowed it to participate are a disgrace to their event.
Redbeard, I’m glad you didn’t come to the event. If you’re too uptight to play against a funny themed army and good guy (Chris T. is a fine fellow with a decent sense of humor), that’s on you. We’ll stick with out regular attendees (pretty much the entire ETC team and the top half of the Warhammer Masters attendees, and a surprisingly large Canadian contingent. They seem to have a sense of humor).
My name is Chris Pelletier and I’m one of the judges at Crossroads. Chris T. pre-approved the army with our head organizer, letting us know what he planned to do.
Within your response I see a valid point about what models events should let in, and the standard internets hate.
1) What models should we let into events? This is a good question. I don’t like seeing people use action figures, or models that break the feel of an army. Even within the GW family, I’ve seen plenty of 40K models used “counts as” for fantasy that don’t fit the army feel. Where do you draw the line? We’re an independent GT. We don’t care if you use Mantic, GW, or anyone else. If you sculpt up some dudes, as long as they look reasonable, go for it. If they fit a theme, are easily identifiable, conform to the rules of the game, then I don’t see a problem. Also, if you plan on using an alternative model, let us know ahead of time.
Here’s why I think Chris T.’s army works:
A) It was completely uniform - There wasn’t a mix of scales or ranges. The theme was uniform and wasn’t choppy.
B) Everything was easily identifiable. He had banners and each pony was individual. The units were also easily identifiable from each other.
C) He’s a nice guy with a sense of humor. When you’re going to a GT, tensions can run high and it’s hard to have a fun time. Chris is a good guy and will give you a good game. It’s not like he’s modeling for advantage and doing other douchey things.
D) The army looked better than the bottom tier painted armies. Every GT has players that either don’t finish their army or don’t really care about painting. Chris put time and effort into putting this together, more than other people with their G-Dub armies.
2) On to the unreasonable comment: Are we a disgrace? You’re being a troll. We’ll let our attendee’s decide if we should retire to obscurity. Once we stop selling out our 2 GTs/year within a week of open registration (which of course will be imminent due to the rapidly spreading knowledge of our disgraceful conduct) I’m sure we’ll be forced to stop running them.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also, we get a number of great entries that dont' fit the standard feel, but work really well. (i'm not sure where my pictures are, if you've seen these armies, post a link)
We've had the Orc"estra" - an orchestral themed O&G army with Orcs carrying trombones and goblins bouncing off of drums for doom divers.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jOZZN-mScPc - check out 3:45
The Pawns of Chaos - a Chess themed WoC army
Plenty of others.
I'm glad this topic came up. If you have a puritanical stance on models, you may not like our event. On the other hand, if you want to face many of the best fantasy players in the NE, and you want to have a fun time, come on down.
Well.... from your own rules it's stated that "WYSIWYG" was required. Yet I don't see a single shield, lance .. hell I don't see a single actual knight. As far as I am concerned at best he had a bunch of naked horses running around. I would have requested an automatic game win against him and if it wasn't granted a full refund of my entry fees. The fact is you established the rules and then failed to enforce them probably because you like and are biased toward the player . Based on your "if you don't like it your puritanical " response and inability to enforce your own rules, you have no business running an event. Definitely on my never will attend list.
As much as I admire the creativity and ingenuity that went into his Bre-pony-a (I have a Pokemon/Digimon Chaos Daemon army so I know) and shake the guy's hand for it. I am inclined to agree with Redbeard on this one. If I paid for hotel, travel, and entry fee to go to a GT and was forced to choose between grinding through 2 - 2 1/2 hrs of playing against pretty ponies (I do not like MLP, and it would grate on me) or taking a game loss (so I wouldn't get frustrated and lash out), then I wouldn't be happy with the organizers at all. It is all well and good that all those big wig players showed up and liked it, but some might not have (potentially) and it is the organizers responsibility to ensure as many people as possible have a good time. Chris, you kind of are throwing out a toxic attitude towards the people who might have a problem with this. The Bre-pony-a general and Redbeard had a meeting of the minds. You are adamantly defending him and your GT (I wont insult your GT because you guys are obviously doing a lot of the right things), but you have to see that some things might not be appropriate to everyone. Again, I do not like MLP and this would not be something I would want to play against, but I would shake his hand for the creativity. This is an army that would be played for the $hits and giggles for both players, not for a tournament where people are forced to play. \rant
Warmaster Primus wrote: Redbeard, I’m glad you didn’t come to the event. If you’re too uptight to play against a funny themed army and good guy (Chris T. is a fine fellow with a decent sense of humor), that’s on you.
I have no issues with fun themed armies, provided that the theme is still recognizable as Warhammer. I've played with, and against, plenty of fun themes. I've seen the christmas-village and beer-fest dwaves, monty-python ogres, and I've taken a nascar themed ork army to a 40k tournament. Fun isn't the issue. It's that they're not warhammer models, and they don't follow the event rules (as noted above).
I'm sure that your regular player is a great guy and all. You can say I'm uptight all you want, but as I mentioned before, why is the person who expects that the rules be obeyed considered to be in the wrong?
My name is Chris Pelletier and I’m one of the judges at Crossroads. Chris T. pre-approved the army with our head organizer, letting us know what he planned to do.
So, someone came to you ahead of time, with an army that violated your event rules, and you said sure, go ahead. Again, why should anyone respect you as a judge?
... I don’t like seeing people use action figures,...
Yet pony toys are okay? Logical disconnect here.
Here’s why I think Chris T.’s army works: A) It was completely uniform - There wasn’t a mix of scales or ranges. The theme was uniform and wasn’t choppy.
I guess if you buy a range of toy ponies from the same manufacturer, they'll be the same scale... Wow, this is a high bar.
B) Everything was easily identifiable. He had banners and each pony was individual. The units were also easily identifiable from each other.
This, of course, depends on who you're talking to. As others have said in this thread, they'd have a hard time keeping track of which multi-coloured unit was which in the heat of a game. Each pony being individual isn't necessarily a good thing in this case. Being WYSIWYG would have made things easily identifiable. That was a rule, no?
C) He’s a nice guy with a sense of humor. When you’re going to a GT, tensions can run high and it’s hard to have a fun time. Chris is a good guy and will give you a good game. It’s not like he’s modeling for advantage and doing other douchey things.
Well, again, some would consider bringing pony toys to a warhammer event to be a douchy thing. Not me, I'm not that "uptight", but some might.
D) The army looked better than the bottom tier painted armies. Every GT has players that either don’t finish their army or don’t really care about painting. Chris put time and effort into putting this together, more than other people with their G-Dub armies.
You know, when you set the bar that low, it's hard not to trip over it. Ooooh, it looked better than the worst army there. I think I saw a guideline once, that suggested that if you were going to do something of this nature, you owed it to the other event attendees to make it one of the best armies there. Not just better than the worst.
You know what would have been cool - if he'd actually painted warhammer horses in the pony colours. If he'd actually put a little more effort into it than gluing toys onto bases.
quickfuze wrote: Well.... from your own rules it's stated that "WYSIWYG" was required. Yet I don't see a single shield, lance .. hell I don't see a single actual knight. As far as I am concerned at best he had a bunch of naked horses running around. I would have requested an automatic game win against him and if it wasn't granted a full refund of my entry fees. The fact is you established the rules and then failed to enforce them probably because you like and are biased toward the player . Based on your "if you don't like it your puritanical " response and inability to enforce your own rules, you have no business running an event. Definitely on my never will attend list.
And exceptions can be made. If you run into one of us 9 months prior to an event, tell us what you're planning, and get an okay, it's not a problem for us. That's great planning. Any reasonable player that comes to our events can see that. Plus, that kind of hard line discounts many really great conversions.
It's your loss if you never want to attend. Ask anyone that comes to our Crossroads event, it's a good time.
For the more reasonable out there, if you're interested in attending our fall event (1st weekend of September, check more out by googleing Crossroads GT), make sure to register early. We'll sell out in the first week.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ironwill13791 wrote: As much as I admire the creativity and ingenuity that went into his Bre-pony-a (I have a Pokemon/Digimon Chaos Daemon army so I know) and shake the guy's hand for it. I am inclined to agree with Redbeard on this one. If I paid for hotel, travel, and entry fee to go to a GT and was forced to choose between grinding through 2 - 2 1/2 hrs of playing against pretty ponies (I do not like MLP, and it would grate on me) or taking a game loss (so I wouldn't get frustrated and lash out), then I wouldn't be happy with the organizers at all. It is all well and good that all those big wig players showed up and liked it, but some might not have (potentially) and it is the organizers responsibility to ensure as many people as possible have a good time. Chris, you kind of are throwing out a toxic attitude towards the people who might have a problem with this. The Bre-pony-a general and Redbeard had a meeting of the minds. You are adamantly defending him and your GT (I wont insult your GT because you guys are obviously doing a lot of the right things), but you have to see that some things might not be appropriate to everyone. Again, I do not like MLP and this would not be something I would want to play against, but I would shake his hand for the creativity. This is an army that would be played for the $hits and giggles for both players, not for a tournament where people are forced to play. \rant
Sorry if I was coming off as toxic. There were a few comments that I felt were off base.
I suppose what I was trying to get at is that the hobby means different things to different people. We're going to accept them all, as long as they are reasonable to us. I like to see all sorts of armies and themes. Even ones that fail to gel, or don't look cohesive, I appreciate their creativity and the players actually trying. I think that when you draw that hard line of what shouldn't be allowed, you're going to miss out on quite a few excellent armies.
Yes, we should make sure that as many people are having a good time as possible. Who should I cater towards? The majority of people that came to our event and had no problem with the army, or the guys here complaining and saying that we have no right to run events. Should we cater to the player that keep coming back with new ideas, some wacky, some great, some that don't work out? or should we cater to internetz opinion? No one is forcing you to play. If you don't want to play, ask for a re-pairing or sit it out.
Here's an example of something you would have seen at the GT that was completely legal:
Let's say a WoC army painted to a 3 color minimum. All the models are mostly black, it's hard to differentiate between units. Hardly painted. That army could be fully WYSIWYG, but undifferentiated due to the dark paint. That's okay by the letter of the rules, but the ponies aren't.
I have no issues with fun themed armies, provided that the theme is still recognizable as Warhammer. I've played with, and against, plenty of fun themes. I've seen the christmas-village and beer-fest dwaves, monty-python ogres, and I've taken a nascar themed ork army to a 40k tournament. Fun isn't the issue. It's that they're not warhammer models, and they don't follow the event rules (as noted above).
I'm sure that your regular player is a great guy and all. You can say I'm uptight all you want, but as I mentioned before, why is the person who expects that the rules be obeyed considered to be in the wrong?
That doesn't take into consideration the community we have. Amongst our attendees, we have a great range of people that try many different things (to varying levels of success), and we have an even greater number that are accepting of these trials & errors. Warhammer models themselves don't really matter, it's more if they fit and conform to game rules. We have plenty of people that sculpt their own stuff or use alternative model ranges. If it's clear what they are, then we're inclined to accept them.
So, someone came to you ahead of time, with an army that violated your event rules, and you said sure, go ahead. Again, why should anyone respect you as a judge?
I'll let the attendees, and whoever reads this thread decide on who they want to respect. In terms of violating our own rules, if we make exceptions it's not really in violation.
When you quote-mine me and take me out of context, sure.
To expand on the point, I normally don't like action figures or 'toys' in armies, but Chris's army was well put together and cohesive. It's not a action figure counting as a dreadknight. There wasn't a break in his theme.
This, of course, depends on who you're talking to. As others have said in this thread, they'd have a hard time keeping track of which multi-coloured unit was which in the heat of a game. Each pony being individual isn't necessarily a good thing in this case. Being WYSIWYG would have made things easily identifiable. That was a rule, no?
You're correct that it depends on who you're talking to. I asked most of his opponents after the game if everything was clear, and they didn't have a problem. The 'other' person you're referencing didn't play him. Just to be clear, no one that he played had a problem IDing the units.
You know what would have been cool - if he'd actually painted warhammer horses in the pony colours. If he'd actually put a little more effort into it than gluing toys onto bases.
That's your opinion. He could have, but it may not have looked the way he wanted.
The army itself isn't really to my taste, but it isn't really my business either. If I ran into it at a GT, I might not be super pumped about playing against it, but that's mostly irrelevant, because I'd be happy to play against the player. The enjoyment in any match up is about 90% dependent on the other player, 10% on what he puts on the board.
I think it was handled well by the event staff- let it play, but probably doesn't get much in the painting department. I'd love to make it to one of these East Coast tournaments some day, and by all accounts Crossroads would be a pretty sweet event.
I *will* say that it raises my eyebrows a bit that anyone would be surprised when this army receives some polarized reactions. The spread of positive and negative reactions I see in this thread were mirrored when a photo of it floated up over at Bugman's.
Not a fan. Redbeard's covered the salient points though.
Also, I lol'd at the thought that he put a lot of effort into the army. Gluing prepainted ponies to bases and making a banner for each unit is not a lot of effort.
Hello folks, I'm not a regular reader of the Dakka forums, but this post came up and I felt like I should respond.
I'm the TO for The Crossroads GTs. And I think any hate that's directed at the player who took this army is completely misdirected. He did everything on the up-and-up, he contacted me well in advance, sent me pics of the army, and even pointed me towards players to contact that had played against the army previously to see if it's clear which units are which on the tabletop. Chris certainly did his part, and while there is no painting involved, he clearly committed himself for the "fun" LOLs with this army, even having the videos playing in the background, T-shirts, the castle, cups of punch, etc...
Obviously it's not to everyone's taste, and Chris knew that going in I think, so the wildly varying opinions are not surprising to him.
Any heat for this army being preset at the event should really be directed at me as the TO.
There are a few criteria that I used when deciding whether to allow this army in:
1) Fun factor - clearly Chris was doing this as a fun gag, he went all-out for his theme. I don't fell that he was looking to circumvent having to take an actual GW army, I know that he has painted GW armies, and would have readily taken one of them if I had denied his request.
2) Am I able to tell what's what on the table top: For this is where I had a real concern, in the end, based on previous precedent, I decided to allow it. We have allowed the Pawn's Of Chaos checkerboard familiar army in the past, which I think is more difficult at times to distinguish what it what, and had no issues. The original poster of this battle report himself has brought his cool Nurgle themed Skaven army to the event before, which contains no actual Skaven models, and people seemed to be able to work with that as well. On top of that, Bretonians as an army are usually confusing to me as an individual as to what is what, and which characters are where anyway, so this in my mind was no worse than a normal Bret army in that regard.
3) Appearance - Granted, the player himself did no painting or converting for this army, but it did look coherent and like it belonged together. And outside of the fact that they were MLPs, the army wasn't a horrible looking army. There are players that get their 3 color minimum on the model as sloppily as they can, and they are now compliant. Those armies to me are more unfun to look at because they look legitimately awful, GW minitures or not. I have played in a GT against the army that the models were spray painted different colors, with massive swaths of paint brushed on, then glitter all over them. This was compliant, had it's 3 colors, but was visually painful to look at. I didn't feel that this went to that level of visual disgust.
Where I obviously missed the boat is the player experience, I vastly underestimated how much opponents, and other attendees at the event would dislike having this army present. Chris and I have talked and both agree that this was the only time it will see the table at a GT, and to use this as a lesson learned.
Much of the feedback I've received centers around the lack of effort put into this army as compared to his peers at the event. I would disagree with this reasoning based on one point, I know there are plenty of players that and pay to have their armies built and painted for them. And rarely does anyone say that those armies don't belong at an event based on lack of effort, so that reasoning does not hold water in my mind.
As for the Crossroads GT's themselves, if you find that this one particular instance is reason enough not to attend our events, then that is certainly your prerogative. We take pride in running an event that caters to gamers who value different aspects of the hobby, from those that place a high value on the soft scores to those that really want a competitive gaming environment, and everyone in-between. I think we've been very successful, as these are the largest GT's in the northeast, and we sell out both events annually within 24 hours of opening registration. So if this has put you off, I would encourage you to reconsider and attend in person, as the feedback I regularly receive is that most people have a wonderful time at our GTs, and we grow attendance each year, meaning new attendees find it an experience worth repeating.
Murdock wrote: Much of the feedback I've received centers around the lack of effort put into this army as compared to his peers at the event. I would disagree with this reasoning based on one point, I know there are plenty of players that and pay to have their armies built and painted for them. And rarely does anyone say that those armies don't belong at an event based on lack of effort, so that reasoning does not hold water in my mind.
Except the difference is that someone put effort into the army even if it isn't the person fielding it. Paying to have your army built and painted requires effort on the person you are contracting to do it.
Appreciate getting to read your response in this thread. Thanks for the professional reply. Very much hope to get a midwest posse put together and head out to one of your events some time.
@pretre:
I don't see the point of trying to split hairs on that issue. I don't think "amount of effort" is some kind of useful metric, be it by the player or by his contracted painter. Otherwise the first Space Orks I painted would be the pinnacle of achievement. (Spoiler alert: They're terrible, and look like they were painted by a distracted 12 year old.)
I don't see the point of trying to split hairs on that issue. I don't think "amount of effort" is some kind of useful metric, be it by the player or by his contracted painter. Otherwise the first Space Orks I painted would be the pinnacle of achievement. (Spoiler alert: They're terrible, and look like they were painted by a distracted 12 year old.)
Sure amount of effort is a useful metric. As others have already covered, we're not playing chess. This is a hobby, not just a game. I go to events to play games with cool people and engage in the hobby (painting, modelling, converting, etc). This pony army is much the same as me buying a bunch of prepainted army men and making an imperial guard army out of them. It is lazy and shows a disregard for the hobby aspects of the game and my opponents.
I have no problem with the theme; I have a problem with the execution. Any army that shows up and isn't wysywyg, is proxied off of children's toys and shows a lack of effort is going to be a real downer for the other participants. He could have easily modelled a good looking Pony Army that was WYSIWYG and showed effort, but he didn't. I would have much rather faced your poorly painted space orks than that.
Crossroads is one of the best of not the best tourney in the NE, My friends and I have been going since before it was called crossroads when it was held in the Soccer hall of fame.. which I vomited all over the outside of but I digress.. The army was fine, it was a laugh.. it was fun busting my club mates balls about losing to ponies. Would I have enjoyed playing it? not so much. Was I raging at the fact he was allowed to bring it.. no. In the end Crossroads is a blast and I and all the Shambling Horde will continue to clutter up the mid tables with mediocre play.
As much as it pains me to look at this army, if I were to face off against it and Chris was truly as good a guy as everyone said then I'd expect that the game itself would be a blast. He went all-out with his theme, and sounds like he was really trying to get everyone to have a good time with it. I've had some pretty bad games against fully painted armies, and at the end of the day I'm paying all that money to attend an event and have FUN. It's more fun to play a Brony-themed Bret army with a fun player than it is to play unprimed internet lists run by some whiny man-child.
@Murdock- Very professional reply. Earned a bunch of respect from me. Also where in the NE is Crossroads located?
Also, you would re-pair us if I didn't want to play the MLP theme. Then this is a non-issue to me. If I still had a shot at doing well, then I would (apparently) ask for a re-pairing and shake his hand for the creative shananigans.
Crossroads in held in the Elmira/Horseheads area of NY. It's about 2 hours south of both Rochester & Syracuse, and about 4 hours from the NY city metro area (add an hour if you have to travel through the city).
In terms of re-pairing, it may depend on your battle score at the time and how early in the event it is. The earlier in the event, the easier to find someone else that has both of your scores. Later on, we can probably still do it, but it gets harder.
Warmaster Primus wrote: Crossroads in held in the Elmira/Horseheads area of NY. It's about 2 hours south of both Rochester & Syracuse, and about 4 hours from the NY city metro area (add an hour if you have to travel through the city).
In terms of re-pairing, it may depend on your battle score at the time and how early in the event it is. The earlier in the event, the easier to find someone else that has both of your scores. Later on, we can probably still do it, but it gets harder.
Oh, it's not THAT far away. Could be something to bat around for a future event.
Well having the option to re-pair, especially with an extreme case such as this, is a good last resort to help ensure everyone has the best time possible. An escape clause would be just the right thing for someone who would be annoyed quickly with the pretty ponies (or whatever extreme shenanigans come up). My issue was always for the poor guy (hypothetical) who absolutely doesn't want to face Bre-pony-a, but also doesn't want to get screwed over in the tournament for not facing them (hypothetical lose-lose situation). But now this seems to be a non-issue, rock on .
SlaveToDorkness wrote: So, basically the defense for this army of unpainted toys is "He asked us in advance and we made an exception for him".
I agree with Red and Pretre. A lot of effort goes into an army. This just files in the face of that effort and the actual event rules.
A commission painted army flies in the face of effort too. Yet nobody complains about them. All this is about is the fact that people have issues with MLP.
SlaveToDorkness wrote: So, basically the defense for this army of unpainted toys is "He asked us in advance and we made an exception for him".
I agree with Red and Pretre. A lot of effort goes into an army. This just files in the face of that effort and the actual event rules.
A commission painted army flies in the face of effort too. Yet nobody complains about them. All this is about is the fact that people have issues with MLP.
Hardly. That's just perceived victimisation.
You'd get the same opposition if you brought an entirely Toy Story-model army, an army made of all GI Joe-figurines, or an all LEGO army.
Some people buy into the image that (like them or not) GW has worked very hard to build. We play in a world that they have thought up and going too far astray from that world is seen the same as if you'd all of a sudden see Arya Stark of Game of Thrones ride into battle on Rainbow Dash, to defeat Joffrey, only to be stopped by a spell sent by Gargamel.
If you're a fan of Game of Thrones, the episode called "LET'S SMURF JOFFREY" right after the red wedding, would probably break the illusion for you.
Personally, I can see the fun in the army as long as it's one person doing it and not too often. But what if you go to a tournament and 6 of 10 come with their smurf/pony armies? It would ruin the warhammer scene.
And if you do decide to be that guy, then you need to keep your mind open enough that you may actually be offending some purists and be ready to accept that. Also be ready to accept that they are not wrong. You're the one stomping ponies into their hobby.
You're the one that has to accept the outcome of what you've decided to do.
So no, don't try to turn it into some kind of MLP martyrdom. That's not what this is. Bronies are not Rosa Parks and no one is asking them to ride at the back of the bus.
SlaveToDorkness wrote: So, basically the defense for this army of unpainted toys is "He asked us in advance and we made an exception for him".
I agree with Red and Pretre. A lot of effort goes into an army. This just files in the face of that effort and the actual event rules.
A commission painted army flies in the face of effort too. Yet nobody complains about them. All this is about is the fact that people have issues with MLP.
I already addressed that. A commission painted army had a significant amount of effort put into it. All of that army was assembled and painted well and is generally very nice to see across the table. Heck, my wife generally paints my characters in my armies. Obviously that is effort as well. Slapping pony toys on green bases and giving them banners is even less work than unprimered grey plastic.
If he had a lovingly converted brettonian army with a MLP theme, I might roll my eyes but I would appreciate the effort and the work involved. If he had a MLP toy army or a green army men army, I wouldn't.
I can tell you from experience that this took more effort than building an army from sprue to grey model.
The hours spent looking up which ponies were available were sizeable. I have musicians and standard bearers for each unit who are somehow related to the Champion of each unit. I had to find those ponies on eBay and purchase them. Sometimes I'd miss auctions. A large amount of time was spent looking up what was available to me.
Each banner was made in photoshop which took time to find each picture, adjust the image, print it, cut it out, cut and paint the pole and glue it to the pole.
Each base needed to be sanded down because they are 25mm and not the actual GW 23mmish.
I had a buddy of mine plastic craft both cannons which took several hours a piece. Each one of those had to be assembled and painted. Each cannon is equipped to fire an actual party popper by the way.
Did I make this army to skip out on painting Bretonnians? No. I wanted THIS army to look THIS way. In fact, I sold my larger Bretonnians for LESS than this army cost me to make. I have plenty of painted models and I love the hobby. I'm by no means a good painter, but I do my best.
To say there was no effort simply isn't true. To say I put forth less effort than most players is completely factual. However, none of those players suffered a 0 on their paint score. By bringing this army I conceded the opportunity to win Best Overall. I had no issue with this.
I expected people to love it or hate it. I did not expect people to hate it with such venom. I am glad that my opponents didn't request to be moved to another table. I think my attitude and demeanor spoke over anyone's disdain for the army. I feel bad for anyone who would walk away from the table, they clearly don't understand the magic of friendship. I would prefer, neigh, demand that they pony up and enjoy a good game of Warhammer.
Narenzade wrote: I can tell you from experience that this took more effort than building an army from sprue to grey model.
The hours spent looking up which ponies were available were sizeable. I have musicians and standard bearers for each unit who are somehow related to the Champion of each unit. I had to find those ponies on eBay and purchase them. Sometimes I'd miss auctions. A large amount of time was spent looking up what was available to me.
Each banner was made in photoshop which took time to find each picture, adjust the image, print it, cut it out, cut and paint the pole and glue it to the pole.
Each base needed to be sanded down because they are 25mm and not the actual GW 23mmish.
I had a buddy of mine plastic craft both cannons which took several hours a piece. Each one of those had to be assembled and painted. Each cannon is equipped to fire an actual party popper by the way.
Did I make this army to skip out on painting Bretonnians? No. I wanted THIS army to look THIS way. In fact, I sold my larger Bretonnians for LESS than this army cost me to make. I have plenty of painted models and I love the hobby. I'm by no means a good painter, but I do my best.
To say there was no effort simply isn't true. To say I put forth less effort than most players is completely factual. However, none of those players suffered a 0 on their paint score. By bringing this army I conceded the opportunity to win Best Overall. I had no issue with this.
I expected people to love it or hate it. I did not expect people to hate it with such venom. I am glad that my opponents didn't request to be moved to another table. I think my attitude and demeanor spoke over anyone's disdain for the army. I feel bad for anyone who would walk away from the table, they clearly don't understand the magic of friendship. I would prefer, neigh, demand that they pony up and enjoy a good game of Warhammer.
Okay, so you spent a lot of effort buying them on eBay and researching pony types? I guess I had never really been considered a part of the hobby before... Painting, assembling, converting, researching ponies, eBaying...?
Either way, I'm not 'hating' your army. I just don't think that it shows respect for the hobby, the rules of the event or your opponent. That's my opinion though and obviously not the one of the organizers at the event.
Narenzade wrote: ....I feel bad for anyone who would walk away from the table, they clearly don't understand the magic of friendship. I would prefer, neigh, demand that they pony up and enjoy a good game of Warhammer.
Ohhh, and you were doing so well until you gave in to the puns there.
As a newer player, I wasn't aware there was such a thing as 'the integrity of the game'. Like I said, I've only been playing for two years and I've only been to four GTs. Lesson learned.
Narenzade wrote: As a newer player, I wasn't aware there was such a thing as 'the integrity of the game'. Like I said, I've only been playing for two years and I've only been to four GTs. Lesson learned.
Where was 'integrity of the game' used in my response? I said lack of respect. Totally different thing.
Kudos on doing so well with a so called "soft book"
BUT that is crap that you would even think to bring prepainted toys to a tournment. Have you no honor? If it was me with my ogres across the table from you i would have picked up and left. Spending as much time as I am preparing for adepticon id be pissed as hell. Prepainted TOYS!!!!!!
I am all for creative and goofy but I could have literally gotten that army ready in an hour.
And if you do decide to be that guy, then you need to keep your mind open enough that you may actually be offending some purists and be ready to accept that. Also be ready to accept that they are not wrong. You're the one stomping ponies into their hobby.
Their hobby? Isn't it his hobby as well to enjoy?
Also this thread is honestly amusing for all the amused anger.
Prepainted TOYS!!!!!!
..Which warhammer models are as well, if not the prepainted part.
It's interesting that people are using the words 'SUPER MAD' and 'rage' when I haven't really seen any rage. People have been discussing it pretty civilly.
RatBot wrote: I think the best part of this whole thing is people getting SUPER MAD about it.
I laughed when I saw the ponies and I continued laughing as I read the thread.
The word you are looking for is empathy. Each of these posters has put themselves into the opponents shoes and posted how they would feel, no one is SUPER MAD because there would be no point to that, people are concerned that a well established tourney would allow this kind of army and more importantly, the slope that doing so would lead to. Just saying now, I love MLP **Brony five** so that isn't the problem, and in a casual game I would of loved to play this army but in my opinion this kind of spoof/parody army isn't the kind of thing to be seen in tournaments. When doing entirely converted armies such as Exodites with Eldar using Wood Elf Conversions or Halflings using Empire rules you have to be very, very careful if you want to participate in tourneys due to strict WYSIWYG and painting standards. While I could tell easily who was who and why I doubt others would do so as well. There is so the fact of very little painting done (Did you paint banners? I'm not sure) so you cannot really complain about the painting score, if you want to proof me wrong simply post a picture of your best painted (By you) pony so we could decide if it was fair or not. This army I am not overly concerned about but if they let you in why not let that army of WW2 Figures play if they are put as much effort as you did. The main thing to remember is not everyone plays to win and many pay for the fluff, and having my Wood Elves riddling a wandering army of Equestrians would kind of break my suspension of disbelief.
BUT that is crap that you would even think to bring prepainted toys to a tournment. Have you no honor? If it was me with my ogres across the table from you i would have picked up and left. Spending as much time as I am preparing for adepticon id be pissed as hell. Prepainted TOYS!!!!!!
Have you no honor?
Thou hast besmirched the honor of the hallowed, lofty hobby of playing make-believe war with plastic elfmen! For shame, scoundrel!
What about you WYSIWYG stance on his Ponies? Apart from having his list in front of you at all times how would you know what weapons his heroes have? Not a singe pony has anything resembling a lance or he could of modelled on armour to justify 2+ save, but he left them as they are. I assume the Grail Knights are the Sparkly ones, because other then the Sparkles how could you tell them apart?
I've read that post a few times and I see nothing to indicate that it was satire; in fact the edit reinforces the fact that it was sincere.
I don't know, maybe I just don't get the tournament mindset, but why is any one players' fun more or less important than any other players'? "Ruin this guy's fun cuz he's ruining my fun, my $10 are worth more than his $10". In fact, it sounds like pretty much no one at the tournament cared one whit about the ponies, so I'm not sure what point there is in going beyond "I think it's dumb and wouldn't want to play against it. I won't be going to any tournaments at that venue". But stuff like "The TO's should be ashamed!" and "have you no honor?" L O fethin' L.
Money talks, people who would probably never have attended that particular tourney in the first place walk. If it's really an issue, attendance will suffer in future tournaments run by those people and someone else will pick up the ball and ban stupid pony armies, nbd.
The WYSIWYG argument is one I can understand more than the "Bawww ponies in muh super-serious elfgame bawwww" argument.
RatBot wrote: why is any one players' fun more or less important than any other players'? "
One player's fun is no more important than another. The problem is when one player's fun is more important than multiple other player's fun.
Except for the part where there was no indication that anyone else at the tournament was upset over it.
Uh oh, guys, better not allow silly armies at your tournament or else people on the internet who probably don't even live in the same time zone as you are gonna get mad.
If it's actually a problem, it'll fix itself when players who don't like silliness in their super-serious elfmans game start their own tournament.
For the record, if the situation was "Dude with pony army was not allowed to play in tourney, comes to internet to complain" my response would've been an equally bemused "their tourney, their call, tough cookies". My response certainly would not include insulting the integrity of either the player of the pony army or the organizers of the event.
RatBot wrote: Except for the part where there was no indication that anyone else at the tournament was upset over it.
Two things: 1) You are correct, but I was responding to this specific statement "why is any one players' fun more or less important than any other players'? "" hence my use of quotes. 2) No one said anything. That is different than not being upset over it. Players have a tendency to let things slide or not bring them up so as not to cause waves. This is especially true of events with soft scores of any kind. It is the TOs/judges responsibility to enforce the rules that they post for their event, not the participants.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
RatBot wrote: My response certainly would not include insulting the integrity of either the player of the pony army or the organizers of the event.
The insulting 'omg' responses are certainly the minority, although you keep flogging them like they are the majority.
The insulting 'omg' responses are certainly the minority, although you keep flogging them like they are the majority.
You know what? That's fair enough. I was simply expressing my amusement at them.
I just think the whole thing is silly. Literally, the whole thing. From the army to the minority of people upset at the army.
Two things:
1) You are correct, but I was responding to this specific statement "why is any one players' fun more or less important than any other players'? "" hence my use of quotes.
2) No one said anything. That is different than not being upset over it. Players have a tendency to let things slide or not bring them up so as not to cause waves. This is especially true of events with soft scores of any kind. It is the TOs/judges responsibility to enforce the rules that they post for their event, not the participants.
Also fair enough, but it'll be a self-correcting issue if (when) tournament attendance drops, which will admittedly be harmful in the short term, but will probably resolve itself in the long term.
RatBot wrote: I dunno, this sounded pretty mad to me:
BUT that is crap that you would even think to bring prepainted toys to a tournment. Have you no honor? If it was me with my ogres across the table from you i would have picked up and left. Spending as much time as I am preparing for adepticon id be pissed as hell. Prepainted TOYS!!!!!!
Have you no honor?
Thou hast besmirched the honor of the hallowed, lofty hobby of playing make-believe war with plastic elfmen! For shame, scoundrel!
If he had come with some scratch built or converted knights to look like my little pony I would be all for it but all he did was go to toys are us and buy stuff off the shelf and glue a piece of paper on it. The stuff I build and paint is nothing special but I do put work in on it and yeah it would be annoying to see someone else circumvent the system by just buying bath toys.
RatBot wrote: I dunno, this sounded pretty mad to me:
BUT that is crap that you would even think to bring prepainted toys to a tournment. Have you no honor? If it was me with my ogres across the table from you i would have picked up and left. Spending as much time as I am preparing for adepticon id be pissed as hell. Prepainted TOYS!!!!!!
Have you no honor?
Thou hast besmirched the honor of the hallowed, lofty hobby of playing make-believe war with plastic elfmen! For shame, scoundrel!
If he had come with some scratch built or converted knights to look like my little pony I would be all for it but all he did was go to toys are us and buy stuff off the shelf and glue a piece of paper on it. The stuff I build and paint is nothing special but I do put work in on it and yeah it would be annoying to see someone else circumvent the system by just buying bath toys.
See, that's a much more sensible way to put it, and yeah, I could definitely see how it would annoy people.
SlaveToDorkness wrote: So, basically the defense for this army of unpainted toys is "He asked us in advance and we made an exception for him".
I agree with Red and Pretre. A lot of effort goes into an army. This just files in the face of that effort and the actual event rules.
A commission painted army flies in the face of effort too. Yet nobody complains about them. All this is about is the fact that people have issues with MLP.
I already addressed that. A commission painted army had a significant amount of effort put into it. All of that army was assembled and painted well and is generally very nice to see across the table. Heck, my wife generally paints my characters in my armies. Obviously that is effort as well. Slapping pony toys on green bases and giving them banners is even less work than unprimered grey plastic.
If he had a lovingly converted brettonian army with a MLP theme, I might roll my eyes but I would appreciate the effort and the work involved. If he had a MLP toy army or a green army men army, I wouldn't.
A commission painted army has had it's player put no effort into it. If other people put effort into YOUR army, then it's tantamount to you putting no effort in.
A commission painted army has had it's player put no effort into it. If other people put effort into YOUR army, then it's tantamount to you putting no effort in.
Actually, this is a good point. Guy buys toy ponies; obviously he has no respect for the hobby (I disagree, or rather, think that "respect for the hobby" is a fairly trivial issue) and it is a bit chafing to people who put a lot of time and effort into building and painting their own armies (I can understand this part). That's why he got a 0 for painting, and deserved it.
So how about the guy who bought his army, fully assembled and painted off of ebay, and did absolutely none of it himself? He put in even less effort in the modelling and painting aspect than Pony Guy, who had to glue the models to the base, paint the bases, and even made little standards for the unit, but Captain Ebay could theoretically get a high painting score.
To me, it is little about effort, and more about how it appears on the tabletop. I get most of my enjoyment of this hobby out of putting together armies that look nice, and facing them against other armies that look nice. To me, the "strategy" side of this game is sorely lacking, and the redeeming feature is the spectacle created when you can see two well-painted armies facing each other on a nice looking table.
This is what GT's promise - this has always been the draw of a GT. I do not attend events without painting requirements, and WYSIWYG requirements. To me, the idea that a player can petition an event organizer to avoid these requirements shows a significant lapse in judgement on the part of the organizer who approves it.
As I mentioned in an earlier post, I have played against several interestingly themed armies, but the one thing that they've all had in common is that they met the rules of the event; they were WYSIWYG; they were painted. I've seen Ultramarines done with a smurf theme, with smurf toys on the display board, yet the actual army was just marines. I've seen a G.I. Joe themed guard army (and a Cobra one, for that matter), but these were simply paint schemes on cadians, not toys.
Of course, there will always be players who do the bare minimum. I don't appreciate playing against these players, but as long as there is a minimum requirement, and they have met it, they surely deserve the right to play. As for those who buy their armies, or pay others to paint them, I believe they should get 0 scores, yet be allowed to play, because their army meets the event requirements. However, pragmatism must be considered here - it is hard to police this. If the alternatives are to have people who didn't paint their own armies lie in order to get a soft-score, or be granted a score without lying, I'd prefer they get the score and preserve their honesty. Especially if that honesty can disqualify them from receiving a painting award.
Of course, the pro-painted army does not detract from the opponent's experience in the way that the toy army or the bare-minimum army does, so there is merit to allowing them to participate.
I have more respect for someone who paints their own army, though their skills may be lacking, than I have for someone who pays to have theirs painted. Yet, I prefer to play against the better looking one. The world is full of interesting contradictions.
In a fair world, a person using an army that someone else painted in order to get a score would be treated the same way that a player receiving outside advice during the game was treated. If I, as a painter, cannot solicit my friend to help me play the game, why should a player be allowed to have a friend (or professional) help paint it for a score. As long as scores are associated with each aspect of the tournament, there's no reason, other than the aforementioned pragmatic considerations, to treat these differently.
A commission painted army has had it's player put no effort into it. If other people put effort into YOUR army, then it's tantamount to you putting no effort in.
Actually, this is a good point. Guy buys toy ponies; obviously he has no respect for the hobby (I disagree, or rather, think that "respect for the hobby" is a fairly trivial issue) and it is a bit chafing to people who put a lot of time and effort into building and painting their own armies (I can understand this part). That's why he got a 0 for painting, and deserved it.
So how about the guy who bought his army, fully assembled and painted off of ebay, and did absolutely none of it himself? He put in even less effort in the modelling and painting aspect than Pony Guy, who had to glue the models to the base, paint the bases, and even made little standards for the unit, but Captain Ebay could theoretically get a high painting score.
There is no realistic way to stop the ebay guy circumstance from happening, and while I agree that this army is neat and fun in a way were I would have no problem with it I can see the points that if the bias of the TO let certain fun armies through than why not all the possible fun armies like the spoken of Green armymen IG or a Gundam Tau army, Monsters Inc Daemons army, ect
I believe they should get 0 scores, yet be allowed to play, because their army meets the event requirements. However, pragmatism must be considered here - it is hard to police this. If the alternatives are to have people who didn't paint their own armies lie in order to get a soft-score, or be granted a score without lying, I'd prefer they get the score and preserve their honesty. Especially if that honesty can disqualify them from receiving a painting award.
Yeah, I agree. I also understand that it's hard to police this and is thus completely impractical, at best. Simply wanted to pose the hypothetical question.
To me, it is little about effort, and more about how it appears on the tabletop. I get most of my enjoyment of this hobby out of putting together armies that look nice, and facing them against other armies that look nice. To me, the "strategy" side of this game is sorely lacking, and the redeeming feature is the spectacle created when you can see two well-painted armies facing each other on a nice looking table.
I can't imagine paying money to enter a tournament to play a game I consider sub-par just for the chance of possibly seeing some pretty miniatures, especially when, frankly, no guarantee exists (beyond statistical averages) than any of them will be anything more than base coat+3 colors.
But that's, just, like, you know, my opinion, man, and to each his own; serious-business types in a game with subpar rules are why I avoided 40K and WHFB tournaments like the plague, for example. I avoid Warmahordes tournaments because of serious business types and also because I am very bad at the game .
I'm also not the one saying people should be ashamed of themselves for allowing something that I personally object to in a tournament I didn't play in. I still don't think it merited a response beyond "Dumb army, would not play in this GT". My issue wasn't with people not liking or wanting to play against the army, it was melodramatic accusations of dishonor and disgrace in this, the sacred, deadly serious tradition of pretendy-time magic generals that amused me.
while I agree that this army is neat and fun in a way were I would have no problem with it I can see the points that if the bias of the TO let certain fun armies through than why not all the possible fun armies like the spoken of Green armymen IG or a Gundam Tau army, Monsters Inc Daemons army, ect
Where does it end and can it if 1 is allowed?
It ends wherever the TO says it ends.
with that said, I certainly see the problem with consistency, and the TOs should enforce the rules they set (barring extenuating circumstances).
Again, I want to stress that I agree the army is silly, and that the TOs should be consistent, and that if they're going to allow weird stuff like this they should let people know. I just came in expecting a handful of responses filled with righteous indignation and... was actually somewhat disappointed (though still amused) that there were only one or two.
I'll also acknowledge that the people who made responses that I thought were a bit overly indignant also later explained themselves in a much more reasonable fashion. So really, that's basically all there is to it.
Murdock wrote: Hello folks, I'm not a regular reader of the Dakka forums, but this post came up and I felt like I should respond.
I'm the TO for The Crossroads GTs. And I think any hate that's directed at the player who took this army is completely misdirected. He did everything on the up-and-up, he contacted me well in advance, sent me pics of the army, and even pointed me towards players to contact that had played against the army previously to see if it's clear which units are which on the tabletop. Chris certainly did his part, and while there is no painting involved, he clearly committed himself for the "fun" LOLs with this army, even having the videos playing in the background, T-shirts, the castle, cups of punch, etc...
Obviously it's not to everyone's taste, and Chris knew that going in I think, so the wildly varying opinions are not surprising to him.
Any heat for this army being preset at the event should really be directed at me as the TO.
There are a few criteria that I used when deciding whether to allow this army in:
1) Fun factor - clearly Chris was doing this as a fun gag, he went all-out for his theme. I don't fell that he was looking to circumvent having to take an actual GW army, I know that he has painted GW armies, and would have readily taken one of them if I had denied his request.
2) Am I able to tell what's what on the table top: For this is where I had a real concern, in the end, based on previous precedent, I decided to allow it. We have allowed the Pawn's Of Chaos checkerboard familiar army in the past, which I think is more difficult at times to distinguish what it what, and had no issues. The original poster of this battle report himself has brought his cool Nurgle themed Skaven army to the event before, which contains no actual Skaven models, and people seemed to be able to work with that as well. On top of that, Bretonians as an army are usually confusing to me as an individual as to what is what, and which characters are where anyway, so this in my mind was no worse than a normal Bret army in that regard.
3) Appearance - Granted, the player himself did no painting or converting for this army, but it did look coherent and like it belonged together. And outside of the fact that they were MLPs, the army wasn't a horrible looking army. There are players that get their 3 color minimum on the model as sloppily as they can, and they are now compliant. Those armies to me are more unfun to look at because they look legitimately awful, GW minitures or not. I have played in a GT against the army that the models were spray painted different colors, with massive swaths of paint brushed on, then glitter all over them. This was compliant, had it's 3 colors, but was visually painful to look at. I didn't feel that this went to that level of visual disgust.
Where I obviously missed the boat is the player experience, I vastly underestimated how much opponents, and other attendees at the event would dislike having this army present. Chris and I have talked and both agree that this was the only time it will see the table at a GT, and to use this as a lesson learned.
Much of the feedback I've received centers around the lack of effort put into this army as compared to his peers at the event. I would disagree with this reasoning based on one point, I know there are plenty of players that and pay to have their armies built and painted for them. And rarely does anyone say that those armies don't belong at an event based on lack of effort, so that reasoning does not hold water in my mind.
As for the Crossroads GT's themselves, if you find that this one particular instance is reason enough not to attend our events, then that is certainly your prerogative. We take pride in running an event that caters to gamers who value different aspects of the hobby, from those that place a high value on the soft scores to those that really want a competitive gaming environment, and everyone in-between. I think we've been very successful, as these are the largest GT's in the northeast, and we sell out both events annually within 24 hours of opening registration. So if this has put you off, I would encourage you to reconsider and attend in person, as the feedback I regularly receive is that most people have a wonderful time at our GTs, and we grow attendance each year, meaning new attendees find it an experience worth repeating.
Appreciate getting to read your response in this thread. Thanks for the professional reply. Very much hope to get a midwest posse put together and head out to one of your events some time.
Totally agreed Red_Zeke, thanks for posting here Murdock!
Regarding this statement of yours:
Where I obviously missed the boat is the player experience, I vastly underestimated how much opponents, and other attendees at the event would dislike having this army present. Chris and I have talked and both agree that this was the only time it will see the table at a GT, and to use this as a lesson learned.
I'm really glad you noted this! For a counts-as army, I think it's important, exactly as you say, to keep "player experience" in mind, and I do think this army misses the bar on that front a bit. I think not using it in a future GT is a smart move on his part... it would be hilarious to me for a fun game, but not necessarily something I'd expect would be allowed at a GT.
Regarding Salvage's nurgle-themed skaven... I think the "player experience" factor there means absolutely everyone I've seen face it is happy to play against it, because it meets pretty much everyone's "rule of cool" and is also well converted to make distinguishing weapons / units easy.
I am currently finishing a gribbly 40k army, which I'll be using at AdeptiCon (I got approval ahead of time). But I converted the models using GW weaponry where possible, and am very careful to make sure that it's easy to tell what is what, so that it will be a fun to play against it (keeping in mind the "player experience", as you excellently phrased it).
Again, cheers for posting here
Edit: Just checked out Salvage's Crossroads GT Gallery and there are some sweet photos in there! Spoilered a few below of big monsters that I like, and Salvage must have too since he snapped the pics
And if you do decide to be that guy, then you need to keep your mind open enough that you may actually be offending some purists and be ready to accept that. Also be ready to accept that they are not wrong. You're the one stomping ponies into their hobby.
Their hobby? Isn't it his hobby as well to enjoy?
Also this thread is honestly amusing for all the amused anger.
Prepainted TOYS!!!!!!
..Which warhammer models are as well, if not the prepainted part.
No, not while he is bringing an army that doesn't fit the scope. It's his hobby as much as anyone's, but while he is bringing an army that he brings knowing perfectly well that it is *not* what the other people subscribed to when they entered the hobby (in fact, the novelty is a large part of why he made it) then he makes himself the outsider, and that means he is the one that has to make concessions if they need to be made.
It's like me going to a Brony convention wearing S&M gimp gear for a laugh and then taking offense if the bronies disliked me being there. Hey, maybe they'll think it's as funny as I do, but they didn't go there to see a dude wearing nothing but a leather thong, a gimp mask and chains, and they may just see it as a degradation of their hobby. If they do, that's not their fault. It's mine. They gathered all their stuff, finished up their Rainbow Dash tattoos and fixed up their multi coloured wigs to come and be with like-minded people. They have first right to be there, I have second. Whether or not I was a Brony (and a part of their circle) before I donned the gimp gear is largely irrelevant (although it does allow a little more leeway if you're from the in circle to begin with.) I'm coming to them in an attempt to entertain, and if they don't think it's funny, then I've failed.
Just saying "this is my hobby too, so I can treat it any way I like" doesn't fly.
No, not while he is bringing an army that doesn't fit the scope. It's his hobby as much as anyone's, but while he is bringing an army that he brings knowing perfectly well that it is *not* what the other people subscribed to when they entered the hobby (in fact, the novelty is a large part of why he made it) then he makes himself the outsider, and that means he is the one that has to make concessions if they need to be made.
It's like me going to a Brony convention wearing S&M gimp gear for a laugh and then taking offense if the bronies disliked me being there. Hey, maybe they'll think it's as funny as I do, but they didn't go there to see a dude wearing nothing but a leather thong, a gimp mask and chains, and they may just see it as a degradation of their hobby. If they do, that's not their fault. It's mine. They gathered all their stuff, finished up their Rainbow Dash tattoos and fixed up their multi coloured wigs to come and be with like-minded people. They have first right to be there, I have second. Whether or not I was a Brony (and a part of their circle) before I donned the gimp gear is largely irrelevant (although it does allow a little more leeway if you're from the in circle to begin with.) I'm coming to them in an attempt to entertain, and if they don't think it's funny, then I've failed.
Just saying "this is my hobby too, so I can treat it any way I like" doesn't fly.
I had to stop reading at a certain point and just comment. I am active duty in the Military that works as a personal security officer for someone. I love this game with a passion but am unfortunately charged with working upwards of 15+ hours a day Monday through Friday. Also married. It utterly pains me to hear people give such grief to someone or people in general about "effort" directed towards their army. I cannot possibly catch up on the amount of painting that is required for my armies. I have about 3 or 4 hours every Sunday when I can paint and i am not very good even at doing it. I will be taking my half painted army to a tourney this weekend called FOWL ETC whatever the rest of the name is at Dropzone Games in MD. I pray that I don’t meet people that are that rude for little to no reason. BTW my first fantasy tourney. <End semi-rant>
On a side note, I would have thoroughly enjoy playing against Chris and would have more laughs than I knew what to do with. If you are that offended about a game than real life must be rough.....
Puddle_Pirate, you might just want to check the rules of the tourney at Dropzone- many tournies have requirements that armies be fully painted (3 color minimum).
You can totally use an army you're still working on, but if by "half painted" you mean some units aren't painted at all, that could be an issue. It depends on the event, of course, but every GT that I know of requires that armies be fully painted to a 3 color minimum standard... although a local tourney like the one I think you're referring to may not require that.
oh boy, i hope not. What i have painted, I have put my heart and soul into. I LOVE the comradery of playing a wargame with fellow people! But i guess I will find out.
I think the more interesting point here isn't so much that he took a sparkly Pony army to a GT. He did it as a lark, and I can understand why he thought it was funny and fun (and why many of his opponents probably did as well).
To me, the thing that would make me really salty to have faced him is that he took a sparkly pony DEATH STAR. Judging from this battle report it seems at least a few of his opponents lost because they didn't really comprehend the fact that their opponent was running a 1,300 point hitty, rerollable 1+ engine of death and destruction at their face. This ogre player underestimated that unit and it just ran over him like a fething train.
To me that seems almost...a little unsporting I guess. I don't think that was his intention, but I certainly think it was the effect. He covered his massive iron morningstar with sparkles and glitter and rainbows, and nobody realized what it was until he'd scattered their brains all over the table.
Now of course that's their fault for not reading his list, but I don't think ALL FIVE of his opponents would have made the same mistake if they'd been looking at armed, mean-looking knights instead of smiling sparkly ponies.
PirateRobotNinjaofDeath wrote: I think the more interesting point here isn't so much that he took a sparkly Pony army to a GT. He did it as a lark, and I can understand why he thought it was funny and fun (and why many of his opponents probably did as well).
To me, the thing that would make me really salty to have faced him is that he took a sparkly pony DEATH STAR. Judging from this battle report it seems at least a few of his opponents lost because they didn't really comprehend the fact that their opponent was running a 1,300 point hitty, rerollable 1+ engine of death and destruction at their face. This ogre player underestimated that unit and it just ran over him like a fething train.
To me that seems almost...a little unsporting I guess. I don't think that was his intention, but I certainly think it was the effect. He covered his massive iron morningstar with sparkles and glitter and rainbows, and nobody realized what it was until he'd scattered their brains all over the table.
Now of course that's their fault for not reading his list, but I don't think ALL FIVE of his opponents would have made the same mistake if they'd been looking at armed, mean-looking knights instead of smiling sparkly ponies.
The problem with looking at his list is most GT's are closed lists for fantasy. I am going to assume so was this. His list was not at all WYSIWYG. Not a single horse had a rider so...
I was expecting to see an army of converted and painted horses in a my little pony (or whatever the hell they are called now) style - that would have been pretty cool.
Instead, it is a bunch of happy meal-esque toys, with banners drawn in felt tip on coloured card, glued to what look like straws...
I would not be impressed playing this "army" in a casual pick up game, let alone at a GT. Redbeard has covered all the points I would have made far better than I could have so I will leave it there.
PirateRobotNinjaofDeath wrote: I think the more interesting point here isn't so much that he took a sparkly Pony army to a GT. He did it as a lark, and I can understand why he thought it was funny and fun (and why many of his opponents probably did as well).
To me, the thing that would make me really salty to have faced him is that he took a sparkly pony DEATH STAR. Judging from this battle report it seems at least a few of his opponents lost because they didn't really comprehend the fact that their opponent was running a 1,300 point hitty, rerollable 1+ engine of death and destruction at their face. This ogre player underestimated that unit and it just ran over him like a fething train.
To me that seems almost...a little unsporting I guess. I don't think that was his intention, but I certainly think it was the effect. He covered his massive iron morningstar with sparkles and glitter and rainbows, and nobody realized what it was until he'd scattered their brains all over the table.
Now of course that's their fault for not reading his list, but I don't think ALL FIVE of his opponents would have made the same mistake if they'd been looking at armed, mean-looking knights instead of smiling sparkly ponies.
The problem with looking at his list is most GT's are closed lists for fantasy. I am going to assume so was this. His list was not at all WYSIWYG. Not a single horse had a rider so...
PirateRobotNinjaofDeath wrote: I think the more interesting point here isn't so much that he took a sparkly Pony army to a GT. He did it as a lark, and I can understand why he thought it was funny and fun (and why many of his opponents probably did as well).
To me, the thing that would make me really salty to have faced him is that he took a sparkly pony DEATH STAR. Judging from this battle report it seems at least a few of his opponents lost because they didn't really comprehend the fact that their opponent was running a 1,300 point hitty, rerollable 1+ engine of death and destruction at their face. This ogre player underestimated that unit and it just ran over him like a fething train.
To me that seems almost...a little unsporting I guess. I don't think that was his intention, but I certainly think it was the effect. He covered his massive iron morningstar with sparkles and glitter and rainbows, and nobody realized what it was until he'd scattered their brains all over the table.
Now of course that's their fault for not reading his list, but I don't think ALL FIVE of his opponents would have made the same mistake if they'd been looking at armed, mean-looking knights instead of smiling sparkly ponies.
The problem with looking at his list is most GT's are closed lists for fantasy. I am going to assume so was this. His list was not at all WYSIWYG. Not a single horse had a rider so...
Was this a closed-list tournament?
No idea but as a GT I would assume so. Regardless closed or open was it not wysiwyg?
All the tournaments where I am are open list, though perhaps the East Coast is different?
As for WYSIWYG it was apparently quite close, in that you could clearly distinguish which models were which based on colour. And I don't know how often you play against Bretonnia, but that's pretty much the only way you can do it normally anyways. The only difference between models is that characters have swords while rank-and-file have lances, and MAYBE a slightly different pose. If you're lucky.
I handed my list to each opponent and explained which model was which to each opponent. No one was confused as to which model was which. As people have said, all Bretonnia knights / Lords / Heroes look virtually the same.
I mean I think it's easier to say do you see this pony? It's the only one that's bright pink, has wings, has a horn and has a crown. That's my paladin.
See the purple one with the big banner? That's my BSB.
The rank and file ponies are about 3/4 of an inch shorter than any of the Princess Ponies (AKA the characters).
I had two units of realm ponies that were distinguishable via banner and champions.
My Grail Pony unit was covered in glitter, so that's pretty easy to distinguish.
I clearly did misjudge the way this army would be received. I thought it would be enjoyable for most people to play against. The atmosphere at every GT I've been to has not been one of deep immersion and such. They've been hanging out, laughing and drinking various liquors/beer. I wasn't aware that the hobby aspect of it seems so important to many people. So, I learned something and will adjust appropriately.
@PirateRobotNinjaDeath
That's some deep psychology level stuff. That very well could be, but I'd say the only psychology involved was... Oh sick, Bretonnia, free win!
I wouldn't worry too much about the reaction in this thread : remember, This. Is. Internet! where the most active responders are going to be either the people who get angry or the people who take things a little too seriously.
The reaction of the people who saw the army in person is way more important. And it sounds like you did exactly the right thing, which is consult the tournament organizers way in advance.
Narenzade wrote: I clearly did misjudge the way this army would be received. I thought it would be enjoyable for most people to play against. The atmosphere at every GT I've been to has not been one of deep immersion and such. They've been hanging out, laughing and drinking various liquors/beer. I wasn't aware that the hobby aspect of it seems so important to many people. So, I learned something and will adjust appropriately.
It's good to see that, and I'm glad it was kind of learning experience. I don't think it's a huge deal in the end at all.
As Sydney says above, you did consult the event organizers and got approval. It looks like they've also learned from this and may adjust slightly what they allow in the future.
In the end, live and learn, etc etc . Still a great showing with your commanding of the army on the table, and next time if you just bring a slightly more immersive / painted army to the table, there won't be any distracting from what was clearly an impressive display of generalship with a lesser used army.
Congrats on the crushing win for ponies (no really my sister was rooting for them the whole report)!
My only question is people on this forum seem to complain about which pony is which, could you not table them on the front of the bases e.g. bsb is pony labeled pinkipie ect. I think it would make disguising them impossible.
Narenzade wrote: Did I make this army to skip out on painting Bretonnians? No. I wanted THIS army to look THIS way.
Did you want the display base to be warped?
thedarkavenger wrote: A commission painted army has had it's player put no effort into it. If other people put effort into YOUR army, then it's tantamount to you putting no effort in.
I disagree. The mechanism is obviously different, but someone who spent fifty hours working to pay someone else to paint an army that the other tournament goers could appreciate is putting effort into doing right by them. He didn't paint them himself so the painting score should be low (or zero, depending on whether you want to give him some token "thanks for letting me play an aesthetically pleasing game" points), but that's a matter of scoring, not damaging your opponent's enjoyment of the game.
Narenzade wrote: @PirateRobotNinjaDeath
That's some deep psychology level stuff. That very well could be, but I'd say the only psychology involved was... Oh sick, Bretonnia, free win!
At least that's what I would have thought.
Oh definitely. I know my Bret friend has people do that to him all the time. But people still should have recognized that your grail unit was worth paying attention to, if only because it was worth a whack-load of points. But people already don't take Bretonnia seriously, and I think when it's sparkly pony Bretonnia that effect is going to be magnified.
Was it a 20-0 tournament as well? Perhaps that was playing a role too, since people are thinking about the massacre rather than playing a balanced game.
In any event, don't think I'm trying to take away from your victory at all here. Drawing a dumb opponent first or second round is luck, but crushing 5 people in a row with Bretonnians means that you came up against some good players and still took them down. Psychology or not, that's still a feat to have accomplished.
As for the "hobby aspect," yeah it really is important to a lot of people. But I think that people are angrier about it when you're just an army in the abstract, rather than when you're a cool guy standing across the table giving people alcoholic party punch. I'll grumble and groan about seeing that army on its own, but by the sounds of it you'd have been in the running for my best opponent vote. So don't take the whining of the internet too seriously.
It was a 20-0 tournament, so people were looking for big wins.
Oh, not at all. I knew there would be people who didn't like it, but I wasn't worried. I got appropriate approval and just wanted to have a good time. Honestly, I wasn't expecting to win more than 3 games. I was trying to win Player's Choice... I'll take Best General though, for certain.
Your last point is excellent. I think most people who raged against it on the inter-webs would not have done so in person because of the LAWLZ to be had actually playing the game. My ranting about Celestia and the magic of friendship probably did wear on some people. But that's what liquor is for. The great equalizer.
Not going to lie, if I came up against something like this my reaction would most likely be something along the following lines:
*open mouth/raise arm* *pause a couple of seconds* *lower arm/close mouth* *shake head while mumbling something to the effect of "[expletive] ponies"* *look back up* *smile* *say "ok, let's get it over with"* *play game to the best of my ability, not really enjoy it, try to be reasonably polite*
I don't like the army. I don't like ponies. I think the whole MLP culture is dumb. That said, since you got approval from the judge I have no right not to play you and I'm sure not going to take a loss just because I don't like the opponent's army.
I don't really blame the guy (even though I said I think MLP is dumb that's no cause to treat the person running the army any worse). If anything I take exception to the judge who let this exception through, but again since there is an exception in this case there's really no reason to do anything but shut up and play the game.
PirateRobotNinjaofDeath wrote: Would you really enjoy this game any less than you would against an unpainted army? Or an army of purple-dipped netlist WoC?
So long as your opponent is a fun dude/dudette to play against I think you can enjoy yourself even if you hate their army.
Not necessarily any less, but it's a matter of me prepping myself for those annoyances before coming to the tournament. I would not expect to go to a WHFB tournament and have MLP staring me in the face.
Although after a glass of that "party punch" I think my outlook on life might improve dramatically. That stuff sounds good (in a diabetes inducing kinda way)!
dementedwombat wrote: Although after a glass of that "party punch" I think my outlook on life might improve dramatically. That stuff sounds good (in a diabetes inducing kinda way)!
See this is kind of what I think. It sounds like buddy was a really cool guy and generally fun to play against. Yeah it'd be annoying to have to face a sparkly MLP army, but I think the person in front of that army really factors into how enjoyable the experience would be.
dementedwombat wrote: ...That said, since you got approval from the judge I have no right not to play you...
I'm not sure I agree with this. The event had rules posted publicly. You signed up for the event with the expectation that your opponents would be held to those rules. You paid money with the expectation that your opponents would be held to those rules. No where did it say, "people may petition the judges to ignore the rules."
So, one player did petition the judges to ignore the rules, and the judges showed an amazing lack of judgement in allowing it.
That doesn't change what you paid for. You have every right to expect to play an army that conforms to the event rules, or get your money back. Playing an army that does not conform to the event rules is not what you paid for, even if the event organizers were foolish enough to allow such an army to participate.
I don't really blame the guy (even though I said I think MLP is dumb that's no cause to treat the person running the army any worse).
I think he's partially to blame, for asking to take an army that violated the event rules, and he knew it, he put the judges in a position where they should have rejected him, but knowing him, did not want to reject him.
If anything I take exception to the judge who let this exception through
Definitely.
, but again since there is an exception in this case there's really no reason to do anything but shut up and play the game.
Again, not true. You could ask for your money back and make a point that allowing armies that violate the rules do not just affect the one guy with that army. It's about what you paid for. If I go to a restaurant and order eggs, and get served pancakes, the fact that many people like pancakes should have nothing to do with the fact that I didn't get what I paid for. People attending this event paid to play against armies that conformed with the event rules.
*open mouth/raise arm*
*pause a couple of seconds*
*lower arm/close mouth*
*shake head while mumbling something to the effect of "[expletive] ponies"*
*look back up*
*smile*
*say "ok, let's get it over with"*
*play game to the best of my ability, not really enjoy it, try to be reasonably polite*
Exactly. I'd play it because it's skirting the edges of acceptance, but it would make me enjoy the game *less*
I may still enjoy the game! Maybe this guy is such an awesome opponent he makes up for the pony army. But then imagine how much more I would have enjoyed playing him if he brought an army that doesn't look like it's lifted from a 3-6year old's playchest.
Ok, that's fair, but isn't there a huge number of factors -- all completely legal at tournaments -- that would also make you enjoy the game less?
- opponent has legal models but ugly-ass paint job
- opponent has legal models but hasn't showered in days
- opponent has legal models but whines every time anything goes your way and insists on checking the rulebook about it
- opponent. takes. so. sooooo. sooooooooooo. looooooooong. to. do. turn.
- opponenthaslegalmodelsbutchattersawayathighspeedlikethis the whole game
- opponent has legal models but stares dully at you with lifeless eyes and speaks only in occasional flat-affect monosyllables
- you are female and male opponent refers to that fact every three minutes, also tries to look down your top when you lean over to reach models in far corners of board
- opponent is idiot
I dare say most things on that list would annoy most people complaining about the pony army, and they'd probably annoy most people more. Why single out the guy who will annoy some people but amuse others ?
I rather like the pony army. Then again, I decided WHFB wasn't a good enough game to even play, much less take seriously. But even when I was playing, a funny themed army can be appreciated. Admittedly not all the time perhaps; it would probably get old. But for a one off game in a tournament? Definitely a giggle.
SisterSydney wrote: Ok, that's fair, but isn't there a huge number of factors -- all completely legal at tournaments -- that would also make you enjoy the game less?
- opponent has legal models but ugly-ass paint job
- opponent has legal models but hasn't showered in days
- opponent has legal models but whines every time anything goes your way and insists on checking the rulebook about it
- opponent. takes. so. sooooo. sooooooooooo. looooooooong. to. do. turn.
- opponenthaslegalmodelsbutchattersawayathighspeedlikethis the whole game
- opponent has legal models but stares dully at you with lifeless eyes and speaks only in occasional flat-affect monosyllables
- you are female and male opponent refers to that fact every three minutes, also tries to look down your top when you lean over to reach models in far corners of board
- opponent is idiot
I dare say most things on that list would annoy most people complaining about the pony army, and they'd probably annoy most people more. Why single out the guy who will annoy some people but amuse others ?
- opponent draws a knife and tries to stab me to death
I mean we can make up things that will reduce the enjoyment of the game all night, but that doesn't change the fact that this army is one of those things. Most players I've played against don't do any of the things you listed, so why make an army that places you in the small annoying group?
And he's only being singled out because of the display on the forum. If someone made a battle report of "Smelly Brettonian Misogynist vs Cleavage Girl Ogres" I would have been all over that thread too, but people tend to do those things unintentionally (or without getting caught doing it) so they aren't as obvious on forums.
Anyway, points well made. The difference is almost everyone would dislike playing Mr. Stabby or the other unpleasant people we mentioned -- but only some people (based on responses to this thread) would dislike playing Mr. Ponies, while others (e.g. me) would quite like it. Why crack down on something that some people really like when there are so many things everyone dislikes?
Anyway, points well made. The difference is almost everyone would dislike playing Mr. Stabby or the other unpleasant people we mentioned -- but only some people (based on responses to this thread) would dislike playing Mr. Ponies, while others (e.g. me) would quite like it. Why crack down on something that some people really like when there are so many things everyone dislikes?
Quite simply, because the event rules said this army shouldn't have been there, and people paid money with a certain expectation, set by those rules.
If the organizers of a tournament want to put their rules up that say, "unpainted armies allowed, pre-painted toys allowed", then this army would be fine. And people like me wouldn't attend and would allow others to have their definition of fun.
The problem does not stem from people who wish to dictate how others have fun, it stems from people who attend events with a reasonable expectation as defined by the event rules, and find themselves facing something outside of that expectation. The judges allowing the rules exemption are 90% of the issue here (with the remaining 10% being on the player who put the judges in the position to make the call).
Go back to the restaurant analogy.
If I go to a restaurant and order eggs, I expect to get eggs. If they bring me pancakes, I'm not going to be all that happy, even though a lot of people like pancakes. The guy next to me shouldn't say, "hey, I checked with the manager beforehand, and he said it would be okay if everyone who sat near me got pancakes instead of eggs." It's an unreasonable request for the guy to make, and even more unreasonable that the manager would okay it.
Ok, we can agree that tournament organizers should be clear and consistent. That's a non-trivial task, since unexpected things are gonna come up -- e.g. the guy with the awesome pony army -- but it's a worthy goal.
Anyway, points well made. The difference is almost everyone would dislike playing Mr. Stabby or the other unpleasant people we mentioned -- but only some people (based on responses to this thread) would dislike playing Mr. Ponies, while others (e.g. me) would quite like it. Why crack down on something that some people really like when there are so many things everyone dislikes?
I absolutely see where you are coming from. I'd rather play the ponies than get stabbed; they're not really a one to one comparison. But I still think it's not completely unfair to dislike the pony army, even to the extent of not wanting to play it. Especially in the event that Red is describing, but also in general, I think.
I can even understand people that like it. It's loony and well planned. But it has nothing in common with whfb visually and shouldn't be set up across from a whfb army. I could actually enjoy the battle report if it was set up across from a pokemon or Dino Riders army.
Just a question for everyone in this thread - Would your opinion change if the ponies were proper wargames minis cast in metal and fully painted and based?
Here's an example of the kind of thing I mean, I own some of these and they're rather nicely detailed and hefty, been thinking of making an army out of them:
Just trying to figure out what the mane problem is, the ponies themselves or the fact that its cheap unpainted kids toys glued onto bases?
Even that though doesn't meet the necessary requirement. Sure they are from a "model" company and not a "toy" company. But where are the Knights? Where are the shields and lances? Musicians, standards (and the horse holding them doesn't count)? How do I tell the KotR from the Errants from the Grails? These are the things that need to be addressed.... If he took bretonnian models, gave them unicorn horns, painted them MLP pastels colors and had them modeled farting rainbows, I would still hate it and probably tell him I don't care for it, but it would meet the requirements for tournament play and I would have no case for dispute.
To answer about your other horses above, if you slap knights on them that are armed properly and mount them on proper Cav bases....still silly, but it meets the expectation
quickfuze wrote: Even that though doesn't meet the necessary requirement. Sure they are from a "model" company and not a "toy" company. But where are the Knights? Where are the shields and lances? Musicians, standards (and the horse holding them doesn't count)? How do I tell the KotR from the Errants from the Grails? These are the things that need to be addressed.... If he took bretonnian models, gave them unicorn horns, painted them MLP pastels colors and had them modeled farting rainbows, I would still hate it and probably tell him I don't care for it, but it would meet the requirements for tournament play and I would have no case for dispute.
To answer about your other horses above, if you slap knights on them that are armed properly and mount them on proper Cav bases....still silly, but it meets the expectation
I agree completely.
Its not that they are MLP its that they look like happy meal toys, happy meal toys that do not fit WYSIWYG at all.
Wehrkind wrote: What if they were centaurs with lances and great weapons, etc?
Now your just arguing to argue.....
No, I am not. I was building a centaur themed Bret army for a little while before I burned out on WHFB and started playing Hordes all the time. At the time most people I spoke with seemed to like the idea; now I am wondering if the culture has shifted a bit and it would be too far of a deviation from the accepted aesthetic.
edit: nm, that was a cheap joke that didn't add anything.
Well as for myself I am building a Ravenwing Army for a friend of mine using ponies as he is a Brony. Now if wanted to go to an “Official Tournament” I would also build him a matching Ravenwing Army using “GW Approved Models” so he could let his opponent decide which army to face.
So this brings me to my question: How would you handled it if he had put out his Pony Army and then when you balked opened his case with a “100% Legal/Boring Army”?
scarletsquig wrote: Just a question for everyone in this thread - Would your opinion change if the ponies were proper wargames minis cast in metal and fully painted and based?
Here's an example of the kind of thing I mean, I own some of these and they're rather nicely detailed and hefty, been thinking of making an army out of them:
Spoiler:
Just trying to figure out what the mane problem is, the ponies themselves or the fact that its cheap unpainted kids toys glued onto bases?
Those are cool, and subtle by comparison to the army that started this debate, but they lack the LOLWUT? shock value of the actual Pony toys -- which I love but which many others here hate, hate, hate.
Anpu42 wrote: Well as for myself I am building a Ravenwing Army for a friend of mine using ponies as he is a Brony. Now if wanted to go to an “Official Tournament” I would also build him a matching Ravenwing Army using “GW Approved Models” so he could let his opponent decide which army to face.
So this brings me to my question: How would you handled it if he had put out his Pony Army and then when you balked opened his case with a “100% Legal/Boring Army”?
That's fine. That allows each of his opponents to determine whether the "Poney's" are a "fun" army to play. That's the point here. This hobby we have involves several things. To include, collecting, building, painting/converting and playing. The last part generally requires two people, although I am sure you can play with yourself (wait for it......)
That is the problem with this army, it fails to meet many of the aspects of our hobby, and the biggest of which is that it doesn't provide a good gaming experience for BOTH players (those who don't like it I am referring to). This is why myself and so many others DESPISE grey/primered armies also. Because their focus is strictly on THEIR enjoyment of the hobby (the playing part) and you are basically saying "feth you" to your opponents enjoyment and the other aspects of the hobby. I have said it once and I will preach it , this is not a game, it is a hobby. If you want to play a game, get an Xbox. If you want to be a part of this hobby and the loyal community that stems from it, paint your friggin models (at least to the minimum, it aint hard).
quickfuze wrote: This hobby we have involves several things. To include, collecting, building, painting/converting and playing. The last part generally requires two people, although I am sure you can play with yourself (wait for it......)
I think you left off a few H's from HHHobby.
quickfuze wrote: That is the problem with this army, it fails to meet many of the aspects of our hobby, and the biggest of which is that it doesn't provide a good gaming experience for BOTH players (those who don't like it I am referring to). This is why myself and so many others DESPISE grey/primered armies also. Because their focus is strictly on THEIR enjoyment of the hobby (the playing part) and you are basically saying "feth you" to your opponents enjoyment and the other aspects of the hobby. I have said it once and I will preach it , this is not a game, it is a hobby. If you want to play a game, get an Xbox. If you want to be a part of this hobby and the loyal community that stems from it, paint your friggin models (at least to the minimum, it aint hard).
So your type of enjoyment is paramount, but others' enjoyment is secondary to your own view of how table top war gaming should be conducted?
I do not understand "Brony" culture in the slightest. The truth of the matter is that My Little Pony is a show targeted towards little girls under the age of 10. I don't understand why grown men become enthralled with it. Before the Bronies on this thread that have allied with Chris attack me by saying that I paint little plastic men, dwarfs, etc., so there's little to no difference... There IS a difference.
What if if I was to glue a Barbie doll to a Giant base and use tiny Polly Pocket dolls as infantry for the LULZ at a WHFB tournament?
Where is the line drawn?
I understand this guy put effort into his army. And he did a good job representing different Bretonnian units. This is not about a personal attack on a Brony or whatever culture trend he's into. This is not about people being unwilling to "accept" Bronies and their choices. It's almost like people are trying to make this a civil rights issue. Come on.
Would I have played against this army? Yes. Grudgingly, but yes. And I can tell you without any doubt that I would have lost. I would have played far more aggressively in an attempt to remove as many ponies off the board as possible, and this would have caused me to lose. I guarantee it. I also wouldn't take have taken my opponent's army seriously or perceived them as a threat. I'm sure this guy is a great general to have such a stunning record. But I wonder how he would have done if he had actual Bretonnian models on the table. Would the outcome have been the same? Who knows. It's speculation. But I can say that I would not have been able to play to my best ability against an army so outright and purposely ridiculous.
The best analogy I can think of is a team in an FPS tournament being allowed to create their own in-game avatars to use. Let's say it's Call of Duty, or Halo. You can't see what weapons the opposing team is using. Even if they didn't have the option of changing weapons. All you see are giant cel-shaded neon-colored ponies flying everywhere and shooting glitter and rainbows. Would that be allowed? Would it be unreasonable for people to complain or not accept it? Not only do you have to remember what weapons they are using or WHAT they are, but you also have these garishly cute young children's cartoon characters in your face?
In my humble opinion this is completely unacceptable.
TheBrandedOne wrote: What if if I was to glue a Barbie doll to a Giant base and use tiny Polly Pocket dolls as infantry for the LULZ at a WHFB tournament?
So your type of enjoyment is paramount, but others' enjoyment is secondary to your own view of how table top war gaming should be conducted?
Interesting.
Not even close to what I said...in fact just about as incorrect a reading as you could have done.
You make the statement that table top war gaming is a hobby and not a game. You view the activity of table top war gaming through a narrow lens and expect others to conform to your view otherwise THEY aren't doing it right and taking away YOUR fun. Right? So, your fun is paramount to their fun, right? Because you like certain aspects of table top war gaming that others might place less emphasis on, but clearly yours is the superior view point and if others don't conform they are doing it wrong and should play video games instead. Right?
Where did I go wrong based off what you presented previously?
So your type of enjoyment is paramount, but others' enjoyment is secondary to your own view of how table top war gaming should be conducted?
Interesting.
Not even close to what I said...in fact just about as incorrect a reading as you could have done.
You make the statement that table top war gaming is a hobby and not a game. You view the activity of table top war gaming through a narrow lens and expect others to conform to your view otherwise THEY aren't doing it right and taking away YOUR fun. Right? So, your fun is paramount to their fun, right? Because you like certain aspects of table top war gaming that others might place less emphasis on, but clearly yours is the superior view point and if others don't conform they are doing it wrong and should play video games instead. Right?
Where did I go wrong based off what you presented previously?
No BOTH peoples fun is paramount to the overall gaming experience. My point is that you have to take BOTH peoples views into consideration not just one (even the views of "elitists" such as me). Now in a friendly FLGS game, I can choose whether I want to play an opponent or not, just as they have the same option. I can choose to say I will not play unpainted armies because it does not add to my enjoyment of the game. Do I take anything AWAY from my opponent by having a painted army.....not usually (certain obtuse painting schemes could apply but that's case-by-case). Do I take AWAY from my opponents experience by only playing with official models? no. However, the case being discussed here is one in a competitive environment, where players cannot choose to not play an opponent (without negative consequences), and that the pre-established requirements and conditions were established ahead of time.
When Person A refutes Person B's refutation of A's refutation of B's refutation of A's initial point, and you have four layers of nested quotes, I think it's time to agree to disagree and move on....
I am sure the guy who ran this is great, but their is a major difference between a standin army like these samurai models are my Nippon army using the Empire rules or something for example and a MLP Bretonnian army. One coincides with the fluff and the realm of warhammer the other does not. If you want to run a MLP army you should be playing a MLP tabletop game or be playing in friendly games with people who want to play against it.
TO's are just people and all people including myself are biased if he personally thought the army was clever/funny/cool or whatever that is fine, but he should not have allowed it UNLESS the rules of the tournament were openly "we accept all standin armies of any kind" or something to that effect.
If I went to the army with the earlier suggested polly pocket army to represent say Demons of Chaos and used Barbies as Daemon Princes it would be a fitting Daemonette army that is a fun theme that people potentially would think is neat, but it is not a Warhammer Army. It should not be allowed at official events unless the event is meant for joke armies and is built around that idea.
The dude who ran this is also not really to blame he just wanted to do something unique which is great. I would suggest doing fun Battle Reports on Youtube with the ponies and use the shows intro song or something at the start of each one and you would maybe wrangle other bronies to play warhammer.
timofeo wrote: but it is not a Warhammer Army. It should not be allowed at official events
You might not be aware, but there hasn't been an official warhammer event outside of Games Day in... a decade? Has it been a decade already? Tournaments for GW games are all run independently from GW, except any run at GD. (So far as I know... I know Cross Roads is in the independent group, however.) It isn't clear why something needs to be a "Warhammer army." If you mean "An army predominantly made of GW's model lines" that is a bit of a hard sell considering how popular other companies' models are as counts-as. If you mean "Vaguely gothic medieval high fantasy styled" that cuts out the Nippon army you mentioned. If you mean "Things with hands... and swords maybe. Maybe tentacles." you can probably extend that requirement to most armies that usually see play, though some chaos demons armies will push the limit.
scarletsquig wrote:Just a question for everyone in this thread - Would your opinion change if the ponies were proper wargames minis cast in metal and fully painted and based?
Do they meet the event rules? No. Not WYSIWYG. Therefore, not acceptable.
Just trying to figure out what the mane problem is, the ponies themselves or the fact that its cheap unpainted kids toys glued onto bases?
That they're cheap unpainted kids toys is not really the issue I have. It's that they violate the rules of the event that people paid money to play in. If the event rules said it's legal to play with happy meal toys, then that's cool, and people who don't want to play against happy meal toys can save their money and stay home. If the event says all models must be fully painted, based, and WYSIWYG, then people attending the event have a reasonable expectation that they will be playing against fully painted, based, WYSIWYG armies.
SisterSydney wrote: When Person A refutes Person B's refutation of A's refutation of B's refutation of A's initial point, and you have four layers of nested quotes, I think it's time to agree to disagree and move on....
Since you think its petty.....someone(/sarc) posted some GREAT (in their humble opinion) advice.....
Meh. Doesn't have the visual oomph of My Little Ponies or Barbie dolls. If you had cooler and more colorful paper models, sure.
But yeah, I wouldn't have any problem playing you. Back in grad school, we played WHFB using homemade paper counters with cut-up cereal boxes for backing to make up for our lack of money, time, and modeling talent. So I'm gleefully indiscriminate.
I agree with Sister Sydney; I wouldn't mind playing you with a cut out army. Hell, it looks better than some of the painted armies I have seen, where the paint is adding negative value to the bare models.
I would be really surprised if you didn't get tanked on the soft scores like painting and modeling as per the rules of the event, but the game's the thing.
Maybe a fun game- but a cut-out army does not meet the painting requirements for a GT. A well converted counts-as army, such as what Wehrkind mentioned (centaurs) is quite different to the above. "Rule of cool" doesn't usually allow paper cut outs at a GT level event . Every event's model policy is different, but I don't know of any that would allow that.
timofeo wrote: but it is not a Warhammer Army. It should not be allowed at official events
You might not be aware, but there hasn't been an official warhammer event outside of Games Day in... a decade? Has it been a decade already? Tournaments for GW games are all run independently from GW, except any run at GD. (So far as I know... I know Cross Roads is in the independent group, however.) It isn't clear why something needs to be a "Warhammer army." If you mean "An army predominantly made of GW's model lines" that is a bit of a hard sell considering how popular other companies' models are as counts-as. If you mean "Vaguely gothic medieval high fantasy styled" that cuts out the Nippon army you mentioned. If you mean "Things with hands... and swords maybe. Maybe tentacles." you can probably extend that requirement to most armies that usually see play, though some chaos demons armies will push the limit.
Official as in "A Tournament to play Warhammer"
In Warhammer there is no MLP, using other companies figures is fine as long as they represent something in the Warhammer World. Nippon cannot be cut out as they are in the Warhammer fluff MLP once again is not, Bretonnian Knights painted with MLP color scheme while silly and not in the "fluff" are legitimate because there is Bretonnians out there with different heraldry from the armybook, but literally taking MLP figures and gluing them to bases is not a good attempt at meshing the world of MLP with Warhammer or representing MLP in Warhammer its more or less a joke (which I imagine was its point as a JOKE not a real army) the question is should we be taking joke armies to tournaments that have wysiwyg rules? Also on a side note if this is allowed then all armies should be allowed as to not show favortism if this is legit then any army on correct bases should in turn be legit should they not?
timofeo wrote: but it is not a Warhammer Army. It should not be allowed at official events
You might not be aware, but there hasn't been an official warhammer event outside of Games Day in... a decade? Has it been a decade already? Tournaments for GW games are all run independently from GW, except any run at GD. (So far as I know... I know Cross Roads is in the independent group, however.) It isn't clear why something needs to be a "Warhammer army." If you mean "An army predominantly made of GW's model lines" that is a bit of a hard sell considering how popular other companies' models are as counts-as. If you mean "Vaguely gothic medieval high fantasy styled" that cuts out the Nippon army you mentioned. If you mean "Things with hands... and swords maybe. Maybe tentacles." you can probably extend that requirement to most armies that usually see play, though some chaos demons armies will push the limit.
Official as in "A Tournament to play Warhammer"
In Warhammer there is no MLP, using other companies figures is fine as long as they represent something in the Warhammer World. Nippon cannot be cut out as they are in the Warhammer fluff MLP once again is not, Bretonnian Knights painted with MLP color scheme while silly and not in the "fluff" are legitimate because there is Bretonnians out there with different heraldry from the armybook, but literally taking MLP figures and gluing them to bases is not a good attempt at meshing the world of MLP with Warhammer or representing MLP in Warhammer its more or less a joke (which I imagine was its point as a JOKE not a real army) the question is should we be taking joke armies to tournaments that have wysiwyg rules? Also on a side note if this is allowed then all armies should be allowed as to not show favortism if this is legit then any army on correct bases should in turn be legit should they not?
Is Nippon even in the fluff anymore? I don't recall it in the BRB. I thought they had pretty much squatted Nippon, Albion and whatever the Amazons were called.
I do get what you are saying, that there is a sort of vague code of "appropriate" when it comes to models, even if it functions in a "I will know it when I see it" kind of way. The trouble I have with that sort of thing is that there are rules for covering that aspect: the modeling and painting scores. The problem I have with saying the ponies should be banned, is that even though they are really silly, they are colored (painted, but I will touch on that in a moment), they are 3d models and not cut outs, and you can tell what are special characters/models to a pretty good degree (much better than some armies I have seen). I have yet to see any tournament that requires models fit some sort of quasi medieval fantasy theme. Fortunately, the rules allow players to tank the hell out of the offensive army's soft scores if they don't like it. The army in question swept 5 for 5, but placed what, 40 out of 80? That sounds like a working system of social control to me.
As to the painting thing, lots of people are complaining that they are unpainted toys. Sure, there is not acrylic or oil based medium holding colored pigment dried upon their surface. However, they are colorful, with said color in the right places such that the eye knows what it is looking at. If someone were to invent a 3d printer that could print out nice crisp models with different colors for the different parts, it would seem weird to dock that person for not having put brush to model. Likewise someone who has someone else paint their army is usually not docked painting points.
I guess what it comes down to is that I don't like banning people from tournaments when they follow the letter of the rules and there is another way for players to punish them for an unappealing army (soft scores, not curb party in the parking lot!) Maybe it is just because I play LOT of counts as models, and am really picky about painting myself, or was before I started school again, that I am sensitive about people wanting to ban people for not using the "right" models. I just think that if the rules are set up such that the player base can determine that someone is entirely unable to win over all just by virtue of having an army people don't like to see, that is a plenty strong feedback mechanism.
timofeo wrote: but it is not a Warhammer Army. It should not be allowed at official events
You might not be aware, but there hasn't been an official warhammer event outside of Games Day in... a decade? Has it been a decade already? Tournaments for GW games are all run independently from GW, except any run at GD. (So far as I know... I know Cross Roads is in the independent group, however.) It isn't clear why something needs to be a "Warhammer army." If you mean "An army predominantly made of GW's model lines" that is a bit of a hard sell considering how popular other companies' models are as counts-as. If you mean "Vaguely gothic medieval high fantasy styled" that cuts out the Nippon army you mentioned. If you mean "Things with hands... and swords maybe. Maybe tentacles." you can probably extend that requirement to most armies that usually see play, though some chaos demons armies will push the limit.
Official as in "A Tournament to play Warhammer"
In Warhammer there is no MLP, using other companies figures is fine as long as they represent something in the Warhammer World. Nippon cannot be cut out as they are in the Warhammer fluff MLP once again is not, Bretonnian Knights painted with MLP color scheme while silly and not in the "fluff" are legitimate because there is Bretonnians out there with different heraldry from the armybook, but literally taking MLP figures and gluing them to bases is not a good attempt at meshing the world of MLP with Warhammer or representing MLP in Warhammer its more or less a joke (which I imagine was its point as a JOKE not a real army) the question is should we be taking joke armies to tournaments that have wysiwyg rules? Also on a side note if this is allowed then all armies should be allowed as to not show favortism if this is legit then any army on correct bases should in turn be legit should they not?
Is Nippon even in the fluff anymore? I don't recall it in the BRB. I thought they had pretty much squatted Nippon, Albion and whatever the Amazons were called.
I do get what you are saying, that there is a sort of vague code of "appropriate" when it comes to models, even if it functions in a "I will know it when I see it" kind of way. The trouble I have with that sort of thing is that there are rules for covering that aspect: the modeling and painting scores. The problem I have with saying the ponies should be banned, is that even though they are really silly, they are colored (painted, but I will touch on that in a moment), they are 3d models and not cut outs, and you can tell what are special characters/models to a pretty good degree (much better than some armies I have seen). I have yet to see any tournament that requires models fit some sort of quasi medieval fantasy theme. Fortunately, the rules allow players to tank the hell out of the offensive army's soft scores if they don't like it. The army in question swept 5 for 5, but placed what, 40 out of 80? That sounds like a working system of social control to me.
As to the painting thing, lots of people are complaining that they are unpainted toys. Sure, there is not acrylic or oil based medium holding colored pigment dried upon their surface. However, they are colorful, with said color in the right places such that the eye knows what it is looking at. If someone were to invent a 3d printer that could print out nice crisp models with different colors for the different parts, it would seem weird to dock that person for not having put brush to model. Likewise someone who has someone else paint their army is usually not docked painting points.
I guess what it comes down to is that I don't like banning people from tournaments when they follow the letter of the rules and there is another way for players to punish them for an unappealing army (soft scores, not curb party in the parking lot!) Maybe it is just because I play LOT of counts as models, and am really picky about painting myself, or was before I started school again, that I am sensitive about people wanting to ban people for not using the "right" models. I just think that if the rules are set up such that the player base can determine that someone is entirely unable to win over all just by virtue of having an army people don't like to see, that is a plenty strong feedback mechanism.
I dont personally think they look bad they just do not represent any form of warhammer army. Nippon is in the BRB its a country on the map which means its not squatted. There are many toys that could easily be made into fun armies that would look just as good as this MLP army and just as well thought out from those who would run them, but if they are all to be allowed it should be all of them and it should be in the tournaments rules that way people who do not want to play against them wont come. There is a reason I do not play other games and there is a reason I buy Warhammer models I like the lore, I like the visual appeal of the game if I wanted to play a game with different visuals I would play a different game.
This reminds me of the time I used these little easter chicks in place of zombies for my old vampire counts army when I was like 13-14yrs old xD
Their constant glare-like expression made them work so well.
Of course until I got legitimate zombies no one but my own circuit of friends would play me, which looking back I can completely understand as in regards to this pony army I think I can actually say that I would turn around and refuse to play the army, with just cause as well.
But that is to say that because anyone outside of the owners immediate friend group would immediately feel like they are being trolled. To me it is no different then the uneducated kids I used to have to put up with when I was in high school that used to come in and make fun of "Playing with toys" and then proceed to pick them up and start making random-ass sound affects while they knocked the miniatures into one another.
The fact that its also linked with MLP (for me at least) would make this trolling into a full blown kick in the ass because I've had to stand idly by enough brony attention grabbing antics as it is on just about every other game/hobby forum I've been on. Mech warrior a good example of their in your face infestation.
But to digress, its good to see all the professional responses from the OT, and I can see and understand that its intention was their to be a laugh but at the same time find it hard for anyone that took part alongside it to not feel like they were being trolled. If the person who was taking it was in my own friend group I would have even accused him of deliberately trolling because well, its just not the done thing xD.
Mik wrote: So if a player were to show up with a Nazi themed army would all the pro-pony theme folks here be as sympathetic to attacks made against their choice of army?
Uhm... wait. Are you saying the people who are defending the use of ponies would support attacks against a Nazi themed army?
Back up and try your post again. I don't think you meant what you typed.
Mik wrote: So if a player were to show up with a Nazi themed army would all the pro-pony theme folks here be as sympathetic to their choice of army?
1) No, because Ponies are awesome and Nazis are not. I understand My Little Pony annoys and offends some people, but the Nazis go waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay beyond that. I would suggest even the most hardcore Pony-hater would agree that they are less bad than Hitler.
2) There is an issue in this fandom with Nazi and Stalinist imagery showing up in some Imperium of Man iconography -- the skull-and-eagle iconography and the Commissars in particular -- and some artwork may well cross the line between "we are evoking this imagery of real-world evil to convey the idea that our fictional Imperium is pretty brutal place" and "we are evoking this imagery of real-world evil because it is wicked cool." I think most grown-up fans can tell the difference, but I suspect there are misguided people out there that might paint up a Nazi-themed army. That is a can of worms I wish to point to, from a safe distance, and then leave alone.
I suppose this could be trolling...but I'd at least give the guy a chance to show me that it is, in fact, not.
Just like, when my opponent puts down a legit army, I have to wait and see if, despite the look of his army, he is in fact a jerk.
And yes. Nazis are worse than Ponies. Sheesh, people. It's a game.
There is no one line. There are many lines, drawn at different places by different gaming groups and tournament organizers.
They're not even straight lines: eg one strict TO may say "no non-GW models, but if you want to paint your Bretonnians up as My Little Ponies, whatever," while another equally strict TO may say "use whatever models as long as the final look is appropriate for the Warhammer setting , which means no Pony paint schemes." (I would think both of them are being a little too restrictive, but it's their hypothetical tournament, not mine).
So it's less like "where do we draw the line" and more like "which parts of the Venn diagram do we want this time?" But I am fairly confident that Nazi-themed armies are outside most of the lines, whoever is drawing them.
Automatically Appended Next Post: PS: since the Internet is heaven for taking things out of context, allow me to make clear I am not objecting to people painting Nazi iconography on miniatures that are supposed to represent actual historical forces of the Nazi Party. I'm not opposed to people collecting Nazi historical memorabilia, either, though I'd be more comfortable if they didn't wear it to my house or place of work. But if you want to bring real-world evil into a fantasy/science-fiction game, you're really going to have to make a hell of case before I'm going to be okay with you doing that.
Wait, when we say Nazi armies are bad... does that mean you can't have any WW2 German themed IG armies in 40k? Coz I personally have no problem with that. I have some FW190's, Bf109's and Tigers sitting on my display shelf. Maybe not in WHFB, but I think a Nazi themed Imperial Guard army is quite appropriate.
No, the idea is that "glorifying Nazis" is bad .. Just like glorifying most ideologies to be honest
I play FoW among other things, fielding Germans of all varieties. Playing a Waffen-SS army doesn't make you a Nazi, like playing a T-34 horde doesn't turn you into a Communist
edit: Also keep in mind that the large majority of Germans were just normal guys doing their duty, and that at this period of History, being anti-semitic was "normal" behaviour as the Jews were still regarded as the default scapegoat of all societies' problems
Yes, even in WWII, German did not automatically mean Nazi, and casual anti-semitism, while vile, does not automatically mean genocidal anti-semitism. The degree to which "ordinary Germans" were implicated in the Holocaust is one of the most contentious questions of the last six decades, but it doesn't make moral sense to equate the average Werhmacht foot soldier to Hitler.
So I'd have no problem with Wehrmacht-themed Imperial Guard, myself. (Isn't that what the Armageddon Steel Legion boil down to?) Just please keep the swastikas and runic lightning bolts off, because those are Nazi- and SS-specific symbols respectively. Uh, and I guess we're sort of stuck with the death's heads (totenkopf), which is a bigger issue with GW.
But there was Swastikas on German vehicles as well, and if you're doing a German WW2 themed army I don't really see the problem with using the appropriate iconography on banners and such. I have several German aircraft on my display shelf with Swastikas on the tails, I don't see it as glorifying Nazism any more than I'd see IG with German WW2 iconography glorifying Nazism or playing a WW2 video game as glorifying Nazism.
Sorry to take the thread off the wonderful topic it's on I just don't see what makes an army an "nazi army" vs "german WW2 themed army with fitting iconography", or what makes it less appropriate than, say, a red sun on your models which could potentially represent a WW2 japanese army with all their atrocities (they still use the rising sun flag, but the same could be said about the swastika, go to india and you'll see it plastered everywhere).
Oh, I'm not objecting to historically accurate depictions of WWII German forces. I'm objecting to people putting Nazi iconography where they don't have to, eg 40K Guard, for which historical realism isn't a thing.
If you showed up with your historically accurate WWII German army as a proxy for a Guard force, I'd be "eh, whatever." If you start painting swastikas on Leman Russ, I'd be asking you why.
German WWII-era vehicles had the Balkan Kreuz as marking, not the swastika
Some units (like the DAK) had a swastika in their divisional symbol, but that's specific cases
However, tanks quite often used a flag on the rear-deck to avoid friendly fire by planes, said flag was often the red one with black swastika on white discus
SisterSydney wrote: Oh, I'm not objecting to historically accurate depictions of WWII German forces. I'm objecting to people putting Nazi iconography where they don't have to, eg 40K Guard, for which historical realism isn't a thing.
If you showed up with your historically accurate WWII German army as a proxy for a Guard force, I'd be "eh, whatever." If you start painting swastikas on Leman Russ, I'd be asking you why.
I'd be asking why too, but responses I would find acceptable would be "I like the aesthetic" or "I felt nazi symbols were appropriate for my genocidal imperial army".
So yeah, I'm saying I would find a Brony Bretonnian army more offensive on the table top than an IG army with nazi iconography. If it was someone walking down the street with a brony tshirt vs someone with a nazi tshirt, yeah, I'd find the nazi tshirt more offensive.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
TanKoL wrote: German WWII-era vehicles had the Balkan Kreuz as marking, not the swastika
Some units (like the DAK) had a swastika in their divisional symbol, but that's specific cases
However, tanks quite often used a flag on the rear-deck to avoid friendly fire by planes, said flag was often the red one with black swastika on white discus
A lot of my WW2 aircraft models have swastikas on their tails. NOT the Balkankreuz (which is on the wings and fuselage).
SisterSydney wrote: Oh, I'm not objecting to historically accurate depictions of WWII German forces. I'm objecting to people putting Nazi iconography where they don't have to, eg 40K Guard, for which historical realism isn't a thing.
If you showed up with your historically accurate WWII German army as a proxy for a Guard force, I'd be "eh, whatever." If you start painting swastikas on Leman Russ, I'd be asking you why.
I'd be asking why too, but responses I would find acceptable would be "I like the aesthetic" or "I felt nazi symbols were appropriate for my genocidal imperial army".
So yeah, I'm saying I would find a Brony Bretonnian army more offensive on the table top than an IG army with nazi iconography. If it was someone walking down the street with a brony tshirt vs someone with a nazi tshirt, yeah, I'd find the nazi tshirt more offensive....
Yeah, context isn't everything but it sure counts for a lot.
If you're painting swastikas on IG to make a point about how the Imperium is (at least sometimes) as bad as the worst regimes in human history, I'd respect that, though it might be a little more reality than I'm entirely comfortable with in my game of toy soldiers with giant tanks and chainsaws. "I like the aesthetic" doesn't satisfy me as an answer, honestly -- but unless we knew each other personally I'd just swallow my discomfort and get on with playing the game and enjoying every other aspect that doesn't make me uncomfortable....
....which I hope is what all the people who dislike Pony armies would do if they had to face one. There! I made my saving throw to get back on topic!
This entire thread reminds me of the episode of The Big Bang Theory where Sheldon attempts to make a new circle of friends. He ends up returning to his core group of buddies because the new guys were having fun, and they were "doing it wrong."
I can back the idea that a Nazi-themed army would make people uncomfortable.
...but that is neither here nor there. A "My Little Pony" theme isn't morally offensive. Maybe the army is, if you take the game super-seriously, like I do with D&D, but there's nothing ethically corrupt about cartoon ponies, like there is with Nazism,
I can also back the idea that, at a big ol' official tourney like this, the Pony General's opponents might feel a bit cheated.
You worked hard, you paid your entry fee. And Warhammer has enough literature and background info that, if you're not in it for the narrative, I think you're missing out. And if you are, I can see how this army would not satisfy.
Saldiven wrote: This entire thread reminds me of the episode of The Big Bang Theory where Sheldon attempts to make a new circle of friends. He ends up returning to his core group of buddies because the new guys were having fun, and they were "doing it wrong."
Then it would seem you are misunderstanding the points raised in the thread, but then what do expect from someone who watches TBBT.
SisterSydney wrote: Oh, I'm not objecting to historically accurate depictions of WWII German forces. I'm objecting to people putting Nazi iconography where they don't have to, eg 40K Guard, for which historical realism isn't a thing.
If you showed up with your historically accurate WWII German army as a proxy for a Guard force, I'd be "eh, whatever." If you start painting swastikas on Leman Russ, I'd be asking you why.
I'd be asking why too, but responses I would find acceptable would be "I like the aesthetic" or "I felt nazi symbols were appropriate for my genocidal imperial army".
So yeah, I'm saying I would find a Brony Bretonnian army more offensive on the table top than an IG army with nazi iconography. If it was someone walking down the street with a brony tshirt vs someone with a nazi tshirt, yeah, I'd find the nazi tshirt more offensive.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
TanKoL wrote: German WWII-era vehicles had the Balkan Kreuz as marking, not the swastika
Some units (like the DAK) had a swastika in their divisional symbol, but that's specific cases
However, tanks quite often used a flag on the rear-deck to avoid friendly fire by planes, said flag was often the red one with black swastika on white discus
A lot of my WW2 aircraft models have swastikas on their tails. NOT the Balkankreuz (which is on the wings and fuselage).
I am probably talking out of my ass here but I think the reason for that was that the Luftwaffe was a very nazified branch of the German Armed Forces. Being a highly politicized force it would make sense for their vehicles to have party symbols. Other Heer vehicles did not feature the Swastika other than those of the DAK. Even for them it wasn't a red/white/black deal like some would believe but TanKoL is correct in that some vehicles did display the national flag for identification purposes. Usually these were half tracks, armored cars and soft skin vehucles, though, not MBTs.
More relevant to the topic I see no real problem with the pony army. If they function as gaming pieces then it is an acceptable army.
Saldiven wrote: This entire thread reminds me of the episode of The Big Bang Theory where Sheldon attempts to make a new circle of friends. He ends up returning to his core group of buddies because the new guys were having fun, and they were "doing it wrong."
Then it would seem you are misunderstanding the points raised in the thread, but then what do expect from someone who watches TBBT.
No, I understand them completely.
I'm just mocking them as being the kind of thing that Sheldon would raise.
This is a game of little plastic army men that people are taking WAY TOO SERIOUSLY.
Some people do spend a lot of time, energy, and talent painting their little army men so they look awesome, though. I can understand some of them being prickly about people who don't put in the time.
This has gotten quite far afield, but the issue of army appearance standards was never being considered in a vacuum / by itself... it was in the context of an event with a painting requirement.
That really is the only reason there's a discussion at all... if it's not going to be enforced, then an event shouldn't list a painting requirement. But if it does, in that context everyone who paid to participate in that event is expecting armies to meet a minimum appearance standard.
This particular case was more complex because the TO gave approval beforehand. They posted on one of the earlier pages here that they would not be approving armies like this in the future, so it will be a non-issue going forward.
I think regardless of theme, prepainted toys do not meet the painting requirement of the vast majority of GT events. Again, these are paid events with additional requirements for participation in them. I use a monsterpocalypse model in my army, and the paint scheme was even similar to my army's... but I still repainted it, because prepainted toys just aren't meeting the minimum standards for a GT event.
Live and learn, I don't think this is really that big of a deal, but participation in these events is totally optional- if someone does not want to paint their army, then they are not (usually) allowed to participate, which is why this isn't usually an issue. In this case, permission was granted, but since the TO has said that that was a mistake and they won't be repeating it, I really think there's nothing more to see here. Unless you lot want to keep discussing swastikas
It does not matter to me, as the opponent of the person fielding the army, whether they had it professionally painted or not.
And I think that's really the point here- what people can reasonably expect to face at an event with a painting requirement. I also think it's pretty clear that the vast majority of prepainted toys would fall outside of that requirement (G.I. Joe or similar action figures, toy dinosaurs for Lizardmen, etc).
And as noted, the TO already came in and said this army would not qualify for their requirements in the future. That makes this a non-issue going forward, but the question of "What is painted?" is certainly something all tournies face. Many now have changed their painting rubric to stop people from doing the "3 dots of color on a model" route. There are always going to be loopholes in the letter of the rules, but the intent is pretty clear imo.
I would never have the guts to toe that line at an event, personally... I know it's hard for TOs to tell people they cannot participate, and they rarely do, but the painting requirement is there so that hopefully people will put in the effort (or the funds, if they're paying someone to paint) to bring an army that is well done.
Putting (factory prepainted) toys on square bases does not meet that minimum requirement for the vast majority of events... to use my above example, I'd feel the same way about facing Skylanders or Pokemon or G.I. Joe toys. It might be totally fine for a fun game as proxies, but it's not something that would be allowed at any GT that I know of, due to the extra requirements they lay out for the presentation of armies.
1) not putting in the time. That entire army probably took less time to throw together than it takes me to paint 3 actual Bretonnian Knights.
2) It not being remotely a bretonnian army. Using unpainted toy dinosaurs as lizardmen would be more fitting than this army. It's not Knights on horseback in a medieval setting. It's not even a cavalry army, it's just horses. It's no more a Bretonnian army than if I mounted Termagants on cavalry bases and called them knights.
Now, I'm a pretty easy going person when you meet me in person, so yeah, I'd just play against it without making a fuss, but it would definitely annoy me. Honestly, yeah, I'd rather play against a Nazi themed IG army than a brony army... some people might find it more morally offensive, but to me at least it fits the 40k grimdark and I'd treat it the same as playing a video game like Wolfenstien.
RiTides wrote: It does not matter to me, as the opponent of the person fielding the army, whether they had it professionally painted or not.
And I think that's really the point here- what people can reasonably expect to face at an event with a painting requirement. I also think it's pretty clear that the vast majority of prepainted toys would fall outside of that requirement (G.I. Joe or similar action figures, toy dinosaurs for Lizardmen, etc).
And as noted, the TO already came in and said this army would not qualify for their requirements in the future. That makes this a non-issue going forward, but the question of "What is painted?" is certainly something all tournies face. Many now have changed their painting rubric to stop people from doing the "3 dots of color on a model" route. There are always going to be loopholes in the letter of the rules, but the intent is pretty clear imo.
I would never have the guts to toe that line at an event, personally... I know it's hard for TOs to tell people they cannot participate, and they rarely do, but the painting requirement is there so that hopefully people will put in the effort (or the funds, if they're paying someone to paint) to bring an army that is well done.
Putting (factory prepainted) toys on square bases does not meet that minimum requirement for the vast majority of events... to use my above example, I'd feel the same way about facing Skylanders or Pokemon or G.I. Joe toys. It might be totally fine for a fun game as proxies, but it's not something that would be allowed at any GT that I know of, due to the extra requirements they lay out for the presentation of armies.
I am going to push back on you a little, and ask what the difference is between factory painted models and commissioned painted models are. Assuming they are done to the same standard, the owner of the models paid for the paint either way. The owner will get docked for painting if people don't like the look either way. That's what painting/modeling scores are there for, to punish people who bring ugly armies and reward people who bring pretty ones. So if you want to move beyond simple "Looks good/bad" and put special rules and requirements based on what third parties painted the models, you ought to be able to clearly explain the distinction.
SisterSydney wrote: Some people do spend a lot of time, energy, and talent painting their little army men so they look awesome, though. I can understand some of them being prickly about people who don't put in the time.
Correct, and since that's what they do, the expect other people to do the same thing, too. They expect other people to derive the same pleasure as they do from the same aspects of the hobby as they do.
Hence, "they're having fun, and they're doing it wrong."
SisterSydney wrote: Some people do spend a lot of time, energy, and talent painting their little army men so they look awesome, though. I can understand some of them being prickly about people who don't put in the time.
Correct, and since that's what they do, the expect other people to do the same thing, too. They expect other people to derive the same pleasure as they do from the same aspects of the hobby as they do.
Hence, "they're having fun, and they're doing it wrong."
Except that when I paint an army its as much for the enjoyment of my opponent as it is for me. Sure I get to pick the colors and I like to paint. But when I put them on the table its as much for the overall gaming experience of both players as it is for me. So when I plop down my well painted army, and I face yet again another grey plastic or primered army, its my opponent who is saying "this is all about MY gaming experience". Since he doesn't like to paint he gets to say "feth you, I just like rolling dice"? I think you have it backwards, the people who don't paint their armies are the "its-all-about-my-fun" crowd and not the likes of us who insist its part of the hobby (calling us elitist I think it was).
C'mon, though, I don't think anybody paints their army for the primary purpose of increasing some stranger's pleasure in facing said army in a game -- in fact, I'd expect that's usually a distant second or third or fourth behind "I like painting models," "I like looking at my awesomely painted models," and/or "I like showing my friends my awesomely painted models."
Yeah, it's more fun to play against a cool-looking army than an ugly one, but as we've already discussed in this thread, some people (eg me) would be thrilled to watch the Pony Army in action. I suspect those people are roughly equal in number to the ones who would find it a bummer.
In short, we can all agree unpainted and badly painted armies are less fun to play against. We very definitely don't agree on whether the Pony Legions would be more or less fun to play against. So which of these two things should TOs be stricter about banning: the thing everybody dislikes or the thing some people dislike & others like?
Except that when I paint an army its as much for the enjoyment of my opponent as it is for me. Sure I get to pick the colors and I like to paint. But when I put them on the table its as much for the overall gaming experience of both players as it is for me. So when I plop down my well painted army, and I face yet again another grey plastic or primered army, its my opponent who is saying "this is all about MY gaming experience". Since he doesn't like to paint he gets to say "feth you, I just like rolling dice"? I think you have it backwards, the people who don't paint their armies are the "its-all-about-my-fun" crowd and not the likes of us who insist its part of the hobby (calling us elitist I think it was).
Your mistake I believe is in assuming it is one person and not both. Gaming is a collaborative social game in most senses, and like most collaborative games each person has to respect how far the other wants to go. Just because one person wants to take an aspect farther because he is sure the other will like it does not mean he is right to try and force the other person to do so.
There are some obvious examples there, but seeing as how we just stopped talking about Nazis, I will leave them to you. Sufficed to say, no one likes being forced to have fun in a way they don't find fun. Each person has a different view of what that is, and the best you can do is work towards meeting in the middle and getting the most of what you want without overstepping what they want.
Tournaments are an example of where certain play styles are supported more than others. In tournaments you are expected to try and win, and build an army that will do so, as opposed to friendly games where maybe you want to focus on fluff or something. In general in tournaments it is understood that you can do everything allowed by the rules to try and win, so crying over an opponent having a cheesy list is silly. People who hate playing cheesy lists are warned to stay away; no one cares about their gaming experience.
Sorry, I am getting a little far afield perhaps; I just woke up. In general I just meant to say that both people are responsible for the outcome of the game, but you shouldn't expect both people to want or even like the same thing. As such, you can't say "well, this one isn't contributing as much to the public good of the game as me, therefor they are bad;" it is entirely possible that they would be much worse off by contributing, and so it would be unreasonable to ask that they do in every case.
Wehrkind, I guess I'll turn the question back on you then: would you be happy to play against Pokemon, Skylanders, G.I.Joes, or an army of toy dinosaurs at an event?
You're keying in on "factory versus commission painted" but that's obviously a hard rubric to define. The fact is, this army is made of (and looks like) toys rather than models.
That is a blurry line to be sure but I have seen a number of events that list "toys" as not allowed, although excellent conversions are. Where is that line? How do you define it? That is for each TO and event to decide.
This TO and event admitted they made a mistake allowing this army earlier in this thread. It obviously does not mean many people's standards. If someone else wants to run an event that caters to armies like this, they are welcome to... but they should also not expect that this would be considered an acceptable level of appearance for most events.
I'm not going to try to define what many TOs have had trouble doing for a long time- what's an acceptable army. But I will simply point to the reaction in this thread as evidence that this army falls below that bar. It's not up to the people to decide, it is up to TOs... but good TOs are specifically tailoring their events to be what many people want to attend, and so they take popular / majority opinion into account in setting up their requirements.
I believe that, were the player here to ask permission of any other GT ahead of time if he could bring this army, he would be told "No". The TO posted here saying he had spoken to him and that he'd agreed he wouldn't be taking it to any more GTs, and that it wouldn't be allowed at their GT. The player also posted here that he took it as a lesson learned. If we consider only the hypothetical, there is an infinite number of grey area cases that may or may not be acceptable to a particular GT... but what is clear is that in the case of this GT and this army, it is not acceptable going forward.
Much beyond that is a game of speculation and guessing... I've tried to articulate where I think that line is, but since I'm not a TO I don't have to make that call. I think the guidelines exist to encourage players to go above and beyond the minimum acceptable level of appearance, so that TOs hopefully have less armies "on the line" that they have to either penalize or exclude. Saying an army is equivalent to the worst painted armies at an event for appearance is damning it with faint praise... and while some may squeak through and be allowed, obviously that is not something to aim for. And where that cutoff line is is going to be hard to exactly define, as many things are treated on a case-by-case basis.
The point is, that you don't want to be close to the line and this is, I think everyone would agree even if they think it should be allowed, VERY close to that line.
RiTides wrote: Wehrkind, I guess I'll turn the question back on you then: would you be happy to play against Pokemon, Skylanders, G.I.Joes, or an army of toy dinosaurs at an event?
Actually yes, they would be better than some GW armies I have faced I'll break it down a little:
1: Pokemon : actually, I would love this (I have enough hours in Pokemon Silver to receive a BS in it.) I might tank the guy on painting scores if the bases were not nice, but really if the army looked good and internally consistent I wouldn't feel bad with decent scores. A Pokemon counts-as demons army could be really something. Granted, the usual rules of counts-as apply, particularly "it has to be clear what is what, at least when shown/explained."
2: I don't know what Skylanders look like in person, but the Google images of the figures make them look really good. (Granted, so do Rackham's promo images of their pre-painted models, which are... optimistic ) Rebase those bad boys and come up with a cool counts as theme, and I'll bite.
3: GI Joe: The scale is going to be wonky; fitting them on the proper bases would be really, really tough. If you ran them as Ogres on 40mm with melee weapons in their hands, that could work. They'd probably be floppy though, and fixing them up to avoid that sort of problem would probably require GS/gluing of joints and painting over that, at which point you are nearly at painting them yourself. Wouldn't be my first choice.
I would like to point out though that I have played a game that did use GI Joes as models a number of years back. It was sort of like a Necromunda style deal, which each character stated out and 54mm scenery used. The rules could have been tighter (it was a home brew) but it was pretty cool.
So that's the thing, I don't have a problem with toys. Sure, I prefer awesome models meticulously painted. I even have my own preferences of styles of painting I like to see. I do think that we are playing with toys, however; just some are nicer looking than others.
Now, I am totally down with TO's saying "Ok, this is our requirements", but I do want to encourage people to use soft scores like painting/modeling to socially punish armies they don't like the look of instead of banning them entirely. I think it is better to err on the side of "that's silly, but is allowed".
Then again, maybe I am just biased because my counts as Warmahordes forces a illegal at a lot of tournaments
Well, if you're OK with all of that, I can't poke holes in your position, just say that it is different than mine
About your last sentence- your awesome counts-as Warmahordes models would pass "rule of cool" and be allowed at almost any independent GW event. PP is just a lot stricter in their official events (which is one of the things that turned me off to playing warmahordes, since you're not allowed to convert much, but many of the models really need it! Imo, of course).
Yea, I really do miss that about the GW games. I have a pile of models I have bought just because, and can't really do anything with them now
Speaking of which, you need to teach me to 6th edition properly so I can have some filthy mutant heretics and their Word Bearer masters tear your bugs a new hole
Wehrkind wrote: A Pokemon counts-as demons army could be really something. Granted, the usual rules of counts-as apply, particularly "it has to be clear what is what, at least when shown/explained."
Perfect!
"Pikachu, I choose you.... from the depths of HELLL!"
I figure that is what Pokeballs basically are anyway, little tethers to the warp, binding a specific entity. You find the little demons running around the material plane, smack them around then banish them using the tiny, rune inscribed techno sphere.
There's an epic crossover fanfic in there... but don't ask me to write it, all I know about Pokemon is that Pikachu is cute and so is the evil redhead (Jessie, I think?).
Anyway! Another argument for non-standard counts-as models.
SisterSydney wrote: So which of these two things should TOs be stricter about banning: the thing everybody dislikes or the thing some people dislike & others like?
They can't be strict on both? They should learn to multitask.
Came here for ponies, was not disappointed. Was expecting a conversion based army though. After reading 6 pages of arguments, both sides do raise fair points regarding the issue.
I'd side with the fact that this was a GT and although work was put in to make the OP's army, a conversion would probably have been a better course of action.
On the other hand, it would depend on how much of a serious crowd this GT had. Personally, I'd love to play against armies like this and have no personal qualms about playing any other themed armies. Even nazi themed ones so as long as the player doesn't take the role-playing to that level. While WYSWYG is an issue debated here, I'd be more inclined to believe that if everything could be ID'ed in my opponents army without much problems, then no harm no foul.
Red sports fair points on tournament ruling which I'd say is fair game. However, it also depends how serious a stance someone in the GT would want to take with it. Refusing to play someone else and straight up calling TO's to auto-lose someone because of the army they brought is fair enough if they did break tournament rules but it makes you "that guy" or at least close to one. It is a game after all but I can understand that some can lose the hype/will to play because they paid for a tournament expecting standards.
As for my hardline stance on the issue.
a) Would probably have a slight issue that toys were used instead of toy/conversion to make it look somewhat bretannic. Even knights mounted on the ponies painted in usual colours would make it much more enjoyable. Plus points for painting knights in their respective pony colours.
b) Would love to play it and any other themed ( silly or not ) army.
c) In the end, it is a game of grown men playing with little plastic toys ( resin or metal in addition ) so taking steps to purposely ruin another players day is totally silly. Taking a purist view is understandable as well although I'd rather use that focus/determination to make my army look as best I can.
d) GT's could hold a survey at the next event to see whether people genuinely had a problem with this and to see if more "fun" armies could be introduced in future events. Sure, WHFB is serious ( if you like it that way ) but some people do come to tournaments, even GT's with the intent of having fun first and foremost. Of course, this should not be totally uncontrolled but 1-2 "unique" armies are sure to brighten the mood in tournaments like this. I would be very interested to see the survey results on this just to know how serious WHFB is for the general community.
He got a 0 on painted, so the conversion/painted/effort argument is basically out the window, he already was penalized for it. As to the WYSIWYG argument, really? You would be confused and not be able to remember if Bretonians had shields and lances? Is that really what some of you are arguing? Because that's what it seems.
I guess some of the players would want to see some sort of distinguishing feature of the knights ( or for the knights to just have weapons ). Truthfully though, I'd agree with sihdhartha because I could never tell apart anything in WHFB and 10/10 would not remember anything even if someone brings a WYSIWYG army.
I think the WYSIWYG issue here is mainly because the ponies don't have lances/shields. Maybe if lances and oversized shields were mounted on their sides and flanks respectively, then the WYSIWYG issue wouldn't be much of a problem.
From the OP's army, the musician and banners were spot on though I might have questioned the armaments of the unit.
If OP wants to run an army like this again, I'd keep the current pony structure, add custom/large pauldrons to their flanks and lances to their sides. Pauldrons could be used for easy identification and lances/swords to show weaponry. If you'd want, you can add some bret knights riding on the ponies just to satisfy people who would want to see some warhammer models in the unit.
You don't need to add shields/lances to Ponies for a Bret army ... All Knight unit's have Lances and shields
Yes, all of them, "Questing Knights" are so sh*t they don't exist anymore
meaples, those are good suggestions, and I think if more conversion work had been done, people (or at least, more people than now) would have been a lot more open to this army.
As a Bretonnia player I love the army and the theme. It's hilarious and I would absolutely love to play against this army.
While I understand some of the objections, at the end of the day, this is a game about having fun, and if you are so serious business that you can't have fun while trying to destroy a Pinkie Pie Sparkle Cannon, you're doing something wrong.
Narenzade, earlier you said you'd learned from this, and I hope that is true. A big part of doing an excellent counts-as force is to be considerate of your opponents. My main question for each of mine (Ive done several and am about to start another) is- will they want to play me and enjoy doing so? This leads me to convert weaponry to represent what it should be exactly, to paint the army and base it well, etc. You did neither weaponry conversions or painting/basing, and simple things like your trebuchet crew being identical to the knights makes it not work well for counts-as. If you had done more to make it a better experience for your opponent, I would personally have played against it (the ponies don't really matter to me). So, hopefully you have learned something about making an excellent counts-as force that opponents will want to play (ponies or no ponies!) and can keep those things in mind for future projects.
As a fellow who takes painting and the theming of armies personally very seriously I have to tell you...
I LOVE THIS
Kudos sir. I spend a lot of effort creating themed armies. The fun is just oozing out everywhere.
I'd hope to play this skittle Brony love fest - Clearly I've drank the Kool-Aid! I think a 0 paint score is a fair trade as well.
Massive props to the TO for awesome response.
For the rest: Thanks for all the man drama. Really livened up an otherwise boring day.
I don't actually play WFB but that army looked awesome. If you pulled that off in 40K, maybe strap grav guns or bolters and do a White Scars army, I would be happy to take you on in any Tourney
Yeah, can remember someone posting pics of the work in progress in the MLP thread. Can't remember whether they finished and haven't seen any new pics in a while.
domus wrote: Massive props to the TO for awesome response.
Do you mean the below post? If so, I really agree!
Murdock wrote: Hello folks, I'm not a regular reader of the Dakka forums, but this post came up and I felt like I should respond.
I'm the TO for The Crossroads GTs. And I think any hate that's directed at the player who took this army is completely misdirected. He did everything on the up-and-up, he contacted me well in advance, sent me pics of the army, and even pointed me towards players to contact that had played against the army previously to see if it's clear which units are which on the tabletop. Chris certainly did his part, and while there is no painting involved, he clearly committed himself for the "fun" LOLs with this army, even having the videos playing in the background, T-shirts, the castle, cups of punch, etc...
Obviously it's not to everyone's taste, and Chris knew that going in I think, so the wildly varying opinions are not surprising to him.
Any heat for this army being preset at the event should really be directed at me as the TO.
There are a few criteria that I used when deciding whether to allow this army in:
1) Fun factor - clearly Chris was doing this as a fun gag, he went all-out for his theme. I don't fell that he was looking to circumvent having to take an actual GW army, I know that he has painted GW armies, and would have readily taken one of them if I had denied his request.
2) Am I able to tell what's what on the table top: For this is where I had a real concern, in the end, based on previous precedent, I decided to allow it. We have allowed the Pawn's Of Chaos checkerboard familiar army in the past, which I think is more difficult at times to distinguish what it what, and had no issues. The original poster of this battle report himself has brought his cool Nurgle themed Skaven army to the event before, which contains no actual Skaven models, and people seemed to be able to work with that as well. On top of that, Bretonians as an army are usually confusing to me as an individual as to what is what, and which characters are where anyway, so this in my mind was no worse than a normal Bret army in that regard.
3) Appearance - Granted, the player himself did no painting or converting for this army, but it did look coherent and like it belonged together. And outside of the fact that they were MLPs, the army wasn't a horrible looking army. There are players that get their 3 color minimum on the model as sloppily as they can, and they are now compliant. Those armies to me are more unfun to look at because they look legitimately awful, GW minitures or not. I have played in a GT against the army that the models were spray painted different colors, with massive swaths of paint brushed on, then glitter all over them. This was compliant, had it's 3 colors, but was visually painful to look at. I didn't feel that this went to that level of visual disgust.
Where I obviously missed the boat is the player experience, I vastly underestimated how much opponents, and other attendees at the event would dislike having this army present. Chris and I have talked and both agree that this was the only time it will see the table at a GT, and to use this as a lesson learned.
Much of the feedback I've received centers around the lack of effort put into this army as compared to his peers at the event. I would disagree with this reasoning based on one point, I know there are plenty of players that and pay to have their armies built and painted for them. And rarely does anyone say that those armies don't belong at an event based on lack of effort, so that reasoning does not hold water in my mind.
As for the Crossroads GT's themselves, if you find that this one particular instance is reason enough not to attend our events, then that is certainly your prerogative. We take pride in running an event that caters to gamers who value different aspects of the hobby, from those that place a high value on the soft scores to those that really want a competitive gaming environment, and everyone in-between. I think we've been very successful, as these are the largest GT's in the northeast, and we sell out both events annually within 24 hours of opening registration. So if this has put you off, I would encourage you to reconsider and attend in person, as the feedback I regularly receive is that most people have a wonderful time at our GTs, and we grow attendance each year, meaning new attendees find it an experience worth repeating.
Anvildude wrote: ... I think there's someone who's actually done that- or is possibly in the process of doing it.
Also, do a google of My Little Commissar.
that may have been me :'3
as someone who runs a similar army I have to say that a level of hate/displeasure at seeing this army is understandable but the level in this thread is borderline ridiculous. I'm hardly going to flog a dead horse (aha.......) over this subject as what's been said has already been said so I'll leave it alone. however I can see the argument for "you're just fielding toys"
I would say if you want to field it again then I would advise actually adding war gear to the models. greenstuffing a little armour hear and there along with adding lances would have gone a long way to make the army more playable against. while it's clear to me what everything is (not because I'm a brony but because I've played against brets before, more specifically a much similar build to this)
if you want ideas on conversions for armour give my thread a look (it's in my sig......no it's not a shameless self promotion) and there are lots of great images on google to go by.
I think that you did really well with your army but should have put more work into it than you did.
as for mlp not fitting with the theme of warhammer, consider this. A choas sorc fethed up and tore open a portal to equestria/different universe and ponies came out and they're about to liven up your grimdark world with friendship and happiness. it's your job as the grizzled miserable armchair general that you are to purge this threat from the free lands of men so that the good citizens of the old world can go about their miserable grey lives as usual.....
not being able to forge a narative against armies like these.....what nonsense.
Also- just googling MLP 40K will give you some rather astoundingly awesome images- Celestia as The Emperor and Luna as Horus, in their super-ornate terminator armour is pretty badass looking. You could probably get similarly epic imagery with Fantasy.
Heck, there's even canon MLP combat units you could convert and paint up.
Though, come to think of it... Are there any blind-bag figures of male ponies?
Anvildude wrote: Though, come to think of it... Are there any blind-bag figures of male ponies?
there are yes. I'll put this in spoilers to keep the thread tidy but you can get hold of them. (this should also give you a good idea on how you can use greenstuff to make armour for them
I like the concept, i like the ideias, and i do like the army itself.
For those saying "they have no armor/shields/lances":
Dear, they are ponies, their armor is trusth, their weapon is love, their magic is friendship. They would not march to battle with weapons, they would do it with joy, and music, and party, and fun jokes.
I pretty much could imagine the ogres trying to fight those pure embodyments of cutness, but starting to laugh, joke and sing with each other, while the battle became a big party.
To much pinky dream for Warhammor set? Probably. But also a good change of tides, and source of good laughs.
"Hey look, the Slaughtermaster finally smile, and you see him murmur something that looks like music. The battle has ended".
All well and good, except Equestria actually has a Military, and a history of Warfare, as shown by the Equestrian Royal Guard and the historical presense of figures like Commander Hurricane.
There's canon armour! Heck, in the Crystal Empire episodes, there's even Canon LANCES, wielded by Fluttershy and Rainbow Dash.
This is from an exhibition in one of the episodes of the Crystal Empire special. It's got a coromel on it, of course, because it was a joust, rather than an actual battle.
The armour worn by Rainbow Dash and Fluttershy as Commander Hurricane and assistant in the Hearth's Warming Eve pageant, is, I think, merely a mishmash from the props bin, but is still representative of armour worn by ponies at some point. And of course the Royal Guards are everywhere.
I'm male, 40, and have never actually seen the show -- I've just picked it up via popcultural osmosis and probably have seen 40K-MLP crossover fanart than actual pictures from the show. I still think this army is awesome.
This is from an exhibition in one of the episodes of the Crystal Empire special. It's got a coromel on it, of course, because it was a joust, rather than an actual battle.
The armour worn by Rainbow Dash and Fluttershy as Commander Hurricane and assistant in the Hearth's Warming Eve pageant, is, I think, merely a mishmash from the props bin, but is still representative of armour worn by ponies at some point. And of course the Royal Guards are everywhere.
That definitely would have been a step in the right direction!
Can't believe I actually took the time to read this thread...
But at any rate, I personally enjoyed looking at your army and if I played WHFB, I would find it hilarious to play against them. Maybe not every single time but every now and then.
I'm kind of curious if people would be annoyed by the Hello Kitty Sisters of Battle army out there.
I definitely have to show my wife the pictures for your army.
This should of really be moved to discussions or something.
Very confusing army to play against. People being so obtuse as to compare this to pro-painted armies using actual models are just ridiculous. Even the display board lacks effort.
Just another case of adults liking MLP and not being able to shut up about it. Yeah you like a cartoon for young girls, we get it.
One army consists of happy meal toys while the other doesn't...?
EDIT
Why attempt to ascertain the source of effort when comparing these armies? The results speak for themselves.
The difference being that one person realised they couldn't get their army done by themselves so paid somebody to do it and the other is a bunch of McDonalds toys stuck to bases.
It's not hard to see which has had more time and effort put into it.
Why is time and effort the standard by which to judge them? I can paint up a model in a few hours that would take some people a week. Should they be considered more worthy because they spent more time and effort?
Similarly, many people spend a lot of effort painting and basing models that look worse than Happy-meal toys. It isn't clear that that outcome is so superior such that it should be allowed compared to this.
Also, all these points have been made before; you are not the first in this thread to make your argument. You may wish to read through(even though it is a bit long) if you want to add to the conversation. It will save a lot of reposting on all sides.
Medium of Death wrote:Very confusing army to play against. People being so obtuse as to compare this to pro-painted armies using actual models are just ridiculous. Even the display board lacks effort.
Just another case of adults liking MLP and not being able to shut up about it. Yeah you like a cartoon for young girls, we get it.
Yep, you nailed it.
Wehrkind wrote:Funny how you don't take the time to describe why it is ridiculous, Medium of Death. Perhaps you don't know?
What part of his comments do you fail to comprehend? The owner of this "army" has already admitted several times in this thread that this was an attention grab at best, and troll bait at worst.
Medium of Death wrote:One army consists of happy meal toys while the other doesn't...?
EDIT
Why attempt to ascertain the source of effort when comparing these armies? The results speak for themselves.
The difference being that one person realised they couldn't get their army done by themselves so paid somebody to do it and the other is a bunch of McDonalds toys stuck to bases.
It's not hard to see which has had more time and effort put into it.
Again, nailed it. Have an Exalt
Wehrkind wrote:I can paint up a model in a few hours that would take some people a week.
Does the air get thin up there on your high horse?
Wehrkind wrote:Also, all these points have been made before; you are not the first in this thread to make your argument. You may wish to read through(even though it is a bit long) if you want to add to the conversation. It will save a lot of reposting on all sides.
Wow, time to climb down from your wannabe mod soap box
I don't know who the hell you THINK you are, but he has EVERY right to add his opinion to this conversation. Just because he doesn't support this "army" doesn't inviolate his right to voice his opinion against it.
If that's not the case then why did people bring up the point of commission painted armies in the first place?
Why should people bother to go to the effort of making their army abide by the tournament rules when somebody can just bypass that and bring along some happy meal toys?
A wanna be mod would demand that he stop doing X because it was against the rules or what not. I was merely suggesting that he may wish to read the thread since he and I were retreading arguments made many times in earlier posts.
It is also not being on a high horse to say "I can paint to standard X much faster than some other people. It's true, I can paint much faster now than I could say 5 years ago. If we reach the same result it seems odd to suggest that the time and effort spent is the relevant factor. The various labor theories of value are not terribly useful, as it turns out.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Last reply was to Scott_K, not MD, just the timing moved it below, by the way.
The earlier argument about commission armies was that the painter was not the owner of the models. If one is going to complain about prepainted models, one has to explain the difference between a hand painter or a machine painter, as that is the difference between commissioned paints and prepaints. Why is a poor quality commission painted army better than an equal quality factory/machine painted army?
The tournament required painted models. The models were painted just as much as say a prepainted Rackham model would be, and at least as well as a poorly executed paint job. Why favor one of the other if the outcome is similar? Paint jobs can be ugly in many ways.
That led to the discussion about gaming models vs toys. That spun around a little, usually around the question of good vs bad models. Some good points were made about just putting some armor or weapons on them would do a lot. I consider the lack of weapons to be a very legitimate argument against the army, though I would note that WYSIWYG is really pretty vague in most WHFB armies that are not official and people often don't mind.
I think one could summarize the thread as being a question of whether the army violates the Rule of Cool, as no actual rules seem to have been broken. Some people think it was sufficiently cool (or at least funny) to be fine, others find it so uncool it deserves to have broken rules that weren't written. Either view is fine, just people are trying to make a much more objective rules based argument for whether the army is good or not instead of recognizing that it is an entirely subjective aesthetic argument. In other words claiming someone is scientifically wrong for liking/disliking the army instead of recognizing that it is largely a matter of taste.
To the topic- Wehrkind, I do think "rule of cool" is a large factor here, but also I think it may not meet the painting standards (or basing standards) of most events.
I haven't seen an attempt to use a pre-painted dinosaur toy or pre-painted mage knights model or pre-painted AT-43 model in an army at a tournament... or at least, I haven't ever seen that it would be allowed. I have seen some tournaments list "No toy proxies" as a kind of catch-all for those kinds of things, but it is difficult to make a hard and fast rule that covers all cases. But again just with basing, green squares without flock or any kind of detail would not usually qualify as "tournament basing".
So, while I think the argument that the only rule this violates is people's subjective "rule of cool" has some merit, I think you can more objectively look at the (lack of) painting and basing and make a determination that way.
Scott_K wrote: The owner of this "army" has already admitted several times in this thread that this was an attention grab at best, and troll bait at worst.
Not true at all. I never said anything remotely close to that. And you need to embrace the magic of friendship.
Edit : For almost feeding the troll, but realizing I have better things to do than argue with a stranger on the Internet.
FLAWLESS BREPONYA VICTORY 
inkie_Pie_haters_gonna_hate.gif?file=Pinkie_Pie_haters_gonna_hate.gif
.
rincess_Celestia,_Cadance_and_Luna_blind_bag_toys.jpg
I'd love to get my ass whooped by this lot. Not sure how you remember all their names...
