Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Absolutely needs to be painted models.

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

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

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

[/sarcasm]

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

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

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

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

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

Eric

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Eric

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

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

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



Your argument sucks.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you for reiterating my point?

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

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

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

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

To the OP the answer is no.

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

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

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

This is how i would put it, well said!

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

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

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

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

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





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

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

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

augustus5 wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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