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.

IMO this is a hobby not just a game, an apart of that hobby is painting your models and in a tournament setting its a must to promote the hobby.

Howard A Treesong wrote:

This is a strawman I've seen pop up time and again on this topic. In a painting competition you can't tell whether a person plays games or not, and it's not important either.

And in hardboyz, its how well you play not either you paint or not, its not important.

You can paint and not game, but gaming and not painting just looks dumb.

Logical fallacy right there. Painting isnt really required to play. Hell I do recall a time when BASING was optional.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

BigJon wrote:IMO this is a hobby not just a game, an apart of that hobby is painting your models and in a tournament setting its a must to promote the hobby.

Must promote the hobby? What are you going to do, hold a gun to my head an make me?

Thats the silliest thing I've seen in ages.

I don't think anyone is saying that 'ardboys should have a painting (or comp, for that matter) score associated with it. Just that the base requirement for playing should be a painted army, not just a purchased army.

The Adepticon Gladiator, for example, has no comp score, no painting score, but has a 3-color painting requirement. And, it's far more enjoyable to play in.

I don't hear anyone arguing that they should have to buy the models to play in 'ardboyz. I don't hear anyone complaining that they had to assemble the models to play. Why is the next step such a big deal?

Redbeard wrote:Why is the next step such a big deal?

If we go by your progression of "Buy, Assemble, Paint, Play", then why isn't the next step after painting such a big deal? Should people have to forfeit their armies if they don't play a minimum number of games a week because they're not participating in the full hobby? They should just go out and paint a bunch of watercolors if they want to focus on the artistic part of the hobby only. Yeah, this is a strawman argument, but so is the idea that by not painting, the people playing with unpainted armies are better off playing with cardboard counters.

From a practical standpoint, GW isn't going to place a painting requirement on 'Ard Boyz as it could potentially limit the number of models people rush out to buy to field their killer army. GW doesn't want any barriers to entry on that competition besides cash. No matter how "easy" a 3-color minimum is, if it prevents someone from buying 2500 points of the new army on the block, then that is something GW wants to avoid. Frankly, I like the idea of 'Ard Boyz because it means I don't have to rush my painting (yes, I do paint... just slowly) to meet some entry standard just so I can play. I can focus my prep time for the tournament on testing and tweaking my list and getting practice games against some of the armies I expect to see in the tournament, rather than frantically trying to get 3 colors on all the units that I want to try out.

I guess I'm lucky in that I play at a FLGS where there are people taking part in all different aspects of the hobby. There are fluff bunnies, painting masters, future Creeds, conversion artists, narrative story-tellers, and social gamers. I think each person makes "the hobby" richer and more fun, and if we threw out all the people that didn't cover every single aspect of it, guess what... my FLGS would be very, very empty.

Gornall wrote:
If we go by your progression of "Buy, Assemble, Paint, Play", then why isn't the next step after painting such a big deal?

It isn't. I would much prefer it if the Golden Demon competition was limited to people who actually gamed with their figures. I'd actually stand half-a-chance

Should people have to forfeit their armies if they don't play a minimum number of games a week because they're not participating in the full hobby? They should just go out and paint a bunch of watercolors if they want to focus on the artistic part of the hobby only. Yeah, this is a strawman argument, but so is the idea that by not painting, the people playing with unpainted armies are better off playing with cardboard counters.

There are two logical problems with your arguments - besides the strawman thing.

First, no one is saying that people should forfeit their armies if they don't paint them. You're drawing an invalid comparison here.

Second, if you're not going to enjoy the tactile nature of a miniature, you ARE better off playing with cardboard counters. It's really a simple concept. You can spend $400 on an army, or you can spend $4 on some cardboard. If all you need is something to represent the position of a game-piece, the cardboard will do the job - and do it just as well as the overpriced plastic men. You're $396 better off by using the cardboard.

From a practical standpoint, GW isn't going to place a painting requirement on 'Ard Boyz as it could potentially limit the number of models people rush out to buy to field their killer army. GW doesn't want any barriers to entry on that competition besides cash.

Clearly. But that doesn't mean that the community has to take the same approach. GW is a corporation that produces stuff. They cannot dictate community standards. If the community wants to self-regulate a painting requirement and ignore them, the community is able to do so.

I guess I'm lucky in that I play at a FLGS where there are people taking part in all different aspects of the hobby. There are fluff bunnies, painting masters, future Creeds, conversion artists, narrative story-tellers, and social gamers. I think each person makes "the hobby" richer and more fun, and if we threw out all the people that didn't cover every single aspect of it, guess what... my FLGS would be very, very empty.

And yet, you expect all of them to pay for armies and to assemble armies. Would you let someone play games who said, "I'd really love to play this game, it looks like a lot of fun, but I cannot afford it, I've been out of work for two years. I made these cardboard cut-outs?" Would you let someone play who said, "Gee, I really just don't like assembling the models, I get glue all over my hands. I bought my army, but I'd rather just field the empty bases?"

Some of us just think that not painting is the same as not assembling. The model isn't game-ready until it is painted. Unless you answered yes to the two above questions, you do have a standard that you hold members at your FLGS to, so you can't pull the morally-superior "we let people do whatever they like" crap. Rather than try to justify not painting, why not envision how much cooler it would be if every game you played was against a painted army. It's not about throwing out people who don't enjoy every aspect of the game, it's simply about holding people to a certain minimum standard. You already do that, just raise the minimum a little.

Gornall wrote:From a practical standpoint, GW isn't going to place a painting requirement on 'Ard Boyz as it could potentially limit the number of models people rush out to buy to field their killer army. GW doesn't want any barriers to entry on that competition besides cash. No matter how "easy" a 3-color minimum is, if it prevents someone from buying 2500 points of the new army on the block, then that is something GW wants to avoid. Frankly, I like the idea of 'Ard Boyz because it means I don't have to rush my painting...

Im not so sure, I was at the hradboy all 3 rounds, I don't think most people rushed out to buy anything, it was pretty clear most people were just borrowing things from friends and using things they already had.

Furthermore would a painting requirement keep people out? They announced at the hardboy finals this year that 90 invitees were asked to come, and there were only 64 participants, thats about 1/3 no shows already, with the most open rules for painting.

I wonder why those people didn't come? Perhaps because they didn't like the 1st 2 rounds of the event enough to travel to the finals?

Why could that be?...

Its pretty humorous to see this ironic pattern in the discussion:

(1) "Painting standards keeps people out, and that is bad, we should include everyone!"
(2) "Well, I dont like playing without a 3 color standard"
(1) "Fine then stay home!"

So it IS ok to exclude the disciplined people? They must be snHobbs afterall!

carmachu wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:

No, I just don't play games with them.

It doesn't make me better or worse than people who play with unpainted figures, just different.

Which is the whole point. Different people have different attactions to the game. I dont see why you(or armyman) or others just dont let them be and have their tournment they can enter, just as painters have golden demons, without attaching other strings to said tournment.

Dont like hard boyz? Great. Dont show up. Go play an RT or GT or something that you like. Let folks have their enjoyment in an unpainted tournment if there is one and leave'em alone.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

warboss wrote:[
ridiculous? yes, but it's simply taking the argument i've read over the past several pages to the next level. the hobby ideally involves the following in the stated order: buying, assembly, painting, playing. if you want to ignore the third, why should you pay homage to the second? gw only cares about the first (buying) and you only care about the last (playing).

*edited to make sarcasm more obvious*

Mostly because even hard boyz and otehr tournments have a WYSIWYG requirement. So yes you have to assemble the models and have them be what is what.

The question was asked, and I answered.

Augustus wrote:Im not so sure, I was at the hradboy all 3 rounds, I don't think most people rushed out to buy anything, it was pretty clear most people were just borrowing things from friends and using things they already had.

Furthermore would a painting requirement keep people out? They announced at the hardboy finals this year that 90 invitees were asked to come, and there were only 64 participants, thats about 1/3 no shows already, with the most open rules for painting.

I wonder why those people didn't come? Perhaps because they didn't like the 1st 2 rounds of the event enough to travel to the finals?

Why could that be?...

Its pretty humorous to see this ironic pattern in the discussion:

(1) "Painting standards keeps people out, and that is bad, we should include everyone!"
(2) "Well, I dont like playing without a 3 color standard"
(1) "Fine then stay home!"

So it IS ok to exclude the disciplined people? They must be snHobbs afterall!

this is frankly a pretty ridiculous post. First, I'm shocked only 26 invitees didn't travel all the way to chicago for a single day of gaming. I qualified for nationals last year, I didn't go because I had to defend a paper that following week and wanted the time to work on it. Not everybody can spend the cash to fly to chicago (which you'd have to from the west). I'd imagine distaste for unpainted armies was a minor factor in most decisions.

As for the latter half of your post... well, let's start with the straw man up front. Most people here are saying that having a single even without a painting standard isn't a bad thing, not a general attack on them. The idea isn't just some general desire to include more people, but to allow people to bring what they think are the best armies unfettered by needs to paint.

I like that by the very end, you tip your hand with the crack about "disciplined people." I really don't think people with painted armies are morally superior in that way. I wish they were, because then I'd be like a saint. I think it's pretty demonstrable that some people can paint much faster than others. I can churn out a table top IG squad in a few hours, other people simply can't.

Finally, how is anybody excluded by not mandating painting? I think this is the weird heart of the matter, that you and others seem to think it's ok to tell others to paint an entire warhammer army, but us asking you to deal with playing unpainted stuff a few afternoons a year is beyond the pale? I hear the stuff about WYSWYG being easier with paint, and I get that it's a richer experience, and those are all true, but this isn't about any of that. It's simply about some old school gamer elitism.

I hear some posters saying that it's not really 40k if they're not painted. Well, what if hard boys wasn't 40k, but instead played a game called "Grim Darkness." Now, the first rule of Grim Darkness is that models don't have to be painted. The second is that for all other rules, use the 40k rulebook. So, maybe it's a counter exclusion. If the people willing to play without painted models aren't really hobbyists, we'll start our own hobby. With hookers. And blackjack.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Redbeard wrote:And yet, you expect all of them to pay for armies and to assemble armies. Would you let someone play games who said, "I'd really love to play this game, it looks like a lot of fun, but I cannot afford it, I've been out of work for two years. I made these cardboard cut-outs?" Would you let someone play who said, "Gee, I really just don't like assembling the models, I get glue all over my hands. I bought my army, but I'd rather just field the empty bases?"

Some of us just think that not painting is the same as not assembling. The model isn't game-ready until it is painted. Unless you answered yes to the two above questions, you do have a standard that you hold members at your FLGS to, so you can't pull the morally-superior "we let people do whatever they like" crap. Rather than try to justify not painting, why not envision how much cooler it would be if every game you played was against a painted army. It's not about throwing out people who don't enjoy every aspect of the game, it's simply about holding people to a certain minimum standard. You already do that, just raise the minimum a little.

Your logic runs out of gas at assembly. A models size and presence on the battlefield is important for Line of sight. Empty bases (which I've faced in two tournaments btw and the world didn't explode) simply aren't WYSIWYG.

I don't deny that a painted army looks a lot better, but WYSIWYG is a big tenet of 40k, and that involves models with the right gear glued on. Painting adds color. Assembly is what is needed to play, which is why it's required.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

The Defenestrator wrote:
It's beyond me why one would spend hundreds and hundreds (or in the case of some 'ard boyz armies, thousands) of dollars on GW miniatures and not paint them. If they're going to be plain, visually indecipherable blobs you're better off spending 50 bucks for 2500 points worth of appropriate bases and write the model's names and wargear on them. Maybe clip some toothpicks to the right height for TLOS, and you're set. It's going to look the same to me from across the table anyway, right? Miniature war gaming is fundamentally a visual game. That's a very large part of why the entire hobby didn't collapse horribly when Vassal came on the scene; sliding little representative icons of your units doesn't compare.

Have you ever watched black and white Television or movies? Either stuff from before color, or back when your TV only showed black and white? Did you get any enjoyment out of the visuals? Or did the knowledge that there is color, HD, etc out there make it impossible to watch?

As I've stated before, 40k is a hobby where a person dreams up an army concept, and then builds that army, and can play it in games. I'm a painter, it's how I got into the hobby, but the real appeal to me was that I could create my vision of an army. Not painting an army isn't going the full distance towards that vision, but so is not doing extensive conversions or having elaborate bases. My point is that a person might be able to hold the vision of their army in their head with a built but unpainted army.

And, as a side note, as for the question of why play 40k if you just want a strategy game... get serious. If you want to play a non-computer wargame, 40k is one of your few options.

Second, if you're not going to enjoy the tactile nature of a miniature, you ARE better off playing with cardboard counters. It's really a simple concept. You can spend $400 on an army, or you can spend $4 on some cardboard. If all you need is something to represent the position of a game-piece, the cardboard will do the job - and do it just as well as the overpriced plastic men. You're $396 better off by using the cardboard.

I do enjoy the minis. To you, the unpainted minis are practically cardboard, but to me, having a unique 3D representation offers a significantly more pleasing and useful model than a cardboard cutout. To ME, the model itself offers a significant portion of the creative or artistic part of the hobby, and the painting is just icing on the cake. I know you disagree with me on that, and that's fine and dandy. My argument is that 40k is a fairly big hobby and there is room for both of us in it.

And I have no problems playing people with proxies/scratch-built/shadow-based stuff. As long as it's clear what things are and they are a reasonable size for TLOS, I really don't care. Of course, the game might look like complete poo, but that doesn't mean we both didn't have a blast in the game trying to outmanuever/outthink each other. However, if the "proxies" are so extensive that it's impossible to keep track of what is what (or sizes for TLOS), then that affects the game playability. This is an important distinction, as an unpainted army is still playable (just not as pleasing to the eye), but a shadow-base army is often not going to be usable, simply because it is impossible to tell what pieces are what.

I will be the first to admit that two painted armies squaring off in a hard fought battle simply looks awesome and shows the hobby at probably its best. However, that doesn't mean anything less than that isn't fun for the people involved and can't show the hobby in a positive light. You can talk about holding people to a higher standard, and in many cases I would agree with you... but when dealing with a hobby consisting of little plastic men, I just don't see the big deal. I say live and let live. This is something a lot of people do to blow off steam. When you start turning it into work (and if you ask some people, they consider painting work), then you have to wonder why you would spend money to do something that isn't fun.

Im not so sure, I was at the hradboy all 3 rounds, I don't think most people rushed out to buy anything, it was pretty clear most people were just borrowing things from friends and using things they already had.

Furthermore would a painting requirement keep people out? They announced at the hardboy finals this year that 90 invitees were asked to come, and there were only 64 participants, thats about 1/3 no shows already, with the most open rules for painting.

I wonder why those people didn't come? Perhaps because they didn't like the 1st 2 rounds of the event enough to travel to the finals?

Why could that be?...

Maybe they had something to do that weekend, couldn't afford plane tickets, couldn't get off work, etc, etc. Implying that 1/3 of the people didn't go to the finals because there were too many unpainted armies is a bit silly. I was at the first two rounds, and I saw a mix of painted and --gasp!-- unpainted armies there and everyone seemed to be having a blast. I for one was happy that I didn't have to have my army painted, as otherwise I wouldn't have been able to participate.

Its pretty humorous to see this ironic pattern in the discussion:

(1) "Painting standards keeps people out, and that is bad, we should include everyone!"
(2) "Well, I dont like playing without a 3 color standard"
(1) "Fine then stay home!"

Having a higher standard straight up says "You can't come unless you do this, this, and this first." What I'm saying is that by making it open, you're giving people the choice to come or not. Yeah, you might not like not having a 3-color minimum, but that doesn't mean you still couldn't come if your love of tournament games outweighed your dislike of unpainted armies. The only person that could exclude you from that event is yourself. Also, there are already events for those who like painting/converting only (GD), and those who like to cover the breadth of the hobby (tournaments with paint requirements/scores). It only makes sense to have an event or two for the other end of the spectrum ('Ard Boyz).

Polonius wrote:this is frankly a pretty ridiculous post. First, I'm shocked only 26 invitees didn't travel all the way to chicago for a single day of gaming. I qualified for nationals last year, I didn't go because I had to defend a paper that following week and wanted the time to work on it. Not everybody can spend the cash to fly to chicago (which you'd have to from the west). I'd imagine distaste for unpainted armies was a minor factor in most decisions.

Perhaps, I don't know why the other 26 people didn't come either, just wanted to imply a reason might be because the hardboy looks like amature night.

Polonius wrote:I like that by the very end, you tip your hand with the crack about "disciplined people." I really don't think people with painted armies are morally superior in that way.

I do, and I'm not afraid to say it.

Polonius wrote:Finally, how is anybody excluded by not mandating painting? I think this is the weird heart of the matter, that you and others seem to think it's ok to tell others to paint an entire warhammer army, but us asking you to deal with playing unpainted stuff a few afternoons a year is beyond the pale? I hear the stuff about WYSWYG being easier with paint, and I get that it's a richer experience, and those are all true, but this isn't about any of that. It's simply about some old school gamer elitism.

Thats one perspective, elitism, I'll even accept being called an elitist, that fine. Allow me to retorte where the elitist are, isn't the point of the hardboy to find the best player? Now that's elitism for sure, the shoe is on the other foot now.

I also contend that there's a significant difference between a minimum standard to entry, and scoring painting at the hardboy, which I am not advocating at all. Your otherwise eloquent argument basicaly boils down to: "let the people who can't paint have a place to shine, and leave them alone". That's lowering a standard, not raising one.

Polonius wrote:Have you ever watched black and white Television or movies? Either stuff from before color, or back when your TV only showed black and white? Did you get any enjoyment out of the visuals? Or did the knowledge that there is color, HD, etc out there make it impossible to watch?

Unpainted armies are NOT vintage, classic etc., this is an absurd comparison. Unless someone had an antique warhammer army, playing with 80s era figures would be the equivalent of watching black and white movies, which is not what we are talking about.

Polonius wrote:
Your logic runs out of gas at assembly. A models size and presence on the battlefield is important for Line of sight. Empty bases (which I've faced in two tournaments btw and the world didn't explode) simply aren't WYSIWYG.

I don't deny that a painted army looks a lot better, but WYSIWYG is a big tenet of 40k, and that involves models with the right gear glued on. Painting adds color. Assembly is what is needed to play, which is why it's required.

WYSIWYG is a tenet of 40k only because it helps them sell models. Oddly enough, it's not a factor in fantasy, and they manage to have good games without it. And, if I fold a piece of paper in half and write on it, "tactical marine, Bolter" or "Sternguard, combi-melta" it's plenty clear what that card represents.

To address your other point - line of sight is important, I agree. But, it can also be attained by using folded pieces of card rather than miniatures, for a fraction of the cost. Neither purchasing nor assembling plastic or metal men is important if all you want to do is play the game. You do them because you believe that this is a minimum standard to playing. I believe painting should also be considered a minimum standard. It was when I started playing...

Gornall wrote:
This is something a lot of people do to blow off steam. When you start turning it into work (and if you ask some people, they consider painting work), then you have to wonder why you would spend money to do something that isn't fun.

Out of respect for your opponent and the game in general. There are parts of every hobby that are less fun (or more work-like) than other parts. If you're in a band, you have rehersals as well as shows. If you're in a sports league, you have practices and drills as well as games. If you're into hunting, you have to dress your kills as well as actually hunt.

Seriously, it doesn't take all that long, most people who do like to paint are all too happy to help you get started, and when you're done, you have something you can take real pride in on the table.

Gornall wrote:This is something a lot of people do to blow off steam. When you start turning it into work (and if you ask some people, they consider painting work), then you have to wonder why you would spend money to do something that isn't fun.

For me, this ultimately leads back to the question of why they're in the hobby in the first place. Note that's not a "paint or get out" comment. I honestly don't understand why someone with no interest or intent to paint would choose this hobby.

Again, to me it's like owning a convertible but never putting the top down. It's a perfectly usable car and you're free to drive it however you wish...but what's the point? Why own a convertible? Wouldn't those people be better suited for a car without that component?

I just don't get it. It's kind of a terrible hobby if you take the painting component completely out of it.

Augustus wrote:

Polonius wrote:this is frankly a pretty ridiculous post. First, I'm shocked only 26 invitees didn't travel all the way to chicago for a single day of gaming. I qualified for nationals last year, I didn't go because I had to defend a paper that following week and wanted the time to work on it. Not everybody can spend the cash to fly to chicago (which you'd have to from the west). I'd imagine distaste for unpainted armies was a minor factor in most decisions.

Perhaps, I don't know why the other 26 people didn't come either, just wanted to imply a reason might be because the hardboy looks like amature night.

I think it was a weak point that looked more like sophistry. Of course it's possible that a lack of painted armies kept people at home. It's also possible that fear of the Lake Michigan Monster kept them away.

Polonius wrote:I like that by the very end, you tip your hand with the crack about "disciplined people." I really don't think people with painted armies are morally superior in that way.

I do, and I'm not afraid to say it.

By that logic, are better players morally superior? What about those with the time and money to attend a few dozen tournaments a year? Are the better educated morally superior? I'm not an expert on morality, but this is very thin ice.

Polonius wrote:Finally, how is anybody excluded by not mandating painting? I think this is the weird heart of the matter, that you and others seem to think it's ok to tell others to paint an entire warhammer army, but us asking you to deal with playing unpainted stuff a few afternoons a year is beyond the pale? I hear the stuff about WYSWYG being easier with paint, and I get that it's a richer experience, and those are all true, but this isn't about any of that. It's simply about some old school gamer elitism.

Thats one perspective, elitism, I'll even accept being called an elitist, that fine. Allow me to retorte where the elitist are, isn't the point of the hardboy to find the best player? Now that's elitism for sure, the shoe is on the other foot now.

I also contend that there's a significant difference between a minimum standard to entry, and scoring painting at the hardboy, which I am not advocating at all. Your otherwise eloquent argument basicaly boils down to: "let the people who can't paint have a place to shine, and leave them alone". That's lowering a standard, not raising one.

Elitism has, at least to me and I think most people, the connotation not just of favoring the elite, but favoring an elite that's not based on the criteria for actual value. In an 'Ard boys environment, the idea is to find the best 40k player, not the best hobbyist. Limiting that pool to those with painted armies is elitism in the sense that it restricts the competition, not to the best players, but by some standard unconnected with the standard for the actual competition.

mandating painted armies is a standard. I don't think it's always a good one, and certainly not always a necessary one. It also comes by way of raising another standard, namely that of allowing the best possible armies to be played. Which, ironically, is the very standard the competition is meant to measure?

It's like in ski jumping, when the first skiers used a v-technique, some wanted to ban that formation, saying that the standard was parrallel skis. Somebody pointed out that ski jumping is about jumping far on skis, and not allowing jumpers to go farther defeats some of the purpose.

Polonius wrote:Have you ever watched black and white Television or movies? Either stuff from before color, or back when your TV only showed black and white? Did you get any enjoyment out of the visuals? Or did the knowledge that there is color, HD, etc out there make it impossible to watch?

Unpainted armies are NOT vintage, classic etc., this is an absurd comparison. Unless someone had an antique warhammer army, playing with 80s era figures would be the equivalent of watching black and white movies, which is not what we are talking about.

Polonius wrote:
Elitism has, at least to me and I think most people, the connotation not just of favoring the elite, but favoring an elite that's not based on the criteria for actual value. In an 'Ard boys environment, the idea is to find the best 40k player, not the best hobbyist. Limiting that pool to those with painted armies is elitism in the sense that it restricts the competition, not to the best players, but by some standard unconnected with the standard for the actual competition.

So does restricting the pool to those players who have assembled models, or, for that matter, GW models. My brother has been out of work for several years, and can barely afford rent. He's also a damn good tabletop general, and enjoys 40k. He is restricted from 'ardboyz, not because of any lack of talent, but because he cannot afford a 2500 point army that averages over $1000 worth of toy soldiers.

If the goal is to find the best player, then I contend that even owning models is irrelevant. Folded pieces of card, with the right dimensions, and equipment written on them suffice perfectly well.

If the goal is to find the best player within a pool of people who have purchased and assembled GW models, then I contend that this pool should also include having painted them to a basic tabletop standard. Not to score the painting, but because this step should be considered as valuable to the community.

The question was why build but not paint. I contend that there is still a strong visual component to built, but unpainted stuff. Certainly stronger than card stock.

I see this distinction as arbitrary. The emphasis should either be entirely on playability, in which case card stock is clearly the best way to play this game, or it should be based on the visceral appeal of miniatures, in which case painting should be the standard. To require assembly but not painting is not optimal for any approach to the game, other than perhaps putting the most money in GW's pocket.

Redbeard wrote:WYSIWYG is a tenet of 40k only because it helps them sell models. Oddly enough, it's not a factor in fantasy, and they manage to have good games without it. And, if I fold a piece of paper in half and write on it, "tactical marine, Bolter" or "Sternguard, combi-melta" it's plenty clear what that card represents.

To address your other point - line of sight is important, I agree. But, it can also be attained by using folded pieces of card rather than miniatures, for a fraction of the cost. Neither purchasing nor assembling plastic or metal men is important if all you want to do is play the game. You do them because you believe that this is a minimum standard to playing. I believe painting should also be considered a minimum standard. It was when I started playing...

Selling models is good for the hobby though. I'm not a Bedouin, I know that GW needs to stay in business. Buying the models is key to that. Which is why all official GW events (which hard boys is) mandate using GW models.

So, it's an official event, so you have to use GW models. You still need WYSIWYG to play the game. Fantasy is different because every model in a block is armed the same. It's a bad argument. You don't have 25 empire swordsmen, but one with a melta gun. And you better believe that command figures have to be WYSIWYG.

As for it being a standard when you started playing, depending on when that was, it could have been a much easier standard to reach. 1000pts in 2nd ed was, what? 15 models and a tank? You could play with much smaller forces. Even a big game of 2nd ed used a small handful of model.

This whole argument has a bit of a "back in my day we didn't do that" kind of vibe. And that's what it boils down to. You hear "respect" and "standards" thrown around a lot, but this isn't about a sweeping change, its about a single event. I mean, kids should be respectful and not eat too much candy, but Halloween is a fun event despite all that. You shouldn't get drunk before noon, but it's ok on St. Patricks day. Communities have standards and rules, but it's not unusual to allow exceptions.

I think you can adopt a "the hobby is deteriorating and won't somebody think of the children" mentality, or you can acknowledge that there is fun to be had in violating standards.

Redbeard wrote: Out of respect for your opponent and the game in general. There are parts of every hobby that are less fun (or more work-like) than other parts. If you're in a band, you have rehersals as well as shows. If you're in a sports league, you have practices and drills as well as games. If you're into hunting, you have to dress your kills as well as actually hunt.

Seriously, it doesn't take all that long, most people who do like to paint are all too happy to help you get started, and when you're done, you have something you can take real pride in on the table.

I respect those players who put the extra time and effort into painting their armies. I give them mad props for all the skill and dedication it takes to paint up an army to those kind of standards. However, that doesn't mean I have to do everything I can to fit their expectation of what the hobby is. I argue that I put just as much time and dedication into researching tactics and strategies, refining armylists, playing practice games, and other things to improve my gameplay as most put into painting their armies. I think that someone who looks down on my "dedication" or "respect" of the hobby is slightly missing the point.

I'm not saying that I can't or won't paint. I actually have 3000+ points of SM painted to a tabletop standard, and I'm working on a Grey Knight army painted to a higher standard based on my experience with the first army. However, I don't have a natural painting or artistic ability, so it takes me a long time to knock out a figure or a unit. Because of this, I don't want to feel rushed to slap paint on a figure just so I can use it. I'd rather be able to use and play with my armies as I slowly paint them to MY acceptable standard rather than some arbitrary 3-color standard someone else thinks is a good minimum.

Redbeard wrote:

Polonius wrote:
Elitism has, at least to me and I think most people, the connotation not just of favoring the elite, but favoring an elite that's not based on the criteria for actual value. In an 'Ard boys environment, the idea is to find the best 40k player, not the best hobbyist. Limiting that pool to those with painted armies is elitism in the sense that it restricts the competition, not to the best players, but by some standard unconnected with the standard for the actual competition.

So does restricting the pool to those players who have assembled models, or, for that matter, GW models. My brother has been out of work for several years, and can barely afford rent. He's also a damn good tabletop general, and enjoys 40k. He is restricted from 'ardboyz, not because of any lack of talent, but because he cannot afford a 2500 point army that averages over $1000 worth of toy soldiers.

If the goal is to find the best player, then I contend that even owning models is irrelevant. Folded pieces of card, with the right dimensions, and equipment written on them suffice perfectly well.

If the goal is to find the best player within a pool of people who have purchased and assembled GW models, then I contend that this pool should also include having painted them to a basic tabletop standard. Not to score the painting, but because this step should be considered as valuable to the community.

Well, I address this below, but there's a realism that needs to be brought into play. Gw wants to make money, and wants people to buy stuff. By the same token, having the event on a Saturday precludes any person that can't get that day off, or travel to the finals. Some restrictions are inherent in any activity. Adding ones not related to the competition seems unnecessary.

As I argue above, as a GW events models are requires. WYSIWYG is still required to make it playable. Painting... isn't essential to playing.

The question was why build but not paint. I contend that there is still a strong visual component to built, but unpainted stuff. Certainly stronger than card stock.

I see this distinction as arbitrary. The emphasis should either be entirely on playability, in which case card stock is clearly the best way to play this game, or it should be based on the visceral appeal of miniatures, in which case painting should be the standard. To require assembly but not painting is not optimal for any approach to the game, other than perhaps putting the most money in GW's pocket.

Redbeard wrote:I see this distinction as arbitrary. The emphasis should either be entirely on playability, in which case card stock is clearly the best way to play this game, or it should be based on the visceral appeal of miniatures, in which case painting should be the standard. To require assembly but not painting is not optimal for any approach to the game, other than perhaps putting the most money in GW's pocket.

I see the 3-color minimum as arbitrary. Who decided that 3-colors makes a model look that good? Personally, I'd rather see a model not painted at all (or painted to a high tabletop standard) than a quickly/sloppy painted 3-color mini that was done just to meet the standard. Slapping three quick colors on a model to meet a arbitrary standard does nothing (IMO) but hack off the player who had to take time to do it so they can play and annoy the painter who thinks it's a disgrace to look at. Having said that, does that mean a better minimum standard would be to require everyone to have their army judged on entry and if it didn't receive a certain score or higher it would not be allowed to participate? How good is good enough?

And decision to require assembly but not painting is optimal for the "I like seeing cool-looking 3D models as I play a wargame" approach to the game, which happens to be what I enjoy. To me, the value added from going to 3D minitures from card stock >>>>>>>>> going from unpainted to painted 3D minitures. But that's me personally. If your brother wants to play with cardstock or Vassal, that's his perogative. If he can make cardstock figures that are as easy to see what equipment the "figure" is carrying and TLOS at a glance as 3D figures (3D models or pictures offer a faster reference than reading words for me), I honestly wouldn't mind playing against him. He can take up his 'Ard Boyz complaint with GW, because that's not a rule I set.

Gornall wrote:I see the 3-color minimum as arbitrary. Who decided that 3-colors makes a model look that good?

That would be GW, as they decided that primer grey and primer black armies simply wouldn't cut it for their official events.

It's not a high standard, and there's only 2-color to go down to from 3 colors. 3-color is not intended to be good. It's saying, bring something tabletop so the army looks like an army.

Polonius-

But you already conceded the point that painting the models, at least minimally, enhances playability. If the models have a bit of paint and contrast on them, WYSIWYG is better served, as the models/equipment are more recognizable.

The difference between cardboard stand-ins with the equipment written on them, and unpainted models, and models painted to a minimal degree, is really just a difference of DEGREE of representationalism. All three are steps along a continuum, and IMO a bit of painting better serves the game, even aside from aesthetic considerations, or of the greater questions about what the hobby is “supposed” to be.

As for your point about GW being served better by people actually buying the figures, as opposed to letting people use cardboard stand-ins, sure. But they’d be better served yet if they could actually take pictures at the event and show them off online and in White Dwarf. With unpainted stuff, or some of the frankly terrible-looking armies I saw, in which the player clearly hadn’t really tried, that possibility is lost.

Polonius wrote:This also touches on a factor, which is that many people try to paint to their top standard on each model before moving to the next. I think more people should work on getting base coats on models first, fi they're a slow painted. I have 2k of eldar painted about 3 colors. It's a crappy paint job, but it looks better than bare plastic.

I agree somewhat with you. I think a good basecoat goes a long way and it would probably be best to give all my models a basecoat when I start an army. However, I personally get bored if do too much of the same type of painting, so I paint individual units to completion. That way, not only does each unit look consistent (since I painted all of its figures at the same time), but it also gives me variety as I paint and a sense of accomplishment when I finish, which provides more motivation to get going on the next unit.

There is no moral law saying I have to paint hobby miniatures to play a game with them. That being said, I'm fully painted because I want to be. For me to assume that my opponent has to be is a waste of my energy and proves I'm exceedingly picky in general. Like the roommate who screams when you don't clean your dishes immediately after using them, just get over it.

Polonius wrote:
First off, card stock isn't the best way to play the game, even if gameplay were the key. 3d models are easier to see from all angles, and are less likely to get blown over.

How often are you playing outdoors? And you say I'm being deliberately obtuse...

This also touches on a factor, which is that many people try to paint to their top standard on each model before moving to the next. I think more people should work on getting base coats on models first, fi they're a slow painted. I have 2k of eldar painted about 3 colors. It's a crappy paint job, but it looks better than bare plastic.

This - and people need to realize that there are ways to paint models ridiculously fast, that give good results. Choose a simple paint-scheme, learn to drybrush, and apply a simple wash, and you're more than halfway there. I think this is what really gets me about it. Painting doesn't need to be a chore, and it doesn't need to take a long time to look good. I've painted over 15,000 points of guys already this year. Guys like Augustus and Centurian99 knock out army after army using simple techniques that work. And, for the most part, you can do it while you watch TV. I watched an entire season of Sanctuary, and every NFL game played so far this year (Yay NFL.com) while painting last week. I've got a full-time job and family commitments, as well as regular gaming nights with friends and somehow find time to get stuff painted. It's really not such an outrageous concept to ask people to spend a few more hours prepping their guys before a tournament.

the_Armyman wrote:Pfft. Why bother painting anything? Houses are just for living in. Cars are just for driving from point A to point B. Why bother with anything aesthetic if the only reason is to look pretty? My point is twofold:

The paint on stock cars or the bright uniforms/helmets of sports teams have no bearing on their performance, but what kind of crappy place would it be to turn on the TV and see a NASCAR race with primer gray cars or a bunch of football players in white t-shirts?

Actually the paint on cars is to stop the body from decaying be them old cars that rusted or new plastic ones that literally dry rot. And the point of bright colored uniforms in sports games is so that you can tell who is on which team stopping you from letting an opponent at your quarterback because you can't see his face under the helmet negatively affecting your performance. Besides we all know that if you have two identical cars and one is painted red and the other black the red one will go faster.

Mannahnin wrote:Polonius-

But you already conceded the point that painting the models, at least minimally, enhances playability. If the models have a bit of paint and contrast on them, WYSIWYG is better served, as the models/equipment are more recognizable.

So do squad markings, fancy conversions, etc. My point is that assembled WYSIWYG models are required to be playable. You can't really run a good tournament without them. The rest is nice but not required.

The difference between cardboard stand-ins with the equipment written on them, and unpainted models, and models painted to a minimal degree, is really just a difference of DEGREE of representationalism. All three are steps along a continuum, and IMO a bit of painting better serves the game, even aside from aesthetic considerations, or of the greater questions about what the hobby is “supposed” to be.

I agree. I don't see that as reason enough to never have any events that don't' require that bit of paint. And the cardboard is not a viable option for any official event, so I think we can stop with that, can't we?

As for your point about GW being served better by people actually buying the figures, as opposed to letting people use cardboard stand-ins, sure. But they’d be better served yet if they could actually take pictures at the event and show them off online and in White Dwarf. With unpainted stuff, or some of the frankly terrible-looking armies I saw, in which the player clearly hadn’t really tried, that possibility is lost.

So, again, what is it? Do models need to be painted, or do they need to look good? Do you require three colors? What about primer? What about a sprayed on base coat? What about bases? Do they count as a third color? Do you know how bad an army painted as fast as possible to meet any technical three color standard would look?

There is no shortage of events they can show pictures of. Absent making paint part of the score, you're going to see a lot of bad paint jobs at hard boys.

I have thought for a couple of years that while Golden Daemon and the Internet did painting a favour by creating a gold standard, they also did wargaming a disfavour by giving the impression that all wargaming armies have to look fantastic in 2x magnification.

To me, if it's painted to a basic tabletop standard, that's good enough. It's nice to see stuff done to an even higher standard, but I'm not interested in entire armies of Golden Daemon figures.

Redbeard wrote:

Polonius wrote:
First off, card stock isn't the best way to play the game, even if gameplay were the key. 3d models are easier to see from all angles, and are less likely to get blown over.

How often are you playing outdoors? And you say I'm being deliberately obtuse...

Or under an air vent. Or with a cross breeze in store without air conditioning. Or knocked over.

You made an absolute statement. All I need to do is show any counterexample to disprove it.

This - and people need to realize that there are ways to paint models ridiculously fast, that give good results. Choose a simple paint-scheme, learn to drybrush, and apply a simple wash, and you're more than halfway there. I think this is what really gets me about it. Painting doesn't need to be a chore, and it doesn't need to take a long time to look good. I've painted over 15,000 points of guys already this year. Guys like Augustus and Centurian99 knock out army after army using simple techniques that work. And, for the most part, you can do it while you watch TV. I watched an entire season of Sanctuary, and every NFL game played so far this year (Yay NFL.com) while painting last week. I've got a full-time job and family commitments, as well as regular gaming nights with friends and somehow find time to get stuff painted. It's really not such an outrageous concept to ask people to spend a few more hours prepping their guys before a tournament.

And you really need to realize that the ability to paint quickly is a factor of hand eye coordination and abiilty, not just dedication. Yes, more people could paint than do. But it's like how I got through law school studying 15 hours or so a week: most people can't do that.

Listen, I like painted armies. I like paint requirements for most tournaments. I just don't the outrage over hard boys as anything other than boring old elitism for no real purpose.

Polonius wrote: So, again, what is it? Do models need to be painted, or do they need to look good? Do you require three colors? What about primer? What about a sprayed on base coat? What about bases? Do they count as a third color? Do you know how bad an army painted as fast as possible to meet any technical three color standard would look?

Prime, dip, dip, done.

Gornall wrote:

Polonius wrote: So, again, what is it? Do models need to be painted, or do they need to look good? Do you require three colors? What about primer? What about a sprayed on base coat? What about bases? Do they count as a third color? Do you know how bad an army painted as fast as possible to meet any technical three color standard would look?

Prime, dip, dip, done.

I read a rumor of a guy that did something like that. Primed the model white, and got a pot of three colors of paint. dunked the models in the first, dipped above the knees in the second, and did the head in the third. Three colors, no primer!

That's still better than one of the armies at 'ard-boyz, where the player had taken a third of the army and sprayed it with high-gloss red paint, a third with high-gloss blue, and a third with high-gloss yellow.

3 colors is per-model, not per-army, I think

---
I don't think it is elitism to want to see a minimal painting standard at tournaments. Those opposed to the idea keep tossing that word around, and that's incorrect. Elitism would be demanding that all armies be painted to a golden demon standard. There's nothing elite about managing to get an army to a tabletop standard.