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


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

biccat wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

biccat wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

biccat wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

biccat wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bzzt, stupid argument #3 from you!

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

biccat wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Toy soldiers = srs biznez. Srsly.

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

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

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

Peace.

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

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

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

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

Automatically Appended Next Post:

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

Peace.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

biccat wrote:

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

Toy soldiers = srs biznez. Srsly.

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

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

biccat wrote:

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

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

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

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

Peace.

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

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

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

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

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

Everyone knows painted armies get better rolls

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

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

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

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

and...

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

AND...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ShatteredBlade wrote:Everyone knows painted armies get better rolls

Hah! If anything my painted armies roll WORSE


-DV8-

ph34r wrote:

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

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



Your argument sucks.

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

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

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

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

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

and...

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

AND...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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