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.

Redbeard wrote: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.

The terms "respect" and "dedication" are also being thrown around incorrectly, IMO. How is it any less "respectful" to the hobby to paint at a pace and speed you can manage/enjoy (and playing partially painted in the mean time) than dunking a figure into 3 pots of paint to meet the minimum standard?

Redbeard wrote:
---
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.

Watch yourself. We're not talking about tournaments in general, we're talking about a single tournament a year. You can call it whatever you want, but I think finding one aspect of the hobby (painting) to be so important that it trumps all other aspects and should be expected with no exceptions to be... clinging to a standard even when the reasons and goals of that standard aren't part of the activity in question? Maybe it's not elitism, but it's something. Missing the point?

I think we’re hitting a point of differing worldviews.

Like Gorgon’s point about the convertible. Some people don’t see much sense in playing a game with expensive, well-sculpted model soldiers and then not painting them. But some people apparently feel happy enough that way.

When I started painting, I could barely stand it. But I still felt really good when I got a unit done. Nowadays it’s much more enjoyable. Actually assembling the models is the more annoying chore for me.

I generally think I come down on the side of being okay with ‘Ardboys where it is, largely because of the attitudes displayed in this thread. Some people really don’t get into painting, and aren’t willing to invest even minimal effort to learn & execute decent speed-painting techniques. I think it’s nice to have an event they can play in. But I do think it’d be a better event if it had a three-color minimum.

Gornall, just give in. You can't convince someone who thinks you are an undisciplined savage while they are a double plus good moral super hero.

Polonius wrote:
Watch yourself.

Watch what? I don't even know waht you mean by this.

We're not talking about tournaments in general, we're talking about a single tournament a year.

It may be one tournament a year. It's also the biggest GW-run tournament of the year, with multiple rounds, and prize support far in excess of any other tournament. The adepticon gladiator gave away a reaver titan, but that pales in comparison to the 'ard boyz prize support, where they gave away (if my math is correct) 30 full armies (one for the winner of each 2nd round tournament).

You can call it whatever you want, but I think finding one aspect of the hobby (painting) to be so important that it trumps all other aspects and should be expected with no exceptions to be... clinging to a standard even when the reasons and goals of that standard aren't part of the activity in question?

I disagree with your notion that this aspect is being considered so important that it trumps any other aspect. I think it should be considered on the same level as buying and assembling the models, part of the basic preparation required to attend the event. You're playing in a massively public event and the quality of the experience should be high. The photos from the event should be worth publishing for the added publicity that this would give GW. As you said, it's good when they make money, and this adds to that aspect of 'ard boyz.

The majority of the arguments presented are " what *i* think looks better "
well , you guys just have to accept everyone have different opinions to how they play their games.

Some are fine with just assembled minis , while some like yourselves , want them painted.
Its really not that hard what im trying to say .


-I rather play a gray plastic unpainted army then a hastily colored army.
-Im sure the guy rather own a gray plastic unpainted army then a hastily colored army that will sell for even less after he is done with it.

"Painted minis will enhance playing experience " again , thats YOUR opinion .
I can dig up some painfully badly painted minis , painted so badly that you cant even recognize what you are looking at.
would you then prefer playing that?

Some people view warhammer as some sort of intricately made game pieces , just like chess pieces they look fine without
been realistic or painted. Or else , thats like saying in white dwarf battle reports , GW shouldnt use marks and icon to represent units .
But they do , because our brain can relate icons of units to the actual units tactically . In other words , for actual gamers ,
they just dont care that much about paintings.

In other words , its very very simple guys.
You enjoy painting , you have your golden demon and other tournaments that gives you points for painting.
Let the other people that dont care for painting get what they want .

In BLUNT EXAMPLE:

This is why there is Gay Bars and Bars . figure out the relation between the 2 .

Mannahnin wrote:I think we’re hitting a point of differing worldviews.

Like Gorgon’s point about the convertible. Some people don’t see much sense in playing a game with expensive, well-sculpted model soldiers and then not painting them. But some people apparently feel happy enough that way.

Well, to use the convertabile analogy, what if you wanted a sports car (or table top war game), but the only one available (widely played) was also a convertible (game that has painting as a big part). Are you still dumb to buy the convertible? Or is it still the best car (hobby) for you?

When I started painting, I could barely stand it. But I still felt really good when I got a unit done. Nowadays it’s much more enjoyable. Actually assembling the models is the more annoying chore for me.

I generally think I come down on the side of being okay with ‘Ardboys where it is, largely because of the attitudes displayed in this thread. Some people really don’t get into painting, and aren’t willing to invest even minimal effort to learn & execute decent speed-painting techniques. I think it’s nice to have an event they can play in. But I do think it’d be a better event if it had a three-color minimum.

Why? Why is it a better event? It's an event you'd like more, but that doesn't make it better. Not ever event has to portray the hobby in the best possible light. Allowing people to have fun is also a good thing.

How many people feeling slightly happier because they're playing an army that has three colors instead of bare painted make up for other people staying at home because they couldn't finish the last squad?

LunaHound wrote:The majority of the arguments presented are " what *i* think looks better "
well , you guys just have to accept everyone have different opinions to how they play their games.

Some are fine with just assembled minis , while some like yourselves , want them painted.
Its really not that hard what im trying to say .


-I rather play a gray plastic unpainted army then a hastily colored army.
-Im sure the guy rather own a gray plastic unpainted army then a hastily colored army that will sell for even less after he is done with it.

"Painted minis will enhance playing experience " again , thats YOUR opinion .
I can dig up some painfully badly painted minis , painted so badly that you cant even recognize what you are looking at.
would you then prefer playing that?

Some people view warhammer as some sort of intricately made game pieces , just like chess pieces they look fine without
been realistic or painted. Or else , thats like saying in white dwarf battle reports , GW shouldnt use marks and icon to represent units .
But they do , because our brain can relate icons of units to the actual units tactically . In other words , for actual gamers ,
they just dont care that much about paintings.

In other words , its very very simple guys.
You enjoy painting , you have your golden demon and other tournaments that gives you points for painting.
Let the other people that dont care for painting get what they want .

In BLUNT EXAMPLE:

This is why there is Gay Bars and Bars . figure out the relation between the 2 .

All's I can really say is.

SECONDED.

Redbeard wrote:Watch what? I don't even know waht you mean by this.

We're not talking about tournaments in general, we're talking about a single tournament a year.

It may be one tournament a year. It's also the biggest GW-run tournament of the year, with multiple rounds, and prize support far in excess of any other tournament. The adepticon gladiator gave away a reaver titan, but that pales in comparison to the 'ard boyz prize support, where they gave away (if my math is correct) 30 full armies (one for the winner of each 2nd round tournament).

I meant, watch what you're arguing. You made a statement about tournaments in general, and I'm arguing that having an exception for a single tournament is different than enforcing a general standard.

Well, it's the biggest GW tournament now, there used to be GTs, and it's not nearly the most prestigious. It's still a single event in the overall 40k calender.

I disagree with your notion that this aspect is being considered so important that it trumps any other aspect. I think it should be considered on the same level as buying and assembling the models, part of the basic preparation required to attend the event. You're playing in a massively public event and the quality of the experience should be high. The photos from the event should be worth publishing for the added publicity that this would give GW. As you said, it's good when they make money, and this adds to that aspect of 'ard boyz.

Everything you just said was pure opinion. Hard Boys experience is high, because you're playing other top players, not just locals. That's the point of the event. And by everybody's admission, a minimum paint requirement wouldn't exactly make for good pictures. So what does that leave?

The argument you're making is that the event that's meant to reward game play alone would be better if the models simply looked differently. I don't see it.

Polonius wrote: We're not talking about tournaments in general, we're talking about a single tournament a year.... Missing the point?

That said, it is once a year for the premier supercompetitive event and advertized months in advance. Much like any other scheduled event a dress code of sorts should be expected. Whether its Preakness, Bike Week, a Jimmy Buffet concert, or the Policeman's Ball the event has certain expectations. Failing to meet that dress code is considered rude to the host and other participants.

Many of the participants for this event prepare over the course of the year for the event -army lists, practice, tweaking of units for performance. Certainly somewhere amongst this a participant can schedule time to lay a coat of paint or two down - not GD quality mind you but enough to make a basic show of respect for the organizer and participants.

Holding people to a minimum standard of behavior isn't oppression, or unreasonable.

Polonius wrote:Well, to use the convertabile analogy, what if you wanted a sports car (or table top war game), but the only one available (widely played) was also a convertible (game that has painting as a big part). Are you still dumb to buy the convertible? Or is it still the best car (hobby) for you?

Good point. I do think that the vast majority of even those people, IME, would enjoy the game and hobby more with painted models.

When I started painting, I could barely stand it. But I still felt really good when I got a unit done. Nowadays it’s much more enjoyable. Actually assembling the models is the more annoying chore for me.

Polonius wrote:I generally think I come down on the side of being okay with ‘Ardboys where it is, largely because of the attitudes displayed in this thread. Some people really don’t get into painting, and aren’t willing to invest even minimal effort to learn & execute decent speed-painting techniques. I think it’s nice to have an event they can play in. But I do think it’d be a better event if it had a three-color minimum.

Why? Why is it a better event? It's an event you'd like more, but that doesn't make it better. Not ever event has to portray the hobby in the best possible light. Allowing people to have fun is also a good thing.

Not just me. IMO everyone who has enough aesthetic sense to enjoy looking at GW models has enough
aesthetic sense to enjoy them more with even a half heated paint job.

Every event put on by GW should make an effort to portray the hobby in a positive light (I think you’re stretching things with that “best possible light” business). And I think that playing with unpainted plastic detracts from that. Encouraging people to have more fun by participating in the aesthetic side of the hobby is a good thing too.

Polonius wrote:How many people feeling slightly happier because they're playing an army that has three colors instead of bare painted make up for other people staying at home because they couldn't finish the last squad?

If you can afford the time and money to build the army, and travel to events, and the time to learn the rules and play enough to be competitive, you can afford the time to paint to a minimum three color standard.

Oldgrue wrote:

Polonius wrote: We're not talking about tournaments in general, we're talking about a single tournament a year.... Missing the point?

That said, it is once a year for the premier supercompetitive event and advertized months in advance. Much like any other scheduled event a dress code of sorts should be expected. Whether its Preakness, Bike Week, a Jimmy Buffet concert, or the Policeman's Ball the event has certain expectations. Failing to meet that dress code is considered rude to the host and other participants.

Many of the participants for this event prepare over the course of the year for the event -army lists, practice, tweaking of units for performance. Certainly somewhere amongst this a participant can schedule time to lay a coat of paint or two down - not GD quality mind you but enough to make a basic show of respect for the organizer and participants.

Holding people to a minimum standard of behavior isn't oppression, or unreasonable.

No, but what does it gain? Somebody really has to explain why it's better to have this single tournament require painting, when we know the super competitive types will game the painting requirement anyway. Also, is this going to be enforced? what if one model isn't painted? What then?

Hard boys isn't a dress formal, it's a kegger. Nobody cares if you wear club clothes to a kegger, but nobody cares if you wear a t-shirt and cargo pants.

You need models because GW needs to sell stuff.

You need to build them so they're WYSIWYG.

You need to paint them... so.... what? So people feel a little better?

Mannahnin wrote:
Not just me. IMO everyone who has enough aesthetic sense to enjoy looking at GW models has enough
aesthetic sense to enjoy them more with even a half heated paint job.

I have to disagree with you there , im no golden demon painter but i do believe i paint enough to express my opinion .
As i said earlier , there obviously is a BIG difference between a 3 color paint job by a professional painter ,
compared to 3 color job by someone that really DONT CARE for painting.

With that said , both parties aka me and the armies owner would definately prefer unpainted plastic.
-because hastily painted 3 color job can look bad
-not to mention resale value will go down.

Mannahnin wrote:
Not just me. IMO everyone who has enough aesthetic sense to enjoy looking at GW models has enough
aesthetic sense to enjoy them more with even a half heated paint job.

Every event put on by GW should make an effort to portray the hobby in a positive light (I think you’re stretching things with that “best possible light” business). And I think that playing with unpainted plastic detracts from that. Encouraging people to have more fun by participating in the aesthetic side of the hobby is a good thing too.

I'd argue that showing people that you don't need to paint to enjoy the hobby has benefits too. That aside from the pockets where noboy cares, there are still big events that they can play in.

I'd challenge the idea that painting is inherently fun for everybody. A lot of people simply don't like it.

Polonius wrote:How many people feeling slightly happier because they're playing an army that has three colors instead of bare painted make up for other people staying at home because they couldn't finish the last squad?

If you can afford the time and money to build the army, and travel to events, and the time to learn the rules and play enough to be competitive, you can afford the time to paint to a minimum three color standard.

That's a ducked question. Stuff comes up. A guy finds out a week before hard boys he can go, but doesn't have a painted army. Do you feel good about yourself telling him he can't go? So that three guys dont' have to look at his army?

Seriously, what's the value to the hobby of having painted stuff, and what's the value of having people actually playing?

This is a general question: do you think the hobby would be better off if nobody was allowed in unless they were going to fully paint an army? Should people that don't want to paint simply not join the hobby? Would that be better to the hobby, to the community?

If your answer is yes, than that's sad, but I guess people need to feel superior about something. If the answer is no, than there is some value to recruiting people that don't want to paint, so there is value in allowing those people access to a single event.

Polonius wrote:

I disagree with your notion that this aspect is being considered so important that it trumps any other aspect. I think it should be considered on the same level as buying and assembling the models, part of the basic preparation required to attend the event. You're playing in a massively public event and the quality of the experience should be high. The photos from the event should be worth publishing for the added publicity that this would give GW. As you said, it's good when they make money, and this adds to that aspect of 'ard boyz.

Everything you just said was pure opinion. Hard Boys experience is high, because you're playing other top players, not just locals. That's the point of the event. And by everybody's admission, a minimum paint requirement wouldn't exactly make for good pictures. So what does that leave?

By whose admission? Three color paint jobs would at least allow for some photos of games in progress which wouldn't look terrible in White Dwarf. You're not necessaily looking for closeups. Just some decent player-height table views.

Polonius wrote:The argument you're making is that the event that's meant to reward game play alone would be better if the models simply looked differently. I don't see it.

This is where I feel like you're color blind. Would a pro football game be every bit as enjoyable to watch or participate in if all the players wore identical white jerseys with black numbers?

It's better because this hobby is about playing tactical wargames with painted figures.

Obviously no-one can make the Hardboys do that, but it doesn't mean we have to approve if they don't.

It's a bit old skool but there you are.

The oldest known military miniatures in the world are painted.

The problem is that all of the arguments for why painting is good aren't met by a simple three color standard. Why have a rule that limits who can participate but doesn't actually help the situation? A lot of legal armies under that standard would be jarringly ugly. I don't like rules that hurt but don't help.

I understand that for a lot of people the visual, storytelling component is the key for why they enjoy 40k. I like that too, but I can assure you, that's not what Hard Boys is about. It's about playing to win. You strip away comp, you strip away theme, you strip away narrative, and you leave a pure core of game play.

I cant believe how many pages this is going.

The idea behind this whole thing is really really basic.

Its not regarding whether you like painted minis , its not regarding whether you like playing against people with painted minis.

What it is , IS:

Whether you can tolerate the idea that There are OTHER individuals that exists , that dont care for painting.
and whether you can tolerate them having THEIR tournaments on the things THEY find important . AKA GAME GENERALSHIP .

Polonius wrote:This is a general question: do you think the hobby would be better off if nobody was allowed in unless they were going to fully paint an army? Should people that don't want to paint simply not join the hobby? Would that be better to the hobby, to the community?

If your answer is yes, than that's sad, but I guess people need to feel superior about something. If the answer is no, than there is some value to recruiting people that don't want to paint, so there is value in allowing those people access to a single event.

While the text after the question is loaded, I do think its a valuable question. Should those who do not like to paint leave/not join the hobby? I know you think that it's easy to paint and stuff, but some people find it boring, tedious, difficult, and non-value-adding. Is 40k better off without them?

We people who are interested in playing with painted figures aren't interested in playing with unpainted figures.

We think it's silly and dull.

We think the point of playing tabletop figure wargames is to play with painted figures.

We know there are plenty of games which you play with counters, or stand-up cards or on computer, and we play those kinds of games as well. When we want to play tabletop wargames, we want to play with painted figures.

No-one is ever going to convince us it's better to play with unpainted figures. We know it's worse.

Mannahnin wrote:Would a pro football game be every bit as enjoyable to watch or participate in if all the players wore identical white jerseys with black numbers?

Would it still have the cheerleaders?

Mannahnin wrote:
By whose admission? Three color paint jobs would at least allow for some photos of games in progress which wouldn't look terrible in White Dwarf. You're not necessaily looking for closeups. Just some decent player-height table views.

In theory. Required three color jobs under duress aren't going to pretty, even from a distance, all the time.

I also don't envy the TOs that have to enforce this. Even GTs allowed people to paly with unpainted stuff.

Polonius wrote:The argument you're making is that the event that's meant to reward game play alone would be better if the models simply looked differently. I don't see it.

This is where I feel like you're color blind. Would a pro football game be every bit as enjoyable to watch or participate in if all the players wore identical white jerseys with black numbers?

False comparison. First, Hard boys isn't for spectators. Second, the models are shaped differently, so even if two black primed armies fought, you could tell them apart.

Look, it's prettier to have painted armies. I don't deny that. But it's not about prettiness.

Look at it this way. There is body building and there is weight lifting. Both are about having muscles, but one is purely focused on effect, the other is focused on aesthetics. Would olympic weightlifting be better if every entrant had to have below a certain body fat % or some other aesthetic measure?

Gornall wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:Would a pro football game be every bit as enjoyable to watch or participate in if all the players wore identical white jerseys with black numbers?

Would it still have the cheerleaders?

Yes, but they’d be forbidden to wear makeup, and they’d have to wear identical shapeless jumpsuits.

Kilkrazy wrote:
We people who are interested in playing with painted figures aren't interested in playing with unpainted figures.

We think it's silly and dull.

We think the point of playing tabletop figure wargames is to play with painted figures.

We know there are plenty of games which you play with counters, or stand-up cards or on computer, and we play those kinds of games as well. When we want to play tabletop wargames, we want to play with painted figures.

No-one is ever going to convince us it's better to play with unpainted figures. We know it's worse.

Again, you're ducking the question. Is it bad for the hobby as a whole to allow people to play with unpainted minis in any venue? should people that don't paint be forced out of the hobby?

People that don't like to paint should be shunned as lepers until they see the hideous errors in their disgusting, primitive, harmful ways. Only the true, superior hobbyists should be allowed to play, all others should have their models confiscated and melted.

I don't paint because I am horrible at it and don't want to ruin figures and I find it boring. Luckily, the FLGS isn't full of bigotry.

you guys need to stop hiding behind the "painting is better for the hobby" stuff. Of course it is.

the question is if it's so much better that any event that doesn't require it should be eliminated.

That's my point with the question about non-painters being forced out. At some point, if you allow people that don't want to paint into the hobby, they'll want events. I don't see the problem with allowing it in small doses.

Polonius wrote:you guys need to stop hiding behind the "painting is better for the hobby" stuff. Of course it is.

the question is if it's so much better that any event that doesn't require it should be eliminated.

I would if it were possible, but it isn't.

Kilkrazy wrote:
We people who are interested in playing with painted figures aren't interested in playing with unpainted figures.

We think it's silly and dull.

We think the point of playing tabletop figure wargames is to play with painted figures.

We know there are plenty of games which you play with counters, or stand-up cards or on computer, and we play those kinds of games as well. When we want to play tabletop wargames, we want to play with painted figures.

No-one is ever going to convince us it's better to play with unpainted figures. We know it's worse.

We people who are interested in playing with unpainted figures aren't interested in playing with painted figures. (not enough value-added for effort in our opininons)

We think painting is silly and dull.

We think the point of playing tabletop figure wargames is to play with figures (painted or not).

We know there are plenty of games which you play with counters, or stand-up cards or on computer, and we play those kinds of games as well. When we want to play tabletop wargames, we want to play with figures (painted or not).

No-one is ever going to convince us it's better or worse to play with unpainted figures. We know it's worse to look at. However, looks don't matter that much to us as we're going for gameplay anyway.

Kilkrazy wrote:

Polonius wrote:you guys need to stop hiding behind the "painting is better for the hobby" stuff. Of course it is.

the question is if it's so much better that any event that doesn't require it should be eliminated.

I would if it were possible, but it isn't.

What about people that simply don't like painting? Should they not be allowed in the greater hobby?

Polonius wrote:
What about people that simply don't like painting? Should they not be allowed in the greater hobby?

To GW , they would say yes.

Thats 100s of dollars of primer / glue / paint / flocking material they wont get out of the player.
If it turns into an accepted trend , they'll be losing tons of money.