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 mean this, where do you people that hated unpainted armies stand on hobbyists that don't want to paint?

Should they be shunned from the community entirely?

Should they be denied access to all events, and cajoled to paint their stuff?

Should they be treated like people that just like a different side of the hobby and maybe still like the rest of the stuff?

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

so....

...you can tell armys apart when both sides are playing the same army
...you can tell squads apart in the same army when the units interpenetrate
...you can distinguish otherwise identical transports and avoid the shell game
...gw can sell more paint
...wysiwyg can be even more obvious
...the game can be recorded with photos of a complete game for ads etc.
...you can get more respect from some opponents for the time you spent preparing
...gain a psychological advantage with presence attack
...possbily end up being credited in white dwarf
...inspire the other participants
...feel more comradely because everyone had to work hard(er) to meet the entry requirements

Augustus wrote:

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

so....

...you can tell armys apart when both sides are playing the same army ( not really , this only applies if the paint job is not a bad one )
...you can tell squads apart in the same army when the units interpenetrate ( same as above )
...you can distinguish otherwise identical transports and avoid the shell game ( same )
...gw can sell more paint ( hehehe of course , but thats not really our responsibility )
...wysiwyg can be even more obvious ( depends , badly painted i wouldnt think so )
...the game can be recorded with photos of a complete game for ads etc. ( i would love to see them take pics of badly painted 3 color jobs )
...you can get more respect from some opponents for the time you spent preparing ( i respect my opponents to how they behave , not how much time they spent painting )
...gain a psychological advantage with presence attack ( again , depends . I know i feel sad when my favorite painted model dies , thus i might biasely try to keep it alive via other unit's expense )
...possbily end up being credited in white dwarf ( lol )
...inspire the other participants ( this i agree with )
...feel more comradely because everyone had to work hard(er) to meet the entry requirements ( Sure if its the *requirement )

Augustus wrote:
so....

...you can tell armys apart when both sides are playing the same army
...you can tell squads apart in the same army when the units interpenetrate
...you can distinguish otherwise identical transports and avoid the shell game
...gw can sell more paint
...wysiwyg can be even more obvious
...the game can be recorded with photos of a complete game for ads etc.
...you can get more respect from some opponents for the time you spent preparing
...gain a psychological advantage with presence attack
...possbily end up being credited in white dwarf
...inspire the other participants
...feel more comradely because everyone had to work hard(er) to meet the entry requirements

...Useful if both armies are unprimed or primed the exact same paint. It's pretty unlikely though.
...Not fixed with a three paint minimum
...ditto. Also doesn't everybody just put a representative of the squad on the transport?
...you don't have to buy GW paint
...helpful but not required.
...that's nice, but required to play the game
...sure, that's how it works. maybe a little. But not required to play the game
...not required to play
....not required to play
...not required to play

See what I did? Three colors won't help game play in any way other than if two identically primed armies fight. It also won't help with another of those factors except the first.

Polonius wrote:No, but what does it gain?

1. A minimum level of behavior. This might seem unreasonable, but we expect several other minimum levels of behavior. Personal Hygiene, and dress standards are maintained at these events.

2. Where no one cares if its 'club clothes' or 'cargo pants' the folks at a kegger expect clothing of some sort. Its not unreasonable.

3. Minimum paint standards help differentiate units. Two units of the same sort of models when unpainted don't look like two units. This is generally considered cheating even if the two units are WYSIWYG.

Someone is always going to attempt to push minimum expectations but this is no reason to submit to the removal of them. These minimum expectations help make the event more enjoyable for everyone. Its a game, so people hopefully enjoy themselves.

Again, why insist on a rule that's not going to actually result in decent looking armies?

If you're going to have a serious paint requirement, it should be that all models be based, and the base colors on all parts of the model are appropriately painted.

It's a bad rule that for hard boys does more harm than good.

I think it's bad rule universally, because a zeroed paint score should tank any player at an RTT or GT, and I've never seen a tourney not allow unpainted models.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Oldgrue wrote:

Polonius wrote:No, but what does it gain?

1. A minimum level of behavior. This might seem unreasonable, but we expect several other minimum levels of behavior. Personal Hygiene, and dress standards are maintained at these events.

2. Where no one cares if its 'club clothes' or 'cargo pants' the folks at a kegger expect clothing of some sort. Its not unreasonable.

3. Minimum paint standards help differentiate units. Two units of the same sort of models when unpainted don't look like two units. This is generally considered cheating even if the two units are WYSIWYG.

Someone is always going to attempt to push minimum expectations but this is no reason to submit to the removal of them. These minimum expectations help make the event more enjoyable for everyone. Its a game, so people hopefully enjoy themselves.

1. Societal expecations and taboos come from a useful place. Hygiene prevents disease and offense to others, and minimum dress is usually required by law and not having to look at naked gamers. Painted armies simply aren't as offensive as a naked smelly guy next to you. I don't care how seriously you take the game.

2. But the kegger doesn't have rules above society in general, is the point. You dont' have to get dressed up to go to the kegger. You still have to wear pants, but if not, you'll be arrested. In this analogy pants are assembled models.

3. Good luck telling my two Pratorian IG squads apart then. they're fulling based, flocked, and have squad markings. Still, nobody can tell two units apart, because they're uniform.

In this case, the minimum expectations don't make the game more enjoyable for everyone, or at least not noticeably so. And the whole point of hard boys is to allow people to play hard, and play to win. mandating painting might make a few people happier, but most people won't care and a few won't go at all. How is that useful?

Polonius wrote:Again, why insist on a rule that's not going to actually result in decent looking armies?

This is one of the concerns I have. If you impose a 3-color minimum on all events, then people who game the requirement by dipping models in paint will be good to go, but those who are slowly painting their armies to a tabletop+ standard would be hosed? How does that make for a better event?

LunaHound wrote:

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 hearted paint job.

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

If a person doesn't care enough about the hobby to invest a certain minimum effort, then the event is probably better off without them. At least until they choose to care a little more, and invest a little more effort.

I played nine games at 'Ard Boyz. Only one of them was against an unpainted army. And that player had a noticeably different attitude about the game, and had the least command of the rules, of any of the people I faced. He had less investment in the hobby, and it showed.

LunaHound wrote: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 .

Lunahound, I’m sorry, but you’re simply wrong.

I am perfectly willing to accept if people put on a tournament with no painting at all. I will be saddened by it, and think that they would enjoy it more if it included painting, but I would certainly tolerate the event existing.

Your question of whether I can tolerate such players existing makes me wonder if perhaps you are taking this a bit too seriously?

The question, however, was whether people feel that the ‘Ardboyz tournament, which is a GW-run event, and this year their ONLY competitive tournament event in the United States, would be improved by certain minimal painting standards. Certainly it’s possible to have different opinions on this subject. But the fact that I think that it would indeed be a better event does not mean that I am intolerant of anyone. You seem to be focusing on a different question than the original poster asked, as well as distorting and misrepresenting the results of that poll you posted earlier.

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

No, they were forbidden. They did make a couple of exceptions for people who had disasters occur, or children who still should have known better.

Polonius wrote: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.

First, football as a game is originally for the participants. Speaking of games in the local neighborhood, I’ll tell you right now that they’re more fun if you’re wearing team jerseys than it is if you’re going shirts & skins.

Second, if two of the same army face one another, they can indeed get confused. Further, unpainted units in the same army are easier to confuse with one another.

Polonius wrote: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?

Okay, within the framework of that metaphor, weightlifting is Chess, and body building is 40k. Except that 40k is really a mixed looks/play endeavor.

Polonius wrote: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?

No. IMO it is acceptable to field some unpainted models while you’re getting your army/units painted. Many groups & players have a fairly informal standard of being contented to face an unfinished army as long as they can see some work being done on it from week to week. It is better for the hobby if everyone paints their models.

You’re also expanding the question. The original post was about the ‘ardboyz, currently GW’s biggest competitive tournament in the US, and a potential showcase for the game.

Polonius wrote:Should people that don't paint be forced out of the hobby?

No, they should be encouraged and supported and helped to participate more fully.

Gornall wrote:

Polonius wrote:Again, why insist on a rule that's not going to actually result in decent looking armies?

This is one of the concerns I have. If you impose a 3-color minimum on all events, then people who game the requirement by dipping models in paint will be good to go, but those who are slowly painting their armies to a tabletop+ standard would be hosed? How does that make for a better event?

I had a dark eldar army I painted three color legal. I hated playing it, and eventually sold it, because it looked like trash. Three colors doesn't always mean good looking.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Mannahnin wrote:

Polonius wrote: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?

No. IMO it is acceptable to field some unpainted models while you’re getting your army/units painted. Many groups & players have a fairly informal standard of being contented to face an unfinished army as long as they can see some work being done on it from week to week. It is better for the hobby if everyone paints their models.

You’re also expanding the question. The original post was about the ‘ardboyz, currently GW’s biggest competitive tournament in the US, and a potential showcase for the game.

Polonius wrote:Should people that don't paint be forced out of the hobby?

No, they should be encouraged and supported and helped to participate more fully.

I'm expanding the question because I think it's the root of the question on the table. The only reason to have a problem with unpainted armies at hard boys is if you think it's so antithetical to the hobby that it's bad for the hobby as a whole, which raises the question of what role, if any, people that simply don't' want to paint armies have in the hobby as a whole.

Let's say I have a friend that is interested in the fluff, likes to model, likes to play, but wont' paint. He will never paint a single mini, let alone his army. Should I tell him not start the hobby? Would his involvement hurt the hobby? If so, why?

Polonius wrote:Again, why insist on a rule that's not going to actually result in decent looking armies?

I answered this question, and you are ducking it now. More succinctly, for these game defining technical reasons:

(1) To tell armys apart that use otherwise identical figs
(2) To define otherwise identical transports vfriendly or enemy
(3) To Define comingled friendly squads

How about these reasons. None of these are for "feeling good", paint points, just for outright well defined play.

Mannahnin wrote:I played nine games at 'Ard Boyz. Only one of them was against an unpainted army. And that player had a noticeably different attitude about the game, and had the least command of the rules, of any of the people I faced. He had less investment in the hobby, and it showed.

Ouch... that generalization hurts (it couldn't have been he was newer to the hobby or anything besides he's a "bad hobbyist"). From my experience at the first 2 rounds of 'Ard Boyz, I played both painted and unpainted armies and didn't notice any difference between the people (I had pretty awesome experiences all around). However, I do have to say that my best experience was against a guy with a partially painted army and my least favorite (but still very good) were against people with high-quality painted armies. What does this mean... absolutely nothing!

Mannahnin wrote:

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

No, they were forbidden. They did make a couple of exceptions for people who had disasters occur, or children who still should have known better.

That policy was not always enforced. I've seen the evidence.

First, football as a game is originally for the participants. Speaking of games in the local neighborhood, I’ll tell you right now that they’re more fun if you’re wearing team jerseys than it is if you’re going shirts & skins.

Second, if two of the same army face one another, they can indeed get confused. Further, unpainted units in the same army are easier to confuse with one another.

Again, there is this insistence that because having the rule makes things slightly better it should be enacted. Yes, jerseis make pick up football more fun. It's still fun without them though.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Augustus wrote:

Polonius wrote:Again, why insist on a rule that's not going to actually result in decent looking armies?

I answered this question, and you are ducking it now. More succinctly, for these game defining technical reasons:

(1) To tell armys apart that use otherwise identical figs
(2) To define otherwise identical transports vfriendly or enemy
(3) To Define comingled friendly squads

How about these reasons. None of these are for "feeling good", paint points, just for outright well defined play.

But none of those require three colors. I'd be fine with a rule stating that all models must be either painted or have some ID on them. Rules should so what they intend to, with as little infringement as possible, particularly in an environment like hard boys that's trying to cast a wide net.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Gornall wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:I played nine games at 'Ard Boyz. Only one of them was against an unpainted army. And that player had a noticeably different attitude about the game, and had the least command of the rules, of any of the people I faced. He had less investment in the hobby, and it showed.

Ouch... that generalization hurts (it couldn't have been he was newer to the hobby or anything besides he's a "bad hobbyist"). From my experience at the first 2 rounds of 'Ard Boyz, I played both painted and unpainted armies and didn't notice any difference between the people (I had pretty awesome experiences all around). However, I do have to say that my best experience was against a guy with a partially painted army and my least favorite (but still very good) were against people with high-quality painted armies. What does this mean... absolutely nothing!

Yeah, I didn't know how to respond to that one either. The biggest tool I ever met playing 40k had a gorgeously painted army. I guess that means people that paint are all jerks.

Polonius wrote:

Augustus wrote:

Polonius wrote:Again, why insist on a rule that's not going to actually result in decent looking armies?

I answered this question, and you are ducking it now. More succinctly, for these game defining technical reasons:

(1) To tell armys apart that use otherwise identical figs
(2) To define otherwise identical transports vfriendly or enemy
(3) To Define comingled friendly squads

How about these reasons. None of these are for "feeling good", paint points, just for outright well defined play.

But none of those require three colors. I'd be fine with a rule stating that all models must be either painted or have some ID on them. Rules should so what they intend to, with as little infringement as possible, particularly in an environment like hard boys that's trying to cast a wide net.

Agreed.

Even with squad markings, my praetorians are hard to tell apart. I paint the interior of the right epaulette the platoon color, and the left one the squad color. I paint both on the base as well to help tell them apart.

My ex girlfriends demonettes only had a rhinestone on the base. We didnt like any way to mark them, so each squad had a different color little gem on the rim of the base.

I don't know why this is 7 pages.

Do painted armies look better? Yes.

Should people be encouraged to paint? Yes.

Does GW require some minimal painting for all other event? Yes.

Does modern spray & wash allow people to meet this requirement more easily than ever before? Yes.

Great!


IMO, it'd be great to deny prizes to unpainted armies, however defined.

____

Also, the discussion about cardboard chits and such has no bearing when we're talking about events that require GW models to play.

I have a fully painted Chaos army. I have a barely painted Eldar army that's still in progress. So if I play with my barely/un painted eldar army I'm automatically a jerk, have no grasp of the game, etc.

There is nothing saying anyone has to paint. It looks nice, yes, but that's all. Some people like the game more than painting, and that does not infer anything specifically about them.

Polonius wrote:Again, why insist on a rule that's not going to actually result in decent looking armies?

Three colors isn't a serious requirement. Differentiating multiple units of the same sort isn't a serious requirement, its courtesy.

Frankly, I think my stuff looks like reheated crap and its not from bad photography. Expecting similar levels of painting excludes more people than a minimum paint level will. Three colors is simple enough for most anyone with the cognitive facility to play the game without a helper . Even me.

Set the expectation, then let the social group increase it.

LunaHound wrote:
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 .

I could certainly appreciate them having their tournament on what they find important. What I object to is that Games Workshop is sponsoring their biggest tournament, with the most prize support, as this sort of event. I would prefer it if the company sponsored event (the only one this year, I might add), was done in such a way that the armies on the table looked decent.

That doesn't mean I don't think that there should be tournaments without painting requirements, only that I don't think GW should be sponsoring them.

Polonius wrote:
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.

Again, it isn't about any event, it's about the biggest company sponsored event - and the only one they ran this year. Independents can do whatever they want on their dime.

When you consider that money being spent to run the 'ard boyz tournament is coming from GW's budget, which in turn comes from sales of things including paint and basing materials (which have got to have some of their highest margins), I don't think it unreasonable to expect that paint and basing materials be used on the models in the event. In short, as a customer, paying their elevated prices, I'm subsidizing 'ard boyz. GW doesn't show pictures of unpainted models on their website or promotional materials, why should anyone expect to see those things at a company run event?

Augustus wrote:
...you can tell armys apart when both sides are playing the same army
...you can tell squads apart in the same army when the units interpenetrate
...you can distinguish otherwise identical transports and avoid the shell game

And here are several additional benefits of painting that do directly impact game-play, so there we go. If assembling the models is necessary in order to have your line-of-sight issues resolved, then painting in necessary in order to tell the models apart and know what is going where. Good call Augustus.

Kilkrazy wrote: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.

I'm wondering if those were done as a hobby, though. I imagine it was the painter's
job to do that, which is a bit different.

Nice example, though.

Polonius wrote:
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.

Again, it isn't about any event, it's about the biggest company sponsored event - and the only one they ran this year. Independents can do whatever they want on their dime.

When you consider that money being spent to run the 'ard boyz tournament is coming from GW's budget, which in turn comes from sales of things including paint and basing materials (which have got to have some of their highest margins), I don't think it unreasonable to expect that paint and basing materials be used on the models in the event. In short, as a customer, paying their elevated prices, I'm subsidizing 'ard boyz. GW doesn't show pictures of unpainted models on their website or promotional materials, why should anyone expect to see those things at a company run event?

So, is the problem an unpainted event, or is the problem the lack of GTs that require paint? I agree to the extent that there should be GW events that highlight the entire hobby, and hard boys doesn't do that. I'm not sure you can make hard boys really be the representative of the hobby... it's simply too focused on battle points. You can't make an apple an orange.

Like I've been saying all along, Hard Boys is part of a balanced breakfast. I'm used to their being 4+ GTs a year, not to mention all kinds of Indy GTs.

And, I'm guessing GW has ran the numbers to see what's more likely: that a fully unpainted tournament get people to buy more models, or requiring three paints require people to buy more GW paints. Buying a single landraider to fill out an ard boys army brings in more revenue than buying three pots of paint at the craft store to meet the requirements. Even if using GW paints, there's no way they're making more on three paints than on extra units.

At your last point, they don't' show anything but well painted armies on the website and white dwarf. I've been painting for 8 years, and my stuff isnt' as good as they stuff they show. I mean, this is literally an event that prides itself on not having a paint component, do you really think anybody expects well painted armies?

@Red: You're the only one so far whose point I actually get. The "painters" funding the "non-painters" to have the only big event could be annoying. It shouldn't be that way next year according to GW jargon at least :p

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.

And the standard , at 'ard boyz was paint not required. Glad to see at least one of you paint nazis coming around , and before you spout pho-indignation .... don't.

3 color paint jobs are easy to pull off and will have zero effect on telling units apart in the same army. Spray black, slap shadow grey over armor, paint the head enchanted blue. No difference to any model and all bolter marines look identical.

The fear of identical armies colliding on the tabletop will only occur with 2 identical armies that are not painted. The painted player will never run into this fear so it should be moot for the painting faction.

The Ard Boyz champion didn't even spray a base color on his models. I'm sure there is anecdotal evidence of painted armies run by players who have no idea what the rules are. If I had a nickel for every time I played in a tournament against a beautifully painted army run by an old GW veteran player who thought this was still 2nd edition I would have a lot of nickels.

An army sprayed black, with silver guns and a different colored dot on the right shoulder would satisfy a lot of the propainting arguments, yet if those pictures are published in White Dwarf I'm sure an editor would be fired.

The argument that GW should require painting in their tournaments is a hotly debated topic between GW England and GW US. The Ard Boyz is a trade sales event, run by them and funded by them. It generates a healthy volume of sales for the trade accounts. That is why the 1st and 2nd rounds are usually not allowed at GW stores. The idea is to drive sales at independent retail trade sales accounts. Let me state this again. This format is designed to drive sales at independent stores, privately owned by private citizens. Ard Boyz is designed to generate sales at these local brick and mortar stores. I don't know about you, but supporting the local brick and mortar non-GW stores is a good thing and GW trade sales are doing this for them (and GW).

If this tournament were to go the way of required painting, even basic 3 colors, it would lower envolvement, lower participation and lower sales at privately owned brick and mortar stores. The impulse buy would be gone and much more hardocre planning would need to be done to successfully participate. Players wouldn't be able to see the allure of a free 2500pt army for winning the 2nd round and buy up 9 Valkyries in a month, assemble them and play (true story). Players wouldn't go out and buy that one predator because it fits snuggly in their army (that's me). Players wouldn't load up on so many chimeras, so many tanks and especially so many Orks. Who would have 30 Meganobz all painted and ready to go in a one week timeframe when painting is required?

Local sales are the driving force behind this tournament and anything that increases sales is good. Most people wouldn't buy new models is painting were required, I feel they would try to make due with what they have as best they could.

As an aside I know Redbeard has enough models to field most anything in 3000pts let alone 2500pts, what about the other propainting posters? John and Oldgrue seem to have huge armies already from their sig information. I wonder how many of you have huge painted armies that can easily satisfy your painting requirement and not have to buy very many models, if any at all, to play armies in the Ard Boyz. Since sales are the main reason behind this, would you still buy several hundred dollars worth of merchandise to participate in the next Ard Boyz in spring 2010? Or do you already have what you need and wouldn't buy anything?

DarthDiggler wrote:
As an aside I know Redbeard has enough models to field most anything in 3000pts let alone 2500pts, what about the other propainting posters? John and Oldgrue seem to have huge armies already from their sig information. I wonder how many of you have huge painted armies that can easily satisfy your painting requirement and not have to buy very many models, if any at all, to play armies in the Ard Boyz. Since sales are the main reason behind this, would you still buy several hundred dollars worth of merchandise to participate in the next Ard Boyz in spring 2010? Or do you already have what you need and wouldn't buy anything?

I get bored easily. I painted 5500 points of guys last week so I could take something new to the AWC tournament next weekend. I'd probably buy something new for 'ard boyz as well.

5500 pts? Boy, Chris raised the pts. limit a bit did he?

Redbeard wrote:

DarthDiggler wrote:
As an aside I know Redbeard has enough models to field most anything in 3000pts let alone 2500pts, what about the other propainting posters? John and Oldgrue seem to have huge armies already from their sig information. I wonder how many of you have huge painted armies that can easily satisfy your painting requirement and not have to buy very many models, if any at all, to play armies in the Ard Boyz. Since sales are the main reason behind this, would you still buy several hundred dollars worth of merchandise to participate in the next Ard Boyz in spring 2010? Or do you already have what you need and wouldn't buy anything?

I get bored easily. I painted 5500 points of guys last week so I could take something new to the AWC tournament next weekend. I'd probably buy something new for 'ard boyz as well.

Though im sure even you 'll realize given the same amount of time spent , not everyone will yield the same results.
especially some people that hates painting / dont have a habit painting , will not yield even 10% of the positive paint jobs.

Darthdiggler nailed it on the head. 'Ard boyz tournaments generate more revenue than any GT could ever hope to. That's why they get such great prize support. Even if someone plays their "normal" army they might still need to buy a few units that they wouldn't normally field so that they can be competitive. Now GW can get those sales and the person buying the models doesn't have to worry about painting them to get them ready for a tournament.

Redbeard wrote: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?

Why? Why should the base requriement for playing be painting? As you pointed out, Adept Gladiator had its requirements. No comp, no paint score, but 3 color minimium. And thats fine. I'm sure GT's have both COmp and painting score. And its ok.

But god forbid that there is ONE tournment without a painting score and its a crime. Why can you not just leave it alone and let folks play in ONE tournment that has a different requirement. Why can you not let folks play in one without insisting on painting?

Its elitism right to its core.

Its a big deal becuase you and others just want it your way and no other. Right now if someone or group wanted to sponsor a "GW 40K half assembled tournment" I'd be perfectly ok with it. Not my cup a tea, but if folks want to slug it out with half assembled models, knock yourself out.

Hell if someone wants to have a "Golden demons tournment" where your army must include one model that was entered and reached honorable mentioning or better to play, Have at it. Again not my cup of tea, but go have fun.

You want a tourney with comp, no comp, sports, no sports, painting, 3 color minium or not at all.....Go at it and have fun. Some of them will appeal to some of you, some of the requirements(or lack there of) wioll have you turn up your nose.


The whole point I'm making redbeard is everyone has a point in the game that they like and enjoy. And there are torunments that will fit your enjoyment. But folks like yourself and others dont seem to want to let others have THEIR enjoyment, and seem to want only YOUR brand of fun.

And thats not right. If you dont like a unpainted tournment, dont enter. Go play a GT. But let others who do get enjoyment from just slugging it out, have their fun. You all seem to brand anything not of your liking "wrong fun".


Automatically Appended Next Post:

gorgon wrote:

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.

Conversion work, fliuff, actual game play, or just beer and preztels fun with a good friends.

There are more than a few reasons to actually be in it then painting. I actually got in it almost 20 years ago because of the fluff and spending time with a good friend. Many a Saturdays wasted on alot of fun between RT /2nd and space hulk. We almsot never painted our stuff much then either.

carmachu wrote:
The whole point I'm making redbeard is everyone has a point in the game that they like and enjoy. And there are torunments that will fit your enjoyment. But folks like yourself and others dont seem to want to let others have THEIR enjoyment, and seem to want only YOUR brand of fun.

And thats not right. If you dont like a unpainted tournment, dont enter. Go play a GT. But let others who do get enjoyment from just slugging it out, have their fun. You all seem to brand anything not of your liking "wrong fun".

No, it's not wrong fun. I have no problem with people playing their way, or independent entities running whatever rules they choose to run.

My issue is with it being company sponsored. GW is running one tournament this year, and it's 'ard boyz. Look at the responses to this poll. nearly a full half of respondents are in favour of painted armies. Less than 20% want an unpainted tournament. Why should the only GW sponsored tournament offered cater to a minority of the players?

You say go play a GT? They cancelled the GTs. If 'go play a GT' were still an option, I'd be okay with 'ard boyz being unpainted. Again, it's a minority who are in favour of the unpainted tournament - why should the only company sponsored event cater to a minority of players?

It isn't that GW collectively decided that they were only going to run 'ard Boyz. Trade/Sales didn't back out of supporting their tournament. The promotions department (or whoever is normally in charge) backed out of the GT's. Complain to them if you want, but leave your "I'm paying for you to play with unpainted miniatures" conspiracy theories at home, please.

The fact that Trade/Sales continued to support this tournament in economic hard times, combined with Darth's very valid points about the reasons behind the tournament and what it can do for local stores is why I want GW to be one of my primary product lines if I ever get the chance to run my own shop.