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.

Sincity wrote: Glad to see at least one of you paint nazis coming around , and before you spout pho-indignation .... don't.

(snark)
I'm angry about soup! Pho indignation indeed!
(/snark)

That'd presume you're right and I came close to agreeing with it. The lack of standard was a bad idea in my opinion. The winner certainly wasn't surprised he'd be participating.
84 infantry and 10 vehicles isn't so hard to slap a lick of paint on and he certainly took the time to assemble the army. Perhaps he just 'didn't have enough time' Each round of the tourney was so closely spaced that he couldn't *possibly* have made the time to do that over the course of two months. I'd expect at least a painted army as a matter of course rather than exception. Its part of being an adult.

To be fair, I do have some hefty armies in my pocket. I'd likely build a whole new army for tournament and get it painted to my grainy but functional standard out of pride. An unpainted army just looks bad. Whether or not I'll ever see these people again is irrelevant: I have a standard I expect of myself.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
@Polonius
Cajoled, or socially pressured? The person with 'Gamer Funk' is guided back to acceptable hygiene levels in public. The loud grabby child is guided to acceptable behavior.

Each of these behaviors are acceptable in their own environment - at home. In public, or in competition, there should be a different expectation.
Meet minimum standards of behavior, or don't expect to be welcomed.

Redbeard wrote: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?

First I wouldn't call it a minority of players. More than half would accept the status quo and that is with a poorly worded poll which can confuse people into thinking this is about all tournaments, not just Ard Boyz.

I think the real dagger to the propainted crowds argument is what Redbeard says above. The GT's were cancelled for a number of reasons. Was one of them the big firestorm when the best painted army was discovered not to be painted by the owner? There have always been whispers, but someone was finally caught. In running tournaments around Chicago and Adepticon, it has been my experience that the most bitter players, the most bitter controversies and the biggest cries come from the painting first crowd. I don't mean to paint a broad brush and I know a lot of awesome painters who don't cause a stink (Redbeard is one of them), but hell hath no fury like a painter scorned in a tournament. I have never seen or heard of the complaining after a tournament like it comes from the painters. Why did he get a higher score than me? I had shading he didn't. My conversions were better. Whoever scored painting doesn't know what they are doing, etc..

And if GW didn't cater to a minority of players, then there wouldn't be Bloodbowl, Epic, LOTR, Fantasy, etc... If 700,000 players out of 1 million are your painting first crowd, do you alienate the other 300,000 and threaten to lose 30% of your sales just to please 70%?

Oldgrue wrote:
@Polonius
Cajoled, or socially pressured? The person with 'Gamer Funk' is guided back to acceptable hygiene levels in public. The loud grabby child is guided to acceptable behavior.

Each of these behaviors are acceptable in their own environment - at home. In public, or in competition, there should be a different expectation.
Meet minimum standards of behavior, or don't expect to be welcomed.

I love posts like this that don't actually say anything. My point was that there was solid value in those other areas of minimum standards. Paint has some reasons, but not in a hard boys style tournament. There is no need for it.

Ah, the unpainted army controversy! Another age-old dakka chestnut. I guess the question really comes down to this: is 40k really separable into (a) hobby and (b) game or is it an indivisible experience? If you take out the game is it just collecting? Is collecting destructive to the genre? Probably not. If you take out the painting, is it just power gaming? Is power gaming destructive to the genre? That's a tougher question, especially when you wonder if power gaming isn't inevitable whether there's a hobby involved or no (don't even consider how much the wealth factor effects this past time). Seems like people are mostly annoyed that GW would even allow unpainted entry into one of their tournaments because it seems transparently greedy at the expense of sportsmanship. I don't like the idea personally and I think it's silly in the longterm for GW to encourage it (or maybe they're just accepting the fact that so few of their customers actually get around to painting) but I think it's clear that people who paint aren't necessarily the best gamers and maybe that's where a lot of the real hurt is coming from--spending forever on an army just have it crushed by someone who can't even be bothered.

DarthDiggler wrote:If 700,000 players out of 1 million are your painting first crowd, do you alienate the other 300,000 and threaten to lose 30% of your sales just to please 70%?

O are do you alienate 70% to lose 30% of you sales?

Red9 wrote:

DarthDiggler wrote:If 700,000 players out of 1 million are your painting first crowd, do you alienate the other 300,000 and threaten to lose 30% of your sales just to please 70%?

O are do you alienate 70% to lose 30% of you sales?

But we all saw the numbers in the poll thread ?

I don't think that poll thread means as much as you're making it out to, Luna.

I mean, look at the poll in this thread.

Manchu wrote:I don't think that poll thread means as much as you're making it out to, Luna.

k :<

The problem with the other poll is it's not a matter of one or the other in this instance.

It's fully possible to value gaming more than painting but value painting enough to seek out painted armies to play against.

Dead on, Orkesaurus. But apply that sentiment to the question of official GW tournament rules.

Based on what I'm reading, it seems that people are annoyed that the only Official GW tournaments this year catered to the power gamers who don't need to paint, leaving the "real" hobbyists feeling unloved.

It's understandable, but I think there's more of a visceral emotional component here than I originally thought.

The problem is that there would not be much good to try to make Ard boys into a Gt-lite. It's just not what it is.

That's exactly what I meant by the "real hurt," Polonius.

Manchu wrote:That's exactly what I meant by the "real hurt," Polonius. So could we agree that the main question here is why there should ever be an unpainted tourney?

Well, I dont' know if you're read the full thread, but that's kind of what we've been talking about.

The answer, for Hard boys at least, is that it removes as many barriers as possible from allowing as many people to field the armies they actually think are best. With no paint scores, there are going to be a lot of ugly armies, so it's hard to imagine any paint requirement actually working well to make the armies appealing, so why require it?

What I'd rather see would be unpainted armies only be able to take two thirds the prize money, with the rest going to the top finishing fully painted army's player.

Right, I deleted that question out of the post because it was meaningless in context. But on to your suggestion: wouldn't that ultimately be the equivalent of putting a paint score back into the mix? Finishing first but ending up with the third place prize = finishing in third place, no? If you want to know who does the best game-wise just look at the scores without the painting component, right? I suppose the idea is that at least you could enter an unpainted army in the first place. But I think there is more to those who say "no unpainted armies in the first place" than the feeling unloved hurt you and I are talking about. For them, 40k is an over-arching, demanding hobby and people who don't accept that are lazy, unworthy outsiders. As has been brought up earlier in the thread, what's next? Not assembling your army? It's a reductive but still valid point.

Manchu wrote:Right, I deleted that question out of the post because it was meaningless in context. But on to your suggestion: wouldn't that ultimately be the equivalent of putting a paint score back into the mix? Finishing first but ending up with the third place prize = finishing in third place, no? If you want to know who does the best game-wise just look at the scores without the painting component, right? I suppose the idea is that at least you could enter an unpainted army in the first place. But I think there is more to those who say "no unpainted armies in the first place" than the feeling unloved hurt you and I are talking about. For them, 40k is an over-arching, demanding hobby and people who don't accept that are lazy, unworthy outsiders. As has been brought up earlier in the thread, what's next? Not assembling your army? It's a reductive but still valid point.

Well, replace the half prize idea with whoever has the highest ranked painted army gets a bonus blister or something. I dunno, some motivation to actually paint the damn things.

As for assembly, that's actually not a good point. Assembly is necessary for tlos and WYSIWYG, and actual models are a standard GW rule for all events, which only makes sense from a business perspective.

I'd quibble in that I think some of the painting supporters don't see the hobby as over-arching. It's been either explicitly said or heavily implied by many posters that the people that play with unpainted armies aren't even in the same hobby. 40k isn't overarching so much as multi-faceted, and not pursuing all facets means you can't be in the hobby. Thus, an event rewarding such behavior is an enormous slap in the face, as not only are people allowed to engage in "wrong fun", but Gw is sponsoring it!

enter my own opinion:

Now, I know I mean absolutely nothing to the vast majority of people here. Here goes:

Should there be a painting requirement? I agree and disagree. Unpainted armies are not bad, but painted armies are more enjoyable to play against, generally the people who paint their armies have a certain level of pride for themselves and respect for the game as a hobby. But, really, I don't want to be fearful of reprisal or poor treatment because my army isn't painted. It's not fair, I play the game to enjoy the game, I participate with the hobby when I have the time to do so. To me, it feels defeatist to force myself to paint my army so I can play with the people that think they are higher transcended beings because they: painted their army first, have been playing longer, are older, or are better painter than I will ever be. But for those people who when I play them do everything to make my game as enjoyable as possible, losing or winning and go out of their way to make the hobby more enjoyable for everyone. I would do it for them in a heartbeat.

Right now, the people taking part in this thread, some of them I would rather play them with an unpainted army out of spite just by how they're carrying on. As far as I'm concerned the game and the hobby are two different pieces of the same puzzle. Some people prefer the game more than the hobby, and vice versa, but respect should transcend both of these sides.

I'm really sorry those that feel they should be rewarded for their hobby in terms of the game are hurt. I disagree with your, feelings, but honestly. Think that a lot of this animosity is a bit misplaced. That being said, I should probably shut my trap before I put my foot into it, likely more than I already have.

Play the game for the game. Enjoy the hobby for the hobby. Put both together for double the fun.

Polonius wrote:As for assembly, that's actually not a good point. Assembly is necessary for tlos and WYSIWYG, and actual models are a standard GW rule for all events, which only makes sense from a business perspective.

Does GW not also sell paints, brushes, basing kits, etc? You're saying that assembly is necessary in order to fulfill rules that are part of what makes 40k what it is. Soooo . . . what about the rule that models should have three colors and basing? I acknowledged that the argument is reductive but so is the premise (i.e., not painting your army).

Polonius wrote:I'd quibble in that I think some of the painting supporters don't see the hobby as over-arching. It's been either explicitly said or heavily implied by many posters that the people that play with unpainted armies aren't even in the same hobby. 40k isn't overarching so much as multi-faceted, and not pursuing all facets means you can't be in the hobby. Thus, an event rewarding such behavior is an enormous slap in the face, as not only are people allowed to engage in "wrong fun", but Gw is sponsoring it!

That is certainly a quibble. Other than word choice, I'm not sure that we disagree.

I don't mind either way.

But I HATE basing, it bugs me, and I consider it a waste of time. It will rarely match up with the terrain or board.

For example, made effort to base your models with grass? Good work, but their standing in lava. Does grass grow in lava?

It's a bit disappointing that we even need "painting requirements". Do some people have so little interest and pride in their armies that they don't want them to be painted? In part, my objection to this is that I simply cannot get my head around it, I've never heard it expressed so strongly before. I've never seen such a large group of players who are so resistant to the basic task of painting an army as well as gaming with it.

Apparently, to expect someone to paint their miniatures before using them "elitist". WTF?! Some people need to look out to the wider hobby, it's practically unheard of to leave miniatures unpainted in the vast area of the gaming hobby outside GW. Painting miniatures before playing is "normal". Apparently the GW hobby is the exception. I'm wondering if it's the end result of their "buy buy buy" pressure selling to shift as many of the latest cool miniature combined with this faux urgency to encourage players to rush them to the tabletop any way they can so they can "win win win".

As I said earlier I'm not an elitist. On the occasion when I can get a game these days, I just want a mate or two around, have a few beers and crisps and enjoy a game and watch a cheesy action movie. I don't enjoy games that are full of unpainted miniatures because it's dull, it just becomes about rolling dice to determine a winner instead of the visual feast it should be.

^^ What he said.

DarthDiggler wrote:

Redbeard wrote: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?

First I wouldn't call it a minority of players. More than half would accept the status quo and that is with a poorly worded poll which can confuse people into thinking this is about all tournaments, not just Ard Boyz.

I think the real dagger to the propainted crowds argument is what Redbeard says above. The GT's were cancelled for a number of reasons. Was one of them the big firestorm when the best painted army was discovered not to be painted by the owner? There have always been whispers, but someone was finally caught. In running tournaments around Chicago and Adepticon, it has been my experience that the most bitter players, the most bitter controversies and the biggest cries come from the painting first crowd. I don't mean to paint a broad brush and I know a lot of awesome painters who don't cause a stink (Redbeard is one of them), but hell hath no fury like a painter scorned in a tournament. I have never seen or heard of the complaining after a tournament like it comes from the painters. Why did he get a higher score than me? I had shading he didn't. My conversions were better. Whoever scored painting doesn't know what they are doing, etc..

And if GW didn't cater to a minority of players, then there wouldn't be Bloodbowl, Epic, LOTR, Fantasy, etc... If 700,000 players out of 1 million are your painting first crowd, do you alienate the other 300,000 and threaten to lose 30% of your sales just to please 70%?

You do realize that outside of Fantasy and LotR, none of those games that you listed are supported right?

On Topic: I see this as a "Tournament Crowd" issue. IE: It's something I will generally ignore, because I refuse to play in anything even vaguely resembling a tournament*. Let the WAAC Howler Monkeys wail and gnash their teeth at each other away from the rest of us.

* that includes any kind of campaign or anything with an entrance fee or anything with any kind of prize. At the very second that money or product becomes involved, it's no longer about having fun, it's about being a WAAC Howler monkey.

the only exception I would consider making is if all prizes are raffle/door prize style drawing where it becomes a random give-a-way.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Howard A Treesong wrote:
Apparently, to expect someone to paint their miniatures before using them "elitist". WTF?! Some people need to look out to the wider hobby, it's practically unheard of to leave miniatures unpainted in the vast area of the gaming hobby outside GW. Painting miniatures before playing is "normal". Apparently the GW hobby is the exception. I'm wondering if it's the end result of their "buy buy buy" pressure selling to shift as many of the latest cool miniature combined with this faux urgency to encourage players to rush them to the tabletop any way they can so they can "win win win".

And it's a fairly new exception at that. GW used to require fully painted and based models to play at the stores. Then it became "3 colors", after the tournament crowd cried. then it became "primed" after more crying.

Then it was just "show progress".

I guess now it's "just buy more Space Marines".

While I object to you calling tournament players WAAC Howler Monkeys (cos most of them aren't) I do think there is a grain of truth in the idea that GW are trying to rush out the sales of figures as opposed to painting them.

I was surprised to hear that GW set up Hard Boys. I thought it was an independent tournament.

I think Hard Boys is GW-US's way of doing some kind of event in a year when GW-UK stopped them doing a GT, and they wanted to do something for tournament players. (Which is fair enough.)

Not mandating painted armies clearly goes against the GW mantra about "The Hobby" however as it's not an official GT, I supposed it has some deniability if Head Office come knocking.

I'm not saying I condone it, but I can see the logical reasons which would explain why they've done it.

BTW UK based shops require painted armies on veterans' night.

Kilkrazy wrote:^^ What he said.

An unpainted miniature is little better than one still in the box. I don't know about you, but I have to show reasonable progress at "making stuff" if I am to justify buying new stuff, not only to myself but to the wife as well. "Making stuff" means finishing the model, things left primered or half painted after 6 months don't really cut it. I imagine many people have similar arrangements with their partners which partly goes to prevent them ending up under a sea of unbuilt models.

Kilkrazy wrote:I think Hard Boys is GW-US's way of doing some kind of event in a year when GW-UK stopped them doing a GT, and they wanted to do something for tournament players. (Which is fair enough.)

I posted this earlier -

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.

You do realize that 'Ard Boys has been around for quite a while right?

Like to the tune of over 5 years right?

'Ard Boys is 'Ardly (see what i did there?) new, and was supposed to be the "alternative" to the "stricter" Rogue Trader and GT Events ("Stricter" as in "OMG paint your models and try really hard to come with a list that isn't WAAC Howler Monkey Madness.")

But I guess 'Ard Boys serves a purpose*. Where else do you get to hear about threats of violence over toy soldiers these days?

*Even if that purpose is only to show why generalizations such as "WAAC Howler Monkeys" will never go away.

Now it's the only "alternative".

Redbeard wrote:


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?

What you leave out is that over half dont care or like it. SO its not exactly minority of players. Most eitehr dont care either way or like it.

Why should they? GW is changing with the times. I recall a time when Golden demons was choosen from an army that you played in the tournment, and that there was an award for best general in addition to sportsmen, painting, and overall.

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?

There were years of RT's GT's and the like. I hope they bring them bakc for the folks that enjoyed them. But I dont think I ever heard as much whining that people had to paint to enter them as much as I hear in this thread whining people arent painting to play.

Apparantly GW thinks its not a minority of players and wants to have a tournment of actual playing. And of course, the bottom line is to sell more models, just like the GT's and RT's were used for.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

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.

And thats fine. But thats not the question. Its not whether its better to play with unpainted figs.

The question is will you finally have tolerance to having ONE tournment for players that dont want or dont have a painting requirement.

Or will you whine bitch and moan that it shouldnt ever be allowed. Or need three colors.

DarthDiggler wrote: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.

yeah, i guess if you PURPOSELY wanted to make everything the same. however, using common sense and the three color minimum, it's no more trouble to simply spray one color, add boltgun metal to the bolter, and then paint one squads left shoulder(pad) red... and other squad's right shoulder pad red... and another squad's left knee pad red... and another squad's right knee pad red... and now you have four tactical marine squads "painted" with no more effort than your example yet they're individually identifiable.

Howard A Treesong wrote:Apparently, to expect someone to paint their miniatures before using them "elitist". WTF?! Some people need to look out to the wider hobby, it's practically unheard of to leave miniatures unpainted in the vast area of the gaming hobby outside GW. Painting miniatures before playing is "normal". Apparently the GW hobby is the exception. I'm wondering if it's the end result of their "buy buy buy" pressure selling to shift as many of the latest cool miniature combined with this faux urgency to encourage players to rush them to the tabletop any way they can so they can "win win win".

As I said earlier I'm not an elitist. On the occasion when I can get a game these days, I just want a mate or two around, have a few beers and crisps and enjoy a game and watch a cheesy action movie. I don't enjoy games that are full of unpainted miniatures because it's dull, it just becomes about rolling dice to determine a winner instead of the visual feast it should be.

lol, what i think is "elitist" is polonius and his assembly-fascist friends who state that assembly is required for true LOS and wysiwig. poppycock! i should just be able to play with my weapons clipped from the sprue and placed on the base with a toothpic handy for height references and LOS. (ps. for all the sarcasm impaired, that was sarcatic and simply taking the same argument to the next logical step) if someone is willing to spend over $500 (which is what a 2000pt army costs) AND spend hours clipping and gluing the pieces together, they won't be permanently harmed by applying the three color minimum for a multistage national event taking less than 1 minute per figure to do so.

Howard A Treesong wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:^^ What he said.

An unpainted miniature is little better than one still in the box. I don't know about you, but I have to show reasonable progress at "making stuff" if I am to justify buying new stuff, not only to myself but to the wife as well. "Making stuff" means finishing the model, things left primered or half painted after 6 months don't really cut it. I imagine many people have similar arrangements with their partners which partly goes to prevent them ending up under a sea of unbuilt models.

A figure in the box can still be sold as MIB.

The time I built up an excess stock of models I just sold the spare kits on eBay.

Nowadays I specifically aim to complete one project quickly before I go to the next. It is much easier to buy stuff than finish it, though.

Polonius wrote:

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?

That's a terrible analogy because that's not reality whether you're talking about cars or wargames.

I "get" 'Ard Boyz. I'm not really interested in that tournament, but I usually have so many things in progress that I usually don't have fully painted armies when I game among friends. So I understand the appeal of a tourney with relaxed painting rules. What I don't get are those for whom the 'Ard Boyz experience reflects their entire involvement in the hobby. None of the arguments presented so far have convinced me that it's not a strange hobby to adopt if you never intend to paint. *shrug*

warboss wrote: if someone is willing to spend over $500 (which is what a 2000pt army costs) AND spend hours clipping and gluing the pieces together, they won't be permanently harmed by applying the three color minimum for a multistage national event taking less than 1 minute per figure to do so.

Show me someone who spent 1 min per figure painting, and I'll show you a figure that probably (unless the painter has amazing skill) looks like crap and adds very little visual appeal over an unpainted one (IMO... I prefer neatly assembled/primed figures over sloppily painted ones).

Everyone keeps talking about the "next logical step". If you set the minimum as 3-colors and people game the system enough, then doesn't the next logical step become "tabletop" quality? Oh wait, maybe that isn't good enough, so now every figure needs to receive a certain painting score from a panel of judges to be usable. Etc, etc. The next logical step argument cuts both ways and is pretty pointless for either.

I think ideally 'Ard Boyz should be left as is. It offers a type of tournament that a large number of people enjoy (myself included): all gaming and no fluff/hobby component. At the same time, however, GTs should be brought back to offer a more comprehensive format (gaming and hobby both) to complement the GD competetions. That way EVERYONE can participate in the events they enjoy.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

gorgon wrote: I "get" 'Ard Boyz. I'm not really interested in that tournament, but I usually have so many things in progress that I usually don't have fully painted armies when I game among friends. So I understand the appeal of a tourney with relaxed painting rules. What I don't get are those for whom the 'Ard Boyz experience reflects their entire involvement in the hobby. None of the arguments presented so far have convinced me that it's not a strange hobby to adopt if you never intend to paint. *shrug*

It doesn't matter if you think it's a strange hobby to take up if you never intend to paint. If there are people out there having fun without painting, then more power to them. Who are we to dictate how the hobby should be done to anyone? If you don't want to play with/against unpainted minis, then don't. Choice is a wonderful thing.

This argument shouldn't be about painting or not in general, but rather on whether 'Ard Boyz lack of painting requirement should be left alone or not. I think it should be left as is for the reasons you touched on in your first couple of sentences. Personally, my experience at 'Ard Boyz was so enjoyable that it made me want to seek out other tournaments and events, which in turn is pushing me to try to finish painting my army before diving headlong into another project. Ain't that something... a no painting-required tournament is pushing me to paint more.