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.

There are a lot of local, one-day events like that, though.

Kilkrazy wrote:

PapaPiggy wrote:Having to paint an entire army just to play in the tournament is just plain stupid to me. If i want to enter a tournament but can't finish painting, I either have to rush the paint job, making it look like crap or i don't get to play. That is just not right in my mind. Soft scores are needed. But painting shouldn't be apart of that.

...
...

Its sad times to hear so many people happy that we lost something in the community.

That's the core point, you see.

People who like to play with painted armies disliked 'Ard Boyz because it legitimised playing with bare nekkid armies and therefore worked against everything they stood for.

IMO there are two different communities; people who want to play with painted armies, and people who want to play with unpainted armies. Only people who want to play with unpainted armies would be sad at the loss of support for that.

'Ard boyz didn't "legitimize" unpainted armies any more than an event with a painting requirement legitimizes painted armies. Of course people who want to play with painted only armies don't need to feel sad about the loss of 'ard boys, an event that they would not have any interest in playing, but that doesn't explain the outright vitriol some of them have posted about it. Why hate an event? It doesn't make sense.

Because it doesn't support how they think the game "should be" played. It doesn't require Golden Demon-level painting, pages upon pages of backstory written for your army, extensive conversions, and ridiculously strict and easily-broken composition and sportsmanship scoring ensuring that everyone plays the exact same boring template army and no one gains an "unfair" advantage by taking units that are even a little effective.

The only person I ever had a problem with Sportsmanship wise in the several years of 'Ard Boyz was a guy who was an issue in Every tournament he played in. If people have to have a system in place such that they need to be forced to be good sports then they're not people I want in any of my tournaments regardless. The individual in question ended up DQed from an Ard Boyz I ran, and stopped coming to the FLGS be ause of it period. His departure from our scene was celebrated. I thought the format was fine and I'll miss it and it's nice prize support.

Kilkrazy wrote:People who like to play with painted armies disliked 'Ard Boyz because it legitimised playing with bare nekkid armies and therefore worked against everything they stood for.

So?

If you don't like playing in tournaments that don't require painting...then don't play in tournaments that don't require painting.

Kilkrazy wrote:IMO there are two different communities; people who want to play with painted armies, and people who want to play with unpainted armies. Only people who want to play with unpainted armies would be sad at the loss of support for that.

You're also missing the third (and I suspect much larger) group: people who want to play whether an army is painted or not.

biccat wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:IMO there are two different communities; people who want to play with painted armies, and people who want to play with unpainted armies. Only people who want to play with unpainted armies would be sad at the loss of support for that.

You're also missing the third (and I suspect much larger) group: people who want to play whether an army is painted or not.

Count me in that third group.

Saldiven wrote:

biccat wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:IMO there are two different communities; people who want to play with painted armies, and people who want to play with unpainted armies. Only people who want to play with unpainted armies would be sad at the loss of support for that.

You're also missing the third (and I suspect much larger) group: people who want to play whether an army is painted or not.

Count me in that third group.

There is a 4th group that just want beer!

MeanGreenStompa wrote:I never played it and I'm sorry to see it go, because it was a tourney of a kind, there are other tourneys to appeal to other styles and it's passing is a diminishing of variety.

I'll agree with MGS. I have no intention of playing in an 'Ard Boys, but that doesn't mean there aren't people that love it and will miss it. The fact that tournaments simply exist that someone doesn't play or enjoy doesn't take anything away from anyone. Play in other tournaments.

No skin off my nose, but it sucks when anything enjoyed by so many is lost from the gaming community.

Sidstyler wrote:Because it doesn't support how they think the game "should be" played. It doesn't require Golden Demon-level painting, pages upon pages of backstory written for your army, extensive conversions, and ridiculously strict and easily-broken composition and sportsmanship scoring ensuring that everyone plays the exact same boring template army and no one gains an "unfair" advantage by taking units that are even a little effective.

Go, go, Gadget Hyperbole!

Sid, I haven't seen anyone in this thread say they'd require those sort of things. The only sentiment I've seen from the painted side is that they'd prefer to play against fully-assembled and painted models - and last I checked, "3 colours and based" was the standard they'd be happy with.

I've seen a number of pro-painted posters saying that Sports and Comp were bad elements, and even that the scores from Painting could be run entirely separately from the scores for winning games.

I really don't get why you felt the need to post that OTT rant...

Sidstyler wrote:Because it doesn't support how they think the game "should be" played. It doesn't require Golden Demon-level painting, pages upon pages of backstory written for your army, extensive conversions, and ridiculously strict and easily-broken composition and sportsmanship scoring ensuring that everyone plays the exact same boring template army and no one gains an "unfair" advantage by taking units that are even a little effective.

Bit of a strawman there, though. Are they really saying that, or just that a 3-color minimum isn't that hard to reach?

Besides, a lot of the critics here seem to be focusing more on the event's organizational flaws moreso than anything else.

helium42 wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:

PapaPiggy wrote:Having to paint an entire army just to play in the tournament is just plain stupid to me. If i want to enter a tournament but can't finish painting, I either have to rush the paint job, making it look like crap or i don't get to play. That is just not right in my mind. Soft scores are needed. But painting shouldn't be apart of that.

...
...

Its sad times to hear so many people happy that we lost something in the community.

That's the core point, you see.

People who like to play with painted armies disliked 'Ard Boyz because it legitimised playing with bare nekkid armies and therefore worked against everything they stood for.

IMO there are two different communities; people who want to play with painted armies, and people who want to play with unpainted armies. Only people who want to play with unpainted armies would be sad at the loss of support for that.

'Ard boyz didn't "legitimize" unpainted armies any more than an event with a painting requirement legitimizes painted armies. Of course people who want to play with painted only armies don't need to feel sad about the loss of 'ard boys, an event that they would not have any interest in playing, but that doesn't explain the outright vitriol some of them have posted about it. Why hate an event? It doesn't make sense.

Before Ard Boyz, all armies used in official competitions had to be painted. Ard Boyz allowed people to play in an official competition with unpainted armies.

I don't see how that can be read as anything else except legitimising unpainted armies.

I don't know if it's true that there were more unpainted armies as a result of Ard Boyz, however it explains why people who like painted armies might dislike Ard Boyz.

The worst thing about the whole painted-unpainted debate is the way that both sides get on a moral high horse about it.

The issue with 'ard Boyz was many locations failed to enforce WYSIWYG because people piggy-back unpainted with non-WYSIWYG play. People were showing up at the first round with proxies, models without arms, coke-can drop pods and the such and then showing up to round 2, and complaining 'I was allowed to play with this in round 1!'

Allowing Unpainted always always always seeps into the whole 'WYSIWYG shouldn't be required' issue, and for 'ard boyz, inconsistent enforcement of WYSIWYG in an event which required WYSIWYG caused issues and weakened the format.

If an event allows unpainted, and I choose to participate, then that is on me, I had the opportunity to go home. But that isn't what happened, People assumed unpainted meant proxies were allowed, and in a 2500 point timed game with by all objective standards, not enough time to finish the game, asking an opponent to mentally juggle PROXIES is blatantly unfair and can be seen as a way to undercut your opponent's ability to play the game fairly.

If it is casual play, no big deal, but prize support turns people into monsters, and since people claim this is the 'ard' players tourney, it is a joke being quite possibly the most unbalanced and unfair and un competitive format that could be made.

Tomb King wrote:
There is a 4th group that just want beer!

Come to Astronomi-con Toronto then! Last year the venue had an open bar.

Playing & drinking at the same time?! Yes please!

Experiment 626 wrote:

Tomb King wrote:
There is a 4th group that just want beer!

Come to Astronomi-con Toronto then! Last year the venue had an open bar.

Playing & drinking at the same time?! Yes please!

sweet, count me in.

helium42 wrote:
'Ard boyz didn't "legitimize" unpainted armies any more than an event with a painting requirement legitimizes painted armies. Of course people who want to play with painted only armies don't need to feel sad about the loss of 'ard boys, an event that they would not have any interest in playing, but that doesn't explain the outright vitriol some of them have posted about it. Why hate an event?

Because it bled over into normal games at the store making the default everyone wanted to play 2500 points. Everyone was perpetually in training for 'Ard Boyz and would roll their eyes at games of "only 2000" points. Painting or no painting, I had no interest in playing 2500 point games.

biccat wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:People who like to play with painted armies disliked 'Ard Boyz because it legitimised playing with bare nekkid armies and therefore worked against everything they stood for.

So?

I think the significance turns around GW's concept of "The Hobby." A lot of people had bought into this pretty deeply and so when 'Ard Boyz came around with no painting requirements, they were totally aghast. Maybe they would have played a pick up at the store against primed or gray models but the idea of doing so at an "official" tournament was shocking. There was a lot of possessive rhetoric like "either do the hobby or don't." You almost got the sense that some people saw playing at sanctioned events to be a kind of prize for people who had laid out the resources (time, money, or both) to put together and paint an army up to three colors.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nkelsch wrote:Allowing Unpainted always always always seeps into the whole 'WYSIWYG shouldn't be required' issue, and for 'ard boyz, inconsistent enforcement of WYSIWYG in an event which required WYSIWYG caused issues and weakened the format.

That doesn't seem like it's necessarily true.

If I had to guess, I'd think 'ard Boyz got sixed because it's contrary to the company's idea of "The Hobby." Also, they're selling a new paint line this year.

Arschbombe wrote:

helium42 wrote:
'Ard boyz didn't "legitimize" unpainted armies any more than an event with a painting requirement legitimizes painted armies. Of course people who want to play with painted only armies don't need to feel sad about the loss of 'ard boys, an event that they would not have any interest in playing, but that doesn't explain the outright vitriol some of them have posted about it. Why hate an event?

Because it bled over into normal games at the store making the default everyone wanted to play 2500 points. Everyone was perpetually in training for 'Ard Boyz and would roll their eyes at games of "only 2000" points. Painting or no painting, I had no interest in playing 2500 point games.

Wow, that's interesting. I can say that didn't happen in our area. About the only time people were interested in playing 2500 points was in the month or so leading up to the first round of the tournament. Any other time, and the normal 1850-2000 points was the norm.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Manchu wrote:If I had to guess, I'd think 'ard Boyz got sixed because it's contrary to the company's idea of "The Hobby." Also, they're selling a new paint line this year.

Well, based upon the statement they put out on their Facebook page, GW does seem more interested in doing more things along the line of the hobby as a whole rather than just on the game play aspect. I believe that the Facebook statement even said we should stay tuned to see what sort of "hobby-centric" type events they will sponsor later this year.

We'll see if that holds true.

If 'Ard Boyz is replaced by Black Crusade style campaigns, I for one won't complain.

Manchu wrote:If 'Ard Boyz is replaced by Black Crusade style campaigns, I for one won't complain.

GW used to have some really interesting summer campaigns for 40K, but those pretty much died out years ago. I actually enjoyed the Eye of Terror campaign, as well as the one before that where the four new army list sub-variants were introduced. Gosh, can't remember the name, but it's the one that had the all webway portal Eldar army....Ulthwe' Strikeforce, I think it was called?

Saldiven wrote:

Manchu wrote:If 'Ard Boyz is replaced by Black Crusade style campaigns, I for one won't complain.

GW used to have some really interesting summer campaigns for 40K, but those pretty much died out years ago. I actually enjoyed the Eye of Terror campaign, as well as the one before that where the four new army list sub-variants were introduced. Gosh, can't remember the name, but it's the one that had the all webway portal Eldar army....Ulthwe' Strikeforce, I think it was called?

That WAS the Eye of Terror/13th Black Crusade.

They also did it for Armageddon 3(the one before that).

Manchu wrote:

biccat wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:People who like to play with painted armies disliked 'Ard Boyz because it legitimised playing with bare nekkid armies and therefore worked against everything they stood for.

So?

I think the significance turns around GW's concept of "The Hobby." A lot of people had bought into this pretty deeply and so when 'Ard Boyz came around with no painting requirements, they were totally aghast. Maybe they would have played a pick up at the store against primed or gray models but the idea of doing so at an "official" tournament was shocking. There was a lot of possessive rhetoric like "either do the hobby or don't." You almost got the sense that some people saw playing at sanctioned events to be a kind of prize for people who had laid out the resources (time, money, or both) to put together and paint an army up to three colors.

Oh, I understand that mentality completely. There is more than a small number of people who take an elite attitude that if you're not playing with painted miniatures you're not really playing the game.

My question is: how does this affect your game? Why does it matter to you how other people choose to enjoy the game? Should official tournaments only be open to those tho paint their armies?

biccat wrote:My question is: how does this affect your game? Why does it matter to you how other people choose to enjoy the game? Should official tournaments only be open to those tho paint their armies?

I want to answer your questions w/o sounding like a prick, but I'll probably fail:
1) Tactially or Aesthetically? Tactically, it doesn't. Aesthetically, it does a little.
2) If I prefer playing against fully painted armies and my opponent doesn't have a fully painted army, does the diminishment of my overall enjoyment of the game count as mattering?
3) Yes, 3 color minimum. Otherwise, let's start using cardboard cutouts. Seriously. Why waste the money on the figs if we aren't going to paint them? And I mean it. I'm not trying to tell people how to play with their little men. I just can't wrap my mind around why you'd want to play with nekkid plastic. You already ante'ed up, go all in!

Let me ask this: can people with unpainted armies honestly say they don't like looking at a board with two, fully painted armies slugging it out?

So, in conclusion: If we're not going to take the time, why should we spend the cash?

biccat wrote:My question is: how does this affect your game? Why does it matter to you how other people choose to enjoy the game? Should official tournaments only be open to those tho paint their armies?

If one of my goals is to sell people brushes and paints, I guess (although I can see the holes with that analysis). Also some people really seem to take less enjoyment out of playing against grays.

Manchu wrote:If I had to guess, I'd think 'ard Boyz got sixed because it's contrary to the company's idea of "The Hobby." Also, they're selling a new paint line this year.

That, and I think changes within GWUS probably were a factor also.

To me, you can kinda tell that 'Ard Boyz was run by a sales department -- it pushes a lot of product, but perhaps at the expense of other products and the company's overall marketing goals.

Platuan4th wrote:

Saldiven wrote:

Manchu wrote:If 'Ard Boyz is replaced by Black Crusade style campaigns, I for one won't complain.

GW used to have some really interesting summer campaigns for 40K, but those pretty much died out years ago. I actually enjoyed the Eye of Terror campaign, as well as the one before that where the four new army list sub-variants were introduced. Gosh, can't remember the name, but it's the one that had the all webway portal Eldar army....Ulthwe' Strikeforce, I think it was called?

That WAS the Eye of Terror/13th Black Crusade.

They also did it for Armageddon 3(the one before that).

Darn. What was the one right after the Eye of Terror? (Wasn't there one after the EoT?) I seem to remember there being one more campaign after the one with the USF in it, but it's been several years, and I'm not sure anymore.

robertsjf wrote:I want to answer your questions w/o sounding like a prick, but I'll probably fail:
1) Tactially or Aesthetically? Tactically, it doesn't. Aesthetically, it does a little.
2) If I prefer playing against fully painted armies and my opponent doesn't have a fully painted army, does the diminishment of my overall enjoyment of the game count as mattering?
3) Yes, 3 color minimum. Otherwise, let's start using cardboard cutouts. Seriously. Why waste the money on the figs if we aren't going to paint them? And I mean it. I'm not trying to tell people how to play with their little men. I just can't wrap my mind around why you'd want to play with nekkid plastic. You already ante'ed up, go all in!

Let me ask this: can people with unpainted armies honestly say they don't like looking at a board with two, fully painted armies slugging it out?

So, in conclusion: If we're not going to take the time, why should we spend the cash?

If you are worried about playing in a tournament where you might face unpainted armies...don't play them.

If you don't want to play games at your LGS at 2500 points...don't play them.

If you simply don't want to play against unpainted armies ever...don't play them.

Play the game the way you want to play it. Let others do the same. Excluding people who don't enjoy the same aspects of The Hobby from playing is not nice.

biccat wrote:If you are worried about playing in a tournament where you might face unpainted armies...don't play them.

If you don't want to play games at your LGS at 2500 points...don't play them.

If you simply don't want to play against unpainted armies ever...don't play them.

Play the game the way you want to play it. Let others do the same. Excluding people who don't enjoy the same aspects of The Hobby from playing is not nice.

I'm surprised a lawyer is giving such mutually exclusive advice. If he's refusing to play games in the scenarios you're describing, he's also denying another player the ability to play the way he or she wants as most games stores don't have multiple players waiting under the tables and in the corners looking for games. If he follows your advice, he's absolutely excluding people (which he has every right to do).

Saldiven wrote:

Platuan4th wrote:

Saldiven wrote:

Manchu wrote:If 'Ard Boyz is replaced by Black Crusade style campaigns, I for one won't complain.

GW used to have some really interesting summer campaigns for 40K, but those pretty much died out years ago. I actually enjoyed the Eye of Terror campaign, as well as the one before that where the four new army list sub-variants were introduced. Gosh, can't remember the name, but it's the one that had the all webway portal Eldar army....Ulthwe' Strikeforce, I think it was called?

That WAS the Eye of Terror/13th Black Crusade.

They also did it for Armageddon 3(the one before that).

Darn. What was the one right after the Eye of Terror? (Wasn't there one after the EoT?) I seem to remember there being one more campaign after the one with the USF in it, but it's been several years, and I'm not sure anymore.

There was the Medusa V "campaign", but it wasn't really online in the same sense as EoT, more an in store thing.

The online campaign after EoT was for Fantasy.

Platuan4th wrote:

There was the Medusa V "campaign", but it wasn't really online, more an in store thing.

The online campaign after EoT was for Fantasy.

I remember the armageddon war in 1998ish, that was one of the best summer campaigns ever. I actually got to paint up a Store Ghaz and his meganobz which stomped around all summer and got to keep them at the end of the campaign. It was awesome! I liked the format and the organized play and all the fun stuff related. If 'ard boyz goes away for something like that then 'yipppie'

biccat wrote:Play the game the way you want to play it. Let others do the same. Excluding people who don't enjoy the same aspects of The Hobby from playing is not nice.

So, seems like you're cool with cardboard cutouts?