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.

Gornall wrote:

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).

of course it's not going to win any awards... but they're not giving out awards at ard boyz for painting, are they? hell, those of us in the pro camp don't want them to even SCORE it. we just would prefer if they had a minimum entry requirement. as for the less than one minute per figure, that's averaged and not all at once. i never thought i'd have to say this but you don't HAVE to watch the paint dry. you CAN do other things in the meantime (although if you want to sit there and watch it you can.. i guess). have you seen some of the nid dipped armies out there that a base coated (sprayed), had a few details like teeth and claws painted, and then dipped? you can pretty well stay in the lines and get each nid done in around a minute or two averaged out (not including drying time - see above). they actually look good enough for tabletop viewing. sure, they'll have a bit of paint bleeding over from a claw onto the hand or maybe a smudge onto the face from the teeth but that's not noticeable from your opponent's perspective (2-4 ft away). congrats, gw can now take pictures of the armies on the table while both opponents smile happily as they shake hands in the post game wrap up (or at least that's how every WD battle report i remember ended way back when i had a subcription to the catal... i mean magazine).

Always the same old boring cliche of calling elitists to people that prefer to keep the hobby not only like their personal preferences demands or even GW demands but by the incredible old small lead soldiers armies origins demands... Dont fool yourselfs this hobby includes and IS designed for painting, period.
Thats not elitism its tradicionalism and if you guys want tournaments with proxies, cards, unpainted plastics, soda caps, videogames whatever its your perrogative and go for it, just dont think for a second thats the how this hobby was designed.

People can play basketball without the ball cant they? they are enjoying themselves and thats good... just dont call a regular/ normal basketball player that plays with a ball a elitist because its freaking hilarious.

Its as slowed to call people elitists for defending the basics of normal standarts of this hobby as is calling lazy asses and facilitists to people that dont want to paint or be apart of this hobby.

Look... I want to play Warhammer 40k. You know, the game that has 1/3rd of a ruleset in a big book, and another 1/3rd of a ruleset in all the little codices, and a guy named Jervis that says you shouldn't need more than 2/3rds of a ruleset to have a good time?

Now I've seen plenty of examples in those books about how great models can look when painted. Yes, I want them to look cool. Yes, I see a difference between a painted and an unpainted army. Mine don't look that great, in part because they're far from finished, but I'm working on that.

The rules for the game say nothing about having to have your models painted. Yours are, that's great. You did a good job. Now my paint job is never going to match yours, so if I want to enter just about any tournament other than 'Ard Boyz, I pay $X to enter, and $X/5 or something similar goes towards the top prize which includes a painting score so I'll have to pull off something amazing to win by getting a larger game score margin than your painting margin, and another $X/5 or so goes towards just the painting awards that I can't win unless I'm the only guy that shows up, and maybe not even then. So cry me a river if there's one tournament where the painting doesn't matter, and I'm not paying for your award.

Malecus wrote:Now my paint job is never going to match yours, so if I want to enter just about any tournament other than 'Ard Boyz, I pay $X to enter, and $X/5 or something similar goes towards the top prize which includes a painting score so I'll have to pull off something amazing to win by getting a larger game score margin than your painting margin,

Well, be thankful that most GT-style tournaments have Battle Points count a lot more than Paint with a lot more than 5x variance...

Gornall wrote: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.

Which is fine. However, that attitude gets people labeled "elitists" or "snobs" by some of the same people saying "leave us alone and let us have our fun." Again, no specific problem here with 'Ard Boyz, but some of the argumentation gets highly hypocritical.

carmachu wrote:
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.

I didn't leave this out at all. At the time of this post, 35% don't care - they're either not attending anyway, or will do what it takes to play. 18% are happy that there is no painting requirement, while 48% think unpainted armies are bad.

18% is a minority, and more than twice as many people are in the painted army camp.


As for Darth's point that it's a sales event and people wouldn't buy stuff if it had to be painted, I don't buy it. People are making the effort to paint their stuff in order to play in the monthly AWC tournaments that Zero_Cool is running in Chicago, and that's a much smaller event than 'ard boyz. If painting is the requirement, people will still want to participate, and they'll get their crap painted. I remember a few years ago, Marcus Kim had his army stolen, and ended up painting their Team Tournament army in the couple of nights before the event. In your example of someone buying 9 valks to use in 'ard boyz, it would only take them maybe two or three more hours to prime them, drybrush them, and pick out a couple of details than it does to assemble them.

Again, look at the numbers in the poll. Of the people who cared enough to vote, for each person you potentially lose due to having a painting requirement, you potentially gain 2.5 who would otherwise have sat out because they didn't want to play against unpainted armies.

gorgon wrote:Which is fine. However, that attitude gets people labeled "elitists" or "snobs" by some of the same people saying "leave us alone and let us have our fun." Again, no specific problem here with 'Ard Boyz, but some of the argumentation gets highly hypocritical.

I'm not sure that I understood what you meant in this post. If you mean that calling anyone elitists/snobs/etc doesn't help anything, than yes I agree. If you want to play against armies that are painted for whatever reason (narrative, artistic appeal, better pictures for batreps, etc) instead of an unpainted army, that is your choice and you should not be criticised for that decision. People should respect other people enough to realize that my version of fun != your version of fun.

EDIT:

If GW were to start running GTs and other official events that require/reward painting, would everyone be alright with 'Ard Boyz being left as is? (Therefore leaving events for everyone?)

artyboy wrote: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.

Right, because you and Darth know how much revenue the hardboy generates? You... work for the company and have seen the numbers then?

I call shenanigans!

That's just a convenient assumption the "unpainted is good" crowd would like to asume is true. None of us non insider GW guys has any real idea. That's also ridiculous because there are no entry fees at the hardboy, in fact I suspect that hardboy probably makes little to nothing, and that the GW guys run it for love of the game. Its probably the only one (GW US event) left because it is the cheapest to run...

Here is a more reasonable possibility for prizes: they have better prizes at the hardboy, perhaps because they run it in house (in their own store) and don't have to pay for a venue space (hotel). I don't know for sure either, but this is more realistic than: hardboy guys buy so much stuff that they can give away a load of prizes.

Gornall wrote:

gorgon wrote:Which is fine. However, that attitude gets people labeled "elitists" or "snobs" by some of the same people saying "leave us alone and let us have our fun." Again, no specific problem here with 'Ard Boyz, but some of the argumentation gets highly hypocritical.

I'm not sure that I understood what you meant in this post. If you mean that calling anyone elitists/snobs/etc doesn't help anything, than yes I agree. If you want to play against armies that are painted for whatever reason (narrative, artistic appeal, better pictures for batreps, etc) .

Its not "whatever reason" its not like people now invented it or just defend it because they want to impose something personal to others... its THE reason wich is part and defines the hobby for many many years before even GW existed. Thats is what it seems hard to assimilate for some.
People that want a diferent take on this hobby are just as legit as next one ...but please just dont invert the situations and label people who like to play a game the way it was designed for like intolerant elitists...

From pure anecdotal evidence from what I saw around here, there were quite a few people who made signficant purchases to get ready for 'Ard Boyz. Whether or not having no painting requirement helped spur those purchases, I couldn't honestly say. However, I can say it did for me, as I bought probably $300+ of stuff to make my army more competitive, knowing that it could use it now and paint it at my own speed.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

NAVARRO wrote:Its not "whatever reason" its not like people now invented it or just defend it because they want to impose something personal to others... its THE reason wich is part and defines the hobby for many many years before even GW existed. Thats is what it seems hard to assimilate for some.
People that want a diferent take on this hobby are just as legit as next one ...but please just dont invert the situations and label people who like to play a game the way it was designed for like intolerant elitists...

That's exactly what I said. There is no reason to call someone who wants to play the game in what they consider a more pure fashion an elitist. By the same token, there is no reason to call someone with an un/half-painted army a lazy, undisciplined, slob.

IMO an army should be painted no matter what. Even if you just paint your marines all ultramarine blue and don't do any detail, at least it's better than bare metal/plastic. Building an army should take more effort than loading up Army Builder.

Actually, boredom got the best of me, I should just keep my trap shut and watch this unfold.

Sorry I posted anything.

NAVARRO wrote:People can play basketball without the ball cant they? they are enjoying themselves and thats good... just dont call a regular/ normal basketball player that plays with a ball a elitist because its freaking hilarious.

Basketball, in different parts of the country and the world, is played with 1+ people per side. It's played on dirt, asphalt, concrete, tile, wood and other surfaces. Some courts have hoops with cloth nets, chain nets, or no nets. Some don't even have a hoop; instead, there is a box nailed to a post or a wall. Some people play on a 10" rim while others use a lower rim. In some locations, there are referees, others play "call your own," and others use a "call goes to the loudest complainer" method. Some locations, palming a ball while pivoting/turning in the midst of a dribble is considered a traveling violation, in others, traveling is virtually never called. In some leagues, an offensive player has to all but shoot a person in the head to have an offensive foul called, while other groups call more evenly on offensive/defensive fouls. Some locations have nice, new Spalding basketballs, while others make due with balls that barely bounce made from local materials they have on hand.

Playing 40K without painting is not like playing basketball without a ball. Playing without painting would be more like playing outside with no lines on the court, no net on the rim, and nobody in uniform. In other words, it would be like playing basketball without any of the cosmetic things that don't really have anything to do with how the game is actually played.

That aside, the reason that those of us who, frankly, abhor painting call the painting protagonists "elitists" is simply because they are the ones telling us what is the "right" way to play the game.

Go to rural China and tell the avid basketball players there that they're not playing right because they don't have lines on the court, nets on the rim, uniforms, a referee, or even a decent ball. They don't care. They're having fun, and they neither need nor seek your approval to do so.

I'm genuinely a little depressed by this thread. Let me make a few things clear up front: I think people should paint their armies, I think painted armies look better, and I seldom if ever play with unpainted stuff. I like having paint requirements for big RTTs, GTs, indy GTs and the like. Those are events that really celebrate the full hobby, and as such it's not totally out of line to expect hobbyists, not just players, to show up.

I got into GW stuff through painting, but I stayed because of the game play and the idea of army building. Where I live, if I wanted to only play against painted stuff I'd play less than I already do, and I have enough imagination to enjoy the games regardless. For me, having players that don't paint is more useful than painters that don't play.

When I heard about hard boys, I was excited, because I'm a player. There's a reality to tournaments, where you don't always bring the best stuff, because it's not painted to match, or painted at all. Suddenly that was removed. So in the first year I could use a primed terminator squad, in the second I was able to field some pretty rough looking eldar. In 9 games over those two years, I think I played mostly painted stuff, but the unpainted stuff seemed to make my opponents army's better. Which was the whole point of the exercise.

The point was, it was an event aimed at a group of players that got very little love from GW before: competitive players that weren't big into painting. It was fun, it was a huge success. Some of that success, especially this year with the winning army being IG, probably was due to not requiring paint. It simply allowed more players, harder lists, and better competition.

This isn't assault on "standards," it's not a change in "traditionalism," and it's not a sign of disrespect or what not to allow this. It's a single event that's designed to operate differently than nearly any other miniatures wargame. It is a feast day, of sorts, where taboos are lifted, and rules aren't enforced. All cultures have them, and they're not the end of society. You can prank co-workers on April Fools. You can dress like a weirdo on halloween. If you go to an NFL game, you can paint your face and scream all game. You can't do that in other public areas, but we don't have thousands of middle age men painted and screaming at malls because we allow it at sporting events.

The charges of elitism aren't about painting standards in general, or at least shouldn't be in my opinion. They're leveled at the idea that having even a single event that flaunts convention is somehow awful even when that event does not need or grade painting. Yes, there is a little bit of "live and let live" going on here. There is an understanding maybe that there are people more interested in gaming than painting. There are people that are invested in their armies that don't need to paint them. There are, in fact, people that enjoy the hobby in different ways.

The most insidious part of this argument has been the way that it was made clear by several posters that players who don't paint aren't part of the hobby. That stunned me. Sure, they're not getting the most out of the hobby, but I assume that people that don't paint are making a rational choice as to why they don't. That, despite the hobby being centered on a game, wanting to enjoy the game for itself is somehow unthinkable. They were literally told to go play other games.... which is ridiculous when you realize that 40k is the only wargame played universally.

When you look at the views of those arguing against non-painted stuff at hard boys, it might go beyond elitism and into outright prejudice. It's not "we shouldn't allow those people to play with us" it's "we shouldn't allow those people to even join the community."

I think I've said my piece in this thread, and I'll respond to any responses, but honestly I'm going to do some thinking about the community and the people in it. I've seen a bit of an ugly side here, and it bugs me. What bugs me further is that I've never encountered this attitude in real life, only here, which makes me wonder if this is just part of where I live, if Dakka just supports a bunch of cranky grognards, this is just a manifestation of internet tough guy syndrome, or a combination of all three.

I know I'm taking this perversely personally (which is odd because these bans don't even apply to me, as I paint my stuff), but as I've said several times in this thread I resent rules that don't do good. Rules (and laws) should further the good of the community, they should make things better for the common good, and protect the interests of all. Painting standards in events that judge paint do that, as the community benefits from painted armies at those events. In Hard Boys, there is no real need for a paint requirement (absent the ID discussed above), as painting is not a factor, and the aim of the event is to be as inclusive as possible. Such a rule hurts, not helps, as it precludes people and armies from participating, making the event less competitive.

Rules with no benefit are, in my experiences, the hall mark of petty tyrants. They are laid down not to benefit anybody, but simply to remind people of the power of the ruler. I resent petty tyranny, and I take it's application pretty personally.

Gornall wrote:That's exactly what I said. There is no reason to call someone who wants to play the game in what they consider a more pure fashion an elitist. By the same token, there is no reason to call someone with an un/half-painted army a lazy, undisciplined, slob.

They reason they're called elitists is because they are the ones telling the non-painters that not painting your armies is playing the wrong way. Nobody ever said to the painters that how they chose to enjoy the game was wrong; it was the painters who derided the non-painters for somehow being in the wrong.

As a disclaimer, I only own two armies. A Dark Eldar army I've had for about 8 years and a C:CSM 3.5 Alpha Legion army I've had for about 3-4 years. Both are painted. However, I absolutely hate, abhor, loath, and detest painting. My utter dislike for the (for myself) complete waste of time that is miniature painting is the reason I only own two armies. I know if I buy another army, people I know will give me crap for not taking the time to paint it up; I really no longer have any desire to paint miniatures.

I know and admire several high quality painters. I often refer newer players to those painters to get pointers about how to develop their skills. I don't have anything in the world against people who enjoy painting until I hear them start in on someone who either is not good at or doesn't like painting their miniatures. I want to tell them, "Well, if that guy's miniatures being painted is so dang important to you, why don't you paint them? And, no, you don't get paid, because YOU are the one that wants them painted."

I like looking at painted miniatures, and I'm proud of the miniatures that I have painted.

But it's clear, I think, what the majority of the players want, considering the emergence of 'Ard Boyz tournaments and the decline of the GTs. People have spoken with their money.

Sure, the increased points limits play a big role in generating revenue for GW, but I think the elimination of Soft Scores also drives 'Ard Boyz's popularity, since Soft Scores were always controversial due to their subjective nature.

And there are those players who ONLY care about building armies on paper/Army Builder/XL and beating their opponent in a game. If GW miniatures came pre-assembled at the same retail price as models on sprue, it's a sure bet that this demographic of players would buy the pre-assembled miniatures. If GW didn't insist on tournament players using GW miniatures and following WYSIWYG rules, I would bet these players would not do these things either.

And you know what?

That is perfectly fine with me.

I have played against beautifully painted armies owned by TFG(s) and I still claw at my eyes over the experiences.

I have played against 100% proxied unpainted (and partially unassembled!) armies with Lego vehicles against the coolest of people, and I would gladly do so again, even at sponsored tournaments that I paid to enter.

Just because I bring painted armies doesn't mean I require my opponent to do the same. In fact, I've found that my enjoyment of the game has nearly nothing to do with how well painted my opponent's army is, but rather with how cool my opponent is.

Saldiven wrote:They reason they're called elitists is because they are the ones telling the non-painters that not painting your armies is playing the wrong way. Nobody ever said to the painters that how they chose to enjoy the game was wrong; it was the painters who derided the non-painters for somehow being in the wrong.

I'm not going back through all 9 pages to check this. However, I guarantee you that in the many previous incarnations of this thread, we've seen exchanges like this:

A: I don't paint my miniatures.

B: I think it's an important part of the hobby.

A: I should be free to enjoy the hobby however I want.

B: Fine, I'll probably do that too and choose not to play you.

A: Elitist snob!!!


Live and let live means that NO ONE calls each other names.

Edit:
@Polonius: Stop with the hyperbole...prejudice, tyranny, etc. We're talking about social norms involving toy soldiers, for chrissakes.

pombe wrote:In fact, I've found that my enjoyment of the game has nearly nothing to do with how well painted my opponent's army is, but rather with how cool my opponent is.

+1

I'm not going back through all 9 pages to check this. However, I guarantee you that in the many previous incarnations of this thread, we've seen exchanges like this:

A: I don't paint my miniatures.

B: I think it's an important part of the hobby.

A: I should be free to enjoy the hobby however I want.

B: Fine, I'll probably do that too and choose not to play you.

A: Elitist snob!!!


Live and let live means that NO ONE calls each other names.

+1 Had "A" said "NP, that's your choice." at the end, then life would be hunky-dory IMO. However, "B" saying to "A", "You're doing it wrong and I don't think you deserve to play in 'Ard Boyz." is likely to get a big ol' FU in return.

gorgon wrote:Edit:
@Polonius: Stop with the hyperbole...prejudice, tyranny, etc. We're talking about social norms involving toy soldiers, for chrissakes.

I call 'em like I see 'em. There is a dislike over a philosophy or way of life that manifests itself even in areas where such dislike is not useful. That's prejudice, man.

And I said petty tyranny. Social norms are rules, and the idea of clinging to rules for their own sake, absent any benefit, is a sign of injustice, and if not tyranny, an overly authoritative body politic.

And if they're just toy soldiers, why are you so bent out of shape with how people want to play them? I've explained why I'm emotionally invested, but don't' pretend that you're not. You're posting repeatedly to support the idea that allowing a single event in which people can play with their toy soldiers in a certain is wrong, and somehow I'm the person that's lost perspective? Check yourself.

<_< omg.. I actually got my self-esteem again.. and I don't feel like I'm a loser for having an opinion.

Have not realized that almost all of the people here who have been "discussing" the side of "unpainted armies are good" are actually people who paint their armies? A lot of them are in a way defending peoples right to choose to paint or not paint their armies and then defending their right to be able to have full access to all the facets of the game, that being able to play with more people via tournaments and even having the ability to win in those tournaments.

Here are some indisputable facts that a lot of the people here know.

Painted armies are good.
Unpainted armies aren't bad, but I think they would look better painted.

Painted armies are better than unpainted armies, but this isn't a war over should the hobby be taken seriously this is a war over, should that hobby be taken into account when people are trying to win the GAME.

The poll should have been:
Do you think 'Ard Boyz should have a painting requirement?
Yes, please explain why.
No, please explain why.
I don't care either way, I'm just here to have fun.

Instead, a lot of the people here have created this void between the two arguing parties, whereas a lot of them agree on facts core to both arguments.


Addendum for elitism.

dictionary.com wrote:
e·lit·ism or é·lit·ism (ĭ-lē'tĭz'əm, ā-lē'-)
n.
1. The belief that certain persons or members of certain classes or groups deserve favored treatment by virtue of their perceived superiority, as in intellect, social status, or financial resources.
2.
1. The sense of entitlement enjoyed by such a group or class.
2. Control, rule, or domination by such a group or class.

In this situation, I'm splitting the hobby into two defined groups, the people who paint and the people who don't paint. In this argument, people are clearly stating that the people who don't paint should not be allowed to play in 'Ard Boyz by imposing a painting requirement. That is a form of elitism, what a lot of people are doing, is that they're taking their being called elitist personally and blowing it out of proportion. It would be like if I called you Racists, but in regards to painting, so like Paintists. You're forcing people who should have the same rights and opportunities as you to not, by imposing limitations. Now in these situations, they're not unattainable limitations, but to some they might be.

Down with Paintism.. <_<

I'm encouraged by this poll. I was pleasantly surprised to see the clear majority say that unpainted armies are bad.

I have always supported miniatures wargaming as a positive experience and a great community especially for young people because of the dedication needed to play. This includes the discipline to read the rules and know them, the financial commitment, where expense is a significant barrier, and the discipline to complete a painted army.

The immediate respect between players who have both spent many times longer to prepare then will ever be spent playing creates a bond of comradery between them that transcends who wins the game. The real travesty being players who play unpainted will never know this.

The answer isn't to cry foul and say there needs to be an event with lower standards.

It's particularly sad when the last company sponsored event left has such a low standard. Perhaps if there were more events, this wouldn't be such a polarized issue.

I have spent much time in the last 10 years teaching quick methods for army painting classes, working with children's groups and young players, giving lectures and teaching painting at the LGS's in my area. I even paint other peoples example figures sometimes! The idea is to bring people up!

The key difference between positions is you have to earn it, all the time. Lowering the standard, even once, just leaves the door open and degrades the entire social experience.

I think this is especially important, keeping a high standard, because of public opinion of gamers, as typically, un disciplined, uncouth, introverted, a-social people. As an older player, and as a person who has seen, and had to deal with the stereotypes, I think maintaining standards is vital.

If the hearts and minds of people are ever going to be changed, about our hobby, it's up to us to do so.

PS (This is an awesome thread, what a great discussion, my thanks to all the writers and participants, whatever your take was!)

Augustus wrote:It's particularly sad when the last company sponsored event left has such a low standard. Perhaps if there were more events, this wouldn't be such a polarized issue.

I guess my difference of opinion comes from I don't see this as a "low standard". I see it as a difference in emphasis. I think 'Ard Boyz was designed to emphasize and showcase the gameplay aspect of the hobby. Likewise GDs emphasize and showcase the painting aspect. GTs provide a middle ground that showcases the hobby as a whole. I do think it is sad that GW's only sponsored event only emphasized/showcased one aspect of the hobby... the gameplay aspect. Hopefully next year that will change.

Gornall wrote:However, "B" saying to "A", "You're doing it wrong and I don't think you deserve to play in 'Ard Boyz." is likely to get a big ol' FU in return.

But is that what the "B"s have been saying in this thread? Or are they just saying "good event, but it'd be a better event with some level of painting requirement"? You may feel like there's no difference. I disagree. I don't have any issues with 'Ard Boyz as is, but I dunno that a 3-color minimum creates a hardship for anyone or creates any real barrier to entry either.

I'm sure there are comments here up and down the "B" continuum and some deservedly provoke a defensive response. But in a very general, overall sense I feel like *some* of the defensiveness is over the top from the "A"s. I'm gathering that's it's partially about built-up frustration regarding norms within the hobby community and not only this specific question about the 'Ard Boyz.

However -- one-track mind that I am -- that still leads me back to wondering why someone would choose this hobby if group norms were going to be a problem for them? If said group is your friends that play exclusively in your basement, then fine, there IS no issue.

The catch here is that we're talking about a public event that pulls a wide range of people. And thus established, wider group/community norms generally start to come into play. And no matter what anyone says, painting has been part of miniatures wargaming and there are significant numbers of people who feel painting is a requirement. In other words, it's not as if anyone would have been surprised if the 'Ard Boyz had a painting requirement from the get-go.

Maybe I just give up too easily, but I can't see myself getting involved in something in which I know I'm gonna be banging my head into a wall over and over again. *shrug*

Gornall wrote:

Augustus wrote:It's particularly sad when the last company sponsored event left has such a low standard. Perhaps if there were more events, this wouldn't be such a polarized issue.

I guess my difference of opinion comes from I don't see this as a "low standard". I see it as a difference in emphasis. I think 'Ard Boyz was designed to emphasize and showcase the gameplay aspect of the hobby. Likewise GDs emphasize and showcase the painting aspect. GTs provide a middle ground that showcases the hobby as a whole. I do think it is sad that GW's only sponsored event only emphasized/showcased one aspect of the hobby... the gameplay aspect. Hopefully next year that will change.

You're right. I don't see this as a "Low Standard". I see GW allowing unpainted models as "No Standard".

I'm not a GD level painter, and I probably never will be. But, I have a standard that I strive to meet and I believe that GW moving away from having any standard at all degrades the hobby as a whole. But then again, so does the target audience and the 'Ard Boys crowd (IMNSHO), so I guess it's par for the course.

Is it just me, or am I noticing a distinct lack of consensus in this thread?

Polonius wrote:I call 'em like I see 'em. There is a dislike over a philosophy or way of life that manifests itself even in areas where such dislike is not useful. That's prejudice, man.

And I said petty tyranny. Social norms are rules, and the idea of clinging to rules for their own sake, absent any benefit, is a sign of injustice, and if not tyranny, an overly authoritative body politic.

And if they're just toy soldiers, why are you so bent out of shape with how people want to play them? I've explained why I'm emotionally invested, but don't' pretend that you're not. You're posting repeatedly to support the idea that allowing a single event in which people can play with their toy soldiers in a certain is wrong, and somehow I'm the person that's lost perspective? Check yourself.

Some advice -- tomorrow, hopefully after a good night's sleep, sit down and read my posts and your posts and tell me which set is more emotional.

I've posted repeatedly that I have no personal problem with 'Ard Boyz mainly because *I* don't always have an entirely painted army either. Hey, I'm a slow painter. Do I think that painting is part of the hobby? Yes, I do, and I think events with painting requirements tend to raise the visual appeal of said event. Do I advocate browbeating, namecalling or discrediting of those without painted armies? No. And I don't think I've done that. At least that wasn't my intent.

As I said in another post, I'm fine with 'Ard Boyz as is but don't see the notion of a low painting requirement as an unreasonable request, given our hobby. I've said umpteen times I personally don't get the attraction to the hobby if painting's not a piece of it. I don't think I ever said that those who choose not to paint should somehow have their miniatures stripped from them and gaming license revoked. So feel free to paint me as "bent out of shape" and some kind of extremist in this discussion, LOL.

Note that your definition of tyranny above also rests upon the notion that painting is "absent any benefit." To you, this may be true. Others feel differently. So what's tyranny to you represents justice and defense of traditional values to others. Which I think you'll find is usually how it goes in groups and communities. That's probably coming across poorly as a dismissive "that's life, kid." That's not really my intent, although it's also not far from the truth as I see it. Perhaps it's because I'm an older guy who is too emotionally invested elsewhere to "fight the fight." I probably just take a more functional approach and consider if X group has Y norms, do I want to be a part of X group or not?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:Is it just me, or am I noticing a distinct lack of consensus in this thread?

Yikes, man. I feel like I'm just right of center on this topic, but I'm getting painted as freakin' Pat Buchanan out here, LOL.

gorgon wrote: 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*

How's it any stranger to someone who just paints a couple of figures an enters a GD(or even better doesnt enter) and never plays?

People have different levels of fun, and different levels of enjoyment. *shrug*


Automatically Appended Next Post:

gorgon wrote:

Which is fine. However, that attitude gets people labeled "elitists" or "snobs" by some of the same people saying "leave us alone and let us have our fun." Again, no specific problem here with 'Ard Boyz, but some of the argumentation gets highly hypocritical.

Not really. Folks want to be left alone to enjoy their variant of fun. In the case of hardboyz playing without painting. The attituide come from they "you must paint!" side.

This speaking from someone who has several painted armies, but ultimately I dont care about painting. I'd rather play.

Polonius wrote:For me, having players that don't paint is more useful than painters that don't play.

To me this cuts to the heart of the larger "hobby or game" argument and a I completely agree with Polonius. Pity we don't live closer together, mate.

Unfortunately, that point doesn't completely address the issue of 'Ard Boys. Good thing Polonius kept writing:

Polonius wrote:The charges of elitism aren't about painting standards in general, or at least shouldn't be in my opinion. They're leveled at the idea that having even a single event that flaunts convention is somehow awful even when that event does not need or grade painting.

I responded to this poll by choosing the "don't like unpainted armies" option but as I read more of this thread, I can't help but wonder what this one event does to destroy the hobby. The one convincing argument in that regard is that 'Ard Boys is the last remaining big GW-sponsored event in the US and allowing unpainted armies at this last universal, official event undermines the hobby. If that's the case, however, shouldn't it be instructive about what GW thinks of as the reality of the hobby in the US--namely, as Polonius remarked, players who don't paint are more useful to GW and, in their view, to the hobby than painters who don't play?

gorgon wrote:

Polonius wrote:I call 'em like I see 'em. There is a dislike over a philosophy or way of life that manifests itself even in areas where such dislike is not useful. That's prejudice, man.

And I said petty tyranny. Social norms are rules, and the idea of clinging to rules for their own sake, absent any benefit, is a sign of injustice, and if not tyranny, an overly authoritative body politic.

And if they're just toy soldiers, why are you so bent out of shape with how people want to play them? I've explained why I'm emotionally invested, but don't' pretend that you're not. You're posting repeatedly to support the idea that allowing a single event in which people can play with their toy soldiers in a certain is wrong, and somehow I'm the person that's lost perspective? Check yourself.

Some advice -- tomorrow, hopefully after a good night's sleep, sit down and read my posts and your posts and tell me which set is more emotional.

I think mine have become more emotional, but I was just pointing out that there is clearly an emotional/ideological bent to the posts made by you and others.

I've posted repeatedly that I have no personal problem with 'Ard Boyz mainly because *I* don't always have an entirely painted army either. Hey, I'm a slow painter. Do I think that painting is part of the hobby? Yes, I do, and I think events with painting requirements tend to raise the visual appeal of said event. Do I advocate browbeating, namecalling or discrediting of those without painted armies? No. And I don't think I've done that. At least that wasn't my intent.

Apologies for painting you with the same brush. However, you seem to be carrying the idea of "standards," and that's part of what I'm discussing.

As I said in another post, I'm fine with 'Ard Boyz as is but don't see the notion of a low painting requirement as an unreasonable request, given our hobby. I've said umpteen times I personally don't get the attraction to the hobby if painting's not a piece of it. I don't think I ever said that those who choose not to paint should somehow have their miniatures stripped from them and gaming license revoked. So feel free to paint me as "bent out of shape" and some kind of extremist in this discussion, LOL.

Again, I was responding your posts, which are more moderate, but also addressing the far more reactionary aspects in this thread. Others have, not you, but they have implied that non-painters should be shown the door.

If your goal was simply to point out that painted miniatures are a good standard for play, than you can stop posting: we all agree. I don't see much of the appeal in gaming with unpainted stuff, but I can at least see that it's possible for it to exist.

Note that your definition of tyranny above also rests upon the notion that painting is "absent any benefit." To you, this may be true. Others feel differently. So what's tyranny to you represents justice and defense of traditional values to others. Which I think you'll find is usually how it goes in groups and communities. That's probably coming across poorly as a dismissive "that's life, kid." That's not really my intent, although it's also not far from the truth as I see it. Perhaps it's because I'm an older guy who is too emotionally invested elsewhere to "fight the fight." I probably just take a more functional approach and consider if X group has Y norms, do I want to be a part of X group or not?

No, I know that's exactly how life works, which is why I picked the wording I did. Painting has benefit, no doubt, which is why the standard is good and useful. What I argue is that there are times and places where when the reason for a standard is eliminated, so can the standard. Wearing a coat and tie to work is good because it presents a professional image. Having casual Fridays in an office where nobody meets with clients on Fridays eliminates some of the reason. It doesn't make the office less professional, and often has a benefit. That's what I argue for with Hard Boys. That there is more benefit to eliminating the standard, in this one instance, than there is in maintaining it. Keeping it in the face of that imbalance is simply having rules for rules sake.

Frazzled wrote:Is it just me, or am I noticing a distinct lack of consensus in this thread?

Yikes, man. I feel like I'm just right of center on this topic, but I'm getting painted as freakin' Pat Buchanan out here, LOL.

carmachu wrote:

gorgon wrote: 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*

How's it any stranger to someone who just paints a couple of figures an enters a GD(or even better doesnt enter) and never plays?

See, I'm actually not sure that folks at either extreme end and I share the same hobby. I feel like I can relate to someone who's 90/10, 10/90 or anything in between. Things get foggy for me at 100/0 and 0/100.

While I think you can make the case that a miniature painter picks GW miniatures because they're among the best around, the case IMO feels weaker for the pure gamer who picks GW games.

I dunno. I've probably mucked around enough in this thread. Time for me to get out before I start sinking, LOL.