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.

Deadshane1 wrote:
Humans...what a stupid breed.

Yep! Not only that but some are also lazy

Seriously, do you play golf without golfballs? or skydiving without paras?
Its not a tournament imposition in order to exclude you, its just part of the freaking hobby you choosed to play.

djones520 wrote:I thought this was a standard rule for a lot of tournies. *shrugs*

I did as well, except with a few special exceptions noted in by the tourney. I have been to both, but every "generic RTT" I have been to that had a fee involved had that requirement.

I think there are three parallel issues here.

The first issue is if RTTs should, in general, encourage or require painted models. I think that as 40k is a multi-faceted hobby, there are plenty of ways to celebrate the various aspects. Hard boys and "store tournies" are often solely about battle points, while more formal RTTs and GTs have a wider lens. There is plenty of room for both in the hobby. A store near me, for example, does four RTTs a year, with 9 store tournaments in the off months without any paint requirement. A lot of gamers like painted armies, a lot don't, so there's plenty of room for compromise.

The second issue is changing rules for store tournaments solely or even mostly to exclude certain people. I have no problem with excluding folks that the store doesn't want to game (if they are abusive, cheaters, or just plain obnoxious), but any attempt to push people out simply because they win a lot is both shady and petty. If in this particular case, the rules were changed simply to push out the OP and his boys because they win too much, that is dishonorable in the extreme. Of course, it's very hard to distinguish motive in cases like this. Given that paint requirements are in general a good thing, it's hard to tell when the change is simply to increase the hobby aspect and when it is malicious.

The third issue is trying to dodge the requirements with some sort of gimmick. Three dots, the layer approach (take a model, dip fully in color 1, dip 2/3 in color 2, and 1/3 in color 3) and other methods are a clear violation of the spirit of the rule, and often a violation of the actual rules. I think that any such attempt shoudl result in being barred from the tournament, particularly if it were advertised and promoted as painted only. The reason is a simple one: if even one person changed their optimum list because they didn't have a unit painted up, it's unfair to allow people with unpainted armies in the door.

A related issue that is tightly related is the simply fact that a bona fide three color standard is simply not difficult to attain. Prime the models, then spray with the main color, pick out the base, pick out the weapon, and paint a few details. Throw on a wash if you want and you're done. Now, I think that having tournaments without paint requirements is a good thing as it allows a player to try out units before painting them, but a steady stream of paint required RTTs does not seem overly onerous, and it often is more inclusive to a wider range of hobbyists.

Tazok wrote:Deadshane1,

This whole thread pretty much confirms that the Wrecking Crew (or at least a portion of it) doesn't care about being a good sport or being a good opponent (by trying to break the tournament requirements through a loophole)

That isn't quite fair. All you have is a single member of the group expressing his view.

Regarding painting. For Orks (what I'm working on now), prime black, drybrush Boltgun Metal, drybrush Gnarloc Green, and then drybrush brown for the pants. You can probably do all of this with a #4 flat brush.

I feel your pain for not being able to play because of paint requirements, I really do, it took me a year to paint 1,500Points of necrons >.< and my Orks are not getting any prittyer by the day.

But suck it the frak up kiddo. Damb, you cry like a little girl because you have to paint (Or get some one els to paint for you like I am ) your army. Clearly you have no time problems, your just lazy.

Frazzled wrote:

djones520 wrote:I thought this was a standard rule for a lot of tournies. *shrugs*

I did as well, except with a few special exceptions noted in by the tourney. I have been to both, but every "generic RTT" I have been to that had a fee involved had that requirement.

My FLGS doesn't do Rogue Traders yet, so the tournies they hold they don't require that minimum, but they do base a part of your score on painting. That 3 color thing is supposed to get you a 3 out of 5 score. Some paint will get you 2, and none will get you 1. Once we switch to RTT's (which is supposed to be soon), I'm not sure if this store will enforce the must have 3 color rules, since I think I'm the only person right now who can field a fully painted army, but it'll probably be done eventually.

Polonius wrote:

The third issue is trying to dodge the requirements with some sort of gimmick. Three dots, the layer approach (take a model, dip fully in color 1, dip 2/3 in color 2, and 1/3 in color 3) and other methods are a clear violation of the spirit of the rule, and often a violation of the actual rules.

Dipping is a violation of the spirit of the rules of a three color requirement? Really?

I've found that there is a higher quality participation in tournaments that have a painting requirement, than at those without.

There's a trade off, to be sure. You get more people attending tournaments without requirements. However, many of the people that go to the unpainted tournaments are mouthbreathers.

That's not to say everyone who doesn't want to paint an army is like that, but I'd venture to say that for every quality gamer who will show up because there is no painting requirement, two more quality gamers will stay home for the same reason. You get a larger overall tournament without requiring painted armies, but at the cost of quality participation.

I know that when I first heard about the Gorilla Tactics con/tournament, I was all set to drive out to Michigan. When I heard that there was no painting requirement, or score, I figured why bother?

I think it sucks for you (Deadshane) that the store that you've been playing at is changing their approach. But, that is their choice. Trying to rules-lawyer the tournament entry requirements is pretty lame though.

I think he meant dipping in thirds

malfred wrote:Dipping is a violation of the spirit of the rules of a three color requirement? Really?

I'd say it is if you're just doing it easter egg style.

....rrrrrrr.....
....rrrrrrr.....
..yyyyyyyy..
..yyyyyyyy..
..bbbbbbbb..
..bbbbbbbb..

malfred wrote:

Polonius wrote:

The third issue is trying to dodge the requirements with some sort of gimmick. Three dots, the layer approach (take a model, dip fully in color 1, dip 2/3 in color 2, and 1/3 in color 3) and other methods are a clear violation of the spirit of the rule, and often a violation of the actual rules.

Dipping is a violation of the spirit of the rules of a three color requirement? Really?

I don't think he's referring to the dipping technique, but rather, to dipping the models into a paint pot in order to get a color on their feet...

Polonius wrote:
The second issue is changing rules for store tournaments solely or even mostly to exclude certain people. I have no problem with excluding folks that the store doesn't want to game (if they are abusive, cheaters, or just plain obnoxious), but any attempt to push people out simply because they win a lot is both shady and petty. If in this particular case, the rules were changed simply to push out the OP and his boys because they win too much, that is dishonorable in the extreme. Of course, it's very hard to distinguish motive in cases like this. Given that paint requirements are in general a good thing, it's hard to tell when the change is simply to increase the hobby aspect and when it is malicious.

I would find it terribly hard to believe that this is the sole reason they're enforcing this rule. The reason I believe that is the fact that all the players have to do to avoid the attempted exclusion is to paint their darn minis.

My aforementioned Alpha Legion three-color army was completely painted in two days before a tournament that required painting. It consisted of 62 infantry models. It really isn't that difficult to achieve the three color requirement if you decide to do it. This coming from someone (me) that absolutely hates painting.

Deadshane, have you tried talking to the folks running the tournament to see what the reason for the change is? Have you confirmed or disproved your suspicions?

Next, you have to ask yourself one real question: how important is the tournament to you? If it's really important - just paint your figs and get it over with. Once you've painted them - then that force is done, and you could use it again in future tournaments without a concern.

Personally, I support the decision to require painted figs. It would be like buying a Christmas tree, and then wondering why the family insists on decorating it. The aesthetic application of decoration (in this case, paint) is considered an important part of the whole.

And if I were in your shoes and was able to confirm the suspicions you had, I would be doubly motivated to splash some paint on, meet the rules, and then DOMINATE the goonies out of the tournament.

You mentioned that RTT participation at your LGS has dropped off... perhaps this is just an experiment to see if they can rekindle some interest in their tournaments? If participation was already at an all time low - could they do worse by installing this rule?

Most tournaments I've been in (when I used to go to them), almost always required painted figs (sometimes even only two colors), and they would definitely disqualify folks who tried to 'get around' the rule (i.e. dipping & dotting, etc). It gave me another motivation to actually paint my figs - since participating in those tournaments was important enough to me at the time.

Regardless of your stance on the topic, though - it'd be a good idea (in my opinion) to find out the 'why', before writing-off the store, the staff, or any specific people who might very well be innocent of any perceived insult.

Just my 2 coppers, tho, and good luck if you are able to make it into the tourny!

I smell a troll.

Anyways I am a member of the WC and have well over 10 awards for painting... many of them are from GTs as well.

G

Yes, I meant dipping easter egg style. Prime a marine white, dip fully in watered down yellow. Let it dry, then dip partially in watered down red. Let dry, then dip the head in watered down purple. Voila! Three colors on each model!

Everyone whom hates painting but loves a painted army should PM me and I'll paint your army for a moderate fee. really, I could use the business!

Saldiven wrote:
I would find it terribly hard to believe that this is the sole reason they're enforcing this rule. The reason I believe that is the fact that all the players have to do to avoid the attempted exclusion is to paint their darn minis.

I know nothing about the situation, but don't find it hard to believe that one gaming clique would do something passive aggressive to screw with another gaming clique. Maybe I'm cynical, but I've seen gaming groups (in all types of games) get really nasty from time to time. It is certainly in the realm of possibility.

And FWIW, there are those, like me, who wouldn't play in any kind of RTT or tournament without a painting requirement.

The local GW battlebunker doesn't require painted armies (or even apparently an attempt at painted armies) to play in the bunker, and as a result, I don't play there, and they don't get my business.

Playing against painted armies is one of the few remaining joys in tournaments. Sure, some are better than others, but there is at least a minimal investment if you've painted the army.

And heck, if you've got all of those other painted armies that you're bored with, you could always use one of those, couldn't you.

Redbeard wrote:

malfred wrote:

Polonius wrote:

The third issue is trying to dodge the requirements with some sort of gimmick. Three dots, the layer approach (take a model, dip fully in color 1, dip 2/3 in color 2, and 1/3 in color 3) and other methods are a clear violation of the spirit of the rule, and often a violation of the actual rules.

Dipping is a violation of the spirit of the rules of a three color requirement? Really?

I don't think he's referring to the dipping technique, but rather, to dipping the models into a paint pot in order to get a color on their feet...

Okay, I get it now. That's hilarious!

Have you ever seen it done?

Frazzled wrote:

Danny Internets wrote:

Not everyone is interested in the painting part of the hobby just as not everyone is interested in the competitive aspect of the hobby. When you don't like painting, painting 50+ figures feels like a tremendous amount of wasted time.

Thats fine. Play at tourneys that don't have painting requirements. Trying to barge in on tourneys that DO have requirements with an unpainted army, or one with three dots, doesn't meet the requirements of that tourney. Its a simple thing.

How is he barging in? There is a painting requirement and he meets the requirement. End of story. If that requirement is not sufficient for the tournament that is the fault of the TO (or whoever wrote the rules), not the player. It's not like the dot or dippings techniques are new--people have been using them for years when there are painting requirements.

Enforce the rules that you devise--not a set of secret guidelines that you should have told everyone about but didn't. If you only want fully painting armies playing then say only fully painted armies are permitted. If you only want Golden Daemon award winners playing then state that. It's a simple thing.

Danny Internets wrote:
Enforce the rules that you devise--not a set of secret guidelines that you should have told everyone about but didn't. If you only want fully painting armies playing then say only fully painted armies are permitted. If you only want Golden Daemon award winners playing then state that. It's a simple thing.

Are you advocating a RAW approach to tournament entrance?

If the guidelines state-must be painted, and he shows up with an unpainted army, or one with "three dots" then he hasn't met the requirements of the tourney and he is out.

Thats in his post-painted is a requirement for those tournaments.

My local 'F'LGS just started REQUIRING a 3 colour minimum on all models in the army for next months RTT. I can only guess this is some hairbrained attempt at fixing ailing attendance...either that or some of the guys that 'run' the store are imposing themselves on the store owner in an attempt to establish dominance in the 40k community locally. (sometimes gamers can be sickeningly sad in their attempts to become the 'alpha-male' amongst other nerds that have never gotten laid)

Please show the road from “my FLGS started requiring” to "set of secret guidelines" Danny Internets. This should be interesting.

Ok, I didn't read all the comments as I got into this late.

But here is my take.

I was so angry when my local Games Workshop store relaxed their painting policy and let everyone play with unpainted models.

I hate playing against hordes of grey or black troops, such a boring game, as the person you are playing doesn't care enough about the hobby to paint his damned figures.

The argument about playing unpainted until a GT isn't very solid IMHO, as it is again just showing you have no interest in the hobby, just winning games.

I will dock huge points from peoples scores if they show up with unpainted or half painted armies to GTs and the like, but I will also do the same if they bring that to a RTT, as it shows they are just lazy.

Use last years army until the new one is painted, I'm sure the boredom of said army can't be that overwhelming, and if it is? Well that is just more incentive to paint a new army faster

carmachu wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

As a former tournament organizer, I'd throw you out on your butt.

If you don't like it don't attend. This is a sort of tourney attempting to push at least a minimum of painting and othetr aspects, not just raw gaming. The idea of playing against "the grey frontier" does not reflect on other aspects of the tourney. Unless you are a newb (haven't said that in a few years) there's no excuse for at least a least this base level of painting on your minis. Its also a leading economic indicator that a player who brings an unpainted force may be TFG. If you want to play a Ard Boyz tournament fine, play those tourneys.

Your welcome to. But then I'd permantly take my money elsewhere. And any friends to.

With an attitude like that, I doubt you'd have many friends to begin with.

Polonius wrote:

Saldiven wrote:
I would find it terribly hard to believe that this is the sole reason they're enforcing this rule. The reason I believe that is the fact that all the players have to do to avoid the attempted exclusion is to paint their darn minis.

I know nothing about the situation, but don't find it hard to believe that one gaming clique would do something passive aggressive to screw with another gaming clique. Maybe I'm cynical, but I've seen gaming groups (in all types of games) get really nasty from time to time. It is certainly in the realm of possibility.

Hahaha...well, I guess it's because I'm aggressive-aggressive; if I didn't want a guy playing in my tourney, I'd tell him so and invite him to either quietly observe or go home. Instituting a painting rule such as this wouldn't occur to me....

1) You spend all that money on miniatures and yet you
don't paint them.....why?
2) You spend all that money on miniatures and yet you
decide only to put 3 dots of paint on them...why?
3) Are you sure you're happy to spend all that money
and yet not get the full benefit from completed
miniatures?
4)Are you only interested in winning at all cost?Dare
I say it a powergamer?
5)If you are at all interested in the spirit of the
hobby you really should paint your figures.Trust me,
you'll get more respect.
6)Unpainted miniatures....why?

Ifurita wrote:

Tazok wrote:Deadshane1,

This whole thread pretty much confirms that the Wrecking Crew (or at least a portion of it) doesn't care about being a good sport or being a good opponent (by trying to break the tournament requirements through a loophole)

That isn't quite fair. All you have is a single member of the group expressing his view.

I disagree, I think it is absolutely fair.

Especially given their reaction to the situation being to send 2 of their members here to run damage control and then bolt back to their forums when the attempt isn;t recieved as they expected.

Its more or less just one more bullet point on the already large list of why people don't respect them, and it is just as valid as any other.

Saldiven wrote:

Polonius wrote:

Saldiven wrote:
I would find it terribly hard to believe that this is the sole reason they're enforcing this rule. The reason I believe that is the fact that all the players have to do to avoid the attempted exclusion is to paint their darn minis.

I know nothing about the situation, but don't find it hard to believe that one gaming clique would do something passive aggressive to screw with another gaming clique. Maybe I'm cynical, but I've seen gaming groups (in all types of games) get really nasty from time to time. It is certainly in the realm of possibility.

Hahaha...well, I guess it's because I'm aggressive-aggressive; if I didn't want a guy playing in my tourney, I'd tell him so and invite him to either quietly observe or go home. Instituting a painting rule such as this wouldn't occur to me....

Well, then you're a credit to the hobby. In my experience the best gaming societies are run by either a benevolent by absolute dictator (a store employee or agent) or tend to be loosely governed by guys that tend to have big, loud personalities but have the actual best interests of the group at heart. In other words, a-holes that give a damn.

Fafnir wrote:I'm a bit of a germaphobe, so having to touch that metal with nothing covering it is a bit... unsettling.

Is metal infectious or something?

Painting your army is also a way to show that you respect your opponent.

I've only played in one RTT which had a painting requirement, and I was fortunate enough to go against all painted armies. Had I gotten that person who brought in the unpainted Tau, I would have been very disappointed, and also would have been looking for some sign that the person wasn't trying to pull a fast one - for example if all their models are grouped together and it's impossible to tell the squads apart, or nothing is clearly divided or organized.

Trying to rules-lawyer a painting requirement... That was amusing.