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.

As long as the tournament is purely about the gaming aspect, then I don't see any reason why the models have to be painted. As long as they're publicizing it purely about PLAYING rather than paining, that's fine, and I agree that the idea of a purely-playing tournament would be a great way to get people involved who are new and don't have painted armies, or paint really slowly, or whatever.

Having said that...

- I don't have NEARLY as much fun playing against an identical grey tide. I really don't. I wouldn't want to play someone with an unpainted army, it spoils the feel of the game for me. I think it isn't too far off the mark to say that you should be respectful to your opponent and paint your army. I wouldn't enter 'Ard Boyz for exactly this reason.

- The name 'Ard Boyz' is a bit insulting if you're more of a 'hobby' type, like myself. It implies that it's where you find THE BEST players, because it's only about the playing. It degrades the concept of the Grand Tournaments by allowing people to dismiss them as 'soft' tournaments, like if you win the GT it's one thing, but you can only really 'prove' yourself by playing in 'Ard Boyz. I don't think it's very healthy.

- I suggested it would be good for getting 'new' players who don't have a painted army, but BECAUSE it's all about the winning, you lose this crowd. Someone has already posted here saying he won't enter again until he gets better - is that really an attitude we want to encourage with a tournament. 'Hey, you're new, enter Ard Boyz and you'll get ground into the dust by all the ultra-competitive types'. The large points values also discriminate against new players.

Howard A Treesong wrote:I don't think unpainted models should be allowed in a professional tournament. I'm amazed this is even allowed. What you do privately under house rules is your own bag, but in a public tournament it's just not on IMO. For a start it looks bad in a number of ways. It's not great publicity if the tournament looks like a bunch of people playing on a sunday afternoon trying out their latest purchases hastily put together. I cannot believe they would ever use photos of unpainted miniatures in any promotional material later on.

This is a really important point that few people have touched upon. Since you can't use any pictures from it, Ard Boyz is a very bad way of promoting the hobby. It gives no publicity to the hobby.


I think there IS a place for non-painted tournaments, but they should be on more of a local level, and intended to attract new players. And of course, if a gaming group wants to do a huge, ultra-competitive, non-painting tournament, then great.

But i don't think it should be something organised or supported by GW, as i don't think it's a very good advertisement for the hobby...

I think 'Ard Boyz is GW's way of playtesting existing codexes. Encourage the Cheese and what ever makes it to the top, gets nerfed next edition!

I think that in a tourny setting you should at least paint your minis in block colors. Whats so hard about a base coat, metal color, second color? I think if you want to play in a tournament, that means your taking this hobby to the next level. From Average player, to a semi serious one. And saying that, I think you should (however much you like or dislike it) have a painted army.


I guess its a respect thing. Im not talking detail, or GD winner. Thats for the guys that CAN paint or can take the time to do it. Just a super basic color is all Im talking about

Lots of good comments in this thread so far.

The poll appears to be misinterpreted, however. The question asked appears to be what people’s PRIMARY interest in the game is. And over a quarter said painting, so that’s a pretty sizeable number. The question was NOT “do you paint your armies”, which question I certainly hope would be answered “yes” by the vast majority of players.

For my money, painting is not necessary in ‘ard boyz, by its nature. That said, I find a painted army both more enjoyable (to field OR face), AND better in practical terms for game play, as it makes it easier to recognize wargear and weapons on the models.

I also appreciate the comments on the lack of a painting requirement reducing one bar to entry. I know I faced a couple of players in rounds two and final who clearly were not in it for painting, and probably did not have enough painted models to even attend an event which required it. I harbor some hope that by fielding a painted army against them, they might be encouraged by my example.

I know that when I was first getting into the hobby I really didn’t enjoy painting, but playing against some of the nice armies at my local store shamed me into it, even without my opponents being dicks about it. I always remember that experience when I face people with unpainted armies, and try to encourage them, without badgering or hectoring them about it.

I am generally in the "3-color" crowd, but with Ard Boyz I understand that the armies and games are about bringing the pain. In a format like this I would be fine playing against a naked army, but in standard tournaments I want to face the minimum painting requirements (at the very least). I say this because I am now only able to make it to tournaments on rare occasions and I want to face nice looking armies. Of course what's the saying, "wish in one hand...".

I think that if you do have a fully painted army you should get one "free" battle point. If you put the work in then you should at least get a cookie.

Do you guys have to pay for entry into Ard Boyz tourneys? Our local store has no entry fee and they provide pizza. Not a bad deal at all.

'ard boyz is supposed to be free. I do know of one store in a neighboring state that did charge for the preliminary round, purely so they could offer big prizes in round one.

This year the GW prize support for round one and for the final was pretty scant, compared to previous years.

the_Armyman wrote: Cars are just for driving from point A to point B. Why bother with anything aesthetic if the only reason is to look pretty?

How about yes? My car gets me and the kids where i want to go safely. I dont care if its dirty on the outside or pretty or souped up. reliability is all I care about with safety. Looking good? Dont care.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Howard A Treesong wrote:I'd seriously question the probability of them playing the game in a good sportsman like manner.

Wow, if I ever play you in a tournment and know tahts your view, I'd ding you sports score right there for eliteism.

Tournaments are booked months in advance so there's no excuse whatsoever to field an unpainted army,

I dont know, but work, family, social and family obligations seems like good ones, among other reasons....But hey, go with your elite self.

I think 'Ard Boyz is fine as the one big tourney that doesn't require paint. A painting requirement would probably discourage people from participating since most tournies run 1500-2000 instead of the 'Ard Boyz 2500. Not having the paint requirement lets people add 500-1000 points to their armies in a short period of time and not have to worry about having it painted for the big show.

The purpose of the 'ard boyz is to sell stuff. Not requiring painting just encourages players to run out and buy that unit of X and slap it down on the table without having to sweat the paint job. IIRC, the 'ard boyz is sponsored by the regional sales guys and not the promotions team, right? That explains many things when you think about it...sales-driven and not promotion-driven.

My personal opinion?

I find it weird that people would be attracted to miniatures wargaming and have zero interest in the visuals. I mean, you can find far better *games* than miniatures wargames, which -- let's face it -- have a lot dodgy rulesets across the board. The point of little soldiers is to add a visual component and appeal superior to that of say, a chit-based game.

To me, it's like someone who owns a convertible yet never lowers the roof, even in nice weather. Sure, you're free to enjoy driving the car however you want. But why would you own a *convertible* if that's how you're going to use it?

You can do whatever you want. And I totally get the fact that people have armies in progress and such. Welcome to my life. But those who literally have no intention of ever painting a single miniature? I just don't get it.

the_Armyman wrote:I'll probably get flamed for making this comparison, but it's a real shame that honesty and integrity don't have a place in competition.

This may come as an extreme shock to you, but the above actually has nothing at all to do with painting.

And, what may be an even greater shock, there is no one true way to enjoy the game. Just because someone enjoys it in a different way than you doesn't make them wrong.

Does the 'ArdBoyz tournament require WYSIWYG models?
The point of WYSIWYG (at least a major point) is so your opponent can tell what is in your army, and what each model can do.
I, personally, find it much harder to distingush between 2 WYSIWYG unpainted grey-plastic models than I can between two painted but not WYSIWYG models.
I'd prefer people to say "The green one has a melta-gun, the red one is the sergeant" rather than "They are WYSIWYG, just unpainted.". Across the table, i can't tell one grey model from another!

im going to ardboyz with a fully painted army. i wouldnt enter a tourney with anything unpainted. thats just me.

gorgon wrote:I find it weird that people would be attracted to miniatures wargaming and have zero interest in the visuals. I mean, you can find far better *games* than miniatures wargames, which -- let's face it -- have a lot dodgy rulesets across the board. The point of little soldiers is to add a visual component and appeal superior to that of say, a chit-based game.
...
But those who literally have no intention of ever painting a single miniature? I just don't get it.

Those are my thoughts as well.

As for the topic, 'Ard boys not having a paint requirement is fine, since its about the "game". Personally painting is one of my favorite things to do/ways to relax. I am about 5-6 (out of ten) in our group painting-wise but am 3-4 with a full finished army. One of our group paints really well, but painting puts him on edge, another has OCD and paints marines piece by piece. They also have started multiple armies for both 40k and WFB. I have finished my marines and started orks...glad I love painting. Playing against a fully painted army is nifty but not a huge deal. The fun of the game usually takes precedent. We all show off our paintjobs, but its more a extension of the hobby, so we can think 40K more often.
Basically have fun with your hobby however you enjoy it, and try not to be a jerk about it.

ArbitorIan wrote:

- I don't have NEARLY as much fun playing against an identical grey tide. I really don't. I wouldn't want to play someone with an unpainted army, it spoils the feel of the game for me. I think it isn't too far off the mark to say that you should be respectful to your opponent and paint your army. I wouldn't enter 'Ard Boyz for exactly this reason.

The fun comes from the guy(or gal) across the table. Not because there is a pretty army on the table. An A-hole with a golden deamon quality army is still an A-hole.

As long as the item the unit is equipped with is identifiable, as opposed to "this dudes closed fist in the air "counts as" a powerfist k?" I could care less. I paint my army (albeit slowly now that I re-did the paint scheme) because I find it enjoyable and enjoy seeing my personalized army on the field. I dont play to look at paint jobs. I play to play.

carmachu wrote:Automatically Appended Next Post:

Howard A Treesong wrote:I'd seriously question the probability of them playing the game in a good sportsman like manner.

Wow, if I ever play you in a tournment and know tahts your view, I'd ding you sports score right there for eliteism.

Tournaments are booked months in advance so there's no excuse whatsoever to field an unpainted army,

I dont know, but work, family, social and family obligations seems like good ones, among other reasons....But hey, go with your elite self.

Elitism? I don't think so. I'm merely pointing out that the sort of person who takes a well rounded approach to the hobby though painting and converting their models, building terrain and playing the games is likely to more fun than someone who turns up solely to play. I think someone who enjoys painting will enjoy the spectacle of the game and will play more for fun. SOmeone turning up with an unpainted army only has one interest in the hobby, to win.

Strangely, I have work a family and a social life and find time to paint. Not a huge amount, but I think that if I knew a Tournament was coming around this time next year I;d be able to paint an army to even basic standards. I love how people start crying about "elitism" in defence to the accusation that they aren't even fielding an army in a presentable manner. Painting serves several practical purposes, it makes it easier to identify specific troop types (especially in something like a Space Marine army) and wargear.

Sincity wrote:A painting requirement at 'ard boyz is like a comp score at gold demons.

Really? Don't you think, beyond painting, composition, subject, and theme are part of Golden Demon judging? If this line of thinking were true, all golden demon entries could be the same model, or not even a model, or not even GW models... because only painting matters, heck, it could be a flat panel painted to look like a space marine....

If only the painting mattered...

Right?

IMHO, someone going to the bother of becoming one of the best 40k Generals could go to the bother of getting their mate to slap 3-colour table-top quality paint on their miniatures.
If I turned up at Wembley to watch the top teams of the Premiership duke it out, and they were playing shirts-vs-skins, with jumpers for goal-posts, I would be most disappointed.

As mentioned, a lot of the fun is playing against a fun opponent, but for me, the fun is enhanced by fielding a well-painted/converted army with an interesting story, and playing against one, too.
Sure, 'ArdBoyz is about the Play-To-Win, but that doesn't mean everything else falls by the wayside.

augustus5 wrote:I can't fathom how it is considered disrespectful to your opponent to bring an unpainted army to the table.

It speaks of effort and an investment of time in the hobby. Sorta like when a bunch of grease monkeys show off their classic cars on a Saturday night and the guy who spent 200k drives up in his custom hot rod that be bought. You can appreciate the money spent, but he brings nothing to the table (in a figurative sense). In our example, you bring nothing to the table in a literal sense!

LunaHound wrote:Stop k just STOP . Im having a hard time understanding why are you so intolerant or why are you having trouble accepting not ALL people get into warhammer due to painting . Just accept the other 73%'s existence and move on.

Funny how when the shoe is on the other foot and someone other than you acts all sanctimonious, you're incensed, Luna. Frankly, I will not stop speaking my opinion despite your "official" poll that I am obviously in the minority.

I'm not elitist. I've played against unpainted armies, but I certainly don't relish it and it makes the conversation with my opponent rather dull. I'd rather play the 12 year old who sloppily paints his stuff than an adult who merely flashes his debit card, purchases his 2,000 points of metal and plstic, glues his little figs together and does nothing else before showing up for open gaming. If some of you are getting your panties in a bundle because someone has the audacity to ask you to paint your minis, I'm not too bothered by it. Just tell yourselves that you'll never meet me IRL, so my opinion matters only as much as your own in this thread.

My fun != your fun. If I don't have the desire/time/whatever to paint my army, that's my business. If you don't want to play me because of it, that's your business. TBH, I think that's your loss, however, as despite my half-to-3/4 painted army, I'm a pretty fun guy to play against. I know the rules (and how to amicably settle disputes), can carry on a conversation with you while playing, can win/lose graciously, and will have even showered that morning. To me, those type of things have more of an impact on how much I enjoy a game than whether or not the armies are painted.

I think 'Ard Boyz is fine, as there are plenty of major events out there that either require minimum painting or have it as part of the scoring system. Having at least one large event that doesn't require it isn't going to hurt anything. If anything, it gave me a taste of the tournament scene and the incentive to get my army painted well enough to play in more tournaments

As an extra, I think the "committment" argument is a little off. I can spend just as many hours making, testing, and tuning my lists or reading up on tactics/strategies online as people can on painting. Because I allocate my hobby time differently doesn't mean I'm any less committed to the hobby as someone who spends more of that time painting.

I hate playing against unpainted armies.

I don't mind playing against work in progress armies. I don't mind playing against a mostly unpainted army. as long as you paint a little more each week, or each month, or whatever, but as long as progress is being made. After a few games where I see you have a pure unpainted grey army, i'm going to try to avoid you, because you obviously have no interest in this hobby, just the gaming part of it, and that is not the type of person i'd choose to play.

I fething hate people who have no interest in the gaming part of the hobby. Like guys who just buy models to paint. I want to punch them in the face.

Augustus wrote:

Sincity wrote:A painting requirement at 'ard boyz is like a comp score at gold demons.

Really? Don't you think, beyond painting, composition, subject, and theme are part of Golden Demon judging? If this line of thinking were true, all golden demon entries could be the same model, or not even a model, or not even GW models... because only painting matters, heck, it could be a flat panel painted to look like a space marine....

If only the painting mattered...

Right?

I'm going to type very slow so as not to lose you.


"A painting requirement at 'ard boyz" means if you impose a painting requirement at 'ard boyz
"is like" means ... well if you don't know what is like means , then you should stop reading now.
"a comp score at gold demons" means if you were to impose an army comp on the Gold Demon entry.

You know , min. one HQ and two troop slots.

That would be stupid , yes? Or is that what you want to see? Maybe the Gold Demons should be 1500pt entries , after all how dare those painters DISRESPECT the hobby by bringing an non-compliant entry.

If the gamers have to play by the rules then so should the painters .

If only the (sn)HOBBY matters ....

Right ?

Sincity wrote:I'm going to type very slow so as not to lose you.

I'm afraid I'm going to dignify this with a response.

The point is, composition (speaking of artisitic composition) IS a part of the Golden demon judging, and that everyone doesn't enter the same model, it's not only about painting.

It was just a hypothetical question, obviously you took it personally enough to write a flame.

I can recognize the appeal, to have a tournament with no painting requirement and no sportsmanship, of course. What a great opportunity to try out things that wouldn't, or even couldn't, take the field normally. Furthermore I even respect the idea that some tournament players hate soft scores, and that collusion is removed as an issue in the hardboy.

The irony is, removal of the painting requirement encourages people to play armies that are borrowed, assembled, half built, and what is conceived as an event with "the best" players ends up looking like amateur night at the local LGS, when even the highest levels are filled with people who couldn't be bothered.

Couldn't the event be the same, score wise, with at least a minimum 3 color rule? And essentially be no different? If a little more virtuous?

I can't help it, the reason I play tabletop wargames rather than card games or hexmap wargames is because I like pushing painted figures around.

Why bother playing with figures at all?

Just stick a load of printed cards on stands with the unit designation on them. It's equally non-elitist, in fact its more non-elitist tahn unpainted models because you don't even need to buy models or make the effort to assemble them. You just print a bunch of pictures grabbed off the Internet onto card.

the_Armyman wrote:Funny how when the shoe is on the other foot and someone other than you acts all sanctimonious, you're incensed, Luna. Frankly, I will not stop speaking my opinion despite your "official" poll that I am obviously in the minority.

First of all , i dont know what you mean .

2ndly , its not about majority or minority . The poll is simple without any additional motives.

Its simply listed to point out to you , other type of people associates with warhammer OUTSIDE of the painting purpose exists.
You either accept they exist and respect their reasons for been associated with warhammer ,

or you dont.

Its actually as simple as that , not sure how many ways you want me to explain myself.

a) You want to be in a tournament just for painting? Go for it! Golden Demons
b) You want to be in a tournament where they mix judging criterias? Sure go for it as well! Most tournaments are like this!
c) You want to be in a tournament where you are there for actual battle purpose only? Go for it!

Why try to mix A and B into C? when they already exist for the people that prefer them?
Let the Type C people enjoy what they do will you?

dietrich wrote:I think it's good to have tournaments with different formats and/or scoring requirements. It allows people that don't want to ever paint to have an outlet. And it allows for people that don't want to paint a grey-plastic horde to not attend. And people that want painting incorporated into their score have most of the other traditional 40k events. I'm not bashing either side. I think there's more than one way to have a 40k tourney, and I'm glad there are tourneys that require painted armies, and ones that don't.

Exactly , my example sort of was trying to convey what dietrich wrote.

Kilkrazy wrote:I can't help it, the reason I play tabletop wargames rather than card games or hexmap wargames is because I like pushing painted figures around.

Why bother playing with figures at all?

Just stick a load of printed cards on stands with the unit designation on them. It's equally non-elitist, in fact its more non-elitist tahn unpainted models because you don't even need to buy models or make the effort to assemble them. You just print a bunch of pictures grabbed off the Internet onto card.

Apparantly lack of painting = lack of realism . Its all preference i guess?

Im sure some people would for example require to play with state of the art 3d holographic video games

While some other will find tetris fun.

I think it's good to have tournaments with different formats and/or scoring requirements. It allows people that don't want to ever paint to have an outlet. And it allows for people that don't want to paint a grey-plastic horde to not attend. And people that want painting incorporated into their score have most of the other traditional 40k events. I'm not bashing either side. I think there's more than one way to have a 40k tourney, and I'm glad there are tourneys that require painted armies, and ones that don't.

I'm a big fan of painted armies. I have close to 11,000pts of painted IG, and 6000 pts of Space Marines. I feel that 40k is a hobby as well as a game, and I enjoy pretty much every aspect of that hobby, from painting to creating background to army list creation and playing the game. The hobby is a big tent, and I don't see any reason to shut out anybody.

Here's the problem: we have events that involves painting alone (golden demons and no shortage of local painting contests), so what's wrong with having an event that only involves gameplay? Particularly one that's once a year and would be less legitimate if the painting requirements were enforced.

As a wise man once said, If I expected everybody I played to only use painted miniatures I'd spend a lot of time looking for games.

Polonius wrote:Here's the problem: we have events that involves painting alone (golden demons and no shortage of local painting contests), so what's wrong with having an event that only involves gameplay?

What's wrong is the distinction between no POINTS for painting versus no painting requirement at all.

Polonius wrote:Particularly one that's once a year and would be less legitimate if the painting requirements were enforced.

Would it? Can that honestly be quantified?
I think legitimacy is a separate issue. It needs a context.

To be clear, what if there were a new hardboy standard for a 3 color minimum on all models, WYSIWYG at the hardboy, that was worth ZERO points, and all the actual competitive scores were otherwise the same?