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.

I don't understand how people can say that all tournaments should be for ultra competitive, hard as Chuck Norris' abs lists of uber spammy boringness. I have virtually no time to game and when I do I want to play lots of different armies back to back. The only way I can do this is by playing in tournaments, and I want to play nice, fun lists. Probably 50% of my limited playing time has been at Dakka tournaments which have been relatively friendly affairs with (on the whole) nicely painted armies, played for a fun, enjoyable time in a tournament setting...

Oh, wait, what were you saying about painting not being part of the hobby?

Oaka wrote:

augustus5 wrote:Maybe we can set up separate events for those who want to play games and snobs who look down their nose at those who don't include painting as part of "the hobby."

Most people believe those latter events should be called, 'tournaments'.

Doctadeth wrote:A tournament is a tournament, it's about competition, not *fun lists* and if someone did bring a fun list to a tournament, it's their call. Basic painting, which in my LGS is 3 colours and base is easy to achieve. Skill in painting is not equative to skill in gaming.

carmachu wrote:We already have those, Its called tournments for the former, and Golden Demons for the latter....

But this isn't the case. A tournament is never just a 'competition'. A tournament, whatever it's defining feature (playing games against others) is primarily a convention or an excuse to get together. I love going to tournaments. I never, ever, expect to WIN any of them. I'll take the army I think I'll have the most fun with. The reason I go is to get some games in against different people, with different armies that I don't usually see in my local gaming group, to see some great ideas for armies, good conversions, and to show off MY models.

And the thing is, the VAST majority of people I meet at these events are exactly the same as me - it's only a tiny majority who are primarily there 'for the competition'.

So no, a Warhammer tournament is not primarily a competition, at least not in the minds of 99% of the attendees and most of the tournament organisers themselves.

(Carmachu, I agree that you could have a 'painting competition' as an event, but since there's no interactive activities (i.e you don't paint 'with' or 'against' other people) it doesn't work as well as a social event - which is what a tournament is.)

carmachu wrote:Work, kids, job, house hold matience. Called in last minute for work....there are a host of reasons why I'd rather PLAY the damn game with unpainted models then take that time and paint them, if free time is limited.

Ok, well let's say I have very little free time. To really know the rules, I have to read the rulebook a good few times, then all the relevant codexes a good few times and commit the vast majority of this to memory. I don't have time for that, so I therefore have the right to turn up at the tournament with only a vague understanding of the rules, and just check the book five or six times a turn. That's ok, right?

augustus5 wrote:Painting might be part of your hobby, but it's not part of everyone's hobby. .... Again, who decided painting is part of "the hobby"? Nicely painted figures look fantastic, and enhance the visual aspect of the game, but how is it determined that painting must be part of the hobby?

And the same with playing. GAMES WORKSHOP decided that painting is part of the hobby. The same people who decided that playing games with your toy soliders was part of the hobby. Painting has always been 'part of the hobby'. Now, you don't have to do it if you don't want to, like anything else. But you can't argue that it's not part of 'the hobby'..

painted for tournaments - yes.

painted for casual play - no, not really.

I think the excuses you hear about not painting minis, are really lack of interest in doing it, combined with poor time management, and quite a bit of lack of painting knowledge/experience thrown in. Add to that the worry, that you will sink a bunch of time in and get a result that you do not like.

So instead of harassing people with the unpainted armies, perhaps offer a paint lesson. This offer extended from a local guy, helped me get started on painting, and over the hurdle that it was going to be too tough/take too much time/look terrible.

Shadowseer_Kim wrote:painted for tournaments - yes.

painted for casual play - no, not really.

I hear this a lot but I don't really get it. Given that tournament players are changing their armies much more often than casual players, why should painting be more required for tournaments?

augustus5 wrote:Again, who decided painting is part of "the hobby"? Nicely painted figures look fantastic, and enhance the visual aspect of the game, but how is it determined that painting must be part of the hobby?

I'm all for tournament organizers creating tournaments and making painting a requirement or making it not a requirement. I don't understand how anyone can say that all[u] tourneys should include paint/no paint as a requisite.

You can run your tourneys however you see fit. I am not going to travel and pay hundreds of dollars to play against greys. Right now this seems to be the attitude of most tourney goers... And TOs know their audience.

And frankly I don't give a damn about your resale value. Of all the entitled excuses, that one really holds no water with me. If you don't want to paint, that's cool but expect to be excluded from many if not most well run events.

What people do in private games is really their own thing but I think the extra effort should be made at a public event like a tournament where you are playing strangers. Considering the cost and effort people put in to attending the event and creating good lists I would have thought the least you could expect was that everyone paints their armies and there's some decent terrain to play over.

Games with unpainted figures look poor, where's the spectacle or interest in a field of grey? If an event is charging entry then everyone attending should make it a good one in every respect. That means good hygiene, being polite, no rule-lawyer douchbaggery and making the tabletop look good.

augustus5: can't you understand?
For people like me, the visuals are important, I need it to have fun.
For people like you, the gaming is the main part of the fun.

It's a compromise on both sides:
You shpuld paint your stuff at least with 3 colours, we won't be nazis and compromise to play a sloppily painted army...

Can't you understand the concept of both sides compromising? (<-- I'm not exactly sure that word means what I intend to say in english. "to settle" is probably appropiate: We settle to play you, you settle to paint at least a bit. If not: Have fun playing plastic tides. In my club, you would not get to use any of the tables or terrain I painstakingly created.)

What frustrates me as someone who participates in this hobby is, again, two-fold.

Players who willfully and knowingly take bad lists, don't try to play the game at all (which involves at least trying to win, as it is a game with w/l/d), and use that as a shield and even as a sword with which to stab at people who DO play to win ... these players frustrate me a little, b/c they're willfully ignoring a part of the hobby and then using it to go after other people to boot. But, it's their choice I guess.

Players who willfully and knowingly refuse to paint models in a hobby that involves purchasing, assembling, and painting models ... ALSO frustrate me. It especially bothers me when they use their choice - again - as both a shield and a sword, saying they don't "need" to paint their models (I mean, duh, jeesh, nobody is saying you NEED to), and even going after people as terrible for being fluffier more appearance-oriented players. Again, though, personal choices here.

The people I respect the most in this hobby are the ones who paint and model to the best of their ability, AND play the game to the best of their ability, while respecting or even loving the fluff (or parts of it). These three things largely represent the hobby, and it's a hobby you all choose to participate in. If all you want to do is paint, don't call yourself someone who participates in the 40k (or Fantasy or whatever) hobby; instead, you're simply some guy who paints miniatures for a hobby. That's fine. If all you want to do is play a game competitively ... lord pick a game other than 40k (or Fantasy or whatever) that's more like ... a computer game ... or a board game ... or any of the wide # of board games out there not using expensive models built and costed for the explicit purpose of being painted.

Finally, never forget the social. There's no requirement, as some people love to expound (IMO), to be responsible for your OPPONENT'S fun ... it's psychological immaturity par excellence to believe you can somehow "make" other people feel a certain way, or perfectly know what someone else's social needs are in order to have fun ... be responsible for your own happiness, BUT be willing to acknowledge the fact that this is a SOCIAL hobby; it is driven by the in-person interactions over the table, or over the paint station, or whatever ... for these reasons and many others, while you shouldn't feel the need to provide another human being with happiness (they should be self-loving enough to tackle their own), do RESPECT them.

The "painted or not" debate often comes down as much to the social for me as it does to the actual question of painting ... b/c the way people TREAT those who OVER or UNDER fixate on painting is often a source of the problem ... the harder you go at someone with an "abnormal" choice (keeping that in quotes for a reason), the more likely they are by human nature to entrench, get defensive, and feel put upon.

IMO we should all encourage and feel encouraged to participate in ALL parts of a hobby, but maybe not so ... belabored to by people we aren't even sure are our peers.

/endrant

I can see why people don’t necessarily want to paint up an army that they may not stick with. I wonder why they bought it in the first place, but it’s their money and they’d get some of it back resale, etc. So fair enough.

Equally I can see people fielding unpainted and semi-painted models in an ‘army in progress’, or just when they tweak their list a bit with a new model. And they might want to experiment with that model before painting it, I suppose, in a manner similar to the ‘whole army unpainted’ above.

But I’d wonder a bit about someone who never fielded a painted army at all, who had never found an army they liked enough to paint it up.

I’d like everyone I play against to field painted models. Well painted, simply painted, badly painted, doesn’t really matter. It’s making the effort. Otherwise we could resort to 3D cuboid counters labeled appropriately (actually, I’m not sure that wouldn’t be as decent a proxy – and cheaper – as fielding an ‘experimental’ unpainted army). But if someone comes along with an unpainted army, so long as they’re happy to keep me clear on what’s what (are they Death Company or Assault Squad? Or whatever), then fair enough.

archont wrote:We settle to play you, you settle to paint at least a bit. If not: Have fun playing plastic tides. In my club, you would not get to use any of the tables or terrain I painstakingly created.)

How completely benevolent of you oh supreme leader, to come down to my level!

Go . yourself. I wouldn't want to play a douchebag like you.

My work day begins at 0400, and I generally am not done with chores / farm / maintenance until nearly 2000 each night. Given some time to sleep, that means I generally have about 2 hours to myself each day. That's it. Weekends? I've worked just about every weekend since 2011 started. I was also sent to another state on business for 3 weeks, that's how my job is.

I hate painting. Hate it. It's not fun, it's not enjoyable, there is not a single aspect of painting my models that appeals to me. I get eye strain headaches from trying to see the details (my vision isn't the best), my hands shake constantly and frankly, I just could not care any less about my army being painted.

Combine those two. I get only a handful of hours each week to myself, slightly more if I'm willing to cut my sleep down to 4 hours a night. I'd much rather spend those few hours getting in a game, having fun and perhaps walking away with a new story... than spend it doing something I hate. Who the . do you think you are to tell me otherwise?

archont wrote:augustus5: can't you understand?
For people like me, the visuals are important, I need it to have fun.
For people like you, the gaming is the main part of the fun.

It's a compromise on both sides:
You shpuld paint your stuff at least with 3 colours, we won't be nazis and compromise to play a sloppily painted army...

Can't you understand the concept of both sides compromising? (<-- I'm not exactly sure that word means what I intend to say in english. "to settle" is probably appropiate: We settle to play you, you settle to paint at least a bit. If not: Have fun playing plastic tides. In my club, you would not get to use any of the tables or terrain I painstakingly created.)

archot, I'm not asking you to compromise your hobby for me. Just don't ask me to compromise my hobby for you. If you don't want to play against my grey army then more power to you. And if that's the case I have no ill will toward you. But why is the crux of compromise put upon the non-painters? Can't we choose to play the game the way we want without others having to tell us in a new thread every week that we are lazy or don't honor the hobby in some way?

It's always the painters coming and bringing these threads up to crap on the non-painters. Right now I have two fully painted armies that look great. I also have one partially painted that I may or may not finish due to lack of motivation, and one completely grey army that will be lucky to get a coat of primer. So what? I can take that grey army and play it at my FLGS and at appropriate events and be happy with it. I don't complain if I miss out on an event because of a painting requirement. So why should I have to listen to others complain about my army? People who wish to only play painted armies can also choose not to go to competitions that have no paint requirement.

I also feel lucky to be a part of a FLGS without any draconian requirements for sitting down and using a table or terrain.

arbitorian wrote:And the same with playing. GAMES WORKSHOP decided that painting is part of the hobby. The same people who decided that playing games with your toy soliders was part of the hobby. Painting has always been 'part of the hobby'. Now, you don't have to do it if you don't want to, like anything else. But you can't argue that it's not part of 'the hobby'..

I don't try to impose my vision of what my hobby is on anybody else. I'd like it if they offered me the same courtesy. I'm content to miss an event here or there because of a paint requirement if the army I'm into playing at the time isn't painted. I also do paint some of my armies fully. But painting will never be the focus of my hobby, nor is it a requisite for me to enjoy a game.

Steamdragon: do realise please that other people would report you for a "go feth yourself" - even if it's thinly disguised.


I feel symapthi (spelling?) for your work situation.
I've been through worse, be it 60hrs a week and caring for my granddad on his deathbed during the nights or my time with the military.
Still in that time I took 20min every night before bed and painted dark eldar minis, and lo and behold: a month later the army was decently pretty (though lacking my signature tribal freehands) and ready to play.

Breaking your post down, you told me to feth myself, because you don't feel like painting for whatever reason, and that I am evil and mean for painting and playing.


Be aware that I play against WIP armies on a regular basis, or a grey squad or two when someone is experimenting with his build. As long as people at least give it a try and make any progress whataoever, I am happy

Some guy above said that he's slow, taking 3hrs for an infantryman. If such is his high standards he'll only get a high five every two weeks when another gorgeous mini is done.



You would get neither high fives, nor tables nor terrain, be it at the club I frequent (--> because I built all the terrain and tables ), or the tourneys I support (--> with tables & terrain)

Know why? Black spraycoat & drybrush is doeable, even with problems and in a situation such as yours.



Have a good day, and my best wishes for an improvement in your living conditions.


Guess I'll go feth myself while painting now

I thought we were talking about Tourney play? You can non-paint your ass off at FLGS or home or whatever. Whatever you and your opponent agree to is fine.

'Event play' is different. Events have rules and standards and if you can't meet those standards you can't participate. Part of the 'draw' of the event is people expect a standard and if the standard is not met by everyone at the event, then there is disappointment.

Right now, if you want to really get into 'competitive play' unless you want to limit yourself to just 'ard boyz, then you gotta paint some models. It is really simple.

*If you hate painting but want to participate in competitive play then you can airbrush your models (or even spray paint) and do a simple scheme. It is a sacrifice to meet the minimum standard to be welcome everywhere.
*If you are wishywashy and haven't chosen an army and are worried about re-sale value, you probably are not skilled enough with that list to enjoy a true competitive event. So buy/sell armies until you find one you are happy with and then slap 3 colors on them or your super fancy paintjob.
*If you are a slow painter, and just started then realize it may take a year or so to paint and go to a competitive event. If you are a slow painter playing for years, you may not be able to use your new units until they are painted. Get a core painted up and use those.
*If you are 'super busy' just remember, every time you use the busy excuse you are basically telling people 'my time is more important than yours.' If you are super busy, then don't attend tourneys. If you want to make tourneys a priority then you have to prioritize *YOUR* time to make minimal standards a priority. The nice thing is you do it once you then have access to so many events. Personally, I feel tourneys are *BETTER* for the busy person as you can hop in on the weekend and get a lot of quality gaming in one day.
*Remember, everyone works, everyone has Jobs and Family. That guy who paints isn't sitting at home all day painting models while you slave away your life at work. Throwing your responsibilities in your opponents face is always insulting. Just accept tourneys have standards you are unwilling to meet and move on. If you want to participate, find a tourney format you can accept or meet the standards. Don't put your behavior on others by making excuses.

*For WAAC flavor of the moth, codex hopping, net-list players who buy and sell full armies like they are stocks on the stock market. Go F yourself and your resale value. I really do not care that the Leafblower you downloaded and bought loses value on eBay if you paint it and now you want to play Longfang spam or GKs. Nothing is stopping your lazy codex hopping to the next big thing, but don't expect events to bend over backwards to lower standards to accommodate that behavior.

If you boil it down, Tourneys = Follow TO standard, which is usually minimal but painted models. No one is hunting non-painters down and dragging them to prison for playing with unpainted models, they just can't participate in most events.

No

I wouldn't stop you entering a painting competition because your peice isn't competitive.

While you may enjoy going to a tournament to meet other plays the point of a tournaments is for gaming, painting competitions are from modeling.

ArbitorIan wrote:
(Carmachu, I agree that you could have a 'painting competition' as an event, but since there's no interactive activities (i.e you don't paint 'with' or 'against' other people) it doesn't work as well as a social event - which is what a tournament is.)

Never been to a GT where Goldne Demons are/were held? I say there was alot of interaction, discussion of various painted models, styles of painting and a variety of topics.

But thats your problem, you have a very narrow defination, and a confusing one, of a tournment. You start by saying there is no interactivities, but then try and say its a social event- GD events can and have both social aspects AND you are working against other folks. Not the same way as playing, but to say its not interactive is just false.

Ok, well let's say I have very little free time. To really know the rules, I have to read the rulebook a good few times, then all the relevant codexes a good few times and commit the vast majority of this to memory. I don't have time for that, so I therefore have the right to turn up at the tournament with only a vague understanding of the rules, and just check the book five or six times a turn. That's ok, right?

Whatever floats your boat. You realize that some of us that have actually, you know, PLAYED in tournments have run up against inexperienced guys, right? Ones that havent played their army or 40K in general alot to get tings smoothed over, and either vague or misunderstood ideas on the rules? Some of us use it as a teaching tool to help them(instead of just beating the crap out of them).

So yes, its ok for inexperienced folks to show up to tournments and play. In fact it happens more then you think, from local tournies to GT's of old. Any other false logic you wish for me to demolish?

And the same with playing. GAMES WORKSHOP decided that painting is part of the hobby. The same people who decided that playing games with your toy soliders was part of the hobby. Painting has always been 'part of the hobby'. Now, you don't have to do it if you don't want to, like anything else. But you can't argue that it's not part of 'the hobby'..

But its not part of THEIR hobby(the person). GW can decide whatever it wants for "THE HOBBY!!!!", However, just like some folks that just want to paint, or some folks that just want to build and covert, or some folks want to play the game, and some folks like to play in tournments, everyone has their favorite part they wish to devote to. And some folks like to do all of the above.

And its ok to just focus on what aspects of the game you wish. Because not every aspect of the GW hobby has always been- at one point in the GW Hobby! (tm) basing was optional. In fact most folks didnt do it, or didnt do it beyond MAYBE painting the base green. Now, we see very elaborate basing, or decrative bases.

carmachu wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:

Norbu the Destroyer wrote:
With the current state of colored primer and washes, I dont see a reason why 3 color standard is a problem.

Work, kids, job, house hold matience. Called in last minute for work....there are a host of reasons why I'd rather PLAY the damn game with unpainted models then take that time and paint them, if free time is limited.

Fine, roll into your FLGSs on 40k night, play with your friends or even attend a smallish scale local tourney. But some tourneys are organized for the sake of showing off the hobby or for those players who want the experience of playing with and against fully painted armies or seeing fully painted armies. Honestly my time is pretty strapped too, but Norbu makes a valid point. Painting effort doesn't equate skill. All these TOs are asking for is a little effort on a players part to make the hobby more fascinating, not that the individual armies place in a Golden Daemon.

I honestly doubt that you (or most of us if I happen to be wrong about you) were hooked by this game because you saw two dudes at a table with unpainted, unprimed armies. At some point you saw a radically painted single mini or army and was just wowed. Be it by a local painter/gamer or by one of the painters in the magazines and you just wanted to be part of that on some level....the painted stuff is what I like to be a part of. Would you ever pick up a White Dwarf if all it ever featured were unpainted, unprimed grey plastics in its articles?? Hell no. Would the game or codices be interesting or worth playing if the fluff were stripped out and we had no background from start to finish? Hell no. It's the paint and the fluff that we've had for 20 years that makes this game worth playing at its core (rules and the company's efforts) and by the way it inspires its participants to create their various takes on the game.

-MightyG

archont wrote:

Can't you understand the concept of both sides compromising? (<-- I'm not exactly sure that word means what I intend to say in english. "to settle" is probably appropiate: We settle to play you, you settle to paint at least a bit. If not: Have fun playing plastic tides. In my club, you would not get to use any of the tables or terrain I painstakingly created.)

Ahhhh so your TFG of the painting world in your club I see. Given your attitude here, I wouldnt WANT to play you or on yoru table with my nicely painted armies.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

MightyGodzilla wrote:
Fine, roll into your FLGSs on 40k night, play with your friends or even attend a smallish scale local tourney. But some tourneys are organized for the sake of showing off the hobby or for those players who want the experience of playing with and against fully painted armies or seeing fully painted armies. Honestly my time is pretty strapped too, but Norbu makes a valid point. Painting effort doesn't equate skill. All these TOs are asking for is a little effort on a players part to make the hobby more fascinating, not that the individual armies place in a Golden Daemon.

And again, I dont play in FLGS anymore. Among a variety of reasons. Tournments, ALL tournments have a variety of requirements. Ones that I like I play, ones I dont- whether they requrei some bizarre sportsmenship design, or painting or strange missions that make not sense, I avoid.

Paint DOES require skill. Sorry, anyone that says otherwise is either foolish or just dipping.

I honestly doubt that you (or most of us if I happen to be wrong about you) were hooked by this game because you saw two dudes at a table with unpainted, unprimed armies. At some point you saw a radically painted single mini or army and was just wowed.

And once again your foolishness rises to the occassion. Or you bought into the GW hype nonsense.

No I didnt get wowed by some radically painted single mini or army. Sorry. *I* started back in the golden ages, during RT, where it was the background and fluff that drew me in, lost and the damned, slaves to darknesss, the RT book. Guy had some very badly painted ORANGE Blood angels and set up a cool senario(yes I said orange, thats the color BA were back then). It was alot of fun to PLAY THE GAME, and painting was secondary or terciary.

But you illistrate my point quite clearly: YOU assume that YOUR aspect of the hobby is the one folks like, need, or should follow. You and the OP. And clearly, by the example above, thats not the case at all. Not everyone gets into the game for the same reasons, yet you keep trying to say it is.

Forcing someone to play by your elitist rules in regards to painting is horribly lame. The only people I tend not to play against are children (like under 13) because that's just not very interesting to be honest

I probably got one of the largest collections of fully painted battle-ready models that I know of and I'll play people with unpainted models, totally awfully painted models or models painted by a golden demon winner

The paint job of the models has absolutely no correlation to the game itself. Do I enjoy playing games with painted models more? Yes, when they're my own ones. I couldn't care less if someones army is painted across the board UNLESS we're taking photos

After years of gaming Ive come to the conclusion that people who refuse to play unpainted armies usually just want to find reasons to not play games in general, due to whatever reason.

Playing only your friends is perfectly legit but being condescending to others because they dont fit YOUR view of the game makes you an ass. Accept that and move on

When I played historical wargames using the WRG rules (in the 80s), hardly anyone ever fieded unpainted miniatures and there seemed to be a very strong 'ethic' that miniatures should be painted before being brought to the table in any tournament, and really should be in casual play too. These people weren't elitist, they just regarded being painted as a rule of the game. In Warhammer games, unpainted or semi-painted seems more common. As i said above, I don't really have much of a problem with that (though I do prefer to play against a painted army). But I wonder if it's just the greater numbers of players that makes unpainted/semi-paintedd seem more common, or whether there's a difference in attitude).

Kirasu wrote:Forcing someone to play by your elitist rules in regards to painting is horribly lame.

Nobody is 'forced' to do anything, but it's hardly unreasonable to expect people to meet certain requirements for public events as opposed to private ones. If you're picking on someone arriving at your local club with unpainted figures then there's probably a problem, but no one forces anyone to go to tournaments.

Why is painting 'elitist'? Figures are models that are supposed to be painted by long tradition. I've never been to a wargames show where people had unpainted figures anywhere but on the stalls.

4M2A wrote:While you may enjoy going to a tournament to meet other plays the point of a tournaments is for gaming, painting competitions are from modeling.

Is it really though? I thought a tournament was an ideal opportunity to look at all aspects of a hobby. Everyone expects models to be assembled, why not painted as well? If it's about gaming and winning why do many tournaments award points for sportsmanship, fluff and painting?

Sorry. *I* started back in the golden ages, during RT, where it was the background and fluff that drew me in, lost and the damned, slaves to darknesss, the RT book. Guy had some very badly painted ORANGE Blood angels and set up a cool senario(yes I said orange, thats the color BA were back then). It was alot of fun to PLAY THE GAME, and painting was secondary or tertiary.

During RT models were made of lead. No one wants to handle bare lead so I don't recall it ever being acceptable to plonk it on the table in that condition.

carmachu wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:

MightyGodzilla wrote:
Fine, roll into your FLGSs on 40k night, play with your friends or even attend a smallish scale local tourney. But some tourneys are organized for the sake of showing off the hobby or for those players who want the experience of playing with and against fully painted armies or seeing fully painted armies. Honestly my time is pretty strapped too, but Norbu makes a valid point. Painting effort doesn't equate skill. All these TOs are asking for is a little effort on a players part to make the hobby more fascinating, not that the individual armies place in a Golden Daemon.

And again, I dont play in FLGS anymore. Among a variety of reasons. Tournments, ALL tournments have a variety of requirements. Ones that I like I play, ones I dont- whether they requrei some bizarre sportsmenship design, or painting or strange missions that make not sense, I avoid.

Paint DOES require skill. Sorry, anyone that says otherwise is either foolish or just dipping.

I honestly doubt that you (or most of us if I happen to be wrong about you) were hooked by this game because you saw two dudes at a table with unpainted, unprimed armies. At some point you saw a radically painted single mini or army and was just wowed.

And once again your foolishness rises to the occassion. Or you bought into the GW hype nonsense.

No I didnt get wowed by some radically painted single mini or army. Sorry. *I* started back in the golden ages, during RT, where it was the background and fluff that drew me in, lost and the damned, slaves to darknesss, the RT book. Guy had some very badly painted ORANGE Blood angels and set up a cool senario(yes I said orange, thats the color BA were back then). It was alot of fun to PLAY THE GAME, and painting was secondary or terciary.

But you illistrate my point quite clearly: YOU assume that YOUR aspect of the hobby is the one folks like, need, or should follow. You and the OP. And clearly, by the example above, thats not the case at all. Not everyone gets into the game for the same reasons, yet you keep trying to say it is.

Hey it's why I put in the "or most of us if I happen to be wrong about you." And let me say LOL on you for trying to pull the age card. I got into 40K in 1989-1990, I'm 37 year old single dad going on 38 with a 17 year old player who at age 7 used to steal my warlocks and return them to me with globs of paint on them asking me to field them in the next game. And while my foolishness may rise to the occasion, I didn't buy into the hype - I'm a free thinker who is attracted to certain things. For all original colors you're remembering, for all the books you're name dropping....it is both the fluff and for a great many the fact that it's a paintable hobby that draws (the passerbys) and keeps most of us (veterans) in.

Paint DOES require skill. Sorry, anyone that says otherwise is either foolish or just dipping.

...but at Tourneys even dipping counts. And I certainly don't mind playing against people who've gone through even that most basic effort. And the OP is referring to tourneys.

As a whole this is a hobby. For the almost 25 years it's been successfully marketed as such. You buy in to one aspect, I buy into both. You've previously stated that you bow out of tourneys that don't meet your personal requirements, and I respect your descision to do so. You don't to the FLGS anymore. You're that guy who plays with his friends at one of your houses. No big deal, I'm that guy too, and I have many friends who fit that bill. But tourneys is a different story and I agree with what they say about colors. And if I can't get my Eldar army in because of the rules, I bring in the Dark Angels...just the way it is for me.

But honestly nether of us would have a game to play if GW had chosen to keep its efforts solely at unpainted lead minis and no fluff. No fluff, because if you say "why paint?", I raise at "why fluff?" I daresay they wouldn't have lasted past 1995, and your stuff would be gathering dust in the closet if you hadn't bothered to throw them away. You say, "It was alot of fun to PLAY THE GAME, and painting was secondary or terciary," and I agree. It is fun to play the game, playing the game is what keeps me painting. And while painting is secondary for me as well, I realize that in a tourney setting (to once again loop it back to the OP) it's a requirement. And if you can't or don't want to abide by that requirement, just peek in while you're buying your stuff and say hi to us.

Kirasu wrote:Forcing someone to play by your elitist rules in regards to painting is horribly lame.

Playing only your friends is perfectly legit but being condescending to others because they dont fit YOUR view of the game makes you an ass. Accept that and move on

Um, we are talking about tourneys, back on topic maybe? At a tourney there is no 'refusing to play' because a standard is set and everyone has to meet that standard. If you show up to an event and refuse to follow all of the rules put on by the event organizer you are a 'bad person' (tm) regardless if you are refusing to use painted models, refusing to WYSIWYG, refusing to follow rules, refusing to bathe or whatever. Events have rules, and you follow them or not participate.

If events require painting they require painting. Most major and well-run events require painting and non-painting are an exception right now. If you want to participate you can either paint... or not attend. You can't rail against elitist gaming rights in the name justice or show up demanding to be allowed in (which is what I see at smaller RTT events who try to have a standard.)

You know I don't have a problem playing against any opponent painted army wise. From unpainted, to primed, to fully painted. Hell I even play against a guy who uses Star Wars PPMs as Imperial Guard. I think that playing against painted armies is funner and enriches, but if they're not painted, so what.

All that being said, I wonder what the turnout would be like if someone hosted The Grey Tourney? A GT scale tournament with no painting restrictions. No ill talk against my unpainted plastic brethren.

If its just a friendly game I don't care if they are painted as long as at least some of them are painted.

nkelsch wrote:

Kirasu wrote:Forcing someone to play by your elitist rules in regards to painting is horribly lame.

Playing only your friends is perfectly legit but being condescending to others because they dont fit YOUR view of the game makes you an ass. Accept that and move on

Um, we are talking about tourneys, back on topic maybe? At a tourney there is no 'refusing to play' because a standard is set and everyone has to meet that standard. If you show up to an event and refuse to follow all of the rules put on by the event organizer you are a 'bad person' (tm) regardless if you are refusing to use painted models, refusing to WYSIWYG, refusing to follow rules, refusing to bathe or whatever. Events have rules, and you follow them or not participate.

If events require painting they require painting. Most major and well-run events require painting and non-painting are an exception right now. If you want to participate you can either paint... or not attend. You can't rail against elitist gaming rights in the name justice or show up demanding to be allowed in (which is what I see at smaller RTT events who try to have a standard.)

Same thing, its a rule designed to discriminate against players who dont follow a set of arbitrary restrictions that in no way impact the game. If a tournament makes you paint your army then people who dont have painted armies who *Want* to play in the event will simply prime + 2 quick colors to conform to GWs "3 color minimum". You can do an entire army in about 20 minutes like that. Now, if you say it has to be a reasonable paint job you're yes being elitist and restricting those who are allowed to play based upon relative painting skill.. Okay, lets say then its not based upon a reasonable paint job but on "effort shown". What doees that mean? I can paint an entire army to well above table top in an extremely short time which means I spent a lot less effort than someone newer who takes a week to paint 1 unit

Where do the restrictions end? A gw 3 color minimum is easily overcome by a "non painter" thus reducing the entire purpose of such a restriction which is to limit the undesirables isnt it? Those who dont enjoy the game in the same way shouldnt be allowed right?

The best way Ive found to encourage both painting AND attendance is to charge two different amounts for entry. My stores tournaments are 15$ for painted armies (just painted, quality is irrelevant) and 10$ for painted armies with the extra money going to the best painted. By allowing unpainted armies with fully painted armies we've found that *Gasp* that at least SOME of the unpainted players want to aspire to be a painted army (thus reducing their money cost and gaining some prestige in the process, that doesnt impact their ability to play in the event). I suppose Im more of an inclusive person than an exclusionary person

I assume that this discussion relates to tournaments? It's an assumption based on the topic being in the tournament section.

-Tournaments will state whether they have a painting requirement, or not. If you don't want to abide by the tournament rules, or don't think you'll enjoy the tournament, then you obviously would be better off not playing.

-If you'd like to see a different type of tournament, you should run them yourself, or talk to the TO running tournaments about trying something different, or talk to your club about running something different, or another store, or another TO...But don't just bash the tournament that you can't play in.

-If you choose to not make painting part of your hobby, then you have also chosen to not make playing in tournaments that require painting part of your hobby.

-If you want to complain about their being no painting for 'Ardboyz, you've missed the point of having a touranment without paint requirements.

-If you've made it a rule that you don't play with unpainted models, that's a personal choice. No one should have a problem with it. Similarly you shouldn't have a problem with people who play with unpainted models.

-Painting at the minimum level doesn't take skill. It takes practice or work. Skill develops from those. Painting to a minimum standard for most tournaments that require painting takes very little work.

MightyGodzilla wrote:
Hey it's why I put in the "or most of us if I happen to be wrong about you." And let me say LOL on you for trying to pull the age card. I got into 40K in 1989-1990, I'm 37 year old single dad going on 38 with a 17 year old player who at age 7 used to steal my warlocks and return them to me with globs of paint on them asking me to field them in the next game. And while my foolishness may rise to the occasion, I didn't buy into the hype - I'm a free thinker who is attracted to certain things. For all original colors you're remembering, for all the books you're name dropping....it is both the fluff and for a great many the fact that it's a paintable hobby that draws (the passerbys) and keeps most of us (veterans) in.

Then you know, that "THE HOBBY" was very very very different back then then it was today. I doubt its a paintable hobby that draws or keeps folks in, looking around. Some love painting. Some, dont care. Yet everyone, for the most part, keeps PLAYING. And there in lies the draw.

...but at Tourneys even dipping counts. And I certainly don't mind playing against people who've gone through even that most basic effort. And the OP is referring to tourneys.

And yet, dipping is still something thats a skill. Its not something you can just do. You have to learn it and learn well. Like painting.

As a whole this is a hobby. For the almost 25 years it's been successfully marketed as such. You buy in to one aspect, I buy into both. You've previously stated that you bow out of tourneys that don't meet your personal requirements, and I respect your descision to do so. You don't to the FLGS anymore. You're that guy who plays with his friends at one of your houses. No big deal, I'm that guy too, and I have many friends who fit that bill. But tourneys is a different story and I agree with what they say about colors. And if I can't get my Eldar army in because of the rules, I bring in the Dark Angels...just the way it is for me.

If tournies are different, explain hard Boyz tounments then? If painting is dire, and thats how their marked, explain how GW is marketing tournments, at the highest points in 40k to DATE, that doesnt have a painting requirement.

I was ALWAYS that guy who played in our houses. History has shown FLGS are useless for the most part. We're back to basements becuase of that.

And dont get me wrong. I have painted armies. I've sold or traded them. I just dont care about painting. Some armies get done. I have others that they will never get painted, but still played.

But honestly nether of us would have a game to play if GW had chosen to keep its efforts solely at unpainted lead minis and no fluff. No fluff, because if you say "why paint?", I raise at "why fluff?" I daresay they wouldn't have lasted past 1995, and your stuff would be gathering dust in the closet if you hadn't bothered to throw them away. You say, "It was alot of fun to PLAY THE GAME, and painting was secondary or terciary," and I agree. It is fun to play the game, playing the game is what keeps me painting. And while painting is secondary for me as well, I realize that in a tourney setting (to once again loop it back to the OP) it's a requirement. And if you can't or don't want to abide by that requirement, just peek in while you're buying your stuff and say hi to us.

The problem is your equating the GW of THEN to the GW corporate of NOW. Two very different companies. If GW in 1990 was the GW of 2011, I dont think I would have gotten into them, painting or no.

Its not always a requirement, I hate to tell you, even for tournments. Hard Boyz has shown us that. And dont expect me to show up at your FLGS for a hi, last time I did that that didnt have the new releases. Online is SO much better.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nkelsch wrote:]Um, we are talking about tourneys, back on topic maybe? At a tourney there is no 'refusing to play' because a standard is set and everyone has to meet that standard.

Then you arent paying attention. Archont is playing TFG of painting, refusing to play with you, or with his club, OR with any tables there or terrain, because your army is not painted.

Solution = simple painting score at tournis. I much rather play a painted army than a non painted army. THe excuses that people have made about not having enough time or resale etc are just that ... excuses. Primer comes in a million colors. Spray primer, pick out a couple of details. Wash. Done. Good enough for me.

Anyone who is in the habit of swapping their army every few months, usually falls into the powergaming side of the warhammer spectrum. Boring WAAC gamers. They are not better players, they just field whatever is the best army at the time. You can play that way if you want but it does not make you fun to play, and i would rather see people rewarded at tournis for having a beautifuly painted, modellied, and well played army than a slipshod grey creation bought only to win.

In freindly play grey armies are ok but if you play one I will still kid you about it if you make no effort at painting it. Its ok.

Painting scores really don't work.

Firstly you are determining the winner (of a event meant to test people tacticaly) on something that has no effect on who is better at gaming. At a competitive tournament your meant to bring a competitive list - the point is to win. You wouldn't expect anyone to bring a 3 colour model to a painting contest so why bring a bad list to a tournament?

Secondly a lot of people who play competitively just send their armies of to commision painters. This means you jst awarding points depending on whether people have enough money to get a commission.

If you want to encourage painted armies include a prize for best painted army but don't let it change the tournament results.

I'll say this: i'm more likely to go out of my way (time, travel, and money-wise) to go to a tournament that enforces painting.