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.

RiTides wrote:

derek wrote:For the painted crowd, why even have a tournament? Why not just have a painting competition, since that's apparently the most important aspect?

For the people who believe it's not important, why require it as part of your tournament, and then not give a score for it?

The thing is derek, as you said, there's room for everyone. Most people don't fall into the extremes that you imply here: those who think painting is the only thing that matters, and those who don't think it matters at all.

I was highlighting what this always boils down to at the extremes, those two questions were not meant to be a catch all. I believe most tabletop gamers fall somewhere in the middle. I personally don't like playing in events where stroking your painting ePeen for the judges best is worth more points than playing the game (I'm sure we've all experienced the "hobbyist" judge that looks down the nose at your less than golden demon paint job), and similarly I don't like showing up to a painted only event, and it not actually being a part what is judged at the event at all.

GT = Fully painted and based or GTfo

Personally I like to see fully painted and good looking models on the table at GT's. That is just me.

derek wrote:[For the painted crowd, why even have a tournament? Why not just have a painting competition, since that's apparently the most important aspect?

For the people who believe it's not important, why require it as part of your tournament, and then not give a score for it?

The "painted crowd" doesn't just want to paint a figure and enter it into a competition, they like to attend a tournament and play games in an enviorment where everyone else has also put in at least the basic effort in getting their armies painted. Most people that attend a GT for the first time come away from it wanting to attend again, and do a better job both in game play and painting. This leads to having a community of people that 1) enjoy playing the game 2) enjoy painting and seeing what other people painted 3) makes friends and likes to see those friends at future GT's.

If someone wants to run a GT and allow unpainted models, that's up to them. Anyone can run a GT, it just takes work. You don't see many of them with no painting requirement because you don't have many people that want to run a GT that way. I don't, so I require painting at my GT's.

If their are people who don't like painting, but want to attend big weekend tournaments anyway, I can respect their point of veiw. At the same time, they have to respect mine that I don't want them attending my events unless they bring an army of painted models.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

derek wrote: I personally don't like playing in events where stroking your painting ePeen for the judges best is worth more points than playing the game (I'm sure we've all experienced the "hobbyist" judge that looks down the nose at your less than golden demon paint job), and similarly I don't like showing up to a painted only event, and it not actually being a part what is judged at the event at all.

Yeah, that's nearly as bad as showing up to an event filled with WAAC net listers too lazy to pick up a paint brush and only worried about flexing their dice rolling muscles and proving how big a guy they are by owning some 12 year old at his first event.
--------------------------------------------------

(Just to make sure no one misses the point, the above statement is sarcasm, as I tried to mirror dereks statement from the other side of the arguement. If find both his and my statements overly dramatic and confrontational, and adding nothing to the conversation. In other words, tone it down a bit, or watch the thread dissolve into chaos.)

Like Mike said it takes a lot of work too run a GT. Tons of people think you can just throw them together and believe me you can, but it will show that you did and your likelyhood of having it again the next year is slim too none. Takes money, months of planning, hard work on many peoples parts, and in the end utter determination because believe me the days leading up too the event suck and you barely sleep and have your nerves on end because of everything that needs too fall into place or the event won't be a success. As such I remember back when (not even more then 10 years ago mind you..in fact less) when it wasn't uncommon for somone too spend a year working on a army just for a GT for games workshop.

mikhaila wrote:


Automatically Appended Next Post:

derek wrote: I personally don't like playing in events where stroking your painting ePeen for the judges best is worth more points than playing the game (I'm sure we've all experienced the "hobbyist" judge that looks down the nose at your less than golden demon paint job), and similarly I don't like showing up to a painted only event, and it not actually being a part what is judged at the event at all.

Yeah, that's nearly as bad as showing up to an event filled with WAAC net listers too lazy to pick up a paint brush and only worried about flexing their dice rolling muscles and proving how big a guy they are by owning some 12 year old at his first event.
--------------------------------------------------

(Just to make sure no one misses the point, the above statement is sarcasm, as I tried to mirror dereks statement from the other side of the arguement. If find both his and my statements overly dramatic and confrontational, and adding nothing to the conversation. In other words, tone it down a bit, or watch the thread dissolve into chaos.)

Honestly, you don't know me from the next random person, so telling me my opinion, which I've formed based on past experience, is overly dramatic is rather rude. On top of that, I think you've completely missed the point of both my original post, and reply in this thread. Everyone always seems to think you can only have things one way or the other, and there is no middle ground. That thought is just silly to me. I've seen both types of events have numerical success. And just from personal experience, even when not requiring painted armies, you'll get the majority of players showing up with them painted to at least a 3 color minimum.

(And for the record, the part about painting competitions was sarcasm too. While I'm not the most motivated painter, I'd rather see something advertised as a GT at least requiring the minimum. And wouldn't show to one without doing so myself, required or not. If I was being what appeared to be confrontational, I apologize, but I don't feel I was being any more so than the person instructing the non painters to go play Magic instead.)

augustus5 wrote:The Indy GT that was held in St. Louis this year didn't have a painting requirement, but gave bonus points to fully painted armies, and had prize support for best painted army. That is a pretty fair compromise.

I get the feeling that alot of people's opinions on the "fairness" of that compromise would be flip-flopped if 'ard boyz compromised and didn't have a painting requirement but gave bonus points to fully painted armies as well as a cash prize to best painted. What's supposedly good for the goose is good for the gander!

Ard boyz should stay unpainted and GT's should stay painted. To me, it's simply not a "GRAND" tournament if I'm facing a bare plastic/metal/resin army. I'm completely fine with playing against unpainted armies in FLGS pickup games but I expect more from tournaments I attend (especially if there's an entry fee). A tournament for me is an event first and foremost and the spectacle of that event includes playing on nice tables with cool terrain against an opponent with a painted army who is fair and amicable during the game under the auspices of a knowledgable organizer. If any one of those criteria isn't met without good reason, I'm not coming back the next time. I have zero problem with the Ard Boyz tourney having no sportmanship or painting scoring/requirement; at the same time, I'll never attend one because it simply doesn't suit my tastes. I just wish the people who disagree with my viewpoint would just leave the tournaments that DO agree alone and stop hounding every thread that mentions anything other than in-game scoring or requirements beyond assembly. People who don't like painting and/or soft scores are a lot more vocal and incessant about every event meeting their view than the other way around.

Vote with your wallet/feet and simply don't attend an event that doesn't meet your expectations. If you're a painting nazi, don't go to a 'Ard Boyz and then complain about the grey hordes you face or jump in a thread about the event to whine about the lack of soft scores at the event at a best general event. If you're a WAAC gamer, don't go to an event that has an overall winner that includes soft scores and THEN cry about your rules lawyering and grey horde getting dinged on points or post in a thread decrying the "evils" of soft scores in an event that clearly advertised their use. There's more than enough room in the hobby for events of both types. IMO, 'Ard Boyz and GTs should represent opposite ends of the spectrum in this matter with independent local events filling in the compromise middle ground.

Cryonicleech wrote:While I don't think it should be a rule, I'd like to see fully painted armies at GT's. However, what with the modern age and the upscaling of the game, I can understand if someone with a unit of, say, 50 skaven clanrats or maybe someone running foot Orks doesn't have a fully painted force.

This.

It was so much easier back in the day to field a painted force the point levels have stayed the same but armies have doubled in size.

I remember years ago when they first released Brets and LM GW made a huge battle scene for gamesday one of its biggest features was a block of saurus 100 strong back in the 90s that was almost undherd of.

Now I regularly face 100 strong units of skaven slaves/gobbos only the diffrence is its on a 6' 4' table....

Another big diffrence was 2nd ediotion 40k if you had 3 tanks that was a huge amount of armor to have on the table.

Now entire companys of mech infantry are common place on the table.

I dont think unpainted armies have developed because of the internet and netlist etc I think its a result of armies getting so large.

But considering its so easy to use army painter products etc to make painting alot quicker even the most ardent anti hobbist should be able to be able to paint a army quickly to a decent 3 color standard with a quick dip.

Peeps also feel better about getting torn apart by a net list when its atleast a nicely painted netlist so I think painting being mandatory at tournies is a must I am a gamer first and painter second but I always remind myself that its the minis that makes these games interesting.

on the note of wysiwyg what is the case if you take say vanguard veterans with different weapons, what do you do then? convert? those models are pretty set tbh

Danny Internets wrote:Not everyone likes painting. Not everyone like sculpting. Not everyone like competitive lists

Thats true, but I would ask, are Grand Tournaments for everyone?

I don't think they should be. I think they should be for people who enjoy ALL aspects of the hobby, have brilliantly painted and converted armies, are friendly and fun to play against, and build fun yet competitive lists.

In a fifty man field, most people know they won't win. After round 2, barely a dozen have even a mathematical shot.

For those that aren't in the winners bracket, there's a lot of value in knowing you'll get games against painted armies on good terrain. For me, and I think for a lot of people, that has value.

There's no rule against having a GT that allows unpainted, but I think that most people expect GTs to require paint. The pool of guys that will travel for two days of gaming against primered armies is smaller than the those that have a painted army and want to play against others.

I have to throw my hat on the side of fully painted. Personally I don't like playing without a fully painted army myself, and I do like to see fully painted armies on the other side of the table. I am a fan of the overall hobby, which is painting, building, collecting, and then playing. GTs are meant to showcase armies, and I for one love to go and see all the different armies painted.

If it's a GT, yeah, I feel they should be painted.

JuBear wrote:Now I regularly face 100 strong units of skaven slaves/gobbos only the diffrence is its on a 6' 4' table....

Not to quibble, but I believe slaves are max 50 (but I believe you when you say you're facing 100 gobbos). Salvage plays skaven with 2 blocks of slaves, and I think he used a dip method on them... no way to paint that many small, 2 point models, and stay sane at least with traditional methods. Thank goodness for modern day painting shortcuts on the chaff

RiTides wrote:

JuBear wrote:Now I regularly face 100 strong units of skaven slaves/gobbos only the diffrence is its on a 6' 4' table....

Not to quibble, but I believe slaves are max 50 (but I believe you when you say you're facing 100 gobbos). Salvage plays skaven with 2 blocks of slaves, and I think he used a dip method on them... no way to paint that many small, 2 point models, and stay sane at least with traditional methods. Thank goodness for modern day painting shortcuts on the chaff

slaves are caped at 50! thanks for the heads up I am going to go have words with my regular skaven oponent

FYI: "Grand Tourney" is an established format set by GW legacy events. People who run GRAND TOURNEYS are purposefully emulating the standards and quality of those events.

You can always have a 2-day tourney with no appearance requirements or scores... it just isn't a GRAND Tourney... It is a 2-day tourney with no appearance requirements or scores. But see how many people will travel 3-4 days and spent 400-1000$ for a 2-day tourney with no appearance requirements or scores. Might be hard to get enough attendance But it is always worth a shot if someone wanted to run it.

I hate painting, and a GT should require painted models. That, along with the size and number of games (ie. 2 days/5+ games) is what makes it a GT.

I don't think painting scores should weigh so heavily on the overall placement of the GT, like many do (at least in the North East WHFB GT community); but it should be required.

Also FYI, Skaven Slaves are NOT capped at 50 models.

Polonius wrote:In a fifty man field, most people know they won't win. After round 2, barely a dozen have even a mathematical shot.

For those that aren't in the winners bracket, there's a lot of value in knowing you'll get games against painted armies on good terrain. For me, and I think for a lot of people, that has value.

There's no rule against having a GT that allows unpainted, but I think that most people expect GTs to require paint. The pool of guys that will travel for two days of gaming against primered armies is smaller than the those that have a painted army and want to play against others.

This. For a lot of us, traveling and booking a weekend away and winding up on a table against unpainted models is kind of like a slap in the face. It's unappealing and a let-down. It's a statement that the person on the other side of the table does not care about the visual spectacle of the game, and put their own personal enjoyment (of time not spent painting) above that of all three or five of their opponents.

Voodoo Boyz wrote:Also FYI, Skaven Slaves are NOT capped at 50 models.

Well, darn- my mistake!

MagickalMemories wrote:

Walls wrote:You're kidding, right? There's a huge importance in it. As a matter of fact it's 1/3 of the hobby. As a matter of fact it's pushed more in books and magazines then tactica, so could actually be MORE important then generalship. Who is to say? Uh... the game designers?

I am not talking about local game store events with only local guys, I am talking about GRAND TOURNAMENTS. What's so grand about them if they're no better then gaming in your basement with buddies?

I guess if we don't need to paint, who cares about WYSIWYG. I guess I can bring pop cans and toothpicks standing up on bottle caps for an army?

I am glad lots of people agree with me though. Makes me feel better about the health of the hobby.

Painting is actually zero part of the wargaming hobby. That's far less than 1/3.

Among most historical wargamers I've met and known of, it is considered inappropriate and verboten to field an unpainted model on the table at any time.

There's a crew of 5-6 hiistoricals players who show up at my FLGS most weeks, and they play different systems and time periods practically every week. American Civil War, English Civil War, Napoleonics, Colonial conflicts (last week they had Boxer Rebellion), and it's always with fully painted armies. I can't guess how many hundreds of painted figs some of these guys have.

as long as the overall score is affected by painting Its ok with me.

Mannahnin wrote:

Polonius wrote:In a fifty man field, most people know they won't win. After round 2, barely a dozen have even a mathematical shot.

For those that aren't in the winners bracket, there's a lot of value in knowing you'll get games against painted armies on good terrain. For me, and I think for a lot of people, that has value.

There's no rule against having a GT that allows unpainted, but I think that most people expect GTs to require paint. The pool of guys that will travel for two days of gaming against primered armies is smaller than the those that have a painted army and want to play against others.

This. For a lot of us, traveling and booking a weekend away and winding up on a table against unpainted models is kind of like a slap in the face. It's unappealing and a let-down. It's a statement that the person on the other side of the table does not care about the visual spectacle of the game, and put their own personal enjoyment (of time not spent painting) above that of all three or five of their opponents.

Bingo! Right on the nail!

Walls wrote:Well, if that's what you believe then you are a gamer, not a hobbyist. I suggest Magic the Gathering would be a better fit for you.

If that's what you believe, then what you're seemingly presenting as fact is wrong. Moreso, it's a relatively pathetically argumentative answer that does nothing to foster friendly discussion/debate on what is supposed to be a friendly discussion/debate website.
M:tG is not a better fit. Not my kind of game.

When did I claim to be a "hobbyist?" When did a "hobbyist," by definition, have a requirement that they be into painting? I cannot find that in any sort of definition anywhere from any aceptably reliable source.

mattyrm wrote:Turning up at a GT with an unpainted army is like turning up at your sisters wedding wearing a pair of board shorts, flip flops and a vest.

What if it's a beach themed wedding and his sister's in a bathing suit?
It's still called a wedding. Changing the requirements doesn't change what you call it.

Redbeard wrote:I don't see any fluffy players running around trying to get 'ard boyz to change what it is to include them. They're willing to accept that it's an event that isn't designed for them. Why then is it acceptable for competitive players to complain about the events that feature strong soft-score elements and painting requirements and expect those events to change?

There are different ways to enjoy the hobby, and neither are wrong, but they're not mutually inclusive either. I'm not trying to tell anyone else that they should play my way. I'm not advocating to remove the events designed to cater to their style. I am trying to stop them from trying to change the event style that I enjoy into one that I won't enjoy.

Overall, I agree with your statements in the post I snipped the above quote from and, while I don't DISAGREE with it I do have commentary based on it.
I don't think that most competetive players want tourneys to change their philosophies (BTW, I don't like lumping all "I don't wanna paint" players into that mold, but am using the term for ease of communication). I think they want more tournaments that don't require a painting level to win the tournament. Their opinion is that a GAME tournament should be based on GAME results (a game which has no rules for painting). If it's a "hobby" tournament, then a painting score is valid as part of the overall score.
My personal opion is that a tournament should qualify itself as being a gaming tournament or hobby tournament and act accordingly. If you're a 40K game tourney, there is no painting requirement or score factored into deciding who wins (I strongly advocate prize support for best painted, though, that EQUALS or nearly equals the prize for winning the tournament as a side-competition). If you're a hobby tourney, then you include the whole deal, hard scores AND soft. I think the former would get a better turn out than the latter, but i admit that is STRICTLY opinion.

I could not agree with the last portion of what I quoted any more.

RiTides wrote:In the past, in the case of GTs that's been all-painted. I think it should stay this way simply because it is an exclusive event worth making the effort for. I just got my army done up to a 3-color minimum for DakkaCon, and will be doing another push for Battle for Blobs Park. The event gives me a goal to shoot for and helps me finish the army

True. If my understanding is correct, however, there is no organized GT system any longer. If that is the case, then I think the term "GT" is a kind of open-bag of goods. Anyone can call their tournament "Grand," now that there is no officail "Grand" when it comes to the tournament scene.

mikhaila wrote:If their are people who don't like painting, but want to attend big weekend tournaments anyway, I can respect their point of veiw. At the same time, they have to respect mine that I don't want them attending my events unless they bring an army of painted models.

I cannot fault this p.o.v. Like you say, YOU are the organizer, so it's your choice. I think too many people -on both sides- tend to overlook that. I hear nothing but great things about you, your shop and your tournaments. If I wanted to play an unpainted army in one of these legendary events, I might request that you take my above suggestion and have a tourney with no paint requirements, but offer equal prize support for the best painted. Maybe even another prize for favorite opponent?
Obviously, since I'm wanting to PLAY in it, I would not offer to help organize/run it but would offer my assistance in a future tourney or two as a barter.
Maybe you'd think about it, maybe not. My point is that I would not expect you to change your regular tournament for people who want to play unpainted armies but, if you were willing, would offer something in exchange for you holding one in the future. Give and take. You know?

I mean, who knows. If someone managed to talk you into that and your turn out was even better, maybe you'd add one or 2 of these a year into your tournament rotation?
LOL... then again, maybe not.

I found your commentary to Derek's statement to be quite valid. No room for that kind of stuff here.
He did have ONE point I agreed with, though:

similarly I don't like showing up to a painted only event, and it not actually being a part what is judged at the event at all.

While I don't argue that TO's organizing events that require painting should have to factor it in to the score, I do find it annoying when there isn't a prize or score acknowledgement.

mannahnin wrote:This. For a lot of us, traveling and booking a weekend away and winding up on a table against unpainted models is kind of like a slap in the face. It's unappealing and a let-down. It's a statement that the person on the other side of the table does not care about the visual spectacle of the game, and put their own personal enjoyment (of time not spent painting) above that of all three or five of their opponents.

Admittedly, I think "slap-in-the-face" is a bit of a drastic p.o.v. to take about it. That said, however, you make a valid point tat I can fuly understand. Your 'let-down' feeling is perfectly valid.
I do have a question about this, though:

It's a statement that the person on the other side of the table does not care about the visual spectacle of the game, and put their own personal enjoyment (of time not spent painting) above that of all three or five of their opponents.

If I'm reading your intent correctly, then my devil's-advocate counter questions would be
Why is your enjoyment any more important than his? Is it fair that he has to do something he does not enjoy so you can feel enjoyment? Why would your enjoyment need to be affected by this?
If a player with a well painted army showed up with a fluffy list, would it be equally approrpiate for that player to be disappointed that his opponents put their own personal enjoyment (for playing tough lists) over his enjoyment for a game that focused on all aspects of the hobby, including fluff? What makes that any less valid a part of a "hobby" tournament than a painting requirement?

Also, if you support painting requirements, do you also support unit limitations so that certain armies match up better with fluff and organizational structures? Where is the difference?

There are no right or wrong answers. They're just "thinking" questions.

mannahnin wrote:Among most historical wargamers I've met and known of, it is considered inappropriate and verboten to field an unpainted model on the table at any time.

That matches my experience with them, as well, for the most part.
It doesn't make it part of THE hobby, though. It makes it part of THEIR hobby. That's my point.

-----------------------------
There's a saying that the difference between tattooed people and non-tattooed is that the tattooed people don't care that the non-tattooed don't have tattoos.
I can see a parallel here. The non-painters seem not to care so much whether or not your army is painted. The other group, however, seems to care a LOT more.


Eric

Redbeard wrote:

biccat wrote:Is a Grant Tournament still a GT if you exclude a class of players simply because they don't share the same interests as you?

You know, some events aren't for everyone. I don't complain that 'ard boyz exists just because it doesn't interest me. Grand tournaments exist for people with a certain set of interests. If you don't have those interests, then clearly they're not for you. Go play 'ard boyz. Don't whine that those of us that do have those interests get an outlet for them.

I have no problem with events excluding certain people. When I run tournaments I require that everyone have table-appropriate basing for their miniatures. If you don't want to play in that environment, then you should leave your models at home or run your own tournaments.

The OP's question was regarding the "Grandness" of a tournament. I think that a "Grand" Tournament is to determine the best-of-the-best, and that means allowing anyone to enter, regardless of whether their miniatures are painted or not. As others have said, painting is only a small part of The Hobby. To exclude these people from a tournament makes about as much sense as excluding Tyrannid players from the tournament.

I enjoy playing against painted models as well, but you know what I dislike more than unpainted models? Really terribly painted models. I would much rather play against a silver & grey horde than against a mass of Testors Enamel. Are you going to establish a painting standard for your Grand Tournament as well?

biccat wrote:

Redbeard wrote:

biccat wrote:Is a Grant Tournament still a GT if you exclude a class of players simply because they don't share the same interests as you?

You know, some events aren't for everyone. I don't complain that 'ard boyz exists just because it doesn't interest me. Grand tournaments exist for people with a certain set of interests. If you don't have those interests, then clearly they're not for you. Go play 'ard boyz. Don't whine that those of us that do have those interests get an outlet for them.

I have no problem with events excluding certain people. When I run tournaments I require that everyone have table-appropriate basing for their miniatures. If you don't want to play in that environment, then you should leave your models at home or run your own tournaments.

The OP's question was regarding the "Grandness" of a tournament. I think that a "Grand" Tournament is to determine the best-of-the-best, and that means allowing anyone to enter, regardless of whether their miniatures are painted or not. As others have said, painting is only a small part of The Hobby. To exclude these people from a tournament makes about as much sense as excluding Tyrannid players from the tournament.

I enjoy playing against painted models as well, but you know what I dislike more than unpainted models? Really terribly painted models. I would much rather play against a silver & grey horde than against a mass of Testors Enamel. Are you going to establish a painting standard for your Grand Tournament as well?

Disagree 100%. If you want a 'grand' tourney with painting optional, then go run one. I suspect you won't get enough people attending to make it 'grand'. If you do, more power to you. Don't tear down other people's events expecting exceptions and trying to redefine the word 'hobby' on the internet.

MagickalMemories wrote:
I cannot fault this p.o.v. Like you say, YOU are the organizer, so it's your choice. I think too many people -on both sides- tend to overlook that. I hear nothing but great things about you, your shop and your tournaments. If I wanted to play an unpainted army in one of these legendary events, I might request that you take my above suggestion and have a tourney with no paint requirements, but offer equal prize support for the best painted. Maybe even another prize for favorite opponent?
Obviously, since I'm wanting to PLAY in it, I would not offer to help organize/run it but would offer my assistance in a future tourney or two as a barter.
Maybe you'd think about it, maybe not. My point is that I would not expect you to change your regular tournament for people who want to play unpainted armies but, if you were willing, would offer something in exchange for you holding one in the future. Give and take. You know?

I mean, who knows. If someone managed to talk you into that and your turn out was even better, maybe you'd add one or 2 of these a year into your tournament rotation?
LOL... then again, maybe not.

You sir, are on quite dangerous ground! Because if I do schedule one, you're now committed to dragging your butt up to it.)

I've regularly run tournaments that don't reguire painting, especially when their a "practice for xxx GT". We have one this next weekend. It's a practice tournament for the Blob's Park tournament run by the Inner Circle club out of Baltimore (SHAMELESS PLUG: IT'S IN A BEER GARDEN!!!, WIN FREE BEERS EVERY GAME!)
We use their rules and format for a 3 game touranment. We don't require painting because many people are testing out lists, or wanting to play with the units they are trying to get ready for the GT.

Might at some point think about a 2 day unpainted event. The challenge is how to make it different from 'ardboyz. Lower points for sure, and an absolute emphasis on WYWIWYG would be needed. 'Ardboyz is always a bit of a challenge at the regional level trying to sort ourt the gits that bring absolutely horrible 'conversions' and 'counts as' because their local store allowed it. Probably a good discussion for another thread.

Models at a GT should definitely be painted.

Playing against the plastic/metal horde is far from "Grand", particularly when you know the reason is so that the kid who buys a FOTM army every time a new codex comes out can't be bothered to paint it.

Polonius wrote:

For those that aren't in the winners bracket, there's a lot of value in knowing you'll get games against painted armies on good terrain.

With all the fuss some players/organizers make over requiring painted armies, I have seen some pretty uninspired and S***** looking terrain being used at events.

If you are gonna make a big argument for the importance of the visual aspect of the game, then the terrain should get just as much attention as the armies imho...

MagickalMemories wrote:

mattyrm wrote:Turning up at a GT with an unpainted army is like turning up at your sisters wedding wearing a pair of board shorts, flip flops and a vest.

What if it's a beach themed wedding and his sister's in a bathing suit?
It's still called a wedding. Changing the requirements doesn't change what you call it.

Yeah cos there are loads of them.

Clearly you know exactly what I meant by my good humoured comment, I shall spell my opinion out for you as well though.

99% of games have no painting requirement. Play in most tourneys, mates garage, GW, FLGS, party at your place, pretty much everywhere you like, with unpainted models.

For the GT put some fething effort in or don't turn up.

nkelsch wrote:Disagree 100%. If you want a 'grand' tourney with painting optional, then go run one. I suspect you won't get enough people attending to make it 'grand'. If you do, more power to you. Don't tear down other people's events expecting exceptions and trying to redefine the word 'hobby' on the internet.

Some people enjoy different parts of the hobby. I'm not "tearing down" other people's events (like refusing to call non-painted events GTs) nor am I expecting exceptions (all of the armies I play are [almost always] fully painted) nor am I trying to redefine the word hobby.

People enjoy different aspects of the hobby. Simply because you enjoy playing painted armies doesn't make people who play unpainted armies inferior.

mikhaila wrote:

I've regularly run tournaments that don't reguire painting, especially when their a "practice for xxx GT". We have one this next weekend. It's a practice tournament for the Blob's Park tournament run by the Inner Circle club out of Baltimore (SHAMELESS PLUG: IT'S IN A BEER GARDEN!!!, WIN FREE BEERS EVERY GAME!)
We use their rules and format for a 3 game touranment. We don't require painting because many people are testing out lists, or wanting to play with the units they are trying to get ready for the GT.

This is a perfect example. The standard is clear, there is an audiance and an expectation for participants and everyone who shows up wants the same thing. I am huge into painting but I would love the opportunity to get 'tourney' practice with a list before a larger event. I wish I would have had some hardcore practice for NOVA like this... It was 3 games before i really got comfortable with some new units I was using.

Might at some point think about a 2 day unpainted event. The challenge is how to make it different from 'ardboyz. Lower points for sure, and an absolute emphasis on WYWIWYG would be needed. 'Ardboyz is always a bit of a challenge at the regional level trying to sort ourt the gits that bring absolutely horrible 'conversions' and 'counts as' because their local store allowed it. Probably a good discussion for another thread.

When it becomes 2-days... you have a few issues:

1. Will you have enough players to support a 6-8 game bracket? Nothing sucks more than playing the same person twice in a tourney. In a 3-game tourney it doesn't take many people to guarantee all unique parings all day. Depending how you rank either by single elimination brackets or swiss rankings... having 5+ games really means having a lot of players.

2. 2-days means overnight stays for non-locals. Since the size probably requires non-locals, you need something to convince non-locals to spend hundreds of dollars to show up. To get that draw you need a few things. For the visual people who like painted armies but don't dream of winning, you need panting requirements. For the people interested in just the Game, you need a large scale and number of participants to make it worth their time. I honestly don't think if the room wasn't packed by general gamers who like appearance, the event can't grow large enough to justify people traveling to these events. Someone can prove me wrong and run the first multi-day unpainted tourney and see how the attendance works. Just an observation based on legacy events and discussions with people at these events.

Personally, I would attend a tourney with unpainted if it was for practicing for another event or local so it had no real cost for me to play. I would not have paid hundreds of dollars to play against greys and the inevitable proxies that are always unenforced at grey events for 14+ hours over 2 days like this past weekend. No way in heck.