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.

 OverwatchCNC wrote:
Keeping players from participating in the event is a bit silly. Most tournaments, with a policy about this, state that having an army painted is required to win prizes. If you're playing unpainted you may participate but are ineligible for prize support. To bar someone from playing period feels a bit draconian for a community that strives to be as inclusive as possible.

I don't think it's silly at all, it's just basic fairness. People with painted armies have very likely sacrificed list-building options for the sake of having a fully painted army, putting them at a disadvantage compared to someone who says "I don't care about the store credit, I'm just here to win". So why should the person who is breaking the painting rules be allowed to play at all? Why should they be allowed to "earn" wins, ITC points, etc?

And really, if people can break the painting rules and still play why shouldn't they be able to break other rules as well? Can I bring an extra 1000 points and still play, as long as I don't care about the store credit prize? Can I bring an army from an old codex and claim that you aren't being "inclusive" if you don't let me use those 2nd edition space marines in a 7th edition tournament?

There is no definition of table top quality but it means in general a complete if plain paint job that satisfies basic requirements for a fully painted army.

The "three colours" standard is a reasonable minimum, but most people aim for the best they can do. For example in my 15mm ACW Federal troops, I did dark blue jacket and hat, light blue trousers, flesh colour face and hands, wood colour rifle with metal barrel and bayonet, black shoes, pale grey webbing and kahki blanket roll, with a bit of highlighting on the hat, jacket, trousers, blanket roll and webbing. This is a pretty simple scheme and I was able to complete 72 troops with bases in an evening for use in a display game the next day. It's much easier to paint 15mm than 28mm. It would have been even easier if Magic Dip had been invented at the time I did this bunch of troops.

The difference is that higher standards of painting -- so-called museum quality -- are usually considered appropriate for special display and major character models, such as generals, not for rank and file troops.

 KaptinBadrukk wrote:

HuskyWarhammer wrote:
Hoping for some perspective from the dakka forum here:

In a tournament setting, it seems like a 3-color painting scheme is a fairly common expectation. So, in that situation, if you walk in and see a player who has an entirely black primed stormsurge, riptides with no basing, crisis sutis straight off of the sprue, (not to pick on Tau, just has been my personal experience that they're the worst offenders) etc., is it wrong of me to think that those models should've been disallowed from the game, or otherwise addressed by judges? I'm certainly no expert painter, but do try fairly hard to get my army tabletop-ready.

Thoughts?

Believe it or not, I just found out this 3 color schemes thing from a conversation on Facebook in a 40K orks group. It started with someone asking if people liked models new or painted to TTQ (table top quality). I asked what TTQ meant, and when I was told what it meant, I posted a picture of an Ork nob with lots of color. Then, that same person who told me what TTQ meant said: "basically... 3 colors, a wash and a highlight."

I typed out: "3 colors? Why not more than 3 colors?"

Person who told me what TTQ stood for: "Most tournaments require 3 colors."

Me: Just three colors? A minimum of three colors?

Person who told me what TTQ stood for: Yes and yes.

Me: so, the minimum is three colors, but most people bring models with only three colors?

Person who told me what TTQ stood for: lol yes.

Me: That...that just ain't right.

Person who told me what TTQ stood for: Well it's for the people that just want to play... To each their own.

Me: okay. I'll keep that in mind.

Very surprised to find this out. Especially now, since I've been in the hobby since 2013.

Yeah you have to remember that there really isn't a "hobby" singular. Within is collecting, building, painting, converting, gaming, tournaments, reading background, collecting oop minis/books, list building, optimal list building, painting armies, painting single figures, socialising, photography, making terrain, writing articles/blogs on what they have done etc... Not everyone does all of it, in fact you would be surprised how many people just do one or two elements of it.

 JamesY wrote:

 KaptinBadrukk wrote:

HuskyWarhammer wrote:
Hoping for some perspective from the dakka forum here:

In a tournament setting, it seems like a 3-color painting scheme is a fairly common expectation. So, in that situation, if you walk in and see a player who has an entirely black primed stormsurge, riptides with no basing, crisis sutis straight off of the sprue, (not to pick on Tau, just has been my personal experience that they're the worst offenders) etc., is it wrong of me to think that those models should've been disallowed from the game, or otherwise addressed by judges? I'm certainly no expert painter, but do try fairly hard to get my army tabletop-ready.

Thoughts?

Believe it or not, I just found out this 3 color schemes thing from a conversation on Facebook in a 40K orks group. It started with someone asking if people liked models new or painted to TTQ (table top quality). I asked what TTQ meant, and when I was told what it meant, I posted a picture of an Ork nob with lots of color. Then, that same person who told me what TTQ meant said: "basically... 3 colors, a wash and a highlight."

I typed out: "3 colors? Why not more than 3 colors?"

Person who told me what TTQ stood for: "Most tournaments require 3 colors."

Me: Just three colors? A minimum of three colors?

Person who told me what TTQ stood for: Yes and yes.

Me: so, the minimum is three colors, but most people bring models with only three colors?

Person who told me what TTQ stood for: lol yes.

Me: That...that just ain't right.

Person who told me what TTQ stood for: Well it's for the people that just want to play... To each their own.

Me: okay. I'll keep that in mind.

Very surprised to find this out. Especially now, since I've been in the hobby since 2013.

Yeah you have to remember that there really isn't a "hobby" singular. Within is collecting, building, painting, converting, gaming, tournaments, reading background, collecting oop minis/books, list building, optimal list building, painting armies, painting single figures, socialising, photography, making terrain, writing articles/blogs on what they have done etc... Not everyone does all of it, in fact you would be surprised how many people just do one or two elements of it.

I'll keep that in mind.

 Peregrine wrote:
And really, if people can break the painting rules and still play why shouldn't they be able to break other rules as well? Can I bring an extra 1000 points and still play, as long as I don't care about the store credit prize? Can I bring an army from an old codex and claim that you aren't being "inclusive" if you don't let me use those 2nd edition space marines in a 7th edition tournament?

I'll never understand this aggressive paranoia about people breaking rules. A person with an unpainted army doesn't see himself as breaking a rule, but rather getting an exception to the rules. That doesn't make him more likely to break rules, although you could argue that it makes him more likely to seek other preferential treatment. Still, a TO can allow an unpainted army, and not really hurt anybody, but making a bad ruling obviously hurts a player.

The reality is that success in life often comes down to knowing what written rules to ignore, or seek exemption from, or weasel out of. It also comes down to knowing what unwritten rules to follow, but that's a different topic.

 Polonius wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
And really, if people can break the painting rules and still play why shouldn't they be able to break other rules as well? Can I bring an extra 1000 points and still play, as long as I don't care about the store credit prize? Can I bring an army from an old codex and claim that you aren't being "inclusive" if you don't let me use those 2nd edition space marines in a 7th edition tournament?

I'll never understand this aggressive paranoia about people breaking rules. A person with an unpainted army doesn't see himself as breaking a rule, but rather getting an exception to the rules. That doesn't make him more likely to break rules, although you could argue that it makes him more likely to seek other preferential treatment. Still, a TO can allow an unpainted army, and not really hurt anybody, but making a bad ruling obviously hurts a player.

I have to disagree here because ignoring the painting rule does demonstrate (at the very least) to not follow a rule that could be seen as unnecessary or unreasonable. Maybe they toss out one of their maelstrom cards because "it's not fair because it's super hard to achieve." And on and on...

I really dont understand why you would drop $400+ just to throw down a bunch of grey plastic. You can literally buy a bag of 100 classic dark green army men for like a dollar in a supermarket. Most people are happy to invest a lot of money on minis because they spend time getting them to look cool and create battles that look cool.

In my eyes it adds to the culture of paying to win. Like some have already said, if Timmy has enough money to go out and buy a brand new Riptide/Knight/Broken unit, the day before the Tourney and throw it down unpainted. Then a week later swap it out for whatever else is flavour of the month, then it's not really fair on the players that spent at least a few hours painting up their army to a table top quality. That looked at the newest unit and thought "that looks cool but I wont have time to paint it for the tourney.

It's why people moan and cry about whichever flavour of marine is broken in an addition. If you think Ultramarines are cool and you painted your blue dudes and you stomp me, then that stings a lot less than grey plastic marines that are just using whichever codex has the most broken rules/formations at the time of the event.

I'm not saying that people shouldnt be allowed to ever play with unpainted minis, but at a tourny, that people took time out of their lives to travel to, to meet other gamers, then I want my army to look like its mine.

Otherwise, why dont events just have each table contain 50 tables of all the broken web lists, unpainted, facing off against each other, and those players just show up, pay a fee, use the house models and remove the collecting aspect from the hobby entirely?

 Polonius wrote:
I'll never understand this aggressive paranoia about people breaking rules. A person with an unpainted army doesn't see himself as breaking a rule, but rather getting an exception to the rules. That doesn't make him more likely to break rules, although you could argue that it makes him more likely to seek other preferential treatment. Still, a TO can allow an unpainted army, and not really hurt anybody, but making a bad ruling obviously hurts a player.

It's not paranoia at all. If I'm playing a game against someone I expect them to follow the same rules that I have to follow. But instead we have a situation where painted models are required, but the TO is reluctant to kick someone out and cost them their hotel room/travel/etc so they grant a special exception to the rule. The fact that the TO allows a particular instance of rule-breaking to happen doesn't mean that the rule was not broken.

Nor would I agree with the idea that allowing an unpainted army doesn't hurt anyone. In fact, in the paragraph directly above the one you quoted, I gave a specific example of how it could hurt someone. If I have to leave a unit home because it isn't painted while someone else gets to break the rule and use their unpainted models then I am at a disadvantage. If an "unpainted armies are legal" rule had been applied equally to everyone then my army would have been more powerful and I would have had a better chance of winning. But instead one player has more generous rules available for what they can put in their army.

The reality is that success in life often comes down to knowing what written rules to ignore, or seek exemption from, or weasel out of.

This may be true, but I don't think it is at all the kind of behavior we want to encourage in our community.

Have been to a fantasy event with a painting requirement, not '3 colour' just 'painted' and faced a goblin horde that apparently had actually been painted, with a grey primer the same-ish colour as the plastic.

Only problem I've found with '3 colour minimum' is it seems to gravitate to '3 colour maximum', which is a pity given its not hard to do something simple with these models and make them look good.

If its in an event pack it needs to be enforced though, if its not going to be enforced make it a guideline or request not a rule and be clear about it.

It is rather excessive to assume that because one has an unpainted army that they must be maliciously gaming the system and therefore likely to cheat you. This does come off as paranoid.

If a TO declares that no army is allowed to play unless it meets a certain painting requirement, that is their right as the organizer, and it is also their right to enforce it as they see fit, but I'd argue that it is a counter-productive stance to take. This would only create a point of conflict between the organizer and possible attendees where someone complains that a model is not "painted enough". Running a tournament shouldn't be about setting up conflict points; running a tournament is about addressing potential issues before they create conflict, ensuring the players enjoy their time (and thus ensuring a successful event). If looking at unpainted figures so radically lessens your experience to the point playing is not enjoyable, then perhaps a tournament setting is not for you. Encourage the TO to host a painting challenge instead.

The painting requirement would also not curb any hyper-competitive or even prone-to-cheating players as most of those two camps have painted armies (commission services are far cheaper than even a few years ago). People who want to win, either fairly or not, will make sure to do their due diligence to win. Having a painting requirement doesn't keep WAAC players out; it just creates a barrier of entry for newer players.

There are plenty of folks who have demanding jobs, families, and/or responsibilities that make painting an army a slow process. Escaping for a day to play in a tournament just to be told essentially "you don't invest in this hobby enough for us; you can't play here" is ludicrous. What if they do not have any other variation of the point limit that is painted? What if they just purchased a new unit that has them excited to play, but they just didn't have time to paint it? To take umbrage that some players have to choose to not take optimal units to fulfill the painting requirements assumes that every player has a large collection of possible models in which to draw, which is not the case at all.

This is a hobby, and treating it like anything else only serves to lessen its appeal. Consequently, the hobby doesn't just include painting as there are many players who enjoy the game itself far more than painting models, even if they have the time to do so. By enforcing a strict painting policy, you only communicate to those individuals that they are lesser than others and should not be included in what should be a fun, social event.

All in all, the TO has the fiat to make whatever determinations he/she wants, so if a TO enforces a strict No-Paint, No Play policy, that is on them to enforce or not enforce, but at the end of the day, it is a flawed policy. Restricting prize support is something else entirely, but telling somebody to go home because they don't hobby hard enough is such snobbery that I'd avoid that event or any event run by that TO/community.

I've always found that models painted to some degree adds great value to the game. If a player dedicates that level of time to a game it shows a greater commitment and interest. These are the kinds of folks who are the most enjoyable to play against and on average have had better games with them.

On the flip side, I wouldn't want players to discontinue or be barred from events on a relative criteria. Perhaps my take would be a light form of shaming to keep the level of hobby to a minimum.

Quite frankly, the hobby is what separates this game distinctly from a CCG. You can buy an ideal deck for Magic in one eBay visit, but having an army you've painted yourself, whose story Omnibus you've read, and whose commander you've given some ridiculous space latin name just makes for a better experience.

 Cieged wrote:
I've always found that models painted to some degree adds great value to the game. If a player dedicates that level of time to a game it shows a greater commitment and interest. These are the kinds of folks who are the most enjoyable to play against and on average have had better games with them.

On the flip side, I wouldn't want players to discontinue or be barred from events on a relative criteria. Perhaps my take would be a light form of shaming to keep the level of hobby to a minimum.

Quite frankly, the hobby is what separates this game distinctly from a CCG. You can buy an ideal deck for Magic in one eBay visit, but having an army you've painted yourself, whose story Omnibus you've read, and whose commander you've given some ridiculous space latin name just makes for a better experience.

Makes a better experience for you, not everyone shares that view of the game. Please take into account my gallery is filled with fully painted armies. I feel Lemurking fully explains my feelings on this matter.

Usually at my store's events, unpainted is allowed.

However there is the house rule that all painted models have preferred enemy and hatred unpainted models

This has definitely helped curb unpainted armies showing up in large numbers

lemurking23 wrote:
Restricting prize support is something else entirely, but telling somebody to go home because they don't hobby hard enough is such snobbery that I'd avoid that event or any event run by that TO/community.

Restricting prize support is something else entirely, but telling somebody to go home because they don't assemble their models and just use empty bases is such snobbery that I'd avoid that event or any event run by that TO/community.

Restricting prize support is something else entirely, but telling somebody to go home because they don't have the newest version of their rules is such snobbery that I'd avoid that event or any event run by that TO/community.

Restricting prize support is something else entirely, but telling somebody to go home because they haven't bathed within the past month is such snobbery that I'd avoid that event or any event run by that TO/community.

Restricting prize support is something else entirely, but telling somebody to go home because they want to use a random assortment of WHFB models as a space marine army is such snobbery that I'd avoid that event or any event run by that TO/community.

Etc.

 Peregrine wrote:

lemurking23 wrote:
Restricting prize support is something else entirely, but telling somebody to go home because they don't hobby hard enough is such snobbery that I'd avoid that event or any event run by that TO/community.

Restricting prize support is something else entirely, but telling somebody to go home because they want to use a random assortment of WHFB models as a space marine army is such snobbery that I'd avoid that event or any event run by that TO/community.

Etc.

In the 2001 Baltimore WH40K Grand Tournament (the last that I was able to attend before I left the US), some dude played a "counts-as" Dark Eldar army consisting of WHFB Empire models. They were well painted, but it was nearly impossible to tell what everything was supposed to be, and none of his opponents enjoyed playing against him. So sometimes the TO's should send offending players packing.

 JoshInJapan wrote:
In the 2001 Baltimore WH40K Grand Tournament (the last that I was able to attend before I left the US), some dude played a "counts-as" Dark Eldar army consisting of WHFB Empire models. They were well painted, but it was nearly impossible to tell what everything was supposed to be, and none of his opponents enjoyed playing against him. So sometimes the TO's should send offending players packing.

Well yeah, that was kind of the point of what I was saying. TOs can and should exclude people from an event for the good of the event as a whole, so trying to present "don't exclude people" as an absolute rule is not really a viable approach. We need to be discussing whether painting adds enough to the event that it should be mandatory (IMO it does), not treating "but snobbery!" as a sufficient response.

Sorry, I didn't mean to sound like I was calling you out. I was agreeing with you.

For the record, I only play with painted models, but I would not refuse to play an unpainted army. I would just B&M about them at the bar later.

 JoshInJapan wrote:
Sorry, I didn't mean to sound like I was calling you out. I was agreeing with you.

Oh, ok, agreement noted. In hindsight I think I missed the intent a bit.

When I play unpainted armies at tourneys, the following always pops up:

"Oh, I am painting them, so none of my models have arms" - Great. Now I can't even have basic WYSIWYG.

"Oh, these 3 squads of the exact same model are different, but all together... Oh, when you shot, you shot this one model, and his unit is in back, so now you can't charge." -Great, it is like a cloaking device for hoard armies because there are no squad markings to distinguish

"Oh, this is a sternguard/deathwatch unit using similar models, I can't afford the fancy models, power armor is power armor right?" - Great, upgraded units have nothing to distinguish them from rank and file.

"Oh, this big shoota is a rokkit launcha... I hope that is ok." -Great, because they are unpainted, they assume proxies are ok too.

"What? why do I have to constantly re-tell you what these models are and are equipped with? Can't you tell from 6 feet away? You are trying to slow play me." -Great, They have a sea of unpainted grey which is not clear what is what, but I get accused of slow play.

Unpainted models are a burden in many circumstances, and in a timed, competitive environment, it is unfair to expect an opponent to be saddled with a burden which is in violation of the event rules because you see it as 'no big deal' due to 'reasons'.

I won't play in tourneys which allow unpainted models, and if I play in a tourney which had clearly in the rules a minimum standard and the TO allows those people in, if they ever end up across me in a table, I will pack my stuff up and leave.

To have rules and not enforce them to participants is a sign of a bad TO and bait and switch.

To have people who show up knowing they intend to break the rules shows fundamental disrespect to their opponents.

I do not want to interact with either of those types of people.

Plenty of events 'allow' non-painted models, why can't those people go to those events? Why must they tear down all events to cater to them?

 Peregrine wrote:

lemurking23 wrote:
Restricting prize support is something else entirely, but telling somebody to go home because they don't hobby hard enough is such snobbery that I'd avoid that event or any event run by that TO/community.

Restricting prize support is something else entirely, but telling somebody to go home because they don't assemble their models and just use empty bases is such snobbery that I'd avoid that event or any event run by that TO/community.

Restricting prize support is something else entirely, but telling somebody to go home because they don't have the newest version of their rules is such snobbery that I'd avoid that event or any event run by that TO/community.

Restricting prize support is something else entirely, but telling somebody to go home because they haven't bathed within the past month is such snobbery that I'd avoid that event or any event run by that TO/community.

Restricting prize support is something else entirely, but telling somebody to go home because they want to use a random assortment of WHFB models as a space marine army is such snobbery that I'd avoid that event or any event run by that TO/community.

Etc.

Ah yes, the slippery slope boogieman that everyone is afraid of despite never actually having encountered...

Have you ever encountered it?

 JoshInJapan wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

lemurking23 wrote:
Restricting prize support is something else entirely, but telling somebody to go home because they don't hobby hard enough is such snobbery that I'd avoid that event or any event run by that TO/community.

Restricting prize support is something else entirely, but telling somebody to go home because they want to use a random assortment of WHFB models as a space marine army is such snobbery that I'd avoid that event or any event run by that TO/community.

Etc.

In the 2001 Baltimore WH40K Grand Tournament (the last that I was able to attend before I left the US), some dude played a "counts-as" Dark Eldar army consisting of WHFB Empire models. They were well painted, but it was nearly impossible to tell what everything was supposed to be, and none of his opponents enjoyed playing against him. So sometimes the TO's should send offending players packing.

I was there. The issues were many. IIRC, his counts-as included things like using Galloper Guns as Ravagers, and with their teeny profile compared to the Ravager model, he was able to hide them behind hills and such. That was where he lost any benefit of the doubt from me.

I believe his defense was that he asked the event staff beforehand, but I believe the event staff's defense was that they didn't fully understand the level of counts-as involved until he showed up. I *think* he was more or less DQed.

 Peregrine wrote:

lemurking23 wrote:
Restricting prize support is something else entirely, but telling somebody to go home because they don't hobby hard enough is such snobbery that I'd avoid that event or any event run by that TO/community.

Restricting prize support is something else entirely, but telling somebody to go home because they don't assemble their models and just use empty bases is such snobbery that I'd avoid that event or any event run by that TO/community.

Restricting prize support is something else entirely, but telling somebody to go home because they don't have the newest version of their rules is such snobbery that I'd avoid that event or any event run by that TO/community.

Restricting prize support is something else entirely, but telling somebody to go home because they haven't bathed within the past month is such snobbery that I'd avoid that event or any event run by that TO/community.

Restricting prize support is something else entirely, but telling somebody to go home because they want to use a random assortment of WHFB models as a space marine army is such snobbery that I'd avoid that event or any event run by that TO/community.

Etc.

So, instead of addressing my points, you establish a strawman? Not enforcing (or not having) a No Paint, No Play policy is not tacitly allowing unbuilt models, nor am I arguing that position. I suppose you are trying to win Internet Points by being snarky, but in terms of actually having a reasoned position, this is not exactly effective. You have still yet to address the primary issue that essentially establishing a "hobby minimum" that precludes participation is in of itself elitist and lacks any regard for players that approach this game from a different perspective other than your own. You are setting a clear standard based on personal biases, and instead of encouraging growth or interaction, you are creating an Us vs Them mentality that only breeds negativity.

It is one thing to say that as part of a tournament that celebrates the entirety of the hobby, prize support cannot go to unpainted armies, etc, but actually establishing such a hard line of participation is just being exclusive for the sake of exclusivity based solely on personal preference. Unpainted models do not have the same disruptive effect on the game state or the game's functioning as unbuilt or poorly converted/proxied armies. Unbuilt and unpainted are not the same thing, and creating a false equivalency does not make them the same, no matter how clever you think you are being. This is also true of personal grooming. I suppose I am looking for a whale in the desert though here by expecting reasoned arguments on the internet. My bad.

In terms of people's experiences, namely nkelsch's, this seems more like you played a few jerks rather than an entire population. Again, you won't stop jerks from playing by enforcing a painting requirement to participate; most of my less than enjoyable games have been against players with wonderfully painted armies, but then I am not advocating for a ban on painted armies. If someone is actively attempting to obfuscate units, their loadouts, or what have you for personal advantage by specifically not modeling or arguing where units were that are indistinguishable, that's called cheating and you should call a judge. I've played some whacky counts-as before (on both sides of the table), but I also do my part and make sure there is a set recording of what-equals-what that my opponent has access to as this helps them identify targets and mechanically does impede the game (or I ask to write this down as they are setting up if I have questions about their army).

There is a big difference between a player with good intentions and bad, and assuming that all players who do not paint or model effectively at one point belong to any group is flawed. If someone is using an unpainted, partially built, and/or heavily proxied army and is clearly trying to gain advantage from this, that's when the TO or a judge needs to step in as the player has then proven themselves to be less than sporting, and then there are grounds for removal to ensure that the wider event runs smoothly. This is completely different than flat out telling someone before they even play that they cannot participate. Give people a chance to demonstrate their character rather than making a blanket judgement on all who may fall into your set category of behavior or quality.

Since I tend to avoid engaging in too long of debates online, I'll leave with this:

For players: If someone enforces a strict No Paint, No Play policy, choose to attend or not, that is your choice as a player. My sympathies if this makes it difficult for you to attend events then because I am sure that there are more than a few well-mannered and gregarious individuals who would like to play, but do not have fully painted armies nor a plethora of places hosting events nearby. To others, if you are so angered by unpainted armies or people who do not hobby hard enough for you that you do not want to play a social game with them, then perhaps tournaments or competitive settings where the game is primarily emphasized are not your cup of tea. Again, lobby your local TO or community to host painting challenges or narrative events where the primary focus is on the painting and modeling aspect of the hobby, not the game itself.

For TOs: Be mindful that creating exclusionary policies is typically self-defeating. Pushing players away does not build community nor does fostering an environment where players feel that there is a minimum bar to even participate (which there is cash/time wise, so compounding this only makes it harder to grow a community). This kind of cliquish behavior only isolates your community, and inevitably, the clique will fracture. if you are set on establishing a firm No Paint, No Play policy, please then be sure to have weekly hobby nights where you can encourage players, particularly newer ones, to finish their armies as well as receive hands-on guidance. Lastly, if you do establish a policy, remember that as a TO, you have the right to make calls, but I suggest allowing players to demonstrate their quality (or lack of it) first before making a judgement.

I don't think it's elitist to expect people to paint their armies. Three colours is a very low minimum. I would expect anyone with any genuine interest in the figure wargame hobby to be able to achieve that level. All it takes is a layer of spray paint, weapons, and unit markings, and you're done. Finish with Quick Shade to give a bit of definition and because you should varnish toy soldiers.

There are painting services and ready painted armies on eBay, in case you don't have time or are allergic to paint or something.

There isn't really a valid excuse for booking into a tournament which requires painted figures and turning up with unpainted figures. The TO is fully within his rights to apply a penalty or even to turn you away.

lemurking23 wrote:

For players: If someone enforces a strict No Paint, No Play policy, choose to attend or not, that is your choice as a player. My sympathies if this makes it difficult for you to attend events then because I am sure that there are more than a few well-mannered and gregarious individuals who would like to play, but do not have fully painted armies nor a plethora of places hosting events nearby.

Yes, accept there are different types of events for different people wanting different things. If you want to go to more events,then make yourself able to by painting your models. Until then, go tot he events which you like the rules there and don't begrudge others.

To others, if you are so angered by unpainted armies or people who do not hobby hard enough for you that you do not want to play a social game with them, then perhaps tournaments or competitive settings where the game is primarily emphasized are not your cup of tea.

*sigh*... Troll fail..Strawman... whatever...

So you made up bullcrap about 'hobby hard enough' right after you supposedly said 'different strokes for different folks'. Apparently it is only different strokes if you stroke to the lowest standard EVEN WHEN there are very real, IN-GAME negative impacts which compromise competitive play which have been established, you still try to claim everyone who doesn't let you have your way is a snob or a rage-filled nut? Good Job.

Social activities rely on mutual respect. Disobeying rules, showing up, demanding an exception then forcibly burdening an opponent in-game is the most disrespectful thing someone can do at a tournament. So Why would I want to be social with someone who is basing his existence upon fundamental disrespect by being unable to follow the rules of the event?

Again, lobby your local TO or community to host painting challenges or narrative events where the primary focus is on the painting and modeling aspect of the hobby, not the game itself.

Why do you get to determine what is the 'one true way' to tournament? Why not let some events have painting required and some events not and let people attend the event with the rules they wish to follow?

For TOs: Be mindful that creating exclusionary policies is typically self-defeating. Pushing players away does not build community nor does fostering an environment where players feel that there is a minimum bar to even participate (which there is cash/time wise, so compounding this only makes it harder to grow a community). This kind of cliquish behavior only isolates your community, and inevitably, the clique will fracture. if you are set on establishing a firm No Paint, No Play policy, please then be sure to have weekly hobby nights where you can encourage players, particularly newer ones, to finish their armies as well as receive hands-on guidance. Lastly, if you do establish a policy, remember that as a TO, you have the right to make calls, but I suggest allowing players to demonstrate their quality (or lack of it) first before making a judgement.

History lesson.

There was a terrible dark time called 'ard boyz'. GW thought it would be cool to cater to this extreme 'the game is all that matters!!!' no painting needed group. Those events were a documented gak show and the people who are kept out of well-run events due to minor requirements flocked to those where the problems exploded out of hand. Also, because it focused so much on the game, we had people who would drive to 2-3 locations, scope out which area had the weakest competition, spread-out to have the best chance of winning, and then if they lost game 1, they quit the tourney, only to try it again the next day at another place. Unpainted models exacerbated many of the issues with that horrible format.

People hated it. HATED it. Like it or not, the 'hobby' keeps the social glue together at events. In a game which will have 199 losers and 1 winner, things like painting, modeling, and such keep a large portion of 'losers' invested in the event until the end. Straight up, people like myself refused to participate in such events, and that event died, and tourneys which required painting sprung up to fill the itch and were popular because that is what drew people to those events.

And guess what? Some events which are small, for a small community, do things like 'trainer tourneys' so they can play in a tourney while practicing/playtesting for a larger event. Many larger events sell-out and have a large draw DUE to the painting, so if you have an over abundance of participants, non-painters are going to be excluded.

No one is saying all events must be painted always... but people who say all events must never require painting ever, (Add insults against people who disagree) are disturbing.

lemurking23 wrote:
You have still yet to address the primary issue that essentially establishing a "hobby minimum" that precludes participation is in of itself elitist and lacks any regard for players that approach this game from a different perspective other than your own.

I have absolutely addressed it, by pointing out the fact that everyone sets a "hobby minimum". Requiring assembled models instead of bases with space marine legs glued on them is a "hobby minimum". Requiring WYSIWYG is a "hobby minimum". Unless you are prepared to allow empty bases as an "army" in a tournament then your blanket rejection of "hobby minimums" fails, and you need to defend your argument for setting the "hobby minimum" at the specific point you want it at.

I've ignored the rest of your post because it's just a longer statement of "establishing a 'hobby minimum' is terrible, but tournaments should use the 'hobby minimum' that I expect".

HuskyWarhammer wrote:
Hoping for some perspective from the dakka forum here:

In a tournament setting, it seems like a 3-color painting scheme is a fairly common expectation. So, in that situation, if you walk in and see a player who has an entirely black primed stormsurge, riptides with no basing, crisis sutis straight off of the sprue, (not to pick on Tau, just has been my personal experience that they're the worst offenders) etc., is it wrong of me to think that those models should've been disallowed from the game, or otherwise addressed by judges? I'm certainly no expert painter, but do try fairly hard to get my army tabletop-ready.

Thoughts?

Speaking as someone who routinely attends tournaments on a both local and GT through Major levels, and a participant with actual skin in the game on this issue, I think revisiting the OP may be in order. Really the expectation of the "completeness" to which an army is painted is fairly subjective. You'll never get 100% agreement on this, even amongst a close knit local group the views on this topic will differ. In the real world of actual tournaments, and attendees of said events, the only expectation you can really have is that which the TO(s) have provided. At which point the discussion of what is/should or should not/is not allowed can begin. With out the guidelines for a specific event to go off of this conversation will always become mired, as it has, in the subjective views of people reading and posting here. Some will always feel their experience as a; tournament attendee, Judge, Organizer, or even as a poster for whom this is an academic exercise is the "more correct" view of the arbitrary topic.

My expectation for how painting/completeness of an army be handled for any event is based solely on the requirements of the event as explained by the TO(s) beforehand. If they state all models must be WYSIWYG and 3 Color Minimum plus finished base or you cannot participate than I would expect that to be upheld. If that event were a GT or Major GT I would have had that expectation already and wouldn't have a problem, if it were a local event I would be a bit surprised at the rigidness of the policy. I may even skip that small event in lieu of another less strict event where I can test out models/units without having to have them fully painted and based. That is all based on my personal experiences and local outlook on this issue. Your opinion of it may be completely different. The problem with this entire conversation though remains that the OP is too broad, expecting any type of consensus to congeal among any of the posters here without a specific set of guidelines to discuss is not reasonable. Were there to be a specific set of guidelines to discuss and debate perhaps more of a consensus could be reached. As it stands though nobody commenting here, from the TOs/Judges through the Players/By Standers, is going to agree because it's all too subjective.

There's a degree of subjectivity. If the standard is three colours and an army is presented with 0, 1 or 2, then clearly objectively it doesn't have three colours. Or perhaps 75% of the figures have three colours and the other 25% are bare plastic.

If an army is presented that has been sprayed gold with a white shoulder pad on the right and a black shoulder pad on the left, the player can objectively say it is three colours and the TO, whose tournament it is, can subjectively think the player is a rules lawyer, but he has to make a call of whether he's going to accept it or to deny it as subjectively a substandard army, and have an argument.

If I was running the tournament, I reckon I would tell the player he's pulling my whizzer and I'm not happy, but I will grudgingly accept the army since to refuse it leaves a gap in the roster. There will be a penalty -- do you accept that? -- if not, sling your hook and I'll get a friend to fill in. I also would make a change to the definition of acceptable armies for next year, and put this particular player on a black list so he doesn't come to any more tournaments I organise.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
There's a degree of subjectivity. If the standard is three colours and an army is presented with 0, 1 or 2, then clearly objectively it doesn't have three colours. Or perhaps 75% of the figures have three colours and the other 25% are bare plastic.

If an army is presented that has been sprayed gold with a white shoulder pad on the right and a black shoulder pad on the left, the player can objectively say it is three colours and the TO, whose tournament it is, can subjectively think the player is a rules lawyer, but he has to make a call of whether he's going to accept it or to deny it as subjectively a substandard army, and have an argument.

If I was running the tournament, I reckon I would tell the player he's pulling my whizzer and I'm not happy, but I will grudgingly accept the army since to refuse it leaves a gap in the roster. There will be a penalty -- do you accept that? -- if not, sling your hook and I'll get a friend to fill in. I also would make a change to the definition of acceptable armies for next year, and put this particular player on a black list so he doesn't come to any more tournaments I organise.

If the only guidelines given is "3 Colors" than how could you argue that an army, as described by you above, would be substandard? It meets the standard, therefore is not substandard.

 Peregrine wrote:


I've ignored the rest of your post because it's just a longer statement of "establishing a 'hobby minimum' is terrible, but tournaments should use the 'hobby minimum' that I expect".

"Painting shouldn't be required, but clearly the models should be WYSIWYG and fully assembled... It is about the GAME."

"Proxies should be allowed, but clearly the models need to be fully assembled... It is about the GAME."

"Models need to be on the base, but it is ok, if they are in a state of construction, but clearly they need to be real miniature models... It is about the GAME."

"Dollar Store Army men should be allowed for rank and file models, but clearly they need to be 3D toys or models of some sort... It is about the GAME."

"Paper cut-outs and papercraft tanks should be allowed, but clearly they need to be more than flat tokens... It is about the GAME."

"I should be able to show up with flat paper disks to represent models as I can play tactically with just that, but clearly one needs to own the rulebooks... It is about the GAME."

"I write down an army list from a store rulebook and remembered the rules and use paper tokens... Why can't I play? it is Hobby Snobbery!!! Elitist rage-filled neck-beard! You clearly lack social skills if you deny me from your event!"

'Minimum Standard' is like casting a fishing net. If your local scene has about 30 people, half of which don't paint, and you want to run a 16-person tournament, there is a good chance you could fill all 16 slots with painted armies and everyone have a good time. If you want to run a larger event with those 30 people, a TO might need to relax some rules to get the numbers up. TOs know their audience and know what people want... TOs know they are excluding people, and probably sleep just fine at night knowing that.