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.

Frazzled wrote:I'd like to play on that table actually.

The Last Stand on Demon World Craptacula

If I ever ran another tournament I think this would inspire me to create a whole list of strange tables.

Planet Craptacula
Weinerdog World
Alice in Wonderland
Planet Disco

yea baby yea!

Frazzled wrote:What he said. You want Ardboyz you play Ardboyz. If the tournament requires a minimum of play you do that or you don't qualify to play.

exactly. people need to stop bitching about painting and comp requirements or the lack thereof and simply vote with their wallets/attendance. if the tourney says ahead of time that you play on an unfinished table if you bring an unfinished army, you have no right to complain as you knew ahead of time and still chose to attend. one of the reasons i skipped ard boyz was because i consider painting an important part of the hobby and it isn't acknoweledged at all in ard boyz.

Mannahnin wrote:
...they are impinging on everyone else’s enjoyment, and that they are basically “mooching” visual enjoyment from the work put in by others- opponents who paint their own armies, and organizers/store owners who make and paint nice terrain. Maybe having the point made in this new and unusual way would get through to some folks and make them realize that the visual aspect of the game IS important to them after all, and that they are being selfish by deriving pleasure from that while expecting everyone else to go to the effort without doing so themselves.

Or they want to play a game and don't care about the painted aspect? How are they being selfish again? Isn't anyone in favor of this being selfish by saying they need to invest the time/money to have their army painted? Nobody has the inalienable right to play anywhere or against anyone, but people shouldn't be dicks to each other. Anyone encouraging someone to be a dick to somebody for something that isn't illegal or "commonly morally reprehensible" (things like saying rude things to women in a non-joking fashion, using explicit language in front of of little kids and the like) is acting like twice the dick themselves.

Edit: If it really pisses in your Froot Loops that much to play unpainted armies, don't allow them. No petty table-swapping, just be up front about it like you have a pair.

Mannahnin wrote:Even if it were mildly unpleasant, it is not necessarily inappropriate to point out to them in this way that they are impinging on everyone else’s enjoyment, and that they are basically “mooching” visual enjoyment from the work put in by others- opponents who paint their own armies, and organizers/store owners who make and paint nice terrain. Maybe having the point made in this new and unusual way would get through to some folks and make them realize that the visual aspect of the game IS important to them after all, and that they are being selfish by deriving pleasure from that while expecting everyone else to go to the effort without doing so themselves.

Well stated, more eloquently than I had written. This is a good example of what I am trying to do.

That sounds like an elitist idea coming from an elitist (which frankly is an unwarranted attitude). Trash the idea.

You judge painting at painting tourneys, you judge sportsmanship at a game tourneys. Keep the two separate.

edit: I totally agree with the post directly below me (by MagickalMemories)

Augustus wrote:

MagickalMemories wrote:This idea screams of "painted army elitism."

It's like you're telling the guys, "We think so little of you because you do not paint your army that you don't even deserve regular terrain."

OK, I started this thread to get input and I appreciate hearing what you all think.

Thanks for the comments, I like to see the discussion continue and hear from more folks.

Nothing is planned I'm considering a variety of ideas.

I will be honest and say I agree with you, that is what I am saying "We think so little of you because you do not paint your army that you don't even deserve regular terrain." but understand, beyond the paper table round there is not going to be any descrimination mockery I wouldn't stand for that sort of thing in an event I ran, and I wouldn't do it.

I don't really want the thread to degerate into a discussion of the merrits of painting, so I will just make 3 simple points:

If you didn't paint your army why would unpainted terrain bother you?
Isn't it worse to tell people with unpainted armies they can't even come at all, that's really segregation?
Any 3 colors on any model isn't my standard, it's a common community standard, and in effect this event would be removing it actually.

Augustus, let me preface by saying I've never had issue with you, and I don't now. I'm simply being as frank as you and am not taking your comments personally. I hope you return the feeling after my post.

I emboldened the most important phrase above.
IMO, if you truly feel this way, you do not belong in a position of organizing events for anyone beyond yourself. I say that because whichever store/convention you are oganizing events for is going to suffer the brunt of your admitted elitism. If you want to organize your own event, that's cool. If this is at a store or Con, though, you're going to have quite a few ticked off people - even some of those with painted armies. Those people back up their opinions with their wallets.

To reiterate (for everyone's benefit) - I've NEVER taken an unpainted army to a tournament.

I would express my dissatisfaction to the event organizer (you), as well as whoever is hosting the event.

You can say, "Isn't it worse to tell people with unpainted armies they can't even come at all, that's really segregation?" but that's just hiding behind semantics - even if you don't realize it.

It's one thing to say, "To play in this event, you must meet this minimum criteria. Period. End of story."

It's something different to advertise that unpainted armies will be allowed, then drop this bombshell on them when they arrive.
Sure. You won't allow others to mock them for being on the substandard tables, but you're definitely mocking them. In essence, your rule is, "Don't point and laugh at the peons we're putting on display by showing them we think they're lower than us."

Doing what you suggest is the equivalent of handing them helmets and reflector tape and telling them that it's required uniform for those with unpainted armies, and they must wear it at all times during the tournament.


As for pairing them based on painted/unpainted... That's like saying there's a tournament for "us," and a tournament for "them."


Thanks for listening (reading).
Eric

Mannahnin wrote:
2. Even if it were mildly unpleasant, it is not necessarily inappropriate to point out to them in this way that they are impinging on everyone else’s enjoyment, and that they are basically “mooching” visual enjoyment from the work put in by others- opponents who paint their own armies, and organizers/store owners who make and paint nice terrain. Maybe having the point made in this new and unusual way would get through to some folks and make them realize that the visual aspect of the game IS important to them after all, and that they are being selfish by deriving pleasure from that while expecting everyone else to go to the effort without doing so themselves.

I find this alarming.

So, it's okay for you, as a "HAAC" to "mooch" enjoyment from them by pointing out that they are subpar and wrong for deriving pleasure from playing the game in a way that makes them happy because you happen not to like it?

How is that any better?

You're ruining their experience because of your own selfish bias.

warboss wrote:

Frazzled wrote:What he said. You want Ardboyz you play Ardboyz. If the tournament requires a minimum of play you do that or you don't qualify to play.

exactly. people need to stop bitching about painting and comp requirements or the lack thereof and simply vote with their wallets/attendance.

But that is NOT what is being proposed by the OP.
He's not saying, "meet the minimum or you don't play." He's saying "meet this standard that I have set, or you have to play at the substandard table that looks like I threw a bunch of trash on and called it terrain."

Eric

Which do you prefer? No one's forcing you to play. Play on planet Craptacula or don't enter the tourney, or you know bring the community standard of three colors.

I still like the idea of alternate worlds more and more though. Planet Disco is particularly enticing. I feel Jungle Boogie coming on...

MagickalMemories wrote:
I find this alarming.

So, it's okay for you, as a "HAAC" to "mooch" enjoyment from them by pointing out that they are subpar and wrong for deriving pleasure from playing the game in a way that makes them happy because you happen not to like it?

How is that any better?

You're ruining their experience because of your own selfish bias.

Sorry, I show up at an event with a fully painted and WYSIWYG army and 100% out there would enjoy playing against that army. My actions and my army infringes on *NOBODIES* fun.

I show up at an event with unpainted greys or proxies, then 100% of the people would not enjoy playing against that army. My Actions directly infringes upon other people's fun.

I cannot be mad at an opponent for fielding unpainted trash if the event allows it. Doesn't mean I will enjoy playing against it and I can choose to not participate. But this requires people to have a pair and set standards and enforce them and realize someone will always dislike the event in some way and could choose not to participate.

But that is NOT what is being proposed by the OP.
He's not saying, "meet the minimum or you don't play." He's saying "meet this standard that I have set, or you have to play at the substandard table that looks like I threw a bunch of trash on and called it terrain."

Eric

What he is saying is he wants a minimum standard, but the venue refuses to allow him to have one. Which means he has to let people of any standard show up and play. The problem with that is when that is the case, people like me will purposefully refuse to participate to the event degrades even further and now his event is a joke and he is working all weekend to support an event with unpainted proxies and garbage because people who enjoy painting and want a minimal standard have opted out and won't participate. His event would be seen as a bad event.

'ardboyz is a trainwreck and a terrible experience compared to almost every other event out there. People TOLERATE 'ard boyz as it has national prize support, is free and is the only way to get to regionals, where the quality and enforcement of things tightens up. If you had a 'ardboyz tourney, stand alone and asked people to pay to enter, it would be a horribly disastrous and poor quality event. I am going to *PAY* to enter an event where I play against 80% unpainted and unWYSIWYG armies and spend a day in horrible rule arguments? Nope. I can wait 3 weeks and pay to enter a different tourney where everything will be WYSIWYG and paitned and have quality enforcement and I know what to expect. Vote with my wallet.

He wants to still fill the wishes of the venue which is 'everyone can play' but still try to keep people who explicitly enjoy playing at painted and WYSIWYG events interested in some way. Which is going to be hard to do without pissing on someone in some way. It is really hard to get people to voluntarily show up with painted armies when you can't enforce a minimum standard... Which is actually important to many people.

Frazzled wrote:Which do you prefer? No one's forcing you to play. Play on planet Craptacula or don't enter the tourney, or you know bring the community standard of three colors.

I still like the idea of alternate worlds more and more though. Planet Disco is particularly enticing. I feel Jungle Boogie coming on...

Frankly, I don't care if someone paints his army or not. I paint my armies as an added benefit to the hobby. I play 40k for the game, though. If one is such an elitist that he can't stand to play against an unpainted army, then he should start a "painted armies only" tourny. After all, no one's forcing him to play

Austragalis wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Which do you prefer? No one's forcing you to play. Play on planet Craptacula or don't enter the tourney, or you know bring the community standard of three colors.

I still like the idea of alternate worlds more and more though. Planet Disco is particularly enticing. I feel Jungle Boogie coming on...

Frankly, I don't care if someone paints his army or not. I paint my armies as an added benefit to the hobby. I play 40k for the game, though. If one is such an elitist that he can't stand to play against an unpainted army, then he should start a "painted armies only" tourny. After all, no one's forcing him to play

Er I think thats the point of this thread. painted only, like most tournaments.

Augustus wrote:There won't be any public ridicule.

Augustus wrote:I will be honest and say I agree with you, that is what I am saying "We think so little of you because you do not paint your army that you don't even deserve regular terrain." but understand, beyond the paper table round there is not going to be any descrimination mockery I wouldn't stand for that sort of thing in an event I ran, and I wouldn't do it.

These are the two quotes which really, really bother me. So there won't be any other mockery aside from the paper tables?

As a player, I would complain to the store owner. If I were a store owner and someone running an event tried to do this, I would positively enjoy the act of banning the tournament organizer from doing anything at my store ever again.

solkan wrote:

Augustus wrote:There won't be any public ridicule.

Augustus wrote:I will be honest and say I agree with you, that is what I am saying "We think so little of you because you do not paint your army that you don't even deserve regular terrain." but understand, beyond the paper table round there is not going to be any descrimination mockery I wouldn't stand for that sort of thing in an event I ran, and I wouldn't do it.

These are the two quotes which really, really bother me. So there won't be any other mockery aside from the paper tables?

As a player, I would complain to the store owner. If I were a store owner and someone running an event tried to do this, I would positively enjoy the act of banning the tournament organizer from doing anything at my store ever again.

As would I. At a tourny, everyone should be held to the same standard (which is the entire point of a tournament), which is "you come here to play, you play like man."

Austragalis wrote:As would I. At a tourny, everyone should be held to the same standard (which is the entire point of a tournament), which is "you come here to play, you play like man."

And one of those standards is enforcing WYSIWYG and minimal painting standards. But the person who is not allowed to play nerdrages and gets his way in. The people who don't like the lowered standards just take thier money and play elsewhere as there doesn't seem to be a shortage of events that require painting as it seems to be the requirement of every event I have seen except 'ardboyz which explicitly says upfront it does not require painting.

I remember when unpainted minis were not allowed due to theft reasons... Every model had to be at least primed in order to distinguish them from people popping open a blister and gluing it together in the bathroom.

I think OP needs to find a new venue that allows him to enforce standards. Not all tourneys need to be at a game store. You can often find conference centers or convention centers that will rent small rooms for decent money. Just takes some organization and planning.

Is your army painted Solkan?

To MagickalMemories,

We are all just speaking academically in a forum about possibilities for an event that hasn't even happened. What kind of poster would I be if I openly solicited comments and then flamed those who disagree or were equally frank? I would hope my demeanor here speaks to my intent.

MagickalMemories wrote:It's one thing to say, "To play in this event, you must meet this minimum criteria. Period. End of story."

It's something different to advertise that unpainted armies will be allowed, then drop this bombshell on them when they arrive.
Sure. You won't allow others to mock them for being on the substandard tables, but you're definitely mocking them. In essence, your rule is, "Don't point and laugh at the peons we're putting on display by showing them we think they're lower than us."

It is perhaps a third thing to say, everyone is welcome, armies that do not meet the standard will play games on unpainted terrain round 1 before people even signup. There is no concept of surprising people about it attached to this idea. In fact quite the reverse, to encourage people beforehand and announce that there is a consequence.

Some in this thread have reacted very negatively to this concept. I was and am still curious how many folks might react so negatively, but I am still not convinced everyone in thread understands the intent, for example with the bombshell comments above.

I am also surprised at the vehemance for the paper table, is it that big of an issue, words like punishment, discrimination and elitism have been put forth. Is it not just that those who put no effort forth for painting would gain none in return and be treated in kind?

I find it perplexing that a player who was not concerned with painting enough to meet a simple 3 color standard would feel so ostricized by playing on unpainted terrain. I think this may make the point by itself, that it is an issue people care about regardless of what their personal painting progress might be.

MagickalMemories you are defending a hypocritical viewpoint to the point of audacity. If you think that un painted armies have a place in a quality event and that unprepared players need to be accommodated then I say you do not belong in a quality tournament.

Here is a new angle, lets say I went to a Magic the Gathering tourney, purchased the correct amount of cards to play, then took out a sharpie and changed the titles to the legal cards I wanted them to be and used them in sleeves.

I paid the money
I have the cards
I am playing by the rules
Couldn't I play in the tournament?

How do you think Magic judges would respond to that?

Austragalis wrote:

solkan wrote:

Augustus wrote:There won't be any public ridicule.

Augustus wrote:I will be honest and say I agree with you, that is what I am saying "We think so little of you because you do not paint your army that you don't even deserve regular terrain." but understand, beyond the paper table round there is not going to be any descrimination mockery I wouldn't stand for that sort of thing in an event I ran, and I wouldn't do it.

These are the two quotes which really, really bother me. So there won't be any other mockery aside from the paper tables?

As a player, I would complain to the store owner. If I were a store owner and someone running an event tried to do this, I would positively enjoy the act of banning the tournament organizer from doing anything at my store ever again.

As would I. At a tourny, everyone should be held to the same standard (which is the entire point of a tournament), which is "you come here to play, you play like man."

but if its not painted. you can't play, play like a girl.

Augustus wrote:
Here is a new angle, lets say I went to a Magic the Gathering tourney, purchased the correct amount of cards to play, then took out a sharpie and changed the titles to the legal cards I wanted them to be and used them in sleeves.

I paid the money
I have the cards
I am playing by the rules
Couldn't I play in the tournament?

How do you think Magic judges would respond to that?

HAHHAHAHA, It is not uncommon for players to have whole decks in those card protector sleeves and then use known counterfeit or cards printed off the internet in those events. Of course official events they do require the appropriate product, but in many events I have seen people refuse to let people inspect the authenticity of thier cards and places be cool with known counterfeiters and bogus cards. With the way Upper Deck knowingly counterfeited thier own Yu-gi-oh cards, it is almost assumed most players cards are flat out fake nowadays and they don't even try.

Comes down to Squeaky wheel gets the grease. Someone nerdrages over not being allowed to play and makes a scene and now everyone plays regardless of rules, standards or what the participants who paid for a legit event were promised.

Indeed?

That's appalling. I thought there was a different standard in those events.

Alas I do not know.

Augustus, we are responding to your idea, not to your tone. Your idea is to openly ridicule players who do not conform to YOUR stringent standards. You say you want to "let people know that there are consequences." Consequences to what? Offending you, one player out of many? That is very narcissistic to say the least.

The reason why people are so offended by your "paper table" idea is indeed because a gross level of elitism. You are substituting the entire spirit of a tournament, allowing players to test their mettle against one another on an even playing field, for a spirit of ridicule, judgmentalism, and stratification.

As an example, it would be like if you attended a martial arts tournament using cheaper equipment, so the competitors using more expensive gear force you to only fight against competitors also using cheaper gear. That is totally against the intent of the tourny, and is disgusting to boot.

As another example, it would be like going to a banquet and they test you on your knowledge of culinary arts beforehand. If you didn't know so much, you get mac n cheese. If you proved to be well versed, you are given fillet mignon.

Augustus, your example of the Magic tournament is flawed outright because that player is breaking the rules of the tournament. Altering your cards is in no way similar to playing a game according to the rules while using unpainted minis.

Frazzled, my painting ability is not related to my playing ability.

I posted a request for a poll.

Paper Terrain at a Tourney?

If table(s) of newspaper, boxes and books terrain were set up at a Tournament (RTT standard style) for armies that did not meet a 3 color standard to be paired on round one (and announced in advance) would that be:

(1) Terrible
(2) Great
(3) No opinion

nkelsch wrote:
I show up at an event with unpainted greys or proxies, then 100% of the people would not enjoy playing against that army. My Actions directly infringes upon other people's fun.

nkelsch wrote:
'ardboyz is a trainwreck and a terrible experience compared to almost every other event out there. People TOLERATE 'ard boyz as it has national prize support, is free and is the only way to get to regionals, where the quality and enforcement of things tightens up. If you had a 'ardboyz tourney, stand alone and asked people to pay to enter, it would be a horribly disastrous and poor quality event. I am going to *PAY* to enter an event where I play against 80% unpainted and unWYSIWYG armies and spend a day in horrible rule arguments? Nope. I can wait 3 weeks and pay to enter a different tourney where everything will be WYSIWYG and paitned and have quality enforcement and I know what to expect. Vote with my wallet.

Way to project, buddy. I'm glad you get to speak for everyone, including the people who blatantly disagree with you. And I'd never seen a card gaming event that allowed counterfeits or wouldn't immediately disqualify someone for having them in their deck. I've been to many fairly large events and a nationals or two as well lots of small tournaments. I honestly believe you're making stuff up about that and would appreciate you not trashing one someone else's hobby because you can't get over the fact that not everyone likes toy soldiers in the way that you do.

As a player who has shown up to a tournament with an army that is not up to a 3 color standard, and having played against similar opponents, I would have to say I would not at all find it frustrating to play on the "paper table".

I may not want to finish painting my army before the tournament, and if I still wanted to participate (knowing about this paper table), I'd go and suffer the consequences. I see where this would be an issue if it was sprung on the competitors with no forewarning, but the idea is that it's not, as to be used as a tool to try to get more painted armies on the tables.

I think it's completely valid to do occasionally, because it would get old real quick and lose it's effectiveness. Beyond that, I think it's perfectly legitimate and ok if a TO does that. And if the OP is who I think it is, I may go play just to look at said table.

Austragalis, I find your entire argument to be based on a false premise- that the visual spectacle of the game is not a big part of it, and its enjoyment.

Part of the point of miniatures wargaming, indeed a large point of it, is the pleasure derived from the spectacle of the armies. If the game was all, then computers certainly do a superior job of providing tactical challenges. But they manifestly lack the tactile element.

It is my suspicion that most players who themselves fail to paint still DO derive enjoyment from the visual aspects of the game. That these players do enjoy looking at and playing against and with nice armies and terrain. Despite their protestations to the contrary; that they are only interested in the game.

Especially as the idea is described- the table in question will be totally game-functional. The same proportion of difficult terrain, LOS-blocking, area, etc. It just won’t be pretty. If the players really DO only care about the game part, and not give a fig for the visuals, then this should be perfectly fine for their purposes. OTOH, if they actually care about the visuals more than they’re admitting (maybe even to themselves), then perhaps this is a unique way of making them aware of that.

Augustus wrote:Some in this thread have reacted very negatively to this concept. I was and am still curious how many folks might react so negatively, but I am still not convinced everyone in thread understands the intent, for example with the bombshell comments above.

To be perfectly frank, in this context, your intent matters not one iota. All that matters is the effect that your actions will have, and some of the posts here are very good indicators of the kinds of negative reactions that you might encounter.

Augustus wrote:I am also surprised at the vehemance for the paper table, is it that big of an issue, words like punishment, discrimination and elitism have been put forth. Is it not just that those who put no effort forth for painting would gain none in return and be treated in kind?

I find it perplexing that a player who was not concerned with painting enough to meet a simple 3 color standard would feel so ostricized by playing on unpainted terrain. I think this may make the point by itself, that it is an issue people care about regardless of what their personal painting progress might be.

Some people simply do not have time to paint. They have kids. They have wives. They have jobs. They have friends. They have second jobs. They are not necessarily unconcerned with painting; all that you can actually know about their armies and how they view them is that they're unpainted.

Augustus wrote:MagickalMemories you are defending a hypocritical viewpoint to the point of audacity. If you think that un painted armies have a place in a quality event and that unprepared players need to be accommodated then I say you do not belong in a quality tournament.

If you have advertised that unpainted armies are allowed at your event then, yes, you need to be prepared to accomodate them. Treating them like second class citizens is doing nothing of the kind.

Augustus wrote:Here is a new angle, lets say I went to a Magic the Gathering tourney, purchased the correct amount of cards to play, then took out a sharpie and changed the titles to the legal cards I wanted them to be and used them in sleeves.

I paid the money
I have the cards
I am playing by the rules
Couldn't I play in the tournament?

How do you think Magic judges would respond to that?

Having not played MtG competetively, but having played (and judged) Yu-Gi-Oh! at a regional level, I'll twist it around to that: no, you wouldn't be allowed to play, because you've marked your cards. Which means that your deck is illegal. Which means that it would have been disqualified.

Much like you could disqualify an unpainted army. Or, rather, can't. So would you be disqualified? No. You'd be allowed to play. But at the same time, unless I was being paid to run the tournament by someone else, I wouldn't run it in such a way. And to twist it back to your proposition:

Would I ever have made bad players, or players with messed up cards, sit down at a kiddie table with no chairs because I prefer people to be good players and good players generally prefer playing against good players, meaning that bad players, or players with messed up cards, degrade the experience of good players? Feth no.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Mannahnin wrote:Especially as the idea is described- the table in question will be totally game-functional. The same proportion of difficult terrain, LOS-blocking, area, etc. It just won’t be pretty. If the players really DO only care about the game part, and not give a fig for the visuals, then this should be perfectly fine for their purposes. OTOH, if they actually care about the visuals more than they’re admitting (maybe even to themselves), then perhaps this is a unique way of making them aware of that.

If the goal is to eliminate unpainted armies from the tournament, having those with unpainted armies only realise that they want to paint their armies halfway through round 1 seems to be exactly opposite to the desired result.

I have no issue with playing on a paper table. With paper terrain. I play for the joy of combat....what your army looks like is irrelevant to me, which is probably part of why I don't mind playing with garishly painted models.

Here's one of my trukks coming along right now.



That's a wooden table in the background with borrowed terrain; houses on that table are stacks of books. I don't object to any of that.

I *DO* object to segregation. It *IS* segregation. You're setting aside a group of people and declaring them not good enough, not worthy of the same respect other players get; and that isn't determined by their valuation of the the table they are playing on, but of yours. YOU don't value the table they are on, you think it is inferior and unworthy and you're planning on placing them there in that spirit. That's the problem.

The idea is as absurd as putting people on a table where the terrain is made out of GW product boxes because they didn't convert any models. You don't convert, you don't get to play with converted terrain.
-------------------------

You know what idea you should really turn this into? The gaming tournament aspect itself. If people didn't come with a painted army, they play on the crappy table in your world. How about this: If people don't come to the tournament with a competitive army, they go play Yu-Gi-Oh in the corner with each other while wearing dunce caps. Or how about this one: If you haven't won an RTT or a GT in the last 12 months, then you only get to play 1000 point lists, and you do it on the kiddie table over in the corner.

You don't enjoy playing against people that don't paint their army.

I don't enjoy playing against people who suck at 40k.

Do you see any threads where tournament gamers and competitive players are whining that 40k players who aren't tactically elite are playing in their tournaments, and since they don't want to turn anyone away, they're going to set up kiddie tables in the corner for the people who aren't good enough to play in the real tournament? They'll have their own prize bracket too - McDonalds' happy meal toys.

Dashofpepper wrote:I play for the joy of combat....what your army looks like is irrelevant to me, which is probably part of why I don't mind playing with garishly painted models.

And here I was thinking that it was because it distracts your opponent. But that would take some kind of tactical geniu...

CREEEEEEEEED!

Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:

Way to project, buddy. I'm glad you get to speak for everyone, including the people who blatantly disagree with you. And I'd never seen a card gaming event that allowed counterfeits or wouldn't immediately disqualify someone for having them in their deck. I've been to many fairly large events and a nationals or two as well lots of small tournaments. I honestly believe you're making stuff up about that and would appreciate you not trashing one someone else's hobby because you can't get over the fact that not everyone likes toy soldiers in the way that you do.

Be aware of the upperdeck situation where Upperdeck was taking its contract to make and sell licensed American cards and sold counterfeit cards that are practically indistinguishable overseas where they were not licenced to sell them.

This has made Yu-Gi_oh virtually impossible to distinguish counterfeit from legitimate cards and has made that particular card game almost impossible to enforce for stores that run them.

So I do know what I am talking about... people use proxies and counterfeits at card tourneys all the time, some because it can't be enforced, some because the organizers don't care.

Some people simply do not have time to paint. They have kids. They have wives. They have jobs. They have friends. They have second jobs. They are not necessarily unconcerned with painting; all that you can actually know about their armies and how they view them is that they're unpainted.

All worthless excuses. Who are you to say your life and your time is more valuable than mine? All that is 'fair' is setting a standard. If you can't handle it in your life to meet that standard, then that is on you. Everyone has time to paint. Some people are too lazy to paint and don't feel it is important and want everyone else to accept it.

I know lots of people with fully painted armies and they have kids... and wives, and jobs, and friends and second jobs, and 3rd jobs, and pets and voluneer work and school/college, and medical disabilities and ailing family members. We all have responsibilities and somehow we are able to handle them and still devote time to our hobbies. So no pity for your 'I can't paint' excuses.

And in a game as unbalanced, fundamentally flawed and incapable of being played actually competitive as 40k... It is a sick joke that someone can throw down plastic and claim to want a true competitive game experience in a game that uses dice and is as flawed as 40k. Without the appearance aspect of the models, the game would not exist on its own as it is not quality enough to. We tolerate the rules, flaws and all because we enjoy seeing grey space vikings kill terminator robots with green guns and the rules gives us a way to cause that to happen. If this game truley was a quality game that could be played competitively then they would have translated it into video game mechanics and people would be playing it competitively on TV the way they do with Starcraft in korea.

GW rules have been an excuse to push painted models around a table while socializing. That is what the hobby has been for 25+ years now. Models are capable of being painted and sculpted well. The game is not capable of being balanced and being played competitively in any fair reasonable sense.

nkelsch wrote:

Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:

Way to project, buddy. I'm glad you get to speak for everyone, including the people who blatantly disagree with you. And I'd never seen a card gaming event that allowed counterfeits or wouldn't immediately disqualify someone for having them in their deck. I've been to many fairly large events and a nationals or two as well lots of small tournaments. I honestly believe you're making stuff up about that and would appreciate you not trashing one someone else's hobby because you can't get over the fact that not everyone likes toy soldiers in the way that you do.

Be aware of the upperdeck situation where Upperdeck was taking its contract to make and sell licensed American cards and sold counterfeit cards that are practically indistinguishable overseas where they were not licenced to sell them.

This has made Yu-Gi_oh virtually impossible to distinguish counterfeit from legitimate cards and has made that particular card game almost impossible to enforce for stores that run them.

So I do know what I am talking about... people use proxies and counterfeits at card tourneys all the time, some because it can't be enforced, some because the organizers don't care.

Wait, what in the hell?

Things have changed since I got out of the game.

Just to run with this, if a card is indistinguishable from real cards, there's no gameplay reason to DQ them. On the other hand, if they allow you to stack the deck, then it's a problem, because how do we know after the fact that you stacked or not? People get lucky. And if you bought these counterfeit cards without knowing that they were counterfeit, you're hosed.

Glad I stopped playing when I did, I guess.

Dashofpepper wrote:...isn't determined by their valuation of the the table they are playing on, but of yours.

Yes, I am going to be the judge, and make a judgment, potentially. I can tell you don't like the idea, I put you in the NO bucket already after post 1.

Dashofpepper wrote:
You're setting aside a group of people and declaring them not good enough
YOU don't value the table they are on,
you think it is inferior and unworthy
you're planning on placing them there in that spirit.
You don't convert, you don't get to play with converted terrain
you haven't won an RTT or a GT in the last 12 months, then you only get to play 1000 point lists
you do it on the kiddie table over in the corner.
You don't enjoy playing against people that don't paint their army.

There are a lot of you's in there. Lets keep it civil.

The line goes both ways. Dis including people with any criteria is segregation.

What about proxies?
What about those with not enough points?
What about out dated codices?
What about non GW models?
What about those with bigger armies?
What about those with forgeworld models?
What about people with all the right models and no army list?

As a judge I am going to segregate all those people as well and dis include them, because I am going to make a judgment and have a standard.

Apparently that makes one an elitist? Having a standard. I dare say the 3 color standard is a common one, and is not mine, and the idea I am proposing is actually more inclusive than that standard is.

Do you see any threads where tournament gamers and competitive players are whining that 40k players who aren't tactically elite are playing in their tournaments,...

All the time, any of the sportsmanship/comp threads? As in the 1337 players who want the sports and comp gone?

Taking umbrage with the concept that some players will get "less" than others? Remember the paper tables will still be functionally equivalent to everyone else at the tourney, and everyone will be scored with the same criteria. It's the same chance at success. The inflammatory idea you suggest playing at 1K, etc is not the same chance for success. If you see (paper tables) as "less" I can recognize that criticism and noted. That sort of thing is what I was after in the first place.

For the sake of our exchange lets scrap the paper table idea, lets assume you convinced me of the error of my ways.

Idea 4:

What do you think about pairing by painting score round 1, then pairing by points and letting the best painter of the round 2 and 3 pairings pick their table? (And announcing criteria beforehand of course). More to your liking?

WARBOSS TZOO wrote:Just to run with this, if a card is indistinguishable from real cards, there's no gameplay reason to DQ them. On the other hand, if they allow you to stack the deck, then it's a problem, because how do we know after the fact that you stacked or not? People get lucky. And if you bought these counterfeit cards without knowing that they were counterfeit, you're hosed.

Glad I stopped playing when I did, I guess.

Well, in the metadeck environment, the rules still matter so counterfeiting doesn't mean you can take more than a specific number of cards in your deck as allowed by rules. It does allow rare cards to be easily bought from ebay because they virtually flooded the market with basically legitimate cards that were sold unlicensed which makes them technically counterfeit.

Combine that with all the other counterfeiting out there and realize these events are still majority kids with parents who will complain to a store owner, half the time the store allows the kids to play regardless simply because it is easier to just disqualify them on the scoresheet and let them play than to throw them out.

There was also a break in the pokemon realm when nintendo took publishing away from WoTC there was a flood of the market of legitimate indistinguishable counterfeits... almost as if WoTC let slip some originals to hurt nintendo as Nintendo was pulling back as a cashgrab as they felt they could make more money this way. This means WoTC is just as capable as pulling what Upperdeck did at any time. The only difference is they own the original property so they are only hurting themselves if they do it. Unless they make money off the collectors market and the backend counterfeit market... which Upperdeck did.

It is really really really hard to enforce now... Obvious fakes are no longer the issue and as long as you drop $$ on boosters when you show up, they really don't go to deep into what cards you play with. Event organizers paid by a company may, but store owners don't.

nkelsch wrote:
All worthless excuses. Who are you to say your life and your time is more valuable than mine? All that is 'fair' is setting a standard. If you can't handle it in your life to meet that standard, then that is on you. Everyone has time to paint. Some people are too lazy to paint and don't feel it is important and want everyone else to accept it.

I'm glad you get to judge that. What makes you morally superior to someone who doesn't paint an army of fictional toy soldiers? What makes someone lazy for not investing time into a hobby? If you have golf clubs and never use them does that make you a bad person? Is there a reason you're being ridiculously unreasonable?

And those cards aren't counterfeit, as they're exactly the same as "legal" ones. It is impossible to distinguish them, therefore they are the same. They are printed the same way ont he same presses. The only thing counterfeit was how they overproduced and made extra on the side. It's just a fancy way of saying they violated their contract. What's the nicest way to say "you're a moron" without actually breaking rule #1?

nkelsch wrote:
Combine that with all the other counterfeiting out there and realize these events are still majority kids with parents who will complain to a store owner, half the time the store allows the kids to play regardless simply because it is easier to just disqualify them on the scoresheet and let them play than to throw them out.

Because all card game players are kids, just like 100% of people who go to tournaments will have a bad time playing an unpainted army, and everyone hates ard boyz and never has fun. Any more sweeping generalizations you'd like to make before your discredit yourself completely?