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.

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

You do not have to be skilled at all to dip models.) It takes about as much skill as rolling dice.

It may be beyond your skill level. Doesn't mean it's that difficult for anyone else.

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

If you'd much rather play a painted army than a non-painted army then more power to you. I don't see non-painters starting new threads every week QQing about paint requirements at tourneys. We simply don't play in said tourney. What business is it of yours what someone's reason is for not painting their army?

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

I start new armies all the time, and I grow bored with some of my armies after a short period of time. Since getting back into the game in 2006, I have built every army available, save for Blood Angels and Witch Hunters. I'm not a WAAC player. I appreciate the thrill of competitive gaming in tourneys but mostly play with a small group of friends or occasionally at game night at my FLGS. I'm certainly not a flavor of the month player either; I just traded off my new Dark Eldar army for an Eldar army. I believe there is a place for paint scores in some tourneys and there is a place for no paint scores at others. And what's wrong with people who play to win anyway? I can appreciate somebody who wants to play at the highest level of competition, in the same way I appreciate those who aspire to paint at the highest level. I don't fall into either category, but I don't QQ about either group. Both groups are simply trying to enjoy their hobby the way they like, without asshats coming in and imposing arbitrary requisites for how they must enjoy their hobby.

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

I honestly don't think you'd kid me about my grey army to my face. I don't think you have the courage to do so. It's easy to be pompous on the internet but harder to do when you're looking somebody in the eye.

4M2A wrote:Painting scores really don't work.

They don't work for you.) They work just fine for many tournaments around the world.

mikhaila wrote:

You do not have to be skilled at all to dip models.) It takes about as much skill as rolling dice.

It may be beyond your skill level. Doesn't mean it's that difficult for anyone else.

I disagree. You still have to base the models. But hey, whatever.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

All points QFT.

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

And I would agree with this too. At the type of tourneys that interest me the most a minimum of effort has been put into painting. And when I say minimum, that's exactly what I mean, minimum. Me, per se, I don't think dipping takes skill at all - it's just (maybe colored) basecoat, dip.

Although I agree with the decision to enforce a painting requirement I think there should seperate scoring and prizes for tactics and painting.

@Carmachu
I see eye to eye with you on some thing, on others I disagree, and I'm good to leave it at that. For me playing the and the visual nature that the game includes run neck and neck, and I know I'm not alone. GW is a different beast than it was 20 years ago to be true - I don't think GW has made great descisions in its effort to keep abreast of the information age we now have, and there are a host of other mistakes they've made that I've spoken up on. But if they were never more than glued metals and no fluff they'd have never gotten anywhere. Case in point around the same time as Magic the Gathering came out a card game called WizWar was created by Tom Jolly and picked up by (I believe)Steve Jackson games.

....you should be wondering what the point is.

The point was Wiz War was just words on the cardstock, MTG well was MTG. Both are great games, but only MTG is thriving 20 years later (even with its own faults and shortsights). I just think that the more senses something appeals to you on, that the more likely you are to pick it up and play with it again.

- MightyG

Hey, I'm not a snob or an elitist. I come to play, to have fun, to challenge myself, and to see and enjoy new players and armies.

Playing against painted armies is part of that. Not the biggest part, but still a part.

I'm a compentent player, and I bring good lists and generally play them well. I know I'm not going to win out most of the time, so for me I enjoy other aspects of the day.

carmachu wrote:

mikhaila wrote:

You do not have to be skilled at all to dip models.) It takes about as much skill as rolling dice.

It may be beyond your skill level. Doesn't mean it's that difficult for anyone else.

I disagree. You still have to base the models. But hey, whatever.

Spreading elmers glue with a paint brush is somehow a skill?

I teach a couple hundred 6-12 year olds a year how to do that during their first painting class.

mikhaila wrote:

Spreading elmers glue with a paint brush is somehow a skill?

I teach a couple hundred 6-12 year olds a year how to do that during their first painting class.

Someone still had to teach you first right?

Still a skill, no matter how much you try and deny it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

MightyGodzilla wrote:
@Carmachu
I see eye to eye with you on some thing, on others I disagree, and I'm good to leave it at that. For me playing the and the visual nature that the game includes run neck and neck, and I know I'm not alone. GW is a different beast than it was 20 years ago to be true - I don't think GW has made great descisions in its effort to keep abreast of the information age we now have, and there are a host of other mistakes they've made that I've spoken up on. But if they were never more than glued metals and no fluff they'd have never gotten anywhere. Case in point around the same time as Magic the Gathering came out a card game called WizWar was created by Tom Jolly and picked up by (I believe)Steve Jackson games.

....you should be wondering what the point is.

The point was Wiz War was just words on the cardstock, MTG well was MTG. Both are great games, but only MTG is thriving 20 years later (even with its own faults and shortsights). I just think that the more senses something appeals to you on, that the more likely you are to pick it up and play with it again.

- MightyG

Your ignoring alot of history with magic there. Plus the marketing he went on, and how it was a VERY different game from anything out there at the time. MTG was to its time like D&D was to its time, like RT 40k was for its time- a first for something, for the most part.

Notice how MtG changed much more when L5R came about(and eventually bought out by them), when it introduced an actual story line that the set was based around them moved the game folward.

Polonius wrote:Hey, I'm not a snob or an elitist. I come to play, to have fun, to challenge myself, and to see and enjoy new players and armies.

Playing against painted armies is part of that. Not the biggest part, but still a part.

I'm a compentent player, and I bring good lists and generally play them well. I know I'm not going to win out most of the time, so for me I enjoy other aspects of the day.

I don't think anything you've said in this thread is snobby or elitist. Everyone has an idea of what the hobby means to them. There are others in this thread that sound like they would either seek to force their version of what the hobby is onto others or look down their noses at those who have a different view of what the hobby is.

I think there is plenty of room for events with painting requirements, events with paint scores, and events without either. If you choose to participate in one form or another, or to not participate in one or another, the choice is yours. I just can't stand being told in a new thread every week that there is something wrong with my vision of my hobby because I don't always paint my armies.

It really is not hard to spray paint black then quickly drybrush, with all the inks now making it so easy to shade. Painting is a hobby, and a huge part of GW since it began. That's why you see "best painted" awards in every big tourney. Lol I don't get how people play with unpainted figures... Do you drive a car that is bare metal or just primed? Lol, or wear clothes that are made from burlap? Haha, well it's just my thought on the matter, and Yes I say full paint or no play.

blasto0341 wrote: It really is not hard to spray paint black then quickly drybrush, with all the inks now making it so easy to shade. Painting is a hobby, and a huge part of GW since it began. That's why you see "best painted" awards in every big tourney. Lol I don't get how people play with unpainted figures... Do you drive a car that is bare metal or just primed? Lol, or wear clothes that are made from burlap? Haha, well it's just my thought on the matter, and Yes I say full paint or no play.

Your examples aren't really all that well thought out. Do they produce bare metal cars? If so you might see some driving around. I don't think everyone would bother painting theirs. I can't remember the last time I walked into a store and saw burlap clothing on the rack. Although what that has to do with whether or not I paint miniatures is beyond me. Go back to the drawing board and come back with a witty response that makes sense.

Could just give the tournament 2 goals.

One prize for winning the game, one for having the coolest army. *shrug*

But having it as a requirement? No, that would just discourage new players that haven't gotten themselves fully into the hobby part from playing in the game-part, and it feels excessively harsh. Depends on the tournament, and who sets the limits for what is painted or not? Basecoated? Basic armor and weapons finnished? Eyes and details? Shading and highlighting?

Personally I've never been in any tournaments (I've been swapping army before ever finnishing one, and never had enough points to play a proper game) as I find the hobby part more important to me, but if someone wants to make an army list and try something out and see how it works in a game, he/she shouldn't have to complete the army painting.

Gotta say... i agree with Blasto0341. also... His army looks amazing and he deserves to win a prize for all the hard work he put in.

@Augustus5. I do have the sachel necessary to tease you to your face about a all plastic army. I wish we knew each other. You would have to accept my good natured jibs. it doesnt have to be done in a mean way, and it dosent take any pompousness either. Its just a prod once in a while and a compliment when you field somethin painted.

carmachu wrote:

mikhaila wrote:Spreading elmers glue with a paint brush is somehow a skill?

Someone still had to teach you first right?

Do you honestly believe that you need to be taught something like that? Are you not able to figure simple things out for yourself?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

augustus5 wrote:I honestly don't think you'd kid me about my grey army to my face. I don't think you have the courage to do so. It's easy to be pompous on the internet but harder to do when you're looking somebody in the eye.

Why would it take courage to make a dig about what chapter your army is or similar?

sennacherib wrote:Gotta say... i agree with Blasto0341. also... His army looks amazing and he deserves to win a prize for all the hard work he put in.

@Augustus5. I do have the sachel necessary to tease you to your face about a all plastic army. I wish we knew each other. You would have to accept my good natured jibs. it doesnt have to be done in a mean way, and it dosent take any pompousness either. Its just a prod once in a while and a compliment when you field somethin painted.

I wouldn't play a TFG who gave me crap about my army not being painted, and I wouldn't put up with many good natured jibs. If you can't mind your own business eventually you'll find yourself in a bad situation with somebody who doesn't put up with your crap. I think you'd find yourself alienated pretty quick at the places I play. People around here don't really worry about what somebody does or does not do with his or her army. We are quick to give proper praise to nicely painted/converted armies, but don't really care if some just enjoy the game/fluff and not the converting/painting aspect.

Scott-S6 wrote:Why would it take courage to make a dig about what chapter your army is or similar?

I don't think the issue is what chapter an army is. Sennacherib wrote, "In freindly play grey armies are ok but if you play one I will still kid you about it if you make no effort at painting it. Its ok." To me, that sounds really arrogant. If somebody were to kid me about "taking no effort at painting..." I'd take offense. While it's okay to rib your friends a bit, it's not something that is generally acceptable when playing somebody in a pickup game. I've never met somebody at the FLGS for a game and made jokes about any aspect of their army and I expect the same courtesy. If somebody doesn't wish to play my grey army I'm fine with it, but don't give me crap about it unless you're ready to get it right back. I find it extremely rude to give a stranger crap, among friends it's acceptable and expected.

If i've gone to the trouble to paint my army, I would expect my opponent to go to the same length.

carmachu wrote:

mikhaila wrote:

Spreading elmers glue with a paint brush is somehow a skill?

I teach a couple hundred 6-12 year olds a year how to do that during their first painting class.

Someone still had to teach you first right?

Still a skill, no matter how much you try and deny it.

Dear Lord, if you think that putting glue and sand on a flat base is a skill, NeverEver try and chew gum! You'll choke to death if no one's taught you how!

Calling something a skill that any un-skilled person can accomplish with ease is just silly. If you don't want to paint or base a model, and never do, no one cares. There's no need to try and elevate stuff you learn in kindergarten to the level of a skill that the average person can't accomplish.

To further Mikhaila's point:

Let's not also pretend that the number of people that simply cannot paint an army is very large.

Yes, there are a variety of sensory, manipulative, or neurological impairments that would make painting minis impossible.

Yes, there are some people so busy with unavoidable time obligations that the only free time they have is a few tournaments a year.

Outside of these very small numbers, most people could find a few minutes here and there to paint minis, at least to a base paint level. They choose not to.

Now, I've got no problem with the idea that a person likes the game and enjoys playing it, but considers spending time painting a waste. That's a fine choice. But it's just that: a choice.

Triple King wrote:If i've gone to the trouble to paint my army, I would expect my opponent to go to the same length.

What gives you that expectation? Is your idea of what constitutes this hobby the official version? If so, can you share a link to the official hobby rules PDF, please?

Polonius wrote:To further Mikhaila's point:

Let's not also pretend that the number of people that simply cannot paint an army is very large.

Yes, there are a variety of sensory, manipulative, or neurological impairments that would make painting minis impossible.

Yes, there are some people so busy with unavoidable time obligations that the only free time they have is a few tournaments a year.

Outside of these very small numbers, most people could find a few minutes here and there to paint minis, at least to a base paint level. They choose not to.

Now, I've got no problem with the idea that a person likes the game and enjoys playing it, but considers spending time painting a waste. That's a fine choice. But it's just that: a choice.

What is wrong with that choice?

augustus5 wrote:

Triple King wrote:If i've gone to the trouble to paint my army, I would expect my opponent to go to the same length.

What gives you that expectation? Is your idea of what constitutes this hobby the official version? If so, can you share a link to the official hobby rules PDF, please?

It's part of custom. Just like there's no written rule that you shouldn't sleep with a girl that dumped your brother.

Part of your custom, or the custom of others. Maybe not everyone's custom. I played D&D with unpainted minis for years before Warhammer 40k was even a concept.

I paint some of my armies; others I never bother. I play with the grey armies in events that I can, and skip those that have a paint requirement without QQing about it.

the real question is: if a guy has an army and NEVER paints it, do you break his chops about it?

if i'm playing the same dude once or twice a month, and his army is never painted, i'm going to break balls--after a time.

i don't expect to face an expertly painted army, like, ever. my armies are usually a WIP and are rarely all finished. my current CSM army is about 65% painted. I go slow, but I get them done eventually. if i can paint my army with two jobs and a family, than the part-timer at walmart or a mom's basement neckbeard can eventually get his done.

mikhaila wrote:

Dear Lord, if you think that putting glue and sand on a flat base is a skill, NeverEver try and chew gum! You'll choke to death if no one's taught you how!

Calling something a skill that any un-skilled person can accomplish with ease is just silly. If you don't want to paint or base a model, and never do, no one cares. There's no need to try and elevate stuff you learn in kindergarten to the level of a skill that the average person can't accomplish.

Dear lord, what a condecening donkey behind one has become. Yes, its a skill, you didnt learn dipping, basing and other items by yoruself. Otherwise why would you say you were teaching folks and kids how to do it.

But hey, once again prove why I dislike FLGS and their owners. Thanks.

I'm not entierly sure if it was in the WH40K rulebook or if it was in LotR, but have you completely forgotten the most important rule?

Sitting there saying 'I spend 90% of my free time on WH40K, modelling, making army lists and painting, if you should even be permitted to play against me then you should do the same' really isn't inviting any newcomers to the game. You kind of sound like some sour old lady who thinks that anyone who haven't done everything you have isn't worth your time. You're quite bluntly rude, if not mean.

Of course the battle is more interesting and fun if everything's painted, but not everyone have the time to do that, and people that are new to the game, as well as those who haven't got the time to paint their minis, and those who have not yet gotten around to buy all the paint and brushes as it -is- financially burdening to some, if not most people, but to say that they shouldn't be allowed to even play because of it? I'm not even sure what to say, but with that attitude I'd prefer playing a game against someone who have a complete grey army but who's there to have fun than with you.

Back in the day, all official tournaments did have a minimum paint requirement. The relaxation of this (see 'Ard Boyz) has led to a rapid decline of the number of painted armies at tournaments. I don't know if this has led to fewer painted armies in friendly games.

For me, the reason I play tabletop wargames is to enjoy the aesthetics of a good looking table with good looking armies on it. Maybe I am just boring and old-fashioned, but you know, I thought that was the point. You can play wargames without any figures at all, and not have the trouble of even assembling them.

Perhaps one day all models will look like this...



Should tournaments be restricted? GW has already decided they shouldn't. The best model soldier company in the world can't be wrong.

Kilkrazy wrote:Back in the day, all official tournaments did have a minimum paint requirement.

Back in they day, golden demons was when you were at the GT and pulled a model from your army to enter, not one you painted specifically for GD....

augustus5 wrote:
If you'd much rather play a painted army than a non-painted army then more power to you. I don't see non-painters starting new threads every week QQing about paint requirements at tourneys. We simply don't play in said tourney. What business is it of yours what someone's reason is for not painting their army?

I don't understand the beef in this thread then?

Isn't this a thread with non-painters QQing about paint requirements at tourneys? If no one has a problem with painting requirements at most tourneys, then what is the beef? no one is talking about strawman arguments of people rolling into fictional FLGS and smashing unpainted models with a hammer.

If non-painters just simply don't play in said tourney then everything is 'working as intended' and all is right in the world...

Most tourney goers, attend tourneys with painting requirements. People who don't like painting find techniques that get the chore over with so they can participate (like Stelek's airbrushing which I think works great and meets the standard)

People who refuse to paint can attend 'ardboyz. If people have a beef with non-painted models, they can avoid 'ardboyz and go somewhere else.

Everyone is happy and the balance of tourneys with requirements seems to meet the request of gamers, which happens to be more 'require painting' than not.

The only people who wouldn't be happy are people who want to play tourneys but are being excluded due to painting restrictions and are on a crusade to have events bend to their will. But you are saying that doesn't exist? Then we all buddies again? I am confused at the people screaming for non-painting acceptance in general when we are talking about tourneys...

I feel that people should paint there armies but if they dont that doesn't bother me to much, maybe they aren't comfortable with there painting.

But when people tell me that there Nobz Choppa counts as a Power Klaw that pisses me off!

carmachu wrote:
Back in they day, golden demons was when you were at the GT and pulled a model from your army to enter, not one you painted specifically for GD....

GD never existed at any US GT I ever attended, and I have been to at least 5 of the Baltimore ones at GW's USHQ. That is a GAMES DAY only event.

And 100% of those GTs required painting. So... how does this mean that tourneys don't traditionally have painting requirements?

Kilkrazy wrote:Back in the day, all official tournaments did have a minimum paint requirement. The relaxation of this (see 'Ard Boyz) has led to a rapid decline of the number of painted armies at tournaments. I don't know if this has led to fewer painted armies in friendly games.

For me, the reason I play tabletop wargames is to enjoy the aesthetics of a good looking table with good looking armies on it. Maybe I am just boring and old-fashioned, but you know, I thought that was the point. You can play wargames without any figures at all, and not have the trouble of even assembling them.

Perhaps one day all models will look like this...



Should tournaments be restricted? GW has already decided they shouldn't. The best model soldier company in the world can't be wrong.

Maybe to some people, the models simply add the aesthetic. I'm not saying that your idea of what pleases you is wrong or right, but it's your idea. I enjoy playing with models more that counters. Models add a 3d element. I don't mind if the models are painted or not. That is simply my opinion.

I think that 40k is big enough to have successful tourneys that cater to the more relaxed gamers and the more serious gamers (competitively and from a converting/painting standpoint). There should not be outcry over unpainted models in a new thread every week. When was the last time a tournament was cancelled due to lack of interest because of a painting requirement? There is no problem. There are only people who choose to paint seeking to thumb their nose at those who don't. That is the only purpose these kinds of threads have from what I can tell.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nkelsch wrote:

augustus5 wrote:
If you'd much rather play a painted army than a non-painted army then more power to you. I don't see non-painters starting new threads every week QQing about paint requirements at tourneys. We simply don't play in said tourney. What business is it of yours what someone's reason is for not painting their army?

I don't understand the beef in this thread then?

Isn't this a thread with non-painters QQing about paint requirements at tourneys? If no one has a problem with painting requirements at most tourneys, then what is the beef? no one is talking about strawman arguments of people rolling into fictional FLGS and smashing unpainted models with a hammer.

If non-painters just simply don't play in said tourney then everything is 'working as intended' and all is right in the world...

Most tourney goers, attend tourneys with painting requirements. People who don't like painting find techniques that get the chore over with so they can participate (like Stelek's airbrushing which I think works great and meets the standard)

People who refuse to paint can attend 'ardboyz. If people have a beef with non-painted models, they can avoid 'ardboyz and go somewhere else.

Everyone is happy and the balance of tourneys with requirements seems to meet the request of gamers, which happens to be more 'require painting' than not.

The only people who wouldn't be happy are people who want to play tourneys but are being excluded due to painting restrictions and are on a crusade to have events bend to their will. But you are saying that doesn't exist? Then we all buddies again? I am confused at the people screaming for non-painting acceptance in general when we are talking about tourneys...

Have you read through this thread or the score of others just like it? The OP closed his post remarking about how people should put effort into painting their minis. These threads are never started by those who don't always paint their figs, but usually by someone wanting once again to tell us all how we should participate in "the hobby."

I'm not complaining about tourneys and their requirements. Not once have I made a remark to that end. I've said time and again that TOs should be free to run their tourneys as they wish and if I or you don't like the way it is run then to simply not participate. I don't see a lot of people here complaining about painting requirements either. I see a lot of complaining about non-painted armies though. I see a lot of people calling out those who choose not to paint as lazy.

Time and time again I'm presented with silly arguments about how easy it would be to basecoat/dip, or basecoat/drybrush my army. Have you considered that I simply may not want to do so? If you don't want to play my army because it ruins your experience I understand. We are all into 40k for various reasons. Just don't get on your high horse and tell me how I need to experience 40k. 'ArdBoyz has proved that there are many who just want to play the game and have little interest in the painting/converting side of things.