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.

mikhaila wrote:
The "painted crowd" doesn't just want to paint a figure and enter it into a competition, they like to attend a tournament and play games in an enviorment where everyone else has also put in at least the basic effort in getting their armies painted.

As one of the "painted crowd" (one who usually places first or second in the painting category) I have to disagree with you here. Seeing other peoples miniatures is fun, but fairly low on my scale of what I go to a Grand Tournament for. For myself it is an excuse to wear a fez, imbibe in alcohol and have 5 laid back, fun games with pleasant gamers of the same mindset.

I still hold my original opinion on what a "Grand Tournment" is: realistically, its just a big tournment. Painting or not does not make or break it. When I attend i'm looking forward to 5-6 games, seeing people I like know, having some laughs. Along with good tactical game play, except for Rd5 where if your at the lower tables your goal is to have some laughs, and try to pull out hysterical scenario's like Warboss's Charging units by themself.

That being said, I paint. I run horde armies IE massed blocks skaven, i'm building massed Ork boys. I am a loyal attendee of Mikhaila's GT's. EVER army there is fully painted. It always is. I do not attend the non painted events. But at the same point, if they were 5-6 games, i'd still call it a Grand Tournment. Its a personal preference. I like going to a GT to plunck down money to play against painted armies. I don't like playing non painted, because I find the time to get it done with my 300+ models. It offends me when someone plays an army of 30 Grey knights saying "I don't have time."

Still, I wouldn't say if that person was going to a large tournment it wouldn't be a "GT." It still would. It just wouldn't be a GT i'd be interested in attending. I don't play Ard Boyz, because you have sea's of grey models. That's not my style even though I could run a sea of painted armies. Still, I wouldn't say Ard Boyz is not a tournments. Its just a different style event, its basically a massive GT.

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

IF! IF! I SAID, "IF!!!"
lol

In all honesty, my armies all meet painting standards. Even my yet-unfinished SM's have 4 or 5 colors on them right now. I truly was playing Devil's Advocate.

That said... I really do want to get up to one of your tourneys one day. You're just not so close to St. Louis lol. So I'd have to arrange a vacation around it and bring the family to see some sites during the stay.

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

You're putting the burden on the player here. You're forgetting the organizer.
It depends on how the individual defines "grand.' You can see it a lot of different ways. If he defines grand to mean "large," then painting doesn't have to come into that. not if it's a Game tournament. On the other hand, if "grand" is more of a state of mind to him, and he wants a Hobby tournament, then painting definitely should be involved.
I don't see why painting should be required for a (not ANY) GT, if that's the organizer's wishes and it's clearly communicated by them.

...and, for the record, while beach theme specific weddings might not be all too common, "theme" weddings are not that rare and many of them don't wear gowns/tuxes, etc. Just saying.

Eric



Eric

MagickalMemories wrote:
I don't see why painting should be required for a (not ANY) GT, if that's the organizer's wishes and it's clearly communicated by them.

If the TO wishes to have a 2-day tourney and call it a GT, he can... But the trick to having a 2 day event is drawing a large attendance base. I am not convinced the loss of people wanting to play against painted armies would be made up by people who have been excluding due to non-painting. I honestly don't believe a significant number of people who don't paint will drop 500$-1000$ to travel to a tourney.

If someone did run one, I probably would avoid the first year to really see how well it ran and to see if the lack of painting impacted peoples enjoyment overall, the quality of the players and games and the overall sportsmanship of people. If the event didn't suffer and had a majority painted, I may consider it the next year, behind Nova and Adepticon and the 3 or 4 local smaller tourneys on the east coast.

But good luck to them if they did. I just don't believe people will travel for an unpainted tourney...

Ultimately, it's up to GW whether they allow GT organizers to have painting requirements. Historically, GTs were painted-only events and Ard Boyz are historically (albeit much more recent) unpainted-allowed events. If GW starts allowing organizers to run them in different fashions, expect fans of the traditional setup to complain.

@nkelsch: People do travel to semifinals and finals of 'ard boyz and that's unpainted... but the prize support (at least the first year or two.. didn't even bother to look this year) was the justification. I wouldn't personally travel across my metropolitan area for a tourney that didn't at least score painting and add it into the overall score. I most definitely wouldn't travel further at a greater expense to a GT that didn't require painted models. I'm a competent but nothing spectacular painter myself but I simply expect more visual spectacle from tournies than I do from pickup games.

@Warboss
I didn't realize that the GT scene was a GW thing any longer. I thought they got out of them and the trem GT was being openly used by people hosting large tourneys of that sort.
According to some in this thread, it's not a (corporate) GW thing anymore.
Are you certain it still is?

Not trying to put you on the spot. Just looking for info, since that's one of the questions I asked earlier.

Thanks.

Eric

MagickalMemories wrote:@Warboss
I didn't realize that the GT scene was a GW thing any longer. I thought they got out of them and the trem GT was being openly used by people hosting large tourneys of that sort.
According to some in this thread, it's not a (corporate) GW thing anymore.
Are you certain it still is?

Not trying to put you on the spot. Just looking for info, since that's one of the questions I asked earlier.

Thanks.

Eric

Back when I used to attend them, they were run by GW but I know that indies can now run them (I assumed that GW has some goverance over what is called a GT since they advertise them and therefore had some basic standards). I figured that they had a downloadable rules packet like they used to back in the day for the even less important RT tournies. IF GW doesn't have any standards for calling an event a GT, then I think that needs to change. I'm guessing Mikhalia can probably answer that question best since he runs them.

Indy's have the old GW GT beats hands down. GW jumped on the bandwagon and gave some their blessing but they have no say in the actual rules. Which is a good thing for those of us who like to use non-GW miniatures.

warboss wrote:

@nkelsch: People do travel to semifinals and finals of 'ard boyz and that's unpainted... but the prize support (at least the first year or two.. didn't even bother to look this year) was the justification. I wouldn't personally travel across my metropolitan area for a tourney that didn't at least score painting and add it into the overall score. I most definitely wouldn't travel further at a greater expense to a GT that didn't require painted models. I'm a competent but nothing spectacular painter myself but I simply expect more visual spectacle from tourneys than I do from pickup games.

But 'ard boyz is a distributed prelims. Even round 2 is mostly local for people and many people drop round 2 if they would have to spend travel costs. The people who are hardcore into the game travel regardless, it is the casual people who need to populate the 240 'loser' slots while you get your top 16 tables after 4+ games. I think the distributed 'ard boyz is out of necessity. I think it would be a better quality event as a 3 day event. I think the distributed implementation is so loose and poorly run by some stores, it ruins the integrity of the lower brackets.

Actually, I don't want or need painting to be in the score... You can have pure battle points or whatever standard. I just want to play all the games against painted and WYSIWYG models. NOVA would have been unplayable and a worse quality event if my opponents were not painted and WYSIWYG. Having to ask 'what is that' and being unable to distinguish greys slows the game and makes it harder to make instinctual fast decisions... And I don't want to look at greys all day. What is fine for an untimed friendly game becomes a horrible burden in a timed game after 2-3 days and 8 games of fatigue, distraction, lack of food due to lack of extended breaks and so on.

I won't even play someone anymore unless their army is painted. Every time I've let that slip in the past, let a friend run a model or two unpainted, the next week it's five, the week after it's 10 models. Anytime I've played a partially painted force, a month or two could go by and the individual will not have painted anymore simply because nothing has required them to. If you don't give some people something to strive for, they won't.

When I hear Grand Tournament, grand isn't just scale for me, it's quality, quality of games, players, terrain, an event where people value their armies and are proud of their accomplishments. I believe it's in the interest of tournament organizers to have standards. That way when they use images from their prior events to promote their upcomming events its evident that they run a quality tournament. I won't attend a tournament anymore that doesn't require all painted. On the flip side, I don't think painting should have anything to do with scoring a tournament. There should always be a prize for best painted that's either voted on or judged, but that should be entirely seperate.

Another good reason to support a gaming culture that values painted armies and tournaments that require them is it helps employ talented individuals who make a living doing comission work, both painting and converting.

Crablezworth wrote:I won't even play someone anymore unless their army is painted. Every time I've let that slip in the past, let a friend run a model or two unpainted, the next week it's five, the week after it's 10 models. Anytime I've played a partially painted force, a month or two could go by and the individual will not have painted anymore simply because nothing has required them to. If you don't give some people something to strive for, they won't.

Painting your models is kind of like eating your vegetables, for the gamers amongst us. We don't necessarily enjoy it (at least at first), but we're better and better off for doing it. Having the requirement to paint at tournaments is what MADE me into a guy who takes pride in his painting and actually enjoys it, from a guy who was a "pure" gamer, did it out of necessity and found it a chore at first.

Mannahnin wrote:

Crablezworth wrote:I won't even play someone anymore unless their army is painted. Every time I've let that slip in the past, let a friend run a model or two unpainted, the next week it's five, the week after it's 10 models. Anytime I've played a partially painted force, a month or two could go by and the individual will not have painted anymore simply because nothing has required them to. If you don't give some people something to strive for, they won't.

Painting your models is kind of like eating your vegetables, for the gamers amongst us. We don't necessarily enjoy it (at least at first), but we're better and better off for doing it. Having the requirement to paint at tournaments is what MADE me into a guy who takes pride in his painting and actually enjoys it, from a guy who was a "pure" gamer, did it out of necessity and found it a chore at first.

I still to this day hate painting (I hate veggies too), but I force myself to get it done because the end result is immensly rewarding. I get the feeling a lot of people in my area think I'm an elitist because I won't play agaisnt unpainted models. We had a local tournament recently that was supposed to be all painted but I knew deep down it wouldn't be well enforced so I didn't attend and sure enough there were some incomplete armies. They went so far as to gather a bunch of people around a table and helped one of the guys paint his bases. I was very torn, part of me thinks "wow, what a great group of people", the logical side of me thought "that's <redacted; some words are not to be used as pejoratives on Dakka --Janthkin> and sends the wrong message. Don't paint your stuff? no worries, we'll finnish it for you".

MagickalMemories wrote:

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

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

Thanks. The phrasing's a bit strong, but that's why I weakened it twice with the "kind of like" qualifiers. It definitely feels like a slap in the face when you've busted your butt to get fully painted and WYSIWYG for an event, and then you get paired against some guy who clearly isn't. Especially in an event which advertises as requiring painting. I've run into that situation a few times, and each time that game was a distinct low point of the event compared to the other games. Even when I had a tight & challenging game, or trounced the guy and it helped catapult me to the top of the standings, I felt disappointed and somewhat sad the whole time looking at the cruddy army in front of me.

On the WYSIWYG note, at a recent event I played against a guy with an unpainted army, which disappointed me, but I got a bit more interested in the tactical side when I saw that it was an unusually-built SW army. It was a different build, featured different characters and weapon loadouts than all the netlists out there, but still looked interesting and potentially strong. Then he started running down the non-WYSIWYG, and it turned out that all the weapons, razorback variants, and characters were actually bog-standard netlist ones. He just hasn't bothered to buy or model them, was using lascannons and plasmacannons for missile launchers, flamers and plasmaguns for meltaguns, razors with TL las turrets or Rhinos with drednought arms as Las/Plas turrets, etc. And I thought to myself "Guy, if you're going to field his kind of an uninspired netlist, at least have the courtesy and respect for me to buy and build the damn models. Invest some personal effort and work into it, and I will at least feel like you did something to earn the army I'm facing. Don't give me this list and then put the burden on me of having to pick out what models represent what, and which plasmagun represents a meltagun and which flamer is just a bolter."

MagickalMemories wrote:I do have a question about this, though:

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

If I'm reading your intent correctly, then my devil's-advocate counter questions would be
Why is your enjoyment any more important than his?

1. Because it's not just my enjoyment. It's every one of his opponents, in all likelihood. There could be one or two of them who genuinely don't care, but for the most part we all want to be looking at and playing against painted and attractive armies when we go to any tournament, but especially a big one/one labeled "grand". And part of the social contract of going to one of these things is to put in the effort on your own part for everyone's enjoyment. And that's not just your opponents either. It's everyone else at the tournament who wants to look at all the cool armies on display, or walk around and enjoy watching the games finishing up if their own ends early, or the judges and organizers who put in the work to put this whole thing on for everyone's enjoyment and deserve to got to ogle cool armies like the rest of us, especially given that they're not getting to play.
2. Because like I posted above, IMO painting is kind of like eating your vegetables. When you're starting out in life (or wargaming) as a kid you don't like to do it. But it's good for you, and it makes life better (healthier and consequently more enjoyable), and it's well worth doing. Particularly because you may well develop a taste for them/it, and then you're golden.
3. Because in addition to being kind of like eating your vegetables, it's also kind of like taking a shower, wearing deoderant and pants. It makes other people much more likely to enjoy your company, or at least not actively suffer from being in your (your army's) company.

MagickalMemories wrote: Is it fair that he has to do something he does not enjoy so you can feel enjoyment? Why would your enjoyment need to be affected by this?

I think I've covered your latter question above. As for the former, IMO it is fair. The culture of the hobby/activity in question is one which includes painting as a cornerstone. Attractive armies, the feel and visual spectacle of them on the table, is arguably the central point and purpose of the whole hobby. It's probably the main reason I'm still doing this passionately after 12 years, despite having abandoned Magic: The Gathering tournaments many years ago.

MagickalMemories wrote:If a player with a well painted army showed up with a fluffy list, would it be equally approrpiate for that player to be disappointed that his opponents put their own personal enjoyment (for playing tough lists) over his enjoyment for a game that focused on all aspects of the hobby, including fluff? What makes that any less valid a part of a "hobby" tournament than a painting requirement?

You have a reasonable point there. IMO if a given tournament does make a point of emphasizing its competitive nature, then it would be a bit rude and inappropriate to show up with a handicapped/uncompetitive army. OTOH this one's tougher to judge or adjudicate, as many players are genuinely trying their best tactically, or have different opinions about what works. And sometimes it's not black and white. Some forums/sites will rant and rave about Chaos Space Marines being an entirely uncompetitive codex, and yet some of us manage to regularly win with it. Painted vs. unpainted is easier to judge.

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

I appreciate that, and appreciate the good-spirited discussion, thank you!

MagickalMemories wrote:

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

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

But that's where THE hobby comes from. That's the tradition GW and all of us are descended from. And to remove painting from it is to change what the hobby is about.

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

As I sit here with my tattoos ( ), I think that that is due to it being central to the preexisting culture. Non-painters are entering a hobby which has always has painting and attractive armies as possibly its central and a defining characteristic, and then deciding that because they don't personally enjoy painting and don't want to learn, that it's optional.

Mannahnin wrote:On the WYSIWYG note, at a recent event I played against a guy with an unpainted army, which disappointed me, but I got a bit more interested in the tactical side when I saw that it was an unusually-built SW army. It was a different build, featured different characters and weapon loadouts than all the netlists out there, but still looked interesting and potentially strong. Then he started running down the non-WYSIWYG, and it turned out that all the weapons, razorback variants, and characters were actually bog-standard netlist ones. He just hasn't bothered to buy or model them, was using lascannons and plasmacannons for missile launchers, flamers and plasmaguns for meltaguns, razors with TL las turrets or Rhinos with drednought arms as Las/Plas turrets, etc. And I thought to myself "Guy, if you're going to field his kind of an uninspired netlist, at least have the courtesy and respect for me to buy and build the damn models. Invest some personal effort and work into it, and I will at least feel like you did something to earn the army I'm facing. Don't give me this list and then put the burden on me of having to pick out what models represent what, and which plasmagun represents a meltagun and which flamer is just a bolter."

So... you thought that... but did you express it to your opponent and the tournament organizer? If you didn't and you'd just prefer to use it as a cautionary tale on the internet weeks/months later, nothing will change. You can BET that the people who want zero soft score requirements or scoring in an event bring it up whenever they get the chance.

Mannahnin wrote:

MagickalMemories wrote:If a player with a well painted army showed up with a fluffy list, would it be equally approrpiate for that player to be disappointed that his opponents put their own personal enjoyment (for playing tough lists) over his enjoyment for a game that focused on all aspects of the hobby, including fluff? What makes that any less valid a part of a "hobby" tournament than a painting requirement?

You have a reasonable point there. IMO if a given tournament does make a point of emphasizing its competitive nature, then it would be a bit rude and inappropriate to show up with a handicapped/uncompetitive army. OTOH this one's tougher to judge or adjudicate, as many players are genuinely trying their best tactically, or have different opinions about what works. And sometimes it's not black and white. Some forums/sites will rant and rave about Chaos Space Marines being an entirely uncompetitive codex, and yet some of us manage to regularly win with it. Painted vs. unpainted is easier to judge.

I dunno... a pairing by rankings 'solves' this because winners quickly play winners and losers play losers. It is not like some hardcore tactical purest will be playing with fumbling scrubs all day and have snorefests. If you are interested in the 'game' you can win and after game 1 and 2 of a 8 game event, you should be playing people of similar skill and power. On the other-hand, if someone wants to play painted armies, they could possibly spend all event being paired up with unpainted greys.

I find the premise of 'not enjoying the game playing against easy opponents' kind of a false premise. It rings hollow to me as when two people play in real life at these events no one is going to be 'yes, I beat my opponent who had a bad list and was stupid... it ruined my whole day.' You take your win, talk shop and move up the rankings to a harder opponent. I think more people are tired of lists being reduced to 'spam or lose' philosophies at these events. Declaring anyone who doesn't take a spammed optimal list is 'ruining your fun' because they are not strong enough is just not reality.

warboss wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:On the WYSIWYG note, at a recent event ...

So... you thought that... but did you express it to your opponent and the tournament organizer? If you didn't and you'd just prefer to use it as a cautionary tale on the internet weeks/months later, nothing will change. You can BET that the people who want zero soft score requirements or scoring in an event bring it up whenever they get the chance.

Of course I spoke to him and them. And I was as nice and constructive about it as possible, as I didn't want to be a jerk to him. He was a newer player, and I believe it was his first tournament. He just very clearly was not being taught right by whoever he normally plays with.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nkelsch wrote:I find the premise of 'not enjoying the game playing against easy opponents' kind of a false premise. It rings hollow to me as when two people play in real life at these events no one is going to be 'yes, I beat my opponent who had a bad list and was stupid... it ruined my whole day.' You take your win, talk shop and move up the rankings to a harder opponent. I think more people are tired of lists being reduced to 'spam or lose' philosophies at these events. Declaring anyone who doesn't take a spammed optimal list is 'ruining your fun' because they are not strong enough is just not reality.

Overall I tend to agree that it's not a big problem for the reasons you gave. Generally if you are a hardcore player and you run into a fluffy bunny, it's only in the first round. OTOH, if you're there for the competition (as I usually am), then it is a bit disappointing when you get an opponent who's not interested in/capable of giving you a challenging game. Still, it can usually still be fun, especially if you're willing to fluff up the game a little and if your opponent's army looks nice.

Mannahnin wrote:Of course I spoke to him and them.

Plenty of people don't and then just complain about it after the fact when its too late to effect a change. I always make it a point to thank a TO for including sportsmanship and painting as part of the scoring, especially if there is a base painting requirement (not too often around here). I also mention at the end that if there wasn't one, I wouldn't be there as a paying player.

Always good to support events and to express your preferences to the organizers. We just always need to remember to do it in polite and supportive ways. Gamers have a tendency to get angry and crusade-y sometimes, which isn't the best approach.

Redbeard wrote:

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

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

Redbeard is 100% correct here. If you want to play not paint events then Ardboyz is for you. The GT's were created years ago to encompass the hobby as a whole. Multiple prizes for multiple groups, overall winner usually had a decent painted army, and you were required to a 3 color minimum. On more then one occasion I saw staff remove models that did not meet the standard.

I dont complain about your ard stuff....let me have my hobby event please. I want to compete on multiple levels rather then just beat the hell out of each other.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Dice Monkey wrote:

mikhaila wrote:
The "painted crowd" doesn't just want to paint a figure and enter it into a competition, they like to attend a tournament and play games in an enviorment where everyone else has also put in at least the basic effort in getting their armies painted.

As one of the "painted crowd" (one who usually places first or second in the painting category) I have to disagree with you here. Seeing other peoples miniatures is fun, but fairly low on my scale of what I go to a Grand Tournament for. For myself it is an excuse to wear a fez, imbibe in alcohol and have 5 laid back, fun games with pleasant gamers of the same mindset.

And while I agree with a lot of this (expresly the drinking part ) I disagree with your disagreement. I too am one of the painted crowd and typically win the paintng portion of most events I go to. I really enjoy looking at other peoples army at play when it is nicely painted like mine. Most enjoyable games around and something great to talk about after I get by arse handed to me hehehe. Just shows how different opinions can be at the same level

mannahnin wrote:On the WYSIWYG note, at a recent event I played against a guy with an unpainted army, which disappointed me, but I got a bit more interested in the tactical side when I saw that it was an unusually-built SW army. It was a different build, featured different characters and weapon loadouts than all the netlists out there, but still looked interesting and potentially strong. Then he started running down the non-WYSIWYG, and it turned out that all the weapons, razorback variants, and characters were actually bog-standard netlist ones. He just hasn't bothered to buy or model them, was using lascannons and plasmacannons for missile launchers, flamers and plasmaguns for meltaguns, razors with TL las turrets or Rhinos with drednought arms as Las/Plas turrets, etc. And I thought to myself "Guy, if you're going to field his kind of an uninspired netlist, at least have the courtesy and respect for me to buy and build the damn models. Invest some personal effort and work into it, and I will at least feel like you did something to earn the army I'm facing. Don't give me this list and then put the burden on me of having to pick out what models represent what, and which plasmagun represents a meltagun and which flamer is just a bolter."

Well, we're 100% in line here.
I mean, amongst my buddies, we do that ALL the time... and I find that wholly acceptable. For me, even a stranger or semi-stranger at the local FLGS would be okay with this in "fun" games. I'm laid back enough for it.
When a tourney advertises that painting is part of the requirements, though, I think anyone showing up with ANYTHING unpainted should be DQ'ed with no refund and his place should be given to an alternate.
Any non-WYSIWYG models should be disallowed from being included in the unit/army. If that means you're out a special weapon, heavy weapon or major vehicle, then tough!

@Mann
I think it's apparent that we're never going to get our opinions wholly in line. I'll do my best not to judge you on that, if you'll reciprocate. ; )

I do think it's important to note, for the general record, that I do not support all tourneys moving to unpainted standards. I also do not think existing tourneys should change their ways for those who do not paint.
I am just stating that painting is NOT part of gaming and that there should be GAMING tournaments in addition to HOBBY tourneys.
I do find it interesting, though, that most hobbyists who want to play in HOBBY tournaments would probably balk at the idea that someone -whether it be the TO or their opponents- gets to score them based on whether or not their list is fluffy enough & that it affects their overall standing (I am presenting that as opinion, not fact).

I also think that people should be more tolerant of others. All this "refusing to play" people (outside of tourneys) nonsense is just that; nonsense.

I am just stating that painting is NOT part of gaming and that there should be GAMING tournaments in addition to HOBBY tourneys.

I can't agree. Unpainted models impact gameplay. Even an all black army with visual markings on the weapons is leaps and bounds easier to quickly and accurately distinguish models/units/gear from across the table over greys. Some armies become unplayable without unit or squad markings to be clear to opponents. NOVA had many 'simple' paint jobs, I played one of them, and simply being black with all the weapons white/silver was a huge help and his army looked great. The one question asked by all the appearance judges was "how do you expect your opponent to distinguish units?"

If it impacts gameplay, it is part of the game not some unconnected hobby. Unpainted armies impact gameplay. Having to mentally juggle or constantly need to ask for clarification of squads or strain to distinguish greys does hurt. In a timed, fatigue-ridden match in a competition, it simply isnt fair to opponents.

mikhaila wrote:Absolutely needs to be painted models.

Mikhaila is wise. Painted, or it isn't a Grand Tournament. It's just a So-So Tournament.

There are other tournaments that allow unpainted minis. Play in those.

Painted models and only painted models. It's not that hard to at least throw 3 colors on each model.

MagickalMemories wrote:

mannahnin wrote:On the WYSIWYG note, at a recent event ..."

Well, we're 100% in line here.
I mean, amongst my buddies, we do that ALL the time... and I find that wholly acceptable. For me, even a stranger or semi-stranger at the local FLGS would be okay with this in "fun" games. I'm laid back enough for it.
When a tourney advertises that painting is part of the requirements, though, I think anyone showing up with ANYTHING unpainted should be DQ'ed with no refund and his place should be given to an alternate.
Any non-WYSIWYG models should be disallowed from being included in the unit/army. If that means you're out a special weapon, heavy weapon or major vehicle, then tough!

This is definitely part of one's cultural expectations and how you learn the game. FWIW, unless my opponent and I have agreed beforehand to be playing a game which doesn't require painting, or that we're testing out units we haven't actually built yet in prep for an upcoming event, I hate fielding anything unpainted/WYSIWYG against anyone but a close friend. And said close friends retain the right to mess with me about it. In any pickup game with a stranger where we haven't otherwise specified, I'm going to aim to field the best-looking stuff I can. How I learned it, that's just what you do; you field all painted, all WYSIWYG against any stranger, and even if they give permission or say it's okay, etiquette is to at least act embarassed for any unpainted or proxy models. And part of that culture is that for me I don't have to act.

MagickalMemories wrote:@Mann
I think it's apparent that we're never going to get our opinions wholly in line. I'll do my best not to judge you on that, if you'll reciprocate. ; )

Agreed! I hope you don't mind if I try to proselytize for the cult of painting, though

MagickalMemories wrote:I am just stating that painting is NOT part of gaming and that there should be GAMING tournaments in addition to HOBBY tourneys.

I disagree. As others already mentioned, part of painting is also making your squads distinguishable, and your weapons and wargear stand out more. It really does enhance the game aspect as well. BTW, I have to mention that the terminology you're using here also leaves bit of a sour taste in my mouth, to be honest. Strongly reminds me of how Stelek and his devotees used those terms to attempt to denigrate and deride and devalue traditional tournaments that didn't match up to their standards and preferences as pure battles-only events. Yech.

MagickalMemories wrote:I do find it interesting, though, that most hobbyists who want to play in HOBBY tournaments would probably balk at the idea that someone -whether it be the TO or their opponents- gets to score them based on whether or not their list is fluffy enough & that it affects their overall standing (I am presenting that as opinion, not fact).

We had that for years at GW events, both GTs and RTs. Some of it was checklist, some subjective. When I started playing tournaments the Rogue Trader Tournament composition scoring checklist awarded points for things like having all of your units named, having at least a page of army background/fluff included with your army list, having at least two Troops choices at maximum size, and having less than 10% of your army points spent on character & vehicle upgrades.

MagickalMemories wrote:I also think that people should be more tolerant of others. All this "refusing to play" people (outside of tourneys) nonsense is just that; nonsense.

Yes and no. We should definitely be tolerant. That said, if I have the choice of a pickup game with a guy who has a painted army vs. one who doesn't, all else being equal the choice there is obvious. And even if there isn't someone there with a painted army, if my only option for a pickup game is an opposing army with no arms on half the guys, wrong weapons on half the units, and not a lick of paint... well, whether I decide to say yes to that game depends on just how badly I'm jonesing to roll some dice, and/or how badly I need practice for an upcoming tournament.

IF you want it to be a GRAND tournament it should be painted. And not just 3 stripes across the model "painted" but actually *painted* - UK Indy GT last year had some armies where the players literally did just that.

If i've travelled a few hundred miles, paid ££ to spend the nights in a hotel with a Chaos Berzerker list that isnt going to win (although i managed top 10 bottom of day 2 despite a 100 fever ) I expect to see some nice armies and play some great opponents - its all part of the reason I play in tournaments: to see new cool armies, meet new people and have some good games, win or lose.

We've even changed our local, decidedly non-grand (but still well attended) tournament rules to specify that 3 colours means the whole model in an apprropiate scheme, because people were taking the p*ss.

I don't think that painted models are a necessity to the hobby, especially with friends or a local club.

BUT... if you're going to a tournament of any kind I think it would be a minimum common courtesy to have a painted army.

Personally I'd be embarassed to turn up to an even with unpainted models. I know my painting is probably below average but if I was entering a tournament I'd at least give it my best and that includes painting.

One reason people balk at fluff/theme minimums or grading is that it's either purely subjective, arbitrary and uneven, or ludicrusly complex.

Painting, however, can be made objective pretty easily with the various rubrics. Minimum paint is even easier to standardize.

I love hard boys, and I don't really mind playing against unpainted armies, but as my hobby time shrinks, I like to maximize my pleasure. And that means I'm not going to take vacation days and money to travel to play grey primed models.

Mann: I think that if anything, Stelek's terminology is analagous to the way we're clinging to the term "grand tournament" to mean something different, and arguably better (more grand, as it were). I still agree that the painting aspect is intrinsincly linked to gaming (squad recognition, sheer visuals), in a way that theme and comp aren't. But the labels of "hobby event" and "gaming event" are, much like the term "grand tournament," a way of explaining the expectations of the event, both by participants and the TO.

Mannahnin wrote:I disagree. As others already mentioned, part of painting is also making your squads distinguishable, and your weapons and wargear stand out more. It really does enhance the game aspect as well. BTW, I have to mention that the terminology you're using here also leaves bit of a sour taste in my mouth, to be honest. Strongly reminds me of how Stelek and his devotees used those terms to attempt to denigrate and deride and devalue traditional tournaments that didn't match up to their standards and preferences as pure battles-only events. Yech

LOL
Well, that is definitely my intent.
As I'm sure you've figured out, I definitely don't deride any type of tourney as less valid than another. It's all about preferences.
For me, though, I do see different aspects to the game; I see fluff, painting and the game itself (keeping in mind that those are general terms meant to encompass everything associated with them. Painting includes conversions, etc., for example).

In order to play the game, I do not have to have EITHER of the other two (granted, not having your models assembled DOES tend to screw with TLOS lol).
To play the game, you (realistically) just need accurately assembled models and the appropriate "tools" for the game (dice, etc.). Even proxies/counts as can work if properly noted in some fashion.
Realistically speaking, you should be able to look at most unpainted units and discern what they are, if you're familiar with the army. If you aren't, then painting isn't going to tell you the difference, anyway. For anyone reading this who feels like trying to argue that point and think up ways in which they might be confusing - please, don't. I will find easy responses to them and it will serve no purpose to advance the thread. Thanks.

When you start including paint or composition limitations, you get into the Hobby side of things... and I'm not the first one to mention "Hobby." Most of the Cult of Painting on here (good term, BTW) has used that word themselves; "It's part of the hobby."
They don't say, "It's part of the game," because I think we all understand that it isn't. The game has no rules for painted minis. Those are made by the players.

Thus, with no derision, I think it's appropriate to refer to a tourney as a gaming or hobby tournament. If someone tells you it's a hobby tournament with your gray and silver horde, only to get p*ed off when you're turned away. Same for game tournaments. If you show up to one, no getting whiney that people are playing unpainted models.

Just a thought.

Eric

[edit]

mannahnin wrote:We had that for years at GW events, both GTs and RTs. Some of it was checklist, some subjective. When I started playing tournaments the Rogue Trader Tournament composition scoring checklist awarded points for things like having all of your units named, having at least a page of army background/fluff included with your army list, having at least two Troops choices at maximum size, and having less than 10% of your army points spent on character & vehicle upgrades.

And how did you feel about that? Personally, I thought it was atrocious.
I don't believe anyone should be dinged for any codex legal army... ever. I hate comp scores.

MagickalMemories wrote:
And how did you feel about that? Personally, I thought it was atrocious.
I don't believe anyone should be dinged for any codex legal army... ever. I hate comp scores.

100% agreement on comp, but I guess that's a discussion for another thread.

I hear where you're coming from, MM.

But haven't the GT's always been the place to show off your army? With 'Ard Boys and a plethera of other tournaments that don't cater to the fully painted crowd, can't the painters keep one?

MagickalMemories wrote:
To play the game, you (realistically) just need accurately assembled models and the appropriate "tools" for the game (dice, etc.). Even proxies/counts as can work if properly noted in some fashion.
Realistically speaking, you should be able to look at most unpainted units and discern what they are, if you're familiar with the army. If you aren't, then painting isn't going to tell you the difference, anyway. For anyone reading this who feels like trying to argue that point and think up ways in which they might be confusing - please, don't. I will find easy responses to them and it will serve no purpose to advance the thread. Thanks.

we are not talking about playing the game in a vacuum, we are talking about playing the game in a competative fashion in a very extreme situation with extenuating circumstances including time limits.
The mental CPU cycles and time that it takes to process unpainted models and non-WYSIWYG models impacts the game. In a competative environment it is totally unreasonable for you to burden me with indistinguishable models and/or proxies that I have to keep track of when you get to face my easily distinguished, WYSIWYG army.

This idea that it doesn't impact the game is posturing and pushing an agenda... refusal to accept it has any impact even a minimal one means there is no room for discussion and the thread should end.

When you start including paint or composition limitations, you get into the Hobby side of things... and I'm not the first one to mention "Hobby." Most of the Cult of Painting on here (good term, BTW) has used that word themselves; "It's part of the hobby."
They don't say, "It's part of the game," because I think we all understand that it isn't. The game has no rules for painted minis. Those are made by the players.

There are no rules for tournaments, or time limits either... Therefor tournaments are not part of the 'game' and can't ever be played. So it is hard to say that 'game tourneys' should only be 'the game' as boiling down to only what is in the rulebook shows there simply isn't anything there.

Thus, with no derision, I think it's appropriate to refer to a tourney as a gaming or hobby tournament. If someone tells you it's a hobby tournament with your gray and silver horde, only to get p*ed off when you're turned away. Same for game tournaments. If you show up to one, no getting whiney that people are playing unpainted models.

Just a thought.

Eric

The second a game is timed and competative, you have to have appearance and WYSIWYG or the game becomes unplayable and unfair. The only time proxies and unpainted is not a burden is in an untimed environment so people have the time to 'make up' for the time and effort lost in deciphering and clarifying the opponents units and models.

The same can be said for playing against a bad unclear 'counts as' army at these events. Everyone loves seeing a total conversion army, but sometimes they are horrible to play against in a tourney and it is a bitter pill to lose a game simply because you couldn't figure out what you were playing against.

Anything that burdens opponents by not being visually clear and easy to distinguish without constant needing to clarify, I have an issue with for timed events. Right now, this includes unpainted models, WYSIWYG, funky dice, unclear or bad 'counts as' and body odor. Showing up expecting your opponent to suck up a burden because you deem it reasonable is unreasonable. The only person who can set the threshold is TOs... and if they say burdening people with unpainted or non-wysiwyg in a competative event is 'ok' then I won't play there. Drop the whole 'hobby event' verses 'game tourney' argument...

And how did you feel about that? Personally, I thought it was atrocious.

The game was so broken it was unplayable without comp back then. And everyone knew it too. You can't apply the current game design to the quality and balance of the rules now to 15 years ago.