BRE-PONY-A vs OGRES - Crossroads 2014 Spring Break Round Two

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.

**namiel**

RatBot wrote:
I dunno, this sounded pretty mad to me:
BUT that is crap that you would even think to bring prepainted toys to a tournment. Have you no honor? If it was me with my ogres across the table from you i would have picked up and left. Spending as much time as I am preparing for adepticon id be pissed as hell. Prepainted TOYS!!!!!!

Have you no honor?

Thou hast besmirched the honor of the hallowed, lofty hobby of playing make-believe war with plastic elfmen! For shame, scoundrel!

If he had come with some scratch built or converted knights to look like my little pony I would be all for it but all he did was go to toys are us and buy stuff off the shelf and glue a piece of paper on it. The stuff I build and paint is nothing special but I do put work in on it and yeah it would be annoying to see someone else circumvent the system by just buying bath toys.

**RatBot**

namiel wrote:
RatBot wrote:
I dunno, this sounded pretty mad to me:
BUT that is crap that you would even think to bring prepainted toys to a tournment. Have you no honor? If it was me with my ogres across the table from you i would have picked up and left. Spending as much time as I am preparing for adepticon id be pissed as hell. Prepainted TOYS!!!!!!

Have you no honor?

Thou hast besmirched the honor of the hallowed, lofty hobby of playing make-believe war with plastic elfmen! For shame, scoundrel!

If he had come with some scratch built or converted knights to look like my little pony I would be all for it but all he did was go to toys are us and buy stuff off the shelf and glue a piece of paper on it. The stuff I build and paint is nothing special but I do put work in on it and yeah it would be annoying to see someone else circumvent the system by just buying bath toys.

See, that's a much more sensible way to put it, and yeah, I could definitely see how it would annoy people.

**thedarkavenger**

pretre wrote:
thedarkavenger wrote:
SlaveToDorkness wrote:
So, basically the defense for this army of unpainted toys is "He asked us in advance and we made an exception for him".

I agree with Red and Pretre. A lot of effort goes into an army. This just files in the face of that effort and the actual event rules.

A commission painted army flies in the face of effort too. Yet nobody complains about them. All this is about is the fact that people have issues with MLP.

I already addressed that. A commission painted army had a significant amount of effort put into it. All of that army was assembled and painted well and is generally very nice to see across the table. Heck, my wife generally paints my characters in my armies. Obviously that is effort as well. Slapping pony toys on green bases and giving them banners is even less work than unprimered grey plastic.

If he had a lovingly converted brettonian army with a MLP theme, I might roll my eyes but I would appreciate the effort and the work involved. If he had a MLP toy army or a green army men army, I wouldn't.

A commission painted army has had it's player put no effort into it. If other people put effort into YOUR army, then it's tantamount to you putting no effort in.

**Price**

This made me giggle, the ponies and the rest of the comments.
I'd be all up for playing this dude just for the cup and punch!! Free things!

Keep up the good work pony dude, you have defiantly made more people smile than frown and that's the most important thing

**RatBot**

thedarkavenger wrote:

A commission painted army has had it's player put no effort into it. If other people put effort into YOUR army, then it's tantamount to you putting no effort in.

Actually, this is a good point. Guy buys toy ponies; obviously he has no respect for the hobby (I disagree, or rather, think that "respect for the hobby" is a fairly trivial issue) and it is a bit chafing to people who put a lot of time and effort into building and painting their own armies (I can understand this part). That's why he got a 0 for painting, and deserved it.

So how about the guy who bought his army, fully assembled and painted off of ebay, and did absolutely none of it himself? He put in even less effort in the modelling and painting aspect than Pony Guy, who had to glue the models to the base, paint the bases, and even made little standards for the unit, but Captain Ebay could theoretically get a high painting score.

**Redbeard**

To me, it is little about effort, and more about how it appears on the tabletop. I get most of my enjoyment of this hobby out of putting together armies that look nice, and facing them against other armies that look nice. To me, the "strategy" side of this game is sorely lacking, and the redeeming feature is the spectacle created when you can see two well-painted armies facing each other on a nice looking table.

This is what GT's promise - this has always been the draw of a GT. I do not attend events without painting requirements, and WYSIWYG requirements. To me, the idea that a player can petition an event organizer to avoid these requirements shows a significant lapse in judgement on the part of the organizer who approves it.

As I mentioned in an earlier post, I have played against several interestingly themed armies, but the one thing that they've all had in common is that they met the rules of the event; they were WYSIWYG; they were painted. I've seen Ultramarines done with a smurf theme, with smurf toys on the display board, yet the actual army was just marines. I've seen a G.I. Joe themed guard army (and a Cobra one, for that matter), but these were simply paint schemes on cadians, not toys.

Of course, there will always be players who do the bare minimum. I don't appreciate playing against these players, but as long as there is a minimum requirement, and they have met it, they surely deserve the right to play. As for those who buy their armies, or pay others to paint them, I believe they should get 0 scores, yet be allowed to play, because their army meets the event requirements. However, pragmatism must be considered here - it is hard to police this. If the alternatives are to have people who didn't paint their own armies lie in order to get a soft-score, or be granted a score without lying, I'd prefer they get the score and preserve their honesty. Especially if that honesty can disqualify them from receiving a painting award.

Of course, the pro-painted army does not detract from the opponent's experience in the way that the toy army or the bare-minimum army does, so there is merit to allowing them to participate.

I have more respect for someone who paints their own army, though their skills may be lacking, than I have for someone who pays to have theirs painted. Yet, I prefer to play against the better looking one. The world is full of interesting contradictions.

In a fair world, a person using an army that someone else painted in order to get a score would be treated the same way that a player receiving outside advice during the game was treated. If I, as a painter, cannot solicit my friend to help me play the game, why should a player be allowed to have a friend (or professional) help paint it for a score. As long as scores are associated with each aspect of the tournament, there's no reason, other than the aforementioned pragmatic considerations, to treat these differently.

**timofeo**

RatBot wrote:
thedarkavenger wrote:

A commission painted army has had it's player put no effort into it. If other people put effort into YOUR army, then it's tantamount to you putting no effort in.

Actually, this is a good point. Guy buys toy ponies; obviously he has no respect for the hobby (I disagree, or rather, think that "respect for the hobby" is a fairly trivial issue) and it is a bit chafing to people who put a lot of time and effort into building and painting their own armies (I can understand this part). That's why he got a 0 for painting, and deserved it.

So how about the guy who bought his army, fully assembled and painted off of ebay, and did absolutely none of it himself? He put in even less effort in the modelling and painting aspect than Pony Guy, who had to glue the models to the base, paint the bases, and even made little standards for the unit, but Captain Ebay could theoretically get a high painting score.

There is no realistic way to stop the ebay guy circumstance from happening, and while I agree that this army is neat and fun in a way were I would have no problem with it I can see the points that if the bias of the TO let certain fun armies through than why not all the possible fun armies like the spoken of Green armymen IG or a Gundam Tau army, Monsters Inc Daemons army, ect

Where does it end and can it if 1 is allowed?

**RatBot**

I believe they should get 0 scores, yet be allowed to play, because their army meets the event requirements. However, pragmatism must be considered here - it is hard to police this. If the alternatives are to have people who didn't paint their own armies lie in order to get a soft-score, or be granted a score without lying, I'd prefer they get the score and preserve their honesty. Especially if that honesty can disqualify them from receiving a painting award.

Yeah, I agree. I also understand that it's hard to police this and is thus completely impractical, at best. Simply wanted to pose the hypothetical question.

To me, it is little about effort, and more about how it appears on the tabletop. I get most of my enjoyment of this hobby out of putting together armies that look nice, and facing them against other armies that look nice. To me, the "strategy" side of this game is sorely lacking, and the redeeming feature is the spectacle created when you can see two well-painted armies facing each other on a nice looking table.

I can't imagine paying money to enter a tournament to play a game I consider sub-par just for the chance of possibly seeing some pretty miniatures, especially when, frankly, no guarantee exists (beyond statistical averages) than any of them will be anything more than base coat+3 colors.

But that's, just, like, you know, my opinion, man, and to each his own; serious-business types in a game with subpar rules are why I avoided 40K and WHFB tournaments like the plague, for example. I avoid Warmahordes tournaments because of serious business types and also because I am very bad at the game

.

I'm also not the one saying people should be ashamed of themselves for allowing something that I personally object to in a tournament I didn't play in. I still don't think it merited a response beyond "Dumb army, would not play in this GT". My issue wasn't with people not liking or wanting to play against the army, it was melodramatic accusations of dishonor and disgrace in this, the sacred, deadly serious tradition of pretendy-time magic generals that amused me.

while I agree that this army is neat and fun in a way were I would have no problem with it I can see the points that if the bias of the TO let certain fun armies through than why not all the possible fun armies like the spoken of Green armymen IG or a Gundam Tau army, Monsters Inc Daemons army, ect
Where does it end and can it if 1 is allowed?

It ends wherever the TO says it ends.

with that said, I certainly see the problem with consistency, and the TOs should enforce the rules they set (barring extenuating circumstances).

Again, I want to stress that I agree the army is silly, and that the TOs should be consistent, and that if they're going to allow weird stuff like this they should let people know. I just came in expecting a handful of responses filled with righteous indignation and... was actually somewhat disappointed (though still amused) that there were only one or two.

I'll also acknowledge that the people who made responses that I thought were a bit overly indignant also later explained themselves in a much more reasonable fashion. So really, that's basically all there is to it.

**RiTides**

Murdock wrote:
Hello folks, I'm not a regular reader of the Dakka forums, but this post came up and I felt like I should respond.

I'm the TO for The Crossroads GTs. And I think any hate that's directed at the player who took this army is completely misdirected. He did everything on the up-and-up, he contacted me well in advance, sent me pics of the army, and even pointed me towards players to contact that had played against the army previously to see if it's clear which units are which on the tabletop. Chris certainly did his part, and while there is no painting involved, he clearly committed himself for the "fun" LOLs with this army, even having the videos playing in the background, T-shirts, the castle, cups of punch, etc...

Obviously it's not to everyone's taste, and Chris knew that going in I think, so the wildly varying opinions are not surprising to him.

Any heat for this army being preset at the event should really be directed at me as the TO.

There are a few criteria that I used when deciding whether to allow this army in:

1) Fun factor - clearly Chris was doing this as a fun gag, he went all-out for his theme. I don't fell that he was looking to circumvent having to take an actual GW army, I know that he has painted GW armies, and would have readily taken one of them if I had denied his request.

2) Am I able to tell what's what on the table top: For this is where I had a real concern, in the end, based on previous precedent, I decided to allow it. We have allowed the Pawn's Of Chaos checkerboard familiar army in the past, which I think is more difficult at times to distinguish what it what, and had no issues. The original poster of this battle report himself has brought his cool Nurgle themed Skaven army to the event before, which contains no actual Skaven models, and people seemed to be able to work with that as well. On top of that, Bretonians as an army are usually confusing to me as an individual as to what is what, and which characters are where anyway, so this in my mind was no worse than a normal Bret army in that regard.

3) Appearance - Granted, the player himself did no painting or converting for this army, but it did look coherent and like it belonged together. And outside of the fact that they were MLPs, the army wasn't a horrible looking army. There are players that get their 3 color minimum on the model as sloppily as they can, and they are now compliant. Those armies to me are more unfun to look at because they look legitimately awful, GW minitures or not. I have played in a GT against the army that the models were spray painted different colors, with massive swaths of paint brushed on, then glitter all over them. This was compliant, had it's 3 colors, but was visually painful to look at. I didn't feel that this went to that level of visual disgust.

Where I obviously missed the boat is the player experience, I vastly underestimated how much opponents, and other attendees at the event would dislike having this army present. Chris and I have talked and both agree that this was the only time it will see the table at a GT, and to use this as a lesson learned.

Much of the feedback I've received centers around the lack of effort put into this army as compared to his peers at the event. I would disagree with this reasoning based on one point, I know there are plenty of players that and pay to have their armies built and painted for them. And rarely does anyone say that those armies don't belong at an event based on lack of effort, so that reasoning does not hold water in my mind.

As for the Crossroads GT's themselves, if you find that this one particular instance is reason enough not to attend our events, then that is certainly your prerogative. We take pride in running an event that caters to gamers who value different aspects of the hobby, from those that place a high value on the soft scores to those that really want a competitive gaming environment, and everyone in-between. I think we've been very successful, as these are the largest GT's in the northeast, and we sell out both events annually within 24 hours of opening registration. So if this has put you off, I would encourage you to reconsider and attend in person, as the feedback I regularly receive is that most people have a wonderful time at our GTs, and we grow attendance each year, meaning new attendees find it an experience worth repeating.

Red_Zeke wrote:
@Murdock:

Appreciate getting to read your response in this thread. Thanks for the professional reply. Very much hope to get a midwest posse put together and head out to one of your events some time.

Totally agreed Red_Zeke, thanks for posting here Murdock!

Regarding this statement of yours:

Where I obviously missed the boat is the player experience, I vastly underestimated how much opponents, and other attendees at the event would dislike having this army present. Chris and I have talked and both agree that this was the only time it will see the table at a GT, and to use this as a lesson learned.

I'm really glad you noted this! For a counts-as army, I think it's important, exactly as you say, to keep "player experience" in mind, and I do think this army misses the bar on that front a bit. I think not using it in a future GT is a smart move on his part... it would be hilarious to me for a fun game, but not necessarily something I'd expect would be allowed at a GT.

Regarding Salvage's nurgle-themed skaven... I think the "player experience" factor there means absolutely everyone I've seen face it is happy to play against it, because it meets pretty much everyone's "rule of cool" and is also well converted to make distinguishing weapons / units easy.

I am currently finishing a gribbly 40k army, which I'll be using at AdeptiCon (I got approval ahead of time). But I converted the models using GW weaponry where possible, and am very careful to make sure that it's easy to tell what is what, so that it will be a fun to play against it (keeping in mind the "player experience", as you excellently phrased it).

Again, cheers for posting here

Edit: Just checked out Salvage's Crossroads GT Gallery and there are some sweet photos in there! Spoilered a few below of big monsters that I like, and Salvage must have too since he snapped the pics

Spoiler:

**SisterSydney**

Ok, now those models do not get 0 for painting.

But as monstrous as they are, they somehow frighten me less than an army of My Little Ponies out for blood....

**TanKoL**

They're not out for blood !
They just want to power-hug you and sparkle you to death with a sunshine smile on your lips !

**SisterSydney**

aaaaaaa that's worse much much worse nooooooooo

Automatically Appended Next Post:
PS: I think "power hug" is only a wargear option in 40K, not Fantasy. Sx2 Ap:4 Melee, Two-handed, Concussive.

**Purifier**

ZebioLizard2 wrote:

And if you do decide to be that guy, then you need to keep your mind open enough that you may actually be offending some purists and be ready to accept that. Also be ready to accept that they are not wrong. You're the one stomping ponies into their hobby.

Their hobby? Isn't it his hobby as well to enjoy?

Also this thread is honestly amusing for all the amused anger.

Prepainted TOYS!!!!!!

..Which warhammer models are as well, if not the prepainted part.

No, not while he is bringing an army that doesn't fit the scope. It's his hobby as much as anyone's, but while he is bringing an army that he brings knowing perfectly well that it is *not* what the other people subscribed to when they entered the hobby (in fact, the novelty is a large part of why he made it) then he makes himself the outsider, and that means he is the one that has to make concessions if they need to be made.

It's like me going to a Brony convention wearing S&M gimp gear for a laugh and then taking offense if the bronies disliked me being there. Hey, maybe they'll think it's as funny as I do, but they didn't go there to see a dude wearing nothing but a leather thong, a gimp mask and chains, and they may just see it as a degradation of their hobby. If they do, that's not their fault. It's mine. They gathered all their stuff, finished up their Rainbow Dash tattoos and fixed up their multi coloured wigs to come and be with like-minded people. They have first right to be there, I have second. Whether or not I was a Brony (and a part of their circle) before I donned the gimp gear is largely irrelevant (although it does allow a little more leeway if you're from the in circle to begin with.) I'm coming to them in an attempt to entertain, and if they don't think it's funny, then I've failed.

Just saying "this is my hobby too, so I can treat it any way I like" doesn't fly.

**Redbeard**

Purifier wrote:

No, not while he is bringing an army that doesn't fit the scope. It's his hobby as much as anyone's, but while he is bringing an army that he brings knowing perfectly well that it is *not* what the other people subscribed to when they entered the hobby (in fact, the novelty is a large part of why he made it) then he makes himself the outsider, and that means he is the one that has to make concessions if they need to be made.

It's like me going to a Brony convention wearing S&M gimp gear for a laugh and then taking offense if the bronies disliked me being there. Hey, maybe they'll think it's as funny as I do, but they didn't go there to see a dude wearing nothing but a leather thong, a gimp mask and chains, and they may just see it as a degradation of their hobby. If they do, that's not their fault. It's mine. They gathered all their stuff, finished up their Rainbow Dash tattoos and fixed up their multi coloured wigs to come and be with like-minded people. They have first right to be there, I have second. Whether or not I was a Brony (and a part of their circle) before I donned the gimp gear is largely irrelevant (although it does allow a little more leeway if you're from the in circle to begin with.) I'm coming to them in an attempt to entertain, and if they don't think it's funny, then I've failed.

Just saying "this is my hobby too, so I can treat it any way I like" doesn't fly.

Well said.

**Puddle_Pirate**

I had to stop reading at a certain point and just comment. I am active duty in the Military that works as a personal security officer for someone. I love this game with a passion but am unfortunately charged with working upwards of 15+ hours a day Monday through Friday. Also married. It utterly pains me to hear people give such grief to someone or people in general about "effort" directed towards their army. I cannot possibly catch up on the amount of painting that is required for my armies. I have about 3 or 4 hours every Sunday when I can paint and i am not very good even at doing it. I will be taking my half painted army to a tourney this weekend called FOWL ETC whatever the rest of the name is at Dropzone Games in MD. I pray that I don’t meet people that are that rude for little to no reason. BTW my first fantasy tourney. <End semi-rant>

On a side note, I would have thoroughly enjoy playing against Chris and would have more laughs than I knew what to do with. If you are that offended about a game than real life must be rough.....

**RiTides**

Puddle_Pirate, you might just want to check the rules of the tourney at Dropzone- many tournies have requirements that armies be fully painted (3 color minimum).

You can totally use an army you're still working on, but if by "half painted" you mean some units aren't painted at all, that could be an issue. It depends on the event, of course, but every GT that I know of requires that armies be fully painted to a 3 color minimum standard... although a local tourney like the one I think you're referring to may not require that.

**Puddle_Pirate**

oh boy, i hope not. What i have painted, I have put my heart and soul into. I LOVE the comradery of playing a wargame with fellow people! But i guess I will find out.

**PirateRobotNinjaofDeath**

I think the more interesting point here isn't so much that he took a sparkly Pony army to a GT. He did it as a lark, and I can understand why he thought it was funny and fun (and why many of his opponents probably did as well).

To me, the thing that would make me really salty to have faced him is that he took a sparkly pony DEATH STAR. Judging from this battle report it seems at least a few of his opponents lost because they didn't really comprehend the fact that their opponent was running a 1,300 point hitty, rerollable 1+ engine of death and destruction at their face. This ogre player underestimated that unit and it just ran over him like a fething train.

To me that seems almost...a little unsporting I guess. I don't think that was his intention, but I certainly think it was the effect. He covered his massive iron morningstar with sparkles and glitter and rainbows, and nobody realized what it was until he'd scattered their brains all over the table.

Now of course that's their fault for not reading his list, but I don't think ALL FIVE of his opponents would have made the same mistake if they'd been looking at armed, mean-looking knights instead of smiling sparkly ponies.

**namiel**

PirateRobotNinjaofDeath wrote:
I think the more interesting point here isn't so much that he took a sparkly Pony army to a GT. He did it as a lark, and I can understand why he thought it was funny and fun (and why many of his opponents probably did as well).

To me, the thing that would make me really salty to have faced him is that he took a sparkly pony DEATH STAR. Judging from this battle report it seems at least a few of his opponents lost because they didn't really comprehend the fact that their opponent was running a 1,300 point hitty, rerollable 1+ engine of death and destruction at their face. This ogre player underestimated that unit and it just ran over him like a fething train.

To me that seems almost...a little unsporting I guess. I don't think that was his intention, but I certainly think it was the effect. He covered his massive iron morningstar with sparkles and glitter and rainbows, and nobody realized what it was until he'd scattered their brains all over the table.

Now of course that's their fault for not reading his list, but I don't think ALL FIVE of his opponents would have made the same mistake if they'd been looking at armed, mean-looking knights instead of smiling sparkly ponies.

The problem with looking at his list is most GT's are closed lists for fantasy. I am going to assume so was this. His list was not at all WYSIWYG. Not a single horse had a rider so...

**SilverMK2**

I was expecting to see an army of converted and painted horses in a my little pony (or whatever the hell they are called now) style - that would have been pretty cool.

Instead, it is a bunch of happy meal-esque toys, with banners drawn in felt tip on coloured card, glued to what look like straws...

I would not be impressed playing this "army" in a casual pick up game, let alone at a GT. Redbeard has covered all the points I would have made far better than I could have so I will leave it there.

**PirateRobotNinjaofDeath**

namiel wrote:
PirateRobotNinjaofDeath wrote:
I think the more interesting point here isn't so much that he took a sparkly Pony army to a GT. He did it as a lark, and I can understand why he thought it was funny and fun (and why many of his opponents probably did as well).

To me, the thing that would make me really salty to have faced him is that he took a sparkly pony DEATH STAR. Judging from this battle report it seems at least a few of his opponents lost because they didn't really comprehend the fact that their opponent was running a 1,300 point hitty, rerollable 1+ engine of death and destruction at their face. This ogre player underestimated that unit and it just ran over him like a fething train.

To me that seems almost...a little unsporting I guess. I don't think that was his intention, but I certainly think it was the effect. He covered his massive iron morningstar with sparkles and glitter and rainbows, and nobody realized what it was until he'd scattered their brains all over the table.

Now of course that's their fault for not reading his list, but I don't think ALL FIVE of his opponents would have made the same mistake if they'd been looking at armed, mean-looking knights instead of smiling sparkly ponies.

The problem with looking at his list is most GT's are closed lists for fantasy. I am going to assume so was this. His list was not at all WYSIWYG. Not a single horse had a rider so...

Was this a closed-list tournament?

**namiel**

PirateRobotNinjaofDeath wrote:
namiel wrote:
PirateRobotNinjaofDeath wrote:
I think the more interesting point here isn't so much that he took a sparkly Pony army to a GT. He did it as a lark, and I can understand why he thought it was funny and fun (and why many of his opponents probably did as well).

To me, the thing that would make me really salty to have faced him is that he took a sparkly pony DEATH STAR. Judging from this battle report it seems at least a few of his opponents lost because they didn't really comprehend the fact that their opponent was running a 1,300 point hitty, rerollable 1+ engine of death and destruction at their face. This ogre player underestimated that unit and it just ran over him like a fething train.

To me that seems almost...a little unsporting I guess. I don't think that was his intention, but I certainly think it was the effect. He covered his massive iron morningstar with sparkles and glitter and rainbows, and nobody realized what it was until he'd scattered their brains all over the table.

Now of course that's their fault for not reading his list, but I don't think ALL FIVE of his opponents would have made the same mistake if they'd been looking at armed, mean-looking knights instead of smiling sparkly ponies.

The problem with looking at his list is most GT's are closed lists for fantasy. I am going to assume so was this. His list was not at all WYSIWYG. Not a single horse had a rider so...

Was this a closed-list tournament?

No idea but as a GT I would assume so. Regardless closed or open was it not wysiwyg?

**PirateRobotNinjaofDeath**

All the tournaments where I am are open list, though perhaps the East Coast is different?

As for WYSIWYG it was apparently quite close, in that you could clearly distinguish which models were which based on colour. And I don't know how often you play against Bretonnia, but that's pretty much the only way you can do it normally anyways. The only difference between models is that characters have swords while rank-and-file have lances, and MAYBE a slightly different pose. If you're lucky.

**Narenzade**

The tournament was open list.

I handed my list to each opponent and explained which model was which to each opponent. No one was confused as to which model was which. As people have said, all Bretonnia knights / Lords / Heroes look virtually the same.

I mean I think it's easier to say do you see this pony? It's the only one that's bright pink, has wings, has a horn and has a crown. That's my paladin.

See the purple one with the big banner? That's my BSB.

See the bright white one? That's my Lord.
http://mlp.wikia.com/wiki/File

rincess_Celestia,_Cadance_and_Luna_blind_bag_toys.jpg

Here's what the standard rank and file ponies looked like...
http://vampykit.deviantart.com/art/Blind-Bag-Pinkie-Pie-Bait-290870484

The rank and file ponies are about 3/4 of an inch shorter than any of the Princess Ponies (AKA the characters).

I had two units of realm ponies that were distinguishable via banner and champions.

My Grail Pony unit was covered in glitter, so that's pretty easy to distinguish.

I clearly did misjudge the way this army would be received. I thought it would be enjoyable for most people to play against. The atmosphere at every GT I've been to has not been one of deep immersion and such. They've been hanging out, laughing and drinking various liquors/beer. I wasn't aware that the hobby aspect of it seems so important to many people. So, I learned something and will adjust appropriately.

@PirateRobotNinjaDeath
That's some deep psychology level stuff. That very well could be, but I'd say the only psychology involved was... Oh sick, Bretonnia, free win!

At least that's what I would have thought.

**SisterSydney**

I wouldn't worry too much about the reaction in this thread : remember, This. Is. Internet! where the most active responders are going to be either the people who get angry or the people who take things a little too seriously.

The reaction of the people who saw the army in person is way more important. And it sounds like you did exactly the right thing, which is consult the tournament organizers way in advance.

**RiTides**

Narenzade wrote:
I clearly did misjudge the way this army would be received. I thought it would be enjoyable for most people to play against. The atmosphere at every GT I've been to has not been one of deep immersion and such. They've been hanging out, laughing and drinking various liquors/beer. I wasn't aware that the hobby aspect of it seems so important to many people. So, I learned something and will adjust appropriately.

It's good to see that, and I'm glad it was kind of learning experience. I don't think it's a huge deal in the end at all.

As Sydney says above, you did consult the event organizers and got approval. It looks like they've also learned from this and may adjust slightly what they allow in the future.

In the end, live and learn, etc etc

. Still a great showing with your commanding of the army on the table, and next time if you just bring a slightly more immersive / painted army to the table, there won't be any distracting from what was clearly an impressive display of generalship with a lesser used army.

**Arbiter**

Congrats on the crushing win for ponies (no really my sister was rooting for them the whole report)!

My only question is people on this forum seem to complain about which pony is which, could you not table them on the front of the bases e.g. bsb is pony labeled pinkipie ect. I think it would make disguising them impossible.

**AlexHolker**

Narenzade wrote:
Did I make this army to skip out on painting Bretonnians? No. I wanted THIS army to look THIS way.

Did you want the display base to be warped?

thedarkavenger wrote:
A commission painted army has had it's player put no effort into it. If other people put effort into YOUR army, then it's tantamount to you putting no effort in.

I disagree. The mechanism is obviously different, but someone who spent fifty hours working to pay someone else to paint an army that the other tournament goers could appreciate is putting effort into doing right by them. He didn't paint them himself so the painting score should be low (or zero, depending on whether you want to give him some token "thanks for letting me play an aesthetically pleasing game" points), but that's a matter of scoring, not damaging your opponent's enjoyment of the game.

**PirateRobotNinjaofDeath**

Narenzade wrote:
@PirateRobotNinjaDeath
That's some deep psychology level stuff. That very well could be, but I'd say the only psychology involved was... Oh sick, Bretonnia, free win!

At least that's what I would have thought.

Oh definitely. I know my Bret friend has people do that to him all the time. But people still should have recognized that your grail unit was worth paying attention to, if only because it was worth a whack-load of points. But people already don't take Bretonnia seriously, and I think when it's sparkly pony Bretonnia that effect is going to be magnified.

Was it a 20-0 tournament as well? Perhaps that was playing a role too, since people are thinking about the massacre rather than playing a balanced game.

In any event, don't think I'm trying to take away from your victory at all here. Drawing a dumb opponent first or second round is luck, but crushing 5 people in a row with Bretonnians means that you came up against some good players and still took them down. Psychology or not, that's still a feat to have accomplished.

As for the "hobby aspect," yeah it really is important to a lot of people. But I think that people are angrier about it when you're just an army in the abstract, rather than when you're a cool guy standing across the table giving people alcoholic party punch. I'll grumble and groan about seeing that army on its own, but by the sounds of it you'd have been in the running for my best opponent vote. So don't take the whining of the internet too seriously.

**Narenzade**

It was a 20-0 tournament, so people were looking for big wins.

Oh, not at all. I knew there would be people who didn't like it, but I wasn't worried. I got appropriate approval and just wanted to have a good time. Honestly, I wasn't expecting to win more than 3 games. I was trying to win Player's Choice... I'll take Best General though, for certain.

Your last point is excellent. I think most people who raged against it on the inter-webs would not have done so in person because of the LAWLZ to be had actually playing the game. My ranting about Celestia and the magic of friendship probably did wear on some people. But that's what liquor is for. The great equalizer.