Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 OverwatchCNC wrote:

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

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

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

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

I would argue that it's my tournament, my standard and my right to judge entries. That I didn't expect someone to come along having dabbed three different coloured permanent markers sellotaped in a bundle on the head of the model and call it done. That such an army is not acceptable.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 OverwatchCNC wrote:

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

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

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

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

I would argue that it's my tournament, my standard and my right to judge entries. That I didn't expect someone to come along having dabbed three different coloured permanent markers sellotaped in a bundle on the head of the model and call it done. That such an army is not acceptable.

You're moving the goal posts here. The army you described in red is not the same as that in green.

As long as you've clearly spelled out the requirements for your event beforehand than of course you're free to judge the painting of the armies as you see fit within your criteria. My point is the criteria you've been providing isn't clear nor has it been consistent from post to post. If I were to show up with an army that sounds like the one in red with the criteria provided in that post and I was judged as being substandard and penalized for it I would take issue with that.

Well, whatever, I said it was subjective. I'm not running a tournament anyway, so I don't see why I should be expected to publish my criteria.

Whatever the criteria chosen, I don't see how I am supposed to judge your army until it is presented to me. If you want to make sure it's going to pass muster, make some effort to make it look good by the spirit of the rules. Don't rely on the letter of them.

Three colours is what most people regard as a bare minimum for an acceptable tabletop army. Most people are saying it's hard to paint under five colours, just from the variety of features on a typical model.

Group 1: My Models will never be touched by paint:
A major reason there was a push of 'non-painting' for a while was because during the end of 5th and beginning of 6th, the META was shifting so drastically with every codex change, people were literally trying to win by buying a whole new codex army every 4 months. For that to be 'cost effective' often the models needed to be minimally assembled as possible and UNPAINTED to retain max re-sale value. This was where the codex-hopping resale + 'ard boys made a real mess of things.

Those people who choose to never paint ever, accept you have limited access to events, or run your own events.


Group 2: I don't want to waste my life on painting, so here is my bare minimum to meet the standard:
Those people are drastically different from the people who simply 'don't want to paint' who want to attend high-level GTs. Those people often showed up with stuff like this:



Whatever their reasoning, from 'I don't have the skill' or 'I don't want to spend the time' or 'this is a political statement against painting', they at least met the standard and were allowed to participate. They at least did that much.

Whats wrong with the necrons and the tanks? (fair enough if you don't like pink, but from that tiny picture those tanks look cool).

nareik wrote:
Whats wrong with the necrons and the tanks? (fair enough if you don't like pink, but from that tiny picture those tanks look cool).

Nothing is wrong with them... they are the minimum standard. That is what people who hate painting but want to go to grand tourney-style events do...

The Pink one dispels the 'I have no skill so I leave them plastic' Myth. This person painted them and now he can participate because a basic paint job can be done by anyone.

The Grey one was explicitly done by a player who claimed he was the best 40k player EVAR but could never prove it due to not being allowed to play because he doesn't paint. So he painted his stuff to a minimum standard and showed up. (and got his butt whooped) but at least he met the standard.

He didn't show up unpainted and demand to be let to participate.

Even from a casual standpoint, if you never say enough is enough lets only do painted models it will never happen. I only get in about 4-5 games a month and realistically I want those to be painted models only. I hate the activity of painting but love the end result and it allows me to pick a unit or tank or whatever and get it done for my next game.

 Crablezworth wrote:
Even from a casual standpoint, if you never say enough is enough lets only do painted models it will never happen. I only get in about 4-5 games a month and realistically I want those to be painted models only. I hate the activity of painting but love the end result and it allows me to pick a unit or tank or whatever and get it done for my next game.

That's perfectly understandable from a casual perspective, if you've set up with your opponent before hand that you're looking for that type of game. This thread is more about tournament play, and competitive play, where testing lists and fine tuning them often calls for playing units/models before they are completed. If I show up to a Tuesday 40k night and want to play a game and my opponent has unpainted miniatures I will happily play them. If I want to play a game where I am trying to test out a new competitive list I would let my random Tuesday night opponent know that in case they're looking for a different kind of game. If I show up to a narrative night and one side has a player with an unpainted army I might not be too thrilled. It all comes down to personal preference and what setting you're talking about. As far as competitive/tournament gaming goes I think the level of event being discussed matters a lot in framing responses to this question. A lot of personal preference is also involved.

I think NOVA allows unpainted model at their GT? I went thru the site didn't see any painting requirements. Basically you Won't win overall but can win best general.

 SonsofVulkan wrote:
I think NOVA allows unpainted model at their GT? I went thru the site didn't see any painting requirements. Basically you Won't win overall but can win best general.

I think the requirement is listed in the primer for each event. The last one I read said that painted models were not required but were strongly encouraged.

Though from walking around the floor in the 40k hall the last few years I don't recall seeing any gray plastic.

The rules were that the army be painted - altho the OP hasn't given details of how - and I reckon in a tourney I would have called the organiser (especially if it were a hardcore Tau force!).

Of course this is all subjective. But the fact remains you could use an Army Painter coloured primer, perhaps add one wash, and once you've based the models, then that is good enough. Last fall we played an Apocalypse Game with huge numbers of models, and everyone I could see had done at least that, and it made for a much more immersive game.

TLDR: you can paint an army in a day with coloured Primers. If you can't be bothered to spend that time to meet criteria in the rules, then you shouldn't be allowed to compete.

nkelsch wrote:
Those people are drastically different from the people who simply 'don't want to paint' who want to attend high-level GTs. Those people often showed up with stuff like this:

I'd call psychological warfare on this. I wonder if it one of Alex Fennel's (sp?), like the Jetseer Council Serpent Spam that won LVO 2014?

I disagree, nkelsch. I've seen a 3rd hot pink army, looking the same spray as this. It was Storm Ravens and SM, at LVO this past February:




So, is this really what you say, nkelsch? Or is this a guy who likes to play pink?

I like those pink armies. They've got a well-thought-out, well done concept, and the bases also are nicely decorated.

I'm a Tabletop newbie, like my name states so i really haven't played any tournaments - hell, i haven't even played a 40k match - just a reminder for what i say has to be taken with a grain of salt (or a heap).. but..

This sounds a lot like a certain "requirement of skill" rather than a bare minimum paint job to participate in said event. Just because i like to see my army painted doesn't mean i cannot understand nor play against people who just don't bother.

o/

 EverlastingNewb wrote:


This sounds a lot like a certain "requirement of skill" rather than a bare minimum paint job to participate in said event. Just because i like to see my army painted doesn't mean i cannot understand nor play against people who just don't bother.

o/

The Pink army takes no skill to accomplish and is fine for events.

People who 'don't bother' actively burden opponents with game impacting issues... which during a timed, competitive event is unreasonable, especially if the rules required a standard and the people showed up thumbing their nose at it.

I have a friend who has no skill at painting. None. But he paints every model, painting coats one color, webbing and equipment another, and weapons metallic. Then he applies GW black or brown shade over the whole model, applies glue and flock to the base, and - hey presto! - he's done. It looks fine on the tabletop and it really enhances both the enjoyment of the game and ease of identifying what is what in his army.

I always try to encourage people to paint, because if you think you can't do it you're wrong! Anyone can paint and get good results, and have a much better experience with the hobby as a result. The point of painting requirements is not to PUNISH THE UNPAINTED and cast them into the furthest pit of Hell, or even to make the game easier to play and nicer for your opponent. The point is to encourage everyone to get the most out the hobby that they can and enjoy all of the different facets of it.

It's a positive measure, not a punitive one, and people should treat it as such.

More GTs should get rid of mandatory painting/basing requirements.

Unpainted armies are the least people worry about at a major tourney. Illegal lists, high model count lists(slow play) and other forms of cheating are what most tourney goers care about. I rather play a unpainted army in a smooth, efficient game than against a cheating player with a beautiful army.

 SonsofVulkan wrote:
Unpainted armies are the least people worry about at a major tourney. Illegal lists, high model count lists(slow play) and other forms of cheating are what most tourney goers care about. I rather play a unpainted army in a smooth, efficient game than against a cheating player with a beautiful army.

Why do we have to choose between one or the other? Require fully painted armies, and keep the cheaters out.

 Peregrine wrote:
... Require fully painted armies,
and keep the cheaters out.

In no universe, does one have to do with the other.

In 11+ years of playing, I have seen 40k cheaters cheat with painted models or unpainted. From teeny boppers to GT contenders (actually one guy in particular, and the whole of Calif. knows his tricks).

The only time I've seen a blank base at a GT, was when there were with 7 other fully assembled models, 4 of which were fully painted, and 3 just bases. All the same Skyhammer squad. The two special wep guys were assembled and discernible. He had glue and was finishing bodies to bases as we played. Great game. Good opponent. I had no issue with the guy.

This : "Oh, no, *those* 8 bases are my sternguard. The bases you just killed are a tac squad. Sorry for the mix up." ... has never happens in any tourneys I've played in. For years.

Peregrine, has anyone in a tourney ever pulled that on you? Which tourney?

 Brothererekose wrote:
In no universe, does one have to do with the other.

Well yes, that's what I just said! The quoted post was a reply to someone who was acting like we have to make a choice between requiring painted models or doing something about cheaters, as if they're somehow tied to each other and fixing one means ignoring the other. I'm really not sure how you concluded that I was arguing otherwise.

Having such a rigid stance on painting doesn't seem good for the hobby. I am pretty new, and I'm slowly getting my army painted, but when I was still in the throes of assembly, I took my unpainted army out for a tourney. I can say unequivocally that had I been turned away for having an unpainted army, it would have soured me towards organized play perhaps indefinitely. However, everyone was totally cool and welcoming, and as such I've had a great time going out to my FLGS and meeting and engaging the local community.
One person having an unpainted army doesn't diminish another person's fully painted one, and being a prick over a game is not only bad for the hobby in general, but also for your personality in particular. Nobody likes a prick, and being said prick over something so inconsequential only contributes to the popularly and often correctly held opinion that gamers are socially inept clowns.

Veryance wrote:
Having such a rigid stance on painting doesn't seem good for the hobby. I am pretty new, and I'm slowly getting my army painted, but when I was still in the throes of assembly, I took my unpainted army out for a tourney. I can say unequivocally that had I been turned away for having an unpainted army, it would have soured me towards organized play perhaps indefinitely. However, everyone was totally cool and welcoming, and as such I've had a great time going out to my FLGS and meeting and engaging the local community.
One person having an unpainted army doesn't diminish another person's fully painted one, and being a prick over a game is not only bad for the hobby in general, but also for your personality in particular. Nobody likes a prick, and being said prick over something so inconsequential only contributes to the popularly and often correctly held opinion that gamers are socially inept clowns.

Alternatively, looking at ugly gray plastic on the other side of the table significantly diminishes my enjoyment of the game. It's not an "inconsequential" thing at all for many people.

Veryance wrote:
Having such a rigid stance on painting doesn't seem good for the hobby. I am pretty new, and I'm slowly getting my army painted, but when I was still in the throes of assembly, I took my unpainted army out for a tourney. I can say unequivocally that had I been turned away for having an unpainted army, it would have soured me towards organized play perhaps indefinitely. However, everyone was totally cool and welcoming, and as such I've had a great time going out to my FLGS and meeting and engaging the local community.
One person having an unpainted army doesn't diminish another person's fully painted one, and being a prick over a game is not only bad for the hobby in general, but also for your personality in particular. Nobody likes a prick, and being said prick over something so inconsequential only contributes to the popularly and often correctly held opinion that gamers are socially inept clowns.

If the rules of the tournament clearly state that WYSIWYG and painted minis are required, why I am the "socially inept clown" that is upset when my opponent did not field a painted, WYSIWYG army? I sacrificed weekend time with my wife, skipped out on events I enjoy, and made other sacrifices to meet the tournament requirements and make sure my gak looks good (runner up best painted in 2 events).

I'm not talking about pick-up games at an FLGS. That's goal post moving in this thread about tournament play. I have and will continue to play against the unpainted masses at FLGS pickup games with no issues.

Just my 2 cents.

Veryance wrote:

One person having an unpainted army doesn't diminish another person's fully painted one, and being a prick over a game is not only bad for the hobby in general, but also for your personality in particular. Nobody likes a prick, and being said prick over something so inconsequential only contributes to the popularly and often correctly held opinion that gamers are socially inept clowns.

Lacking empathy and understanding someone else's point of view is a sign of someone who is 'socially inept'. Your inability to understand why people want to play against painted models, especially large expensive events, and the trivializing of the impact it has on the game shows you lack the capacity for basic human empathy. And thinking you have the right to show up at an event and disregard any random rule you see as 'not valid' shows you don't understand basic social contracts or respect your fellow players.

See, I understand the WIP painter, and the 'I hate to Paint' and I even understand the 'I don't paint so I can army hop and keep resale value'. I think there should be places for them, like local gaming, or smaller RTT style events. I think everyone should have places where they can play and different events with different standards for different people. No one is calling for a ban of unpainted models at *ALL* events, just that events who have it as a requirement should be respected and shouldn't have entitled people show up and demand to play knowing the rules.

On the other hand, you are demanding all events cater to your wants and refuse to acknowledge any other POV exist or are valid. That screams socially inept clown and prick as someone who doesn't understand human interaction and wants 100% of things to cater to him personally and not accept other events exist which are not for him.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Veryance wrote:
I took my unpainted army out for a tourney. I can say unequivocally that had I been turned away for having an unpainted army, it would have soured me towards organized play perhaps indefinitely. However, everyone was totally cool and welcoming, and as such I've had a great time going out to my FLGS and meeting and engaging the local community.

And if I hadn't gone to the GW GTs in the late 90s where they required painting and saw amazing armies as far as the eye could see, I can say unequivocally that it would have souered me on organized play, and spending extreme money and effort on a hobby which is a trashy mess at the highest levels.

And I do know people whose first experiences with 'organized play' were the 'ard boyz tournaments of the late 2000s, and that angry unpainted aggressive mess DID turn them off to organized play indefinitely.

You live in a world with humans who feel different from you and exist outside of your mind. There is no 'one true format' which is why people need to be mature enough to allow others to enjoy their hobby their way without demanding all events be run YOUR way. That means some events will require painting and you would be disallowed from them. If the simple fact there are events somewhere enjoying warhammer 'the wrong way' and theoretically disallowing you bothers you, that is a personal issue. Just find the events which play the way you wish to play and move on with your life. Stop demanding 'all events should cater to me personally' and throwing insults at people who disagree with the 'one true tourney format' you have decided on.

Lacking empathy and understanding someone else's point of view is a sign of someone who is 'socially inept'.

One can understand a point of view and still deem it to be totally unreasonable. Being unable to enjoy a game because someone else's toy soldiers are not painted to an arbitrary standard of quality may or may not fall into that bucket. YMMV.

Stop demanding 'all events should cater to me personally' and throwing insults at people who disagree with the 'one true tourney format' you have decided on.

Considering that I'm of the position that it doesn't matter, and you think it desperately does, perhaps we can take a moment to appreciate the irony of that statement.

I would respond to the other posters above me, but I ultimately have no dog in this fight. If your enjoyment of your hobby is entirely predicated on someone else adhering to some arbitrary restriction, then I all I feel for you is pity.

Anything to win. Oh, I would do anything to win.

I would do anything to win, but I won't paint that
No, I won't paint that. ~







But really Its your models, but its their Tournament.
They want it to be painted so everyone can enjoy it.

LoadToad wrote:
It takes 5 minutes to paint a small based model. Just do it.

Only if it's an awful paint job. Even assembly lining it, my basic Bloodletters take me at least 3 hours to do a squad of ten.

If someone brings a partially painted or a horribly painted army, then they get zero to minimal paint scores, thus they can not win overall at a GT even if they max/win all their games.

Those players deserve that punishment, best general is the most they can win. But why completely prohibit them from attending a GT? I think more GTs should allow unpainted armies.

 SonsofVulkan wrote:
But why completely prohibit them from attending a GT?

Because playing against an unpainted army is a much less enjoyable experience. But sure, let's allow unpainted armies. For the sake of maintaining an enjoyable experience for the people who do put in at least a minimal amount of effort into painting we'll put all of the unpainted armies into a separate bracket where the winner gets the title "best of the gray horde" and the prize is a paintbrush.