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.

Hoping for some perspective from the dakka forum here:

In a tournament setting, it seems like a 3-color painting scheme is a fairly common expectation. So, in that situation, if you walk in and see a player who has an entirely black primed stormsurge, riptides with no basing, crisis sutis straight off of the sprue, (not to pick on Tau, just has been my personal experience that they're the worst offenders) etc., is it wrong of me to think that those models should've been disallowed from the game, or otherwise addressed by judges? I'm certainly no expert painter, but do try fairly hard to get my army tabletop-ready.

Thoughts?

Most of the time they are disallowed from prize support, which is fine by me.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Most of the time they are disallowed from prize support, which is fine by me.

That actually seems like a really reasonable way to do it; still lets people enjoy the game but enforces the rules.

The answer is... it depends. By expectation, do you mean a previously determined and advertised requirement? Then yes they should have been disallowed. If by expectation you just mean that it is typical and accepted but not actually a prerequisite for your tourny publicized ahead of time, then no, they shouldn't be disallowed. It all comes down to what the tourney in question actually said.

Did the TO say no unpainted allowed?

Expectations be damned. What was advertised?

If there was a 3 colour minimum limit on that particular tournament then they should have been disallowed because they didn't follow the rules for that tournament. If there wasn't and you just mean there's a general expectation on 3 colour minimum for tournaments (there isn't, it varies tourny to tourny) then they haven't broken any rules and shouldn't be disallowed.

As Kronk said, what was the tournaments requirements? Sure, a lot of them have a 3 paint minimum. A lot don't.

If the tournament didn't set that standard, then there was nothing at all wrong with it.

Sorry I wasn't more clear, but yes, it was clearly stated in the rules.

HuskyWarhammer wrote:
Sorry I wasn't more clear, but yes, it was clearly stated in the rules.

Then they should either have been disqualified or not allowed to get any loot/prize support.

Sorry you experienced that.

I would have a calm talk with the TO about future events.

Best of luck.

It's tough for the TO, because they can make a painting requirement, but if someone shows up with unpainted models (particularly to an event which requires travel / hotel stay / etc) it's hard to turn them away.

That said, if someone isn't even trying to "toe the line" on painting and literally have a large part of the army unpainted... at a bigger event maybe even if disqualified from the event they would have other things to do.

But yeah, it's a tough spot for a TO to be in... it's much worse for Warmachine & Hordes events (my main game!) by the way.

If the TO stated a rule, he should back it up.

I'm not a fan of flimsy TO's DM's bosses etc that go back on their word because they didn't think they would have to enforce their viewpoint.

Just say "sorry bud, it's clearly written out right here. Next time follow the rules like everyone else." It's that easy.

At it's core, this question gets to one of the central issues of organized play: how do you encourage painted armies without killing enthusiasm for the game?

In my experience, very few people are so upset about unpainted armies that they won't play in events that require them, while plenty of people would simply skip an event that requires paint rather than paint their models. The exception to both is very large events, which usually have travel and hotels figured in. For smaller local events, I think that the hobby has pretty much given up on requiring paint for all but a relative handful of events.

That all being said, I've seen TOs split the baby by allowing the models, but having the owning player suffer a penalty. The most common is that they cannot receive any prize support, or they pay more into the event. I've seen a ton of events where you get $5 or $10 off your entrance fee if fully painted.

the other way is to allow painted armies an advantage. I've heard of events where all painted models have "preferred enemy (unpainted models)," or events where fully painted armies got re-roll tokens or even straight battle point boosts.

To speak directly to the OP, well, I think it's pretty common for an event organizer to back off a rule in order to allow more people to play. It's a level of confrontation and decision making that most TOs aren't comfortable with, and given that many of them are nice guys that giving up a Saturday to watch other people game, I let it slide.

I only expect MY army to be painted (as I will ne'er commit the crime of fielding an unpainted model) when gaming.

I don't hold others to the same standard - or else I'd probably never get a game in otherwise.

Not that I won't silently judge them for it (or not so silently. Jibes about unpainted stuff dying first aren't uncommon).

If a TO enforced the "no unpainted models" rule around here, he'd get no players anyway.

Agree with the others, it depends on the tournament and if the TO isn't willing to enforce the rules, he/she shouldn't be a TO.

On the broader subject though, larger tournaments have a vested interest in painted armies because a table of painted armies makes for better photographs (advertising) and mental images/memories (returning players). It's not just "supporting the hobby", it helps the tournament advertise and grow. No one wants to go to a 50-table tourney full of unpainted models. If people don't attend you lose money, and there is no more tournament.
Also, I believe it is a serious misconception that competitive players don't paint their models. From what I've seen, the top tables at Nova and Adepticon had armies that were painted just as well as lower tier armies. I've been shot off the table by magnificent scatterbikes and run over by superbly-painted superfriends. The "tournament players don't paint" hate is just nerd rage from my own experience.

*Wonders if people would complain at all about unpainted lictors, chaos mutilators, or dreadnoughts.*

 Polonius wrote:
At it's core, this question gets to one of the central issues of organized play: how do you encourage painted armies without killing enthusiasm for the game?

In my experience, very few people are so upset about unpainted armies that they won't play in events that require them, while plenty of people would simply skip an event that requires paint rather than paint their models. The exception to both is very large events, which usually have travel and hotels figured in. For smaller local events, I think that the hobby has pretty much given up on requiring paint for all but a relative handful of events.

Ever since the abortion that was 'ard boyz... I refuse to play in any tournaments which allowed unpainted models. And if I show up to a tourney which clearly required it and end up against an unpainted army, there is a good chance I will leave.

Seeing an army of unmarked grey plastic impacts gameplay as it makes it much harder to distinguish units, wargear and other aspects which are much easier to distinguish with basic contrast of most common paintjobs provide. Also, in my experience, unpainted usually also means proxies.

If it is a training event, or one where people *KNOW* what to expect, so be it. Don't sell it as painting required, and then let "whiny will" in with his unpainted army because you lack a spine and sacrifice the experience of the rule-following.

Locally a player who does not meet the 3 color minimum, with complete bases requirement is allowed to compete but cannot earn prize support. ITC Points, placings will be awarded but no prizes.

This is clearly posted all over prior to the event and adhered to by the TO and players.

Back when GW had stores in Potomac Mills and the Springfield Mall, both in VA, we had a guy show up with an eldar army that was base-coated white. He had taken two brushes and dipped one in yellow and the other in blue. Every model had a blue splotch and a yellow splotch on the white.

His army met the 3 color requirement and he was allowed to play.

I want to play with painted armies. I'm not interested in helping to promote the game unless it is being played with painted armies.

Therefore in my view there has to be some kind of penalty for players who don't have a properly painted army.

I think there are levels to everything.

I see some people say "properly painted" that is an unenforcable standard because how do you define it. 3 Colors and Based? A certain level of percieved effort? etc.

Beyond that there is a difference between a totally unpainted army, and a guy who missed painting a couple of models (I've done this before where I painted 9/10 models in a squad and found when I got to an event one was not finished.)

It also depends on the scale of the event, a local event may not want to require painting at all if it has mostly newer players.

But if required and there is a big violation something should probably done as long as the policy was clearly stated.

Wow, being very new to this and having no idea about the gaming side of the hobby, I'm quite surprised.

I guess my take on it is that if it is clearly stated in the rules that the army should have 3 colors, if someone shows up with an unpainted army, they shouldn't be allowed to participate. What other rules will be overlooked in gameplay if this is allowed to pass? I would imagine that the TO would be willing to stand up to this and should even expect to have to for the Tournament's benefit.

Why have rules?

Mdlbuildr wrote:
Wow, being very new to this and having no idea about the gaming side of the hobby, I'm quite surprised.

I guess my take on it is that if it is clearly stated in the rules that the army should have 3 colors, if someone shows up with an unpainted army, they shouldn't be allowed to participate. What other rules will be overlooked in gameplay if this is allowed to pass? I would imagine that the TO would be willing to stand up to this and should even expect to have to for the Tournament's benefit.

Why have rules?

Keeping players from participating in the event is a bit silly. Most tournaments, with a policy about this, state that having an army painted is required to win prizes. If you're playing unpainted you may participate but are ineligible for prize support. To bar someone from playing period feels a bit draconian for a community that strives to be as inclusive as possible.

 OverwatchCNC wrote:


Keeping players from participating in the event is a bit silly. Most tournaments, with a policy about this, state that having an army painted is required to win prizes. If you're playing unpainted you may participate but are ineligible for prize support. To bar someone from playing period feels a bit draconian for a community that strives to be as inclusive as possible.

Oh, I totally agree with you!

If a Tourney does have rules that you have to have a painted army to play and they don't abide by that, that's fishy is all I was trying to get across.

3 colors isnt hard. Primer, metel drybrush.
I had a drop pod that was primed black and had the metel painted. I had one look from my opponent I said "Hey, im on college and my hobby desk is 60 miles away from that. im lucky I was able to paint this much.

I don't know why anybody wouldn't at least get models up to the 3-color standard before a tournament...

Everybody knows that painted models do better

Personally I only go to tournaments that require painted armies anymore because it motivates me to paint stuff, and I need some kind of concrete motivation to paint. Plus I don't mind facing some broke-ass rule exploit if its done with pretty painted models at least.

If there's a specific rule for that specific tournament then it should be enforced. A hard and fast 'only painted models allowed' has the advantage of being easy to enforce, while a 'unpainted armies suffer a penalty' is a little more welcoming. But whatever the rule is, it should be enforced. Otherwise you're penalizing the compliant players by giving them a different product than what was advertised.

Personally I prefer to play against painted models because it greatly enhances my enjoyment of the game. I also find that a properly painted army tends to be a properly modeled army, and much easier to identify and play against as a result. I would never take an unpainted army to a tournament even if there was no painting requirement; I might sneak in an undercoated tank or something, but that's the extent of my transgressions.

The last tournament I went to (a 40+ player ITC event, no less) all three of the armies I played against were essentially unpainted, and one of them was an unassembled mish-mash of proxies. I wanted to give all of my opponents' armies a big hug, they were so unloved. It was a pretty lousy experience, and one I hope I don't repeat.

Most people who play tabletop war games do it because they enjoy the spectacle of nice-looking armies fighting across well done terrain.

Please don't come to tournaments with a painting requirement and ignore this aspoect. You only spoil things for other people.

If you are only interested in the game-playing aspect, you would do better to play board games or computer games. Both are cheaper and less effort.

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

HuskyWarhammer wrote:
Hoping for some perspective from the dakka forum here:

In a tournament setting, it seems like a 3-color painting scheme is a fairly common expectation. So, in that situation, if you walk in and see a player who has an entirely black primed stormsurge, riptides with no basing, crisis sutis straight off of the sprue, (not to pick on Tau, just has been my personal experience that they're the worst offenders) etc., is it wrong of me to think that those models should've been disallowed from the game, or otherwise addressed by judges? I'm certainly no expert painter, but do try fairly hard to get my army tabletop-ready.

Thoughts?

Believe it or not, I just found out this 3 color schemes thing from a conversation on Facebook in a 40K orks group. It started with someone asking if people liked models new or painted to TTQ (table top quality). I asked what TTQ meant, and when I was told what it meant, I posted a picture of an Ork nob with lots of color. Then, that same person who told me what TTQ meant said: "basically... 3 colors, a wash and a highlight."

I typed out: "3 colors? Why not more than 3 colors?"

Person who told me what TTQ stood for: "Most tournaments require 3 colors."

Me: Just three colors? A minimum of three colors?

Person who told me what TTQ stood for: Yes and yes.

Me: so, the minimum is three colors, but most people bring models with only three colors?

Person who told me what TTQ stood for: lol yes.

Me: That...that just ain't right.

Person who told me what TTQ stood for: Well it's for the people that just want to play... To each their own.

Me: okay. I'll keep that in mind.

Very surprised to find this out. Especially now, since I've been in the hobby since 2013.