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.

nkelsch wrote:All worthless excuses. Who are you to say your life and your time is more valuable than mine? All that is 'fair' is setting a standard. If you can't handle it in your life to meet that standard, then that is on you. Everyone has time to paint. Some people are too lazy to paint and don't feel it is important and want everyone else to accept it.

I know lots of people with fully painted armies and they have kids... and wives, and jobs, and friends and second jobs, and 3rd jobs, and pets and voluneer work and school/college, and medical disabilities and ailing family members. We all have responsibilities and somehow we are able to handle them and still devote time to our hobbies. So no pity for your 'I can't paint' excuses.

And, hey, if we were talking about someone bitching because they weren't allowed into a tournament because of this, then sure, I agree. There was a standard set which they didn't make.

But here there is no such standard, because they are being allowed to play.

...GW rules have been an excuse to push painted models around a table while socializing. That is what the hobby has been for 25+ years now. Models are capable of being painted and sculpted well. The game is not capable of being balanced and being played competitively in any fair reasonable sense.

Holy false dichotomy, Batman! It isn't either "HAAC" or "WAAC". You can enjoy pushing toy soldiers around a table in an entirely uncompetitive way and not care about painting or how your army looks!

Augustus wrote:Here is a new angle, lets say I went to a Magic the Gathering tourney, purchased the correct amount of cards to play, then took out a sharpie and changed the titles to the legal cards I wanted them to be and used them in sleeves.

I paid the money
I have the cards
I am playing by the rules
Couldn't I play in the tournament?

How do you think Magic judges would respond to that?

Both the bolded sections are incorrect - you have some cards, but not the cards (that are supposed to be in your deck), and you are not playing by the rules (as a direct corollary of the previous issue)

You would not be allowed to play.

Thing is, I wouldn't mind going to a tournament which had tables with newspaper quicksand, book-stack buildings, and so forth. I might be a little surprised, but it wouldn't be an issue. If, however, I went to an event where there were some nicely modelled tables, some thrown-together, and I was told that the presence (or lack thereof) of paint would determine what I played on... I wouldn't return to the venue, regardless of whether my army was painted or not.

If it was announced ahead of time that what you're proposing would be done, that's more reasonable. However, there are still logistical issues - for example, what do you do in rounds 2+ when, possibly, unpainted armies would be matched against painted ones? Force the painted army to play on the other table? Make an exception for unpainted armies which are doing well (or unusually poorly, maybe)? Or just replace the thrown-together tables with painted ones after round one? The first option actively defeats the purpose, the second makes it so that your point is diluted. As for the third... Seems like a lot of effort to make a point, especially when that point would ostracise people.

I have no problem with having a painting award, or the Idea 4 just posted recently. In fact, I personally like the idea of giving tangible advantages to painted armies - my local GW has been running a 500 point campaign (well, starting at 500) and giving fully painted (3C+B) armies an additional 100 points. It acts as encouragements for the kids who, frankly, make up the majority of people in the store. If you're doing this to enhance the experience of people with painted armies, go right ahead! If you're doing it to decrease the enjoyment of those who don't, that's another matter entirely.

Basically, positive reinforcement good, negative reinforcement bad

Aelyn wrote:Basically, positive reinforcement good, negative reinforcement bad

Seriously. Make people want to have painted armies because they get something good out of it, not to avoid something they don't like.

WARBOSS TZOO wrote:
Seriously. Make people want to have painted armies because they get something good out of it, not to avoid something they don't like.

What is this... *sniff*... this reeks of compromise!

Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:

nkelsch wrote:
All worthless excuses. Who are you to say your life and your time is more valuable than mine? All that is 'fair' is setting a standard. If you can't handle it in your life to meet that standard, then that is on you. Everyone has time to paint. Some people are too lazy to paint and don't feel it is important and want everyone else to accept it.

I'm glad you get to judge that. What makes you morally superior to someone who doesn't paint an army of fictional toy soldiers? What makes someone lazy for not investing time into a hobby? If you have golf clubs and never use them does that make you a bad person? Is there a reason you're being ridiculously unreasonable?

Who are you to sday that you have the right to be welcome at 100% of events and that painting shouldn't be required? Who are you to say that you should be exempt to rules because your time is more important than other people?

There are valid reasons to exlcude people from events. Because the people who want to participate in the events are drawn to them by the expectation that all opponents will have painted and WYSIWYG figures. If an event says I am paying money to enter a painted and WYSIWYG event, then allowing someone who doesn't meet that standard is a problem. And people who can;t meet the standard, regardless of thier personal justification (OH NOES I HAVE KIDZ NOOOOOOOO!) are not welcome. It is that simple.

And those cards aren't counterfeit, as they're exactly the same as "legal" ones. It is impossible to distinguish them, therefore they are the same. They are printed the same way ont he same presses. The only thing counterfeit was how they overproduced and made extra on the side. It's just a fancy way of saying they violated their contract. What's the nicest way to say "you're a moron" without actually breaking rule #1?

No... that is you putting your moral approval of counterfeiting on the situation. Legally those cards are counterfeits and are not allowed in events. Just because a counterfeit is indistinguishable doesn't make it ok or legal.

Store owners simply don't want to be in the position of playing baby police with potential customers by fighting about counterfeits that a customer may have no idea what they are talking about... The same way they don't want to turn away someone making a scene about not being allowed to participate because his models are not painted. Store owners and often the store person running the event would rather just make everyone happy and allow people to break the rules or relax the standards instead of tell people they can't participate.

Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:

WARBOSS TZOO wrote:
Seriously. Make people want to have painted armies because they get something good out of it, not to avoid something they don't like.

What is this... *sniff*... this reeks of compromise!

So you basically punish people who want to play against painted armies by forcing them to play against unpainted armies by relaxing the standards. I don't see how I am being 'rewarded' for painting by being given opponents who show up with unpainted models and proxies... Especially when I pay money for an event. This just means when I have a choice of events, I will choose the event with basic standards because those who cannot be bothered to meet the basic standards will all go to the other event.

How about you REWARD them by allowing them to participate. You bring a painted army... you get to play in this event! REWARD!

nkelsch wrote:

Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:

nkelsch wrote:
All worthless excuses. Who are you to say your life and your time is more valuable than mine? All that is 'fair' is setting a standard. If you can't handle it in your life to meet that standard, then that is on you. Everyone has time to paint. Some people are too lazy to paint and don't feel it is important and want everyone else to accept it.

I'm glad you get to judge that. What makes you morally superior to someone who doesn't paint an army of fictional toy soldiers? What makes someone lazy for not investing time into a hobby? If you have golf clubs and never use them does that make you a bad person? Is there a reason you're being ridiculously unreasonable?

Who are you to sday that you have the right to be welcome at 100% of events and that painting shouldn't be required? Who are you to say that you should be exempt to rules because your time is more important than other people?

There are valid reasons to exlcude people from events. Because the people who want to participate in the events are drawn to them by the expectation that all opponents will have painted and WYSIWYG figures. If an event says I am paying money to enter a painted and WYSIWYG event, then allowing someone who doesn't meet that standard is a problem. And people who can;t meet the standard, regardless of thier personal justification (OH NOES I HAVE KIDZ NOOOOOOOO!) are not welcome. It is that simple.

All well and good.

Not really any reason to treat those with unpainted armies like second rate citizens if you do let them attend, though.

nkelsch wrote:

Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:

WARBOSS TZOO wrote:
Seriously. Make people want to have painted armies because they get something good out of it, not to avoid something they don't like.

What is this... *sniff*... this reeks of compromise!

So you basically punish people who want to play against painted armies by forcing them to play against unpainted armies by relaxing the standards. I don't see how I am being 'rewarded' for painting by being given opponents who show up with unpainted models and proxies... Especially when I pay money for an event. This just means when I have a choice of events, I will choose the event with basic standards because those who cannot be bothered to meet the basic standards will all go to the other event.

How about you REWARD them by allowing them to participate. You bring a painted army... you get to play in this event! REWARD!

This is why, if you want to make people play with painted armies, you should do this by entry restrictions.

OP: Look at it this way (and this is a hypothetical situation) - a few people bring unpainted armies to this sort of segregated tournaments. One of them is a decent player, but nothing special, and the rest are... Well, they enjoy their Tau Close Assault armies. Most people, however, have brought well-painted armies, and are reasonably good players - generally better than the best of the unpainted players.

One person plays very well with his nicely-painted army, and scores Massacre, Massacre, Major Win. However, the average player with Plastic Marines of Doom has scored three Massacres because his opponents thought that Assault weapons meant they could only be used as clubs in assaults. You've got a situation where the best player is forced into second place because of a tournament set-up which, in theory, is designed so he can enjoy the tournament more. Do you think he'll find that an enjoyable situation to be in?

nkelsch wrote:Who are you to sday that you have the right to be welcome at 100% of events and that painting shouldn't be required? Who are you to say that you should be exempt to rules because your time is more important than other people?

Quote me on either of those, sweeping generalization boy I think "only painted armies" is fine, as I stated a page or two earlier. I don't like these sort of passive-aggressive "on the rag" restrictions though. Be a man, set a damn entry requirement, don't be a whiny wuss.

nkelsch wrote:Because the people who want to participate in the events are drawn to them by the expectation that all opponents will have painted and WYSIWYG figures.

Do we really need a sweeping generalization counter? I might start one.

nkelsch wrote:If an event says I am paying money to enter a painted and WYSIWYG event, then allowing someone who doesn't meet that standard is a problem. And people who can;t meet the standard, regardless of thier personal justification (OH NOES I HAVE KIDZ NOOOOOOOO!) are not welcome. It is that simple.

Fair enough, set a real standard and enforce it. No disagreement here.

nkelsch wrote:
No... that is you putting your moral approval of counterfeiting on the situation. Legally those cards are counterfeits and are not allowed in events. Just because a counterfeit is indistinguishable doesn't make it ok or legal.

There is no physical difference between the cards. Maybe that makes them all illegal and counterfeit.

nkelsch wrote:
Store owners simply don't want to be in the position of playing baby police with potential customers by fighting about counterfeits that a customer may have no idea what they are talking about... The same way they don't want to turn away someone making a scene about not being allowed to participate because his models are not painted. Store owners and often the store person running the event would rather just make everyone happy and allow people to break the rules or relax the standards instead of tell people they can't participate.

Sweeping generalization +2. All store owners are alike, after all Because not having your models painted is the equivalent of something illegal now. There are two recommendations I'm going to make for you; one involves a "chill pill," and the other involves a stick up a certain location requiring removal.

WARBOSS TZOO wrote:
Not really any reason to treat those with unpainted armies like second rate citizens if you do let them attend, though.

I agree... I like upfront standards that are enforced where people can choose to participate or not participate. Let's people know to bring painted armies or warns people to stay away or potentially show up and check out the painting level before participating in an event they will find themselves not enjoying.

My problem is with the people who show up knowing it requires painting, then complain to the store owner that they shouldn't be expected to meet the standard and then the TO is overruled and paying customers like themselves have had thier experience degraded... This is what it sounds like the OP is in that situation being unable to run an event that excludes anyone for any reason...

How about painted armies may take a 'sideboard' of units they may swap in? Those who don't paint use static lists? If you want the advantage and flexibility of a sideboard, paint. The games are still fundamentally equal points. Not sure that a sideboard would make me want to play unpainted armies, but maybe it would encourage painting and make people lean towards painted forces than a box of greys they are working on.

Augustus wrote:

The line goes both ways. Dis including people with any criteria is segregation.

What about proxies?
What about those with not enough points?
What about out dated codices?
What about non GW models?
What about those with bigger armies?
What about those with forgeworld models?
What about people with all the right models and no army list?

All of the "you" in my posting isn't specifically pointed at you, it is pointed at an idea....its pointed at discrimination and the attempts to separate and declare inferior a group of people. If you happen to be the vessel championing this evil scourge at this moment in time, then I understand why you feel targeted here. I don't have any problem with you, I don't know who you are, but I will fight discrimination in all its forms regardless of who is proclaiming its utility.

As for the suggestions you just posted.....all of those are answered in the rulebook or in a tournament rulepacket. You can also address painting in the rule packet.

As I've stated multiple times here, the problem isn't in the requirements for attending the tournaments. You can require anything you want. Your standards are yours to choose. If you wish people to have three color painted armies, go for it. Disallowing proxies...go for it. You have to have some kind of standard, regardless of your note that the owner wants everyone to be included. Does that mean that you allow a paper army? Scraps of paper labeled with representation? Of course not, and I have no doubt that neither your tournament nor any other tournament will allow it. Painting requirements are an easy rule to include as well, and serve the same purpose as the rest of the requirements in a tournament rule packet - to institute some uniform measures and standards for armies and players that show up.

The ONLY objection I have, or that anyone has here is treating a section of the gaming community as inferior. You may choose to disallow a group to participate in an event based on the completion of their models, the state of the models, the legality of the models they wish to use....or even against individuals who cheat, cause problems, etc......but you simply cannot host an event, take a portion of the players there, and demean them. It is despicable, horrendous, abominable, and antithetical to every modicum of respect and behavior.

If you don't want me to say "YOU" then don't propose and represent ideas that require a response to YOU.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Augustus wrote:

Do you see any threads where tournament gamers and competitive players are whining that 40k players who aren't tactically elite are playing in their tournaments,...

All the time, any of the sportsmanship/comp threads? As in the 1337 players who want the sports and comp gone?

You're taking my post drastically out of context. The SECOND part of that was the important part....the part about

....and insisting that when those players who up to tournaments, they are relegated to kiddie tables to play for McDonald happy meal toys.

Anyone is welcome to whine about a tournament, and who participates, and whether that person fully appreciates the hobby in the same respect that you do.

Once you take action about treating those people poorly when they attend an event, then the unforgivable behavior sets in.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Augustus wrote:
Idea 4:

What do you think about pairing by painting score round 1, then pairing by points and letting the best painter of the round 2 and 3 pairings pick their table? (And announcing criteria beforehand of course). More to your liking?

Pair however you like. I have no objection to that. Pairing by painting is going to screw with the points, and you're likely to drive away competitive players who also have painted armies. I'm a good player. A VERY good player. I don't show up to tournament to find out if I'm better at playing than people with similarly painted armies, I go to find out if I can beat everyone who's there, and I want to play against the best the tournament has to offer.

Dashofpepper wrote:Pair however you like. I have no objection to that. Pairing by painting is going to screw with the points, and you're likely to drive away competitive players who also have painted armies. I'm a good player. A VERY good player. I don't show up to tournament to find out if I'm better at playing than people with similarly painted armies, I go to find out if I can beat everyone who's there, and I want to play against the best the tournament has to offer.

WAAC!!!111 Why don't you take your loaded dice and your entirely proxied, non-WYSIWYG army and learn to do things the RIGHT way! SOME of us have standards and you automatically ruin the experience for everyone else there, even if they say they're ok with you.

Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:

Dashofpepper wrote:Pair however you like. I have no objection to that. Pairing by painting is going to screw with the points, and you're likely to drive away competitive players who also have painted armies. I'm a good player. A VERY good player. I don't show up to tournament to find out if I'm better at playing than people with similarly painted armies, I go to find out if I can beat everyone who's there, and I want to play against the best the tournament has to offer.

WAAC!!!111 Why don't you take your loaded dice and your entirely proxied, non-WYSIWYG army and learn to do things the RIGHT way! SOME of us have standards and you automatically ruin the experience for everyone else there, even if they say they're ok with you.

Be careful when trying to parody the hobbyist side of this... debate. Some people might think you were being serious

(For the record, I don't really fall entirely on one side of the painted-or-not debate, so I suspect my lack of vitriol may disqualify me from posting futher in this thread)

I have known and played against Augustus for quite a few years now. He is a top notch player who brings nothing less than excellence to table in conversion and paint scores. Somethings he does blow the mind, like his Necrons for Adepticon, his Warlord Titan and so forth.

Augustus, and his group, the Rocky Mountain Cavaliers have been the Colorado detachment of the WC's rival for years now. So, if anyone out there would level a negative tag on him, I think it would be me, especialy considering our debate with Ghengis Con some 5 years ago. However, I will not label a negative tag on him as elitist. Damian(augustus) only wishes to enjoy the hobby in its fullest. That means good games with good looking armies. Now, goodlooking doesnt mean GD standard, but instead means effort.

The paper terrain is a mirror for these players to understand that if they do not take the effort for a 3 color minimum(all you have to do is spray paint them and wash them and you have a 3 color minimum) then Augustus wants to show them what level of effect that has on their opponents. As in, playing on a make shift table as opposed to the other tables.

On the note of the other tables. Augustus' terrain is marvelous. If he does, and I know he will, produce enough custom tables, this will be the best tourney in regards to terrain. So, playing on paper table isnt just playing on a paper table to exclude, but instead an incentive to get that 3 color minimum to play a tourney on Augustus' terrain.

I for would gladly put one of my many painted armies(I have a wife, 2 kids and 2 jobs) which all look great on a paper table, just so that those who have unpainted armies would try and put forth the effort to paint said armies. The more players with painted armies means more enjoyment by all. I love tourneys for the games, and to look at the armies.

Also, as I know Augustus, these paper tables won't just be paper. They will be done to a level of any normal RTT terrain as in coverage and effectiveness for play, just that they will be card board and paper for the effect. TBH, it would be more funny than anything else.

They are right actually. Just ban unpainted armies. Put the notice in any advertisement-minimum painting standard required to enter the tournament. If someone shows up with an unpainted army-point and laugh at them.

Then get the banana.

1. Require three colors
2. Score them out of overall

Then have the crap table set up with crap armies, but don't make anyone actually play on it.

malfred wrote:1. Require three colors
2. Score them out of overall

Then have the crap table set up with crap armies, but don't make anyone actually play on it.

No they should not be permitted. Otherwise they just pollute up the games. Again, if you don';t want to paint, fine. Play Ardboyz.

Gitsplitta wrote:Why don't you simply require that all figures be fully painted to a 3-color standard? That way you don't have to humiliate anyone to make your point, they just can't participate in the tournament unless they meet the standard. Give everyone plenty of warning... and go. If there's no minimum painting requirement in a tourney like 'Aard Boyz, I see no problem with the inverse... a tournament that has a strict minimum painting requirement.

This is probably the best idea. Simply do not allow any games to be played by someone who has any unpainted miniatures. If someone shows and it becomes apparent that their mini's are unpainted, either do not let them play at all, don't let them use any unpainted miniatures during the game, or give them no battle points for any game they play with unpainted minis. All of these are perfectly within your rights as TO if armies being fully painted is that important to you for your tournament.

Regardless of what you do, just make sure that any rules regarding painting are clearly presented to all potential competitors prior to their signing up for the tournament.

Frazzled wrote:They are right actually. Just ban unpainted armies. Put the notice in any advertisement-minimum painting standard required to enter the tournament. If someone shows up with an unpainted army-point and laugh at them.

Then get the banana.

Or give them some paint to borrow while the big kids play with their hobby.

It isn't that I object to unpainted armies and cereal boxes and proxies and whatever else for friendly home games on kitchen floors or wherever, but the sense of all-encompassing care taken with something like a tournament should prompt people to have a bar to be reached before they even consider competing. I don't petition the olympic figure skating team to be a part of the games, just because they are hosting them, and I borrow my GFs ice skates do I? I wouldn't consider entering into a xgames extreme biking showoff match just because I have a rusty tricycle somewhere in an old garage and expect to be taken seriously either... I could go on and on with analogies but the point is: there's a place for sub-par hobbyists and its called HOME, or game night at your FLGS, not a tournament where a standard is expected for those participating, that contributes to the aesthetic that is so much part of the hobby. That's why we are using miniatures not pennies and corn flakes and such to represent our game pieces.

Frazzled wrote:

malfred wrote:1. Require three colors
2. Score them out of overall

Then have the crap table set up with crap armies, but don't make anyone actually play on it.

No they should not be permitted. Otherwise they just pollute up the games. Again, if you don';t want to paint, fine. Play Ardboyz.

TO has said that the venue wants an open event, so they are playing.

Maybe give painted armies first priority to register?

Guitardian wrote:

Frazzled wrote:They are right actually. Just ban unpainted armies. Put the notice in any advertisement-minimum painting standard required to enter the tournament. If someone shows up with an unpainted army-point and laugh at them.

Then get the banana.

Or give them some paint to borrow while the big kids play with their hobby.

It isn't that I object to unpainted armies and cereal boxes and proxies and whatever else for friendly home games on kitchen floors or wherever, but the sense of all-encompassing care taken with something like a tournament should prompt people to have a bar to be reached before they even consider competing. I don't petition the olympic figure skating team to be a part of the games, just because they are hosting them, and I borrow my GFs ice skates do I?

You could, if you wanted to. You'd probably be eliminated from the trials for not being very good at figureskating.

I wouldn't consider entering into a xgames extreme biking showoff match just because I have a rusty tricycle somewhere in an old garage and expect to be taken seriously either...

But, again, you could enter. I doubt anyone would stop you from trying to qualify.

I could go on and on with analogies but the point is: there's a place for sub-par hobbyists and its called HOME, or game night at your FLGS, not a tournament where a standard is expected for those participating, that contributes to the aesthetic that is so much part of the hobby. That's why we are using miniatures not pennies and corn flakes and such to represent our game pieces.

You expect a certain aesthetic. The other guy might just have come for the organised gaming.

If the painting is the point 40k for you then why don't you sit down with the little kids with some borrowed paint while the big kids play some wargames?

We are in agreement G. The painting standard we're talking here is minimal. If I can do it literally anyone can, and there are now alternatives for those who don't want to, or can't paint.


Having said that, I still like the idea of alternate worlds. Demon worlds have so many opportunities. Even a Pandora like table with multiple heights and air islands for TOs who really like to work on tables.

WARBOSS TZOO wrote:

Guitardian wrote:

Frazzled wrote:They are right actually. Just ban unpainted armies. Put the notice in any advertisement-minimum painting standard required to enter the tournament. If someone shows up with an unpainted army-point and laugh at them.

Then get the banana.

Or give them some paint to borrow while the big kids play with their hobby.

It isn't that I object to unpainted armies and cereal boxes and proxies and whatever else for friendly home games on kitchen floors or wherever, but the sense of all-encompassing care taken with something like a tournament should prompt people to have a bar to be reached before they even consider competing. I don't petition the olympic figure skating team to be a part of the games, just because they are hosting them, and I borrow my GFs ice skates do I?

You could, if you wanted to. You'd probably be eliminated from the trials for not being very good at figureskating.

I wouldn't consider entering into a xgames extreme biking showoff match just because I have a rusty tricycle somewhere in an old garage and expect to be taken seriously either...

But, again, you could enter. I doubt anyone would stop you from trying to qualify.

I could go on and on with analogies but the point is: there's a place for sub-par hobbyists and its called HOME, or game night at your FLGS, not a tournament where a standard is expected for those participating, that contributes to the aesthetic that is so much part of the hobby. That's why we are using miniatures not pennies and corn flakes and such to represent our game pieces.

You expect a certain aesthetic. The other guy might just have come for the organised gaming.

If the painting is the point 40k for you then why don't you sit down with the little kids with some borrowed paint while the big kids play some wargames?

While correct on all counts sir, you are especially correct with this last thing you brought up. I and many others enjoy showing others how to paint at least on a rudimentary level ("here's your base coats, here's your wash, here's your drybrush" kind of techniques) and wouldn't mind, like I said before, having an arts-n-crafts kind of session before the actual win-or-your-out games begin. When I said the "big kids table" I didn't mean an age brackett so much as a "how much did you do to qualify entering" bracket. Like I said, and you pointed out... I can try out for the xgames but if I suck I won't get in. On the other hand, if I go to it and make friends with a friendly athlete who teaches me tricks while I'm there, then I would still get a positive experience from attending, even if I wasn't playing with the big boys. That IMO is what the side table of books and coffee mugs and shoeboxes etc would be for. I wouldn't mind helping lil kids/newbies/half-interested-girlfriends and so on to paint in between matchups, I actually enjoy doing that and so do lots of gamers.

Frazzled wrote:We are in agreement G. The painting standard we're talking here is minimal. If I can do it literally anyone can, and there are now alternatives for those who don't want to, or can't paint.

It doesn't matter in this case, Frazz. I'm all for having a painted army requirement. I
understand the concerns for it, even though I don't share those concerns. However,
Augustus posted this earlier on:

The venue wants no one to be turned away

So they're in. Making them play on crap tables, while not turning them away, is just
as good as turning them away. Augustus should check with the venue to see if
poking fun at the non-painters fulfills their requirement. My guess is that it does
not.

Painting workshop before the tournament is neat. I might have to steal that idea
for the local warmachine events.

On the 'alternate worlds' idea that Frazz has: I'm not so sure planet made of giant books and newspaper trees really goes with the 40k imagery, but hey it IS the warp after all so anything is possible.

"Sir I've detected the enemy position!"
"where?"
"right over there... their scouts are hiding in that crumpled spot right between Hagar the Horrible and Beetle Baily"
"Got it, commence the attack."

well.. the warp is wierd, so it works for me.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
To tell you the truth I for one would play on anything if I wanted a game. I would like the pretty, well sculpted table, and an opponent's army who actually looks the part, so the whole thing looks cool... but a game is a game, and I'd be happy to use the newspapers if I just wanted some gaming for a day and that's where I got assigned to play on.

Arts n Crafts session at tournaments WOOT!
everybody builds terrain out of the random scraps before the contest begins. Dead simple setup so that nobody is excluded and everyone is encouraged.

Why not just provide 3 colors of spray paint, let's say neon orange, green and yellow. If their army is not up to the three paint standard, hit the models from the left, right and front. Voila! You now have a 3 color standard army to play against.

Personally, I'd find it more irritating than a primed or unprimed army, but if 3 color is your deal then that will meet the requirements. The irritation of having to prime over it to salavage the models ought to deter anyone from trying it again. Conversely, they may embrace this radical idea and become a proponent of terrible looking paintjobs.

Guitardian wrote:When I said the "big kids table" I didn't mean an age brackett so much as a "how much did you do to qualify entering" bracket. Like I said, and you pointed out... I can try out for the xgames but if I suck I won't get in.

But if you show up to the OP tournament, even if your army is unpainted, you will get in.

And it's good that you're willing to help out with the kids having a good time and good figs.

How much time would everyone allow for painting before the tournament?

MagickalMemories wrote:This idea screams of "painted army elitism."

It's like you're telling the guys, "We think so little of you because you do not paint your army that you don't even deserve regular terrain."

Is that better or worse than saying "We think so little of you because you do not paint your army that you don't even deserve to play at all"? I really don't know. It seems more inclusive in some ways, but it also seems more like segregation.

Maybe it is a preemptive way to address one of a tournament organizer's worst duties - having to deal with the guy who, although the event says painting is a requirement, shows up with unpainted models. Clearly, the guy who is blatantly trying to break the tournament entry rules is a jerk, but he's such a jerk that he's going to see if he can get away with it, and force the TO, or his opponent, to call him on it. A lot of people (both TOs and opponents) don't want to engage in this conflict, so they just let it go. This does, however, cut into the enjoyment of the people who came to an event expecting the rules to be enforced.

Mannahnin wrote:
Part of the point of miniatures wargaming, indeed a large point of it, is the pleasure derived from the spectacle of the armies. If the game was all, then computers certainly do a superior job of providing tactical challenges. But they manifestly lack the tactile element.

Agree 100% here. I really cannot comprehend people who pay the prices that quality miniatures (GW or otherwise) cost, and then not only don't paint them, but carry on believing that 40k (or whatever wargame) has such an amazing tactical level that tournaments are all about winning and strategerie and not about the visual appeal.

Dashofpepper wrote:
You know what idea you should really turn this into? The gaming tournament aspect itself. If people didn't come with a painted army, they play on the crappy table in your world. How about this: If people don't come to the tournament with a competitive army, they go play Yu-Gi-Oh in the corner with each other while wearing dunce caps. Or how about this one: If you haven't won an RTT or a GT in the last 12 months, then you only get to play 1000 point lists, and you do it on the kiddie table over in the corner.

You don't enjoy playing against people that don't paint their army.

I don't enjoy playing against people who suck at 40k.

Do you see any threads where tournament gamers and competitive players are whining that 40k players who aren't tactically elite are playing in their tournaments, and since they don't want to turn anyone away, they're going to set up kiddie tables in the corner for the people who aren't good enough to play in the real tournament?

Well, I see tournaments being organized this way. If you're not tactically elite enough to win in 'ard boyz round one, you don't get to play in 'ard boyz round two. If you're not tactically elite enough to win at BoLScon day one, you get moved to the kiddie tournament for day two. So, actually, yes, people are doing exactly what you're suggesting.

Hell, the whole system of matching people based on battle points accumulated has the effect of moving the not-so-good players to have to play among each other in later rounds of a tournament, while the so-called good players (or those who lucked into favourable matchups, perhaps) get to play the other good players.

Have you people never heard of ASL? Avalon Hill's Panzer games? I mean, you want to prove what a strategic badass you are, there are a multitude of games better suited to that approach. Miniature wargames are about the spectacle, and are better suited to drinking some beers than boasting about how powerful your list is. Wargaming tournaments have, historically, been about getting together with like-minded enthusiasts and playing a few friendly games over the course of an afternoon. Neither the tournament structure (play three games, and the #2 player rarely, if ever, has actually played the #1 player) nor the rules system are designed for the sort of uber-competitive mentality espoused in some circles, and I say this as a successful tournament player.

I mean, really now, someone is the second coming of Napoleon because they could number crunch it and come to the same conclusion that everyone else on the internet did about how Chimeras are a good buy in the new guard codex, and happen to win the first-turn roll three times in an afternoon?

Redbeard wrote:I mean, really now, someone is the second coming of Napoleon because they could number crunch it and come to the same conclusion that everyone else on the internet did about how Chimeras are a good buy in the new guard codex, and happen to win the first-turn roll three times in an afternoon?

There's not exactly a shortage of players who'd say YES to that.

I think you shouldn't be allowed to play if you've not got a painted army. Full stop

And painted doesn't mean sprayed black, it means each figure painted to a tabletop standard, not just three colours or whatnot, but a fully painted and finished figure with shading, basing and detailing.