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.

When I started attending the GW GTs in the late 90s, it was all about the spectacle of the event. All the attendees, the rush to get tickets before they sold out (fedexing the application as soon as WD came out), spending the weekend playing games and hanging out at the bars/pubs after.

And each subsequent year, it was fun to guess at what amazing conversions and paintjobs would be brought to the event.

GW GTs has painting, comp and battle points, in varying amounts to determine the overall. It never bothered me what the ratio was, because I was never expecting to win.

Once GW started to relax those standards, the painting quality dropped, conversions dropped off, and it became less of a Hobby Tournament, When that happened, I stopped, because it wasnt fun to play against a Galloper Gun that was a DE Raider (an empire army subbing as DE).

Frankly, it doesn't matter what the tournament is called, I'd still be looking to see what the requirements are, and painting would have to be there (and I'm perfectly fine with sports and comp, even though the latter isnt as necessary these days).

You know, kronk... they have been VERY MUCH that kind of place.
I've got no problem with that... and I've got no problem with the painters keeping them ALL, tbh. My point is that requiring painted models should not be a prerequisite for holding a GT. If my gaming group wanted to start a GT here in St. Louis, we should be able to choose whether painting is required or not... for that matter, the same goes for comp.
At the same time, if an existing GT wants to revoke the painting requirement, they should be able to and not be pressured into stop calling themselves a GT.

Of course, I still believe in WYSIWYG for all tournaments.

Eric


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Cruentus wrote:(and I'm perfectly fine with sports and comp, even though the latter isnt as necessary these days).

Sincere question: Why was it *ever* necessary and what is the difference between then and now?

Eric

MagickalMemories wrote:

Cruentus wrote:(and I'm perfectly fine with sports and comp, even though the latter isnt as necessary these days).

Sincere question: Why was it *ever* necessary and what is the difference between then and now?

Eric

The game was broken up until 5th edition.

3rd edition had abusable abstract LOS, abusable base rules, no real codex balance or design. 1500+ point HQs, and for the most part, all the missions were 'wipe the opponent to the man.' Also if you played RAW you had things like 'unshootable/unassaultable' formations called the funhouse mirror. I could put models on the board in a way you couldn't shoot or assault them due to the rules. There was no real internet community, no FAQs and GWs attitude was 'don't be a beardy git... breaking the game makes you a git.' Hence comp. And 3rd editions comp is basically 5th editions force org and rules making troops necessary for mission victory.

The game was really that bad. It became unplayable at events without 'comp' enforcing some sort of limits... and everyone realized this and there was no issue with it.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Cruentus wrote:(and I'm perfectly fine with sports and comp, even though the latter isnt as necessary these days).

Sincere question: Why was it *ever* necessary and what is the difference between then and now?

Eric

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

In order to play the game, I do not have to have EITHER of the other two (granted, not having your models assembled DOES tend to screw with TLOS lol).
To play the game, you (realistically) just need accurately assembled models and the appropriate "tools" for the game (dice, etc.). Even proxies/counts as can work if properly noted in some fashion.

Sure, and I appreciate that you're not trying to be dirisive. But the original concept of a "Grand Tournament" encompasses everything. People were ranked for their achievements in each of these areas, and the winner was someone able to do it all really well.

MagickalMemories wrote:Realistically speaking, you should be able to look at most unpainted units and discern what they are, if you're familiar with the army. If you aren't, then painting isn't going to tell you the difference, anyway. For anyone reading this who feels like trying to argue that point and think up ways in which they might be confusing - please, don't. I will find easy responses to them and it will serve no purpose to advance the thread. Thanks.

I apologize that I'm not willing to oblige your polite request. I hope you'll bear with me, because I think I do have some reasonable examples.

1. Painting is often necessary (or extremely helpful) in distinguishing one squad from another. If I have two units engaged in the same HtH, and those units have different painted squad markings, my opponent and I can easily distinguish between my units and resolve the combat more easily Or if two units have gotten close together in moving, for example if one is trying to screen the other from shooting, or if I have Lashed two of my opponent's units together, painted squad markings help keep things clear and make the game more playable.
2. Painting weapons so they stand out speeds up recognition. Yes, you can pick out a plasmagun from nine bolters in a primed black squad, but it's a lot faster and easier if they're painted.
3. Painted units generally stand out from and contrast with terrain much better, and are easier to distinguish from that terrain when you're bending over the table to get true LOS.

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

As others noted, time limits and tournament structures are not given to us in the rulebook either. IMO painted minis are actually more part of the rules, given that every photo of minis in the rulebook and in examples of play are painted. Another way of looking at the fact there there's not a formal rule in the book of "you must paint your miniatures" is to observe that it's implicit. That it's part and parcel of the game's fundamental assumptions.

MagickalMemories wrote:

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

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

I found it challenging, and I enjoyed the challenge. It also opened up my game and my lists in some ways. I don't know if I would have ever fielded a full 10 model unit of Dire Avengers or 22 model unit of Guardian Defenders if they hadn't earned me 2pts in the Rogue Trader tournament structure. And those units were fun to use. They did represent a bit of a handicap to the power of my army, but I had the choice to handicap myself a little for those 2pts, and I consciously played to it to maximize my tournament points, and to help me win the events.

There's a difference between "dinging" someone and giving someone bonus points for fielding an extra-fluffy army. I played in (and run a few) tournaments with Comp scores for quite a few years, and enjoyed them just as much (or far more, in 3rd and 4th editions, which didn't have the inherent Comp 5th has in its scenario rules) as tournaments without Comp.

Cruentus wrote:When I started attending the GW GTs in the late 90s, it was all about the spectacle of the event. All the attendees, the rush to get tickets before they sold out (fedexing the application as soon as WD came out), spending the weekend playing games and hanging out at the bars/pubs after.

And each subsequent year, it was fun to guess at what amazing conversions and paintjobs would be brought to the event.

It was pretty amazing. I remember fedexing my entry form (along with eight or ten other friends from my club) for the 2001 Baltimore GT. It was a heck of an event, and I was pretty awed by the scale of it and the quality of the armies present.

nkelsch wrote:

MagickalMemories wrote:Sincere question: Why was it *ever* necessary and what is the difference between then and now?

The game was broken up until 5th edition.

3rd edition had abusable abstract LOS, abusable base rules, no real codex balance or design. 1500+ point HQs, and for the most part, all the missions were 'wipe the opponent to the man.' Also if you played RAW you had things like 'unshootable/unassaultable' formations called the funhouse mirror. I could put models on the board in a way you couldn't shoot or assault them due to the rules. There was no real internet community, no FAQs and GWs attitude was 'don't be a beardy git... breaking the game makes you a git.' Hence comp. And 3rd editions comp is basically 5th editions force org and rules making troops necessary for mission victory.

The game was really that bad. It became unplayable at events without 'comp' enforcing some sort of limits... and everyone realized this and there was no issue with it.

I wouldn't say it was quite as bad as you've described. 3rd and 4th edition were both still fun tournament games. But the balance was indeed substantially worse. Some kind of comp system to encourage variety, themed, or self-handicapped armies really helped make events more balanced and enjoyable. I never bothered playing Ard Boys, for example, until 5th.

As above; to claim painting has no effect game-wise is an entirely unsupportable position, easily debunked.

If you want a "big" tournament, run a big one. if you want a GRAND tournament, then it better be GRAND in every sense - numbers, quality of armies are both prerequisites for that moniker,

A GT (Grand Tourer) Car isnt just a big car with a nice engine, its more than that.

I think the community has attached signifigance to the term "grand" that it goes beyond "big" or "multi-day."

It's much like a "Supreme" Pizza isn't just one with a lot of toppings, it's almost always going to include both meat and veggies. The ratio and proportions vary, but since I don't like veggies on my pizza, I know never to order one.

Nobody seems to think that the Supreme Pizza is morally superior to the Meat Lover's, but they also know that no matter how many meats you put on a pizza, you'd confuse people if you called it Supreme. (and yes, meat is battle points and veggies are soft scores)

nosferatu1001 wrote:As above; to claim painting has no effect game-wise is an entirely unsupportable position, easily debunked.

This is an absurdly silly claim.

Models don't get better LOS when they're painted, they have the exact same weaponry, and (with the exception of "Red Wunz go Fasta") have the same movement. The in-game effect of painting miniatures is negligible at best.

There's no impact on the mechanics of the game, but on the actual play of the game... there's a notable impact, as Mann quite elegantly noted:

Mannahnin wrote:
1. Painting is often necessary (or extremely helpful) in distinguishing one squad from another. If I have two units engaged in the same HtH, and those units have different painted squad markings, my opponent and I can easily distinguish between my units and resolve the combat more easily Or if two units have gotten close together in moving, for example if one is trying to screen the other from shooting, or if I have Lashed two of my opponent's units together, painted squad markings help keep things clear and make the game more playable.
2. Painting weapons so they stand out speeds up recognition. Yes, you can pick out a plasmagun from nine bolters in a primed black squad, but it's a lot faster and easier if they're painted.
3. Painted units generally stand out from and contrast with terrain much better, and are easier to distinguish from that terrain when you're bending over the table to get true LOS.

Polonius wrote:There's no impact on the mechanics of the game, but on the actual play of the game... there's a notable impact, as Mann quite elegantly noted:

Only if:
1) Squads are painted differently, which I might note, is not a requirement for GT's.
2) Weapons are painted to stand out and be recognizable. Again, not a GT requirement.
3) You paint your models to stand out from the terrain. Once again, not a GT requirement.

I have several squads of Thousand Sons, would I be disqualified because separate units aren't clearly distinguishable?

How about my Terminators, who have various weapons (heavy flamers, combi-weapons) but are all generally painted in the same scheme (boltgun + blue)?

Sure, you can paint your army with no squad markings, so that weapons blend into bodies which blend into terrain.

If can be done, but rarely is.

I'll spot you the first one as being less common among "minimum painted" models, but rarely are weapons painted to completely blend in. Hell, most players paint stuff to stand out so they know what their own army has.

And virtually all armies include some form of contrast, which would stand out in all but the most bizarre terrain. Even say, Black Templars on a city board would be seen thanks to the hard black/white with red.

My point (and I think Mann's as well), is that even a three color marine (Sprayed blue, gold trim, gunmetal bolter, black base) is easier to play against than a grey primed marine. That's a tangible gaming (not hobby) reason.

I disagree. Even if you achieve some in-game benefit from painted models, the aesthetic benefits far outweigh any practical ones.

I have no problem with people insisting on painted armies for aesthetic reasons. And no problem with painted-only tournaments. But lets not pretend that it's for anything other than aesthetics.

The problem (that I see) is that people who 'win' a GT aren't necessarily the best players. They might not even be the best hobbiests, since it's not hard to field a professionally painted and converted army. Yet they're held out as having some sort of weight in the community because they've won a GT.

I'm really quite lazy about painting my minis. I'm more of a gamer than painter. I pretty regularly play at the gaming club with half-painted, unpainted, or proxy minis, especially if I'm trying something new. I don't really enjoy painting as much as I enjoy converting, or playing.

However, I do enjoy the finished result of painting -- pretty minis! And a game with fully painted armies on both sides is *so* much better to look at, and hence, more enjoyable all-round, than a game with the aforementioned mish-mash. So I really like that most tourneys insist on fully painted minis. My gaming club friends like it too, because it means that I finally get around to painting my stuff, when a tournament is coming up (admittedly I was still painting at 1am on the morning of my last one).

biccat wrote:I disagree. Even if you achieve some in-game benefit from painted models, the aesthetic benefits far outweigh any practical ones.

So? I think you're minimizing the interplay between aesthetics that have no impact on a game (hey, that model looks neat) and aesthetics that have an impact on game play (hey, those neat looking plasma guns are still alive). I agree that there's a major aesthetic component to painting standards, and I don't think anybody is arguing against that.

It's just easy to say that painting is somehow completely divorced from gameplay that isn't, in practice, actually true. It's no different from rules in sports about what colors each team can wear, at least in relation to each other. Or Boise State no longer being able to wear all blue on their blue field for WAC games. The colors don't make anybody faster or stronger, yet seem to have an impact.

I have no problem with people insisting on painted armies for aesthetic reasons. And no problem with painted-only tournaments. But lets not pretend that it's for anything other than aesthetics.

I'm not sure what your competiive tournament experience is, but when you're doing multi-day, or even four game single day events, being able to determine what's in what units becomes harder and harder.

I'd agree that it's 80-90% aesthetics, but ease of play is a factor, at least for me. I doubt I'm in the minority of tournament gamers.

The problem (that I see) is that people who 'win' a GT aren't necessarily the best players. They might not even be the best hobbiests, since it's not hard to field a professionally painted and converted army. Yet they're held out as having some sort of weight in the community because they've won a GT.

Are you saying it's possible that a method for ranking competitors might not reflect anything beyond the way those competitors performed in a given period against a set of arbitrary criteria? My mind is blow....

Seriously, I don't know how to respond. The community has grappled with this for about a decade, and seems to have come to the following conclusion: everybody respects those aspects that they respect. There's a reason most GTs give the Best General award. Also a Best Painted, along with overall. Nearly every event has a different combination of hard and soft scores.

Even among pure gaming events, you have people that advocate for nothing other than single elimination, random book missions as the only true 40k competition. You also have people that feel that complex, tested missions like adeption features are the best test of a player.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
I hinted at this earlier with my parsing of the terms "hobby event" and "gaming event," but if I disliked the way that GTs ran (and many people find them flawed), I wouldn't try to change GTs, but rather offer a new brand.

Rather than selling your event as "A GT with no soft scores or paint requirment," why not stress what the event is? The 40k Player's tournament. Or Gaming Championship.

If GW can build a brand with Hard Boys, which is about as well run as a Central American coup, a well run Player's Tournament should succeed.

Can you play pickup sports without shirts and skins? sure... is it easier to make quick decisions and play better if the teams are easily distinguished? yes.

If you are going to argue because one person can make a paintjob impossible to distinguish with painting that no attempt to distinguish should ever be made anywhere and then appearance never has any impact then we have reached an unreasonable point in the conversation. Making up fictional extremes to invalidate everything just means we need to agree to disagree as both sides see the other sides arguments as empty strawman arguments. There is no possible way to convince anyone of anything anymore.

nkelsch wrote:Can you play pickup sports without shirts and skins? sure... is it easier to make quick decisions and play better if the teams are easily distinguished? yes.

If you are going to argue because one person can make a paintjob impossible to distinguish with painting that no attempt to distinguish should ever be made anywhere and then appearance never has any impact then we have reached an unreasonable point in the conversation. Making up fictional extremes to invalidate everything just means we need to agree to disagree as both sides see the other sides arguments as empty strawman arguments. There is no possible way to convince anyone of anything anymore.

My god, that's almost as bad as arguing that if you don't require painted models then everyone will show up with an unpainted mass of plastic and metal, you'll be unable to tell even what army you're playing against, you won't know what anybody is equipped with, and your eyes will bleed from staying up for four days trying to learn the difference between a Plasma Pistol and a Bolt Pistol!

Like I said, I have no problem with a tournament requiring painted figures. But some of the arguments here in favor of painted models border on the absurd.

I agree with biccat. It is easily possible to paint an army and have it be no more or less recognizable as if it was grey plastic.
(And we're not talking about 3 stripes of paint either.)

Examples would be, armies where the guns were all painted silver and washed black (regardless of type), so that everything was silver (albeit nicely shaded) and things like plasma coils and melta cannisters/nozzles were the same color as everything else.

I think you all are arguing against some sort of gold standard that automatically assumes that because it is painted, it somehow looks just like GW's pictures.

There are so many DIY schemes and moderate conversions running around that I just can't see how you can say that "painting" makes it more recognizable.

edit for rudeness. My apologies.

Thank you for making it clear that you intended to break Rule Number One. Let me further remind you that breaking forum rules will result in temporary or even permannet suspension of your account. Thanks ~Manchu

Automatically Appended Next Post:

whitedragon wrote:I agree with biccat. It is easily possible to paint an army and have it be no more or less recognizable as if it was grey plastic.
(And we're not talking about 3 stripes of paint either.)

Examples would be, armies where the guns were all painted silver and washed black (regardless of type), so that everything was silver (albeit nicely shaded) and things like plasma coils and melta cannisters/nozzles were the same color as everything else.

First, I'd argue that a painted/washed gun is easier to distinguish than a flat primed or unprimed model. The increased contrast simply makes detail pop more.

Second, go to a tournament with no paint required. Then go to one with a three color minimum. Which one has more easily distinguishable armies?

The rule could clearly be better, but it still leads to an improved ability to distinguish (which is inherently subjective anyway).

There are so many DIY schemes and moderate conversions running around that I just can't see how you can say that "painting" makes it more recognizable.

It seems to work. yes, you can follow all the painting rules in the world and be, if not less, at least no more distinguishable. It doesn't change that as a general rule, painted armies are more readily distinguishable.

Please remember that using emoticons doesn't actually cancel out the rudeness of a post.

Thanks.

I think there should be tournaments where you have to have fully painted armies ( i also think there should be big tournaments where it doesn't matter whether its painted or not). Both should be WYSIWYG (its hard enough playing and organizing a tourny without having to worry about what represents what). And right now we have both with GTs (painty) and Ard Boyz (non painty).

If some people want more non painted tournies with big prizes, thats fine, just don't call them GTs, they can still have big prizes and turnouts. Calling a tournament a GRAND Tournament is just a simple way to point out that you need your army painted, lets not mess up this simplicity please? This game is complicated enough as it is.

As a player who loves to paint my models with great care I dont think we should lose GTs, this hobby isn't just gameplaying, its modeling + painting + playing + fluff +sportsmanship + community = warhammer 40k.

Polonius wrote:
First, I'd argue that a painted/washed gun is easier to distinguish than a flat primed or unprimed model. The increased contrast simply makes detail pop more.

Second, go to a tournament with no paint required. Then go to one with a three color minimum. Which one has more easily distinguishable armies?

The rule could clearly be better, but it still leads to an improved ability to distinguish (which is inherently subjective anyway).

I don't think we're saying the same thing. While yes, a silver gun sticks out from a blue or red marine, but how do you tell that gun from a plasma or melta if they are both the same color? Its just as difficult. This thread is a good example. I'll link the pictures here to illustrate.
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/393697.page


Ok...this is a sternguard right? That's the GW model he is. But wait, someone said in the above thread they use them all as tactical squad sergeants. So, how do you tell the difference unless someone is strict with their squad markings? (And in my experience they aren't.) Besides, this may even be a DIY chapter, making it all the more difficult.


These are clearly marked as Sternguard, that's ok, but are you really going to tell me the Plasma sticks out more from the tabletop view than the bolter? That's kinda stretching a bit. Yet no one here would have any problems with these figures right?


These guys distinguish the melta vs bolter alot better, but then, would you really call either of these figures "fully painted"? Both with flat black bolters and details that aren't even picked out? (And since they are based, I'm going to say they are finished models as well). These are the type of painted models that would be an utter joy for you to travel to see in a GT vs flat grey or silver unpainted models?


Now, the thread is about sternguard, but this model is a tactical sergeant with a combi-weapon. What visual clues are painted on him to distinguish him as either? I'd say it's just as ambiguous as if he were grey. (And if he was just grey, how could you miss that giant weapon sticking out if you told me you could tell the difference between the plasma and bolter a couple pictures above?)

And then, on a completely different note, I could find pictures of "beautifully painted" armies that people go gaga over, but are so jazzed up that I can hardly tell what's going on modelwise either. (GMM's Mad Max Ork army from Adepticon is one such example I think.) Not saying that people shouldn't go above and beyond, but I'd wager everyone says that's acceptable, until you're across the table from it scratching your head trying to figure out what everything is.

So I guess I just will never understand why everyone is against grey plastic.

EDIT: Because I can't use image tags right.

ajefferism wrote:IAs a player who loves to paint my models with great care I dont think we should lose GTs, this hobby isn't just gameplaying, its modeling + painting + playing + fluff +sportsmanship + community = warhammer 40k.

The dramatic succees of indy GTs shows that they aren't going anywhere.

What has, at least in my experience, diminished greatly are the full blown Rogue Trader style tournaments that used to occur. Events that were one day, required paint, but were still mostly held in stores or club spaces. It now seems like everything is a free for all store tournament, or a major GT. OTOH, I think that's good for the community, as it gets more players into tournaments.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
@Whitedragon: I can't see the images at work, but it seems like you're still missing my point.

Armies will, on the whole, be easier to distinguish with a paint requirement than without. You can come up with all the counterexamples in the world, but if a paint requirement causes one person per event to pick out weapons, add squad markings, or paint his models so they don't blend into grey terrain, than the rule has added gaming benefit.

Polonius wrote:
Armies will, on the whole, be easier to distinguish with a paint requirement than without. You can come up with all the counterexamples in the world, but if a paint requirement causes one person per event to pick out weapons, add squad markings, or paint his models so they don't blend into grey terrain, than the rule has added gaming benefit.

C'mon man, you could turn that statement around the other way to make it read in my favor. Bad form dude, I expect better out of you.

whitedragon wrote:

Polonius wrote:
Armies will, on the whole, be easier to distinguish with a paint requirement than without. You can come up with all the counterexamples in the world, but if a paint requirement causes one person per event to pick out weapons, add squad markings, or paint his models so they don't blend into grey terrain, than the rule has added gaming benefit.

C'mon man, you could turn that statement around the other way to make it read in my favor. Bad form dude, I expect better out of you.

I'm not sure what the problem is. Are you arguing that paint requirements will do nothing to add distinguishabiliity? Or even have a net negative effect?

I argue that as a general rule, having a paint requirement increases distinguishability. Do you think that's not true?

If not, than we agree on everything but degree.

Polonius wrote:

whitedragon wrote:

Polonius wrote:
Armies will, on the whole, be easier to distinguish with a paint requirement than without. You can come up with all the counterexamples in the world, but if a paint requirement causes one person per event to pick out weapons, add squad markings, or paint his models so they don't blend into grey terrain, than the rule has added gaming benefit.

C'mon man, you could turn that statement around the other way to make it read in my favor. Bad form dude, I expect better out of you.

I'm not sure what the problem is. Are you arguing that paint requirements will do nothing to add distinguishabiliity? Or even have a net negative effect?

I argue that as a general rule, having a paint requirement increases distinguishability. Do you think that's not true?

If not, than we agree on everything but degree.

You are correct, I believe the bolded part is not a true statement. And I could say, that if the paint requirement causes one person to be confused by an army that is so cluttered with "cool" that they blend into each other, then the rule has no added benefit.

whitedragon wrote:

Polonius wrote:
I argue that as a general rule, having a paint requirement increases distinguishability. Do you think that's not true?

You are correct, I believe the bolded part is not a true statement. And I could say, that if the paint requirement causes one person to be confused by an army that is so cluttered with "cool" that they blend into each other, then the rule has no added benefit.

Aha, except paint requirments don't allow or require people to convert or use counts as. They are seperate rules. An army that's confusingly painted at a GT will be just as confusing at Hard Boys.

Meaning, adding the rule won't increase the indistinguishability due to paint, while it will decrease the indistinguishability due to primer.

So we have to positions:

*Painting can be confusing and harm gameplay therefor no painting should ever be required.

*Not painting can be confusing and harm gameplay therefor painting should be required.

Each side refuses to accept the premise of the other side... so there is no debate. Confusing armies are confusing regardless.

A vast majority of painted armies are not confusing, all unpainted armies are confusing and take extra effort to distinguish and become a burden to play against which is unreasonable in a timed event. No amount of excuses or examples will change this for me and no amount of me arguing will make you accept the premise that the game is impacted by visual cues that increase mental tactical decisions.

So events should run what they think 'is best' and see what draw it has. Good luck running your 2-3 day 8+ game 'ardboyz style unpainted tourney.

Polonius wrote:
Aha, except paint requirments don't allow or require people to convert or use counts as. They are seperate rules. An army that's confusingly painted at a GT will be just as confusing at Hard Boys.

Meaning, adding the rule won't increase the indistinguishability due to paint, while it will decrease the indistinguishability due to primer.

"Counts as" is allowed or required per the rulebook, and can be invoked whether a model is painted or not.

I'm saying that an army can be equally indistinguishable if it is painted then if it is not, so why all the hate against non-painted, and the thinly veiled argument that it is somehow easier to tell apart painted models. (It isn't).

What you are really saying, is that you'd rather have to play against painted armies than not, but it has nothing to do with whether or not you can distinguish units/wargear, it's just because that's what you want/like better.

whitedragon wrote: somehow easier to tell apart painted models. (It isn't).

Except, it is...

nkelsch wrote:So we have to positions:

*Painting can be confusing and harm gameplay therefor no painting should ever be required.

*Not painting can be confusing and harm gameplay therefor painting should be required.

Each side refuses to accept the premise of the other side... so there is no debate. Confusing armies are confusing regardless.

A vast majority of painted armies are not confusing, all unpainted armies are confusing and take extra effort to distinguish and become a burden to play against which is unreasonable in a timed event. No amount of excuses or examples will change this for me and no amount of me arguing will make you accept the premise that the game is impacted by visual cues that increase mental tactical decisions.

I think my position is that all unpainted armies are inherently indistinguishable. Most painted armies are distinguishable. Therefore, it's better to play against painted armies, and thus big successful events should require such.

whitedragon wrote:
"Counts as" is allowed or required per the rulebook, and can be invoked whether a model is painted or not.

I'm saying that an army can be equally indistinguishable if it is painted then if it is not, so why all the hate against non-painted, and the thinly veiled argument that it is somehow easier to tell apart painted models. (It isn't).

No, i've repeatedly stated that it's possible that a painted model can be just as indistinguishable.

Far more often than not, in my experience, painted armies are easier to distinguish. Maybe you play in an environment where all pianted armies are wacky counts as, but from what I've seen, painted armies are more easily distinguishable.

What you are really saying, is that you'd rather have to play against painted armies than not, but it has nothing to do with whether or not you can distinguish units/wargear, it's just because that's what you want/like better.

No, I'm saying that, while also saying that it's easier to play against painted armies. Maybe it's not universal, but I have an easier time against nearly all painted armies than against unpainted ones. In addition to enjoying it more.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I'm not sure if we're talking at cross purposes here. It's like airbags: sometimes they hurt the driver, but far more often they protect.

Painted armies are far more likely to be helpful to an opponent than hurtful. If I'm really off base here let me know.