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.

Not going to lie, if I came up against something like this my reaction would most likely be something along the following lines:

*open mouth/raise arm*
*pause a couple of seconds*
*lower arm/close mouth*
*shake head while mumbling something to the effect of "[expletive] ponies"*
*look back up*
*smile*
*say "ok, let's get it over with"*
*play game to the best of my ability, not really enjoy it, try to be reasonably polite*

I don't like the army. I don't like ponies. I think the whole MLP culture is dumb. That said, since you got approval from the judge I have no right not to play you and I'm sure not going to take a loss just because I don't like the opponent's army.

I don't really blame the guy (even though I said I think MLP is dumb that's no cause to treat the person running the army any worse). If anything I take exception to the judge who let this exception through, but again since there is an exception in this case there's really no reason to do anything but shut up and play the game.

Would you really enjoy this game any less than you would against an unpainted army? Or an army of purple-dipped netlist WoC?

So long as your opponent is a fun dude/dudette to play against I think you can enjoy yourself even if you hate their army.

****SPOILER ALERT****

WHFB is a G-A-M-E !!!!!

You are suppossed to have FUN!!!

Sorry for busting your myths haters...

PirateRobotNinjaofDeath wrote:
Would you really enjoy this game any less than you would against an unpainted army? Or an army of purple-dipped netlist WoC?

So long as your opponent is a fun dude/dudette to play against I think you can enjoy yourself even if you hate their army.

Not necessarily any less, but it's a matter of me prepping myself for those annoyances before coming to the tournament. I would not expect to go to a WHFB tournament and have MLP staring me in the face.

Although after a glass of that "party punch" I think my outlook on life might improve dramatically. That stuff sounds good (in a diabetes inducing kinda way)!

 dementedwombat wrote:
Although after a glass of that "party punch" I think my outlook on life might improve dramatically. That stuff sounds good (in a diabetes inducing kinda way)!

See this is kind of what I think. It sounds like buddy was a really cool guy and generally fun to play against. Yeah it'd be annoying to have to face a sparkly MLP army, but I think the person in front of that army really factors into how enjoyable the experience would be.

dementedwombat wrote:
...That said, since you got approval from the judge I have no right not to play you...

I'm not sure I agree with this. The event had rules posted publicly. You signed up for the event with the expectation that your opponents would be held to those rules. You paid money with the expectation that your opponents would be held to those rules. No where did it say, "people may petition the judges to ignore the rules."

So, one player did petition the judges to ignore the rules, and the judges showed an amazing lack of judgement in allowing it.

That doesn't change what you paid for. You have every right to expect to play an army that conforms to the event rules, or get your money back. Playing an army that does not conform to the event rules is not what you paid for, even if the event organizers were foolish enough to allow such an army to participate.

I don't really blame the guy (even though I said I think MLP is dumb that's no cause to treat the person running the army any worse).

I think he's partially to blame, for asking to take an army that violated the event rules, and he knew it, he put the judges in a position where they should have rejected him, but knowing him, did not want to reject him.

If anything I take exception to the judge who let this exception through

Definitely.

, but again since there is an exception in this case there's really no reason to do anything but shut up and play the game.

Again, not true. You could ask for your money back and make a point that allowing armies that violate the rules do not just affect the one guy with that army. It's about what you paid for. If I go to a restaurant and order eggs, and get served pancakes, the fact that many people like pancakes should have nothing to do with the fact that I didn't get what I paid for. People attending this event paid to play against armies that conformed with the event rules.

KeyserSoze wrote:
****SPOILER ALERT****

WHFB is a G-A-M-E !!!!!

You are suppossed to have FUN!!!

Sorry for busting your myths haters...

****SPOILER ALERT****
You do not hold the monopoly on the definition of fun.

 dementedwombat wrote:

*open mouth/raise arm*
*pause a couple of seconds*
*lower arm/close mouth*
*shake head while mumbling something to the effect of "[expletive] ponies"*
*look back up*
*smile*
*say "ok, let's get it over with"*
*play game to the best of my ability, not really enjoy it, try to be reasonably polite*

Exactly. I'd play it because it's skirting the edges of acceptance, but it would make me enjoy the game *less*
I may still enjoy the game! Maybe this guy is such an awesome opponent he makes up for the pony army. But then imagine how much more I would have enjoyed playing him if he brought an army that doesn't look like it's lifted from a 3-6year old's playchest.

Ok, that's fair, but isn't there a huge number of factors -- all completely legal at tournaments -- that would also make you enjoy the game less?

- opponent has legal models but ugly-ass paint job
- opponent has legal models but hasn't showered in days
- opponent has legal models but whines every time anything goes your way and insists on checking the rulebook about it
- opponent. takes. so. sooooo. sooooooooooo. looooooooong. to. do. turn.
- opponenthaslegalmodelsbutchattersawayathighspeedlikethis the whole game
- opponent has legal models but stares dully at you with lifeless eyes and speaks only in occasional flat-affect monosyllables
- you are female and male opponent refers to that fact every three minutes, also tries to look down your top when you lean over to reach models in far corners of board
- opponent is idiot

I dare say most things on that list would annoy most people complaining about the pony army, and they'd probably annoy most people more. Why single out the guy who will annoy some people but amuse others ?

I rather like the pony army. Then again, I decided WHFB wasn't a good enough game to even play, much less take seriously. But even when I was playing, a funny themed army can be appreciated. Admittedly not all the time perhaps; it would probably get old. But for a one off game in a tournament? Definitely a giggle.

 SisterSydney wrote:
Ok, that's fair, but isn't there a huge number of factors -- all completely legal at tournaments -- that would also make you enjoy the game less?

- opponent has legal models but ugly-ass paint job
- opponent has legal models but hasn't showered in days
- opponent has legal models but whines every time anything goes your way and insists on checking the rulebook about it
- opponent. takes. so. sooooo. sooooooooooo. looooooooong. to. do. turn.
- opponenthaslegalmodelsbutchattersawayathighspeedlikethis the whole game
- opponent has legal models but stares dully at you with lifeless eyes and speaks only in occasional flat-affect monosyllables
- you are female and male opponent refers to that fact every three minutes, also tries to look down your top when you lean over to reach models in far corners of board
- opponent is idiot

I dare say most things on that list would annoy most people complaining about the pony army, and they'd probably annoy most people more. Why single out the guy who will annoy some people but amuse others ?

- opponent draws a knife and tries to stab me to death

I mean we can make up things that will reduce the enjoyment of the game all night, but that doesn't change the fact that this army is one of those things. Most players I've played against don't do any of the things you listed, so why make an army that places you in the small annoying group?

And he's only being singled out because of the display on the forum. If someone made a battle report of "Smelly Brettonian Misogynist vs Cleavage Girl Ogres" I would have been all over that thread too, but people tend to do those things unintentionally (or without getting caught doing it) so they aren't as obvious on forums.

Lord, I would love to read that battle report.

Anyway, points well made. The difference is almost everyone would dislike playing Mr. Stabby or the other unpleasant people we mentioned -- but only some people (based on responses to this thread) would dislike playing Mr. Ponies, while others (e.g. me) would quite like it. Why crack down on something that some people really like when there are so many things everyone dislikes?

 SisterSydney wrote:
Lord, I would love to read that battle report.

Anyway, points well made. The difference is almost everyone would dislike playing Mr. Stabby or the other unpleasant people we mentioned -- but only some people (based on responses to this thread) would dislike playing Mr. Ponies, while others (e.g. me) would quite like it. Why crack down on something that some people really like when there are so many things everyone dislikes?

Quite simply, because the event rules said this army shouldn't have been there, and people paid money with a certain expectation, set by those rules.

If the organizers of a tournament want to put their rules up that say, "unpainted armies allowed, pre-painted toys allowed", then this army would be fine. And people like me wouldn't attend and would allow others to have their definition of fun.

The problem does not stem from people who wish to dictate how others have fun, it stems from people who attend events with a reasonable expectation as defined by the event rules, and find themselves facing something outside of that expectation. The judges allowing the rules exemption are 90% of the issue here (with the remaining 10% being on the player who put the judges in the position to make the call).


Go back to the restaurant analogy.

If I go to a restaurant and order eggs, I expect to get eggs. If they bring me pancakes, I'm not going to be all that happy, even though a lot of people like pancakes. The guy next to me shouldn't say, "hey, I checked with the manager beforehand, and he said it would be okay if everyone who sat near me got pancakes instead of eggs." It's an unreasonable request for the guy to make, and even more unreasonable that the manager would okay it.

Ok, we can agree that tournament organizers should be clear and consistent. That's a non-trivial task, since unexpected things are gonna come up -- e.g. the guy with the awesome pony army -- but it's a worthy goal.

 SisterSydney wrote:
Lord, I would love to read that battle report.

Anyway, points well made. The difference is almost everyone would dislike playing Mr. Stabby or the other unpleasant people we mentioned -- but only some people (based on responses to this thread) would dislike playing Mr. Ponies, while others (e.g. me) would quite like it. Why crack down on something that some people really like when there are so many things everyone dislikes?

I absolutely see where you are coming from. I'd rather play the ponies than get stabbed; they're not really a one to one comparison. But I still think it's not completely unfair to dislike the pony army, even to the extent of not wanting to play it. Especially in the event that Red is describing, but also in general, I think.

I can even understand people that like it. It's loony and well planned. But it has nothing in common with whfb visually and shouldn't be set up across from a whfb army. I could actually enjoy the battle report if it was set up across from a pokemon or Dino Riders army.

Best painting ever

Just a question for everyone in this thread - Would your opinion change if the ponies were proper wargames minis cast in metal and fully painted and based?

Here's an example of the kind of thing I mean, I own some of these and they're rather nicely detailed and hefty, been thinking of making an army out of them:




Just trying to figure out what the mane problem is, the ponies themselves or the fact that its cheap unpainted kids toys glued onto bases?

Even that though doesn't meet the necessary requirement. Sure they are from a "model" company and not a "toy" company. But where are the Knights? Where are the shields and lances? Musicians, standards (and the horse holding them doesn't count)? How do I tell the KotR from the Errants from the Grails? These are the things that need to be addressed.... If he took bretonnian models, gave them unicorn horns, painted them MLP pastels colors and had them modeled farting rainbows, I would still hate it and probably tell him I don't care for it, but it would meet the requirements for tournament play and I would have no case for dispute.

To answer about your other horses above, if you slap knights on them that are armed properly and mount them on proper Cav bases....still silly, but it meets the expectation

What if they were centaurs with lances and great weapons, etc?

 Wehrkind wrote:
What if they were centaurs with lances and great weapons, etc?

Now your just arguing to argue.....

 quickfuze wrote:
Even that though doesn't meet the necessary requirement. Sure they are from a "model" company and not a "toy" company. But where are the Knights? Where are the shields and lances? Musicians, standards (and the horse holding them doesn't count)? How do I tell the KotR from the Errants from the Grails? These are the things that need to be addressed.... If he took bretonnian models, gave them unicorn horns, painted them MLP pastels colors and had them modeled farting rainbows, I would still hate it and probably tell him I don't care for it, but it would meet the requirements for tournament play and I would have no case for dispute.

To answer about your other horses above, if you slap knights on them that are armed properly and mount them on proper Cav bases....still silly, but it meets the expectation

I agree completely.

Its not that they are MLP its that they look like happy meal toys, happy meal toys that do not fit WYSIWYG at all.

 quickfuze wrote:

 Wehrkind wrote:
What if they were centaurs with lances and great weapons, etc?

Now your just arguing to argue.....

No, I am not. I was building a centaur themed Bret army for a little while before I burned out on WHFB and started playing Hordes all the time. At the time most people I spoke with seemed to like the idea; now I am wondering if the culture has shifted a bit and it would be too far of a deviation from the accepted aesthetic.

edit: nm, that was a cheap joke that didn't add anything.

Well as for myself I am building a Ravenwing Army for a friend of mine using ponies as he is a Brony. Now if wanted to go to an “Official Tournament” I would also build him a matching Ravenwing Army using “GW Approved Models” so he could let his opponent decide which army to face.

So this brings me to my question:
How would you handled it if he had put out his Pony Army and then when you balked opened his case with a “100% Legal/Boring Army”?

 scarletsquig wrote:
Just a question for everyone in this thread - Would your opinion change if the ponies were proper wargames minis cast in metal and fully painted and based?

Here's an example of the kind of thing I mean, I own some of these and they're rather nicely detailed and hefty, been thinking of making an army out of them:

Spoiler:

Just trying to figure out what the mane problem is, the ponies themselves or the fact that its cheap unpainted kids toys glued onto bases?

Those are cool, and subtle by comparison to the army that started this debate, but they lack the LOLWUT? shock value of the actual Pony toys -- which I love but which many others here hate, hate, hate.

 Anpu42 wrote:
Well as for myself I am building a Ravenwing Army for a friend of mine using ponies as he is a Brony. Now if wanted to go to an “Official Tournament” I would also build him a matching Ravenwing Army using “GW Approved Models” so he could let his opponent decide which army to face.

So this brings me to my question:
How would you handled it if he had put out his Pony Army and then when you balked opened his case with a “100% Legal/Boring Army”?

That's fine. That allows each of his opponents to determine whether the "Poney's" are a "fun" army to play. That's the point here. This hobby we have involves several things. To include, collecting, building, painting/converting and playing. The last part generally requires two people, although I am sure you can play with yourself (wait for it......)

That is the problem with this army, it fails to meet many of the aspects of our hobby, and the biggest of which is that it doesn't provide a good gaming experience for BOTH players (those who don't like it I am referring to). This is why myself and so many others DESPISE grey/primered armies also. Because their focus is strictly on THEIR enjoyment of the hobby (the playing part) and you are basically saying "feth you" to your opponents enjoyment and the other aspects of the hobby. I have said it once and I will preach it , this is not a game, it is a hobby. If you want to play a game, get an Xbox. If you want to be a part of this hobby and the loyal community that stems from it, paint your friggin models (at least to the minimum, it aint hard).

 quickfuze wrote:
This hobby we have involves several things. To include, collecting, building, painting/converting and playing. The last part generally requires two people, although I am sure you can play with yourself (wait for it......)

I think you left off a few H's from HHHobby.

 quickfuze wrote:
That is the problem with this army, it fails to meet many of the aspects of our hobby, and the biggest of which is that it doesn't provide a good gaming experience for BOTH players (those who don't like it I am referring to). This is why myself and so many others DESPISE grey/primered armies also. Because their focus is strictly on THEIR enjoyment of the hobby (the playing part) and you are basically saying "feth you" to your opponents enjoyment and the other aspects of the hobby. I have said it once and I will preach it , this is not a game, it is a hobby. If you want to play a game, get an Xbox. If you want to be a part of this hobby and the loyal community that stems from it, paint your friggin models (at least to the minimum, it aint hard).

So your type of enjoyment is paramount, but others' enjoyment is secondary to your own view of how table top war gaming should be conducted?

Interesting.

So your type of enjoyment is paramount, but others' enjoyment is secondary to your own view of how table top war gaming should be conducted?

Interesting.

Not even close to what I said...in fact just about as incorrect a reading as you could have done.

Let me write a disclaimer here before I start.

I do not understand "Brony" culture in the slightest. The truth of the matter is that My Little Pony is a show targeted towards little girls under the age of 10. I don't understand why grown men become enthralled with it. Before the Bronies on this thread that have allied with Chris attack me by saying that I paint little plastic men, dwarfs, etc., so there's little to no difference... There IS a difference.

What if if I was to glue a Barbie doll to a Giant base and use tiny Polly Pocket dolls as infantry for the LULZ at a WHFB tournament?

Where is the line drawn?

I understand this guy put effort into his army. And he did a good job representing different Bretonnian units. This is not about a personal attack on a Brony or whatever culture trend he's into. This is not about people being unwilling to "accept" Bronies and their choices. It's almost like people are trying to make this a civil rights issue. Come on.

Would I have played against this army? Yes. Grudgingly, but yes. And I can tell you without any doubt that I would have lost. I would have played far more aggressively in an attempt to remove as many ponies off the board as possible, and this would have caused me to lose. I guarantee it. I also wouldn't take have taken my opponent's army seriously or perceived them as a threat. I'm sure this guy is a great general to have such a stunning record. But I wonder how he would have done if he had actual Bretonnian models on the table. Would the outcome have been the same? Who knows. It's speculation. But I can say that I would not have been able to play to my best ability against an army so outright and purposely ridiculous.

The best analogy I can think of is a team in an FPS tournament being allowed to create their own in-game avatars to use. Let's say it's Call of Duty, or Halo. You can't see what weapons the opposing team is using. Even if they didn't have the option of changing weapons. All you see are giant cel-shaded neon-colored ponies flying everywhere and shooting glitter and rainbows. Would that be allowed? Would it be unreasonable for people to complain or not accept it? Not only do you have to remember what weapons they are using or WHAT they are, but you also have these garishly cute young children's cartoon characters in your face?

In my humble opinion this is completely unacceptable.

 TheBrandedOne wrote:
What if if I was to glue a Barbie doll to a Giant base and use tiny Polly Pocket dolls as infantry for the LULZ at a WHFB tournament?

It would be AWESOME.

 quickfuze wrote:

So your type of enjoyment is paramount, but others' enjoyment is secondary to your own view of how table top war gaming should be conducted?

Interesting.

Not even close to what I said...in fact just about as incorrect a reading as you could have done.

You make the statement that table top war gaming is a hobby and not a game. You view the activity of table top war gaming through a narrow lens and expect others to conform to your view otherwise THEY aren't doing it right and taking away YOUR fun. Right? So, your fun is paramount to their fun, right? Because you like certain aspects of table top war gaming that others might place less emphasis on, but clearly yours is the superior view point and if others don't conform they are doing it wrong and should play video games instead. Right?

Where did I go wrong based off what you presented previously?

 DarkTraveler777 wrote:

 quickfuze wrote:

So your type of enjoyment is paramount, but others' enjoyment is secondary to your own view of how table top war gaming should be conducted?

Interesting.

Not even close to what I said...in fact just about as incorrect a reading as you could have done.

You make the statement that table top war gaming is a hobby and not a game. You view the activity of table top war gaming through a narrow lens and expect others to conform to your view otherwise THEY aren't doing it right and taking away YOUR fun. Right? So, your fun is paramount to their fun, right? Because you like certain aspects of table top war gaming that others might place less emphasis on, but clearly yours is the superior view point and if others don't conform they are doing it wrong and should play video games instead. Right?

Where did I go wrong based off what you presented previously?

No BOTH peoples fun is paramount to the overall gaming experience. My point is that you have to take BOTH peoples views into consideration not just one (even the views of "elitists" such as me). Now in a friendly FLGS game, I can choose whether I want to play an opponent or not, just as they have the same option. I can choose to say I will not play unpainted armies because it does not add to my enjoyment of the game. Do I take anything AWAY from my opponent by having a painted army.....not usually (certain obtuse painting schemes could apply but that's case-by-case). Do I take AWAY from my opponents experience by only playing with official models? no. However, the case being discussed here is one in a competitive environment, where players cannot choose to not play an opponent (without negative consequences), and that the pre-established requirements and conditions were established ahead of time.