What is the point of painting requirements in tournaments?

Jonny wrote:

Quote :

since with a lot of the lists don't require thought (WOTR 'Ard Boyz for example).

Im sad now, i've thought about that list thought about how gay it is.

Brent wrote:

Quote :

and some dudes like to have sex with other dudes that doesn't mean that people shouldn't be able to have heterosexual relations too

What my head hurts your silly. were are these people you speek of brent, were are the people who only want to have non painted tournamnets? I know befor you say it your not against all fully painted tournaments but i need more then 3 people saying they wouuld play in a painted restricted tournamnet were are they?

So far I think more people want painted requirements then people that don't.

And how is ard boys not a test of knowledge of the game??? Have you gone and won an ard boys event??? They are very tough to play in, and yeah the lists are broken, but everyone says broken, I say that is a tough list, not a broken list. If you can make a list legally then it is a tough list not a broken one.

I can promise you that most people that play ard boys think it is one of the hardest tournaments to play in and really tests the tactics and knowledge of the gamer.

joko12 wrote:

So far I think more people want painted requirements then people that don't.

And how is ard boys not a test of knowledge of the game??? Have you gone and won an ard boys event??? They are very tough to play in, and yeah the lists are broken, but everyone says broken, I say that is a tough list, not a broken list. If you can make a list legally then it is a tough list not a broken one.

I can promise you that most people that play ard boys think it is one of the hardest tournaments to play in and really tests the tactics and knowledge of the gamer.

Never once did I say anything about "knowledge of the game", so that statement shows your foolishness. It takes great knowledge of the game to exploit the rules well enough to make a 'Ard Boyz winning list.

Nobody has ever said that broken lists are illegal. If they were, then people would call them illegal lists. Broken lists are ones that use min-maxing, exploits/loopholes, and extremely unthematic forces in a way that makes their army as unbeatable as possible.

So far, the lists that I have seen win 'Ard Boyz are not ones that require supreme tactics and generalship. The Nine Ringwraiths simply makes it so your opponent can't do anything at all, and requires little, if any, tactics. Scooter's Elf list uses an exploit to make an indestructible unit. Other lists I have know that have been rather successful in 'Ard Boyz is Scooter's Lizardmen list, which is little more than magic spam.

'Ard Boyz can not be compared to a normal tournament. The environment of it is one where people try to make the most unbeatable army possible. With these lists, you will go and either walk through all of your opponents because they have no way to compete against your list, or you will face the "paper" to your indestructible "rock".

But you said earlier the point is to win so why not take these armies at every tournament anyways??? I don't really understand where your argument is going. You keep getting way to off topic.

O well nothing is going to change everything is going to have to be painted if you ever want to go and play a real good game at a GT or special event so theres only two things you can do.

Pick up a paint brush!!! Or pay someone to paint your army!!!

There's a difference between winning a strategic fight, and winning a completely one-sided fight. If someone wants to bring a 'Ard Boyz list to a local tournament, that's fine, but I would never bring such a list as it would bring me no satisfaction if I were to win with it.

As to me being off topic, I don't see how. People seem to say that 'Ard Boyz is the gamer-only equivalent of a large scale tournament, and I am simply arguing that it isn't comparable to a standard tournament, and is disappointing that the only option for people that just want to game is a tournament full of BS and cheaters.

I never said that things will change. I am just arguing for the people that hate painting. To force them to do something they hate to compete in something that should be a gaming tournament makes no sense to me. As to the option of paying someone, it is unfair that they have to play significantly more money to be able to compete.

Also, I do not hate painting. In fact, I find it rather satisfying to have a full painted army. So I am not arguing for myself, I'm arguing for equality in this hobby, but I guess that's not important.

I'm arguing for equality in this hobby, but I guess that's not important.

Correct, it's not. If things were equal, you'd all walk into a tournament, play 3 games, and get a little ribbon that said 'First Place'. Every single person gets a ribbon.) Throwing out the little arguements for 'equality' or 'don't punish me' or 'don't discriminate' are red herrings.

This arguement is all about "I don't want to paint, and you can't make me!" And your're correct, no one can make anyone paint.

At the same time, the guys that can't/won't paint shouldn't complain if they can't make everyone else agree that painting isn't important.

You want more/larger tournaments for unpainted armies, then get some guys together and run one.

nicely stated sir

mikhaila wrote:

I'm arguing for equality in this hobby, but I guess that's not important.

Correct, it's not. If things were equal, you'd all walk into a tournament, play 3 games, and get a little ribbon that said 'First Place'. Every single person gets a ribbon.) Throwing out the little arguements for 'equality' or 'don't punish me' or 'don't discriminate' are red herrings.

That's not exactly what I would call equality. Equality would be where everyone has the same chance of winning, yet the prize goes to the one who deserves it.

Quote :

At the same time, the guys that can't/won't paint shouldn't complain if they can't make everyone else agree that painting isn't important.

I never said that painting isn't important. I don't know how you came up with that. I just said that it is different from gaming, and competitions of gaming should be judged by an individuals gaming skill. But obviously it doesn't make sense for the winner of a tournament for a strategy game be the person with the best strategy/tactics.

Jonny wrote:

Equality would be where everyone has the same chance of winning, yet the prize goes to the one who deserves it

QFT

issue is that preparation(read:time spent painting) seems to be playing into most peoples opinions of deservence. No one is preventing you from painting so it isn't discrimination.

The idea of a requirement for painting to take part in some tournaments is fundamentally just requiring a mandatory amount of preparation. Like a local softball league requiring a uniform for evryone on the rooster as well as an offical rooster. The issue is painting/uniforms doesn't really make you a better player and there is no physical proof of practice.

However seeing a room full of awsome display boards can be worth the price of admission in some cases and to most people the draw of games and prizes isn't enough. So it becomes and issue of the market. There are painting scores because that is what most customers want. Right or wrong philosophically it works.

I never said that painting isn't important. I don't know how you came up with that. I just said that it is different from gaming, and competitions of gaming should be judged by an individuals gaming skill. But obviously it doesn't make sense for the winner of a tournament for a strategy game be the person with the best strategy/tactics.

And I don't feel that a tournament is just about 'gaming' or 'winning' or whatever you want to call it. You don't feel painting is an important part of a warhammer tournament. I do. Many other people do, both players and TOs. There are enough people that feel that way, and tournaments get run that way.

You have several incorrect arguements going. (And by you I mean "people who are argueing against painting", I address it to you since you've chosen to champion their cause)

First you are trying to first define a tournament as only being a 'gaming competition', where only winning is important. I disagree with that. That might be how you define it. And if you want to run one, then we can use that definition. Otherwise, we use Scooters', GWs', mine, or someone else who is putting in the time and work to run one.

Next is the "it's not fair, golden demon doesn't require playing, why does a tournament need painting". Irrelevant. That GD exists doesn't affect tournaments.

Then we get to "You're discriminating against me". No one is, go look up the word. Equally wrong is 'you're punishing me'. How? If no tournament is held, you aren't hurt. If one is held, and you don't play, same result. Whether you don't play because you didn't paint your army, or you felt like sleepin in that day, no one is punishing you.

Then we go into things like "it's ghey", strange sexual metaphors, and various digressions. We get it, you don't want to paint. Irrelevant. You don't have to. Do what you want.

Meanwhile, those people who have a painted army can play in events that require it. Those without painted armies can play in tourneys that don't require it, and score a 0 if there is a painting score.

And there are plenty of tournaments that don't require any painting, and paint isn't part of the score. Strangely enough, I'm running one right now, we just started round 3.

Take part in the hobby/game/competition however you like. But understand that other people will also be doing it how they like. They aren't wrong, discriminating against you, or punishing you.

The fact is that people that don't want to paint are worse of than people that want to paint. All I'm trying to say is that it shouldn't be that way.

Jonny wrote:

The fact is that people that don't want to paint are worse of than people that want to paint. All I'm trying to say is that it shouldn't be that way.

Absolutely, I agree totally. It breaks my heart to see poor gamers who haven't seen the light, and are worse off because of it. But it's their choice to paint or not. There's always hope that they will someday pick up a paint brush. Until then I'll run a painting class every saturday, and hope that someday they show up.)

Well there are some people that just won't want to paint, and I think that is completely fine. You can't expect everyone that plays a strategy game will like painting, just like not everyone that like painting will like the strategy game. I know that once the IC-con is bigger, and whoever is in charge allows me to, I will run a tournament for those hardcore gamers, but until then, they will have to to deal with being excluded.

Not painting doesn't make you "hardcore".


"Hardcore gamers" would be those that put the effort into painting even if they didn't like it, in order to play in a tourament, and win it despite the painting.

Well I don't care, you know what I meant.

Jonny clearly ment people that just really love the game itself

ironically the PP "Hardcore" tournaments are the only ones that require painting.

Maybe then they should be 'Ardcore? badumpbump

ha

This thread hurts my brain. It requires next to 0 effort to poorly paint an army up to enough standards to be eligible for any tournament. No washes, no highlights, no drybrushes. Be sloppy with staying within the lines. Who cares? They're your models and you're too hardcore to care about what they look like, right?

Say you've got an ork:
Orkhide Green the skin
Boltgun Metal gun/choppa/armor
Snakebite leather everything else.
Finish it off with a goblin green base.

4 colors, barely any effort and it'll look pretty awful just by itself, but it will get into every single tournament there is.

man you are all funny

I like painting. My problem is TIME. Reading this thread had me looking back on the last 10 years of gaming and painting. When I was younger and kid-less, I could paint all the time. I had as many as 6 fully painted 2000 armies at once. Now I have none. between work, kids, spouse, your time is eaten up and the time and even the desire to paint is just not there.

Having said that I think that painting scores in tourneys should NOT have any bearing on Overall or even for tie breaks. A guy could suck so bad at painting, win all his games, but the next guy who has a beautifully painted army, wins all his game but wins because he paints better. The guy who sucks at painting will almost never win. That is an extreme example.

I think there is a place for paint scores. It should be only used for a best painted award or best appearance.

What is over all Over all is over all painting playing total victory point sportsmanship if there is any. Best general is victory points.

I agree with Scooter, even though he needs to learn to use periods.

If you don't include painting in the "overall" category, then you might as well just have a best painting and best general. What would be in overall if not painting? sportsmanship? what a joke.

This topic never going to end and it's probably best that we all agree to disagree.

Man some people would just be SCREWED if GW went back to the "No bare metal, must show paint progress" on models used in the store wouldn't they?

if that happened i would just play at games and stuff, but wait i do that any way

Quote :

If you don't include painting in the "overall" category, then you might as well just have a best painting and best general. What would be in overall if not painting? sportsmanship? what a joke.

sounds like my suggestion from last week that got no traction. I fail to see why we can't all get along except that Brent feels bad for not painting.

Brent wrote:

if that happened i would just play at games and stuff, but wait i do that any way

You left...sorry totally missed that

Quote :

Brent wrote:
if that happened i would just play at games and stuff, but wait i do that any way


You left...sorry totally missed that

Ouch man you guys are on fire today

not my fault the bunker suck theses days

I heart the bunker.

I agree with gramps agree to disagree but its funny like I said complaining isnt going to change anything anyways

Brent wrote:

not my fault the bunker suck theses days

The place you play at (be it the bunker or GCS) is what you make of it. As there are still people there to play and BS with then it still fills my gaming needs. I don't have to agree with or support how certain people are behaving.

Personally I find it conventient that the bunker has tables with terrain ready at all times

and they are nice tables, and they have things to hold your stuff on the edges and it does not smell like cat pee, and its easier to drive too

ok i'll give you that the buckets are nice, but G&S is 10 mins from my house The bunker is like 15, and i like matt and ed, the most important thing i look for in a place like a game store or comic shop is staff i like

I have no problems with painting requirements at tournaments. People that complain about them because they don't want to paint are normally lazy. I have 6+ armies and only 1 1/2 are painted, so I know lazy. My friend has 3 kids under 5 and he has his 2000 point 40K army painted and based. Yeah it might not be the best looking, but he put the effort to get it ready.

People need to at least put some effort in working on their army. The game is a HOBBY. That includes everything. I know painting can seem intimidating sometimes but you get so much more into your army when you start to paint it. Thank god we have TLOS because if we did't people would be bitching about having to pay money for glue and why can't they just field their boyz as 30 empty bases.

People also forgot that the Inner Circle use to have a requirement for admittance. You use to have at least 1 fully painted 40K/WFB/LoTR army to join. Your Inner Circle logo on your shirt would even have different colors for that number of painted armies.

People also forgot that the Inner Circle use to have a requirement for admittance. You use to have at least 1 fully painted 40K/WFB/LoTR army to join. Your Inner Circle logo on your shirt would even have different colors for that number of painted armies.

Hmm, maybe it's time to get some pure grey shirts with the logo. You could give them to the winners of the non-painted tourney).

thats an idea we are going to start selling tshirts soon

yeah I was saying we need some sweet ones!!! With a knigt on them for the inner circle do it

No one is discriminating against people who don't like to paint or don't have painted armies, because the decision to paint or not to paint is yours.

Many of the best lists in the game require expensive units ( money wise). Are the players who can't afford those models being discriminated against because they may not be able to compete? Nope.

And please, no one take offense at this, but I've been to other gaming communities/clubs that have complained about Inner Circle players showing up with unpainted armies. As pointed out, the shirt used to have a symbol based on painted armies, now, it seems that does not play into the reputation of the club.

keith gatchalian wrote:

And please, no one take offense at this, but I've been to other gaming communities/clubs that have complained about Inner Circle players showing up with unpainted armies. As pointed out, the shirt used to have a symbol based on painted armies, now, it seems that does not play into the reputation of the club.

I take offense to that, if they complain again forward them to me and i'll send them a tampon

keith gatchalian wrote:

No one is discriminating against people who don't like to paint or don't have painted armies, because the decision to paint or not to paint is yours.

Many of the best lists in the game require expensive units ( money wise). Are the players who can't afford those models being discriminated against because they may not be able to compete? Nope.

if i have to paint them to play them in an event it is not my choice to paint, you didn't think very hard about that before you typed it did you

It is your choice to paint or not to paint. Thus it is not discrimination.

Maybe you should play some of the pre-paint games out there...I hear AT-43 is fun.

keith gatchalian wrote:

It is your choice to paint or not to paint. Thus it is not discrimination.

Maybe you should play some of the pre-paint games out there...I hear AT-43 is fun.

if i can't play it if i don't paint it the choice is being denied to me,this isn't physics

Most tournaments require you to play with GW figures. If I want to play using Star Wars stormtroopers, or pennies, to represent my Space Marines, and they tell me no, am I being discriminated against???

A black person and a white person apply for a job. The black person is better qualified, but is not hired. He is discriminated against because of his skin color. He has no choice in the matter.

You do. You choose not to paint your models. Thus, it is not discrimination.

keith gatchalian wrote:

Most tournaments require you to play with GW figures. If I want to play using Star Wars stormtroopers, or pennies, to represent my Space Marines, and they tell me no, am I being discriminated against???

A black person and a white person apply for a job. The black person is better qualified, but is not hired. He is discriminated against because of his skin color. He has no choice in the matter.

You do. You choose not to paint your models. Thus, it is not discrimination.

Most tournaments require you to play with GW figures. If I want to play using Star Wars stormtroopers, or pennies, to represent my Space Marines, and they tell me no, am I being discriminated against???

proxy games don't work to much confusion is generated

A black person and a white person apply for a job. The black person is better qualified, but is not hired. He is discriminated against because of his skin color. He has no choice in the matter.

You do. You choose not to paint your models. Thus, it is not discrimination

dis·crim·i·na·tion   [dih-skrim-uh-ney-shuhn] Show IPA
–noun
1.
an act or instance of discriminating.
2.
treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction in favor of or against, a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing belongs rather than on individual merit: racial and religious intolerance and discrimination.
3.
the power of making fine distinctions; discriminating judgment: She chose the colors with great discrimination.
4.
Archaic. something that serves to differentiate.

discrimination doesn't have to be racial, you can discriminate against any group of people whether that group is filled with people that are in that group by choice or birth you choose to have a religion but you still call it religious discrimination, your logic is completely fallacious

Brent wrote:

keith gatchalian wrote:

Most tournaments require you to play with GW figures. If I want to play using Star Wars stormtroopers, or pennies, to represent my Space Marines, and they tell me no, am I being discriminated against???

A black person and a white person apply for a job. The black person is better qualified, but is not hired. He is discriminated against because of his skin color. He has no choice in the matter.

You do. You choose not to paint your models. Thus, it is not discrimination.

Most tournaments require you to play with GW figures. If I want to play using Star Wars stormtroopers, or pennies, to represent my Space Marines, and they tell me no, am I being discriminated against???

proxy games don't work to much confusion is generated

A black person and a white person apply for a job. The black person is better qualified, but is not hired. He is discriminated against because of his skin color. He has no choice in the matter.

You do. You choose not to paint your models. Thus, it is not discrimination

dis·crim·i·na·tion   [dih-skrim-uh-ney-shuhn] Show IPA
–noun
1.
an act or instance of discriminating.
2.
treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction in favor of or against, a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing belongs rather than on individual merit: racial and religious intolerance and discrimination.
3.
the power of making fine distinctions; discriminating judgment: She chose the colors with great discrimination.
4.
Archaic. something that serves to differentiate.

discrimination doesn't have to be racial, you can discriminate against any group of people whether that group is filled with people that are in that group by choice or birth you choose to have a religion but you still call it religious discrimination, your logic is completely fallacious

Again, You are not being discriminated against because you have a choice. Same as the person with religious views.

There are plenty of places in life where you can't do something because of rules. If someone chooses not to study and get good grades and prepare for the Sat, and they get denied entry to a college, are they being discriminated against? No, because they chose not to prepare. If someone has no athletic ability and chooses not to work out and practice, and does not get picked for a team, are they being discriminated against? No, because they chose not to work out. Those places put requirements for entry, and if a tournament puts a requirement on entry, so be it. YOU have the choice to fufill those requirements or not, but it is not discrimination.

Not really. Notice the part where it says "rather than merit". We can use your definition of discrimination to sum up the arguement.


There's one main point of contention here:

-You feel painting has no merit in tournaments, thus a decision to exclude you from some tournaments or be given a poor painting score in others, is a form of discrimination.
-Other people feel painting does have merit, and thus you aren't being discriminated against, just found lacking in merit.

In the end, it's the people setting up and running the tournaments that will make the decisions as to what type of scoring system they want to have. If they decide that there is merit in a painting score, then you have the choice to attend or not attend, paint or not paint.

You get points for running your own tournament. You lose points for continueing to whine about being discriminated against. Can't have it both ways when you are doing the same thing. It's a bit hypocritical to run a tournament that excludes people with only painted armies, yet scream discrimination. I'd suggest you just go ahead and run that type of tournament on a regular basis, but quit whining about other formats. If yours is successful, that means there are at least some people that think your right.