Jump to content

Painted Army Opinions


Gus Landt
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 23
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

I thought the paint rules were changed so that people who enjoy playing but don't enjoy painting could participate in the tournaments. Yes, I prefer to have a painted army and playing against one is fun too but I'd rather see more people playing even if it does mean bare pewter on the table.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

my opinion is that a painting mandate would be fine if the scenarios were posted several months in advance. But, since the typical window of announcement for the last 4 years has usually been less than 3 weeks, I would not think it appropriate for such a thing.

Agreed, if there was plenty of advance notice I would fully support painting requirements.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm a painter that games a little and have no problems with unpainted armies. Contrary to the old school belief that painting and gaming are two facets of the same hobby. They aren't, which is evident by the popularity of PPMs. IMO it just pushes people away from the game to require painting. In an era of PPMs and relaxed paint rules a mandate only make other games that don't look that much better. A game by definition is an activity engaged in for fun. Let's just keep it fun, for those who can't or don't paint too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does it not somewhat detract from your own enjoyment when you face an entire pewter horde?

 

Just wondering. Not trying to start a fight , just saying there two sides to that argument.

 

Never. IMO the only time paint should be required is for BL demo armies... because they are the official face of the company.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As someone that pays to have his armies painted and strives to have fully painted forces whenever possible, I still *hate* the idea of requirements that an army for a tournament must be painted (or even have x number of colors). It smacks of elitism, and frankly is not the kind of attitude I expect from Reaper (unlike some other companies out there that shall remain nameless). If someone out there can beat the pants off of me in a tournament game, what the heck difference does it make whether or not their army is painted? If they play well, they play well. I love playing with and against fully painted armies (on gorgeous terrain is an extra bonus!), but my ability to enjoy a game of Warlord will never be solely dependant on it.

 

I am entirely in favor, however, of subtle encouragements for people to bring painted armies in the form of awards for having a fully painted army (perhaps that would be something that would earn you an extra copy of the special WL mini mentioned earlier in the thread), special "best painted" awards, a free equipment upgrade of some kind (similar to what kyaakone suggested with a free luck stone), a bonus Victory Point added to your overall score for the tournament, etc.

 

~v

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Shakandra just said pretty much exactly what my opinion is, so I'll just say ditto on what he said. Of course, don't be surprised if I have a tower built to give a way for the best painted army........

 

Facing armies with huge numbers of proxies does annoy me, because I can't remember what everything is. I would suggest that since this is a fairly serious event, anybody using proxies should be required to provide a list to his opponent showing what each proxie model represents.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Never. IMO the only time paint should be required is for BL demo armies... because they are the official face of the company.

While painted demo armies is certainly desirable and should be encouraged, making that a requirement would mean that fewer people would become BLs (or take longer to do so).

 

Also, making that requirement would limit the army options that a BL could present for demos.

 

Ron

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I love to play and paint only out of necessity. It takes me a long time to get my minis painted, since I don't really enjoy it. I do enjoy more playing against painted armies, even poorly painted ones, than bare metal. Therefore, I make an effort to get them painted as soon as possible. However, getting more people playing the game without discouraging them with painting requirements, is more important to me.

 

That being said, time to get going on modeling and painted my first Warlord faction :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am entirely in favor, however, of subtle encouragements for people to bring painted armies in the form of awards for having a fully painted army (perhaps that would be something that would earn you an extra copy of the special WL mini mentioned earlier in the thread), special "best painted" awards, a free equipment upgrade of some kind (similar to what kyaakone suggested with a free luck stone), a bonus Victory Point added to your overall score for the tournament, etc.

Agreed. Use a carrot not a stick.

 

Just don't make the reward too great/lopsided that it's hopeless for an unpainted army. 1 free re-roll would be sufficient to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I only bring painted minis to my BL demos cause I want them to look good. However in friendly games I'll bring whatever I want with only a small preference for it being painted. An old buddy of mine played what I called the "overlord ghost legion" cause all his stuff was primed white(spooky).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...