Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Gus Landt

Painted Army Opinions

Recommended Posts

While I like to see painted armies , it has never bothered me to play against an unpainted army . My only stipulation is that it should be at least undercoated and not bare metal or lead , health and safety concerns . :poke:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While I like to see painted armies , it has never bothered me to play against an unpainted army . My only stipulation is that it should be at least undercoated and not bare metal or lead , health and safety concerns . :poke:

 

I agree with above. Moreover, the problem with current policy is that players have less incentive to paint.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've got to say that having my own and my opponents armies painted, and playing on terrain that looks the part, really increases the enjoyment of the game.

 

I've also got to say that monochromatic armies can be slightly confusing to fight against. By that I mean that if the whole thing is glistening pewter - or primer black or grey, or white, with no color besides, it's hard to visually tell things apart quickly. Now, obviously it's not really that hard. You can lean forward for a better look and you can tell right then. But compared to an army that has even 2 basic colors, or 3 basic colors, it's a world apart.

 

But I wouldn't want to see it become a rule. Some have no interest in painting, others are lucky to find the time for a game, never mind painting. And I'd rather see those people spend what time and inclination they have on the game itself - playing against other people - then cooped up alone painting.

 

I like the idea of a completely separate award category for fully painted/well painted armies. It ought to have nothing to do with determining who wins a tournament. Pete Storm used to run events and he always had a prize for best painted army on top of the 1st-3rd place prizes for the tournament.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's a 'What If' scenario...

 

What if 2 players were tied for first in a tourney. One player has a painted army while the other player didn't. Would the player with the painted army win over the other or would both get awarded for first place?

 

If you answered one player winning over the other then I think there should be a mandate.

 

If you answered both should win then there shouldn't be a mandate.

 

That's the way I see it anyway... just my 2 cents.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you want the focus on the tournament or the models? Let that be your guide.

 

There are arguments to both sides, but they are all wrong because this argument provokes a different response from everybody, even if only slightly different. And it's all opinion based.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't mind at all if my opponent's army isn't painted. I would support a mandate that the models have to be assembled. Facing an army where none of the horses have riders or where an empty stand is being used in place of the model is confusing & frustrating.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's a 'What If' scenario...

 

What if 2 players were tied for first in a tourney. One player has a painted army while the other player didn't. Would the player with the painted army win over the other or would both get awarded for first place?

 

If you answered one player winning over the other then I think there should be a mandate.

 

If you answered both should win then there shouldn't be a mandate.

 

That's the way I see it anyway... just my 2 cents.

You know, not too long ago I saw a thread on the warmachine forums where this exact situation came up. The guy with the better painted army was awarded the win because all other factors were equal (I do not think that "strength of schedule" was considered, and it ought to have been - but I'm talking about overall wins, victory points...). And you know what? The guy with the better painted army, who was awarded the win based on that impromptu tie breaker, BORROWED his army! Somebody else owned and painted it! Yikes!

 

I see a few things wrong with that situation -

1 - failure to factor in strength of schedule

2 - failure to own up to a borrowed army

3 - failure on the organizer's part to announce ahead of time that painting could be a tie breaker

 

I guess I would be perfectly fine if painting were a factor. I'd want to know ahead of time. I'd prefer if it wasn't because I'd like to play games with the people who are too busy or who are not inclined to paint. It'd be a small, small world for us if only the people who liked painting got to play.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One of my major draws to this game was the lax paint/ proxy rules. I have been wanting to do war gaming for many years but have avoided it because of painting. It intimidates me. To spend real money on this cool model an then muck it up on a bad paint job would crush me. Now I want to have a fully painted army. And I've had a hard time in my recent games where I didn't move a model because I overlooked it. I'll get there eventually on the painting but I wouldn't want to rush it to be able to play in a tourney.

Share this post


Link to post
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.   Paste as plain text instead

  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.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...