Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
wildbill

Painted Armies for Tournaments

Recommended Posts

Paint or no paint. The eternal debate right? Well the fact is that miniature painting and miniature gaming are two completely separate hobbies independant of each other. It's true.

 

Someone can go their entire life painting miniatures without ever gaming with one and the opposite can be said as well. Requiring someone to have a painted army or they can't play in tournaments is like requiring someone who only paints to play the games or they can't enter into painting contests. Could you imagine telling Derek Schubert or Anne Foerster that they aren't allowed to enter their painted figures because they didn't play a game with them first? It just doesn't make sense since they are two separate and distinct hobbies.

 

Painted models look better than bare metal most of the time and they also improve the atmosphere of the battle tremendously. What they don't do is offer a tactical advantage or make someone a better player. Since tournaments are there for players to pit their skills against each other, not their paint jobs, painted armies just aren't required. I'd be more interested in a "best sportmanship" award than a "best painted" award. Want to win an award for your painted force? Enter it into a painting competition. Want to win victory in a tournament? Play well.

 

Joshua

 

[EDIT] Looks like my point of view was expressed a tad earlier than I hit post lol [EDIT]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Like Wyrmgear, I'm of two minds. I like playing with and against fully painted (non-proxied or appropriately proxied) armies, but I don't think painting should stop someone from playing.

 

The best solution IMO, would be for tourney organizers to offer up some sort of incentive for fully painted armies that doesn't actually affect the tourney results and is awarded to ALL participants with painted armies.

 

This is probably going to be different for each tourney and organizer. Where a tourney has an entry fee and repeats on a regular basis, an organizer could offer up free entry to the next tourney for painted armies. Some place like Reaper could offer up a special mini or other freebie.

 

Bottom line - I'd ask all my tourney opponents to please bring painted armies, but I won't hold it against you if you don't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If I were told that I *had* to bring a painted army to play a tournament, I would totally proxy one of my painted factions for the faction I wanted to play for that con. In fact, I'd proxy stuff from as many factions as I could just to prove the point that playing against a fully painted list isn't all it's cracked up to be. It would be an ugly mess, but it'd be legal.

 

~v

 

It's probably a good thing I'm not a judge for any of your tournaments. I'd probably have to DQ you for poor sportsmanship.

And I consider forcing people to bring painted armies to be elitist. So while you see it as poor sportsmanship, I see it as sticking up for what I believe in: that every player, regardless of painting ability, available time, or financial means, should have the opportunity to compete in a tournament with a fair chance. Requiring painted armies or awarding points that impact the results of the tournament are arbitrary rules that are not part of the game and deny that opportunity to some.

 

If people want to be a snob and only play against painted armies, that's their business, but IMO, that is what I think is poor sportsmanship. Enjoy your hobby the way you like, but don't try to force your way on others. There is no "one true path".

 

~v

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I love putting the minis together and modding them. I love playing the game, building lists, and coming up with odd combination of strategy to use on the table. I love fielding and playing against painted miniatures. I hate painting them.

 

It takes me forever to paint a single model and I'm hardly ever in the mood to actually do it.

 

If any tournament ever required a painted army to play, I would have to pass. The tournaments that offer rewards for painted armies or best painted miniature usually get me motivated enough to paint a troop or a monster usually.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In fact, I'd proxy stuff from as many factions as I could just to prove the point that playing against a fully painted list isn't all it's cracked up to be. It would be an ugly mess, but it'd be legal.

 

~v

And I consider forcing people to bring painted armies to be elitist.

 

Forcing people? I've said I'm not interested in playing in a tournament with or against unpainted armies. I would be unhappy if I were to show up to a tournament to play ghost armies without warning. It violates a basic social contract of miniatures gaming. My decision not to participate does not cause any obligation to you or to an organizer.

 

When I run a tournament (for any game system) at a convention, I require painted armies; this is advertised. Again, this does not force anything upon you or any other potential participant. Don't like it? Don't play.

 

So while you see it as poor sportsmanship, I see it as sticking up for what I believe in: that every player, regardless of painting ability, available time, or financial means, should have the opportunity to compete in a tournament with a fair chance. Requiring painted armies or awarding points that impact the results of the tournament are arbitrary rules that are not part of the game and deny that opportunity to some.

 

Following the letter of the rules in such a way as to intentionally damage the play experience of another participant, which is what you promised to do in the post to which I responded, is the definition of poor sportsmanship.

 

Complain to the organizer or refuse to participate because you don't like the rules? Fine; your business and none of mine.

 

Intentionally damage the experiience of other participants because you feel insulted that somebody disagrees with you? Childish and petty.

 

If people want to be a snob and only play against painted armies, that's their business, but IMO, that is what I think is poor sportsmanship. Enjoy your hobby the way you like, but don't try to force your way on others. There is no "one true path".

 

~v

 

Finally, note that my first post was a response to a request for opinions. My opinion is not the same as the OP. It seems that you (and others) have a problem with that.

 

Oh, well. I suspect I'll survive.dry.gif

 

It looks like you are willing to try to force others not to run competitions in a way that you dislike. As somebody said, "Enjoy your hobby the way you like, but don't try to force your way on others. There is no "one true path"."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kind of a moot debate, don't you think? It's already been established there are no paint requirements. Now what I want to know is how many extra points I get for dressing like my Warlord?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since it was my post that started all of this I'll throw in my 2 cents.

 

1. I am a firm believer that paint should never be required.

 

2. I do believe in rewarding those that do paint their army (to a level other than purple with pink splotches) because they are going beyond what is required to try and enhance the game experience. Whether this is points, some in game benefit, a bottle of paint, a free mini or an announcement at the end saying, best painted army was... All of that is debatable.

 

3. I think it greatly enhances the game experience when both armies are fully painted. Sure sometimes its easier to tell what proxies are if they are not painted. But then I'm also not a big fan of proxies that do not look at least similar to what you are bringing.

 

4. I've run fully proxied armies before, but part of running a proxied army is to ensure your opponent can easily understand what you have and how it runs. Failure to do that is also bad sportsmanship.

 

5. Did I still have a good time playing at RCon, absolutely. Would I play again knowing I'll probably face 3 bare metal armies, sure. Will I play with a bare metal army? Absolutely not.

 

So that is where I stand on this. But actually if you noticed in the original post, it wasn't about me, it was about you, the guy with the unpainted army. I've always found a tournament with a 'painting gets you a benefit,' always gets me motivated to paint. My army faction is done, and it will be a couple years before I buy another and try to paint it. Its about getting you motivated to paint your army. ;)

 

Oh, and a couple mistakes I noticed that I want to clarify.

1. GW does not require painted armies at all their events. 'Ard Boyz does not and that is the only major tourneys they are running in the US this year. Though their older GT's did require paint.

 

2. 90% of Indy GT's that run GW games do not require a painted army. But usually break down awards by: Painted, General and Sports. Then the best combined of the 3 wins overall. But a completely unpainted army still had equal chances to win Best General or Best Sport as a painted army does. There are more parts to the hobby besides just who moves their mini's the best and rolls the highest dice. That is just one part of the overall hobby. Though it is the most important, IMO. What was given out at RCon was a best general award, and really since it's not done with a swiss system, but is just 3 random opponents, luck has more to do the with who won than anything else. Unless they changed up how they did the pairings from what I was told it was going to be. I know my 2nd and 3rd round opponents didn't have nearly the points I did.

 

3. And finally painted armies do have an advantage already, since everyone knows a well painted unit will always kick butt on a non-painted equal strength unit.

 

Have fun

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Warwick: None. But I'll give you some cheesecake. :;):

 

Doug: Let me clarify that the bulk of my post was not directed at you, though you seem to have taken it that way. Only the first two sentences directly apply to the quoted material. My apologies for not being more clear in that regard.

 

But let's be clear here; I'm not trying to impose my rules on anyone. And I'm not quite sure how you interpret my bringing a motley (but legally based) painted proxy army to a tournament as something that is meant to "intentionally damage the play experience of another participant"... unless, of course, you mean that it is intentionally damaging to a person who gets upset because their opponent's painted army doesn't meet their standards.blink.gif

 

I do not support the imposition of arbitraty rules on the appearance of a player's army that has no bearing on the function of the game. I do support anything that encourages players to bring painted armies but that does not impact the actual game. As Joshua stated earlier, there are two distinct hobbies involved here. When they are combined, that's great, but neither should be a prerequisite of the other.

 

~v

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unpainted armies are not a big deal, really, but since I am here . . .

 

When I game my priorities are:

 

1. Give my opponent a good game.

 

2. Field a cool looking army for him/her to enjoy trying to kill.

 

3. Win the game.

 

Bringing a painted army adds not only to aesthetics, but adds to the overall experience of gaming. If I just wanted to game, I could stay home and fire up the PC. For me, gaming is about the experience. Gaming is about laughing and having fun. If you beat me, you suck. Or you cheated.

 

Gaming is a way to meet people that I would never otherwise talk to, like a drummer or a scrap metal dealer; a physics professor or a maintenance guy; an computer programmer or an unemployed dude; a college student or a guy like Gus.

 

Richard asked me before our convention game why I painted Pumpkin Horrors to represent Crypt Bats. I told him because the Warlord Crypt Bats look just like Gargoyles, which I also have in my army. He also liked the Warlord females in various states of undress that I painted up to use as Chattel and Summoned Minions.

 

It is fun to look at other people's painted stuff. I enjoy it, anyway. And people seem to enjoy looking at my painted stuff. Just adds another dimension to an already cool experience.

 

And why not have painted figures? There are a dozen places you can mail them off to and get them painted up for $3-4 each. Or just mount them, spray them white, wash them with brown ink, and add a few highlight colors. Or mow your painter-friend's yard a few times this summer in exchange for painted figs.

 

I can see gaming with unfinished figues while developing an army. But at Reapercon where you have a year to prepare, there is no reason to show up with bare metal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But at Reapercon where you have a year to prepare, there is no reason to show up with bare metal.

Perhaps not for you, Dan, the painting machine that you are. I, on the other hand, paint painfully slow (and painfully is an apt description - there are times when I cannot hold a brush to paint due to pain in my hands). I happily pay others to paint my figures for me, but there are 2 problems with that. One, times have been tough lately, so there hasn't always been a lot of free cash to throw at having comission work done, regardless of price. Two, time is a factor - some commission painters are faster than others, but no matter who you use, having a full list painted by someone else takes time - time to prep, time to assmble, time to paint, and time to ship each direction.

 

And all of that assumes that I know what I want to play for a tournament long in advance. You can call it indecisiveness if you like; I prefer to think of it as I enjoy the game so much, I want to play practically everything. This means that not only do I have a large quantity of figures in my army, I have a large quantity of armies. This only compounds my two previous points (time and money) for getting everything painted. I probably add a couple hundred painted miniatures to my collection each year, but that barely makes a dent in my Warlord collection when an individual army is over 100 figures.

 

All that said, I love to use my painted stuff as much as I can. I love to see painted armies on both sides of the table. Your pumpkin army was a hoot, and as your opponent, I appreciated the effort you put in to it. But what I remember more about our game last year was the intense battle that we had. The paint on our figures had nothing to do with that...

 

~v

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I played against an almost completely unpainted army. The only thing I asked was a way to identify their warlord since killing the warlord was part of the victory conditions and it wasn't clear based on the figures. I get confused easily.

 

If someone is putting on a tournament and the decide that only painted armies can enter, that's their prerogative. If you read the rules, bring an unpainted army, and are told you can't play then it's your own fault for not following the rules.

 

Not everyone who plays paints. Remember that and move on.

 

I still don't agree with victory points for painted armies. Award, yes. That's recognition for the work. But don't punish the other player who doesn't have a painted army.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would hardly say that you have a year to paint your army. The scenario's come out 2 weeks ahead of time and I'm sure that I'm not the only one that bought figures at Reaper Con that I wanted to put into my army at the last minute.

 

I think it's unfortunate that you would require a painted army at your events Doug, just because you are closing the door on people that may be new to game, can't afford the paints, or just don't like that part of the hobby. I think the only reason people are disagreeing with your points is because your rules would ban them from your events; which I think we can all agree would suck.

 

One thing I have gotten from this debate, I will try to pair painted armies with other painted armies in tournaments. It seems that if you can paint you enjoy facing other painted armies, perhaps more so than the bare metal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Guys, guys, please! I am not kicking you out of bed for eating crackers!

 

I do not - and never have - supported restricting players based on anything.

 

I thoroughly enjoy Warlord no matter what is painted. Just voicing my opinion and 'druthers.

 

And Vince, I wish you were as indecisive on the gaming table . . .

 

Guys like Vince are what makes the experience great. Nice guy. Sharp as they come and can bake a wicked cheesecake. Shares my passion for the game. All smiles then kicks your butt.

 

Marie's the same way. All friendly. "Oh, I'm new at this." Five minutes later your army is split in half by Bear-riding Dwarves.

 

Doug grins, asks about the family, makes sure you have met everyone in the room, then gives his goatee a stroke or two and transforms into a Blood-swilling Nightmare.

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...