Painting Requirements Their Time has Come

All,

I have given this quite a bit of thought and I believe it is time to institute a painting requirement for Club Tourneys. I think this is appropriate in light of the clubs new Hobby Progress Challenge. There has been quite a bit of progress in our HPC and I believe the time is right. Many new members have brought new well painted armies to the game. Even some of our members have dressed up or repainted their older armies.

There are however some who have made very little progress in this area. That may be fine for them but I might suggest that others would appreciate it if they made some progress in the painting area. It adds so much to the game if both armies are in fact painted.

So here is my proposal, ....... designed to reward painting not penalize the non-painter ........

We should add a 4th level objective to all tourneyment games. The objective will be worth 5 points and will be judged by your opponent. The objective simply states. "Objective points (5) awarded if your army is painted to the minimum playable standard of three colors. - Points to be awarded by your oponent."

I hope this proposal generates a lot of discussion.
I look forward to seeing the your reply.
Thank You
Necron ........

Necron wrote:

So here is my proposal, ....... designed to reward painting not penalize the non-painter ........

We should add a 4th level objective to all tourneyment games. The objective will be worth 5 points and will be judged by your opponent. The objective simply states. "Objective points (5) awarded if your army is painted to the minimum playable standard of three colors. - Points to be awarded by your oponent."

I think its a great idea to have rewards for painting as we have a lot of talented painters, although I can't count myself as one of them. I do think it would be great to award a prize on painting, but many players do not paint their own armies, many pay to have them painted or have them painted by others.

Given a tournament is a competition of skill, pitting one player's skill at the game against another, wouldn't it stand to reason that a painting score might be including the skills of others besides the players themselves, including the size of their wallets. What I'm getting at is that as a separate prize, award for painting, but leave the points score of the tournaments themselves up to the objectives.

I understand that many tournaments include a painting score so there is some precedent for painting armies for victory, but I would emphasize it being a small award rather than the overall goal of the tournament. Penalizing a players total score for not painting is a penalization to score as much as awarding better scores to painted armies.

In short, if there was a vote, I would vote to leave paint scores separate from tournament scores. If the club chooses to include paint scores, I would prefer that the judge of painting be simple as suggested by Mr. Dan, rather than having "pro-painted" armies receiving high bonuses in overall score.

Just my thoughts. -Brandon

Edit: As a side item, I'd also suggest having a periodic painting competition, where a new group of models is purchased, painted, and judged by the club on a regular basis to find out who the best painters are, or who can create the best theme or show their off their talent.

I like Dan's thoughts on this topic. the objective idea is a good one. Does anyone else have other ideas?Or do you like old school painting scores?

I for one, think composition in general is important for overall score. Your armies story, theme, paint scheme, and list coherency (how well the list adheres to story) ect. It all builds towards a narrative, which I thoroughly enjoy. Having said that, I have 2 glaring flaws that prevent me from getting a good score in the painting department.

1: I am an AWFUL painter, and I hate doing it lol...
2: I have very little in the way of cash to pay some other poor sod to paint my army...

So, to conclude, I'd love to see painting and story, and all the other stuff that goes toward comp scores included...

I've played in one tournament and will never play in another. I just don't like them. I consider a model that is assembled wysiwyg and spray primed to be complete. If someone is playing a grey plastic army, as long as they are all grey plastic, it is a unified look and okay. Paint requirements simply keep people from playing.

grots life wrote:I've played in one tournament and will never play in another. I just don't like them. I consider a model that is assembled wysiwyg and spray primed to be complete. If someone is playing a grey plastic army, as long as they are all grey plastic, it is a unified look and okay. Paint requirements simply keep people from playing.

+1 Well said sir!
Im not a player who is going to travel far and wide for crazy badass tourneys, instead i count myself lucky to get to go to the events that happen locally. If an event is over-regulated, i can certainly understand why (in the case of the most recent 1850, i think its because they want to get the player base ready for some event in FL or something... ), but having a billion hyper-specific rules does not enhance the narrative, i often find it detracts from the narrative of the game to over-regulate a game. Thats the primary reason Im not going to this week's event. It is too many hoops to jump through just to throw some dice and have some fun! instead, im going to GnG and play some pick up games. I just finished 2 blood angels land raiders, and I want to try them out! They arent painted well, they arent perfectly sculpted, in fact they are foam board and cardboard scratch builds, but they work for me and I enjoy them.

Me and Carl will talk some on this , but I can tell you I want this group to grow more with people. And I can't see by putting a painting requirements on the armies would help that. I am fine having painting completions and maybe awards. But one of the goals I said I would do when I was voted in was to help out our gaming group grow and help more people get into tabletop gaming. And I believe us going this route would hurt new people starting out trying to play. But like I said I will meet with the officers and go from there. But my route is to go with a painting award not a requirement. Sorry if this doesn't make everyone happy, but I am just trying to stick with the goals I said I was going to do for the club this year.

Thanks Hinkel

What about painting classes or groups. Maybe see if anyone wants to set up a painting booth at one of the events .and teach people how to paint.

(SUMMARY)

I have so appreciated each of your comments and through PMs I have told several of the authors that as well. But now it is time for the debate summary and Proof of the original hypothesis. Each of you in your comments and offerings has proven that the time has come for a painting requirement ( Or should I say, recognition of the effort expended on the hobby to paint to some standard each model you play) Each of you has proven my point, whether or not you realize it, and if you will follow this line of thinking, I will show you how you how you have proven this point…

(HYPOTHESIS PROOF)

(GAME)

Allmighty DM …. I could not agree more with your positions:
I think its a great idea to have rewards for painting …. I understand that many tournaments include a painting score so there is some precedent for painting armies for victory, but I would emphasize it being a small award rather than the overall goal of the tournament. Given a tournament is a competition of skill, pitting one player's skill at the game (Hobby) against another,( We need to guard against this) wouldn't it stand to reason that a painting score might be including the skills of others besides the players themselves, including the size of their wallets. A Tourney is the complete expression of the Hobby Just as Fulange has stated …I for one, think composition in general is important for overall score. Your armies story, theme, paint scheme, and list coherency (how well the list adheres to story) ect. It all builds towards a narrative,. He is right, painting is important, it is part of the hobby. Imagine unpainted UltraMarines or worst yet Imagine purple UltraMarines, They would be codex marines not UltraMarines Ffor exactly these reasons we should confine our “painting requirement” to a minimum standard that follows the Hobbies narrative and does not overly reward pro-painted armies. You can recognize the fact that a pro-painted army is in fact painted but, so is the one that the new player puts on the game board with three colors …. Each receives the same level of point recognition. Allmighty, In your last paragraph you agreed with this simple judging premise. I would prefer that the judge of painting be simple as suggested by Mr. Dan, rather than having "pro-painted" armies receiving high bonuses in overall score.

(SET)

Heretic Steve …….. Thanks for the support on this topic. This is especially important coming from one of the Clubs best players and hobby enthusiasts. This never was about a critical judgment on how well someone painted. It was about rewarding the hobby enthusiast as a whole. The fact that models are painted was what is important. Let’s look at the comments of two of our most enthusiastic hobbyists ….Grott and…. fulange…..

Grott ….I've played in one tournament and will never play in another. I just don't like them. I consider a model that is assembled wysiwyg and spray primed to be complete. If someone is playing a grey plastic army, as long as they are all grey plastic, it is a unified look and okay. A man of conviction, and one of our best hobbyist. Simply a great guy and one of the most enjoyable players to share a game with. He does not like Tourney’s (We all know that) however, you see that wysiwyg is important to him (The mark of a true hobby enthusiast) While Grott is lenient with those he plays, he has never failed to make every effort to bring a painted army to the Table. You should see his Tomb Kings. Grott was instrumental in bringing about our Clubs Hobby Progress Challenge. As we all know the HPC is focused on Painting …… Why not reward this effort.

Fulange ….. Here is the best that the Hobby has to offer. (Reminds me of my Rouge Trader Days) Play the Hobby to the fullest….damn the fact that I have no $$$. Been there, seen it, done it ……Remember that in Second Edition in the GW box set Rhinos and Dreadnaughts were cardboard sheets with pictures…. Yes cardboard and pictures form GW…..Funlange goes the extra mile in making his units and then paints them. How can we NOT reward this commitment to the Hobby…im going to GnG and play some pick up games. I just finished 2 blood angels land raiders, and I want to try them out! They aren’t painted well,(But they are painted) they arent perfectly sculpted, in fact they are foam board and cardboard scratch builds, but they work for me and I enjoy them.. This is what it is all about. Reward this effort. Include this recognition in Tourney play and expand our players and club members…

(MATCH)

Hink …….I want this group to grow more with people. And I can't see by putting a painting requirements on the armies would help that (Please consider the following). I am fine having painting completions and maybe awards. But one of the goals I said I would do when I was voted in was to help out our gaming group grow and help more people get into tabletop gaming.

Let us rephrase the discussion…… The term “Painting Requirement” was sort of a setup. Not intentional but as it turns out it helped to start off this way. It has such a negative connotation and everyone assumes that it is a restriction, one that as Grott puts it …Paint requirements simply keep people from playing. ..My proposal has never been about exclusion or keeping people from playing. But rather it is a proposal to include more people and REWARD them for their activities in the full range of all Hobby aspects. Club painting competitions are a great idea…. We should have some…. But this is not a painting competition. It is a proposal to reward the full hobby effort. One that will assure that when a Club member brings a “painted” army to the tourney table, that he will not be score slammed and shut out.

Call it the army bonus objective… Call it the narrative objective; Call it a Rogue Trader objective….. Call it anything you like but recognize the fact that a player made the effort ( bought it, did it themselves, pushed, pulled, or dragged) and brought a “painted” army to the table….

(Truth Justice and the American Way)

Now the truth of the observation ….. There are those players on the Gulf Coast, that sometimes frequent our activities, that buy the latest and greatest, put it together and play a ruthless game of destroy…. They play it unabashedly and with little sportsmanship. They long for the chance to find the newbe and run up their score (The term AH comes to mind). Their play is marked with inaccurate movement, which benefits them as well as inaccurate play and downright cheating. I have seen those who play such armies without a drop of paint and play them for almost a year now …….. While not being exclusive to or restricting these individuals, I would reward others that support the full ranges of our hobby in such a way that shut-outs were a things of the past. This is not a points give-away, our club members that bring “painted” armies to the table earn these points. Those that do not should not be rewarded for practicing in just a narrow aspect of our hobby.

And yes Captn we should have painting classes and club events for making terrain ….. Hell I’ll even buy the paint !!!!!!!!!!

Understood mr Dan , I like the painting bonuses and even best painted army awards. Thanks for the input mr Dan and sorry for the confusion

Id happily teach people how i paint! I'm more than willing to teach and learn more myself let me know if your interested!

i could help out with painting classes too.