Editorial: The Real Ugly Side of 40k

the-ugly-truth-40k

Tastytaste returns to let us know something is rotten in the current 40K community.

An editorial by TastyTaste

In a time long past, a war was waged in Warhammer 40k over the quaint idea of soft scores. Soft Scores if you remember, were these things where the winners of events were determined more than just battlefield prowess, but included was how nice you were, and most importantly how well you painted or paid models to be painted. In the first Warhammer 40k age the community mostly sided with having soft scores, as Games Workshop was firmly supported the majority of large events. As time slowly moved forward, the voices of the Internet grew stronger across the hobby, soft scores came under assault, as competitive play started to dominate the game in the age of 4th-5th edition. Those who supported soft scores were drowned out by the growing competitive player and soon most events limited soft scores to special awards. The timing was perfect, not only were more players competitively inclined, but Games Workshop removed itself all together from decision making process.

GamesWorkshop_1

GW loves to see painted minis!

Even the soft scoreless Ard’ Boyz was dropped from Games Workshop event program. Oddly, battles continued to rage as new lines were drawn between Battle Point scoring and a more Swiss style system, but by then the old soft scores were mostly defeated. Today we see a competitive scene devoting the biggest prizes to best general awards and even if the largest prize goes to some other metric, the adulation still goes to one who won the most games. In the beginning, after the defeat of soft scores; things didn’t seem all to bad, systems were in place to remove bad players, and most events required some minimal paint requirement.

 

In a world where Games Workshop would only release new armies every 4-6 months, players were able to keep up with necessary painting duties. Then something changed, Games Workshop began a rapid release schedule which saw monthly releases of new rules and new models. Competitive players had no choice, but to adjust, in doing so they decided to stop painting or at the very least care less about it. The rush to get three colors on a model no matter how terrible it looked was good enough, especially when list building changed daily.

Then Games Workshop decided to open up the army constructing rules, bringing more and more armies together, especially ones that don’t aesthetically match each other. The advent of Allies, lead competitive players to create more and more exotic lists using multiple sources. The end result is a hodgepodge of armies cobbled together by primer and spray paint.

gscult-hybrid-paint

How hard is it these days – with the new GW paint line?

Games Workshop inadvertently opened the gates to piss poor looking armies, empowering players who care least about painting to care even less. Worse, players who do care about painting feel trapped unable to keep up with the best, slowly drifting away from competitive play. Sprinkle in players with money to spend on commissioned painting and every tournament game looks like whodunit painting mystery.

No better illustration could be seen at the Las Vegas Open 2017 where you saw the bad, ugly, and very few good. The amount of borrowed, eBay, and mismatched armies was disheartening. Seeing the poorly converted Renegade armies, putty Brimstones, and the mismatch Riptide parade made me almost weep. Then you walked over to the Age of Sigmar event, where the majority of the armies were lovingly cared for. It was amazing seeing awesome looking armies everywhere, especially in contrast to the tables a few steps away.

bols-dp-1830

Looking good Age of Sigmar!

It turns out the Age of Sigmar event had some smoke and mirrors to it, as Games Workshop help tilt the scales. Once Games Workshop took over the rules and award judging things changed. The biggest change was Games Workshop demanded certain paint standards, this actually scared a few people away. Games Workshop also had many awards to help promote the hobby portion of the game. It also didn’t hurt, even though you can mix and match armies just like Warhammer 40k in Age of Sigmar, for the most part the rules benefit armies who stick together within certain keywords.

The ugliness of Warhammer 40k is currently experiencing will only be fixed by Games Workshop, leaving it to competitive players won’t do anything. Games Workshop through rules, releases, and some sort of enforcement can only change behaviors. As it is, even for someone like myself who thinks soft scores are subjective non-sense can see the community grows faster if the game doesn’t look poopy.

~What do you think can be done to increase the visual quality of 40K in organized play?

Read More at Blood of Kittens

  • piglette

    Am I ugly?

    • Dan

      No Piglette, you are beautiful on the inside.

      • Xodis

        Was I supposed to read this in Poo’s voice, because I totally read that in Poo’s voice lol

      • euansmith

        Mmmm… bacon… Oh, sorry, my mind wandered there a bit.

        • cudgel

          Not kosher, euansmith, not kosher at all…..

  • Roughneck

    Very well written artcile, in fact the best I’ve seen on here in sometime.

  • jeff white

    score armies as a collection from the range of gw and fw and maybe others across the generations of releases integrating into coherent force around a theme with strong rpg elements and scalability up and down, especially down into something that 40k very much needs, a necromunda style character rich experience tracking system that feeds army choices farther up the points scale, i.e. your warboss destroys a tank, gets a special skill tankhunter that adds one heavy support slot in standard cad.
    if gw just built the frame then people would fall into line with it, and subjective aint so subjective anymore, comprende?

  • wibbling

    Gamers whose only interest is in winning games are idiots who should replace the miniatures with tokens, or just compare spreadsheets. Not bothering to care about your army, it’s background or character, to play to it’s character is just pointless.

    • totally agree, the fluff is what makes GW stand out

    • DJ860

      Whilst I might agree with you in my personal feelings, you can’t tell people how to play the game. It’s up to the tournament organisers to set the boundaries, the players just have to play within them.

      • ZeeLobby

        Ah, but wibbling CAN tell you how to play your game. he does it all the time on here :D.

        • Karru

          Must be new here! We should introduce him to Wibbling, one of our most famous trolls! There are many more like him here, but he is by far the rudest! Enjoy your stay! 😀

          • ZeeLobby

            Something would be missing without him though 😀

          • euansmith

            Wibbling may be scary; but he manages to communicate his point, so I’m glad of his company for that. BoLS would be a poorer place without Wibbling and Randy Randleman.

          • vlad78

            even if just for the laugh

        • Drpx
      • crcovar

        TOs can absolutely tell people how to play the game. Local groups and clubs do as well.

    • Brandon Rutter

      “Lets just put these 2 lists in the Ommnissiah Battle Matrix..beep boop…and we have a winner at 52.13%! Way to craft a list, sir” Now that I would watch. Ugh, I actually volunteered to paint some of the armies(or units I should say) at my local store after the storm of grey that was our last tourney.

      • euansmith

        If only GW had something like the OBM to work out their points for Codices.

        • I know the community had a few fan comps running off of something like this for AOS before the GHB became a thing 😉

    • Zingbaby

      You’ve just described the joke that is “competitive 40k”.

    • Painjunky

      People who demand everyone play the game like they do are idiots who need to get a life.
      Seriously why do you care so much about how others have fun?

      I’m a gamer first not a friggin artist.

  • Mandragola

    I agree with this. I consider myself a competitive player but I do like painting. I recently won a best painted army award at a tournament, essentially be default. Hardly anyone else had put any real effort into painting at all.

    It definitely makes an event less good if people haven’t bothered with the appearance of their armies. At the point where people are splashing on the bare minimum 3 colours it often looks worse than the bare plastic.

    • Charon

      The problem with this is I see pictures of casual armies in a lot of facebook groups and most people are just really really bad at paining. I have seen monstrosities that actally screm “strip me clean I look better in plastic!”
      This is an issue in general and only gets worse the better the minis get and the more details they get.
      Painting your 50 IG soliders? Thats pretty quick and even looks good with 3 colors and a few minor details.
      Do the same to 50 Genestealers? Takes way longer, will look bad if you do not get into details and is the same points range.
      All my armies are fully painted and I have no backlog. All my armies which can ally share a common theme so they look good together and seperate.

      Now I am the only one in our casual player group with a painted army. I am not the only one at events.
      I would not blame tournaments here. The amount of not or badly painted armies exceeds the amount of well painted armies by far.
      Tournaments highlight this as there is a certain “urge” to get all the new cool, but it is not different than everywhere else.
      People do not have time, skill and passion to paint. Hell I even know people who hate BUILDING the models.

      The only thing articles like these promote is “if you can not paint and dedicate your entire free time, stay away from the game”

      • Aezeal

        I like building. I like spraying the army in a color. Being a sylvaneth player I can even easily use both brown and dark green sprayin for some easy but (in my opinion) good lookin g color change from brown to green. Those things I get done right away after assembly. Painting more just goes slowly or me. I like doing a large mod er l once in a while, but it’s slow and oing rank n file really isn’t my thing. Currently about 60% of my army is painted (to the top of my ability… not great but I think most would find it acceptable seeing it on the other side of the table. The rest has had the grown green spray treatment and we pons painted bronze and eyes bright green. From a distance you can hardly see the difference I think. Green /brown with accents of bronze and bright green.

        I’M really mostly I not the game for gameplay and I think that should be my choice.. my time is limited. Our group is small and since most other have beautiful armies I try to keep a minimum painting level (which is easier for my sylvaneth in comparison to the woodelves I had).

        • euansmith

          Without spray cans and washes my minis would probably be grey plastic 😉

      • NagaBaboon

        I’m sorry but I think I can normally tell the difference between rushed/botched/cobbled together from multiple ebay purchases and someone who is still learning how to paint.

        Besides that it’s irrelevant, Veteran players are more likely to win the game becasue of experience in the same way that veteran hobbyists are more likely to win painting comps.

        • Charon

          Who cares why it is ugly? At the end it is ugly. My eye does not care for the reason why.

          • NagaBaboon

            Well of course not. Your eye is an eye, which isn’t capable of caring. You my friend are thinking of brains, the other squishy thing in your head which is attached to your eye. Most people can use their brains for subjective reasoning, apparently not all people though. Interesting to know.

          • Charon

            While other use it to be judgemental aholes obviously.
            If something tastes foul, it tastes foul no matter the reasoning.
            So either it is ok to have fugly armies or it is not. The “it is ok but only if you somehow manage to prove me that this is the best of your abilities” is just beeing an ahole with superiority complex.

          • NagaBaboon

            Haha, you realise of course you are being at least as judgemental as me so that’s just the pot calling the kettle black.

            Look the whole taste analogy sounds very clever but a) taste and vision are totally different senses that work in totally different ways and b) taste is subjective anyway so something one person doesn’t like someone else might you plum.

          • Charon

            No because I do not care if it is ugly. Because I understand that a lot of people have no passion/time/skill painting.
            I do not sit myself down and call some peoples ugly minis out because I judge that they didnt put much efford in.
            If it is ugly, it is ugly. Thats about it. I dont write an article that people with ugly minis must be terrible and dont understand the hobby and I do not make posting how about ugly minis from a certain crowd are worse than ugly minis from another crowd.

          • euansmith

            Charon cares not from where the Ugly flows, only that it does! 😉

          • cudgel

            “Trollsign, the likes of which I have never seen!”

  • Matt

    Minimum standards should be enforced. Give preferred enemy or hatred (both?) against all sub standard armies. Just be careful to not scare aware fresh recruits or the non Artists that still love the game. As is true for most things in life the best answer is somewhere the middle.

    • kingcobra668

      Sure would suck to try, but just not be that great, and be labeled substandard and thus have special rules given to your opponent. I’m a good painter, but also been doing it for two and a half decades. I didn’t start this good.

      • Matt

        You missed the point. By minimum standards I mean 3 color minimum. I’m not a good painter, just a paint by numbers tabletop standard type of painter. Anybody can do that, it just takes the time commitment to crank it out. What I hate to see is obvious airbrushing that just got the 3 color minimum by priming one color and a quick spray of two other colors with tons of bleed over. That’s a kick in the teeth when I stayed up late for a month working to get mine done and they receive no penalty. If I can get it done with shading and highlights, even if not top quality, then anyone can. It’s disrespectful to the game and your opponent to show up with poor quality miniatures. It’s like a wrestler not making his weigh-in. Respect the game and your opponents enough to show up prepared.

        • Aezeal

          You can still ruin models with 3 colors…

          • Matt

            That’s why they are soft scores. Again, I’m against 3 color that is just 3 color to get it on the table but no effort has been applied at all. You can use a rubric where no one is caught off guard.

          • Aezeal

            Yeah I know… I’m against soft scores in the end.. and I support a minimum paint job.. but I think you can see the difference between min 3 colors being plastered on or just a terrible paint job but by someone who tried. (the latter should be condoned.. the former should just not be allowed in the tourney)

          • Matt

            Good in theory. Never have seen a terrible paint job kicked out though. The person paid and TO doesn’t want to kill future events. Having a competitive disadvantage discourages without killing your event.

      • Me

        Wow… Three hundred and twenty five years is a very long time to be a model painter! ;P

  • snakechisler

    Non of this stops competitions insisting on minimum standards and a hobby / paint score. The ITC comp circuit can’t even be bothered to move with the GW times and do Mealstrom. Points for single codex faction as well

  • School’s League has bonus points for fully painted armies, textured bases, having your codex and awards given for the fluffiness of your choices.

    • kingcobra668

      “having your codex”
      Just physical or also digital?

  • Jabberwokk

    *Sounds of baby crying*
    I’m not as good as other people!

    *Sounds of baby crying*
    What do you mean they are genuinely better at the game then I am?
    *Sounds of baby crying*
    There NOT better! It’s just there net list!
    *Sounds of baby crying*
    Why can’t they recognize meeeeeeeee?
    *Sounds of baby crying*

    Deal.

    If you don’t like the types of list people are playing why don’t you petition GW to Balance there Damn Game? Why don’t you tell them to create tight and objective rules?

    The real fact of the matter is they HAVE BEEN CATERING TO YOU SODS. And you still aren’t satisfied. Full new collection of paints including a revamp on how to identify what the paints do. Completely new models released at breakneck speed with the best sculpts in the business. A photography magazine to showcase the models and the paints. Dozens of detachments to create *fluffy* and *themes* armies packed with lore.

    The supposed “WAAC” players (See: ‘anyone who puts effort into his game more than me’) Had there events canceled, there complaints mocked by both GW and you “softcores”, and the rules went from over the top bad to out of this world insane as if written at the particular whims of the authors personal fancy and what mood he was in that day. The “Hardcores” were so maligned they had one of there own, a dude that goes by ‘Reecius’ created, organized, and ran his own event to make a space for the “Net-listers” to exist. It’s Called the LVO. Which unless something has changed recently HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH GW IN ANY OFFICIAL CAPACITY. Therefore it has nothing to so with 40K and everything to do with you.

    I knew what this article was going to be about before I even clicked and was not disappointed.This is nothing more than a pompous hit piece against people who make the author feel inadequate. Now go play with your war dollies.

    • An article about our multidisciplinary hobby losing one of their legs, and gets this comment.

      God. Welcome to BOLS.

      • Jabberwokk

        Then DO something about it instead of whining constantly or petitioning GW to do something about. You know like Reecius did. Hell no you won’t, instead you will flock to a Wargaming website with articles written that confirm your worldview and assume some high ground like crows on carrion.

        Ya got nuttin

        • Karru

          There is quite the difference between whining and genuinely trying to make the game better for more people, not only in terms of gameplay but looks as well.

          Tournament scene these days looks like a collection of children playing when it comes to looks of the armies in 40k. Unpainted or “minimal” paint jobs, unbased, very badly done “count-as” armies and cheap “replacement” models litter the view. The current scene basically just breeds this A-hole attitude that you are currently showing.

          You say that these people are “better” because they spent more time to play the game. Well, what if I told you that’s not the problem? What if I told you that the issue is with their lack of doing anything at all regarding the other aspects of the hobby?

          I personally have a hard time enjoying a game of 40k, or any other miniature game for that matter, against an opponent that doesn’t paint his models. As long as my opponent has AT LEAST tried to paint them, I have nothing against him. The fact that most of the people that play with unpainted armies do it purely due to the way the scene now works. They play with their broken army until another one comes, sells their old one and moves on to the next one.

          This attitude is precisely what I would like to see disappear. These people believe that the game is only a game and nothing more. It is similar to MTG for example, the army you play is just another deck you would build. You go to a tournament, play with it and then leave it. This makes for a very, very toxic person. When they don’t realise that this game is meant to be MORE than just a game, instead it is supposed to be a hobby, then they become a problem that should be fixed.

          • Jabberwokk

            The biggest, most massive problem, is you and the article are taking your subjective view on look as well as human behavior and are appealing to a governing body(in this case GW directly) to correct it. No where in human history has this ever worked, in fact has often if not always created irreconcilable division. You. Can. Not. Legislate. Human. Behavior. And that is exactly what was suggested as a solution: ” Games Workshop through rules, releases, and some sort of enforcement can only change behaviors.” His words not mine.

            And yes these people are “Better” but next time please represent my full position which is “better at the game”. To many times people conflate being in every way measurable superior at one thing and equating it to superiority in value as a human being over the other. As far as the ‘problem’ it’s your problem not ours, in fact I’d go as far as to say ‘what probelm?’. Guys like Reecius (I am presuming here based off his actions) created events such as the LVO to see who was the best and have a good time doing it. I don’t see how you or author of the article can be taken seriously because he isn’t solving a problem he never set out to solve. In short I find it irrational to take serious the accusation that someone else isn’t solving your subjective issue.

            As for as you not enjoying the game I can relate. the rules are so wonky, pish-posh, and broken I found the game to be unplayable. I quit. If they ever fixed the rules that guy who buys flavor of the mouth armies you talked about is going to be out a job as power games rely on broken imbalances to make up for lack of talent.

            There’s a saying that ‘what you win people with is what you win people too’. I was won to 40k with a game and therefore won to a game. You may have been won with a hobby and hence why you and I will differ here. It was through the game that I got into the hobby but it will always be a game to me primarily with the extra things like painting secondarily. Attitude doesn’t factor for me because if i don’t like his attitude I can just beat him and watch him rage. Other people attitude is not a quantity I can control but how I play the game is. If I could I would be God.

            Now let’s talk solutions:

            -Hold an event where your rewarded for model appearances
            -Keep the competitive competitive. building credibility in your event over time will make people more open to hear you message.
            -Make sure the guidelines are clear and easily understood
            -recognize what looks good is entirely subjective
            -have in game stat bonus’s for armies that have paint jobs (i.e. Camouflage bonus, something that makes sense)
            -don’t penalize players who don’t just reward people who do
            -Have a ‘golden demon esque’ style contest
            -Have a compelling reward for the general who has the best played army and the best looking

            I know there would be problems, in fact i thought of a few as I wrote all that but it’s a start.

          • Karru

            Most likely the point of this article, as well as mine, was what you pointed out at the end.

            Once GW starts getting into the tournament scene more once again, they can start making guidelines for people to follow. One of them can be once again to make painted armies “better” than not painted. If one comes with an unpainted army, they are not penalized. One does not lose points or get any other “sanctions” because of it.

            Now if one does paint their army, they get can earn more points within the tournament, giving them a better shot at winning it. They can also be given some extra rules that benefit them. The idea is to encourage, not enforce, people to paint their armies more. Balance things out a bit more and understand that there are other aspects to the hobby and not just playing.

            I believe that there is not a single person that plays 40k, or any other miniature game, that would rather play or face a wall of grey than a fully painted army. It makes the game better for both sides and it should be encouraged.

          • Jabberwokk

            The point of the article was something didn’t measure up to the author’s subjective standard and want’s GW to assume authority and legislate policy. An Example of the LVO was brought up of the LVO which I’m pretty sure has nothing to do with GW as it hosts more than Just 40k (but it is the biggest). The suggestion that we need to make someone’s subjective whim’s enforced objectively is demagoguery to the tee.

            A better way would be present you case and find ways of encouraging people to engage in it that does not resort to force of governance would have been a much better strategy in my opinion.

            It basically says: I don’t like what your doing and i think we should force you to do it my way.

            I prefer: I think my way is best and I am willing to compete and risk loss with anyone to find out if my way is best or not.

          • Parthis

            At this point, you’re a guy ranting to be right, because he started the discourse believing himself to be right.

            And let’s not be mistaken here; you are ranting.

            Everything you’ve written is countered by the existence of 30K. The 30K community has “better” gamers, hobbyists, Tournaments, painting competitions and more. There’s a level of effort, even amongst the “bad” painters to ensure that the setting, the hobby and the experience of others is enjoyable for all.

            You point to someone like Reecius because he “solved” the problem by making his own tournament for people who only game. Well, no, actually. Events like the LVO, initiatives like ITC and WAAC gamers are the root cause of the bad trends you’re seeing in the game side of this hobby.

            Who buys the latest broken codices? Power gamers. Who buys the web-only formations? Power gamers. Who mass-buys armies? Power gamers.

            The rest of us build an army out of love for the hobby. We build the armies we like, using the models we think are cool, and we put them on the table, throw dice and play games for fun. Sometimes in private, sometimes in tournaments.

            A “better” gamer will still be a “better” gamer even if they put some effort into the appearance of their hobby.

            This is a multi-faceted hobby; respecting all sides of it is what makes a community a community. Isolating yourselves into your own little WAAC-pit is the reason you forget it, and the reason you post the kind of nonsense you do.

          • Jabberwokk

            It isn’t a rant because you say it is. It is an argument with a premise and supporting arguments. but let’s say I’m wrong. you have responded to said rant with one of your own so therefore it’s fine.

            If my points are countered by the existing of another game then the points of the author can be countered by the existence of another game. If I’m wrong because of 30k then your wrong becuase of 30k. You said it yourself: “The 30K community has “better” gamers, hobbyists, Tournaments, painting
            competitions and more. There’s a level of effort, even amongst the “bad”
            painters to ensure that the setting, the hobby and the experience of
            others is enjoyable for all.” See the author can go play 30k.

            Not the same? I agree. I think we you can concede that’s a bad argument.

            I disagree that the causes of the issues you described are do to the existence of LVO but in the neglect by GW to create tight and objective rules for 40k. LVO simply is the arena in which games are played and not just one’s made by GW. And if i can have a great Warmachine or dropzone tournament with none of the problems you described then the issue can’t be LVO. The issue is intrinsic to 40k and that rests at the feet of GW. Balance the game and watch those WAAC players and power gamers disappear. mind you the good player will still be good players and will probably see new and diverse strategies emerge because of it. power gamers feed of the imbalances of a game to increase there chances of victory, the more broken the mechanic, the more power gamers become prevalent.

            Who sell’s the codices? Who creates the formations? Who writes the rules for the armies he’s buying? GW in all cases. You need to take that ‘chess piece’ back and realize you were beaten 5 moves ago.

            And I’m happy you build you armies out of love but not everyone expresses love the same way you do. For some love is in the creating and executing of a plan, the challenge of conquering, the risk of loss. I don’t expect you to change your expression but recognize that turnabout’s fair play. Don’t try to change them either.

            And I’m not sure how you can conclude that “WAAC” players are isolating themselves as there are hundred that go to these tournaments. However a non waac player responded to me in this very thread saying he plays in his basement so there that.

            For reference
            “BTW, we never go to tournaments, we don’t even play at our local game
            store, so you won’t see people like me complaining at any event you’re
            at. I’m happy to be home building and painting almost more than I am
            actually playing.”
            by poster Garrett Alain Colas

          • Parthis

            Rant
            VERB
            Speak or shout at length in an angry, impassioned way.

            You’re ranting, you’ve done nothing but, desperately trying to reinforce your point of view to anyone who may think differently to you. It’s cute.

            Everything you’ve written is misplaced. Literally everything. Dropzone has WAAC players. Warmahordes absolutely does. Malifaux does, too, a game system i’m heavily into. Pointing at other games and applying different labels in no way validates your point. 30K? Same game system. The difference; the attitude of the people taking part. 40K has never been balanced. It’s human nature to want to compete. Thankfully you have Reecius, saviour of something that’s never actually existed.

            Secondly; GW writes *consumable* rules and codices. You buy them. So they write them. And then you buy them again. And they write more. Those online only formations? Imagine if you and your ilk resisted; they’d be a dead concept. Oh, and chess? You think you’re playing chess now? When you reach for overly elaborate, deliberately challenging language, you prove people right. Your attitude is appalling.

            “I’m not sure how you can conclude that “WAAC” players are isolating themselves as there are hundred that go to these tournaments.”

            Hundred eh? You guys must be buying models by the truck load to keep GW going. Or, put another way, we all fund this collective hobby. You point to a tournament of a couple of hundred players; i’ll just take a moment to highlight the hundreds of thousands of players, painters, builders and role-players that are not part of, catered for or represented by your inward looking, ranty group of man-children.

          • Jabberwokk

            Well if you want to pull definitions so be it.

            Since im typing and your reading I can’t be, by definition, ranting.

            And if I am so are you so again moot point.

            You’re the one who put forth the premise that because 30k exists it invalidated my point (as if to say because this game has good rules 40k doesn’t need them)and then in the same paragraph said it had all the things you wanted(painting or what have you) in it. Fine. If it does then it also invalidates your point as well (because 30k has higher hobby-centric standards 40k doesn’t need them)because it has everything in it you need not worry about 40k. Go play 30k.

            Yes of course all games have players that want to win at all costs. In the context you use the term I’ll just say that because no game is perfect something will be better than others. The difference is if we take Warmachine for example they have repeatedly taken steps to fix the games “boogeymen” to level the field. In the last two months they have directly addressed and explained there reasoning for these changes, unlike GW, and all aspects of the game have benefited because of it. LVO wasn’t the cause of it. PP missed some rules interactions that allowed things like 413 boxes of Khador jack spam to faceroll to the top. They have since corrected it and what do you know it stopped. Magic I tell you.

            Until you can understand the premise that “the more imbalanced the system it the more prevalent power gaming will be” then you and I will never agree. My solution is for GW to own up to it’s failing and balance there game. Hobbyists stand to gain as there work can be showcased more often and garner attraction to there corner of the overall experience. Your solution is to force compliance of what you feel is acceptable by way of a governing body in this case GW despite the fact that events like LVO(which you blame for the problem of bad attitude) have nothing to do with GW other than the hos a tournament along side multiple other games. It’s like having Germany try enforce German policy on all North American citizens. Which still doesn’t solve the problem. In short: I want voluntary change you want mandatory compliance.

            Also “Consumable” rules? Is this coming from you or the latest mental gymnastics GW has come out with? Fascinating. And “ilk” won’t resist. My ilk make our own events that end up defining the genre and give you and your wonderful people(also good looking) something to whine about on BolS. Oh and my apologies, my chess example might have been to nuanced. In chess a game can be determined a head of time by the moves made. So in this example your directing blame to the purchaser about who buys this and that and such and in my view that’s just the last move. I am trying to direct you to “5 moves before” in which you follow the money back further than you have. Hope that clears it up.

            Finally you end up defeating yourself in that last bit. Me and my “ilk” are either isolationists or were in a group. which is it? Also Challenge accepted:

            https://www.frontlinegaming.org/2016/01/21/the-las-vegas-open-2016-approaches/

            second picture. Also 330+ attendance claimed for 40k alone.

            Side note: seems not very isolationy to me.

          • Parthis

            Oh man, I don’t even know where to begin with this madness. You wrote so much stupid even the server rolled it’s eyes and flatlined.

            You’re trying too hard.

            “It’s like having Germany try enforce German policy on all North American citizens.”

            Nope.

            “I want voluntary change you want mandatory compliance.”

            Nope. Re-read. I’ve never said what I wanted, let alone ‘mandatory compliance’.

            “Oh and my apologies, my chess example might have been to nuanced”

            Nope. Given that you have no control over your homophones (google it) I’d hardly call your ‘example’ (it’s not an example btw) nuanced.

            “My ilk make our own events that end up defining the genre and give you and your wonderful people(also good looking) something to whine about on BolS.”

            Who’s whining? I’m happy with the game. You’re the one who has quit, called people babies, started fights and used deliberately testy language.

            Companies do not produce products that consumers won’t buy. If you buy Broken Formation X, they will go on to produce Broken Formation Y and Z. Because that’s how it works.

            “Me and my “ilk” are either isolationists or were in a group. which is it? ”

            Not mutually exclusive, a group can be isolationist in nature; communes, race groups, religious groups, even whole countries. The UK’s recent Brexit vote can be seen in an isolationist way.

            You see? Again, you’re trying too hard.

            “Side note: seems not very isolationy to me.”

            Side note: isolationy is not a word.

          • Jabberwokk

            Sigh a field of straw men and hopefully no deliberate misrepresentation. Time for the reaping.

            So the crux of the issue is in a quote which you failed to acknowledge but I will directly quote again.

            ” Games Workshop through rules, releases, and some sort of enforcement can only change behaviors.”

            that is a direct appeal to authority by the author’s subjective view on what boils down to beauty standards that he personally doesn’t like. His solution is authoritative. Much like that of a child beseeching his parents. Because he can’t solve the problem himself. Like a baby.

            The problem with this is GW has neither the authority nor the power to enforce this standard over tournaments that they have no part in such as LVO. There are many games beside 40k at these types of events so the idea that it’s the players themselves being the boogeyman because they don’t always have painted models up to the author’s standards and by extension your standards is absolute demagoguery. Furthermore isn’t it interesting that the article starts off saying there’s a problem with the game but by the end he is saying that it can’t leave the solution (to a problem the author himself created) to the competitive scene. So then his issue isn’t with the game but by some of those who play it. And instead of dealing with it those people he dismisses so easily he wants to straight to Daddy GW. That is a child’s solution.

            So yes if you agree with he author than you do want mandatory compliance and if you don’t, what solutions do you suggest?

            As for as the other things you mentioned I have to ask: do you make any attempt to understand other people or is it to easy to succumb to the temptation of labeling people and then dismissing them? I don’t. I’ve engaged every person who responded to my thread. One word dismissive statements does not a counter argument make. So on that note:

            As for as the Chess example, it is in fact an example comparing the moves in chess to the moves of the one who purchases. one you clearly don’t get(or don’t want to get). You followed the money but then stopped (the final move)before you got to the source(5 moves ago). Why? The explanation you gave makes it sound like your blaming the purchaser for buying a product and then using it. Which seems a silly thing to be mad over to me. As it relates to the power gamer charged with the offense of buying powerful formations to increase his chances of winning, IF the product were balanced and not broken you leg sweep the power gamer and solve the very problem you have with it. Why is this not a viable and encouraged solution as opposed to trying to forcibly legislate behavior? one of these quantities is controllable and the other is not.

            On the charge of whining I’m saddened that a once great pass has become such a joke. I played 3 editions over 10 years before I realized things were not going to change but only decay. Admittedly recent changes in management and the re inclusion of social media as well as moving along with the story will hopefully lead 40k back to the prominence it once enjoyed. So I moved on and found that there were other places that were more inclusive and welcoming of my viewpoint and goals than the echo chamber 40k had become. Again it is changing but I remain skeptical. I’m quite content in other games but no one I know truly wants 40k to fail. It’s like an old favorite sports team.

            Last one. I would argue that you may be conflating isolationist with exclusivity. Or maybe I am. Britain remaining for Britons makes them exclusively British so i don”t see that as a bad thing. There still apart of the global community and there still doing business with other countries. If I buy a cup of coffee I would not like to have it partially full of chocolate milkshake. I enjoy both but a different times and for different reasons. In the same way I enjoy the game to be exclusively competitive and the hobby exclusively a hobby. And yes “Isolationy” isn’t a word. But I gather your a smart lad and knew what I was saying was demi-mocking and jovial because I proved that there were ‘hundred’s, provided evidence and I await your promised response on your boast.

          • Garrett Alain Colas

            Don’t use my words out of context. I said that to show that they SHOULD change the tournament rules so that people like me will take part.

            IF the rules were changed, I would go. But people like you make me not want to go. You are the problem.

            Honestly, I don’t want them to change the tournament you’re specifically talking about, I’d like them to make a completely separate tournament, so that we can all be happy. (And also so I don’t have to play against you and what I imagine to be a poorly painted army, feel free to post some pics of your army if it’s well painted, I’d love to be proven wrong on that.)

          • Jabberwokk

            Well your in good luck cause I haven’t been there in years for the same reason. The rules are terrible. Glad we agree on that.

            I’m not sure how it’s out of context when the context was WAAC player’s are isolationist when I can site an example of someone who practice a form of Isolationism. Albeit you have a few friends but you must admit that’s far more isolationist if the contrast is going to a tournament with random strangers some of which you might not like.

            No?

        • Garrett Alain Colas

          I do something about it every weekend.

          My buddies and I have narrative escalation campaigns and we challenge each other to be fully painted each week. We have a big 1500 point game coming up, so we’ll be finishing up a lot of painting.

          You’re the dude who, despite having a tournament designed for your style of play, denigrates people with a different style of play.

          You have nothing to complain about, yet you’re complaining about others complaining…

          BTW, we never go to tournaments, we don’t even play at our local game store, so you won’t see people like me complaining at any event you’re at. I’m happy to be home building and painting almost more than I am actually playing.

          • Jabberwokk

            Then 1) thank you for backing your view up with action. I can respect that.

            2) yes the tournament would not exist had we relied on GW to do it for us. people have denigrated us/me before during and after. The author’s solution to what i consider a non problem was to appeal to GW to interfere and try to enforce his subjective standards. yeah I have a problem with that.

            3) This isn’t a complaint. I solved my problem by moving on. secondly and moreover the tournament community solved it’s problem by building several events to fill the void. It is however a spirited critique on the author and those who would sympathize with his subjective nonsense.

            4) If your happy at home why care what’s going at the tournaments? Your happy at home. Good for you.

          • Garrett Alain Colas

            My problem is that no one really offers a structured, narrative-campaign oriented tournament scene. So even if I wanted to go to a tournament, there are no options for the type of playstyle I prefer. That’s all I’m trying to say here, and that’s sort of what this article was about.

            You sort of are complaining, Multiple tournaments unaffiliated with GW have sprung up for competitive play. Why don’t you let GW go back to giving the people who enjoy painting and fluff an opportunity to enjoy their hobby? You’ll still have your competitive tournaments, no one wants to take that away from you.

          • Jabberwokk

            Well I can at least half agree with you here.

            I’m totally for options. Just don’t try, as the article suggested ” Games Workshop through rules, releases, and some sort of enforcement can only change behaviors.”. Let’s keep the structure of the argument and put the shoe on the other foot.

            “The srubbishness of Warhammer 40k is currently experiencing will only be
            fixed by Games Workshop, leaving it to softcore hobbiest won’t do
            anything. Games Workshop through rules, releases, and some sort of
            enforcement can only change behaviors. As it is, even for someone like
            myself who thinks hardcores are WAAC non-sense can see the
            community grows faster if the game doesn’t cater to casuals.

            Would you be ok with this? If not why not?

        • Zingbaby

          Reecius spent several years just whining constantly and spreading negativity in the community. Only when he realized it was hurting HIS wallet did he start to make a ‘positive’ change. You got less than nuttin.

          • Jabberwokk

            I see a man who made a business, a marketable product, and at least two large and well attended events. I’d say I got several demonstrable and empirically verifiable reasons to see things the way I do.

            No sir you are the vacuous one here.

          • Zingbaby

            His “marketable product” is conceived, created and marketed by Games Workshop.

            He does run events, and I know that’s not easy, but it’s also his choice to do so.

            What are your “several demonstrable and empirically verifiable reasons”? …what a joke, are you just listing the big words you know?

          • Jabberwokk

            F.A.T. mats are marketed by GW? I better tell Privateer Press who endorsed them.

            Checkmate GG

          • Zingbaby

            TableWar. And they’ve since parted ways with Frontline and already begun to politely distance themselves.

            Reeces didn’t create Privateer Press products either.

            Checkmate.

          • Jabberwokk

            Reecius was instrumental in there creation and distribution. That’s still more than anything you have done. Distancing themselves is conjecture unless you have evidence to the contrary. And Even if true has nothing to do with the fact that Reecius has done more to solve the problem he say then anything your posts on BoLS has done.

            When I said “F.A.T. mats are marketed by GW? I better tell Privateer Press who endorsed them.” I was refering to http://privateerpress.com/press-releases/privateer-press-partners-with-frontline-gaming-and-tablewar-for-warmachine-and-hordes

            Please note the title “Frontline Gaming and Table War”

            But by all means keep reaching. You must really hate how he’s is infinitely more successful than you in what he does than you in what you do. Which is nothing really.

          • Keith Wilson

            This is a tad petty and does not serve your argument … “You must really hate how he’s is infinitely more successful than you in
            what he does than you in what you do. Which is nothing really.”

          • Jabberwokk

            Guilty your honor.

            Oh it 1000% is but on this one individual I know my audience.

            If Zingbaby is interested in playing nice in the sandbox so am I.

            Hell I’ll even apologize.

            But I am not a doormat.

          • Zingbaby

            You are straight talking out of your butt regarding FAT mats. For the record I own one too. I’ll even give you the LVO.

            As for Reecisu solving problems versus my BOLS ‘comment’ lol, well ok – I hadn’t realized my comments here were supposed to solve problems. Which problems are your whines solving?

            I love the part where Reecsiu is “infinitely more successful than” [me] – HAH professionally? – Not an F’n chance in your bizarro WAAC hell buddy lol.

            It’s funny how you started your rant about people crying like babies and that’s all you’ve done over this entire thread. And it’s more funny that the WAAC tards are always the biggest cry babies on the internet as well.

          • Jabberwokk

            Projection much?

            Your wrong when you said that I could not prove data and even concede to owning one the products his business helped create. I did. You also admitted to LVO and by extension BAO and his business as well.

            Your wrong because I said he is more successful in what he does than you do. I doubt that’s a stretch. I am willing to concede the point provided you can site how his as well as frontline gaming’s impact in the gaming community is less than your impact on w/e community you ascribe too.

            Your wrong about me crying. I simply have an opinion backed by supporting arguments *Zero* people have refuted. But I understand It’s not one you share so you can’t see it and therefore it must be crying. It sure beats having to confront it.

            Your wrong about WAAC players. Our issues have been solved by either the creation of things like LVO or jumping to better games with better rules. Personally I voted with my wallet. Where as your solution I assume aligns with the author’s where you need to appeal to authority to have your way. Like a child to a parent. Because you can’t solve your own problems. Like a baby.

          • Zingbaby

            And what about your “several demonstrable and empirically verifiable reasons”?

          • Jabberwokk

            I have a F.A.T. mat. let me show it to you.

            LVO exists. BAO exits. Frontline Gaming exists.

            All of which are demonstrable and empirically verifiable.

      • Charon

        It never WAS a leg in the first place. A leg is something to stand on, all parts on the hobby have always been optional – legs are not. You can be a painter and never play, you can be a builder and never play or paint and you can be a player and never paint.
        You can even pay paint and build without reading a single BL book.

        As a matter of fact there are way more unpainted or badly painted armies out there than decently painted ones. Dont let your personal filter bubbles could your judgement here.
        I see people talking about their unpainted or backlogs of minatures and next week they post about another 5 boxes they just bought.
        A lot of people do not like paining, hate painting, do not care about painting or are even intimidated by the details.

    • kingcobra668

      Oh the irony

      • Jabberwokk

        By all means explain.

        Or do you think your dismissive two word comment amounts to an actual counter argument?

        • ZeeLobby

          Welcome to BOLS, lol.

          • Aezeal

            Don’t be to hard on yourself Zee 🙂

          • ZeeLobby

            Eh. I just have little respect for people who don’t join the conversation and leave one liners. I always respond.

          • Drpx

            Mobile phone makes you want to just troll.

          • ZeeLobby

            Eh. I’d chalk it up to really not having any valid or logical response to support their biased opinion. People don’t discuss much more these days. It’s mostly one liners and they feel they’ve proven their point. Mostly because of the anonymity veil the internet provides.

    • Zingbaby

      “There NOT better! It’s just there net list!” …you mean _They’re_ NOT better! It’s just _their_ net list!”.

      All of your baby tears must have blurred your vision. And it’s funny because the WAACtards are always the biggest and whiniest babies online.

    • Pyrrhus of Epirus

      you dont even seem to know what a WAAC player is bro. I dont think anybody calls somebody else whack because that person has put more effort into the hobby than “me”. A WAAC player frankly is mostly about attitude, and i can tell by this post what branch of the tree you come from.

      • Jabberwokk

        Can you? You don’t know nothing about me but I’ll forgive that. I’ve met and played with people who can be considered WAAC and people who are legit amazing who are called WAAC. The term WAAC is simply a socially acceptable derogatory term thrown at people by other people who try to explain away their own perceived failures. Once upon a time it meant Win At All Costs but now is tantamount to labeling someone a cheater.

        And let me clear something up. I’m saying they put more effort into the game than you not the hobby. A Golden Demon level Painter put fair more effort into his hobby than the winner of LVO. The Winner at LVO put massively more time and effort into the game than that painter.

        As for attitude as I explained earlier that’s not something I have control over. My strategy for for dealing with it is beat the guy and move on. Your appear to be whining about him in hope he shuts up. My solution tends to get your desired result.

        • Pyrrhus of Epirus

          Your agressive posting style (all caps is obnoxious), and your arrogance through multiple posts the entire story. I could point by point dissect your second post but really, i dont give a crap what some WAAC loser thinks.

          • Jabberwokk

            I have an aggressive style yes which last I checked was neither immoral nor illegal. All you have is a no so thinly veiled ad hominem, a supposition of superiority, and a jab at my family. Can I get fries with that?

          • Zingbaby

            Jabberwokk – comes here to complain about babies crying. Cries like baby over entire thread.

            Being a jerk is absolutely legal – doesn’t mean you aren’t one when you act like one.

          • Jabberwokk

            I don’t see what is gained by engaging nicely with people who habitually and routinely demonize the other side. Anyone who disagrees with you is a WAAC-tard. Your words, not mine. You in particular have a history of such comments so if those are the rules are and it’s ok to call people that then turnabout’s fair play.

            The difference between my side of the coin and yours is that I want voluntary change and you want mandatory compliance. Your plan to achieve that is to appeal to authority to enforce change. Like a child to a parent. Because you can’t solve your own problems. So like a baby.

            You see I’m not mis-characterizing this at all. Can you say the same?

  • Grand_Master_Raziel

    I’ve been critical of the Allies rules for aesthetic reasons since they were first released. It’s not the only reason I’ve been critical of them, but it’s one of them. It’s a solid argument for doing away with them.

    • ZeeLobby

      I’m all for this. There should at least be some serious handicap

    • Aezeal

      No its not. Just use the same colors on both the armies. Fluff olor schemes are a menace. If I run ultramarines or spacewolves next to my black/purple darkeldar they are black and purple too and lore be damned.

  • Aezeal

    Personally I think soft scores should not be in the rating. However I stony support a certain minimum painting level and seperate throphies for the real artists.

  • Darryl Park

    One of the reasons my local scene abolished sportsmanship is because it was highly subject to distortion by players who were poor sports. That is, the people who were bad sports would shoot down the sportsmanship scores of the people who actually were good sports. Because the bad sports would lose to a better player or army and feel like the other player was playing a ‘broken army list’. With no way for judges to objectively sort out these kinds of bad eggs, sportsmanship scores were an extremely iffy component of a player’s overall score.

    • Karru

      I understood that this is/was a legit problem. I don’t play in tournaments, since I don’t have any interest in competitive gaming at all, but many of my friends do. There has been multiple cases where a very bad sport would just give a “thumbs down” to their opponent purely because they lost. They literally had no other reason, they just lost and that’s why they gave a negative sportsmanship score to their opponent.

      • No-one Special

        I do believe this problem is solvable, but it would need cooperation from tournaments organisers (already working hard) to commit to a system that would eliminate most of it.
        Some maths could come to the rescue here, with a calculation that modified the number of points awarded by a ratio dictated by how low the person who awarded the points themselves finished by the first step. There’s the issue of scoring having to be done confidentially, so it would be hard to have an immediate effect, by over time this would pay dividends.
        The calculation wouldn’t be easy, i’m sure, but by carefully setting the minimum and maximum scores/ratios, factoring in the players scoring averages, and scoring pattern according to their results, I feel you could eliminate most of the problem with very few anomalies/exceptions.
        The second part of a system would be to keep track of individual players performances across multiple tournaments giving them a carried over sportsmanship base score for the next tournament they play in. I’m sure of a lot record keeping/registration data is already kept and it would just need the tournaments to pool their data. This would ensure individuals guilty of the problem would have their bad behviour follow them, and simple proof of ID would ensure people were who they said they were.
        Any other thoughts, it wouldn’t be easy but i think it would be possible.

      • Darryl Park

        The bad sports are why I don’t enter tournaments at all. Nothing like being forced to play people who are unfun to kill your interest in such things.

    • Yeah its called chipmunking and it was a real issue and is why a lot of TO’s dropped sportsmanship from the scoring.

  • Mark Hearne

    Are their any articles or links to the horror show armies from the LVO?

  • NagaBaboon

    Amen Sister

  • StingrayP226

    Well what gets in my way is I spend a lot of money on these models and want them to look great… just takes forever to do so. I cannot keep up with my escalation league on assembly alone due to my slow speed and real life.

    I have a vision for my army but getting there is tough. I want everything to look great but now I have to accept good enough for some of it, and it saddens me.

    40k increasing in size does not help… especially for new players. Its rough keeping up…

  • Nyyppä

    This is…what? 😀

    The real ugly side of 40k is the fact that some armies can not win against some other armies and are struggling against most of the rest no matter what the mission or game type is.

    • David Leimbach

      Do you mean armies or factions? For armies – of course that’s true. The game allows you to make easy-bad choices. That grot army for instance.
      If you’re not into analyzing the game, your list building will fall under meh-good. Among meh-good armies, any faction can win. Everyone you meet at your local store has a meh-good army.
      Unless! they have a netlist-good army. But again, most if not all factions have netlist-good army lists.
      The problem comes when you take your meh-good army and you lost against someones netlist-good armylist.
      Often what people think are netlist-good armies are not really that good. 5 knight titans are a meh-good army that people often mistake for a netlist-good army.
      This happens also because there are some bad match-ups among meh-good armies. When this happens people like to say 40k is ‘rock-paper-scissors’.
      Anyway, there just are no armies that can’t win. There are only bad matchups, rock-paper-scissors matchups, netlist vs meh matchups, and bad army lists. Avoid these and you’re fine, no matter what faction you take.

      • Nyyppä

        theoretically you are right. The dice can be just so onesided that a bad army/faction can win a good one assuming that both players are roughly as good.
        In practice however we do not make rules out or extremely rare exceptions so in that context you are simply wrong. CSM does not win tournaments, nids do not win tournaments, AM does not win tournaments and so on. This idea of avoiding bad matchups does not work simply because there are whole factions that, if avoiding bad matchups, can never play.

        • David Leimbach

          If you only played against the top 5 tournament winners armies then you might be right. But you don’t. You’re playing your CSM meh-list against other meh-lists and of course CSM can win even with average dice. Tyranids can win in normal matchups.
          Tournament winners have optimized lists against the tournament meta and are the top strategists and the most lucky among those. This is not your average pickup game.
          Just because CSM and nids don’t win tournaments doesn’t mean they can’t win in pickup games. This is proven not true by nid and CSM players that win all the time.

          • Nyyppä

            What is the exact definition of a “meh-list”?

            We are not looking for kitchen table meta here. The faction/army either can or can not win a match and if we can’t specify what a “normal matchup” is we are going to have to assume that the opponent is playing the strongest possible list.

            CSM and Nid tournament lists going against super soft lists from other factions and them ending up as winners once every now and then is hardly proof that they are fine.

  • Pyrrhus of Epirus

    i paint like a 5 year old child, i dont think that should preclude me from going to the LVO. What would take a seasoned painter an hr to make a single space marine to a tabletop standard, i would take upto10 hrs (im not to old but have poor vision). If people dont like the way my army looks, really, i could not care less. My army is not ebayed and slapped together, its equally poorly painted all over and the same colours but its the best i can do.

    If tournaments want to start awarding prizes for best painted and include more soft scores, by all means, but i dont expect the players going to really change what they are doing. The guys going for fun will continue to do so, the guys slapping armies together will still do so, and the guys who are equally good at painting and generaling armies will continue to do so.

  • uatu13

    Maybe some of us don’t like painting, but do like building minis, playing the game, and the universe of 40K. This exclusionary bullcrap is what drives people casually interested in getting into 40K running away. Luckily I live in an area where having fun, socializing, and playing games are more important than some arbitrary standards set by strangers.

    • Iero_The_Hero

      Fair enough for casual play. Tournaments you should at least put in the effort given it is supposed to show case the hobby, Not the general.

      • uatu13

        Painting is just one aspect of this hobby, and not one everyone enjoys, just like playing competitive lists or constructing fluff backstories for your force. I don’t think other people should be telling people the “right way” to have fun with the hobby, and requiring painting only works to alienate a large portion of the players out there. If you want to encourage painting, then run painting competitions with the tournament, and if you want to discourage WWAC players, run events that are narrative or story based, or tournaments that reward balanced lists and sportsmanship.

        • Iero_The_Hero

          Painting is one aspect of the hobby. Tournaments showcase the ENTIRE hobby. Modelling, painting, playing.

          • uatu13

            So should we kick people out of tournaments that aren’t interested in playing competitively or in having back stories and themes for their armies? I don’t think one person has the right to tell someone how to enjoy the hobby, and barring people that don’t like certain aspects is just elitist crap.

  • It is impossible to quantify. So I will just leave my own anecdote. I spent a solid near-decade doing nothing but competitive gaming. I mostly hung out with competitive gamers. I played with competitive gamers. I pretty much only associated with competitive gamers.

    Most of them did not care one iota about the appearance of their army. They were game-first. Most of them were happy to use cardboard tokens for their pieces if they could get away with it.

    Then the professional painting studios became a thing and most of them paid good money to have someone else paint their army.

    However, to this day, most competitive gamers that I personally know aren’t really much into the hobby side or painting side and are more than happy to pay someone else to paint their stuff.

    I prefer that actually that they do that because they at least are giving a passing nod to a good looking army meaning something to them even if they themselves aren’t painting the army.

    However… there are and have always been mismatched armies and hordes of grey plastic from people who have never cared about the visuals of the game and are there only for the game itself and in a competitive environment I find that those players outnumber the ones that do care.

    Switch over to narrative or campaign play and the numbers start to reverse.

    • Jabberwokk

      This was the exact problem i thought of when I was trying to come up with solutions. If I incentivized the player for having his army painted why wouldn’t the tournament pro not just get it down professionally? His goal is the W.

      On the other hand is this a bad thing? Imagine if you could represent the professional via logo or t-shirt at your tournament. Wouldn’t that be beneficial to both parties?

      • Its not a bad thing at all IMO. I don’t care how an army gets painted, only that it be painted. For me, the visuals are key to why I play in the first place.

        Now if there were an actual best painted prize, I’d like to see those go to the people that painted the army themselves.

        • Jabberwokk

          Agreed.

          We should recognize the achievements of the tournament player and the achievements of the Hobbiest. Which I mistakenly thought already happened.

  • Earl Tower

    I still refuse to field an army for even casual games unless it meets a decent level of eye pleasing aesthetics. But I’m an old school player and am more in it for the joy painting and the play of the hobby.

  • 301stFeinminsterArmoured

    Painting should be a separate concern from sportsmanship and general army performance, but, at a bare minimum, we need to encourage players to have armies that look battle-ready, even if all that means is a single-color drybrush, maybe with a detail wash of Nuln Oil. I’d readily accept facing a Monopoly-pawn army over a primer black, or worse, bare plastic, army any day.

  • Keith Wilson

    One of the best articles I have read on this site in months … Kudos!

  • euansmith

    Tournament players and their unpainted armies; what’s the deal with that? http://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/d59f3dfc5d31846101bb79cc1d58ecfb3728bdd7b5bb4e7017ce87af3c3006ec.jpg 🙁

  • SilentPony

    Always remember the dice gods frown upon the unpainted. It offends them, and they will punish you accordingly.

  • Commissar Molotov

    *hates painting*

    *hates playing with unpainted minis even more*

  • I’m all for it! I only play tournaments with painted figures, and—to be honest—I expect my fellow tournament-goers to play with painted figures too.

    I’ve sold miniatures games for over a decade, and I always tell customers that you get into ’em because you like the hobby aspect. If one doesn’t like painting, there’s a plethora of good games out there for non-hobbyists.

  • J Mad

    I dont really agree with some of it, If you want to power game you NEVER will care whole models, how they are painted or even if they look good, power gamers might like to paint, but for tournaments they care about the win over the paint.

    Players that change armies to win tournaments wont paint a full army b.c they enjoy painting or enjoy that army they do it to win.

    A hobbiest playing Eldar wouldnt jump ship to play SM if SM had a super broken turn 1 win list, they would still play Eldar b.c they love eldar.

    When new rules comes out yes some units become better, but to paint 2-3 units up to fit the rest of your army within a 6month period is easy to do.

  • Crablezworth

    I don’t think you need to conflate competitive gaming with low standards. Because I’m competitive but care far more about aesthetics before any other consideration. Soft scores shouldn’t be required, just set painting standards and keep them.

  • 40KstillRulesTheTT

    To play this game the way it should be played, you need to first play one or two games with proxies to see if you wanna buy stuff and what weapon/options to glue (i magnetise but if you don’t wanna do that fine).
    Then apologise before and after the game to your opponent for putting him through the visual horror), then buy the stuff and paint it.
    YOU DO NOT GET TO PLAY UNTIL ITS ALL PAINTED TO TABLETOP+ STANDARD (and i do not mean just 3 colors !!). If you are a paint noob then its ok if it looks like crap, because people will see the effort anyway, believe me.
    And with the new GW paints it’s easy even if u are a noob, after painting 30 models, if u take time to read a few guides online, you’ll be painting ok. The guys who don’t want to bother should just go play something else, honestly, and Xwing is prepainted, warmahorde/machines and all the other wargames have less minis so require less painting time.
    These games are more for you, probably.

  • AX_472

    you cant blame GW for lazy people. Playing with an unpainted army is heresy and there’s no excuse. One of my friends has terrible eyesight but he still painted his nids, It was a giant swarm so a few of us pitched in and set up a production line to help him finish off the box. If you have time and people to play with you have time to paint your models. its no fun to play against grey blobs. I’m surprised to find tournaments even allow it. I would have thought it would lead to a lot of whose model is whose confusion.