Grand Tournament rules ENFORCEMENT.. finally...

[Asandiril]

From the Las Vegas Grand Tournament:

"Unpainted Armies

In the past we’ve rarely come up against the entirely unpainted army and have not had to enforce our published policy. This was quite a difficult one in
Las Vegas as we knew that in addition to spending money on the tournament ticket, the hobbyist who showed up with an unpainted army was also paying for a hotel room for at least three nights. It is tough to turn away anyone who has laid put that much money.

Unfortunately not enforcing the rules as published caused consternation amongst those who had put in plenty of time on their armies, and rightly so.

As a solution we’re proposing this change to the rules: The first time you bring an unpainted army to a GT you will have two choices. The first is to play
with an army we provide and receive only half scores throughout the tournament. The second is to voluntarily leave the event. The second time you bring an unpainted army to a GT you will be turned away, with absolutely no refunds given.

This will mean that those who didn’t read the rules before the event get a very clear message at the show, and will hopefully bring their “A game” to the next Grand Tournament."


Here's hoping there's some trickle-down to local tournaments, eventually... :D

[eldanesh69]

I feel that GW has the right to make and enforce any rules they wish when it comes to a GT or an official RTT. As far as the painting part of the subject a painted army makes the board/battlefield as well as the event look better. However, the real reason behind a wargame tournment is "playing the game competitively" not to see who has the best skill with a paint brush or the most money to have their army professionaly painted. Painting should be a seperate consideration. Whether or not an army is painted should only factor in to a painting prize not the overall winner of a "wargame" tournament. After all, the "Golden Daemon" competition does not include how well the miniatures play on the battlefield. If painting is to be a requirement for an official tournament then the prizes and all the associated accrutrements should be required. Otherwise tournaments should not require fully painted armies or perhaps only give token bonus points(not make it a critical factor to winning) for painted armies. Since we are talking in relation to GW, don't they push the importance sportsmanship and having a good time above all else? Of course this is just one person's opinion and tournament organizers will run their events how they wish. This is why despite my feelings toward the painting component of GW tournaments, I will somehow get a painted army to the table.

[Asandiril]

However, the real reason behind a wargame tournment is "playing the game competitively" not to see who has the best skill with a paint brush or the most money to have their army professionaly painted. Painting should be a seperate consideration. Whether or not an army is painted should only factor in to a painting prize not the overall winner of a "wargame" tournament. After all, the "Golden Daemon" competition does not include how well the miniatures play on the battlefield.
So, if all the tournemant is really about is to be competetive, then why not just show up with the required bases labeled as "Hive Tyrant A" or "Khador Grizzly 'Jack" and push said tokens around the table? Even better, to save money and time, just have card bases of the units ('chits') and 2-D terrain markers, kind of like the stuff for Mage Knight and Mechwarrior: Dark Age! If the model really does not matter at all, just how you would use them, then why waste $$$ on the models?

It's part of the Hobby. It's required by the rules of the Tournament, it's expected of the players. Don't do it? Don't sign up.


If painting is to be a requirement for an official tournament then the prizes and all the associated accrutrements should be required. Otherwise tournaments should not require fully painted armies or perhaps only give token bonus points(not make it a critical factor to winning) for painted armies. Since we are talking in relation to GW, don't they push the importance sportsmanship and having a good time above all else? Of course this is just one person's opinion and tournament organizers will run their events how they wish. This is why despite my feelings toward the painting component of GW tournaments, I will somehow get a painted army to the table.
Sportsmanship is also tied to the painting. If I take the time to paint my army, even just above the "minimum 3 colors" crap so prevalent, base them, and make it LOOK like an army, how do you think I'm going to feel setting up across from Joe Shmoe and his bare-plastic-and-metal-just-bought-and-built-the-night-before army?

You go to a martial arts tournament, you wear a gi, not street clothes or sweats. You go to a golf tournament, you wear appropriate clothing and those spiked shoes, not ripped jeans and hiking boots. You show up to a GW tournament, your figures are painted and based. Simple.

If not, there are PLENTY of other games out there for you to play that either come with pre-painted/printed models OR use alternate forms of units (like the old Squad LEader chits). Warhammer is as much about the MODELS and your skill with them as it is about your skill in winning with them.

Have any doubts? Look to clubs like the 40K Wrecking Crew...

[ColGreeley]

It makes sense. If you are going to spend the money to go to a GT, you should have your army looking the best it can.

[eldanesh69]

Agreed. A GT is the highest competition level for GW. But why should a local event be so dependant on painting to decide a winner? 75% of the people who game will never get near the competitive level of a GT or even a major event. I am not saying painting is not part of the well rounded game/hobby. What I am saying is that maybe the painting should be used as a seperate judging category(to allow those few people with superior skills to compete against each other) and allow the tournament as a whole be decided by the gaming and sportsmanship aspects. As encouragement painting could be used as a bonus not as 25-35% of the overall score(that includes the player voting). What other organized game system has required painting to compete in its tournaments? Seriously maybe GW wants to emphasize painting so that its product line of after market stuff will sell?
Sportsmanship tied in with painting? No disrespect but I could hardly care about how an opponents army looks. Its nice when it looks good but I feel more envious than disrespected. Some people have a gift for painting others have practiced hard to become good. Still others have more money to spend on having a painting service do the work for them. The majority of players can't compete with the above mentioned. If painting was so important to the overall result of a tourney why bother with having a seperate Golden Daemon? Why not just tie it in with the GT?
Having proper equipment and attire is not the same as a painted army. A gi(?) is worn for comfort and ease of movement during martial arts. Golf shoes help with balance and coordination. Painting makes an army look nice. And despite some gamer superstition, painted minis do not survive longer. Having a WYSIWYG army of minis is more along the line of proper attire and equipment.
But despite all the feelings toward the subject of painting, I will follow GW's rules in order to compete in their tourneys even if eventually I have to get someone else to do the painting.
I do believe requiring painted armies is more of a marketing ploy of GW than a method to promote good sportsmanship or better game play. But I am not knocking those players who have the time and ability(even the money!) to paint their armies. My hat is off to them in fact.

[Garaz]

I've been playing GW games for a long time, and there are two things that they have always emphasized and one thing that they don't but is of equal if not greater importance.

The first thing they emphasize is that their games are meant to be played for fun. The second is that the WHFB, WH40K, Battlefleet Gothic, Bloodbowl, Mordheim, Necromunda, etc., etc. games are a hobby with the idea of modeling, assembly, and painting being of great importance to the entire collection of gamers as a whole.

The one thing they like to sweep under the rug is that they are indeed a business and have to promote their products in such a way as to make money. To those of us who are die hard GW gamers, this means that the corporate folks have to do whatever they need to to keep profit coming in. What that means is that models will be redesigned, troop types will be eliminated or made undesireable, painting and modeling will be important parts of tournaments, etc. in order to have us lining up to buy more product. (Not to mention jacked up prices). I've realized all of that for over the nearly two decades that I've been supporting Games Workshop (and other companies) with my hobby monies.

One thing has really happened to change the game board for GW. They actually have serious competition from various fronts. Valiejo (sp?) is producing paints, Warmachine is peeling off market share for the hobbiers, and prepainted games are around in abundance.

So what does that mean for Games Workshop? They have to produce new and interesting armies (Ogres, Tomb Kings, Kislev, Witch Hunters, Daemon Hunters, Necrons, Tau), upgrade and change their existing bread and butter armies across the board (adding new units or making units that they had previously overproduced suddenly very worthwhile...Dwarven Slayers and Longbeards come to mind). Release new games (Mordheim, Inquisitor, etc.) or re-release new versions of old favorites. They have to upgrade their product to make it worth buying (new paint line) and to keep the money rolling in. One final neat trick they use is the WYSIWYG rule...if all the models in your army must conform to EXACTLY what they are said to have equipped, then imaging the pure number of figs you'd need to have flexibility in designing your army! Luckily, even GW has backed off of this to some degree, requiring only 50% of a unit to be so equipped...

But the one thing that hasn't been addressed yet is the level of hobbying that has really taken off over the last ten years. If you can find a White Dwarf from about 100 issues or so ago and look at the Heavy Metal section (the "Pro Pained articles"), you'll see that conversions were almost unheard of. The high art that some figures see nowadays are way beyond even the experts that GW had on staff could paint. They've tried to take measures against it in asking you to state whether you painted the army you've brought to a tournament or not, but they only stop you from winning Players' Choice, not dock you from getting painting points. It is an area that will have to addressed in the (near) future or the professionally bought armyies will completely outmatch in points those brought by gamers (even ones who paint well).

The range of painting skill seen at tournaments is far greater than ever before, partly because of the professionals who are now selling to us (and may not even play). This needs to be accounted for in non-traditional ways. Perhaps better painted armies get better seeding in the second and subsequent rounds. Maybe painting becomes a tie-breaker. Perhaps just bringing the amount of painting points given to 10 or 15 rather than 25 or 30. I don't know, but the painting impact is too great and it will ultimately push great players and competitors out of the hobby if it isn't addressed.

Sorry for the rambling post....

[smileytheelf]

The thing with painting is that all you really need to have a shot at the overall is to have a good looking army that looks clean and cohesive. Your major models should stand out, possibly with some conversions, or extra details. And everything should be based. Use some decals for squad insignia, and you will score the vast majority of your painting points. The above isn't that hard, and doesn't require paying for a pro paint job. Sure, you won't score all the painting points, but you don't need them to win overall. It helps, but if you max out on sportsmanship, and win all your games, just a little time and effort into your paint will put you in the running for a top slot.

[Agelmar]

This is a hobby. If all you care about is the game aspect then why don't you play chess or risk? The goal of a tournament is to find the best. That means the best at tactics, painting, converting, and sportsmanship. To be the best, you have to do it all.

[MyMyst8k]

Interesting thread necromancy.

I think GW has a different point of view than a lot of gamers. I've heard it said that if you ask GW, they will say they are a 'miniatures' company. I think that answer brings a lot of insights.

Think for a moment what GW would be like if they didn't issue any rules at all. All they offered were fantasy and sci-fi models for people who'd like to paint them up. GW would continue to exist and although they would sell less, they'd still have a market share. But just try and imagine for a moment what it would be like if there were no rules to go along with any of your minis.

Plenty of companies do this and there is plenty of market for them. Just look at all the classic car, air plane, and historic tank model kits. There are companies making minis with no game support and reaching a hobbyist element that seems to like just painting/converting. This is where GW started their company.

I sometimes get the impression that the game rules are an afterthought. <Sarcasm>Somebody down the line figured out that if you issued rules to go along with all the minis, then gamers could play a delightful little game with their painted minis. </Sarcasm> I really think the original person to make this discovery was that naive and innocent. All they thought was that maybe they could mash together some rules just to give people something to do with their minis.

What GW didn't realize (and still haven't in my opinion) is that playing the game is more popular than painting the minis. Sure there are people who buy GW minis just to paint and never play the game. I know maybe one, how many do you know? Now ask yourself, how many people do I know that play at tournaments with unpainted armies? Quite a bit more eh?

But if we understand that the game playing aspect of this hobby grew out of and was an afterthought to miniature painting/converting we can start to see why GW requires painted armies. It may not be the most logical decision as eldanesh69 has pointed out, but it is one based off their conception of the hobby as a whole and their history.

Sometimes I ask myself why I put so much time in to my painting. Why do I spend hours and hours (strike that - days and days) into painting little plastic men. I also wonder what makes miniature wargames different than other hobby games? That questioning has led me to realize that if I were to look at this game logically, I'd probably just play computer games and be done with it. Video games are much better balanced, better supported, better eye candy, and better tactically.

But video games lack two things that make me a wargame miniature hobbyist. First, they lack the tangible quality of a figure. I'm not really sure what it is, but for some reason, actually holding and moving a mini is a very different experience than pointing and clicking a cursor on a screen. The physicality of the hobby engages more of my senses and makes it a richer experience I think.

The other element is the social aspect of the hobby. I know that this is changing with MMORPGs, but even then, I haven’t been that impressed by the level of discourse (LEEEEROY!!!!). There is a certain amount of accountability and fun in just hanging out with friends while you are playing a game that is missing for me with video games.

I’ve thrown this term around a couple of times, but I really think it fits. GW games require ‘cooperative competition’ to be enjoyed and played properly. For one reason, the rules are so vague that you really have to be able to build a mutual understanding with the other player just to get through a game. For another, both players have to be flexible and amenable as with any social interaction just so they can have fun for the next couple hours.

So here’s where I finally end up in the debate. Eldanesh69 is correct with his logic and many of his arguments, but it really isn’t going to change anything. As others have pointed out, if you really don’t enjoy painting, there are a lot of other hobbies that will scratch that strategery itch. We can go play video games or chess. No painting needed for any of those. But in a like manner, I don’t think we’ll have unpainted armies going away any time soon. The game aspect (as opposed to the painting aspect) is too popular, and too many people enjoy that and just tolerate the painting part of the hobby. I see a lot of armies that were painted 10 years ago and never been improved since. I see a lot of primer snow marines on Friday night. That isn’t going to change.

I don’t really see this as a problem though. GW has struck a balance, and it’s one that disagrees with eldanesh69. It’s very plain and very simple. If you want to play and win in a tournament, your army has to be painted. If you don’t like it, fine, no one is forcing you to play in this hobby. Go find one that doesn’t demand as much investment of time and skill. There are plenty out there. Painting miniatures to a good standard is just part of this hobby. It’s one of the implicit and fundamental components. There’s just really no getting around it. So if you want to compete at the higher levels, you’re going to have to spend more time painting and less time arguing for a change to a foundational aspect of this hobby.

Good luck, and good games everybody.

Cheers.

[Asandiril]

Painting miniatures to a good standard is just part of this hobby. It’s one of the implicit and fundamental components. There’s just really no getting around it. So if you want to compete at the higher levels, you’re going to have to spend more time painting and less time arguing for a change to a foundational aspect of this hobby.
Excellent point. And remember, the paint scores are "soft" scores, meaning they net you LESS than the actual Battle and Sportsmanship scores (0-9 points plus 2-4 for player vote in an RTT... not sure of the GT standard being used). How bloody hard is it to:
- prime and apply 3 NICE colors on EVERY model (shouldn't be hard at all with the new Foundation set...) <covers points 1-3>;
- base nicley (again, new tubs of sand and flock out, plus cheaper alternatives if you look around) <gets point 4>;
- pick out some small details like unit insignia (decals count!) or conversions <gets points 5 and 6>;
- keep consistancy across the army to tie it ll together <gets point 7>;
- make your HQ or centerpiece models stand out with a step up in painting <point 8>;
- maintain a clean, well-painted look throughout the WHOLE army <point 9>

But as Donovan points out, it's part of the hobby, it's expected at the tournaments (posted in the bloody rules), so if you're not going to bother, don't expect leniancy when the rules are enforced.

(And yes, Sportsmanship and Painting go hand in hand, especially if you frequent the Big Two cons up in Denver. There's one player, older guy, who plays "Grey Knights" with Marines, the models are a hodge-podge of older and newer models all in various states and shades of paint... not ONE matches another, even the "Grey Knights." And he's an absolute @$$ to play, not knowing the rules or mixing them up or low-balling you when you stomp him.)

I posted this originally to make those players going, or planning to go, to this year's GTs/GDs aware there is a standard now being enforced. And to give some rumblings of what will soon be expected at our local tournaments. No, you won't be turned away, but don't expect high marks and don't expect to win any title. If you show up with an unpainted or incomplete painted army and all you're doing is playing in the tournament to play, please don't. There's limited slots and players who DO want to play the WHOLE Hobby that get left out because we're full. And I'm sure Dale and Tim B. can attest and would agree.

[ColGreeley]

Plus playing with a fully painted army just feels better. I know that when I play with my Catachans or my Squats, it just looks better on the table becasue they are done.

[Ouija]

There's a great sense of comradery when you field an army that is based and painted against another that is aslo based and painted. The fact is that you know exactly what each other had to go through to painstakingly paint each and every model! I took the time to learn to play, build my army, paint it, and even spent good money on making fake trees so I could play on a good looking table.

That's what's great about this hobby. I can work on my army when I'm alone by painting a new model or re-thinking composition and tactics. Or, I can play with my friends and meet new ones while playing single games or great crusades across the galaxy.

That being said, why would anyone buy an entire army just before a GT? My tiny little GW fanboy head can't wrap around that one...! Are they learning how to play the night before as well? Did they forget thier army and just happen to have enough cash to start over? I doubt any of that is true. Which tells me that they are just being lazy and aren't really interested in taking full part in the hobby.

[eldanesh69]

Has GW changed the scoring structure for painting? Are there points for the top three painted armies? And as for the player voting, I have been told different things about that. For instance if you get one vote from opponent for best painted its a single point ,2 votes is not 2 points but something like 3 and 3 votes is 5 or 6 points. Not just soft scores. The points can really rack up. Of course this is leads into the whole subjective/objective voting thing. I have been to events where the votes are stacked in favor of certain players because of who they are and relationship to opponents. I've even seen it where players vote for people they didn't even play. Too often players can't or won't seperate the army comp and sportsmanship votes and even go out of their way to not vote for a certain person in the player results voting(just to maybe prevent that person from winning). If events are to follow GW guidelines/rules then should they not be official events with the official prizes and certificates? The game stores and event organizers have a choice to use their own rules/guidelines or the companies'(GW). I will follow whatever rule they are using so I can compete as long as it does not become like the GW retail stores and Battlebunkers where all minis must be painted to play event or not.

[Asandiril]

OK, the ruels and guidelines are no "Big Secret." They're not some archaic code of a secret society hidden away from the benighted eyes of the common player. They're posted up CLEARLY and readily on the GW site, free for download.

The painting guidelines/scoring are located on the BACK of the official army rosters, example on page 2 of the 40K one, here:
http://us.games-workshop.com/community/rtt/downloads/assets/Rosters/40KArmyList.pdf

The expectation of painted armies is listed in the "Gamers Bill of Rights" posted on page 3 of the RTT Guidebook (bullet 2), located here:
http://us.games-workshop.com/community/rtt/downloads/assets/RTT2005Guidebook.pdf

The scoring of Player votes for the bonus points is also located in the RTT GB, pg.11 under, fittingly, "Bonus Points":
http://us.games-workshop.com/community/rtt/downloads/assets/RTT2005Guidebook.pdf

The only thing "optional" is the prize packets, since GW has a habit of either a) not having them available, or b) being too expensive for the tournament organizer to purchase in the event not enough people show up. And GW makes this allowance in the RTT GB.

Grand Tournaments and Games Day rules are also FREE to download and easily accessible for those needing it (through friends or local game stores willing to print them off...), and are here:
http://gt.us.games-workshop.com/Rules/rules.htm

They've even gone so far as to have a page dedicated to the painting expectations:
http://gt.us.games-workshop.com/2007/paintguidelines/default.htm

The 40K packet alone mentions PAINTED miniatures several times, on page 2 under What You Need To Bring and on page 4 under the Army Selection notes and under the Scoring System:
http://gt.us.games-workshop.com/Rules/assets/2007GT40kRules.pdf


The end-all-be-all:
You want to play in the RTTs and GTs and GDs and Indie circuit, you show up with a painted army. Nuff said. It's expected, it's in the rules, and the vast majority of players do so and expect so. RTTs are a little more lenient, but can go the strict method rather quick (like our December Annuals... it's always fully painted armies, no exceptions, as that is the Haven's premiere event).

Enough arguing, this is all taking up valuable painting time for me. :cool:

[smileytheelf]

Yes, the points can rack up. No one said you are guaranteed a win with 3 colors and basic flock. But, IF, and I state IF, you can get really high marks in sportsmanship, which you also seem to be stating is unfair because its subjective (duh!), then you can be competetive for a top spot because only getting 6/9 in painting means you are short 3 points out of your total score.
If, on the other hand, you bring an unpainted army, are an ass, and win three games, then you have a really rather decent shot at last place, and really, rightfully deserve to be there.
In 40k winning is not everything. The overall winner is just that, the player who performed best in all three categories you can be scored it. If that being the top award isn't your thing, try Mechwarrior. WotC is notorious for not really caring what kind of attitude you bring to the table, and there is certainly no painting required. Might cost a bit more than your average 40k army, but thems the breaks of playing a "collectable" game rather than participating in a hobby that happens to run competitions.

[Vrykolas2k]

I always paint my armies before I play them.
Basing... I do that eventually, usually just when I have time, and only a few models at a time. Same with the unit decals.
It just seems slightly insulting to me that I put forth the effort to get everything painted and a few things modelled nicely, then show up to play against someone whose army is half-put-together, not painted, and has been that way for a year... oh and of course there's always "This is actually a..." or "This has a..." when it's actually something else entirely.
Sure, when you just got a unit and you want to play and all you've managed is a base-coat or glue them together fine, whatever, in "friendly play"; but when you've had them that way for a year, and then try to take them to a tournament... it just seems like the "I don't want to paint them." excuse is a bit stale.
Yes I know about seven people who play with unpainted, I-don't-care armies... but the vast majority of people I know actually do put forth the effort, even though parts of their armies aren't finished, you can tell game-to-game they're working at it.

[jpchapleau]

I try to always play with fully painted armies just because I think it looks better.

I haven't played 40k tournaments in 5 years and don't intend to start again. But there is a certain thing to be said when two painted armies face off... It just looks GOOD.

My armies won't win any golden demons, but the usuall score well because of cohesiveness, all painted and extra care given to convert important units (my Ork Nobz & Warboss). Its a lot easier to do that it seems. BUT It *does* take time...

Painting an army is a matter of discipline, and you've got to GIT R Done. Using simpler painting schemes helps. There are myriads of tricks out there on how to do it. But all of them have in common that you have to sit down and do it.

After a while, you may begin (like me) to enjoy the painting/building/converting more than the playing itself!

That said I have no issue with the RT rules being fully enforced, though I find the "loaner" option to be quite harsh.
http://chapleau.us/Gallery