Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Taylor

Three Colour Minimum - discussion

Recommended Posts

Hey Guys- I read a great article today on BoW and wanted to link it. 

http://www.beastsofwar.com/painting-and-hobby/threecolours-minimum/

It's basically about the three colour minimum scheme that once determined if you could attend a GW tournament. Over the years, I've had a lot of conversations about using 3rd party miniatures in tournaments, and how a good selection of the gaming audience supports that, but what about painting? I mean, if someone brings a fully painted 3rd party models with proper representation be better than a grey (or pewter) legion? 

Just looking to stir up some conversation. I'd suggest reading the article first. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it was this line that caught my attention. 

Quote

This has caused much contention in my own local scene, with players claiming that I am elitist and that I only want this because I am a painter, the word painter being spat at me like ugly venom that had encroached their palette.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It really depends on what you gain from the hobby. For me personally I love having nicely painted models but not having them won't stop me from playing. I love the game first and the hobby second. I wish I had the time/patience to paint more but honestly, it doesn't even register on my radar.

Now with that said, painted models definitely help make the game more enjoyable (not to mention easier to discern models from each other -- a sea of grey is always a game of asking what this is and that is).

I personally don't think tournaments should enforce 3 color minimum purely based off the fact that some people just don't enjoy painting(or have the time/funds to get stuff painted) and asking them to do something they hate just to play a game seems a little crazy. I go to a tournament to play games and socialize, not to win painting prizes (if you do, that's great -- but there are plenty of painting events in the world you can go to without playing the game). While I do think it's nice for someone to enjoy every aspect of the hobby, it doesn't make or break an event for me personally. I will say that I think people should at the very least prime their models though.

To the article, i'm not really sure where he's getting his numbers -- almost all tournaments have high attendance that i've been to (20+) and the larger tourneys frequently get 50+ players in Canada (much more in the US I have to assume). Maybe it's a local problem for him but he kind of sounds like a snob the way he writes his articles. Our hobby is supposed to be inclusive of all sorts, no matter what side of the fence you're on, you shouldn't be excluded because you made a choice to not paint your models -- you still built them. I mean christ, I was listening to a podcast where some wieners were complaining because someone did their army in a hello kitty bright pink and complained it took away from the hobby/atmosphere... give me a break - the hobby as a whole is an artistic expression of yourself, or at least parts of yourself and if someone doesn't have a painted army I just assume they aren't good painters.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I play my stuff painted because it brings me much more enjoyment to field an army that is fully painted to a good standard. It also brings me much more pleasure when I play against an opponent because now I can start picturing the engagement in my mind's eye and it becomes a little bit more than just a game at that point. Playing someone who hasn't painted their army kind of sucks me out of it, not that I'll completely refuse to play against an unpainted army, but I'd rather play someone who's got an army that really helps set the mood.

I'm also a disappointed when tournaments don't do a "Best Painted" award for the purposes of inclusion for those who haven't painted their army. I get it, you want numbers and opponents to show up, I'm all for that, but it's disappointing for those of us who have put in the time and effort to get our stuff looking good for the table not to be recognized because some people can't be bothered to even prime their models. Tournaments don't have to make painted armies mandatory to include a Best Painted award.

A 3 colour minimum would be nice, but it doesn't take into account peoples circumstances, so it shouldn't be enforced but there should be recognition in the tournament scene, regardless of whether painted mini's are mandatory or not, for people who did take the time to paint their models.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I love fully painted armies, so much sometime choose not to use units that arnt painted.Now I do enjoy playing more then painting by far, and if I had to choose one it would be playing. Now I am not an elitist and think everyone should have their models painted because mine are, nor do I think it should be a requirement to enter tournaments.I do however think people should be awarded for using painted armies, and it does make for a better game.

One final thing, I feel like there should be a definition for 3 color minimum, which in my mind is a reasonable effort was put into painting the miniature regrdless of what it looks like. Which means a primer and 2 dots of color does not count.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Everyone is entitled to enjoy the hobby how they want. I much prefer to play fully painted, as is my perrogerative. If you don't want to paint your stuff then so be it, as far as I am concerned. I do, however, feel that you are missing out on a big party of the hobby by not participating in the modeling and painting side. Plus, let's face it, From 3' away everyone's army looks good. Tabletop standard can be achieved by anyone with a bit of patience.

Painting your models also acts as a game aid for your opponent. Glowing plasma guns and bright flamer tips are super easy to identify. Blue powerswords and steel chainswords are easy to determine too. A Space Marine army with Green Salamanders and Blue Ultramarines also identifies who gets what special rules. My point is, your games will also be enhanced by playing with painted models.

Should players be banned from attending small events for not having painted models? No. In fact, I'm not sure that prize support should be restricted to painted armies at all. You don't need to be painted to be a good Sportsman, for example. However, I do feel that players who have put in the effort to get their models painted should be recognized and rewarded for doing so. The 'Best Overall' should definitely be awarded to a player who excels at both the gaming side and modeling side of the hobby (as well as being a decent person to share 3 hours with)

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, Interrogator_Chaplain said:

I play my stuff painted because it brings me much more enjoyment to field an army that is fully painted to a good standard. It also brings me much more pleasure when I play against an opponent because now I can start picturing the engagement in my mind's eye and it becomes a little bit more than just a game at that point. Playing someone who hasn't painted their army kind of sucks me out of it, not that I'll completely refuse to play against an unpainted army, but I'd rather play someone who's got an army that really helps set the mood.

I'm also a disappointed when tournaments don't do a "Best Painted" award for the purposes of inclusion for those who haven't painted their army. I get it, you want numbers and opponents to show up, I'm all for that, but it's disappointing for those of us who have put in the time and effort to get our stuff looking good for the table not to be recognized because some people can't be bothered to even prime their models. Tournaments don't have to make painted armies mandatory to include a Best Painted award.

A 3 colour minimum would be nice, but it doesn't take into account peoples circumstances, so it shouldn't be enforced but there should be recognition in the tournament scene, regardless of whether painted mini's are mandatory or not, for people who did take the time to paint their models.

I can concur with this completely. I find it really does take me out of the game. Is it forgivable? Sure - but like @MisterAG said, it's not a ton of effort. I've even offered to spray people's army a base coat to help them out. 

In a game like 40k, I get it. There are a LOT of models. I'm a lot less forgiving with games like infinity.. where there are only 10-14 models. We all know someone who paints. Offer to buy them some models in exchange or something. I used to do it all the time for friends. 

I don't think there is one painter in this community that wouldn't paint for a good friend to help them out. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have armies on both sides of this discussion and I play with both. I believe painted armies should be recognized at events and awards/prizes handed out to those who show up with painted armies. I don't think people should be turned away from playing in said events because they don't have things painted. Life gets busy and gets in the way of the hobby sometimes, so not everyone has the time to get their models done up in time for events. I see offers of priming peoples models for them or "get someone else to paint them" thrown out there. Not everyone wants to pay someone to do their models for them. Like its been said, this is a hobby and everyone has their favorite parts of it. I like to model/convert/do bases, play and paint pretty much in that order. I personally hate playing with just even primed models but enjoy rolling dice more. I also like working on my own stuff as when its on the board and in action its something that "I did" and not someone else, and even if it takes me longer to do than others and I know things will look the way I want them to and not come out the wrong color or based wrong. But enough rambling, the writer of the article did come off a an elitist and should look at how they approach fellow hobbyists and gamers as well as taking some time to look at what this hobby is really about.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think everyone here is having a great big group hug here, so I'll join in the hug too!

I really think that painting and modelling is an important part of the hobby, but I think that, at least locally, we've got some amazing talent and a fantastic community that helps support each other and encourages painting your models. We have people that lead by example. I remember many years back, when painting was a LOT less frequent in the hobby here in the north, and what there was (myself majorly included) were painting things to a much lower standard. It's important to mention this, because we have our own little case study here of why that changed.

I believe the biggest push for change has been the forums. Mostly this one (though I'm biased here), but also the others that existed. These forums have allowed people to show off their work to more people, for that work to be recognized and applauded by more people, and others to see this recognition and applause and begin to desire it for themselves. I think the painting section of our forums is the most heavily trafficked and posted to, and this is great. On top of this, tournament organizers, from the twins, to Clark, to the old Rumble in the North crew, and to the BPO team, have all agreed that painting and modelling SHOULD be recognized at these events. Even if there's not a huge prize for doing it, the recognition in front of your pears is often supremely validating.

Our community leaders have committed themselves to playing with painted stuff, and I am amazed each and every time a game night is hosted at how WELL and THOROUGHLY our armies are painted. This further invites people to try their hand. When just 1 person has a really well painted force, it's not that big a deal. They become "that guy whom paints really well". But when it's the whole community, it makes you think "they can't all be great, so I guess I can do it too!".

So yeah, group hug, but a well deserved one. Well done folks!

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

best response was the first one in that articles own comment section so I'll just quote him to save myself the time

"Yes, you’re a snob ;) lol.

In all seriousness, painted armies are preferrable, but an expectation that armies should be painted goes much too far IMO. How would you feel if I said you were disrespecting the tournament if you hadn’t poured hours into testing and refining your list? That turning up with a nicely painted army you hadn’t practised with was disrespecting your opponent? That you should just stay home painting your miniatures if you weren’t prepared to put the hard hours into playing the game at a tournament level? Not that I’m suggesting you specifically don’t do that, but for plenty of people a tournament is an excuse to get some games in and show off their nicely painted army, and that’s fine. It’s equally fine for someone who likes to play but not paint and who invests their time into doing that to turn up and play. We each make our hobby our own.

I believe in rewarding all facets of the hobby, so whenever I run a tournament I always reward based on placings, but I give out prizes for painting too. I don’t cross those streams as give tournament points for painting, but recognize them for what they are, which is two separate and co-existing aspects of the hobby, which different people enjoy to different degrees."

That's all there is to say.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't get to play in tournaments much - as unusually the organizer. Way back in the day, painting miniatures was just as much of the hobby as playing games with them. Now, I'm going way back - like the late 90s. I don't think I met anyone who just collected and played with bare models - though I could be wrong. 

I still consider it -part- of the hobby. I'm not talking about a few unpainted units or guys - I'm talking about completely untouched models. 

I think the part I'm against is that the painting aspect is often overshadowed by the playing the game aspect of tournaments. Back in the day (sorry for sounding old), a tournament wasn't just a out winning games. It was a social gathering, because people didn't typically have clubs and get togethers at stores the way we do now. People largely played at home and didn't really get out to play a variety of other people. There wasn't the widespread communication we now enjoy with the advent of gaming forums such as this one. So, going to the events, one of the main elements to those that really enjoyed the hobby aspect was to showcase their army. 

Ultimately, I don't care if people don't paint their stuff I prefer to play painted stuff and against painted stuff on a board that people put some effort into making. That's just me. 

With the tournaments I run, the final (best over all) prize goes to the player who literally was the best over all (objectives, painting, sportsmanship). Then i do separate but lesser prizes for best general, best painted, and sportsmanship. When gauging painting, it is like the BPO... it's not based on talent but if it is painted, if the base is done, etc. 

I haven't heard a lot of complaints. I don't know if its the best way to do it or not, but it has seemed to work well within the infinity community, though I feel that rewarding all aspects of the hobby is something we should strive to do. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Back in the day (sorry for sounding old), a tournament wasn't just a out winning games. "

This is the part that the hobbiests often get wrong about the game first people.  Its not about winning games.  Its about testing yourself against other like minded people and getting the most tactically rewarding and interesting experience out of the endeavor.  For some, yes, it is just about winning but those people are usually the dicks.  I like to tweak my lists practice my techniques and hone my skills and feel I get the best game when I've played against an opponent of a similar mind set.  Tournaments bring these people out and pit them against each other.

Painting is all well and good but if that's what you want to do and emphasize then hold dedicated painting competitions.  Don't tax the people who just want to play the game to support the people who want to engage in painting and vice versa.  Bill these events side by side to bring everybody out for the day and get the social aspect going.  If you don't see people registering to be in the painting competitions then I think that should be your answer.

As an example, when I go to a squash tournament I'm not expecting to be judged on how well I dressed in regards to how the main prize is handed out.  

Edited by StreetPizza
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We don't seem to have a problem getting people out to play or attend tournaments and events is what I'm saying.

No one seems to have a problem with it and 99% of the people there are showing up with painted/based models. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Taylor said:

We don't seem to have a problem getting people out to play or attend tournaments and events is what I'm saying.

No one seems to have a problem with it and 99% of the people there are showing up with painted/based models. 

Well I am going to make the assumption we're talking about GW tourneys since this is in the GW forum.

With that said, where's your basis for this? You've only been to one GW tourney since i've been involved in the hobby so I dont see how you can make that claim. Pictures from those events are only taken of painted armies not the unpainted ones.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@dreadpirate

I'm talking about infinity, as prefaced in my earlier post. I put it in the GW section, as it was a GW based article. I'd be happy to move it if you want to be pedantic. 

1 hour ago, Taylor said:

With the tournaments I run, the final (best over all) prize goes to the player who literally was the best over all (objectives, painting, sportsmanship). Then i do separate but lesser prizes for best general, best painted, and sportsmanship. When gauging painting, it is like the BPO... it's not based on talent but if it is painted, if the base is done, etc. 

I haven't heard a lot of complaints. I don't know if its the best way to do it or not, but it has seemed to work well within the infinity community, though I feel that rewarding all aspects of the hobby is something we should strive to do. 

I don't run any GW tournaments. You know this as well as anyone else. If you want me to move this because it encompasses all games and not just GW, move it to the general convo section. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Taylor said:

I can concur with this completely. I find it really does take me out of the game. Is it forgivable? Sure - but like @MisterAG said, it's not a ton of effort. I've even offered to spray people's army a base coat to help them out. 

In a game like 40k, I get it. There are a LOT of models. I'm a lot less forgiving with games like infinity.. where there are only 10-14 models. We all know someone who paints. Offer to buy them some models in exchange or something. I used to do it all the time for friends. 

I don't think there is one painter in this community that wouldn't paint for a good friend to help them out. 

Again.. acknowledged in an earlier post. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


 So what we have here is a case of Different Strokes for Different Folks.

Tournament organisers have every right to reward people for having painted models or not. However, I feel that in no circumstance, should a tournament require anything other than the model being assembled and represented appropriately.

Is it nice to have painted? Yes. but a requirement to enter?   Hell no!   

Its like saying you have to have done 2 hours of community service in the local game store to be eligible to enter. And it will count to your sportsmanship score.

Just my 2 cents.

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good point OJ. I moved this to general discussion, as obviously its moved out of just the 40k/AoS zone. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Finally a break in the echo chamber!

I feel like the general consensus is " I like painted stuff but it should not be required".

Let's keep the conversation moving along through the rest of the article. I found the comment posted by @StreetPizza had a very interesting comment - How would you feel if I said you were disrespecting the tournament if you hadn’t poured hours into testing and refining your list?

-----

My answer to this would be 'no'. I do not feel like you are disrespecting the tournament by not spending as much prep time as another (very much like not spending as much painting time as other folks).

I do, however, feel like you are disrespecting the tournament if you are not prepared to play the army that you are bringing to the event! Your opponent is paying good time and money to get three or four games in on a single day. It is your responsibility to know your list and how to play the game. I want to move my toy soldiers, not spend the day reading the rule book.

 

Edited by MisterAG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is a really good point, Aaron (and Dave). I mean, it takes all sorts but I think there should be a modicum of effort on all three aspects (playing, painting and sportsmanship), which I think is a good way to grade players on their end prizes. 

I've seen people go in with the mentality that they are going to table their opponent and make them feel bad about how bad I smoked them. To me, that's probably not the person that should be going home with a prize, as it fosters that mentality within the scene. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only time in a tournament that I feel someone is doing a disservice to their opponent is when they are unable to get just a few turns in, due to rules bickering, overly-finnicky measuring, and chatting with anyone and everyone around them. I like games coming to natural conclusions, and the 2 to 2.5 hrs we often set for games is really difficult to make when you're spending 1 minute between each roll considering your options. Winning or losing a game because you couldn't finish your plan due to the game ending part-way through turn 3 of a normally 6-turn-long game is infuriating. It feels like being part way through a video game multiplayer match and dropping your connection. It doesn't matter if you were winning or losing, it didn't end the way it should end.

Edited by Yarium
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Taylor said:

That is a really good point, Aaron (and Dave). I mean, it takes all sorts but I think there should be a modicum of effort on all three aspects (playing, painting and sportsmanship), which I think is a good way to grade players on their end prizes. 

I've seen people go in with the mentality that they are going to table their opponent and make them feel bad about how bad I smoked them. To me, that's probably not the person that should be going home with a prize, as it fosters that mentality within the scene. 

Sportsmanship is not something you put "effort" into it should just be a given for any competitive environment and those who display poor sportsmanship on a regular basis (we all have off days) should not be welcomed back.  The problem with linking a subjective sportsmanship score to final results is that everybody has a different definition of it and it also turns into a popularity contest.

For example I've read even here on these boards, that people at 40k tournaments will be marked down on sportsmanship for taking what other players deem a cheesy list.  I'm sorry but that's a complete load of bull shit.  If somebody has decided to play the game in a friendly and cordial manner using models that have been selected according to the rules of the game and event and do well they should not be penalized because another player decided to bring their favorite model X that happens to be equipped with butter knives.  Beating your opponent in the most efficient manner possible is the core objective of a TOURNAMENT.  Save the not tabling them and bringing sub optimal lists for the casual stuff on game night where it belongs.  We should not be shaming people who want to bring their A game once and awhile. 

Not all lists are created equally and not all players are created equally.  Its up to the person to decide what they want out of the tournament then build and play with that goal in mind.  You can't control how other people are going to try and have fun and its not up to you or others to give them a grade on that.  The sportsmanship score is infantalizing and paternalistic and should never be applied to final scores.   Otherwise every competitively minded player should be marking down every painter/fluff player that brings sub-optimal lists to tournaments and that's a horrible solution.

Somebody who wants to rub their opponent's face in the fact that they lost, and gloat about the victory ad nauseum  is a whole other ball of wax.  Those people are cancer and need to told to cut it out.   If after repeated warnings the behavior persists then stop allowing them entry to events.  That's what good TO's and judges are for.

Edited by StreetPizza
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Yarium said:

The only time in a tournament that I feel someone is doing a disservice to their opponent is when they are unable to get just a few turns in, due to rules bickering, overly-finnicky measuring, and chatting with anyone and everyone around them. I like games coming to natural conclusions, and the 2 to 2.5 hrs we often set for games is really difficult to make when you're spending 1 minute between each roll considering your options. Winning or losing a game because you couldn't finish your plan due to the game ending part-way through turn 3 of a normally 6-turn-long game is infuriating. It feels like being part way through a video game multiplayer match and dropping your connection. It doesn't matter if you were winning or losing, it didn't end the way it should end.

You guys need game clocks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well.. timing an opponent out is a sportsmanship issue. If someone times me out, they can expect a poor sportsmanship score, as they obviously weren't prepared to play. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Sign in to follow this  

×