Paint to Play?

Muse on Minis recently talked about a topic that has apparently been a point of contention amongst competitive players. Although I'm not a competitive player in any sense, I still had some thoughts on the matter I wanted to share.

As I understand it the debate has two parts:

1. Are people who play unpainted armies lesser players than those who paint?
2. Should there be painting requirements for larger events?

I think the first one is pretty obvious. Yes, anyone with a pewter paint scheme should be banned from buying products ever again.

...

No seriously, I think looking down on someone for not taking part in one aspect of the hobby is silly. Especially in Warmachine, where the game is built to be played competitively, you have to accept that people who don't look at card art in Magic will want to play Warmachine for its tight ruleset. In something like Warhammer, where GW has stated that they sell a hobby and not a game, it gets a little muddy. But still, if people play a game with rules and just want to enjoy those rules, who really cares?

There are two big arguments I've heard about why people should paint. The first is even stated in Privateer Press's tournament rules:

Privateer Press encourages players to have a fully painted force on the table. Games with painted armies are more interesting to watch and generally enhance the experience for all. Although painting is not required, players are encouraged to show off all aspects of the hobby.

To a degree, I can see this point of view. While I'm not going to pretend I picture a cinematic battle in my head when I play the game, I still enjoy the immersion and beauty of a table filled with real terrain and painted models. It's the stuff we see in battle reports, and the look of a field of models is probably what drew many of us in to the hobby in the first place. It's also why we pay $30 for a warjack instead of just gluing a piece of wood to the base and writing the warjack's name on it. We love the looks of models, and even non-painters aren't above praising or criticizing a model's sculpt.

Even ignoring the looks, a painted army also does your opponent a favor. Last night I played against Trollbloods, which is basically a bunch of medium based pewter models that more-or-less look the same from afar. Couple that with the fact that my eyesight has been on a steady downward march since 5th grade, and it can be very hard to pick out models. Without paint turning a model from a metallic silhouette in to a distinguishable model, it can lead to some confusing and frustrating situations where you lose track of a model, or even attack a trooper model thinking it's something else entirely.

I'm not going to blameshift it to people who could ask questions during a game. Yes people can ask questions, but it's unfair to the opponent to make them stop and ask what a model is. It breaks the flow of the game, slows things down, and can even make someone lose track of what they were doing. However, after a few games you do learn to figure out who's who on the field. And I've also found that people with unpainted armies are willing to let you take something back if you made an honest mistake since it's not their goal to confuse the opponent, they just don't want to paint.

Another major charge is that people are missing out on a crucial part of the game. Miniatures games are meant to be painted and played after all, so by not doing one you're missing out. While I wish everyone loved painting and playing, to say that by doing both you're fully embracing the hobby is a bit silly. Here are all the ways I can think of that someone could miss out on part of the hobby:

• Not painting models
• Only painting models
• Not using a unified theme throughout the army
• Not trying new techniques and paint schemes to help distinguish important models
• Not playing in a group with every army represented
• Not playing scenarios
• Not playing in an official Privateer Press league
• Not playing at a gaming store
• Not playing in local tournaments
• Not playing regional tournaments
• Not going to conventions
• Only playing one faction
• Only playing a few warcasters/warlocks
• Playing every warcaster/warlock and not taking time to fully learn one
• Playing competitively and not for fun
• Playing for fun without trying to win

Basically I don't think "painting" and "playing" are the only categories players can fall in to. And as I've said time and again, it's your game. If you are spending your money to buy models, who am I to dictate what you do with them (within the confines of the law)? If you want to field a pewter-themed army and just enjoy the tactical side of the game, then go for it. If you only want to paint, or paint and casually play just to see your hard work in action, then that's your decision to make.

However, I think it's important to grant that same courtesy to those competitive players who choose to paint their models. If they don't want to play a game with someone because their army isn't painted, I don't think they should be judged any more harshly than the one with the unpainted models. Why? Because it's his time and money that went in to the army, and it's his decision to decide how he wants to play them. I don't think anyone should be looked down upon for how they choose to play the game locally, because it's theirs to play.

That brings me to the second point. Should Privateer Press require players to paint their armies to participate in the major tournaments? I'm willing to draw a hard line on this and say "yes," and that has nothing to do with me being a painter. When you go to an event that Privateer Press will be featuring in a magazine or web article that shows off high-end competition of the hobby, I think they have the right to control how their brand is portrayed.

If they are going to make money, they have to get people excited about the hobby. That means showing off great models, an active competitive scene, and shining a favorable light on everything they do. If I were to look at a photo of the final table of a national tournament, I'd expect to see something that best exemplifies everything about the game. That means great scenery, a crowd of people gathered around to watch, and two painted armies clashing in the middle of it all. If I instead just see a sea of plastic and metal things spread about the table, the game looks awful. 

There's no sense of Warmachine in a photo like that - all you know is that two people are looking at a bunch of shiny figures and somehow being competitive with them. Is it a steampunk setting? Is this sci fi? Is that a werewolf thing next to a robot thing? Warmachine is a weird enough setting without making the models themselves impossible to understand. 

Nothing looks fierce or glorious or even nice in a game that's not aesthetically exciting. That's why Olympic teams don't show up in the dirty stuff they wear for practice. It's why the Superbowl has so much fanfare. 

When you're at a level of competition that few people can reach, it should be expected that you represent your competition with pride and awe. No one is making you show that you're the best at the game. It's your choice to reach that level of competition, and with that I believe people should accept that there are requirements that go beyond the game they can play in their basement. 

Privateer Press has a duty to their product to make it exciting for new and current players, and it just can't be done with a photo of an unfinished product. I want people to see a tournament photo and be excited. I want someone to walk by a game during a convention and be drawn in by the monstrous beasts of Skorne facing off against the undead legions of Cryx. But if instead they just see a bunch of unpainted toy soldiers being pushed around by grown men... suddenly we're more weird than we actually are.

Of course the painting doesn't even have to be that good. Just block off different items (skin, clothing, belts) so you can tell what things are supposed to be, and after a few hours of work you'll have a painted army that, from a distance, is decent enough to make for a more aesthetically pleasing game.

But let me reiterate that I only think painting requirements should apply to the highest level of competition. The percentage of players who would actually make it to that level of competition compared to the total number of Warmachine players is incredibly low. While I think it'd be foolish to require painting at even a local tournament, I see no problem in requiring painting at a purely optional event hosted by the maker of the game we all love.

Agree? Disagree? Let me know!

See you tomorrow!

Remember to follow me on Facebook! I'm doing a blog post every single day for 2013, and Facebook is a great way to stay up-to-date as well as take part in my monthly giveaways.