Does a painted army = a better player?

[Jack Shrapnel]

an interesting article that may or may not hold water, but is a nice discussion point, regardless of what miniature game system you play:

www.talkwargaming.com/2013/09/40k-Painted-army-better-player.html?utm_source=blog&utm_medium=gadget&utm_campaign=bp_slideout_plugin

So after reading this I thought to myself as well... Do I automatically assume that someone with a fully painted, nicely done army is a better player?

generally speaking at the top tables at big tournies, everyone is fully painted, and most times very nicely painted... I realize this is a requirement of big tournies such as Adepticon etc. but is there some merit in this thought? or is it all hot air?

[voodoo]

It’s all hot air otherwise best painted would win best overall and it’s often not the case. I don’t get to play often so I pour my gaming time into sculpting and painting models. Guys who have more chances to get in games I imagine have less time therefore to paint and sculpt unless their entire waking life is dedicated to 40k. (Not that that’s a bad thing, but you know… everything in moderation.)

If you make an assumption about your opponent’s skill level before you go into a game they’ve already won; either you’ll beat yourself thinking they’re better than you, or go in overconfident and make careless mistakes.

[Jack Shrapnel]

....lol... but why is best overall almost always fully painted?

and given I am seeing all the scores, very often the top three players at the tourney (not always) are the contested spots of best general, best overall and best painted...

and do we automatically assume we're facing a superior opponent when they have top notch painting and conversion work... kind of speaking to what you said - making assumptions about your opponent undermines your ability to compete!

I'll give you an example from our team tourney Matt... that includes you specifically... I saw that converted maulerfiend that you did, and it automatically seemed MUCH scarier and higher priority because of the great conversion and paint job..

...entire waking life devoted to 40K? Well to paint everything I've got sitting around I'd have to

[voodoo]

Maybe that's why it died so much...

[deshane]

Might be that the player with the painted army has had the most time with the army, meaning more experience with it as well. I had this exact discussion in my COMM class a week ago about people turning their hats inside out at baseball games, made me think about painted vs. non-painted.

[empirearmy]

This is a great topic. I have often thought about it myself. Many arguments to be had. I will throw out my thoughts.

Every army I own is painted. Some of my armies I would consider a high standard of painting(if I do say so myself), however I rarely win. I have been tabletop gaming for over 18 years and I have seen some great armies. Yet most of those players don't care if they win or lose because its all about having fun. I have had a few games in my time where I have said to myself " I will never play that person again". Was it because they were awesome at playing and knew all the rules or was it because they had a better looking army than mine? Neither. They were D-bags.

Playing the same army all the time helps you to understand the game better and figure out tactics. If you really love the army you will want to win with them and you will also want to paint them up nice.

For example, I love playing my Empire army for Warhammer(yes I am selling them) and I spent a lot of time playing them(over 12 years), but when I lose I take it in stride and learn. I come back to crush that opponent. Now, I also share a Orc and gobo army, none are painted and I don't care if I win or lose. In fact I never really try with them. So I guess that makes me an ok player with a painted army.

Now, in 40k, I really like my army(yes for sale also)and I do ok with them. I just don't play 40k enough to gain experience to win. Yet, I do ok in tourneys cus they are fully painted and I win a few games.

So all above being said, I have painted armies and does it make me a better player? No. It makes me a better hobbyist. I paint, I play and I keep painting and playing, that's the hobby.

Could I be a better player without a painted army? yes. I call this MoneyHammer.

Money Hammer is where I have more money than you, so I buy whatever I need to win games. I play again and again in order to figure the best combo overall and buy that stuff. And guess what, if its not painted, it still works the same. However, is it fun to play against a guy like that? NO! SO in turn he becomes a bad player.

So, here something to think about. I played a guy once who proxied his stuff and none of it was painted and he beat me because I could only roll a 3 or less all game. He also kept having to check his book for rules. I knew he cheated a couple times but I let it go because I just stopped caring. It was terrible, I will never play him again, for all the reasons I stated. Then, here in Kingston I met a guy named Voodoo, and though we have never played against each other I know we would have a great game. Why? because its all painted and we would both want to have a fun game. We both have painted armies yet I am sure we would have a close game.

Now here is something else to think about. Lets have a tourney where only painting scores count for overall winner. Win and loses aside how would we know who is the better gamer? we wouldn't.

A good player to me needs to meet three criteria.
1. Painted army, not awesome but painted.
2. A good understanding of their army and the rules.
3. The most important of all, the ability to have fun regardless of a win or loss.

So does having a painted army make you a better player, No.
Does it make it more fun? Yes.

So in the end I come back to my old saying "Paint your S!@t"

Mike

[voodoo]

Mike, why can I only like your post once? Blasted proboards...

[canadianguy]

You also sadly end up with people like me with 4 young kids and zero time. So when possible I buy beatiful looking armies. The wood elves i brought i think are one of the nicet armies i have seen. I have had them for about 3 years and have played with them about 6 times. I would never judge on appearance someones capabilities as a general.

[Jack Shrapnel]

how about this...

you see across from you someone who has the latest uber-netlist of the month... every model is grey plastic... not even primered... do you make any assumptions based on the models chosen and zero paint?

you see across from you someone who did alot of conversions and spent time painting their models... doesn't have to be a golden daemon, but it's nicely done, and effort was made to do a good job. Maybe even there's names or banners done up... do you make any assumptions based on the conversions and painting...

seems like people do make some assumptions, and I'm not saying it's good or bad, it's just an assumption that may help or hurt your experience...

I'll run a little counter to what Mike said above... where does it make you a better player... well that depends what "better" is... your scores in a tournament will be higher and you'll place better if you paint your army and put effort in... if you care about your army and the fluff/story/experience/narrative whatever you call it, you generally get fairly good sportsmanship scores as well... once again elevating your scores...

Mike you said it best, in that you aren't necessarily tabling people at tournies but still place well.. so if points/placings are our measure for who did "better" at the tourney... well there you go

[stonecutter]

As Shannon has pointed out, the key issue here is defining what one means by "better".From a purely empirical point of view in a tourney setting where presentation and painting are scored, then a painted army does equal a better player. All other things being equal, the player with a painted army will score higher and thus be rated a "better" player than someone playing an unpainted army with identical results. Setting aside scoring issues, three other factors come into play in terms of the view of a painted army equating to being a better player. The first factor is the halo effect. One assumes that if someone can paint well they can also play well. We see this in everyday life, such as assuming an excellent hockey player will be an excellent coach. Wayne Gretzky and the Phoenix Coyotes proved this wrong The second factor is actually relevant to the discussion of a better player in terms of their dedication to the hobby, and their concern for the person they are playing with. Someone who puts a lot of effort into painting their models usually cares about the hobby and is likely to also have a reasonable grasp of the rules. The painting thus indicates this overall commitment and is likely to be indicative of someone who is also concerned with having fun while they play and, more importantly, that their opponent also enjoys the game [no guarantees, no refunds on this assertion!!]. Conversely, if minimal/no effort is put into painting, it is indicative of a lessor commitment to the hobby with commensurate conclusions drawn about the person's playing ability and desire to provide their opponent with a fun game. Since we tend to like people who share our own preferences, this leads to the inevitable conclusion that a person with a painted army is not only a "good" player, but is nearly as awesome as ourselves Finally, there is the incontrovertible scientific evidence that painted models fight better than unpainted models so it is equally obvious that a person with a painted army will be better than someone with an unpainted army by virtue of having better quality troops!!

[coymastermikhail]

Id like to weigh in here. As more of a painter and less of a player i think that just because your army is fully painted does not mean that you are a categorically better player. Ive only played about 10 games this edition. I always usr a fully painted army. This is partly because i like the look of my army and partly because i do not assemble before painting. I am not, by any means a great painter, and find it difficult to paint details when a moeel is assembled. For me, its about the experience. I tend to lose almost every game i play, but i am ok with that. I still love my dark angels, and enjoy the 4 hours it takes me to paint 5 tac marines. I just dont often have the opportunity to play. So, in my case especially, a painted army does not equal a better player. Though i do hope at least that i am fun to play against...

[thesanityassassin]

To pipe up briefly, I must say I do see the points that people are making, but have a few thoughts of my own. In terms of unpainted/hastily painted armies I will judge it immediately based on content. If it is a somewhat haphazard or fluffy looking build, I assume that the player is probably newer/doesn't have a lot of time to play and therefore won't be really cutthroat or particularly skilled. If I see the latest netlist in bare plastic, I immediately steel myself for someone who is interested in trying to table me without really caring what I think.

I also think that locally there is a big difference between seeing an army like Matt's and the kind of thing you see at major tourneys. To tie into Mike's MoneyHammer idea, a lot of the guys at the big GT's get their armies painted by services like Blue Table or whatnot, making sure they can maximize their appearance score without really having to put a lot of work into it. So you can't always assume that a pretty army stems from a lot of hard work and dedication from its owner.


The other thing to consider is that some people just don't like to paint. I count myself solidly in this camp. I'm not bad at it when I can make myself sit down and take the time to work on a model, but it feels like work to me, not something that I enjoy. Conversions on the other hand I love, and will sink a ton of time into. If anyone remembers my Word Bearers, I played a grey plastic army where every single model was uniquely converted for quite a while. Because I just couldn't bring myself to paint. I finish my tournament armies, and tend to make them look as well as I can in the time I spend, but I can't say it's something I would ever do for its own sake. Because at the core of the hobby for me is playing. I enjoy converting, I like thinking about armies and fluff, but I enjoy playing on the table, and I think that is where I excel as a gamer. This can lead to some interesting encounters, as people who don't know me probably don't think much of what I'll bring to the table.

As an example, at the city championship a few years back I brought my max-comp Footdar list. Someone seeing that across the table would see a decently painted, if entirely uninspired looking army with a bizarre and unoptimized list and probably assume that I was one of those guys who pulls models out of the closet once or twice a year. Which I guess I was at that point, and border on being now for that matter. But in the end I beat the pants off of a lot of people with that list because I spend a lot of time thinking about how it will perform on the table and have good instincts once the game starts. Judging the army by its external appearance would therefore really backfire on people, and I know it did for at least one guy during that tourney.

I think Matt said it best in terms of not assuming anything about anyone's skill level based on what you see across the table. It can certainly give you clues, but play every turn like your opponent has the ability to leap out and table you, or it can come back to bite you!