Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Only thing really problematic is the judging on the paint scores. I forgot who I think it was Cassius Bellis who used their tyranid army both the exact same paint job but got different scores.

What I am trying to say is why did they (Mike and Greg) get the paint scores that they did?

If I knew why they scored so high, I could replicate it, and improve my own paint score.

I wish the judges gave us feedback on why they scored us the way they did, and how we can improve our paint score next time.

Hi Blackmoor (and others)

When our paint judges score the painting level of each army they also take notes and write comments regarding those aspects of the army that are outstanding or require more work. Our paint judges should be available to chat with regarding your score (and how to improve it) following the final round.

For future GTs our head Painting Judge is working on an older style, more "objective" checklist that, once we are all happy with it, we'll be posting as part of the GT 2008 Rules packet. Expect to see it online in January. Hopefully that will give a bit more clarity for next year's events.

We're always looking for ways to improve our events and constructive feedback is the way we can gather ideas about what you (the players) want to see. Filling out the survey at the end of the show is vitally important, and hopefully we'll see an increase in the number of players who do so next year.

Have fun!

Cheers
Dave Taylor
GW US Community Development Manager

The suit talks!

Hey Allen,

Post some pics of your army. There are plenty of people that could offer a critique and comparison. I can't say much for everyone else's army, but here are the things that I worked to do with my force.

1. Conversions - I tried to implement at least one to two conversions per model. Coupled with that, one of my main objectives was to have them not stand out.
a. The most widespread conversions were the heads (clipping off and shaving down the berserker "bunny ears") and the bolters (from the marine scouts).
b. All heavy weapons have sites/targeters sculpted on their heads.
c. Oblits - I sculpted the muscle over the weapons to make them look like they were protruding from the flesh. This could be better, but practice makes perfect.
d. The biker lord - Kharne on a bike - there are numerous conversions on this model and I will only list a few.
-cut Kharne's legs and repositioned them to fit on the bike (sculpted the gap between the legs and the torso).
-sculpted the collar of khorn
-scraped out the marine helmet from the chaos lord power fist
-ork arm for the left arm
-guitar wire for the power fist and power 'axe/weapon'
-extended the front part of the bike with hunter killer missile parts.
-there are many more, but this should give a good start for the biker lord
e. Demon Prince with wings (no pics online, but I will get one for ya') - converted from Belacor (sp?) - hand made axe, sculpted the majority of the legs (knees, calves, thighs), sculpted chest armor and collar of khorne. Heck, I even sculpted the fingers and claws on the axe hand.

The only things that did not have any conversions were one or two marines, bloodletters, furies and the spine beast (Greater demon)

2. Painting - I focused on several layers of shading and highlighting.
a. Light source - I tried to make my light source from above/slightly to the front.
b. Shading - The darker areas on the guys are not just shadows from the camera. I worked to account for the light source on the underside of the legs and torso armor by making them a darker shade of red.
c. Highlighting - Again, going back to the light source, all of my highlights were done with this in mind. One of my pet peves with highlighting is the philosophy of highlighting every armor piece or edge. I have noticed this more on some of the armies that receive high scores. Why this is the case, I have do not understand and I personally think it looks bad.
d. Poses - poses affect light source quite a bit and I tried to account for this in the shading and highlighting. I am far from perfect at this, but I did try to account for it.
e. Layers - I have a minumum of five layers on some colors and upwards of 9 to 10 on others. I spent a lot of time trying to blend on the armor. Again, I'm not perfect, but keep trying to improve.

I cannot say that these items were reflective in my scores. This was just my line of thinking as I worked on my force over the past two years. Also, I continually worked with my buddies (one of them being Chris Borer) on critiquing my painting and getting outside input. Are there areas that could be better? Most definitely. Overall, I hope this offers some potential insight.

Also - to clarify a previous post - I received a 35 in painting and not a 40.

Talk to ya' later,

Thanks Dave and Greg.

Since I won SoB in the 'Ardboyz, I was going to play them next year.

I thought I that I would have to play one army, and do it correctly as far as painting and converting goes. My fingers are going to be killing me after I convert a lot of metal sisters.

I would also like to see sportsmanship go to a check box format too. The sportsmanship scoring was a bit odd as well. When the rules were posted, and when some people saw that there would be no comp score, only sportsmanship, everyone thought that meant that you can bring any army that you wanted to. But it seemed the sportsmanship scoring changed, but everyone was still using what sportsmanship use to mean, instead of going off of what the score card really said.

Blackmoor wrote:Thanks Dave and Greg.

Since I won SoB in the 'Ardboyz, I was going to play them next year.

I thought I that I would have to play one army, and do it correctly as far as painting and converting goes. My fingers are going to be killing me after I convert a lot of metal sisters.

I would also like to see sportsmanship go to a check box format too. The sportsmanship scoring was a bit odd as well. When the rules were posted, and when some people saw that there would be no comp score, only sportsmanship, everyone thought that meant that you can bring any army that you wanted to. But it seemed the sportsmanship scoring changed, but everyone was still using what sportsmanship use to mean, instead of going off of what the score card really said.

48% subjective scores. Bad system.

But with that being said it does look like the good players are winning and that is what ultimately counts. But that has come down to the fact that a lot of the good players know how to romance and fool the system. I'm not calling anyone out here either, I'm one of those people.

I want to thank Dave for the educating me as to how the painting scores are calculated and how they might be improved next year. I played in the Vegas GT and the LA Gamesday and I had a great time. I cannot wait to attend the circuit again next year. Thanks Dave.

I want to thank Greg for explaining all the work that he put into his army. I am a novice painter and some of the detail that Greg worked on was lost on me. I hope to bring a far betterpainted army to the circuit next year. Thanks Greg.

Darrian

To inquisitor malice:

If yours was the Chaos army that had very clear pictures posted, the problem is your conversions don't stand out.

While it's my subjective opinion, if they don't stand out and your army looks 'vanilla' as a result--why did you do them in the first place?

Also I'd rate your 'conversion' work more as 'plaster' work. You move something here, you add a little there...and it ends up looking the same.

Don't be offended, I'm just offering you a critique.

It's a decent paintjob. A 35? It is not.

To dave taylor:

I've never had a judge be available to explain my painting, is this new? I'm only asking in that in 15 years of attending GW tournaments, I've always felt (and had this confirmed, sadly) that my scores were biased. Hell, I know it's hard to judge one's paint score, which is part of why I think it should be seperate from the scorecard--but far too often I see barely primed 3 color touch armies or half done paintjobs on foam boards beat the crap out of my own (and many other far superior paint jobs).

Will GW consider a seperate scoring system for painting?

Will painting be judged on plain whiteboards instead of the current?

I can't do anything about my work being graded with a primed army and stuck with the same score, since if one could appeal their lousy rating everyone would.

To blood angel: You really think so? I consider myself one of the best gamers in the country, and I always cringe at the overall winner running through alot of painters/converters (no offense intended) and when I see their army, wondering who they played that was any good.

1 guy in over a dozen GT's, games days, etc has stood out as having an army I wouldn't just sweep aside, and when I played him he was hella hard to beat. I've longed for the GT where I don't end up playing:

A painter/converter.
A tyranid player with 150+ models.
A Imperial Guard player with 150+ models.
A cookie cutter space marine army.
A cheat.

That's pretty much my usual set of games, and it's sad to go to a competition and not experience any from the guy across the table. Even when he cheats.

I tried to get my painting up, but I failed and I'm really loathe to run up to another GT and get a lousy score again.

I've given up on my sportsmanship, and I'll just ding everyone with a 1 or a 2 so I at least will outscore the numbnut who just had a tantrum because I beat his army.

Sorry, the last few were just rants. The 'fix' always seems in, and I guess with so many points coming from a popularity contest I really shouldn't expect much.

Which now, I don't. It's hard to keep going and keep getting dirt thrown in one's face for the effort.

Maybe it's my age, I've entered the cynical pre-mid life crisis stage.

Oh and just so I'm not an ass....well, allright, I'll probably still be considered an ass, but I'll go get a decent camera and post comparative pics. Hopefully I'll get feedback that can ease my tortured soul.

Well my cameraship and my wife's camera...not so hot.

So, two pics.





I ask the question: Why does mine rate a 20, and the one below it take 2nd best painted? 40 points? Oh before you ask, my vanes were broken off by the multitudes of players that manhandled my army while I was out getting lunch. The GW paint judge busted my Vyper model but hey, what's a little breaking of models between strangers? A blister doesn't make up, btw.

If I put mine on a foam board with a brass plate, I get +25 points? My army was coherent. That other one was made coherent by the foam board, since it was a kaleidescope of colors without a unifying color scheme.

I know, it was insisting on clean lines and the colors to carry the model...if I'd only painted my gems (thus ruining my scheme) a GW judge might have given me better points than a IG army that was primed black. Yes, really.

Please note I don't convert Eldar models for the most part, I find them far too aesthetically pleasing as they are. Pretty much the same with Nids and Tau (not Kroot--ugh).

You tell me what you think. Do be honest.

Yes, I do think so.

I've played every major winner (and 90% of the 2nd and 3rd place winners) in the last two years with the exception of Marc P. If you haven't and gone to as many tournaments as you say you have then you aren't in the same league as they are.

I just told you that they know how to 'beat' the system. Plotting strategy for the 'meta game' is just an extension of plotting strategy for the table top.

If I put mine on a foam board with a brass plate, I get +25 points? My army was coherent. That other one was made coherent by the foam board, since it was a kaleidescope of colors without a unifying color scheme.

I think that just the paint on that one model of yours is already a kaleidoscope of colours without a unifying colour scheme, unless of course you're running Toxic Crusaders Eldar.

I know, it was insisting on clean lines and the colors to carry the model...if I'd only painted my gems (thus ruining my scheme)

"Insisting on clean lines and colors" is all very well, but you shouldn't be surprised that you'd be outscored by the guy who painted the other Prism model, which also has clean lines and colours, but nice blending on top of it.

Actually, you don't have clean colours. Brush strokes are visible even from this distance, and splotches of black show through. I mean, you just basically drybrushed the whole tank, right?

Admittedly, scoring you lower than an army that was merely primed was ridiculous.

blood angel wrote:Yes, I do think so.

I've played every major winner (and 90% of the 2nd and 3rd place winners) in the last two years with the exception of Marc P. If you haven't and gone to as many tournaments as you say you have then you aren't in the same league as they are.

I just told you that they know how to 'beat' the system. Plotting strategy for the 'meta game' is just an extension of plotting strategy for the table top.

So, the league of thieves is it? I know how to beat the system, I simply refuse to do so.

I don't know much about the last 2 years, I've only been to a few tournaments (since I go usually 1x a year)--but rolling my opponents in 45 minutes gives me plenty of time to watch the top tables and wonder how these fellows (the 'major winners' in their own league?) managed to get there.

And I see for myself, they kiss the blarney stone, they game the system and their opponent....and strangely enough, don't face what I'd consider competitive armies.

By the way, 15 years + 11 GW tourneys and 3 adepticons....and I've yet to encounter a good player in a 'tourney' game. Am I making myself clear? I'll take any of my armies against anyone, anywhere--and I'll win. No one has ever beaten me that I didn't allow them to. Is this me being conceited? Nope, I know just how good I am. I know it comes off sounding like a ass, and I'm allright with it. As they say, the truth hurts.

If only I was dishonest, I'd win? That's a sad commentary on the GW tournament scene, but I guess you could say the entire reason I'm talking on this forum now is I'm fed up with just reading and lamenting the mass idiocy. I'm willing to take anyone on the internet, without prejudice, and say I can kick your ass 9 times out of 10. Are you?

That league you spoke of, seems shallow and beyond the pale to me. Alot of hot air, very little substance. Hell, look at the winning armies for the past 9 GT's and if you think those lists were any good and didn't just run over a bunch of artists and theoryhammer junkies....you're smoking something good, and send it on over.

Please note that of the 150+ players I've played over the years, not ONE has won Best General or Overall--cause I knocked them out of the running.

Nor 2nd place or 3rd.

Quite a few have won best painted, player's choice, and best sportsman. I give full marks.

So, anyone coming through Utah in say the next ten years thinks they can take me? I'm all for it. Hell, I'm starting to plan for next years GT (LA, Seattle, or LV) scene and if I need to come down early to take your name, be glad to try and work it out. If you're any good, odds are we won't play each other in the tournament so it'd have to be a Friday game.

Believing I care whatsoever about a 'meta game' would be a mistaken assumption. The grand tournament scoring system is, and always has been, broken. You can choose to abuse it, or be a honest player. I'm honest, and I lose, yet I'm better than anyone I've seen play or have played.

Whatcha got to say, other than I'm an ass?

Just drybrushed?

I feathered.

I layered.

I highlighted.

The brush strokes are *supposed* to be visible.

If my paintjob is a kaleidescope, given I have 4 primary colors (granted, each color section has 4 subcolors) and it's spread across my army...what would you call the other?

It has 14+ colors on it, only 2 (the red and the purple) were highlighted.

Oh and the bottom was left primed black. How many coats and touchups do you see on his Prism Cannon? It looked worse in person. Mine took me a week to get right.

At any rate, you seem to miss the point. Best painted? My standards must be coming down, I don't see beyond painted to tabletop because of the -=Edit=- I can't think of any way to express myself without using profanity-=Edit=- work on the prism cannon and the armature--or are they not a major feature of the vehicle, being unique in the game, and should be painted to a higher standard?

Ah well, I'm an ass and being quite aggressive, so I doubt anyone will agree with my view. I could be shocked, who knows.

I'll take your word for it, but the fact is that not a jot of that can be seen on the photo you posted, and that's all I and anyone who wasn't actually there have to go on.

tegeus-Cromis wrote:I'll take your word for it, but the fact is that not a jot of that can be seen on the photo you posted, and that's all I and anyone who wasn't actually there have to go on.

Yeah well it's 4am, I'm cranky and my wife's digital camera is as crippled as my higher thinking processes are at the moment.

I wish I'd taken a picture of the foam crap his army was on. I swear it was at least 2 feet high at least...

Stelek wrote:If only I was dishonest, I'd win? That's a sad commentary on the GW tournament scene, but I guess you could say the entire reason I'm talking on this forum now is I'm fed up with just reading and lamenting the mass idiocy. I'm willing to take anyone on the internet, without prejudice, and say I can kick your ass 9 times out of 10. Are you?

That league you spoke of, seems shallow and beyond the pale to me. Alot of hot air, very little substance. Hell, look at the winning armies for the past 9 GT's and if you think those lists were any good and didn't just run over a bunch of artists and theoryhammer junkies....you're smoking something good, and send it on over.

Please note that of the 150+ players I've played over the years, not ONE has won Best General or Overall--cause I knocked them out of the running.

Nor 2nd place or 3rd.

Quite a few have won best painted, player's choice, and best sportsman. I give full marks.

So, anyone coming through Utah in say the next ten years thinks they can take me? I'm all for it. Hell, I'm starting to plan for next years GT (LA, Seattle, or LV) scene and if I need to come down early to take your name, be glad to try and work it out. If you're any good, odds are we won't play each other in the tournament so it'd have to be a Friday game.

Believing I care whatsoever about a 'meta game' would be a mistaken assumption. The grand tournament scoring system is, and always has been, broken. You can choose to abuse it, or be a honest player. I'm honest, and I lose, yet I'm better than anyone I've seen play or have played.

Whatcha got to say, other than I'm an ass?

This is pretty much the funniest thing I've read today, heh.

If you show up to a tournament and refuse to compete in all the aspects that winning is judged on then you are wasting your time and money. While you're down there in the loser's bracket you can't possible feel as superior as you are trying to come off here. Your painting scores don't go in until much later in the tournament, in round two and three you should be playing people with your similar OMGIWINZAGAIN battle point score.

With that said I am one of the largest and most vocal opponents of the current system. It is broken and having almost half of the total points being subjective when there is obvious evidence that it's flawed is the tournament organization crew simply being ignorant.

http://gt.us.games-workshop.com/2005/Results_Coverage/Baltimore/winners.htm

That's me 5 GT's ago smiling in the green shirt

I never said I don't compete in all areas. I busted my ass to be unoffensive (it's difficult, as you can tell) and have a well-painted army. As ever, I get burned for not working the system.

Maybe I should bring friends along to pad my favorite player score?

Talk up the GW staff.

Bring a huge display.

Just a few examples of working the system.

I said I'm honest, and that means not working the system.

Anyway, I'm glad you got a laugh.

It's good to amuse a BA player. They've amused the hell out of me over the years.

Stelek wrote:To inquisitor malice:

If yours was the Chaos army that had very clear pictures posted, the problem is your conversions don't stand out.

While it's my subjective opinion, if they don't stand out and your army looks 'vanilla' as a result--why did you do them in the first place?

Also I'd rate your 'conversion' work more as 'plaster' work. You move something here, you add a little there...and it ends up looking the same.

There are two lines of thought when it comes to conversion/paint work that I see and they cover the extremes in miniature painting. I will refer to them based on painters/sculptors that I know since I am not up on the artistic technical terminology.

1. Joe Orteza styles have a huge amount of conversion work that stands out quite a lot. It is purposely ment to stand out. The painting style that compliments this also is ment to have the mini 'pop'. This is based on his earlier works and I have not kept up on current projects from him.

2. Chris Borer styles work to have conversions look like they seemlessly belong to the original model. The painting style that compliments it is based on smooth to near perfect blending, shading and highlighting. Ah perfection and Chris's sword winning Fulgrim - what sweet irony.

Both styles are on the exact opposite ends of the spectrum. Yet, I believe both have their merits depending on what your desire is in artistic expression.

For me, I prefer the Chris Borer style and I continue to use his influence on my armies. I believe it is more difficult to achieve perfection in this style when a model is heavily converted and therefore have more appreciation for it. That is why I chose the method behind the madness. All I know is I have a long way to go to match my mentor.

stelek if you are as good as you say you are, and you have been to three adepticons. You should have walked away with thousands of dollars in prizes from winning the gladiator. If we could have a name we could go back and check your scores at adepticon and the GT's. I know you would have won if it wasn't for that dog and those meddling kids.

Hmm, I don't see any Fulgrim model in GW's range.

Very sublime indeed.

====

Most of my GT records don't exist. GW lost them. Good thing they keep cutting costs in the web department. Oh right, what web department...it's one guy now. Some nonsense about a invalid ID.

Since Adepticon doesn't keep records like GW does (well, ok, what records they do keep aren't kept the way GW keeps them) it'd be difficult to check. For the record, I've never been able to schedule in time for the gladiator tournament. The LV GT was the first 'friday' I've been able to attend--ever.

Do you think Adepticon is a better tournament scene than the GTs or Games Days? Different, not better.

Oops almost forgot--the prizes mean little to me. I can afford a customized army painted by the best ebay has to offer, but being an *honest* player I choose to play my own self-painted self-converted army. I hold myself to a higher standard than greed. You should too.

Stelek wrote:

Most of my GT records don't exist. GW lost them. Good thing they keep cutting costs in the web department. Oh right, what web department...it's one guy now. Some nonsense about a invalid ID.

Since Adepticon doesn't keep records like GW does (well, ok, what records they do keep aren't kept the way GW keeps them) it'd be difficult to check. For the record, I've never been able to schedule in time for the gladiator tournament. The LV GT was the first 'friday' I've been able to attend--ever.

Do you think Adepticon is a better tournament scene than the GTs or Games Days? Different, not better.

Hello:

Please tell me your name and I'll try to find the records of your performance. We've held quite a few tournaments since 1997 and between office moves, computer crashes, and staff changes those little bits of paper and excel files can get misplaced. However my records and memory are more extensive than most. No promises but we might have your information here somewhere. You can e-mail us at: Techpriest@Games-Workshop.com

Actually our web department is 2 people. You can view us both here:

http://gt.us.games-workshop.com/2007/baltimore_coverage/lotrwinners.htm

Best Sportsman and Best Appearance.

Thanks,

Rich Curren
GWUS Web Manager

When you're that sexy, it only takes two of you for anyone to have all they'll ever need.

Rock on!

well seeing as you don't like playing the meta game. you will continue to do poorly at GT's. there are events for people like yourself. The hard boyz and the gladitor. each of these have huge prizes with your self proclaimed skill you should easily win both. I will even go as far as paying your entry fee to the gladiator to see your skills destroy the other players. When you lose. i expect a full refund

*Laugh.*

You misunderstand my point in being.

There shouldn't be a metagame, or the ability to manipulate it. Sorry, guess I should really say 'requirement' instead of ability.

Maybe being honest is just so alien a concept that trying to explain it is beyond my talents.

Thank you for being condescending enough to offer to pay my way--how about this? You invest your money.
Me? Oh I'll be allright, I have plenty, and while I'm a bit of an ass I'm no jackass.

Maybe when the GT format is corrected, and dishonesty is no longer rewarded, I'll do better.

Oh, and just to keep with the "I really am better than you are" storyline, I wouldn't lose. The scenarios are a bitch, but the best players run balanced armies.

Note the Adepticon scenarios meet my demandingly high standards, while the GT/Ard Boyz scenarios fall far short.

Too gimmicky. Like your post.

Would you like another lump, or two?

Stelek wrote:
Since Adepticon doesn't keep records like GW does (well, ok, what records they do keep aren't kept the way GW keeps them) it'd be difficult to check. For the record, I've never been able to schedule in time for the gladiator tournament. The LV GT was the first 'friday' I've been able to attend--ever.

Actually, AdeptiCon does keep very good records, very good PUBLIC records. You, and the others reading this thread, can view them at http://www.adepticon.org/modules.php?name=Sections Now, I think we'd all like to know who the man behind the iron forum id is so we can just see how great a General you are. Obviously, the world is out to get you because you apparently keep getting demoted to the losers bracket in swiss tournaments while all the other cheats and frauds play at the top tables leaving you to cry in your soup. So now that you've come across all hardcore and bad*ss, let's go find out how good you really were at the past 3 AdeptiCons that you've attended. Let's see that dominating Battle score, Mr. Undefeated.

Stelek:

There shouldn't be a metagame, or the ability to manipulate it. Sorry, guess I should really say 'requirement' instead of ability.

The metagame is something that arises by itself. There is no game without a metagame. Not even rock paper scissors is metagame-free.

Email sent, as requested. I doubt you'll find anything. Last time I tried I had credit card receipts and copies of my GT tickets faxed in to Glen Burnie with a very legal letter demanding my results be found.

That was a long time ago, and I've had several more get lost. I'm used to it.

What I'm really looking forward to is having my picture finally get posted on the GW website, but my record get 'lost' again. lol

Really? Who got 11th place in 03?

Can't tell, can ya.

Nope, you can't.

As far as who I am, I swear there is a search function on Dakka...use it?

Either post your name or stop posting.

Something smells funny, and I'm betting it's all the bullsh!t.