http://gt.us.games-workshop.com/Rules/rules.htm

It says Kroot mercenary armies from chapter approved are permitted. That seems new to me.

Good to see the humble tank platoon (armored company) may still be fielded.

Hey guys,
The rules are ready and all the permitted lists are listed in the packet. Please let me know if you have any questions or comments.
Just as a follow-up reminder, these rules are in use for the Games Day Tournaments as well with the following exceptions: Games Day tournaments use 1500 pt armies for both 40K and WFB and there are only 3 games at the GD tournaments. Other than that, all rules for scenarios, army creation, etc. apply.
As always, if you have questions just drop me an email!
Jeff Hall
GWUS Community Manager

Thanks Jeff

Wow, Jeff posted on DakkaDakka.

Jeff, get out of here before you read the majority of posts dissing on GW. Take cover!

Chuck

Just noticed it's 1750 pts for 40K.. didn't it used to be 1850? Never did a GT before, but I'm thinking about trying to make it to one this time around

Speaking of GTs, might I ask that a New England area tournament would be great for me. I'd love to test my mettle, but I don't like the idea of driving hundreds of miles to do it(The thought of checking in an army transport full of metal Sisters scares the bejesus out of me!)

Dump question probably but will GT's be added at a later date? Like in Dallas or Houston again?

So comp and painting are worth more than battle. Figures.

I suggest you reread the packet. There's no comp score.

You can show up with an army painted and converted by someone else and still win overall? Lame.

If you don't have time to paint and convert your army, fine, but you shouldn't expect to be eligible for any awards.

engine

I'm really happy about a lot of things, like the inclusion of Lost and the Damned and Speed Freaks. Since I play both, I appreciate that the US organizers respect those of us who have spent a lot of money and don't appreciate our lists becoming invalid like certain other organizers I could mention... <_<

Anyway, I like that they're giving us all the possible scenarios up front, but a little dissapointed at the vanilla nature of the scenarios. I guess I was one of the few that really liked the wonky stuff like Battle in the Eye of Terror.

I'm soooo happy to see comp scores dead and buried. If it's legal it's legal, and if it's fun for you, bring it. It makes me realize what a mistake it was to include comp scores for all those years. It's none of your opponant's business what you take, and his opinion is irrelivant. If it's fun for you it's fun for you and that's the end of it.

Very happy to see them being hard-nosed, at least on paper, about models being fully painted. Hope that gets people motivated so we don't have to see any more unpainted marine legs glued to bases. :wacko:

I'm not sure why they reduced the points down to 1750. I wouldn't care except that I've been working on my tournament list for a while now, and I don't want to have to fiddle with it any more. Oh well.

Anyway, hope to see a lot of you guys there at the tournament. If your army isn't painted, then get to it. :tu:


I'm thinking it would be pretty expensive to buy an army painted to a high enough quality level to get you in range of the winner's circle. Most of the armies on ebay are really low quality.
Anyway, that's actually a change from the last few seasons, where they made no distinction at all whether you painted your army or not. Presonally, I say judge the army, not where it came from. A great army is a great army is a great army.

I do have two questions so far for Jeff, if he would be so kind as to reply.

Under the space marine heading it says that:


Call me dense, but isnt using traits for any of the chapters listed in the codex optional?
I.e. if I am playing a Imperial fist army, I amy play them as codex or use the traits that they have defined specifically for imperial fists.

Or is what youre saying that you cannot pick and choose which traits a chapter has that already has defined traits?

One more question, and this is a biggie for me.

I know that this has been pointed out in the GT packet, but would enjoy a personal comment regarding "Counts as" here.

I hate the color yellow.
If I am to play an imperial fist army that isnt painted yellow, or have imperial fists iconography (i.e. "counts as" ) but is otherwise perfectly represented so there is no doubt what is what, will that army be considered legal for use in GW GT's?

Scratch built Drop pods also come to mind, as there is a forge world model, but no real "Official citadel" minitaure to represent it. Is there any guidelines that will be enforced as to how this can be followed?

Thanks for your time.


Woohoo! The death of Composition scores! Great move! Finally!

*dances on the grave of those who like to be punks and low ball players because they cant take the heat!*

That's such a cool idea. I wonder if GW will actually ever try to produce their own
clear resin stealth units. I remember someone (probably KK) posting some clear
resin predators that were out there. Very neat.

Hellfury: I thought that "counts as" referred to modeling and not paint schemes?

Posted By malfred on 01/02/2007 9:50 PM
Hellfury: I thought that "counts as" referred to modeling and not paint schemes?

To me, its one and the same, to the rules lawyers, not so clear.

I dont use imperial fists iconography nor the color yellow.

Hence why I asked.

One quick question regarding this ruling on the Imperial Guard:

How does this apply to a Vostroyan army who is given a set of 'suggested' doctrines but goes on to say that you can use any doctrines you wish?

And as for the WHFB armies, are the Slayer Army of Karak Kadrin and the Grimgor's 'Ardboyz lists intentionally left off the list of valid armies or were they mistakenly left off?

Ooh, ooh, I got one. What about daemonettes on steeds?

Hellfury: This sounds like an answer to your color questions.

I like the set up overall. I'm very glad comp is gone. Battlepoints make up 50% of your overall points and sportsmanship and painting the other half. Don't mind people not painting their own armies. Folks can come in and say they painted it, when in fact, they did not. If someone wants to drop that much coin to get an award winning army, so be it. Just enforce the rule so there aren't unpainted armies on the table. I actually like how they did the missions, much better than the half Gamma/half Omega set up. Everything is mixed so you really need to build a balanced army to take on missions. And in 4th edition form, the objectives are worth a good amount of points.

I've marked my calender for the Baltimore GT and maybe the Atlanta GD (time permitting). Hopefully, this will be the return of the GRAND tournaments.

Howdy Jeff, thanks for posting.

I just wanted to clarify that you intended for the following Chapter Approved units not to be included in the US GTs this year (since I don't see them included on the allowed army listings):

*Imperial Guard Abhuman doctrines.
*Witch Hunter Zealots.
*Blood Pact Storm Troopers (Lost and the Damned).
*Mounted Daemonettes (Chaos).


Also, IMO I think infiltration should be removed from one more scenario as currently it is available in all but one. The all infiltrating Daemonbomb Chaos army is just one variant of the fully infiltrating army that can be ridiculously potent (and rather un-fun to play against). I just think there should be a slightly higher chance that players may have to fight a battle without infiltration.

Posted By winterman on 01/02/2007 7:20 PM

So comp and painting are worth more than battle. Figures.

I suggest you reread the packet. There's no comp score.

Like people won't cheat and use the sports score as a comp score. 

 

And battle is less than 50% of total score.  Max score is 20 per game for battle, 11 for sports, and 10 for painting. (Opponent choice award...Or does that not count towards total score?)

And is there going to be a USGT rules FAQ like the UKGT one? There are alot of rules disagreements...Would be nice to know which rules are being followed and which are being ignored ahead of time so armies can be designed with the rules that are being used in mind.

Well those points levels are lower than I was expecting. I may just forgo the uber cheese list and go with a more fluffy but still potent pure Ultra Marine Drop Pod list since I'm expecting "Sports Score" to equate to a "Comp Score" in a lot of players rating.

Anyway thanks for posting the info on the GD events Jeff, I appreciate it since I will probably be attending both events.

I second the Abhuman and Zealot inquiry of Yaks as it will choose my army for me.

Also, this seems to only cover the "Games Day" associated tournaments is that correct? If so, whom do we contact about the rules for the Las Vegas "Tournament Circuit" event for it's rules Mr. Hall?

Posted By FlatlanderBoss2.0 on 01/03/2007 6:20 AM
I second the Abhuman and Zealot inquiry of Yaks as it will choose my army for me.

Also, this seems to only cover the "Games Day" associated tournaments is that correct? If so, whom do we contact about the rules for the Las Vegas "Tournament Circuit" event for it's rules Mr. Hall?

I'm pretty sure that the rules pack PDF is for the Games Workshop Run "Grand Tournaments" which includes the Vegas one.  The Games Day tournaments will be 1500 points where as actual GW Grand Tournaments will be 1750.  I'm assuming that the non GW events (Adepticon, etc) will be using their own normal tournament rules packet and points levels.

Hey guys,
Let me try and get to all your questions:

Hellfury
The Traits for Chapters of Legend only must be used if you are using Traits in general. You can always just use the basic list for any of those Chapters without any Traits.
As for Counts As, this mainly applies to models. If you want to use Imperial Fist rules with an alternate color scheme, that shouldn't be a problem as long as everything is easily identified as to what it is by the model in question. Scratch Built models are permitted for things like Drop Pods as there is no official GW model. You can always use the FW version, but if you custom build your own, that is fine.

Ghaz
Grimgor, Middenheim, and Dwarf Slayers from SOC are not part of the Approved Army lists. Those three have new parent army books that conflict with the lists in question. So we decided for ease of all involved to not allow those three. As for Vostroyan Doctrines, since they are only suggested and not defined like the others, you may use whichever ones you choose.

Yak
Abhumans, Zealots, and Blood Pact are not permitted in the GT. As for Mounted Daemonettes, well there is always something we forget! I will get those added to the list for the appropriate armies! Sorry about that.

Flatlander
These rules apply to all GW run tournaments as defined in the packet. As listed on the site, the only difference for the Games Day tournaments is that they are 3 games, and 1 day instead of 5 games and 2 days.

Hope that answers your questions!
Jeff Hall
GWUS Community Manager

Thanks Jeff for the quick answers.

Just got excited and misread a sentence. Sorry.

How long before the schedules may be known? I ask only because the Las Vegas tournament seems to span 3 days instead of usual 2.

Kudos to Jeff for listening and responding, and to GW for having Jeff. Things like this are appreciated, and make me more inclined to purchase GW models. Thank you.

Lol, I'm so glad you posted this!

And you should look into hiring yakface. He's got a nightjob, and now all he needs is a dayjob
to replace that thing he calls sleep.

We are working on the schedules now. The GT itself for Vegas and Baltimore (in November) will be on Saturday and Sunday, with Friday being a day for early registration, open gaming, and (we are planning) some cool special side events.
It is not set in stone yet, but we are working on a 2 person Doubles Tournament for Friday in Vegas. It will run from mid afternoon until Friday night. As soon as we work out the details for that, it will be posted online! We are working hard to make these events rock!
Jeff Hall
GWUS Community Manager

Posted By GWEvents on 01/03/2007 6:27 AM


Yak
Abhumans, Zealots, and Blood Pact are not permitted in the GT. As for Mounted Daemonettes, well there is always something we forget! I will get those added to the list for the appropriate armies! Sorry about that.

Hope that answers your questions!
Jeff Hall
GWUS Community Manager

Thanks again Jeff. I didn't see demonette cav.  as an "optional" addendum. Thanks for the clarifications to all our queries, espeically braving the potential Dakka fire.  I would suggest a similar posting to Warseer if it has not already been done.  

Posted By Doctor Thunder on 01/02/2007 7:48 PM
I'm thinking it would be pretty expensive to buy an army painted to a high enough quality level to get you in range of the winner's circle. Most of the armies on ebay are really low quality.
Anyway, that's actually a change from the last few seasons, where they made no distinction at all whether you painted your army or not. Presonally, I say judge the army, not where it came from. A great army is a great army is a great army.

No, i'm completely with engine on this. The awards for the GT are given to people that can compete in all aspects of the hobby. All.  That includes painting. 

A great army is a great army, but the great overall player/gamer/hobbyist is not the great overall if he can't or won't or refuses to paint his own army.  Takes all meaning away from it.  The award goes to the person that uses and made the army, not just TO the army itself. 

What you are advocating is like saying that you can enter a finely painted piece into the Golden Daemons, that you did NOT paint yourself, and you should be allowed to compete and win anyway.  The award goes to the person that did the work, and all of the work, not just to the bonehead with a fat wallet and no sense of fair competition.

I have nothing constructive to add here, but think it should be said more:

Thanks for posting, Jeff!

Perhaps there is some confusion as to what each award actually is?

Is it like this?

Overall Winner: Guy with the highest overall score (Battle, Painting, Sports, Bonus)
Best General: Guy with the highest Battle Points
Best Painted: Guy with highest Painting Score
Best Sportsman: Guy with highest Sports Score

If that's not how it goes, then could someone explain what the awards are?

Actually, I agree that Golden Demons should only allow people to enter things they painted themselves, but GT's are different in my mind. I don't see much difference between making the effort to paint an army yourself, and making the effort to earn the money to have it professionally painted. Using your available resources to the best result is just good life management in my mind.

I'm sure some people may bring up the idea that players with more money should not have an advantage, but I would argue that they always have an inherant advantage, because players with more money are able to buy more cool custom bits to convert their models with to a higher degree, which is reflected in their scores as well. Players with more money are also able to buy armies more quickly, meaning that they can adjust their armies to changing rules and enviornments faster then other players, giving them a further advantage.

Another problem is that the rule is ultimately unenforceable. Tournament organizers do not have the time or resources to investigate claims of "he didn't paint that." It also opens the door for disgruntled players to create havok by falsly accusing players of using armies they didn't paint themselves.

Consider also the fact that, in every other aspect of the tournament, we only judge the result, not the source of it. 

We make no distinction between players who live close by the venues and have copious amounts of free time, and players who live thousands of miles from the nearest tournament and a tight schedule, we only rate them on whether or not they attend.  We make no distinction between players with good upbringing and a naturally easygoing nature and players with poor upbringing and a naturally short temper, we just judge the sportsmanship.  We make no distinction between players with a natural inclination for tactics, who have honed that skill with practice and patience, and players who have no time to practice and have little natural talent for tactics, we simply judge their preformance.

In every other aspect in the tournament, we only judge the result, not the source, so why draw an artificial line in the sand when it comes to painting?  Why not simply judge the result, as we do in every other part of the tourney?

I think the simplest solution is to judge the army, regardless of where it came from, but other people are welcome to disagree with me on this point.

I thought that they had clarified the conflicts between the Slayer list and the new Dwarf army book in the Dwarf FAQ, but I see your point on the other two lists. Perhaps you should add the lists that you can not use to the packets just for clarity's sake.

What's the logic behind picking and choosing which Chapter Approved armies/units can (i.e. Kroot Mercs, etc.) and cannot (BP, WH Zealots, etc.) be entered?

IMO, It makes 0 sense that an entire ARMY from CA can be fielded but a WH player cannot include 1 CA unit within their army. That just seems a**-backwards to me.

Just be glad we have the ones we do.
In england none of the non main armys are allowed.
feril, speed, kroot 13th, Lost and damned, armored company

I think we are lucky Jeff listed to our feedbake and set it up as it is, it could be a whole lot worse.

Friday special events........RIGHT ON JEFF............

All hail the death of comp.............................. Hurray hurrah


Thanks again Jeff

I have a quick question:   What about Albion stuff?

I think it's a pretty good effort on the whole.

But there's just some inconsistences. Why all the PDF armies (i.e. Kroot Mercenaries etc.) but not Catachans?

Why allow some stuff from White Dwarf (i.e. the Ork Warboss on bike, Deathwatch teams, etc.) and not others (like the IG Abhuman doctrines)?

Makes little or no sense to me.

If GW could fix those things, I'd be a little more happy.

Posted By stormboy97 on 01/03/2007 10:20 AM
Just be glad we have the ones we do.
In england none of the non main armys are allowed.
feril, speed, kroot 13th, Lost and damned, armored company

I think we are lucky Jeff listed to our feedbake and set it up as it is, it could be a whole lot worse.

Friday special events........RIGHT ON JEFF............

All hail the death of comp.............................. Hurray hurrah


Thanks again Jeff

I don't agree with the whole "just be happy with what you're given" bit.

Seriously, it makes absolutely no sense to continue to release Chapter Approved rules periodically and then pick and choose which Approved rules are the supremely "approved" rules. This is, by far, my biggest problem with GW.

If you make something "official", in whatever format you release it in, it should be official across the board. EVERYTHING that is official should be such. If GW doesn't like the rules, either edit them or don't release them in the first place. No other company I buy/play from does this.

Don't worry, I don't think future Chapter Approved rules will be an issue for you.

The reason behind including some things but not others is that the Design Studio released certain items as "official" while others were considered Trial and Optional. So we tried to include all the Official releases in the rules and not the optional items. That is why some are cool and others are not. As many of you have noticed, the has not been any rules in Dwarf articles for some time, and this is because of the fact that it became very unwieldy to sort through all the optional vs. official rules. Now, everything is Codex and Army book based to keep things a bit more concise. We tried to include as much of the older items as we could to not exclude players.

One final note in regard to the Catachans - This book is considered out of print and replaced by the IG Codex from the official standpoint of Games Workshop in regard to tournaments and other events. So we are only going with Codex: Imperial Guard for the Catachans.

I hope that clarifies what we are thinking a bit more. I know you won't all agree, but from a tournament standpoint, we think it helps keep things workable and provides the as many options as possible for a great deal of players.

Jeff Hall
GWUS Community Manager

Thanks for the reply. Sometimes we feel that we're just howling into an echo chamber. People may not agree with your reasoning, but we all appreciate the response.

It's not cheating if you score someone based on the criteria setout by the organizer. The sportscore at the US gt's is based on how much fun someone has, which can be as much list as player. Its lame, i admit but it's not cheating.

And my point was it could be worse: it used to be possible to sandbag both comp and sports and they both made up more of the overall points. Infact they are trying to cater to people like yourself as much as possible, yet you still whine.

Posted By GWEvents on 01/03/2007 11:38 AM
The reason behind including some things but not others is that the Design Studio released certain items as "official" while others were considered Trial and Optional. So we tried to include all the Official releases in the rules and not the optional items. That is why some are cool and others are not. As many of you have noticed, the has not been any rules in Dwarf articles for some time, and this is because of the fact that it became very unwieldy to sort through all the optional vs. official rules. Now, everything is Codex and Army book based to keep things a bit more concise. We tried to include as much of the older items as we could to not exclude players.

One final note in regard to the Catachans - This book is considered out of print and replaced by the IG Codex from the official standpoint of Games Workshop in regard to tournaments and other events. So we are only going with Codex: Imperial Guard for the Catachans.

I hope that clarifies what we are thinking a bit more. I know you won't all agree, but from a tournament standpoint, we think it helps keep things workable and provides the as many options as possible for a great deal of players.

Jeff Hall
GWUS Community Manager

Reasoning works for me.

I would argue that sportsmanship is about rating behavior, but my problem is
that the rubric is a bit too vague too really say that. I know the word
sportsmanship is there, but some people read that as army list building, too.
Then when you read the score breakdown (the rubric), they give you a
vague list of how a game "felt" rather than specific behaviors.

I think sample behaviors would be best. I liked Mannahin's checklist, for
example.

I tried to look for it, but could not find the painting rules to compare the rubrics.

If that's how you wanted sportsmanship read, then ok.

btw: Under the link to the Warhammer Fantasy rules the text link is labeled
"Warhammer 40,000 Rules Packet." Just in case you missed it. It still points
to WHFB, but the link mislabeled.

I like the return to judged painting. It helps address "score tanking," and will hopefully lead to some actual disparity in painting scores. Under the old format, too many people got max or near-max painting scores. So why bother even having it as a category under that system?

Good work, Jeff.

Thanks Jeff for the response. I have fought with many people in the past over simple issues such as "Counts as" is nice to have an official validation.

Posted By GrimTeef on 01/03/2007 8:04 AM

Posted By Doctor Thunder on 01/02/2007 7:48 PM
I'm thinking it would be pretty expensive to buy an army painted to a high enough quality level to get you in range of the winner's circle. Most of the armies on ebay are really low quality.
Anyway, that's actually a change from the last few seasons, where they made no distinction at all whether you painted your army or not. Presonally, I say judge the army, not where it came from. A great army is a great army is a great army.

No, i'm completely with engine on this. The awards for the GT are given to people that can compete in all aspects of the hobby. All.  That includes painting. 

A great army is a great army, but the great overall player/gamer/hobbyist is not the great overall if he can't or won't or refuses to paint his own army.  Takes all meaning away from it.  The award goes to the person that uses and made the army, not just TO the army itself. 

What you are advocating is like saying that you can enter a finely painted piece into the Golden Daemons, that you did NOT paint yourself, and you should be allowed to compete and win anyway.  The award goes to the person that did the work, and all of the work, not just to the bonehead with a fat wallet and no sense of fair competition.

I have a friend here in helena that loves to go to tournaments.

he paid his other buddy to paint his army for them. When he goes to tournaments, he does claim that the models are his own creation in order to get the prize.

BUT (and this is a big but) BUT he also comes home and gives the award to the guy who painted it. I go to almost every tourney with him and I know for a fact that the guy with the army he didnt paint gives credit where credit is due.
Matt has alot of painting awards because his armies are spread far and wide. And he hardly ever goes to the tournaments himself.

I know there is a possibility to abuse that rule, but there are other ways like the example I gave that is also a good thing.

Posted By skyth on 01/03/2007 5:56 AM

Posted By winterman on 01/02/2007 7:20 PM

So comp and painting are worth more than battle. Figures.

I suggest you reread the packet. There's no comp score.

Like people won't cheat and use the sports score as a comp score. 

"Come and see the subjectivity inherent in the system! Help, I'm being oppressed!"

It'll happen - suck it up. I went to the [EDIT]second UK GT interested in seeing how my 'generalship' (GW's term) stacked up. I came fourth overall in that category and somewhere quite a bit lower once painting, sportmanship and army list were factored in.

Which is exactly what I epxected - manage your expectations and your blood pressure tends to be a lot lower.

Posted By Tribune on 01/03/2007 1:10 PM

Posted By skyth on 01/03/2007 5:56 AM

Posted By winterman on 01/02/2007 7:20 PM

So comp and painting are worth more than battle. Figures.

I suggest you reread the packet. There's no comp score.

Like people won't cheat and use the sports score as a comp score. 

"Come and see the subjectivity inherent in the system! Help, I'm being oppressed!"

It'll happen - suck it up. I went to the first UK GT interested in seeing how my 'generalship' (GW's term) stacked up. I came fourth overall in that category and somewhere quite a bit lower once painting, sportmanship and army list were factored in.

Which is exactly what I epxected - manage your expectations and your blood pressure tends to be a lot lower.

Not only that, but the low ballers have one less way to drop you in points. No comp = 50% less lowballing.

Its not perfect, but alot better than what we had in the past.

Here's an idea. Go with the intent to enjoy yourself win or lose.

I forgot to add that the three guys who finished above me in battle points were also 1-3 overall. They did 'everything' right and were no doubt there with a more serious intent to take the prize.

I'll admit I just had a good time geeking out for the weekend!

Posted By winterman on 01/03/2007 12:01 PM

Like people won't cheat and use the sports score as a comp score.

It's not cheating if you score someone based on the criteria setout by the organizer. The sportscore at the US gt's is based on how much fun someone has, which can be as much list as player. Its lame, i admit but it's not cheating.

And my point was it could be worse: it used to be possible to sandbag both comp and sports and they both made up more of the overall points. Infact they are trying to cater to people like yourself as much as possible, yet you still whine.

Actually, I was talking both about people who either score full points or none, with no graduation and the people who tank sports because of army composition.  Both are cheating.

And one query for Jeff-Any chance of a USGT rules FAQ similar to the UKGT rules FAQ? Just borrow the UKGT FAQ or the YAKFAQ.

I really would like to know which rules interpretations are being used if I were to go. This creates a better game for both people, as it prevents rules arguments.

My favorite army (Daemonhunters) has more than it's share of rules arguments, especially since people don't know how the army works. But I don't take it to tournaments any more because of all the rules arguments.

No offense to yakface, as I know he has put alot of effort into his FAQ.

But I find that his opinions and interpretations about intent makes him biased against RAW.

I for one would not follow many rules he has issued as cannon because popular consensus and RAW both go against his written interpretation.

But thats my opinion.

I've found that the FAQ's he made in most cases go with Popular consensus first, then RAW a close second unless the RAW is perfectly clear.

I do disagree with some of them, but the point is simply having FAQs available before the tourney, regardless of what they say, will help. Especially with the rarer armies. I don't want to wonder if I'll be facing infiltrating statured princes, for instance...I'd like to know if Mystics work vs drop pods. I'd like to know if Rhinos block LOS to a Land Raider. There are many other possible rules arguments that I'd like answered. All before I chose my army for a tournament.

Posted By skyth on 01/03/2007 4:19 PM
I've found that the FAQ's he made in most cases go with Popular consensus first, then RAW a close second unless the RAW is perfectly clear.

Correction. He goes with his consensus first. Then goes by raw.

I tire of arguing points and people agreeing with me just for yak to say nothing is response. I have points that side with both raw and popular consensus, yet am told his iterpretation of intent is not going to fly with that. I think there is a certain amount of hubris involved there, but I digress.

Regardless, we do need a unifying FAQ for reference for sanctioned play. No matter what the source is.

Posted By malfred on 01/02/2007 9:50 PM

It should go without saying that illegal casts of Games Workshop
models will in no way be permitted. Please do not try and play
with your clear resin Stealth Suits.

That's such a cool idea. I wonder if GW will actually ever try to produce their own
clear resin stealth units. I remember someone (probably KK) posting some clear
resin predators that were out there. Very neat.

Hellfury: I thought that "counts as" referred to modeling and not paint schemes?

casting models you have bought and own in clear resin is not an illegal recast if it is for personal use, no matter how much they tell you. Fair use still counts for something.

Maybe, maybe not, but either way they can disqualify you from the tournament for doing so.

Hey guys,
We are working on a GT specific FAQ. I can't say that this will cover every rules question that will come up, but we are trying to answer both the commonly asked questions about the GTs in general and some rules topics. It is still a few weeks away from publishing though.

Another note that you may all find interesting - upon further review, we have decided to include the Dwarf Slayer list from SoC to the approved list of armies. I wasn't aware that the design studio FAQ addressed the differences between the books, so this list is should work out again. If by some chance they would also clarify the Grimgor and Middenheim lists, I would include them as well, but for now those 2 are still out due to the conflicts between the list and parent books.
Jeff Hall
GWUS Community Manager

Hey Jeff,

How 'bout the Chosen of Ahriman? 

I know...  I  know...  But it doesn't hurt to ask, right?

Vale,

JohnS

Just realized I missed an earlier question - This is the full year schedule. There won't be any additional events added to the circuit in 2007.

John - Sorry, no plans to add the Chosen of Ahriman!

And as a final reminder (since I have received some calls and emails on the subject) here is the breakdown again on how the events are:

Games Day Tournaments
These are Atlanta (April 28), Baltimore (June 23), and Los Angeles (August 11)
These events are 1 day tournaments with 1500 pt armies for 40K and WFB, and 500 pts for LOTR.
These are Saturday only events

Grand Tournaments
These are Las Vegas (June 1-3), Chicago (July 27-28), and Baltimore (November 2-4)
These are 2 day events for the tournament portion. Vegas and Baltimore are Saturday-Sunday tournaments, Chicago is a Friday-Saturday tournament.
Vegas and Baltimore will feature Friday set-up, registration, open gaming, and other events
Points are 1750 for 40K, 2000 for WFB, and 500 for LOTR

Adepticon and the Necro have their own rules and point limits. See their sites for details.

I hope that clears up any confusion!

Jeff Hall
GWUS Community Manager

Uh, Dr. Thunder, time management and smart use of money has no bearing on table top mini gaming tournaments. If a guy wins overall with an army he didn't paint, why doesn't the guy who painted the army get the trophy? Why can't I paint a killer themed army and hire Mauleed to be my General, while I suck up to the competition to get great sportmanship points? Or better yet, hire a beautiful woman to be my "good sport". If I don't have to earn my paint points, why do I have to earn any of my GT points?

I''ll say again, if you don't have time/want to paint, go ahead and buy your army. But you should not be eligible for overall. It really is that simple.

engine

Hey Jeff,

I want to thank you for being responsive to all of the questions and issues that people are talking about.  It is a breath of fresh air to have someone from GW actually responding to the forums.  We may not all agree with everything, but your continued feedback is greatly appreciated.

BTW - I would like to put in a request for 2008.  Would you be able to start working with the UK so that Americans can qualify in the states to go to the UK GT finals?  Alas - it was a fun trip, but not worth doing two trips to the UK each year. 

Talk to ya' later,

Greg

Posted By engine on 01/03/2007 7:04 PM
Uh, Dr. Thunder, time management and smart use of money has no bearing on table top mini gaming tournaments.

Sure it does, because time and money management are elements that heavily influence your eventual score.  The question to ask ourselves is this: When does a tournament game begin?  If you said when you arrive at the table, then you are wrong. The game itself is only the final step in a long process that leads up to the tournament game. From the minute a player chooses his army, he has made a decision that will affect his final score. The time and effort put into the conversions and painting, the creativity of theme and execution and fluff are all componants that will factor into his final score. The more a player prepares before a tournament begins, which includes practicing with his army, the more advantage he has once the tournament begins.
By the time the tournament begins, the players are hardly on level footing anymore. They have already given themselves a huge advantage or disadvantage based upon their preperation.
Preparation is a huge part of doing well in a tournament, and time and money management are key ingredients in that preparation.

<address>If a guy wins overall with an army he didn't paint, why doesn't the guy who painted the army get the trophy? </address>

I like the idea that was proposed earlier, of giving the trophy to the person who painted it afterwards.  Seems like a good compromise to me.

<address>If I don't have to earn my paint points, why do I have to earn any of my GT points?
</address>

But you do earn them.  It's no different then paying someone to build your house or do your taxes.  If you pay for it and oversee it, you are still the one making it happen.  Using the skills of another person is just a resource you are using to make it happen.  It is not much different, in my mind, then recieving tactical advise or painting tips from other players.

<address>
I''ll say again, if you don't have time/want to paint, go ahead and buy your army. But you should not be eligible for overall. It really is that simple.</address>

Well, I'm painting my own stuff, so we're really talking about theoretical "other" players, not me, but you never addressed the points I made earlier.  Why should we judge the results for everything else except painting?  Why does it not matter what lead to your scores in battle and sportsmanship, but it does matter what lead to your scores for painting?  Why the inconsistency?

I made a difference. YAY!   I'm sure all of the Slayer army players will be happy now.  After all, it's easy enough to make an 'Ardboyz army into a standar Orc army or a Middenheim army into a standard Empire army but it's not as easy to make a Slayer army into a standard Dwarf army.

Posted By engine on 01/03/2007 7:04 PM
Uh, Dr. Thunder, time management and smart use of money has no bearing on table top mini gaming tournaments. If a guy wins overall with an army he didn't paint, why doesn't the guy who painted the army get the trophy? Why can't I paint a killer themed army and hire Mauleed to be my General, while I suck up to the competition to get great sportmanship points? Or better yet, hire a beautiful woman to be my "good sport". If I don't have to earn my paint points, why do I have to earn any of my GT points?

I''ll say again, if you don't have time/want to paint, go ahead and buy your army. But you should not be eligible for overall. It really is that simple.

engine

I think you should be eligible for overall. Youre paying for the service of the army being done, which is just like doing it yourself in some ways.

Youre bringing a wonderful army for opponents to play against. Thats alot better than some environments.
Besides, when was the last time someone got best overall when the person playing it didnt really do it themselves? I am willing to bet that the people that did put the time and effort are the ones who won as opposed to the ones who just bought ready made armies.

They are not however eliglble for players choice nor best painted army.

Seems reasonable to me in my opinion, just a it seems unreasonable in yours.

BTW - I would like to put in a request for 2008. Would you be able to start working with the UK so that Americans can qualify in the states to go to the UK GT finals? Alas - it was a fun trip, but not worth doing two trips to the UK each year.


Hey Jeff how about talking to our neighbors to the north also. They have it set up to be all but impossible for non residents to make it to the big game.
It could be the top overall point guys for the year abile to go.

catachan question?? didnt they come out with a new for download book on the GW site??

Team events sound awesome Jeff!!!

It is all about playing with toy soldiers, drinking beer and having a good time..

Now that's a great idea.

These rules are a great step in the right direction, but the deal breaker for me is the exclusion of Forgeworld rules yet again.  If composition is no longer an issue, does it matter if rare units are fielded?  If these are the Grand Tournaments, shouldn't they pull out all the stops?  I find it hard to believe that the players at the largest tournaments of them all wouldn't be familiar with all the units out there.  Many RTTs are allowing Forgeworld units now with the exception of super-heavies, flyers, and creatures with mass points, and I am really urging GW US to begin to allow this in tournament play.  As the proud owner of a heavily converted and painted Kroot army that includes 500 points (and $500) worth of Forgeworld units, I'm dying for a chance to one day field my entire army at a Grand Tournament, and am greatly disappointed that it won't be this year.

Any chance on reconsidering for next year, Jeff? 

- Oaka

Jeff, Question about the GT venues. Is this going to be a return to the smaller hotel style or still at a convention center. I do miss the old days of the Hotel GT?s.

Thomas

Posted By GWEvents on 01/03/2007 5:33 PM
Hey guys,
We are working on a GT specific FAQ. I can't say that this will cover every rules question that will come up, but we are trying to answer both the commonly asked questions about the GTs in general and some rules topics. It is still a few weeks away from publishing though.

Jeff Hall
GWUS Community Manager

Jeff, I'd like to put another voice in for using the Unofficial Dakka FAQ (AKA the YakFAQ, in honor of Yakface's excellent work), or possibly the Adepticon FAQ.  Both have rulings any given person may disagree with, but both are very well done, very comprehensive (particularly Yak's) and represent a great deal of work that shoudn't have to be completely duplicated.

I'd recommend at least having a look:

http://dakkadakka.com/Forums/tabid/56/forumid/15/postid/46258/view/topic/Default.aspx

-Ragnar

Wow, this is awesome.

I want to ask a clarification on the "count as" rule.

You had mentioned as long as it was explained and point out this was ok. However, im using marines, what about special characters (lysander) used in an army that was not imperial fist for his special rules?

 

Edit:  Additional Question, It says that Space Marines may use a deathwatch killteam, but not IG, which according to the rules printed on the GW site for the Deathwatch, may be taken as a HQ choice in a IG army.  So are Deathwatch Killteam's permissible for IG armies

Thanks for the continued feedback. As to the latest questions:
Counts as rules are primarily for using models as something else (that still makes sense). For example, using your Kislev Winged Lancers as Empire Knights since the Kislev rules are not available for the GT. You still have to follow the rules for things if you want to use the RULES, and not just the MODELS. So you can only use the Lysander with his rules in an Imp Fist army (following all their rules). You can use the Lysander model in any Marine force with the proper weapon build, but to use his rules, you have to be playing Imperial Fist.

As for venues, they are still at Convention Centers. I tried long and hard to find affordable hotels and it just wasn't happening for the size venue we needed.

Finally, to Oaka's comments on FW rules. Unfortunately this is something I have no control over. We are only permitted to use Design Studio rules, so until FW falls under the Official headings, you are not likely to see their rules appear in a GT or Games Day tournament. Now if we run a Campaign weekend or something like that in future years, we would look at using that stuff. But for tournaments, it is not likely to happen.

Jeff Hall
GWUS Community Manager

Jeff, I was wondering why the drop in points at the GT's this year.  I know several people who have stated they will not attend due to the drop in points and admit that it is making me wonder if I wish to attend.  It seems like most events are going up in points rather than down.

Second I too agree with the "if you dont paint it you cant win it".  Overall should contend with overall in the hobby and purchasing a painted army does not qualify as overall.  The comparison to someone building your house is a poor comparison as you are not building your house as a competition.  The GT's are not a team event (barring anything listed as a team event in vegas heh) therefore you should rely on your own abilities.  If you are not the best painted then you make up for that in other areas to compensate. 

If you want the GT trophy that bad, it would probably only cost you 20 bucks to get one.  Wouldnt that be a better investment of your time and money?

Jeff,
Sorry you posted yet? You do realize, we're never going to stop with the questions now. And if you don't answer each and every one in a timely fashion, we'll get stroppy...

I'm one of those slow players.. not on purpose but I guess I just think too much when I play .. I like the drop in points, less models for me to push around and think about

I'm guessing they prolly lowered it because 40k games were taking a bit longer to finish and they don't want too many incomplete games

Sorry, wrong. Fair use makes no exceptions for intentional infringement of copyright solely for your own personal use. Recasting is not parody, and not comment/criticism, which are the two major types of fair use exception; it's just copying.

I'd recomment this overview of copyright and fair use for anyone who wants to know more.

When you answer the Deathwatch question above, also answer a related kroot question here.

You say you can use kroot merc list which I have assumed up until that last question that you can use kroot in an IG army or Eldar army as allies, But then the above poster pointed out that some allies were specifically mentioned, does that mean the ones not specifically mentioned are not included?

I just checked the rules for 2005, and 2006 it is worded the same way and kroot allies were allowed then, the same goes for putting Deathwatch in IG armies, so again I am assuming you can still use Deathwatch as allies in any army the deathwatch rules allow and kroot allies in any army the kroot rules allow.

But this is just based on past interpretations of the same rule in past seasons.

Wulfy

Posted By Doctor Thunder on 01/03/2007 8:15 PM

Well, I'm painting my own stuff, so we're really talking about theoretical "other" players, not me, but you never addressed the points I made earlier.  Why should we judge the results for everything else except painting?  Why does it not matter what lead to your scores in battle and sportsmanship, but it does matter what lead to your scores for painting?  Why the inconsistency?

So you would be cool with hiring out any aspect of the score?

Aren't hobbies a little bit different than "getting my taxes done"?  Isn't an intergral point of a hobby actually doing the hobby work?  Buying a finished train set/model/army diminshes the final product, especially if you are entering it for competition!
I guess I am old fashion in that if you are being judged in a specific category, you should have accomplished it personally, not had someone do it for you (whether you tender money or not).  That is the point I am making with hiring out the other scores.  I could spend a lot more time on my army if I had a great 40k player actually command my army.  Makes good time management sense to me, except that it seems just as silly as buying an army and winning overall with it.

The hobby aspect is a great equalizer.  If I am forced to paint my own army, it does level the playing field vs. someone with a big trust fund that can buy his win.  If I went to a GT and lost overall by a couple of points to a guy who purchased an army, I'd be some pissed.  "overall" champion?  Whatever.

engine

As others pointed out, the problem with the situation is that the rule only punishes the honest guy who declares that he paid to have his minis painted.

Someone who doesn't care can simply not declare that his army was painted and no one will know any better (it's not that hard to keep the fact that you've had your army painted a complete secret).

The simple fact is, time is money and some people have much more money than they have time to paint. Unfortunately, GW doesn't host any tournaments that don't incorporate a painting score (nor do very many independent tournies) so basically someone who doesn't have the time or talent to paint stands little to no chance of ever winning a grand tournament no matter how good he is in the other elements of the game.

I personally have no issue with pro-painted armies winning the overall mark. At the very least it helps make declaring that your army has been pro-painted a no-brainer for any decent player.

Everyone should have the chance to win a GT, and if you're some guy who works 90 hours a week and can afford to pay a top notch painter to paint your army (and you are a helluva nice guy and have some great tactics too) then I certainly wouldn't begrudge the win.

Posted By engine on 01/05/2007 8:58 PM

Aren't hobbies a little bit different than "getting my taxes done"?  Isn't an intergral point of a hobby actually doing the hobby work? 

Not really.  Accomplishing anything requires an expenditure of resources, and the mixuture of resources varies from person to person.  Some people have lots of free time but no money, so they accomplish an army by painting it themselves.  Other people have lots of money but little to no free time, so they accomplish an army buy paying someone to do it.  Either way, it is simply using the resources you have to accomplish a goal you want to acheive.  Talent is also a resource, and can be used to one's benfit whether one posesses it oneself, or one uses talent posessed by another.

<address>So you would be cool with hiring out any aspect of the score?</address>

We all do that to a certain entent.  Every time we ask someone for painting advice, or conversion help, or list building advice, or tactical advise, we are tapping into the skills of others to improve our eventual results.  The main difference is that most people will give that kind of help for free, but it does not change the nature of the act, which is using the skills and experience of others to improve our own tournament preformance.

<address>Buying a finished train set/model/army diminshes the final product, especially if you are entering it for competition!</address>

Depending on the skills of the people involved, it may actually enlarge the final product.  Some people have a natural talent for making beautiful miniatures effortlessly, while other people struggle to even turn out something average.  When creating something for a competition, a person will naturally want to create the best thing they can with their available resources.

<address>The hobby aspect is a great equalizer.  If I am forced to paint my own army, it does level the playing field vs. someone with a big trust fund that can buy his win.  If I went to a GT and lost overall by a couple of points to a guy who purchased an army, I'd be some pissed.  "overall" champion?  Whatever.</address>

Well, this really strikes at the heart of it, doesn't it?  Do you dislike the idea because you are morally objected to it, or because it represents a threat to your personal chances of winning?  (I'm not being flippant, I am asking seriously)

Consider also the fact that it takes a big chunk of time and money to even attend a GT in the first place, so we've already cut out a large chunk of players who do not have enough money to attend a GT in the first place.  The tournament circuit only increases the seperation, as only a small group of players are going to have the money to attend multiple GT's, and thus increase their chances of winning the entire circuit.  Money being an advantage is already heavily built into the system, wouldn't you agree?

Another point:

According to your profile, you live in or near Wisconsin, which means that in years past you have had a huge advantage over players like myself who live out in Utah.  You had a quarter the traveling distance I did, which means it cost you far less money and travel time to attend the GT's.  I also had a work schedule that was extremely inflexible compared to most other people.  You had a distinct advantage over me based on the details of your life.  You did not earn it, it was just there.  Was that advantage taken into account in the scoring?  No, it wasn't.  The results only were judged, not the process by which they came about.

I know several players who have keen minds for tactics.  They can effortlessly deconstruct the game into its tactical componants and play out various scenarious in their minds, looking five and six turns ahead, while I struggeled to even conceive of a few basic moves for the next turn.  They had a distinct advantage over me based on the nature of their minds.  They did not earn it, it was just there.  Was that advantage taken into account in the scoring?  No, it wasn't.  The results only were judged, not the process by which they came about.

Take note that I am not complaining in any way, I'm just pointing out that there are nearly infinate combinations of resources and life details that give each player a certain number of advantages and disadvantages before the tournament begins, and none of those are taken into account.  The only thing that is judged is the final preformance.  So, why, suddenly, do we make an exception with painting?  Why not judge painting the same way we judge everything else at the tournament, which is by the result, not by the source?

I use to be against anyone winning overall with a bought army but there's been some good points made in this thread.

What they should do is simply attribute the win to both the painter and the general for overall and the painter for a favorite army, noting in either case the situation. Takes away punishing the honest people and gives credit where credit is due. I don't have a problem with a GT win by a team of sorts as long as only one guy is general (more because of time constraints) and proper credit is given. Think of it like NASCAR (ie driver and pit crew).

You know, I thought the same way as winterman until this thread. Then again it seems at most Gw's you need to have your army at least primed now just to use the tables (At least the one here in Holyoke, MA is like that now.)

Well since we all should buy our armies rather than invest personal time to improve our paint skills lets just all go play Hero Clicks or Star Wars Minis.  Basically then you can show up with a nasty army, beat the hell out of your opponent, and walk away happy because you crushed a 14 year old.  That isnt what the GW hobby is about and the hobby side is what seperates us from those other types of table top games.

The GT is based on the HOBBY!  Its not based on your purchasing potential rather its based on your abilty to compete in the entire hobby, hence paint scores.  What does forcing your players to paint their own armies do?  It forces them to improve doesnt it? 

Its not now, nor will it ever be an even playing field and that is the point.  Competition is about forced improvement to out-do your opponent.  Its not about leveling the playing field so everyone feels its fair.  If your a runner, you dont add 40LBS of lead to a guy because he is faster.  Instead everyone has to IMPROVE to his level.  The NASCAR reference is scary as they feel they should keep changing everyones car to make it "even".  Guess what, someone still comes out on top by wide margins.

The continued reference to "I work hard to earn the money to pay for my army so I think I should win a paint contest with it" is bogus.  I bust my arse at work, work more hours than a typical person, do a lot of traveling so I am rarely home to work on my army yet still manage to get my armies done (by myself) to a high standard for the GT's.  Doc you make some logical arguments but act like your a victim.  I have to travel 800-900 miles to get to GT's as well and seem to have the same disadvantages you have but have won a majority of the major awards at several GT's.  I saw the standards, improved my skills, and met the challenge.  Try it and I think you will find it is very rewarding.

Dont lower the standards of the GT simply because you want the easy way out.  The GT should be about your accomplishments and not your pocket book.  Improve yourself to meet the standards rather than complain the standards be lowered to meet you.  My painting has improved tremendously in the last 3 years because of the GT's and with time and practice most of you can acheive the same thing.

You know what though. Miniature wargaming is a hobby made up of two aspects. modeling and gaming. Should we force everyone involved in the hobby to take part in both aspects?

Modelling has a fully supported GW competition: Gold Demon. You don't see rules that force those painters/modelers to play a game with their models, do you? Most of them have no desire to play the game. Might be because they suck at it or they are just not interested. So should we force them to compete in the HOBBY as whole? It should work both ways, shouldn't it?

I'd be curious to find out peoples responses to the abover questions.

As an aside, I enjoy all aspects of the hobby and I'd never consider competeing with an army I didn't paint (unless it was an emergency of some kind, like my army was stolen or something).

You know what though. Miniature wargaming is a hobby made up of two aspects. modeling and gaming. Should we force everyone involved in the hobby to take part in both aspects?

Modelling has a fully supported GW competition: Gold Demon. You don't see rules that force those painters/modelers to play a game with their models, do you? Most of them have no desire to play the game. Might be because they suck at it or they are just not interested. So should we force them to compete in the HOBBY as whole? It should work both ways, shouldn't it?

Whats good for the goose is good for the gander. Make them play.

No, but the Golden Daemon is a painting competition. Guess what happened when GW found out that at two of the Games Days people paid for their painted figures? They were disqualified. The hobby may be made up of two aspects, but the GT is judged on both aspects. Are you then saying that people should show up to a GT with unpained models? "Yes sir, this is my Grey Knights army. They are grey....and they are knights."

Winterman in answer to your questions the Demon awards are strictly painting.  GW however does require that your squads etc.. have to meet codex requirements thereby requiring the painter to hopefully know something about the hobby.  In other words you cant enter 4 marines as a squad entry as it does not meet the minimum requirements of the squad.  Hawiian is correct that several Demon awards have been given to models that were purchased on ebay or painted by someone other than the one who entered it and they were disqualified.  Most of the time this was discovered after the fact so there was no way to get the trophy back however.  It was the paiinting community in most cases that made the discovery. 

I dont beleive the GT is now or has ever been about just showing up and beating the crap out of your opponent (well at least not for everyone heh).  GW designed the GT system around the hobby not just the gaming aspect.  This means YOU must compete in all aspects if you have a chance to win overall.  If you show up to beat the crap out of your opponent then realistically you are going for best general award.  If you show up with a nice fluffy army that you know has no chance in winning then you really are going for the best army/painting side (usually where I end up).  If you can manage to do both then VOILA we have a winner!!

Sorry I seem so adament about this.

Problem is there is no longer a best general award. And unfortunately, the US GT overall has been more and more about battle score for the last few years. Especially the all important massacare. The other factor has been kissing up to your opponent so he doesn't knock your score down in painting, comp and sports. They've fixed that to a degree (no comp and judge rated painting) but it is still more about generalship.

Personally, if they simply had two competitions going on at the same time (best general and best army) and then an overall winner, then it'd be a nice balance. Purchased armies could go for best general and painters, fluff mongers could go for best army and those of use who like both could go for all 3.

As it is now, its not really an overall competition nor is it a fair indicator of best general or best army IMHO. So why even bother singling out the honest guy who fessed up to having not painted his army, when at least he was honest about it and also atleast made some effort to bring a well painted army?

Someone also mentioned someone showing up without a painted army. I for one would rather someone spent money for a painted army and win a GT then to have to face an unpainted or poorly painted army. That's one reason why my opinion on the subject of purchased armies has changed.

Maybe it is time for GW to step forward and announce its intent on the GT's.  I know I know.."its all about the fun" line but realistically is the intent simpy to bring in money, discover the best crusher of kids, or try and set higher standards for the hobby.  Realistically we can all keep throwing our opinions at it and it simply comes down to our beleif system.  Its up to GW to set the bar.

Maybe 40k is a training program to determine the strongest among our young so that
GW can take them into a giant citadel and alter their genetic coding with chest implanted
seed material?

You said chest and seed in the same sentence.

Heh, yall are funny.  Any reference to the last starfighter is good.  Anyone think Jeff would respond to this?

Ok guys, here's my two cents on this raging topic. I have to say I am somewhat surprised it has been such a hotly debated item. I personally also feel very strongly about painting your own models, but we are trying to be accomodating. There are many aspects to the hobby and we see that. We want to have painted models on the table so that everyone is enjoying the game in that regard. As for if you painted it your self or not, I think that the way we have done it works well. You are not eligible for the pure painting prizes if you didn't paint your army. However, you can win the overall award, since painting is only 25% of the total score.
To be honest, there have been very few times that someone has brought a bought army. At least that they were open about. I could probably count on one hand the number of people who said they did not paint their army in the past years GTs. So I am not sure why it is such a huge topic here. Could someone come and win with a purchased army. Sure. Has it happened, yes (but not since around 97 that I am aware of).
As for what GW's goals are in the Grand Tournaments - you hit the nail on the head: Have Fun with Toy Soldiers. There are so many aspects of the hobby that is almost impossible to isolate one all encompassing goal. However, in the end, GTs are about gaming with the other aspects of the hobby incorporated into that. Golden Demon is about the painting and converting.
A final note (and I am not even sure I have really answered your questions, I feel I am a bit rambling here) is that it is almost impossible to police the painting aspect. If someone really went out of their way to keep it quiet amongst him and his painter, we would never know. So trying to be very militant on this topic is a stressful thing that we just don't have the time or resources to police.
I appreciate the passion everyone has toward the hobby. I have it myself and I have my own views on these matters. But from a company standpoint, we want to be accomodating and we hope in the end everyone is having a great weekend of gaming, comaraderie, and seeing some great looking models. That is what we are looking for in a great Grand Tournament.
Jeff Hall
GWUS Community Manager

Actually Jeff I dont think you are rambling at all. I think you answered every question and appreciate the response. Nothing there I can argue with at all hehe.

Wow.  Leave for a couple of years, and everything's changed.  What happened to the old orange on black board?

Anyway, to get back on topic:

• Minimum Painting Standards are three (3) colors on each model in
an appropriate scheme. Models should also be appropriately
based. Undercoated and bare plastic/metal models will not be
permitted in the tournament! Anyone found using models that do
not meet the painting requirements will be asked to remove those
models from the table.

I have no issue with the first two sentences.  However, due to time restraints (and an obvious lack of painting talent) I've developed a paint scheme that is mostly black, with touches of other colors.  The way I do this is using the Chaos Black spray-primer on my figures, and then when it dries, putting on the other colors.  Would I be able to do that for a GT army?

If not, then any army that is primarily (no pun intended) black or white is going to require a lot more time to paint than armies that are mainly Ultramageek Blue, or Dank Angle Green, etc.

What I'm saying is, if I can't paint an army the way I have been, I won't have time to get ready for any of the GTs.  Meanwhile, someone with a similar time restraint who wants to play an army of smurfs, won't be penalized by the judges.

And for the record, yes, my painting is that horrible, but it's still better than what it was a few years ago.  And I do want my GT army to be part of my existing army.

I am sure the primer policy is referring to models that have only been primed. If you have a scheme that utilizes the primer color that would take a back seat to the fact that you have a painted force.