So, you go to a tournament, win more than you lose, and should go top 5-but are pipped at the post by someone who lost more than you but has a better painting score.
How fair is this? Should tournaments even bother with painting scores? If so, what criteria should be used and should they be standardised?
The local tournaments I go to are ranked by who has most wins but after each round you rate your opponents sportsman ship and painting out of 10 and the winner is whoever has the highest score from the three rounds.
Just so long as the grey plastic army crushes all else before it, eh?
Best painted should be a separate award from "best general"/"I win da most gamez!", just as "best sportsman" should be separate from best painted. "Best overall" should be all scores combined.
After all, why is it fair that someone who hasn't painted their army can beat you in a tournament simply because they won more games than your well painted force?
DeathReaper wrote:Painting score should never matter in a tournament.
If you have the best win/loss you should win the tourney.
If there is a painting competition as well as the "Best General" then that is 100% fine.
Someones lack of painting skill should not factor into wins and losses however.
Why not? I submit it takes more skill to paint an army well than to push little plastic men around the table and roll well.
Painting shouldn't be the MAJOR component, but 25% of your overall points or so should always be allocated to painting. Half of your painting score should be achieved by just having a basic paint job + basing (a bit more in depth than 3 colors, but not by much). You should be able to obtain a solid 60-70% of your painting score just by expending effort to paint your army, even if you have no skill at painting at all.
The last 30% of your painting score (about 8% overall) should be dedicated to painting skill. The rest is just painting effort. If your too lazy to make the effort to put forth a basic painted army, you shouldn't be playing 40k at all.
Those skill points... would act as a tie breaker if both players had the same win/loss ratio in a tournament. I mean really, if someone has 2 wins and a loss, and someone else has 3 wins, but the person with less wins has a pro painted army and the person with 3 wins has an average painted one, then your still looking at 90% points vs 75% points, person who won more wins.
SilverMK2 wrote:After all, why is it fair that someone who hasn't painted their army can beat you in a tournament simply because they won more games than your well painted force?
Because it's a game, and not everyone is a great painter?
I've always hated the paint snobs. Some people are painters. Some people are modelers. Some people are players. If you're a combo fo all three, the better for you. But in the end, the models are supplied unpainted.
If a tournament wants to give out awards for good painting, that's cool. I thin some of the better painters I've seen I downright amazing. But that's only a tiny part of the hobby.
SilverMK2 wrote:After all, why is it fair that someone who hasn't painted their army can beat you in a tournament simply because they won more games than your well painted force?
Because it's a game, and not everyone is a great painter?
I've always hated the paint snobs. Some people are painters. Some people are modelers. Some people are players. If you're a combo fo all three, the better for you. But in the end, the models are supplied unpainted.
Thats the question then.. what kind of tournament do you want to run? A Hobby tournament, which encourages all aspects of the game, or a WAAC dick-measuring contest, based on who can plunk down the most money to buy the latest and greatest internet army.
Veteran Sergeant wrote:Because it's a game, and not everyone is a great painter?
Please note the ironic comment
I've always hated the paint snobs. Some people are painters. Some people are modelers. Some people are players. If you're a combo fo all three, the better for you. But in the end, the models are supplied unpainted.
I'm failing to see the problem with having 3 categories and a best overall - best painted, best sportsman, most wins/KP's/VP's/etc, and best overall (combination of all 3 scores). I don't particularly enjoy painting (in fact, I really hate painting ), but I like to see people who have put in the effort being rewarded, and has been mentioned above, most conventional paint scores will net you 70% off the points with a reasonably basic paint job and some basing.
But that's only a tiny part of the hobby.
... to you.
If a tournament wants to give out prizes for people having better dice rolls, that is fine. After all, that is only a tiny part of the hobby. Most of the time you have your models they are either going to be sitting in a box or on a display shelf (that is, if you bother to paint your models ).
SilverMK2 wrote:After all, why is it fair that someone who hasn't painted their army can beat you in a tournament simply because they won more games than your well painted force?
Because it's a game, and not everyone is a great painter?
I've always hated the paint snobs. Some people are painters. Some people are modelers. Some people are players. If you're a combo fo all three, the better for you. But in the end, the models are supplied unpainted.
If a tournament wants to give out awards for good painting, that's cool. I thin some of the better painters I've seen I downright amazing. But that's only a tiny part of the hobby.
Then go to a tournament that doesn't have a paint score as part of the tournament. There are plenty, with Ardboyz being the most obvious.
And as a counter, some people enjoy going to tournaments that include all aspects of the 'hobby' - playing games, painting, conversions, etc. For some, immersion in the game, seeing nicely painted models on the field makes it more enjoyable.
Yeah, the models are supplied unpainted. They're also sold unassembled, so if I just glue the parts in a pile to the base, thats cool?
There are enough tournaments of varying stripes with different scoring methods to satisfy just about everyone. And if not, then you can certainly feel free to run one yourself, you know, the right way
You know, both types of tournaments exist, and there is almost always an award for being the best at the gaming portion. You can win the award at the part you actually care about, e.g. wins/losses. Why do you care that you can't win the award that combines all three when you don't care about all three? Are you just mad there is a title 'grand champion' and you can't get it?
You need to realize the point of tournaments is as an advertisement for the store. It is there to promote the hobby and bring more people into it. The 'winner' is typically the type of gamer the store wants to promote, e.g. one who can play the game well, is fun play with, and has a good looking army i.e. win/loss, sportsmanship, and painting.
These criticisms always seem to include a suggestion of lowering the prestige of painting, but that does the store no good. Many players only get join the tournament due to the painting aspect. The feel it is just as important a part of the hobby as the game portion. Why would the store owner want to turn them away?
Painting is a huge part of the hobby, lots of people get involved because of it. So it should be no surprise that most stores want to promote it.
I really like painting scores, and think they should be included in every tourney, despite being a very mediocre painter.
I like it best when awards are divided into best painted/best general/best sportsman and best overall. It just seems logical: painting and sportsmanship require just as much (if not more) skill than generalship, and they are all essential to the hobby, so hence they should be rewarded equally
I think painting scores should be a factor in tournaments. Your army should represent every aspect of the Hobby every time you participate in a tournament for the hobby; modeling, painting, and playing. A person who actually tries to model, paint, and play should have a better overall score than those who are only focused on one aspect simply because they are embracing the hobby as a whole and are showing it through their army.
It doesn't matter if you're a 'Eavy Metal level painter or not. As long as you try and paint all your models (and Bases!), your overall painting score would be around 70-80% depending on who judges it.
Nothing is more insulting then watching an entirely grey plastic/metal army get plopped down in front of me and the player expecting to GET a painting score, much less anything else. If you put effort into all aspects of the hobby and go into a tournament, your effort should be reflected overall, NOT because you win with your grey eye-sore.
Wait wait wait. You actually get your score lowered by your paint job? That dosen't seem right at all. It would be like taking points away from a foot ball team because there uniforms don't match there shoes.
I think it's better to keep the two separate. Your painting shouldn't affect your game score, and your gameing shouldn't affect your paint score.
SilverMK2 wrote:After all, why is it fair that someone who hasn't painted their army can beat you in a tournament simply because they won more games than your well painted force?
Because it's a game, and not everyone is a great painter?
I've always hated the paint snobs. Some people are painters. Some people are modelers. Some people are players. If you're a combo fo all three, the better for you. But in the end, the models are supplied unpainted.
If a tournament wants to give out awards for good painting, that's cool. I thin some of the better painters I've seen I downright amazing. But that's only a tiny part of the hobby.
...
Yeah, the models are supplied unpainted. They're also sold unassembled, so if I just glue the parts in a pile to the base, thats cool?
Ahhh I loled
If I go to a tournament without any recognition for painting in a hobby where the pieces need to be painted I'll be really disappointed. Partly because I want to see how my skills stand up to others, but also because if that's not a consideration at that store, good painters will go elsewhere to hang out and I won't be able to meet a lot of very talented people and see the amazing work they do. Painting is not a tiny part of the hobby. Neither is the gaming, modeling or discussion. All of these things keep the community fresh and interesting. Without these things and their promotion at tournaments people will lose interest and the community will dry up. I think it's commendable that GW has kept the game alive and well for so long. Look at other games that have sunset without anyone noticing. I don't think grey plastic alone can do it.
nomotog wrote:Wait wait wait. You actually get your score lowered by your paint job? That dosen't seem right at all. It would be like taking points away from a foot ball team because there uniforms don't match there shoes.
I think it's better to keep the two separate. Your painting shouldn't affect your game score, and your gameing shouldn't affect your paint score.
Your painting score DOESN'T effect you game score, it effects your COMBINED score.
And no, it isn't like your football analogy at all. Football players don't have to spend most of their time preparing their uniforms. Aesthetics are not part of the the 'football' hobby. Painting is very much part of the 40k hobby.
nomotog wrote:Wait wait wait. You actually get your score lowered by your paint job? That dosen't seem right at all. It would be like taking points away from a foot ball team because there uniforms don't match there shoes.
I think it's better to keep the two separate. Your painting shouldn't affect your game score, and your gameing shouldn't affect your paint score.
Your painting score DOESN'T effect you game score, it effects your COMBINED score.
And no, it isn't like your football analogy at all. Football players don't have to spend most of their time preparing their uniforms. Aesthetics are not part of the the 'football' hobby. Painting is very much part of the 40k hobby.
Well then I don't think there should be a combined score. I like how my store dose it. There is the tournament and then there is a prize for best painted.
I've taken part in tournaments where you are given bonus points for having a painted army before any games are played.
I've also taken part in a few where the various aspects of the painting is judged. (Are there more than three colors? Covertions? Based?)
If there are no painting requierments for an event, I tend not to show.
More often then not it's simply an omen that the event was started because someone bought a new army and wants to "try it against a few diffent things".
Then comes the bandwagon with all the other grey/incomplete models.
Friendly games are for the folk who don't want to paint. They are into the "game".
Tournaments are for the folk who paint, play, collect and disscuss. They are into the "hobby".
nomotog wrote:
Well then I don't think there should be a combined score. I like how my store dose it. There is the tournament and then there is a prize for best painted.
Why? Why do you care? If you don't care about painting, and you can still win the generalship category, why do you care if there is a combined category? How does this effect you an any way?
Because, you know, there ARE people it effects. Those that care about painting AND generalship. You want to hurt there experience for no gain to your own.
Wargaming as a hobby goes beyond painting or gaming, and those who can excel at BOTH of those aspects deserve recognition just as much as people who excell at a single aspect deserve recognition.
In the old days, they encouraged people to play with deodorant sticks converted to hovertanks, lol. The obsession with painting came later. I fully agree painted armies look far better, but painting prizes should always be separate.
That said, I avoid tournaments like the plague for the most part. Not my scene.
Horst wrote:Why not? I submit it takes more skill to paint an army well than to push little plastic men around the table and roll well.
Yea it takes a lot of skill to buy a pro painted army off of E-Bay.
I have no problem with those that like to paint, as long as the game aspect, and the painting aspect, and the sportsmanship aspect are kept separate.
having an overall category is not good, because anyone can give you bad marks for sportsmanship just so they are higher on the sportsmanship score if you gave them good marks.
When I first started playing 40K I started playing Orks, they were my brothers army that he bough but never painted and had on a shelf because he started playing Necrons because the monolith was his favorite model. So after painting 600 models of orks I got tired of painting and now I just do a basic paintjob on my marines, as this aspect of the game is no longer fun. I do not have time to paint, and shade, and highlight, and airbrush all of my Marines, so I just paint them with the basic colors and leave it at that. They look okay, but they are not "Pro Painted"
bombboy1252 wrote:I think they should get a small deduction if their army isn't completely painted, but how well it's painted shouldn't matter....
I have always preferred tournis where the best overall was the biggest prize which included battle points, painting, sportsmanship and comp as part of the total. It gives the biggest reward to the best general who also has invested the most in the hobby and best embodies the type of player you would most like to play against. And since the hobby is about playing with toy soldiers and toy soldiers look way cooler painted, I tend to support anything that reduces the number of grey plastic legion i have to face.
Horst wrote:Why not? I submit it takes more skill to paint an army well than to push little plastic men around the table and roll well.
Yea it takes a lot of skill to buy a pro painted army off of E-Bay.
I have no problem with those that like to paint, as long as the game aspect, and the painting aspect, and the sportsmanship aspect are kept separate.
having an overall category is not good, because anyone can give you bad marks for sportsmanship just so they are higher on the sportsmanship score if you gave them good marks.
When I first started playing 40K I started playing Orks, they were my brothers army that he bough but never painted and had on a shelf because he started playing Necrons because the monolith was his favorite model. So after painting 600 models of orks I got tired of painting and now I just do a basic paintjob on my marines, as this aspect of the game is no longer fun. I do not have time to paint, and shade, and highlight, and airbrush all of my Marines, so I just paint them with the basic colors and leave it at that. They look okay, but they are not "Pro Painted"
bombboy1252 wrote:I think they should get a small deduction if their army isn't completely painted, but how well it's painted shouldn't matter....
This 1000%
You still aren't being punished somehow for a combined category existing. You can still win at the parts you care about. An overall category hurts you in no way. Why is it so important to you to punish those who care about all 3?
sennacherib wrote:I have always preferred tournis where the best overall was the biggest prize which included battle points, painting, sportsmanship and comp as part of the total. It gives the biggest reward to the best general who also has invested the most in the hobby and best embodies the type of player you would most like to play against. And since the hobby is about playing with toy soldiers and toy soldiers look way cooler painted, I tend to support anything that reduces the number of grey plastic legion i have to face.
This all the way. People who put time into all 3 categories are exemplifying the hobby and are to be emulated. They deserve to be rewarded and recognized just as much, if not more than those who excel at painting or generalship alone.
Again, the existence of this category hurts you in no way. You can still win at the portion you care about personally. Pro artists can win at painting competitions. And those who invest time into the hobby as a hole can be recognized too. They earned it.
riplikash wrote:You still aren't being punished somehow for a combined category existing. You can still win at the parts you care about. An overall category hurts you in no way. Why is it so important to you to punish those who care about all 3?
Not winning the big prize of the day because someone bought their army off E-Bay and gave everyone below average sportsmanship scores took the overall even though I won all 3 games?
That is "being punished somehow for a combined category existing" since top prize went to the guy that went 1 win and 2 draws and bought his painting score.
Some of us have a multitude of things going on (Like two jobs, and school, and have very little time for the painting side of the game.)
I think that all tournements, including ard boyz should have a 3 color + basing just to play. Ive spent alot of time and money in this hobby, and if itsva turny, then i dont want to see a grey horde.
Most tournies I have been to have an overall award (painting/sports/general combined) and then seperate awards for painting, sports and general.
I spend quite a bit of time painting an army so it does annoy me to see grey armies, or even just black sprayed armies, although I understand not everyone likes to paint.
You guys keep saying things like "You can just buy an army off ebay".... How many local tournament players do you guys know who has EVER bought a pro-painted army off ebay.
And if there is any question, just ask the guy playing the army a few questions on his technique... if he can't answer, then yea, he bought the army.
But does it even matter? Most commission painted armies won't look THAT much better than an army anyone puts a real effort into painting. Sure, they can look better. But it will be the difference of 10%-15% in the painting score, unless you either slapped a bunch of colors on and called it a day, or he payed FAR out the ass for a very well painted army, which is an extremely rare case in my experience.
When ever a fun HOBBY becomes a competitive tournament style game, this always crops up.
WAAC players hate having to compete against Painters , and sportsmanship is a forced grit your teeth affair due to everyone being afraid they will get dinged ( and usually do by the WAAC crowd )
The biggest reason that GW installed painting and sportsmanship as a deciding factor in the Tourny setup is very simple...
To attract and keep players, a table full of grey plastic toys does not attract any ooohs or ahhs from passerbyers, therefore does not incite any new players or converts to the hobby ( and therfore no money to GW )
every tourney I have entered in always is in a public venue with alot of foot traffic, and always leads to a boost in sales to the local vendors hence the reason they do it.
Sportsmanship is vital to keep people wanting to play, if all you play against are a bunch of douche-baggery sullen sore loser/winners why even come back for another game.
Lets face it this hobby is about interaction and personal expression, not just crowing about who tabled who, there are plenty of video and board games that have no creative input or requirement if winning is all you care about.
Horst wrote:You guys keep saying things like "You can just buy an army off ebay".... How many local tournament players do you guys know who has EVER bought a pro-painted army off ebay.
Six. One even replaced the army he painted himself with the same models painted by some person he never met from switzerland, so he could win more battleforces at the store.
And if there is any question, just ask the guy playing the army a few questions on his technique... if he can't answer, then yea, he bought the army.
Yeah, there is no rule that forces you to paint your own army. It's not the golden demon, it's a random tourney in a random store.
But does it even matter? Most commission painted armies won't look THAT much better than an army anyone puts a real effort into painting. Sure, they can look better. But it will be the difference of 10%-15% in the painting score, unless you either slapped a bunch of colors on and called it a day, or he payed FAR out the ass for a very well painted army, which is an extremely rare case in my experience.
More like 20-25% of your painting score. In addition, painting is purely subjective, I have been marked down on painting because I didn't paint Ghazghkull Thrakka as himself, but as a Bloodaxe Warlord.
If the painting score is 25% of your total score, that's like turning one loss of the day into a victory. Can't buy that off ebay for gaming.
None of this belongs in the same ranking as games played. If it's much easier to win a game than to paint army, I wonder why all those awesome painters aren't auto-winning every game. Well, in a way, they are auto-winning at least one game.
Also note that especially smaller tournaments award prices for overall ranking (gaming+painting+sportsmanship) only.
In this case, you should have your local tournament organizer make a rule, that any army not painted by you is subject to a 30% penalty off their painting score.
I've never seen someone with an ebayed army, and I know there are none around my gaming location.
Which if they wanted to enough they could simply lie about. Should be a separate competition with a separate award. Only way to combat cheating would probably be to require WIP pictures.
Like i've said before, you cannot lie about an army to someone who knows how to paint. Ask specifics about how a technique was achieved, or color choices, and unless the person painted the army himself he wouldn't know.
Also, unless its a large regional tournament or something, local gamers should know what their fellow gamers have bought or painted themselves. If you suddenly show up with a brand new army, nobody has ever seen you field, you know something is wrong.
That is why painting has no place in overall score.
Well that and a good paint job is subjective. one judge could judge the army as being 5/10 on paint while another could give it 8/10.
There is no real was to tell what is good and what is average.
There really should be 3 levels of Painting judgement, require each model to have three different colors and you will get:
Highest points for a fully painted army.
Middle points for over 50% painted
no points for unpainted
No, I ironically pointed out that you can make the exact same arguments against the number of victories you have affecting your overall placement at a tournament as you can against your painting score and then asked you why shouldn't painting take a part in determining the BEST OVERALL PLAYER in a hobby which is about more than just winning games.
In the old days, they encouraged people to play with deodorant sticks converted to hovertanks, lol. The obsession with painting came later.
Right, and I'm sure people looked at your lovingly converted Lynx (or Axe if you are not from the UK) Fire Prism and thought "Why didn't he just use a paper counter with "Fire Prism" written on it like I do in my army?! Hey... wait a second... why is he winning 'best army' - MY PAPER ARMY SHOULD BE THE BEST BECAUSE I STOMPED ALL THE PEOPLE I PLAYED AGAINST WITH MY POORLY SPELLED PAPER ARMY!!!!!!"
Painting has always been a part of the hobby; granted, it has taken massive leaps forward in recent years with the adoption of various techniques and products from other areas of the modeling scene, but there were still painting aspects to even RT era tournaments, and to say that painting only really came in more modern times is, well, wrong.
And hey, even if when GW first started putting out products they shot anyone who painted their models, that is not how the company and hobby is today; painting is a huge aspect of the hobby, as pushed by the company that makes the products you are complaining that people paint and have judged and can win things for.
I fully agree painted armies look far better, but painting prizes should always be separate.
But what is actually wrong with having a combined score? You have not actually answered that. After all, the hobby is a combination of all the aspects of the hobby; winning games, being a good guy to play against, and having a well painted (or at least painted) force.
The only thing I can think of is that having an extra "best overall" prize at tournaments lowers the pot for the "best pusher around of models and roller of dice"...
That said, I avoid tournaments like the plague for the most part. Not my scene.
... but then if you don't attend tournaments, it doesn't really matter how the prizes are divided up
DeathReaper wrote:Yes you can, you can lie about anything.
That is why painting has no place in overall score.
Well that and a good paint job is subjective. one judge could judge the army as being 5/10 on paint while another could give it 8/10.
There is no real was to tell what is good and what is average.
There really should be 3 levels of Painting judgement, require each model to have three different colors and you will get:
Highest points for a fully painted army.
Middle points for over 50% painted
no points for unpainted
In comps that I have been in painting was marked with a set criteria with the score taken as an average from 3 judges. Most of the criteria would be y/n questions with only a few things marked on a 1-10 basis. the 1-10 is of course going to be subjective but using an average from 3 people gave a good reflection of the paintjob quality. Seemed to work fine and no-one had any complaints.
I think having a criteria helps when your deciding what is good and what is average.
The difference between good and average could be something like the good one has a bit more detail painted on, such as painting the eyes, or there are squad marking etc.
Lord Rogukiel wrote:Unless it's a painting tournament, by which I mean a tournament, but the best painted wins, like no games and stuff. Does that exist?
Lord Rogukiel wrote:Unless it's a painting tournament, by which I mean a tournament, but the best painted wins, like no games and stuff. Does that exist?
Horst wrote:You've seen SIX people with ebayed armies?
In this case, you should have your local tournament organizer make a rule, that any army not painted by you is subject to a 30% penalty off their painting score.
I've never seen someone with an ebayed army, and I know there are none around my gaming location.
Why? I prefer playing a painted army over a grey, or even worse, a black army any day. Who cares who did the paint job? Correct, that useless tournament score cares - no one else.
And as DeathReaper said, simply because you didn't paint your army doesn't mean you don't know how to do it. One of my friends has almost completely ebayed his imperial army fully painted, but still has a unit of great self-painted catachans and a trio of hellhounds. He knows exactly how to do all the different techniques. He simply doesn't like painting stuff, even though he is good at it.
SilverMK2 wrote:
Veteran Sergeant wrote:You asked why it was fair.
No, I ironically pointed out that you can make the exact same arguments against the number of victories you have affecting your overall placement at a tournament as you can against your painting score and then asked you why shouldn't painting take a part in determining the BEST OVERALL PLAYER in a hobby which is about more than just winning games.
Best overall player in the hobby? Why don't people lose points if they didn't write fluff about their army? Why don't people lose points if they are not fielding converted or scratch-built models? For not having a theme song? For not knowing the names of all primarchs? For knowing the names of all primarchs if playing the imperial guard? For not wearing a cosplay costume fitting your army?
A tournament is about playing games to win. Randomly adding an art contest into the score is just ridiculous, and leads to stupid stuff like dumping an entire blood angels army and replacing it with a better painted one from switzerland, just because you have no chance of placing first otherwise.
In the old days, they encouraged people to play with deodorant sticks converted to hovertanks, lol. The obsession with painting came later.
Right, and I'm sure people looked at your lovingly converted Lynx (or Axe if you are not from the UK) Fire Prism and thought "Why didn't he just use a paper counter with "Fire Prism" written on it like I do in my army?! Hey... wait a second... why is he winning 'best army' - MY PAPER ARMY SHOULD BE THE BEST BECAUSE I STOMPED ALL THE PEOPLE I PLAYED AGAINST WITH MY POORLY SPELLED PAPER ARMY!!!!!!"
The same hyperbole as in every discussion of this kind. The point is, that a kid which has no talent at painting whatsoever, but took weeks painting his entire marine army with his own paint scheme will get punished for doing so, just because he can't paint well and his rhinos look like McDonald's kids menu bags. On the other hand, the guy who bought a big can of army painter, white primer and dipped his entire tyranid army within one evening get's awarded for having decent looking minis.
Both examples are actual people that play at my store.
I'm totally on your side for downranking grey/black/paper armies. But a totally subjective score based on how a random person thinks models have to look like is even worse than randomly picking who wins the tournament.
Painting has always been a part of the hobby; granted, it has taken massive leaps forward in recent years with the adoption of various techniques and products from other areas of the modeling scene, but there were still painting aspects to even RT era tournaments, and to say that painting only really came in more modern times is, well, wrong.
And hey, even if when GW first started putting out products they shot anyone who painted their models, that is not how the company and hobby is today; painting is a huge aspect of the hobby, as pushed by the company that makes the products you are complaining that people paint and have judged and can win things for.
So, why not give the best player a price and another price to the best painter? By looking at two the most recent tournaments here, the best painters usually go empty-handed because the got massacred by grey flavor-of-the-month marines and thus couldn't place first anymore. Can't really call that supporting painters, can you?
I fully agree painted armies look far better, but painting prizes should always be separate.
But what is actually wrong with having a combined score? You have not actually answered that. After all, the hobby is a combination of all the aspects of the hobby; winning games, being a good guy to play against, and having a well painted (or at least painted) force.
The only thing I can think of is that having an extra "best overall" prize at tournaments lowers the pot for the "best pusher around of models and roller of dice"...
If pushing around models an rolling dice would be all it takes, all those great painters should placing first anyways, right? /sarcasm
Jidmah wrote:Best overall player in the hobby? Why don't people lose points if they didn't write fluff about their army?
I've seen tournaments where fluff is scored. I would love it if more of them did, although I can see the reason it is not scored in most tournaments (simply the time it takes to read through the fluff, and the relative difficulty of objectively rather than subjectively marking it). And scoring is not about negatively marking for things that are not there, but scoring for things that are.
Why don't people lose points if they are not fielding converted or scratch-built models?
This is often covered under the painting score, either on the painting score ladder, or under a general "painting and modeling" score.
For not having a theme song? For not knowing the names of all primarchs? For knowing the names of all primarchs if playing the imperial guard? For not wearing a cosplay costume fitting your army?
Reductio ad absurdum strawman.
A tournament is about playing games to win. Randomly adding an art contest into the score is just ridiculous, and leads to stupid stuff like dumping an entire blood angels army and replacing it with a better painted one from switzerland, just because you have no chance of placing first otherwise.
Say what? And you were suggesting I was using hyperbole
A tournament is about whatever you (well, the TO) want it to be about. I think all will have a best general prize, most will have a best painted, and many will have best sportsman. A great number will have a best overall, combining the scores from all judged categories. Again, I'm not exactly sure where you are failing to see that this is a reasonably fair way of doing things. Unless of course you feel that the person who won the most games should just get all the prizes, because they obviously are the best person there?
The same hyperbole as in every discussion of this kind. The point is, that a kid which has no talent at painting whatsoever, but took weeks painting his entire marine army with his own paint scheme will get punished for doing so, just because he can't paint well and his rhinos look like McDonald's kids menu bags. On the other hand, the guy who bought a big can of army painter, white primer and dipped his entire tyranid army within one evening get's awarded for having decent looking minis. Both examples are actual people that play at my store.
I don't know how painting judging is done where you are from, but most score lists I have seen for paint scoring are objective, and an army which has 3 colours, basing done, etc, will notch up ~70% of the painting score. You are never punished for painting your stuff. Painting can only improve your OVERALL score. And as has been mentioned, most tournaments run painting to be about 25% of your overall score, meaning that the difference between a 70% painting score and 100% is only a relatively tiny amount in the overall score. It is only really a factor if the guy who won all his games didn't paint his army (or has a tabletop quality army), and the guy who came second only lost once but has a well painted force and so pips the best general to best overall.
But to take on your line of reasoning, why should the kid who only just picked up his first model last week get "punished" for taking part in tournaments just because he is (understandably) not that good at playing the game?
I'm totally on your side for downranking grey/black/paper armies. But a totally subjective score based on how a random person thinks models have to look like is even worse than randomly picking who wins the tournament.
Again, whilst there is a subjective element to scoring painting, I've never been to a tournament which judged painting which did not have an objective score sheet. Most will have 70-90% of the paint score based on "does it have highlights", "is the base done", "is there any freehand on the banners/armour/etc", with the remaining 30-10% based on a subjective "wow" factor, or "how well does the army gel in terms of painting coherency", etc.
So, why not give the best player a price and another price to the best painter? By looking at two the most recent tournaments here, the best painters usually go empty-handed because the got massacred by grey flavor-of-the-month marines and thus couldn't place first anymore. Can't really call that supporting painters, can you?
I'm not going to comment on the tournament scene where you are from, but as I have said repeatedly, most tournaments will have either 3 or 4 prizes. Best painted, best general, best sportsman, best overall. They can go to 4 separate people, or all go to the same player, or some combination between those two, depending obviously on how well people do in each of the 3 scored categories, thus supporting all aspects of the hobby, not just the ability to be lucky on the day, or buy the best army, or even buy the best paint jobs*, etc.
*incidentally, this is a separate issue - some tournaments will have restrictions on who can in best painted, depending if it was painted by the person entering the army or not.
If pushing around models an rolling dice would be all it takes, all those great painters should placing first anyways, right? /sarcasm
Well, tell me how to move my models with my mind, or perhaps bring them to life and fight by themselves and I will get right on playing the game that way
Oh, wait, you are not answering my question and are attempting to dodge the issue with [not veiled at all] sarcasm.
Lord Rogukiel wrote:Unless it's a painting tournament, by which I mean a tournament, but the best painted wins, like no games and stuff. Does that exist?
The various Golden Daemon events?
You could just say any painting comp really lol.
I've heard of stuff like it though, you show up with your model(s) and are given a time limit. Best painted wins.
Horst wrote:You've seen SIX people with ebayed armies?
In this case, you should have your local tournament organizer make a rule, that any army not painted by you is subject to a 30% penalty off their painting score.
I've never seen someone with an ebayed army, and I know there are none around my gaming location.
That was one of the most ridiculous ideas i have ever heard, first of all my gk army is painted by 5 different people, some from us some from uk and half of it by me. So what am i supposed to confess i didn't paint my army ? And if you try to interogate me about painting about me i have no business at that tournament, this is supposed to be a hoby not a chore!
Just an example to wrap things up, i have 4 old rhinos(the smaller ones than the recent ones) and they have a really basic paint job with black undercoat, white hatches and some mithril silver thrown in there around the metal parts like exhaust vents. I can bear people saying me that they think the model should have paint differently and blah blah blah, but if the tournament official comes and finds my models unworthy and lowers my score , then again i am out of there.
Painting should by all means be judged, but separately from the actual gaming side of it. I'm an awful painter, I'm the first to admit that! I try my best, but I'm never going to be able to win awards for painting. So why if I go along with my mediocre painting should my gaming be dragged down because of it? I try, but I'm no artist.
Armies should be painted for competitions, I think, but it shouldn't affect the gaming scores as not everyone is a painter, and it is unfair to mark us down because of it. Painting should be a separate contest within the tournament.
Castiel wrote:Painting should by all means be judged, but separately from the actual gaming side of it. I'm an awful painter, I'm the first to admit that! I try my best, but I'm never going to be able to win awards for painting. So why if I go along with my mediocre painting should my gaming be dragged down because of it? I try, but I'm no artist.
Armies should be painted for competitions, I think, but it shouldn't affect the gaming scores as not everyone is a painter, and it is unfair to mark us down because of it. Painting should be a separate contest within the tournament.
You are never marked down for not being able to paint well, you only ever get scored for what is there. You could be the worst painter in the world and still score more points for painting than someone who uses a grey/primed army.
Castiel wrote:Painting should by all means be judged, but separately from the actual gaming side of it. I'm an awful painter, I'm the first to admit that! I try my best, but I'm never going to be able to win awards for painting. So why if I go along with my mediocre painting should my gaming be dragged down because of it? I try, but I'm no artist.
Armies should be painted for competitions, I think, but it shouldn't affect the gaming scores as not everyone is a painter, and it is unfair to mark us down because of it. Painting should be a separate contest within the tournament.
You are never marked down for not being able to paint well, you only ever get scored for what is there. You could be the worst painter in the world and still score more points for painting than someone who uses a grey/primed army.
So you get the all points for painting them, some for some being painted and none for no paint? I see, it sounded like if you were a bad painter you would get marked down, which I didn't think was fair. That makes sense though.
Castiel wrote:So you get the all points for painting them, some for some being painted and none for no paint? I see, it sounded like if you were a bad painter you would get marked down, which I didn't think was fair. That makes sense though.
Most painting score sheets that I have seen are either "1 point for X" (ie 1 point for basic basing, 1 point for advanced basing, 1 point for minimum 3 colours, 1 point for washes/shading, 1 point for highlighting, 1 point for freehand, etc), or a tier system, where you need to have fulfilled Y criteria to get Z score (ie for 8/10, you will need to have completed all the things required for levels 1-7, and also have demonstrated B technique/requirement/etc).
Castiel wrote:That sounds a bit less fair then, I can't do freehand to save myself!
Often so long as there is freehand, you still get the point, no matter how good it is
It is usually only the last 2-3 painting points which are more subjective, based on skill and how good the army looks rather than a simple "yes/no" score for various painting criteria.
For me, and probably the vast number of people who attend tournaments*, a tournament is about meeting new people (or renewing acquaintences from tournaments past), playing games against great people and looking at awesome or at least good to look at armies, oh and, if youre lucky, maybe winning some games and threatening top spots.
The number 2 thing that vastly improves the experience for me, after the no1 which is your opponent being a good person to chat to, is the army looking good.
Now I never used to advocate the need for painting scores because, it seemed, everyone understood what "3 colours and based" actually meant - the spirit of the rule. Sadly, and in part due to RankingsHQ, people are starting to take the mickey with this idea and turning up with, and I kid not, 9 x undercoated black venoms and *sat there* painting 2 stripes of colour on the model and calling it "good".
Or you have the generic black, white and red "painted" marines who are SW-BA-GK-flavour of the month must-chase-rankings armies
Now, i',m a fairly terrible painter, but I at least give it a go, as I'm aware that MY enjoyment is NOT the be all and end all, and that playing against unpainted minis is not only decidedly less fun than playing against painted armies, it's also a lot more taxing - its a sea of grey / black with no distinguishing features.
So i'm starting to get around to the idea of painting scores, with a separate best general and best overall prize, because this hobby IS more than just playing the game, and recognising this only helps to enhance the hobby overall, and generally make life more pleasant.
So, if you dont want to paint your army to the basic standard to get the 75%+ of the painting score most rubrics I've seen allow, then you are less likely to win overall. You can still win a prize - best general - and any complaints that you didnt win best overall are irrelevant. You knew what you were signing up for, after all.
*entirely anecdotal based on attending and running quite a few tournaments across both WHFB and WH40K every year, all usually 40 players plus
nosferatu1001 wrote:For me, and probably the vast number of people who attend tournaments*, a tournament is about meeting new people (or renewing acquaintences from tournaments past), playing games against great people and looking at awesome or at least good to look at armies, oh and, if youre lucky, maybe winning some games and threatening top spots.
The number 2 thing that vastly improves the experience for me, after the no1 which is your opponent being a good person to chat to, is the army looking good.
Now I never used to advocate the need for painting scores because, it seemed, everyone understood what "3 colours and based" actually meant - the spirit of the rule. Sadly, and in part due to RankingsHQ, people are starting to take the mickey with this idea and turning up with, and I kid not, 9 x undercoated black venoms and *sat there* painting 2 stripes of colour on the model and calling it "good".
Or you have the generic black, white and red "painted" marines who are SW-BA-GK-flavour of the month must-chase-rankings armies
Now, i',m a fairly terrible painter, but I at least give it a go, as I'm aware that MY enjoyment is NOT the be all and end all, and that playing against unpainted minis is not only decidedly less fun than playing against painted armies, it's also a lot more taxing - its a sea of grey / black with no distinguishing features.
So i'm starting to get around to the idea of painting scores, with a separate best general and best overall prize, because this hobby IS more than just playing the game, and recognising this only helps to enhance the hobby overall, and generally make life more pleasant.
So, if you dont want to paint your army to the basic standard to get the 75%+ of the painting score most rubrics I've seen allow, then you are less likely to win overall. You can still win a prize - best general - and any complaints that you didnt win best overall are irrelevant. You knew what you were signing up for, after all.
*entirely anecdotal based on attending and running quite a few tournaments across both WHFB and WH40K every year, all usually 40 players plus
exactly. I suck some horrible ass at painting (Better now that I bought an airbrush, but still). But I spend time on my army, making it look good, because its a vital part of the hobby. I usually got around 70%-80% of the painting points available, because I'd go down the rubrics offered by local tournaments and check off that I had done the things on there (basing, highlighting, some freehand, ect.) to the best of my ability.
Its not about having skill. ANYONE can paint an army to an average level with some effort. If your saying you can't, you either haven't tried and are selling yourself short, or are too lazy to take a few minutes to read a few ho-to's on the web.
SilverMK2 wrote:After all, why is it fair that someone who hasn't painted their army can beat you in a tournament simply because they won more games than your well painted force?
Because it's a game, and not everyone is a great painter?
I've always hated the paint snobs. Some people are painters. Some people are modelers. Some people are players. If you're a combo fo all three, the better for you. But in the end, the models are supplied unpainted.
If a tournament wants to give out awards for good painting, that's cool. I thin some of the better painters I've seen I downright amazing. But that's only a tiny part of the hobby.
Anyone can organize a tournament, with whatever rules they want.
The rules are up to the TO.
If you don't like how he's doing it, offer to organize and run a few tournaments of your own. My group has TO's that agree with me, so I don't have to go out of my way to make change by running tournaments the way I want... I'm lucky.
If I was on the outside looking in, I'd have to organize my own events (and maybe play in less of them, as a consequence) but I could still get in tournaments the way I wanted to. People like Mike Brandt who run the Nova Open are representative of this type of gamer... guys who know what kind of tournament they want, so they run it themselves to set the example. In the end, thats what you have to do.
There will always be both kinds of tournaments, and because this is the internet, nobody will ever come around to the other way of thinking. The end result of all this discussion will be zero changed opinions. The only end result we can all agree on is that TO's will run whatever they want, and as gamers its our freedom to pick and choose the tournaments we want to attend or not attend. If a type of tournament is more popular in an area, it WILL be run more, if only because stores want to attract as many gamers as possible to sell more stuff (They probably sell a lot during tournaments... I know I buy stuff after them, usually after losing and deciding I need a new unit).
I think it should be separate. If there are going to be prizes for painting and modelling they should be judged completely separately from scores related to the game itself.
DeathReaper wrote:
Well that and a good paint job is subjective. one judge could judge the army as being 5/10 on paint while another could give it 8/10.
Good point. The best player isn't necessarily going to be the best painter.
I dont see why painting scores should matter at all.
I do believe that you should need a painted army to play but I do not see why paint scores should come into it.
I am a fan of a separate best painted prize and a separate best sportsmen prize (with good prize support)
Also it should be remembered that I can go out and buy a pro painted force but i cant go out and buy skill at the game.
Paint snobs should just stay home and paint and let everyone else have some fun if you dont like competitive play then going to a tournament is a really bad idea. Its like a pro sporting team having a beauty pagent at the end of a game to decide if anyone gets some extra points.
I would never enter a tournament without painting score. Painting score encourages painting, and playing versus decently painted models are way for fun than playing against unpainted ones. Besides, Warhammer is a hobby, not exclusively a game. I think a tournament should cover all aspects.
Jubear wrote:I dont see why painting scores should matter at all.
I do believe that you should need a painted army to play but I do not see why paint scores should come into it.
I am a fan of a separate best painted prize and a separate best sportsmen prize (with good prize support)
Also it should be remembered that I can go out and buy a pro painted force but i cant go out and buy skill at the game.
Paint snobs should just stay home and paint and let everyone else have some fun if you dont like competitive play then going to a tournament is a really bad idea. Its like a pro sporting team having a beauty pagent at the end of a game to decide if anyone gets some extra points.
It has nothing to do with being a paint snob.
It has more to do with you not even trying to paint your army, and hiding behind an excuse like "I'm not good at painting".
Having a separate best painted award is all well and good, but the problem with that IMO is the same people will often win it, with little mix up. That in and of itself is fine, but it means people like me who try hard, but don't have any natural talent for painting are basically given nothing over someone who glued together a bunch of plastic, which I think is BS.
And yes, you can go out and buy skill at this game. Its called buying a new army. 99% of this game is based on what type of army list you bring to the field. if you just go out and research which one is doing the best right now, and plunk down a few hundred $$$ on it, you can win more games than someone who is playing an older army, guaranteed. This game doesn't take much "skill", and I think you need to acknowledge that. Its based on list building, and intial positioning. Most of the time the game comes down to knowing your opponents army as well as your own, what he can and cannot do, and countering that with something you can do. And in order to be able to counter him, you need to build your list to have elements in it that can do it. It all comes back to list building in the end. So if you just buy a power list straight up, you'll win a lot.
And would you WAAC nutjobs PLEASE stop referencing sports uniforms? Its a reductio ad absurdum attack that makes zero sense. Thank you.
Well my only problem with the painting thing is is that i've got a nicely painted army but I have 2 vehicles in it that I didn't paint myself and the tournaments I go to. The TO refuses to give me a painting scores because I didn't paint the whole army myself even though the vehicles that aren't painted by me are of a lower standard then my painting. It's fethed
ninja13 wrote:Well my only problem with the painting thing is is that i've got a nicely painted army but I have 2 vehicles in it that I didn't paint myself and the tournaments I go to. The TO refuses to give me a painting scores because I didn't paint the whole army myself even though the vehicles that aren't painted by me are of a lower standard then my painting. It's fethed
yea, that sounds more like your TO being a jerk than a problem with the system itself.
Jidmah wrote:Best overall player in the hobby? Why don't people lose points if they didn't write fluff about their army?
I've seen tournaments where fluff is scored. I would love it if more of them did, although I can see the reason it is not scored in most tournaments (simply the time it takes to read through the fluff, and the relative difficulty of objectively rather than subjectively marking it). And scoring is not about negatively marking for things that are not there, but scoring for things that are.
So, how is this different from painting? It's not like the judge is picking up every single one of my ork boyz and having a look at its details. He might as well just flip through the pages of fluff.
Why don't people lose points if they are not fielding converted or scratch-built models?
This is often covered under the painting score, either on the painting score ladder, or under a general "painting and modeling" score.
That's not the point. Converting and scratch-building is undoubtedly part of the hobby, so why isn't 25% of the score modeling? If you didn't convert or scratch-build anything those 25% are going to be 0, dooming you to not winning the tournament.
For not having a theme song? For not knowing the names of all primarchs? For knowing the names of all primarchs if playing the imperial guard? For not wearing a cosplay costume fitting your army?
Reductio ad absurdum strawman.
So people who care about the background, pick theme songs or cosplay are not enjoying a part of the hobby? Who are you to decide that? Why is painting so much more important than those?
A tournament is about playing games to win. Randomly adding an art contest into the score is just ridiculous, and leads to stupid stuff like dumping an entire blood angels army and replacing it with a better painted one from switzerland, just because you have no chance of placing first otherwise.
Say what? And you were suggesting I was using hyperbole
How is something that has happened in real life a hyperbole?
A tournament is about whatever you (well, the TO) want it to be about. I think all will have a best general prize, most will have a best painted, and many will have best sportsman. A great number will have a best overall, combining the scores from all judged categories. Again, I'm not exactly sure where you are failing to see that this is a reasonably fair way of doing things. Unless of course you feel that the person who won the most games should just get all the prizes, because they obviously are the best person there?
Misunderstanding an argument on purpose doesn't help. What I want, it that the guy who is the best player gets the best player reward. The guy who is the best painter gets the best painter reward. The guy with the awesome self-built scenic model gets a golden daemon. If someone wrote awesome fluff, give him something else, too. Just don't muddle entire independent disciplines.
The same hyperbole as in every discussion of this kind. The point is, that a kid which has no talent at painting whatsoever, but took weeks painting his entire marine army with his own paint scheme will get punished for doing so, just because he can't paint well and his rhinos look like McDonald's kids menu bags. On the other hand, the guy who bought a big can of army painter, white primer and dipped his entire tyranid army within one evening get's awarded for having decent looking minis.
Both examples are actual people that play at my store.
I don't know how painting judging is done where you are from, but most score lists I have seen for paint scoring are objective, and an army which has 3 colours, basing done, etc, will notch up ~70% of the painting score. You are never punished for painting your stuff. Painting can only improve your OVERALL score.
See, there's the problem. We have Mr.Ebay-from-Switzerland, we have the guy with dipped tyranids, we have someone who I think is the god of tyranid painting and my own army isn't too shabby either (all those are about 85% or higher). An army with three colors and will score 50% at most. Add terrible choice of colors, a bad paintjob and painting that the judge finds unfitting (like my Bloodaxe Thrakka) and you might end up at 40% or so. Meaning that he has at least a 10% handicap when trying to place first. Those 10% can turn a minor win into a loss or a massacre into a minor win.
And as has been mentioned, most tournaments run painting to be about 25% of your overall score, meaning that the difference between a 70% painting score and 100% is only a relatively tiny amount in the overall score. It is only really a factor if the guy who won all his games didn't paint his army (or has a tabletop quality army), and the guy who came second only lost once but has a well painted force and so pips the best general to best overall.
Actually, it's much more severe. With any combination of massacres, minor and major wins, and maybe even a minor loss, you might find yourself in first place with three or four people only a point or two behind you. Losing two or three points because the judge didn't like your paintjob can easily drop you three or four places down the ladder.
But to take on your line of reasoning, why should the kid who only just picked up his first model last week get "punished" for taking part in tournaments just because he is (understandably) not that good at playing the game?
Because you play games to figure out who is the best player. Just like you don't factor in the visual appeal of a person in sports or the design of a vehicle in motorsports. Just like Miss Universe doesn't have to win a car race to be called the most beautiful women. My line of reasoning works both ways. Don't mix stuff that shouldn't be mixed.
I'm totally on your side for downranking grey/black/paper armies. But a totally subjective score based on how a random person thinks models have to look like is even worse than randomly picking who wins the tournament.
Again, whilst there is a subjective element to scoring painting, I've never been to a tournament which judged painting which did not have an objective score sheet. Most will have 70-90% of the paint score based on "does it have highlights", "is the base done", "is there any freehand on the banners/armour/etc", with the remaining 30-10% based on a subjective "wow" factor, or "how well does the army gel in terms of painting coherency", etc.
"is the base done" is actually a good one. I like my bases being black, because it puts more focus on the model. Who made painting bases mandatory in the first place? No one ever picked up one of my models and told my they suck because they have a black base. Even if you have a checklist, that checklist is based on personal opinion.
So, why not give the best player a price and another price to the best painter? By looking at two the most recent tournaments here, the best painters usually go empty-handed because the got massacred by grey flavor-of-the-month marines and thus couldn't place first anymore. Can't really call that supporting painters, can you?
I'm not going to comment on the tournament scene where you are from, but as I have said repeatedly, most tournaments will have either 3 or 4 prizes. Best painted, best general, best sportsman, best overall. They can go to 4 separate people, or all go to the same player, or some combination between those two, depending obviously on how well people do in each of the 3 scored categories, thus supporting all aspects of the hobby, not just the ability to be lucky on the day, or buy the best army, or even buy the best paint jobs*, etc.
See, that's all I want. While "best overall" still is kind of stupid, at least the champs of each discipline didn't have to leave empty-handed. As it is, many tournaments(especially the smaller ones) just have the "best overall" price, and maybe something for second place.
*incidentally, this is a separate issue - some tournaments will have restrictions on who can in best painted, depending if it was painted by the person entering the army or not.
Which is, as already explained, easy to cheat at. Reading a few tutorials and maybe the citadel books gives you a pretty good idea about how to paint difficult stuff, without actually doing it.
If pushing around models an rolling dice would be all it takes, all those great painters should placing first anyways, right? /sarcasm
Well, tell me how to move my models with my mind, or perhaps bring them to life and fight by themselves and I will get right on playing the game that way
Oh, wait, you are not answering my question and are attempting to dodge the issue with [not veiled at all] sarcasm.
If you are referring to the question on why they should be separated, I though I pretty much answered that in the post before. What I was trying to point out was you belittling the difficulty of actually placing first. Being a good player doesn't take any less work or talent than painting your models.
JIdmah - "That's not the point. Converting and scratch-building is undoubtedly part of the hobby, so why isn't 25% of the score modeling? If you didn't convert or scratch-build anything those 25% are going to be 0, dooming you to not winning the tournament. "
Because conversions, as opposed to a lack of painting, do notDIRECTLY impact my enjoyment in the game, nor does it directly impact how knackering the game is to play
Jubear wrote:I dont see why painting scores should matter at all.
I do believe that you should need a painted army to play but I do not see why paint scores should come into it.
I am a fan of a separate best painted prize and a separate best sportsmen prize (with good prize support)
Also it should be remembered that I can go out and buy a pro painted force but i cant go out and buy skill at the game.
Paint snobs should just stay home and paint and let everyone else have some fun if you dont like competitive play then going to a tournament is a really bad idea. Its like a pro sporting team having a beauty pagent at the end of a game to decide if anyone gets some extra points.
It has nothing to do with being a paint snob.
It has more to do with you not even trying to paint your army, and hiding behind an excuse like "I'm not good at painting".
Having a separate best painted award is all well and good, but the problem with that IMO is the same people will often win it, with little mix up. That in and of itself is fine, but it means people like me who try hard, but don't have any natural talent for painting are basically given nothing over someone who glued together a bunch of plastic, which I think is BS.
And yes, you can go out and buy skill at this game. Its called buying a new army. 99% of this game is based on what type of army list you bring to the field. if you just go out and research which one is doing the best right now, and plunk down a few hundred $$$ on it, you can win more games than someone who is playing an older army, guaranteed. This game doesn't take much "skill", and I think you need to acknowledge that. Its based on list building, and intial positioning. Most of the time the game comes down to knowing your opponents army as well as your own, what he can and cannot do, and countering that with something you can do. And in order to be able to counter him, you need to build your list to have elements in it that can do it. It all comes back to list building in the end. So if you just buy a power list straight up, you'll win a lot.
And would you WAAC nutjobs PLEASE stop referencing sports uniforms? Its a reductio ad absurdum attack that makes zero sense. Thank you.
So you dont think building a good list or knowing how to deploy to counter different armies/builds are skills? I run a 4th edition codex mate and I do fine with it....Yes money will always play its part no list is going to work without investing in the right stuff but the same could be said of painting I can just go buy a pro painted army that will look better then most peoples painting. Anyway this arguemnet was over the moment you started calling folks WAAC nutjobs and spewing latin.
nosferatu1001 wrote:JIdmah - "That's not the point. Converting and scratch-building is undoubtedly part of the hobby, so why isn't 25% of the score modeling? If you didn't convert or scratch-build anything those 25% are going to be 0, dooming you to not winning the tournament. "
Because conversions, as opposed to a lack of painting, do notDIRECTLY impact my enjoyment in the game, nor does it directly impact how knackering the game is to play
Painting, or the lack of it, does.
It does if you plan on fielding a Biker/MA Warboss, a Seer Council on Jetbikes, those new Necron Walkers or Tervigons. None of those are exactly rare choices for their corresponding armies.
Veteran Sergeant wrote:Because it's a game, and not everyone is a great painter?
It's a "hobby game". It's not a pure game. If you want to play a real game, go play one with good, balanced rules. GW games have never been about the rules, they've always been about the models. In fact, it's pretty easy to demonstrate that the rules exist to push sales of models in one direction or another.
Not everyone is a great gamer. Hell, not every great gamer is a good die roller. Why should you win a tournament because you rolled more sixes than me?
We have painting scores, and sportsmanship scores, and in some cases, fluff scores, to remind people that this isn't about wins and losses, it's about the spectacle it creates and the interaction with your opponents. If you can't handle that, go play chess, or go, or Advanced Squad Leader.
I've always hated the paint snobs.
Way to make friends there. Someone with a different opinion must be a snob...
Jidmah wrote: More like 20-25% of your painting score. In addition, painting is purely subjective, I have been marked down on painting because I didn't paint Ghazghkull Thrakka as himself, but as a Bloodaxe Warlord.
That's an issue with a judge, not a system.
If the painting score is 25% of your total score, that's like turning one loss of the day into a victory. Can't buy that off ebay for gaming.
What if I'm a crap list-builder, but I copy Goatboy's lists off of BoLS? How does that differ from being a crap painter but buying your models online? Does your tournament screen people's lists to make sure they weren't stolen from someone who posted online? Well, of course not. If you buy a beautiful army on eBay, and I get to enjoy playing against it, who painted it is really irrelevant, you have still improved my gaming experience.
On the other hand, unless people are bringing unpainted armies, most systems I've seen say that painting is 25%, but if you do the math, it's closer to 5-10%. This can be explained with the application of... math.
Let's say that painting is scored from 0-40, and battle points from 0-120. That means painting is 40/160, or 25%. But, the painting score sheet says if you meet the basic requirements, you get 10, and for doing just a little beyond the basic three colors, you get an extra 15. That's how many of the paint rubrics that I've seen work. In reality, most players present score at least 25 on their paint score. That means that the actual delta being applied is the fifteen points from 25-40, not the full range of 0-40, and that means that the real impact is actually only 15/135, or 11%. Those other 25 points are simply normalized out as everyone gets them.
Fezman wrote:I think it should be separate. If there are going to be prizes for painting and modelling they should be judged completely separately from scores related to the game itself.
And, at most tournaments I've attended, they are. There is a Best General award for the player who plays the best, and there is a Best Appearance award for the player whose army looks best. And sometimes a Best Sportsman award for that too.
Now, if you also have an award called 'overall' - doesn't it stand to reason that it accounts for all of these things? It sounds like you're arguing that there is no merit in awarding a prize for overall performance.
DeathReaper wrote: Well that and a good paint job is subjective. one judge could judge the army as being 5/10 on paint while another could give it 8/10.
Most events I'm aware of use a checklist for scoring, one which is at least 90% objective. And, at the larger national events, the top armies are scored by all judges present and an average or consensus is reached. Having judged appearances for the Adepticon team tournament (where there are 360 armies to judge in about two hours for maybe four judges), trying to do this without a checklist is an impossible task.
Jubear wrote:I dont see why painting scores should matter at all.
Perhaps to remind everyone that miniature wargaming is more about the miniatures than the gaming. Seriously, have you read the rules critically? Have you done even some basic comparisons between prices and units between the various codexes? If you're a serious gamer and aren't into painting miniatures, there's absolutely no reason to be playing this game. It's horribly unbalanced. There are many many better games out there. And I say that as someone who attends the large tournaments and has finished a tournament 'season' in the top score list.
Really. If you want to test your tactical skills, try Chess. At least if you tell an average person that you're a chess grandmaster, they'll be impressed. If you tell someone you're first on rankingsHQ for warhammer, they'll look at you like you grew a third head.
Also it should be remembered that I can go out and buy a pro painted force but i cant go out and buy skill at the game.
No, but you can copy someone else's skill (list) for free. And lists are more important than skill in this game.
Paint snobs
There's that word again.
should just stay home and paint and let everyone else have some fun if you dont like competitive play then going to a tournament is a really bad idea. Its like a pro sporting team having a beauty pagent at the end of a game to decide if anyone gets some extra points.
What if you do like competitive play (or, at least, as close as you can get with the GW rules), but also like the spectacle of two nice looking armies facing each other on the table. Seriously, you say I should stay home? If you don't want to play with painted miniatures, maybe you should stay home and play a computer game.
Jidmah wrote:For not having a theme song? For not knowing the names of all primarchs? For knowing the names of all primarchs if playing the imperial guard? For not wearing a cosplay costume fitting your army?
You know, some large tournaments have a quiz section and a spirit section too. If you choose not to care about those things, that's fine. But why then attack someone who does? I don't dress up. I don't get mad that someone who does gets the award for best costume. And, I willingly cede them the extra tie-breaker point on the overall score.
Being a good player doesn't take any less work or talent than painting your models.
Ha ha ha ha ha. Seriously? Copy list off internet. Learn basics of target priority and estimating distances. Learn basics of probability. Hope dice work well. Yeah, takes a lot to be a good player. Don't delude yourself, this isn't that complex of a game. And, again, that's not me being all sour grapes about it, that's me as someone who has won plenty of tournaments and has a shelf of trophies in his basement.
I won Best General at the second tournament I ever attended. It took me years to win an appearance award. In terms of developing skill there is no comparison. It is far far easier to learn to play.
This argument is pointless. The fact of the matter is, people are free to organize whatever kind of tournament they want, and have whatever categories they want, whether you or I agree with them or not.
For a lot of players the game is a combination of art and game, and they like it to be judged accordingly. As you can see from this discussion, numerous players are fans of that style of tournament. That is enough of a reason for it to exist. I agree there are problems with this style of tournament, as there is with anything. But people like it, and it is good for the stores hosting it. That is enough.
But you seem to be angry that such a tournament even exist. Do you not see the problem with this? People have the freedom to run whatever they enjoy.
If you don't like a certain type of tournament, don't attend. Personally I wont attend 'Ard Boyz. I have nothing against it existing though. People want to play without the need to paint and base their models, they enjoy that, so they can play that way.
Do you not have these types of tournaments in your area? I'm sorry then, but that is more of a personal issue. I don't have any game stores within a 40 mile radius, that isn't the hobbies problem. Do you not like how your local
In the end, the fact that people want to play in such tournaments , actually prefer them (as it seems most players do) is enough reason for them to exist. I'm sorry if you don't enjoy that type of tournament. That doesn't mean it shouldn't exist.
Redbeard wrote:Ha ha ha ha ha. Seriously? Copy list off internet. Learn basics of target priority and estimating distances. Learn basics of probability. Hope dice work well. Yeah, takes a lot to be a good player. Don't delude yourself, this isn't that complex of a game. And, again, that's not me being all sour grapes about it, that's me as someone who has won plenty of tournaments and has a shelf of trophies in his basement.
I won Best General at the second tournament I ever attended. It took me years to win an appearance award. In terms of developing skill there is no comparison. It is far far easier to learn to play.
I would think for someone that consistently gets Best General, that Winning Best Overall would be a driving motivation to put more effort into the hobby side of things. Shouldn't you strive to try to improve?
I mean, if I was unhappy about just winning Best General consistently, that would certainly motivate me to work harder, and do better on the hobby side of things.
Other than that, Redbeard really summed things up very well, IMO.
I absolutely hate taking my painted armies and playing grey plastic. I don't mind if they are working on it, or if they are new to the hobby. But really your gonna drop $500+ and leave them as ugly grey plastic or white/black primer? I just think its sad to leave stuff in that state. I do believe that there should be a prize in larger tournaments for painting/generaliship/sportsmanship and then the largest prize for the combo of all 3. I think all 3 are important to making people enjoy their time.
At the end of the day, everyone can become a better player, while only some of us were blessed with the artistic skill and patience to create such beautiful armies as grace the covers of white dwarfs and the like. So, the tournament winner should be determined solely by games won to games lost, with a dash of sportsmanship (as long as the fellow wasn't a total boor) Painting should not factor in, however TO's may include painting prices as they see fit.
rickross wrote:At the end of the day, everyone can become a better player, while only some of us were blessed with the artistic skill and patience to create such beautiful armies as grace the covers of white dwarfs and the like. So, the tournament winner should be determined solely by games won to games lost, with a dash of sportsmanship (as long as the fellow wasn't a total boor) Painting should not factor in, however TO's may include painting prices as they see fit.
Thats patently untrue.
I am a horrible artist, I still score well at painting because I work at it.
rickross wrote:At the end of the day, everyone can become a better player, while only some of us were blessed with the artistic skill and patience to create such beautiful armies as grace the covers of white dwarfs and the like. So, the tournament winner should be determined solely by games won to games lost, with a dash of sportsmanship (as long as the fellow wasn't a total boor) Painting should not factor in, however TO's may include painting prices as they see fit.
Thats patently untrue.
I am a horrible artist, I still score well at painting because I work at it.
If I can do it, anyone else can as well.
To be fair, you did pick the Aurora Chapter, which can be quite tricky even for an adept painter .
rickross wrote:At the end of the day, everyone can become a better player, while only some of us were blessed with the artistic skill and patience to create such beautiful armies as grace the covers of white dwarfs and the like. So, the tournament winner should be determined solely by games won to games lost, with a dash of sportsmanship (as long as the fellow wasn't a total boor) Painting should not factor in, however TO's may include painting prices as they see fit.
Thats patently untrue.
I am a horrible artist, I still score well at painting because I work at it.
If I can do it, anyone else can as well.
To be fair, you did pick the Aurora Chapter, which can be quite tricky even for an adept painter .
thats part of my point. I picked a chapter with a color scheme I liked, that wasn't overly difficult looking to paint, and got good results from it. You don't have to pick the most complex thing in the world if your not confident. I've said it before, I'm a terrible artist.
rickross wrote:At the end of the day, everyone can become a better player, while only some of us were blessed with the artistic skill and patience to create such beautiful armies as grace the covers of white dwarfs and the like. So, the tournament winner should be determined solely by games won to games lost, with a dash of sportsmanship (as long as the fellow wasn't a total boor) Painting should not factor in, however TO's may include painting prices as they see fit.
A) this is untrue. People are naturally skilled or not at both, people can improve at both. Getting better at painting is no different than getting better at playing. I was a crap artist for the first 20 years of my life. I decided to work on it. I daresay I'm pretty darn good these days.
b) if you don't excel overall, don't care about overall, why mind that overall exists
c) if you don't like those types of tournaments, don't play in them. Tournaments are not government institutions, or thrust onto you. They are hosted by individuals who have to right to make the judged categories be whatever they they find merit and enjoyment in. Neither you nor I nor anyone else has a right to say what kind of competition 'should' exist.
rickross wrote:At the end of the day, everyone can become a better player, while only some of us were blessed with the artistic skill and patience to create such beautiful armies as grace the covers of white dwarfs and the like.
Here are three miniatures I painted.
Spoiler:
My first citadel Miniature (from a long time ago):
A squad of my first Warhammer 40k models, from about seven years ago:
A squad of nobs from earlier this year:
Clearly, I wasn't born with artistic talent, or even a steady hand. (As evidenced by the first picture). But, like anything else, if you work at it, you'll get better. You'll learn the tricks to keep your hands steady. You'll learn how to work with washes, when to drybrush, and you'll spend the time required to drill out gun barrels and file off mold lines.
Your argument is that if you include painting scores you should also include conversion and fluff scores, as they are all equally important.
I showed that they are not, so you respond by referring to units you cannot include without conversins...which is not an argument for requiring conversions. You do realise that, right?
The guy who played the best gets best general. The person who was the best person to play against gets best sports. The person who painted the nicest models / made the best army, whcih includes conversions, gets best army
They person who was the best at ALL of them is Best Overall.
There - you have won the one you consider important (best general) and not won the one you dont.
Your argument is that there shouldnt be a best overall - which is a poor, poor argument for ALL the reasons shown
nosferatu1001 wrote:Your argument is that there shouldnt be a best overall - which is a poor, poor argument for ALL the reasons shown
Which is exactly the opposite of what I said. But well, Redbeard already chose to pick up random stuff from my posts an reply to nothing else, so it might be a good time to abandon this thread after all.
thevirus wrote:With all the companies out there paint your figures it should NEVER matter in a tournament.
If you paid someone to paint your mini's they are still painted. I could care less if someone painted their army or paid someone else to paint their mini's. I personally only paint my 40k models. I get a 3rd party to paint most of my fantasy stuff. I like to paint the big gribblies in fantasy but can't be bothered to paint 180 night goblins. I think there should be a point cap on the painting score if you did not paint all of your army yourself, but I still would rather play with someone who paid to have their army painted then play unpainted grey sea.
dkellyj wrote:Cruentas: Yeah, the models are supplied unpainted. They're also sold unassembled, so if I just glue the parts in a pile to the base, thats cool?
Only if your theme is an Army AFTER they have all been Deff-Rolla'd.
And we would still expect GS gore and paint on the piled up bits.
LOL
But yeah, always 3 seperate categories and a 4th 'best overall' if the event can support that prize level..
nope. best overall, other 3 categories if they can be supported, and even then, best overall places 1-4 would be better.
Lord Rogukiel wrote:Unless it's a painting tournament, by which I mean a tournament, but the best painted wins, like no games and stuff. Does that exist?
The various Golden Daemon events?
You could just say any painting comp really lol.
I've heard of stuff like it though, you show up with your model(s) and are given a time limit. Best painted wins.
Yeah Iv been in a speed painting comp, was fun, had about 40min to paint a nob.
Redbeard wrote:Clearly, I wasn't born with artistic talent, or even a steady hand. (As evidenced by the first picture). But, like anything else, if you work at it, you'll get better. You'll learn the tricks to keep your hands steady. You'll learn how to work with washes, when to drybrush, and you'll spend the time required to drill out gun barrels and file off mold lines.
Seconded! This applies to me as well. Although I'm still a couple years behind RB, because I still don't drill my barrels or file all my ML.
kronk wrote:But keep that separate from Best General.
I don't think anyone, anywhere in this thread has suggested that painting should be a part of best general (ie, best win/KP/VP/etc record in the tournament).
kronk wrote:If you want painted armies, by all means have the TO require models to be painted to play in the tournament. Then, you can award the best painted.
But keep that separate from Best General.
The issue, as I understand it, is Best Overall, which is usually the big prize. You can win every game, but lose to the guy you beat in the final because his army was better painted.
IMO, this is perfectly fine. You'll likely win best general, which is what you should get for being the best general. If that person edges you out on Best Overall due to having a better painted army, suck it up, find why he beat you, and get better at painting.
God I miss the early to mid 90s when tournaments were just based of player skill then some asshat at GW came up with the horrible idea that tournaments should be a full hobby experience and next thing you know TOs are ruining tournaments with painting scores.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
-Loki- wrote:
kronk wrote:If you want painted armies, by all means have the TO require models to be painted to play in the tournament. Then, you can award the best painted.
But keep that separate from Best General.
The issue, as I understand it, is Best Overall, which is usually the big prize. You can win every game, but lose to the guy you beat in the final because his army was better painted.
IMO, this is perfectly fine. You'll likely win best general, which is what you should get for being the best general. If that person edges you out on Best Overall due to having a better painted army, suck it up, find why he beat you, and get better at painting.
Or just buy a pro painted army with the current price of GW is oz it work at at nearly the same as GW retail to buy your stuff from a discount store in india and have painted up by cheap skilled Indian labor. There problem solved if it gives me a better chance of winning best overall.
Jubear wrote:God I miss the early to mid 90s when tournaments were just based of player skill then some asshat at GW came up with the horrible idea that tournaments should be a full hobby experience and next thing you know TOs are ruining tournaments with painting scores.
Never existed. Why? Because the game didn't exist as a rulesystem that was playable competitively in the mid 90s. There was no skill involved in the mid 90s. The game was an unbalanced narrative mess which was made for 'fun' and 'models' and not competitive play. You are making up this magical land as it never existed.
GW's tourneys have been a full hobby experience since day one and GWs rule writers actually hated the competitive attitude during the mid-90s and felt it ruined the game they were making.
Jubear wrote:Really 4th and 5th edition WHFB was still balanced enough for competitive play and anything that was over the top was comped.
Seemed to work fairly well to me it and I rarely saw the same armies winning all the time.
EH, matter of debate... heart of woe explosion characters and a bit of herohammer... Still doesn't change the fact that GW required fully painted armies in their stores, many indies did to and GW had open and very vocal contempt of the 'WAAC' attitude and claimed the games were not suited for competitive play. Any and all GW tourneys were always hobby competitions from day one. The fact they needed comp to be playable showed how the game on its face was not designed for competitive play.
Almost all of the GW games needed heavy comp to be playable in a competitive environment until the early 2000s. Because of this, the WAAC people were seen as outcasts because everyone 'knew' you could build an unbeatable army with zero skill required to play it which defeated the purpose. Hence events where a person needed to compete on multiple fronts as well as play the 'comp' game.
These events which were pure battlepoints and skill never existed until we had uncomped events which have really only broken ground in the past 4 years. Too bad Fantasy has become almost unplayable. How things are now and how they were 15 years ago are so different I think people frequently forget.
I don't think the game is as poorly-designed or unbalanced as Redbeard does, but I agree that if you don't care about painting or about playing with and against painted armies; if all you care about is the game, you are in the wrong hobby. Minatures wargaming is about the miniatures first and foremost, and this is obvious in every rulebook and advertisement. If all you want is a competitive game, then Chess is right there. Or if you want a fantasy theme, then Magic: The Gathering. Or if you want a wargame, then Advanced Squad Leader.
I absolutely respect and enjoy the competitive side of the game. I enjoy the heck out of playing and winning, and I play to win, and have been hardworking and fortunate enough to do so a fair amount.* But when I started playing (1999) almost all events, and certainly every GW-sponsored event, was about the overall hobbyist, requiring and rewarding painting, gameplay, and even a bit of comp/fluff. I got into the fluff, and I learned to paint. Like almost everyone, I started off rough and got progressively better. I've even managed to win a few painting awards, though when you compare me to the truly proficient I'm clearly a tabletop-quality style painter. I really disliked painting when I first tried it, and I still procrastinate at it like crazy. But I was satisfied whenever I got a unit finished. And I appreciated that the game really isn't that great when it doesn't include the spectacle of attractive armies on a nice table.
I can understand and appreciate how some folks get frustrated over inequities in their local area (like Jidmah's situation, where he gets penalized for a unique paint scheme, and where they don't give a separate prize for Best General), but a distinction needs to be drawn between feeling that one's local area doesn't have enough variety of events, and a general condemnation of anyplace having the kind of event that doesn't suit your personal preference.
Thankfully in most places multiple kinds of events exist. Including most prominently the pure Battles event, the "classic" overall-player-and-hobbyist, and the events which mix them both. The biggest and best-organized events mostly seem to be moving to the latter; witness Adepticon & the newer NOVA. GW, meanwhile, with Throne of Skulls has once more affirmed that for them the highest priority is players bringing everything to the table- play, paint, and sportsmanship. That should be indicative of what the game is designed and intended to be. Thankfully the players and TOs choose to expand it a bit beyond that. And we should all appreciate the work they do and respect that different folks have different priorities, and the best events are those that allow for all.
(*And BTW, in the natural course of conversation I told a girl at work this week about my ranking on Rankings HQ, and she was respectful. Granted, I was talking to a girl who does competitive Roller Derby, so not quite your general audience, but I don't think we're quite the marginal sorts that RB implied. )
Well if the all the pro hobbyist had there way every tournament would be paint score and sports without a battle points component.
Why even play the games at all after all its obviously requires no skill to do well.
Hell lets just show up at the tourny and set our armies up and hold hands and exchange the fluffy backgrounds of our armies while we braid each others hair.
Why are folk so scared of competitive play? Life is one big competition every thing you do from work to even your relationships is a competition.
Also I have never seen painting comp where the weapons loadout on a model was taken into account so why should painting come into a comp based around ones abilitys to direct his man dollies?
Also painting scores are also very subjective a good example would be that some armies are much easier to paint then others anyone can make SMs look good while elder can be a challenge.
Has anyone actually stated that there should be no games played? Or that they shouldn't count?
If you want to go for Best Overall, get better at painting. If you want to be the best player there, then don't give a gak about best Overall and gun for Best General. It's what you're after.
People aren't scared of competitive play. If they were, they wouldn't be going to tournaments at all. But judging based on the effort put into painting your army is something that gets done at wargaming tournaments, because it's a large part of the hobby for most players.
You kind of need to expect there to be an award based on it, and for there to be a Best Overall award.
I mean, you could also say that Best Sportsmanship is a load of gak because the person you play might be a complete donkey-cave, he's just good at acting nice when you play a game. And that guy might edge you out in points because he got a better overall score based on acting like a nice guy on sportsmanship points.
Just get over the fact that gameplay isn't the only thing judged.
Lolz I am not scared of painting comp all my stuff is painted in such a way that I usually do well as It meets what the judges are looking for Ie coherent,basing with 2 different materials,3 colors and highlighting/shading.
But that aside I would never enter a dedicated painting comp as painting is a result of my hobby and not the focus.
Why are you so scared of entering a tourny that dosent have a paint score?
Is not the painting of your own army enough for you or do you need the validation of a score?
Also I have some friends that are real artist when i see what they can do with some oils and a blank canvas it just rams home that miniature painting is kinda silly when compared to real art.
Basically you are saying that your approach to the hobby is right and anyone any other approach to the hobby is wrong.
Tournaments should always require a painted army to play after all I am paying to play however I dont see why its such a bad thing to have separate prizes for each category.
Painting scores. Why I never play in tournaments; too much back patting and holier than thou going on because somebody has more free time than I do to spend hours on each fig. All my toys are painted but I'd rather play the game and spend time doing other things than hunkered over a magnifying lense with paint-stained fingers mumbling to myself and cackling at odd times while my family looks on with worried expressions and much "tsking".
agnosto wrote:Painting scores. Why I never play in tournaments; too much back patting and holier than thou going on because somebody has more free time than I do to spend hours on each fig. All my toys are painted but I'd rather play the game and spend time doing other things than hunkered over a magnifying lense with paint-stained fingers mumbling to myself and cackling at odd times while my family looks on with worried expressions and much "tsking".
Note: I'm kinda proud of that run-on sentence.
So go to tournaments and try to get best general. Your painting level isn't going to affect you getting the award for playing the best in any way whatsoever.
There are a few ways that I do run a tournament. The ones without the paint requirements are the ones that are requested the most, but they are the ones that I will fund the least, +$100 - $200 in prizes
The more "professional" ones require a painting element. The painting element is a very simple affair.
I will give you a simple run down on how it is judged.
Your army is graded awarded 0 points for an unpainted army. Points are awarded for the amount of effort put on the models of your army.
Is the army painted? A point is awarded.
Is the army painted with three or more different colors? A point is awarded
Is it based? A point is awarded
And so one.
These points are then applied to every game that is played in the tournament which makes up the overall score of the tournament. You can think of them is bonus points if you like for the amount of effort that you paint your army, not what is deemed "quality" of the paint job of the army that gets people all bent out of shape about.
This kind of judgement for painting takes the subjective aspect of what is "high table top quality/Professional painting" and what is not, out of the tournament.
If you want to add a "best painter" in your tournament I usually add an element of the a vote done by those people that are playing in the tournament to pick out who they think has the best paint job done in the tournament. Add their vote to a panel of judges to get and overall best painter award (that is if you want to add another layer complexity and to safe guard against friends voting one of their own to win the painting competition aspect of the tournament).
I do not use the term "Golden Daemon" because I consider that to be incredibly subjective and to be honest some of what I have seen is just crap.
Mannahnin wrote:(*And BTW, in the natural course of conversation I told a girl at work this week about my ranking on Rankings HQ, and she was respectful. Granted, I was talking to a girl who does competitive Roller Derby, so not quite your general audience, but I don't think we're quite the marginal sorts that RB implied. )
Was it the smile and nod and shuffle away kind of respectful?
This made me check RankingsHQ and find out that someone must have accidentally reported an event I was at. I'm now the 1075th best player in the US!
-Loki- wrote:
So go to tournaments and try to get best general. Your painting level isn't going to affect you getting the award for playing the best in any way whatsoever.
The problem with that is that I don't play well either.
Basically in local tournaments its all about wins and losses. Now we do keep sportsmanship and painting scores, but these are used as tie breakers. So while it helps your chances not to be a jerk and have a decent table top army if you massacre all of your games you still win. This feels the most fair as it doesn't punish those that are great strategists but poor painters or help those that paid for an "expert level" paint job. Rather it rewards those who put a little more effort into their army and their table top skill.
Akroma06 wrote:Basically in local tournaments its all about wins and losses. Now we do keep sportsmanship and painting scores, but these are used as tie breakers. So while it helps your chances not to be a jerk and have a decent table top army if you massacre all of your games you still win. This feels the most fair as it doesn't punish those that are great strategists but poor painters or help those that paid for an "expert level" paint job. Rather it rewards those who put a little more effort into their army and their table top skill.
Well you can think what you want, but in a lot of places this is the less popular attitude, such as where I play.
To suggest having tournaments based purely on who can roll the dice better is tantamount to heresy around rochester NY.
Akroma06 wrote: or help those that paid for an "expert level" paint job.
This is a myth which I do not feel reflects reality pretty much anywhere. I have this feeling that everyone who seems to hate painting assumes everyone else is a cheater who paid someone to paint their stuff to screw them out of prize support. You found us out. No one int he world paints except for one little old man in a mountain shrine in Asia and he paints 100% of models out there and sells them on ebay and it is a grand conspiracy to have paint scores to keep non-painters down.
But seriously... every time someone makes this argument it makes me cringe as it simply si not reality for a severe majority of people who have painted armies.
No tournament needs to make a strong differentiation between what is important and not when you think about it.
Encourage and allow all players to compete and enjoy their hobby the way they most see fit.
In the NOVA style, our Best Overall rightly is comprised 50% of appearance scores, and 50% of competitive scores. Our Best General is comprised 100% of competitive score (win/loss, bracketed). Our Best Appearance is comprised 100% of appearance score.
I don't see why people get so huffy. Typically you go to the types of tournaments you enjoy. If you want to be 100% about generalship than go play 'ard boyz. If you want to be judged by your painting skills go enter painting competitions.
I wish that I had a chance to join these tournaments that actually required painted armies and awarded prizes on an overall level. Most of the time I just see a sea of grey plastic and it makes me cry :(
Jidmah wrote:A tournament is about playing games to win.
That's only if you define a tournament as such. There is nothing about the word "tournament" that requires there to be any sort of game being played. There are plenty of different kinds of tournament, both sports related and not sports related, that are totally subjectively judged. Whether it is a sport like gymnastics, diving, or dance or an activity like singing or visual arts, there are many different tournaments that have absolutely nothing with "playing games to win" and are decided based upon the opinions of either a single judge or panel of judges.
You know, this subject keeps coming up every few months, and the same people always chime in with the same hackneyed arguments.
This is what it amounts to:
If you want to host a Warhammer 40K tournament, set up the format however you want, weighing whichever different elements of the game/hobby you believe to be the most important. Make sure that you make your scoring system completely transparent and available to everyone before hand. Yes, for the soft scores this transparency makes it theoretically possible for people to "game the system," but that risk is far better than having something like a confusing composition scoring system pulled out right before the first game starts.
If you do this, then only people who are interested in participating in that type of tournament will show up for it. During and after the tournament, pay attention to what the players say about their experience. Be willing to adjust the things that people were unhappy about. If you know people who opted to not show up to the tournament, listen to why they didn't come. Use both sets of information to make a decision about whether or not you wish to modify your format for future tournaments. Let the local attitudes towards tournaments dictate how your tournaments evolve. If your local area gamers like soft scored tournaments, ignore people on the web who act like soft scores are somehow the bane of modern civilization. If everyone in your area hates soft scores, do not insist on having them.
I'll seriously never understand why people make such a fuss about this when it comes up. We're at a point in the GW hobby/game that there are plenty of tournaments that cater to every different extreme of playing. There is nothing that requires someone to attend a tournament with a format they don't like. If you have the misfortune of living in an area with very limited tournament opportunities, then work with the locals to have tournaments of a style you prefer at least occasionally. Coming online to lambast someone you've never met and probably never will meet over their prefered style of tournament is, frankly, pretty silly. Instead, spend your time with your local community to make sure that there are enough opportunities for everyone to enjoy the gaming experience they'd like to see at least occasionally.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Jubear wrote:Is not the painting of your own army enough for you or do you need the validation of a score?
Is not the playing of the game enough for you or do you need the validation of a win?
Surely it depends on the nature of the tournament, is it a competition strictly based on who can win games, or is it a more rounded reflection of the hobby? Thus sportsmanship and the quality of your army should be taken into account.
Surely as long as the tournament rules are clear from the outset there isn't a problem. Just pick the tournaments that suit the sort of competition you want to enter.
In the two tournaments I've run, I've made painting a nice sidenote.
Victories should count for about 70% in my opinion.
Sportsmanship 10% [to stop people dumping you so that they can beat you.]
Painting 20%.
I like to encourage painting, but since most of the people I play with are only starting out, its hard to get fully painted armies, so we assess what's there rather than saying 'I see a sea of grey.'
I think painting scores should be a factor in tournaments. Your army should represent every aspect of the Hobby every time you participate in a tournament for the hobby; modeling, painting, and playing. A person who actually tries to model, paint, and play should have a better overall score than those who are only focused on one aspect simply because they are embracing the hobby as a whole and are showing it through their army.
It doesn't matter if you're a 'Eavy Metal level painter or not. As long as you try and paint all your models (and Bases!), your overall painting score would be around 70-80% depending on who judges it.
Nothing is more insulting then watching an entirely grey plastic/metal army get plopped down in front of me and the player expecting to GET a painting score, much less anything else. If you put effort into all aspects of the hobby and go into a tournament, your effort should be reflected overall, NOT because you win with your grey eye-sore.
Agree.
I find competitive gaming very fun and rewarding but it is only one aspect of the whole gaming experience for me. If I only wanted to whack out some grey plastic minis why should I even bother to buy them in the first place, all I need is a codex and rule book and a bunch of cardboard props proxying all the minis. Better stick to this or chess if balanced gaming and/or winning is all that matters.
The hobby of miniature wargaming is about nice looking minis, cool themes AND gaming where all the aspect are covered, for me the aesthetics that meet the eye, the background and the intellectual challenge of duking it out against my very evil (fluff wise) opponent while enjoying a brewski and a good conversation is amongst the most fun things I can do with my clothes on.
However facing some unpainted or grotesque looking "army" with half the minis proxied or an army that has been quick painted just to cover the grey plastic is insulting.
Here I am, spending at least 10+ hours on EVERY miniature in my whole army with themed bases and conversions aplenty and the whole picture is spoiled by 50 wholly black sprayed black templars or a GK army that someone sprayed in mithril silver and added some quick ugly pink details on with a plastic toy dinosaur as a HQ stand in prox.
I mean why do I even bother when I could have whipped out my bucket of naked bases and used those to proxy everything with.
Sometimes I feel like just gaming, trying out tactics and rules and dont mind but usually the gaming part is supposed to come with a nice terrain table and pretty to look at armies and I am not hung up on good painting skill or less painting skill, just as long as I see some effort has been put into the whole thing, that makes so much to highten the gaming experience.
DeffDred wrote:Friendly games are for the folk who don't want to paint. They are into the "game".
Tournaments are for the folk who paint, play, collect and disscuss. They are into the "hobby".
I think you've got it backwards. People that are into the hobby tend to play "friendlier" games.
As to the original question though - I like to think the painting scores should be inversely proportional to the wackiness of the missions. Sorry, but if there is a mission that gimps my army just because I have skimmers, then there better be more final weight put on my painting.
Not for the paint, but for the price and pieces vs a starter set. And it helps me get closer to my theorycrafted list faster.
I plan on repainting everything a uniform color scheme to fit with my army, lore, etc, etc, and getting into conversions and modeling and whatnot, but really I'm more interested in the gaming aspect.
So should I strip everything first and play a grey army? Or is everyone an elitist and I should just be embarrassed and not bother showing up?
MartiniPunk wrote:So should I strip everything first and play a grey army? Or is everyone an elitist and I should just be embarrassed and not bother showing up?
Firstly I would advise reading what 'pro-painting' people are actually saying. Secondly, I would suggest stripping and painting a unit at a time. Just means that you don't get overwelmed with all that you have to paint
MartiniPunk wrote:So should I strip everything first and play a grey army? Or is everyone an elitist and I should just be embarrassed and not bother showing up?
Firstly I would advise reading what 'pro-painting' people are actually saying. Secondly, I would suggest stripping and painting a unit at a time. Just means that you don't get overwelmed with all that you have to paint
Excellent advice from Silver here^
Whether or not, and to what degree painting should impact the scores in a tourney, I leave up to the TOs. I just hope that they continue to offer a variety of tournament scoring types. This allows each of the players to choose which type of competition they wish to enter.
As a personal opinion, I really really dislike unpainted armies. It takes a great deal away from the game. I cannot even force myself to watch battle reports on youtube if the armies are not painted. I don't get militant about it though. I realize that others hold differing views.
DeathReaper wrote:Painting score should never matter in a tournament.
Someone's lack of painting skill should not factor into wins and losses however.
There can be no skill in painting. Apply colour, wash. Not that fething complicated but most tourney players are plain lazy (In my opinion ONLY). Painting will always be important because it shows your commitment to your army.
Not to mention painting and sportsmanship scores even the playing field between power gamers (who play with greys, which infuriates me), hobbyists and nice guys. Makes things fair because face it, no one wants impatient people to win all the time, sometimes we just want a nice guy, or a guy that looks good when he loses.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
SilverMK2 wrote:But that's only a tiny part of the hobby.
*Sarcasm on* Because pushing plastic men and women on a board covered in sand and PAINTED is the major component to this. *Sarcasm off*
The major component to this is collecting and painting. The game came after citadel made minis because it gave people something to do with their minis after they had painted them! Painting makes up 80% of the hobby whilst collecting makes up 15% and gaming makes up 5% (the game was always an afterthought, nothing you say can change that fact.)
The point of the hobby is not to buy overpriced plastic toys and push them on a table and roll dice, the point is to JUSTIFY THE COST OF THOSE OVERPRICED TOYS BY DOING SOMETHING AWESOME WITH THEM.
MartiniPunk wrote:
So should I strip everything first and play a grey army? Or is everyone an elitist and I should just be embarrassed and not bother showing up?
You can play with an army you didn't paint... Just don't accept any prizes for painting. Most tourneys ask 'did you paint this army yourself?' Just say 'no I did not.'
You can still play for best general... or to play for... fun.
MartiniPunk wrote:
So should I strip everything first and play a grey army? Or is everyone an elitist and I should just be embarrassed and not bother showing up?
You can play with an army you didn't paint... Just don't accept any prizes for painting. Most tourneys ask 'did you paint this army yourself?' Just say 'no I did not.'
You can still play for best general... or to play for... fun.
you can't win any prizes for an army you didn't paint. You can almost always still get painting points towards best overall even if you didn't paint it.
MartiniPunk wrote:
So should I strip everything first and play a grey army? Or is everyone an elitist and I should just be embarrassed and not bother showing up?
You can play with an army you didn't paint... Just don't accept any prizes for painting. Most tourneys ask 'did you paint this army yourself?' Just say 'no I did not.'
You can still play for best general... or to play for... fun.
you can't win any prizes for an army you didn't paint. You can almost always still get painting points towards best overall even if you didn't paint it.
If you won best overall with an army you didn't paint, I almost guarantee you probably were best general or the person who was second for best overall was ended up being best general. And since most people run it where you can't win multiple prizes, all you do is tell the TO you didn't paint so you can't win best overall and you will probably win best general.
Not sure the issue... you pretty much have to win it all to be best overall anyways... so if you can win best general, then you are all set.
I routh the day that somebody that knows no tactics, and has no idea how to play with little plastic men, beats me in a tournament because he's a good painter...
painting should be totally seperate from the game itself. What I dont get is why people agrue with this... "I think its stupid that a grey army beats my well painted army". Well, mabye if you learn to play better, then your well painted army can come first for a change. If not, get over it. I know it sucks that you spend a lot of time painting figures while someone who you think "Dosen't care about that hobby as much as you do" (which in fact, is highly not true in any way) beats you.
ParatrooperSimon wrote:Well, mabye if you learn to play better, then your well painted army can come first for a change.
Playing better cannot overcome some of the inherit imbalances in many of the codexes and many of the units within the codexes. So what you really mean is 'Learn to play better and spend a lot of money to codex hop to the newest powerful armylist'.
Basically making the person with the most 'skill' often the person who has the most money to buy the flavor of the month. So pretending that somehow that tourneys are pure competitions of skill and you are beating opponents with pure skill is laughable on its face. And since tourneys are not solely based upon skill, I see no valid reason why then need to be 'pure' to such an extreme. I don't tend to mind when an amazingly painted Tau army which has minor loses wins best overall to a shabbily painted Grey knights army that rofflestomps a bunch of people. The Grey knight player can be happy with his best general.
I dont think you understood what I said. Anyone can win games with any army. If people use the exuse that "ITS NOT MY FAULT!!!...its my codex's fault" is "lauguable on its face". If people leave a tournament with massacre losses, then their just crap. Im sorry, but they are. People just need to work out what is best for their army and how to play with thos certain unit(s)
And I never said people had to go out and by the flavor of the month and spend all their hard earned cash. Why not by the models slowly, paint them, and progress your way through?
ParatrooperSimon wrote:I routh the day that somebody that knows no tactics, and has no idea how to play with little plastic men, beats me in a tournament because he's a good painter...
painting should be totally seperate from the game itself. What I dont get is why people agrue with this... "I think its stupid that a grey army beats my well painted army". Well, mabye if you learn to play better, then your well painted army can come first for a change. If not, get over it. I know it sucks that you spend a lot of time painting figures while someone who you think "Dosen't care about that hobby as much as you do" (which in fact, is highly not true in any way) beats you.
It is an almost immutable rule with this game, that as long as the person has painted their own army, anyone with a beautifully painted army is most likely very good at this game.
You have occasional anomalies, but for the most part its safe to say someone with a well-painted army is a good player.
And besides, the only way painting will make a difference in a tournament setting is if the scores are close. For example, if you have 3 massacre wins but are playing with 3 color minimum, and he has 2 massacre wins and a minor win, and a flawlessly painted army.
Do you REALLY think you deserve a win over that, because you got slightly luckier with dice rolls? Nah, not a chance.
You make a good point Horst. And I would have to agree, I would want to give the 1st place to the other guy. But I was speaking in a more broad term. But if you put into detail like that, then I can see why.
ParatrooperSimon wrote:You make a good point Horst. And I would have to agree, I would want to give the 1st place to the other guy. But I was speaking in a more broad term. But if you put into detail like that, then I can see why.
Right, but an example like mine is probably what most people are going to encounter. Lets break it down numberwise!
Assume a 25% paint score, 75% battlepoints score.
Assume you get 50% of the paint score JUST for bringing 3 color minimum painted.
Also assume a Massacre is 20/20, Minor Win is 13/20, Draw is 10/20.
So, a person with basic painting and 3 massacres gets 87.5 points....
and a person with a 90% paint score, and 2 massacres and a minor win gets 88.5 points....
He BARELY scraps a win by. If you put ANY effort beyond 3 color basic into your scheme, you'd have pulled out a win... even if its poorly painted. I can't really think of many cases where paint score would allow a person to win a tournament he wasn't already going very well in... it usually just tips the scales when things are close.
MartiniPunk wrote:
So should I strip everything first and play a grey army? Or is everyone an elitist and I should just be embarrassed and not bother showing up?
You can play with an army you didn't paint... Just don't accept any prizes for painting. Most tourneys ask 'did you paint this army yourself?' Just say 'no I did not.'
You can still play for best general... or to play for... fun.
Tourneys should just ask what brand of paint you used, then ask for some specific colors and painting advice.
Anyone not familiar to painting should be pretty easy to spot. I can see too many people just lying if they were asked up-front.
ParatrooperSimon wrote:You make a good point Horst. And I would have to agree, I would want to give the 1st place to the other guy. But I was speaking in a more broad term. But if you put into detail like that, then I can see why.
Right, but an example like mine is probably what most people are going to encounter. Lets break it down numberwise!
Assume a 25% paint score, 75% battlepoints score.
Assume you get 50% of the paint score JUST for bringing 3 color minimum painted.
Also assume a Massacre is 20/20, Minor Win is 13/20, Draw is 10/20.
So, a person with basic painting and 3 massacres gets 87.5 points....
and a person with a 90% paint score, and 2 massacres and a minor win gets 88.5 points....
He BARELY scraps a win by. If you put ANY effort beyond 3 color basic into your scheme, you'd have pulled out a win... even if its poorly painted. I can't really think of many cases where paint score would allow a person to win a tournament he wasn't already going very well in... it usually just tips the scales when things are close.
Very good point ;D. Me and you think along the same lines ;D (My basic view on it, that in tournaments, All Armies have to painted, but painting should not go towards the overall score, but in a separate area. I just think, who ever played the best should be 1st, and he or she should not be discredited or knocked down because of their painting, as long as they brought a fully painted army.)
ParatrooperSimon wrote:
Very good point ;D. Me and you think along the same lines ;D (My basic view on it, that in tournaments, All Armies have to painted, but painting should not go towards the overall score, but in a separate area. I just think, who ever played the best should be 1st, and he or she should not be discredited or knocked down because of their painting, as long as they brought a fully painted army.)
And as I have said uncountable numbers of times now - no one is going to strip the best general award from the best player because they do not have a (well) painted army, but they may not be able to win best overall if they were not... You know... The best overall person
Tourneys should just ask what brand of paint you used, then ask for some specific colors and painting advice.
Anyone not familiar to painting should be pretty easy to spot. I can see too many people just lying if they were asked up-front.
Why? TOs have better things to do than play Inspector Gadget. If someone REALLY needs to lie about appearance to win, then he can lie about whatever quiz he is put through.
MOST PEOPLE don't lie, MOST PEOPLE who paint it is clear they made their stuff themselves. MOST PEOPLE who buy painted armies have no issue disclosing it, it is not shameful or something to hide, I respect people who make the effort to get models painted by any means necessary. It is also a good way to find out good local commission painters who may be cheap. Helping people who like to paint make some money!
And like other people said, MOST PEOPLE who are good painters have a better than average grasp on the game.
I really think the guy buying a golden demon army off ebay, then massacring their opponents and winning all their games then twiddling their mustache and saying "Mynah, I painted this army see? I win, I win!, Mynah MYNAH!" is a myth like bigfoot.
I really see no problem with painting scores. If your in 40K purely for the game then aim for Best General. Wanna win Best Overall? Just paint your army.
Most tourneys have a Best Overall for a reason, their the most skilled and nice person with the best painted army. Yes, this game does take skill, its not just about die rolls.
I've attended multiple tourneys this year where there was a shift. There were awards for best painted army, but it was a separate award altogether. I had no issues with it and still saw a lot of really cool armies, win or lose.
What I wish I would see more often are TOs enforcing their own rules. If they state armies must be fully painted, then enforce it and not allow unpainted models on the table. This is a trend I've also witnessed this year and a bit dismayed at. If I wanted to play against unpainted armies, I can stay local and play pick up games; costs me much less money and time.
skyth wrote:I love how anyone who doesn't like painting scores is automatically labeled as a WAAC gamer...(IE bad person)...
. IMO I think small tourneys should use painting scores as a tiebreaker but I think they also have every right to best overall if they get a decent paint score that outweighs a lazy army paint job. BEst general shod be reserved specifically for Waac players unless the top players all have nicely painted armies that win all their games get good sportsmanship etc. I think what should be done is force players to prove their armies are what they painted with pics or a blog and maybe have a best showmanship award for people who pay to have their armies painted since they spent all that cash to have someone paint it.
skyth wrote:I love how anyone who doesn't like painting scores is automatically labeled as a WAAC gamer...(IE bad person)...
. IMO I think small tourneys should use painting scores as a tiebreaker but I think they also have every right to best overall if they get a decent paint score that outweighs a lazy army paint job. BEst general shod be reserved specifically for Waac players unless the top players all have nicely painted armies that win all their games get good sportsmanship etc.
Actually, I was objecting to the use of WAAC as meaning someone who is just good at playing the game. WAAC insinuates that they are bad people and is painting people with a very broad brush.
I like tournaments which incorperate some form of acknowledgement towards painting.
Don't get me wrong, my painting skills are fairly poor due to various issues with my hands, but doesn't mean I don't *try* to make my army look nice. I am more than welcome to let peopel get points for having skill for painting. Afterall if I just won the match, doesn't that mean Im getting points for having skill in playing? (Or luck)
Chaos Lord Gir wrote:I like tournaments which incorperate some form of acknowledgement towards painting.
Don't get me wrong, my painting skills are fairly poor due to various issues with my hands, but doesn't mean I don't *try* to make my army look nice. I am more than welcome to let peopel get points for having skill for painting. Afterall if I just won the match, doesn't that mean Im getting points for having skill in playing? (Or luck)
I have to give you my respect on painting your models. At least you do a lot more than many others that have posted on this site.
EldarN00b wrote:The major component to this is collecting and painting. The game came after citadel made minis because it gave people something to do with their minis after they had painted them! Painting makes up 80% of the hobby whilst collecting makes up 15% and gaming makes up 5% (the game was always an afterthought, nothing you say can change that fact.)
The point of the hobby is not to buy overpriced plastic toys and push them on a table and roll dice, the point is to JUSTIFY THE COST OF THOSE OVERPRICED TOYS BY DOING SOMETHING AWESOME WITH THEM.
First of all, I really question your math. No offense but that looks like random numbers you pulled out of your ass, nothing based on any real factual data and, judging from the rest of your post, most likely heavily biased.
Second, maybe that's how GW got their start, but let's see how well that works for them now. Get rid of the game and all the codices and watch how fast GW dies. They apparently struggle to get by as it is, with people buying new armies every time a new codex comes out and yearly price increases, so do you really think people who buy a random model every other week are going to be able to sustain the company? I don't care what you personally believe, the fact of the matter is that your average "painter" isn't going out and buying 2,000+ point armies just so they can sit on a shelf gathering dust. He buys a character or two, maybe a tank and a squad of guys and calls it there.
Finally, I justify the cost of my overpriced plastic crap by getting to play games with them, like most people, I imagine. Painting is a tedious necessity, not what I consider "doing something" with them. I don't go out and waste hundreds of dollars so I can sit hunched over (and I have a bad back so that gak kills me) and do something I don't enjoy very much for hours at a time. I like models but I'm not really a modeller, I wouldn't be buying them if I didn't get to play with them.
The way I roll paint scoring into final tournament score here is, best completely painted army gets points equal to about 1/6 of the final score they could get if they played perfectly.
Then there is a score for best single painted/converted model, which makes up 1/10 of the best possible final score.
Amries that are completely painted get a score equal to about 1/15 of the best possible final score.
Armies that are about 50% painted get a score equal to about 1/20 of the best possible final score.
No overlapping on the paint score. This makes it, so yes painting can have a small affect on the final score, but it is not overwhelming, yet gives incentive for people to paint thier armies.
For instance, in the last tournament, a guy with the best painted army got 2nd place, he played almost well enough to get 1st including his paint score. Tied in total points for #1, but got 2nd by a margin of 307 victory points.
The guy who took first, completely unpainted army.
If the 2nd place had not had best painted army score, he probably still would have gotten second, maybe 3rd.
