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

Painting / Comp / Arbitrary crap scores have NOTHING to do with tournament play, and shouldn't be used in determining first place at tournaments.

Just played a tournament today. Fun, right? Had 3 great games. Won all 3 of them... 39-3, 45-0, and 37-7. I was the only undefeated player at the tournament. Going into the last round, my opponent had won 46-something and 38-something... putting us at 84-84... dead even. The judge then decided that all scores should be done for win/loss/draw, with a win being 20, a draw being 10, and a draw being 5. Whatever. I don't care.

my opponent had 10 points higher in painting score. Again, whatever, Its all good.
my opponent had 4 points higher in player choice... apparently you get 2 points whenever someone nominates you as their favorite player. They never even asked us for this, so half of us didn't get to vote. (I know I didn't)

Whatever.. i'm still winning by 1, right? Wrong. the judge decides to arbitrarily dock 3 points off my score, because A) he had to ask me to register twice, though I was registered 15 minutes before the deadline, and I told him I was working on getting the money together to do so; and B) Because I had to double check how the scoring system was working. Unfortunately I wasn't totally clear on going from a battlepoints format to a w/l/d points format, and I found it slightly confusing. God help me. So I loose, and end up in second place. The guy I beat takes first place.

I realize this tournament was poorly run, and arbitrary docking of points and changing of scoring systems mid-tournament isn't reflective of all tournaments that involve comp / painting. However, if EVERY tournament just goes by sheer battlepoints, or w/l/d record, then boom, no confusion is possible. Its not like I was a dick to any of my opponents, we had good games, all. If TO's want to do painting / comp scoring, use a rubric that rewards people who try their best and may not have any intrinsic talent for the painting, and save talent awards for a separate award. Its not like I paint piss-poor, http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/303315.page is an example of my work... my entire army (mech marines) is painted to a similar standard.

in closing, painting scores and arbitrary judge points, be it from a comp system or asshat judge removal systems, have no place in any tournament system. It should be noted, however, that the guy who won first realized this was horsecrap, and split the difference in the prize with me.

yeah the thats some serious bs man... docking points for what could only be described as slightly making the tournament organizer do something...
i'd tell him where to shove it and refuse to play in another one of tournaments. better yet i'd start running competent tournaments in the hopes of getting other who are tired of asshattery into a GOOD tournie (also docking the old tournament organizers pts for quote jackass-ry would be fun too)

Yea we do straight BPs in my area and we have had ZERO problems. Its the best way of running a tournament. I think TOs should add a side event like best painted/themed army but it shouldn't be a deciding factor on who wins a tournament.

Sounds like the problem wasn't so much with the soft scores being included so much as with the Judge making up rules on the fly.

The scoring criteria should be clearly laid out in the tournament rules package. That way, it doesn't matter what criteria the judge chooses to use for determining the winner on the day... players can see it before hand, and choose whether or not to take part.

There's nothing wrong with including soft scores in a tournament... so long as everyone knows that they're a part of the criteria going in.

I'm with you dude. Give out a sports prize and a painting prize, but overall should be performance on the table. We wouldn't even be wasting time painting all our little dollies if we weren't thinking of throwing them down and kicking butt.

Problem is for you and me, all our local toruneys are heavily weighted to soft scores. Today's for example was 60 battlepoints, 46 painting, 48 sportsmanship, and 7 judge points.

For someone like me whos been playing 4 months, I should just stay home until my army is fully pained.

Once Again, instead of telling us you went to SOME tournament, tell us which one, where, and the names of the tournament organizer.

Otherwise, other people will get dicked with. You gotta call out these pricks who rig the tourny, so that at least all dakkites will know to avoid it like the plague for these shenanigans.

What store? What city pls.

disclosing the name / city of the store will do nothing, and the majority of employees there I trust would run a good tournament.

Just blowing off a bit of steam after something I considered pretty BS.

subjective paint scores are not something I think should be in a tournament, however... because some people just can paint better, and every time they go to a tournament, their better painted models will net them more points. If you want a painting rubric, do something like this -

1 pt for 3 colors
1 pt for more than 3 colors
1 pt for details picked out with other colors
1 pt for shading (ink / wash / whatever)
1 pt for highlighting (clean highlights, blended or whatever)
1 pt for hand drawn details
1 pt for basic basing (1 material base)
1 pt for advanced basing (2+ materials on the base, or resin painted bases)

boom, 8 points for painting. Done.

any tournament where battlepoints is 60 points and painting is 46, nearly equal to battlepoints, is bullcrap. Comp I have less of a problem with, because you can change your comp around without having to buy a new army, or be exceptionally skilled at list building. Painting scores should definitely be a lesser part of any tournament.

One thing about painting scores is, if you take the same well painted army over and over, it will get lower and lower paint scores. I had a buddy of mine who in the span of two years painted his o&g army to such a standard that he got 4 golden demons (Canada, not france or spain!) from units/characters in his army. However, over time, as everyone and their dog had seen this same army, people were less impressed, until finally he was pretty disheartened when he went to Conflict Montreal and his army wasn't even picked for the top 5, despite having 4 golden demon units/models in it!!

So its not like once you paint your army to a decent standard, that you will always farm those painting points each time.. there are diminishing returns.

I would think that the point of the tourny would be to win the games. not to have the best looking army, this is war. I want the most effective army. Now points for sportsmanship I can see. But painting being figured into the mix, thats just a bit much.

You know, the existence of a corrupt official is not indicative of a problem in the system.

Honersstodnt wrote:
subjective paint scores are not something I think should be in a tournament, however... because some people just can paint better, and every time they go to a tournament, their better painted models will net them more points. If you want a painting rubric, do something like this -

Some people can play better, and every time they go to a tournament, they net more points too. If you prefer 'ard boyz events to full hobby events, that's fair. But making stupid statements, such as how it is unfair that the more skilled person gets more points, has nothing to do with that.

any tournament where battlepoints is 60 points and painting is 46, nearly equal to battlepoints, is bullcrap. Comp I have less of a problem with, because you can change your comp around without having to buy a new army, or be exceptionally skilled at list building. Painting scores should definitely be a lesser part of any tournament.

I think painting and soft-scores should be worth more points. I think tournaments that make battle points the end-all-be-all of scoring lead to both poor gaming experiences, and ridiculous armies that are made to WAAC, ignoring all theme and background in the game in the name of fielding the only the most efficient things. That quickly becomes boring.

By having soft-scores mean more, you create variety in the field. If the only thing that mattered was smashing heads, then everyone should only play the mathematically superior armies. While I appreciate that there are those players who think that is a good thing, personally, I don't. If I go to a tournament and all of my games are against either Space Wolves or Guard, I think that's kind of lame. But that's the environment that is encouraged with the battle-point only mentality.

FWIW, the top 2 players including Honersstodnt had fully comp'd lists with no special characters and no duplicates or triplicates. Both armies were fully painted well above average. Both players received full sports from their opponents.

Honersstodnt took 2nd/best general with 3 wins, the first player was W-W-L (to honersstodnt) and only ended up with first because to TO had 7 abritrary points to award or penalize which happened to be just enough.

Redbeard wrote:

I think painting and soft-scores should be worth more points. I think tournaments that make battle points the end-all-be-all of scoring lead to both poor gaming experiences, and ridiculous armies that are made to WAAC, ignoring all theme and background in the game in the name of fielding the only the most efficient things. That quickly becomes boring.

By having soft-scores mean more, you create variety in the field. If the only thing that mattered was smashing heads, then everyone should only play the mathematically superior armies. While I appreciate that there are those players who think that is a good thing, personally, I don't. If I go to a tournament and all of my games are against either Space Wolves or Guard, I think that's kind of lame. But that's the environment that is encouraged with the battle-point only mentality.

Right on, good post.

@redbeard

Your oversimplifying with your statement. Even back in the day when comp ran rampant people brought hard armies. In third edition (the height of comp/sports/painting where you could win a GT being 2-2-1) guess what the most popular armies were? Black Templars and IA Chaos armies. And guess what? They comped out at the top of the charts and were nasty as hell. I can remember not playing a single non-marine army in 3 GT's out of 6 back then. And in the other 3 I might have played 1 non marine.

Also WAAC is a very overused statement by people who don't actually attend a lot of tournaments. And guess what? Fluff changes. You can write your own. You can adhere to the background and bring a powerful army. IG do it all the time. Damn near every armored column is fluffy and potent like the Black Templars of old. One system allows you to bring whatever you want and play however you want and your system would say don't bring this it's a dick move and limit other peoples fun. If you don't want to play to win at a tournament that's cool. I generally go to roll dice and have fun too. But winning is still part of the fun and I take a list that can win.

I don't see why people cling to the idea that pure BP's is gonna wreck the game. Tournaments have always had power armies. Always will. 3rd and 4th edition proved that. 5th is actually the most balanced I've seen. I average 2-3 non marine players per GT now which is amazing.

That being said painting is important just not of equal importance to playing the actual game. Sportsmanship is something everyone should do anyway and needs to be pulled. If a guy is a dick tell him so to his face and ask him to leave. Don't let his opponent have a non-confrontational way out by quietly tanking his score.

Hulksmash wrote:
Your oversimplifying with your statement. Even back in the day when comp ran rampant people brought hard armies. In third edition (the height of comp/sports/painting where you could win a GT being 2-2-1) guess what the most popular armies were? Black Templars and IA Chaos armies. And guess what? They comped out at the top of the charts and were nasty as hell. I can remember not playing a single non-marine army in 3 GT's out of 6 back then. And in the other 3 I might have played 1 non marine.

I'm not in favour of 'comp' as a system. All that does is change the parameters of the equation in determining what 'most efficient' is. But comp as a "hrm, you brought 18 long fangs, 10 thunderwolves, and 2 5-man troop choices, that doesn't seem right" - well, that's a different matter.

And, it's not all about comp, it's about all soft-scores. Painting is an important part of the hobby. By including paint scores in tournaments, you not only reward more aspects of the hobby, you also give people a reason to bring different units that they might not usually bring. Using the above example - 18 long fangs with missiles - yay. Look kinda bland. Diversify that up a bit, trade out some long fangs for a pred, add a dreadnought somewhere - now you have a visually more interesting army. It's not going to make the WAAC gamers change their lists, but those who are more interested in an afternoon of gaming will have more fun if they're playing against stuff that looks nice.

Also WAAC is a very overused statement by people who don't actually attend a lot of tournaments.

I'm sure it is. I'm not one of those people. I attend a minimum of one tournament a month, and have a pretty solid record as a player.

...and your system would say don't bring this it's a dick move and limit other peoples fun. If you don't want to play to win at a tournament that's cool. I generally go to roll dice and have fun too. But winning is still part of the fun and I take a list that can win.

Wow, that's out of left-field. My system? I didn't propose a system. I simply stated that sportsmanship and painting have a place in tournaments, and part of their place is keeping the interest of the players who want to play, but who don't necessarily want to bring the sort of army that it takes to win in a BP-only universe. When I go to tournaments, I play to win, and I bring lists that can win. My record should speak to that.

I don't see why people cling to the idea that pure BP's is gonna wreck the game.

Well, simply put, it is going to reduce interest. I play in a monthly tournament series here in Chicago. You pay an entry fee, not much, but there is one. And you play three games. Sportsmanship is scored, most people get max points, and a tiebreaker is a favourite opponent vote. Painting is scored, on a rubric, with tiebreaker being a player's choice vote. Best General is awarded for the most battle points, and Overall is awarded for the highest combined score. We regularly get participation in the 20s, sometimes even in the 30s.

Were we to switch this to battle points only, we'd have less participants. The people who look for a friendly game against a painted army - why are they going to pay to play in a tournament that they know they cannot win. The people who show up to show off their most-recently painted army - why would they pay to enter a tournament that they know they cannot win? These people will simply stop playing in the tournaments, and play casual games outside of it. And, I say this realistically, because after more than 12 months running the series, with largely the same player pool, maybe 5 different people have won the battlepoint contest (Including me, before you go calling me a fluff-bunny with no experience again )

Make it a straight battle-point brawl and you lose half the participants. I suppose the more competitive among you might say that's good, get rid of the baby seals. But I disagree. Niche hobbies don't survive by alienating half the player-base.

Comp scores are nothing but a crutch for bad players.

If you institute a comp system it doesnt stop people from taking hard armies, as they know most other people will take a soft list they can massacre every round and just get docked a bit for comp ...

Painting/sportsmanship also shouldnt be part of a serious tourney. At most they should be separate categories of prizes.

All sports scoring does is let WAAC players game the system even more.

Just a question as I cant find my rule book, does it state anywhere in the BRB that you must play with a painted army?

kill dem stunties wrote:
Painting/sportsmanship also shouldnt be part of a serious tourney. At most they should be separate categories of prizes.

To be entirely honest, 40k shouldn't be part of a "serious" tourney. The system is so horribly unbalanced, and not designed for tournament play. If you want a serious tourney scene, perhaps you should consider Chess. They have no sports scores or painting scores, and everything is based on your win/loss/draws.

Contrary to popular belief, the ability to read the internet and make a list with 12 razorbacks or 12 chimeras doesn't constitute any amazing tactical acumen or strategic skill. You're playing a game of toy soldiers, where, for some unknown reason in the last couple of years a couple of Asberger's cases have been hell-bent to convince the world that if you don't spam the way they spam, you're not worthy of playing against. I mean, have we lost sight of the ball or what?

It's a game of toy soldiers, where the best aspect of the game is how damn cool it looks when they're put on the tabletop, and the second best aspect of the game is the crazy dysfunctional back-story that all these battles supposedly take place in. In distant 8th or 9th place is the actual gameplay. I mean, seriously, you want us to believe that there is some skill in winning the roll to go first with a shooty list like IG or Wolf-razorbacks?

Show these figures to anyone outside of our little niche. What are they going to be impressed by, how your plastic pawns swept your opponent's off the table, or how you managed to paint all the small details?

The best thing about tournaments is getting together with our fellow hobbyists, playing some games, and socializing with others who 'get it'. Anyone who thinks that the goal is to hear the lamentation of the little plastic womenfolk has missed the point. And, to that end, yes, anything that encourages more people to come out and play tournaments is a good thing. Oddly enough, scoring battle points is pretty far down that list.

think painting and soft-scores should be worth more points. I think tournaments that make battle points the end-all-be-all of scoring lead to both poor gaming experiences, and ridiculous armies that are made to WAAC, ignoring all theme and background in the game in the name of fielding the only the most efficient things. That quickly becomes boring.

That's ridiculous to believe that would actually happen. People are still going to want to have fun at events so it's not like they're just going to ditch the armies they enjoy playing so they can win a tournament. Also, It's not like you can't have a well painted and themed SW or guard army so if the tournament players just wanted to win, they would paint up those armies anyway. Honest question though, do you think the people in your tournament circle would do that if painting and comp didn't win you best overall?

Niche hobbies don't survive by alienating half the player-base.

You mean, as long as they don't alienate you're part of the player base, you're fine with it. After all, not everyone's a good painter so when you have painting mean even more than winning a game, like you want, then those people can't win. That's even one of the things you talk about

The people who look for a friendly game against a painted army - why are they going to pay to play in a tournament that they know they cannot win.

If you're going to a tournament, you should expect a higher degree of competition than in a friendly game. And besides, how's it alienating those players anyway? Most people play more friendly games than tournaments, at least the people I know. It's not like you're kicking them out of the hobby at all. In the end, there should be awards for soft scores, but the winner of the tournament should be the person who actually won the game. You don't give the winner of a sports match to the team with the prettiest jerseys or who was the most polite.

@Redbeard

Chicago is a totally different scene than the entirety of the West Coast when it comes to gaming then. When BP's make up less than 50% of the total possible points it's not a tournament anymore. I'm all for prizes for prettiest army and best sport if people decide to keep it. I've even built armies for that specific purpose.

But a tournament is about playing the game. You pay money to play 3 games and since most humans are at least mildly competitive they want to win. And in winning 3 games with a fully painted and being told sorry, this guy wins instead even though he lost a game is would make quite a few people angry.

As for assuming winning armies are spam armies that's another gross generalization. That awesome example of a SW's army wouldn't make it past turn 3 against a lot of lists so why would you penalize the person playing it?

You seem to think that I'm talking about the only prize being for best general. That's not the case at all. Best Painted still has a place, just not counting towards the tournament winner assuming that guy that won all his games has his entire army painted. Best Sport/Opponent also has a place again as long as it's not used as anything other than a tie breaker for the tournament winner.

As for not stating a system you didn't name a specific one but did make it clear that you would prefer soft scores be worth more than 66% (which is about what they were in the OP's tournament) which makes playing the game almost pointless.

I can tell you from experience that people with pretty armies that just like to roll dice and maybe win a game or two will show up to a tournament regardless cause it's a chance to get some games in. However people that paint at table top standard won't show up to a tournament they have no chance at winning even if they win all 3 games. So who is excluding players at this point?

SamplesoWoopass wrote:
That's ridiculous to believe that would actually happen. People are still going to want to have fun at events so it's not like they're just going to ditch the armies they enjoy playing so they can win a tournament.

Did you see the field at adepticon last year? More than 50% of the armies present were running an army that had come out within a year. People consistently start new armies that they believe are powerful. And, those that don't - they might keep playing an army they already have, but they do stop taking them to tournaments.

You mean, as long as they don't alienate you're part of the player base, you're fine with it.

Stop trying to make this personal. I'm part of the competitive player base as much as I am the artistic base.

If you're going to a tournament, you should expect a higher degree of competition than in a friendly game ... Most people play more friendly games than tournaments, at least the people I know. It's not like you're kicking them out of the hobby at all.

No, you're not kicking them out of the hobby, but you are excluding them from the tournament scene - not by telling them that they can't play, but by removing their reason for attending tournaments.

Try asking people who don't play in tournaments why they don't. I hear the same comments: 'I don't have a chance to win', and 'the tournament players are all WAAC cost players.' If sports and painting are part of a tournament, then friendly people and artistic people have something to try and achieve, and a reason to go. If you remove those things, then you lose those players, and you increase the feeling of WAAC tournaments, because at that point, the only thing that matters is winning, not having fun.

Changing the scoring rules and how they work during the tournament was a dick move. I can feel your pain. That said I am in favor of including sportsmanship & painting in the total score. To me ideally there should be awards for best overall, best general, best army and sportsmanship. If you are solely focused on battlepoints then you can focus on winning the best general award. Saying some people paint better than others shouldn't score more points falls in line with the same mentality that we should only use battlepoints. Some people are better tacticians and some people are better painters. There is also a few who are good in both categories. Anyone can learn how to paint better, it just takes time and a commitment.

G

You mean, as long as they don't alienate you're part of the player base, you're fine with it.



Stop trying to make this personal. I'm part of the competitive player base as much as I am the artistic base.

Now you're just copping out instead of actually looking at the point I was making. In fact, Hulksmash even made the same point in his post but you didn't address it there either. Basically, you're saying it's okay to make it so people who aren't excellent painters can't win, but that we shouldn't make it so people who care more about the hobbying aspect rather than the gaming aspect can't win. What about people who don't go to tournaments because they can't paint, therefore can't win? Why is that better? No matter what, someone is going to be alienated. In the end, there should be tournaments that emphasize soft scores and tournaments that emphasize battlepoints. Not just one or the other.

If sports and painting are part of a tournament, then friendly people and artistic people have something to try and achieve, and a reason to go.

They could still achieve best painting and best sportsmanship awards... as well as you know... the having fun playing games part. Not everyone who plays hard is a jerk. In fact, a lot of the most competitive players that I've met are some of the most fun to play against.

The same could be said about poor tacticians. All it takes is time and practice. Now if only someone could come up with a way of training dice to roll like they're supposed to roll .

Hulksmash wrote:
Chicago is a totally different scene than the entirety of the West Coast when it comes to gaming then. When BP's make up less than 50% of the total possible points it's not a tournament anymore.

Our battlepoints are around 66%. Of 'relevant points', almost everyone gets the full 32 sportsmanship points. The swing between high and low paint scores might be 20 points. Each of three rounds are worth 48 points. So, in terms of the points that make a difference, our battlepoints constitute about 6/7th of the total variable points. Is that enough for you?

But a tournament is about playing the game. You pay money to play 3 games and since most humans are at least mildly competitive they want to win. And in winning 3 games with a fully painted and being told sorry, this guy wins instead even though he lost a game is would make quite a few people angry.

I can understand why the OP is upset. But, that isn't a failure of having paint and sports scores, it's a failure of a bad judge who, it looks like, deliberately screwed him over.

You seem to think that I'm talking about the only prize being for best general. That's not the case at all. Best Painted still has a place, just not counting towards the tournament winner assuming that guy that won all his games has his entire army painted. Best Sport/Opponent also has a place again as long as it's not used as anything other than a tie breaker for the tournament winner.

So, in your system, all you're doing is getting rid of the Best Overall prize, and calling the Best General prize the 'Tournament Winner'. Why is this good? It doesn't reward the well-rounded gamer at all, and cuts a prize out?

In short, if there's one guy who has the 2nd nicest looking army present, and scores the 2nd most battlepoints, and is a decent fellow, you think his contributions to the event are less than a guy who acted like a prick, had an army with literally only three colors on it (one being primer-black), but who won 3 more battle points at the end of the day?

I'd much rather give the guy with battle points a prize that says Best General, and the other guy a 'Best Overall' award, because the other guy was the best overall representative of the hobby on that day. The guy with the battle points, all he did was win his games. That's worth something - but in my mind, he isn't the winner of the tournament.

I can tell you from experience that people with pretty armies that just like to roll dice and maybe win a game or two will show up to a tournament regardless cause it's a chance to get some games in.

Only as long as those games are fun, and not dominated by people looking for nothing more than battle points.

However people that paint at table top standard won't show up to a tournament they have no chance at winning even if they win all 3 games. So who is excluding players at this point?

You're probably right, but that's not what I'm asking for. The OP said they should not have paint/sports scores - I disagree with that. But, no one has advocated a system that doesn't reward the player with the most battle points outright. The difference is, I believe that Best General is a very good name for a reward to a player who has done nothing but earn the most battle points, and Best Overall is a good name for a reward to the player who has best represented all aspects of the hobby, whereas you want to call the player with the most battle points the "Tournament Winner", and, it looks like, have no reward for the well-rounded player at all.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

SamplesoWoopass wrote:
Now you're just copping out instead of actually looking at the point I was making. In fact, Hulksmash even made the same point in his post but you didn't address it there either. Basically, you're saying it's okay to make it so people who aren't excellent painters can't win

Have you even read anything I've written?

There should be a prize for the person with the most battle points. It's a simple statement. If you're not an excellent painter, you can still win this prize, because painting has nothing to do with it.

What's really the difference between these, names?

Most Battle Points: Best General / Tournament Winner
Most Paint Points: Best Appearance / Best Appearance
Most Sports Points: Best Sportsman / Best Sportsman
Most combined points: Best Overall / Most well-rounded

Why are you opposed to having a prize for a well-rounded player?

Hulksmash wrote:
I can tell you from experience that people with pretty armies that just like to roll dice and maybe win a game or two will show up to a tournament regardless cause it's a chance to get some games in. However people that paint at table top standard won't show up to a tournament they have no chance at winning even if they win all 3 games. So who is excluding players at this point?

I can tell you as someone that enjoys pretty armies and just roll dice...that I'll go out of my way a couple of hours to play in a tournament that rewards it (So I'll get to see and play against other pretty armies), whereas I will not go to an event that does not reward it (Where I'll play primed/one color armies). In addition, a tournament does not cease to be a tournament simply because it's not entirely based on scenario wins/losses. You are 'winning' in other areas with your painting and social scores, which adds to your overall score.

The percentage I mentioned was based on the OP's original post. Which I mentioned later in the post.

Why do you assume that people as asshats when it's a strictly BP situation. I've ran into far more pissy and poor "hobbyist" gamers than I ever have "competitive" gamers. Because generally I'm not playing 40k the "right" way to a hobbyist gamer.

As for your example why is the guy who won with the msot battle points automatically a prick? Assuming both players were equally "sportsmanlike" (which your example of how almost everyone maxes on sports anyway supports) why should the a guy who beat me at painting but that I beat in BP's win? (the I is subjective)

Your assuming extremes to support your arguement. And that style of arguement will do more harm to the tournament scene than any scoring system. Your painting anyone who is mildly competitive with the same brush. And it's a poor painting....

@Ages
No one said anything about not rewarding painters and sportsman. Just that they seperate those from the actual winning of the tournament as anything other than as tie breakers. If your talking about a GT level event then your not going to play against almost any unpainted or single color armies. If you talking about an RTT then it's a crap shoot no matter how it's being scored.

Hulksmash wrote:
Why do you assume that people as asshats when it's a strictly BP situation. I've ran into far more pissy and poor "hobbyist" gamers than I ever have "competitive" gamers.
...
As for your example why is the guy who won with the msot battle points automatically a prick? Assuming both players were equally "sportsmanlike" (which your example of how almost everyone maxes on sports anyway supports) why should the a guy who beat me at painting but that I beat in BP's win? (the I is subjective)

Your assuming extremes to support your arguement. And that style of arguement will do more harm to the tournament scene than any scoring system. Your painting anyone who is mildly competitive with the same brush. And it's a poor painting....

You're right, I am. But that's because most of the people I've seen advocate for BP-only tournaments seem to come from the YTTH mentality of competitive gamers. I'm aware that there are other competitive players who don't fit this criteria, but I rarely see them asking to remove everything but BP.

Hulksmash wrote:
@Ages
No one said anything about not rewarding painters and sportsman. Just that they seperate those from the actual winning of the tournament as anything other than as tie breakers. If your talking about a GT level event then your not going to play against almost any unpainted or single color armies. If you talking about an RTT then it's a crap shoot no matter how it's being scored.

Why should they be separated? "Overall" means hobby excellence, which is what 40k is made for. If 40k did not involve random dice rolls, unbalanced rules and pushed itself as something other than a hobby then you might have a point.

Sincere question though, as far as I know, most tournaments have a "Best General" do they not? Is the title "Best General" not enough...or doesn't that count to measure who had some of the better dice/matchups/lists/scenarios/decisions/table terrain for the day?

I have a couple of comments on this as I hae been on the bad side of a TO decision as the TO before. One it does sound like the TO dicked you but I would like to hear the TO's side. I jerked a guy during a tournament once and midway through the tournament realized how bad. I apologized to him privately and publickly about it becuase of it. Perhaps this TO didn;t realize what he had done. Or perhaps you were being such a complete dick the TO decided he wasn't going to let you win. I ran a tournament once where a complete dick won the tournament by 3 points. For three years afterward I heard about how I let him do it. The guy was such a complete a-hole to all three players but becuase they were not tournament players they all gave him max sportsmanship scores. I rarely find a player who can table their opponents as bad as you did and get max sportsmanship (or should for that matter. Is it really fun to play against a guy who takes a build who can wipe your army off of the table by turn 4. Regardless of how nice he is. Is it sporting?). But again that was the opponents fault for not docking him not the players fault. That said as a TO if I asked you to get your list in and you gave me lip and then blasted me, then I gave aruling and you rolled your eyes at me and said something, or if at the end I saw you being a complete and total craphead tyo the other players there is no friggin way you would win the tournament. Ever. We are volunteers. Most of us like to push our toy soldiers around the table as well and the only reason we are running the tournaments is becuase we cannot find someone else to run them. Now again I wrote this pretty strong which may not have applied to you at all. The TO could be out of line, I wasn't there but I want to make a point to you and to all of the internet posters out there. Hear the whole story before you blast the TO.

Next point.
I like sportsmanship and comp but I agree that there is rarely a way to score it fairly. As an earlier poster indicated this game is inherently unbalanced (The Tau as they are designed will never ever win a major competitive tournament). But introducing soft scores into a tournament are done for the following reasons:
1. Painting - I know the hard core guys out there don;t like to paint (heck I don;t like to paint) but I paint every one of my tournament armies. When I am playing in my local game store nearly half my models will be unpainted as I am trying out new units building a new army for the next tournament but in the end my motivation for painting is solely to build for the tournaments I go to. Once an army is painted I love to play it against other fully painted armies. I love the big tournaments where you can walk around and just look at the great painted armies. I think tournaments should continue to encourage this and should reqward those that paint well.
2. Sportsmanship/Composition - I believe these have place for two reasons. After running the last 8 years of the major regional tournaments in my area I have come to the following conclusion. In a 50 man tournament there are 5-10 guys in the tournamenet who actually have a shot at winning. Not becuase of their painting, list building skills etc. But becuase these are the guys that play at the highest level in the area. I know al of them by name and they all know each other by name. The games between us are always fun becuase we enjoy the level of competition and becuase all of them are serious tournament players. Many of them have done well at the national level with GT and Adepticon wins and such. So what about the other 40? Why are they there? Virtually none of them will get a prize? Everyonce in a while one gets lucky and sneaks into the top place somewhere but not often. Here is my conclusion:
1. They are there to have fun. They are there to play three games against three new opponents. Yes they may win but they don't count on it. The just want to move their toy soldiers and have fun. Well it is hard to have any sort of fund when you are getting tabled by a guy that built a list that you have no chance to win against. It is also not fun to play against a complete and total a-hole. At the end of the day it is these guys that actually pay for the prize packages and venues. If you remove the fun aspect both will shrink dramatically.
2. They are there for ther spectacle. Massive beautifully painted armies. It is impressive, it gives them something to aspire to.

So I have rambled a bit here but I would also like to point out that handicapping is a well known tournament process outside of the Warhammer World. It is designed to allow players to complete on an even footing. Bowling, Golf and many others create a handicap. The basic unbalanced nature of GW games cry out for a decent handicap system. The problem is that coming up with one is very difficult.

I also want to point out that I mayself have been a victim of the soft scores. I played three games, won all three. Beat my third opponent who ended up winning the tournamenet. Are armies were virtualy identical in composition but he is a funner person to play than I. I can sometimes get into the Conan mentality of the game while this other guy is a constant joker. He was marked as the favority opoonent by all three people (including me) and that raised his score enough to beat me by a couple of points. Have I ever let him forget it NO!. But I do it with a smile. My self worth is not driven by how many tournaments I have won. My worth is by being judged as one of those 5-10 guys that when people get called out as being my opponent they go "Crap!" becuase they know I am going to bring it.

So in conclusion for those of you that lament soft scores I suggest 1 of two things:
1. Run your own tournament. Don;t bitch about what someone else did. Contact them and vlunteer to run the next one and see how it goes.
2. Look around the room at the beginning and think about how many people in the room have a legitimate shot. Are you one of them? Then you have succeeded, take pride in that. Now have fun, try and let your opponent have fun. Remember getting tabled isn't fun so perhaps don't take the hardest list that you can. And remember that the vast majority of players in the room really do not have a chance so think about why they are there sponsoring the venue and the prize packages and try and make the day good for them to.

edit: I rename this post "I agree with Redbeard".

Simple. You have an overall winner, based on a combination of battle points, painting and sportsmanship, in any percentage the orgniser likes to emphasise, all clearly laid out in advance. You also have a Best General, Best Painted and Best Sport. If you want, the prize for the bext general could be as big or even bigger than the overall winner (in this case, you might like to rename overall as all-rounder

My preference would be...

All-rounder(s) award gets 35% of available prizes, based on a mix of...
BP - 60% of the points
Painting - 25%
Sportsmanship - 15%

Best General(s) gets 25%
Best Painter(s) gets 25%
Best Sport gets 15%

You can have first second third within each category, if there are enough participants. You can only win one prize, and otherwise the prize goes to the next placed person.