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.

Green Blow Fly wrote:@ Dave Taylor

When I read the original post it appeared to me the poster was asking you for an explanation how painting scores determined. I think he would appreciate something along the lines of a bulleted response.

- G

Steve - If you have been reading the posts, Dave indicated that they are working on a new system and will release it in January. As far as the old system, everyone could ask Dave to go point by point on their army painting. That is not a realistic request since it would detract from the important aspects of organizing the events and providing a good system for us to enjoy. If a player really wants to improve their army painting score, they should post pics and ask for a review from his/her peers.

Greg you are entitled to your position. I will add that what the painting judge told me in Chicago was really simple and I see no reason why GW does not disclose this information. It warms my heart to see how well you are getting along with the corporation.

- G

Greg should be happy. Greg and Mike prove again and again they are top tier. Greg and Mike used to play guard and did very well in battle but their soft scores suffered. They switch to chaos and all of their soft scores went up. go figure. They play the "metagame" well.

Pro painted armies are great. I would happily lose a GT, because player X had an army pro painted. I go to have fun and see great armies. The last time I checked there isn't a gaint closet of prizes for a gt win.
nothing is worse then traveling to play primered armies.

If there was a penalty of any sort to my overall score, because parts of my army was painted by someone else. I would lie.

Steve - I approach it from a tournament organizer standpoint. Is it simple, who is to say. I will stick up for GW when I believe they are right though and I will critique them when they are wrong. Hell my post addressing one question on the UK GT shows a certain level of iritation with their organizers.

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/196550.page#196578

Plus - my playtesting comments below.

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/60/193869.page#195175

Please ensure that your facts are straight before posting comments such as those above. I give credit where credit is due and criticism where criticism is due. No more, no less.

Well the fun part of all this is, I got my wife calling me complaining about the paypal account then paypal calling me complaining a third party accessed my account...of all the dumb gak to trip someones security program, donating to Dakka does it?!

Not the trip to Vegas out of the blue, and not putting a very large bet on my paypal account.

Right. *rolls the eyes*

Greg it just your opinion in regard to the painting criteria and you jumped right in and spoke up. I have a right to my opinion just as much as you.

- G

Steve - my comments are directed towards this statement, which made no sense.

She spent about five minutes or more answering my question in detail. Why can’t you do the same rather than pass the buck?

Dave addressed the question in a professional manner, but I question the reasoning behind such a statement. I'm sure that Dave and I were not the only one's confused by this statement. Know that I do not have any issue with your opinion. However, the manner of presentation above does not make any sense. And seeing as I do not work for GW (nor have the desire to), I can readily and more directly question it. Your comments seemed unnecessarily antagonistic.

skkipper wrote:

If there was a penalty of any sort to my overall score, because parts of my army was painted by someone else. I would lie.

What if they asked you what kind of paints you used/techniques, and you had no idea? Wouldnt you be mad if you were disqualified and accused of cheating? I would never let someone else paint any of my army, if I am not good enough it means I dident deserve the paint score. On the other hand I also wouldnt want someone eliminated because they wanted an army that looked really good, and were not born with god given talent to make it that way. I can understand there rulings, you cant show off your hobby in white dwarf if the grand tourney champ came with unprimered grey space marines, but I dont feel that the ard boyz route is good either. Mabye they should split it completely, and have an equal prize for best general, and best painted army. Good players dont have to sweat top tier paint jobs to compete, and good painters get an equal reward.

Greg I will stand with what I said.

- G

Just my two cents....

First - For the first time since I've been involved in the GT's - the GW guys are actually listening/responding and welcoming our input and criticism. That is a HUGE advance from the days of not really giving a rip. It was obvious at the 2 GT's I went to this year that they are REALLY trying to improve the tournaments. So - for that - thanks and I hope you continue. Obviously we all enjoy this game - or we wouldn't be posting on these forums. I for one am excited to see the new plans for next year.

Second - There probably needs to be some kind of balance in the painting area. Right now you can basically have a full games worth of points swing around painting. Some people have the talent, some have the money, and some have neither when it comes to painting. What about an idea of a Low, Medium, High level of painting - with 5, 10, 15 points given. Pretty much everyone who paints three colors and frocks their bases ought to get the medium - with a few standouts having the high. You'd have to work to get the low and work to get the high's. Heck if someone is willing to spend big bucks for a beautiful army - they should get 5 extra points for it. Then have the painting component as it is today for those that painted their own armies - and give them great prizes for it - just don't count THAT towards the overall.

Al

Here's my 2 cents.

I like the scoring system the way it is now. Sure, it could use some work in the specifics, but in general it seems to be balanced out. The thing that a lot of you don't seem to understand is that in a tournament scoring system, what matters is not the total points available in certain areas, but rather the point spreads between the high and low scores in those areas, and the std. deviations from the mean.

If you look at it that way, it becomes clear that in terms of importance, battle is about at 60%, while sports and painting are both around 40%. That seems like a good mix to me. After all, the winner of an overall award at a GT is suppoed to demonstrate strength in all areas of the game - gameplay, sportsmanship, and painting. If all you care about is winning games, that's why there's a Best General award.

Personally, I think that purchased armies should be disqualified from any award that painting contributes to - those being army, painted, and overall. Or in other words, purchased armies should only be allowed to win general and sports. But how do you enforce that rule? You end up penalizing those who are honest. So as a compromise, allowing the points to count for overall seems like a workable solution.

As to the specifics, of how painting is scored - You're NEVER going to have a totally objective method of scoring painting. There should be a balance between subjective and objective points, but trying to get a totally subjective system just stifles creatitivity and rewards those who do the minimum necessary.

The way it stands now it is to your advantage to play a purchased army painted by a golden deamon winner, as you can score up to 45 points for painting - > this is the equivalent of winning a massacre plus an average painting score. It used to bug me but I have learned to accept it. I think Player's Choice is still reserved for those that painted everything themselves.

As far as guidelines for painting scores I would shoot for something along these lines (starting with minimum and working up):

All models painted with at least three colors and flocked bases (just one model out of an entire army that fails to meet this criteria can cost you)

The army has an overall cohesive appearance and looks good overall

Models are highlighted and shaded

And a display tray always helps.

- G

Centurian99 wrote:
Personally, I think that purchased armies should be disqualified from any award that painting contributes to - those being army, painted, and overall. Or in other words, purchased armies should only be allowed to win general and sports. But how do you enforce that rule? You end up penalizing those who are honest. So as a compromise, allowing the points to count for overall seems like a workable solution.

As I mentioned before, this is an area that we are looking at and talking about. No final decision has been made for 2008.

How would something Bill suggests be enforced? Actually it's you guys who would enforce it. We would announce the Overall winner and if someone in the crowd did not immediately stand up an let us know (shaming the player on the spot), we'd have an email in our inbox on Monday morning pointing out the person who had lied (and probably even giving us all sorts of links to the original painter's website and eBay auctions listing). We'd pull the person, reshuffle the prizes and their name would be mud for many years to come. There is no mileage in the long run, while they may bask in the glory for the five minutes they're receiving their prize and getting their photo taken, it would probably the last time they did it for a good long while. Would someone do it just to get one over on GW? Sure, but our friends on the internet would expose them just as quickly. We've had this happen last year for the Golden Demons.

Enforcing isn't the issue. It is other philosophical debates that need to occur.

Cheers
Dave

Dave,

Are there any plans to change the sports/comp scoring?

Like clarifying if it's only sports, or if it includes comp as well.

Look for the 2008 GW US GT rules in January. I'll bow out of this discussion now, thanks guys.

Cheers
Dave

davetaylor wrote:

Centurian99 wrote:
Personally, I think that purchased armies should be disqualified from any award that painting contributes to - those being army, painted, and overall. Or in other words, purchased armies should only be allowed to win general and sports. But how do you enforce that rule? You end up penalizing those who are honest. So as a compromise, allowing the points to count for overall seems like a workable solution.

As I mentioned before, this is an area that we are looking at and talking about. No final decision has been made for 2008.

How would something Bill suggests be enforced? Actually it's you guys who would enforce it. We would announce the Overall winner and if someone in the crowd did not immediately stand up an let us know (shaming the player on the spot), we'd have an email in our inbox on Monday morning pointing out the person who had lied (and probably even giving us all sorts of links to the original painter's website and eBay auctions listing). We'd pull the person, reshuffle the prizes and their name would be mud for many years to come. There is no mileage in the long run, while they may bask in the glory for the five minutes they're receiving their prize and getting their photo taken, it would probably the last time they did it for a good long while. Would someone do it just to get one over on GW? Sure, but our friends on the internet would expose them just as quickly. We've had this happen last year for the Golden Demons.

Enforcing isn't the issue. It is other philosophical debates that need to occur.

Cheers
Dave

so if i have one guy in my army that my friend painted for me as a gift, I can't win overall? That seems really really lame.

Even with one model, I'd say if you really wanted to win overall you'd paint
that thing.

What if your friend was Jen Haley and she painted your awesome looking Terminator
Captain lord on a large base?

There are just too many what-ifs when it can be (not easily) solved by just
saying "to win these awards you need to do it yourself."

Can I win battle points if I "tag in" Centurion99 during a match?

Can I win best sportsman if Lance Armstrong is on my side of the table (ok, maybe
not the best example)?

Is the question "Do I HAVE this model, this paint job, this conversion" or is it "Did I do it myself?"

skkipper wrote:

davetaylor wrote:

Centurian99 wrote:
Personally, I think that purchased armies should be disqualified from any award that painting contributes to - those being army, painted, and overall. Or in other words, purchased armies should only be allowed to win general and sports. But how do you enforce that rule? You end up penalizing those who are honest. So as a compromise, allowing the points to count for overall seems like a workable solution.

As I mentioned before, this is an area that we are looking at and talking about. No final decision has been made for 2008.

How would something Bill suggests be enforced? Actually it's you guys who would enforce it. We would announce the Overall winner and if someone in the crowd did not immediately stand up an let us know (shaming the player on the spot), we'd have an email in our inbox on Monday morning pointing out the person who had lied (and probably even giving us all sorts of links to the original painter's website and eBay auctions listing). We'd pull the person, reshuffle the prizes and their name would be mud for many years to come. There is no mileage in the long run, while they may bask in the glory for the five minutes they're receiving their prize and getting their photo taken, it would probably the last time they did it for a good long while. Would someone do it just to get one over on GW? Sure, but our friends on the internet would expose them just as quickly. We've had this happen last year for the Golden Demons.

Enforcing isn't the issue. It is other philosophical debates that need to occur.

Cheers
Dave

so if i have one guy in my army that my friend painted for me as a gift, I can't win overall? That seems really really lame.

Why not? Shouldn't the person who paints every model in their army be rewarded for their efforts?

Like I said...its the logistics of the effort that make it problematic.

So - with the leaning towards requiring a player to paint their own models, then should this include conversions too? If we are moving to an absolute system, then I personally believe that conversions need to be policed as well since this can add significantly to the astetic appeal to a force. It is another part that represents the entire aspect of the hobby side.

I guess I look at like this Greg put 800 hours into his army. that is $40k in lost wages to me. paying $10k for a max painting score army is a deal. I then can take the $30k left over and travel to every major 40k tourney in the world. I guess you are punishing the people that have more money then time. I know if I was a game company these are the customers I would want.

Stelek is an interesting new personality. I'm digging the rampant agression, bragging on 40K skill and personal wealth, persecution complex, derision for everyone else's ethics, followed by premptive assurances that we're all too big of jerks to give the benefit of the doubt.

I'd point a few things out, based on the scores from the 07 Vegas GT.

First off, even if Mr. Sutton got a 40 in painting, his overall score would be 135, which wouldn't put him in the top 20.

Second, even if this event was judged solely on battle score, his 77 would place in a tie for 8th place.

And he posted a pic of himself. Normally I have to google trolls to get this sort of backstory. This is great!


Also: I'm impressed that there are two GW employees on this thread. This is a very positive step forward for my outlook on GW.

Dave Taylor: I've never met you, but I've always thought that you do some of the most inspiring conversions out there. They're simultaneously approachable, and clever. Approachable in that they make the hobbyist feel like he could do it himself... And clever, to the point that the hobbyist can't actually do it himself, because they're not as clever as you are. They're just very distinctive, interesting work that looks cool without resorting to being a total green stuff ninja.

I was insulted when a shoddily painted Eldar army crushed my rather clever paint job into the dirt with a an industrial insulating foam "case" spray painted 10 different colors.

Just to add another voice to it, let me assure you that your model is not better than the 40 point model you posted. It's not shoddily painted, it's actually pretty good work. Is it 20 points better than yours? I don't think so, but then again there are other models in the armies in question.

Looking just at these two Fire Prisms, the 40 point model is notably better, and it didn't take foam to do it. It does it on the basis of a better color scheme, cleaner work, and some moderately successful highlights. It's colors are less monolithic than yours. For example, no matter how carefully you may have executed the purple areas in the turret, they still end up looking like too much purple.

If you spent a lot of time on yours, then that's great. I hope you enjoyed it. But it does ultimately look like a fairly heavy drybrush job. In the end, if you spend hours and hours recreating a heavy drybrush job, that's probably something to take as a learning experience, and not repeat.

I mean, a week on that prism cannon? Have you considered that you might be overthinking things?

Just to put my money where my mouth is, here's one of my Falcons. All told, I think the entire model probably took me less than a week to paint. Personally I think it looks better than your prism cannon. Maybe I should go make a big foam box for it? You know, just for insurance?

I'm glad you dig me. You won't find much info on me on the net. Been around a long time, yet this is my first time really going public.

I like your Falcon. Since the pictures don't do mine vs his justice, I guess I'll suck it up. In person his *army*, not just 1 model, looked horrid. My army was next to his during paint judging, and I had people stopping at my army. No one stopped at the 2nd best painted guys table...it hurt the eyes.

At any rate, your falcon looks like a stippling job and it's shiny. The 'shiny' look is what I was trying to avoid, since oh almost every Eldar army is perfectly new and shiny. Like the Craftworld just gave birth to it.

If it matters, a stippling like yours takes me about a day. Why'd you paint some gems and not others? I chose to not paint any, but the ones you did paint blend in nicely. I've been thinking about doing a blue/white stipple on my Tau, but I'm not sure if I can avoid a 'it looks primed' on the white. Btw, on my Falcon it was primed white...not black. Yes, I overdid things on the Prism Cannon but in my own defense I think it looks better than glopping black paint on over white. If you'd seen his in person, you wouldn't think it was a better color scheme (not matching the rest of the army = bad), the work wasn't clean (glop paint, primed paint both show), and the highlights were orange stripes with a lighter orange in the middle and the not even. Like I said, pictures don't do it the injustice it deserves.

By the way, what megapixel does your camera have? I plan on buying one soon, my wife's camera is like 1.8, barely above a damn phone camera. :(

Since the line of thought is looking at absolute controls, points gained by armies not painted by a player should not count towards the 3rd place overall, 2nd place overall and the GT circuit points then either. If we are going towards absolute true representation in the hobby and for overall scoring (event specific and circuit points), then you have to elimate all contribution of points gained in this manner.

Also, how will you account for this from the satellite events (ie: the Necro) and the biggest event of the year (AdeptiCon) where you painting / converting your own models is not required to win overall there?

Centurian99 - if we followed absolutes this past year, then your Dakka Detachment 1 would receive no points towards overall placing at AdeptiCon since Yak had his hive tyrant converted by Insaniak. It's not his own work. Or are we going to stop at policing painting only just for convenience.

Inquisitor_Malice wrote:Centurian99 - if we followed absolutes this past year, then your Dakka Detachment 1 would receive no points towards overall placing at AdeptiCon since Yak had his hive tyrant converted by Insaniak. It's not his own work. Or are we going to stop at policing painting only just for convenience.

Well it is a painting score....

AgeOfEgos wrote:

Inquisitor_Malice wrote:Centurian99 - if we followed absolutes this past year, then your Dakka Detachment 1 would receive no points towards overall placing at AdeptiCon since Yak had his hive tyrant converted by Insaniak. It's not his own work. Or are we going to stop at policing painting only just for convenience.

Well it is a painting score....

Conversions affect the astetic appeal. If one question on the check list even asks about conversions (which most do), then it is not 'just' a painting score.

I see no difference between painting and conversion in terms of army appearance. I am sure some will disagree though.

- G

Inquisitor_Malice wrote:Since the line of thought is looking at absolute controls, points gained by armies not painted by a player should not count towards the 3rd place overall, 2nd place overall and the GT circuit points then either. If we are going towards absolute true representation in the hobby and for overall scoring (event specific and circuit points), then you have to elimate all contribution of points gained in this manner.

Also, how will you account for this from the satellite events (ie: the Necro) and the biggest event of the year (AdeptiCon) where you painting / converting your own models is not required to win overall there?

Centurian99 - if we followed absolutes this past year, then your Dakka Detachment 1 would receive no points towards overall placing at AdeptiCon since Yak had his hive tyrant converted by Insaniak. It's not his own work. Or are we going to stop at policing painting only just for convenience.

If that's the system, that's the system. You know me - I'll always work within the system.

We're just speaking on a purely theoretical idea-generating level here. And on that level, I like the idea that to win an overall, the whole army must be your work.

But as I said, its impractical for a variety of reasons.

Green Blow Fly wrote:I see no difference between painting and conversion in terms of army appearance. I am sure some will disagree though.

- G

I think they should be 2 seperate issues to judge. one can have a very nicely painted army with no conversions and a nicely converted army and be terribly painted. one should not affect the other negatively.

this will add one more thing to determine, but honestly, how long does it take to judge an army?

Honestly, I think we will have to get back to this in January. If I had a specific guideline that let me know I could get 35 points in paint for:

1) Doing it myself
2) Putting in a little effort
3) Making the army cohesive
4) Trying to use my (admittedly poor) paint skills to their highest level

I would be totally happy because I know that I will not have a 45 point army and I also feel that my battle and sportsmanship scores would make up for those 5-10 points that tourney winners usually have.

I look forward to seeing this in the near future. Thanks Dave.

Orion