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.

But...then whats the point if your still not being acknowledged for the work you've done? I don't agree with the 'Everyone's a winner!' view, but positive encouragement is important. I wouldn't count tips from the winner as being positive encouragement (As realistically, thats the exact opposite).

He addressed that in the remainder of his post. The part where he talked about army fatigue setting in (he didn't use that term exactly so don't look for it).

If people get sick of seeing the same army week in or whatever, this is obviously not happening in this guys store. I find it hard to believe that not a single army that was worthy of praise appeared that could not be allowed to win.

Perhaps it would be a good idea to get rid of the judge who probably isn't doing very well.

Mr Hyena wrote:But...then whats the point if your still not being acknowledged for the work you've done? I don't agree with the 'Everyone's a winner!' view, but positive encouragement is important. I wouldn't count tips from the winner as being positive encouragement (As realistically, thats the exact opposite).

I don't really know what you are expecting people to say... you can only have one winner, maybe a runner up, and you have to have some way of determining said winner, either just through some kind of "wow!" factor, or a proper scored painting system, just as you have KP's/BP's/etc to determine the best general.

You can't say "hey, Fred has been playing since the RT days and has 20 years of experience and wins all the time but the guy who came second has only been playing 3 years and has never won best general - he should win best general!"

Horst wrote:WTF are you all arguing about?

This is just plain stupid.

There is an award for best painted.

IT GOES TO THE GUY WITH THE BEST PAINTED ARMY.

Why is this so hard?

If you REALLY have a problem with it, simply eliminate painting as a prize category, eliminate pure battle points as a prize category, and go for a single prize consisting of the composite score, with battlepoints being weighted like 3x painting points (75/25), and just give out 1st, 2nd, and 3rd places, instead of Overall winner, battlepoints winner, and painting winner.

NEVER make rules that make it impossible for a player to win multiple times in a row... thats just stupid, because if you "adjust" the competition, its not a competition at all, its just you being biased against someone and not giving him a fair shot.

Q F T

After my long a$$ed wordy as hell post we have someone who mirrors my feeling and is to the point, with brevity.

What I'm expecting people to do is think.

Obviously banning the guy is wrong, he did do the work and should win. But its going to cause conflict and possible loss of tournament attendance if people think that improving their painting skills is pointless, because when they do, they lose anyway.

What we need is something fairer. Or is it ok to destroy a tournament like this?

You can't say "hey, Fred has been playing since the RT days and has 20 years of experience and wins all the time but the guy who came second has only been playing 3 years and has never won best general - he should win best general!"

If the same guy keeps winning best general all the time; extend the winner's bracket the same. Split the prizes three ways to the winner, and two runners up. Fair and encourages people to improve.

MightyGodzilla wrote:

Horst wrote:WTF are you all arguing about?

This is just plain stupid.

There is an award for best painted.

IT GOES TO THE GUY WITH THE BEST PAINTED ARMY.

Why is this so hard?

If you REALLY have a problem with it, simply eliminate painting as a prize category, eliminate pure battle points as a prize category, and go for a single prize consisting of the composite score, with battlepoints being weighted like 3x painting points (75/25), and just give out 1st, 2nd, and 3rd places, instead of Overall winner, battlepoints winner, and painting winner.

NEVER make rules that make it impossible for a player to win multiple times in a row... thats just stupid, because if you "adjust" the competition, its not a competition at all, its just you being biased against someone and not giving him a fair shot.

Q F T

After my long a$$ed wordy as hell post we have someone who mirrors my feeling and is to the point, with brevity.

Yeah that doesn't sound like a very friendly tournament to play at.

If we're talking about a ruthless cut throat setting here that welcomes WAAC players and campers, then my mistake. I just kind of assumed the tourny in question was the "everyone is here to have fun but has the capacity to get serious" kind of setup. The tournies I always find myself in.

Umm... "destroy a tournament"?! Really?

Seriously, Best Painted should be just that.

Umm... "destroy a tournament"?! Really?

When one person dominates, local tournament attendance tends to go down. If it goes down too far, there's no point in running the tournament no?

Whats so wrong with having a 'Best Runners up' rewarded section?

Mr Hyena wrote:

Umm... "destroy a tournament"?! Really?

When one person dominates, local tournament attendance tends to go down. If it goes down too far, there's no point in running the tournament no?

Exactly. Fairly even competition is one thing. Heck, a hurdle a little higher than your expecting to jump is all well and good. But running into a wall sucks and kills it for people.

Regular hurdle - Wow he's pretty good, this should be a good competition!

Higher hurdle - Oh man, I wasn't expecting something like that! I'll have to put double time on my stuff for the next event!

Wall - Wow, no way I'll even get close to that. What's the point in trying? This guy has YEARS on me.

Necroshea wrote:

Mr Hyena wrote:

Umm... "destroy a tournament"?! Really?

When one person dominates, local tournament attendance tends to go down. If it goes down too far, there's no point in running the tournament no?

Exactly. Fairly even competition is one thing. Heck, a hurdle a little higher than your expecting to jump is all well and good. But running into a wall sucks and kills it for people.

Regular hurdle - Wow he's pretty good, this should be a good competition!

Higher hurdle - Oh man, I wasn't expecting something like that! I'll have to put double time on my stuff for the next event!

Wall - Wow, no way I'll even get close to that. What's the point in trying? This guy has YEARS on me.

So? who goes to a tourney with the expectation they have to go home with cash in their pocket or they can't have fun?

Usually pretty damn good painters can go home with best overall by winning games. If they really want best appearance they can paint better. If they can't enjoy an event without winning something they didn't earn, then they are petty and should quit trying as they don't know why people go to events.

You should try your hardest and be happy with where you place. You shouldn't go to win, then get pissed off when people beat you and then look for ways to disqualify them so you can then win cash without upping your skill or effort.

Everyone who has to win cash to have fun and expects to win cash will always have an awful time. If you do your best and go to have fun, you will have a good time.

From the wording in the opening post, it appears that the group has at least tried to continue on even with this one guy making it pointless.

How do you have fun when the tournament hasn't changed each time its done? The cash isn't the problem here. The problem is theres no recognition for anything below first.

Which I personally chalk upto a terrible judge in my opinion that has no idea about his playerbase.

Mr Hyena wrote:From the wording in the opening post, it appears that the group has at least tried to continue on even with this one guy making it pointless.

Yes, they are doggedly soldiering on despite one guy apparently winning a minor award a few times in a row. Surely the emperor will look fondly on this extreme persistence in the face of such adversity! How dare that guy have talent greater than his fellow players!

It's a lesser ranked award among several others but you make it sound like the guy is sweeping the entire tourney and dominating every aspect. If the TO is so concerned about his other sour grapes ME ME ME players, he should institute equivalent rules for EVERY category and not just painting. Screwing over one guy who is doing nothing wrong is never the right thing to do.

It is threads like this that remind me why I quit playing tourneys many years ago.

I'm still trying to wrap my head around how this is bottom-feeding. If there is a painting component to the tournament that is judged, I would argue that it is as much a painting tournament as any other type of tournament.

CT GAMER wrote:It is threads like this that remind me why I quit playing tourneys many years ago.

Agreed. As I have posted I generally have no issues with a person bringing different armies and winning the painting aspect of a tournament.

I take issue when the TO gives the award to a person that brings in the same army every time, I also take issue as I have seen those types of "bottom feeders" (I like that phrase) go to every tournament available in a general area to get those awards which is prize money of some sort.
I personally consider slimy bastards, hustlers and part of the sickness that is part of our society.

But.

Let's take out my ranting and and say "Whose fault should it be put on"?

The hobby in general is at fault. Too many people are playing in games with partially painted or unpainted armies in local tournaments resulting in the creation of more of these kinds of hustlers.

And that is the way I see it.

Adam LongWalker wrote:

CT GAMER wrote:It is threads like this that remind me why I quit playing tourneys many years ago.

Agreed. As I have posted I generally have no issues with a person bringing different armies and winning the painting aspect of a tournament.

I take issue when the TO gives the award to a person that brings in the same army every time, I also take issue as I have seen those types of "bottom feeders" (I like that phrase) go to every tournament available in a general area to get those awards which is prize money of some sort.
I personally consider slimy bastards, hustlers and part of the sickness that is part of our society.

But.

Let's take out my ranting and and say "Whose fault should it be put on"?

The hobby in general is at fault. Too many people are playing in games with partially painted or unpainted armies in local tournaments resulting in the creation of more of these kinds of hustlers.

And that is the way I see it.

I was referring to the OP and TFGs n general that are attrcted to tournaments like flies on gak.

It only takes one TFG to ruin an event, and sadly more times then not I encountered at least one guy that made me want to gouge my own eye out.

40K ISn't a sport, no matter how badly people want to pretend it is serious buisness.

It is toy soldiers and nothing more...

@CT Gamer

The days of being just toy soldiers are long gone I'm afraid. It is what the hobby dictates.

Adam LongWalker wrote:@CT Gamer

The days of being just toy soldiers are long gone I'm afraid. It is what the hobby dictates.

No it is toys played with by adults who think if they post fancy blogs and talk about statistics and act like it is seriosu buisness that it will seem more legit.

it is still toy soldiers and we arent relly doing anything all that serious or important when we play. Can it be fun? Yes. Do many people ruin it with stuff like this thread illustrates? You bet...

What a terribly titled thread... I know it was pointed out on page 1, but I can't believe you'd start a conversation that way.

No one should be called a "bottom feeder" for winning any kind of award at a tournament. That's just silly. Take it as a challenge and paint your army to a higher standard, if you really want to take top place!

RiTides wrote:What a terribly titled thread... I know it was pointed out on page 1, but I can't believe you'd start a conversation that way.

No one should be called a "bottom feeder" for winning any kind of award at a tournament. That's just silly. Take it as a challenge and paint your army to a higher standard, if you really want to take top place!

Remember, if you paint your models too well and people show up at the tourney with unpainted or underpainted models, you are a 'hustler' who is stealing prizes and part of the sickness of our society.

People should be given things they don't earn and never be judged on their merit by the sum of their own actions. If someone is better than you, they are evil for making you look bad and should be punished for trying to hard.

Yeah, I wonder if he would be upset if you weren't allowed to win Best General or Best overall if your army didn't change enough, and without specifying what enough is.

The idea that the person winning best painted doesn't deserve it because he's not putting the effort into playing on the day misses the point entirely of the award. You're putting in the effort at home when you spend hundreds of hours painting it well.

Also, to reiterate a point made previously - calling him a bottom feeder is ridiculous because, by the OPs own admission, his armies have won Best Painted at other tournaments. There's also other people regularly at that tournament who have very well painted armies. There's plenty of competition for this person. Just because the OP has won best painted before, he still needs to be judged against the competition at each individual tournament. This guy might just plain be better. Winning Best Painted at one tournament doesn't mean you will win it at every tournament.

It very much sounds like sour grapes. You've won best painted before. There's other people at the tournament who have great armies. This guy is just better, and is beating you. He's not good at the game? Meaningless. You don't have to be good at playing to enter a tournament. There's various areas to be judged. He's not going to win best overall just by winning best painted.

CT GAMER wrote:It is threads like this that remind me why I quit playing tourneys many years ago.

It is certainly why I stopped playing 40k period.


@ the original poster

Learn to paint and convert themed armies people like so they will vote for you and then you can be a "bottom feeder" too!

Why don't you just try to encourage the organizer into reducing the prize support for best painted. 10 dollar entry fee to win 15 bucks seems fine to me.... But I don't think anyone would complain about someone bottom feeding 5 dollars....

If the local tourney community actually agreed with our sour grapes OP, he wouldn't need to whine to the TO to change the rules for ONE category to screw over ONE player who happens to have more talent then him (as judged by his peers and the TO). The OP has already stated that the painting score is based off of the judge's score as well as "favorite army" player votes. If the other players were tired of the same army winning best painted, they'd simply stop voting for that army as their favorite and the some one else would win. There is no need to tweak the rules because the OP can't handle competition.

<thread terminated; there are some useful suggestions scattered throughout, but a lot of anger, starting with the OP's choice of title. If we need to discuss this topic again, I'd encourage a less inflammatory title>