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.

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.

In my opinion of course.

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.

nkelsch wrote:

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.

Horst wrote:

nkelsch wrote:

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.

nkelsch wrote:

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.

Horst wrote:

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

I love how anyone who doesn't like painting scores is automatically labeled as a WAAC gamer...(IE bad person)...

Squidmanlolz wrote:

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.

its a multi part hobby if they were to stop ranking painting all together it would bland and boring....

Happy New Year!

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.

My 2 cents.

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.

Given painting and modelling take up at least a good half of the hobby, it is no less important than how you play the game.

Defeatmyarmy wrote:

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.