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.

Let me break it down like this:
Using an army someone else painted is fine. It is the only score that you can essentianly control at a tourney. However that is the extent of it. Never can you claim credit for it, and never can you claim an award with it.

It doesn't matter if you have permission or if the painter comes with you. The fact is that by using that army or model(s) in a best painted or player's choice environment is entering another persons work under your name. You didn't paint the best army and you betrayed the trust of the other players voting for you. Its akin to having someone take a test for you. Whats next have someone play the army under your name? So if he wins you can have a trophy that says you were best overall? Im going to go to tournaments from now on with a whole entourage. A person who painted my army so its ok if I win a painting award. The best tactician there is to play it for me, so if I win Best Overall or Best General its OK. A Stand Up Comic for my Sportsmanship, and the luckiest Die roller I can find. When it comes down to it you are using a ringer to win an award you don't deserve.

Actually, they don't really care. However, with some of them it may be the only army they own and they probably won't purchase another army, then paint it themselves just to play in one event. That is rediculous. So ultimately it affects them since they will be unable or unwilling to attend.

Fortunately for me I paint all my stuff so it makes no difference to me. It will suck though not having some of my friends playing because of the Necro's ruling for 2008. I also would expect several players from other areas not to attend either. There were several Pro-Painted armies there that weekend. So the Necro staff just alienated a segment of enthusiasts to not attend their event. Not exactly a positive way to increase the number particpants of this event.

Or maybe it is a positive way to increase their number of participants. Never rule out what it may do to players who have a bad impression of tournaments. They may now see that events are trying to correct percieved problems.

I am glad to see the ruling that came out of it myself.



"So ultimately it affects them since they will be unable... to attend."

The painting contest is not for the general public, it is for the players who attend... otherwise with people like you there would probably be some bold enough to mail in their models to the tournament to take a prize they do not deserve. That is what really sucks.

- G

Obviously you missed the part where the player in question made it clear that he didn't paint the stuff. Additionally, there were no stipulations as to what qualified (read lengthy Necro letter). The votes were based on Appearance alone. Not who painted it. So everyone had a chance. Furthermore, I voted for the Ultramarine army that won the Best Army Appearance award knowing that it wasn't all painted by him. It's not like it's a big secret of who's army is Pro-Painted. Most big events usually have the same people participate, it doesn't take a detective to find that info out. Most players that play with Pro-Painted armies fully disclose it anyways. I have yet to run into a player with a Pro-Painted army lie about who painted it. Most of those players are proud to have had their armies painted by a talented individual and consider it a privledge to own models painted by them.

Capt K

I paint my own models so, I don't have to mail squat. I also build my own display boards. Just remember Greenie that you'll have to build your own display board then, eh? You want to be fair about it right? So I suggest you set fire to your display board and build your own for next year. After all, that can effect your appearance score as well.

Capt K

I will assume you are a RAW type of gamer as opposed to intent. We can argue symantics all day. When it comes down to it, it only matters as to how it makes you feel. You are OK with people winning painting awards for models they did not paint. I however am not OK with that. And Necro doesnt seem to be to fond of it either. GW has banned people from their events(both GTs and Golden Deamons) for this. I will venture a guess that you are in the minority of the gaming community when it comes to this issue.

 

Also, I know for a fact that a gamer by the name of James Prestidge in your area has tried to pass off the work of Scott Bowser as his own at Adepticon, and he was an affiliate of your gaming club at Necro. So, you do know someone who does try to pull off that they painted their own army despite the fact that it was pro-painted by a multiple Golden Deamon winner, and recipient of the Slayer Sword.

What perceived problems? Adepticon is a huge success and grows every year and they are not banning Pro-Painted armies from winning Best Appearance awards. Most players that don't play in tournaments would still never play in tournaments regardless of what the rules are for entering them. All this does is alienate players that have Pro-Painted armies from participating if that's the only army/ies they own.

Capt K

I play by the rules. Not rules assumed or rules imagined. How I play has no relevance to the discussion. And we are not talking about painting awards here...we are talking about a Player's Choice Appearance award...i.e who has the coolest looking army. It has nothing to do with who painted it. I think Best Painted awards should be awarded only to players who painted their own stuff. An Appearance award is like a Photogenic award at a beauty pageant. It's about the looks and not about the substance. Also reread all 16 pages of this thread. Then go onto Adeptus Windy City, Warseer, etc. you will see that most players on those forums actually share the same sentiments as me. But it sounds like you probably don't play in tournaments so it shouldn't matter to you anyways.

Capt k

I would say that the players who do agree with you are the vocal ones. There are many more players that lurk the forums than actually post. The majority of the gamers I know (which is a considerable amount) feel the same as I.

Your beatuy pagaent annalogy is flawed. The contestant won for her looks not someone elses.

If a player dissclosed to everyone attending at a tourney, say he had a sighn next to his display that said "This army is Pro-painted, I did not paint it," and he still won player's choice, then I would be OK with that. The fact is, it would never happen. Have your friends with their pro-painted armies do this a a GT, and see that none of them wins Player's Choice. It will prove that the majority of gamers don't agree with you.

Um not really flawed. I was pointing out that Photogenic is one of many awards present in a pageant and is only based on Appearance. The rest of the Pageant has requirements to win. This award in question is no different in that there was no requirements other than being a paid particpating entrant to said tournament.

Lastly. There really is no measurable way to prove anything one way or another. However, most will agree that Pro-Painted armies don't hurt the hobby as you and your bretheren imply.

Capt K

If I am reading what the organizers of necro wrote:



...they basically said bring whatever the hell you want, painted by whomever you want. but you wont be able to win awards based on some criteria such as painting.

Its a huge paraphrase, but I think it is what is said.

So I dont think people need to feel that they cannot bring propainted armies to this event in the future. You can, you just cant win best painted. no biggie and is more than fair.

I am convinced however that this whole thread is just something to raise GBF's post count.

I'm cool w/ not winning "best painted" as are nearly every other player w/ a "pro painted" army that I know. The real issue for me is GB's dream of slashing their points towards overall score if he had his way.

I did find it funny that he didn't do his display board (of which we already knew about) - I wonder if there was anything else not done by him? Perhaps we need some sort of video documentation - should we just accept his word or that of friends?

Odd mess this is....

Lazarus.

Yeah from reading the Necro's post on that it seems like you can take a pro-painted army and still win overall, just not stuff like best appearance or best painted.

Which I think is perfectly fair.

Actually Captain K is the one who interpreted their ruling that you can't play without an army you painted yourself.

- G

Jason doesn't exactly make a distinction as to what awards will be made unavailable to pro painted armies. I believe that Capt K's concern is that if they choose to include the overall in that choice it would make owners of these armies not show up. I couldn't blame them either.

Lazarus.

 

Agreed. I believe you should be allowed to win overall with a pro-painted army, just not any kind of painting award.

Its good that it will become harder for people to win best painted with other people armies. It will be better like "DARKNESS" said for people if those type of people were excluded. It would make the average joe that slaved hard on his army a chance to win or atleast feel that whoever wone did do due to their hard work.

Posted By Green Bloater on 06/19/2007 1:34 PM
Boy you people are completely clueless. What I am saying is that players who use pro painted armies should be docked points from their ovral score. When I say docked I mean they cannot score the total points allowed, but some lesser percentage - like 50% maximum for painting. Sure they should still be allowed to play, but by docking points they could not win best overall. 

I can't believe this ranting has gone on for 17 pages now. Sheesh.

Still, here's my two cents:

Steve (aka Green Bloater, aka Greenie, aka BloodyT, aka Genius, aka WC_Green_Blow_Fly), I really think you should be focusing on being a nicer guy than complaining endlessly about the painting scores.

After all, you do have a certain reputation in our area. And it seems elsewhere too now, as you did score 7th lowest (of 53 players) in Sportsmanship in the Charlotte 2003 GT, 2nd lowest (of 49 players) in Sportsmanship in the latest Necro, 6th lowest (of 164 players) in Sportsmanship in the Las Vegas 2007 GT, and 2nd lowest (of 75 players) in Sportsmanship in the Atlanta 2007 GDT.

That kinda indicates a pattern to me. So I'd suggest working on being less of a troll and more of a good sport before even beginning to question other people's painting.

 

Just some friendly advice and not meant to be an attack or anything. And just my opinion, of course. Take it for what it's worth.

Oh yeah I am suck a dick! I am gonna post up some pix of Best Sportsmanship awards I have won over the past several years. You can go to GW and check it yerself - I won 2nd Best Sportsmanship at the Dallas 2001 GT. I wish I was such a nice and lovable guy like you Stu. At least people do not call me a jerk on my own forums like they do you.

For some reason I did not get my sportsmanship points added for my last game at Atlanta. I contacted GW about it but nothing has happened.

- G

Here are a couple of my awards for Best Sportsmanship -

http://warp-space.net/Best_Sports_1.jpg

http://warp-space.net/Best_Sports_2.jpg



- G

I forgot to add www... here they are again -

http://www.warp-space.net/Best_Sports_1.jpg

http://www.warp-space.net/Best_Sports_2.jpg

- G

And Stu what you are saying is skewed... for instance in Charlotte I scored 85 on sportsmanship while the highest was 92 and the lowest was 71. The other people in the top ten scored 92, 92, 91, 90 and 88. If one person chipmunks you it can really lower your average score and may not be a good indication how the majority of your opponents really felt. You of all people should really know better.

- G

Can we let this one die already.

I am all for it.

- G

Posted By jfrazell on 07/23/2007 1:49 PM
Can we let this one die already.

To quote Triggerbaby:


"This thread is the gift that keeps on giving. A

 cornacopia of stupid. The Fountain of Duh."

Dear god, please kill this thread.

Um. Okay.


Locked.