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.

as ive been mentioning, im playing in an upcoming tourney in april, and one of the people im laying against has a history. the person in question does not do his own modeling or painting (he purchases built and painted models online) these models do look fatastic and are golden daemon quality. however since he does not paint them himself, in the last tourney i scored him a "0" for apperance. when he complained and pissed about it, i also gave him a 0 on sportsmanship. (i scored him good on the game as he won, and avg on his compisiton becuase he was somewhat min maxed and 1 trick pony). his response was to subsequently score me with 0's across the board, then whine and complain to everyone else in the tourney to do the same. my question is, how would the rest of dakkas members act in this situation? both previous and upcoming?

It depends. Like I know with my local games store when it came to 40k tournaments a couple people got fed up and started to run their own tournaments on the side cause we had issues with the main judge. Even in 5th edition he would base a lot of his rulings on 3rd edition rules plus the criteria he gave for how to score army composition wasnt fair to the majority of armies in that Space Marines and a couple other armies can hit a perfect 10 but Imperial Guard and Necrons would get at best a 7 or 8 on the scoring because of the way scoring worked.

Your best bet is to talk to other people at the store or to who ever is running the tournament about the scoring to see if it can be changed or altered. Like my store owner is pretty reasonable when it comes to stuff when people have issues with things that go on at the store.

And this is why soft scores as a way to win are awful - too open to one person (or more) abising byu tanking your scores.

They should either be kept secret, to stop "retaliatory" scoring, or else simply used to judge a best sportsman award OR as a way of barring people from winning. Our local tournies have a "idiot" mark - if they were an idiot during the game, mark this at the end (but be prepared to defend your opinion) and, if they achieve X out of Y idiot marks they cannot win - regardless of how many games, they are barred from winning.

I think you should only have marked him a zero on painting if the rules pack listed a requirement that you paint your own army. If that wasn't a requirement listed beforehand, then he had every right to expect the marks to be strictly related to how well his stuff was painted, and not whether it was painted by the guy using it.

For example, many tournaments allow you to score full appearance points for painting, but if you haven't painted your own stuff, you're out of the running for best painted/best army (though eligible for everything else).

While I personally wouldn't take something someone else painted, I think he was right to be miffed that you blanked him (*unless*, as I said, the rules dictated mark downs for not using your own stuff). He could have been a bigger man, and not zeroed you back.

I think going forward would be to ask for clarification on the matter, and if the league/tournament organizer states there's no penalty for using things someone else has painted, then I think the best thing to do would be to apologize before things get out of control.

I agree with the kind of Sportsmanship system Nosferatu1001 is describing. Lonewolf and many of the Texas tournaments score similarly- where a single bad (or good) game vote has minimal impact but multiples stack up. So if everyone you played said it was a bad game, then you're really doing something wrong, but an encounter with just a single douche, docks you a point at most.

RZ

Red_Zeke wrote:I think you should only have marked him a zero on painting if the rules pack listed a requirement that you paint your own army. If that wasn't a requirement listed beforehand, then he had every right to expect the marks to be strictly related to how well his stuff was painted, and not whether it was painted by the guy using it.

For example, many tournaments allow you to score full appearance points for painting, but if you haven't painted your own stuff, you're out of the running for best painted/best army (though eligible for everything else).

While I personally wouldn't take something someone else painted, I think he was right to be miffed that you blanked him (*unless*, as I said, the rules dictated mark downs for not using your own stuff). He could have been a bigger man, and not zeroed you back.

I think going forward would be to ask for clarification on the matter, and if the league/tournament organizer states there's no penalty for using things someone else has painted, then I think the best thing to do would be to apologize before things get out of control.

I agree with the kind of Sportsmanship system Nosferatu1001 is describing. Lonewolf and many of the Texas tournaments score similarly- where a single bad (or good) game vote has minimal impact but multiples stack up. So if everyone you played said it was a bad game, then you're really doing something wrong, but an encounter with just a single douche, docks you a point at most.

RZ

I pretty much agree here. If someone can't paint and they found a way to play in a painted tournament there shouldn't be any harsh penalty but they shouldn't win any painting award either.

I am of the mindset that anyone who does not paint their own army should either A: Get half the points for painting than they would get if they painted it them selves or B: they are not able to win Best Painted, Players Choice or Overall. They can win Best Army (some times Comp/Battle) as long as it does not include a painting score.

I feel those are the best way to handle the situation.

I agree with Negative. If you paint your own army you should be entitled to all the rewards optionable. If you do not paint your own army there are choices how to handle it.

1. The event should specify ahead how paint will be judged. Example, if you looking at opponent judging spell out how not painting your own army weighs in.

2. My personal opinion. If you haven't painted your army, and there is a "best painted" award you cannot win it. If there is no such award and only a painting score, you can earn half the score i'd typically give. My reason is you have an army presented on the table top, but only half applied it yourself: the financial end and showing up end. The army is painted by another person.

3. If nothing is spelled out for the event, if its a local event. You really need to ask the organizer before you do anything. If the organizer says "rate it like anyone elses" do that. At that point, all bets are off, its the best army available.

Red_Zeke wrote:For example, many tournaments allow you to score full appearance points for painting, but if you haven't painted your own stuff, you're out of the running for best painted/best army (though eligible for everything else).

I agree with this... although the term "best army" is confusing me (and several people have used it). The only tournament I've entered, the categories were: Best Painted, Best General, Best Sportsman, Best Overall.

I certainly don't think someone should be out of the running for "Overall", even if it includes a score for painting as part of the total- otherwise why allow them to enter the tournament? However, I definitely think they should be out of the running for "Best Painted" since that award should go to the painters themselves.

As someone who does not currently paint for various reasons (I was not very fast or skilled, and my wife loathes the hobby, so all the time I can squeeze out of her I use for playing) and was able to purchase a painted army, I think people sometimes stereotype those who use armies painted by others too much. I am certainly not rich- I'm actually out of a job at the moment, although hopefully that will change in a few weeks. I also like to think that I'm a nice guy...

So since I didn't have time to paint my own stuff, I sold everything (two armies plus extras) to buy a painted army. I'm commissioning the final piece of it to be done now... anyway, there's a lot that goes into collecting an army, even if you didn't paint it, and my purpose in doing so was so that I could play warhammer, even though I don't have time/etc to paint my own stuff. One of the main reasons was so that I could play in tournaments and events against other painted armies, the way the game's meant to be played. I find that people with painted armies tend to know the rules better and be more professional about things (although this isn't always the case) and most great events require painted armies.

I think that I should be able to win "Overall" in these events, since my army is painted well... but I certainly don't want the painting award. Someone else mentioned that banning people who didn't paint their own armies from winning "Overall" just leads to dishonesty- and hurts the honest folks. I always make sure people know I didn't paint my army, but that I'm in love with it anyway

To the OP- I think it was unfair of you to score him a 0 on painting, unless that was the guidelines laid out by the tournament- in which case, I doubt I would enter, as it would give me no chance of winning overall. You should have scored him for the army's appearance, and let the judges/TO handle making sure he wasn't in the running for a "Best Painted" award. That is, unless there were instructions to the contrary.

There's just something about the attitude towards this issue that I don't understand... it comes up so often, yet how many people encounter people have had problems with this? Like I said, I'm not rich, I like to think I'm not a jerk, and I always let people know I didn't paint my own army... but I certainly would be upset if someone was angry at me for this after I was upfront about it.

It's a double edged sword though when it comes to scoring folks for painting - to be fair, if the guy gets a really high score for painting and didn't paint it himself and leads to him winning overrall, how is that fair to the folks who painted their stuff themselves. All it shows is that one guy decided to shell out alot of cash to get a well-painted army. Here's my take on it:

1. Using Lonewolf as an example, you should specify in the rules that armies need to be painted by the player to win best appearance. If it comes down to a tie-breaker or something in the overrall category, then it should be awarded to the player who painted their own stuff.

2. Yes a player could claim they painted the army, but generally the folks who win the overrall or best painted category are known by other players who can tell if they are lying or not. I'm sure there's a person who noone knows who has an incredible army, but those are usually far between on the Indy GT circuit.

3. Painting and sportsmanship should contribute to an overrall score, but not be the main deciding factor. "0"s for painting are usually for the plastic, possibly base sprayed armies that come to tournaments. But you should put it out in the rules like 50% off your painting score if you didn't paint it or whatever.

4. Some tournaments give more weight to certain categories, but in my opinion you should really be looking at 100 for battle points, 50 for painting and 50 for sportsmanship. Personal opinion I know, but the ones I've seen where 100 BP, 75 for painting and 75 for sportsmanship, at least they keep everyone at a standard for the Painting and Sportsmanship. For instance, Lonewolf used 64 points as the starting point for sportsmanship, with pluses or minuses for good games or bad. Since everyone started out basically the same, it really shouldn't matter to the overrall unless you were really a great or bad guy. Painting is the same thing, where a basic painted army starts the same and moves up or down from there.

Either way it depends on the tournament and who runs it. I personally think folks should paint their own stuff or at least have a majority painted by themselves, but some folks don't see it that way. Winning overall with an army painted by someone else usually means most of the other armies weren't painted well and the guy was really, really good at playing the army (and had ALOT of battle points).

I hold no personal value to my opinions on player painted vs professionally painted armies. To me, if you pay to paint your army that's a players choice.

As someone who is getting married soon, likely a family god willing down the line, I understand when people say "i've got a wife, 2.5 kids, a full time job, and I coach, i'd love to paint, but frankly family first, I'm just happy I get 3-5 games in at a event. I get that, makes sense. Family first, hobby 2nd-3rd-last.

If "Best Overall" includes battle, paint, comp, then I think the person with the professional service army should not be involved in that running. "Best General", sportsman all about them winning that. There is 1 exception, if the Organizer, specifically says "there is no paint score, this is strictly a battle points/ win or lose event, please vote for your favorite army in the room." That person with the army they did not paint should be allowed in that running, because that's a opinion question, not a points question.

I'll still agree with this in the future to... especially since i'm likely to buy armies one day, instead of painting them. As for zero's for professional painted armies? No. Half points. Zero's are for that guy with the skaven army that primed at tournments. There seem's to be one guy at every event I goto. I usually ask why primed the answer is always "i'm to lazy to paint, I don't want to paint the horde army." Usually that guys has double abomination, a plague furance, and 400 slaves. They make me laugh... especially with my old school horde skaven with 4 units of clanrats, 4 units of slaves.

i should clarify.. the tournament in question did have a best painted category, in wich the "appearence" score was 80% of the deciding factor. the rest was judge decided. by purchasing pre painted models and entering them in such competetion it says "i painted these models i win a prize for my painting" hense why i scored this particular person a 0 in that category, as he did not paint the models he was entering into the contest via playing in the tournament. now if the guy who actually painted them entered the competetion simply in the painting category 10/10 all the way... but just shelling out money and entering them in a painting contest is like buying a restuarant meal then entering it into a cooking contest as your own.

when he found out about the score he proceded to whine and piss and moan like a child litterally stomping and crying all over the area, and then went and changed his scoresheet to score me 0's across the board in retaliation. to me that = 0 in sportsmanship. as far as the other categorys, comp, game and overall i scored him fairly well considering he beat me in the game with a decent, albeit min/maxed army... but its a tourney and i expect those lists anyway. im not bitter at the guy cause he has money, or because he wupped me in a game... i just dont think that people with more money then someone else should win at a skill/effort based contest.

You guys it's not best painter.It's painted if the guy spent the money to have his models painted.Then he should have every right to get best painted.Like I said it is best painted not painter.

I understand your sentiment Darth, but my question is what the rules pack said. If it didn't specify that you should be penalized for not painting your own stuff, then he had a right to come with the expectation that he wouldn't be downgraded.

However, it doesn't seem that he handled it well- better off appealing to the tournament organizer than stomping around.

RZ

the rule pack, such as it was (basiclly a 1 page print off on the back of the score sheet) simply said that "appearence: score as if you are a golden daemon judge. the highest score will win a trophy for best painter/painted models"

since he didnt paint the models, just bought them online, he shouldnt be scored. if he didnt have the cash flow he would be the guy with everything just primed black, (ive seen him actually do this). but my point is: why should someone who dosent even spend the time to paint or even build his models, win a painting contest against guys who spend relentless hours of practice and effort to complete a full size army? for the playing and game, alright i have no problem scoring him high...but he simply does not show any respect for people who paint there own models (even making rather rude critiques) and expects to win these painting sections of tourneys. this seems rather wrong to me, and moraly wrong to score him for his "painting" when such scores will result in him winning the trophy over a guy who actually puts dedication and time into his hobby. now if there was a section for best overall appearence then sure...because all your doing is saying "your army looks nice on the tabletop" but for painting/best painted etc, that seems to indicate a skill and effort based award, and should go to someone who actually inputs said effort.

It did say "best painter / painted models" - meaning you can be the winner by having the best painted models, not by being the best painter.

Which is why i dont think a tournament winner should be decided partly on painting skills - the hobby has 3 parts, building/converting, painting and playing. Tournaments should decide the overall winner on the last part only, with prizes for best painted and best conversion (if needed) done seperately.

BUt then i hate soft scores. Thankflly the UK seems to avoid them, essentially only having the "idiot" scores mentioned above - and awarding the best sportsman seperately.

I'm kind of just saying the same things over and over at this point, so I'll leave it at this.

I understand where you're coming from, but it doesn't look like this guy had any reason to expect to be downgraded for not painting his own stuff. The other business (about disrespecting other people's painting and such) may make him a douche, but objectively speaking shouldn't affect his score.

To me, it looks like the rulespack asked you to score how well painted his models were, not to punish him for being a jerk, rude critiques, not painting his stuff himself, or whatever else.

At the very least, best painting/best painted makes it look 50/50 whether points should be awarded, and you should have asked a tournament organizer before making a move that, based on this guy's history, was likely to start a squabble.

Some people have jobs that preclude them from having the free time to paint. If you're working 70 hour weeks, you might be earning a lot of money, but with only a small amount of hobby time, you'd rather spend it on playing. Thus buying painted makes sense for *your* hobby.

This is all to say that you don't have to like the guy (seems pretty unlikeable) but need to understand why from another perspective, he had a right to be upset by getting zeroed.

And that's all I have to say about that...

RZ

He had the right to be angry, I suppose. Though its rather silly to be angry over Warhammer, isn't it? You shouldn't have scored him bad because he didn't paint it unless the tournament specifically specified you had to paint your own army.