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.

I won best army recently at a tournie. My brothers was better painted but mine was all scratch built, plus the painting was quite good. I was very happy that all my hard work finally paid off.

there are a few pro painted armies that enter but they stilldont match my brothers armies for painting.

If somebody wants to pay let them but if they win send the trophy to the painter or make the rules clearer that only armies painted by the person will be eligible to win. For the 1% that lie I am sure they will no somebody at the tournie who will know they are lying.

Posted By yakface on 06/19/2007 1:14 PM

Grand Tournaments circa 2000-2001 used to have a painting score for 'I didn't paint the models myself' and it wasn't a very good score. It essentially eliminated players from overall contention.

I'll have to dig out my old rules packets.  I really don't remember that at all.  I saw people win overalls with pro painted armies. 

Saying you want people to pay money to have their armies painted because that is more fun for you is simply arrogant and comes across as stupid as well. I hate to see people baaah like sheep and follow the crowd. You are a fair to middling painter and should extol the virtues of painting rather than saying 'baaaah'.

- G

When I played in 2001 at Dallas you had to mark off a box on your entry sheet verifying you painted more than 90% of the army you were bringing. If you did not then you lost 50% of your painting score. Maybe some herbal tea will refresh your memory.

- G

Posted By Green Bloater on 06/20/2007 5:53 AM
Saying you want people to pay money to have their armies painted because that is more fun for you is simply arrogant and comes across as stupid as well. I hate to see people baaah like sheep and follow the crowd. You are a fair to middling painter and should extol the virtues of painting rather than saying 'baaaah'.

- G

If not then what's the point of requiring painted armies at a tournament anyway?

It's part of the hobby, it makes the event more enjoyable when the figures are painted.  It's also great for promotions of the hobby or events in general.

That all said, it just needs to be a painted army at a tournament.  No one is forcing people to get stuff pro-painted, but it certainly is an option for people who don't want to paint their army. 

It's great that you had a marvelous experience painting and came to love that part of the hobby.  Some people do not have that experience, some people don't like painting, some people don't even want to have to paint.  If they're willing to fork over a couple hundred or more to get something done to play at tournaments then more power to them.

If the organizer wants to have the "overall" prize go to the person who has the highest scores of Battle/Sports/Painting then that's their right.  However that doesn't change the fact that people can very much go out and get an army painted and simply not state that it was bought.  These armies could then win "best painted" awards and the like, which isn't fair to others.

The most amicable solution is to not have points docked off people for the "overall" prize but take them out of the running for best painted.  It keeps the painters happy and the gamers happy and it benefits everyone who wants to be honest while still going to tournaments to compete.  And the last time I checked tournaments were about playing the game.  Sure there's sports scores but the tournament isn't a popularity contest now is it?  It shouldn't be, sports scores are there to punish jerks and to keep people civil.  Painting scores are the same way, they keep away unpainted armies or armies entered with no effort put into them (ie slapping 3 colors on each model haphazardly without care to actually "painting" .   It also rewards those who paint their armies to a high standard, but that's a separate award from winning the tournament.

I have been running an informal survey with alot of input from all over. I will say people here at Dakka seem to have no issue with a person using a pro painted army win best overall but that is an opinion that is in the minority. I will release the results of my study when it is concluded.

- G

I'm going to address only one thing, the Best Painted award.  It boils down to this: is the award given to the person who painted the best army, or to the person who owns the best-painted army? In one case, the award is recognition for time, effort, and skill invested in a particular facet of the hobby. In the other case, it is just an 'attaboy!' to encourage folks to bring painted models to the tournament.

My feelings on this are pretty strong.  In other competitions (flower shows, for example), if it is discovered that the winner actually bought the winning orchid from a florist, they are immediately disqualified, because the award is not about mere possession.  Awards are recognitions of skill and achievement, and they should be given to the person who displayed the skill, not the person who purchased the results.


If you want to buy a professionally painted army, do so.  And by all means use it in the tournament.  But ownership is its own reward.  If you want a trophy for having the best painted army at a tournament, go and buy one of those, too, Mr. Moneybags. 

I think Voodoo Boyz has the perfect solution- if you didn't paint your army, you can't win 'best painted', but it shouldn't affect your overall score.

Posted By Green Bloater on 06/20/2007 8:52 AM
I have been running an informal survey with alot of input from all over. I will say people here at Dakka seem to have no issue with a person using a pro painted army win best overall but that is an opinion that is in the minority. I will release the results of my study when it is concluded.

- G

G,

An informal survey with a lot of input from all over isn't worth much, unless you tell us who voted, what the exact questions were (and the questions can't vary in terminology), and what their background in the hobby is.

Best Painted is the award for PAINTING the best army there.  You should have to paint the army to win best painted.  NO ONE IS ARGUING THAT.

But what you are proposing is that bringing a army professionally painted by someone else should preclude you from winning the tourney.  Meaning you have NO SHOT.  So what is the motivation to be honest?  Someone might know?  Please.  No one here knows what I look like (and I doubt I'm the only one who can say that).  In order to increase the quality of the tourney, why not allow the greatest pool of competitors into the overall running.  This means people are more likely to invest the time to paint the army, or invest the MONEY to get someone good to paint their army.  It means BETTER looking armies to play against for everyone.  Which is GOOD for the tourney scene.

I call it "the big picture".

well....heres mt 2 cents...the tourneys represent the game AND the hobby. best painted is an award for the HOBBYIST who has the best painted army. meaning they took the time to do the work THEMSELVES. i remember hearing stories from people a few years ago that they wouldnt dare go toa GT without having the army fully painted and by THEMSELVES. maybe a little help here and there on detailing, final touches, etc...its like saying your hobby is putting together model sailing ships and pay someone to put them together and paint the for you..in reality that persons hobby is to 'pay someone to do the models' for them. and if your worried about not having time or talent to do crazy conversions..DONT DO THEM.
i played against someone in a GT who didnt come close to having the best painted army out there..but he was very fun to play with and challenging too. we fought to a tie. oh my god you dont have the best painted army in the world! its not the end of existence..so maybe one year you just get your base coats done on everything..bfore the next gt maybe you working on detailing..then highlighting...then before you know it. WOW! your army DOES look fantastic. and by your own hands...ill stop now, i think im getting to the rambling on stage..but again. just my 2 cents worth.

"So what is the motivation to be honest?"

You are really quite thick... the motivation is to paint your ow army.

* rolls eyes *

- G

Posted By Green Bloater on 06/20/2007 10:32 AM
"So what is the motivation to be honest?"

You are really quite thick... the motivation is to paint your ow army.

* rolls eyes *

- G

You're ignoring the fact that there seems to be a good amount of people who do not want to paint their own armies.  Otherwise there wouldn't be a banner at the top of this web page that says I can get my entire Space Marine army painted for $499

They can not be "motivated" to do so otherwise in many cases, they'll either not show up to the GT (which would suck for everyone if they're a good player) or they'll just lie and take a pro-painted army anyway.

If the person can't win "Best Painted" with a bought army, then what exactly is the problem? 

Are you mad that there are people who can win a tournament and not have painted the army themselves? Well tough, that's how things go and you'll never be able to change it (since people could just lie anyway if they don't care about painting).  All it does is show how dumb an idea it is to have a subjective painting score affect the overall standings of a tournament that so obviously revolves around the playing of the game.

And FYI, I'm not the guy who would buy a painted army; I do my own painting, but since I did just acquire a Necron army off eBay and am repainting just parts of each model that I'm unhappy with, I figure I should be upfront.

Posted By Green Bloater on 06/19/2007 10:58 AM
"Yo! I am a pro painter an I think it is certainly a fine thing all around for everyone!"

Of course you would say that you money grubber.

Posted By Green Bloater on 06/19/2007 1:34 PM
Boy you people are completely clueless.

Posted By Green Bloater on 06/20/2007 5:53 AM
Saying you want people to pay money to have their armies painted because that is more fun for you is simply arrogant and comes across as stupid as well. I hate to see people baaah like sheep and follow the crowd. You are a fair to middling painter and should extol the virtues of painting rather than saying 'baaaah'.

Posted By Green Bloater on 06/19/2007 1:34 PM
QFT

Huh. Well, I guess its okay to troll your own thread...

Posted By Voodoo Boyz on 06/20/2007 10:45 AM

All it does is show how dumb an idea it is to have a subjective painting score affect the overall standings of a tournament that so obviously revolves around the playing of the game.

Now THATS quoted for truth and great justice.

All I want is for the GTs to represent the hobby.

- G

Posted By Green Bloater on 06/20/2007 11:52 AM

All I want is for the GTs to represent the hobby.

"The Hobby" as it were, means different things to different people. Some people like me love building the models and playing, but hate painting. Some people love playing but would rather not touch bare plastic to build nor paint. Some people love to paint, but really could care les about the game at all. etc.

This is a very creative hobby. but even the word creative is subjective. Some people love to creativly model, or paint, or play. it allows different people to express their differing approaches to creativity. Some people have very creative ways of playing, but cannot paint to save their lives. Some people have creative ways of modelling but cannot play to save their lives. It takes all kinds to make this game.

What youre saying, is that you want GT's to represent what YOU think the hobby is.

Just because Jervis says  that painting is a huge part of the hobby in the Standard Bearer article doesnt mean everyone has to hold tight to his constraints of what we should view "The Hobby" to be. While it is admittedly eloquently written, its only his opinion. Not a mandate.

Since others share in this hobby and have a wide, differing view of what such entails, it may be wise to open the mind a bit further and accept the fact that "The hobby" might possibly be something other than what you or I think it may be.

Minds are like parachutes, they only function when they are open.

Posted By Hellfury on 06/20/2007 12:13 PM

Posted By Green Bloater on 06/20/2007 11:52 AM

All I want is for the GTs to represent the hobby.

"The Hobby" as it were, means different things to different people. Some people like me love building the models and playing, but hate painting. Some people love playing but would rather not touch bare plastic to build nor paint. Some people love to paint, but really could care les about the game at all. etc.

This is a very creative hobby. but even the word creative is subjective. Some people love to creativly model, or paint, or play. it allows different people to express their differing approaches to creativity. Some people have very creative ways of playing, but cannot paint to save their lives. Some people have creative ways of modelling but cannot play to save their lives. It takes all kinds to make this game.

What youre saying, is that you want GT's to represent what YOU think the hobby is.

Just because Jervis says  that painting is a huge part of the hobby in the Standard Bearer article doesnt mean everyone has to hold tight to his constraints of what we should view "The Hobby" to be. While it is admittedly eloquently written, its only his opinion. Not a mandate.

Since others share in this hobby and have a wide, differing view of what such entails, it may be wise to open the mind a bit further and accept the fact that "The hobby" might possibly be something other than what you or I think it may be.

Minds are like parachutes, they only function when they are open.

The parachute analogy is a good one, but I think the better concluding statement would be "Opinions are like a*$%&*)s, everyones got one, and they all stink."

GTs that allow pro-painted armies are representing the hobby. People can and do purchase pro-painted armies outside of tournaments all the time because they want to have a beautfiul army and they don't enjoy painting.


But here is a more important factor to consider:

When GTs allow pro-painted armies to compete for the overall award but not for 'best painted' (as they are now), they actually give honest players with pro-painted armies a reason to be honest.

If you re-instate the policy of eliminating pro-painted armies from overall consideration now you create a serious reason for normally honest players to conceal the fact that their army is pro-painted.

Once they've commited to concealing the fact that their army is pro-painted you are much, much more likely to end up with a pro-painted army winning a 'best painted' award.


It's like the ridiculous DRM software on iTunes music. The record companies just don't seem to understand that the only people they are punishing are the honest consumers who are legally purchasing their music, so what real incentive is there for people with the means not to illegally download DRM-free files?


If GTs were to go back to docking pro-painted armies it would be the epitome of burying one's head in the sand to escape the rising tide: The only thing it would accomplish is that you wouldn't see the water rising. . .

Posted By Voodoo Boyz on 06/20/2007 12:31 PM

The parachute analogy is a good one, but I think the better concluding statement would be "Opinions are like a*$%&*)s, everyones got one, and they all stink."

I'll see your analogy and raise it with humor.

"Opinions are like Progenoid glands, everyone has two!"

if I played in a tournament with my army that was painted by somebody else and I would get less points for stating so I would lie. oh wait a minute that's not an "if". I have lied and taken overall.

note: not a gt but a rogue trader.

As it has been said often enough when was the last time an unknown won a major GT? No one can say. So the premise that someone can waltz in with a pro painted amy, lie, then win best overall is invalid. Nobody can fly that low under the radar.

- G

Posted By Green Bloater on 06/20/2007 12:46 PM
As it has been said often enough when was the last time an unknown won a major GT? No one can say.

I think I can find a very recent unknown to do so.

Didnt a younger teen take first place beating out Darrian at Adepticon for first place in 40K singles?

I know I never heard of him before.

Posted By Green Bloater on 06/20/2007 12:46 PM
So the premise that someone can waltz in with a pro painted amy, lie, then win best overall is invalid. Nobody can fly that low under the radar.

I guess (because of the recent example above) it really isnt beyond the realm of possibility, now is it?

Posted By Green Bloater on 06/20/2007 12:46 PM
As it has been said often enough when was the last time an unknown won a major GT? No one can say. So the premise that someone can waltz in with a pro painted amy, lie, then win best overall is invalid. Nobody can fly that low under the radar.

- G

That's a fallacy. Just because it hasn't happened (if it hasn't) doesn't mean it can't or won't happen soon.

The point is:  There is absolutely no way to enforce a rule about self-painted armies without sending tournament judges into people's bedrooms to watch them paint.

So I say again: The only thing a pro-painted point penalty at a GT does is to penalize those players honest enough to admit they paid for their painted miniatures.

Seriously, the rule was (and still is) a bad idea.

 

 

yakface you are starting to sound like the Jesse Jackson of 40k my friend. What I said is not a phallacy until it does happen. What I am talking about is precedence.

- G

Posted By Green Bloater on 06/20/2007 10:32 AM
"So what is the motivation to be honest?"

You are really quite thick... the motivation is to paint your ow army.

* rolls eyes *

- G

I am thick???  I've been making the same point over and over, clear as a bell.  The same point, I might add, that numerous other members are making as well.  In many different ways.  With different analogies.

If I have to paint my own army...I'll probably never go to a tourney.  I'll NEVER invest the time into that portion of the hobby, so I'll simply miss that experience.  But I'd like to have it.  I'd like to go. 

But I (and many others) are talking in a circle here.  You are missing the point being made.

I love well-painted models.  I'll never buy pre-painted, because the quality won't be acceptable.  I've spent a pretty penny on top-notch models...because I like that part of the hobby.  But I don't have the hours to invest to get to Level whatever.  Sorry.  I still would like to be allowed to compete in tourneys with a top-shelf army.  I think other hobbyists would enjoy new blood with new armies as well.

And the lie might not win them Best Overall...but it absolutely could win them Best Painted. Which is what we are also trying to PREVENT.

That brings a tear to my eye.

- G

Again, while I agree with you that I'd prefer to paint my own armies, I certainly won't begrudge someone who does not. If they roll out the dough for an army to be painted, so be it. I've never had an issue playing against someone with a pro painted army (albeit rare). It does get old seeing the same old plastic an pewter color armies or the piece of cardboard that was used as a proxy for a Monolith or the crappy Taco Bell cups proxied as Drop Pods.

The GT rules were pretty clear from the beginning that someone with a pro painted army could still win Overall. Quit griping after the fact you apparently missed.

This sounds more like someone wanting to attend all the tourneys to earn most points for overall GT winner and is whining about competition one seems to think is unfair.

Quit dictating how others should enjoy the hobby in the same manner as you. Just make sure you actually use WYSIWYG.

I'll see you in Baltimore. I'll be back from the desert in just enough time.

GW preaches in manager training; "It's not my hobby, it's your hobby". Meaning that you should not tell someone how to specifically build/paint thier army the way you would but to help them build/paint thier army the way they want it (within the codex guidelines, of course).

A hobby is an investment (huge) of time and money and people should enjoy it as they see fit.

But the GT's are supposed to be a showcase of the GW hobby. Mabey the catgegory should be changed to 'Best Appearance' (ie painting, conversions, etc.) thus eliminating the 'painting' stigmata and concentrating on how the army looks on the table. Just a change of wording, but basically the same thing.

My $.02 USD.

Of the 50+ people polled at the last GT over 70% said they do not want pro painted armies to have a shot at best overall. I will poll gain at the next one.

- G

"It does get old seeing the same old plastic an pewter color armies or the piece of cardboard that was used as a proxy for a Monolith or the crappy Taco Bell cups proxied as Drop Pods."

I have never seen anything like that at a real GT. Sorry but your ghetto tournies are not what we are talking about.

- G