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.

In terms of the golden demon comment....you can read quite often about someone getting disqualified because the model wasn't their own, or wasn't painted/converted on their own.

That's why the competition/painting element of a 40k tournament is absurd - there can be no enforcement of rules, no stopping people from cheating. You are not comparing your painting job to the paint job of your opponent, but to the paint job of your opponent's army, which may or may not have been done by them. You'll never know.

I think that tournaments that allow pro-painted armies but disbar them from winning best painted are funny. How are you supposed to know? The only competition involved in the painting aspect is if you had the budget or time to paint / have your army painted.

A tournament....a competition....has enforceable rules, standards to measure up to, and oversight. This is an impossible situation with painted models brought to a tournament, which is why I say that the only way you can get any competitive painting is for it to be done under supervision as an event. Someone on dakka here told me that they send all their models to Sri Lanka, and that they get stunningly painted for like $2.00 per model. Can't remember who for the life of me.

You can't enforce standards, and you can't make it competitive without drastically changing how painting is done. There's honestly no argument to be had here.

Your earlier post indicated Sportsmanship scores were a bit demeening. Yet, you are coming to an assumption that folks can and will purposefully lie in regards to their painted army. Not saying it doesn't happen as I'm sure it has at some point, but throwing out paint scoring based on notions that they will lie yet drop sportsmanship scores because we're all supposed to be mature adults is a bit condratictory.

With this year in particular, there are a large number of events across the U.S. Folks simply need to pick and choose what they want to attend, which includes whether they are accepting to the scoring standards. If folks don't like the scoring, don't attend. But, there's at least a fair amount of choices available as compared to years past.

Dash, you are once again attempting to teach your grandmother how to suck eggs.

Debates about painting and how much emphasis should
be put on people painting their own army are more old ground well-trod. The general consensus is that the value of having attractive armies at the events is high, and if some people choose to pay for it that's their choice, as they're the only ones losing out at that point.

If you let them have full appearance points but ask them to self-disclose and not try for Best Appearance, the incentive to lie is minimized. Folks who would lie for the prizes or trophies at these events are pathetic creatures, and we should all pity them.

I spend hundreds, yes hundreds, of hours on my armies. Converting, painting, etc. When I go to a tournament, why shouldn't my effort be put forth toward the "Overall"? A game takes two hours and it's a game largely based on luck and army lists. I know there's tactics, but as long as you don't forget things and know your rules, you require luck to be on your side. It doesn't take me nearly as long to read a codex, memorize the rules, playtest the army many times and read what everyone on the internet thinks is competitive than it does to simple build and convert the army.. let alone paint it. Keep in mind I'm a competitive player too, but I'm also a veteran of a time when wargaming was different than it is today. Just because it's a tournament, doesn't mean that only battle points should be scored. I think battle points and painting should be judged equally, even though painting is far more time, money and emotionally consuming. It takes more skill than playing.. which isn't really all that debatable. The only people who would take offense are people that don't spend a lot of time on it and hate it. Plus, who cares about renaming awards? People who accomplish the feats receive an award regardless if it's called: "Best General" or "Tournament Champion" or "Best Overall" or "Best Hobbyist" who cares? Flame on partner.

Personally I'm fine with Best Overall and Best General. A fair few tournaments are starting to equate these almost equally. I say almost because the Best Overall does generally get a slightly larger prize which I personally feel they should. They spend the extra time on their army and are probably a nicer person than me or at least didn't bring as tough of a list as I did and hence give people the urge to punch them in the face

The titles don't mean that much to me though to be honest. I just like to move little toy soldiers around, drink, and roll dice. That I happen to win sometimes when I do this is just a bonus

Mannahnin wrote:Dash, you are once again attempting to teach your grandmother how to suck eggs.

Debates about painting and how much emphasis should
be put on people painting their own army are more old ground well-trod. The general consensus is that the value of having attractive armies at the events is high, and if some people choose to pay for it that's their choice, as they're the only ones losing out at that point.

If you let them have full appearance points but ask them to self-disclose and not try for Best Appearance, the incentive to lie is minimized. Folks who would lie for the prizes or trophies at these events are pathetic creatures, and we should all pity them.

This. This is why we use this proceedure at the Slaughters. Ususally, it is pretty obvious who had sweatshop labor done on their armies, anyhow.

As for sportsmanship awards, I feel it is important to have them. Not just as a deterrent to assclown behavior, but to keep people in the game all weekend. The guy who has ass luck and gets his army beaten up all weekend, but plays all his games and does so in good spirits is a rare bird and an asset to the community at large. I like to reward that and make those people examples for others to emulate. Done correctly, sportsmanship awards are a valuable thing. The operative words being "Done Correctly".....


Automatically Appended Next Post:
PS- Not to praise him to the sky publicly or anything, but Hulk is a pretty good example of the ideal tournament player, in my view. He plays lists up and down the range of power and his demeanor is always good, whether he is losing or winning in a badly mismatched game going on. He paints well enough to meet a good basic standard and his armies are converted enough to be unique. He valuses BPs above all other factors, but he understands the value of rewarding other aspects of the hobby. We are fortunate to have a few guys like him in both of our leagues and there is a reason why guys like him can get max sports scores when running dickish lists. Russ Bartimus and Willy Malone are another couple of great guys in the same vein.

Dashofpepper wrote:

theHandofGork wrote:

Painting is competitive. Why doesn't it belong in a tournament then?

I presume you're being inflammatory and not serious, but just in case....

Painting can be competitive. Bringing painted models to a competition is not competitive. If you sit there with a number of other people and have X amount of time to paint a model to the best of your ability (painting/converting contest) - and those do exist, that's a painting competition. The models you bring to a tournament may have been painted by you, may have been painted by someone else...may not be painted at all. That's not competitive.

There is just as much a metagame to best painted at a big tourney like Adepticon, the difference is only about 10% there are going for it as opposed to 100% going for overall.

At an RTT if you win best painted its just because someone better didnt show up. At a big con like Adepticon I know I am not the only person that makes an army solely for the Sunday championship, and there is a lot of thought process that goes into it, just as much as some people spend on their lists.

It's the exact same as any other painting competition (again, when its a big con, not an rtt) its just that it has a tourney going on around it. Also, until there is a golden demon "army" award, I will be at Adepticon and such. I paint armies, not single minis. I like the grandeur of a full army on a kickass display, So yeah I think its important to have that best painted award, and yes it is important

Dashofpepper wrote:The models you bring to a tournament may have been painted by you, may have been painted by someone else...may not be painted at all. That's not competitive.

If they arent painted or were painted by someone else it has no chance of winning anyway. Mainly because no one is going to buy a paintjob equal to something that will win best painted, solely because they know they have no shot at winning best painted if they didnt paint their own army. Again just because the award is a subset and not 100% of the people there are going for it does not make it any less competitive.

I love the internet because anyone can post anything without having any idea what they are talking about, and they dont need to prove or back up anything.

Brandon I pretty much agree with everything you said. Spot on analysis.

G

This is the same argument over again that we have had in two other threads. I don't see any point in repeating it all.

A lot of people seem to want an all-inclusive event structure which has painting as well as battling. Clearly they aren't worried about the use of pro-painted armies, for whatever reason I don't know but the point is they aren't worried.

There are non-painting events for people who are interested only in the battling.

If they arent painted or were painted by someone else it has no chance of winning anyway. Mainly because no one is going to buy a paintjob equal to something that will win best painted, solely because they know they have no shot at winning best painted if they didnt paint their own army.

Yeah, obviously no one would ever cheat in a painting competition...

http://davetaylorminiatures.blogspot.com/2009/08/why-oh-why-do-they-keep-on-trying.html

Dashofpepper wrote:In terms of the golden demon comment....you can read quite often about someone getting disqualified because the model wasn't their own, or wasn't painted/converted on their own.

That's why the competition/painting element of a 40k tournament is absurd - there can be no enforcement of rules, no stopping people from cheating. You are not comparing your painting job to the paint job of your opponent, but to the paint job of your opponent's army, which may or may not have been done by them. You'll never know.

I think that tournaments that allow pro-painted armies but disbar them from winning best painted are funny. How are you supposed to know? The only competition involved in the painting aspect is if you had the budget or time to paint / have your army painted.

A tournament....a competition....has enforceable rules, standards to measure up to, and oversight. This is an impossible situation with painted models brought to a tournament, which is why I say that the only way you can get any competitive painting is for it to be done under supervision as an event. Someone on dakka here told me that they send all their models to Sri Lanka, and that they get stunningly painted for like $2.00 per model. Can't remember who for the life of me.

You can't enforce standards, and you can't make it competitive without drastically changing how painting is done. There's honestly no argument to be had here.

So, if I'm reading this correctly, painting competitions aren't actually competitions because people can cheat at them? In that case, battle point tournaments aren't competitions because people can cheat, and have done so before. I want to make sure that the point has hit home. It sounds ridiculous, right? You're creating a double standard for your point of view and there's not even a logical argument behind it.

The Golden Demon does have rules that are indeed enforced, which you actually pointed out, people have been disqualified for cheating. You have to have modeled and painted the model entirely by yourself or it is disqualified. Someone who lies about painting or modeling is cheating, and if it's found out the penalty is applied. It's the same thing with any competition, there are ways to cheat, some more blatant than others. Just because a cheater didn't get caught doesn't make him any less of a cheater. But, unfortunately, the only way to punish a cheater is for it to be proven. Honestly, I can't understand where your idea has come that they're different, at least in that regard. You seem to think that judging paint jobs or conversions competitively has no rules to it and it's some form of anarchistic anomaly, which couldn't be anymore wrong.

But, again, you are correct. There is no argument to be had, as yours doesn't even have a leg to stand on. You cannot say that painting can't be competitive because people can cheat but then still think that games are competitive even though people can cheat in those and expect to be taken seriously. It's a double standard.

And to reiterate a past question which hasn't been answered by you yet. How is a Best Overall award derogatory to Best General?

Danny Internets wrote:

If they arent painted or were painted by someone else it has no chance of winning anyway. Mainly because no one is going to buy a paintjob equal to something that will win best painted, solely because they know they have no shot at winning best painted if they didnt paint their own army.

Yeah, obviously no one would ever cheat in a painting competition...

http://davetaylorminiatures.blogspot.com/2009/08/why-oh-why-do-they-keep-on-trying.html

Sorry, that isnt a tournament. It's different when you are talking full armies.

GMMStudios wrote:

Danny Internets wrote:

If they arent painted or were painted by someone else it has no chance of winning anyway. Mainly because no one is going to buy a paintjob equal to something that will win best painted, solely because they know they have no shot at winning best painted if they didnt paint their own army.

Yeah, obviously no one would ever cheat in a painting competition...

http://davetaylorminiatures.blogspot.com/2009/08/why-oh-why-do-they-keep-on-trying.html

Sorry, that isnt a tournament. It's different when you are talking full armies.

Neither is a hobby competition.

Either way, it's a painting competition and people are bringing models they didn't paint themselves in order to win said competition. If you don't see how that's the same thing then you're in all sorts of denial. People do get full armies commissioned, you know.

You didnt get what I posted earlier.

If it is something the size of Adepticon, people go just to win best painted.

A person who commissions an army isnt going to put in the $$ required to get an army to the level required to win best painted at an event like that because there is a huge chance it will be spotted and he wont win (or he wont be a complete jerk and will admit every time it isnt his work)

Danny Internets wrote:People do get full armies commissioned, you know.

Holy cow really

I have to agree, tournaments should be about winning the game. This is coming from someone who cares far more about painting than actually playing the game.

In my opinion, there should be no subjective scores given out to determine the winner. Tournament setups are already lousy enough with the "luck" factor of playing random opponents, you dont need even more random factors to affect the overall winner.

Painting should have its own award, I agree with that (especially since I can win them), but it's not the point of a "tournament" in my eyes.

Army composition is ridiculous (if an army is legal, it's legal), and sportsmanship given out by an opponent you just creamed is absurd.

To be honest, coming from someone who played sports competitively, I found the tournament setup for Warhammer to be a complete joke.

GMMStudios wrote:

Danny Internets wrote:People do get full armies commissioned, you know.

Holy cow really

LOL . Yes, Danny... you might want to click on the link in his sig...

Danny playing with beautifully painted and highly converted armies has a big appeal for many competitive tournament players. It adds to the experience.

G

GMMStudios wrote:You didnt get what I posted earlier.

If it is something the size of Adepticon, people go just to win best painted.

A person who commissions an army isnt going to put in the $$ required to get an army to the level required to win best painted at an event like that because there is a huge chance it will be spotted and he wont win (or he wont be a complete jerk and will admit every time it isnt his work)

Danny Internets wrote:People do get full armies commissioned, you know.

Holy cow really

I don't believe it, Brandon. I thought that was a silly, silly rumor. I means seriously...who would commission a full army?

Haha maybe Danny should commission an army then he could play in hobby get togethers with paint scores.

Hehe Im sorry I almost bit my toungue on that one but I couldnt resist!

Cent - only people who want to cheat and win best painted of course!

RiTides wrote:

GMMStudios wrote:

Danny Internets wrote:People do get full armies commissioned, you know.

Holy cow really

LOL . Yes, Danny... you might want to click on the link in his sig...

Congratulations, you got the joke! (Was it really that subtle?)

Night Lords wrote:
To be honest, coming from someone who played sports competitively, I found the tournament setup for Warhammer to be a complete joke.

To be honest, I find the fact people think Warhammer is even capable of being played competitively to be a complete joke as there is already so much randomness in the game.

You cannot compare Warhammer to a sport because a sport gives two sides 100% equal footing with only your physical and mental skill to determine the outcome. Warhammer is not balanced, not equal and is not a true test of mental skill as much as it is a test of risk aversion and minimizing randomness. This is why MIN/MAXING is so effective as it minimizes risk. Sure it takes some skill to do the math and play the odds, but in turn it also doesn't take any skill to download a metalist off the Internet that has had the 'risk' beaten out of it by finding the optimal path of least resistance.

Trying to compare warhammer to a competitive environment like actual sports would be like trying to add 'shooting craps' to the olympics. You can claim to be the worlds best craps player but excuse me if that doesn't inspire much admiration from me.

Battle points are fun, and the game is fun and if you end up winning, then it is fun! You get a prize WOOOO! There are just as many people who cheat with dice and rolling techniques as a way to 'balance the playing field' as people who lie about thier appearance. Cheating is cheating and cheaters cheat. Just because someone *DOES* cheat doesn't mean you remove the ability to cheat by eliminating the thing they are cheating at. Removing or de-prioritizing appearance because 'someone might lie and cheat' makes as much sense as no longer recording wins and losses because 'someone might lie and cheat'.

The system is fine how it is. If you want a competitive game that can be compared to sports, go enter a chess tournament.

nkelsch, a huge part of Warhammer is being able to adapt to the infinitely wide variety of situations that you can be confronted with due to the random context of the game. Do you also argue that Poker is non-competitive because it is random? The team that goes first in American football is determined by a coin toss--does that make the sport uncompetitive?

As far as balance goes, some statistical compilations show that between professional chess players the player that goes first wins 52-56% of the time, giving white a marked advantage. Does that make chess uncompetitive?

I think he is surprised at the amount of angst being shown about a game of toy soldiers in which the winner gets some more toy soldiers.

Or a peice of wood or paper.

Kilkrazy wrote:I think he is surprised at the amount of angst being shown about a game of toy soldiers in which the winner gets some more toy soldiers.

Pretty much.

Seeing people legitimately being upset and demanding that a display of thier skill in a game based around chance like warhammer somehow becomes the pinnacle achievement of the hobby and needs to be recognized as such is laughable to me. It is just a game. At least in many sports like football, whomever goes first, goes second in the second half... And if you score a touchdown you don't then roll a D6 to see if said touchdown is invalidated. And even if Chess is favored for whomever goes first, it is faaaaaaaar closer to a true test of skill than warhammer will ever be. In fact it extenuates how random and unbalanced and even less skill warhammer represents to true sports and other games like chess.

If I want best appearance, I need to paint better, or cheat.
If I want best General, I need to play better, or cheat.
If I want best overall I need to do both better and probably not be a seething ass to people when I play them, or cheat.
If I don't like it, then I can take my little plastic men and go home.

It seems like some can't handle that 3rd part so they fight Internet crusades to tear down appearance and tourneys with the justification of 'maintaining the integrity of the sport' and 'true competition' which is a total farce because the game is too random to be a true competition. Accept it for the beer and pretzels game based upon dice and an excuse to push little plastic men around a board.

For many many many years, prizes were trophies, nothing more, but now in recent days with prizes being cash, products and things of a monetary value, is that what is causing this outrage in titles and perceived ranking of importance? This all boils down to a cash grab for prizes from what I can see. People who think the game aspect is 'serious business' are pissed off that someone who paints better than them is getting prizes that they think should belong to them so they want to re-invent 25 years of wargaming to fit thier personal whims so they can win the most $ at an event... If there was no cash prize, I wonder if the outrage would be as much or even at all.

nkelsch wrote:...with the justification of 'maintaining the integrity of the sport' and 'true competition' which is a total farce because the game is too random to be a true competition. Accept it for the beer and pretzels game based upon dice and an excuse to push little plastic men around a board.

Agreed. The handful of people that are so hot to divide and brand events by naming them 'True Tournaments' or 'Hobby Competitions' miss the important fact that Warhammer as a 'game' was not written in the same manner as the rules and codes of conduct that govern professional sports or chess for that matter. There has never been a true desire from the designers or GW to brand Warhammer in the same manner as Magic, Poker, Chess or Major League Baseball. They care about selling product first and foremost. The tournament scene is created outside that and even when it is supported by GW it is half-assed and an afterthought thrown together to appease a small fraction of their base...because, after all, they buy product too.

There is no one way to play the game, build terrain or collect an army. It is a game. Games require imagination, not a rigid set of end results that you get railroaded into.

At best Warhammer might be able to exist in the realm of 'Friendly Competition' - which is what some people are referring to as 'Hobby Competitions'. That requires compromise with a game of this nature. If you are unwilling to compromise, don't be surprised when your options become severely limited.

Matt, stop making so much sense.

Matthias wrote:

nkelsch wrote:...with the justification of 'maintaining the integrity of the sport' and 'true competition' which is a total farce because the game is too random to be a true competition. Accept it for the beer and pretzels game based upon dice and an excuse to push little plastic men around a board.

Agreed. The handful of people that are so hot to divide and brand events by naming them 'True Tournaments' or 'Hobby Competitions' miss the important fact that Warhammer as a 'game' was not written in the same manner as the rules and codes of conduct that govern professional sports or chess for that matter. There has never been a true desire from the designers or GW to brand Warhammer in the same manner as Magic, Poker, Chess or Major League Baseball. They care about selling product first and foremost. The tournament scene is created outside that and even when it is supported by GW it is half-assed and an afterthought thrown together to appease a small fraction of their base...because, after all, they buy product too.

There is no one way to play the game, build terrain or collect an army. It is a game. Games require imagination, not a rigid set of end results that you get railroaded into.

At best Warhammer might be able to exist in the realm of 'Friendly Competition' - which is what some people are referring to as 'Hobby Competitions'. That requires compromise with a game of this nature. If you are unwilling to compromise, don't be surprised when your options become severely limited.

So let me get this straight.

1. GW didn't intend for 40k to be a competitive hobby.

2. Lots of people all over the country decided they wanted to play competitively, and there are RTTs, 40k tournaments, Indy GTs across the country that thousands, tens of thousands of people play in.

3. Because GW didn't intend for this to be a competitive hobby, we should ignore that all these tournaments are being formed / run / competed in? Or perhaps we should boycott tournaments because they aren't meant to be competitive?

It doesn't matter what GW intended; GW isn't running the competitions - players and TOs are. When you label an event as a tournament and hope to bring in people from across the country to compete in it - its a competitive event. The hobby element is important, but its the competition that is bringing people to the....well, competition.

Everything you said is true in 1 and 2. 3 is entirely your personal preference.

Those people are coming to compete knowing full well what the criteria that they will be measured against is going to be. Might just be battle. Might be a combination of several things.

Yet the people still show up to compete against each other. Why is this so hard for some segments of the community to accept.

My own personal observation as both a local TO and being involved in organizing national level events is that, typically, those that argue loudest against a certain aspect of scoring usually feel that they have "suffered" some kind of indignity by the use of it in one tourney or another.

Dashofpepper wrote:
It doesn't matter what GW intended; GW isn't running the competitions - players and TOs are. When you label an event as a tournament and hope to bring in people from across the country to compete in it - its a competitive event. The hobby element is important, but its the competition that is bringing people to the....well, competition.

And people travel just as far to compete in appearance as they do to compete in battle points. There is not a single way to 'compete' at these events and both battle points and appearance are equally important even if some like you prefer one over the other. The difference is, when someone shows up to an event to compete in the appearance arena and have a few fun games he doesn't gak his diaper demanding that his award get the most cash and prizes because what he deems 'most important' invalidates everyone else's opinions and 25 years of gaming.

Best General = Best Appearance... Neither is 'more important' or 'more competitive' than the other. Best overall is for the person who does both the best on average. It really is that simple. And sometimes people run a battle point only or appearance only event... And they have the right to do that and people go to them. But in general, a severe majority of the participants want both represented equally and are fine with the way things are.

There is no valid reason to make best general the top prize at all tourneys except that you can't paint and you want a bigger prize. You want to ruin events for those supposed 'tens of thousands' of other people who go to these events to compete in both battle points and appearance to please you personally.