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.

The only bottom feeder I see in this thread is the OP for poor sportmanship and whining about a completely appropriate result. So... let me get this straight... he's mad that a guy with the best painted army won the painting award? That sounds like the ideal result. If someone comes to the tournament and repeatedly wins (like a dashopepper type), do you disqualify him from winning even if he was fun to play against or make him reroll all 6's to satisfy other players' egos? If the guy painted his own army, paid the tournament fee, followed the game rules, played his games, and was a good sportsman... why he should he be punished for simply being good at one thing being graded in the tourney? I might have some sympathy if he just showed up and then forfeited every game without actually playing but that's not the case here. If you're not going to disqualify someone from winning Best General with the same army, you shouldn't disqualify them from winning Best Painted.

I have no problem with someone sweeping painting awards for a year if their army is the prettiest there. After a year I feel like they should start up a new one as at this point they have won enough to buy a new army with little to no cost. Same goes for the same army list. But I've got a "season" mentality.

@Timmah

No where in that post does it say that multiple armies are showing up at the same standard. The OP just states he's won painting awards. Well so have my Tyranids which are by far my ugliest army. But that was at a location where 99% of people didn't do more than the 3 color minimum. Your making broad assumptions.

@Dave_Fay

That's a solid idea as well, though mixing the scores could make the problem worse if the guy isn't the worst player in the world

I regularly score best painted at the local events I attend, but my battle points usually garner me a fairly average result. We have probably half a dozen big fish in our little pond that compete outside our area as well as within and all of them have wonderfully painted armies. I'm sure that my armies score higher than my opponent's because I'm not at every event they're at and don't get the over-exposure.

Our local club's events allow you to score yourself, but the points only account for 25% of your overall score. It's based on a sliding scale: max points for fully painted, based, and display boarded army; next to max for fully painted and based without display; average for all but a few minis painted; below average for some painted; zero for no painted figures. It's fair for everyone and still helps someone like myself with average generalship score in the upper-mid-range.

If the guy has entered the competition then he is competing like everyone else. The fact he may or may not play to win his games is besides the point as you can't police how people wish to play their army. So you can't then begrudge him simple because his painting standards are so much better than his playing ability.

The only thing that you could suggest is that people who win consistantly (like 5 times in a row perhaps) are asked to sit out of a round to allow others the chance to win it. But then again, why should he be penalised simply for being good at painting compared to others?

nkelsch wrote:

MediumYellow wrote:They ought to just divide the competitions entirely. I know people think of 40k as an integrated hobby, but it is simply irrational to judge tournaments in that way. By this logic people should be judging the backstories that are written for individual regiments/chapters/etc...

This way the painting conversion prize pool is segregated from the tournament prize pool.

Um... they already are? if the guy is winning 'best painted' he is winning best painted and not best general. I don't see how irrational it is to judge tourney where there is a prize for best painted based upon painting.

I guess I infered from his post that somehow the prize pools were linked in some way because he used the term bottom feeder. I can't imagine why he would use the term if the painting competition were judged in a completely separate competition.

MediumYellow wrote:I guess I infered from his post that somehow the prize pools were linked in some way because he used the term bottom feeder. I can't imagine why he would use the term if the painting competition were judged in a completely separate competition.

Reread the first post. He's talking about the guy winning Best Painted month after month.

PhantomViper wrote:

MightyGodzilla wrote:This entire subject is blown a little out of porportion to me. $40??? Who cares. This guy travels (from who knows where), pays an entry fee, plays all day/weekend and wins one aspect of the tourney for $40 bucks. It's more like $20-$25 after you factor his costs in the matter. So if you want $20-25 bucks either give him some painting competition or go get a minimum wage job and work it for three hours. If he's a poor general at least you can say you beat him on the field.

I love this type of condescending reply, really I do.

Clearly the OP cares, clearly everyone that replied to this thread (including you), cares as well.

Why do you enter a tournament? Just get a job for that day and you'll get alot more money than you could by entering most tournaments!

Yes but what I am ultimately saying is. Why all the gripe for $25 bucks? It's not that much. Everyone who schedules times to play tourneys could obviously be doing something else. I don't think the guy who the OP is complaining about is bottom feeding at all, and to call him a bottom feeder is clearly an insult. The TOs want a painting aspect to their tourney....this guy always shows up and wins. Like Kronk said way up in the chain...."Up your game and give him some competition" I'm saying the same thing. To me the OP is pretty bad sport about this whole thing....it's 100% petty.

Why do you enter a tournament? Just get a job for that day and you'll get alot more money than you could by entering most tournaments!

Everyone facepalms sarcasm. Clearly my snipe at getting a minimum wage job and working it for 3 hours was sarcasm. Sorry you missed it.

What size tournaments are we talking here? We have a painting prize at our local tourneys, but that's typically $15 that the TO throws in himself, less than all of the top three prizes get. A $40 paint prize sure does sound fancy.

Yeah. Is it a $1 pot entry fee and you guys have 40 players? That guy must have a finely painted army, indeed!

Timmah wrote:

KGatch113 wrote:I've won several Best Painteds with several different armies but none of them ever get more than half the paint points in this area

Did you guys even read his post? The other players have tournament level painted armies. Its just whoever judges paint thinks this guys is the best.
So in effect there is no competition happening whatsoever for painting.

Then the problem is not with the player, but with the judge.

First off, to all the haters, I was not complaining about this guy, I was bringing up the situation to start a discussion on the matter.


I mentioned my armies merely as an example....And yes, there are several beautifully painted armies that show up.

There is a vast difference between someone who comes in, plays, and wins a tournament and a guy who shows up, enters his army, and gets 40 bucks with no effort. ( my feelings). The guy who wins still has to play, every single time. The painting guy did his work years ago and has added nothing.

I've gotten garbled answers from TO's, and I suspect one problem is laziness...the guys don't do an in depth examination of armies, or know what has to be converted or not, I think.

( I will throw a complaint out about the old GW scoring system where you could get 34873442 points for conversions and only have an average paint score, and beat a beautifully painted non converted army....I still see that happening, and its lame.)

The TO's have listened to those who are complaining, and the response was at first to limit the number of times you can win. I have been reminded that you can re-enter an army if change 25% of the force.

KGatch113 wrote:

Guy I know has an extremely well painted and converted army. He never wins a game, but always wins the Best Painted award. So for showing up, he gets 40 bucks.

There was talk about putting a limit on the number of times you can do that, since the guy is obviously bottom feeding and not trying to compete and win the tournament.

This was met with a lot of opposition, with one person stating that if people don't want him winning it they need to up their painting and converting.

I've won several Best Painteds with several different armies but none of them ever get more than half the paint points in this area....so I have no clue how to "up" my score.

Should the local TO put in such a rule, or should this guy be allowed to keep pocketing money?

If nobody else is willing to step up to *COMPETE* for best painted, why not? If one guy wins over and over for Best General, would you have the same issue? If he painted the best army and nobody has managed to best it, why not?

Sounds like you aren't understanding the point, and aren't stepping up your game. If you feel the criteria should be changed, bring it up.

KGatch113 wrote:
I've gotten garbled answers from TO's, and I suspect one problem is laziness...the guys don't do an in depth examination of armies, or know what has to be converted or not, I think.
...
The TO's have listened to those who are complaining, and the response was at first to limit the number of times you can win. I have been reminded that you can re-enter an army if change 25% of the force.

That's completely bass-ackwards. Instead of providing a limiter on who could win, you should be pressing the TO for the rubric. Step one: Hold the TO accountable. Stop blaming that guy until you actually know what's going on.

Also, if conversions are part of it, put some conversions in your army. Not rocket science here.

If there is only a single person who always wins, then you only have a single person to beat.

If you want to win the prize, paint a better army, simple as that. Then that player will have to paint a new army to an even higher standard to beat you in future.

Jeez, I really don't get this, it's like those whiners who complain that Michael Schumacher wins too much... what exactly would you do? Give the prize to the guy that comes second instead, for the sake of "making things fair"?

Jealousy and spite, pure and simple. You'll probably tell yourself that it isn't, but it is.

KGatch113 wrote:

The TO's have listened to those who are complaining, and the response was at first to limit the number of times you can win. I have been reminded that you can re-enter an army if change 25% of the force.

That same rule better apply to the guy who wins Best General. He should be disqualified from winning that catagory unless he changes 25% of his army.

KGatch113 wrote:

Guy I know has an extremely well painted and converted army. He never wins a game, but always wins the Best Painted award. So for showing up, he gets 40 bucks.

There was talk about putting a limit on the number of times you can do that, since the guy is obviously bottom feeding and not trying to compete and win the tournament.

This was met with a lot of opposition, with one person stating that if people don't want him winning it they need to up their painting and converting.

I've won several Best Painteds with several different armies but none of them ever get more than half the paint points in this area....so I have no clue how to "up" my score.

Should the local TO put in such a rule, or should this guy be allowed to keep pocketing money?

He is competing. He is competing at painting. Sounds like you're jealous that he's winning Best Painted and you're not.

The OP also started a thread a month ago saying the tournaments he goes to most people have a hand written army list that are hard to read and some players have wargear suddenly "appear" midgame.

It sounds like you have to many players who are more interested in winning and not enjoying themselves and the hobby. I think you need more guys like the good painter and fewer of the others.

KGatch113 wrote:

First off, to all the haters, I was not complaining about this guy, I was bringing up the situation to start a discussion on the matter.

Sorry, man. But it's really hard to accept that you're trying to start a discussion on the matter when the very FIRST WORDS in your title are "Bottom Feeders".

Just saying.

I don't doubt that there may be problems. I'd hold the TO or the Painting Grader to the fire and demand to know what counts as "good" and "bad" paint jobs.

DarthDiggler wrote:

KGatch113 wrote:

The TO's have listened to those who are complaining, and the response was at first to limit the number of times you can win. I have been reminded that you can re-enter an army if change 25% of the force.

That same rule better apply to the guy who wins Best General. He should be disqualified from winning that catagory unless he changes 25% of his army.

KGatch113 wrote:
There is a vast difference between someone who comes in, plays, and wins a tournament and a guy who shows up, enters his army, and gets 40 bucks with no effort. ( my feelings). The guy who wins still has to play, every single time. The painting guy did his work years ago and has added nothing.

KGatch113 wrote:
Guy I know has an extremely well painted and converted army. He never wins a game, but always wins the Best Painted award. So for showing up, he gets 40 bucks.

Sorry but your original post says the guy does EXACTLY that. He comes in, plays (but happens to lose), and wins the painting prize. If your TO really did change the rules to screw over a single guy who is good at painting (and didn't apply the same 25% must change army restriction to winners of the OTHER categories like best general/army lists), that's just sour grapes pure and simple with no basis in fairness or sportmanship. Also, as previously stated, you can't start a flaming thread complaining about an anonymous person with "Bottom Feeding:" and then claim you're not complaining.

warboss wrote:

KGatch113 wrote:
There is a vast difference between someone who comes in, plays, and wins a tournament and a guy who shows up, enters his army, and gets 40 bucks with no effort. ( my feelings). The guy who wins still has to play, every single time. The painting guy did his work years ago and has added nothing.

KGatch113 wrote:
Guy I know has an extremely well painted and converted army. He never wins a game, but always wins the Best Painted award. So for showing up, he gets 40 bucks.

Sorry but your original post says the guy does EXACTLY that. He comes in, plays (but happens to lose), and wins the painting prize. If your TO really did change the rules to screw over a single guy who is good at painting (and didn't apply the same 25% must change army restriction to winners of the OTHER categories like best general/army lists), that's just sour grapes pure and simple with no basis in fairness or sportmanship. Also, as previously stated, you can't start a flaming thread complaining about an anonymous person with "Bottom Feeding:" and then claim you're not complaining.

If TOs made the average tournament player change 25%+ of their army the tournament scene would grind to a halt and we would all drown in the tears of SW, Necron and GK players everyehere...

CT GAMER wrote:
If TOs made the average tournament player change 25%+ of their army the tournament scene would grind to a halt and we would all drown in the tears of SW, Necron and GK players everyehere...

It wouldn't be the average player but just one person per tourny (the winner). Either way, I think changing the rules to screw over one person who is good in one aspect of the tourney grading who is doing absolutely nothing wrong is complete crap. If they wanted to make a general change to all parts of the tourney to encourage "new" army builds winning, I'd be fine with that as a player.

Sounds like sour grapes man. Seriously, even though the limiter would never affect me (i have army ADD) i would find it ridiculous and unfair to other's. Like I said before. The earliest I would like to see a TO talk to someone is if they have been winning for an entire year with the same painted force with no change. I figure that's long enough for another painter to step up or for them to buy another army off the prize support.

I'd be happy to play against a well painted army in a tournament, even if maybe only a unit or two changed over the course of the year.

Myself, I rarely game, and have an army that I like that I have painted up pretty well (the only tournament I played in that had a best painted award (the last Dakka UK tournament in GW World actually ) I came second with my army). I've maybe added... 2 units to it in a couple of years?

I know that pretty much any tournament I chose to enter, even a friendly "bring a fluffy list and play for fun" tournament, I would probably come somewhere towards the bottom in terms of winning games/KP's/etc, simply because I don't play enough to be all that good at the game (that, and my list isn't one that many people would probably consider "good" ).

If I were to suddenly decide to get into gaming, I almost certainly would be bringing the same army to your tournament, week after week. If it was better painted than every other army, it may well get best painted every week too, because, well, it is better painted every week.

Until someone else picks up a brush and paints something better than mine, why should I not win best painted? As others have said, should the person who is the best player be disqualified from winning best general if he stomps everyone else every week? Or does everyone else have to step up their own game in order to try and beat them?

Frazzled wrote:

DarthDiggler wrote:

KGatch113 wrote:

The TO's have listened to those who are complaining, and the response was at first to limit the number of times you can win. I have been reminded that you can re-enter an army if change 25% of the force.

That same rule better apply to the guy who wins Best General. He should be disqualified from winning that catagory unless he changes 25% of his army.

I like the idea of the best general having to change over 25% of their force or bring a different army if they wont the last tournament. It might break up stagnant army builds and compositions. If I won with my deathwing, I would need to change the composition of the army for next tournament or bring a different army so that I would not just continuously stomp everyone. What's wrong with saying hey you did really well why don't you switch it up and give someone else a chance to win? Or at the very least show off your generalship to keep winning with a multitude of lists.

KGatch113 wrote:
First off, to all the haters, I was not complaining about this guy, I was bringing up the situation to start a discussion on the matter.

If I'm a hater, then here's my hate.

I'm smelling total sour grapes man. I'm not opposed to that guy winning the painting section of the tourney time after time. Nor am I against the OP knocking that guy off his throne. I'm sorry to say it, but attacks like this in a forum setting, where he neither knows about it, nor has a chance to defend himself ...are immature, and I'm not surprised at all that it didn't go your way. with people getting on your case instead of supporting you.

If you wanted that support you would have got it had you posted some pics of models in your army in the painting forum and said "...there's this guy at a tourney who wins and I wan't to beat him. Plz look at my stuff and provide critique on what I can do to get better..." That would have been a totally different...and a lot more constructive thing, than trying to get the best guy in a specific section of a tourney banned for being the best.

The only part I'll concede is that if you've asked the rules for scoring and aren't getting them from the TOs, then that needs to change. But attacking the guy, calling him a "bottom feeder" when the problem doesn't have anything to do with him....well it says more about you, the OP, than anything else. If you've got a problem with the TOs in this, find your solution with them.

So many good points made in this thread.
1. You wouldn't rally the troops to have the TOs metagame against the best general in the tourney, why do it to the best painter.
2. Why shouldn't the guy just show up and win time after time if no one's giving him competition. Other players can step up, brush up, and knock this guy off his throne. This guy will either A. Rally and take back his spot. Or B. Let it slide to someone else.

My original point was that the $40 section prize, after expenses and whatnot to actually attend a tourney is actually a whole lot less than $40. Why the gripes and sour grapes, why do you care if some dude you don't know wins alot? He does play in this tourney, even if he doesn't have the W/L record, So really he is doing more than showing up and collecting money (like you proposed earlier). Is $20-$25 worth all your hard feelings or is it something else?. Is there something more here? Did this guy give you some sort of grief you're not telling us about? Did he kick your puppy?

My question is what's the difference between me not buying any new units in the past 5 years and me not painting anything new in the same time period. If I can win using the same stuff that I had 5 years ago in the present I haven't put any more effort into it than not painting.

Guess I am a bottem feeder as I have only won one tourney and always win best painted at my local shop over and over again. Considering I play differeant list that may or may not be competitive I enjoy the hell out of my time spent. I always vote for some one else as the group decides who gets best painted and it seems that I always do. Sounds like you need to stop being an over competitive douche and pick up a brush.

Just to add further, we used to have real problems with later rounds at our tourneys because somebody (or three) would inevitably be a sourpuss and drop out of the tourney early after it became apparent they weren't going to win top three. So our TO decided to give everybody tokens on entering the tournament. You get two tokens to start, plus one for every game you play (and plus three if you win a game). At the end of the day, all the tokens go in a bag and the TO pulls one out and that's who 3rd prize goes to. Everybody has a shot, even if winners have slightly higher odds. It's cut down on the cut-and-run crowd quite a bit, even if there's no true 3rd place award anymore. If I go to my next tournament and lose three games but win the drawing for the last prize, does that make me a "bottom-feeder" too?

Loch wrote:Just to add further, we used to have real problems with later rounds at our tourneys because somebody (or three) would inevitably be a sourpuss and drop out of the tourney early after it became apparent they weren't going to win top three.

Standing rule should be if you drop you are banned from next x number of tourneys...