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.

You've seen SIX people with ebayed armies?

In this case, you should have your local tournament organizer make a rule, that any army not painted by you is subject to a 30% penalty off their painting score.

I've never seen someone with an ebayed army, and I know there are none around my gaming location.

Which if they wanted to enough they could simply lie about. Should be a separate competition with a separate award. Only way to combat cheating would probably be to require WIP pictures.

Like i've said before, you cannot lie about an army to someone who knows how to paint. Ask specifics about how a technique was achieved, or color choices, and unless the person painted the army himself he wouldn't know.

Also, unless its a large regional tournament or something, local gamers should know what their fellow gamers have bought or painted themselves. If you suddenly show up with a brand new army, nobody has ever seen you field, you know something is wrong.

Yes you can, you can lie about anything.

That is why painting has no place in overall score.

Well that and a good paint job is subjective. one judge could judge the army as being 5/10 on paint while another could give it 8/10.

There is no real was to tell what is good and what is average.

There really should be 3 levels of Painting judgement, require each model to have three different colors and you will get:
Highest points for a fully painted army.
Middle points for over 50% painted
no points for unpainted

Veteran Sergeant wrote:You asked why it was fair.

No, I ironically pointed out that you can make the exact same arguments against the number of victories you have affecting your overall placement at a tournament as you can against your painting score and then asked you why shouldn't painting take a part in determining the BEST OVERALL PLAYER in a hobby which is about more than just winning games.

In the old days, they encouraged people to play with deodorant sticks converted to hovertanks, lol. The obsession with painting came later.

Right, and I'm sure people looked at your lovingly converted Lynx (or Axe if you are not from the UK) Fire Prism and thought "Why didn't he just use a paper counter with "Fire Prism" written on it like I do in my army?! Hey... wait a second... why is he winning 'best army' - MY PAPER ARMY SHOULD BE THE BEST BECAUSE I STOMPED ALL THE PEOPLE I PLAYED AGAINST WITH MY POORLY SPELLED PAPER ARMY!!!!!!"

Painting has always been a part of the hobby; granted, it has taken massive leaps forward in recent years with the adoption of various techniques and products from other areas of the modeling scene, but there were still painting aspects to even RT era tournaments, and to say that painting only really came in more modern times is, well, wrong.

And hey, even if when GW first started putting out products they shot anyone who painted their models, that is not how the company and hobby is today; painting is a huge aspect of the hobby, as pushed by the company that makes the products you are complaining that people paint and have judged and can win things for.

I fully agree painted armies look far better, but painting prizes should always be separate.

But what is actually wrong with having a combined score? You have not actually answered that. After all, the hobby is a combination of all the aspects of the hobby; winning games, being a good guy to play against, and having a well painted (or at least painted) force.

The only thing I can think of is that having an extra "best overall" prize at tournaments lowers the pot for the "best pusher around of models and roller of dice"...

That said, I avoid tournaments like the plague for the most part. Not my scene.

... but then if you don't attend tournaments, it doesn't really matter how the prizes are divided up

Painting score should just go to determining who has the nicest painted army and giving them the painting award or something like that.

Unless it's a painting tournament, by which I mean a tournament, but the best painted wins, like no games and stuff. Does that exist?

DeathReaper wrote:Yes you can, you can lie about anything.

That is why painting has no place in overall score.

Well that and a good paint job is subjective. one judge could judge the army as being 5/10 on paint while another could give it 8/10.

There is no real was to tell what is good and what is average.

There really should be 3 levels of Painting judgement, require each model to have three different colors and you will get:
Highest points for a fully painted army.
Middle points for over 50% painted
no points for unpainted

In comps that I have been in painting was marked with a set criteria with the score taken as an average from 3 judges. Most of the criteria would be y/n questions with only a few things marked on a 1-10 basis. the 1-10 is of course going to be subjective but using an average from 3 people gave a good reflection of the paintjob quality. Seemed to work fine and no-one had any complaints.

I think having a criteria helps when your deciding what is good and what is average.

The difference between good and average could be something like the good one has a bit more detail painted on, such as painting the eyes, or there are squad marking etc.

Lord Rogukiel wrote:Unless it's a painting tournament, by which I mean a tournament, but the best painted wins, like no games and stuff. Does that exist?

The various Golden Daemon events?

SilverMK2 wrote:

Lord Rogukiel wrote:Unless it's a painting tournament, by which I mean a tournament, but the best painted wins, like no games and stuff. Does that exist?

The various Golden Daemon events?

You could just say any painting comp really lol.

Horst wrote:You've seen SIX people with ebayed armies?

In this case, you should have your local tournament organizer make a rule, that any army not painted by you is subject to a 30% penalty off their painting score.

I've never seen someone with an ebayed army, and I know there are none around my gaming location.

Why? I prefer playing a painted army over a grey, or even worse, a black army any day. Who cares who did the paint job? Correct, that useless tournament score cares - no one else.

And as DeathReaper said, simply because you didn't paint your army doesn't mean you don't know how to do it. One of my friends has almost completely ebayed his imperial army fully painted, but still has a unit of great self-painted catachans and a trio of hellhounds. He knows exactly how to do all the different techniques. He simply doesn't like painting stuff, even though he is good at it.

SilverMK2 wrote:

Veteran Sergeant wrote:You asked why it was fair.

No, I ironically pointed out that you can make the exact same arguments against the number of victories you have affecting your overall placement at a tournament as you can against your painting score and then asked you why shouldn't painting take a part in determining the BEST OVERALL PLAYER in a hobby which is about more than just winning games.

Best overall player in the hobby? Why don't people lose points if they didn't write fluff about their army? Why don't people lose points if they are not fielding converted or scratch-built models? For not having a theme song? For not knowing the names of all primarchs? For knowing the names of all primarchs if playing the imperial guard? For not wearing a cosplay costume fitting your army?

A tournament is about playing games to win. Randomly adding an art contest into the score is just ridiculous, and leads to stupid stuff like dumping an entire blood angels army and replacing it with a better painted one from switzerland, just because you have no chance of placing first otherwise.

In the old days, they encouraged people to play with deodorant sticks converted to hovertanks, lol. The obsession with painting came later.

Right, and I'm sure people looked at your lovingly converted Lynx (or Axe if you are not from the UK) Fire Prism and thought "Why didn't he just use a paper counter with "Fire Prism" written on it like I do in my army?! Hey... wait a second... why is he winning 'best army' - MY PAPER ARMY SHOULD BE THE BEST BECAUSE I STOMPED ALL THE PEOPLE I PLAYED AGAINST WITH MY POORLY SPELLED PAPER ARMY!!!!!!"

The same hyperbole as in every discussion of this kind. The point is, that a kid which has no talent at painting whatsoever, but took weeks painting his entire marine army with his own paint scheme will get punished for doing so, just because he can't paint well and his rhinos look like McDonald's kids menu bags. On the other hand, the guy who bought a big can of army painter, white primer and dipped his entire tyranid army within one evening get's awarded for having decent looking minis.
Both examples are actual people that play at my store.

I'm totally on your side for downranking grey/black/paper armies. But a totally subjective score based on how a random person thinks models have to look like is even worse than randomly picking who wins the tournament.

Painting has always been a part of the hobby; granted, it has taken massive leaps forward in recent years with the adoption of various techniques and products from other areas of the modeling scene, but there were still painting aspects to even RT era tournaments, and to say that painting only really came in more modern times is, well, wrong.

And hey, even if when GW first started putting out products they shot anyone who painted their models, that is not how the company and hobby is today; painting is a huge aspect of the hobby, as pushed by the company that makes the products you are complaining that people paint and have judged and can win things for.

So, why not give the best player a price and another price to the best painter? By looking at two the most recent tournaments here, the best painters usually go empty-handed because the got massacred by grey flavor-of-the-month marines and thus couldn't place first anymore. Can't really call that supporting painters, can you?

I fully agree painted armies look far better, but painting prizes should always be separate.

But what is actually wrong with having a combined score? You have not actually answered that. After all, the hobby is a combination of all the aspects of the hobby; winning games, being a good guy to play against, and having a well painted (or at least painted) force.

The only thing I can think of is that having an extra "best overall" prize at tournaments lowers the pot for the "best pusher around of models and roller of dice"...

If pushing around models an rolling dice would be all it takes, all those great painters should placing first anyways, right? /sarcasm

Jidmah wrote:Best overall player in the hobby? Why don't people lose points if they didn't write fluff about their army?

I've seen tournaments where fluff is scored. I would love it if more of them did, although I can see the reason it is not scored in most tournaments (simply the time it takes to read through the fluff, and the relative difficulty of objectively rather than subjectively marking it). And scoring is not about negatively marking for things that are not there, but scoring for things that are.

Why don't people lose points if they are not fielding converted or scratch-built models?

This is often covered under the painting score, either on the painting score ladder, or under a general "painting and modeling" score.

For not having a theme song? For not knowing the names of all primarchs? For knowing the names of all primarchs if playing the imperial guard? For not wearing a cosplay costume fitting your army?

Reductio ad absurdum strawman.

A tournament is about playing games to win. Randomly adding an art contest into the score is just ridiculous, and leads to stupid stuff like dumping an entire blood angels army and replacing it with a better painted one from switzerland, just because you have no chance of placing first otherwise.

Say what? And you were suggesting I was using hyperbole

A tournament is about whatever you (well, the TO) want it to be about. I think all will have a best general prize, most will have a best painted, and many will have best sportsman. A great number will have a best overall, combining the scores from all judged categories. Again, I'm not exactly sure where you are failing to see that this is a reasonably fair way of doing things. Unless of course you feel that the person who won the most games should just get all the prizes, because they obviously are the best person there?

The same hyperbole as in every discussion of this kind. The point is, that a kid which has no talent at painting whatsoever, but took weeks painting his entire marine army with his own paint scheme will get punished for doing so, just because he can't paint well and his rhinos look like McDonald's kids menu bags. On the other hand, the guy who bought a big can of army painter, white primer and dipped his entire tyranid army within one evening get's awarded for having decent looking minis.
Both examples are actual people that play at my store.

I don't know how painting judging is done where you are from, but most score lists I have seen for paint scoring are objective, and an army which has 3 colours, basing done, etc, will notch up ~70% of the painting score. You are never punished for painting your stuff. Painting can only improve your OVERALL score. And as has been mentioned, most tournaments run painting to be about 25% of your overall score, meaning that the difference between a 70% painting score and 100% is only a relatively tiny amount in the overall score. It is only really a factor if the guy who won all his games didn't paint his army (or has a tabletop quality army), and the guy who came second only lost once but has a well painted force and so pips the best general to best overall.

But to take on your line of reasoning, why should the kid who only just picked up his first model last week get "punished" for taking part in tournaments just because he is (understandably) not that good at playing the game?

I'm totally on your side for downranking grey/black/paper armies. But a totally subjective score based on how a random person thinks models have to look like is even worse than randomly picking who wins the tournament.

Again, whilst there is a subjective element to scoring painting, I've never been to a tournament which judged painting which did not have an objective score sheet. Most will have 70-90% of the paint score based on "does it have highlights", "is the base done", "is there any freehand on the banners/armour/etc", with the remaining 30-10% based on a subjective "wow" factor, or "how well does the army gel in terms of painting coherency", etc.

So, why not give the best player a price and another price to the best painter? By looking at two the most recent tournaments here, the best painters usually go empty-handed because the got massacred by grey flavor-of-the-month marines and thus couldn't place first anymore. Can't really call that supporting painters, can you?

I'm not going to comment on the tournament scene where you are from, but as I have said repeatedly, most tournaments will have either 3 or 4 prizes. Best painted, best general, best sportsman, best overall. They can go to 4 separate people, or all go to the same player, or some combination between those two, depending obviously on how well people do in each of the 3 scored categories, thus supporting all aspects of the hobby, not just the ability to be lucky on the day, or buy the best army, or even buy the best paint jobs*, etc.


*incidentally, this is a separate issue - some tournaments will have restrictions on who can in best painted, depending if it was painted by the person entering the army or not.

If pushing around models an rolling dice would be all it takes, all those great painters should placing first anyways, right? /sarcasm

Well, tell me how to move my models with my mind, or perhaps bring them to life and fight by themselves and I will get right on playing the game that way

Oh, wait, you are not answering my question and are attempting to dodge the issue with [not veiled at all] sarcasm.

Xeriapt wrote:

SilverMK2 wrote:

Lord Rogukiel wrote:Unless it's a painting tournament, by which I mean a tournament, but the best painted wins, like no games and stuff. Does that exist?

The various Golden Daemon events?

You could just say any painting comp really lol.

I've heard of stuff like it though, you show up with your model(s) and are given a time limit. Best painted wins.

Horst wrote:You've seen SIX people with ebayed armies?

In this case, you should have your local tournament organizer make a rule, that any army not painted by you is subject to a 30% penalty off their painting score.

I've never seen someone with an ebayed army, and I know there are none around my gaming location.

That was one of the most ridiculous ideas i have ever heard, first of all my gk army is painted by 5 different people, some from us some from uk and half of it by me. So what am i supposed to confess i didn't paint my army ? And if you try to interogate me about painting about me i have no business at that tournament, this is supposed to be a hoby not a chore!

Just an example to wrap things up, i have 4 old rhinos(the smaller ones than the recent ones) and they have a really basic paint job with black undercoat, white hatches and some mithril silver thrown in there around the metal parts like exhaust vents. I can bear people saying me that they think the model should have paint differently and blah blah blah, but if the tournament official comes and finds my models unworthy and lowers my score , then again i am out of there.

Painting should by all means be judged, but separately from the actual gaming side of it. I'm an awful painter, I'm the first to admit that! I try my best, but I'm never going to be able to win awards for painting. So why if I go along with my mediocre painting should my gaming be dragged down because of it? I try, but I'm no artist.

Armies should be painted for competitions, I think, but it shouldn't affect the gaming scores as not everyone is a painter, and it is unfair to mark us down because of it. Painting should be a separate contest within the tournament.

Castiel wrote:Painting should by all means be judged, but separately from the actual gaming side of it. I'm an awful painter, I'm the first to admit that! I try my best, but I'm never going to be able to win awards for painting. So why if I go along with my mediocre painting should my gaming be dragged down because of it? I try, but I'm no artist.

Armies should be painted for competitions, I think, but it shouldn't affect the gaming scores as not everyone is a painter, and it is unfair to mark us down because of it. Painting should be a separate contest within the tournament.

You are never marked down for not being able to paint well, you only ever get scored for what is there. You could be the worst painter in the world and still score more points for painting than someone who uses a grey/primed army.

SilverMK2 wrote:

Castiel wrote:Painting should by all means be judged, but separately from the actual gaming side of it. I'm an awful painter, I'm the first to admit that! I try my best, but I'm never going to be able to win awards for painting. So why if I go along with my mediocre painting should my gaming be dragged down because of it? I try, but I'm no artist.

Armies should be painted for competitions, I think, but it shouldn't affect the gaming scores as not everyone is a painter, and it is unfair to mark us down because of it. Painting should be a separate contest within the tournament.

You are never marked down for not being able to paint well, you only ever get scored for what is there. You could be the worst painter in the world and still score more points for painting than someone who uses a grey/primed army.

So you get the all points for painting them, some for some being painted and none for no paint? I see, it sounded like if you were a bad painter you would get marked down, which I didn't think was fair. That makes sense though.

Castiel wrote:So you get the all points for painting them, some for some being painted and none for no paint? I see, it sounded like if you were a bad painter you would get marked down, which I didn't think was fair. That makes sense though.

Most painting score sheets that I have seen are either "1 point for X" (ie 1 point for basic basing, 1 point for advanced basing, 1 point for minimum 3 colours, 1 point for washes/shading, 1 point for highlighting, 1 point for freehand, etc), or a tier system, where you need to have fulfilled Y criteria to get Z score (ie for 8/10, you will need to have completed all the things required for levels 1-7, and also have demonstrated B technique/requirement/etc).

That sounds a bit less fair then, I can't do freehand to save myself!

Castiel wrote:That sounds a bit less fair then, I can't do freehand to save myself!

Often so long as there is freehand, you still get the point, no matter how good it is

It is usually only the last 2-3 painting points which are more subjective, based on skill and how good the army looks rather than a simple "yes/no" score for various painting criteria.

Veteran Sergeant wrote:
I've always hated the paint snobs.

Ive always hated play to win powergamers.

YMMV eh?

For me, and probably the vast number of people who attend tournaments*, a tournament is about meeting new people (or renewing acquaintences from tournaments past), playing games against great people and looking at awesome or at least good to look at armies, oh and, if youre lucky, maybe winning some games and threatening top spots.

The number 2 thing that vastly improves the experience for me, after the no1 which is your opponent being a good person to chat to, is the army looking good.

Now I never used to advocate the need for painting scores because, it seemed, everyone understood what "3 colours and based" actually meant - the spirit of the rule. Sadly, and in part due to RankingsHQ, people are starting to take the mickey with this idea and turning up with, and I kid not, 9 x undercoated black venoms and *sat there* painting 2 stripes of colour on the model and calling it "good".

Or you have the generic black, white and red "painted" marines who are SW-BA-GK-flavour of the month must-chase-rankings armies

Now, i',m a fairly terrible painter, but I at least give it a go, as I'm aware that MY enjoyment is NOT the be all and end all, and that playing against unpainted minis is not only decidedly less fun than playing against painted armies, it's also a lot more taxing - its a sea of grey / black with no distinguishing features.

So i'm starting to get around to the idea of painting scores, with a separate best general and best overall prize, because this hobby IS more than just playing the game, and recognising this only helps to enhance the hobby overall, and generally make life more pleasant.

So, if you dont want to paint your army to the basic standard to get the 75%+ of the painting score most rubrics I've seen allow, then you are less likely to win overall. You can still win a prize - best general - and any complaints that you didnt win best overall are irrelevant. You knew what you were signing up for, after all.

*entirely anecdotal based on attending and running quite a few tournaments across both WHFB and WH40K every year, all usually 40 players plus

nosferatu1001 wrote:For me, and probably the vast number of people who attend tournaments*, a tournament is about meeting new people (or renewing acquaintences from tournaments past), playing games against great people and looking at awesome or at least good to look at armies, oh and, if youre lucky, maybe winning some games and threatening top spots.

The number 2 thing that vastly improves the experience for me, after the no1 which is your opponent being a good person to chat to, is the army looking good.

Now I never used to advocate the need for painting scores because, it seemed, everyone understood what "3 colours and based" actually meant - the spirit of the rule. Sadly, and in part due to RankingsHQ, people are starting to take the mickey with this idea and turning up with, and I kid not, 9 x undercoated black venoms and *sat there* painting 2 stripes of colour on the model and calling it "good".

Or you have the generic black, white and red "painted" marines who are SW-BA-GK-flavour of the month must-chase-rankings armies

Now, i',m a fairly terrible painter, but I at least give it a go, as I'm aware that MY enjoyment is NOT the be all and end all, and that playing against unpainted minis is not only decidedly less fun than playing against painted armies, it's also a lot more taxing - its a sea of grey / black with no distinguishing features.

So i'm starting to get around to the idea of painting scores, with a separate best general and best overall prize, because this hobby IS more than just playing the game, and recognising this only helps to enhance the hobby overall, and generally make life more pleasant.

So, if you dont want to paint your army to the basic standard to get the 75%+ of the painting score most rubrics I've seen allow, then you are less likely to win overall. You can still win a prize - best general - and any complaints that you didnt win best overall are irrelevant. You knew what you were signing up for, after all.

*entirely anecdotal based on attending and running quite a few tournaments across both WHFB and WH40K every year, all usually 40 players plus

exactly. I suck some horrible ass at painting (Better now that I bought an airbrush, but still). But I spend time on my army, making it look good, because its a vital part of the hobby. I usually got around 70%-80% of the painting points available, because I'd go down the rubrics offered by local tournaments and check off that I had done the things on there (basing, highlighting, some freehand, ect.) to the best of my ability.

Its not about having skill. ANYONE can paint an army to an average level with some effort. If your saying you can't, you either haven't tried and are selling yourself short, or are too lazy to take a few minutes to read a few ho-to's on the web.

Veteran Sergeant wrote:

SilverMK2 wrote:After all, why is it fair that someone who hasn't painted their army can beat you in a tournament simply because they won more games than your well painted force?

Because it's a game, and not everyone is a great painter?

I've always hated the paint snobs. Some people are painters. Some people are modelers. Some people are players. If you're a combo fo all three, the better for you. But in the end, the models are supplied unpainted.

If a tournament wants to give out awards for good painting, that's cool. I thin some of the better painters I've seen I downright amazing. But that's only a tiny part of the hobby.

QFT.

Nail firmly on the head there buddy

This is all a pointless discussion, you realize.

Anyone can organize a tournament, with whatever rules they want.

The rules are up to the TO.

If you don't like how he's doing it, offer to organize and run a few tournaments of your own. My group has TO's that agree with me, so I don't have to go out of my way to make change by running tournaments the way I want... I'm lucky.

If I was on the outside looking in, I'd have to organize my own events (and maybe play in less of them, as a consequence) but I could still get in tournaments the way I wanted to. People like Mike Brandt who run the Nova Open are representative of this type of gamer... guys who know what kind of tournament they want, so they run it themselves to set the example. In the end, thats what you have to do.

There will always be both kinds of tournaments, and because this is the internet, nobody will ever come around to the other way of thinking. The end result of all this discussion will be zero changed opinions. The only end result we can all agree on is that TO's will run whatever they want, and as gamers its our freedom to pick and choose the tournaments we want to attend or not attend. If a type of tournament is more popular in an area, it WILL be run more, if only because stores want to attract as many gamers as possible to sell more stuff (They probably sell a lot during tournaments... I know I buy stuff after them, usually after losing and deciding I need a new unit).

I think it should be separate. If there are going to be prizes for painting and modelling they should be judged completely separately from scores related to the game itself.

DeathReaper wrote:
Well that and a good paint job is subjective. one judge could judge the army as being 5/10 on paint while another could give it 8/10.

Good point. The best player isn't necessarily going to be the best painter.

I dont see why painting scores should matter at all.

I do believe that you should need a painted army to play but I do not see why paint scores should come into it.

I am a fan of a separate best painted prize and a separate best sportsmen prize (with good prize support)

Also it should be remembered that I can go out and buy a pro painted force but i cant go out and buy skill at the game.

Paint snobs should just stay home and paint and let everyone else have some fun if you dont like competitive play then going to a tournament is a really bad idea. Its like a pro sporting team having a beauty pagent at the end of a game to decide if anyone gets some extra points.

I would never enter a tournament without painting score. Painting score encourages painting, and playing versus decently painted models are way for fun than playing against unpainted ones. Besides, Warhammer is a hobby, not exclusively a game. I think a tournament should cover all aspects.

Jubear wrote:I dont see why painting scores should matter at all.

I do believe that you should need a painted army to play but I do not see why paint scores should come into it.

I am a fan of a separate best painted prize and a separate best sportsmen prize (with good prize support)

Also it should be remembered that I can go out and buy a pro painted force but i cant go out and buy skill at the game.

Paint snobs should just stay home and paint and let everyone else have some fun if you dont like competitive play then going to a tournament is a really bad idea. Its like a pro sporting team having a beauty pagent at the end of a game to decide if anyone gets some extra points.

It has nothing to do with being a paint snob.

It has more to do with you not even trying to paint your army, and hiding behind an excuse like "I'm not good at painting".

Having a separate best painted award is all well and good, but the problem with that IMO is the same people will often win it, with little mix up. That in and of itself is fine, but it means people like me who try hard, but don't have any natural talent for painting are basically given nothing over someone who glued together a bunch of plastic, which I think is BS.

And yes, you can go out and buy skill at this game. Its called buying a new army. 99% of this game is based on what type of army list you bring to the field. if you just go out and research which one is doing the best right now, and plunk down a few hundred $$$ on it, you can win more games than someone who is playing an older army, guaranteed. This game doesn't take much "skill", and I think you need to acknowledge that. Its based on list building, and intial positioning. Most of the time the game comes down to knowing your opponents army as well as your own, what he can and cannot do, and countering that with something you can do. And in order to be able to counter him, you need to build your list to have elements in it that can do it. It all comes back to list building in the end. So if you just buy a power list straight up, you'll win a lot.

And would you WAAC nutjobs PLEASE stop referencing sports uniforms? Its a reductio ad absurdum attack that makes zero sense. Thank you.

Well my only problem with the painting thing is is that i've got a nicely painted army but I have 2 vehicles in it that I didn't paint myself and the tournaments I go to. The TO refuses to give me a painting scores because I didn't paint the whole army myself even though the vehicles that aren't painted by me are of a lower standard then my painting. It's fethed

ninja13 wrote:Well my only problem with the painting thing is is that i've got a nicely painted army but I have 2 vehicles in it that I didn't paint myself and the tournaments I go to. The TO refuses to give me a painting scores because I didn't paint the whole army myself even though the vehicles that aren't painted by me are of a lower standard then my painting. It's fethed

yea, that sounds more like your TO being a jerk than a problem with the system itself.