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.

Yeah but they got paint and bondo.
And Blood Angels stuff is kept like new..baroque.

No pics no care

Upload tank pictures

Put up the pictures of your tanks please for reference.

Similarly, if your not going to weather you vehicles, your tank best have every part sparkling, highlighted, and match your army scheme. Weathering is cool but only if the rest of your army is, but so is a really nicely highlighted tank, with appropriate details picked out, with a army painted to the same detail.

just because the judge gave lack of weathering as a example it dosnt mean that it was the only reason for a lower score ,
it could be that that was ether just a example he used to avoid the "there not very good" response to being asked or that the judge thougt that it mite be one of the easyer techniuqes that the OP could take up to advance his painting ability .

darefsky wrote:Paint scores dont have to be subjective.

You can assign points based on levels of painting
for example.

0 pt - unpainted
1 pt - three colors
2 pt - three colors and based
4 pt - completely themed army

For best overall have the armies on display for a 30ish min before the tournament starts and have all the players cast a vote.

This rewards the effort while at the same time eliminates the judges "tastes" from the tournament score.

I would not play in a tournament with such low bonus to painting. Then again this is relevant to points for games. Im used to gaining 25 for a win, 10 for loss. Secondary is worth 5 points and tertiary worth 2. To me if I'm not gaining ten points for a fully painted army with theme it's not enough of an incentive. Then again if I don't like it I just won't go. I don't complain.

darefsky wrote:Paint scores dont have to be subjective.

You can assign points based on levels of painting
for example.

0 pt - unpainted
1 pt - three colors
2 pt - three colors and based
4 pt - completely themed army

For best overall have the armies on display for a 30ish min before the tournament starts and have all the players cast a vote.

This rewards the effort while at the same time eliminates the judges "tastes" from the tournament score.

The line between 3-4 could be considered a bit fuzzy. Still, this sounds like a good system. Add a separate paint competition for larger events so the guy that paints really well but can't roll a die above a 2 to save his life still gets an award.

was this for a painting comp or a torny as theres a hell of a diference in the scoreing ?

Complaining about weathering being used to score because you are not very good at weathering is like complaining about highlighting being used for scoring because you are not very good at highlighting.

Everything weathers, even a clean tank. You are in the middle of combat, and even if you claim that the combat just started then even blood angels would not drive their rhinos to the engagement zone and then wipe it clean really quick before the killing begins. (Maybe that is how they suppress their rage...)

Clean races still have engine exhaust, maybe even some scratches at the front from flying over & through vegetation. They still take battle damage as well.

The paint table given in this thread is pretty lame IMO. There should be points for weathering, decals, conversions, etc...

Painting scores are for people that go all out and paint. They should be as extravagant as people want it to be.

That said, other than a basic "3 color minimum with basing to participate" the painting score should not have any influence on a "Best General" award. You should be able to "win" the tournament without great painting skills.

I like a setup that has "Best General", "Best Painted", and "Best Renaissance Man (combined score)" awards.

I have to agree with the OP on this.

I got into 40k because I did lots of aircraft and tank scale modeling. I did NOT weather my models (beyond some very basic stuff that almost doesn't qualify as weathering).



Why? Two reasons:

1) Personal preference. I like the clean look. It looks better to me and I enjoy it. Can't argue that one with anybody (reason enough alone for it not to penalize you in a tourny, imo)

2) SCALE modeling. 40k is obviously scale as well. I also "work on" combat aircraft and yes they do weather. However, when viewed from a distance, just as everything is viewed at when it's a scale model, that weathering is virtually invisible. It's too subtle to be caught at the relative distance you are viewing a scale model at. Most weather looks unrealistic for this very reason. For weathering to be effective it has to be EXTREMELY subtle.

d-usa wrote:

The paint table given in this thread is pretty lame IMO. There should be points for weathering, decals, conversions, etc...

Painting scores are for people that go all out and paint. They should be as extravagant as people want it to be.

That said, other than a basic "3 color minimum with basing to participate" the painting score should not have any influence on a "Best General" award. You should be able to "win" the tournament without great painting skills.

I like a setup that has "Best General", "Best Painted", and "Best Renaissance Man (combined score)" awards.

I totally agree with this. I know what is required to get 'best appearance'. Means the guy who does 7 levels of highlights, sculpts custom parts, weathers awesomely, free-hand paints will crush the rest of us. He should because he did the effort.

If you are happy with the way you paint, then take your score and either use it as constructive criticism to up your technique or ignore it and get back to playing the game.

There is nothing wrong with having painting scores, just like there is nothing wrong with having wins and losses for games. Someone has to go 0-8 in a GT... someone has to have the lowest painting score as well.

I don't weather my tanks because I choose not to. I shouldn't be penalized for not wanting something done on MY army. I bought it, it looks how I want. I choose to wash and drybrush my models, so I do. I choose not to weather, so I don't. First TO who tells me I'm losing points because I didn't spend my time grovelling to his preference on how tanks are supposed to look gets the finger, a demand for my money back (and leaving the tournament: one isn't fair without the other) and the refusal to support any location he works at. My hobby, my army, my paint. You don't like it, then feth off. And I don't think there is anything wrong with my statement at all. Disagreeing with it is saying that you aren't having fun because I won't play by your rules.

timetowaste85 wrote:I don't weather my tanks because I choose not to. I shouldn't be penalized for not wanting something done on MY army. I bought it, it looks how I want. I choose to wash and drybrush my models, so I do. I choose not to weather, so I don't. First TO who tells me I'm losing points because I didn't spend my time grovelling to his preference on how tanks are supposed to look gets the finger, a demand for my money back (and leaving the tournament: one isn't fair without the other) and the refusal to support any location he works at. My hobby, my army, my paint. You don't like it, then feth off. And I don't think there is anything wrong with my statement at all. Disagreeing with it is saying that you aren't having fun because I won't play by your rules.

And I would think any TO would be glad to see you go. Any demand for money back would get you laughed at. Your hobby, your paint. But you are at their tournament and it is their rules. They owe you zero money for not wanting to get maximum points.

Besides, you wouldn't be loosing points. You would not be getting points for not weathering, can't loose points you didn't earn.

d-usa wrote:

timetowaste85 wrote:I don't weather my tanks because I choose not to. I shouldn't be penalized for not wanting something done on MY army. I bought it, it looks how I want. I choose to wash and drybrush my models, so I do. I choose not to weather, so I don't. First TO who tells me I'm losing points because I didn't spend my time grovelling to his preference on how tanks are supposed to look gets the finger, a demand for my money back (and leaving the tournament: one isn't fair without the other) and the refusal to support any location he works at. My hobby, my army, my paint. You don't like it, then feth off. And I don't think there is anything wrong with my statement at all. Disagreeing with it is saying that you aren't having fun because I won't play by your rules.

And I would think any TO would be glad to see you go. Any demand for money back would get you laughed at. Your hobby, your paint. But you are at their tournament and it is their rules. They owe you zero money for not wanting to get maximum points.

Besides, you wouldn't be loosing points. You would not be getting points for not weathering, can't loose points you didn't earn.

Agree...

I don't take a top-tier codex meta list because I choose not to. I shouldn't lose games for not wanting to play grey knights. I bought it, it consists of the models I want. I choose to move my models around the board wherever I want and I choose not to spam paladins. First TO tells me I am losing games because I didn't meet the objectives and didn't win the mission groveling to his preference on how winners are determined so because I lost, I demand my money back (and leaving the tournament: one isn't fair without the other) My Army, My Choice in models, My List. If you don't like it, Feth off. I should be considered best general regardless of how my army plays. And I don't think there is anything wrong with my statement at all.

Every Tourney is playing by someone else's rules. We all know what is required to WIN and we all choose to do things which limit our competitiveness be it our army, our tactics or our paint style. I *CHOOSE* to sacrifice appearance for ease of painting, uniformity with old models, saving time and how I like my army. I know I can use technices to paint better and sometimes I do on special models, but I am not worried about doing it for every model. I know I will probably get between 50-75% on most appearance rubrics because there is room for me to improve and to grow. I may not win best painted, but that is how it is.

I have hardly ever seen a tourney where the appearance scores even mattered except maybe for tiebreaking. Appearance is usually separate, and best OVERAL deserves to go to the person who plays best and paints best. Which means you better play harder to make up for your choice not to weather... But to even place, you probably need to be going 3-0 at tourneys, so until you are going undefeated at these tourneys, who even sweat appearance scores? Way to count your chickens before they hatch... most people won't even win all their games so the appearance scores may change you from ranking 8th to 10th overall. Big deal?

Stoupe wrote:I would not play in a tournament with such low bonus to painting.

I'm sorry, I thought the point of a tournament was to test your skill at the game and not how pretty you can paint. Have I been wrong this whole time?

You want to compete at painting, enter the Golden Demon, that's what it's all about. Painting scores should be their own thing and shouldn't influence the gaming aspect at all.

Millicant wrote:2) SCALE modeling. 40k is obviously scale as well. I also "work on" combat aircraft and yes they do weather. However, when viewed from a distance, just as everything is viewed at when it's a scale model, that weathering is virtually invisible. It's too subtle to be caught at the relative distance you are viewing a scale model at. Most weather looks unrealistic for this very reason. For weathering to be effective it has to be EXTREMELY subtle.

Indeed. Take this for example:



Why aren't the nose, wings, and area around the cockpit just literally covered in scratches? Why is there no dirt? Where are the burn marks from exhaust? Where are the rust and oil streaks? And for that matter where are the giant, Tron-style line highlights on every single edge?

Same thing here, except you can see the dirt on it.



That's about as close to real life as you can get right there, without standing next to the fething thing and inspecting it with a magnifying glass, and it doesn't look like it flew/drove through a storm of mud and metal shards.

d-usa wrote:

timetowaste85 wrote:I don't weather my tanks because I choose not to. I shouldn't be penalized for not wanting something done on MY army. I bought it, it looks how I want. I choose to wash and drybrush my models, so I do. I choose not to weather, so I don't. First TO who tells me I'm losing points because I didn't spend my time grovelling to his preference on how tanks are supposed to look gets the finger, a demand for my money back (and leaving the tournament: one isn't fair without the other) and the refusal to support any location he works at. My hobby, my army, my paint. You don't like it, then feth off. And I don't think there is anything wrong with my statement at all. Disagreeing with it is saying that you aren't having fun because I won't play by your rules.

And I would think any TO would be glad to see you go. Any demand for money back would get you laughed at. Your hobby, your paint. But you are at their tournament and it is their rules. They owe you zero money for not wanting to get maximum points.

Besides, you wouldn't be loosing points. You would not be getting points for not weathering, can't loose points you didn't earn.

So painting nazism has now moved on to include weathering all models.

Personally, I think weathering is for a single display model. A whole army of battle damaged marines and tanks for example is far to jarring and I do not like the look of it.

Sidstyler wrote:

Stoupe wrote:I would not play in a tournament with such low bonus to painting.

I'm sorry, I thought the point of a tournament was to test your skill at the game and not how pretty you can paint. Have I been wrong this whole time?

You want to compete at painting, enter the Golden Demon, that's what it's all about. Painting scores should be their own thing and shouldn't influence the gaming aspect at all.

I don't care to compete at painting. I care about testing my skills against painted armies. 4 points is nothing. I don't want subjective paint scores. Thats not what I was saying. Something as simple as +3 points for half army painted (Defined as 3 colors and wash covering entire model. Primer only counts as a color if washed.), +1 point for based (Defined as one basing time and one color), +1 points for uniform theme (defined as: All your army with the same type of basing and color scheme, as long as it meets the criteria of the other 2 categories). Double this for an entire army painted.

In a game where the winner gets 25 points/game and loser gets 10. With 15+ secondary points up for grab and 6+ tertiary points up for grab. Its HIGHLY unlikely that someone unpainted while undefeated will be beaten by someone 2-1 completely painted. It could happen theoretically, but the undefeated player would ignore all secondary/tertiary objectives (If he does, is he really best general?).

However giving such a large contribution to painted armies encourages more armies to be painted or at least half painted and because the criteria is defined, I don't see it really being a problem.

Besides Its my opinion. Just because I wouldn't doesn't mean gak for you. Its my money. My time. I can join in or not.

fullheadofhair wrote:So painting nazism has now moved on to include weathering all models.

Yes, the personal preferences of a single tournament judge as to how models look best is clearly on a scale of dreadfullness the equal of the shenanigans launched by Hitler.


For what it's worth, there is nothing in this situation that says 'You must paint your models this way'... you simply won't receive as high a paint score from this particular judge if you enter his tournaments.

Personally, I'm not a fan of bases littered with all sorts of debris. My Iron Wolves have fairly plain gravel and grass bases, and that's just how I like them. It's kept my paint score lower than it could have been in at least two tournaments so far, as 'interesting' bases are one of their scoring criteria. No complaints from me... They published their scoring in the tournament package, so I went into the events knowing full well that my bases wouldn't get me full score.

I don't take that as being forced to do something on my models that I don't want to do... I just accept that in that particular event I won't get as high a score as I could if I did them differently.

"Uniform theme" sounds like a joke anymore, considering that all armies are gonna have to take allies now in order to be competitive. Another case of xenos getting fethed over...Imperial armies can ally all day long and won't get a penalty for it for obvious reasons, but xenos, who have to ally out of necessity if they want to stand a chance at all, will get dinged left and right because of all the unfluffy combinations we're gonna be forced to do...like Tau/Orks, or Dark Eldar/Space Wolves, etc.

Anyway, it doesn't really matter what you were trying to say because painting shouldn't affect your score at all, in any way. If it does then it's not a real tournament, because you're not testing anyone's skill at the game if they can get wins for being better at painting. That's a painting competition that involves dice rolling, feth that.

However giving such a large contribution to painted armies encourages more armies to be painted or at least half painted and because the criteria is defined, I don't see it really being a problem.

You know what else encourages armies to be painted? Making it a requirement to play in the tournament. Doesn't affect your score at all and ensures every opponent will field a painted army, win/win.

Sidstyler wrote:"Uniform theme" sounds like a joke anymore, considering that all armies are gonna have to take allies now in order to be competitive. Another case of xenos getting fethed over...Imperial armies can ally all day long and won't get a penalty for it for obvious reasons, but xenos, who have to ally out of necessity if they want to stand a chance at all, will get dinged left and right because of all the unfluffy combinations we're gonna be forced to do...like Tau/Orks, or Dark Eldar/Space Wolves, etc.

Because anything in my signature suggests that 40k matters to me. I hate 40k. 40k is a crappy crappy rule system with a worse community. There are other game systems and games people play, you know. What everyone says doesnt HAVE to always apply to 40k. Either way, you'd never see me at a 40k tourney with or without the paint rules.

Not to mention Ally armies is a brand new rule. I'd allow both forces to looked different, but as long as both xenos forces looked uniform within the force itself (AKA All tau are uniform and all orks are uniform, but they don't need to be uniform together). It doesn't matter.

Anyway, it doesn't really matter what you were trying to say because painting shouldn't affect your score at all, in any way. If it does then it's not a real tournament, because you're not testing anyone's skill at the game if they can get wins for being better at painting. That's a painting competition that involves dice rolling, feth that.

Uh. Because what I said indicated that score is derived from skill. How hard is it to do 3 paints an a wash? How hard it is to put sand on the base and put scorched brown on it? Is there bonus points for doing more than that? nope.

However giving such a large contribution to painted armies encourages more armies to be painted or at least half painted and because the criteria is defined, I don't see it really being a problem.

You know what else encourages armies to be painted? Making it a requirement to play in the tournament. Doesn't affect your score at all and ensures every opponent will field a painted army, win/win.

I'd be in favor of this for WM/HDs tournaments and GTs. However WFB and FoW still have a rather low number of players here, so encouragement is still appreciated.

I dislike the idea that weathering is the pinacle of painting. I mean an unweathered non metallic metal army would IMHO look cooler anyways. My guard are admittedly painted to look like they just left the parade ground, and i often get comments to that effect. I do add a bit of rust to the tracks, but well maintained machines in the absence of mud can look very clean on a battlefield.

I have nothing against painting points in a tournament, in fact i think its a fantastic way to show off all the virtues of the hobby, but i think it has gone a bit too far in this case. Assuming it wasnt just a polite way of giving you less painting points.

i like how this has turned in to a rant abput the pro's and con's of weathering ,when we still dont even know what models the OP had painted if it was a torny or a painting comp or what other reasons the judge gave him ?

having a eldar flyer in a torny non weatherd is totaly differnt to having a kreig tank in a painting comp ...

If you're a good painter, you'll make any style on any vehicle look good. I've seen great 'clean' IG or Ork tanks. I've seen great 'weathered' Eldar and Tau vehicles.

Claiming something needs to be weathered to look good is stupid, but might be a replacement for a much harsher "You're painting sucks, and I don't know how to tell you" comment.

Also, saying that some types of models can't look good when weathered is stupid.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Sidstyler wrote:Anyway, it doesn't really matter what you were trying to say because painting shouldn't affect your score at all, in any way. If it does then it's not a real tournament, because you're not testing anyone's skill at the game if they can get wins for being better at painting. That's a painting competition that involves dice rolling, feth that.

All tournaments should be a true measure of the hobbyist, not the gamer. That includes painting, converting, creating a thematic force, etc.

Sidstyler wrote:

Stoupe wrote:I would not play in a tournament with such low bonus to painting.

I'm sorry, I thought the point of a tournament was to test your skill at the game and not how pretty you can paint. Have I been wrong this whole time?

Yes. You are wrong and have been this whole time. Your personal definition of tournaments is invalid except in any tourneys you run personally. You are not capable of applying a definition to all tourneys as a whole. They come in all sorts of shapes and sizes and rules.

You may only define it as game only, no painting when you make the effort to run your own tourney. Until then, please refrain from trying to control and define "the only right way to run a tourney."

Stoupe wrote:Because anything in my signature suggests that 40k matters to me. I hate 40k. 40k is a crappy crappy rule system with a worse community. There are other game systems and games people play, you know.

Because I give a feth about signatures. I'd just go insane if I didn't know what armies everyone collected, exactly how many points they had (or rather how deep their pockets are), what their W/L/D record is, or look at all their stupid adoptables!

Yeah, that's right, I don't click on any of them! I hate them, I want them all to wither and DIE. feth your dragons!*

*This isn't aimed at anyone in particular, just fake-raging at adoptables for comedic effect so don't get offended or I swear I'll cut you.

Anyway, good for you. I don't know why on earth you'd move to WHF if you were looking for a better game system, though.

Sorry if I offended you by assuming you played a game you didn't actually play. Like I said I just ignore most people's signatures, very rarely do I ever see anything in someone's sig that actually draws my attention to it and make me feel like I should give a gak. I assumed since this thread was about vehicle weathering and most of the players responding were 40k players that perhaps you were too. I'll make sure to flog myself later for making such an embarrassing mistake and forgetting that other tabletop games do exist...because the Retribution of Scyrah and random Infinity/Reaper/Battletech models sitting on my desk weren't proof enough.

Hmm, maybe I ought to advertise all that in my signature just to prove how diverse I really am, so no one will ever again assume that I know of no other games but 40k.

Stoupe wrote:However WFB and FoW still have a rather low number of players here

Can't at all imagine why. Guess the reality of an insane start-up cost, the need to acquire and paint a ridiculous amount of models in order to play (most of which are nothing but glorified wound counters in-game anyway), all for an obviously "beer and pretzels" game that GW tells you you're not supposed to take at all seriously, despite the huge investment they're demanding from you, simply because they can't be bothered to try and make the game both balanced and fun, is a little too much for the casual gamer that GW is supposedly aiming for.

I dunno, maybe GW will get their gak together for 9th edition and make the game fun again. At the moment though I couldn't be any less interested in generic Tolkien-esque fantasy with x5 the skullz (for more DARK and AWESOME), and poorly-written rules that encourage a boring playstyle that just so happens to push gigantic armies of expensive infantry models (ironically the big [ugly] monster kits they keep putting out aren't actually worth using...I don't know who at GW thinks it's a good idea to invest money into new kits that won't sell but they sure love doing it) and relies more on random dice rolls and overpowered magic than skill or mastery of the ruleset to win.

But you know what, that's not really what this thread is about, and I could give two feths about debating which is the better game, especially since everyone already has their mind made up anyway for various reasons. I personally don't really give a gak what you play, but in the future you might want to refrain from taking huge, unnecessary dumps on someone else's game just because it doesn't tickle your fancy.

CURNOW wrote:
i like how this has turned in to a rant abput the pro's and con's of weathering ,when we still dont even know what models the OP had painted if it was a torny or a painting comp or what other reasons the judge gave him ?

I'm curious to see pictures myself, but I don't think it really matters much. We can have a meaningful discussion about this without having to know all the intimate details about the OP's army.

Kaldor wrote:Also, saying that some types of models can't look good when weathered is stupid.

I've literally never seen an Eldar model with any serious weathering done to it that looked good. Eldar (and Dark Eldar in my opinion) look a lot better "clean", and if you stick to the fluff you can't even use some weathering techniques anyway, like rust and oil streaks, because it wouldn't make much sense. I've never seen anyone do it and I can't imagine it would look very nice if you did...hell, not even the studio paint jobs on Forge World Eldar models seem to have any weathering done, and they're not exactly ones to shy away from it as you can see from their Tau/Imperial Guard/Space Marines paint jobs. I just looked and I didn't even see paint chipping. So clearly I can't be the only one who thinks it's a better aesthetic choice and I disagree with the implication that being of that mind is "stupid".

Kaldor wrote:

Sidstyler wrote:Anyway, it doesn't really matter what you were trying to say because painting shouldn't affect your score at all, in any way. If it does then it's not a real tournament, because you're not testing anyone's skill at the game if they can get wins for being better at painting. That's a painting competition that involves dice rolling, feth that.

All tournaments should be a true measure of the hobbyist, not the gamer. That includes painting, converting, creating a thematic force, etc.

And you can do that by awarding the guy who outplays everyone else, and the guy who is more skilled at painting. But neither one should have any bearing on the other, that's the point. You shouldn't be able to win Best General because you can paint real pretty, and you shouldn't be able to win Best Painted because you crushed your enemies and drove them before you.

nkelsch wrote:You may only define it as game only, no painting when you make the effort to run your own tourney. Until then, please refrain from trying to control and define "the only right way to run a tourney."

Which is different from you and Kaldor's attempt to control and define "the right way", how?

I'd also argue that the dictionary definition certainly isn't "invalid", and it backs up my "personal" definition as well: that a tournament is an organized event where people compete at a game or sport. Painting doesn't really fall into either category, though you could run an event where people compete to see who the better painter is if that what you wanted to do, but it's not what I would call ordinary or what most people would expect a tournament to be.

The image that puts in my head is pretty hilarious, actually. Instead of art galleries, painting tournaments, with "sponsored" artists wearing jumpsuits covered in corporate logos and a strict set of "rules" for painting, lol...and a rowdy, cheering crowd chugging beer and yelling loudly while watching two artists slap paint on canvas.

Sidstyler wrote:

Stoupe wrote:Because anything in my signature suggests that 40k matters to me. I hate 40k. 40k is a crappy crappy rule system with a worse community. There are other game systems and games people play, you know.

Because I give a feth about signatures. I'd just go insane if I didn't know what armies everyone collected, exactly how many points they had (or rather how deep their pockets are), what their W/L/D record is, or look at all their stupid adoptables!

Yeah, that's right, I don't click on any of them! I hate them, I want them all to wither and DIE. feth your dragons!*

*This isn't aimed at anyone in particular, just fake-raging at adoptables for comedic effect so don't get offended or I swear I'll cut you.

Anyway, good for you. I don't know why on earth you'd move to WHF if you were looking for a better game system, though.

Sorry if I offended you by assuming you played a game you didn't actually play.

Well it says he used to play then sold the army, a little more pointless than the usual emoticon followed by an arbitrary number of spacemans points then a perhaps skewed W/L/D. But, don't let me stop this gold.

Sidstyler wrote:

Stoupe wrote:Because anything in my signature suggests that 40k matters to me. I hate 40k. 40k is a crappy crappy rule system with a worse community. There are other game systems and games people play, you know.

Because I give a feth about signatures. I'd just go insane if I didn't know what armies everyone collected, exactly how many points they had (or rather how deep their pockets are), what their W/L/D record is, or look at all their stupid adoptables!

Yeah, that's right, I don't click on any of them! I hate them, I want them all to wither and DIE. feth your dragons!*

*This isn't aimed at anyone in particular, just fake-raging at adoptables for comedic effect so don't get offended or I swear I'll cut you.

Anyway, good for you. I don't know why on earth you'd move to WHF if you were looking for a better game system, though.

Sorry if I offended you by assuming you played a game you didn't actually play. Like I said I just ignore most people's signatures, very rarely do I ever see anything in someone's sig that actually draws my attention to it and make me feel like I should give a gak. I assumed since this thread was about vehicle weathering and most of the players responding were 40k players that perhaps you were too. I'll make sure to flog myself later for making such an embarrassing mistake and forgetting that other tabletop games do exist...because the Retribution of Scyrah and random Infinity/Reaper/Battletech models sitting on my desk weren't proof enough.

Hmm, maybe I ought to advertise all that in my signature just to prove how diverse I really am, so no one will ever again assume that I know of no other games but 40k.

Lol you think I was offended. And I used to play 40k. I came into this thread because it's about paint scores which I endorse when you don't have painted only tournies and discussion of how that scoring should be done. Also stating that I wouldn't join a tourney that didn't do this. Your the one getting your panties in a bunch over someone else's opinion on how things can work successfully. If the tourney doesn't work the way I want it I'm perfectly happy not participating. Sounds like everything needs to run the way you want it to.

Not to mention I started with fantasy. Tried 40k to play with "friends" and was horrified by how gakky the system was and how the community treated eachother and left.

Stoupe wrote:However WFB and FoW still have a rather low number of players here

Can't at all imagine why. Guess the reality of an insane start-up cost, the need to acquire and paint a ridiculous amount of models in order to play (most of which are nothing but glorified wound counters in-game anyway), all for an obviously "beer and pretzels" game that GW tells you you're not supposed to take at all seriously, despite the huge investment they're demanding from you, simply because they can't be bothered to try and make the game both balanced and fun, is a little too much for the casual gamer that GW is supposedly aiming for.

I dunno, maybe GW will get their gak together for 9th edition and make the game fun again. At the moment though I couldn't be any less interested in generic Tolkien-esque fantasy with x5 the skullz (for more DARK and AWESOME), and poorly-written rules that encourage a boring playstyle that just so happens to push gigantic armies of expensive infantry models (ironically the big [ugly] monster kits they keep putting out aren't actually worth using...I don't know who at GW thinks it's a good idea to invest money into new kits that won't sell but they sure love doing it) and relies more on random dice rolls and overpowered magic than skill or mastery of the ruleset to win.

But you know what, that's not really what this thread is about, and I could give two feths about debating which is the better game, especially since everyone already has their mind made up anyway for various reasons. I personally don't really give a gak what you play, but in the future you might want to refrain from taking huge, unnecessary dumps on someone else's game just because it doesn't tickle your fancy.

I actually enjoy 8th edition. I find it more balanced and cleaner than 40k. Then again, we comp things that weren't designed for this edition. All special characters are banned (except throgg as he allows for a troll army that is quite fun to play against). Some of my most epic fun games are from 8th edition fantasy. Not to mention the start up cost is equal to 40k, especially if you know what your doing and look to unit fillers and non gw models. It's actually cheaper if you can play without gw models compared to 40k.

I love how ironic your criticisms of fantasy are. Especially considering your defending 40k. But this thread isn't about that. It's about paint scores and whether or not they are legitimate.

nkelsch wrote:You may only define it as game only, no painting when you make the effort to run your own tourney. Until then, please refrain from trying to control and define "the only right way to run a tourney."

Which is different from you and Kaldor's attempt to control and define "the right way", how?

I'd also argue that the dictionary definition certainly isn't "invalid", and it backs up my "personal" definition as well: that a tournament is an organized event where people compete at a game or sport. Painting doesn't really fall into either category, though you could run an event where people compete to see who the better painter is if that what you wanted to do, but it's not what I would call ordinary or what most people would expect a tournament to be.

The image that puts in my head is pretty hilarious, actually. Instead of art galleries, painting tournaments, with "sponsored" artists wearing jumpsuits covered in corporate logos and a strict set of "rules" for painting, lol...and a rowdy, cheering crowd chugging beer and yelling loudly while watching two artists slap paint on canvas.

Attempt to control by voting with our wallets to not participate. The same thing you can do. We are just voicing our opinion. Your the one taking offense and going off the wall crying about how wrong we are for having an opinion that doesn't match your idealistic point of view.

Now while I believer that the paint score in this thread might have been excessive, it does not invalidate a system that does work such as mine stated above.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

n0t_u wrote:
Well it says he used to play then sold the army, a little more pointless than the usual emoticon followed by an arbitrary number of spacemans points then a perhaps skewed W/L/D. But, don't let me stop this gold.

It's more to show I have some experience with the system/army. But if it's pointless oh well I'm sorry I waisted 5 seconds of your life.

ITT: Rustled Jimmies

What are jimmies, anyway?

Jimmies are like sprinkles, but chocolate.

Sidstyler wrote:

Brother SRM wrote:To be fair, weathering tanks looks awesome. I didn't want to before because I was scared of messing up the paintjob, but since then I've found it's tons of fun to do it and it makes your tank look awesome.

Every tank? For every army?

That's where I disagree. And then, like I said, it's still really easy to overdo it and ruin the entire thing.

Agreed.

Even then, I have a friend who deliberately has some vehicles weathered in his IG army and some not so.

He likes the idea of having a few vehicles freshly deployed or off the assembly line to reinforce the front line. Adds character to them.