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.

So, you go to a tournament, win more than you lose, and should go top 5-but are pipped at the post by someone who lost more than you but has a better painting score.

How fair is this? Should tournaments even bother with painting scores? If so, what criteria should be used and should they be standardised?

The local tournaments I go to are ranked by who has most wins but after each round you rate your opponents sportsman ship and painting out of 10 and the winner is whoever has the highest score from the three rounds.

Painting score should never matter in a tournament.

If you have the best win/loss you should win the tourney.

If there is a painting competition as well as the "Best General" then that is 100% fine.

Someones lack of painting skill should not factor into wins and losses however.

Just so long as the grey plastic army crushes all else before it, eh?

Best painted should be a separate award from "best general"/"I win da most gamez!", just as "best sportsman" should be separate from best painted. "Best overall" should be all scores combined.

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?

DeathReaper wrote:Painting score should never matter in a tournament.

If you have the best win/loss you should win the tourney.

If there is a painting competition as well as the "Best General" then that is 100% fine.

Someones lack of painting skill should not factor into wins and losses however.

Why not? I submit it takes more skill to paint an army well than to push little plastic men around the table and roll well.

Painting shouldn't be the MAJOR component, but 25% of your overall points or so should always be allocated to painting. Half of your painting score should be achieved by just having a basic paint job + basing (a bit more in depth than 3 colors, but not by much). You should be able to obtain a solid 60-70% of your painting score just by expending effort to paint your army, even if you have no skill at painting at all.

The last 30% of your painting score (about 8% overall) should be dedicated to painting skill. The rest is just painting effort. If your too lazy to make the effort to put forth a basic painted army, you shouldn't be playing 40k at all.

Those skill points... would act as a tie breaker if both players had the same win/loss ratio in a tournament. I mean really, if someone has 2 wins and a loss, and someone else has 3 wins, but the person with less wins has a pro painted army and the person with 3 wins has an average painted one, then your still looking at 90% points vs 75% points, person who won more wins.

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.

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.

Thats the question then.. what kind of tournament do you want to run? A Hobby tournament, which encourages all aspects of the game, or a WAAC dick-measuring contest, based on who can plunk down the most money to buy the latest and greatest internet army.

Veteran Sergeant wrote:Because it's a game, and not everyone is a great painter?

Please note the ironic comment

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.

I'm failing to see the problem with having 3 categories and a best overall - best painted, best sportsman, most wins/KP's/VP's/etc, and best overall (combination of all 3 scores). I don't particularly enjoy painting (in fact, I really hate painting ), but I like to see people who have put in the effort being rewarded, and has been mentioned above, most conventional paint scores will net you 70% off the points with a reasonably basic paint job and some basing.

But that's only a tiny part of the hobby.

... to you.

If a tournament wants to give out prizes for people having better dice rolls, that is fine. After all, that is only a tiny part of the hobby. Most of the time you have your models they are either going to be sitting in a box or on a display shelf (that is, if you bother to paint your models ).

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.

Then go to a tournament that doesn't have a paint score as part of the tournament. There are plenty, with Ardboyz being the most obvious.

And as a counter, some people enjoy going to tournaments that include all aspects of the 'hobby' - playing games, painting, conversions, etc. For some, immersion in the game, seeing nicely painted models on the field makes it more enjoyable.

Yeah, the models are supplied unpainted. They're also sold unassembled, so if I just glue the parts in a pile to the base, thats cool?

There are enough tournaments of varying stripes with different scoring methods to satisfy just about everyone. And if not, then you can certainly feel free to run one yourself, you know, the right way

You know, both types of tournaments exist, and there is almost always an award for being the best at the gaming portion. You can win the award at the part you actually care about, e.g. wins/losses. Why do you care that you can't win the award that combines all three when you don't care about all three? Are you just mad there is a title 'grand champion' and you can't get it?

You need to realize the point of tournaments is as an advertisement for the store. It is there to promote the hobby and bring more people into it. The 'winner' is typically the type of gamer the store wants to promote, e.g. one who can play the game well, is fun play with, and has a good looking army i.e. win/loss, sportsmanship, and painting.

These criticisms always seem to include a suggestion of lowering the prestige of painting, but that does the store no good. Many players only get join the tournament due to the painting aspect. The feel it is just as important a part of the hobby as the game portion. Why would the store owner want to turn them away?

Painting is a huge part of the hobby, lots of people get involved because of it. So it should be no surprise that most stores want to promote it.

I really like painting scores, and think they should be included in every tourney, despite being a very mediocre painter.

I like it best when awards are divided into best painted/best general/best sportsman and best overall. It just seems logical: painting and sportsmanship require just as much (if not more) skill than generalship, and they are all essential to the hobby, so hence they should be rewarded equally

I think painting scores should be a factor in tournaments. Your army should represent every aspect of the Hobby every time you participate in a tournament for the hobby; modeling, painting, and playing. A person who actually tries to model, paint, and play should have a better overall score than those who are only focused on one aspect simply because they are embracing the hobby as a whole and are showing it through their army.

It doesn't matter if you're a 'Eavy Metal level painter or not. As long as you try and paint all your models (and Bases!), your overall painting score would be around 70-80% depending on who judges it.

Nothing is more insulting then watching an entirely grey plastic/metal army get plopped down in front of me and the player expecting to GET a painting score, much less anything else. If you put effort into all aspects of the hobby and go into a tournament, your effort should be reflected overall, NOT because you win with your grey eye-sore.

Wait wait wait. You actually get your score lowered by your paint job? That dosen't seem right at all. It would be like taking points away from a foot ball team because there uniforms don't match there shoes.

I think it's better to keep the two separate. Your painting shouldn't affect your game score, and your gameing shouldn't affect your paint score.

Cruentus wrote:

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.

...
Yeah, the models are supplied unpainted. They're also sold unassembled, so if I just glue the parts in a pile to the base, thats cool?

Ahhh I loled

If I go to a tournament without any recognition for painting in a hobby where the pieces need to be painted I'll be really disappointed. Partly because I want to see how my skills stand up to others, but also because if that's not a consideration at that store, good painters will go elsewhere to hang out and I won't be able to meet a lot of very talented people and see the amazing work they do. Painting is not a tiny part of the hobby. Neither is the gaming, modeling or discussion. All of these things keep the community fresh and interesting. Without these things and their promotion at tournaments people will lose interest and the community will dry up. I think it's commendable that GW has kept the game alive and well for so long. Look at other games that have sunset without anyone noticing. I don't think grey plastic alone can do it.

nomotog wrote:Wait wait wait. You actually get your score lowered by your paint job? That dosen't seem right at all. It would be like taking points away from a foot ball team because there uniforms don't match there shoes.

I think it's better to keep the two separate. Your painting shouldn't affect your game score, and your gameing shouldn't affect your paint score.

Your painting score DOESN'T effect you game score, it effects your COMBINED score.

And no, it isn't like your football analogy at all. Football players don't have to spend most of their time preparing their uniforms. Aesthetics are not part of the the 'football' hobby. Painting is very much part of the 40k hobby.

riplikash wrote:

nomotog wrote:Wait wait wait. You actually get your score lowered by your paint job? That dosen't seem right at all. It would be like taking points away from a foot ball team because there uniforms don't match there shoes.

I think it's better to keep the two separate. Your painting shouldn't affect your game score, and your gameing shouldn't affect your paint score.

Your painting score DOESN'T effect you game score, it effects your COMBINED score.

And no, it isn't like your football analogy at all. Football players don't have to spend most of their time preparing their uniforms. Aesthetics are not part of the the 'football' hobby. Painting is very much part of the 40k hobby.

Well then I don't think there should be a combined score. I like how my store dose it. There is the tournament and then there is a prize for best painted.

I've taken part in tournaments where you are given bonus points for having a painted army before any games are played.

I've also taken part in a few where the various aspects of the painting is judged. (Are there more than three colors? Covertions? Based?)

If there are no painting requierments for an event, I tend not to show.
More often then not it's simply an omen that the event was started because someone bought a new army and wants to "try it against a few diffent things".
Then comes the bandwagon with all the other grey/incomplete models.

Friendly games are for the folk who don't want to paint. They are into the "game".

Tournaments are for the folk who paint, play, collect and disscuss. They are into the "hobby".

nomotog wrote:
Well then I don't think there should be a combined score. I like how my store dose it. There is the tournament and then there is a prize for best painted.

Why? Why do you care? If you don't care about painting, and you can still win the generalship category, why do you care if there is a combined category? How does this effect you an any way?

Because, you know, there ARE people it effects. Those that care about painting AND generalship. You want to hurt there experience for no gain to your own.

Wargaming as a hobby goes beyond painting or gaming, and those who can excel at BOTH of those aspects deserve recognition just as much as people who excell at a single aspect deserve recognition.

SilverMK2 wrote:rabble

You asked why it was fair.

I can't help if you don't like the answer.

In the old days, they encouraged people to play with deodorant sticks converted to hovertanks, lol. The obsession with painting came later. I fully agree painted armies look far better, but painting prizes should always be separate.


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

I think they should get a small deduction if their army isn't completely painted, but how well it's painted shouldn't matter....

Horst wrote:Why not? I submit it takes more skill to paint an army well than to push little plastic men around the table and roll well.

Yea it takes a lot of skill to buy a pro painted army off of E-Bay.

I have no problem with those that like to paint, as long as the game aspect, and the painting aspect, and the sportsmanship aspect are kept separate.

having an overall category is not good, because anyone can give you bad marks for sportsmanship just so they are higher on the sportsmanship score if you gave them good marks.

When I first started playing 40K I started playing Orks, they were my brothers army that he bough but never painted and had on a shelf because he started playing Necrons because the monolith was his favorite model. So after painting 600 models of orks I got tired of painting and now I just do a basic paintjob on my marines, as this aspect of the game is no longer fun. I do not have time to paint, and shade, and highlight, and airbrush all of my Marines, so I just paint them with the basic colors and leave it at that. They look okay, but they are not "Pro Painted"

bombboy1252 wrote:I think they should get a small deduction if their army isn't completely painted, but how well it's painted shouldn't matter....

This 1000%

I have always preferred tournis where the best overall was the biggest prize which included battle points, painting, sportsmanship and comp as part of the total. It gives the biggest reward to the best general who also has invested the most in the hobby and best embodies the type of player you would most like to play against. And since the hobby is about playing with toy soldiers and toy soldiers look way cooler painted, I tend to support anything that reduces the number of grey plastic legion i have to face.

DeathReaper wrote:

Horst wrote:Why not? I submit it takes more skill to paint an army well than to push little plastic men around the table and roll well.

Yea it takes a lot of skill to buy a pro painted army off of E-Bay.

I have no problem with those that like to paint, as long as the game aspect, and the painting aspect, and the sportsmanship aspect are kept separate.

having an overall category is not good, because anyone can give you bad marks for sportsmanship just so they are higher on the sportsmanship score if you gave them good marks.

When I first started playing 40K I started playing Orks, they were my brothers army that he bough but never painted and had on a shelf because he started playing Necrons because the monolith was his favorite model. So after painting 600 models of orks I got tired of painting and now I just do a basic paintjob on my marines, as this aspect of the game is no longer fun. I do not have time to paint, and shade, and highlight, and airbrush all of my Marines, so I just paint them with the basic colors and leave it at that. They look okay, but they are not "Pro Painted"

bombboy1252 wrote:I think they should get a small deduction if their army isn't completely painted, but how well it's painted shouldn't matter....

This 1000%

You still aren't being punished somehow for a combined category existing. You can still win at the parts you care about. An overall category hurts you in no way. Why is it so important to you to punish those who care about all 3?

sennacherib wrote:I have always preferred tournis where the best overall was the biggest prize which included battle points, painting, sportsmanship and comp as part of the total. It gives the biggest reward to the best general who also has invested the most in the hobby and best embodies the type of player you would most like to play against. And since the hobby is about playing with toy soldiers and toy soldiers look way cooler painted, I tend to support anything that reduces the number of grey plastic legion i have to face.

This all the way. People who put time into all 3 categories are exemplifying the hobby and are to be emulated. They deserve to be rewarded and recognized just as much, if not more than those who excel at painting or generalship alone.

Again, the existence of this category hurts you in no way. You can still win at the portion you care about personally. Pro artists can win at painting competitions. And those who invest time into the hobby as a hole can be recognized too. They earned it.

riplikash wrote:You still aren't being punished somehow for a combined category existing. You can still win at the parts you care about. An overall category hurts you in no way. Why is it so important to you to punish those who care about all 3?

Not winning the big prize of the day because someone bought their army off E-Bay and gave everyone below average sportsmanship scores took the overall even though I won all 3 games?

That is "being punished somehow for a combined category existing" since top prize went to the guy that went 1 win and 2 draws and bought his painting score.

Some of us have a multitude of things going on (Like two jobs, and school, and have very little time for the painting side of the game.)

I think that all tournements, including ard boyz should have a 3 color + basing just to play. Ive spent alot of time and money in this hobby, and if itsva turny, then i dont want to see a grey horde.

Most tournies I have been to have an overall award (painting/sports/general combined) and then seperate awards for painting, sports and general.

I spend quite a bit of time painting an army so it does annoy me to see grey armies, or even just black sprayed armies, although I understand not everyone likes to paint.

You guys keep saying things like "You can just buy an army off ebay".... How many local tournament players do you guys know who has EVER bought a pro-painted army off ebay.

And if there is any question, just ask the guy playing the army a few questions on his technique... if he can't answer, then yea, he bought the army.

But does it even matter? Most commission painted armies won't look THAT much better than an army anyone puts a real effort into painting. Sure, they can look better. But it will be the difference of 10%-15% in the painting score, unless you either slapped a bunch of colors on and called it a day, or he payed FAR out the ass for a very well painted army, which is an extremely rare case in my experience.

When ever a fun HOBBY becomes a competitive tournament style game, this always crops up.

WAAC players hate having to compete against Painters , and sportsmanship is a forced grit your teeth affair due to everyone being afraid they will get dinged ( and usually do by the WAAC crowd )

The biggest reason that GW installed painting and sportsmanship as a deciding factor in the Tourny setup is very simple...

To attract and keep players, a table full of grey plastic toys does not attract any ooohs or ahhs from passerbyers, therefore does not incite any new players or converts to the hobby ( and therfore no money to GW )

every tourney I have entered in always is in a public venue with alot of foot traffic, and always leads to a boost in sales to the local vendors hence the reason they do it.

Sportsmanship is vital to keep people wanting to play, if all you play against are a bunch of douche-baggery sullen sore loser/winners why even come back for another game.

Lets face it this hobby is about interaction and personal expression, not just crowing about who tabled who, there are plenty of video and board games that have no creative input or requirement if winning is all you care about.

just my 2 creds.

Most armies Iv seen on ebay are painted to tabletop quality, which is generally some basic colours and probably a wash.

Not something you would expect to get amazing paint scores I would imagine.

Horst wrote:You guys keep saying things like "You can just buy an army off ebay".... How many local tournament players do you guys know who has EVER bought a pro-painted army off ebay.

Six. One even replaced the army he painted himself with the same models painted by some person he never met from switzerland, so he could win more battleforces at the store.

And if there is any question, just ask the guy playing the army a few questions on his technique... if he can't answer, then yea, he bought the army.

Yeah, there is no rule that forces you to paint your own army. It's not the golden demon, it's a random tourney in a random store.

But does it even matter? Most commission painted armies won't look THAT much better than an army anyone puts a real effort into painting. Sure, they can look better. But it will be the difference of 10%-15% in the painting score, unless you either slapped a bunch of colors on and called it a day, or he payed FAR out the ass for a very well painted army, which is an extremely rare case in my experience.

More like 20-25% of your painting score. In addition, painting is purely subjective, I have been marked down on painting because I didn't paint Ghazghkull Thrakka as himself, but as a Bloodaxe Warlord.

If the painting score is 25% of your total score, that's like turning one loss of the day into a victory. Can't buy that off ebay for gaming.

None of this belongs in the same ranking as games played. If it's much easier to win a game than to paint army, I wonder why all those awesome painters aren't auto-winning every game. Well, in a way, they are auto-winning at least one game.

Also note that especially smaller tournaments award prices for overall ranking (gaming+painting+sportsmanship) only.