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.

Hey everybody-

We had a situation come up in a tournament this weekend and I just wanted to get some opinons about it. Chicago has its montly AWC Tournament circut once a month. We can usually draw between 24-30 participants every month. Im sure everyone has those players in there area that are always at the top of the list. We have a few very quality players in Chicago that come to these tourneys regularly and the competition is very fierce. Anyway this weekend we had one of our top players borrow an army from one of the best painters in the area. The army looks great and the painter did a fantastic job!

So the results of this months Tournament was very close and the end result was that this top player ended tieing the second place person in battle points. Becuase of the borrowed armies superior paint job this person ended up winning the Tournament for this month by 10 or 12 points.

I just wanted to get peoples opinon on the matter. Personally the situation kinda rubs me the wrong way. Im not calling this person a cheater and Im not mad. I know he didnt go out with this intention but the result was what it was. Are there any suggestions from the dakka community that might prevent something like this from happening again?

Thanks-

Personally, I paint my own armies, and probably would have not liked loosing to this situation.
However; unless this is purely a painting competition, It shouldn't matter WHO painted it. You're judging the army and not the player. It just adds to the players "soft" score.

Thats why Paint scores should not be part of the Tourney.

Have Painting have its own awards and set.


Just require all painted, or if your fully painted you get + whatever points. To promote having paint on the models.

Then again.

Whats the difference of somone that payed alot to have their army painted ?

.

Personally, I think if you didn't paint it, you shouldn't get scored for it. This includes paying for your army to be painted. This is just personal opinion though. There are others of the mind "I don't have time to paint, so paying someone is my only option."

But I think that if you're receiving a painting score, it should be your work that is graded, not the work of others.

puma713 wrote:Personally, I think if you didn't paint it, you shouldn't get scored for it. This includes paying for your army to be painted. This is just personal opinion though. There are others of the mind "I don't have time to paint, so paying someone is my only option."

But I think that if you're receiving a painting score, it should be your work that is graded, not the work of others.

And I have nerve damage in my dominant arm and can't paint without tremors in my arm. Thanks for hosing me out of any chance to win anything with a combined score.

Frankly, at the very worst, a player should recieve basic scores for it, and allowed to move on without being hamstrung by the fact.

Don't lump the scores into one award.

Have an award for 'Best General', for who gets the most battle points, with no soft score affecting. Plenty of Generals in history were uncharismatic poobags, yet managed to get the job done.

Have an award for 'Best Player', for who got the highest sportsmanship score (tiebreaker being their standing in battle points).

Have an award for 'Best Painted Army' (tiebreaker being sportsmanship score, and then battle points).

You get 3 chances to win. If a person manages to take 2 or even all 3, good on them for being a paragon of the hobby.

Yeah always split painting scores imo.. Will make sure these situations never occur. You can easily break ties for battle points through various other battle points related factors

curran12 wrote:

puma713 wrote:Personally, I think if you didn't paint it, you shouldn't get scored for it. This includes paying for your army to be painted. This is just personal opinion though. There are others of the mind "I don't have time to paint, so paying someone is my only option."

But I think that if you're receiving a painting score, it should be your work that is graded, not the work of others.

And I have nerve damage in my dominant arm and can't paint without tremors in my arm. Thanks for hosing me out of any chance to win anything with a combined score.

So what is the answer to that? Change the way that people are scored for painting, or change the fact that painting is included in combined scores?

I think that as a hobby, at a competitive level it should not matter unless it is purely a painting competition. In an even that offers a soft score award, it is based on a number of factors and all should be weighted. The point there is not purely the painting. You can look to many competitive sports to see how this all works. Horse races buy better horses, teams and so on to make the team better. Dog shows do the same, so does NASCAR, football, baseball and so on. People should be able to pay for what they see as a competitive edge. I think there is an ethical line in the sand though that can be crossed easily. Who is to say that the top guy paid for painting, or did not? What about the pro-painter who has the ace player play his army in order to get a top score? Just because the award is going to the guy playing the army does not mean that the reverse is any different.

Enjoy the hobby, and play it how you want to, but at a competitive level, expect people to buy and advantage. Life is not fair, people sadly are not on an equal ground based on many factors, and as such it will always exist.

Just my 2 cents.

Yeah we have all of the categories of awards:

Best Overall
Best General
Best Sportsman
Best Painted

Normally I would agree that the overall winner should be the player with the highest overall scores. However when a top notch player plays with a supberbly painted army and wins becuase of it there is something that just isnt right about it. I like the idea of a generic score for borrowed armies. I guess its a slippery slope at that point though, then you have to start dealing with people who bought there armies painted or had other people paint there armies for them ect ect.

There was a similar situation at a recent tourney I was at. The guy who won 2nd place in the "Best Painted" section didn't paint his army. It ended up being ok, because the guy who did paint it was also in attendance and his friend just passed the prize over to him. But I think that generally if you're going to include painting/modeling the overall score you should, at the very least, allow people to indicate whether or not they painted their own army. If you don't paint your own stuff you get scored as if you brought a three-color minimum type of army. There's obviously the possibility that people will lie about their army, but at least you're giving the opportunity for people to be honest.

Tournies with painting scores in general bum me out. I can control how my army does on the tabletop and I can control whether or not I'm a dick to the folks I play against. I can't control whether or not my opponent basically cheats in 1/3 of the score by fielding a commissioned army. I'd much prefer a situation where prizes are given to the "Best General" and "Best Painted" (and maybe the top three in each category if the field/prize pool is large enough) separately while the whole concept of "Best Overall" should be abandoned.

Another option is to LIMIT the overall amount of the painting score that is added into the overall total.

At the Broadside Bash, we had a total of 37 points for the Appearance award...however only 24 points were added into the Overall score.

This served to limit the amount of impact a really good army had on the overall score, and also allow for other ways to achieve a high score in the appearance area (bases, conversions, banners, etc).

Meanwhile we could still provide the award for the truly best appearance army.

Enron wrote:Yeah we have all of the categories of awards:

Best Overall
Best General
Best Sportsman
Best Painted

Normally I would agree that the overall winner should be the player with the highest overall scores. However when a top notch player plays with a supberbly painted army and wins becuase of it there is something that just isnt right about it. I like the idea of a generic score for borrowed armies. I guess its a slippery slope at that point though, then you have to start dealing with people who bought there armies painted or had other people paint there armies for them ect ect.

I think the problem is the "Best Overall" award. If they drop the it this wouldn't be a issue. So either push for a change or learn to live with a lose in "Best Overall" to this and/or some crybaby dinging your sportman score for beating them..

curran12 wrote:

puma713 wrote:Personally, I think if you didn't paint it, you shouldn't get scored for it. This includes paying for your army to be painted. This is just personal opinion though. There are others of the mind "I don't have time to paint, so paying someone is my only option."

But I think that if you're receiving a painting score, it should be your work that is graded, not the work of others.

And I have nerve damage in my dominant arm and can't paint without tremors in my arm. Thanks for hosing me out of any chance to win anything with a combined score.

Frankly, at the very worst, a player should recieve basic scores for it, and allowed to move on without being hamstrung by the fact.

This.

I have a neurological disorder that affects fine and gross motor control. While I have been able to greatly improve the quality of my minis with an airbrush and micropens (adaptive technology for the win!), I can't do finesse brushwork to save my life. As a disabled gamer I think the way to go is to judge painting separately from the rest of the tourney, or take the Broadside Bash Route and limit the amount of points that can go to painting so that if you have a basically painted army with a display board, your paint job won't hurt your overall standing.

Painting is great, and great paint jobs should be rewarded. As much as some paint snobs may tell you otherwise, it is bigoted and exclusionary to disqualify people from being able to place overall for not being physically able to paint to a golden daemon standard. This was why until the recent shift towards more competitive, more generalship driven events I never went to events outside of my FLGS. While the hobby snobs who used to run events in the US until recently were perfectly happy to take my money, the emphasis on paint compared to gameplay made me feel unwelcome in the community.

TL;DR:
-Painting is great, and great paint jobs should be rewarded, but separately from the overall score/competition.
- As a disabled wargamer, I will not care if you call someone who is behaving as if they are mentally deficient a certain word for disabled that is now blocked by the word filter, but I will have much meaner names for you if you say that I am unable to compete in a gaming tournament due to how I was born.

Enron wrote:Hey everybody-

We had a situation come up in a tournament this weekend and I just wanted to get some opinons about it. Chicago has its montly AWC Tournament circut once a month. We can usually draw between 24-30 participants every month. Im sure everyone has those players in there area that are always at the top of the list. We have a few very quality players in Chicago that come to these tourneys regularly and the competition is very fierce. Anyway this weekend we had one of our top players borrow an army from one of the best painters in the area. The army looks great and the painter did a fantastic job!

So the results of this months Tournament was very close and the end result was that this top player ended tieing the second place person in battle points. Becuase of the borrowed armies superior paint job this person ended up winning the Tournament for this month by 10 or 12 points.

I just wanted to get peoples opinon on the matter. Personally the situation kinda rubs me the wrong way. Im not calling this person a cheater and Im not mad. I know he didnt go out with this intention but the result was what it was. Are there any suggestions from the dakka community that might prevent something like this from happening again?

Thanks-

If the "winner" had any sense of sportsmanship at all he would have conceeded the win to the guy he was tied with since he knows he only won due to paint score for an army he knowingly didn't paint.

Did the TO know it was a borrowed army?

Other players?

Did you speak up?

Lame...

It seems simple to me the "ARMY" is being judged not the person so i don't see an issue with it IMO .

infinite_array wrote:Don't lump the scores into one award.

Have an award for 'Best General', for who gets the most battle points, with no soft score affecting. Plenty of Generals in history were uncharismatic poobags, yet managed to get the job done.

Have an award for 'Best Player', for who got the highest sportsmanship score (tiebreaker being their standing in battle points).

Have an award for 'Best Painted Army' (tiebreaker being sportsmanship score, and then battle points).

You get 3 chances to win. If a person manages to take 2 or even all 3, good on them for being a paragon of the hobby.

This

sharkticon wrote:

curran12 wrote:

puma713 wrote:Personally, I think if you didn't paint it, you shouldn't get scored for it. This includes paying for your army to be painted. This is just personal opinion though. There are others of the mind "I don't have time to paint, so paying someone is my only option."

But I think that if you're receiving a painting score, it should be your work that is graded, not the work of others.

And I have nerve damage in my dominant arm and can't paint without tremors in my arm. Thanks for hosing me out of any chance to win anything with a combined score.

Frankly, at the very worst, a player should recieve basic scores for it, and allowed to move on without being hamstrung by the fact.

This.

I have a neurological disorder that affects fine and gross motor control. While I have been able to greatly improve the quality of my minis with an airbrush and micropens (adaptive technology for the win!), I can't do finesse brushwork to save my life. As a disabled gamer I think the way to go is to judge painting separately from the rest of the tourney, or take the Broadside Bash Route and limit the amount of points that can go to painting so that if you have a basically painted army with a display board, your paint job won't hurt your overall standing.

Painting is great, and great paint jobs should be rewarded. As much as some paint snobs may tell you otherwise, it is bigoted and exclusionary to disqualify people from being able to place overall for not being physically able to paint to a golden daemon standard. This was why until the recent shift towards more competitive, more generalship driven events I never went to events outside of my FLGS. While the hobby snobs who used to run events in the US until recently were perfectly happy to take my money, the emphasis on paint compared to gameplay made me feel unwelcome in the community.

TL;DR:
-Painting is great, and great paint jobs should be rewarded, but separately from the overall score/competition.
- As a disabled wargamer, I will not care if you call someone who is behaving as if they are mentally deficient a certain word for disabled that is now blocked by the word filter, but I will have much meaner names for you if you say that I am unable to compete in a gaming tournament due to how I was born.

I disagree. To me painting and playing together represents the ultimat expresion of the hobby, and calling people snobs and throwing acusations of bigotry around dose not help. Due to my dissability, sevear dyslexia, i have difficulty playing in toniments at all. The constant refrencing to rules, doing the maths mentaly and remembering what everything dose means thet i just can't be competative in the time limited environment of tourniment play. Noones going to tell me "you haven't moved that unit" when i forget, or put up with me checking what a USR dose for the third time. My painting however has won me a few local competitions (ill never win golden deamon, but i'm good enough). There are tourniments that have play only, those that have play and paint and thre is painting competitions. Enter what you can, don't what you can't (i don't even feel able to play against people i don't know) and don't make it about disability and don't try and tell people they can't have there fun. Some people want a full spectrum award.

Enslaviour wrote: What about the pro-painter who has the ace player play his army in order to get a top score? Just because the award is going to the guy playing the army does not mean that the reverse is any different.

Sorry...what? When has this ever happened? How exactly would this happen? "Hi, I'm Steve, I've registered for this tournament and here is my awesomely painted army. I'll be sitting over there while Frank "Crazy Dice" Jones actually plays my army. I will, of course, collect all the awards that I will be winning due to my clever hiring of Frank, just a heads up."

plastictrees wrote:

Enslaviour wrote: What about the pro-painter who has the ace player play his army in order to get a top score? Just because the award is going to the guy playing the army does not mean that the reverse is any different.

Sorry...what? When has this ever happened? How exactly would this happen? "Hi, I'm Steve, I've registered for this tournament and here is my awesomely painted army. I'll be sitting over there while Frank "Crazy Dice" Jones actually plays my army. I will, of course, collect all the awards that I will be winning due to my clever hiring of Frank, just a heads up."

How would you even know it happened? and what is to say it has not happened. If it works in one direction, I would not be surprised to see the opposite.

Enslaviour wrote:

plastictrees wrote:

Enslaviour wrote: What about the pro-painter who has the ace player play his army in order to get a top score? Just because the award is going to the guy playing the army does not mean that the reverse is any different.

Sorry...what? When has this ever happened? How exactly would this happen? "Hi, I'm Steve, I've registered for this tournament and here is my awesomely painted army. I'll be sitting over there while Frank "Crazy Dice" Jones actually plays my army. I will, of course, collect all the awards that I will be winning due to my clever hiring of Frank, just a heads up."

How would you even know it happened? and what is to say it has not happened. If it works in one direction, I would not be surprised to see the opposite.

Unless the "ace player" lied about his name and literally pretended to be the "pro-painter" during the tournament then I'm not seeing how the "pro-painter" benefits at all from this scenario.
The painter doesn't have to be actively complicit in any sort of deception for an army he painted to be used by a player to get a better overall score. The player would have to be involved to a ridiculous extent in order to somehow get the painter a better gaming score.
Professional painters generate interest and credibility (to an extent) by winning painting contests not because an army they painted won Best General at a tournament.
I don't think you've really thought through the scenario that you're describing.

Enron wrote:Yeah we have all of the categories of awards:

Best Overall
Best General
Best Sportsman
Best Painted

Normally I would agree that the overall winner should be the player with the highest overall scores. However when a top notch player plays with a supberbly painted army and wins becuase of it there is something that just isnt right about it. I like the idea of a generic score for borrowed armies. I guess its a slippery slope at that point though, then you have to start dealing with people who bought there armies painted or had other people paint there armies for them ect ect.

I fail to see whats wrong here - the guy who won Best Overall scored in the top for Best General, Best Sportsmen, and Best Painted. What is the issue? He didn't paint the army? Was the army painted to a high degree of skill? Thats why there is an award for Best General so the guy who has the top battle points wins an award. Thats why there is a sportsmenship award so the guy who is the best sport wins an award. Lastly thats why there is a Best Painted award, so the guy who has the best painted army wins an award. Overall is just the guy who scores high enough in all aspects of the game wins an award. What you are confusing is that Best General and Best Overall are the same thing. If the game was all about battle points, then all tournaments would end up being just like the Ard Boyz. Since thats not why I play the game, I would probably not participate.