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.

Wow, having actually read the standard bearer article you mentioned, he says NOTHING about people taking Pro-Painted armies to tournaments and stuff; he just talks about how people should be more into painting because it's so rewarding/fun/whatever.

The most he did was talk about how he doesn't buy that people don't care about painting and would play with unpainted stuff or cardboard cutouts or whatever, because 99% of the time those people would rather be playing with a nicely painted army instead.

About the only interesting thing I can think of that was in the article was the admission that the percentage of the GW customer base that does nothing but buy the Mini's and paint them greatly outnumber the people who buy the mini's and play the games.

Which I think explains why really good and balanced rules don't mean a whole lot to management, apparently we're just a fraction of their customer base, and a minority at that.

Obviously that is not true as many of the changes that occur to the rules stem from abuse at the tournament level... it all trickles down from there.

- G

sweet I have been sig'd.

Yes to remind everyone wot a dirty turd you r.

- G

Posted By Green Bloater on 06/21/2007 6:12 AM
Obviously that is not true as many of the changes that occur to the rules stem from abuse at the tournament level... it all trickles down from there.

- G

That doesn't mean that they don't modify the rules to bring abuses down.

It does mean that they don't particularly care very much about maintaining balance because you have wildly different power levels of codex's being released.

Godzilla + Eldar >>>>> Tau & Dark Angels

Where now even in the "Jervis Era" we have Blood Angels >>>> Dark Angels and it looks like Chaos > Blood Angels >>>>>>> Dark Angels, based on the somewhat reliable rumors we've heard so far.

And even outside of codex vs. codex power levels, inside codex's we have options that are just so much blatantly better than other ones in the book.  Blood Angels and Chaos look to suffer from this most especially. 

It's not like the games designers do nothing, but I think from actually reading these Standard Bearer Columns we get a good view into what they do and I don't think a lot of their time is spent actually going over new rules or making sure that the game itself is balanced.

Jervis did not write the Chaos codex, so we will see power armor with some balls again. Sorry for all you Chaos haters out there.

- G

Posted By Green Bloater on 06/21/2007 8:33 AM
Jervis did not write the Chaos codex, so we will see power armor with some balls again. Sorry for all you Chaos haters out there.

- G

So? We know he wrote the BA Dex in WD which has the exact problems I outlined above.

Much stronger than the DA Dex? Check.
Unit Choices which are far better than their peers? Check.
Blatantly overpowered/no-brainer choices? Check.

He is overseeing 40k, are you trying to tell me that the Chaos dex is being written by someone and it's NOT getting his stamp of approval before release from Games Dev to Publishing?

You're also completely dodging the core issue here, which is to point out that:

1.) Jervis says nothing ill about taking pro-painted models to a tournament.
2.) He claims that the majority of GW customers buy and paint models but do not play, as opposed to people who buy models for the game.

What my premise is the article mentioned discusses painting as a big part of the hobby, which I feel should be reflected at the GT level. Just because you write several paragraphs of rubbish with each post does not make it stink any less to be honest with ya.

- G

you can replace skkipper with keith nyberg so people can easily remember me.
I don't go as skkiper at tournies after all.

Posted By Green Bloater on 06/21/2007 5:21 AM
Of the 50+ people polled at the last GT over 70% said they do not want pro painted armies to have a shot at best overall. I will poll gain at the next one.

- G

And again, regardless of what percentage of people want that, re-instating a rule punishing pro-painted armies will not stop a pro-painted army from winning best overall it will only punish those players foolish enough to be honest. You just don't seem to comprehend that fact.

Worse still, I think it brings an accusatory tone to the GTs with players whispering to each other that they heard from some guy that joe shcmoe over there actually has a pro-painted army.

Why bring that negative attitude back? Why not just let everyone be honest, play games and have a good time?

 

Based on the numbers from my poll what you say is in the minority.

- G

My poll says that people don't care a lick about your poll.

Heh, that sounds kind of dirty.

 

In an ideal world I'd rather that having a pro-painted army disqualified an Overall win or placement, but it's not an ideal world. I have to agree with Yak, for the same reasons he's given.

Posted By Green Bloater on 06/21/2007 12:47 PM
Based on the numbers from my poll what you say is in the minority.

- G

But all I'm "saying" is that instituting a punitive pro-painted army rule does not prevent a pro-painted army from winning anything, so what is the point of such a rule?

Do you really want to punish honesty and reward dishonesty?

 

 

See this is why I say you sound like Jesse Jackson since you appeal to the lowest common denominator. Just because one jackass states publicly that he cheated at an RTT does not hold water here. What you say is the easiest approach but that does not mean it is the best.

- G

Posted By Green Bloater on 06/21/2007 2:09 PM
See this is why I say you sound like Jesse Jackson since you appeal to the lowest common denominator. Just because one jackass states publicly that he cheated at an RTT does not hold water here. What you say is the easiest approach but that does not mean it is the best.

- G

I'm appealing to common sense not the lowest common denominator. I personally don't care whether one guy has won a RTT a or a hundred guys have won GTs with pro-painted armies.

What bothers me is the simple fact that the rule does not work and is therefore useless.

I know a whole lot of players who like playing the game, like the background, like to win but absolutely hate painting. To those players the hobby they enjoy is creating an army list, playing the game and reading about the background.

Now, if one of those players wants to really compete in a GT with a chance to win (and why shouldn't everyone have that chance?) with a punitive pro-painted army rule in place what choices does he have:

1) Spend years learning to do something he doesn't enjoy (painting).

2) Crappily paint his own army or buy a pro-painted army and declare it to the tournament organizers (doing either essentially knocks him out of contention to win the tournament).

3) Buy a pro-painted army and conceal the fact, thereby allowing him the chance to win both overall, best painted and player's choice.

 

Which of those three options does it seem most likely such a player would choose?

 

I reiterate: The only thing a punitive rule accomplishes is to punish those players foolish enough to be honest. Frankly, that makes it an idiotic rule to enforce.

 

Posted By Green Bloater on 06/21/2007 2:09 PM
See this is why I say you sound like Jesse Jackson since you appeal to the lowest common denominator. Just because one jackass states publicly that he cheated at an RTT does not hold water here. What you say is the easiest approach but that does not mean it is the best.

- G

By all means, provide an alternate choice, G.  And provide the mechanism for ensuring honesty.  Or are you simply *assuming* honesty?

While at it, prove that EVERY person competing came up with their army list with NO help.  That's just as much of the hobby, and just as affordable.  And probably more pertinent to a tourney than the painting.

the grand tournament is about the game. your models need to be painted and how they are painted doesn't matter unless it is for best painted. I truly enjoyed the uk GT last year. it was all about battle points. it was great and the painting, though worth nothing, was better overall then what I have seen in the states.

calling me jackass is out of line
under your ruling if I had my wife or son help me paint my army, I would receive less points. Nothing makes a hobby grow like family time together. are you against families?

the army I won with was khorne berserker's. I should post a picture of the berserker's in that army to the one I paint. Mine are better but they were not finished so I played the ones i got off e-bay in a large lot with other stuff. I wasn't about to give up a win due to what I feel was a stupid rule. I think the dice gods got mad because I haven't won one since.

If how an army is painted is a non-issue then painting scores are superflous.

- G

Posted By Green Bloater on 06/21/2007 6:06 PM
If how an army is painted is a non-issue then painting scores are superflous.

- G

Indeed. They most certainly are.

No, they aren't. Because they're a way of making sure it's worth people's time to bring a nice-looking army, which increases everyone's enjoyment.

I am sure there are those who would rather not having to bother with painting anything at all. Certainly this has been the case in the past.

- G

Sure. But most of us would rather see painted armies at tournaments.

I know a couple of people who are good painters but can?t seem to budget the time for it anymore, with full time jobs and young kids. Both of these guys have the cash to have stuff painted for them, and they?ve started doing that, because they?d still much prefer to play with (and their opponents would prefer to play against) painted stuff.

exactly getting your stuff painted is all about time and the lack of it to most guys. I really doubt you could buy an army to win best painted at a large event. The amount of time somebody puts into the best painted armies would cost thousands of dollars. if some one dumps $5K into a pro painted army, its better for the hobby then if the guy justed brought the spray can necrons. the points for paint is to reward pretty armies. i don't care how they got pretty but I think you should get points for prettier.

$5000?

I'll sell all 4000 points of my Adepticon Orks and their Ork Kraft Karrier for $4000 and call it a bargain then. And deliver to within 1000 miles of Chicago free.

$5000 better be for a 10000 point army [or 2000 points painted by Mike Butcher]

Everybody that knows me knows I don't paint my own stuff as I'm a partner in a painting studio. Nobody has ever cared or had the balls to strip me of any of my appearance awards.

I think your opinion Mr Bloater is flawed, but valid in your own circle. Run a tournament. Force people to PROVE to you they painted all the models. Try it. Enforce the "not easy" rule you wish us all to bow down to. If it works for ya', let us know how to replicate it please.

how is paying 5K on a pro painted army better for the hobby? Take pride in your own abilities/or lack of rather then pay someone to do it for you.

If you dont have the time to paint learn to paint faster. I have a few pro painted peices in my army that people always comment on how good it is. It gives me no joy to hear that. When i won best painted army at a tournie with my own stuff I was shocked but so happy. the feeling of achievment was huge. It only took me 5 tries before I finally won.

I did win once before but that was with a pro painted army that was not mine (i did not pay for it, just borrowed it) But that did not feel so good as It felt like I cheated somebody who spent time and effort on their army.

I have no problem with people buying pro painted armies (the painters have to eat after all).

I have a problem with the guys who say "I work hard for my money so i should be able to spend it on what I want" and " I dont like painting but like having nicely painted armies" Who then DONT but have the decency to be truthfull when entering them in the painting comp.

How would people feel if an 'Eavy Metal standard painter painted an army and then paid a tournament winner to play the games for him because he didn't have time or didn't enjoy actually playing? Would you be happy for him to win best general or overall?

That's a great idea. Awesome. You're a little late though.

In fact, teams for the Adepticon Team Tournaments do just that. All four of them sometimes can't general their way out of a paper sack...so they paint. They let the players play. All works out in the end. I can't play...so I enlisted a ringer to help us general our armies. Tell me that should have precluded us from any prizes, kudos or accolades please. Take that step.

Not one person or judge asked, "Did each of the four players who are earning an award put actual paint on each of the X# of models and build something on each one."

Is this topic now suitably whipped into submission for the upcoming third quarter of 2007 yet? Revisit in October please again. Just like clockwork.

He was a good ringer, too. But next time, you should enlist him before the armies have been set in stone.

(Given your own strengths as a player, Herr Como, it is intriguing to watch your team's performance. Some year, you're going to bring a nasty team list that is still beautiful, and I look forward to seeing it.)

When I go to a GT, I want to see nicely painted armies.

I don't have to travel 6-12 hours to play 40K.  I can do that ten minutes from my house, so playing the game is NOT what brings me there.  What drags me hundreds of miles across the desert is the chance to see some really nice armies and play against them, as well as the chance to show off the best army I can make.

When I'm walking down the isles enjoying the armies that have been brought (and there were some real nice ones at the LVGT this year), I don't ask the player if he painted it, I just enjoy them, and find inspiration for my own projects.

I don't care how that player got the paint on the models, I'm just happy to see them painted. 

GreenBloater, even though I can tell you feel passionately about your stance, if you had your way, there would be fewer nicely painted armies at the tournaments, so I consider your stance a threat to the very reason I go to GT's.

But, just before I start getting too upset, I remember that you do not run the U.S. GT circuit, and the people who do run them don't listen to you, and then I feel better, and take a sip of eggnog.

Ahh...I love eggnog.