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.

Just to be the devil's advocate:

If it wasn't required for you to paint your army, then he won. What was the award called, Best Painted Army? If it is, then he did bring (presumably) an army which is painted well. He paid for it, after all. If the award is something like "Best Painter" or "Best Artist" or "Best Painted Army Which I Painted All By My Self", then that's the time to question the judging. If I remember correctly, some tournaments call you as "Best Presentor" if you didn't paint your army yourself, but more or less it's the same award as Best Painted Army.

Of course I get paid by painting other people's armies, and if not for people like them I won't get anything to eat (not really, but those squad boxes ain't gonna buy themselves).

Look at it this way: in competitive trading card games, more often than not decks which contains cards that would cost a fortune would have an advantage over cheap decks. They had bought those cards to have an edge against their opponents. They paid for it, usually by a lot. Would you find fault in them? It is basically the same thing: they used money to gain an advantage.

This is not the first time these judges (Dan Benavides, Mat Estes, and company) have been called for shoddy paiint judging, poor rules knowledge, and a general sense of 'being stuck in 2003/Rogue Trader'. I refer you to this thread from last year that lists some of the exact same issues. Its not new, and it isnt going to change anytime soon. They're biased against people that have beat them in the past, they judge paint and comp according to their own unstated guidelines, and their comp systems and missions arent very well thought out.


The Grand Waaagh sounds like a great idea and I love a tournament, but after hearing the rave reviews about SoCal Slaughter, the indy GT in Sacramento, and some of the other tournaments my friends have gone to I dont think I would ever waste money on an event run by this crew.