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.

I wouldn't be mad at the guy who wins best painted all the time if it's legit. It is kinda lame, but he's just playing by the rules of the tournament.

Maybe if you think this guy is unfairly getting the best painted award, you can get the TO to change the painting judging by letting all the participants vote....or you could just cry about it.

I regularly win Best painted but really try and bring a new army at least every other year.

Sounds like so much Sour Grapes from the OP though...

Would you force a good general to change his list that he's put a lot of time and effort into, just because he keeps winning local tournies?

If the answer is no, then you have no right to complain about another player's well-painted army. It should inspire you to try and paint your models better. Alternatively, if it really really really annoys you, just play in tourneys without a paint score?

KGatch113 wrote:He never wins a game, but

So just to recap: is this guy a "bottom feeder" because he has a better painted army than the rest of you (according to the judge(s) at least), or because he doesn't do well in the gaming side of the tournament? Would you complain less if he won more games?

I'm sorta with Hulk on this, my take has always been, it's fine if you win/take down an award for a long time, but there has to be some sort of "time limit" on it, and it shouldn't NEED to be enforced.

The idea of the prizes, imo, is to drive people to want to continue in the hobby, to paint, to play, to share experiences, and to improve. If a guy walks in with a golden daemon quality army, and plays it in a bi-monthly tourney for 5 years running sweeping awards the entire time, you're going to drive people off. People need to feel that the goal is attainable.

Most good painters I know, and I've taken down best painted awards myself from RTT level tournies, will "bow out" themselves after a couple of awards. It's just good sportsmanship after you bogart the awards for 3-6 months, or at most a year, to change armies, or to just let other people have a crack at it.

That being said, I've seen the exact same behavior from the players that routinely win best general, either after a month or two of winning straight swapping armies, or bowing to let others have a chance by assisting as a rules judge or a TO for the events.

Mind you, the OP in this case sounds more like sour grapes than the above, but this was written to a broader version.

Boss GreenNutz wrote:To me he isn't a "bottom feeder" he just enjoys a different aspect of the hobby. Some people compete to stomp a mudhole in their opponent and walk it dry, some folks enjoy painting and could care less if they ever win a game.

I think if he win best painted all time and you want to win just paint better. Not everyone is a good player let a good painter win the best painted.

Has anyone asked why TO's ensure that the same best painted winner can't then win in the same tournament when it next does its rounds?

That would seem to take care of the problem as;

a) They get the benefit of winning, then the floor is opened up to other painters the next time. This would also encourage people to paint their forces as best as they can instead of not bothering as "TFG's in again"

b) If a tournament is run annually, then that player will surely have acquired & painted up an entirely different force by the next time they can enter.

Alternatively, they can enter in recurring years though have to submit a different army to game with if they want to go for the best painted (ie, initially won with Marines, next time enter with Tau).

Just to point out I'm not saying ban that person from gaming, just ensure that other painters have a chance of winning too

Okay, here's a get out clause for the TO, why not suggest that as part of the prize, the winner is a guest judge for the next competition?

Obviously he knows something about painting, so why can't he be a judge, it at least frees the slot for someone else to win it next time round. Extremely obviously as a judge he can't enter.

Cheers

Andrew

"Bottom feeding" is intentionally seeking out weak competition in order to succeed without challenge. At least that's how I've always understood it. Which is not at all applicable here, unless the guy just comes to the store to sweep the Best Painted prize because everyone else there sucks at painting.

I have been to stores where they disqualify a given army from winning consecutive events. And others where the local folks just gradually stop putting their votes toward a great army they've seen a hundred times. And others where the same guy or two consistently wins, just because no one else is at the same level (those guys usually do change army after a while). The same thing happens with Best General, too, where one or two guys tend to dominate many stores.

AndrewC wrote:Okay, here's a get out clause for the TO, why not suggest that as part of the prize, the winner is a guest judge for the next competition?

Obviously he knows something about painting, so why can't he be a judge, it at least frees the slot for someone else to win it next time round. Extremely obviously as a judge he can't enter.

Cheers

Andrew

As long as whoever wins the tourney also can't enter the next tourney and insted can be a guest "score keeper" or "terrain setter".

kitch102 wrote:Just to point out I'm not saying ban that person from gaming, just ensure that other painters have a chance of winning too

But to play devils advocate, would you do the same to a person who scored the most points in the tournament? Make him play a totally different army the next time? Gives other people a chance to win best general.

if someone winning best appearance every time is such a horrible disaster, then there are constructive solutions:

Expand appearance scoring to include best conversion and best single mini along with overall appearance. And for best conversion and single mini make it a 'hall of fame' which means winners for best single mini and conversion that 'winners' can't enter again. He can still be judged fairly for his best army appearance like he should, but other people can attempt to win best single mini and conversion.

But this thread reeks of poor sportsmanship and sour grapes.

Just to point out I'm not saying ban that person from gaming, just ensure that other painters have a chance of winning too

Your ideas are terrible, unfair and the other painters don't 'deserve' a chance of winning if it is done by removing the best people from the competition. You just want a shameless cash grab for yourself. If you want it that way, run your own event and disqualify everyone who paints better than you so you can give yourself the prize? Why not just turn the cash prize for best appearance into a random lottery like a door prize?

Nice calling the person who paints better than you TFG... very good attitude.

Clearly a case of "this guy won a prize and I didn't, so he needs to be punished because ME ME ME."

CT GAMER wrote:As long as whoever wins the tourney also can't enter the next tourney and insted can be a guest "score keeper" or "terrain setter".

Because, one is subjective based on the opinions of a few people and the other is held thrall to the random rolls of dice?

There is no right answer here, except perhaps 'put up or shut up'

Cheers

Andrew

TLDR.

If your TO is getting aggrieved by it, basically include the painting part in to the actual tournament.

Make it an additional amount of points, that'll motivate this guy to be a better general, aswell as the people who don't bother painting their armies to paint aswell.

Tournaments I compete in sometimes do it, and those are the ones that people on the whole enjoy more, I admittedly don't have a painted Grey Knights army so wouldn't put them in the painted tournament but my old Necrons or my Eldar would regularly turn up.

I'd be fine with best painted = actually is best painted.

The game store that holds tourneis is all about the nepatism for match ups, scoring, paint and fellowship. Last year was different, but 2011 has been all buddies win. I still go and cough up my $$$, but don't expect to win anyhting.

Let us also remember even if the tournaments are run at 1500, the time put into each mini can be close to hundreds of hours. If the army is heavily converted, you can expect an extra 20-30% extra he paid to convert the minis. Really if he is raking in $40, that barely pays off the paints he had to use for the army much less the army iteself.

First off, again to all the haters....I do think the guy is a Bottom Feeder, and Mannahim's definition is perhaps the best. My goal is to win overall, period. If I get something else, then great. Check my sig, I usually am the guy who wins Best Sportsman. I'll be honest, the award I really want is a Best General...it is the only one I've never gotten.

I still disagree with the people who say someone who wins a tourney or a best general all the time is the same. It isn't....game skill is a different thing.

And again, I think part of it is laziness on the different TO's doing the paint judging. My RavenGuard army is made up of converted pre heresy armors, and I never get conversion points, but I swapped out bolters for bolt pistols on my Wolves to represent True Grit and I get most of the points.

But the general consensus seems to be its ok to keep winning the same award, so be it.

I think the general beef with the guy is he only comes to win the Best Painted award, because he hates playing and knows he is not going to win the tourney. <shrugs> I think it rankles the guys who try to compete and who have great armies and he edges them. ( I checked with one of the TO's, he uses a pretty standard rubric, but he adds in Player's Choice votes. I suggested getting rid of that and going with highest score, with battle and sportsmanship scores as possible tiebreakers....any other suggestions?).

KGatch113 wrote:
I think the general beef with the guy is he only comes to win the Best Painted award, because he hates playing and knows he is not going to win the tourney. <shrugs> I think it rankles the guys who try to compete and who have great armies and he edges them. ( I checked with one of the TO's, he uses a pretty standard rubric, but he adds in Player's Choice votes. I suggested getting rid of that and going with highest score, with battle and sportsmanship scores as possible tiebreakers....any other suggestions?).

Would you be ok with the prettiest army being used as the best general tie breaker? If not, then the opposite shouldn't be the case as they don't suddenly become more related when reversed. If you're going to have separate scoring and awards, they should stay separate. I'm sorry but you're just going to have to deal with this guy being a better painter/converter in the eyes of others. Since you brought up winning sportmanship awards frequently, should YOU be excluded from winning that award ever again? Maybe you're pissing off someone who is a good sportman but never gets that award, making you just as much a "bottom feeder" to that guy. Messing with the rules in ONE category to screw over ONE guy is never a good idea.

If you feel like you're not getting the points you deserve for conversion scoring, make an effort to be there when the judge is scoring. Not everyone is familar with preheresy armor (TOs aren't perfect, all knowing beings)... point out that you've converted that on the models. Point out that you've done x and y AND z to change the standard look of the guy.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Mannahnin wrote:"Bottom feeding" is intentionally seeking out weak competition in order to succeed without challenge. At least that's how I've always understood it. Which is not at all applicable here, unless the guy just comes to the store to sweep the Best Painted prize because everyone else there sucks at painting.

KGatch113 wrote:
First off, again to all the haters....I do think the guy is a Bottom Feeder, and Mannahim's definition is perhaps the best.

KGatch113 wrote:
I've won several Best Painteds with several different armies but none of them ever get more than half the paint points in this area....so I have no clue how to "up" my score.

Buddy, you can't have it both ways (similar to how you claim not to be complaining but title the thread with namecalling folllowed by nothing but complaining). Either the guy follows Mannaheim's "bottom feeding" description in that he's seeking out weak painters to compete against (including YOU) OR you've got a nicely painted army that has previously won awards and that possibly deserves to win. Pick one side of the arguement and stick with it as the two points are mutually exclusive.

Best painted often a self limiting condition though. You keep bringing the same army over and over and no matter how well painted it is, people get tired of seeing it and it scores less and less over time.

This is especially the case if other players in the area man up and get their armies painted up well.

The same can't be said for best generals. People like Dashofpepper can pull out a string of wins in pretty much any level of tournament using several different armies, and different lists. If they lived next door to me and went to all the tournaments that I went to there would be almost zero chance of me ever placing first (aside from my crappy skillz ) unless the table holding his army spontaneously combusted just before the first game.

IMHO Calling this bottom feeding is lame. the guy always wins well, maybe one of yall should try to paint and convert so that there is a competiton. afterall painting is part of the hobby. if he has invested that much time and effort in his army, then his commitment deserves to be recognized just as much if not more than the gamers who buy all the components to a web list, show up and kick butt with the grey plastic legion that they just put together to win the tourni with.
I say good for him for having such an amazing army. I am glad that he gets some recognition and if you want said recognition, instead of grumbling about how you think he is bottom feeding, pick up a paint brush and some bits and start work on something that could beat him.

KGatch113 wrote:
I've gotten garbled answers from TO's, and I suspect one problem is laziness...the guys don't do an in depth examination of armies, or know what has to be converted or not, I think.

This much at least I totally agree with. I've brought my dark eldar to at least one tournament where they're been given a zero for conversion work just because the TO didn't know enough about dark eldar to recognize conversions in the list. So guys with space wolves where one of them had a (gasp) chaos marine's axe would get full conversion, but my dark elf cloaks and flags, hellion halberd redesigns, and custom Sathonyx kitbash just go right by without notice.

This topic is very relevant to me as I have just won Best Painted the other day with a totally uncompetitive army. I knew I was going to lose every game but that I have a fair shot at Best Painted.

Now I have to decide whether to bring the same army next time, and frankly the idea of just turning up to take the painting prize with the same army is a little embarassing, especially as it would be completely obvious to everyone what I'm doing, since the army has almost no chance to win any battles in the first place. Our scoring is 100% players' choice, and I won by a landslide the first time, I doubt many would be happy to hand me another prize for no extra work.

Loch wrote:Just to add further, we used to have real problems with later rounds at our tourneys because somebody (or three) would inevitably be a sourpuss and drop out of the tourney early after it became apparent they weren't going to win top three. So our TO decided to give everybody tokens on entering the tournament. You get two tokens to start, plus one for every game you play (and plus three if you win a game). At the end of the day, all the tokens go in a bag and the TO pulls one out and that's who 3rd prize goes to. Everybody has a shot, even if winners have slightly higher odds. It's cut down on the cut-and-run crowd quite a bit, even if there's no true 3rd place award anymore. If I go to my next tournament and lose three games but win the drawing for the last prize, does that make me a "bottom-feeder" too?

Wow I must be getting old because I like this idea... I am even typically a top general... It's not about the prize's but about the bragging rights that I care about. I think everyone should have a shot at the prizes for being good sports.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

lord_blackfang wrote:This topic is very relevant to me as I have just won Best Painted the other day with a totally uncompetitive army. I knew I was going to lose every game but that I have a fair shot at Best Painted.

Now I have to decide whether to bring the same army next time, and frankly the idea of just turning up to take the painting prize with the same army is a little embarassing, especially as it would be completely obvious to everyone what I'm doing, since the army has almost no chance to win any battles in the first place. Our scoring is 100% players' choice, and I won by a landslide the first time, I doubt many would be happy to hand me another prize for no extra work.

You should post some pictures of your army, was sad when I went to your profile and no pictures :(

Cyporiean wrote:Is he winning with the same army every time? then ya, kibosh it. The folks winning the game play side have to change up units every now and then to compete, the painters should as well.

Well now lets think about this a little shall we? It takes a heck of alot of time for painters to "change up" their stuff to have different things every time while the "general" just has to fire up army builder and is good to go, so that seems a little unfair to the painter but if we what to travel this road then the "general" players should have to switch up their winning armies as well, I mean everytime to not just one unit but a couple. Plus like one poster said some people are good generals but bad painters and some people are good painters and bad generals, I really find it offensive that someone would call someone winning an award regularly with the same army (that being the same list or the same paint job) a bottom feeder. last time I checked the if your the best at something every time you show up then you deserve to win, anyone that thinks otherwise is really just being a crybaby, and before I get the couple obligatory post of "he must be a painter" I am but I am also a good general (ask anyone in my area). Just think about if the shoe was on the other foot and you were winning with your painted army but getting crushed every game, would you feel the same way? I think not. just food for thought.

As long as he stays and plays all his games, what's the problem? Anyone who leaves early should forfeit all chances of any prizes but if he stays and his army is nicely painted then so what if he loses every game. Imagine having to spend an entire day there and being smashed purely to win a best-painted trophy and then have people saying he doesn't deserve it ...

Personally I'm more upset when I turn up fully painted and based to play against a sea of grey plastic or little more than pooorly undercoated models. All grey armies should be forfeit from winning trophies of any kind.

ruminator wrote:As long as he stays and plays all his games, what's the problem? Anyone who leaves early should forfeit all chances of any prizes but if he stays and his army is nicely painted then so what if he loses every game. Imagine having to spend an entire day there and being smashed purely to win a best-painted trophy and then have people saying he doesn't deserve it ...

Personally I'm more upset when I turn up fully painted and based to play against a sea of grey plastic or little more than pooorly undercoated models. All grey armies should be forfeit from winning trophies of any kind.

Spoken for truth

KGatch113 wrote:
First off, again to all the haters....I do think the guy is a Bottom Feeder, and Mannahim's definition is perhaps the best. My goal is to win overall, period. If I get something else, then great. Check my sig, I usually am the guy who wins Best Sportsman. I'll be honest, the award I really want is a Best General...it is the only one I've never gotten.

Isn't best general the guy who wins the tournament? Like best w/l record? Now you're saying you'd really like the Best General title, but all the while along you've been griping about the guy who wins a totally different award and I don't see where the two intersect, unless the paint score ties into the Best General award somehow. And introing by calling people haters makes you less "Best Sportsman" and more TFG.

I still disagree with the people who say someone who wins a tourney or a best general all the time is the same. It isn't....game skill is a different thing.

I wholeheartedly agree with you here. But what you're missing is that if it's not right to change the rules to screw over the best general, why should it be right to change the rules to screw over a consistent winner in some other category. And once again, you're not in the painting forum asking how you can spruce up your army, you're in the tourney forum asking how to tear down some other guy who edges you out in one category.

And again, I think part of it is laziness on the different TO's doing the paint judging. My RavenGuard army is made up of converted pre heresy armors, and I never get conversion points, but I swapped out bolters for bolt pistols on my Wolves to represent True Grit and I get most of the points.

Having noted what you thought could be the problem, I'd would bring some sort of card or plaque to go along with your army listing amongst other things what you did to convert your key pieces. You're probably right, the judges may not even know you've got conversions if they're good and seemless. Let them know, pimp yourself out to them by telling them what kind of work you've put into your army.

I think the general beef with the guy is he only comes to win the Best Painted award, because he hates playing and knows he is not going to win the tourney. <shrugs> I think it rankles the guys who try to compete and who have great armies and he edges them. ( I checked with one of the TO's, he uses a pretty standard rubric, but he adds in Player's Choice votes. I suggested getting rid of that and going with highest score, with battle and sportsmanship scores as possible tiebreakers....any other suggestions?).

See I'm a little confused because your original complaint against this guy is he shows up with a better painted army, but at the bottom here you're talking about highest score, battle scoring and sportsmanship scoring as tiebreakers......to what? The painting award? Are you now talking about an overall award that includes several categories, painting being one of them? Because originally you were talking about some pittance money prize that the same guy wins every tourney. Please explain this out a little.


And how often are these tourneys run? Weekly, Biweekly, Monthly, Quarterly? What's the entry fee and how many people on average usually show up? How many games are played during the tourney on average. I'd like to get more of a feel about the tourney scene you're talking about.

Yeah, its always the dirtbags that show up with their well painted armies, are very sportsmanlike, but don't troll forums so they don't know or care about what is the most effecient army and end up losing that ruin the day for me.

JERKS!

MightyGodzilla wrote:
And how often are these tourneys run? Weekly, Biweekly, Monthly, Quarterly? What's the entry fee and how many people on average usually show up? How many games are played during the tourney on average. I'd like to get more of a feel about the tourney scene you're talking about.

This is the big thing for me. I usually play in local "small pond" 40k tournaments (between 10-40 people). If the painting award is 20% you only need 20 people to get $40. So I can see where the OP may be coming from.

The biggest thing is clarity on how the painting is judged (how much for conversions, display boards etc). Most tournaments at my LGS (for 40k and Fantasy) use the same painting scale...and I'm currently scratching my head on how to add conversions to a mostly metal Eldar army.

I wouldn't punish either the painters or competitive lists (as the game doesn't get updated often enough for lists to change drastically) just get a clear answer before hand on what they are looking for and do your best to up your entry.