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 would really like the communities opinion about something that happened to me a at our last tournament.

I took my own twist on the Lions blade (5man TAC squads in pods with grav canon, I haven't seen anyone else run them like this) to a local 2 day, 5 game event with 19 fairly good players. I won all 4 my first games , in the process beating a really hard hitting mechanicus list and a necron decurion in a kill point game. The last game was a doubles game with 1st placed being paired with last and 2e with 2e to last etc. Due to us only being 19 I got paired with a filler and we lost the game. At this stage according my math and the Tau player who was in 2e (he beat me in the doubles) the 2 of us were tied on Win/loss (3 for a win, 2 for a draw and 1 for a loss) but I was still about 10 points ahead on victory points (total number of objectives scored during the event).



However during the doubles game the TO was going around judging painting scores, which was normal, however this year he gave 3 players 1 bonus point to their tournament score for having the 'best' painted armies. Two of these best painted armies happened to be the guys who were 3rd and 4th, so they leap frog-ed us and I ended up 3rd. So I believe everything was by the book and that it was a coincidence that the 3 players who got the bonus points were from the TO's own club. My question is should I be upset about the following:



-My army is painted by a pro painter (cost me a lot of money) but during the doubles my filler team mate played with a unpainted army, so if our models weren't intermixed I think I could have and probably should have gotten a bonus painting point as well.



-Should something like a painting score count towards tournament points and if it does should there then be a best general and best over all award?



-Lastly as the topic title asks should I be angry considering first place got a Imperial Knight and there were no other prizes?



There are a number of personal feelings that have nothing to do with what happened that might be flaming my anger:



-The guy that won already has 3 knights and he doesn't pay for he's 40k merchandise because he's accountant writes it off as stationary for hes business.

It's also never fun to play this guy, he always brings the newest net list that he painted the night before and doesn't know the rules off, just not fun playing him.



-I spent a lot of time and effort prepping for the event and fought tooth and nail to be the only unbeaten player after the first 4 rounds, I was the defending champ and it meant a lot to me personally.

Should you be mad about not getting the points for your models that were painted well but were paired with a poorly painted army?
-No, you shouldn't be mad. However, if you would have gotten the point if it was judged on just one army by army, I would say something to the TO about it being unfair. Though, you still don't know if you would have even gotten the extra point.

Should painting score count towards tournament points?
-If that is what is decided and everyone knows before they enter the tournament, yes.

Should you be mad that the winner already has knights and doesn't pay for his models?
-No, that is petty.

Its not fun to play him, should I be mad about that?
-No, its a tournament, most play to win. If you want to have fun, don't play tournaments.

I don't see why you should be mad at any of this. You did good but got stuck with a bad random, gak happens. Should a person be mad if they roll dice and get a bad number? No, gak happens. The game has a lot of random involved with it, if you don't like it, play a different game.

OSO88 wrote:
-My army is painted by a pro painter (cost me a lot of money) but during the doubles my filler team mate played with a unpainted army, so if our models weren't intermixed I think I could have and probably should have gotten a bonus painting point as well.

IOW, you tried to buy your way to extra points and failed. Too bad for you. You'd probably get more sympathy if you'd painted your army yourself instead of expecting that handing someone else a pile of money to paint your army automatically entitles you to "best painted" points.

-Should something like a painting score count towards tournament points and if it does should there then be a best general and best over all award?

No. Painting is subjective. If people want to have a painting contest, have a painting contest. And ban commission painted models.

-The guy that won already has 3 knights and he doesn't pay for he's 40k merchandise because he's accountant writes it off as stationary for hes business.

Sorry, but this is getting into poor sportsmanship. 40k tournaments are supposed to be fun, stop worrying so much about who got the tiny prize and whether or not they "deserve" to have more models. It's a tournament, not a charity donation to the player who needs it the most.

It's also never fun to play this guy, he always brings the newest net list that he painted the night before and doesn't know the rules off, just not fun playing him.

Now you're really just being a poor loser.

I agree. Painting is an important part of the hobby and it's fine to award seperate points to well-painted armies. But using these points for the tournament, which is entirely a tactical affair, is a load of bollocks.

 TheManWithNoPlan wrote:
I agree. Painting is an important part of the hobby and it's fine to award seperate points to well-painted armies. But using these points for the tournament, which is entirely a tactical affair, is a load of bollocks.

If you don't like it, don't play the tournament. If you knew about it before hand and you still entered, its entirely on you.

THE BIG THING I WILL SAY! I think that OP doesn't have a problem with painting points going towards tournament points. To be frank, he is just being a whiny brat that HE didn't get those points.

Standard thing imo, if there are no judges from different groups, the judges an TOs will always favor their own friends, and then people from their community.

Painting deciding who wins a tournament not a painting competition is stupid. Even if painting is suppose to be an important part of the hobby, which people can argue is not the case. Then so is gaming, and I don't see GD or other painting competitions hold tournaments to give those extra points for playing the game.

Don't get me wrong. Winning at all cost is a bad habit. And letting your army painted by a pro-painter sounds absolutely strange to me. I suggest to go ahead and post in another board like BoLS or what not.

 TheManWithNoPlan wrote:
I agree. Painting is an important part of the hobby and it's fine to award seperate points to well-painted armies. But using these points for the tournament, which is entirely a tactical affair, is a load of bollocks.

If this is what happened it's completely out of line and even undermines the competitive spirit of the tournament.

 wuestenfux wrote:
Don't get me wrong. Winning at all cost is a bad habit. And letting your army painted by a pro-painter sounds absolutely strange to me. I suggest to go ahead and post in another board like BoLS or what not.

I don't see whats strange about it.

There is people who like a well painted army, but can't paint for gaks, or simply cannot paint for reasons( crippled hand/arm, neck and eye pains, i know that after 40mins into painting a model, i get neck pains and cramps in my fingers).

I painted most of my army, only let 3 of my models be painted by 2 friends of mine, because they liked the models and asked me to paint it, its proffesionally made and i paid the work done.

Now yes maybe expecting this to earn you points in a Paint contest is kinda...

But then again lots of tourneys doesn't take painting points into account of the overall score, while some take it into account when there is a tie between two contestant, its really up to what the TO's decide, best ask before you get any surprises.

Yeah, having someone paint your models, even with compensation, isn't that bad. I'm a junk painter to the point most of my models that video use are just unpainted. I'm slowly getting better though.

To be mad though? It is a tournament. It is a game. Don't be mad over it. Flabbergasted is perfectly fine.

The WAAC mentality is not what we need in our community.
In your tournies and in the GTs, painted armies from a third party were taken out of the contest. There is nothing wrong with a third person painted army but it should be marked as such.

Thanks for all the feedback, bit of a mixed bag which sums up nicely how I feel.

Just to clarify about the painting, we did not know how the scoring would work beforehand. I send my models to a painter because I'm TERRIBLE at it but I enjoy playing with a good looking army and I feel it shows respect to your opponent that you went through some kind of trouble to have a painted army. Appreciate everyone's input, gave me some new perspectives on the hobby and the community.

 wuestenfux wrote:
The WAAC mentality is not what we need in our community.
In your tournies and in the GTs, painted armies from a third party were taken out of the contest. There is nothing wrong with a third person painted army but it should be marked as such.

Agreed. I don't think painted points should count towards overall score (it should be a separate category), but I think if there IS a score, then you should have to mark if all your stuff is painted by you or not.

You can't truly be mad about not getting painting points if you didn't paint the army yourself.

 jreilly89 wrote:

 wuestenfux wrote:
The WAAC mentality is not what we need in our community.
In your tournies and in the GTs, painted armies from a third party were taken out of the contest. There is nothing wrong with a third person painted army but it should be marked as such.

Agreed. I don't think painted points should count towards overall score (it should be a separate category), but I think if there IS a score, then you should have to mark if all your stuff is painted by you or not.

Why shouldn't painting go towards your overall score? You know, an overall score kind of by definition showing how well you have done overall...

Because it's not a live painting tournament. It's a combat tournament of game skill and mastery. Painting is its own category.

Then there should be a best overall award that is again separate.

Most tournaments have:

Best general
Best sportsman
Best painted
Best overall (combination of all scores above)

So why exactly should painting not count towards best overall?

I wouldn't be angry. Most Tourneys have a best painted category around here back when tourneys where a thing.

On the note of not being good at painting, you should really try it though. Painting and modeling(and crafting in general) is probably the most therapeutic things you can do IMO.

And you'll only get better the more you practice. Go through my Gallery and you'll see my old Tau, most of them looked terrible. My newer Chaos models, they look better because of all the practice.

I get they want to encourage people to paint their armies but painting scores should be separate from tournament performance scores. I'm all for offering an extra prize category for painting, but I'm highly against what you mentioned here.

Life is to short to be angry. Go have a smoke and a cold beer, always helps me

Judging painting is best done in an armies on parade style format.
After an early game before a longer break players should set up their armies, fluff objectives, display boards, matching dice etc on half of the table, reposition some terrain and make any prettifycation necessary.
The TOs should then take a little time to visit each army and give scores, bonus points or whatever the format and check painting minimums, wysiwyg etc.
It's also a good time for a wander around with a drink/snack and take a players' vote too.
The only problem that can occur is if you're stuck on a snow board with your jungle themed army or somesuch but with some friendly wrangling you should be able to swap with another player.
Maybe suggest this to the TOs for next year whilst highlighting your disappointment.
How these scores are used later is up to the TO but it should be made clear in the tournament pack.

 SilverMK2 wrote:
Most tournaments have:

Best general
Best sportsman
Best painted
Best overall (combination of all scores above)

So why exactly should painting not count towards best overall?

I agree. There's nothing wrong with an event where best painted goes towards best overall, as long as everyone entering knows this going in. I mean, if you don't like it, don't participate.

I also have no problem with ranking commissioned armies with self-painted ones, or an army you bought from someone who was quitting, because after all, SOMEONE painted them. What does it matter who painted them -- the award is for best painted army, not best army painter. That said, unless you're paying at least $100+ for every single model in your army, there's probably going to be someone at an even large enough who loves their army more than the guy you pay to paint yours, and their models will be better. It's pretty hard to pay for 1850 points that took 1850 hours to painstakingly finish.

You shouldn't get your models mixed in with a grey army, as most events have a painted requirement...

And finally, I can only suggest, enjoy the game, the models, and the sport of it rather than worry so much about winning an event I think you'll be happier for it. Remember, if you get angry, that leads to fear and hate and before you know it you'll have telekinetic powers and rule the world with an iron fist. Wait, that could be cool the path to world domination starts with a lost 40k tournament!

First: Should you be angry? Yes always be angry if it is an option. Let the rge out until you no longer have the energy for it. Then when the energy is all gone there is room to realise that you might have been wrong.

on the second part.
You are just a sore loser, get over it. Competitive 40k is just as silly as competitive DND. Sure you can play it that way but the 40k rules aren't that fit for it and you always play it by the arbitrary TO's house rules. If you enter a tournament with points for painting then you know that this is a part of winning the tournament just as much as any other point system that would be in place. If the TO made a rule that you got 1 extra point for wearing a blue shirt and you want to win wear a blue shirt. It is just that simple. If you hate to lose by painting, go to events that don't rate painting.

OSO88 wrote:
I would really like the communities opinion about something that happened to me a at our last tournament.

I took my own twist on the Lions blade (5man TAC squads in pods with grav canon, I haven't seen anyone else run them like this) to a local 2 day, 5 game event with 19 fairly good players. I won all 4 my first games , in the process beating a really hard hitting mechanicus list and a necron decurion in a kill point game. The last game was a doubles game with 1st placed being paired with last and 2e with 2e to last etc. Due to us only being 19 I got paired with a filler and we lost the game. At this stage according my math and the Tau player who was in 2e (he beat me in the doubles) the 2 of us were tied on Win/loss (3 for a win, 2 for a draw and 1 for a loss) but I was still about 10 points ahead on victory points (total number of objectives scored during the event).



However during the doubles game the TO was going around judging painting scores, which was normal, however this year he gave 3 players 1 bonus point to their tournament score for having the 'best' painted armies. Two of these best painted armies happened to be the guys who were 3rd and 4th, so they leap frog-ed us and I ended up 3rd. So I believe everything was by the book and that it was a coincidence that the 3 players who got the bonus points were from the TO's own club. My question is should I be upset about the following:



-My army is painted by a pro painter (cost me a lot of money) but during the doubles my filler team mate played with a unpainted army, so if our models weren't intermixed I think I could have and probably should have gotten a bonus painting point as well.

I may be wrong, but commission painted models really shouldn't count for the purposes of calculating Best Painted scores, as they were not the player's work.

-Should something like a painting score count towards tournament points and if it does should there then be a best general and best over all award?

Yes, there should be a painting score, to encourage painting armies. No, it should not effect standings as much as it did in your experience.

-Lastly as the topic title asks should I be angry considering first place got a Imperial Knight and there were no other prizes?

There are no second place prizes in real life. It is win or lose. Binary state. Second, third, fourth is just a way of tallying up who lost the least hard.

There are a number of personal feelings that have nothing to do with what happened that might be flaming my anger:
-The guy that won already has 3 knights and he doesn't pay for he's 40k merchandise because he's accountant writes it off as stationary for hes business.
It's also never fun to play this guy, he always brings the newest net list that he painted the night before and doesn't know the rules off, just not fun playing him.

Frst point is sketchy as hell, but let's talk about the second one.
First of all, the guy clearly cares enough to paint his army. That's a step above most netlisters. Second of all, what? How could he use a netlist and not know how to play it?

-I spent a lot of time and effort prepping for the event and fought tooth and nail to be the only unbeaten player after the first 4 rounds, I was the defending champ and it meant a lot to me personally.

It's an event, your emotions will disappear eventually.

 Talys wrote:
What does it matter who painted them -- the award is for best painted army, not best army painter.

It matters because every other award (best record, best sportsmanship, etc) is based on the accomplishments of the player getting the award. Giving "best painted" to a commission painted army replaces a reward of individual skill with a reward for the player who spends the most money on having someone else paint their army.

I agree with the above, Best general, and various titles of best sport refer to the player at the tournament. It would be odd if i showed up to play but had a friend plot all my moves. In that same way trying to claim best painted when most if not all of your army is not by your hand is undeserving

It's also a good time for a wander around with a drink/snack and take a players' vote too.

And the local group who has the most votes always wins. But to be honest it doesn't matter, Painting has to do with someones personal taste. Even if someone tried to be 100% fair and unbiased, there is still the thing of local people doing the same thing more offten. I have been to a tournament in a city not far away from my own. They use a lot of recast FW models there. When painting was scored one of the main reasons for locals to win, was the fact that the TO and Org who gave out the points, liked FW model esthetics more then those of w40k. And they scored them higher too. In the end having painting decide who wins overall is a stupid thing. A tournament is not a painting competition, there are separate events for those.

Makumba wrote:
And the local group who has the most votes always wins.

I've never seen that happen, generally you tend to see locals voting for something new and different that they haven't seen before.
More often than not the 'Players' Choice Army' is different to the 'Best Painted Army' and goes to a fun themed list or something that uses retro models or to someone who has built a great display board or to the guy who has modified his rulebooks to look like imperial tomes and printed out his lists as propaganda flyers and is dressed to match his army or somesuch.
Good TOs shouldn't really be swayed by these gimmicks when it come to painting scores and should be experienced enough to judge the painting on it's technical merits.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Talys wrote:
What does it matter who painted them -- the award is for best painted army, not best army painter.

It matters because every other award (best record, best sportsmanship, etc) is based on the accomplishments of the player getting the award. Giving "best painted" to a commission painted army replaces a reward of individual skill with a reward for the player who spends the most money on having someone else paint their army.

Yeah, I can see your point of view, especially if it contributes to the overall winner. It wouldn't bother me, personally, but I guess my attitude to it is just a bit of carry over from dog or cat shows -- some of the winners will be breeders, while others will simply be pet owners. It really makes no difference it took you 3000 tries to breed the best-of-show, or if you paid for the animal -- other than if you're the breeder, it helps you in your business (no different than an award-winning commission painter).

 Talys wrote:
3000 tries to breed the best-of-show.

I'm converting to Buddhism, i'll be coming back as a Showdog.