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.

Problem is there is no longer a best general award. And unfortunately, the US GT overall has been more and more about battle score for the last few years. Especially the all important massacare. The other factor has been kissing up to your opponent so he doesn't knock your score down in painting, comp and sports. They've fixed that to a degree (no comp and judge rated painting) but it is still more about generalship.

Personally, if they simply had two competitions going on at the same time (best general and best army) and then an overall winner, then it'd be a nice balance. Purchased armies could go for best general and painters, fluff mongers could go for best army and those of use who like both could go for all 3.

As it is now, its not really an overall competition nor is it a fair indicator of best general or best army IMHO. So why even bother singling out the honest guy who fessed up to having not painted his army, when at least he was honest about it and also atleast made some effort to bring a well painted army?

Someone also mentioned someone showing up without a painted army. I for one would rather someone spent money for a painted army and win a GT then to have to face an unpainted or poorly painted army. That's one reason why my opinion on the subject of purchased armies has changed.

Maybe it is time for GW to step forward and announce its intent on the GT's.  I know I know.."its all about the fun" line but realistically is the intent simpy to bring in money, discover the best crusher of kids, or try and set higher standards for the hobby.  Realistically we can all keep throwing our opinions at it and it simply comes down to our beleif system.  Its up to GW to set the bar.

Maybe 40k is a training program to determine the strongest among our young so that
GW can take them into a giant citadel and alter their genetic coding with chest implanted
seed material?

You said chest and seed in the same sentence.

Heh, yall are funny.  Any reference to the last starfighter is good.  Anyone think Jeff would respond to this?

Ok guys, here's my two cents on this raging topic. I have to say I am somewhat surprised it has been such a hotly debated item. I personally also feel very strongly about painting your own models, but we are trying to be accomodating. There are many aspects to the hobby and we see that. We want to have painted models on the table so that everyone is enjoying the game in that regard. As for if you painted it your self or not, I think that the way we have done it works well. You are not eligible for the pure painting prizes if you didn't paint your army. However, you can win the overall award, since painting is only 25% of the total score.
To be honest, there have been very few times that someone has brought a bought army. At least that they were open about. I could probably count on one hand the number of people who said they did not paint their army in the past years GTs. So I am not sure why it is such a huge topic here. Could someone come and win with a purchased army. Sure. Has it happened, yes (but not since around 97 that I am aware of).
As for what GW's goals are in the Grand Tournaments - you hit the nail on the head: Have Fun with Toy Soldiers. There are so many aspects of the hobby that is almost impossible to isolate one all encompassing goal. However, in the end, GTs are about gaming with the other aspects of the hobby incorporated into that. Golden Demon is about the painting and converting.
A final note (and I am not even sure I have really answered your questions, I feel I am a bit rambling here) is that it is almost impossible to police the painting aspect. If someone really went out of their way to keep it quiet amongst him and his painter, we would never know. So trying to be very militant on this topic is a stressful thing that we just don't have the time or resources to police.
I appreciate the passion everyone has toward the hobby. I have it myself and I have my own views on these matters. But from a company standpoint, we want to be accomodating and we hope in the end everyone is having a great weekend of gaming, comaraderie, and seeing some great looking models. That is what we are looking for in a great Grand Tournament.
Jeff Hall
GWUS Community Manager

Actually Jeff I dont think you are rambling at all. I think you answered every question and appreciate the response. Nothing there I can argue with at all hehe.

Wow.  Leave for a couple of years, and everything's changed.  What happened to the old orange on black board?

Anyway, to get back on topic:

• Minimum Painting Standards are three (3) colors on each model in
an appropriate scheme. Models should also be appropriately
based. Undercoated and bare plastic/metal models will not be
permitted in the tournament! Anyone found using models that do
not meet the painting requirements will be asked to remove those
models from the table.

I have no issue with the first two sentences.  However, due to time restraints (and an obvious lack of painting talent) I've developed a paint scheme that is mostly black, with touches of other colors.  The way I do this is using the Chaos Black spray-primer on my figures, and then when it dries, putting on the other colors.  Would I be able to do that for a GT army?

If not, then any army that is primarily (no pun intended) black or white is going to require a lot more time to paint than armies that are mainly Ultramageek Blue, or Dank Angle Green, etc.

What I'm saying is, if I can't paint an army the way I have been, I won't have time to get ready for any of the GTs.  Meanwhile, someone with a similar time restraint who wants to play an army of smurfs, won't be penalized by the judges.

And for the record, yes, my painting is that horrible, but it's still better than what it was a few years ago.  And I do want my GT army to be part of my existing army.

I am sure the primer policy is referring to models that have only been primed. If you have a scheme that utilizes the primer color that would take a back seat to the fact that you have a painted force.