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.

@poster sturguard

My first reaction was "10 years to paint one army is ridiculous."

Then, I thought about it.

I've taken since 5e to fully paint my 8k of eldar, but that's misleading, in that, in 5th edition, I had a fully painted eldar army. It might've been 1500 points (standard back then). I can't recall how long it took to paint, but it had to be fully done to be allowed on a GW store's table, so not too long. Most of those first eldar models were out of the indy store's used bin ($2 a model!). I disliked the scheme, and repainted the aspect warriors pretty much like codex pictures. 10 or 15 Dire Avengers, 5 Fire Dragons, 10 scorpions, Eldrad, 11 DRs, 8+ Swooping Hawks, a Wave S. From there, I was onto new stuff, war walkers, warlocks, guardians, more transports, getting painted within a month or so, as the local TO was a good hobby coach, encouraging us to feel good about playing fully painted armies, at Game Empire Pasadena. The RTTs had a painting prize, so there was some incentive there.

I have faith that you were acquiring models the whole time, but, really, they shouldn't be unpainted for more than a month after beginning to use them.

Over 15 years, I did a lot more than that: I have had 9 armies table ready, most of them since 5th edition. I still have 8 of them as the 'Nids went away at 6e's advent. And the whole time I have had a full career, wife, kids, yard, house. I don't think your assertion of FLG's ruling affecting the average guy applies, as most players I encounter don't take that long.

Sure there are the "ebay only" guys, spending less than full-new pricing, but their armies look meh, because of a red rhino, another black, 2 pink, etc. 5 different squad color schemes, etc. I know we agree on that.

The things is, it really isn't that hard or long to bring an ebay or used purchase, to your army's scheme. Recently, I bought an eldar flier off from ebay. It arrived on a weekday. By Sunday night I had:
1. reprimed black
2. Used the stipple technique on the hull, super easy and fast and usually receives compliments
3. the gems/spirit stones only took 10 minutes. Cockpit windows, 2 minutes?
4. Cleared the base of dirt, sand, flock. Reprime white. Brush paint again with White Scars base white to nail the snow basing scheme. Again with layer white. I prolly spent more time and care to flick red paint on the white snow of the base than the rest.

Between the two, which is the one I've had for a few years and which had a burgundy/yellow a la, University Southern Calif scheme ?





Point being: It does *not* take a long time to repaint a model, and bring it close to your army's existing scheme. It does take a weekend to say, do 10 dudes, and that's *repaint*, not assemble and repaint.

I mean, does painting a 10 model unit in a weekend constitute 'fast' ? is one tank/vehicle in a weekend 'fast'?


Edit:
For those who're still just going on hearsay, listen to Mr. Raspy himself:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RixRPGNUyGs&fbclid=IwAR3DFcCLov1SY2ujjfQRzdbQNCHp7l7Hx0PEErpfrAIBCp8riBrJmNllfDQ

Adding some shading to a few older models you havent used a wash on. Or add a quick drybrush/highlight on really dark models. Adding a bit of paint and perhaps some flock/grass to few older bases. Repaint base trims so they all have the same color.

Repaint a detail or 2 on older models that you perhaps skipped or did badly years ago and paint them in current standards. Like shoulder pads, aquilias, skulls/purity seals or maybe you changed from black to red bolters over the years.

You shouldnt need to do much more than the above to make your old models look coherent with your newer models and should be way way way faster than actually doing a full repainting. And its not like you need to do it for your whole collection at once. Its most likely only a few squads that would take a weekend or a few evenings at most to touch up.

I don’t watch tourney streams but anyone know of a recent one that included an army offensive enough to have GW take FLG aside for making them look bad, maybe FLG have a lot of overstocked paint and are looking to shift it or did one of there guys lose to a gak painted army

Sure. They can't possibly want an tournament with a minimum painting level, it has to be a conspiracy to make them win games

SeanDrake wrote:
I don’t watch tourney streams but anyone know of a recent one that included an army offensive enough to have GW take FLG aside for making them look bad, maybe FLG have a lot of overstocked paint and are looking to shift it or did one of there guys lose to a gak painted army

I dunno as the video gets close enough, but see if you can get an eyeball on Nic N's edlar. There is some sliced ass paint. LVO 2018.

Nick Nanavati and other competitive weather vanes are exactly why this rule is needed.

On that note, has anyone from FLG said anything about differentiating armies through decals or variations in paint scheme like stripes or cheques?

LVO 2018 Final Table Summary

Nick's models had paint on them and stuff.

Tony's models were painted like he cared, but he was playing bases with no models on them.

Both are garbage ways to showcase the game/brand on a global platform.

https://youtu.be/HlyX577MsrQ?t=1360

Suzuteo wrote:Nick Nanavati and other competitive weather vanes are exactly why this rule is needed.

On that note, has anyone from FLG said anything about differentiating armies through decals or variations in paint scheme like stripes or cheques?

redux wrote:LVO 2018 Final Table Summary

Nick's models had paint on them and stuff.

Tony's models were painted like he cared, but he was playing bases with no models on them.

Both are garbage ways to showcase the game/brand on a global platform.

https://youtu.be/HlyX577MsrQ?t=1360

So its a passive aggressive solution for a small issue involving a few top players? Thats sad if true? Very sad.

Just take away battle points per game. Done. Issue solved

Listen to the latest FLG show. They explain their reasoning on the standards and I think it is pretty permissive. If the models in an army meet the minimum paint standards already in place all players need to do to match the new requirements is to paint the base rims to show coherency.

From what I gathered:

FLG is trying to raise the overall standards at ITC tournaments.

GW is investing money in FLG events to sponsor streams and they want FLG to enforce certain standard.

None of that is passive aggressive if you can ignore Reese's joke about deleting angry emails.

 redux wrote:
LVO 2018 Final Table Summary

Nick's models had paint on them and stuff.

Tony's models were painted like he cared, but he was playing bases with no models on them.

Both are garbage ways to showcase the game/brand on a global platform.

https://youtu.be/HlyX577MsrQ?t=1360

The army I described a few posts back? Yeah, it was N.N.'s rangers/Shining Spears thing.

@Byte
The only way that a sport survives is if its participants agree to submit to the same standard. Typically, this means the highest standard. So if you're going to characterize rules as passive-aggressive (which ironically is in and of itself passive-aggressive whinging), then don't play competitive Warhammer at all. The organizers literally don't want you there. (Seriously, they will ask you to physically pick up your poorly painted models and not use them. Sounds pretty aggressive to me.)

And yes, it's true that competitive Warhammer is not particularly well-balanced or inclusive. That's fine. It's why more casual forms of play exist; the vast majority of people participate in those formats, and generally speaking, they have a more enjoyable time.

I gotta be honest. As a person who's never been to a tournament, seeing the two ynarri armies from 2018 would definitely keep me away.

Some people can't seem to accept this, bit part of 40k is aesthetics. GW is a model selling company.

GW wants to sell models, and having the top table at the top tournaments look like that is quite literally bad for business.

If you don't want to paint, play Xwing. It's really good and probably better balanced (I haven't played since 2.0 so grain of salt and all).

I think upping the standard for big tournaments is excellent.

 Suzuteo wrote:
@Byte
The only way that a sport survives is if its participants agree to submit to the same standard. Typically, this means the highest standard. So if you're going to characterize rules as passive-aggressive (which ironically is in and of itself passive-aggressive whinging), then don't play competitive Warhammer at all. The organizers literally don't want you there. (Seriously, they will ask you to physically pick up your poorly painted models and not use them. Sounds pretty aggressive to me.)

And yes, it's true that competitive Warhammer is not particularly well-balanced or inclusive. That's fine. It's why more casual forms of play exist; the vast majority of people participate in those formats, and generally speaking, they have a more enjoyable time.

LOL! The only way its gonna to survive. LMFAO!

If you actually read my post and the context at which it was written(responding to a previous comment) youd get off the ledge. Or at least I think you could. Ive been playing this game for 25 years kiddo. Its never been this big and getting bigger. If you really believe competitive 40k will die without this change your choking on the kool aid dude. Get real. Your embarrassing yourself.

I like the rule and hope to use it as an advantage. I'll call for ruling. Damn right. Jack those models! Ill have issue if they dont!

 Byte wrote:

I like the rule and hope to use it as an advantage. I'll call for ruling. Damn right. Jack those models! Ill have issue if they dont!

Somewhere on an earlier page, you stated worried about being called a WAAC, TFG if you do this ... and I typed a response, which I don't see; so that's likely when I had a computer crash ...

Byte, I'm sure you can call the judge over, when you're in the hunt, you know, 4-0 on Saturday, heading into game 5, or even further, closer to the top tables. Or when you yer likely to take Tops in your ITC faction? Sure! I'll help shout down anyone giving you grief.

But, you know, once you've had 2 losses, and you're in the kiddie pool ... and any other player there with us (where I'm usually to be found by game 3) will have lost such that a bit of a Painted Bird ** won't have made enough difference for him to win anyway.


**Lookit me dropping literary references! BTW, kids, don't read it. It's about as horrifyingly awful as Heart of Darkness.

 Brothererekose wrote:

 Byte wrote:

I like the rule and hope to use it as an advantage. I'll call for ruling. Damn right. Jack those models! Ill have issue if they dont!

Somewhere on an earlier page, you stated worried about being called a WAAC, TFG if you do this ... and I typed a response, which I don't see; so that's likely when I had a computer crash ...

Byte, I'm sure you can call the judge over, when you're in the hunt, you know, 4-0 on Saturday, heading into game 5, or even further, closer to the top tables. Or when you yer likely to take Tops in your ITC faction? Sure! I'll help shout down anyone giving you grief.

But, you know, once you've had 2 losses, and you're in the kiddie pool ... and any other player there with us (where I'm usually to be found by game 3) will have lost such that a bit of a Painted Bird ** won't have made enough difference for him to win anyway.


**Lookit me dropping literary references! BTW, kids, don't read it. It's about as horrifyingly awful as Heart of Darkness.

I mean not knowing how all this is going to work its impossible to disagree with you. Maybe it is only a winner's bracket thing. Who fn knows. Everyone's having their own spin on this.

I do not play ITC and likely never will but follow the scene and am happy to hear that this is policy.

 jeff white wrote:
I do not play ITC and likely never will but follow the scene and am happy to hear that this is policy.

Same for me

 jeff white wrote:
I do not play ITC and likely never will but follow the scene and am happy to hear that this is policy.

But it's not "ITC" its Socal open and LVO. That's still the biggest confusion among people that don't go to tournaments. Outside of those events, ITC is merely a scoring system and has absolutely nothing to do with the rules being used AT a tournament.

 Kirasu wrote:

 jeff white wrote:
I do not play ITC and likely never will but follow the scene and am happy to hear that this is policy.

But it's not "ITC" its Socal open and LVO. That's still the biggest confusion among people that don't go to tournaments. Outside of those events, ITC is merely a scoring system and has absolutely nothing to do with the rules being used AT a tournament.

Yep. These are the house rules for one group of events run by one organiser. They largely make sense and the people worrying about edge cases are wilfully misunderstanding them. No other TO is bound to listen to FLG's opinions on how to run their events.

 Byte wrote:
LOL! The only way its gonna to survive. LMFAO!

If you actually read my post and the context at which it was written(responding to a previous comment) youd get off the ledge. Or at least I think you could. Ive been playing this game for 25 years kiddo. Its never been this big and getting bigger. If you really believe competitive 40k will die without this change your choking on the kool aid dude. Get real. Your embarrassing yourself.

I like the rule and hope to use it as an advantage. I'll call for ruling. Damn right. Jack those models! Ill have issue if they dont!

You quoted me.

Nobody cares how long you've been playing. It doesn't make your opinion any more or less valid.

And yes, this can all be temporary. Plenty of franchises have boom-busted before, and Games Workshop is a company that has repeatedly made terrible mistakes in its business model and PR in the past. I mean, 8E was mostly launched as an effort to rebrand after they discovered most of their IP was not enforceable in court. (The fact that "Tau" became "T'au" is a hilarious example of this.) Legends is a furtherance of that.

And no, I did not say that competitive 40k would die without the change. I was merely making an observation about how these things develop. Ironically, as competitive 40k grows, it will push more people away from it. We can already see that ITC is a much less permissive, inclusive, or friendly place than it used to be. (Even from 7E.)

Personally, the part of this change that makes me wary is how ITC is growing closer and closer to GW. ITC stands for "Independent Tournament Circuit," after all. I already have resigned myself to just forfeiting every GW-sponsored streaming match simply because of their ridiculous 100% GW rule. (Which apparently has included bases at some events.)

 Suzuteo wrote:

 Byte wrote:
LOL! The only way its gonna to survive. LMFAO!

If you actually read my post and the context at which it was written(responding to a previous comment) youd get off the ledge. Or at least I think you could. Ive been playing this game for 25 years kiddo. Its never been this big and getting bigger. If you really believe competitive 40k will die without this change your choking on the kool aid dude. Get real. Your embarrassing yourself.

I like the rule and hope to use it as an advantage. I'll call for ruling. Damn right. Jack those models! Ill have issue if they dont!

You quoted me.

Nobody cares how long you've been playing. It doesn't make your opinion any more or less valid.

And yes, this can all be temporary. Plenty of franchises have boom-busted before, and Games Workshop is a company that has repeatedly made terrible mistakes in its business model and PR in the past. I mean, 8E was mostly launched as an effort to rebrand after they discovered most of their IP was not enforceable in court. (The fact that "Tau" became "T'au" is a hilarious example of this.) Legends is a furtherance of that.

And no, I did not say that competitive 40k would die without the change. I was merely making an observation about how these things develop. Ironically, as competitive 40k grows, it will push more people away from it. We can already see that ITC is a much less permissive, inclusive, or friendly place than it used to be. (Even from 7E.)

Personally, the part of this change that makes me wary is how ITC is growing closer and closer to GW. ITC stands for "Independent Tournament Circuit," after all. I already have resigned myself to just forfeiting every GW-sponsored streaming match simply because of their ridiculous 100% GW rule. (Which apparently has included bases at some events.)

and

@Byte
The only way that a sport survives is if its participants agree to submit to the same standard. Typically, this means the highest standard.

Listen, you came at me and my opinion so pardon me if I point out the flaws in yours albeit "yours".

You DID say it would die. The opposite of "survive" is "die". Your welcome.

Again you write your posts with no context in them. You may want to work on that, its unbecoming. I mentioned how long I played because competitive play has been around that long and will always be. Its going to survive. It had nothing to do with an opinion, its fact based on 25 years of being involved with the game. But you couldn't help but snap to rudeness default. Classy. Do you really think the game has been bigger than right now? Because that is what your implying. Reading comprehension 101. See that?

I do agree excessive competitive requirements push the casual comp player away. Not everybody eats and sleeps this game or has the time and money to adapt all the time.

 Suzuteo wrote:
Nobody cares how long you've been playing. It doesn't make your opinion any more or less valid.

Wrong. So wrong.

If you've only been working as an auto-mechanic for a year, I'm definitely gonna favor the 15-20 year mechanic's opinion on what my struggling transmission needs. Do I want a high school quarter back calling the next critical play with my team losing 20 to 17, or do I want Tom Brady deciding what play to run? Do you want the 6 month ob-gyn delivering your baby or the 2 decade seasoned doctor at the catcher's plate? Would you listen to *me* for advice at a critical Turn 3 Movement phase and then target selection, or wouldn't it be better to listen to B.Grant or N. Nanavati? And that isn't a buncha StrawMan hooey. In every case, we'd all go with the veteran, successful source of advice.

The veteran's opinion is certainly more valid in authority than the non-attendee or the rookie attendee, in any situation, field, career, etc. Non-tourney goers, lacking the experience of what actually happens at tourneys can't really weigh in with validity on how players behave at top or mid-tables, Round 4's unpredictability (hangovers and drops), and how fun the kiddie pool gets ...

 Suzuteo wrote:
Ironically, as competitive 40k grows, it will push more people away from it.

The continuing increase of tourney events pretty much says 'no', that this is not now, nor will be, true. And your statement in orange is not pointing out something ironic, it's just contradictory, 'as it grows, it will push people away'. Just scroll through ITC's events record for the data on how many more folks are playing 40k than any time in the past.

Anecdotal, but still true: There were a few teen 'kids' I remember from 5e now returning to 40k, playing the league, only they're in their 20s, with bigger budgets.

 Suzuteo wrote:
We can already see that ITC is a much less permissive, inclusive, or friendly place than it used to be. (Even from 7E.)

Anecdotes? How is it less permissive? Paint standards, sure, yer correct there. However, when we scroll back through this thread, we find many chiming in that raising the standard for paint is a positive thing.

" ... less friendly" ? For 7+ years, GTs and RTTs continue to be fine and dandy for me and for those I perceive across the table.

 Suzuteo wrote:
Personally, the part of this change that makes me wary is how ITC is growing closer and closer to GW. ITC stands for "Independent Tournament Circuit," after all. I already have resigned myself to just forfeiting every GW-sponsored streaming match simply because of their ridiculous 100% GW rule. (Which apparently has included bases at some events.)

"Ridiculous 100%"? How about posting some of your non-GW? I'm not talking about China-forge as a good paint job hides the source material. Suzuteo, what do you own that is a cool proxy? Rule of Cool is in effect at the FLG GTs, so what is it you'd play, but wouldn't make GW's standard? Post some pictures, please.

 Kirasu wrote:

 jeff white wrote:
I do not play ITC and likely never will but follow the scene and am happy to hear that this is policy.

But it's not "ITC" its Socal open and LVO. That's still the biggest confusion among people that don't go to tournaments. Outside of those events, ITC is merely a scoring system and has absolutely nothing to do with the rules being used AT a tournament.

Ok. My bad.

Still happy to see this and similar is a thing.

 Brothererekose wrote:
Wrong. So wrong.

If you've only been working as an auto-mechanic for a year, I'm definitely gonna favor the 15-20 year mechanic's opinion on what my struggling transmission needs. Do I want a high school quarter back calling the next critical play with my team losing 20 to 17, or do I want Tom Brady deciding what play to run? Do you want the 6 month ob-gyn delivering your baby or the 2 decade seasoned doctor at the catcher's plate? Would you listen to *me* for advice at a critical Turn 3 Movement phase and then target selection, or wouldn't it be better to listen to B.Grant or N. Nanavati? And that isn't a buncha StrawMan hooey. In every case, we'd all go with the veteran, successful source of advice.

The veteran's opinion is certainly more valid in authority than the non-attendee or the rookie attendee, in any situation, field, career, etc. Non-tourney goers, lacking the experience of what actually happens at tourneys can't really weigh in with validity on how players behave at top or mid-tables, Round 4's unpredictability (hangovers and drops), and how fun the kiddie pool gets ...

You sort of argue my point though. I think we would both agree that competence is key. And how long someone has been doing something does not necessarily equate competence. There is no guarantee whatsoever that simply because someone has been playing this game for 25 years that they know how to organize or design competitive games better than someone who is newer. Furthermore, nobody is obliged to adopt an attitude of deference, so someone throwing out their veterancy as a way to shut down debate is foolhardy.

 Brothererekose wrote:
The continuing increase of tourney events pretty much says 'no', that this is not now, nor will be, true. And your statement in orange is not pointing out something ironic, it's just contradictory, 'as it grows, it will push people away'. Just scroll through ITC's events record for the data on how many more folks are playing 40k than any time in the past.

Anecdotal, but still true: There were a few teen 'kids' I remember from 5e now returning to 40k, playing the league, only they're in their 20s, with bigger budgets.

How is it less permissive? Paint standards, sure, yer correct there. However, when we scroll back through this thread, we find many chiming in that raising the standard for paint is a positive thing.

I think you misunderstood my point. Competitive 40k is a minority of the community. As it grows and its requirements and standardization increase, it will become more exclusive. These new painting rules are an example of that. I only hope that a line will be drawn somewhere to prevent GW from eroding the independence of the ITC.

 Brothererekose wrote:
" ... less friendly" ? For 7+ years, GTs and RTTs continue to be fine and dandy for me and for those I perceive across the table.

Perhaps anecdotal, but the number of Those Guys seems to be increasing in competitive play. Or maybe I am simply viewing the past through rose-tinted glasses. Anyhow, it's a huge problem because this game is pretty much impossible to play without some level of trust between opponents.

 Brothererekose wrote:
"Ridiculous 100%"? How about posting some of your non-GW? I'm not talking about China-forge as a good paint job hides the source material. Suzuteo, what do you own that is a cool proxy? Rule of Cool is in effect at the FLG GTs, so what is it you'd play, but wouldn't make GW's standard? Post some pictures, please.

I actually am talking about conversions, which have always been around in the hobby and one of the reasons why I got into it.

For example, I just finished these Fulgurites:


However, I do not believe they are allowed in any GW-sponsored streamed match because the heads and shoulders are not GW. Now, if this were a GW tournament, this policy would be fine; I would simply not attend. But this is ITC. It seems wrong for a model to be legal up until it gets in front of GW's camera.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Byte wrote:
Listen, you came at me and my opinion so pardon me if I point out the flaws in yours albeit "yours".

You DID say it would die. The opposite of "survive" is "die". Your welcome.

Again you write your posts with no context in them. You may want to work on that, its unbecoming. I mentioned how long I played because competitive play has been around that long and will always be. Its going to survive. It had nothing to do with an opinion, its fact based on 25 years of being involved with the game. But you couldn't help but snap to rudeness default. Classy. Do you really think the game has been bigger than right now? Because that is what your implying. Reading comprehension 101. See that?

I do agree excessive competitive requirements push the casual comp player away. Not everybody eats and sleeps this game or has the time and money to adapt all the time.

You're right. I apologize for coming off as rude, and I think we got off on the wrong foot.

I think you are misreading some of what I am trying to say. To clarify, I am actually very pro-ITC and pro-tourney. I want this game and its competitive scene to grow. However, I am observing that a natural and paradoxical consequence of this is that more and more people will be excluded from participation. I think as a community, we need to be vocal and clear about what sort of competitive scene that we want and, if some people are to be excluded, who ought to be. I think that it is essential that we not sacrifice the hobby aspect of Warhammer in favor of making it some sterile sport. This means tabletop ready paint jobs, coherent and cinematic army palettes, conversions, and some consideration toward narrative.

EDIT: Oh, and we should really stop idolizing competitive players. The amount of cheating and unsportsman conduct, even amongst long and well-known names, is quite horrifying.

 Suzuteo wrote:
You sort of argue my point though.

I didn't think I did, but on the reread, I think I get your point.

 Suzuteo wrote:
I think we would both agree that competence is key. And how long someone has been doing something does not necessarily equate competence.

Competence is key, in 40k? Yes.
Experience? Specific to 40k? Okay, yes, I get your point. I do get flabbergasted when someone picks up the game this edition, and whups me, since I've been playing since 4e. And after 15 years, and 18 months with a specific army, I'm still a 50/50 W/L player. Or less.

 Suzuteo wrote:
There is no guarantee whatsoever that simply because someone has been playing this game for 25 years that they know how to organize or design competitive games better than someone who is newer. Furthermore, nobody is obliged to adopt an attitude of deference, so someone throwing out their veterancy as a way to shut down debate is foolhardy.

I dunno as "Hey, I'm a veteran, shaddap!" is what was meant, so much as "I have seen & experienced these things. Have you?"

Often, though, the crux issue in dakka discusions is when players post negatives about tourneys & the ITC & FLG, and they don't attend them, and/or have not for years, like since 6e. That's not a matter of competence. That's definitely, "You haven't been there. I have. You don't attend these things. I do. Shaddap!"
Does that clarify?

 Suzuteo wrote:

I think you misunderstood my point. Competitive 40k is a minority of the community. As it grows and its requirements and standardization increase, it will become more exclusive. These new painting rules are an example of that. I only hope that a line will be drawn somewhere to prevent GW from eroding the independence of the ITC.

It was stated a couple posts up, these rules are for LVO, not the ITC. Reece has stated it often.

Of course, someone will counter that with "But, the ITC is quite likely to adopt what happens at SoCal Open and LVO". Fair enough, but both GW & FLG state that what you want to do with your own tourney and games is up to you, and it's encouraged. So, if you and yer buds don't like a ruling, get organized, make sure your TO is on board and play how you like.

Further, once the LVO is over, the ne ITC season starts. And *that* means players might be starting new armies, which in turn leads to our local RTT TO relaxing the paint standards because players start exploring new stuff.

 Suzuteo wrote:
Perhaps anecdotal, but the number of Those Guys seems to be increasing in competitive play. Or maybe I am simply viewing the past through rose-tinted glasses. Anyhow, it's a huge problem because this game is pretty much impossible to play without some level of trust between opponents.

Are you a tourney going regular? Where do ya play?

I sincerely don't see it as a problem at all. There's only one player in California who I don't trust, out of a pool of (chalking up some numbers of faces I see regularly), I dunno, 200 or so regulars? And this guy has been a tool since 4e. There are a couple others I can name or at least identify (Calif players), and they've been out of the scene for years.

TFGs in 'competitive play' (you've really got to define it. I define it as those players who are and expect to show in the Top 8 of GTs) are going away from the game, as best I observe. No scandals in 2019 that I can recall. You? It was 2018, I think when Carpondo was a little douchy (but still legal) in his Top 8 game versus Nayden (2018, right?). The American Team C. gaff with catachans riding turtles is deep in 2018 or 2017.

 Suzuteo wrote:

For example, I just finished these Fulgurites:

Spoiler:

Those are nice! I'd allow and if no one was looking closely, I'd bet they'd pass.

What kinda is silly to me, is that on the stream, I can barely see what the models look like anyway, especially the infantry.

 Suzuteo wrote:
However, I do not believe they are allowed in any GW-sponsored streamed match because the heads and shoulders are not GW. Now, if this were a GW tournament, this policy would be fine; I would simply not attend. But this is ITC. It seems wrong for a model to be legal up until it gets in front of GW's camera.

Remember, not ITC, but LVO, subtle in difference, but there.

 Suzuteo wrote:

EDIT: Oh, and we should really stop idolizing competitive players. The amount of cheating and unsportsman conduct, even amongst long and well-known names, is quite horrifying.

Again, the things I know about (and I think I'm reasonably informed on the Big Stuff) are more than a year's time in the past. Can you name any 2019 scandals?

... an ETC player got tossed?


And I don't idolize any of those dudes. Sure, I'd like to play that well and go 5-1 or tuck a GT title under my belt. But idolize them?

At SoCal Open, I was helping a buddy glue his models that got broken. N.N. was standing there and I ordered him to get some water and drip it onto a jetbike's stand to get the super glue to set faster. IIRC, N.N. stated that he didn't know that water did that.

Lookit me, I taught Nanavati something! I guess he should pay *me*. If you ask him though, I don't know as he'd actually know my name, other than 'that little beer guy who hangs with Carlos.'

 Brothererekose wrote:

 Suzuteo wrote:
You sort of argue my point though.

I didn't think I did, but on the reread, I think I get your point.

 Suzuteo wrote:
I think we would both agree that competence is key. And how long someone has been doing something does not necessarily equate competence.

Competence is key, in 40k? Yes.
Experience? Specific to 40k? Okay, yes, I get your point. I do get flabbergasted when someone picks up the game this edition, and whups me, since I've been playing since 4e. And after 15 years, and 18 months with a specific army, I'm still a 50/50 W/L player. Or less.

 Suzuteo wrote:
There is no guarantee whatsoever that simply because someone has been playing this game for 25 years that they know how to organize or design competitive games better than someone who is newer. Furthermore, nobody is obliged to adopt an attitude of deference, so someone throwing out their veterancy as a way to shut down debate is foolhardy.

I dunno as "Hey, I'm a veteran, shaddap!" is what was meant, so much as "I have seen & experienced these things. Have you?"

Often, though, the crux issue in dakka discusions is when players post negatives about tourneys & the ITC & FLG, and they don't attend them, and/or have not for years, like since 6e. That's not a matter of competence. That's definitely, "You haven't been there. I have. You don't attend these things. I do. Shaddap!"
Does that clarify?

 Suzuteo wrote:

I think you misunderstood my point. Competitive 40k is a minority of the community. As it grows and its requirements and standardization increase, it will become more exclusive. These new painting rules are an example of that. I only hope that a line will be drawn somewhere to prevent GW from eroding the independence of the ITC.

It was stated a couple posts up, these rules are for LVO, not the ITC. Reece has stated it often.

Of course, someone will counter that with "But, the ITC is quite likely to adopt what happens at SoCal Open and LVO". Fair enough, but both GW & FLG state that what you want to do with your own tourney and games is up to you, and it's encouraged. So, if you and yer buds don't like a ruling, get organized, make sure your TO is on board and play how you like.

Further, once the LVO is over, the ne ITC season starts. And *that* means players might be starting new armies, which in turn leads to our local RTT TO relaxing the paint standards because players start exploring new stuff.

 Suzuteo wrote:
Perhaps anecdotal, but the number of Those Guys seems to be increasing in competitive play. Or maybe I am simply viewing the past through rose-tinted glasses. Anyhow, it's a huge problem because this game is pretty much impossible to play without some level of trust between opponents.

Are you a tourney going regular? Where do ya play?

I sincerely don't see it as a problem at all. There's only one player in California who I don't trust, out of a pool of (chalking up some numbers of faces I see regularly), I dunno, 200 or so regulars? And this guy has been a tool since 4e. There are a couple others I can name or at least identify (Calif players), and they've been out of the scene for years.

TFGs in 'competitive play' (you've really got to define it. I define it as those players who are and expect to show in the Top 8 of GTs) are going away from the game, as best I observe. No scandals in 2019 that I can recall. You? It was 2018, I think when Carpondo was a little douchy (but still legal) in his Top 8 game versus Nayden (2018, right?). The American Team C. gaff with catachans riding turtles is deep in 2018 or 2017.

 Suzuteo wrote:

For example, I just finished these Fulgurites:

Spoiler:

Those are nice! I'd allow and if no one was looking closely, I'd bet they'd pass.

What kinda is silly to me, is that on the stream, I can barely see what the models look like anyway, especially the infantry.

 Suzuteo wrote:
However, I do not believe they are allowed in any GW-sponsored streamed match because the heads and shoulders are not GW. Now, if this were a GW tournament, this policy would be fine; I would simply not attend. But this is ITC. It seems wrong for a model to be legal up until it gets in front of GW's camera.

Remember, not ITC, but LVO, subtle in difference, but there.

 Suzuteo wrote:

EDIT: Oh, and we should really stop idolizing competitive players. The amount of cheating and unsportsman conduct, even amongst long and well-known names, is quite horrifying.

Again, the things I know about (and I think I'm reasonably informed on the Big Stuff) are more than a year's time in the past. Can you name any 2019 scandals?

... an ETC player got tossed?


And I don't idolize any of those dudes. Sure, I'd like to play that well and go 5-1 or tuck a GT title under my belt. But idolize them?

At SoCal Open, I was helping a buddy glue his models that got broken. N.N. was standing there and I ordered him to get some water and drip it onto a jetbike's stand to get the super glue to set faster. IIRC, N.N. stated that he didn't know that water did that.

Lookit me, I taught Nanavati something! I guess he should pay *me*. If you ask him though, I don't know as he'd actually know my name, other than 'that little beer guy who hangs with Carlos.'

Just because it didn't hit the net doesn't mean there weren't any scandals, it just means they stayed local. For example, there was an event that had some shadiness involving possible bias in paint scoring that went almost entirely under the radar because it wasn't one of the big-big time events and no one could prove foul play.

ERJAK wrote:
Just because it didn't hit the net doesn't mean there weren't any scandals, it just means they stayed local. For example, there was an event that had some shadiness involving possible bias in paint scoring that went almost entirely under the radar because it wasn't one of the big-big time events and no one could prove foul play.

Drop a name. State which event. Unless you say which event and who was involved, it *will* stay under the radar. I'm a big believer in dropping names (can you tell from previous posts?) and making sure everyone knows who everyone else is. And it makes the hobby better, the tourney scene better.

Why be so cagey about it? Outing bad players is what makes things better.

Saying, " there was an event that had some shadiness involving possible bias in paint scoring " ... yer giving us nothing.

*Menacing stare, dramatic music drops. GBT turns to Brother, and smoothly drawls out in a Parks-Mumble accent*

“Because snitches get stitches.”

*In the background, an apartment explodes into flames*

 Brothererekose wrote:
I sincerely don't see it as a problem at all. There's only one player in California who I don't trust, out of a pool of (chalking up some numbers of faces I see regularly), I dunno, 200 or so regulars? And this guy has been a tool since 4e. There are a couple others I can name or at least identify (Calif players), and they've been out of the scene for years.

No scandals in 2019 that I can recall.

I'm based in California too, actually.

And yes, there were was a lot of drama in 2018. 2019 has been mild by comparison. That being said, anecdotally, this year's scene has not been very encouraging for me. Could just be that many tourneys feel like open air cheese markets. But that could just be the West Coast meta.

 Brothererekose wrote:
Those are nice! I'd allow and if no one was looking closely, I'd bet they'd pass.

What kinda is silly to me, is that on the stream, I can barely see what the models look like anyway, especially the infantry.

Thanks. Honestly, if GW doesn't want well-done (but not "pure") conversions on camera, then they should just get out of the live-streaming ITC events. Worst comes to worst, maybe players will have to start refusing to be streamed. (We are customers, not professionals, and we don't forfeit our publicity rights the instant we participate in a tourney.)

 greatbigtree wrote:
*Menacing stare, dramatic music drops. GBT turns to Brother, and smoothly drawls out in a Parks-Mumble accent*

“Because snitches get stitches.”

*In the background, an apartment explodes into flames*

Lol.