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.

http://gwuscommunity.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2008/11/balt40kfinal.pdf

I took 14th place over all... and damn were they harsh on my painting...

Moz could you post pics of my army since you took them?

Space Marines did shockingly bad, did they use the new Codex?

Yes... they did

I don't think I will be going to any more GW GT's in the near future tho. It was fun, but man... After looking at some of the names on the list I don't think they were very fair on the painting scores... Or at least not very consistent between judges. I see at least 3 armies painted with more detail and better and scored worse then armies with bad/sloppy paint jobs. These few points make a huge difference in the standings.

Well I do know they double checked the highest and lowest paint scores. They didn't have enough time to do a double on all.

GW site is down so who won 1st 2nd 3rd.

I wish they gave you your painting rubric so you could tell where you lost points.

Yeah I'll post what I got tonight. I only have a few far shots though, didn't get close enough for the goods on yours, sorry.

I agree that the paint scores are all over the place and it's really to be expected I think if you consider that there are multiple judges over several days viewing the armies in any number of states.
I never know what to think of paint scores though, I just consider myself not a good enough painter to really understand what they must be looking for.

Sonobovich wrote:I wish they gave you your painting rubric so you could tell where you lost points.

heh, yes... yes they should. You should get it after your last game.

I recommend to everyone to not be prejudged beforehand.

Moz wrote:Yeah I'll post what I got tonight. I only have a few far shots though, didn't get close enough for the goods on yours, sorry.

I agree that the paint scores are all over the place and it's really to be expected I think if you consider that there are multiple judges over several days viewing the armies in any number of states.
I never know what to think of paint scores though, I just consider myself not a good enough painter to really understand what they must be looking for.

ty, and congrats on the Best General

Here are the Fantasy results:

http://gwuscommunity.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2008/11/baltwarfinal.pdf

if a judge likes dreadnoughts and you have a dreadnought basecoated + quick drybrush you win at painting over someone who spends 50 hours modeling and painting a wraithlord because hes not a dreadnought

Kirasu wrote:if a judge likes dreadnoughts and you have a dreadnought base coated + quick dry brush you win at painting over someone who spends 50 hours modeling and painting a wraithlord because hes not a dreadnought

this is speculation... as accurate as it may seem I've been doing some thinking and comparing to my job.... I just think the judges are harsher at the start then they are at the end... its the same with teaching. That's why I grade each test one page at a time so I grade all the first pages then all of the second... etc etc... its a hard task to be consistent...

MEH

There is definitely something wrong when an army that gets 4 players choice awards only gets a 30/40 in painting.

skyth wrote:There is definitely something wrong when an army that gets 4 players choice awards only gets a 30/40 in painting.

Obviously I can't speak for the quality of the army having not seen it, but theres nothing out of the ordinary for an army that is not technically perfect drumming up a tonne of player votes. As someone who aims almost exclusively for the players choice style awards, I can tell you that most of the time it has next to nothing to do with how its painted, compared to the importance of colour choice, conversions (but not subtle conversions, as noone even notices them), cohesiveness and wow factor.

skyth wrote:There is definitely something wrong when an army that gets 4 players choice awards only gets a 30/40 in painting.

That was scored about right. I was one of the 4 who voted for it. It wasn't the paint job it was the whole concept I liked. Players choice is just that, the army that players like.

wynnstudio

frgsinwntr wrote: I've been doing some thinking and comparing to my job.... I just think the judges are harsher at the start then they are at the end... its the same with teaching. That's why I grade each test one page at a time so I grade all the first pages then all of the second... etc etc... its a hard task to be consistent...

Maybe, although I had mine judged on Friday night. I'm of the opinion that you'll get a fairer score if you let the judges take their time with your army instead of having them rush and grade it in between rounds after your models have started to show tournament wear.

Obviously I can't speak for the quality of the army having not seen it, but theres nothing out of the ordinary for an army that is not technically perfect drumming up a tonne of player votes. As someone who aims almost exclusively for the players choice style awards, I can tell you that most of the time it has next to nothing to do with how its painted, compared to the importance of colour choice, conversions (but not subtle conversions, as noone even notices them), cohesiveness and wow factor.

Dont forget he had 4 friends there too (j/k)

Lemartes wrote:GW site is down so who won 1st 2nd 3rd.

Cauley, Neil Orks 98 50 32 1 0 180 Overall
Adams, John Orks 92 46 30 0 4 168 Best General
Johnson, Richard Chaos Daemons 87 47 30 1 0 164 2nd Best General
Cook, Justin Tyranids 81 48 35 1 0 164

I'd be curious to see a rubric as well. I'd like to know what I need to improve. I got a number of comments on the look of my army, but scored a 29 on painting, which I guess isn't that bad. I did look at the scores of my opponents, and they were all but 1 below that. Maybe they were particularly tight on painting judging.

The other thing is that display bases, and having a large center point to your army (even if not part of your list, i.e. a FW model) go a long way in garnering attention. The trick is to get people to stop and go "wow".

I saw a tremendously painted eldar army, multiple blended layers, perfectly highlighted, technically perfect. I would have walked right by it if my friend hadn't pointed it out to me. No display base, no large models, nothing to "catch my eye" from 3 feet away. It probably got overlooked by a lot of people as a result.

That was Eric Furman's army that I pointed out to you. The judges had him at a 40 too, so all the back-and-forth between our tables during the last round probably meant they had a tough time deciding who to give 1st place. That makes me feel better, as his army was tremendous and got my player's choice vote.

frgsinwntr wrote:Yes... they did

That's because the ork 'dex is broken! Suck it marinies!!!!

<--- Not going to win any sportsmanship awards.....

This is not speculation. There is a minor paint judge issue at GW GT's. All but one of the judges looks at the armies from what I will call a 'tournament based' perspective. One of the judges, and only one, looks at the armies from a 'Golden Daemon' perspective and usually scores armies about eight points lower than the other judges. The checklist system works for the other judges because they are a good bit more flexible and lenient both stylistically and artistically.

The last version of my Tau army scored a 30 at two GT's from two different judges. The judge in question gave it a 22 at Vegas. I queried one of the more reasonable paint judges at Baltimore and he said their is indeed an issue with this.

The answer, as always these days, is to present your concerns to Dave Taylor. He does listen and he does act.

sooo I got "lucky" and got the one... heh... :(

scotts wrote:This is not speculation. There is a minor paint judge issue at GW GT's. All but one of the judges looks at the armies from what I will call a 'tournament based' perspective. One of the judges, and only one, looks at the armies from a 'Golden Daemon' perspective and usually scores armies about eight points lower than the other judges. The checklist system works for the other judges because they are a good bit more flexible and lenient both stylistically and artistically.

The last version of my Tau army scored a 30 at two GT's from two different judges. The judge in question gave it a 22 at Vegas. I queried one of the more reasonable paint judges at Baltimore and he said their is indeed an issue with this.

The answer, as always these days, is to present your concerns to Dave Taylor. He does listen and he does act.

I don't agree that this is the case. I have the GT player's packet which includes the painting rubric on which the scoring was done at the GT (on a 46 point scale, with 40 being the highest score). I scored my army, and came up with a 25. I received a 29 at the GT. Were the judges being too lenient? Who knows. The packet and rubric then goes on to describe the way painting is judged, and how it is subjective, and almost impossible to do.

I started going to GT's in '98 at the end of 2nd edition when the painting was judged by GW employees, and everyone complained. Then it switched to judged by players, and people complained. Then your opponents judged painting. Everyone complained. Now they're back to GW judging it. Guess what... same result. I think with the current rubric in hand as you're preparing your army, you can get a good idea of your score, regardless of who scores it (and granted, sometimes people just don't like a particular scheme, etc, regardless of its quality). However, all that being said, I like the current version, as it takes a large part of the overall score out of the players' hands, where there is the temptation to monkey with points to gain an advantage. It ain't perfect, but its all we got

Do all the judges look at all the armies or do they split them up and look some each?

I'm looking at the results for 40k and all I see is Orks and Chaos Marines...

What happened to all the Tyranid and Eldar players!!

Ozymandias, King of Kings

5th edition?

maybe have all the judges, judge each army and then average the results? or split it up into sections where 2 judges check and then average the scores?

Ozymandias wrote:I'm looking at the results for 40k and all I see is Orks and Chaos Marines...

What happened to all the Tyranid and Eldar players!!

Ozymandias, King of Kings

There was an Tyranind army tied for 3rd and if you account for other ties I placed 8th with them.

wynnstudio

Fantasy is even worse. It's nothing but vamps and deamons.