- G

I think he means they're making it easier because they now freely allow you bring a pro-painted army and still compete in the tournament. Whereas before if you admitted that your army was pro-painted you'd essentially be dumped out of the competition (score-wise).

I too want to weigh in on the side of allowing pro-painted armies at tournaments for a number of reasons (most of them already mentioned by others in this thread).

1) It is impossible to police against pro-painted armies if players don't want to admit that their army is pro-painted how is anyone really going to know? The old system only punished those players foolish enough to admit to the tournie organizers that their army was pro-painted.

2) IMO, it is better to play games against (finely) painted armies at tournaments than against half-painted or crappily painted armies. It simply makes the games more enjoyable.

3) Time is money and painting to a high standard take a lot of time. So for players out therer who have more money than time what is really wrong with them paying someone to paint their army? The hobby is about many different things to different people and who am I to sit around and essentially eliminate a whole swathe of gamers from participating in Grand Tournaments simply because they don't have the time or artistic talent to paint well?

I think the current system is great: We get even more great painted armies at the tournament and those honest folks who want to admit that they didn't paint their armies remove themselves from painting award consideration.

 Then again I'm the kind of guy that thinks that painting scores shouldn't have a whole lot to do with who wins overall at a tournament that's about playing the game.

Not true.  A tourney is about what the organizer decides it's about.  GTs have one set of criteria, Gladiator tourneys have another.  They're just different strokes for different folks.  Or maybe even different strokes for the same folks. 

If you attend a tournament, it's your responsibility to understand the scoring system.  People who attend a tourney and then carp afterwards because they don't like the criteria used just show a gross lack of personal responsibility. 

The GTs have been more or less the same for a decade now...I don't know how a large amount of focus on painting and sportsmanship sneaks up on anyone at this point.

Grand Tournaments circa 2000-2001 used to have a painting score for 'I didn't paint the models myself' and it wasn't a very good score. It essentially eliminated players from overall contention.

I'd rather someone had a friend paint their army than a friend who made their army-list.   You can get a lot of points by having a beatstick army too, and you can pretty much copy that off the internet.  That also teaches people the wrong thing, but I don't see it not happening.

I think Voodoo Boyz has the perfect solution- if you didn't paint your army, you can't win 'best painted', but it shouldn't affect your overall score.

G,

An informal survey with a lot of input from all over isn't worth much, unless you tell us who voted, what the exact questions were (and the questions can't vary in terminology), and what their background in the hobby is.

Best Painted is the award for PAINTING the best army there.  You should have to paint the army to win best painted.  NO ONE IS ARGUING THAT.

But what you are proposing is that bringing a army professionally painted by someone else should preclude you from winning the tourney.  Meaning you have NO SHOT.  So what is the motivation to be honest?  Someone might know?  Please.  No one here knows what I look like (and I doubt I'm the only one who can say that).  In order to increase the quality of the tourney, why not allow the greatest pool of competitors into the overall running.  This means people are more likely to invest the time to paint the army, or invest the MONEY to get someone good to paint their army.  It means BETTER looking armies to play against for everyone.  Which is GOOD for the tourney scene.

I call it "the big picture".

Posted By Green Bloater on 06/19/2007 1:34 PM
Boy you people are completely clueless.

Posted By Green Bloater on 06/20/2007 5:53 AM
Saying you want people to pay money to have their armies painted because that is more fun for you is simply arrogant and comes across as stupid as well. I hate to see people baaah like sheep and follow the crowd. You are a fair to middling painter and should extol the virtues of painting rather than saying 'baaaah'.

Posted By Green Bloater on 06/19/2007 1:34 PM
QFT

If you re-instate the policy of eliminating pro-painted armies from overall consideration now you create a serious reason for normally honest players to conceal the fact that their army is pro-painted.

Once they've commited to concealing the fact that their army is pro-painted you are much, much more likely to end up with a pro-painted army winning a 'best painted' award.


It's like the ridiculous DRM software on iTunes music. The record companies just don't seem to understand that the only people they are punishing are the honest consumers who are legally purchasing their music, so what real incentive is there for people with the means not to illegally download DRM-free files?


If GTs were to go back to docking pro-painted armies it would be the epitome of burying one's head in the sand to escape the rising tide: The only thing it would accomplish is that you wouldn't see the water rising. . .

note: not a gt but a rogue trader.

Posted By Green Bloater on 06/20/2007 12:46 PM
So the premise that someone can waltz in with a pro painted amy, lie, then win best overall is invalid. Nobody can fly that low under the radar.

That's a fallacy. Just because it hasn't happened (if it hasn't) doesn't mean it can't or won't happen soon.

The point is:  There is absolutely no way to enforce a rule about self-painted armies without sending tournament judges into people's bedrooms to watch them paint.

So I say again: The only thing a pro-painted point penalty at a GT does is to penalize those players honest enough to admit they paid for their painted miniatures.

Seriously, the rule was (and still is) a bad idea.

I am thick???  I've been making the same point over and over, clear as a bell.  The same point, I might add, that numerous other members are making as well.  In many different ways.  With different analogies.

If I have to paint my own army...I'll probably never go to a tourney.  I'll NEVER invest the time into that portion of the hobby, so I'll simply miss that experience.  But I'd like to have it.  I'd like to go. 

But I (and many others) are talking in a circle here.  You are missing the point being made.

I love well-painted models.  I'll never buy pre-painted, because the quality won't be acceptable.  I've spent a pretty penny on top-notch models...because I like that part of the hobby.  But I don't have the hours to invest to get to Level whatever.  Sorry.  I still would like to be allowed to compete in tourneys with a top-shelf army.  I think other hobbyists would enjoy new blood with new armies as well.

And again, regardless of what percentage of people want that, re-instating a rule punishing pro-painted armies will not stop a pro-painted army from winning best overall it will only punish those players foolish enough to be honest. You just don't seem to comprehend that fact.

Worse still, I think it brings an accusatory tone to the GTs with players whispering to each other that they heard from some guy that joe shcmoe over there actually has a pro-painted army.

Why bring that negative attitude back? Why not just let everyone be honest, play games and have a good time?

But all I'm "saying" is that instituting a punitive pro-painted army rule does not prevent a pro-painted army from winning anything, so what is the point of such a rule?

Do you really want to punish honesty and reward dishonesty?

I'm appealing to common sense not the lowest common denominator. I personally don't care whether one guy has won a RTT a or a hundred guys have won GTs with pro-painted armies.

What bothers me is the simple fact that the rule does not work and is therefore useless.

I know a whole lot of players who like playing the game, like the background, like to win but absolutely hate painting. To those players the hobby they enjoy is creating an army list, playing the game and reading about the background.

Now, if one of those players wants to really compete in a GT with a chance to win (and why shouldn't everyone have that chance?) with a punitive pro-painted army rule in place what choices does he have:

1) Spend years learning to do something he doesn't enjoy (painting).

2) Crappily paint his own army or buy a pro-painted army and declare it to the tournament organizers (doing either essentially knocks him out of contention to win the tournament).

3) Buy a pro-painted army and conceal the fact, thereby allowing him the chance to win both overall, best painted and player's choice.

Which of those three options does it seem most likely such a player would choose?

I reiterate: The only thing a punitive rule accomplishes is to punish those players foolish enough to be honest. Frankly, that makes it an idiotic rule to enforce.

By all means, provide an alternate choice, G.  And provide the mechanism for ensuring honesty.  Or are you simply *assuming* honesty?

While at it, prove that EVERY person competing came up with their army list with NO help.  That's just as much of the hobby, and just as affordable.  And probably more pertinent to a tourney than the painting.

I don't have to travel 6-12 hours to play 40K.  I can do that ten minutes from my house, so playing the game is NOT what brings me there.  What drags me hundreds of miles across the desert is the chance to see some really nice armies and play against them, as well as the chance to show off the best army I can make.

When I'm walking down the isles enjoying the armies that have been brought (and there were some real nice ones at the LVGT this year), I don't ask the player if he painted it, I just enjoy them, and find inspiration for my own projects.

I don't care how that player got the paint on the models, I'm just happy to see them painted. 

GreenBloater, even though I can tell you feel passionately about your stance, if you had your way, there would be fewer nicely painted armies at the tournaments, so I consider your stance a threat to the very reason I go to GT's.

But, just before I start getting too upset, I remember that you do not run the U.S. GT circuit, and the people who do run them don't listen to you, and then I feel better, and take a sip of eggnog.

Ahh...I love eggnog.

I doubt thats what Grean bloater was saying.  In laymans terms he was saying (to my knoledge) that people who do not paint there own armies should not win the best painted.  If they win the trophy should go to the painter (thats last part is my opinion)

I doubt there would be fewer nicely painted armies though as a lot of people paint there own armies to a high standard. 

I always like to see people armies that they have done themselves no matter how well/badly painted they are as long as they have made the effort

I don't.  I like to see good armies painted to a high standard.

I can see crappy armies for free at my local stores.  If I'm shelling out several hundreds of dollars to attend a GT, I want to see excellence.

Self-painted excellence, pro-painted excellence...it's all the same to me so long as it looks good.

Sure, why not?  If some guys wants to hire a GT winner to play in his stead and then give the trophy over to him afterwards, it makes no difference to me, so long as the GT winner he hires is fun to play against.

Besides, people already do that to a large extent anyway.  Have you ever posted your army list online to get advice?  Sure you have, and guess what, you just used the skills and experience of someone else to potentially improve your battle score.

To me, it's not fundamentally different then using the skills and experience of someone else to potentially improve your painting score.

It's easy to say that people who disagree with you should just go away and do somethine else, but the sword cuts both ways, you know.  If you don't like people using pro-painted armies, then go away and organize your own tournament where pro-painted armies are illegal, and you tournament organizers can use tarot cards, the psychic friends hotline, and prayers to the great spaghetti monster to weed out the liars. 

Not where I play. 

If your local hobby stores happen to be populated with former 'Eavy Metal staff members, then I salute your luck.  Me, I'm lucky to play against a 3-color army.  My armies are perpetually fighting on "Noob," the demon world in the eye of terror dedicated to grey plastic and shiny metal with the mold lines still attached.

GB's stance was they shouldn't win Best Overall.  EVERY SINGLE PERSON HAS STATED THEY SHOULD NOT WIN "BEST PAINTED".  Reading is fundamental, beef.  Try it before paraphrasing what GB said.  Or find someone in here who said they should be eligible for Best Painted.

And seeing a nice army online or in WD is very different from seeing on in person/playing it.  That's a very poor strawman argument.  As stated on the last page, tourney quality armies are one of the major draws to many players.

Again, reading is fundamental. 

Hey, cut beef a little slack.  He can't be bothered with reading.  He's still got another 1200 Hail-Mary's to say before he'll be forgiven for winning that tournament with an army he didn't paint.

I mean, it takes a lot of effort to both win awards with armies you didn't paint AND simultaneously condem other people for doing it.

Thats my opinion, hell everybody else has given their own so why should'nt I do the same.  if it is similar to other peoples  whats wrong with that?  Like you so clearly put it everybody else has said the same thing so once again why should i not say it aswell??   Did they not read this aswell? Go figure?

@ DOC_THUNDER Hey it was a doubles tournament.  Me and my brother were together and used the army he had painted.  It was clearlt written as to who painted the army but cos it was a doubles tournie i got a certificate aswell.  he kept the trophy

To an extent yes.  But how could you garantee that the winner would give it to the painter?  Hell the painter might not even want it.  BUT atleast other people will know that the person did not paint it himself.

My situation was slightly different as the guy who painted the army (my brother) was also playing with them along with me.

The problem can also be that you are a good painter playing in a tournament, as well.

A long time ago, in a store far far away,back in the early 1990's, a group of us played in a tourny that we were almost attacked at for painting quality armies, when all of the locals were painted like crap.This was after we cleaned them out in the wins, we were judged to be pretty good paint jobs and won the painted armies competition as well. We were drawn into a heated discussion about the painting, and were basicly outed for the jobs. We ended up owning them and I stopped going to tournies because of the attitude.

While I can see your point,  how do you know who's a pro painted army, and someone is just a good painter? People don't always have to play with the " three color minimum with the slopped on look. I put in almost six months into my paint job at the time, then basicly got told I was a cheat because I supposedly paid someone.

People dont paint enought to begin with, then you throw in the usual play with the FOTM army, and you have to be subjected to all sorts of mess on the table and no standards. Is there any wonder that people would go to someone and pay to get the army painted?

It doesn't help that local game stores don't promote painting in the shops or give painting time to people without looking for a profit in it, it only gives people more of a, " Why not go get it done professionally, if I can get it paid for" thought process to it.

To me, an army on the table should be an investment. It is your standards, your choice, and your effort so that people can see what you have been working on, and the commitment is shown in such a way when you play. Any army, any game, people play better when they play with thier own creation. maybe not at first, but when yopur armies grow, your tactics change, and you can see how people play with a prepainted army, as opposed to the one they did themselves.

In the issue of judging, I could theoreticly see them getting rid of that standard to judge by. and go for others, such as make up, tactics, sportmenship, etc. if it is such an issue that people can start recognising the painters work.

of course this is just my opinion.

EDIT: Yes, this the system above would require the honor system, but the rewards might mitigate the desire to cheat (especially considering the points count for the tourney, no matter who painted it).

So, you mean the current way?

Were the purpose of a tourney solely every man playing to simply win, you'd be correct.  But that is NOT the purpose of a tourney.  So your postulation is flawed.

The purpose of a tourney is to PLAY.  People get help on their lists all the time...it can't be controlled or monitored.  The only thing you see a person do at the tourney is PLAY.  The list is built before (in private), same with the painting of the army.

Were your concerns that valid, the list, the painting, and the competition would all be held in public.  They are not.

Besides, if someone just wants trophies, they could easily do what you said.  It would make no sense, since ther point of the hobby is playing with well-painted armies.  There already is a specific painting competition...the Golden Demon.  That should apply the rigid rules to painting/converting.  The tourney side focuses on the game itself.

Based on my previous experience, the hits that people would take in the early 2000s due to not painting their forces were unjustified.  I used to be of the opinion that you had to paint your entire force in order to win overall.  However, after seeing the crap points that people would get at one time for being honest, I found it was just not worth it.  

Painting your own army and winning with it is a personal matter that players have to decide what is best for themselves.  I believe it is a higher level of achievement if you do all of the work yourself.  However, that is again just a personal standard that I have looked to hold myself to over the past couple years.  

Which still doesn't change the fact that the statement was wrong at the time it was written.

>>>The thing is what is to stop someone from fielding a pro-painted army and using it to win the best painted award?

And what do you propose to stop them?  There is nothing any Tournament Organizer can do to stop pro-painted armies from being entered by people willing to lie about it.  It is a reality beyond anyone's ability to change, so I don't understand why you'd keep bringing it up unless you have a solution.

Post removed for being a ridiculous and needless insult.

GB, you've been right on the line this whole thread insulting people who don't agree with your viewpoint, but if you feel the need to do it again I will lock the thread.

--yakface

Edit: erp..too late.

The counterargument can also be made. You want to win painting then enter a painting competition, not a gaming tournament.

That is correct. But calling someone a tin soldier because painting is less a priority lacks cohesion as the same comment can be made about those who focus on painting.

of course, real men play an all grot army. And convert all the grots...

Got any evidence or reason to think that, or are we just throwing out random accusations now?  Oh, I got a couple, their dice were loaded, and coke and pepsi are the same thing!

Actually, I think this illustrates a very real potential problem.  We have long been accustomed to sore losers accusing the winners of using "cheesy" armies or cheating, but now we may have a new permutation of that, sore losers who didn't win the painting award accusing the winners of using pro-painted armies.

I wonder if the people extremely opposed to pro-painted armies are acting that way out of a philisophical distaste, or if they are simply lashing out at a potential threat to their own models winning an award someday.

- G

Bloat,

You've managed to call a lot of people "ass" so far, but frankly, you've been the biggest one in this disucssion.  I do applaud this thread, as you have proven to be the least competent poster I've ever seen at Dakka at debating a point.  This thread actually began as a discussion, and the only points made on your side have been made by other posters.  You've contributed nothing but anecdotally sketchy opinions and insults, while ignoring post after post after post of coherent points recommending something in contradiction of your initial post.  You've ignored these points time and again, falling back on junior high level name-calling.

It's actually embarassing to read.  I'm not one to go whine to mods, so I figured I'd just call you on your utter and completely specious b******t.  Feel free to respond, with logic and/or reason, to any of the points made by almost any of the posters on the opposite side from you.  I'd further point out that Player's Choice is NOT Best Painted, as evidenced by the fact that GT's have had them as *separate* awards for YEARS, but what's the point?  It's like arguing with a second-grader.

You inability to provide any measured defense of your position would be tolerable if you had provided any entertainment value in your non-defenses.  But your insults are painfully unfunny, and your wit completely absent from the discourse.

I await my own insult...at least I have earned it, unlike most of the others subjected to your scathing retorts.

And I almost forgot to mention one of the event organizers contacted me and said next year you can only enter models you paint. Pretty cool huh?

- G

I have a pro-painted army. There, I said it... This must be what an AA meeting is like.(lol)

I am a decent painter but nothing more. 20 years of this hobby tells me I'm not likely going to get better at the painting aspect of it - if it hasn't happened by now it's not going to. I enjoy seeing beautifull armies on the table. I don't care where they came from or who did them. They could be fresh delivered by F'n space aliens the day of the event for all I care.

No one I have played against has moaned about my army. I am completely open & honest about who painted it. I'm proud to have an army painted by this individual. If I had the ability to do this work myself  I'd certainly do it as it is far cheaper on my wallet.

A hobby can mean many different things to many different people. I know people who would never willingly play in a tournament as they don't like that sort of thing. I can't say they are any less a part of this hobby for their view....why enforce yours on them?

Lazarus.

Lazarus.

Also, I know for a fact that a gamer by the name of James Prestidge in your area has tried to pass off the work of Scott Bowser as his own at Adepticon, and he was an affiliate of your gaming club at Necro. So, you do know someone who does try to pull off that they painted their own army despite the fact that it was pro-painted by a multiple Golden Deamon winner, and recipient of the Slayer Sword.

I did find it funny that he didn't do his display board (of which we already knew about) - I wonder if there was anything else not done by him? Perhaps we need some sort of video documentation - should we just accept his word or that of friends?

Odd mess this is....

Lazarus.

Lazarus.

I can't believe this ranting has gone on for 17 pages now. Sheesh.

Still, here's my two cents:

Steve (aka Green Bloater, aka Greenie, aka BloodyT, aka Genius, aka WC_Green_Blow_Fly), I really think you should be focusing on being a nicer guy than complaining endlessly about the painting scores.

After all, you do have a certain reputation in our area. And it seems elsewhere too now, as you did score 7th lowest (of 53 players) in Sportsmanship in the Charlotte 2003 GT, 2nd lowest (of 49 players) in Sportsmanship in the latest Necro, 6th lowest (of 164 players) in Sportsmanship in the Las Vegas 2007 GT, and 2nd lowest (of 75 players) in Sportsmanship in the Atlanta 2007 GDT.

That kinda indicates a pattern to me. So I'd suggest working on being less of a troll and more of a good sport before even beginning to question other people's painting.

Just some friendly advice and not meant to be an attack or anything. And just my opinion, of course. Take it for what it's worth.