Why are 40k players hatings on Paintings scores?

[Lord Azaghul]

Edit: I so wish a could edit my thread title
**I posted this last week in my blog and thought I'd rather this be actually discusses then have no one look at it! :D **


Ok, so you read the title, and at least I’ve got your attention for the moment.
So I little back ground here: last things first.
1)
I’ve been following the thread (local tournaments are getting weird), where 40k players are talking about all the horrible things that they do to each other in attempts to tank the other players score. This seems to be primary in sportsmanship and painting categories. And just for the record I don’t think 40k should be compted. Why can’t you just be honest? They beat me, and they weren’t a jerk! Was that so hard?! Hey there did paint a better army then mine!
2)
I was at a local tournament this weekend, run by my group and during the set up of said tournament (the night before) painting came up again. People grumbled and moaned ‘it’s a competition, painting is subjective, a win’s a win…blah, blah blah’ What’s wrong with awarding a little effort when someone wants there models to look nice?
3)
Two weeks ago, I attended the MWR (Mid West Rampage) for the first time. It was my biggest Indy GT event ever. 40 some odd players, all playing fantasy. (my first game).
It was a compt tourney, painting WAS scored, Sportsmanship was score, and battle points were scored.
Out of 200, 100 was battle points, 60 was Sportsmanship, 40 was painting.
The organizer scored the painting by a nice little check list he had, sportsmanship was scored by your opponent, and battle points was how well you did during the game.
Admittedly it’s a ‘softer’ tourney, and the atmosphere was focused more on ‘the hobby’ the murdering your opponents! But I have an absolute blast, and every one of my opponents had fun as well!
Overall I won all five of my games, received 2nd overall and 2nd best general.
The guy who won first over: have 4 wins and 1 draw. Where did he shine? Painting.

So I’m back to the 40k tourney, explaining to my friends this event telling them:
They were five of the most fun games I have ever had in my war gaming experience! There were no jerks, no poor losers, or irritating winners. Nobody was trashing other sports scores just to get ahead.

And none of them believed me! The thought it was stupid that I lost over painting! The guy who won was just a great guy, and his painting was far better then mine! In fact it wasn’t until I realized why I lost that I even wanted to improve my painting! Painting was simply part of the overall competition, and I’m ok with that!

So here is my issue of late:
Why does it seem that 40k players automatically think the worst of other 40k players?
Why are they afraid of losing due to a painting score or a sportsmanship score?

Even the ones who like to paint view judging or having painting scores period as some kind of blasphemy to ‘competition’

When I started this hobby that guy who got me into it was all about being a gentlemen, painting your miniatures, and most importantly having a good time, for both the player as his/her opponents.

To be this is biggest difference between 40k players and fantasy players: 40k players seem to think ‘winning’ is far more important then other other aspect of the hobby. Fantasy players seem to actually enjoy other aspects of the hobby!

40k players: paint! Enjoy ‘the hobby’ and have fun while losing a game once in a while!
And don’t be afriad to judged my something which doesn’t involve a dice roll.

**
So flame away, agree or disagree I'm all text.

[TSINI]

I don't think any painters in 40k hate being scored on painting, but ALL players should have something against grouping painting AND playing into the same award

the best solutions would be this


Points awarded for win/draw/loss on the tables - final award for 1st, 2nd and 3rd

a separate award for best painted armies (1st, 2nd and 3rd) which can either be judged, or open to voting by the players.

and a sportsmanship award for the best sportsman voted by the players.


once you group the gaming scores in with subjective scores (and in the case of anythig voted by the players = "open to abuse" scores) then you start to create a bitter taste in the players mouths when they come second even though they were curtious, had a painted army, and won 90% of their games - but were spited out of the win because another player had friends who helped bad score all the others.

the above scenario may have never happened, but it can, and therefore this system shouldn't be used.

by all means vote for painting and sportsmanship, but don't bundle them in together with the gaming scores. Painters like to be recognised for their painting, and generals for their tactical skill. people who excell at both will win both awards. people who are just nice need recognition, but recognition because they were nice, not because they won games and were gracious about it.

[DarkAngelHopeful]

I don't think any painters in 40k hate being scored on painting, but ALL players should have something against grouping painting AND playing into the same award

the best solutions would be this


Points awarded for win/draw/loss on the tables - final award for 1st, 2nd and 3rd

a separate award for best painted armies (1st, 2nd and 3rd) which can either be judged, or open to voting by the players.

and a sportsmanship award for the best sportsman voted by the players.


once you group the gaming scores in with subjective scores (and in the case of anythig voted by the players = "open to abuse" scores) then you start to create a bitter taste in the players mouths when they come second even though they were curtious, had a painted army, and won 90% of their games - but were spited out of the win because another player had friends who helped bad score all the others.

the above scenario may have never happened, but it can, and therefore this system shouldn't be used.

by all means vote for painting and sportsmanship, but don't bundle them in together with the gaming scores. Painters like to be recognised for their painting, and generals for their tactical skill. people who excell at both will win both awards. people who are just nice need recognition, but recognition because they were nice, not because they won games and were gracious about it.

QFT /like

[Lord Azaghul]

I have no problem excepting that as the idea. But to date ALL 40k tournaments I have gone to do not even acknowledge painting as a factor.

I also have zero problems with painting being tied into an ‘Overall’ category for the win. That means not only where you a solid general, but you also paint your freaking models to a table top standard.
So my ideal:

So there would be a best general award based sully upon battle points or whatever
A players choices painting award
A player’s choice for sportsmanship award
And an overall award IE guy who does all the stuff in the ‘hobby’ not just a gamer or a painter

If EVERYTHING is part of the competition it shouldn’t be that big of a deal:

Subjective score: This seems to be biggest fear of so many 40k players. How many rules in the game are subjective? At least with painting and a check list some form of ‘standard’ can be achieved. An official in the tourney should be judging all the painting. If its all to his or her subjectivity that itself is a standard.

Sportsmanship: Here’s where I tell every one to grow up and learn how to lose a game with out blaming your opponent. Be an adult, and learn to have fun regardless of the out come. Nobody likes loosing, but like ANY competition, someone wins and someone loses, it’s going to happen.
This is also my biggest source of annoyance with 40k players; and I’m not saying that this doesn’t happen with fantasy players, but I see it far more among 40k players, and more so at 40k tournaments then in casual play, so don’t take this personal.

I think an ‘overall’ approach would force more players to consider every aspect of the hobby:
Respect for you opponent.
Respect for the judge/rules
Appreciation of Painting and modeling.

These things all lead to a better gaming environment and in no way compromise people’s competitive nature.

[Lerra]

It depends on how the paint scores are set up. If it's relatively easy for everyone to get full painting points (ex: you get full points for having 3 colors, wysiwyg, and your army is based) then I don't have a problem if painting is included in the overall score. But anything beyond that is too subjective to be fairly included in overall points. I've seen a beautifully painted army get a 5/30 because the judge hated Ultramarines. It was painted comparably to other armies that were scoring at 25/30. I don't buy that "If its all to [the judge's] subjectivity that itself is a standard" because people are unlikely to repaint an army just to suit a judge's tastes.

Some people travel for tournaments or spend a lot of time preparing, and to be knocked out of the running for prizes because you walked through the door with a blue army is not fun.

An army should be painted to please the owner, not some guy with a clipboard. I've seen people get penalized because their Tzeentch army was deemed to be too bright, or their Black Templars not colorful enough. If someone wants to have a bright Tzeentchian army, they should be able to create that army without penalty. Some of the coolest armies I've ever seen were ones that were risky, that some judges wouldn't like due to fluff or bold conversion/color choices.

[fuzzbuket]

its cause whilst i love 40k it has easier rules than fantasy so those who arnt commited lay 40k and just download lists off the net and buy and poorly assembel armies and mby spray and dip it !

[BuFFo]

In this Hobby of ours, there are many different reasons for why we are in it.

Some of us are in it to play the game.

Some of us are in it for the money (converting figures, painting armies)

Some of us are in it for the painting.

Some of us are in it to collect the models.

Some of us are in it for the Fluff.



When you 'force' every aspect of the hobby on a person, you are esentially penalizing that person for not 'being like you'. If 'you' are in the hobby for all the reasons above, why should 'you' force your opinions on each aspect onto why I am in the hobby?

Now, maybe in a the perfect world you try to represent where everyone respects everyone, and no one is a sh!tty git, your idea would work, but this is real life, and the guy across the table from you smiling is only smiling to get a high Sports Score, while behind your back he is giving you a low score so he can win a prize at the end of the day.

I will always put it this way...

Why do you feel the need to force Painting on a Gaming competetion when I don't see anyone force Gaming on a Painting Comeptetion? Why the double standard?

Which is why I like the British Gaming Scene more than the American. As much as people feed the myth that Americans are more about winning than the Brits, it is the Brits who have all but got rid of soft score competetions across the country, while here in the States everything is soft score, unless you are in the 'Ard Boyz. Of course there are exceptions, but for every 5 British Events I see online that are just about Gaming, I can find many more that number here in the states that forces soft scores down everyone's throats.

So while you think 'players' are hating on Painting Scores, I see it as the opposite. Gamers just want equal treatment. We don't want to show up and be forced to paint out figures base three colors. I guess when people enter the Golden Demon we should force them to take min/max units, right? If they paint up some Vespids, they auto lose the competetion for 'fielding' a crappy unit.

[fuzzbuket]

at the biggest tourney in scotland i didnt see 1 unpainted army looking @ ardboyz piccys...ummmm

in britan cause its about 1500 pts its easier to paint it up :D

[BuFFo]

at the biggest tourney in scotland i didnt see 1 unpainted army looking @ ardboyz piccys...ummmm

in britan cause its about 1500 pts its easier to paint it up :D

I didn't know 'Ard Boyz in different countries have different point values.

Interesting!

[DaveLL]

So while you think 'players' are hating on Painting Scores, I see it as the opposite. Gamers just want equal treatment. We don't want to show up and be forced to paint out figures base three colors. I guess when people enter the Golden Demon we should force them to take min/max units, right? If they paint up some Vespids, they auto lose the competetion for 'fielding' a crappy unit.

QFT. Especially given how many people claim tournament winners must have excellent tactics and army lists, there ought to be some way of distinguishing who won because they had good tactics and lists from who won because they won some games, painted decently, and manipulated sportsmanship scores.

[fuzzbuket]

I didn't know 'Ard Boyz in different countries have different point values.

Interesting!

aaha no its called conflict scotland :D think mini-games day the cool thing was that it was 500pts doubles but for stuff like thrones of skulls there more painted stufftheres no ardboyz in the UK

[Lord Azaghul]

So while you think 'players' are hating on Painting Scores, I see it as the opposite. Gamers just want equal treatment. We don't want to show up and be forced to paint out figures base three colors. I guess when people enter the Golden Demon we should force them to take min/max units, right? If they paint up some Vespids, they auto lose the competetion for 'fielding' a crappy unit.

Absolute bullcrap. So I'm being 'forced' to put up with someone being a prick the whole game because no one said 'play nice'? Lame.

Painting is part of this hobby, and I'm not saying you have to do it! But I am saying if you don't, you don't deserve any sort of 'overall'. All you do is buy models and roll dice.

Gamers want do win, and for some reason most of the 40k players believe everyone else will cheat to do it, included unjustly knocking someones score.

I'm tired of playing with people (in tournies) who gripe and moan over every single dice roll there opponents make, and argu every rule, never paint a freaking model, and try to manipulate every RAW or RIA questionable rule in there favor.

Stop pretending 'Ard Boyz' is the positive embodiment of this hobby. It's about 'gaming' in the most brutal and manipulative sense.

Again with 'the someone is going to tank my score' business...seriously? If ever gamer/40k purchases out there a spiteful little 12 year old? Are there no adults around who will behave honestly? Really?
Its like High School: someone might do something bad so were just going to punish the entire class?

[windspear]

Personally, I hate basecoat and dip models, they look crappy most of the time.

And painting matters. If you want to be in a tournament, you should take the time to paint the models. This hurts me, especially since I have a few hundred models that aren't painted, and I would love to play them, but I will not except for occasionally at the local store until they are painted.

On the other hand, simply having a tournament rule that they must be painted is enough, painting scores don't have any place in determining the best general.

[Melissia]

Because I don't give a **** about painting? It's boring, tedious, and the only reason I do it is because it's rude not to. If I could get pre-painted (Even of mediocre quality) minis at roughly the same price, I'd probably use them instead.

If you want to have a painting contest, have a painting contest. I won't join. I want to play the game, not have some fat*** elitist prick look at my models and try and judge the quality of the painting by some arbitrary measure in the back of his screwed up mind, and that's been my experience in any painting section of tournaments.

Pardon me if I sound a tad miffed, but I've been given a negative score in painting because the guy didn't like the fact that my army was all-Sisters. Composition scores also have given me bad experiences.

[DarkLink]

2)
I was at a local tournament this weekend, run by my group and during the set up of said tournament (the night before) painting came up again. People grumbled and moaned ‘it’s a competition, painting is subjective, a win’s a win…blah, blah blah’ What’s wrong with awarding a little effort when someone wants there models to look nice?.

I don't think anyone here is against separate painting scores.



The guy who won first over: have 4 wins and 1 draw. Where did he shine? Painting.

And if his painting wasn't great? If he did the best in his games, he deserved Best General. Simple as that. Painting should have absolutely nothing to do with that, whatsoever, in any way, shape or form.



And none of them believed me! The thought it was stupid that I lost over painting! The guy who won was just a great guy, and his painting was far better then mine! In fact it wasn’t until I realized why I lost that I even wanted to improve my painting! Painting was simply part of the overall competition, and I’m ok with that!

Oh, hey, people on the Internet jumped to conclusions. What a surprise:p.



So here is my issue of late:
Why does it seem that 40k players automatically think the worst of other 40k players?


The problem with sportsmanship scores is that they simply don't really work, typically. They sound nice, but if you think about it, they just give cheaters another system to cheat. Adding sportsmanship probably isn't going to help catch a cheater, since you should be looking out for them anyways, and inform the judges of any situations that come up. However, a cheater can take advantage of the scores to hurt other players.

It's not that it happens all the time. It doesn't. It's that it makes no sense. Including sportsmanship scores will almost certainly only help cheaters, the exact opposite of their purpose. So why would anyone include them? There's nothing that a sportsmanship score can accomplish that attentive players and judges can't.

As a separate score, for a Best Sportsmanship prize, they're fine. But incorporated into another score, it's just another way for a cheater to cheat.



Why are they afraid of losing due to a painting score or a sportsmanship score?


If I were a professional athlete, and my team won every game in the World Series, only for another team to get the trophy because their uniforms were nicer than ours, I'd be angry. This is the exact same thing here.



To be this is biggest difference between 40k players and fantasy players: 40k players seem to think ‘winning’ is far more important then other other aspect of the hobby. Fantasy players seem to actually enjoy other aspects of the hobby!

Yeah, so? You got a problem with that?



40k players: paint! Enjoy ‘the hobby’ and have fun while losing a game once in a while!
And don’t be afriad to judged my something which doesn’t involve a dice roll.


I play the game to play the game. I don't care about painting. I don't even care that much about nicely painted models, though it is a nice touch.

There's absolutely no reason why you should expect me to suddenly start enjoying painting. That would be like walking up to someone who doesn't like baseball, and telling them "dude, you should totally start enjoying it. It's awesome."

Just because you like painting, do not expect others to do so.


In this Hobby of ours, there are many different reasons for why we are in it.

Some of us are in it to play the game.

Some of us are in it for the money (converting figures, painting armies)

Some of us are in it for the painting.

Some of us are in it to collect the models.

Some of us are in it for the Fluff.



When you 'force' every aspect of the hobby on a person, you are esentially penalizing that person for not 'being like you'. If 'you' are in the hobby for all the reasons above, why should 'you' force your opinions on each aspect onto why I am in the hobby?

Now, maybe in a the perfect world you try to represent where everyone respects everyone, and no one is a sh!tty git, your idea would work, but this is real life, and the guy across the table from you smiling is only smiling to get a high Sports Score, while behind your back he is giving you a low score so he can win a prize at the end of the day.

I will always put it this way...

Why do you feel the need to force Painting on a Gaming competetion when I don't see anyone force Gaming on a Painting Comeptetion? Why the double standard?

Which is why I like the British Gaming Scene more than the American. As much as people feed the myth that Americans are more about winning than the Brits, it is the Brits who have all but got rid of soft score competetions across the country, while here in the States everything is soft score, unless you are in the 'Ard Boyz. Of course there are exceptions, but for every 5 British Events I see online that are just about Gaming, I can find many more that number here in the states that forces soft scores down everyone's throats.

So while you think 'players' are hating on Painting Scores, I see it as the opposite. Gamers just want equal treatment. We don't want to show up and be forced to paint out figures base three colors. I guess when people enter the Golden Demon we should force them to take min/max units, right? If they paint up some Vespids, they auto lose the competetion for 'fielding' a crappy unit.

I agree with everything here. Though I don't know anything about the differances between American gaming and British gaming. I can say that, as a whole, my local gaming group holds soft scores in contempt. Particularly our Golden Daemon winner, btw.


Absolute bullcrap. So I'm being 'forced' to put up with someone being a prick the whole game because no one said 'play nice'? Lame.

So now you're assuming that all the people you're going to play will suddenly become rude and offensive the instant soft scores go:p? I though you said something about not automatically judging others, and that you've only met cool people when playing.



Painting is part of this hobby, and I'm not saying you have to do it! But I am saying if you don't, you don't deserve any sort of 'overall'. All you do is buy models and roll dice.

And no one here's disagreeing with you. What we're saying is that you have to respect that some people play the game just to play, and that we deserve the same dues (and our own prize categories) as you.

[scadugenga]

A separated awards approach sounds best.

That way you can't be penalized for painting, or for having someone screw you on the sportsmanship.

If you want "overall winner" status, then you have to "win" all three separate categories, leaving those who don't care about the painting aspect of the game so much to be content with "best general."

And "Best Sportsman" can actually be touted as the best actual sportsman, and not the one who got creamed throughout the tournament.

That being said, I've been very fortunate in 40k as well as Warmachine tourneys (including WM Nats) never to have faced an opponent who was a jerk. Every game was good, even the losses.

[pinchy]

The reason I don't like painting scores as part of overall (other than a very simple is it painted, based, etc... sort of system) is that you don't actually have to paint your army yourself. You can't outsource the gaming, the sportmanship or anything else (well maybe the list0building to an extent) but if the difference between winning and losing is that you paid someone else a couple of hundred bucks to paint your army for you then that just annoys me.

Personally I prefer a system where you don't get points for painting and sportsmanship but in which you lose points if you fail at either (and with judges investigating sportmanship penalties given that if someone was really being unpleasant to play against or cheating they surely will already have been to the table during the game anyway). If half your army is unpainted or unbased or if you're a prick to play against then it counts against you, but not if you've at least made a genuine effort to get an army to a tabletop standard and you've been reasonably pleasant to play against (we don't have to become best friends for life like some people attempt to in order to inflate their sportsmanship score, just be friendly and respectful which isn't all that hard really).

[RocketRollRebel]

I'm fine with having to bring a fully painted army to a tournament but I dont think that it should be a huge part of your over all score. Painting is not my favorite part of the game at all. I am really lazy with it and say thank the Emperor for dry brushing and washes! Although my army does require a lot of conversions (no melta gun on auto cannon minis :mad:) so I automatically get those points!

I like it to stay segmented tho as mentioned before.

1st, 2nd, 3rd battle points, 123 painting, sportsmanship ect ect.

[BuFFo]

If you want a tournament which is encompasses the entire hobby, it is simple.

Have a Gaming Competition and a Painting Competition. They are separate from each other, so that being poor in one does not have any affect on the other.

This way, you don't have to a be a good painter to win, nor do you have to be a good gamer to win.

Comp and Sports scores should be thrown in the trash, of course.

Sportsmanship is something that is 'given' and expected by a player. Having a system to gauge how 'nice' someone is is the stupidest idea I have ever heard. What are we, 5 years old? Want to chew my food for me? Having this score will only serve to HELP d!ckheads anyway, as nice people will be nice regardless, yet d!ckheads with dock you points and abuse the system.

Comp scores? Am I retarded, or does not the Codex tell me what I can take? Forgive me if I am doing something wrong here, but why should I be docked points if I take 3 Plague Marine units? It is legal as far as GW is concerned, so why does the tourney organizer have an issue with that? Ridiculous.

[Big Jim]

I detest Sports and Comp scores, with that said I firmly believe painting should count; I'm not saying to subjectively score it, but painted minis should be a requirement for any miniatures wargaming event.

Sorry boys and girls the fact is that painting is an important part of the hobby, if you don't or won't paint you should find another type of gaming to enjoy. Miniature wargaming is a visual hobby and your unpainted miniatures ruin the experience.

In my 30+ years of gaming the only time I see unpainted miniatures being used are by the GW generation of wargamers. Most of these guys got into the hobby through GW around the turn of the century, and as they migrate away from GW they are infecting the rest of the hobby. It is a shame that they just don't understand what the miniatures wargaming hobby is about.

Oh yeah, please stop relating the miniatures wargaming hobby to professional sports, it's poor comparison and just feeds into those among us that are the over competitive type of gamer. I'm just sayin'.

[Sir Biscuit]

I try to keep an open mind, and see other peoples viewpoints. On this one, however, I just can't.

If you are defending soft scoring for painting, you are WRONG.

Here's a fun blog post for how soft scoring affects tournament outcomes. (http://www.baldandscreaming.com/commentary/myth-busting-how-soft-scoring-determines-tournament-outcomes/)

Honestly, including soft scoring in tournaments at all is a bad idea. Sportsmanship and painting are two things that shouldn't be scored, they should be required. Either you paint your army, and you're not a dick, or you don't come. Simple as that.

Sportsmanship scores discourage players form reporting rules abuse. If you accuse someone, and it's not enough to get them removed from the tournament, then you can be sure they will tank the sportsmanship score that they will be giving you. Simply having a judge walking the floor prevents this from happening, not a scoring sheet.

Paint scoring is stupid as well. It shouldn't matter how well your army is painted. It shouldn't matter if you have a theme. It shouldn't matter that you converted a bunch of models. All that matters is your ability to command. That is what a tournament is for, what a competition is for: to determine who's best at the game. That's it. It's a test of skill, and skill in one area: who is the best general?

I understand that it is a tabletop wargame and that part of it is painting. That is why painted models should be required and not scored. The idea that painting is scored is silly in the extreme. It does three things:
1.) Punishes new players. They can't paint as well, they lose points.
2.) Punish players who aren't that artistically creative, or like their models basic. I've lost count of the number of excellently painted armies I've seen that have lost points for not being "out of the ordinary" or converted enough. (I myself HATE basing models... not because I'm bad at it, I just prefer the black base.)
3.) Encourages very competitive players to pay to have their army painted.

3 is the most disturbing. If your system can be easily broken and it's totally legal to do so, what does that mean? (HINT: IT'S A BAD SYSTEM.)

I just can't get the image out of my mind of two knights dueling. One knight, after a long battle, bests the other. Yet, as his opponent lays dead on the ground, the people watching declare: "I see that Sir Battle has won, but look at Sir Paintjob! His hat is SOOO FLOOFY! VICTORY TO SIR PAINTJOB!" It's absured. Yes, the styling of the armors was in the battle, but it was tangential and not an actual factor. It's the same with 40k. If you lose, you should lose, and if you win, you should win, but you shouldn't be able to lose and then be declared winner because you wore the fanciest hat.

As stated, there's no problem with separate competitions. Tournaments are a good time to have painting competitions, after all, everyone is all gathered 'round, armies in tow. But please, keep them separate.

And as an aside, my absolute worst games have been against "noncompetitive" players. I have the courtesy to tell them beforehand that I bring very hard lists, do not pull punches, and do not care about fluff on the table. Yet they play me, ***** the whole time about my theme and paintjobs, and whine about how unbalanced the game is as I grind them into dust. WHY DO YOU PLAY ME? Oh wait, here's a fantastic blog post about that very subject. Seriously, read it. (http://whiskey40k.blogspot.com/2010/05/social-contracts-and-needs-in-wargaming.html)

Seriously, if you want to paint and play casual 40k, just do that. Tournament games are the vast minority of 40k games played, so just don't go to them and leave them to the competitive players. Simple as that.

[Shavnir]

I keep hearing people parade around the term "the hobby". The hobby is marching little plastic or pewter men around the board, making exploding noises, rolling dice and arguing about rules. If you define it otherwise you are wrong.

(us anti-painting zealots can talk in absolutes too ;) )

EDIT : If you aren't willing to argue rules clearly you aren't dedicated enough to the hobby to go to a tournament.

[Warptiger]

I detest Sports and Comp scores, with that said I firmly believe painting should count; I'm not saying to subjectively score it, but painted minis should be a requirement for any miniatures wargaming event.

Sorry boys and girls the fact is that painting is an important part of the hobby, if you don't or won't paint you should find another type of gaming to enjoy. Miniature wargaming is a visual hobby and your unpainted miniatures ruin the experience.


I totally agree about the painting.

From my experience, the painting scores aren't that "soft". Actual rogue trader tournaments have a scoring checklist for painting, and from what I remember, almost all but one or two questions are completely non-subjective. It's either yes, or no, and every yes answer adds to the painting score. Only the last few question allow the judge to input anything subjective.

and yeah, sports and comp scores are totally open to abuse... which is why most of the people who run large tournaments factor that in. At one large tournaments (120+ players over 2 days), they had a spreadsheet that instantly showed the scores that each player handed out to others, and was given by others players. They could see in minutes if someone was deliberately grading other players down just to wreck their overall scores (and the had a system for keeping track of groups of players, and gaming clubs too). I strongly suspect that people who consistently gave bad marks to _everyone_ they played had their comp scores tossed out, and ignored. They could also see if a player was just a pain in the *** and got low marks from everyone he played.

They had some innovative ways of handling others kinds of abuse too... on the 2nd day of that huge tournament, I ended up being paired up with three of the most broken cheesy armies I've even seen. An iyanden ghost army with three wraithlords, a necron army with only 10 troop models. You get the picture. I had two absolutely crushing humiliating defeats, and one draw (more of an embarrassment for that guy, he should have won).

At the end of that day, I ended with the best painted army award. It took me a while to figure out that's why I'd been paired with the cheesy broken armies. I was already getting the best painted award, so my army scores didn't matter at all anymore. It didn't matter if I lost or won anymore. But those cheesy armies could have messed up the score of someone who was trying for best general or overall awards. The people who brought the cheesy armies were just wasting everyone's time, since the points they lost from the comp score prevented them from even getting close to the top of the pack.

[addamsfamily36]

Both sides of the argument in this thread are Correct to some degree:

The Hobby - if you don;t like painting fine, but fact of the matter is the models are meant to be glued and stuck together and then painted to a level of your ability. If you want to say its a tournament the hobby aspect doesn't apply etc etc. then you might as well play with the models still in the box and just deploy a series of blisters and boxes still in the film wrap.

The Painting - Painting IS subjective who ever said it wasn't has no idea. yes you can imply the 3 colors base rule which is a standard to ensure people don't turn up with a plastic army ( as stated above if you do this why even bother sticking it together) , but it's unfair to judge above this level as then it becomes a personal matter. does the judge like NMM, does he like the color red more than blue etc etc etc.

Sportsmanship - should be removed. or separate category.

END RESULT - at the end of the day you don;t have to go to any tournament you don;t want to. the rules and scoring systems are posted prior to the event in most cases. if there are no tournaments that suit the gaming style you want to play, then make/organise your own.

[TheBitzBarn]

I keep hearing people parade around the term "the hobby". The hobby is marching little plastic or pewter men around the board, making exploding noises, rolling dice and arguing about rules. If you define it otherwise you are wrong.

(us anti-painting zealots can talk in absolutes too ;) )

EDIT : If you aren't willing to argue rules clearly you aren't dedicated enough to the hobby to go to a tournament.

What you call "hobby" is actually playing a game.

Painting does not have to be a totally subjective score. When I ran RTT, we have 10 question just like the old GW RTT. Things like, "is the Army Painted", "Do all models have 3 colors", " do you have Squad markings", Are Characters distinguishable" and so one. This was 20 points out of a a possible 140 for the event. Sportsmanship was simple 3 questions and then bonus points at the end.

I hate going to an event, RTT, Tourny and paying my money to play against Grey plastic or better yet Primed armies. If you cannot paint the model play a CMG wher the models are painted for you. It is part of the Game. I am sorry but you do not have to be a Pro painter for me to appreciate the effort you put into the army.

Arguing rules HAS NOTHING to do with a tournament

Thanks

[addamsfamily36]

What you call "hobby" is actually playing a game.

Painting does not have to be a totally subjective score. When I ran RTT, we have 10 question just like the old GW RTT. Things like, "is the Army Painted", "Do all models have 3 colors", " do you have Squad markings", Are Characters distinguishable" and so one. This was 20 points out of a a possible 140 for the event. Sportsmanship was simple 3 questions and then bonus points at the end.

I hate going to an event, RTT, Tourny and paying my money to play against Grey plastic or better yet Primed armies. If you cannot paint the model play a CMG wher the models are painted for you. It is part of the Game. I am sorry but you do not have to be a Pro painter for me to appreciate the effort you put into the army.

Arguing rules HAS NOTHING to do with a tournament

Thanks

nicely put

[DarkLink]

I keep hearing people parade around the term "the hobby". The hobby is marching little plastic or pewter men around the board, making exploding noises, rolling dice and arguing about rules. If you define it otherwise you are wrong.


Right. It's not like I signed a contract stating "I'm starting 40k in order to paint, play, model, etc, and will enjoy all these aspects equally."

I'm part of the "hobby" because I enjoy the game. That's it. That's the only reason. If I didn't enjoy the game, I wouldn't play 40k. I wouldn't own any models. I wouldn't collect any models.

Do I dislike painted armies? No. A fully painted army still looks nice. My armies are more or less fully painted. I have some conversions I did myself. I have put a fair amount of work into painting and modeling stuff.

But do not presume that I am in this hobby to paint or model. I am in this hobby to play. No one should be so arrogant as to assume that because they enjoy painting as well as gaming, that the proper way to be a part of the hobby is to do the exact same.

[Shavnir]

What you call "hobby" is actually playing a game.

Painting does not have to be a totally subjective score. When I ran RTT, we have 10 question just like the old GW RTT. Things like, "is the Army Painted", "Do all models have 3 colors", " do you have Squad markings", Are Characters distinguishable" and so one. This was 20 points out of a a possible 140 for the event. Sportsmanship was simple 3 questions and then bonus points at the end.

I hate going to an event, RTT, Tourny and paying my money to play against Grey plastic or better yet Primed armies. If you cannot paint the model play a CMG wher the models are painted for you. It is part of the Game. I am sorry but you do not have to be a Pro painter for me to appreciate the effort you put into the army.

Arguing rules HAS NOTHING to do with a tournament

Thanks

Clearly you've never been to a tournament really focused on "the hobby", just some event parading as such. I mean you're focusing on who's spent more on hiring a painting service over who's actually sat down and read the rulebook. Think about that for a moment.

[addamsfamily36]

But do not presume that I am in this hobby to paint or model. I am in this hobby to play. No one should be so arrogant as to assume that because they enjoy painting as well as gaming, that the proper way to be a part of the hobby is to do the exact same.

i just want to say im like on the fence on this whole thread as i see where both sides are coming from.

I think the main arguments that people have in the Painting/hobby camp is that there are gaming systems that have pre painted miniatures, you could run tournaments without painting in them etc

Gamesworkshop miniatures are designed to be put together and painted. Whether your in the hobby to play or to paint. No one can make you paint them agreed, but if a tournament based on the whole hobby requires a dash of paint then i think thats within reason.

all competitions have restrictions no matter the game or sport, painting is just a means of ensuring a basic standard. i agree when it becomes more than this its unfair, its a gaming tournament not golden demon.

[synack]

At our local tournies, we have painting and sportsmanship soft scores. These scores only come into effect if there is a tie in main points

[addamsfamily36]

Clearly you've never been to a tournament really focused on "the hobby", just some event parading as such. I mean you're focusing on who's spent more on hiring a painting service over who's actually sat down and read the rulebook. Think about that for a moment.

sorry but WHAT!!

he clearly stated 20 out of 140 points ! i would hardly call 7% of the overall outcome a focusing point! Also arguing at a tournament isn't fun for anyone (unless you like an argument) he never stated anything about not bothering to read the rulebook, or hiring a painting service. he said he appreciates any effort made to paint miniatures, even if its just 3 base colors etc.

One thing i will disagree on that Thebitzbarn said was the game bit. Tennis is a game but for some people its a hobby. So in that regard i would argue that yes 40k as a game is a hobby, but see my other points on painting in tournaments etc.

[Shavnir]

he clearly stated 20 out of 140 points ! i would hardly call 7% of the overall outcome a focusing point! Also arguing at a tournament isn't fun for anyone (unless you like an argument) he never stated anything about not bothering to read the rulebook, or hiring a painting service. he said he appreciates any effort made to paint miniatures, even if its just 3 base colors etc.

Clearly if you don't like arguing about rules you're not in the right hobby. I mean look what, 3 subforums south of here?

[addamsfamily36]

Clearly if you don't like arguing about rules you're not in the right hobby. I mean look what, 3 subforums south of here?

Not really, i either learn the rules so that there is no argument and i provide the correct page for reference. or i look it up with my opponent, if theres an argument then I either use Gamesworkshops erratas and Faq's or apply the 1-3 option a 4-6 option b rule. This is during gameplay, i see no point in arguing for half an hour when ive only got 1-2 hours to play a game. Off the table yeh sure ill jump right in to a debate about rules, i have done on here many a time, but if you want to go to a tournament when games can have short time lengths and argue for half of it about rules then be my guest.

[BuFFo]

Right. It's not like I signed a contract stating "I'm starting 40k in order to paint, play, model, etc, and will enjoy all these aspects equally."

I'm part of the "hobby" because I enjoy the game. That's it. That's the only reason. If I didn't enjoy the game, I wouldn't play 40k. I wouldn't own any models. I wouldn't collect any models.

Do I dislike painted armies? No. A fully painted army still looks nice. My armies are more or less fully painted. I have some conversions I did myself. I have put a fair amount of work into painting and modeling stuff.

But do not presume that I am in this hobby to paint or model. I am in this hobby to play. No one should be so arrogant as to assume that because they enjoy painting as well as gaming, that the proper way to be a part of the hobby is to do the exact same.

What I don't get is that people seem to find that it is their right to force painting on gaming, but never the other way around.

Lets do this.

For any professional painters out there, like for examples the guys at Blue Table Painting, before they start painting the figures people paid them to paint for that day, they MUST play a game of 40k. It is mandatory to be a part of the ENTIRE hobby, right?

How about collectors? Before they can receive an order of figures off of eBay, they must complete 10 hours of painting and play at least 1 full game of 40k at 1500 points.

How about people who enjoy the Fluff? For every novel they buy, they must go on eBay and 'collect' 50 dollars worth of models, and then play a 2000 point game of 40k, and finally paint 10 models.

So how ridiculous I sound when I FORCE different aspects of the 'hobby' onto people?

If someone is going to force me to paint to be part of a tournament for gaming, why not force painters to game before they paint?

So before any of you paint your figures tonight, you need to make two small 500 point lists and play against yourself for 30 minutes.

This is what it feels like to me as a GAMER whenever I attend a competition, and I am docked points for not painting, or not having the right unit composition. Right there I got FORCED to paint, a 'part' of the hobby I care little for, otherwise I have no chance of winning the top spot.

Did you guys hear about Tiger Woods? He would have won first place last week, but even though his score got him first place, his car wasn't as detailed as well as the third place guy, so that third place guy actually ended up winning the golf tournament because his car looked better.

[synack]

Your arguments are all unsound. No one is FORCING you to play in the tournament. However, if you do want to play, then it's up to that organiser to say whether or not he wants painted figures on the table.

There are tournies out there that don't care about painting, but it's up to the TO, it's his tourney. Who are you to FORCE him to run his tourney a certain way.

End of story.

[Aldramelech]

If you want a tournament which is encompasses the entire hobby, it is simple.

Have a Gaming Competition and a Painting Competition. They are separate from each other, so that being poor in one does not have any affect on the other.

This way, you don't have to a be a good painter to win, nor do you have to be a good gamer to win.

Comp and Sports scores should be thrown in the trash, of course.

Sportsmanship is something that is 'given' and expected by a player. Having a system to gauge how 'nice' someone is is the stupidest idea I have ever heard. What are we, 5 years old? Want to chew my food for me? Having this score will only serve to HELP d!ckheads anyway, as nice people will be nice regardless, yet d!ckheads with dock you points and abuse the system.

Comp scores? Am I retarded, or does not the Codex tell me what I can take? Forgive me if I am doing something wrong here, but why should I be docked points if I take 3 Plague Marine units? It is legal as far as GW is concerned, so why does the tourney organizer have an issue with that? Ridiculous.

Well Ive actually agreed with something you've said, suppose a broken clock is right twice a day.

[The other guy]

I personally like the idea of having both painting and gaming affecting scores in tournaments. This is because i actually enjoy the painting more than the gaming. And i enjoy seeing a well painted army more than reading a battle report.

I think there should be some tournaments that involve painting scores, and some that don't.
I think it should be clear which type of tournament it is before you enter.
And i think that you should not complain that all tournaments are not the one type you love.

You don't complain that all milkshakes should be strawberry. You choose not to order a chocolate.

[Forbino]

I think painting and modelling should be factored, directly into the hard scores; but in a limited way.

Is your modeling WYSIWYG...this includes conversions. There is nothing more annoying that a massively over puttied model for chaos "clearly" being something. Make sure the models are armed correctly, the squad markings are clear (this can be painted on the base for all I care) and the units are clearly looking like what the unit is supposed to be. Clearly I find chaos to be the more egregious of the WYSIWYG, but I also hate "my extra armor is on the inside" and other cheats. I shouldn't have to look at your list to see what you have, and if its not modeled correctly, your hard scores should be penalized.

Heck, I pro-paint for a lot of people, but I don't think it should be required to be painted well. Just well enough to be able to tell what's on the board. The hoard of basic black/grey is hard to see on the board, so at least hit that grey with a wash so details stand out and I can see what you have on the pitch.

[Melissia]

the fact is that painting is an important part of the hobbyTo you.

Painting is nothing more than an annoying little bother, to me.

[RocketRollRebel]

What you call "hobby" is actually playing a game.

Painting does not have to be a totally subjective score. When I ran RTT, we have 10 question just like the old GW RTT. Things like, "is the Army Painted", "Do all models have 3 colors", " do you have Squad markings", Are Characters distinguishable" and so one. This was 20 points out of a a possible 140 for the event. Sportsmanship was simple 3 questions and then bonus points at the end...

Sounds like how the painting score card at most GT's is set up and to me that is totally fair and reasonable.

[Weunty]

There's no point in arguing if painting is important or not... just focus on what you prefer...

I think that most tournaments have a best overall, best general, beast appearance and best sportmanship award... well at least the old hall of heroes from GW before were like that...

so If you don't like painting focus on best general prizes... if you like painting but don't play too often focus on best appearance... If you're there only to have fun go for the best sportsman... and finally If you think you are good at everything go for the overall..!

there's also no point in saying that tiger will not win his tournament because his car is ugly or whatever... the only prize is the lowest number of strokes...

Most tourneys try to reward all the different aspects of the hobby... so just focus on what you like and enjoy it...

[addamsfamily36]

Buffo, Synack is right, no one is forcing you to play in those tournaments. if there isn't a tournament out there that suits your game style or hobby style i.e - dislike of painting or paint scores, then organise your own. and if you already do then cool:)

its also interesting to note that, do you enforce or like wysiwyg? cause if so you could argue that thats forcing a player to specifically model his models a certain way, when he might want to be creative and come up with an alternate weapon look or theme, but is forced not to due to a strict wysiwyg type attitude at tournaments.

All of these things are just standard regulators, wysuwyg - so people dont put a toilet roll on the board and call it a rhino, painting - so that models atleast look like they are intended to and are what most people would deem table top standard...list of restrictions could go on.

also im not sure if you've ever entered a painting competition but the rules and restrictions far exceed the minor aspect of painting a few colours on a model for tournaments.

Base size
squad formation (yup golden demon 40k or fantasy unit must be a legal unit by gaming standards) so thats a gaming element in a painting competition right there.
Gw only models (if its golden demon or any other GW painting event
No over sized podiums/plynths
etc
etc

[Aldramelech]

I don't like tournaments, I play for fun. I love to paint and I think I'm fairly good at it. Playing with unpainted or badly painted figures because that person cant be bothered is anathema to me.

But I don't think a tournament should be decided by anything other then who won the most games.

Have a separate prize for painting and award for who can fake being nice the best.

[Herald of Nurgle]

I don't like tournaments, I play for fun. I love to paint and I think I'm fairly good at it. Playing with unpainted or badly painted figures because that person cant be bothered is anathema to me.

But I don't think a tournament should be decided by anything other then who won the most games.

Have a separate prize for painting and award for who can fake being nice the best.
Dead man walking?

[Aldramelech]

Maybe, we'll see.....

[DarkLink]

Your arguments are all unsound. No one is FORCING you to play in the tournament. However, if you do want to play, then it's up to that organiser to say whether or not he wants painted figures on the table.

There are tournies out there that don't care about painting, but it's up to the TO, it's his tourney. Who are you to FORCE him to run his tourney a certain way.

End of story.


sorry but WHAT!!

he clearly stated 20 out of 140 points ! i would hardly call 7% of the overall outcome a focusing point!

You clearly missed the link someone put up early, where a guy did a little bit of statistical analysis on a couple of major tournament results (adepticon, for one). He found that, among the top ranking players, soft scores had more effect on the player's final ranking that battle scores.

When the winner is determined by who had the best painting score... yeah, that *$@&$&@!.



One thing i will disagree on that Thebitzbarn said was the game bit. Tennis is a game but for some people its a hobby. So in that regard i would argue that yes 40k as a game is a hobby, but see my other points on painting in tournaments etc.

For me, the hobby is the game. I don't care about the rest of it, aside from an off-handed aesthetic value. It's like having nice paintings on the wall. It's a nice touch, but ultimately I really don't care about the artwork. The game is what I care about.



Your arguments are all unsound. No one is FORCING you to play in the tournament. However, if you do want to play, then it's up to that organiser to say whether or not he wants painted figures on the table.

There are tournies out there that don't care about painting, but it's up to the TO, it's his tourney. Who are you to FORCE him to run his tourney a certain way.

End of story.

No, our arguments are all about what the best way to run a tournament is. And unquestionable, the best way is to separate out soft scores from the scores that matter (battle points).

Can the TO not do that if he wants? Yeah, but don't expect me to go to it.

There's no reason to needlessly combine soft scores with battle points, and if you do so you're just alienating a sizable portion of potential players.

From any reasonable standpoint, merging soft scores and hard scores is stupid and entirely unnecessary.

[Warptiger]

Sportsmanship is open to horrible abuse by some players, but I still think it has a place in tournaments.

At one tournament, I realized an opponent had no idea how to play his "own" army. Turns out he borrowed a friends eldar army and entered it as his own. Had no idea how to play the units, or any of the special rules. I knew more about eldar rules then he did, just from playing against one of my friends who's an eldar fanatic.

and on top of that, he spent the entire game arguing about basic special rules... like he insisted bikes and terminators can't fire if they've moved (my entire army was designed around move and fire units and weapons).

He had to have called over the judges about 2 dozen times, and towards the end, they'd just listen to him, chuckle at him, say "you're wrong", and walk away.


The most amusing thing about it all: he expected to win an automatic award with this army... because the original owner of the army won all the time.


The current sportsmanship scoring system is broken, that I admit... but I think it was originally intended to weed out morons like this guy.

[DarkLink]

Cases like that are rare, though. At least, I imagine they are. That's a situation where the judges kinda have to make a judgement call. Do they tell the guy "ok, if you keep causing problems we'll just ask you to leave", or is he simply genuinely clueless so you keep letting him play and just put up with him.

In this case, a warning or two from the judges would probably be in order. You can't reasonably expect to show up at a tournament not knowing how to play not only your army but the game in general.

Sportsmanship scores, in this case, wouldn't have really touched on the problem. The guy simply didn't know his rules. He might have been rude as well, but the issue here isn't how rude he was, but the fact that he didn't know the rules of the game and his army.

Sportsmanship scores don't really touch on that. Knowing the rules, in my opinion, is a prerequisite to playing in a tournament at all (unless you're a noob just getting into the game, then I can give you some slack and help you out).

[Shavnir]

The most amusing thing about it all: he expected to win an automatic award with this army... because the original owner of the army won all the time.


The current sportsmanship scoring system is broken, that I admit... but I think it was originally intended to weed out morons like this guy.

You beat him didn't you? A simple 1 point for win, 0 for loss / tie scoring system would have been just as effective at weeding him out :p

[addamsfamily36]

You clearly missed the link someone put up early, where a guy did a little bit of statistical analysis on a couple of major tournament results (adepticon, for one). He found that, among the top ranking players, soft scores had more effect on the player's final ranking that battle scores.

When the winner is determined by who had the best painting score... yeah, that *$@&$&@!.


But this guy was talking about an event that he personally ran. where the percentage of painting wouldn't have a high enough impact to cause a player to lose out to a better painted army.

ok yeh some tournaments are overbalance on painting and i agreed that thats wrong, but theres nothing wrong with having tabletop colour.



For me, the hobby is the game. I don't care about the rest of it, aside from an off-handed aesthetic value. It's like having nice paintings on the wall. It's a nice touch, but ultimately I really don't care about the artwork. The game is what I care about.


i was saying that the game is a hobby so not sure what your point was on this. agreeing or disagreeing?

[DaveLL]

But this guy was talking about an event that he personally ran. where the percentage of painting wouldn't have a high enough impact to cause a player to lose out to a better painted army.


Incorrect. He was talking about an event that somebody else ran, and where the percentage of soft scores (including painting and sportsmanship) was definitively more than enough to make that difference. (In fact, from the numbers I saw, it seems extremely unlikely that the people who did best, game-wise, actually won the top couple of slots.) As it happens, I think some of the basic ideas behind battle scoring are a little odd, too, but that's another topic entirely.

[Grubbslinger]

Im a little late to the conversation as usual but I thought I would have my say anyways.

I think what happens with a lot of sportsmanship problems is having to keep a balance between being forceful with your rules and at the same time not coming off like a jerk. I know there are plenty of times when I have to argue with someone who believe that a rule says one thing when really it says another. When you try to tell them their wrong, it hard to be nice while still sticking to your guns. Looking up the rules all the time also becomes a bit tiresome to some people. And because I have found very few people who know every rule by heart, this usually comes up in a every game. I have had it happen to me on several occasions. The worst is when you try to do something and it ends up being wrong, making it look like you tried to be sneaky rather then just forgetting a rule.

For painting, I would say that people without skill in painting get annoyed that they are judged. If you try and paint but just arent good at it, you are going to be angry if you get a low score. This is off set by giving a all or none score ie your army is painted in a coherent fashion you get 20 out of 20 points. But if you do that then what is the point of having a painting score at all? Most of the tournements I played at had a seperate painting cat. with its own prizes so it wasnt really a problem and no body seemed to mine it.

[Commissar Lewis]

My opinion on this is: fish.

Now, for an opinion that doesn't sound like it came from a Malkavian mouth:

Painting scores are good and all, as some people really put a lot of effort into making some awesome looking minis. However, the painting score should not interfere with tournament game rankings. It should be a separate category, or part of a best overall category. Same with sportsmanship scores, they really shouldn't affect the overall gaming outcomes.

However, on the sportsmanship thing: I believe that if a tourney has them, and a player gets like 3 bad reports or so, a judge should just observe them during a game somewhat frequently to judge whether or not the person was legitimately a bad sportsman, or was railroaded by sour opponents that subscribe to the "if I'm going down I'm taking you with me" kind of mentality. And if proven that the player in question was unfairly bashed the bad scores would either be null or at least reset to average or something.

However, tourneys are more or less events that appreciate the hobby as a whole. However, those who don't enjoy a certain aspect certainly shouldn't be punished.

[addamsfamily36]

Incorrect. He was talking about an event that somebody else ran, and where the percentage of soft scores (including painting and sportsmanship) was definitively more than enough to make that difference. (In fact, from the numbers I saw, it seems extremely unlikely that the people who did best, game-wise, actually won the top couple of slots.) As it happens, I think some of the basic ideas behind battle scoring are a little odd, too, but that's another topic entirely.


Heres original post i was commenting on:


Painting does not have to be a totally subjective score. When I ran RTT, we have 10 question just like the old GW RTT. Things like, "is the Army Painted", "Do all models have 3 colors", " do you have Squad markings", Are Characters distinguishable" and so one. This was 20 points out of a a possible 140 for the event. Sportsmanship was simple 3 questions and then bonus points at the end.



If there was a previous post apologies, but from this i get that he ran the event. the painting score was very generic so anyone with 3 colors standard, odd marking here or there would gain points to a total of 20. so even if your army was beautifully painted you wouldn't score more than another army that also ticked all the boxes, but wasn't as nicely painted.

sportsmanship i have said has no place in overall score as its too easy for players to lie.

[DarkLink]

You must be thinking of a different blog thing than me. The whole point of the one that I saw was that he did a statistical analysis and found that painting score did, in fact, prevent the top players from winning.

[TheBitzBarn]

Clearly you've never been to a tournament really focused on "the hobby", just some event parading as such. I mean you're focusing on who's spent more on hiring a painting service over who's actually sat down and read the rulebook. Think about that for a moment.

I have been to well over 25 Tournies, form small shop events to 2 day ones. I have been to events all over the Southeast US.

When I ran them we did not focus on painting over who knows how to play if you painted your armies at all then you generally got 14 out of the 20 points for Painting. This system does not award a overall win to someone who paid for an army.

You have obviously never been to an event where people were not all jerks and where painted armies are the exception. Painting is part of the hobby. I am sorry to say that if you do not paint them you should not win regardless how many games you won. Many people feel this way and I am not trying to start a flame war but this really only exist in the 40K circuit fantasy players seems to not be worried as much about this. I think this is due to Fantasy players are little more mature. just my opinion

[TheBitzBarn]

To you.

Painting is nothing more than an annoying little bother, to me.


Sorry but I suggest that you take up CMG games like D& D mini's or Star War Mini's

This hobby is about painted armies

Sorry

[Commissar Lewis]

Sorry but I suggest that you take up CMG games like D& D mini's or Star War Mini's

This hobby is about painted armies

Sorry


Whoa man, a little harsh there don't you think? 40k isn't about just painted armies; the painting is only one aspect. That's like saying the Olympics are about running - yeah it's one part of it, but not the central focus.

Way I see it, and this is just an opinion, 40k as a whole is a sum of:

1. Gaming
2. Collecting
3. Painting/Converting
4. Lore
5. Social Interaction

Sure, some don't enjoy the painting; hell it can be a downright pain in the *** sometimes. But that doesn't mean the entire hobby is not for them.

[Aldramelech]

TBH Ive never come across a tournament that allowed unpainted figures and the hardcore tournament players I know wouldnt take part in one that did.

So lets assume that everybody has pitched up at the comp with their painted armies in thier hot sweaty little hands. They are there to play X number of games and see who's best right? Now you can bang on about "I like to go to comps to meet new people and make new freinds" codswollop if you want, but deep down in places you dont like to talk about at party's, you want to crush all your opponants into the dirt and be proclaimed the new god of gaming, thats what tournaments are, compititions to see whos best at playing the game.

Now some will come who have lavished months or even years of attention on thier force and the result may or may not be any good, some might have knocked up theirs in weeks and agian the results will vary, but as long as they are painted thats fine, because their not there for that. Nor are they there to pretend that the complete stranger across the table from them is their new best friend.

I hate tournaments. I find that although most people who go are sensible, well adjusted people there will always be a small percentage of people who try to use a knowledge of the rules in tiny detail as a substitute for gaming skill AND I HATE THEM. I do however enjoy playing games with freinds of my choosing using well painted figures, so I dont take part in tournaments.

Painting is an important part of the hobby, but thats not why tournament players attend tournaments.

[harrybuttwhisker]

just make it real simple,

1)best general, the one who got most gaming points
2)best sportsman, person with most sportsman points
3)best painter, most painting points

and then overrall tournament winner, the person who has the highest combined score for all three categories.

This way you individually acknowledge peoples achievements, whatever type of hobbyist they are at the same time as encouraging people to try a lil harder in some of the categories they normally ignore or don't do so well in.

That way the overall winner of a hobby event is the best hobbyist.

if your an uber competitive *** with unpainted minis, but thrash everyone you get acknowledged. If your an awesome painter but not so hot at tactics and thinking then you get acknowledged. If you make everyone have a fun day but are not really there to compete you can still be acknowledged.

i've even known tournaments when they have taken written army fluff into account, and before anyone suggests it was a crap tournament, it was part of the old UK grand tournament set up.

In short recognise everyones achievements and encourage people to strengthen there weaknesses. Its always better to be positive than negative. If your in the hobby just to make others miserable then quite frankly you should go off and shoot yourself :D

[addamsfamily36]

You must be thinking of a different blog thing than me. The whole point of the one that I saw was that he did a statistical analysis and found that painting score did, in fact, prevent the top players from winning.

No worries, just a slight cross over of similar posts easy mistake. Yeh im totally with you on tournaments like that, where the balance over powers actual games won. but as a gamer who also enjoys painting crafting etc, i do like to see a standard, even if its just two colors or what have you on the table. whether or not you get marks for it they still shouldn't effect overall result. just maybe have a to enter have 3 colours rule or something along those lines which i think is fair, unless its a tournament specifically engineered for people who don't like painting, then its up to them.

[addamsfamily36]

Whoa man, a little harsh there don't you think? 40k isn't about just painted armies; the painting is only one aspect. That's like saying the Olympics are about running - yeah it's one part of it, but not the central focus.

Way I see it, and this is just an opinion, 40k as a whole is a sum of:

1. Gaming
2. Collecting
3. Painting/Converting
4. Lore
5. Social Interaction

Sure, some don't enjoy the painting; hell it can be a downright pain in the *** sometimes. But that doesn't mean the entire hobby is not for them.


Yeh, as much as i agreed with thebitzbarn earlier, i have to say that the hobby is more than one soul thing. saying the hobby is just about painted armies is narrow minded. as is saying its just about gaming. for each individual there is a different aspect of the hobby that they enjoy, some enjoy all aspects, but it has to be acknowledged that the hobby consists of more than one element, even if you dislike other areas of the hobby.

[Melissia]

This hobby is about painted armies
No. The hobby is about this army of giant douchebags in powered armor running about killing greenskinned mushroom men, while space elves with shuriken-throwing guns run about being emo about their lost race, and the great masses of humanity point flashlights at everyone and yell "boo" to distract from their tanks firing far deadlier ordnance at the "I'm angry at my dad" douchebags and six-breasted daemons out of hell itself. The terminator wannabe army of zombie skeletal robots kills everyone they see, a BDSM variant of space elves survive basically by living in a constant orgy of pain and blood, and blue-skinned space cow / space bird communists are trying to preach peace and cooperation but then get attacked by a bunch of bugs with guns along with everyone else.

That is 40k, in a sarcastic nutshell. What you define as the hobby is not the same as what anyone else does. The background, the lore, the fluff, however you refer to it-- that's how I define 40k. Without the background, the miniatures are mediocre piles of plastic/metal/resin. Without the background, the rules are nothing more than a mediocre collection of numbers, statements, and random dice rolling which aren't even really all that great. Without the background, 40k is nothing. That's all that matters to me, for 40k. My armies are merely an extension of this, a show of support and love for my three favorite factions, and the battles I participate in are likewise an extension of this, giving more and more battles and history to the characters I create.

Painting is a monotonous chore, something which I do not enjoy, and something I only marginally consider part of the hobby-- indeed, I would go so far as to say that painting miniatures is a completely separate hobby from the one I participate in.

[The other guy]

Where as for me, Painting takes priority. GW make some beautiful models and i love trying to bring the best out of them with my paints. And some of GW best models are for 40k

Then comes the social aspect. I really enjoy sitting in my local GW store and painting up some minis while chatting to the others in the store. It's social, it's interactive and a great way to spend an afternoon.

Then for me comes the games. I like winning more than losing, but all-in-all, I can take or leave the gaming. It's a good way of putting my painted minis in a different light.

Finally comes the fluff. I tried to read the black library books but found the writing to be sub-par (in my view only). I don't really enjoy the 40k universe fluffwise.

Melissa, please understand that there are many different aspects to the hobby. We don't all value fluff over painting. I can respect your position as very gaming-orientated. Can you respect mine as a person who views painting far more important that the provided storyline?

[Melissia]

[snip]Don't give me that BS. Read my post first, in its entirety instead of piecemeal.

Namely, this part:


What you define as the hobby is not the same as what anyone else does. The background, the lore, the fluff, however you refer to it-- that's how I define 40k.This should make it obvious that I'm not disparaging anyone who believes painting is the most important aspect, merely stating that I disagree. That you assume I somehow disrespect your opinion is wrong-- I am apathetic to your opinion (meaning, I don't really care), rather, I am responding to someone idiotically saying that people who aren't into the painting section of the hobby should leave the hobby.

Something which, if you had actually read of my posts, you should note that I have never said nor said anything similar to. Erroneously claim that my apathy over your opinions is disrespectful if you absolutely must, but at the very least I haven't just crudely told you "like this aspect of the hobby or get out".

[The other guy]

Don't give me that BS. Read my post first, in its entirety instead of piecemeal.

Namely, this part:

This should make it obvious that I'm not disparaging anyone who believes painting is the most important aspect, merely stating that I disagree. That you assume I somehow disrespect your opinion is wrong-- I am apathetic to your opinion (meaning, I don't really care), rather, I am responding to someone idiotically saying that people who aren't into the painting section of the hobby should leave the hobby.


And I am responding to someone who has stated that...


The hobby is about this army of giant douchebags in powered armor running about killing greenskinned mushroom men, while space elves with shuriken-throwing guns run about being emo about their lost race, and the great masses of humanity point flashlights at everyone and yell "boo" to distract from their tanks firing far deadlier ordnance at the "I'm angry at my dad" douchebags and six-breasted daemons out of hell itself. The terminator wannabe army of zombie skeletal robots kills everyone they see, a BDSM variant of space elves survive basically by living in a constant orgy of pain and blood, and blue-skinned space cow / space bird communists are trying to preach peace and cooperation but then get attacked by a bunch of bugs with guns along with everyone else.

That is 40k, in a sarcastic nutshell. What you define as the hobby is not the same as what anyone else does. The background, the lore, the fluff, however you refer to it-- that's how I define 40k. Without the background, the miniatures are mediocre piles of plastic/metal/resin. Without the background, the rules are nothing more than a mediocre collection of numbers, statements, and random dice rolling which aren't even really all that great. Without the background, 40k is nothing. That's all that matters to me, for 40k.

I want to highlight the bits in red. Those are the bits im responding to.

Those are definitive statements. You are stating them as fact, not your opinion. THAT is why i asked you to respect my opinion, and to understand that you opinion is not fact.

[Shavnir]

I have been to well over 25 Tournies, form small shop events to 2 day ones. I have been to events all over the Southeast US.

When I ran them we did not focus on painting over who knows how to play if you painted your armies at all then you generally got 14 out of the 20 points for Painting. This system does not award a overall win to someone who paid for an army.

You have obviously never been to an event where people were not all jerks and where painted armies are the exception. Painting is part of the hobby. I am sorry to say that if you do not paint them you should not win regardless how many games you won. Many people feel this way and I am not trying to start a flame war but this really only exist in the 40K circuit fantasy players seems to not be worried as much about this. I think this is due to Fantasy players are little more mature. just my opinion

I've been playing miniatures games for about 6 years now and have played in dozens of tournies in at least 4 states, including everything from 8 people showing up at the store to top-8ing in a 100+ person national event. I would say perhaps a third, maybe only a quarter of these events were for Warhammer or 40k.

I would also like to say that yes, I have been to a tournament that required painting and people weren't all jerks.

It was only in the Warhammer / 40k events that painting played any relevant part in the final scoring of the tournament, and its only been in those tournaments (specifically ones with army comp, painting and sportsmanship scores) that I've seen people I wouldn't play after the tournament.

To repeat : Despite having played in tournaments almost nonstop for 7 years the only times I have never had a particularly horrid opponent in tournaments where there are no sportsmanship scores.

I am sorry to say but I'm afraid its you and people like you. You are what's wrong with warhammer as a hobby.

PS : I've been to Fantasy tournaments where the judge actively made up rulings to help his friends win and had the whiniest Chaos Daemons player about my "overpowered lizardmen." There's plenty of douche's in both games.

[Bean]

Not that I disagree with you, in principle, Shav, but I have to say that I've played against people in Warmachine tournaments who I basically never want to play against again.

Fantasy and 40k have no monopoly on douchery.

[Melissia]

[snip]Respond to the entire post, rather than a section of it. Strawman arguments piss me off because they are balls to the wall f***ing RETARDED.

My posts are made to fit together in their entirety. The context of a statement depends on the statements before and afterwards. Indeed, even between multiple posts, the context of each post is dependent on the previous and subsequent posts, because of the nature of conversations on a forum. Blatantly ignoring large swaths of a post is, at best, idiotic, and at worst trolling. Either way, if you're suggesting you flat out refuse to read the entire post and take statements in context, then I'll just add you to my ignore list (even Buffo isn't that obnoxious, and he's the only one on there).

[Shavnir]

Not that I disagree with you, in principle, Shav, but I have to say that I've played against people in Warmachine tournaments who I basically never want to play against again.

Fantasy and 40k have no monopoly on douchery.

To be fair Bean you have a history of bringing out the worst in people :p. But seriously my point was more sportsmanship scores don't really garuntee good sportsmanship but instead promotes vindication against it.

[DarkLink]

Melissa, please understand that there are many different aspects to the hobby. We don't all value fluff over painting. I can respect your position as very gaming-orientated. Can you respect mine as a person who views painting far more important that the provided storyline?

This is her whole point. This is my whole point. This is the whole point of what a lot of people are trying to say on this thread.

Some people just don't care about certain aspects of the hobby. And there is absolutely no reason why they should have to take flak from others. Other people have absolutely no right whatsoever to dictate your interests.

Do not judge someone simply because that aspect, for them, is painting.

[Colonel Pryde]

If I were a professional athlete, and my team won every game in the World Series, only for another team to get the trophy because their uniforms were nicer than ours, I'd be angry. This is the exact same thing here.

A great analogy.

In my point of view, we pay a (Im sorry) a ****load of money on this particular game. Therefore, we should have the right to specialize and enjoy the game how we like it. I'd personally be pissed if I won all of my games but he had better painting skills. I still can't understand the original poster on how he accepts that he was 2nd place even though he performed better. They should really have separate categories for winning in tourneys. Have a separate paint contest where people can enter their best painted model. The winner wins a prize. But you cannot PENALIZE someone who excels in his matches.

Eveyone has their stengths and weaknesses, whether it be painting, gaming, or being good sports. But you cannot PENALIZE someone for being weaker in something. It just isn't right. No one's perfect.


Nobody was trashing other sports scores just to get ahead.

Oh yeah, how would you know if others were not trashing other's scores? I would hope that these are confidential no?

[Aldramelech]

To you.

Painting is nothing more than an annoying little bother, to me.

Only because your crap at it!

(He he, runs away quickly):D

[Commissar Lewis]

Respond to the entire post, rather than a section of it. Strawman arguments piss me off because they are balls to the wall f***ing RETARDED.

Heehee, this part made me laugh. Ah, Melissia you do come up with some great gems. I'm going to have to use "balls to the walls ****ing retarded" at some later occasion.

Aside from that, I have nothing really to add aside from the fact that painting scores shouldn't affect gaming scores, etc.

[MajorSoB]

I was reminded why I feel so strongly that painting is part of the hobby last tuesday. Allow me to explain:

I was relaxing at my local gaming store waiting for a friend to show up and drop off some models to me. Tuesday nights are 40K nights and open gaming. I did not have alot of time before work ( I was called in to start early ), so I opted not to start a game instead I was relaxing talking with some friends. A younger player (17 -19) asked me if I had a game. I responded no but I could play a quick game if he was OK with me leaving for work. We set the board up, I got out my army. I had my chaos nurgle list. My army is painted and more important, it is WYSIWIG. My opponent started unpacking his army. He was playing Nids. Out came a Hive Tyrant, an older model, followed by some half assembled gene stealers, a cari ( used as a tervigon), some armless gaunts, warriors and so on. Random paint decorated a few models, none of which were complete. We started playing. Somewhere into turn 2, I had my DP close enough to charge his Tyrant. I charged, but the Tyrant became a Swarmlord ( why shouldnt it)! In combat the arms magically morphed into twin boneswords. Basically the game progressed in like fashion from there, hopefully you can understand the point I am getting at. While I enjoyed the game somewhat, it also frustrated me. Here is my thinking.

I dont begrudge anyone who is starting this hobby and is on a shoestring budget. I have seen it before and have gladly donated models to help out beginning players. What I dont like is that same player who several years down to road is still stuck carrying around the same crappy unassembled and unpainted army. You know this is just a game but when playing at least have some respect for your opponent. Put your best foot forward. I dont think its too much trouble for someone to show up with an assembled army, with each unit properly represented and equipped as you are playing them. If painting isnt your thing, bare miminum effort should be assembled and primed. Now before you accuse me of being elitist, etc, remember I played this guy who didnt have a game. I had fun but it wasn't as fun as it could have been. When we play next time I want to see more. I want to see an effort towards assembling the army and making it WYSIWIG. After that start painting but at least make an effort. I know its easy to come up with excuse after excuse as to why you cant assemble, paint, and so on, but remember you chose a hobby where assembling and painting is an element of it. If that isnt what you like, then play chess, Heroclix, or Magic, no assembly and no painting needed. I believe this is one reason why many tournaments the hobby aspect of our game. 40K and fantasy do require assembly and painting.

[Aldramelech]

I was reminded why I feel so strongly that painting is part of the hobby last tuesday. Allow me to explain:

I was relaxing at my local gaming store waiting for a friend to show up and drop off some models to me. Tuesday nights are 40K nights and open gaming. I did not have alot of time before work ( I was called in to start early ), so I opted not to start a game instead I was relaxing talking with some friends. A younger player (17 -19) asked me if I had a game. I responded no but I could play a quick game if he was OK with me leaving for work. We set the board up, I got out my army. I had my chaos nurgle list. My army is painted and more important, it is WYSIWIG. My opponent started unpacking his army. He was playing Nids. Out came a Hive Tyrant, an older model, followed by some half assembled gene stealers, a cari ( used as a tervigon), some armless gaunts, warriors and so on. Random paint decorated a few models, none of which were complete. We started playing. Somewhere into turn 2, I had my DP close enough to charge his Tyrant. I charged, but the Tyrant became a Swarmlord ( why shouldnt it)! In combat the arms magically morphed into twin boneswords. Basically the game progressed in like fashion from there, hopefully you can understand the point I am getting at. While I enjoyed the game somewhat, it also frustrated me. Here is my thinking.

I don't begrudge anyone who is starting this hobby and is on a shoestring budget. I have seen it before and have gladly donated models to help out beginning players. What I dont like is that same player who several years down to road is still stuck carrying around the same crappy unassembled and unpainted army. You know this is just a game but when playing at least have some respect for your opponent. Put your best foot forward. I dont think its too much trouble for someone to show up with an assembled army, with each unit properly represented and equipped as you are playing them. If painting isnt your thing, bare miminum effort should be assembled and primed. Now before you accuse me of being elitist, etc, remember I played this guy who didnt have a game. I had fun but it wasn't as fun as it could have been. When we play next time I want to see more. I want to see an effort towards assembling the army and making it WYSIWIG. After that start painting but at least make an effort. I know its easy to come up with excuse after excuse as to why you cant assemble, paint, and so on, but remember you chose a hobby where assembling and painting is an element of it. If that isnt what you like, then play chess, Heroclix, or Magic, no assembly and no painting needed. I believe this is one reason why many tournaments the hobby aspect of our game. 40K and fantasy do require assembly and painting.

Yep, I'm with you there. But......

Most Tournaments have a requirement that you turn up with a painted army to be able to enter.

Excellent, as it should be. As long as the organizers requirements are met, no problem.

But to then judge who won by including the standard of that painting? Not so excellent.

Now lets bare in mind that I'm a painter and I do consider it to be at least as important as any other aspect, and I will not play against unpainted figures, never, under any circumstances.

I still believe that painting scores have no place in tournaments. Some people, no matter how hard they try, regardless of how much effort they put in, are just no good at it. Painting cannot be completely learned, you have to have some natural talent in the first place.

Should these people be penalized at tournaments for this lack of natural talent? I don't believe they should.

Should there be a reward for putting in effort and practice and developing your natural talent? Yes, but in a separate painting category.

[Shavnir]

I had fun but it wasn't as fun as it could have been. When we play next time I want to see more. I want to see an effort towards assembling the army and making it WYSIWIG. After that start painting but at least make an effort. I know its easy to come up with excuse after excuse as to why you cant assemble, paint, and so on, but remember you chose a hobby where assembling and painting is an element of it. If that isnt what you like, then play chess, Heroclix, or Magic, no assembly and no painting needed. I believe this is one reason why many tournaments the hobby aspect of our game. 40K and fantasy do require assembly and painting.

I chose a hobby where I move little plastic or metal mans around a board and argue about rules personally. Apparently I also chose a hobby full of holier-than-thou people based on their tolerance of something I find to be completely and utterly unfun, painting.

Lets say you show up and part of my enjoyment of the hobby is rules arguments. I can still have a good game without a rules argument but one where the opponent sat down and really learns all the nooks and crannies of the rules and their codex and comes up with good points (especially when its something I didn't know before!) increases my enjoyment of the game. I am making an assertion that it is more a part of the hobby for me than painting. Is it fair for me to have a tournament where you get to judge the opponent on how well he argued his case for various rulings? Should I tell you guys to go to games with cleaner rules if you don't enjoy rules arguments?

[DarkLink]

I was reminded why I feel so strongly that painting is part of the hobby last tuesday. Allow me to explain:


And I'm strongly reminded about how other people have absolutely no right to tell me what parts of my hobby I should be enjoying.

What you ran into here was not an issue that somehow magically proves that we all must start painting everything, and enjoy it. What you ran into was someone who was bending the rules (at best).

The rules about WYSIWYG require a certain minimum of modeling activity. If you choose (and remember, you and you alone get to choose who you play) to play someone who is violating those rules, you might run into trouble.

But beyond that minimum degree of modeling required by the rules...

[Colonel Pryde]

If painting isnt your thing, bare miminum effort should be assembled and primed.
I ran into this a few times. I entered assault with 5 plastic assault marines to find out that one of them actually was captain shrike. I have not much of a problem with those who do not have WYSIWYG, but they should at least show you their armylist and explain their proxies. Even a polite reminder "remmember, that's a swarmlord" or "are you sure? that's a demon prnce" and so on. Even I was once a proxyer, especially when I first started off. But over time, you accumilate enough (thousands) of bits and this no longer becomes an excuse.

I remmember those wizkids games. Those mechwarrior "clicktec" tourneys every week. As bad as the rules were, the simplicity and timeliness was the beauty of the game. But evetually, you get tired of ugly, poor painted and deformed miniatures! :p I remmeber the day I first saw a necron monolith at my local hobby store... That's when I started 40k... A little off topic.:D

[scadugenga]

Proxy issues are a whole 'nother ball of wax than just painting...

[addamsfamily36]

Proxy issues are a whole 'nother ball of wax than just painting...

As much as i agree with painting shouldn't be a decider in tournaments, proxy, wysiwyg, painting etc all come under the same banner.

they are a gaming standard. If you want someone to have wysiwyg, and the right models, i dont see how they then can;t say well i want your army to be painted?

if someone said to me, what's that?, and i reply oh its my converted wratihlord with twin swords, they act as a brightlance pulse coming from the weapons when struck together (or something along those lines, im makign thsi up here lol) and then that person said to me err no, no brightlance on the model no brightlance in the game, i would jsut turn around and say err no paint on your models no army.

I'm not saying anyone should have to paint their army, but if someone argues wysiwyg and proxy, then the other person is entitled to argue painting.

[DarkLink]

As much as i agree with painting shouldn't be a decider in tournaments, proxy, wysiwyg, painting etc all come under the same banner.


No, painting and modeling are very, very different issues. A model does not have to have a single drop of paint on it to be WYSIWYG. It does not have to have a single drop of paint on it to be legal to play.

For a model to be legal to play, it must be modeled correctly, according to WYSIWYG standards.

Thus, there is a logical reason to enforce WYSIWYG standards at tournaments. No such reason exists for painting.

[entendre_entendre]

So what I can gather from here so far:

1. Some people don't like painting, some people do.
Okay, we get it, we like different aspects of the hobby for different reasons. Let's move on.

2. Above groups can't seem to get along.
Seriously, let's move on.

3. But everyone seems to agree that separate winners for painting/general/sportsman/overall are good.
So why are we still arguing?

Is it because tournaments are "forcing" you to paint something? Isn't this thread about how a tourney should be run? Shouldn't a tournament that encompasses all aspects of the hobby require certain things like assembly and minimal paint? Aside from a minimal paint job, no one would be forcing you to paint Golden Daemon standard. Just slap 3 colours on and go for best general. If you want best overall, then you may have to put some more effort in. Actually, if the tournie didn't have a rule about painted armies, one could show up with an unpainted army and walk away with best general, but don't expect to win best painted or overall. Is this such a problem for everyone?

If a tournie requires a painted army, then painting scores should not be used at all, as one would meet the requirements already. One could have a best painted winner from that, but keep it separate, as all armies in said tournie would meet requirements just by being allowed in.

I'm not sure where I sit with sportsmanship scores, but I'm sure separating them from game/paint scores (with the exception of Best Overall of course) would fix the problem. Maybe making Sportsmanship scores public (by posting them up on a chart or something) would fix chipmunking. I dunno, I'm just typing aloud here.

Also, does no one go to a tournie for fun anymore? Do people actually go to test their abilities against others in a competitive environment just to see how well they can do, or is it really all about the swag nowadays? Is winning all about the prizes or the pride from winning? Is this just 'Ard Boys influence?

[Melissia]

Actually not everyone agreed on the third point from what I've gathered.


In fact, people have specifically said douchey things like "if you don't like painting, get out of the hobby".

[addamsfamily36]

No, painting and modeling are very, very different issues. A model does not have to have a single drop of paint on it to be WYSIWYG. It does not have to have a single drop of paint on it to be legal to play.

For a model to be legal to play, it must be modeled correctly, according to WYSIWYG standards.

Thus, there is a logical reason to enforce WYSIWYG standards at tournaments. No such reason exists for painting.

I NEVER said they were the same, i said they come under the same or similar umbrella, what i'm saying is using my creativity or imagination to come up with interesting ways to represent something could be my personal choice to represent or model something in my army and within the ideas of the Hobby. if someone turned around to me and said NO because of WYSIWYG, then i'm being FORCED out just the same as if someone said your army isn't painted you can't play in this tournament etc etc.

How is that fair?

Also - most tournaments and GW stores used to and still do enforce a no paint no gaming rule. This has lapsed in stores of late, but it used to be the norm, especially in my local area. this doesn't mean you have to paint, i'm just giving an example.



Actually not everyone agreed on the third point from what I've gathered.


In fact, people have specifically said douchey things like "if you don't like painting, get out of the hobby".


Melissia' right, a few people have made some outrageous statements of "no paint no hobby", which is just stupid.

[Sir Biscuit]

You should read the entirety of Sirlin's book, playing to win, which is available online in its entirety here. (http://www.sirlin.net/ptw/) It's excellent advice for any serious competitor, regardless of game. (Sirlin is a SF player.)

This part in particular is poignant: link. (http://www.sirlin.net/ptw-book/advanced-players-guide.html)

To extrapolate a point from this:
If the point of a tournament is "have fun", then that is not a very good tournament.

The point of a tournament is to determine the best 40k player. That should be its ONLY aim. If the goal is "yay have a good time!" then that is not a tournament, it is casual game night.

A lot of time tournaments aren't very fun, or at least not fun all the time. That's fine. That's how it is. I expect people to play their hardest against me, just as I play my hardest against them, and if we're not joking around, well, it's because we are in a tournament.

Painting and sportsmanship do not belong in a tournament simply because they have no bearing on our goal: find out the best 40k player. They are arbitrary to our purpose. Whenever I see painting as a requirement I always wonder, "Hey! Why don't I get points for all the back story I've written! Surely, the fluff is part of the hobby too and I should be rewarded for it, why isn't "best author" part of my tournament score?" It is not because that would be ******* silly to base battle points on tangential hobby stuff that is subjective... oh wait.

Soft scores unbalance an already imperfect system, and if you think they should be included in tournament scoring you are wrong, no exceptions, period. If you think they should be included you either:
A.) Don't understand what tournament means.
or
B.) Don't like to play competitively, but think you do.

In either case, I have a simple solution. DON'T GO TO TOURNAMENTS. Play casually, and stop *****ing that you don't get free points for tangential **** you did.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As a funny aside, I like to do this to advocates of soft scoring: play with soft scores in EVERY 40K GAME. After all, if they're good in tournaments, they're surely good for regular 40k, right? Most people start thinking soft scores are **** the first time they lose a game because of them.

[addamsfamily36]

You should read the entirety of Sirlin's book, playing to win, which is available online in its entirety here. It's excellent advice for any serious competitor, regardless of game. (Sirlin is a SF player.)


Hope this isnt aimed at me, because if you read back you'll see i said painting shouldn't effect the outright winner of a tournament.

if its not aimed at me then fair enough.

[DarkLink]

I NEVER said they were the same, i said they come under the same or similar umbrella, what i'm saying is using my creativity or imagination to come up with interesting ways to represent something could be my personal choice to represent or model something in my army and within the ideas of the Hobby. if someone turned around to me and said NO because of WYSIWYG, then i'm being FORCED out just the same as if someone said your army isn't painted you can't play in this tournament etc etc.

How is that fair?

Also - most tournaments and GW stores used to and still do enforce a no paint no gaming rule. This has lapsed in stores of late, but it used to be the norm, especially in my local area. this doesn't mean you have to paint, i'm just giving an example.


I'm just pointing out that it's different because of the way it's handled in the rules. Having an unpainted model doesn't cause any issues at all. Having a half-assembled model can, however, as brought up by several others. That is the reason why you need to distinguish between painting and modeling in tournaments. A lack of assembled models and no WYSIWYG causes lots of rules issues, which can undermine a tournament. Painting doesn't do that, nor do sportsmanship scores or comp scores or any other soft scores.

No one has fun if everyone is accusing each other of cheating left and right, of if everyone is constantly proxying stuff. Enforcing at least a minimum of WYSIWIG is an entirely reasonable way of avoiding a lot of headaches.

On a side note, none of the stores, nor player groups I've been a part of, have required fully painted armies.

[addamsfamily36]

ah yes but, painting does sometimes signify what a unit is. A rhino not painted for instance.


Blood angels example:

Say you have 3 rhino's, two normal one death company rhino. Right now all look the same all been moving around the table to different locations. Now a nice player would put a marker or would tell you which is which rhino, but everyone knows you get some very unsportsmanship playing at tournaments, and suddenly an opponent will claim the rhino they need to be the death company rhino to be the one that happens to be in the right location. Ok they might declare before the game starts, you might ask them to declare etc, but i've seen it too often when a unit changes and you can;t tell because of a lack of paint. if the rhino clearly had death company markings from a bit of paint etc then no problems.

just saying.

[DarkLink]

You can work around that. I usually place a model from the squad on top of the vehicle so my opponent doesn't even have to remember what color means what units, or something like that.

[addamsfamily36]

You can work around that. I usually place a model from the squad on top of the vehicle so my opponent doesn't even have to remember what color means what units, or something like that.

Yeh you could do that, but some models look the same, plus if your units are equipped differently, the melta gun squad could suddenly materialise, or the powerfist sergeants guy etc etc.

This is of course only happens when a player is being a jerk, but it's annoying when it does happen, and as much as i can argue that a different unit was said to be in that tank, i can;t prove its not as none of the units would have markings or color distinction. a little lick of paint would help.

this is why i agree tournaments should enforce a painting standard, but i don;t think it should be included in the score result.

[DarkLink]

It's kinda a matter of where you draw the line. On one hand, you have to have at least a model or something, you can't really play with, say, empty bases. On the other hand, it's kinda unreasonable to expect everyone to have a golden daemon level paint job on everything. Personally, for a tournament, I would draw the line at having fully assembled, WYSIWYG models (or at least close enough to fully WYSIWYG).

[addamsfamily36]

Lol - i did once play with 4 bases but was in a game of warhammer and was only because all four dragon ogres had literally broken in transit. pinned and everything i was most annoyed. then i converted plastic ones problem solved lol.

I'm not asking for golden demon standard for tabletop, infact im not asking for anything, but it would be nice to see something rather than grey. theres so many quick and easy tricks out there now, that its easier than putting the damn things together lol.

[CitizenZero]

You should read the entirety of Sirlin's book, playing to win, which is available online in its entirety here. (http://www.sirlin.net/ptw/) It's excellent advice for any serious competitor, regardless of game. (Sirlin is a SF player.)

This part in particular is poignant: link. (http://www.sirlin.net/ptw-book/advanced-players-guide.html)

Why should we read this guys book? Because he wrote out a bunch of his opinions in the form of facts? What about this:

"Games are different. The very nature of a game is that it is a collection of rules agreed upon by all players. If players don’t agree on the rules, then they are not even playing the same game. The rules define exactly what is inside the game and what is outside. The rules define which moves are legal and which moves are not. The rules define what constitutes winning, what constitutes losing, and what constitutes a draw. There’s no weaseling out of defeat by redefining what the game is. The game should need no redefining, and a loss is a loss."

So then, if the rules of the tournament say there is a painting score...am I allowed to weasel out of defeat by redefining what the game is?

I think people are too sensitive on this subject, if you don't like the tournaments in your area...find people who feel the same way as you and organize one yourself...then you can make the scores as soft or as hard as you want.

(Personally I am a fan of the separate categories of Best General, Best Appearance, and Best Overall...apparently compromise is admitting defeat here however...)

[Aldramelech]

Why should we read this guys book? Because he wrote out a bunch of his opinions in the form of facts? What about this:

"Games are different. The very nature of a game is that it is a collection of rules agreed upon by all players. If players don’t agree on the rules, then they are not even playing the same game. The rules define exactly what is inside the game and what is outside. The rules define which moves are legal and which moves are not. The rules define what constitutes winning, what constitutes losing, and what constitutes a draw. There’s no weaseling out of defeat by redefining what the game is. The game should need no redefining, and a loss is a loss."

So then, if the rules of the tournament say there is a painting score...am I allowed to weasel out of defeat by redefining what the game is?

I think people are too sensitive on this subject, if you don't like the tournaments in your area...find people who feel the same way as you and organize one yourself...then you can make the scores as soft or as hard as you want.

(Personally I am a fan of the separate categories of Best General, Best Appearance, and Best Overall...apparently compromise is admitting defeat here however...)

Nope, I and many are agreeing with you on the last point.

[Melissia]

It's kinda a matter of where you draw the line. On one hand, you have to have at least a model or something, you can't really play with, say, empty bases. On the other hand, it's kinda unreasonable to expect everyone to have a golden daemon level paint job on everything. Personally, for a tournament, I would draw the line at having fully assembled, WYSIWYG models (or at least close enough to fully WYSIWYG).

WYSIWYG can be hard to do on older armies, especially combi-weapons. I dread doing combiflamers on my Sisters models, for example, even though it's better than trying to paint the *******ed metal models, it's still a pain to convert a bolter to a combiflamer.

[CitizenZero]

Nope, I and many are agreeing with you on the last point.I stand corrected :)

I just always assume everyone on the internet disagrees with me haha...

[Melissia]

I stand corrected :)

I just always assume everyone on the internet disagrees with me haha...

Don't worry, there's destined to be SOMEONE out there that disagrees with you :)

[CitizenZero]

Don't worry, there's destined to be SOMEONE out there that disagrees with you :)Thanks! We can always hope...

[DarkLink]

WYSIWYG can be hard to do on older armies, especially combi-weapons. I dread doing combiflamers on my Sisters models, for example, even though it's better than trying to paint the *******ed metal models, it's still a pain to convert a bolter to a combiflamer.

Yeah, 100% WYSIWYG isn't really feasible some of the time. Like with sisters, not only do you have to buy the unit and transport, but then you have to buy three blisters for $45 or something ridiculous in order to get WYSIWYG...

[Melissia]

And that doesn't actually cover all wysiwyg anyway. No Sisters combi-melta units are sold anymore AFAIK, and quite a few of the sister superior models have equipment that nobody buys... to the point where I no longer use them, I just use common bolter Sisters for my Sister Superior.

[Rapture]

I don't understand how anyone can say that painting needs to be part of the hobby.

To play 40k, one needs several things. They need to know the rules. They need to build models. They need to have a block of dice and a ruler. Done.

Sure some might prefer to play against painted models, but that it just a preference. Some people might think that models that aren't on fancy bases are disgusting. They might even go so far as to avoid playing against individuals with plain black bases. That is not good or bad. Everyone is different.

A tournament is all about playing the game. Therefore, it is silly to score people on unnecessary things. Like painting. Why not score on modeling and converting? To me, those things are much, much more important than painting. I would never enforce my love for that aspect of the hobby on others by making it a requirement to win in a competitive environment.

That said, I don't want to play against people with poorly constructed models. Just like some don't want to play against people with unpainted models. I suck it up. Not everyone shares my enthusiasm for construction. I don't want them to suffer for it. So why should they suffer for not sharing your enthusiasm for painting?

Save the painting scores for the Golden Demons.

I won't even comment on how stupid sportsmanship scores are.

[CitizenZero]

A tournament is all about playing the game. Therefore, it is silly to score people on unnecessary things. Like painting. Why not score on modeling and converting? To me, those things are much, much more important than painting. I would never enforce my love for that aspect of the hobby on others by making it a requirement to win in a competitive environment.The same arguments keep coming up, are refuted, then brought back up again.

Why is this happening to me?

Is this real life?

I would never enforce my love for painting, fielding a painted army, or playing against painted armies on others by making it a requirement TO PLAY IN A TOURNAMENT WHERE THESE THINGS ARE SCORED.

This isn't complicated, there needn't be an order of operations for most important aspects of the hobby...please GW, raise some prices...the internet is getting restless.

[Melissia]

The same arguments keep [being] refuted
Yes, you wouldn't. But several people have suggested exactly that.

[Rapture]

The same arguments keep coming up, are refuted, then brought back up again.

Why is this happening to me?

Is this real life?

I would never enforce my love for painting, fielding a painted army, or playing against painted armies on others by making it a requirement TO PLAY IN A TOURNAMENT WHERE THESE THINGS ARE SCORED.

Someone asked an opinion based question on the internet. Said person then got answers. Lots of them. There are lots of people on the internet. What did you expect?



This isn't complicated, there needn't be an order of operations for most important aspects of the hobby...please GW, raise some prices...the internet is getting restless.

How funny.

[blackjack]

Sportsmanship and painting are both things you not only want at a minimum level at tournaments its something you want at the best levels possible. This is why you score on them, it encourages people to do better at them for the next tournament. Which means nicer looking armies and people going out of their way to be nice to each other. This is what makes tournaments fun for everyone.

Being a better general just makes the tournament funner for you, not every one else.

[Melissia]

And sportsmanship scores are abused by people lacking in sportsmanship, which makes it more fun for them but not for everyone else.

[CitizenZero]

Yes, you wouldn't. But several people have suggested exactly that.Thats fair, they're wrong too.


What did you expect?Nothing less.

[Rapture]

Sportsmanship and painting are both things you not only want at a minimum level at tournaments its something you want at the best levels possible. This is why you score on them, it encourages people to do better at them for the next tournament. Which means nicer looking armies and people going out of their way to be nice to each other. This is what makes tournaments fun for everyone.

Being a better general just makes the tournament funner for you, not every one else.

People with nice looking armies pretending to be nice makes the tournament 'funner' for you, not everyone else.


Nothing less.
How clever.

[blackjack]

"People with nice looking armies pretending to be nice makes the tournament 'funner' for you, not everyone else."

What does that even mean? If you "pretend' to be nice often enough guess what, you are actualy being nice. For many people pretending to be nice are the first baby steps towards being an actualy nice person. Your 'pretend' to be nice to get a good score, find out that pretending makes people like you more and makes the game more enjoyable, so you pretend some more next time. Keep that up and before you know it you become an acutal human being. Course this is not the path for many but sportsmanship scores nudge people in the right direction. Even if people never do anything else but 'pretend' to be nice it is an improvment over the 'as long as you don't punch your opponent in the face you can play' attitude at so called competitive events.

Nicely painted armies make the game look better which is better for everyone.

In what bizzaro universe did some of you guys get the impression that 40k is competitive? The rules suck if you consider them from the prespective of clarity and depth, the codexs do not balance and 80% of the units in the game are not suitable for "competitive" play. Of course you can try to play 40k competitively heck there are people who try to makeYoga competitive (talk about misunderstanding the point) but the system is not geared for it, the rule books are not geared for it, the army books are not geared for it, the fluff is not geared for it, heck even the minatures are not geared for competitive play (can you imagine a worse mini desighn in relation to the rules than the Valkrie?).

Look if competitive is the way you want to play fine. No one is going to stop you but for C#$#T sake stop complaining that eveyone else takes painting and sportsmanship seriously. Competitive players have already sucked all the air out of the north american tournmanent scene with Ard Boyz do they have to butcher every other tournmaent as well?

[andrewm9]

And that doesn't actually cover all wysiwyg anyway. No Sisters combi-melta units are sold anymore AFAIK, and quite a few of the sister superior models have equipment that nobody buys... to the point where I no longer use them, I just use common bolter Sisters for my Sister Superior.

Actually they do sell a sister with a combi-melta, but it also has a power maul.

Here it is.

http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/catalog/productDetail.jsp?catId=cat30048&prodId=prod1080212

[CitizenZero]

How clever.You really think so? I was pretty proud of it, but wasn't sure if it would resonate.

You see, when the word "opinion" and the concept of the internet consisting of "lots of people" becomes the justification for blatantly false blanket statements spouted as fact, there isn't much to say.

"A tournament is all about playing the game."

-False, but just vague enough to be read as opinion. The words "should be" could have been inserted to give it that personal touch.

"Therefore, it is silly to score people on unnecessary things."

-This is an awesome statement, because it is a catch 22! If I disagree with the previous sentence, then I would say it is false...but then I would be somehow suggesting that it ISN'T silly to score people on unnecessary things. Rather, those things that I myself determine are unnecessary...such as hairstyle of opponent.

"Like painting."

Ok cool, so that fixes the previous sentence...Your point was that if we disagree with YOUR concept of what is necessary, we're silly.

Neatl! Let me try one...

Warhammer 40k is strictly a game, nothing more. The only things necessary are the rules, a measuring tool, dice, and appropriate counters used to represent the models. Therefore, it is silly to require unnecessary things. Like actual models.

Hmm...that felt weird, on second thought I will stick with "Nothing Less."

[blackjack]

"Warhammer 40k is strictly a game, nothing more. The only things necessary are the rules, a measuring tool, dice, and appropriate counters used to represent the models. Therefore, it is silly to require unnecessary things. Like actual models."

Which is why I think people who dont care about painting or soft scores should seriously consider Vassal or some improved variant. When I suggested this the pure competitive community thought I was attacking them. I was being serious.

[Fellend]

I hate it simply because I can't paint. Why so I lose a tournament because someone has better artistic skills than me?

My first and so far only tournament I entered I won all games, I even won against the tournament winner. But because my marines weren't painted (more than two squads, rest was painted black) He consistantly got better scores than me and thus won the competition.
Where is the sense of fairness in that? Imagine, a football game where they say yes you would have gotten the gold but they have more fans so you just get silver....

Yes I prefer fighting nicely painted armies like everyone else but I don't believe subjective rulings based on what people think is unfair models (comp) or painting should interrupt the game.

[razcalking]

Where is the sense of fairness in that? Imagine, a football game where they say yes you would have gotten the gold but they have more fans so you just get silver....

Wouldn't it be more like a football game where they wouldn't let you play unless you were wearing proper team colors and uniforms?

Oh wait, that IS a rule in every football game.

[blackjack]

"I hate it simply because I can't paint. Why so I lose a tournament because someone has better artistic skills than me?

My first and so far only tournament I entered I won all games, I even won against the tournament winner. But because my marines weren't painted (more than two squads, rest was painted black) He consistantly got better scores than me and thus won the competition.
Where is the sense of fairness in that?"

Where is the unfairness in losing to a person with better skill than you....

[Aldramelech]

Actually they do sell a sister with a combi-melta, but it also has a power maul.

Here it is.

http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/catalog/productDetail.jsp?catId=cat30048&prodId=prod1080212

You Sir are a very brave man. Let me shake you by the hand. Trying to tell Lady M anything about barbies battle sisters.... Heroic!

(Walks off into the distance) Shame really he seemed like such a nice helpful chap, all that potential wasted........

[Bean]

Wouldn't it be more like a football game where they wouldn't let you play unless you were wearing proper team colors and uniforms?

Oh wait, that IS a rule in every football game.

This made me laugh. Very nice.



I'm still against including soft scores (including painting) into overall tournament standings, though.

[DarkLink]

Which is why I think people who dont care about painting or soft scores should seriously consider Vassal or some improved variant. When I suggested this the pure competitive community thought I was attacking them. I was being serious.

I've told you this before in another thread, I like playing against people, not against some random computer opponent.

And that's not to mention rules issues like LOS stuff that can come up, or the awkward user interface. Or the fact that Vassal isn't supported anymore, because GW shut them down.



My first and so far only tournament I entered I won all games, I even won against the tournament winner. But because my marines weren't painted (more than two squads, rest was painted black) He consistantly got better scores than me and thus won the competition.
Where is the sense of fairness in that?"

Where is the unfairness in losing to a person with better skill than you....

Because he should be winning the Best Painter trophy, not Best General. You should have gotten Best General, and he should have gotten Best Painter. That would have been fair.

[addamsfamily36]

(Walks off into the distance) Shame really he seemed like such a nice helpful chap, all that potential wasted........

This made my day!!!!. Has to be my favorite quote in the entire of bell of lost souls :)

[CitizenZero]

Because he should be winning the Best Painter trophy, not Best General. You should have gotten Best General, and he should have gotten Best Painter. That would have been fair.Yes to this, although if there was an "Overall" category, then I could see an player that lost a game having a higher overall score than someone playing with unpainted units.

Do people enter triathlons, only to be upset because they run and bike the fastest but can't swim?

[Rapture]

Wouldn't it be more like a football game where they wouldn't let you play unless you were wearing proper team colors and uniforms?

Oh wait, that IS a rule in every football game.

However, teams don't get extra points tacked onto their score because they had nicer uniforms than the other team.

[Paul]

However, teams don't get extra points tacked onto their score because they had nicer uniforms than the other team.

No, they don't. Because if they didn't have nice uniforms, they couldn't play at all. There's no "Well, you're players are all wearing grey with white numbers, I suppose they can play but you get less points." It's "Your teams uniform is grey t-shirts over pads? Get the hell out of my league."

[Rapture]

No, they don't. Because if they didn't have nice uniforms, they couldn't play at all. There's no "Well, you're players are all wearing grey with white numbers, I suppose they can play but you get less points." It's "Your teams uniform is grey t-shirts over pads? Get the hell out of my league."

Exactly.

Apply that to the question of this thread. Painting scores would be unacceptable. However, a painted army could be a requirement.

[DarkLink]

Do people enter triathlons, only to be upset because they run and bike the fastest but can't swim?

But if I go to a tournament in order to play, and don't care about the other stuff, then I want to be scored only on one category. And I much prefer tournaments to do it that way.

But if you sign up for a triathlon, you're accepting that you're going to be scored over broader mortal domains than simply singly swimming, biking or running. In fact, you're not signing up to be the best runner, or the best swimmer, or the best biker. There are plenty of marathons, swimming competitions and bike races to handle those. Someone signing up for a triathlon is competing for the title of best endurance athlete, which encompasses multiple domains, thus necessitating multi-modal exertion on behalf of the athlete.

Now, if I sign up for a tournament with comp scores, I'll accept the standings. But I would much rather have them separated. I would much, much rather have a better prize and scoring system. I just might not have a choice, which means I'll have to put up with subpar options.

It's not like it's hard to separate the scores. If you separate the scores, everyone's happy. And there's no reason to mash them all together (other than having very limited prize support, and even then you can still recognize the category winners). Why create conflict where there doesn't need to be any.

[CitizenZero]

But if I go to a tournament in order to play, and don't care about the other stuff, then I want to be scored only on one category. And I much prefer tournaments to do it that way.

But if you sign up for a triathlon, you're accepting that you're going to be scored over broader mortal domains than simply singly swimming, biking or running. In fact, you're not signing up to be the best runner, or the best swimmer, or the best biker. There are plenty of marathons, swimming competitions and bike races to handle those. Someone signing up for a triathlon is competing for the title of best endurance athlete, which encompasses multiple domains, thus necessitating multi-modal exertion on behalf of the athlete.

Now, if I sign up for a tournament with comp scores, I'll accept the standings. But I would much rather have them separated. I would much, much rather have a better prize and scoring system. I just might not have a choice, which means I'll have to put up with subpar options.

It's not like it's hard to separate the scores. If you separate the scores, everyone's happy. And there's no reason to mash them all together (other than having very limited prize support, and even then you can still recognize the category winners). Why create conflict where there doesn't need to be any.I agree with all of this. Every tournament I have ever been to (except 'Ardboyz) has had categories for Best appearance, Best General, and Best Overall. Traditionally, the best prizes have been awarded to the Best Overall category...but all three have their own prize structure.

I personally feel like this is my favorite way to run a tournament, if this isn't how it is run where your from...then you should be the change you want to see and organize your own tournaments, using a system that works exactly the way you would like it to.

[BuFFo]

Do people enter triathlons, only to be upset because they run and bike the fastest but can't swim?

Wrong analogy....

What would be correct is playing a triathlon, only to win the competition, but get third place because the judge didn't like the color of your car.

[DarkLink]

Right, the only possible reason I could think of not to have Best General, Best Painter, etc, is if you didn't have any prize support, and even then I would still want to have the winners in each of those categories announced.

That system is simple, easy, fair, gives people credit for their accomplishments, and keeps everyone happy. There are no downsides, and no good reasons that I can think of, or that I have ever heard anyone give.



In fact, my opposition to mashing all the scores together doesn't come so much from an opposition to that system as much as it isn't the Best General, Best Painter, Best Sport setup, which is the best prize layout for a tournament I've seen, in general.

You can switch around the details a little, but I don't see any reason why pretty much all tournaments shouldn't follow that general format, with the exceptions of events like 'ard Boyz, which is specifically all about the game itself, not painting and the like.

[CitizenZero]

Wrong analogy....

What would be correct is playing a triathlon, only to win the competition, but get third place because the judge didn't like the color of your car.When you entered the competition, did you know full well that your car color would be judged?

If so, why did you take the bus?

[Rapture]

When you entered the competition, did you know full well that your car color would be judged?

If so, why did you take the bus?

I am not sure whether you are just enjoying the argument or if you are just joking.

The idea that a serious competitive situation would exist where the competitors were judged on something that had nothing to do with the event they were competing in is just silly. Whether people know they are being judged on irrelevant aspects or not is irrelevant. No one would take, for example, a bowling competition seriously if the bowlers were give extra points for wearing a green shirt.

[BuFFo]

When you entered the competition, did you know full well that your car color would be judged?

If so, why did you take the bus?

Welcome to Missthepointsville.

Population, you.

Once again....

Why do people not have a problem judging the Golden Demon based solely on painting, but playing the game has non game playing factors factored in?

[addamsfamily36]

Why do people not have a problem judging the Golden Demon based solely on painting, but playing the game has non game playing factors factored in?

Fact 1 - painting competitions have rules and restrictions

fact 2 - tournaments have rules and restrictions for example:

the requirements of a tournament could be:

fully made 2000 point army, two copies of a legal armylist (being used), painted army - 3 colour and based rule, wysiwyg, own dice, tape measure.

those are quite common requirements and RULES of the tournament.

painting competition

Basing restrictions, some gaming restrictions ( 40k and warhammer unit categories both need to be legal units in the game), models entered must be painted by the competitor, etc etc


I don't think tournaments should be won because of better painting, but if someone didnt turn up with their army list etc at a tournament i bet that would cause a STIR!! yet its a rule of the tournament. you might even ask : Wheres your army list? to which they could reply wheres your painted army?

[Cherub]

I dont know what its like in the states for these style of tournies but here its usally when we have comp and painting in tournies its awarded best overall, best general, best sport and best painted. Depending on prize support there is quite often 1,2,3 in those catagories. If you dont like those style tournies dont play. If you only like ard boys style tournies just play in those. Its totally up to you. I like both myself. Almost all of the coolest games I have played have been in "hobby style" tournies. Ive met some of the coolest guys at those type of tournies. But hey I dont pay for your models so feel free to ignore anything I have said and game what ever way you enjoy the most cause thats the way I game.

[Aldramelech]

If this "Discussion" was taking place in a pub the barman would be reaching under the counter for the baseball bat by now.

You guys are now just looking for the killer analogy to silence your opponants and crush his will to fight, and guess what?
It aint gonna happen, your forum opponant isnt listning to you. The same arguments are just getting refreshed and fired off, Bored Now.......

Agree to disagree, this thread is now well and truely on the road to nowhersville.

[CitizenZero]

I am not sure whether you are just enjoying the argument or if you are just joking.

The idea that a serious competitive situation would exist where the competitors were judged on something that had nothing to do with the event they were competing in is just silly. Whether people know they are being judged on irrelevant aspects or not is irrelevant. No one would take, for example, a bowling competition seriously if the bowlers were give extra points for wearing a green shirt.Oh my, we have now entered a serious competitive situation. Lets see if I can walk through this in the least silly manner possible.

If the event has a painting score, then by default a painting score would have something to do with the event. So choosing to enter a competitive event where the rules dictate I will be judged on my painting AS WELL as playing games, then becoming frustrated that I lost said competition BECAUSE of that has somehow become not silly?

Are you serious?


Welcome to Missthepointsville.

Population, you.

Once again....

Why do people not have a problem judging the Golden Demon based solely on painting, but playing the game has non game playing factors factored in?Welcome to the thread, feel free to catch up...we'll wait.

Back? Did you see the part where I discussed different types of tournaments? In your rush to make it to Missthepointsville in time to welcome me, you have seemingly missed every Pointsville along the way. I don't blame you really, Pointsvilles tend to be quite towns with little in the way of tourist attractions.

[CitizenZero]

If this "Discussion" was taking place in a pub the barman would be reaching under the counter for the baseball bat by now.

You guys are now just looking for the killer analogy to silence your opponants and crush his will to fight, and guess what?
It aint gonna happen, your forum opponant isnt listning to you. The same arguments are just getting refreshed and fired off, Bored Now.......

Agree to disagree, this thread is now well and truely on the road to nowhersville.Haha! Roadmaps are now necessary to navigate the towns we've visited and pillaged in this thread.

[eldargal]

Gaming competition.

Painting competition.

Bonus if you win both.

Problem solved.

[Rapture]

Oh my, we have now entered a serious competitive situation. Lets see if I can walk through this in the least silly manner possible.

If the event has a painting score, then by default a painting score would have something to do with the event. So choosing to enter a competitive event where the rules dictate I will be judged on my painting AS WELL as playing games, then becoming frustrated that I lost said competition BECAUSE of that has somehow become not silly?

Are you serious?

Welcome to the thread, feel free to catch up...we'll wait.

Back? Did you see the part where I discussed different types of tournaments? In your rush to make it to Missthepointsville in time to welcome me, you have seemingly missed every Pointsville along the way. I don't blame you really, Pointsvilles tend to be quite towns with little in the way of tourist attractions.

You missed the point. Again. The point is that events that include a scoring system which includes categories irrelevant to the actual competition would not be looked at as an actual competitive event.

You have failed to address that idea, which makes it seem like you are missing the point. Just because FIFA tells the teams that they will now receive one additional goal if all of the players comb their hair before the match doesn't mean that it would be acceptable as far as the idea of competition is concerned. Excuse the analogy.

Stop with the Internet Musketeer attitude. The way you bounce around ignoring what anyone is saying just so you can try to win the argument and make lame jokes is just annoying.

[addamsfamily36]

You missed the point. Again. The point is that events that include a scoring system which includes categories irrelevant to the actual competition would not be looked at as an actual competitive event.


Again i'll start with i agree that painting shouldn't effect overall outcome, but i think your missing the point on this one.

in your own words you have put "includes"

Ok so to include means that its part of the competition. So the outlines of the competition are clear. painting is part of it on some level either just as a 3 paint standard or a scoring standard. how has is become a non competitive event? if the event was meant to be purely game based like chess then fair enough, but if the outline of an event specifically includes painting then its part of the competitive game whether you like it or not.

Look at my last post to see more what i'm talking about.

[Rapture]

I don't think tournaments should be won because of better painting, but if someone didnt turn up with their army list etc at a tournament i bet that would cause a STIR!! yet its a rule of the tournament. you might even ask : Wheres your army list? to which they could reply wheres your painted army?

I agree that painting is part of the hobby and that painting can be a requirement of entering a tournament.

The problem starts when painting modifies the outcome of the tournament.

[Aldramelech]

I agree that painting is part of the hobby and that painting can be a requirement of entering a tournament.

The problem starts when painting modifies the outcome of the tournament.

Simple and to the point. Agreed. And Im a non tournament playing painter. Hang on didnt I say this two pages ago?

[CitizenZero]

You missed the point. Again. The point is that events that include a scoring system which includes categories irrelevant to the actual competition would not be looked at as an actual competitive event.

You have failed to address that idea, which makes it seem like you are missing the point. Just because FIFA tells the teams that they will now receive one additional goal if all of the players comb their hair before the match doesn't mean that it would be acceptable as far as the idea of competition is concerned. Excuse the analogy.

Stop with the Internet Musketeer attitude. The way you bounce around ignoring what anyone is saying just so you can try to win the argument and make lame jokes is just annoying.Wow. Except for the musketeer part, nothing in this sheds new light on your reasoning.


I agree that painting is part of the hobby and that painting can be a requirement of entering a tournament.

The problem starts when painting modifies the outcome of the tournament.Ok, let me put this as straight forward as possible. For clarity.

If gaming and painting are both part of the hobby, why is it impossible for you to fathom that somebody would like to compete in a category that COMBINES those two elements?

You say that when painting modifies the outcome of the tournament it's a problem, but who's problem is it?

[addamsfamily36]

Ok, let me put this as straight forward as possible. For clarity.

If gaming and painting are both part of the hobby, why is it impossible for you to fathom that somebody would like to compete in a category that COMBINES those two elements?

You say that when painting modifies the outcome of the tournament it's a problem, but who's problem is it?


He's not arguing that they are both part of the hobby. he even stated just now to my post that painting for tournaments requirements is perfectly acceptable. What isn't is when the painting score knocks the top player off the top spot. Yes that person can win best painted army, another can win best sportsmanship, and then whoever played the best wins outright.

Although painting might be part of the competition so to enter you need a painted army, to win best painted army u need the best painted army, but to win outright?

people are using the football example, im going to use the war example (it is after all 40k):

Romans storm england...get up to scotland...scottish go F*ck off..Romans go home.

Now imagine this

Romans storm england...get to scotland...scottish go "ach well they have very colourful sheilds and banners, we best let the wee beasties in"

ERM NO

apologies for the shockingly stereotypical scottisch accent.

[CitizenZero]

He's not arguing that they are both part of the hobby. he even stated just now to my post that painting for tournaments requirements is perfectly acceptable. What isn't is when the painting score knocks the top player off the top spot. Yes that person can win best painted army, another can win best sportsmanship, and then whoever played the best wins outright.

Although painting might be part of the competition so to enter you need a painted army, to win best painted army u need the best painted army, but to win outright?Please believe me when I say that I know precisely what is being said, yet completely disagree. I simply have no clearer way to word MY point than the posts which I have already made in this thread, so until something new is brought up I m going to jump the shark and just begin to quote myself.


Ok, let me put this as straight forward as possible. For clarity.

If gaming and painting are both part of the hobby, why is it impossible for you to fathom that somebody would like to compete in a category that COMBINES those two elements?

You say that when painting modifies the outcome of the tournament it's a problem, but who's problem is it?A fair question?


I agree with all of this. Every tournament I have ever been to (except 'Ardboyz) has had categories for Best appearance, Best General, and Best Overall. Traditionally, the best prizes have been awarded to the Best Overall category...but all three have their own prize structure.

I personally feel like this is my favorite way to run a tournament, if this isn't how it is run where your from...then you should be the change you want to see and organize your own tournaments, using a system that works exactly the way you would like it to.This is when I was still of the mind that people actually read what I was posting, so was offering genuine uplifting advice...I yearn for those days.

[DarkLink]

Gaming competition.

Painting competition.

Bonus if you win both.

Problem solved.

Exactly. Why are we even arguing about anything anymore.

[razcalking]

I would agree with what many have suggested:

Make a fully painted army a requirement for entering the tournament. A certain standard has to be met, or you don't get to enter.

Then have the results of the tournament based solely on the games played, with maybe a side award for Best Painted.

[CitizenZero]

Exactly. Why are we even arguing about anything anymore.Because some of us disagree with that concept, and feel that it is perfectly acceptable to have a category where painting and gaming scores are combined. The notion seems ludicrous to others.

Oh, and it is an internet forum...many will regurgitate their opinions ad nauseum rather than attempt to understand another perspective. If you cease to argue on the internet, it goes away...like when you stop believing in faeries.

[addamsfamily36]

A fair question?

a fair question indeed. I'm commenting on your whole post, but i just used that quote so that my post wasn't ridiculously long.


Righti agree, that it is perfectly ok to have a tournament with combined scores, for those that wish to play like that, but for those people i give the same argument to those that hate painting altogether in tournaments:

Make or run your own.

On the other hand for generic tournaments i.e ones that involve the greater number from both camps, the middle ground is painted armies, but not scores.

My reasons for no scoring or competitive level of painting within tournaments is because painters already have the very high profile Golden demon gamesworkshop's Biggest competition. And also because, where you might be able to master the game or learn how to atleast become a competitive player, for some people painting no matter how hard they try will either never be an interest or they will never be any good at it.

Having a combined category in tournaments for gaming and painting tends to be labelled "tournament winner" and has the best prize or trophy. But this combined category prevents a better gamer from ever winning the overall prize, because they are not good at painting. where as say golden demon the overall winner wouldn't lose out because they were not good at gaming.

[DarkLink]

Because some of us disagree with that concept, and feel that it is perfectly acceptable to have a category where painting and gaming scores are combined. The notion seems ludicrous to others.


That would be the Best Overall. Which is part of the layout. So whoever shows up and does well in gaming and painting gets a prize. Whoever shows up and does well in gaming, but doesn't care about painting and doesn't do well there, gets a prize. And whoever shows up and does well with painting, but doesn't care about gaming and doesn't do well there, gets a prize. Everyone has a shot for a prize within their category of the hobby that they care about, and they don't have to get forced into any other categories in order to get a prize if they don't want to.

Everyone's happy. Excluding specific events, like the Golden Daemon awards or 'ard Boyz, which focus on one specific aspect of the hobby, why would you ever do it any other way, other than to alienate large segments of players intentionally?

[CitizenZero]

a fair question indeed. I'm commenting on your whole post, but i just used that quote so that my post wasn't ridiculously long.


Righti agree, that it is perfectly ok to have a tournament with combined scores, for those that wish to play like that, but for those people i give the same argument to those that hate painting altogether in tournaments:

Make or run your own.

On the other hand for generic tournaments i.e ones that involve the greater number from both camps, the middle ground is painted armies, but not scores.

My reasons for no scoring or competitive level of painting within tournaments is because painters already have the very high profile Golden demon gamesworkshop's Biggest competition. And also because, where you might be able to master the game or learn how to atleast become a competitive player, for some people painting no matter how hard they try will either never be an interest or they will never be any good at it.

Having a combined category in tournaments for gaming and painting tends to be labelled "tournament winner" and has the best prize or trophy. But this combined category prevents a better gamer from ever winning the overall prize, because they are not good at painting. where as say golden demon the overall winner wouldn't lose out because they were not good at gaming.Yes! Thank you, this entire post makes sense to me.

However, many of the people championing no painting scores are upset because they are entering and losing tournaments with categories that are clearly combined...why change the formats of those tournaments when there is nothing wrong with people wanting to choose to play that way?

'Ardboyz is an attempt to bring about the type of tournament that you are speaking about...do Gamers need the Indy GT's too?

[CitizenZero]

That would be the Best Overall. Which is part of the layout. So whoever shows up and does well in gaming and painting gets a prize. Whoever shows up and does well in gaming, but doesn't care about painting and doesn't do well there, gets a prize. And whoever shows up and does well with painting, but doesn't care about gaming and doesn't do well there, gets a prize. Everyone has a shot for a prize within their category of the hobby that they care about, and they don't have to get forced into any other categories in order to get a prize if they don't want to.

Everyone's happy. Excluding specific events, like the Golden Daemon awards or 'ard Boyz, which focus on one specific aspect of the hobby, why would you ever do it any other way, other than to alienate large segments of players intentionally?Yes! This is exactly what I am saying, I apologize if it came off as different .It sounded like EldarGal was suggesting only 2 Categories, painting OR gaming without a truly combined category...which is where my contention was...

[addamsfamily36]

Yes! Thank you, this entire post makes sense to me.

However, many of the people championing no painting scores are upset because they are entering and losing tournaments with categories that are clearly combined...why change the formats of those tournaments when there is nothing wrong with people wanting to choose to play that way?

'Ardboyz is an attempt to bring about the type of tournament that you are speaking about...do Gamers need the Indy GT's too?

Oh no i totally agree with you. If they don't like the competition outlines why did they buy a ticket?

[eldargal]

Sorry I should explain how my group does it. The tournament has a gaming component and a painting component, but there are no painting scores as we find peoples judgement is not so good when they lose.:rolleyes: Instead the judges inspect each army and choose the one they think is the best painted. That person wins a prize but still has to compete in the gaming section. If they win the gaming section, they also win the gaming prize AND the Best Overall prize. We have found that this encourages people to paint their armies well, even the power gamers, but it doesn't penalise the people who can't paint well or don't want to bother (or whatever the reason may be).
The only problem we had was when one of our better painters one the painting commpetition twice in a row for 40k, some of the less confident painters felt rather discouraged. So we decided that you couldn't win the best painting prize twice in a row for the same rulesystem.


Yes! This is exactly what I am saying, I apologize if it came off as different .It sounded like EldarGal was suggesting only 2 Categories, painting OR gaming without a truly combined category...which is where my contention was...

[DarkLink]

Yes! This is exactly what I am saying, I apologize if it came off as different .It sounded like EldarGal was suggesting only 2 Categories, painting OR gaming without a truly combined category...which is where my contention was...

Bah, 'tis but minor details:D

[CitizenZero]

All this sanity has me speechless! :O

[BuFFo]

Back? Did you see the part where I discussed different types of tournaments? In your rush to make it to Missthepointsville in time to welcome me, you have seemingly missed every Pointsville along the way. I don't blame you really, Pointsvilles tend to be quite towns with little in the way of tourist attractions.

Nope, you are still there.

Yes, it happened.

[CitizenZero]

Nope, you are still there.

Yes, it happened.This is META, its gotten to the point where responses are no longer even complete thoughts? I apologize for not being able to go down THAT rabbit-hole, my opinion is logical...it deserves better than that.