Thanks for the extensive and well-written reply Matt, obviously your reply is the 600lb gorilla in more ways than just number of words.



2%... I assume the ammount of points allocated for painting changes with the number of games in the tournament?

I'm guessing that the other two grades 'painted' and 'high quality' are worth 42% of your painting score then (100 - 84 / 2 = X).

So that means that a 'wow' army would score 7.25% higher than a 'painted and based' army, all else being considered?


I guess at least in principle my personal preference would be for a flat 10% points difference between unacceptable armies, and any other painted army (a single grade of "Reasonable Presentation").


So you can (at least in theory) buy yourself an extra 7%, assuming you only have the skill to paint to a basic level, or an extra 12.5% if you didn't paint anything at all and paid for a 'wow' army (again, just in theory... it surely happens in WFB and 40k tournaments, but I've close to no idea how much commission painting goes on for Epic tournaments, in the UK or elsewhere).

That, combined with the people who don't have time to paint, leads me to reckon painting scores would be fairer to all to just be a binary 10% (or whatever), and that the 'painting trophy' could be expanded out to a 'best appearance' competition within/alongside the tournament with its own ranking table (or maybe only a top 5, or something).


Just my tuppeneth, apparently vaguely agreed with here, but of course this is just the internet, where opinions roam free and practicality is thin on the ground.


I may go throw a grenade into the pretty tournament-focused warhammer.org.uk forum (assuming they haven't had a C&D for using 'warhammer' in their URL before I arrive)... this topic has tweaked my interest for a couple of years now but it's only been Glyn's experience (which he didn't actually care about) that's motivated me to wonder more vocally what other people thought.



Quite true I'm sure, it must only affect things by 1 or 2 places for each high or low scoring player...

....but as well as being "Fluff King" (thanks Nick!) I'm also "Attention to detail guy", as those who've seen my modelling projects can attest.  

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

I think an army must be painted to attend but when playing the tournament the painting quality must have zero influence on the rankings.

_________________
Light at the Horizon.

Warp Rift
Project Distant Darkness
Eldar MMS

GothiComp Hall of Fame
http://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd/viewtopic.php?f=38&t=19176

For 3 game tourneys it is 24 points out of 144
+15 Painted and Based.
+3 Cohesiveness.
+3 High Quality.
+3 WOW!

For 5 game tourneys it is 40 out of 240
+25 Painted and Based.
+5 Cohesiveness.
+5 High Quality.
+5 WOW!

So the best armies stand to get 6 out of 144 points in 3 game tourneys or 10 out of 240 in 5 game ones.

_________________
If using E-Bay use this link to support Tac Com!
'Abolish red trousers?! Never! Red trousers are France!' – Eugene Etienne, War Minister, 1913
"Gentlemen, we may not make history tomorrow, but we shall certainly change the geography."
General Plumer, 191x

Well I think Matt has got it just about right:-

Effectively your tournament score is penalised if you don't have a resonably painted army or if you are notably 'unsporting', while we award two special trophies for those armies that are especially well painted (by the owner), or who are especially sporting.

I also think the balance within the tournament score is about right, though I deliberately omitted these 'soft scores' when setting up the Championship league because I wanted a totally objective mechanism for the various races.
When setting up

_________________
"Play up and play the game"

Vitai lampada
Sir Hemry Newbolt

And that is how the championship has continued Ginger.

Hmmm yeah Matt, I take your point about the grades being there to encourage higher quality painting; otherwise a penalty for not painting to a basic standard would lead
only to basic looking armies - theoretically at least.

I just worry about those who feel they cannot get to a higher standard, from having chatted to most tournament goers, there are a few.

We can conclude then that a fixed penalty for substandard armies is more equitable to all, but with the downside of not encouraging painting improvements, and not reflecting the hobby as a whole as you argue.

Regardless, I think we all agree that in practice the current system means a difference in placings of only one, or maybe two places. I think most of tournament goers accept that as reasonable.

_________________
[url=http://tinyurl.com/bott2015][img]http://i62.tinypic.com/205fcow.jpg[/img][/url]

This goes to the heart of the matter.  I suppose if I lived in an area where games and Epic players were prevalent, I might share your thoughts on including painting in a score.  As it stands, however, I don't feel comfortable discluding or penalizing people because they didn't have the time/skill/both to paint their army.  We have a fairly decent sized group of Epic players here, but I would never want discourage anyone to show up if they had metal showing on the table.

It all comes down to supply and demand I suppose.  

_________________
author of Syncing Forward and other stories...

It's a dog-eat-dog world, and I've got my Milkbone underwear on.

I have to say that nearly all the UK tournaments for all systems (Fantasy, Ancient etc) normally require that your army be painted. Must be a cultural thing.

I played at a friendly Warmachine event last weekend, were painted armies were not required and over half were not painted. I even played one that was bare metal, with one model not stuck to its base! (For the record I'm not better at Hordes than Epic, as I finished with a 1 win 2 lose record  )

I used to firmly be in the "painting should be separate camp" but I've come round to the point of view that it should be in the overall points, but not to the extent that it would move a player 5 or 6 places up the rankings.

I'm not a great painter, mainly because I derive little joy from painting so I don't spend time to get better. However the new citadel washes help a lot in producing reasonable results for a small time investment.

Agreed - a basic standard can be really easily achieved these days.

1: Spray
2: Base coat (foundation paints are really good for this)
3: Wash
4: Quick drybrush

Slip-slap-slop. That's basically all I did for my 'nids and they look great.

I really don't think there's much excuse these days for bare metal. And certainly not unglued!

_________________
[url=http://tinyurl.com/bott2015][img]http://i62.tinypic.com/205fcow.jpg[/img][/url]

I here plenty of excuses: family, work, time, and even the terribly honest 'I'm lazy'.  I guess I'm just an Epic whore - I'll take on any player.  

_________________
author of Syncing Forward and other stories...

It's a dog-eat-dog world, and I've got my Milkbone underwear on.

That's exactly how I feel, too.

_________________
"I don't believe in destiny or the guiding hand of fate." N. Peart

Tell me about it kids/wife/work etc etc...

Oh I don't mind playing casual games with people who've got some stuff they haven't painted yet - not at all. Have done it myself on occasion.

But I do think that it is perfectly possible to get an army painted to a basic standard for a tournament. For me, I'd never dream of showing bare metal - it would be feeling too ashamed that would deter me from doing so, more than loss of points - but that's just me.

_________________
[url=http://tinyurl.com/bott2015][img]http://i62.tinypic.com/205fcow.jpg[/img][/url]

Or another way to put it would be that players who don't paint anything at all, but buy their army (either commissioned or from eBay), can at least in theory 'buy' up to 16.7% of their total tournament score.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

Here in Western Australia at recent Tournaments I've attended (not Epic sadly), they've had awards for:

-Favourite Player (something I managed to win...   voted by players)
-Best General (the player with the highest victory scores over the event)
-Best themed/painted army (self-explanatory - judged by players or tournament organisers - something else I've won)
-Best Overall (a combination of all the previous catagories)

These types of catagories really help the event be a hobby filled day, rather than a I can play better than you day (not that there's anything wrong with that).

I prefer to see all aspects of the hobby rewarded at a tournament. It is usually meant to be the game at it's best, on display.

That said, a player who didn't paint his own army or borrowed an army, should excuse themselves from the Best themed/painted catagory. I have seen players win the Best Overall despite scoring zero for Best themed/painted army.

_________________
Just call me Steve.

NetEA Rules Chair
NetEA FAQ

Want to play Iron Warriors in Epic Armageddon? Click HERE
Some of my Armies.
My Hobby site.

There are a number of reasons for having the painting score in tournaments. For me, the biggest reason is to encourage people to bring painted armies. I enjoy the sights if not the smells of an epic table. Therefore, any way I can motivate people to bring good-looking lead is good.

Whether the minis were painted, dipped, or bought does not affect the looks of them. Good looks -> good fun.

I can appreciate the other reasons as well, but the above is, to me, the big one.