Glyn's recent tourney experience (borrowing an army and getting a zero for his painting score, which hurt his overall ranking a place or two) set me thinking...

I've never really gotten the idea that painting scores should be part of the calculation that tells you where a player should sit on the leader table at the end of a tournament (despite it bumping me a place or two up the rankings a couple of times!)... when you can 'buy' or 'borrow' your way to the top, if you're not a good painter/not interested/don't have the time etc.


So I was wondering what other people thought anyway.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

I believe in full marks for models undercoated black and drybrushed silver.

_________________
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

You certainly believe in 'buying' your tournament painting scores, IIRC you use commission painters, or bored friends, Chris.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

I am shocked and appalled! You must have me confused me someone else. I'm far to tight to pay to have stuff painted!

I'm the one drybrushing Orks silver the night before the tourney (I think I may have the worse painting scores overall - or at least I deserve such!)

_________________
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

I think tournaments are focused as showcase events and as such having well painted armies enhances the quality of the presentation while displaying the hobby element of gaming. Without painting scores, given the level of commitment at my local store to painting and the numerous threads on the subject across several boards, I really doubt that many would bother. Whether you pay another to paint it or do it yourself, it serves to enhance the look of the event when people have their armies painted and as Glyn's experience shows, it doesn't seem you can buy or borrow your want too far.

_________________
-Vaaish

Vaaish: I don't disagree that a well-presented army should be expected at a tournament... but I'm not convinced that making painting scores part of the overall result (as a fairly variable bonus, at least) is particularly fair*.


I'm aware of the irony of me (a self proclaimed not-entirely competetive player) thinking that tournaments could stand to be made more focused on the competetive gaming aspect, rather than the holistic hobby in toto, but as I said, it just feels odd to me that a player could buy a 'pro' painted / commissioned army, and then get a better 'painting' score than a guy who painted his whole army himself, albeit to a less awesome standard. It seems at odds with the tournament experience (that being focused on the skill of the individual who entered the tournament).


Chris: I thought you bought your Dark Angels/Salamanders?

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

If it descends into the nuances of painting ability then, yes, it isn't fair because that's the realm of the GD. But if the score is given flat to a fully painted army with points deducted for sloppy, unpainted or unfinished models I think it's fine. We're talking the difference between the guy who puts three different dots of paint on his base or doesn't bother to paint them at all vs those who expended the money or effort to have a nicely painted cohesive force.

Way back when, the 40k tourneys had scores for army composition as well. Of course that seems to have been shoved to the back burner because too many whined that their uber power spam of doom got bad scores.

_________________
-Vaaish

I tend to view that development more as GW simply not caring about the balance of their Core games.

What else can you expect, when GW put out a game system like Warhammer 40,000, where a Special Character choice can upgrade your entire army's weaponry for a (small) flat fee, regardless of if you're playing a 400pt skirmish or a 4000pt battle...

...the Core games aren't designed for tournament play, the army comp systems were getting more and more byzantine, and so GW just said 'fend for yourselves' to the tournament players and let them get on with it...



Are painting scores in Epic tournaments a flat 'painted' or 'not painted' tick?
I was under the impression that most used four or five levels of painting grade.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

I don't know, haven't been to an epic tourney. I was just speaking in general. Of course four or five levels of painting could be based on percentages of the force painted, not just good, bad, and ugly

_________________
-Vaaish

I don't think painting should have anything to do with winning a tournament. Yes, all of the participants having a full painted army, played on tables with stunning terrain, does indeed add to the spectacle of the tournament as a whole. Should someone with a well-painted army take first place over the best player? No.

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

The Open Wars are the only tourneys where this is an issue as they use the EpicUK rules+lists but their own scoring system. At any other UK event an army you hadn't painted yourself would not be eligible for the best painyted prize but would be scored as normal.

_________________
www.epic-uk.co.uk
NetEA NetERC Human Lists Chair
NetEA Chaos + Black Legion Champion

That actually is the topic of the thread, that at other events than the Open Wars you can (at least in theory) 'buy' a better tournament placing by having a really awesome-looking army commission painted for you.

I was wondering if the Open War system (or one like it) might be more focused on the skill of the individual, rather than the skill of their wallet.  

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

Talking as someone who runs Torni's i think it is an important part but it depends on how its used...
Everyone likes playing against a fully painted army, and not the various colour plastics they actually get cast in (or metals).

This is what we use for 40K torni's

Painting Marks
+5 Painted : The army is painted. This means that all the models have at least three colours painted onto them.
+5 Based : All the bases are painted and textured in some manner. The baseline for texture is flock as a minimum. Black edges are acceptable providing the tops are textured and painted.
+5 Banners & Markings : Units that require them have banners attached and all relevant markings have been added to the models too. If you are going to go for these points remember to cover all of the relevant models and not just a few – one or two markings will not count as we are judging the whole army.
+10 Detailed : All of the models have had the details of the models painted in a variety of colours or with noticeable effects. This discriminates between the merely painted army and the army that has had attention paid to it.
+5 Striking! : The army made the Judges go “Wow!â€Â

_________________
Coffeeeeeeeeee...........

I had read about this type of combined tourney scoring and decided to pass on it.  At Games Day Baltimore Epic Tournaments, we have separated the event out into Tournament Winner and Best Appearance.  This encouraged play and painting, but didn't disclude anyone.  Somebody who was not the best at playing could (and did) win the best appearance... Sorry, Studdering Dave!

Whereas the tourney could be won by anyone who managed to register in time and show up.  This is particularly important in the States since we are not as geographically tight as the U.K. players are.

_________________
author of Syncing Forward and other stories...

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

Zog:
Do you have any rules about the minis having to be painted by the individual, or can your competators 'buy' themselves a "stunning!" result?

At least a few years ago, there was a lot of painting commission work coming from the 40k and Fantasy tournament scene, as players wanted to up their scores as much as possible, but weren't going to paint their models to that level themselves, for whatever reason. I expect things aren't too dissimilar now.


Moscovian:
I think your system sits better with my gut, so that a poor painter but great player could win a prize, and the inverse also.

I also like it how you rate it 'best appearance' rather than 'best painted'.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter