The Future of BG 40k Events

[andalucien]

Just want to make a note about 7th edition rules rumors so far:

With the notable execption of Unbound, every rumor I've heard SOUNDS like an improvement over 6th edition to me, from the perspective of clarity and balance.  In fact, many of the rumors are things I've specifically wished for out loud in these forums (e.g. getting -2 to hit when snapshotting rather than just always needing a 6, and Ignores Cover being less powerful than it currently is).

And, you could easily just ban Unbound armies from most events.
 

[keithb]

And how would you enforce that?  How could you argue that someone didnt paint their own models?  Also if someone paid their own money to have it done then by all means they should be able to reap the benefits. 

Now mind you I am biased in this purely because Dean painted my army.  But tell me why I couldnt get best appearance reward when I spent months converting my army, months coming up with the concept, months building a mountain to display this army. 

Now would you consider that a ringer army?  Because I wouldnt.  But back to my point unless I told you Dean painted my army how would you know?  Thinking from a TO stand point how could you verify that without having personal knowledge where I got it? Hindering awards for people just because they had someone do something they couldnt isnt beneficial to the tourny scene.  It doesnt help anyone. 

I personally feel that regardless who painted an army etc if you have a great looking army then I would much rather play you then someone who has 3 color mins or primed models.

There is this thing called honesty.  I know you've never tried to hide that you had help Troy.  And I certainly don't think that having some help = unable to win.  But a line has to be drawn somewhere.

I am not a fan of contracted out paint jobs winning store prizes for appearance.  Certainly having a kickass army is reward in itself no?    Or do you think you should win best general if I write your list and tell you what moves to make during each game?

You have a great army. Cool.  Didn't you do it to have a great army?  Or do your feelings get hurt because you can't win prizes for dean's paint job?  Look, plenty of people have cool ideas or cool convertion thoughts, and might not have the cash to pay someone ELSE to help it become a reality.  That doesn't mean you didn't do work, but it also doesn't mean we should reward YOU for something someone ELSE did.

[keithb]

To clarify.  I think that "paid for armies" in terms of painting shouldn't ever be banned, and should be able to compete and win almost every award.   Except best appearance.

[Achillius]

To clarify.  I think that "paid for armies" in terms of painting shouldn't ever be banned, and should be able to compete and win almost every award.   Except best appearance.

agreed, I am in awe of what Troy did, and that's where a "players choice" comes into play, I'd love to see an honest declaration around what went into the army, and I believe Troy would be spot on with that. Players choice would provide that balance between painting/conversion and display and be voted on by the players.

Best painted can be similar, but doesn't worry about the display board and is concerned with who did the work.

Of course adding another award could be a problem, but just a thought.

As for the overall concern over competitive 40k, I remain very optimistic for this release. I really do. Don't let me down GW, I've heard enough "I told you so's" to last me a good number of years yet.

Cheers,
Alan

[MM3791]

I'm a gamer, not a hobbyist. Which means I never paint my own models, I always hire someone to do it for me.

Who do you hire? I'm looking for a reasonable price to paint my stuffs.

PM sent.

[AstartesXXVI]

You could do smaller awards for Best Painter and Best Army, respectively. The problem here is that they would often bleed over into each other, though.

Still. It doesn't matter how awesomely painted an army is -- winning an award for something you didn't do, especially if you are vocal that you didn't do it, would probably sour a lot of people. Though the "can only win it once" aspect might remedy that itself.

[MM3791]

I don't think people like me should be punished for publicly coming out to the world, I play the game for the rules.. not to be in a painting contest. At the end of the day it's my money and I'll spend it however I like, if I want to hire someone to do something for me then I will. I personally think painting should be left out entirely of any type of game tourney scene, have a separate hobbying contest without any gaming at all if that's what you're shooting for.

Either way there's no way to enforce this type of thing, and if I cared about winning a painting award then I never would've said anything at all.

[AstartesXXVI]

Painting awards are really just a bonus, they often have no bearing in the event themselves, so I don't see why it is a problem. Whether or not it "belongs" at a tournament is really not up for debate; tradition is massively, massively against it and, frankly, a lot of BG's problems probably come from the lack of a painting requirement (I have fought guys who took models out of Simple Green and rinsed them off in the BG sink during deployment, and once faced two people who were in only their second game ever with incomplete models, and of course, the usual corner-case super-lists are all hindered by someone having to take the time to paint them).

It isn't a punishment, it is a way of rewarding the people who did the work themselves instead of relying on the services of others.

Besides...if you allow paid-for armies to rake up the painting award you are essentially ensuring the people with the most spare money who put the least effort (as far as the actual act of painting goes) will win it all the time.

I mean, if the award is literally to the person who painted the best, do you really think you deserve an award for work you didn't do (to the point where you are insinuating you would just lie for the prize)? I mean, that's the rub, I guess: is the award for the army, or the person who painted it?

I mean, hell. I'd just get rid of it entirely, if people are this adamant about winning an award and prize money for something they didn't even do it's not worth opening the can of worms every event. There is no paint req at BG events anyway. Giving it away is a waste, especially if there is a split. I mean, why worry about it, right?

[MM3791]

I mean, hell. I'd just get rid of it entirely

That's exactly what I was saying man

[Grimwulfe]

Something you guys are forgetting.  The award for best appearance is a rubric with conversions, basing, painting, and display etc..

I converted the entire army, I built and painted the display except for a base coat done by Sam everything else was painted by me for the display, I painted and scratch built every single base in my army, I painted guys in the army as well to match Deans paint, I came up with the creative vision for the entire army.

Now mind you im playing devil advocate here im up front about my army.  I put months in creating painting etc.  Technically I put paint on every single model and dean painted the core army and details.  So the painting price was paid because I have paint on them. 

In the advent of a restriction like this how can you say I didn't paint the army?  Either way im fine I love my army and Keith is right that is its own reward.  However its not like someone like me just bought the whole thing on ebay and is trying to reap the rewards of appearance.

The reason I state all this is honestly how can you differentiate, how would you know if I didn't tell you guys?  There Is no real way for a TO to know this either.  So out right banning rewards for something like that isn't going to help. 

Now a change to the players choice way that it is scored and awarded compared to best paint may be a better thing to follow through with.  because the way players choice is now is who ever got lucky and their opponents score all 5s which should never happen.   Doesn't have much to do with the overalls players choice of super cool fantastic ultimate awesome blah blah  army.

 

[AstartesXXVI]

I agree with everything you said for sure, but you've got to realize that you're the exception, not the rule. Most people just pay folks egregious money to assembly line models for them. It sucks that it would bring you down when you've put a good amount of effort in, but it would also cut out a lot of people just out to straight-up cash grab on the painting awards.

You know, in a funny way, paid painted armies that win Painting awards kind of...lets people launder their paint payments through Battleground + other stores, heh.

At the risk of sounding rude (which I'm not trying to be...I've seen photos of that army, and it clearly has love put into it), you still accomplished what you accomplished with help. So, I think the thought is, suppose you and a guy show up, and he did everything you did plus what your paint service accomplished, deserves to get the award more, technically. So that is all I'm saying. It sucks that any attempt to change policy would take away from such a sweet army that obviously had a lot of effort put into it besides the final coats of paint.

For reasons like this I think it is easier to just not open the can of worms and either forget the whole appearance score or not award money for it and have it be just a recognition of the best looking army of the day. After all, SOMEONE painted it, so there's that.

Sort of like recognizing the nicest army, rather than trying to reward the guy who brought it. Though it's still probably best to just can it...otherwise BG gets to deal with eternal war between guys like you who get shafted by restrictions and guys who never win because the same kick-ass armies come down all the time.

[andalucien]

... frankly, a lot of BG's problems probably come from the lack of a painting requirement (I have fought guys who took models out of Simple Green and rinsed them off in the BG sink during deployment, and once faced two people who were in only their second game ever with incomplete models, and of course, the usual corner-case super-lists are all hindered by someone having to take the time to paint them).

Dude.....  I wish you would just stop trying to fix what you see as "BG's problems".  It's pretty hard for someone who is not involved with a given social circle to understand it, or to enact any sort of beneficial change.  We can put up a poll about whether people find wisdom in these kinds of observations from afar if you like

[MM3791]

After all, SOMEONE painted it, so there's that.

Lol I laughed so hard when I read this, so true brutha so true.

Also how many painted armies are 2nd hand armies bought from another player using BG store credit system? In fact MANY painted armies are bought 2nd hand at a generous discount from a veteran player that is just trying to free up some hobby space. Those armies are very well painted too.

[Benjamin]

So we will cater events toward competitive players who no longer play a game that is no longer competitive, and we will abolish all paint scores to avoid any and all impropriety.

[Goblin]

just to play devil's advocate here a bit, think of the painting thing this way: there are millions of people who make a living providing services to others, and i don't see how this is any different. if someone spends 40 hours (i have no idea how long it takes a pro to paint an army, it would certainly take me a lot longer than this) painting your mandolls and you pay them $400, they aren't making much more than minimum wage. there are plenty of other competitive things that work like this. does football player doing well get invalidated because someone else made his pads for him? does a beauty pageant participant lose points because she didn't do her own hair? i'm just saying, if the prize is 'best appearance' it should go to the army that looks the best. if the prize is 'best painter', that's different.

now, devil's advocate mode disengage: i wouldn't mind seeing a few less repeats. if two armies are extemely close in appearance i don't have a problem giving it to the guy who hasn't won a whole bunch.