First post - soft topic

Well everyone’s doing it aren’t they this little bogging thing. I’ve always wanted to give it a crack but thought it a little self indulgent and also thought I don’t just want to prattle on about geeky games.

So where did that get me? Right here hopefully in the geeky game only blog, where you get my unabashed opinions, because I’ve done such a great job of moderating them in the past. I also realise this is probably blog number 498 started this year by an Australian gamer, I was two off winning the 500th gamer steak knives!

The first topic was also a bit of struggle. Do I go into my unhealthy fear of the suddenly highly effective vampire magic phase? Nah how about something completely uncontentious: my view painting scores and where we appear to be headed.

It appears every year a new issue with soft scores comes up whether it be: “chipmunking”, what sportsmanship should cover, composition or now, the flavour of 2008, Painting scores.

Now having started out playing Warhammer tournaments back in 3rd edition as a thirteen year old and being about as useful on the table top as Ahkter Kahn, I think I’ve got a bit of perspective on the how and why soft scores came about.

Back then I can remember when tournaments went through the phase when soft scores were being introduced there was a lot of resistance there was the “we need to save the hobby camp” and the “what’s wrong with how we play it now camp”.

Despite this divided everyone seemed to agree that we needed to encourage painted armies to be fielded. [side note: This could have been because people like me used the “three colour camouflage” technique to get past the minimum three colours test, the reason I’m so against static rules for composition is because I’m one of the people who would immediately start trying to rort it]

Now various systems came out encouraging this and generally at the start most of those that I saw made it easily achievable for any player to get the maximum painting score provided some effort was undertaken. After all the intent behind these soft scores, at the start at least, was to ensure that the game was played in such a way that made it enjoyable.

And the warhammer world rejoiced as people became friendlier, armies more balanced and base level of painting quality was adhered to enriching the tourney experience.

Since then systems have morphed, some would say evolved, and I don’t know when it happened but I look at many of the systems now and they are predicated on the view that painting in itself is a fundamental part of competing in the “hobby” and as such should be a source of major competitive advantage.

As often as this is “explained” to me I still can’t grasp the concept. The hobby is called “gaming” which to me implies the playing of a game, to have painting as rewarded in games terms by anything other than personal satisfaction and the acknowledgement of other painters was introduced not by the games designers but by tournament organisers. To have the quality of the paint job judged is not a fundamental part of the game.

To me the intent by the soft scores remains to encourage the game itself to be played in a fashion which promotes enjoyment.

Now sports scores overshot the “accepted standard” style test for sportsmanship but have since largely been reigned back in and composition scores have likewise gone for more of a “lets not penalise tough balanced lists” rather than a lets try and accurately handicap each list like it’s the stall wall gift.

Then we have painting as the soft scores have drifted back in, the painting criteria has become more arduous and skewed toward golden demon level painters.

Some tournaments criteria actually technically provide for that if your army is not to a great, which would mean well above average, standard then it deserves less than average marks. This to me seems absurd.

I am all for soft scores being used as a tool to ensure that the gaming environment is an enjoyable one but I’m against the movement towards the hybrid gaming/painting tournaments which are becoming prevalent.