Talk Fantasy Football

Trying to shake up the awards a bit, by trying to give other people a chance to do well with their teams by not making such an emphasis on painting.

What do people think of these rules?

Best Team Award:
This is a new category that is being tried out this year. Rather than having an award for the team that has been painted the best, the “Best Teamâ€

Take out the story bit (they did that at the BB a cople of years ago, and I neither bothered to read any of my opponents, nor had mine read for the whole weekend) and I'm with you.

I've seen some (imo) great teams with character that weren't painted to a "top" level.

I think the painting and conversion should count for more than the other parts. If using a 10 point scoring system
0-4 painting
0-4 conversion
0-2 Theme (including story)

Maybe the story bit could be a tie breaker. That way people can choose to do it or not, but if they choose not to and are then tied for first, they could lose out on winning the category for their choice.

this has been a hot topic in europe in recent years given that some winning teams are funny without perhaps being golden daemon standard.. I am OK with Lowsman's suggestion although I feel painting should be 0-5, conversion 0-4 and theme 0-1 (after all, we all have good/funny ideas, but it is executing them which should win points)...

some tourneys have changed "best painted" simply into "best team" - that way the definitions of what makes a team good are less rigid

R

why so much emphasis on conversion? i could see that adding a few points or being a riebreaker between a good team and a great team, but having it on equal standing as painting is silly.

plus as you guys have it, it's the number of conversions for the team that matter...what if every player on the team is converted poorly? do they still get full conversion marks?

while i agree that an inspired and unique conversion or two can really make a huge difference, your scoring system doesn't necessarily reward that. and understand that all of this is coming from a person whose wood elf team is all conversion and would do REALLY well with these rules. it's not a sour grapes thing at all.

you need high conversion scores to compensate for GW's crap figures..

Norse wrote:you need high conversion scores to compensate for GW's crap figures..

wesleytj wrote:why so much emphasis on conversion?

I think it is just that people really appreciate a different take on what is commercially available. For example, I saw a Wood Elf team last year at the Spiky completely composed of GW plastic Dryad models. It looked pretty cool, was clearly linked to the 'Wood' Elf theme but was something unique and new that I'd not seen before.

There are only so many of exactly the same models you can see before you yearn for something new, conversion is the easiest and most common way of getting 'new' models without sculpting them yourself...

madhobbit had a 'good looks' award, to cater for precisely this thing. Best Painted is a slighly confusing name I think

I would emphasise with conversions that they need to be identifiable. I have played a number of teams where I couldn't tell one figure from another!

Mind you I do have trouble with some GW figures, Amazons for one.

Yeah, that's why I made a little 'player positions explained' sheet for my Necromantic team. They are a collection of very different looking models, so I go through what each model represents before the match and then let my oponent refer to the sheet for the rest of the game in case they get confused.

I personally think that wacky conversions are fair game, but as long as there is a clear way of identifying what they are and that the reason behind the conversions is not simply to confuse the opponent...

I likethe idea of coloured bases to identify models, this is the approach I am taking when painting and Undead/Necromantic team.

I Have enough figures for this team to be flexible between the two options.