Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Nope. I hate painting. If I had the money to get someone else to do it for me, I'd totally do it.

As long as you don't boast at how awesomely painted your army is in a condescending way to others and as long as you don't enter painting competitions with it, its fine.

Nope.

I love seeing people bring good-looking armies to the table.

The only thing someone could do that would make me angry is critique my models and giving me advice on painting in an unsensitive way while I didn't ask for it . It happens and it's never fun when someone tells you "did you use Nuln oil? Well you should've used Agrax earthshade because it comes out so much better". I think I can paint my army however I like, especially since I'm colourblind.

SaltySeaDog wrote:
I'm a beginner who's touched base with a local games group. About 75% of my Imperial Fists army has been bought off eBay as base coated models & I finished off the small details myself. The remaining 25% has been pro-painted, simply because my work does not allow me the time to paint everything to an acceptable standard.

Would you look down upon such a player (and army) in a social setting? After all my personal focus is on tabletop performance, as my painting skills are dire & I just want to dive in to rolling some dice; that said, I shiver at the idea of fielding unpainted models.

Judge me, judge me harshly.

your money your hobby, some people cant paint or have the time for it.

What you do with your model is your business.

Additionally, I would appreciate the fact that you spend resources to make the army look good, and enhancing my experience of playing against it.

I would applaud it. Playing against a well-painted army is always an intrinsic part of the pleasure.

What is wrong with entering them in painting competitions?

I've seen it done time and again and I don't see why not.

morgoth wrote:
What is wrong with entering them in painting competitions?

I've seen it done time and again and I don't see why not.

Because the person who entered didn't spend the time and effort to paint them? I'm pretty sure that's flat out cheating.
Now, if they were painted by the entrant, then that's different.

To answer the OP, as long as it doesn't look better than mine, its fine*

*That was a joke**, better to play against a painted army than a grey one

**Maybe

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

morgoth wrote:
What is wrong with entering them in painting competitions?

I've seen it done time and again and I don't see why not.

Because the person who entered didn't spend the time and effort to paint them? I'm pretty sure that's flat out cheating.
Now, if they were painted by the entrant, then that's different.

**Maybe

Why does it matter who painted it?
Isn't it supposed to be about the best painted army?

morgoth wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

morgoth wrote:
What is wrong with entering them in painting competitions?

I've seen it done time and again and I don't see why not.

Because the person who entered didn't spend the time and effort to paint them? I'm pretty sure that's flat out cheating.
Now, if they were painted by the entrant, then that's different.

**Maybe

Why does it matter who painted it?
Isn't it supposed to be about the best painted army?

The best painted army that the entrant painted. Its a bit different than just owning one. Anyone could have a well painted army, not everyone could paint a well-painted army.
Think of the other entrants who actually put effort into their work. Why should someone who didn't put the effort in be rewarded. Its the same reason why an athlete isn't allowed to take performance enhancing drugs; it violates the spirit of the competition.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

morgoth wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

morgoth wrote:
What is wrong with entering them in painting competitions?

I've seen it done time and again and I don't see why not.

Because the person who entered didn't spend the time and effort to paint them? I'm pretty sure that's flat out cheating.
Now, if they were painted by the entrant, then that's different.

**Maybe

Why does it matter who painted it?
Isn't it supposed to be about the best painted army?

The best painted army that the entrant painted. Its a bit different than just owning one. Anyone could have a well painted army, not everyone could paint a well-painted army.
Think of the other entrants who actually put effort into their work. Why should someone who didn't put the effort in be rewarded. Its the same reason why an athlete isn't allowed to take performance enhancing drugs; it violates the spirit of the competition.

I believe that comparison is flawed.
I also believe the only thing I care about is playing against nicely painted armies, I don't really care who painted them.

Yeah my tyranid army is pro painted and no one cares about that. I do of course tell them that it's pro painted and who did it. Oh and I don't enter into any local painting competitions with them.

Your money. You do what you want with it.

Painted models make the table look more prettier.

I play in my brothers friend basement and I'm planning to eventuwlly get a kasrkin detachmrnt pro painted and the new celestine with her 2 baes pro painted.

Later on in life I'd like a display case in my house ( if i ever ablr to buy damn they expensive now) and display my army in it. The prettier the better no?

 Lansirill wrote:
I'd rather play against someone that paid someone else to paint their army to a decent standard than an unpainted army. Hell, I'd probably even enjoy it more than playing against a poorly painted army that someone painted on their own. For the most part I'm not terribly concerned about *who* painted the models.

I would be a little cranky if they ended up winning some sort of painting prize though.

Indeed. Its not an issue at all. Your opponent would far more likely rather face a painted army then an unpainted one. It adds to the gaming experience.
I acquired a friend's space wolf army which was well painted. Whenever there were complements I would just point my thumb at him as the painter or say "yea this is X' old army, isn't it great?" As long as you're not representing that you did the work yourself there's no issue.

It's more fun to set up against a painted army than against bare plastic. The only issue I can see is if you go to a tournament where painting scores are awarded, either for an individual painting award or as part of the overall score. In those cases, let the TO know you didn't do the painting.

As long as you are not taking credit for other peoples work then there is no problem at all. Personally I think it is a credit to you that even though you say you are not a painter and have no real interest in the painting side, you still do not like to turn up to a game with unpainted models

 Grand.Master.Raziel wrote:
It's more fun to set up against a painted army than against bare plastic. The only issue I can see is if you go to a tournament where painting scores are awarded, either for an individual painting award or as part of the overall score. In those cases, let the TO know you didn't do the painting.

I understand why some people wouldn't want to lose a trophy to an army painted by a professional, but why should someone be penalized WRT overall score?

Why would you discriminate against people who choose to use another path to the same result?

It's like you believe your preferred road is more deserving or something...

If you're entering a competition, it should state what its rules are. Either the entrant must have painted their stuff, or not. If not, I still think it's a bit douchey to "win" a trophy for something you didn't do (as far as the spirit of the hobby is concerned). However, this is common practice in other hobbies (show cars, etc.) so whatever. Your choice. Personally I wouldn't be able to accept a trophy that way.

If the entrant has to paint the stuff and someone sneaks in a pro-painted army, you're just a douche who's cheating, simple as that.

 Elbows wrote:
If you're entering a competition, it should state what its rules are. Either the entrant must have painted their stuff, or not. If not, I still think it's a bit douchey to "win" a trophy for something you didn't do (as far as the spirit of the hobby is concerned). However, this is common practice in other hobbies (show cars, etc.) so whatever. Your choice. Personally I wouldn't be able to accept a trophy that way.

If the entrant has to paint the stuff and someone sneaks in a pro-painted army, you're just a douche who's cheating, simple as that.

Of course, cheating is bad mkay.

How are most GT's best painted awards done?

I would think someone commissioning a beautiful army and display board totally deserves to get a prize for bringing something nice to look at.

After all, were it not for the vision, direction and money, there would be one less really nice thing to look at.

I respect well painted armies more. Whether the player painted it themself isn't relevant to me.

No, becuase one you are playing no one really cares.

The only time painted army's really matter is if your in it for like a themed game or a story driven kinda thing and even this, it's mostly just for self satisfaction.

I think I'd just be happy to see nicely painted minis. If you had painted them yourself I'd compliment you on a good job, but the fact you paid someone to do it wouldn't have me looking down my nose at you. I'd just say "cool minis"

Not everyone has the patience to paint little wargaming minis, everyone takes something different from the hobby.

I hardly ever have time to paint models myself. However, I don't like the idea of not painting anything at all, so I tend to compromise. When a new release arrives I paint a few models (for practice, more than anything else) whilst sending the rest away to be done by a professional site or random talented person with less money but more time than me.

When all the End Times stuff appeared, I painted a Nagash myself while sending off a second Nagash and the rest of the new Undead models away for painting. This was partly because I wanted both a standard-looking Nagash and a more unique-styled one, but mostly due to sheer lack of time.

I've also sometimes sent models away for a basic-level paint job, then once they get back to me I'll perform more shading/drybrushing to raise the quality a few more notches. It's a lot less daunting when you have almost no time to work on a few units that are already half-done.

Regarding the question, I think I'm the same as most people. I'd only feel irritated by someone if they claimed to have painted something that they obviously didn't, and even then I wouldn't reveal my feelings unless they tried to use the models to win a painting competition, etc.

morgoth wrote:

I believe that comparison is flawed.
I also believe the only thing I care about is playing against nicely painted armies, I don't really care who painted them.

Painting competitions are a skill challenge, and they try to honor those who have the greatest skill.
Just buying some painted mini's would be like paying somebody somebody else for his answers in a math competition.

Pfft, if I had enough money I'd never paint another model.

I think people have more of an issue playing against unpainted.

So long as you don't claim it's your work you should be fine.

morgoth wrote:

 Elbows wrote:
If you're entering a competition, it should state what its rules are. Either the entrant must have painted their stuff, or not. If not, I still think it's a bit douchey to "win" a trophy for something you didn't do (as far as the spirit of the hobby is concerned). However, this is common practice in other hobbies (show cars, etc.) so whatever. Your choice. Personally I wouldn't be able to accept a trophy that way.

If the entrant has to paint the stuff and someone sneaks in a pro-painted army, you're just a douche who's cheating, simple as that.

Of course, cheating is bad mkay.

How are most GT's best painted awards done?

I would think someone commissioning a beautiful army and display board totally deserves to get a prize for bringing something nice to look at.

After all, were it not for the vision, direction and money, there would be one less really nice thing to look at.

The GW US GTs that I used to attend (back when they had them) required you to verify that you painted your army yourself to be eligible to win Best Painted or players Choice. Your painting score was still added to your Overall score tho, so you were not penalized in the Overall standings for having purchased a pre-painted army. No idea what the current meta is as I've spent most of the last five years deployed and not gaming...

to the OP, sure, put it on the table and let's play.

Pro painted armies look great. Depending who did the work, it could really bring out the potential to the army.

The only thing I disagree with is when Tournaments count their army in the paint score. It feels like buying points in that case and a little unfair for those who broke brushes. It's like parking your Mercedes next to my Honda at a car convention and getting top prize because you can afford it.

Honestly I don't care who painted your models as long as someone put effort into it.