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.

So I just read the latest Standard Bearer by my old pal Jervis an he waxed so eloquently how painting your army is such a big part of the hobby. Really it brought a tear to my eye and I immediately felt the urge to paint! Well all I can say is you should read it yourself. What I find a bit strange is that there are players in the GW tournament circuit this year with pro painted armies, scoring full points for appearance and in the running for best overall. There used to be a time when ifyou did not paint your army you would not receive full points for appearance. What someone told me is there is no way event organizers can enforce this requirement so they let go for the 1% who might lie about it. It sounds like a load of bs to me. I am with Jervis that an army should be painted by the person playing it, not some professional. I think there is still time to bring back the old tradition if enough people speak out and say "PAINT YOUR OWN ARMIES!"

- G

if someone wants to pay 500 dollars+ for a "pro painted" army then let them. i paint and sell stuff on ebay occasionally, and if there is a supply (people wanting nicely painted things) then me, and people like me, will fill the demand.

"What someone told me is there is no way event organizers can enforce this requirement so they let go for the 1% who might lie about it."

1%?

Probably closer to 90% actually...

Beyond that, why care?

In terms of the actual game it makes no difference. If I'm hanging around chatting about painting the person will be left out of the conversation, but I fail to see why it would be an issue if I'm playing in a tournament.

Nothing or me, even if I can paint for edited...

Greets
Schepp himself

i gotz more cash than time and can see apeal of getting an army painted by somebody with artistic talent. I have no problem with people with "pro" painted armies getting full points. Then again I prefer the current uk style of gt play.
If you pay somebody to paint your army which could easily approach a grand for a high level paint job. you probally put as much time into earning the money as you would have painting.

sounds like sour grapes to me.

either A. paint better or B. pony up the cash to get it painted.
i would rather play against pro painted armies then primer armies of doom.

The way I understood it was that you can get points for painting, but can not be in the running for "Best Painted" and they ask that you are honest about it. Really though, there is no way to enforce people painting their own armies.

Ozymandias, King of Kings

In a way they are supporting the hobby by bringing a beautiful army to the tournament. I go to GTs to play against good generals with nice looking armies. Ultimately I don't care if you painted it or not I get the same effect.

Right.

Ahh this old debate.

Well, painting your own army is ideal, really.

I dont really care if you painted your own army, as it takes time to do. If I am taking the great pains to travel to a GT, I would pretty much expect a completely painted army across the table from me, regardless of where the source of paint came from.

What really rankles me is the people who somehow have all the time in the world to fly to every single GT and yet, somehow, not have the time to paint their own miniatures.
I find that irony very amusing.

Noted.

When I eventually hit the tourney scene, I seriously doubt my army will be self-painted. It'll be self-converted and built, but I intend on paying someone significantly more talented than I a decent sum to paint it to the quality I desire. I know how expensive a quality tourney army can get. Whatever I pay someone for a commission will be substantially cheaper than what I paid for an existing tourney army a few years back (one that I'd never take to a tourney).

I'll freely admit that to opponents and judges, and I'll gladly give the appropriate person the credit. I just want my army to look better than I can paint it.


That said, GW is taking a real interest in this side of the hobby, trying to make it easier than ever to get a decent paintjob with minimal time. That's appreciated.

"Yo! I am a pro painter an I think it is certainly a fine thing all around for everyone!"

Of course you would say that you money grubber.

- G

Posted By dienekes96 on 06/19/2007 10:54 AM

That said, GW is taking a real interest in this side of the hobby, trying to make it easier than ever to get a decent paintjob with minimal time. That's appreciated.

Not that I disagree, but I am genuinely curious as to how GW are making it easier. A new line of better paints? the sculpts? What quality does GW have that makes painting easier?

For the Adepticon Championships (160+ players) I was pleasantly surprised by the number of people who came forward and told us that their armies were pro-painted & asked to be removed from consideration for top awards. The CW had always been that you can't trust the players to self police themselves, so there was no rules against pay for paint. After last year's experience, I'd more inclined to include a self-paint requirement in the tournament rule sets.

I paint my own armies, but there shouldn't be a requirement that prevents someone from winning an event (or at the least, best general) because they didn't paint their own army.

What about armies that were half painted by you, where you painted a few parts but had other people helping during the process?

Too complicated I say, it should just be something that is asked to disqualify someone from winning "best painted" at a tournament. The painting requirement, IMO, is there so that people can have aesthetically pleasing games.

Come on VB... if it keeps up eventually GW will sale pre-painted figures that look like total sheet. Now you don't want that cuz we will hafta to soak it in brake fluid.

- G

I have no problems playing someone whose army is painted by someone else, or even having that person win best overall. But they shouldn't get a "Best Painted" award if they didn't paint their own army.

Ozymandias, King of Kings

Well what do you want?

You can't stop people from paying others to paint their stuff. In fact I'm sure for a few extra bucks some people won't even say that they painted something for someone.

Logistically there's nothing you can do to stop it, and besides, the TOURNAMENT is for playing games and being a good sportsman, if you want a painting competition then it's called the Golden Demon.

Seriously what's the problem with these armies at GT's? If I ran a tournament it'd be a yes-no question on entry, if you didn't paint your army you wouldn't win best painted. Then again I'm the kind of guy that thinks that painting scores shouldn't have a whole lot to do with who wins overall at a tournament that's about playing the game.

Posted By Hellfury on 06/19/2007 10:58 AM

Posted By dienekes96 on 06/19/2007 10:54 AM

That said, GW is taking a real interest in this side of the hobby, trying to make it easier than ever to get a decent paintjob with minimal time. That's appreciated.

Not that I disagree, but I am genuinely curious as to how GW are making it easier. A new line of better paints? the sculpts? What quality does GW have that makes painting easier?

I think he means they're making it easier because they now freely allow you bring a pro-painted army and still compete in the tournament. Whereas before if you admitted that your army was pro-painted you'd essentially be dumped out of the competition (score-wise).

I too want to weigh in on the side of allowing pro-painted armies at tournaments for a number of reasons (most of them already mentioned by others in this thread).

1) It is impossible to police against pro-painted armies if players don't want to admit that their army is pro-painted how is anyone really going to know? The old system only punished those players foolish enough to admit to the tournie organizers that their army was pro-painted.

2) IMO, it is better to play games against (finely) painted armies at tournaments than against half-painted or crappily painted armies. It simply makes the games more enjoyable.

3) Time is money and painting to a high standard take a lot of time. So for players out therer who have more money than time what is really wrong with them paying someone to paint their army? The hobby is about many different things to different people and who am I to sit around and essentially eliminate a whole swathe of gamers from participating in Grand Tournaments simply because they don't have the time or artistic talent to paint well?

 

I think the current system is great: We get even more great painted armies at the tournament and those honest folks who want to admit that they didn't paint their armies remove themselves from painting award consideration.

 

That's just patently absurd.

At what point were people dumped from GTs or major awards (other than Best Painted) for having a pro painted army? To my knowledge (and I go back to the first USGT in '97), there's NEVER been any penalty for having a pro painted army. And I believe it's always been on the honor system. Maybe you guys are talking about indy tourneys?

Personally, I think people should paint their own armies, and I'd never bring pro painted myself. But that's a personal thing. I'd rather play against pro painted than some of the atrocities I've played against.

Posted By Voodoo Boyz on 06/19/2007 12:03 PM

 Then again I'm the kind of guy that thinks that painting scores shouldn't have a whole lot to do with who wins overall at a tournament that's about playing the game.

Not true.  A tourney is about what the organizer decides it's about.  GTs have one set of criteria, Gladiator tourneys have another.  They're just different strokes for different folks.  Or maybe even different strokes for the same folks. 

If you attend a tournament, it's your responsibility to understand the scoring system.  People who attend a tourney and then carp afterwards because they don't like the criteria used just show a gross lack of personal responsibility. 

The GTs have been more or less the same for a decade now...I don't know how a large amount of focus on painting and sportsmanship sneaks up on anyone at this point.

Posted By gorgon on 06/19/2007 12:27 PM
At what point were people dumped from GTs or major awards (other than Best Painted) for having a pro painted army? To my knowledge (and I go back to the first USGT in '97), there's NEVER been any penalty for having a pro painted army. And I believe it's always been on the honor system. Maybe you guys are talking about indy tourneys?

Personally, I think people should paint their own armies, and I'd never bring pro painted myself. But that's a personal thing. I'd rather play against pro painted than some of the atrocities I've played against.

Grand Tournaments circa 2000-2001 used to have a painting score for 'I didn't paint the models myself' and it wasn't a very good score. It essentially eliminated players from overall contention.

 

Boy you people are completely clueless. What I am saying is that players who use pro painted armies should be docked points from their ovral score. When I say docked I mean they cannot score the total points allowed, but some lesser percentage - like 50% maximum for painting. Sure they should still be allowed to play, but by docking points they could not win best overall. Back in 2001 this is how the US GTs were run. So stop trying to twist what I am saying all around.

QFT

- G

I agree with most everything yak said.

I have a three year old, several video game systems, and a fairly busy job. I will never find the time to a) learn to paint to a high standard, or b) actually paint an army to a high standard. Painting is frustrating for me, because I mentally understand the details, but do not possess the experience to apply such common sense. I'd rather PAY someone better than me to do it.

Several points:

1) This applies to a tourney. GW should rigidly enforce the Golden Demon (and other painting contests) rules. Only self-painted entries should be eligible.

2) In a tourney, to be fair, I believe anyone who did not paint their armies should NOT be eligible for Best Painted, but should receive painting scores to compete for the overall title (assuming they are up to par elsewhere), and should be eligible for Favorite Army - which is about more than the paintjob. I know that last point is a sticky one, and I'll readily concede it. The purpose of that would be to encourage great armies at tourneys, even by some artistically challenged folks like myself. So GB, they should be eligible for Best Overall, in my opinion. Just not Best Painted. Otherwise, why be honest if you want to win the tourney. My recommendation merely leads to more honesty.

3) Hellfury, to answer your question, I think they have run some basic and advanced 'EM articles in WD much more frequently, and they did produce paints to speed up the process for making competent models. I can't speak to how the Foundation Paints are for experts. That goes along with branching out into significant terrain support, and rules for massive games. GW is, for better or worse, addressing the hobby as a whole. The painting support just follows from that. In my opinion, of course.

Posted By dienekes96 on 06/19/2007 1:45 PM

3) Hellfury, to answer your question, I think they have run some basic and advanced 'EM articles in WD much more frequently, and they did produce paints to speed up the process for making competent models. I can't speak to how the Foundation Paints are for experts. That goes along with branching out into significant terrain support, and rules for massive games. GW is, for better or worse, addressing the hobby as a whole. The painting support just follows from that. In my opinion, of course.

Ahh. Thanks Chuck for clarifying that. Makes sense. I havent picked up a WD in quite awhile so those points I have missed.

As far as being docked points for not having your own army painted. This too is absurd.

Paying someone to paint an army costs almost as much as doing it your self. Its like saying  "Hey thanks for being thoughtful enough to the other players for bringing a fully painted army, so that they feel travelling all of this way was more worth it than playing back home against the 12 year old who has the silver army of doom. But since you didnt do it yourself, you lose 100 battle points".

Sorry, but docking points because of the army not being painted by the player just simply doesnt stand up to even cursory logic.

Painting your own army is again, Ideal. but any points awarded for having a self painted army should be given to best painted, not included in the grand sheme of the rest of the tourney.

I agree with VoodoBoyz. This isnt a golden demon competition, this is a tourney where you play games against other (hopefully) decent painted armies to suspend disbelief.

Sure it takes some time to paint an army but even the best painters had to start from zero when they first picked up a brush. This is why I like the Standard Bearer in the latest White Dwarf - it is all about how painting is such a big part of the hobby. Personally I enjoy painting the most and will be glad when I can start back up again. The thing about pro painted armies is that it is an easy way to score a lot of points and I think this gives the wrong message to people just starting out... 'wow I can never paint to a Golden Deamon level but if I scrap up the cash I can still score just as high as if I had the skills.' You see it encourages players to pay someone else to paint for them rather than putting in the time to build up their skills. I think that just about anyone can learn to paint to level 2 within a year or two. There are lots of easy methods to quickly put together an army such as dry brushing, washes and dipping which works very well for armies such as Tyranids and Necrons to name a couple. I think everyone can agree that Necrons are fairly easy to paint.

- G

"The thing about pro painted armies is that it is an easy way to score a lot of points and I think this gives the wrong message to people just starting out... "

I'd rather someone had a friend paint their army than a friend who made their army-list.   You can get a lot of points by having a beatstick army too, and you can pretty much copy that off the internet.  That also teaches people the wrong thing, but I don't see it not happening.

GB, I could learn to paint to level 2 in a year. but *I don't enjoy the painting aspect* nearly as much as the others. I wish I did. I don't. So either I play with a bunch of converted plastic and metal, or I pay someone to give you a nice army to look at. Considering that I AGREE WITH YOU that painting is important, I would expect to get credit for simply PAYING someone to reach a standard I find acceptable. If you get enough "painted points" to be in the running for overall, you've likely paid a cool four figures for the paintjob. You shouldn't win best painted, but you should get OVERALL credit for that. I am glad you love painting. I love converting and designing army concepts (not army lists). It's my hobby, so I should focus on what I like, right

I used to not enjoy painting either. Then one evening I sat down with a good painter and asked him for some tips. This was back before fielding pro painted armies was all the craze. I saw that he was painting a lot slower so that he could spend more time on detail. I went back and painted a character and it was much better than anything I had painted before. That one model got me excited about painting and instead of rushing through everything rank and file I started spending more time learning how to paint better. Over time I learned how to highlight and shade as well as using washes to bring out a specific color. Sure it took a lot more time but I became more proficient as a painter and started to enjoy painting. So I can understand when people say they do not enjoy painting but they like to play. I think that if the majority of people who say they do not enjoy painting took some time and learned how to paint better they would find it can be quite fun and rewarding. You just don't know it because you have not learned how to paint at a higher level yet. Like I said I think anyone can get to level within a year. To say you don't enjoy painting and that justifies buying a pro painted army is somewhat of a copout to me. The GT circuit is supposedly being brought back to a higher level again... to me that includes the players painting their own armies.

People say 'yellow is so hard to paint! I will never do an Iyanden army or Imperial Fists.' Actually yellow can be easy to acheive by applying a simple yellow wash over a white basecoat. Because so many people say 'I do not enjoy painting" I said it would not surprise me to see GW eventually start releasing prepainted figures down the line if pro painted armies do become the norm. Of course the painting quality would not be there... just look at Here Clix as an example. But if a lot of people fielded prepainted armies it would not matter as much as the scores would average out. A top pro painted army is expensive and if you could buy your armies prepainted and save a lot of money I think a lot of people would do it. To me that would greatly diminish the hobby overall but that is just my opinion.

Personally I will always like better an army that someone painted themselves even if it is only level 1 or 2 as opposed to a pro painted army at level 3 or 4. It can be a feeling of personal accomplishment rather than simply taking the easy way out to achieve success as is so often the case.

- G

While I agree with you that painting is enjoyable, I don't see the issue at a tournament. If someone has the disposable income to pay for a nicely painted army, what's the big deal? So what if they get points for having a nicely painted army? If you are so intent on trying to get a higher score at a GT, you have the same access as anyone else to buy a pro painted army. You travelled multiple states to go to the Vegas GT, so disposable income appears to not be the issue. Principle? Sure, I can go with that. I always paint my own stuff and wouldn't pay someone else, but at the same time, the award is for Best Painted, not necessarily Person Playing Army Personally Painted Receives Best Painted.

Personally, I wish more people would pay to get armies painted. It gets old playing against so many unpainted armies.