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.

To eldertau1987
Not to argue but isnt there a chance that Lunahound's business could be negativley affected by allowing others to take credit for his work? I see he doesnt have a prob with it but that doesnt make it right. If hypothetically there was a higher demand for his painting services wouldnt he be able then to charge more. Kinda make it a name brand. Just a thought.

Nobody is being naive. Cheaters will cheat and liars will lie. A dishonest person may lie about whether or not he painted his army. A dishonest person may nudge his assaulting squad a bit when nobody is looking and win first place because of that extra half inch.

Should honest people be penalized solely because dishonest people exist?

 ArbitorIan wrote:
It's like saying that if I'm a crap general, but I can afford to pay the three top-ranking players in the world to stand behind me in every game, telling me what do to, then I 'deserve' to win Best General (and take all the credit for it) since I invested the money in my 'advisers'.

As a slightly less extreme example, what about if player A wins all of his games with a list he wrote himself, and player B wins all of his games with a list he downloaded from the net? Should player B score less towards best General for not making all of his own tactical choices?

Ultimately, the point of including a Presentation score isn't to turn every tournament into Golden Daemon Lite. It's to encourage people to bring nicely painted armies to the event, because playing games with nicely painted miniatures is nicer than playing games with bare plastic or armies painted by dipping them in house paint. And for that goal, who painted the minis is far less important that whether or not they look good.

nkelsch wrote:


You get a score, but can't win any of the appearance-related prizes. This is why having best general, best appearance and renaissance man is such a good idea. They can show up and win best general.

Exactly where in "best appearance" is there anything indicating that the appearance of the army is reflected in the skill of the army's owner? A best painted or best appearance award is just what it says, the book looking army at the event. I think giving awards for best painted army is silly, when there is no possible way to prove who painted what anyway.

What's the point of entering a painting competition with someone else's work? Folks who don't want to paint their own stuff aren't looking to be recognized for their painting skills. It's oxymoronic.

That comes down to what you define a painting award as being for. I think nearly everyone understands and expects that the "Best Painted" / "Best Appearance" award is to reward, recognize, and appreciate someone who did great work painting an army. To recognize that talent and that skill and what they brought to the table.

 helium42 wrote:

nkelsch wrote:


You get a score, but can't win any of the appearance-related prizes. This is why having best general, best appearance and renaissance man is such a good idea. They can show up and win best general.

Exactly where in "best appearance" is there anything indicating that the appearance of the army is reflected in the skill of the army's owner? A best painted or best appearance award is just what it says, the book looking army at the event. I think giving awards for best painted army is silly, when there is no possible way to prove who painted what anyway.

Usually in the part of the scoring rubric where the judge asks "did you paint this army?" Obtuse dictionary definitions are not going to change 25 years of tourney etiquette and scoring where appearance scores have usually been for people who painted their stuff.

Honestly this is a non-issue... hardly anyone bothers to cheat for appearance scores... and if someone does, that is their karma. Who cares.

Painting awards will exist in events and not go away and a majority will want to limit the painting scores to the people who painted. I feel like they should score the army regardless so while they can't take home the painting prize, they don't have a goose egg sinking them for the event and other awards. Everyone wins.

I've never once been asked by a judge if I painted my army or not when I've presented a painted army for consideration. In an event where the standard is that an army entered is painted by the army owner then that is fine. But in my experience that just isn't the case. I'm all for competitions for painters, but it is much too easy for somebody else's work to be presented.

 helium42 wrote:
I've never once been asked by a judge if I painted my army or not when I've presented a painted army for consideration. In an event where the standard is that an army entered is painted by the army owner then that is fine. But in my experience that just isn't the case. I'm all for competitions for painters, but it is much too easy for somebody else's work to be presented.

I don't think I have ever *NOT* seen a rubric which asked 'did you paint your army' or explicitly be asked by judges if I did. Maybe some judges are just assuming players would be honest if they didn't paint it. I still think they should be scored... just not win whatever the event's painting award is.

I guess let the TOs chime in on what they have their judges do and how they run their events.

Mannahnin wrote:What's the point of entering a painting competition with someone else's work? Folks who don't want to paint their own stuff aren't looking to be recognized for their painting skills. It's oxymoronic.

That comes down to what you define a painting award as being for. I think nearly everyone understands and expects that the "Best Painted" / "Best Appearance" award is to reward, recognize, and appreciate someone who did great work painting an army. To recognize that talent and that skill and what they brought to the table.

nkelsch wrote:Honestly this is a non-issue... hardly anyone bothers to cheat for appearance scores... and if someone does, that is their karma. Who cares.

Painting awards will exist in events and not go away and a majority will want to limit the painting scores to the people who painted. I feel like they should score the army regardless so while they can't take home the painting prize, they don't have a goose egg sinking them for the event and other awards. Everyone wins.

Agree with both of the above statements. I just think it's silly to care whether or not someone painted their army for their appearance score as a part of their overall score.

For "best painted", I would personally want that to go to someone who painted their own army, as I think almost everyone would.

As nkelsch said, it's pretty much a non-issue. The only reason for my slightly heated post on page 1 of this thread is people who think that a professionally painted army should garner a 0 for appearance in the overall category. I think that's a very silly stance to take, and encourages folks simply to lie. Whereas, there's an innate understand with most people that they don't want the painting award- they just want to be able to compete in the overall category.

If the painting requirement gets removed (like in warmahordes) the problem goes away- but I kind of like it staying, because I not only want to play against tabletop quality armies, but amazingly painted armies at GTs, and have them be rewarded for bringing such an excellent force... making my experience and theirs that much better.

I have always have said that painting is subjective by nature. And the reason is that I have seen over the 25 years of playing this game the entire gambit on how far people will go to win.

Which is why in the past 5 years, in all of those tournaments, painting does not have an effect in the overall score.

 d3m01iti0n wrote:
This could go either way. I take more pride in my army because I built/paint it. But I dont care for people who specifically bought a finished army because they are lazy and/or talentless.

On the flip side of the coin, car guys do the same thing. Last few cars Ive bought have a lot of "go-fast parts" in them and I rather buy them like that. Then guys who build cars themselves turn their nose up at you.

Youre damned if you do and youre damned if you dont.

The Wealthy have been doing this for 1000s of years

 darefsky wrote:
I think that's complete crap. You spent your time or you spent your money. Either way it cost you something.

It's not a measure of cost, but ability.

<Shrug>

I don't paint well. I don't paint at all, in fact. I will proudly display that my army was painted by another guy, because I thought enough of his work to pay for it.

If a TO wants to downgrade me for being honest, well, that's yet another good reason in a sea of good reasons not to go to tournaments. I mean, TOs don't even play by the rulebook as it is.

at large events, you would have to spend $5-$10k for an army that is good enough win best painted.I have yet to see a propainted army that can compete with the Best painted stuff at most events. sure at the local level, I could get something painted to win best painted.
Buying an army to win best painted isn't the objective. it is to score as many points as possible to help you towards overall.

The problem with the hyperbolic "hire a ringer to play" analogy is that it ignores the point of most tournaments, and most tournament players.

People go to 40k tournaments to play games. Some go to win, some go to show off their armies, but fundamentally you're going because you want to play. You almost always know the basic rules and even strategies.

Now, to do so, many touranments require painted armies. There is an older, almost moral argument to made about the "complete" hobby and all that, but really, people prefer playing against painted armies. So if I enter a big event, I need to bring a painted army, not to increase my score, but because (many of) my oppoenents require it. So, even if I don't care about my paint score, I need to bring a painted army. In contrast, if I dont' care about my battle points, I can play the game, no matter how little I know about the rules.

I like playing against well-painted armies. I'd rather it was painted by a professional than have me looking at a sea of crud for 2 hours.

Most tournaments just have basic points for based, consistent theme, 3 colour minimum etc so not a big deal. I agree that an actual painting award should go to the painter though!

What is next? Maybe we should ask people where they bought their models and if it wasn't from a FLGS then downgrade their score. The Warstore and eBay clearly don't help keep the hobby alive. And don't bring that bartertown filth anywhere near my army. Who knows how many undesirables have touched it. Ewww!

And don't get me started on conversions. If GW wanted it that way, then they would have sold it that way. You must just be modeling for advantage so you are lucky you don't get thrown out for putting that non-standard model on the table!

/end sarcasm

I play a painted army that I paid for. I don't have time to paint, but do have the cash to pay for it. I don't claim it as my work ever. To exclude my army would just encourage me to stay home or come play spoiler. Would you rather see a room of plastic and pewter? That won't look good or help generate interest. And my LFGS gets a lot of outsider attention on tournament days.

If you don't let a paid paint job win, then an unpainted army won't win either. If you want a good turnout, which would you rather see at your next event?

Wildstrorm wrote:

What is next? Maybe we should ask people where they bought their models and if it wasn't from a FLGS then downgrade their score. The Warstore and eBay clearly don't help keep the hobby alive. And don't bring that bartertown filth anywhere near my army. Who knows how many undesirables have touched it. Ewww!

And don't get me started on conversions. If GW wanted it that way, then they would have sold it that way. You must just be modeling for advantage so you are lucky you don't get thrown out for putting that non-standard model on the table!

/end sarcasm

I play a painted army that I paid for. I don't have time to paint, but do have the cash to pay for it. I don't claim it as my work ever. To exclude my army would just encourage me to stay home or come play spoiler. Would you rather see a room of plastic and pewter? That won't look good or help generate interest. And my LFGS gets a lot of outsider attention on tournament days.

If you don't let a paid paint job win, then an unpainted army won't win either. If you want a good turnout, which would you rather see at your next event?

Which is why my tournaments are full every single time. As far as outside attention? I could care less. As long as they play the game under "my" rules then everything is going to be fine.

Painting in my tournaments do not count for the overall winner. If you bring in an army painted or not you are able to play. If you bring in an army that is way over the top (with conversions) than the average 3 paint scheme, you will receive a reward for it.

You have to earn the rest in playing the game.

The primary importance of the question is for tye best painted prize. Most tournaments that include soft scores also include a best painted prize which is coveted among the hardcore painters as much as best general is coveted among the hard core players.

Winning a painting competition with someone else's work is a no brainer, it shouldn't be allowed. Where the issue gets really complicated is soft scores. The thing is most professional painting services do a good job and will earn a solid soft score, but are not up to the quality needed to win best painted making them1st issue a moot point. The real difficult question is how do you handle professionally painted armies when the. 1st prize for best overall (usually battle points, sportsmanship, and paint) includes soft scores like paint?

My big pet peeve is the question "Did you do all the painting for your army" should be replaced with "Did you pay a painting service or purchase a pre painted army?" A lot of people buy 2nd hand armies. A lot of people also have friends contribute small parts to their army. Married couples will often paint together, I fall into that category. The last week has consisted largely of my wife and I watching netflix after the toddler goes to bed with me painting deamons and her sculpting a chaos dragon for me. That's massive conversion points and cool factor, did I make it? Legally speaking with or without her help the answer is no, because everything made or earned during a marriage is a communal effort to obtain communal property ( Half of my stuff is legally hers ). So when I see that question I define you as the legal owners of the army, which is technically a we, and I answer yes we painted the army by ourselves.

As an organizer and commission painter here's my take. I can tell with people as if one model is different etc but in that i also ask questions and they may not earn the award but they will still get marked as if they painted it as i am judging on thar but gor the award i do specify thr owner must be the sole painter. When doing commissions i have one rule. The army is yours i don't care if you say you did it or not BUT should you rnter any of my work into a comp as your own then i will be contacting the organizers as i won't earn that type of reputation for anyone. I keep photos with timestamps of all of my work but thankfully none of my clients have broke this rule. You are paying for a paint job and thats it. If you are a company then the contract says i have to be created but the minis are yours.

I personally hate it when commissioned armies are allowed to win "best painted" prizes. I have no objection to the painting score of commissioned armies to go towards best overall but the painting prizes should be reserved for people who painted their own armies.

It is a shame that some people want to win something so bad that they will lie about having painted their army when they have not. I'd love to win best general (though I almost certainly never will as I suck ) but I'd never cheat to do so; and that is what passing off someone elses work as your own is doing in the painting section of the contest.

You guys are making me feel guilty that my wife helped me paint some of my minis!

I had one instance a few years ago where a tournament was decided between me and a good friend of mine on a "favorite army" vote among everyone who participated once we realized we were exactly tied in points. He had a commissioned army and made it known that he did not paint it himself, while I made it known that I did not think anyone should base their decision on that... I ended up winning anyway. My point is that in most communities the players know if you painted it yourself or not and most people who buy commissioned armies aren't the type to try and cheat to win a prize that is maybe 1/20th of what they paid for the army.

I would rather see fully painted armies than see someone frustrated and quit the game because they can't paint to the level that they would like.

 BladeWalker wrote:
I would rather see fully painted armies than see someone frustrated and quit the game because they can't paint to the level that they would like.

I don't know why anyone would do that just by ensuring that best painted goes to people who paint their own armies. I'm never going to win best general, so my chance of winning anything other than best painted (...maybe best sportsman if it is a good day I guess ), which in itself is a very slim chance, is pretty much nil. I'm not going to stop playing because I can't play as well as some other people

My gaming club organises 2 large 40k events each year and our tournament awards points for having an army that meets certain hobby goals, ie, fully painted, decals, based, conversions etc, but prevents people from winning the best painted army if its been commissioned.

this way, everyone plays with a painted army (well, mostly) and the painters get bragging rights whereby the people who have purchased theirs have the pleasure of playing with nice toys, but don't get any additional glory (unless they lie!)

Ineedvc2500 wrote:
To eldertau1987
Not to argue but isnt there a chance that Lunahound's business could be negativley affected by allowing others to take credit for his work? I see he doesnt have a prob with it but that doesnt make it right. If hypothetically there was a higher demand for his painting services wouldnt he be able then to charge more. Kinda make it a name brand. Just a thought.

and a good one at that! Sorry I did not see this sooner. I would also like to propose the idea that if he said that Lunahound painted his army that he would in fact be negatively impacted in his score. I know that this isnt the case most of the time, but humans are hardly impartial.