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.

Posted By Doctor Thunder on 06/23/2007 10:20 PM

GreenBloater, even though I can tell you feel passionately about your stance, if you had your way, there would be fewer nicely painted armies at the tournaments, so I consider your stance a threat to the very reason I go to GT's.

I doubt thats what Grean bloater was saying.  In laymans terms he was saying (to my knoledge) that people who do not paint there own armies should not win the best painted.  If they win the trophy should go to the painter (thats last part is my opinion)

I doubt there would be fewer nicely painted armies though as a lot of people paint there own armies to a high standard. 

I always like to see people armies that they have done themselves no matter how well/badly painted they are as long as they have made the effort

Posted By beef on 06/23/2007 11:07 PM

I always like to see people armies that they have done themselves no matter how well/badly painted they are as long as they have made the effort

I don't.  I like to see good armies painted to a high standard.

I can see crappy armies for free at my local stores.  If I'm shelling out several hundreds of dollars to attend a GT, I want to see excellence.

Self-painted excellence, pro-painted excellence...it's all the same to me so long as it looks good.

here is a question then. Is it then legal to hire a GT winner to play in a RTT and win a best overall/general award? If you merc out someone to paint your army then its possiable to merc someone to play that army to win.

Posted By thehod on 06/23/2007 11:25 PM
here is a question then. Is it then legal to hire a GT winner to play in a RTT and win a best overall/general award? If you merc out someone to paint your army then its possiable to merc someone to play that army to win.

Sure, why not?  If some guys wants to hire a GT winner to play in his stead and then give the trophy over to him afterwards, it makes no difference to me, so long as the GT winner he hires is fun to play against.

Besides, people already do that to a large extent anyway.  Have you ever posted your army list online to get advice?  Sure you have, and guess what, you just used the skills and experience of someone else to potentially improve your battle score.

To me, it's not fundamentally different then using the skills and experience of someone else to potentially improve your painting score.

If you want to see well painted armies look in WD or online. hell go to warhammer world seeing as you shell out hundreds of dollors to go to a tournie and want to see nice armies. Why do you expect to see those armies?

I think its a sad day when people think its fine for somebody to win something which they had no input on? Hell if only we could get people to sit exams for us and driving test etc. Nothing wrong wth that either. Apart from for the poor guys thats does not win cos somebody hired some pro to do there army for them. Thats just wrong.

It's one thing to get hints and tips, on painting or army design, it's quite another to actually put them into practice by painting that model or playing that game.

Exactly if you want to do a comparison with pro painted armies then do it properly. Using a propainted army is the same as getting somebody who is really good at 40K to play the game for you.

Its not the same as getting advice or tips.

Posted By beef on 06/24/2007 2:24 AM
If you want to see well painted armies look in WD or online. hell go to warhammer world seeing as you shell out hundreds of dollors to go to a tournie and want to see nice armies. Why do you expect to see those armies?

It's easy to say that people who disagree with you should just go away and do somethine else, but the sword cuts both ways, you know.  If you don't like people using pro-painted armies, then go away and organize your own tournament where pro-painted armies are illegal, and you tournament organizers can use tarot cards, the psychic friends hotline, and prayers to the great spaghetti monster to weed out the liars. 

Did I once say that its easy to tell whetehr the person painted the army themselves or got it pro painted? No i did not. Your right organisers cant tell. unless people have seen it advertised for sale or seen it win a Golden demon you have to take the persons word for it that they painted it. thats fine but if you know that its been pro painted by GD winner so an so but the guy using it is mr joe bloggs who claims he painted it then dont allow the entry to win.

Also maybe you need to re-read my post its says "why do you expect to see nice armies at tournies". They can be found elsewhere.

I also said never said I dont like people not using them. If they have the money they are free to spend it on what they want. Read my earlier post. Its just that they should not be allowed (if proven they did not paint the army) to win best painted

Posted By beef on 06/24/2007 9:12 AM

Also maybe you need to re-read my post its says "why do you expect to see nice armies at tournies". They can be found elsewhere.

Not where I play. 

If your local hobby stores happen to be populated with former 'Eavy Metal staff members, then I salute your luck.  Me, I'm lucky to play against a 3-color army.  My armies are perpetually fighting on "Noob," the demon world in the eye of terror dedicated to grey plastic and shiny metal with the mold lines still attached.

Posted By beef on 06/24/2007 2:24 AM
If you want to see well painted armies look in WD or online. hell go to warhammer world seeing as you shell out hundreds of dollors to go to a tournie and want to see nice armies. Why do you expect to see those armies?

I think its a sad day when people think its fine for somebody to win something which they had no input on? Hell if only we could get people to sit exams for us and driving test etc. Nothing wrong wth that either. Apart from for the poor guys thats does not win cos somebody hired some pro to do there army for them. Thats just wrong.

GB's stance was they shouldn't win Best Overall.  EVERY SINGLE PERSON HAS STATED THEY SHOULD NOT WIN "BEST PAINTED".  Reading is fundamental, beef.  Try it before paraphrasing what GB said.  Or find someone in here who said they should be eligible for Best Painted.

And seeing a nice army online or in WD is very different from seeing on in person/playing it.  That's a very poor strawman argument.  As stated on the last page, tourney quality armies are one of the major draws to many players.

Again, reading is fundamental. 

Posted By dienekes96 on 06/24/2007 10:03 AM

GB's stance was they shouldn't win Best Overall.  Reading is fundamental, beef.  Try it before paraphrasing what GB said.

Hey, cut beef a little slack.  He can't be bothered with reading.  He's still got another 1200 Hail-Mary's to say before he'll be forgiven for winning that tournament with an army he didn't paint.

I mean, it takes a lot of effort to both win awards with armies you didn't paint AND simultaneously condem other people for doing it.

Posted By dienekes96 on 06/24/2007 10:03 AM

Posted By beef on 06/24/2007 2:24 AM

I think its a sad day when people think its fine for somebody to win something which they had no input on? Hell if only we could get people to sit exams for us and driving test etc. Nothing wrong wth that either. Apart from for the poor guys thats does not win cos somebody hired some pro to do there army for them. Thats just wrong.

GB's stance was they shouldn't win Best Overall.  EVERY SINGLE PERSON HAS STATED THEY SHOULD NOT WIN "BEST PAINTED".  Reading is fundamental, beef.  Try it before paraphrasing what GB said.  Or find someone in here who said they should be eligible for Best Painted.

Thats my opinion, hell everybody else has given their own so why should'nt I do the same.  if it is similar to other peoples  whats wrong with that?  Like you so clearly put it everybody else has said the same thing so once again why should i not say it aswell??   Did they not read this aswell? Go figure?

@ DOC_THUNDER Hey it was a doubles tournament.  Me and my brother were together and used the army he had painted.  It was clearlt written as to who painted the army but cos it was a doubles tournie i got a certificate aswell.  he kept the trophy

Posted By beef on 06/24/2007 1:49 PM

@ DOC_THUNDER Hey it was a doubles tournament.  Me and my brother were together and used the army he had painted.  It was clearlt written as to who painted the army but cos it was a doubles tournie i got a certificate aswell.  he kept the trophy

So, you'd be okay with allowing pro-painted armies to win best painted, so long as the person who wins the trophy passes it along to the guy who painted the army afterwards?

How many people who play the game are willing to shell out $500 or more to have someone else paint it for them? If people are saying they should so they can see more great looking armies at tournaments then maybe they should do so as well if there is someone out there that can paint better than them and will paint their army for a fee. Really the reason why people typically have someone else paint their army is so they can score more points - they do not do it for everyone else's benefit.

I have run many tournaments in my time as a 40k hobbyist but nothing at the level of an Adepticon or indy GT. If I ever do run an indy GT there will be a rule that states best overall must paint their own army unless they are impaired. Sure some people might say 'no way I will attend that one' but I also believe that for every person that walks away at least one other will be drawn. I cannot tell you how to enforce such a rule at a large gathering with people attending from far away places and spending a lot of money simply to attend. Obviously there are people who will take advantage of this rule but they are in the minority. If someone wants to win it all that bad then maybe they are doing other things as well that go against the grain of the rules.

- G

Call BS on that one.

MOST people have other people paint their armies fall into 2 other catagories more often: 1) they hate painting and arent any good, 2)RL issues take their toll and eat up their time.

I highly doubt the majority do it for tournment reasons....tourny goers are the minority of players.

Posted By Doctor Thunder on 06/24/2007 3:20 PM

Posted By beef on 06/24/2007 1:49 PM

@ DOC_THUNDER Hey it was a doubles tournament.  Me and my brother were together and used the army he had painted.  It was clearlt written as to who painted the army but cos it was a doubles tournie i got a certificate aswell.  he kept the trophy

So, you'd be okay with allowing pro-painted armies to win best painted, so long as the person who wins the trophy passes it along to the guy who painted the army afterwards?

To an extent yes.  But how could you garantee that the winner would give it to the painter?  Hell the painter might not even want it.  BUT atleast other people will know that the person did not paint it himself.

My situation was slightly different as the guy who painted the army (my brother) was also playing with them along with me.

Is it an award for the best painter, or the best painted army?

If they want to have a best painter award, that's cool. A best painted army award should go to the best painted army (imagine that) regardless of who painted it. Otherwise you're really calling it something it's not.

it was called best army but its for the person that painted theeir army the best. We had a guy who had a pro painted army but did not win (my brothers was better) plus everybody knew he did not paint it but on the form put down he did.

"Call BS on that one.

MOST people have other people paint their armies fall into 2 other catagories more often: 1) they hate painting and arent any good, 2)RL issues take their toll and eat up their time."

And I call BS on you and say you are really out of touch with the tournament scene. Two people I know in the circuit this year told me they had their armies pro painted for more point. One is in the top five and the other is in the top 20. I do know someone who does not have hands and plays... he had his armies pro painted but he only participates in local events.

- G

Posted By Green Bloater on 06/25/2007 7:34 AM
"Call BS on that one.

MOST people have other people paint their armies fall into 2 other catagories more often: 1) they hate painting and arent any good, 2)RL issues take their toll and eat up their time."

And I call BS on you and say you are really out of touch with the tournament scene. Two people I know in the circuit this year told me they had their armies pro painted for more point. One is in the top five and the other is in the top 20. I do know someone who does not have hands and plays... he had his armies pro painted but he only participates in local events.

- G

How are you calling BS if he said MOST and you have 2 anecdotes that prove otherwise?  He didn't say ALL, he said most.  Plus, 2 guys you met at a tournament are not representative of the gaming community or even necessarily the tournament scene at large.

Ozymandias, King of Kings

Two out the three people I know who use painted armies to score higher. Whenever I play someone at a tournament one of the first questions is 'did you paint your army?' (assuming it looks very good). These are the only three who have said no. Not asking people that have average looking armies or less is a filter.

- G

Hmm Maybe I should create the NY Yankees 40K army minus all the choking during the playoffs.

LOL!

- G

My three falcon army is going to be beautiful!

Can I paint if for ya?

- G

Posted By Green Bloater on 06/19/2007 8:44 AM

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

The problem can also be that you are a good painter playing in a tournament, as well.

 

A long time ago, in a store far far away,back in the early 1990's, a group of us played in a tourny that we were almost attacked at for painting quality armies, when all of the locals were painted like crap.This was after we cleaned them out in the wins, we were judged to be pretty good paint jobs and won the painted armies competition as well. We were drawn into a heated discussion about the painting, and were basicly outed for the jobs. We ended up owning them and I stopped going to tournies because of the attitude.

While I can see your point,  how do you know who's a pro painted army, and someone is just a good painter? People don't always have to play with the " three color minimum with the slopped on look. I put in almost six months into my paint job at the time, then basicly got told I was a cheat because I supposedly paid someone.

People dont paint enought to begin with, then you throw in the usual play with the FOTM army, and you have to be subjected to all sorts of mess on the table and no standards. Is there any wonder that people would go to someone and pay to get the army painted?

It doesn't help that local game stores don't promote painting in the shops or give painting time to people without looking for a profit in it, it only gives people more of a, " Why not go get it done professionally, if I can get it paid for" thought process to it.

 

To me, an army on the table should be an investment. It is your standards, your choice, and your effort so that people can see what you have been working on, and the commitment is shown in such a way when you play. Any army, any game, people play better when they play with thier own creation. maybe not at first, but when yopur armies grow, your tactics change, and you can see how people play with a prepainted army, as opposed to the one they did themselves.

In the issue of judging, I could theoreticly see them getting rid of that standard to judge by. and go for others, such as make up, tactics, sportmenship, etc. if it is such an issue that people can start recognising the painters work.

of course this is just my opinion.

To be honest I am not sure where you stand on this issue but thank you for our input!

- G

I stand on painting your own, but don't paint them to a high standard or you can expect duffs to accuse you of getting it pro painted.

I also stand on if you want to waste the money to get it pro painted, then tournaments in question had better be up and in the know on pro painters styles and disqualify the army in question, or it is a non issue.

Which in the end leaves me just commenting. I got heat for painting too well, and then you see the crud that is a non painted army allowed to compete, so in the end, does it really matter, as long as thiers paint on the models?
Look at the top of the page. see the company advertising on Dakka to paint an army for you for 500.00? Appearantly it is ok, or we would all cry foul and dime them out for not being purist and painting thier own, even though people on the whole dont have time, or dont want to paint thier army.

Dont buy a FOTM army, get mommy to pay for it, and then just throw it to the side just because you don't win the first or second time you play it.

My final comment is that I want people to play. If you want to throw down hard earned cash for a paint job, or if you want to play with your own paint job, then go for it. I have more of a beef about people that play with an army that they just bought off the shelf and spreads bits each time the unit moves, and I see it as more of an issue then I do the pro painted army. Of course you can play with the metal, but lets see some effort into it, and some evolution in the army.
Just my opinion.

Scores for painting are fine as GW want to promote all aspects of the hobby. However, the point is to encourage people to paint their own troops not just spend a lot of money on buying ready-painted figures. It's up to GW to come up with a competition reward structure which does this.