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.

I'm also very much connected to the models I didn't 100% paint, to me it doesn't matter if I painted the entire model. (Generally I get someone to do my base coating cause that's really fracking boring, then I do detail work).

I designed the army, I converted/built the army and I also came up with the color scheme. The fact that some models werent hand done by me doesn't mean I don't feel connected.

To each their own tho.

In my experience DarkTraveler, it has never been an issue, but I have always explained it to the TOs anyway, as a matter of honesty and principle.

It has happened before (I think of the armies that won the BAO a few years ago, a well done Salamanders army if I recall correctly) won best painted. The reason why it's an excuse trotted out is because it doesn't reward the best painter in attendance, it rewards with the person that has the best painted army. If you limit it to people that painted their armies then you remove the guys that have loads of money that can pay for an amazing professional paintjob and basically buy that award.

@Azreal13
I appreciate the other side of this. I've unfortunately been out of a club/group/store for some time now (two years?), so my only gaming comes from running a sample game every so often with one or two people. In my time playing at a store, a few guys had a handful of units/characters commissioned, and everyone in the store appreciated the talent involved in the work and playing against it was great. I will add though that I never considered how *I'd* deal with people complimenting an army I didn't build/paint. Thanks for bringing it up.

Did people enjoy playing against such a nice army?

It was Grey Knights in 5th, so not much.

I have to confess, there was a tiny bit of me which was....not exactly jealous, not resentful. Can't put my finger on it, just the feeling that he somehow hadn't "earned" the army if that makes sense? This is a chap I've known for 15 or more years too, that I like and get on with, so it wasn't personal.

 DarkTraveler777 wrote:

Is people claiming credit for commissioned paint work really a big issue in the tournament scene? I am not a tournament player, but I see this argument thrown out often enough in threads focusing on commission painting that I am always left wondering if this is a legitimate problem or a non-issue that gets trotted out by people who are just diametrically opposed to commission painting and need a "reason" to justify their opinion.

Okay, here's an example.

There was recently a Michigan GT. Here's their website: http://michigangt.com/

Scroll a bit down the page and you'll see the final standings. Look at the top two:

First Last Army Overall Battle Paint Sport Awd Tim Gorham Necrons 209 129 50 30 Best Overall Ian Dudek Chaos Daemons 200 125 45 30 Best Heretical General


I don't know anything about Ian, and Tim's a good guy, I've had him game at my house. However, I know that the army Tim played at this event was borrowed, and painted by someone else. For all I know, Ian borrowed an army as well, but for the sake of the discussion, I will assume he painted his own.

See how Tim got 50 points for appearance? That's pretty much the max. There are a couple of armies that went over 50 due to judges discretionary points, but 50 was the practical max. Also, note how Ian got 45, which is close to the max, but not there. And note how Tim won Best Overall with that 50 point appearance score.

Not to take anything away from Tim as a player - his battle points were more than anyone else, and his sportsmanship score looks maxed, so he's not a dick. But, if you consider this question - was he really the Best Overall at the event, or was he merely the Best General?

Now, suppose that Tim got a 0 for not painting his own army. Or even a marginal deduction, say, 10 points off. Let's say Tim instead got 40 points for his appearance. Hey, look, now Ian's the Best Overall. Tim's the Best General, and a few other things shake out of this. Mike Hernandez would have lost his place as Best Imperial General, to Jesse, who would have been bumped from Best General, to Best Imperial General. And, Stephen Vincent, who won nothing, would have gotten the Best Heretical General from Ian.

...your post merely reminded me of this ongoing question that I have never had answered and so I am genuinely curious if this is a problem or not in tournaments.

I dunno, I'd imagine that Stephen Vincent, who did not get an award, might think it was a problem.

Let me ask you a question... (and, granted, you already said you're not a tournament player, but if you were one...)

Suppose that you got to your tournament game, and your opponent was all ready to play, and then someone good (much better than your actual opponent - someone like HulkSmash), came over to the table, and started giving your opponent advice. Or that your opponent left to use the bathroom, and HulkSmash played a couple of turns for him.

At the end of the game, would you feel like your opponent deserved the battle points he won in that case?

See, most tournaments do include an appearance score. And, that appearance score typically goes towards determining the Best Overall for the event. But if you're not painting your own stuff, you're not an Overall gamer, you're just a general. Most tournaments have very strict rules about not getting 3rd party advice during games as well. The situation I hypothesized above would see your opponent warned (at least) or disqualified at most tournaments.

 Alfndrate wrote:
It has happened before (I think of the armies that won the BAO a few years ago, a well done Salamanders army if I recall correctly) won best painted. The reason why it's an excuse trotted out is because it doesn't reward the best painter in attendance, it rewards with the person that has the best painted army. If you limit it to people that painted their armies then you remove the guys that have loads of money that can pay for an amazing professional paintjob and basically buy that award.

Aren't painting awards either a minor prize separate from the main tournament prize or the paint score is folded into the overall tournament score? That has been my understanding at least, so if the paint score represents a smaller prize, or just pads your tournament score, is it really a big deal how an army got painted?

And while we are on the subject, how do TO's determine who painted what in an army entry? It is the honor system typically, isn't it? What if someone's buddy painted one of the army's units. Is that a problem? Or if one painted tank out of an entire army was an eBay purchase, is that a problem? Should those two examples immediately disqualify an army from being used in a tournament with a paint score? It seems to me there is more room for abuse by outsourcing paint work to your friends or a significant other than through using a professional paint service. Paint services usually have websites and image galleries that can be checked but my girlfriend who likes to paint doesn't have a website so my secret of having her paint half my army is safe, right?

I understand wanting to limit the number of people who "buy" an award, and I am in no way advocating that someone commission Jennifer Haley to paint a figure and then turn around and enter it into a painting contest (let us differentiate paint contest from tournament paint score) because that is unethical. Claiming other's work without their permission is down right wrong. If you disclose that your army is painted I don't see how having a well painted army should disqualify you from playing in a tournament with a paint score, especially since the verification process for determining who painted what in a tournament is non-existent.

Redbeard explains it a lot better than I did

And technically saying you didn't paint your army wouldn't exclude you from playing in the tournament, but it might exclude you from best overall since that generally relies on paint, sportsmanship, and battle points. And sometimes while the best painted prize might suck, that best overall can be pretty sweet.

 Redbeard wrote:
Lot of good information

Great post. To answer your questions about Tim, a borrowed army doesn't lend anything to being Best Overall (I'll assume that means best overall player and hobbyist?), however, did Tim disclose that he was using a borrowed army to the judges? If so why did they still give him such a high score? If not he should have. Again I don't believe in taking credit for others work. But if Tim did disclose that he didn't have a hand in crafting the army he used, and was still given high points for the army's presentation, then that sounds like an issue to be worked out with the TO/judges and not the Tims of the world.

Regarding your hypothetical about a person giving advice during a tourney I don't see that as equivalent to having a pre-painted army. I think a better analogy would be if Tim got the advice of Hulksmash before the tournament on how to play his army and then won overall. Which I'd be fine with, because Tim did the playing, sure he may have used a tactic on the advice of Hulksmash, but where do you start regulating that kind of outside input? What if Tim bypassed Hulksmash and got tactics for playing his army online instead? Is that a problem?

It is like my previous example of a significant other painting a unit for their loved one, how do you even begin to determine where someone else's outside influence starts and ends? Seems like an impossible standard to police.

Maybe paint scores need to go away and then commission painted armies could clash with homemade armies and everyone would be happy.

 DarkTraveler777 wrote:

 Redbeard wrote:
Lot of good information

Great post. To answer your questions about Tim, a borrowed army doesn't lend anything to being Best Overall (I'll assume that means best overall player and hobbyist?), however, did Tim disclose that he was using a borrowed army to the judges? If so why did they still give him such a high score? If not he should have. Again I don't believe in taking credit for others work. But if Tim did disclose that he didn't have a hand in crafting the army he used, and was still given high points for the army's presentation, then that sounds like an issue to be worked out with the TO/judges and not the Tims of the world.

I have no idea if Tim went out of his way to disclose anything at the event, though he has certainly not taken steps to hide it since then, and has publicly thanked the lender over on the AWC forums. I'm in no way trying to insinuate that Tim did anything wrong - I'd like to state that unequivocally. I know many tournaments are willing to give appearance points to people who did not do their own work, and simply reserve Best Appearance for those who did their own work. But, the situation as shown at the Michigan GT shows that there is more to it than just the Appearance award.

And, I think that most events do this to reward the idea that someone brought a nicely painted army that makes the event look good and makes the game more enjoyable for the opponent, rather than doing whatever bare minimum exists (three dots of color on each guys head?) But, it does impact the final standings.

Regarding your hypothetical about a person giving advice during a tourney I don't see that as equivalent to having a pre-painted army. I think a better analogy would be if Tim got the advice of Hulksmash before the tournament on how to play his army and then won overall. Which I'd be fine with, because Tim did the playing, sure he may have used a tactic on the advice of Hulksmash, but where do you start regulating that kind of outside input? What if Tim bypassed Hulksmash and got tactics for playing his army online instead? Is that a problem?

Well, no. I disagree that your analogy is better. Think of it not in terms of what happens at the game versus what happens before the game, and rather in terms of who did the work to earn the points.

Playing the game, if I must play the entire game myself, I earn the battle points. If Hulksmash plays for me, he is earning my battle points for me.
If I painted my army, I earned my appearance points. If someone else painted my army, they earned my appearance points for me.

Maybe paint scores need to go away and then commission painted armies could clash with homemade armies and everyone would be happy.

No, because then you get 'ard boyz tournaments. Appearance, and other soft scores, serve a purpose in tournaments, and that's to attract the more casual competitive players.

 Redbeard wrote:


Well, no. I disagree that your analogy is better. Think of it not in terms of what happens at the game versus what happens before the game, and rather in terms of who did the work to earn the points.

Playing the game, if I must play the entire game myself, I earn the battle points. If Hulksmash plays for me, he is earning my battle points for me.
If I painted my army, I earned my appearance points. If someone else painted my army, they earned my appearance points for me.

Okay, I understand your example better. I still don't see the situation in the same terms, but I'll concede that your example would create problems with score generation. Mixing what is essentially a painting competition with a gaming competition seems to be the problem here. The more I learn of the nuances of tournament scoring in regards to appearance it seems clear that the best solution is for TOs to better regulate how appearance scores are handled or drop them completely. You will never be able to determine with absolute certainty that a player really painted their own army unless you forced people to submit evidence of their hobby time. So, again, if someone had their significant other paint a unit for their army should they be penalized in the same fashion as a commission painted army player in terms of appearance score? Similarly you cannot determine if a commission painted army was assembled by the player, or if the player had rigid painting and color choice suggestions for the artist who painted the army. That is a level of involvement in the crafting of the army that should be taken into consideration for appearance just as much as the act of physically applying brush to model. I suppose the point I am trying to make is that paint scores are based on an honor system since you cannot be entirely certain about who painted what at a tournament, so either run with it and don't discriminate against commissioned armies, or ignore the appearance aspect entirely and judge based on game play.

 Redbeard wrote:

 DarkTraveler777 wrote:
Maybe paint scores need to go away and then commission painted armies could clash with homemade armies and everyone would be happy.

No, because then you get 'ard boyz tournaments. Appearance, and other soft scores, serve a purpose in tournaments, and that's to attract the more casual competitive players.

Well you can't get much more casual than having your army arrive through the mail ready to play.

I jest, as I know what you mean by "casual competitive players" but if the use of paint scores is a way to get more people to a tournament, and by your own admission makes the tournaments more enjoyable due to the increased number of painted armies, then it seems like the best solution would be to embrace- not penalize-those players who bring great eye candy to the tournament. Let's face it, commission painting isn't going away, and given the number of threads that pop up monthly about commission painting it is a trend that appears to be growing. At some point the two sides will have to come to terms and deal with their "issues" with one another.

 Kirasu wrote:
Painting is definitely time consuming and sometimes I get models painted for me but I also find it something fun to do while I watch TVs or movies.

I've probably painted around 80,000 pts worth of 40k models and I seriously don't understand why people look down on those who get their models professionally painted.. Is it because they were paid for?

If you buy a nice car and people say "Hey thats a nice car" do they assume you BUILT the car with your bare hands?

probably jealousy. they cant afford it so they bash it.

 Alfndrate wrote:
It has happened before (I think of the armies that won the BAO a few years ago, a well done Salamanders army if I recall correctly) won best painted. The reason why it's an excuse trotted out is because it doesn't reward the best painter in attendance, it rewards with the person that has the best painted army. If you limit it to people that painted their armies then you remove the guys that have loads of money that can pay for an amazing professional paintjob and basically buy that award.

Was not the BAO it was at Da Grand Waaagh a few years ago that a Salamander Army won best painted and the individual responsible, claimed the prize and the painting. The commission work was then found on another web site later. It was really disappointing to say the least.

I paint all my own armies but I can offer some interesting points here:

1. I have two close friends that have had commission paint work done (by Frontline Gaming) and both are very satisfied with the results. They have differing reasons for having gone the commission route, but either way I dont think it matters. What matters is they are happy with the results and love fielding a fully painted army.

2. I know of another individual, a tournament circuit player, who had their army commission painted simply because he felt he could not paint to a decent standard (which I would say isn't the case - almost anyone can do this). He strongly felt that the person across the table from them deserved to look at a nice army because they had typically put so much work into their own. This is truly how he feels and it's a really nice position to take. He never takes credit for painting the models and freely tells them who/where it was done.

To me - the important thing is that a fully painted army on the table (preferably two) and great terrain makes for a really different experience than pushing grey plastic or primered models around.

That's an interesting point actually, and something I wholeheartedly agree with. Aside from having your miniatures painted for your own enjoyment, I think it's also a pretty important thing to do for your opponent. That 'social compact' that we so often read about, of having some consideration for the person across the table from you. I also find that people with painted miniatures tend to be a bit more careful with them - the classic example I can think of was an old metal dreadnought, which weighed an absolute ton bouncing down the side of a piece of terrain and breaking a few of my converted miniatures on the way down. The guy was extremely apologetic about it, but I can't help but feel it wouldn't have happened if he'd invested in some time in the miniature and understood the potential loss!

I think 40k tends to be one of the worst offenders for grey-plastic horde (at least in my area), for some reason worse than WFB, although I've also come up against a fair few shiny-metal Infinity forces now which is far less excusable as you only need to paint about 10 of them!

 cvtuttle wrote:

 Alfndrate wrote:
It has happened before (I think of the armies that won the BAO a few years ago, a well done Salamanders army if I recall correctly) won best painted. The reason why it's an excuse trotted out is because it doesn't reward the best painter in attendance, it rewards with the person that has the best painted army. If you limit it to people that painted their armies then you remove the guys that have loads of money that can pay for an amazing professional paintjob and basically buy that award.

Was not the BAO it was at Da Grand Waaagh a few years ago that a Salamander Army won best painted and the individual responsible, claimed the prize and the painting. The commission work was then found on another web site later. It was really disappointing to say the least.

I was hoping you'd chime in because I had heard about that event through your podcast

I'd say only if something [not your unwillingness] is stopping you from doing it yourself.

It has always been admirable to paint your own army but it has never been a moral imperative.

I agree it is much better to have two painted armies on the table than one or two grey plastic ones. I don't see anything wrong with using a pre-painted army. Of course there is great satisfaction in painting your own army. I have various examples of both. I have also painted and later sold armies.