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.

You mean you don't drill for and refine your own crude oil into the templates you use?

Psh, that's cheating.

 gunslingerpro wrote:
You mean you don't drill for and refine your own crude oil into the templates you use?

Psh, that's cheating.

Did you make the drill yourself, mining and refining the metals needed?

If not, you must be a WAAC TFG pay-to-win cheater.

If I got someone else to paint a Warhound for me, I would feel as if I was cheating.

BUT, I would only feel as if I was cheating myself, not anyone else, and I would have absolutely no problem with someone else getting their expensive toys painted exactly how they wanted them by a professional.

If I were to employ a professional, I would want to do it together, which might not suit them. As a result, I would probably land up paying more than if they did it alone!

Well, according to some, if you don't paint the models your self, then you are not a real wargamer.

Most people won't care as long as you don't take credit for doing the work.

I don't care how you got paint on your models, as long as they look nice.
I paint my miniatures myself because that is the only way I get them exactly the way I want them. Unfortenately, I am very easily distracted and have a glacial painting speed of about one miniature a week...

U always have those people that go you paid someone to paint those o you suck. Then you have those that go bad ass army. Then you have the ones that go man man i wish i could have got someone to do that bad ass stuff for me. Like i said i have mine done if someone asks i go so and so painted it for me. Then i give them there number and go here. But again regardless of if you painted it you paid for it its yours and they do not own it that it where 90% of it comes from. Haters got to Hate. and personally i would rather play with someone that has a bad ass painted army vs one that's all primered. At least that way when i take a picture it looks good. But then again ill play against that army regardless because it's suppose to be a game and fun.

 heartserenade wrote:
Clearly, not sculpting your own models could be considered cheating if not painting your own models is cheating.

^
This, sorry if I paid someone $300 to paint a model for example (like an Imperial Knight) I better be able to enter it in a painting competition, because of how much I paid. You may not like it but that means that people who buy secondhand armies could not win painting competitions and such, that's bull.

 gmaleron wrote:

 heartserenade wrote:
Clearly, not sculpting your own models could be considered cheating if not painting your own models is cheating.

^
This, sorry if I paid someone $300 to paint a model for example (like an Imperial Knight) I better be able to enter it in a painting competition, because of how much I paid. You may not like it but that means that people who buy secondhand armies could not win painting competitions and such, that's bull.

Agreed

Huh. That's not what I said at all.

And clearly, passing off someone else's work as your own is, by definition, cheating.

 gmaleron wrote:

 heartserenade wrote:
Clearly, not sculpting your own models could be considered cheating if not painting your own models is cheating.

^
This, sorry if I paid someone $300 to paint a model for example (like an Imperial Knight) I better be able to enter it in a painting competition, because of how much I paid. You may not like it but that means that people who buy secondhand armies could not win painting competitions and such, that's bull.

As long as you give the painter credit, go ahead and enter.

I think the biggest problem, is that certain competitions, such as painting, or cosplay, are meant to show off your individual skill, not how much money you have.

 gmaleron wrote:
This, sorry if I paid someone $300 to paint a model for example (like an Imperial Knight) I better be able to enter it in a painting competition, because of how much I paid. You may not like it but that means that people who buy secondhand armies could not win painting competitions and such, that's bull.

Sorry, no, but entering a painting competition with miniatures painted by someone else is cheating, unless you are clear in your acknowledgment that the paint job is not your own and thus disqualifying you from winning.

Unless, of course, you think I should be able to let someone who's a better 40k player play for me during a competition, as long as I'm paying him?

 infinite_array wrote:

 gmaleron wrote:
This, sorry if I paid someone $300 to paint a model for example (like an Imperial Knight) I better be able to enter it in a painting competition, because of how much I paid. You may not like it but that means that people who buy secondhand armies could not win painting competitions and such, that's bull.

Sorry, no, but entering a painting competition with miniatures painted by someone else is cheating, unless you are clear in your acknowledgment that the paint job is not your own and thus disqualifying you from winning.

Unless, of course, you think I should be able to let someone who's a better 40k player play for me during a competition, as long as I'm paying him?

Yeah, I really can't wrap my head around the fact that people think it is ok to buy a painted model for a painting contest. If that isn't cheating, there is no such thing as cheating.

 Moktor wrote:

 infinite_array wrote:

 gmaleron wrote:
This, sorry if I paid someone $300 to paint a model for example (like an Imperial Knight) I better be able to enter it in a painting competition, because of how much I paid. You may not like it but that means that people who buy secondhand armies could not win painting competitions and such, that's bull.

Sorry, no, but entering a painting competition with miniatures painted by someone else is cheating, unless you are clear in your acknowledgment that the paint job is not your own and thus disqualifying you from winning.

Unless, of course, you think I should be able to let someone who's a better 40k player play for me during a competition, as long as I'm paying him?

Yeah, I really can't wrap my head around the fact that people think it is ok to buy a painted model for a painting contest. If that isn't cheating, there is no such thing as cheating.

People get banned from tests and competitions for not naming the person who created the work.

But in terms of the 40k TT, the only kind of cheating there is is rules-breaking. Then psuedo-cheats, like being mean, or abusing loopholes, of cheese.
If you commission your models instead of painting them because you can't/won't do them justice, that's really only to the other player's gain, as they get to see some damn art, instead of a homogeneous grey mass.

 Happyjew wrote:
Well, according to some, if you don't paint the models your self, then you are not a real wargamer.

Most people won't care as long as you don't take credit for doing the work.

Oh, do get a life.

On topic: it's not cheating, as others have said that would imply some form of legal framework. I think commission painting is cool. I wouldn't do it myself because I like knowing that I'm the one who painted my stuff, but I'm incredibly jealous of people who have the talent to paint for a living.

Titans etc, not everyone has skills, time or kit to do such huge models. I see no wrong in having a very expensive and complicated model done by a pro as to mess that up is far worse.

Even smaller stuff, at end of day its there money!

 gmaleron wrote:

 heartserenade wrote:
Clearly, not sculpting your own models could be considered cheating if not painting your own models is cheating.

^
This, sorry if I paid someone $300 to paint a model for example (like an Imperial Knight) I better be able to enter it in a painting competition, because of how much I paid. You may not like it but that means that people who buy secondhand armies could not win painting competitions and such, that's bull.

You bring up a good point. Is a painting competition for best painted model, or the Person Who Painted the best model? Sports teams do it all the time. They pay professionals for doing the job. So for a painting competition, the question is, What is the competition for? Best Painted Artist, or Best Painted Army.

As long as you don't take credit for the Paint Job, then it's not cheating. An army painted by a professional should be able to win a Best Painted Army, but not should be able to win Best Painted Artist unless he is present.

So no, it's not cheating, especially if you are not entering any competitions.

 gmaleron wrote:
This, sorry if I paid someone $300 to paint a model for example (like an Imperial Knight) I better be able to enter it in a painting competition, because of how much I paid. You may not like it but that means that people who buy secondhand armies could not win painting competitions and such, that's bull.

Except a painting competition is for the person who painted it, not the person who paid for it.

Take for instance, The Crystal Brush, one of the largest painting contests in the US:

Conditions of entry

a) All entries must be entered in person by the person responsible for all the painting on the model (or the sculptor for the sculpting category) before noon (12 p.m.) on Saturday, March 21.

source

In any respectable painting contest, a model can only be entered by the person that painted it, not by someone who bought it. Awards have been revoked and people have been banned from contests for breaking that rule.

Buying a painted model or army is perfectly fine, but passing it off as your work is a douche move if there ever was one.

As someone who paints commissions I'd agree its not cheating, the prices of some of the kits these days means that if you're not confident or dont think you currently have the skill to do the model justice its only logical to take it to someone who does. Essentially all you're doing is trying to ensure you have the best looking army possible put down on the table, which is something both players enjoy.

That said I'd agree entering a commissioned model into a painting competition without crediting the artist, or atleast stating it was a commissioned model would be cheating. It'd rank alongside entering a baking competition with an asda bought cake.

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

 gmaleron wrote:
This, sorry if I paid someone $300 to paint a model for example (like an Imperial Knight) I better be able to enter it in a painting competition, because of how much I paid. You may not like it but that means that people who buy secondhand armies could not win painting competitions and such, that's bull.

Except a painting competition is for the person who painted it, not the person who paid for it.

Take for instance, The Crystal Brush, one of the largest painting contests in the US:

Conditions of entry

a) All entries must be entered in person by the person responsible for all the painting on the model (or the sculptor for the sculpting category) before noon (12 p.m.) on Saturday, March 21.

source

In any respectable painting contest, a model can only be entered by the person that painted it, not by someone who bought it. Awards have been revoked and people have been banned from contests for breaking that rule.

Buying a painted model or army is perfectly fine, but passing it off as your work is a douche move if there ever was one.

So the names have to change from "Best Painted Army" to "Best Painted Artist"

Again as long as someone is not taking credit for something they did not do, is perfectly fine. Hell if the Olympics can have Professionals now instead of Amateurs then I think Painting competitions can be as well.

After all if we are going to be talking about competitions, what is the difference now of someone making an army of the internet and not making it himself. Wouldn't that be cheating now? Getting help from others to make his army better from advice from others, isn't that cheating? He didn't make his army himself. So if someone wins a competition from an army that someone helped him make, does that make him a cheater now? After all he didn't do it all on his/her own.

Davor wrote:

Again as long as someone is not taking credit for something they did not do, is perfectly fine. Hell if the Olympics can have Professionals now instead of Amateurs then I think Painting competitions can be as well.

That argument doesn't work because the Professional Olympians aren't subbing in for the Amateurs and then giving the Amateurs the medals.

After all if we are going to be talking about competitions, what is the difference now of someone making an army of the internet and not making it himself. Wouldn't that be cheating now? Getting help from others to make his army better from advice from others, isn't that cheating? He didn't make his army himself. So if someone wins a competition from an army that someone helped him make, does that make him a cheater now? After all he didn't do it all on his/her own.

Plenty of difference. A painted army is the end result. An army list is one thing - actually knowning how to use the list in a game is quite another. Someone who takes a net-edited list but doesn't know how to use it can still be beaten. Someone who shows up with an army that's been professional painted for a large sum of money will beat out other people who painted their own miniatures and aren't at quite the same level, or might beat others who are at the same level and painted their own miniatures, which certainly isn't fair.

Besides, if we want to follow down that slippery slope, then anyone who has ever watched or read a painting tutorial shouldn't be given an award, since their techniques are just informed by the advice of others.

What the hell is a Best Painted Artist? An artist who was painted on?

And professional sports team don't win games but other people will take the credit as if they actually played the game themselves. That's what you're doing with entering a painting competition with something you didn't paint.

Good points Infinate-array. So how about changing the names of the competition then?

Is it Best painted Army or Best painted Artist?

As you said about Professional Olympians aren't subbing in for Amateurs and then giving the Amateurs the medals, how about the owners of professional teams? They are keeping the trophy. Or for your example, in the end, it's the Country that gets the medal. Doesn't matter who done it, Professional or Amateur the medal is still won and goes to the Country/Team owner.

They don't play, they just get the best they can for the price they can.

I believe if you are going to call it a Best Painted Army, then people don't have to paint the minis. After all you are judging who has the best painted army who ever done it.

Now if you want to say Best Painted Artist, then yes you will have needed to paint the army yourself.

Thing is, we are calling the competition one thing, but in fact it is something else.

After all the Olympics use to be about Amateurs and who can do the best. Now we have Professionals who have more access to better training and make a living off it. Actually I see no difference this way. We need to change the name of the competition to imply what it actually is now.

Davor wrote:
Good points Infinate-array. So how about changing the names of the competition then?

Is it Best painted Army or Best painted Artist?

As you said about Professional Olympians aren't subbing in for Amateurs and then giving the Amateurs the medals, how about the owners of professional teams? They are keeping the trophy. Or for your example, in the end, it's the Country that gets the medal. Doesn't matter who done it, Professional or Amateur the medal is still won and goes to the Country/Team owner.

They don't play, they just get the best they can for the price they can.

I believe if you are going to call it a Best Painted Army, then people don't have to paint the minis. After all you are judging who has the best painted army who ever done it.

Now if you want to say Best Painted Artist, then yes you will have needed to paint the army yourself.

Thing is, we are calling the competition one thing, but in fact it is something else.

After all the Olympics use to be about Amateurs and who can do the best. Now we have Professionals who have more access to better training and make a living off it. Actually I see no difference this way. We need to change the name of the competition to imply what it actually is now.

Sorry, but the Olympian comparison was worthless from its first usage. All the above is just rubbish.

There's no reason to ever have a 'Best Painted Army' competition, since the award is meaningless. It no longer becomes a competition between the skills of the participants but an exercise in the spending of money.

And I'm not entirely sure why you think where an Olympic trophy goes is important. A painter who gets an award at a competition isn't giving it to some higher organization. He (or she) gets it directly because of their skills, not because they spent more money. Unless your suggesting that someone who wins with a commission-based paint job should send the award to the actual painter, which is incredibly stupid because it deprives the chance of someone winning who actually bothered to show up.

 gmaleron wrote:
Its not cheating, if you paid good money for it to look good to me it is the same as painting it, to say that you cant take credit after paying extra because you want it to look good is silly. No its not cheating, I do the same thing because I want my army to look good and I do not have the time or patience to paint as well as I want the models to look.

Paying someone else to do something for you is in no way even remotely the same as doing it yourself.



Paying someone else to paint your models is totally fine. Claiming that you painted them yourself is not.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 infinite_array wrote:
There's no reason to ever have a 'Best Painted Army' competition, since the award is meaningless. It no longer becomes a competition between the skills of the participants but an exercise in the spending of money.

That's not entirely true.

Some events include an Appearance award (as opposed to a Painting award) simply as a way of encouraging people to show up with nice armies, rather than specifically to award the best painter who shows up to a gaming competition...

 insaniak wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 infinite_array wrote:
There's no reason to ever have a 'Best Painted Army' competition, since the award is meaningless. It no longer becomes a competition between the skills of the participants but an exercise in the spending of money.

That's not entirely true.

Some events include an Appearance award (as opposed to a Painting award) simply as a way of encouraging people to show up with nice armies, rather than specifically to award the best painter who shows up to a gaming competition...

Which is something that could be taken care of with painting requirements. I can't speak for others, but I'd still feel pretty miffed if my army - that I painted myself - lost any award based on looks to someone who simply bought their paint job from someone else.

 infinite_array wrote:
Which is something that could be taken care of with painting requirements.

Painting requirements encourage people to bring a painted army.
Having an award for the best looking army encourages people to bring better painted armies.

Or at least, that's the theory.


So long as the event is clear as to whether they are awarding the best painting or just the prettiest army, I don't see a problem with either way of doing it. It's just down to making sure everyone is aware of the rules.

I'd never resort to it myself, but that's because I put a lot of time and effort into getting minis just as I like them. Even though pro painters could get a better result, the finished mini it wouldn't be my achievement, and that'd take the joy and pride out of it for me.

That said, I can appreciate that some gamers are terrible at painting and/or aren't willing to put the time into improving and/or don't have the patience for it. But they still want a good-looking army. So they employ someone who can provide that. That's the natue of a service Commision patining is no more cheating than hiring a construction company to dig a hole instead of foing it yourself with a shovel.

As for folks passing commissioned mini's off as their own work -Heratics! <ignites flamer>

Cheating? Not at all. I've sent over a couple models to btp and really enjoyed the work they sent back to me. I can paint decent enough but i still don't have an airbrush and wet blending + osl and freehand still are above my skill level. You throw in a wife, two kids and a career and it's easier for me to pull a day or two of over time than paint those models myself.

I think if the event is for best painted army, it doesn't matter who painted it. Matter how it is painted.

Some painting scores require that you are the one who painted the army, if you did all the painting work then enter it, if you did not then don't be TFG and leave your army out as your a liar if you say you did and you did not.

Suggest that if they buy you a second one, you will paint it yourself.