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.

This is just something that always gets to me as I paint all my own stuff and when I see people win with an army that they did not paint it pisses me off.

please leave comments

(please feel free to move to painting if i put in wrong spot.)

Should not be able to win best painted but should be ok for General, Sportsman, other associated trophies.

I didn't know there was a painting tourney. In a regular RTT or even GT, they should be eligible for every award except "best painted"

The way I see it is that there are 2 parts to the game

a.) modeling - The act or art of making a model from which a work of art is to be executed; the formation of a work of art from some plastic material. Also, in painting, drawing, etc., the expression or indication of solid form.

b.) game play - Table top gaming

If you are going to have a event that includes both then people that do not take the time and effort to model should not be awarded in anyway for the modeling aspect of the game.

Since the option isnt present, I wont vote.

Their high (or low) paint score can affect any area, they can win any and all awards except best painted.

I agree with Darrian-normal scoring, but they cannot win any awards such as Best Painted/Themed or others that include a painting score.

I am refering to painting score getting added to the total score in a way to help them get a better overall score. Or just a seperate painting tournament

I was going to vote separate competition but what does that mean? That they all get to huddle around and see who spent the most money? At first I wanted to get a few models painted for me (some HQs) but decided I'd just do it myself. And they turned out awesome. I honestly don't believe painting should be a part of an actual tournament though, just the best painted/best conversion awards. Best painted gives the painter something to strive for while best converter gives that avenue an award as well.

I'm all about personal responsibility. It wouldn't bother me if someone beat me at a painting competition using models they spent money on as long as they don't mind me being a better person than they are. It's like allowing handicapped people to play too! If someone without arms or a fully functioning brain wants to compete in an event like this the only real option for them is to have someone else do the heavy lifting for them. Are YOU saying that handicapped people CAN'T compete in this event!? That's dangerous man! The winner of the event is a handicaped person (he can't paint). So, to compete against people who can paint he relied on the strengths he does have - money to pay someone else to do it. You can't fault him for that for the same reason that you couldn't fault me for winning the trophy by breaking into his house later that night and taking it. Being a winner is playing to your strengths man.

Go Glaive Go!

Glaive Company CO wrote:I'm all about personal responsibility. It wouldn't bother me if someone beat me at a painting competition using models they spent money on as long as they don't mind me being a better person than they are. It's like allowing handicapped people to play too! If someone without arms or a fully functioning brain wants to compete in an event like this the only real option for them is to have someone else do the heavy lifting for them. Are YOU saying that handicapped people CAN'T compete in this event!? That's dangerous man! The winner of the event is a handicaped person (he can't paint). So, to compete against people who can paint he relied on the strengths he does have - money to pay someone else to do it. You can't fault him for that for the same reason that you couldn't fault me for winning the trophy by breaking into his house later that night and taking it. Being a winner is playing to your strengths man.

..........................um...ok

Glaive Company CO wrote:I'm all about personal responsibility. It wouldn't bother me if someone beat me at a painting competition using models they spent money on as long as they don't mind me being a better person than they are. It's like allowing handicapped people to play too! If someone without arms or a fully functioning brain wants to compete in an event like this the only real option for them is to have someone else do the heavy lifting for them. Are YOU saying that handicapped people CAN'T compete in this event!? That's dangerous man! The winner of the event is a handicaped person (he can't paint). So, to compete against people who can paint he relied on the strengths he does have - money to pay someone else to do it. You can't fault him for that for the same reason that you couldn't fault me for winning the trophy by breaking into his house later that night and taking it. Being a winner is playing to your strengths man.

I've seen armless people do plenty of impressive things with their mouthes. I think if someone put the stuff in the vices for them (and moved them around occasionally) he/she could be a pretty good mouth painter. I'd call shenanigans... you can call me a hater...

Typeline wrote:I've seen armless people do plenty of impressive things with their mouthes...

Nice choice of words...

I shamelessly admit that I've bought a good percentage of painted figs for all the different games I've played.

With that said, I would not accept any sort of 'award' for best-painted figs, nor do I think I or anyone using figs that someone else painted should be elligible for any such awards.

Just my 2 coppers, though.

i think that it shouldnt matter at all in the overall outcome of the tournie. as a matter of fact, i dont think that quality of painting should affect the outcome of a tournie at all.

im all in favor of making people field painted armies at tournies, but i dont think it matters if the person playing w/ that army is the person who painted it as well.

just my 2 cents tho
BLARGAG!!!

there is a store that throws down huge prizes. I wouldn't feel bad at all by borrowing a friends pretty army to help win overall.

question is how are you really going to be able to tell that the person didn't do it themselves?

Most people take pride in the work they did...or its just me =P (EXE. my post about 1st ground troop of my Guardians of the Covenant).

What's the tipping point?

Do we invalidate team-painted or club-painted armies?

If a buddy gives you a painted model, or paints a model / unit for you, does that invalidate the entire army?

What if they just help with basing? Or base-coating? Or priming? Or mold-line cleanup?

Or suppose a guy buys a painted army or pays to have his army painted to tabletop standard, and then does a touchup / detail work. Or adds a unit or two? Does that mean he can reclaim them as his own?

The overwhelming majority of self-painted models are mediocre to poor. If someone has the money to have their models painted, why should we hold that against them?

And on top of that, the overwhelming majority of models aren't even fully-painted and based!

I say, anything that gets more painted models on the board is a good thing.

And if that means that the "rich" players can have their armies painted by starving painters, I'm OK with that.

"buys a painted army or pays to have his army painted to tabletop standard"

should not be included

"The overwhelming majority of self-painted models are mediocre to poor. If someone has the money to have their models painted, why should we hold that against them?"

Because not everyone has money and letting a army that was not owner painted win a painting comp is bs. Example I painted an entire 2k point army in 1 month it was very crisp and it had a bunch of conversions but it lost to someone that got the army painted by someone else I spend all my time painting and modeling my own stuff for nothing because someone that said here is some money and my army now paint it and have fun wins the prise its bs it makes it pointless to want to paint models...thats why my HE's are not painted and most likely will never be painted.

Yes some can argue that losing a painting comp to a pro painted army is an insentive to paint better, but i find that it make you feel like you will never be able to win unless you get so god awsome at painting or get the money to pay someone to paint your army and that takes the fun out of the hobby of the game(see my 2 parts of the game comment above)

slowed net sry for double post

Personally I think the best painted army prize should go to just that. The best painted army, never mind who did it. If that means a lot of people become ineligible to win because their painting is not up to professional level, so what? It's like complaining that professional golfers are better than you at golf.

Besides, considering the cost of pro-painted armies vs. the value of prizes in most painting competitions, the owner of said army would have to win a hundred just to recoup his investment.

Still why should someone that only forked up the cash be able to win something over someone that painted the army in a tournament that is based on painting skill as they did not have enough skill to paint there own army? Any one that has the money and wats to can go open wallet and remove cash and say here you go now paint.

If the person has enough cash to get his/her army painted why not just buy what they would get if they win the tournament and leave the prise to someone that took the time to convert/paint there army??

Now if the pro painted armys had there own bracket then I would not have a problem because I will never get my army painted by someone else because I love all the work it takes to covert and paint a model. I also dont feel that pro painted armys getting score bonuses that help in the table top half of the game as it is different from the hobby side of the game.

The poll isn't going to be useful in this thread because (as already pointed out) it doesn't have one of the most common choices: Players with a pro-painted army should be able to win any award besides best painted/theme/players choice (awards for the appearance of their army).


To me, it always comes back to the fact that there is no way to enforce this rule if people don't want to disclose the fact that their army is pro-painted.

So a rule that bans players from winning best overall only punishes honest players, which is stupid IMO.


And where do you draw the line? If you got one mini pro-painted in your army should it be not allowed? What about if you got your buddy or wife to help you paint models?

Personally I think that any rule that discourages better paint jobs in a tournament is a bad thing.

Does this actually come up often at tourneys? From personal experience, I've never met anyone who tried to claim they did all the painting when, in fact, they did not.

Gamers are such a niche group. Internet makes word of mouth travel a light speed. It would plain suck to get caught in a lie and get ostracized. To me, it just seems like there is too much risk over reward for someone to actually try this.

Or, maybe I'm naive regarding the lengths some people may go to get something from a tourney.

Glaive Company CO wrote:I'm all about personal responsibility. It wouldn't bother me if someone beat me at a painting competition using models they spent money on as long as they don't mind me being a better person than they are. It's like allowing handicapped people to play too! If someone without arms or a fully functioning brain wants to compete in an event like this the only real option for them is to have someone else do the heavy lifting for them. Are YOU saying that handicapped people CAN'T compete in this event!? That's dangerous man! The winner of the event is a handicaped person (he can't paint). So, to compete against people who can paint he relied on the strengths he does have - money to pay someone else to do it. You can't fault him for that for the same reason that you couldn't fault me for winning the trophy by breaking into his house later that night and taking it. Being a winner is playing to your strengths man.

I more or less agree with the sentiment, and I know you're trying to be humorous, but my father just lost his leg, so I don't think that is the least bit funny.

Ultimately I think Yak is right. Ideally, the reward for best painted/modeled should go to someone who actually painted his models, but I don't see any means of enforcing it unless the organizers have seen the gamer with a previous army that wasn't nearly as well painted. In other words, did he really get that much better in the two months from when you last saw him. While I hate, as much as anyone, the idea of having all of my hard work come to nothing, I really hate to discourage anything that puts more painted models on the table. At my FLGS, at least a third of the armies coming to the table have not been painted at all ( excepting a base coat ), and the I would estimate that three-fourths are "unfinished" and no progress is being made toward completion.

You can't expect to require a test of painting skills at the tournament before you hand out the trophy, and if you plan on competing anywhere beyond locally, you're going to be up against that level of work anyhow, so I think the only real solution is to ask people who have had someone else do the majority of the painting or converting in their army to bow out of best painted competition.

I tend to think that people with pro-painted armies shouldn't be eligible for best overall either.

If I'm a golden daemon painter, but I've never won a game in my life, should I be allowed to hire someone else to play my army and then receive the award for Best Overall when they win games?

Overall includes painting, and if you didn't paint your own army, it's no more reasonable to allow you to score painting points than allowing a bad player to hire a player and yet take the credit for the battle points earned.

Golden Daemon painters don't paint armies. They paint models. The time involved with Golden Daemon techniques does not transfer into mass production unless you've got a team painting the stuff.

I don't think there's a single Golden Daemon painter who's painted an entire 1500-pt 40k army, much less a 2000-pt WFB army. The model counts are just too high.

So the very idea of a pro-painter having such an army for someone else to pilot doesn't make sense.

...

I agree with Yak - don't punish honesty.

Also, don't bash the rich.

JohnHwangDD wrote:Golden Daemon painters don't paint armies. They paint models. The time involved with Golden Daemon techniques does not transfer into mass production unless you've got a team painting the stuff.

I don't think there's a single Golden Daemon painter who's painted an entire 1500-pt 40k army, much less a 2000-pt WFB army. The model counts are just too high.

So the very idea of a pro-painter having such an army for someone else to pilot doesn't make sense.

...

I agree with Yak - don't punish honesty.

Also, don't bash the rich.

Aren't we supposed to eat them?

fnc821 wrote:"buys a painted army or pays to have his army painted to tabletop standard"

should not be included

OK, what about the other points? Does a single model (or brush stroke) count as non-painted? Answer them.

fnc821 wrote:"The overwhelming majority of self-painted models are mediocre to poor. If someone has the money to have their models painted, why should we hold that against them?"

Because not everyone has money and letting a army that was not owner painted win a painting comp is bs.

So?

The people who don't have so much money will usually have a lot more time on their hands. The idea that they can't paint better than the average "pro-painted" dip job is pretty amusing to me. Most "pro-painted" armies are "painted" (dipped) within a week. That translates into a month's worth of work on the weekends / evenings.

The guys who can afford to pay for painting tend to work 60, 70, 80+ hours per week. To them, it's just not worth their time to spend on painting when they have families and such. Spending a few hundred dollars to have a fully-painted army that they can use for the rest of their life is a pretty good investment, especially when you consider that it probably only represents a day's worth of their pay. When you make good money, it is always worth spending a small amount of it to have people do grunt work so you have more quality time for other things. And make no mistake that painting is grunt work.

Really, if you have a problem with this, just work harder and earn more money!