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.

Simple question, but I expect a myriad of answers. When judging a players painting score, do any of you TO's take into account whether the player painted their own army? Would you dock a person points or even rate it as 0 because they got their army professionally painted?

I'd definitely dock them points and not allow them a chance at Best Painted but not so much that they wouldn't be in the running for Overall.

I do not think the TO needs to check if people did their own work.

A decent person would pull their own army out of the running if the paint-job was purchased/done by a previous owner, or other circumstance.

I feel that is an example of paying for a win.

This is a prime reason that I don't think 'soft' scores should be included in the overall result.

A tournament should be about determining the best player... I'm all for having an award for best painted or best presented army, but it should be separate from the main score, and it should only be open to those who build and paint their own armies.

Depends what goal the TO is trying to promote.

If the objective is to have people bring pretty armies to do battle at tournaments, then you shouldn't be docking points.

If the objective is to have people only bring armies they painted themselves, then you should dock points.

But in this latter case, I ask "why?"

My own preference is to award any "best painted" awards to someone who painted their own army (much as "best general" goes to the player who plays his army best), but to ding someone's overall score for having their army painted for them does 3 things: 1) discourages honesty; 2) reduces the overall aesthetic appeal of events; and 3) discourages participation by people who don't enjoy (or aren't good at) the painting aspects of the hobby.

Moreover, where's the line? If my wife helps me flock bases, am I out? If she paints a bug carapace or two? What if someone else cuts models off sprues for me & cleans mold lines (my own personal least-favorite task) - what does that do to my scores?

When I run events, I use checklist paint-scoring to contribute to overall points, and to break any ties on player-voted "best army."

There's a difference between an army you painted yourself where maybe your wife flocked the bases, and an army you shipped off to Reinforcements by Post to have painted.

Frankly if we get to the point where painting competitions are about calculating what percentage of 'assistance' a player can get away with, I think we might as well drop the whole idea.

It's up to players' own consciences where they draw the line.

Separate the best painted award out of the Tourney and only judge the armies as 3 levels, unpainted / primed, 3 color basic with no shading, nicely painted (table top quality and higher). Then you are looking at the hobby more and rewarding people for nice looking armies. Because on the other side of the issue is players showing up to the tournaments with a whole army of unpainted miniatures ,if its even allowed.

The fairest way to handle it is the way it's usually handled. Players with pro painted armies get the full points they deserve, but are ineligible to win Best Painted.

gorgon wrote:The fairest way to handle it is the way it's usually handled. Players with pro painted armies get the full points they deserve, but are ineligible to win Best Painted.

I agree with this way of going about it. I have an army that I did not paint myself... although I am just embarking on a new project which I will be painting. I definitely would be discouraged from attending a tournament where I would get no painting score at all for not having painted my own army! I don't want an award for painting... but I don't want to have no chance at winning overall, just because I didn't paint the army.

I think that painting should be entirely seperate from the tournament score. If you want people to use painted armies make it a requirement. Then just have an small competition for the best painted army. It shouldn't be compulsory and have a message requesting that only armies you painted yourself should be entered. There is no way you are going to stop someone entering with a commisioned army if they really want to, so just leave it up to their concience.

4M2a wrote:I think that painting should be entirely seperate from the tournament score. If you want people to use painted armies make it a requirement. Then just have an small competition for the best painted army. It shouldn't be compulsory and have a message requesting that only armies you painted yourself should be entered. There is no way you are going to stop someone entering with a commisioned army if they really want to, so just leave it up to their concience.

I think the 'main' tournament score should include all soft scores, as well as painting. And that painting should only be eligible if the player painted it themselves.

The person who comes top of the gaming part of the tourney gets 'Best General'. The person who has the best painted army they painted themselves gets 'Best Painted', and so on for modelling, converting, sportsmanship, comp, whatever you want to include...

This way, the people who don't like painting, or prefer to but pre-painted aren't penalised (they can win Best General) and the people who prefer painting single amazing models to playing games aren't penalised either (they can win Best Painted/Modelled).

But the person who 'wins' the tourney should be a good general, with a well painted/modelled army, who's taken the time to make it unique, and who's a fun guy to play against.

I also think that there should be a separate competition for best painted; this encourages a broader selection of players to attend the tournament. You'll get some who are mostly interested in winning all their games, and others who want to showcase their painting/modeling skills. Having a reward for both, but keeping it separate, encourages more diversity in tournaments which can only be a good thing.

As a person who outsources his army painting (I've tried to paint my own, but I eventually admitted to myself that I absolutely hate painting), I would never enter my army for a best painted category even though it's beautifully painted. I like to field pretty models and not grays; but I couldn't take a prize away from someone that busted their arse painting.

When I run I award 0-5 points for paint as as soft score. However, for best painted I let the players vote by having them score their top 3 armies. Who ever scores the most points wins bet painted. I also don't ask if they painted their army or not. I have enough trouble getting people to show up with an all primed army.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Vladigar wrote:As a person who outsources his army painting (I've tried to paint my own, but I eventually admitted to myself that I absolutely hate painting), I would never enter my army for a best painted category even though it's beautifully painted. I like to field pretty models and not grays; but I couldn't take a prize away from someone that busted their arse painting.

I also look at it this way. You busted your arse earning the money to pay someone to paint your models.

Janthkin has it right. TO makes it clear ahead of time what's his goal, and scores appropriately.

I think it's interesting (and telling) that people think an army not painted by the entrant should be considered towards the score towards "Best Overall".

I mean, if you didn't paint your own army should the painting be considered AT ALL as part of your "Best Overall"?

The way I see it you have "Best General" for the best dice roller, "Best Sport" for the nicest guy, and "Best Painted" for the Rembrandts. If you WANT to have a "Best Overall" considering painting as a part of that, shouldn't you have painted the damned army? If YOU didn't paint it are you really the Best Overall? No.

That said I don't think people should play unpainted armies, and don't think people should have to paint their own stuff. Just don't have a Best Overall. I like the system I've seen at some events where instead of a "Grand Prize" system for Best Overall you just have Runners Up in each of the three categories. Spreads out the fun a little more and ends silliness like lying about painting your junk.

jbunny wrote:I also look at it this way. You busted your arse earning the money to pay someone to paint your models.

Athletics.

I know I can't actually run as fast as you, but I spent all this money on performance-enhancing drugs so I should still be allowed the same chance of winning.



It's a competition to see who is the best painter, right? We call the 'win the most games' prize 'Best General'. Maybe the secret lies in calling the prize 'best painter' rather than 'best painted army'?

ArbitorIan wrote:

jbunny wrote:I also look at it this way. You busted your arse earning the money to pay someone to paint your models.

Athletics.

I know I can't actually run as fast as you, but I spent all this money on performance-enhancing drugs so I should still be allowed the same chance of winning.



It's a competition to see who is the best painter, right? We call the 'win the most games' prize 'Best General'. Maybe the secret lies in calling the prize 'best painter' rather than 'best painted army'?

If theres rule sagainst Performance enhancing drugs then no you should not be allowed to play. If there are no rules against it then Play Ball. The TO makes the rules, and everyone plays by those rules.

I dunno about others but I would have thought its pretty obvious pro painted armies shouldn't be allowed. I doubt they have written rules about bribing your opponents but I think that's against the spirit of the tournament.

The idea of the competion is how good you are as a general or how good you are at painting not who earns the best money.

(Insert sarcasm) Who won best painted at the 'Ard Boys? (...

people will do/say what they think they can get away with. I agree soft scores should be taken out. Make 2 awards and post something as an anon user on a 40k board if you find the person who won didn't really paint the army.

i always paint my own models, just because i like doing it (not because im just too greedy to pay people ), i have'nt been a judge before but this is how i whould do it:

-i whould give people that get their army's painted for them the points like normal, but i whould include ~5-10 points for painting it yourself, this means that if you use more time instead of more money you will get more points, but people who dont like to paint still get a fair chance