Winning Best Painted with a commissioned army

[KAPcom]

Alright, discussion time. What is everyone's opinions on being eligible to win a best painted award with an army that was commissioned / bought? Should you have to paint your army yourself, or is the award reserved for the best of the best, no matter the artist? I would love to hear your thoughts.

[Col.Gravis]

Its down to the individual event organiser, but for myself I would feel like a cheat entering something I didn't paint myself.

[Denzark]

What is the difference between:

1. Winning a best army trophy for a bought/commissioned army that was created to order

and

2. Buying an exact replica of any given tournament's best army trophy, using the funds you may have otherwise have spent on commission painting services?

If you genuinely don't have a moral qualm when considering this, as long as you highlight to the TO and/or any voters for best army, you are on moral high ground.

If you don't let them know you are only kidding yourself.

[Sly]

Up to the event organizer. If they say that you should only be eligible for best painted if you painted AND PLAY the army, that's fine, but if not, I don't see a problem.

Say that you have a friend who paints, while you play, and the friend did the army that you play with. Why should the army not win (again, if the rules allow it in that event)? As long as you disclose that you played with the best painted army that someone else did, and that someone else gets the credit, what is the problem?

To put it another way: in most dog shows, most contestants breed their own dogs. But not everyone, and nobody asks if the owner of the Best in Show happened to be the breeder also. The reason is, that it's the DOG who won the award, not the owner. Same thing, IMO, for the best army. It's the army winning the award, and if you happen to be the one who painted it, then you are more proud of that then if you just bought it. But your pride is not relevant to how good the army is.

[Charistoph]

Its down to the individual event organiser, but for myself I would feel like a cheat entering something I didn't paint myself.

Agreed. If the painter was there, I would have to give them credit for it.

But then, I don't pay for someone to paint my models, either. There's too much therapy in it.

[odinsgrandson]

- Event organizers need to make sure they aren't encouraging people to lie about their painting. They can do this by making their policy very clear (no matter what their decisions are).


- I like the Ninja Division rules- it allows for a few models to have been painted by someone else for the 'best painted' award, and grants points for well painted figures no matter who painted them.

When players enter the tournament, they fill the top of a painting score form (the rest is filled out by the judge). One of the questions is whether you painted the army yourself.


- If the tournament is up front about it like this, then the whole thing makes sense. Players know what is expected of them and exactly how to be honest.

[Path Walker]

Accepting the award when you haven't painted the army is a dick move, but if the organizers aren't informed, how are they supposed to know?

[40kGamer]

I've never been a fan of someone winning best painted with a different artist's work... but I guess it has it's place when the event allows it and the info is available to everyone who votes on the best appearance.

[m3g4tr0n]

I would never enter a commissioned model, even in the event allowed it. On a personal level, it's wrong to show off another's work as your own. It's insulting to the person you hired to paint the model, and makes you look bad.

[Cyberpunk66]

Sure. They can enter. But, the painter should get the prize...

[Erik Setzer]

There were stories in the past that at the GTs (the ones run by Games Workshop), a lot of the top players would commission their armies in order to be able to compete for top overall, so they didn't suffer a points drop from not having armies that looked as good. To me, this just feels dishonest. Even if you have some reason you can't paint your own army, it's someone else's work, and it just seems strange to give someone a trophy for spending the most or finding the best painter/group to commission. It also encourages situations like those mentioned, where people just throw money at getting their army painted professionally, cutting off a large chunk of the hobby.

I personally wouldn't allow it, but it's hard to know for sure whether someone painted their army or not. But we should, in my opinion, do everything possible to encourage people to model and paint their own armies (and if it's not possible, at least you can win other awards and stuff).

[TheNeverThere]

I agree with Erik. The MMO phrase "Pay To Win" comes to mind. It's like saying "Here, have a prize for having the most disposable income". However, I can't say I'm entirely against commissioning a painted army (just against entering it), because not everyone has the time to paint up a nice looking army (and who doesn't want a shiny army).

I think a nice compromise would be to have a speed-painting contest instead of a pre-painted army contest. Or for events that have multiple days, have the players bring in an unpainted mini, and then have them turn it in at the end of each day to a TO (so there's no swapping). Then base the painting points on those models at the end of the event.

Just my thoughts.

[StraightSilver]

Yeah I think the award should go to the painting service which would also help them get future work if it was a recognised event.

I must admit I would be a bit peeved if somebody won best painted with a commission army though but only because for me the trophies at tournaments are usually for 2 types of player.

I will probably never walk away from an event with a trophy for my gaming skills and prowess as I am an enthusiastic but frankly rubbish general! :)

However I am normally nominated for and have won best painted at a couple of events which makes entering tournies worthwhile for me, as I am going as a painter to show off my army which I am proud of.

I'm not saying that somebody who has paid for their army isn't just as proud, and I think if the army is the best one there it probably deserves to win but I would still feel a bit cheated.

But there is no way to police it unless it is a recognisable commission which some are.

The same problem has cropped in Golden Daemon in the past as well though with other people entering somebody else's work that they paid for, and walking away with a trophy.

[Martok]

As a commission painted I have been present when people have won awards with models I have painted. For the most part they are people that enjoy the game but are not interested by the painting side of things. In each instance they have been shocked and super embarrassed as that part of the awards ceremony hadn't even occurred to them. For the most part I do not think it is something that they should be looked down on for. In future they might make it clear before the tournament that they didn't paint the army now that they are aware.

The only instance where it is a little unpleasant is if there are overall tournament points gained from it otherwise I just see it as a painter that may or may not be present winning an award.

[Psyfer]

Personally, I can't paint for crap, so I get my models commissioned. I also make sure that the event organisers are well aware of this so I don't get best painted etc.

[Charistoph]

I would never enter a commissioned model, even in the event allowed it. On a personal level, it's wrong to show off another's work as your own. It's insulting to the person you hired to paint the model, and makes you look bad.

For some tournaments, you don't enter individually, but it is based on what models you bring to the table.

In other words, the models are entered as soon as they hit the board. This can make it hard for one to opt out of it, especially if you just joined the tournament for the game and didn't read the painting award rules.

[Psyfer]

I also think that awards for best painted shouldn't be a part of the gaming award per-se, not because I think painters don't deserve credit, but as pointed out above, it encourages cheating. Have painting prizes but have them separate from the gaming side of the tournament.

[Path Walker]

I think prizes should go to well rounded generals, and should take composition of the army, sportsmanship and painting, with those categories at least as important as how you play on the day, this is how the old GW tournaments were judged and they were much better competitions for it.

[40kGamer]

I will probably never walk away from an event with a trophy for my gaming skills and prowess as I am an enthusiastic but frankly rubbish general! :)

I've never maxed out Battle Points but have plenty of trophies from Paint and Sports... so naturally I prefer soft score rounded hobby events. :p

[kermit]

As a hobbiest, I enjoy all aspects of Warhammer & 40K. I have lost best painted at tournaments to armies that I have painted for other people. I completely think that if you haven't painted your army, you should not be entitled to any prize associated with it.

I do have a few questions when it comes to this discussion:

How should this sort of thing be handled when the painting (even best sportsperson) gets added into a "Best Over-all" Category?

Should someone who hasn't painted their army just be exempted from this category?

What percentage of points should be "fair" for Painting / Sportsperson / Game Play Points to get "Best Over-all"?

This often becomes a bone of contention at some local tournaments.

Thank you in advance!

[ShadowcatX]

Honestly, if the tournament allows commissioned armies to be entered in painting, why shouldn't someone enter? Is it all that different from winning a tournament with a netlist rather than one you designed yourself?

[40kGamer]

Honestly, if the tournament allows commissioned armies to be entered in painting, why shouldn't someone enter? Is it all that different from winning a tournament with a netlist rather than one you designed yourself?

I put a lot of effort into painting so I draw great satisfaction from taking down commissioned armies. Not many people are willing to pay $ for top conversion and artwork anywho. :p

[John McLeish]

Sounds like the textbook definition of 'pay to win' to me.

[Mr Mystery]

Just be honest about it.

Seriously - smallish placard stating who painted your force shown at every game. If you win an award, big them up.

Whilst it's not something I'd do, there's nothing wrong with using a commission painter.

[White Tiger88]

90% of armies i have seen going to events are pro-painted..........................So they get full points on it....Kinda think its unfair but what can ya do?

[The_Hobbyist]

I would have to agree with most of the replies here. It should fall on the organisers on if it is a fair entry. However, I think that in the spirit of friendly competition, the Owner of the model shouldn't put a model that wasn't painted by their hand. Unless, of course they are submitting it for the painter and the prize and all winnings go to them.

[cyrad1]

You might as well go out and buy a trophy. I've withdrawn from comps for allowing commissioned pieces, unless the artist is there.

[Chuck777]

What about building your army? I'm not even talking about pro-conversion, just some one else building your basic infantry guys.

[sorienor]

Most of the tournaments I've played in locally have gone to "favorite army" instead of "best painted".

Each player votes for his/her top 3 armies and whoever gets the most votes wins.

[gregtheslacker]

Honestly, if the tournament allows commissioned armies to be entered in painting, why shouldn't someone enter? Is it all that different from winning a tournament with a netlist rather than one you designed yourself?

Putting a bought army on the table requires no skill, just a certain amount of disposable income. A poor or even mediocre general still at least has to be able to use the netlist properly.

[marful]

My thoughts...

Are we talking about a "Painting Competition" or just "Best Painted Army"? Because these two are completely different.

If we are talking about winning "Best Painted Army" award, that to me, is just about having the best painted army. But if the award was for a "painting competition", then having painted the models yourself is important as the competition is about individual painting skill.

Regardless, painting skill/quality should be completely disassociated from tournament ranking. Sure, there should be a minimum standard for having all models be actually painted, but to dock/give extra points based upon painting skill/money investiture instead of quality of generalship and playing the game is just retarded. The tournament is about planning your forces, taking advantage of opportunities, making good tactical decisions, etc. I.E. about playing the game.


Not everyone is a master painter. Not everyone is a master general.

[lobster-overlord]

Central Florida has a couple of players like this, they would not only used bought armies, but also loaded dice. We caught one of them with the loaded dice at the second event, and then found out shortly after the first that his buddy had bought the army after having won the top army prize. It sucks, but it happens, and there's not much you can do about it after the fact. Before hand, I think it should be limited to you painting it. I can't win the tournament on skill, so for me to take the top, I would have to find some way to cheat in battle. So why should someone who can't build/paint be able to buy their way to the top just because they can stop on the battle field.

John M>

[Joedog]

As long as you make sure to give credit to the actual painter, it should be fine.

I mean, it's not like a NASCAR driver has to design and build their own car.

[Joedog]

Putting a bought army on the table requires no skill, just a certain amount of disposable income. A poor or even mediocre general still at least has to be able to use the netlist properly.

It requires some skill, and definitely requires taste. I've seen some terrible looking "pro painted" armies that were painted to the specifications the player demanded.

[StraightSilver]

My thoughts...

Are we talking about a "Painting Competition" or just "Best Painted Army"? Because these two are completely different.

If we are talking about winning "Best Painted Army" award, that to me, is just about having the best painted army. But if the award was for a "painting competition", then having painted the models yourself is important as the competition is about individual painting skill.

Regardless, painting skill/quality should be completely disassociated from tournament ranking. Sure, there should be a minimum standard for having all models be actually painted, but to dock/give extra points based upon painting skill/money investiture instead of quality of generalship and playing the game is just retarded. The tournament is about planning your forces, taking advantage of opportunities, making good tactical decisions, etc. I.E. about playing the game.


Not everyone is a master painter. Not everyone is a master general.

I get completely what you're saying with this but I disagree that painting scores or awards should be kept seperate.

I am not ashamed to admit that I am a terrible general. :) The bottom table should have a plaque with my name on it. :)

I think the highest I have ever placed in a tournament is 17th out of 40 players which for me was great but I regularly find myself in the bottom 5.

That doesn't stop me going though, I actually really enjoy the day because it is a nice opportunity to meet new players, hopefully learn to play better and show off all of our armies.

I don't go for trophies or prizes but I must admit it sometimes gets me down at the end of the day when all the trophies are handed out as I feel like being back at school and being the last person to be chosen for the football team.

So for me, as a far more competent painter than general, it's nice to get recognised for something I can do well and I have picked up several best painted nominations and won a trophy or two.

For me "The Hobby" is not just about being a general and neither should tournaments although I agree good generals should not lose tournie points (or rather miss out on them) if they aren't a great painter, but those of us on the bottom (or children's, lol) tables at least should get some recognition for our painting.

And that's why it's a bit depressing at the end of a tournament to see somebody pick up lots of trophies because they had more money to spend on their hobby and it shouldn't be about that.

But that isn't the fault of the tournaments, that's down to the individuals in question.

I think the word I am looking for is "ungentlemanly". :)

[Nasigoring]

When I was much younger (18 - 12 years ago) I entered a commissioned army in to a competition and won - it felt pretty horrible. There was a 14 year old who was a particularly good painter and should've won it TBH. I've never done it since.

Moral of the story - long story short, shouldn't be allowed to IMHO.