How do you feel about "professionally" painted armies?

[DarkAngelHopeful]

Dear BoLS readers and guests,

I find that I don't have the skill to paint my models to the standards I want or the time and desire to work on my painting skills to obtain said standard. However, I do enjoy having models that look professionally painted. As such, I pay my best friend, an art teacher who paints display quality work, to paint my models. I also contract out another professional model painter to work other modeling projects since he has more time than my best friend, as painting war gaming models is his profession.

As someone who enjoys having models look professionally painted, but who pays for that professional standard, how do you feel about someone who pays people to paint their armies in general?

How would you rate a player's painting score for their army in a tournament if they explained that they had paid to have them painted, but had cited who painted them?

As a caveat, I would like to state that I always mention the person who painted my models to give them full credit and do a little word of mouth advertising for them.

Very Respectfully, DarkAngelHopeful

[fuzzbuket]

i am not against "pro painted" armies however the modelling/painting is one of the funnest things about THE HOBBy

i used to have NO time for painting so i wok e up 5 mins earlier and did 5 mins of painting befor school! i used to suck at painting but i got better

remember:

THE MORE YOU PAiNT THE BEttEr You GET

as for tournemnt scores id sadly give your painting a 0 because it isnt YOUR painting however being nice and explaining it might give you a bit more sportsmanship scores :P

(sadly this is because:
if a newbie paints his army badly but tried VERY hard should he get a higher painting score than someone who just got his army painted for him??)

just try to find some tuts on the web (and watch your friend paint this will give you LOADS of tips )

most can look good with (colours for custom eldar warlocks in brackets)

whilst one colour is drying do another part of the model this speeds up painting time!!

Robes
spray undercoat (black)
undercoat (scab red)
heavy drybrush (blood red)
light drybrush ( blood red/bleached bone 1:1)
edge highlight (skull white)

armour
shadows (shadow grey
lighter shadows (1:1 white/grey
armour colour (skull white

weapons
base (boltgun metal
highlight (mithril silver
wash (sepia wash


good luck hope this helps

-fuzz

[Lemt]

I think it's OK, specially the way you go about it. To put an example, would you give your opponent a low sportmanship score just because he got his list on the net? So I see no problem with having a professional paint your army (unless, of course, tournament rules say otherwise or you claim credit for the painting).

[DrLove42]

I think it's OK, specially the way you go about it. To put an example, would you give your opponent a low sportmanship score just because he got his list on the net? So I see no problem with having a professional paint your army (unless, of course, tournament rules say otherwise or you claim credit for the painting).

But sportsmanship is about how they are to play against, Yes there list has a part in that but the person playing it could be really friendly or an absolute ***. If they downloaded their list, and their personality of the internet that'd be different .

As for pro painted it doesn't bother me, i just feel you're missing out. Modelling and painting is my favourite part of the hobby, so if you turn up with a pro paint i feel you've missed out, but i don't complain cos you've got some gorgeous models to look at

[Commissar Lewis]

Personally I say more power to em. If people want to pay someone to paint their army it's their perrogative. And if the pro painters are good enough to make a living off it then good for them.

I guess the main point is I'm more or less indifferent about it.

[Kahoolin]

I think that's a really tricky question. If a tourney has prizes for best painted (as many do) then I think it's pretty obviously unfair to enter an army you didn't paint and possibly win a prize. Not to mention painting can sometimes affect overall score. If you get 10/10 for painting when you paid a pro you are effectively buying tournament points. Treating pro-painted armies as if the player painted them defeats the purpose of painting scores and prizes.

But how can you police it anyway? Some people, like you, might be honest, but others might pay a pro and then tell everyone they did it so they can win the prize/get the points.

So I guess my opinion is that if there're prizes involved, only armies painted by the competitor should be in the running, and if painting score affects overall score you should get zero for painting if you didn't paint it yourself. The problem, as with so many competitions, is getting people to be honest

Friendlies games as always, who cares? I certainly wouldn't think you were any less of a hobbyist because you don't enjoy/have time for painting. If I'm at a tourney though, I don't see why you should get the same points for painting as me when you didn't actually lift a brush. Anyone who thinks you should is pretty much saying they don't think painting should be relevant to tourneys.

[Suttobs]

I suppose I feel conflicted about this.
On one hand, as someone who is frustrated by painting (I am almost completely colour blind, painting to a MageKnight/D&D Mini standard is tough enough, highlights are borderline impossible, Dark red/brown/black all look the same, etc.) I have no problem with people paying or having a friend paint their armies. I'd do it myself, except.... price.
I don't do the tournament scene myself, and instinctively, if you didn't paint your army, it seems you shouldn't get points for it. I see no reason they shouldn't be eligable for "best painted" etc, as long as proper credit is given. Of course that opens the door to all the drama you occasionally see at the Golden Daemons...

[Iceman]

I'm with Kahoolin. If prizes are being handed out for painting, then anyone who didn't paint their army shouldn't get a prize. Obviously, it would be virtually impossible to police that if the person in question didn't admit to contracting out the painting.
Other than that, if you don't enjoy the painting aspect and can afford to have someone else paint them for you, go right ahead. Although, I do think you are missing out on one of the things that gives you real pride in your army.

[Fizzics]

Personally I say more power to em. If people want to pay someone to paint their army it's their prerogative. And if the pro painters are good enough to make a living off it then good for them.

I guess the main point is I'm more or less indifferent about it.

Edit: I fixed the quote's misspelling


I echo this emotion. It's whatever they want to do.

[Lerra]

This is one reason why I dislike paint scores at a tournament. A separate category for best painted is great, and that should be only for people who paint their own minis, but I don't think you should be penalized in other categories for having a pro-painted army or adding a pro-painted HQ to your army. If you don't like to paint, why should I force you to paint? That seems silly considering it's a hobby and it's supposed to be fun.

The other reason why I dislike paint scores being used for overall points is that it is so subjective. I saw a beautifully painted and converted army at Adepticon get tanked on points because the judge didn't like Orks and disliked the cartoony, bright, silly style that the guy had chosen to emphasize in his army. The judge thought orks were supposed to look more vicious and feral.