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.

Tangent from another thread-the 40k Armageddon Rumours one.

To make my stance clear, here in the first post:

-I don't like painting. Painted minis are cool, but I personally do not like painting them.
-I value 40k as a game (even if the rules can be kinda naff) and, as part of that, have no objections to grey plastic on the tabletop.
-If you feel different, that's 100% okay. If someone turns a game down because their opponent's minis aren't painted, that's totally fine. But you shouldn't impose your wants on others who don't feel the same.

Pretty much agree. I like painted minis, they looks cool and even more-so on the battle field. While I do enjoy painting, I do tend to lose patience with it. When I could see, I didn't know many of the techniques. Now I know a few, but can't see the detail real good anymore to paint at a good quality.

I also understand it takes skill and time, not everyone has those, so it's ok if your minis aren't painted, most of mine aren't yet.

I greatly prefer playing with/against a painted army, but would/have never turned down a game because an army is unpainted.

This tangent came about due to the preview (probably ahead of schedule) of the prepainted terrain, which led to the discussion of prepaints vs. painting your own, and eventually landed on people complaining about the 10VP rule - did I miss anything?

Did anyone ask about that rule in the Q&A GW did yesterday and they ignored it, or was it not raised at all? If the latter, it would seem to be not as big a deal as some posters were making it out to be.

I play not only with unpainted, but blu-tacked models most times. The miniatures are so horribly expensive once you include all the kitbashing etc, the last thing I want to do with my minis is hastly slap some paint on and "ruin" them forever. If someone has a problem with that, its OK, I dont have to play them.

In our small gaming group it has evolved into an unwritten rule to bring armies that are about 90% painted. There's the occasional "character I recently bought and want to try out" that's grey, or some WIP'S that got their primary colours the night before the game, but overall armies are painted.
Bases are a totally different thing though, and I'm personally very bad/ slow at basing stuff. They get the classic bestial brown treatment and usually about 10 years later (not an exaggeration) I have a phase where I base a lot of stuff.

I wouldn't see much sense in playing miniature wargames without the spectacle of painted models on painted terrain.

When it comes to gameplay there's an entire universe of so-much-better designed cutting-edge games (like modern board games) that just put the sad, obsolete, tedious, imbalanced and clunky miniature wargames designs to shame. Wargames commonly have shallow gamestates/decisions created with inelegant complicated rules (caveats and exceptions galore that somehow still have plenty of loopholes) when a well designed game should really do the opposite.

If I were in tabletop games only for the best quality game designs, I wouldn't touch miniature wargames with a 3m pole. But even the most modern, state-of-the-art board games can't compete with them in the category of visual spectacle and the scope of the hobby aspect. So I kind of suffer the gameplay for the spectacle

Is this an actual for issue for anyone or is it just tournaments and and the internet? I’ve never seen anyone refuse a game because of unpainted minis but that’s in my bubble, I’m interested are people actually having this issue.

I personally don’t put unpainted models on the table. I like the look of a fully painted army. I also use the desire to get minis into battle as help motivating them across the workbench.

I prefer to see a painted army across the table. But I don’t hold others to my standards. I’m just happy to get a game in.

I don’t care who paints my opponent’s army. They do it themselves, or commission someone? Whatever. Just don’t take credit for other people’s work. And please answer if I have questions on how you did something. We’re all fellow hobbyists here. A rising tide lifts all boats. If we can help each other with painting tips, everything looks better.

I’ve never claimed the 10 points for painted but I’ve had them given to me before though. Tie game, shaking hands at the end fully happy with that outcome, and they point out I’m battle ready and they were not. I’ll take the win if offered. But I also don’t do real tournaments, just fun games at the FLGS. So zero stakes on the W/L. Winning is fun, but I’m there for the journey, not the finish.

Does the 10 points encourage people to get painted models to the table? For some people, yes. For others, less so. It’s a burden for an aspect of the hobby they don’t care about. As was mentioned in the other thread, 40k is like 3 hobbies in a trenchcoat. Lore, modeling, painting, wargame. Not everyone likes every aspect. And that’s OK. I’d rather not force people to engage in parts they don’t care for.

I’ve painted armies for friends who like the lore/game, but not the building/painting side. I’ve played against people who added one painted model to their army a month because they pushed themselves to only put their best work down and not compromise. I’ve played against endless hordes or grey. Lovely commissioned armies painted to crazy standard. ebay mishmash rescue armies. It’s all good.

I will say that with contrast/speed paints getting an army to a decent 3 color minimum battle-ready state is pretty easy these days. I know it’s not for everyone, or works the best for every army. But something to consider if people want to join the fight against the Pile of Shame and the Grey Legions.

not worth it.

Since returning to the hobby in 2021, I have a strict non tolerance policy for fielding unpainted models. If it's not finished to a tolerable standard, I am not playing with it. That doesn't mean I am proud of everything I've painted, my Tyrannocyte and my Flamers don't look great (I just didn't end up liking the models that much), so they ended up a bit low effort, but nonetheless they are fully painted and stylistically consistent.

I have by far more tolerance for my opponent's models. I am not very interested in playing model police. If I am bothering to play a game, spotting unpainted models isn't enough for me to pack back up.

With that said, to be entirely frank, GW's rules really are not that good. If I was in this purely for a mechanically good game, odds are I'd not actually choose Warhammer in the first place. What makes this game worth it is the spectacle of painted miniatures on a decent table, put into an at least basic narrative context.

Ergo, while unpainted models may not be the cause of me turning down a match, if another player isn't interested in the spectacle and just want to game for game's sake it may be a sign of us having different tastes and priorities, and I may be seeking games elsewhere in the future.

I will also echo what Nevelon said about contrast. Seriously. As someone who has painted over 500 models in the last 5 years, but consider myself an overall slow painter, the only way I get things done is by heavy use of time- and effort-efficient techniques like contrast and drybrushing. Recently I attempted a new project where I painted traditionally in the old-school style, and it was a shock. It's a brick wall in comparison. I can totally get people feeling daunted and deterred if that's the only thing they've tried.

I'm not sure what my position is really.

Its a while ago now, but I used to be infamously the worst painter of our group. I'd paint everything at breakneck speed to get it on the table ASAP. Two sprays, add some metals, wash everything, jab on some details and done. (Tbh I think I got this reputation for trying lurid colours that I clearly lacked the patience to work with - while others went with "they have black armour. And clothes. And...")

As I've got better at painting - and taking more time over it - I've become much more tolerant of playing unpainted minis. I'd rather someone takes the time to paint something to a high standard than just feel they have through the mechanical process above.

I guess my only snobbery would be things like say the LVO years back. It felt weird to watch people (the quasi celebrities of competitive 40k) who were clearly spending considerable sums on the hobby - but their minis were painted up the barest minimum of "Battle Ready". It felt like if you were spending that sort of money, why not pay someone to paint your army? I wouldn't expect normal people to do that - but if you've made 40k your career, maybe?

Of course the response would probably be that this is only the army for this tournament - and the models had been scrounged up from various sources, and would be returned afterwards.

I think there is a few different things all coming together that makes it an issue that keeps coming up.
First difference in what the hobby is too people, but also that 40k army’s are quite large. So even doing fast painting can be quite time consuming.

But It also puts me off when there is a painting requirement for tournaments and the tables look a little off putting. And some of that is rules. Even seeing some of the tables where the organisers clearly went above and beyond can look weird due to the rules they abide by.
And it seems kind of counterintuitive that GW push for army painting, but do nothing really about terrain. Which seems to be getting worse than even just 10 years ago.

I really like terrain, it’s my hobby more than the miniatures I think now days.

 JNAProductions wrote:
Tangent from another thread-the 40k Armageddon Rumours one.

To make my stance clear, here in the first post:

-I don't like painting. Painted minis are cool, but I personally do not like painting them.
-I value 40k as a game (even if the rules can be kinda naff) and, as part of that, have no objections to grey plastic on the tabletop.
-If you feel different, that's 100% okay. If someone turns a game down because their opponent's minis aren't painted, that's totally fine. But you shouldn't impose your wants on others who don't feel the same.

I enjoy painting (at my own pace), but my main interests in 40k are as a game (especially with a story-telling bent). So while cool paint jobs are appreciated, I never begrudge someone showing up with gray plastic.

The 10VP for painted models rule honestly bugs me more than it should. It just feels like you're telling someone that they're hobbying wrong or getting in the way of the parts of the hobby they enjoy because someone wanted to punish people for not enjoying the same aspects of the hobby that they do. If someone doesn't like painting, I don't want them to be at a 10 point disadvantage every game because their way of enjoying the hobby differs from a paint enthusiast.

I also hate the idea of someone rushing to get their army tabletop ready instead of enjoying the painting at their own pace. Instead of waiting for a clear schedule and spending the afternoon finally taking the time to enjoy the act of putting paint on plastic, you might find yourself stressing to hurriedly throw paint on your models after work one night because you don't want to be at a disadvantage in the tournament that weekend.

I'm always perplexed when people are onboard with using the painting part of the hobby to interfere with the gaming part of the hobby. And I feel like people who are okay with things like the 10VP rule tend not to ask themselves why they're okay with it. I think cosplay is neat. If someone wants to show up to our games costumed as the commander of their army, that's awesome. But I don't want a rule that says you're at -10VP every game if you don't show up with at least three pieces of 40k costuming on. I like writing and reading backstories to armies. I don't want a 10 point advantage just because my opponent didn't feel like writing a two paragraph backstory for their warlord or whatever.

 Wyldhunt wrote:

Spoiler:

 JNAProductions wrote:
Tangent from another thread-the 40k Armageddon Rumours one.

To make my stance clear, here in the first post:

-I don't like painting. Painted minis are cool, but I personally do not like painting them.
-I value 40k as a game (even if the rules can be kinda naff) and, as part of that, have no objections to grey plastic on the tabletop.
-If you feel different, that's 100% okay. If someone turns a game down because their opponent's minis aren't painted, that's totally fine. But you shouldn't impose your wants on others who don't feel the same.

I enjoy painting (at my own pace), but my main interests in 40k are as a game (especially with a story-telling bent). So while cool paint jobs are appreciated, I never begrudge someone showing up with gray plastic.

The 10VP for painted models rule honestly bugs me more than it should. It just feels like you're telling someone that they're hobbying wrong or getting in the way of the parts of the hobby they enjoy because someone wanted to punish people for not enjoying the same aspects of the hobby that they do. If someone doesn't like painting, I don't want them to be at a 10 point disadvantage every game because their way of enjoying the hobby differs from a paint enthusiast.

I also hate the idea of someone rushing to get their army tabletop ready instead of enjoying the painting at their own pace. Instead of waiting for a clear schedule and spending the afternoon finally taking the time to enjoy the act of putting paint on plastic, you might find yourself stressing to hurriedly throw paint on your models after work one night because you don't want to be at a disadvantage in the tournament that weekend.

I'm always perplexed when people are onboard with using the painting part of the hobby to interfere with the gaming part of the hobby. And I feel like people who are okay with things like the 10VP rule tend not to ask themselves why they're okay with it. I think cosplay is neat. If someone wants to show up to our games costumed as the commander of their army, that's awesome. But I don't want a rule that says you're at -10VP every game if you don't show up with at least three pieces of 40k costuming on. I like writing and reading backstories to armies. I don't want a 10 point advantage just because my opponent didn't feel like writing a two paragraph backstory for their warlord or whatever.

Sgt. Cortez wrote:
That costume part made me chuckle and wonder why GW is not giving out 5VP if you use the faction specific dice they sell.

I'm pretty sure they'll've seen how quickly the faction dice generally go out of stock, otherwise they might.

Personally I think you can argue for any one part of the combined hobby for not being "for everyone".

Not everyone likes (or is good) at building models; painting; converting; playing; etc...

That said I think that if you try to remove one aspect to try and broaden appeal you start to lose focus on the actual hobby itself. You can water the hobby down by removing painting; by giving prebuild models; by simplifying game rules to nothing but jokes - each time you do that the hobby itself changes and you're chancing a market that isn't the original one. If anything you're also pushing that original one away.

GW isn't a firm struggling to make ends meat for years; its not a market in extreme decline and in need of a massive re-focus to try and appeal to markets outside of a rapidly shrinking home market.

It's a market that is, if anything, in a long term period of steady growth. Right now GW doesn't have to change the formula and if anything changing it is detrimental.


Hand-eye; creative outlet and so forth are part of what GW uses to help sell the hobby to parents of interested kids; its part of the appeal to many who engage with it.





I say this as someone with more grey than painted models who keeps promising to himself that "I'll learn painting instead of just buying paints" and so forth. It's my weakest area. Prepainted models would be super great for me in terms of fielding a painted force - BUT - I don't want to see it happen. Take that away and we'd lose something. We'd lose that painting community; that supportive (genuinely so) element of the hobby. We lose the chance to learn a new skill; to broaden the hobby into more than just one facet.

 Wyldhunt wrote:
The 10VP for painted models rule honestly bugs me more than it should. It just feels like you're telling someone that they're hobbying wrong or getting in the way of the parts of the hobby they enjoy because someone wanted to punish people for not enjoying the same aspects of the hobby that they do. If someone doesn't like painting, I don't want them to be at a 10 point disadvantage every game because their way of enjoying the hobby differs from a paint enthusiast.

I also hate the idea of someone rushing to get their army tabletop ready instead of enjoying the painting at their own pace. Instead of waiting for a clear schedule and spending the afternoon finally taking the time to enjoy the act of putting paint on plastic, you might find yourself stressing to hurriedly throw paint on your models after work one night because you don't want to be at a disadvantage in the tournament that weekend.

I'm always perplexed when people are onboard with using the painting part of the hobby to interfere with the gaming part of the hobby. And I feel like people who are okay with things like the 10VP rule tend not to ask themselves why they're okay with it. I think cosplay is neat. If someone wants to show up to our games costumed as the commander of their army, that's awesome. But I don't want a rule that says you're at -10VP every game if you don't show up with at least three pieces of 40k costuming on. I like writing and reading backstories to armies. I don't want a 10 point advantage just because my opponent didn't feel like writing a two paragraph backstory for their warlord or whatever.

I disagree with the premise that the appearance of your army is a wholly separate thing from the gameplay experience itself. Two painted armies fighting it out on the table is the defining imagery of this hobby. Every time you read a battle report in White Dwarf, or read through a rulebook, or go to a major event, it's all painted armies looking cool as they play. Nobody's marketing this game with two legions of grey tide, with repurposed action figures labeled 'Dreadnought', or bases with piles of bits on them standing in for models- it's assembled, painted, based, Citadel miniatures and how cool that looks that defines 40K.

This is not an e-sport where the gameplay is all that matters, it's a social and hobby experience as much as a tactical one. It's a normal expectation- because it's how the game is presented- that both you and your opponent collaborate to make the game a visual spectacle as well as a tactical exercise. There is no such expectation when it comes to custom fluff or cosplay, so you aren't likely to disappoint anyone by not engaging in those things.

In any case, though, the thing about the 10VP rule is that it's almost entirely symbolic. Major tournaments have their own painting requirements. Casual pick-up games at your local shop have no stakes, no significance to a close victory 'actually' coming out as a loss once you factor in that bonus. Normal, reasonable people are not going to lord a bonus 10VP over you. If anything, it's provided a framework for events that used to just forbid unpainted models altogether to accommodate them at a minor penalty- I remember a time when my local GW didn't allow unpainted models on their tables at all. So the 10VP doesn't really matter, but it is an explicit statement (on top of all the blatantly obvious implicit statements) that this is meant to be a game about painted models on a furnished table and you'd be cooler if your army looked half decent.

For what it's worth, I'm with you that I'd rather see people take their time and paint on their own terms. That's why I've never turned down a game for someone having a partially painted army, nor have I ever pulled the 'um ackshually you lost because I get 10VP' card, which would be peak jackassery. But I've seen people complain about how they're forced to slop on three colors for lack of time, while they keep showing up every weekend to play, and are constantly buying new stuff. I don't really have a lot of sympathy for that. It's one thing to just say you don't like painting, don't want to paint, own it, and be respectful when engaging with people who do value painting to make sure you both have a good experience with the game. It's another to frame an unwillingness to engage in that side of the hobby as being a victim of circumstance, let alone spitefully obeying the letter of the rule while clearly dismissing its spirit. Between hobby products like Contrast and the ubiquity of online tutorials, it has never been easier to paint to a decent standard if that is something you genuinely want to pursue.

And lastly, to circle back to paint-vs-gameplay a bit, I would argue there are tangible gameplay differences between a highlander-style army whose owner has been slowly painting it for the last three years, versus a grey tide army that the owner bought according to the latest meta developments and won't paint because it'll be sold or relegated to a box in another three months once it's no longer top-tier. Paint is, to some degree, emblematic of a fundamental difference in perspective between viewing models as hobby projects versus viewing models as playing pieces, and the players who embody either extreme of that spectrum are unlikely to have a great time together for reasons that go far beyond how their respective armies look.

As always, the hobby is what you make of it and as long as you and your opponents are on the same page, knock yourselves out.

I’m what you might call a Born Again Painter.

Used to be reluctant at best, then in 2024 I blitzed a huge backlog of Heresy and Legions Imperialis stuff, to the point my entire collections of both were fully painted.

What made the difference? Contrast/Speed Paint. Whilst my paintjobs remain pretty basic, those paints allowed me to crash through it all quickly, and to a self acceptable quality.

I absolutely understand painting feeling like a chore. And sure Contrast type paints particularly suit Marines, where your armour is predominantly a single colour speeding things considerably. But for those who don’t enjoy painting? I do recommend having a play with contrast or equivalent. They genuinely changed my hobby, and I’d say for the better.

 Overread wrote:
It's a market that is, if anything, in a long term period of steady growth. Right now GW doesn't have to change the formula and if anything changing it is detrimental.

I think, in part, that steady has come *because* the hobby has changed.
More and more over the years the focus has shifted to "the game" over "the experience". The number of people who just want an army they can take to a tournament is significantly higher now than it was years ago.

Personally I greatly prefer playing against a painted army. The visual experience is very much part of the experience. I'll never refuse a game for being unpainted though.
The same is kinda true of my own armies. I really try and get them painted, and once I've got a fully-painted army I'll generally then stop playing with unpainted stuff for that army. I can play the painted stuff until I get the new stuff painted.
But for a whole new army, I'd rather play the army and slowly get caught up on painting over time.
So, for example, my Ultramarines HH army was slowly painted over about two years and based over a third year. Now I only play fully painted armies and add/change units as new ones are finished.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I really like that GW is making it easier to field fully painted stuff.

Contrast really got people who would never pick up a brush before to pick one up and get paint on the table.
I don't think it's good paint, sometimes honestly barely better than bare plastic, but stuff happened.

Hopefully prepainted terrain will mean fewer tables of bare MDF and more with nicely painted stuff.
Although honestly the cost difference of the MDF means the needle won't materially move. I doubt my local clubs are going to throw out and replace their tables either lol.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
I’m what you might call a Born Again Painter.

Used to be reluctant at best, then in 2024 I blitzed a huge backlog of Heresy and Legions Imperialis stuff, to the point my entire collections of both were fully painted.

What made the difference? Contrast/Speed Paint. Whilst my paintjobs remain pretty basic, those paints allowed me to crash through it all quickly, and to a self acceptable quality.

I absolutely understand painting feeling like a chore. And sure Contrast type paints particularly suit Marines, where your armour is predominantly a single colour speeding things considerably. But for those who don’t enjoy painting? I do recommend having a play with contrast or equivalent. They genuinely changed my hobby, and I’d say for the better.

On a similar note and a bit offtopic since we are in the 40K subforum, but it also helps me to have some non-GW miniatures with less clutter and details on the table occasionally. It can be very enjoyable to finish a squad of 20 Bowmen or whatever with a couple colors and not having to paint some bags, pockets, straps, trophies, goggles or whatever small Detail on every miniature. Daemons, Necrons (and I guess tyranids?) are good for that as well.

I don't care how other people manage their models. But I enjoy the spectacle of a game with nice terrain and painted miniatures. I don't necessarily enjoy painting but it's worth the effort. I customize my armies, give them names, and make the characters in a story played out on the tabletop. Winning and losing is secondary to that.

I am certainly guilty of spending a lot more time building than I do painting. I would say that my aversion to painting led to my predominantly mechanised orks, who are (I'd guess) about 30% painted, and most of that is the vehicles.

I find painting a mini extremely enjoyable. I like to do as well as I can, blending and mixing paints, trying to get effects on them, using clear varnish to make things look wet, all that jazz. I have a few D&D minis which I am extremely proud of.

But, I find painting 10 minis laborious. Time to paint the metal on the guns of all of them. Oops, missed the metal on this one, now I have to go back. And then you look at how I have over 100 unpainted boys, and I lose interest before I even start.

If I could do it again, I'd be strict with myself to only build the next thing after I have painted the last. But it's too late - I'm at 12000 points and 8000 unpainted. I'm getting back into it, aiming to paint my Rebel Grots (who're only 1500pts or so) before I make any more.

Regarding gaming, even when I have a fully painted army (which does fill me with pride, and I love to see it) I would never shun a game because of the paint of the opposition. My friend who I play against and I have a "one unpainted model" houserule, which is where if one player has a fully painted army and the other doesn't, we have one unpainted model handy to swap out for a painted one, so that neither army gets the ridiculous 10vp for painting!

When I was younger I always tried to get my stuff painted but we'd play unpainted too sometimes. Fond memories were made with unpainted models on awful looking boards. I always aspired to better, but especially in University I didn't have the time, space or money to work on that side of things.

Now that I'm older and I don't have an active group any more, I'm doing everything myself. I make all the terrain, I paint all the miniatures and I provide all the rules. The other person just has to show up and play. And I've found in this set up I just don't want to play with less than fully painted armies on less than nicely built and painted terrain. Even if it takes me months of extra time, it's worth it to me.

But then, I'm one of those people who enjoys all the aspects of the hobby except probably actually building the models. Thank god for simple monopose! So I don't mind spending months painting, making scenery and painting it, and getting everything organised. It's my "lonely fun" time in the hobby.

I understand completely if people don't want to do that. If I have the time to join a local community, I'll be tolerant of other people having unpainted stuff. But given the choice to play against an unpainted army or a painted, I'd rather play the painted. And if I was establishing a group, I'd like to establish a culture of playing with painted stuff.

We're all at different times in our lives and have different priorities and that's alright. It's sad that there's a nasty feeling about unpainted stuff taking the fun out of things for people. For that reason I'm pretty fine with pre-paints. I don't see an issue at all. I've used prepaints for D&D and I'm generally happy enough with them. Sometimes I do a bit of touching up but usually not. If someone showed up to play a mini agnostic game with some prepaints like that I'd be more than happy to play with them. Prepainted 40K is fine by me.

Encouragement Mode.

A chunk of it is finding something that works for you.

I’ve been able to paint Industrial Terrain really quickly after I found a really quick, really effective base layer recipe. Spray it black. Then get a nice mahogany type brown and give it a hefty drybrush. Then a second drybrush with a gunmetal. I tend to do the second drybrush before the first has fully dried, so there’s some easy blending.

Net result is a suitably dingey, well used industrial metallic base. From there? Stipple on the bold colours of your choice, and pick out any greeblies you feel will add contrast.

Should work well on Orky vehicles too, resulting in something dinged up and tabletop standard pretty quickly.

Andykp wrote:
Is this an actual for issue for anyone or is it just tournaments and and the internet? I’ve never seen anyone refuse a game because of unpainted minis but that’s in my bubble, I’m interested are people actually having this issue.

This is one of those rare negative encounters you can experience that gets turned into an anecdote that the internet spends far too long wringing their hands over. It shouldn't be an issue and rarely seems to be in reality but people are very good about overthinking hypothetical social situations and locking themselves in cages of their own design.

Personally, I only play painted but its not something I expect from anyone else. When I start a new game or army I'll often try it out unpainted, but once I have a playable force painted I'll not add new things until they're complete, largely as motivation to get it painted and also a bit to avoid purchasing things I don't have the motivation to paint.

Andykp 818951 11821619 wrote:Is this an actual for issue for anyone or is it just tournaments and and the internet? I’ve never seen anyone refuse a game because of unpainted minis but that’s in my bubble, I’m interested are people actually having this issue.

It has happened to me, because the potential opponent was the kind of player who values aesthetics more than other parts of the game.
And it was fine, because he was polite about it. Would've been nice to get a game in, but since he wouldn't've enjoyed it, I get why he turned it down.

It is an odd one, and I’m not sure either party is in the wrong in that circumstance, particularly as you say both were polite about it.

Again, Encouragement Mode? Would you be open to folks recommending painting videos for your armies?

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
It is an odd one, and I’m not sure either party is in the wrong in that circumstance, particularly as you say both were polite about it.

Again, Encouragement Mode? Would you be open to folks recommending painting videos for your armies?

I've got plenty of painting support at my local GW-the staff there are super knowledgeable and friendly.

Personally, I found that looking at painting videos and the like made me less motivated. Loosening up, finding a standard I was happy with with techniques I didn't find onerous was how I liked to paint and I get a lot more done that way.