Suggest by SamplesoWoopass

Here is a sample of dipping for those who do not know what it is
http://www.dakkadakka.com/wiki/en/Dipping_Tyranids

What is dipping?

I've added a link to show sample dipping in the first post.

I don't see anything wrong with it. Some people don't have time to paint thier entire armies with a brush. I'd much rather see a dipped army on the field than a gray plastic army.

Those Tyranids look grand after going through the dipping process. Hell if you weren't doing that it would just mean spending an age applying washes to the figures individually.

I haven't got anything that I think dipping would be appropriate for, but if I was doing a heap of tyranids I would probably do this.

Aww it's not that bad.
I just used to put brown ink on all my flat base coated model and that was enough.

I have never dipped my GW models but I had used the technique years ago to great effect with historical models, particularly Vikings, & Romans in 28mm, as it works great with any type of chainmail.

I found one additional benefit of this technique is that the models paintjob is much more protected and less likely to chip or rub off.

While I would never dip my models as I consider it 'shortcut' to getting the models painted, I can se the benefits to getting an army all painted up and ready to go in no time.

I've no problems with dipping, but have no models it's particularly suitable for. I did give it a go with some of my WOTR figures, using Army Painter Quickshade (soft tone) - a Warrior of Minas Tirith (i.e. metal plate armour with blue-grey underskirt and black shield) and a Ranger of Gondor (dark green cloak, dark brown leather clothes and reddish brown hard leather armour and accessories), but the effect was noticably inferior to washing, so I'll stick with that in future.

(In the former case, the dip was just a bit too, well, brown, and affected by gravity too much so it was slightly more obvious in the bottom half of the model. In the second case, it was just too subtle to make much of a difference. Most importantly, in both cases it didn't pick up detail as well as washing did. I've not uploaded pictures of the rangers yet, but I have stuck up a comparison shot of the dipped and washed Warrior, just so you can see the difference at a glance, here on Dakka. Er, note that they aren't exactly brilliant examples of painting, what with them having been painted along with fourteen other models over the course of five hours, then all sixteen were tidied up and washed in two hours. They're still missing certain elements, like their underarms having cloth painted on so it doesn't appear to be made of flexible metal, and their hair [not visible at the front] being painted in. But hopefully they'll serve to demonstrate the difference between the two effects)

Some armies lend themselves to dipping. I dipped most of my Nurgle daemons, and they turned out really well.

It's another tool in the toolbox, and like any other tool can be used correctly or incorrectly.

I can sure see the Pro's and Con's of this method but I prefer to stick with washes.

Bulk dipping would be great for beginners and those with way too many rank and file troops, however you wont have a very diverse looking force as the finish tends to settle the same of each and every model.

Where as a wash by it's nature and method of application gives a similar effect but still varies from mini to mini (through a greater amount of control) so even your rank and file troop have slight changes in them, if that makes any sense.

Anything that gets painted models on the table and gives good results is fine by me.

The poll answers are kind of biased against dipping. With all the whining against unpainted models I can't see why people would then whine about dipped models. Many people who love the 40k gaming aspect don't necessarily love the hobby aspect and so don't desire to put a lot of time into their models. Of course it's more cool to sit across the table from a Golden Demon quality painted army but it's also cool to get a game in against a really good opponent who may have a plastic gray army.

I use polyshades now and then, but i brush it on I dont actually dip the mini in the can.

I used it on my Nercon warriors and the SM Im doing for my son. On the necrons I applied the dip as a topcoat & shading.

For the SM (red ones) I used the dip them dullcoted them. It turned the dip from a brown to a black. Gives them a very dirty look, like they have been in a bunch of fire, smoke, explosions, etc. Battlefield stuff.

I have only found this effect on a red base coat. I did a terminator with a medium gray base, dip, then dullcote and it retained the brownish tint.

I like using it on rank and file stuff. However Ill use it on more prominant things as well if I happen to desire that tint/shade.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

augustus5 wrote:The poll answers are kind of biased against dipping. With all the whining against unpainted models I can't see why people would then whine about dipped models.

You will find that in any hobby. Basic snobbery. I encountered it a lot during my car club/street racing days. You could have the same car as someone but if you didnt have the same level of stuff done to it then the car (and you) were looked down on.

I used to paint every damn thing and spent countless hours on my table-top quality models. Then I painted an army for a friend and he demanded that I dip. So I did and it changed my [hobby] life.

For now on, if the appropriate spray primer exists, then the model will be dipped. period.

Yes, Something that no game store or hobby shop wants you to know about because it takes 90% of the work out of the picture and half of the sales away from the store.
As store owner I hate it.

I applaud dipping. It sure does put some eye candy (in the non pornographic sense) on this sight

I'd do it, but I'm just too darn lazy for my own good.

Vasarto wrote:Yes, Something that no game store or hobby shop wants you to know about because it takes 90% of the work out of the picture and half of the sales away from the store.
As store owner I hate it.

Can you sell the Quickshade Spray Primers and Dips retail? Those primers run out quickly.

Deuce11 wrote:

Vasarto wrote:Yes, Something that no game store or hobby shop wants you to know about because it takes 90% of the work out of the picture and half of the sales away from the store.
As store owner I hate it.

Can you sell the Quickshade Spray Primers and Dips retail? Those primers run out quickly.

Well probably. have to look into that sorta thing.
Actually meant "future owner"
Gonna be within 3 years...maybe 2-1/2. Saving up money for the first store and gonna have it ready by than.

Vasarto wrote:Yes, Something that no game store or hobby shop wants you to know about because it takes 90% of the work out of the picture and half of the sales away from the store.
As store owner I hate it.

Our FLGS sells the stuffs and his rack his nearly always sold out.

It's good stuff.

samwellfrm wrote:I don't see anything wrong with it. Some people don't have time to paint thier entire armies with a brush. I'd much rather see a dipped army on the field than a gray plastic army.

What he said. I know I'm very intimidated by the great work on see on sites like this one. Dipping might get people who wouldn't otherwise paint to do so, or might be a nice shortcut for people who want to play a horde but don't think they have the time to both assemble and paint 120 gaunts.

Wait, if people paint their armies in half the time, that means they should want more stuff sooner. How do you figure that taking out 90% of the work out of a project leads to fewer sales?

I've never done it, but definatly don't have an issue with it, like some others have said, better to see a dipped army than a grey plastic one.

although I might have to give it a go when my son gets more Tyranids, I'm not looking forward to painting those by hand.

Why am I only learning about this now!! That is just the technique I need to do the flesh on my nids.

for horde armies it looks perfect, anything that gets rid of plastic or undercoat armies

I dip everything.

The cheapest way to go about it is to use Minwax (can be purchased inexpensively at WalMart for those in the U.S.)

I like my figs shiney but if you don't, a nice dullcoat spray does the trick.

I couldn't really give two shakes as to how someone paints their minis. My painting skills ain't the best, but I like my paintjobs! And especially for Tyranids, I think that dipping looks great.

I dunno, Maybe I might do it with Orks Boyz or The Grots I am planning on buying from some people in the future but I would rather use paints and stuff. Its more fun that way and if I practice enough, my painted models will eventually look better than any dipped model out there.

I would never do this personally, but with a horde army, I could understand . I would prefer if after the dip a second coat was added, even if it's just painting an all green ork's vest brown.

So, I'm not exactly sure of the point of this thread. Is the OP criticizing dippers as "not real hobbyists" or is he trying to see if people have used this method in the past? augustus5 is right, the poll answers seem a little biased against dipping. If I were playing 'Nids, hellsyeah, I'd be dipping. Of course, the way I wash my Dark Angels, I might as well be dipping, I use a lot of wash.

i think dipping is a great method to use, but only if you have the intentions of dipping them when starting the army, and realize how the dip will change the model.
my entire deathwing army (30 some terminators, 3 land raiders, and 2 dreadnoughts) is all dipped, but i started the army with the intentions of dipping them, and it turned out pretty well...

on the other hand, i have seen people come across the method, and basically thought it would turn a bad paintjob into a good one. old bad paint job + dip = new good paint job, right? no.

Personally I am not a fan of dipping, i find that i prefer to able to tailor the wash to the individual model, meaning that I can get an element of uniqueness to each model where they may all "look the same", rather than them all being what I feel a copy and paste look.

I think the debate on whether or not its "cheating" is kind of irrelevant. Technically washes are cheating to those who prefer to build up from black in the recesses and not use a wash at all. And to people who only use brushes, airbrushing can be seen as cheating. It's simply another method that people employ in their particular painting style.

If dipping is your thing, and you can utilise it well to produce good looking miniatures then the best of luck to you, but personally I prefer to do each model individually with washes to give model its own unique feel, rather than one similar look en masse.

I just started dipping my rank and file ork boyz.
I have to say its really fast, easy, and i'm quite happy with the results. Sure they aren't going to win any awards but from table height they look great especially all packed together.

I think i prepped 45 boys in about 3 hrs, then dipped. that vastly reduces painting times.

Personally I've never dipped, cause it's messy and I prefer to have shading in more colors than just brown.

But I can't begin to understand the mindset of people who regard dipping as "cheating" at painting. It's as absurd as saying that taking a shortcut through a park is cheating at walking to the store.

Depends on the Army. I dipped my Genestealer Horde and will probably dip a Nurgle army if I ever do one.

Not gonna dip DE or Eldar though, nosireeebob.

I voted Other.

Its ok for tyranid gaunts and thats it.

lord_blackfang wrote:Personally I've never dipped, cause it's messy and I prefer to have shading in more colors than just brown.

You can get coloured woodstains that allow you to shade with any colour you want. At least in the US.

lord_blackfang wrote:

But I can't begin to understand the mindset of people who regard dipping as "cheating" at painting. It's as absurd as saying that taking a shortcut through a park is cheating at walking to the store.

The sad irony is that many of those types also demand/expect painted models from opponents, but apparently want them to have as difficult of a time as possible doing so...

dipping, drybrushing, whatever; I say use whatever methods get you a result you are happy with, and screw anyone that says or thinks otherwise...

What is dipping?

Wow. Ok, I immediately clicked 'I want to burn all dipped models', then stared horrified at the other possible answers, wondering if it could really mean what I thought it meant.

I thought dipping meant dipping a grey model into a pot of Golden Yellow or sumthing.

Sorry, but I think that technique looks valid enough. I dont think Id do it, but if I had the means and ways Id definately do it for the 'Rank and File' chaps. Far too many to wash!

Well, at least for the initial wash I do over the bast colours before more highlighting, more washing and final highlightings. The last layers of wash have to be precise if your going for a gritty look.

See my guide on Quickshade

http://www.dakkadakka.com/wiki/en/Using_Quickshade_on_Space_Marines

I am personnally a big fan of it, I use it with other techniques and have experimented with it alot. i use it to Seal, shade and finalise a mini. My revelations recently are that it is excellent if slight thinned down (2ml of white spirit to every 8ml of Quickshade) and applied with a tank brush. I still paint on a base coat, highlights and detail, i wash the areas I want to then apply a thinned amount of quickshade. I then use dullcote to take off the shine!



Any example of a dipped unit of mine, in thinned Quickshade. Not going to win Golden Daemon but I think they look ok.



Here is my latest examples you can see how my technique has improved and the shading is more subtle.

I do not dip my mini's wholesale into the Tin as I used too, it is wasteful and you damage the minis trying to flick off the excess and it is also a little hit and miss. You cannot go wrong with this stuff with an Ork, Tyranid or IG Army. Coloured Primer, quick basic paint, a bit of highlight bit of a wash dip.. leave to dry. You can do massive units in good blocks of time and they look pretty decent.

Putting the hurt on people who use varnish shaders is a bit of paint snobbery and it is not in keeping with our friendly gaming ethos we should all try to encourage. I like people who have made the effort and "Dipping" makes the average painter feel better about his efforts and it is not cheating, less time with brush = More time rolling dice. Unless of course you do it mainly for the painting! It is nice to see a themed completed army, without the plastic or primed units you sometimes see and "Dipping" is a quick and easy way of encouraging others to take up the brush. That in itself is a good thing.

I do not dip per se. I brush on the dip like a wash....this lets me control the process better and hit areas that need more attention....

As a dad of two, a full time grad student, and full time teacher dipping has offered me a way to get nice looking models on the table rather fast...and they do look table top plus IMO!

I've never dipped, as it seems like a process that best suits having an entire army in the same phase of painting (all blocked out) before doing it. I'm also not sure how easy it would be to switch models on and off the spinner.

I stick to washes and dry brushing, but most dipped stuff looks better tahn a lot of my models, so they're on to something. For Nids and Nurgle, it's simply great looking.

I'll be using a Dipping style for an entire Empire army, but I've put a LOT of thought into the colors I'll be using, their tone, and the overall look once they have been dipped. They are going to look dirtier, browner, and greasier than your normal model, which fits in perfectly with my chosen theme: The peasant armies of the Church of Sigmar. Browns, Cremes, Greens (to become olive after dipping), Copper, Elven skin tones, and black are chosen because they can take that browning effect well.

Priests and front ranks may have some extra detail, like faces and extra highlighting. Priests' clothing will be painted again after the dipping, so their clothes look clean instead of dirty.

Empire, Orks/Orcs, and Nids are perfect for dipping. Some armies just look bad with the technique, but 'Dip those Hordes'!

*Looks over at the piles of Termagaunts and Hormagaunts waiting for paint*

Dipping ftw!

All non-characters in my Tomb Kings army are dipped. I suppose I should have voted for #2 instead of #1. In the whole army, all of the re-animated bone has the dipping look. The constructs and of course my characters are all traditional layered. Bases and stone are traditional drybrushed. I've gotten compliments on the army so they must look OK.

Next up, airbrushing the models that are in the Space Hulk box to get my feel back for airbrushing, especially acrylics.

Homer

Dipping is brilliant for Tyranids. I brush on and off rather than pure dip.

I got a pretty nice result on a flat mechanical panel gun model with the brushed dip.

The key difference between a dip and a wash is that the dip counts as varnish as well as pigment, otherwise the two techniques are basically the same.

I always say don't think you'll get a Golden Daemon result from dip, but you can quickly and easily get a better than acceptable tabletop standard result. This counts for a lot when you to paint 40 Termagants plus eight larger creatures and two MCs in a weekend.

I'm actually very tempted to give dipping a go on a batch of Plaguebearers I painted up a few years ago and want to strip and re-do as I'm not entirely happy with how they turned out.
From what I've seen the dipping process would work quite nicely for this sort of project.

I honestly see nothing "wrong" with dipping,the results look nice and it seems to optimize time in getting a "painted" army on the table.
Now of course I enjoy the painting aspects of the hobby,and dipping everything wouldn't be my personal choice,but as a time saver or for those who don't enjoy painting that much...I say Dip away.

What I have found with dipping is make the base colors a shade or so lighter than you want the final to look. Otherwise, they come out too dark. Also, don't rely on GW washes to cover white primer. Base coat the white with, uh, white.

Homer

If you are dipping to shade your model ... meh ... i'm not a fan but i'll get over it.

If you are dipping and calling it "painted" then i take issue

Personally i dont care, if people want to dip their models thats fine by me, it works well in some cases aswell.

Only if it is quickshade.

Only do it you're a terrible painter. The whole point of warhammer for me is the painting.

There's a lot of smug in this thread. I bet the farts smell wonderful.

Considering that a good 3/4 of the armies I see around are either not painted or just primed, I'd have to say that not only is there nothing wrong with dipping, but that it's a good idea and an excellent way to do horde armies quickly instead of wasting time on Termagaunt #96.

Honestly, i learnt to paint decently very fast. Don't be so lazy and put some effort in.

I'm glad to see that we have an entire poll devoted to bashing people for doing things differently.

Its not 'bashing' its saying put some effort in so you can achieve something cool. I will give you painting advice if you ask for it.

Vasarto wrote:Yes, Something that no game store or hobby shop wants you to know about because it takes 90% of the work out of the picture and half of the sales away from the store.
As store owner I hate it.

Really? One of the things that keeps me from buying more minis is that I already have a huge backlog, anything that makes it faster to get that backlog reduced would help me buy more minis. There must be other people out there like me...

What a bizarrely formatted poll. Out of 6 choices that aren't other, 5 of them imply there is something wrong with dipping.

I'm not sure why there would be a moral component to a painting method - is drybrushing evil? Or is it that it saves time? If so, I don't want to see anyone buying aerosol based dullcote - you know they sell one you can paint on by hand, and then just clean with turpentine, you lazy sots.

How well dipping looks, which is the only measure that matters, really depends on what army is being dipped. I wouldn't dip Eldar but it's surely the best way for most tyranids, can look great on Necrons, and I've seen it look good on orks too. It depends on what dip you use, how well you use it, and correctly deciding when it's the most appropriate tool to use... you know, just like when to use foundation vs paint vs a wash.

Bagging on someone for choosing to dip makes as much sense as insisting they use the same tiny brush they use for eyes to do everything, tanks included.

Bossasaurus wrote:Its not 'bashing' its saying put some effort in so you can achieve something cool. I will give you painting advice if you ask for it.

Yeah, you obviously didn't look at the tutorial and see the good looking Tyranids, but hey, keep mocking other people for not doing the hobby the way you want them to.

I don't know if I'd dip. I have plenty fun painting with a brush... though I can see why someone might want to dip a gajillion Orks or IG.

Redbeard wrote:Some armies lend themselves to dipping. ...It's another tool in the toolbox, and like any other tool can be used correctly or incorrectly.

This. Some people rail against drybrushing as an evil, handicapping shortcut that looks like boiled ass. For certain tasks, though, nothing beats it. Drybrushing can also be done well or poorly - same with dipping. I've seen plenty of dipped 'nids that look great and even some guardsmen.

Discounting absolutely abysmal jobs, painted models look better than bare plastic or primer. If someone is only going to spend so much time painting his army, better he basecoat and dip than rush through and half-ass a traditional paintjob. Someone posted a dipped SM recently and you know what? It looked dipped. It also looked better than what many people call "tabletop quality." I'd be heartbroken if everyone and their mother started dipping just to get their armies done fast. However, I would encourage those that need to to consider dipping as a means to do so.

I love the dip, colored primers/basecoats and other ways of getting miniatures painted up quicker.

Krylon ruddy brown primer spray and Minwax Polyshades antique walnut helped me get my guard on the table in record time, and I've recieved nothing but good comments on it, even though it was just a basecoat, detail colors, dip and matte spray.

I'm even looking at going back and dipping the Blood Angel army that I painted a few years back.

Bear LaMorte wrote:
If you are dipping and calling it "painted" then i take issue

I assume by "painted", you mean applied with a brush.
This is just silly. Do we now we're deliniating whether the pigment (paint, quickshade, polyshades, wash, whatever) was brushed, dipped, or sprayed on?

If I paint, on the colors and then dip it can I no longer call it "painted"?

What about my present method of Spraying on the primer/basecoat, brushing on the detail colors and brushing on the Minwax. Do I have to let folks know that "Only the detail colors are brushed on, and the "dip" was applied with a brush, but it's a varnish product so they're not really Painted"
Rediculous.

Bossasaurus wrote:Its not 'bashing' its saying put some effort in so you can achieve something cool. I will give you painting advice if you ask for it.

It's bashing if you say something can't look cool because it was dipped.

ive never seen a dipped model but im betting they look terrible

necrongod wrote:ive never seen a dipped model but im betting they look terrible

ARRRRGH!! I hate prejudice

NEVER judge a book before you read it

before


after

necrongod wrote:ive never seen a dipped model but im betting they look terrible

The fail is strong with this one.

Do people know how to read the OP?

I have personally never dipped a model in my years in the hobby, though it looks to be [as others have said] a great way to paint hordes; or a time saver for those who do not have a lot of time to paint any sized army for that matter. On that note, my current army has taken me 5+ months with my current scheme to paint, and I have 5 terminators, 5 assault marines, a terminator captain, a dreadnought, a land speeder, and a single old school missile launcher marine painted/based. I have used the assembly line or whatever it may be termed method of painting the army for the most part. That said, I am kind of wishing I had done something simpler and dipping MAY have been a safe alternative.

I for one hate the fact that my army is not fully painted and spend time whenever possible to get more and more paint on them, however I don't paint to Golden Demon/'Eavy Metal standards; though rather to what I see as my own personal perfection. I am not out to impress anyone except myself.

I guess with this post I am saying [to me] it really only matters if/when the owner of said army is content with their paint job wether it is good or bad in eyes of others, why should it matter the method used to paint?

NukleusX wrote: it really only matters if/ the owner of said army is content with their paint job wether it is good or bad in eyes of others, why should it matter the method used to paint?

this, a thousand times this, you have know right to say how somebody should paint there models* If you can't say something nice don't say anything




*this does not apply is said person has paid/asked for your advice or comments

Christ, i'm not going to go after someone with an axe just because they dipped a model. I'd just rather they put effort in and learnt to paint. Dipping just disappoints me.

Bossasaurus wrote:Christ, i'm not going to go after someone with an axe just because they dipped a model. I'd just rather they put effort in and learnt to paint. Dipping just disappoints me.

Are you capable of saying anything that isn't judgemental?

Yes. I like banana smoothies.

But honestly, the poll asks for an opinion... so i gave mine.

Bossasaurus wrote:Christ, i'm not going to go after someone with an axe just because they dipped a model. I'd just rather they put effort in and learnt to paint. Dipping just disappoints me.

Life is full of dissapointment. Get used to it.

no way....

I've never used it and most likely never will but i can't see anything wrong with dipping your models. Personally i would prefere to use a wash as i think it allows for a lot more controle.

I know people who dip. And I know people who hate dipping and would probably vote for one of the hate/burn options.

I personally don't mind it. I wouldn't do it though. From what I've seen in person, washing looks much better. But I guess it depends on the model.

The way some people are getting on their high horse on this one, is somewhere close to ridiculous. I have put up examples of my models on page 2 of this thread. They are not Golden Daemon standard, neither are they completely SH*T, they are a reasonably painted cohesive force I have quite a few thousand points and nobody, repeat nobody has ever said to me "
Oh wow, they look quite good how did you do it" says the Nobba
"Normal painting like everyone else then a little bit of quickshade thinned down and applied with a Brush" says I
" OH MY GOD YOU ARE A HERETIC" says the Nobba.

Seriously if anyone had the nerve to pull me up about this, I would tear them down, in a loud decidedly Viking vernacular. Why are some many people so intent on irrational and pointless hatred and discord.

There have been rather a lot of polls and discussions lately about things you won't let your opponent do, or how you won't play with someone unless x. Man, I wish I lived where you guys did, where there are apparently so many 40k players that I could afford to lay down decrees about how many colors their army must have and the approved painting techniques I allow.

Where I live, I get to play tops once a month, and I'm lucky to get a game where my opponent's force is just CSM legs glued to bases. . What I wouldn't give to play a well modeled force that was dipped.

Depends on what army you play. Bugs look good dipped cause to me it gives them a slimy look. I dipped mine and they came out awesome

I might be a bit more impressed by people's non-dipped/non-washed models if there were some pictures of them in the gallery.

I have never used dipping ,I prefer washing, but I would not be angry if someone else used it.

I'm not sure, I've always felt that only using a wash or two colors and a wash seems lazy. I've seen awesome chaos conversions where I play, but the player just covered them with devlan mud wash, even the green stuff, without painting any of it.

If you're going to spend money on warhammer, I feel you should at least devote some energy to painting them. I don'ty care how good you are, as long if you put effort into your models, it's fine in my book.

I've never done it put i might try it now that i know what it is.

I don't have a problem with it, just don't do it half arsed. I use it in certain situations (like an ork horde and soon to be skaven horde) but not everything. I also used a dipping method on my Iron Warriors but I only used it for the basic shading as a beginning, not the be all and end all.

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/189538.page

"I hate dipping, it's so lazy"

Closest to my feelings.
I understand that if people aren't good painters they can get a tabletop quality army very quickly, however how is a bad or mediocre painter ever gonna learn if they just dip everything?
Killing the hobby.

I have it now! The ultimate Dakka meme!

Dipping is the cancer that is killing 40k!

I am a huge fan of dipping. I like the results and really don't like the traditional method of painting with highlighting and the whole nine yards, it makes the models less real and more as if they're cartoons than anything else.

The finish after the dip in the Tyranid Tutorial is quite good.


He took the time to paint base colours before dipping; it looks better than some of the nominally painted armies I've seen.

WaaaaghLord wrote:"I hate dipping, it's so lazy"

Closest to my feelings.
I understand that if people aren't good painters they can get a tabletop quality army very quickly, however how is a bad or mediocre painter ever gonna learn if they just dip everything?
Killing the hobby.

Thank you WaaaaghLord. Thank you.

Utter bollocks, "I hate dipping" is just a ridiculous statement. It is all encompassing and shows a callous and immature attitude in the light of evidence to the contray. I don't go around saying "I hate paints" because some does a bad paint job. Dipping is not bad, or evil or anything else it is a tool, like dry brushing or anyother technique. Use or don't use it but don't say I hate it. Its like saying I hate Nailguns because people are too lazy to use Hammer and nails. Absolutely stupid position.

Some people don't do the hobby to paint. I do it to paint, but others would rather play, and bring either unpainted models or wished they could buy models painted.

If they can get a decent paint job by dipping , all the more power to them. At least it's better than having them unpainted.

They opt to lose out on the painting score at the tourney anyway. Wouldn't it be funny if they got a better painting score by dipping than a horrible painter? The dipper paid handsomely for the models, they can decide how they want to use them.

mwnciboo wrote:Why are some many people so intent on irrational and pointless hatred and discord.

Becasue the interwebz supports elitism via anonimity...

It is these people cheating and using store bought paints that really get to me... I go out and grind my own from rocks, plants, people and stuff...

No commitment at all.

Next you will all be saying that you are using models where you have not gone out and drilled for the oil to turn into the plastic they are made from!

To the abyss with anyone that tries to tell me what I should do with my property.

It may be a hobby to you but it's a game to many of us; you know, the whole point to own more than a few of any given model.

You want to take 2-4 hours per miniature, more power to you; I promise I won't call you a no-life loser that sits in the dark and plays constantly with little plastic army men, in exchange don't call me lazy for having a life and preferring to spend my time differently, out of doors, in the sun, neck sans beard.

agnosto wrote:To the abyss with anyone that tries to tell me what I should do with my property.

It may be a hobby to you but it's a game to many of us; you know, the whole point to own more than a few of any given model.

You want to take 2-4 hours per miniature, more power to you; I promise I won't call you a no-life loser that sits in the dark and plays constantly with little plastic army men, in exchange don't call me lazy for having a life and preferring to spend my time differently, out of doors, in the sun, neck sans beard.

Wins thread.

I've dipped an entire army of Ogre Kingdoms with excellent results and I am currently working on dipping my IG. With a masters to get, a wife to love, and a baby to care for, dipping gets a big

Edit: My Relevant Threads on dipped armies
Ogre Kingdoms
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/320092.page
Imperial Guard
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/326196.page

I said that I wasn't going to post any comments for a year, but I had to join in with this discussion when I noticed it. Dipping is, in my opinion, THE way forwards for all hobbyists when painting armies. There's some things that you can do to make a dipped model look more technically painted, by using washes beforehand. But it is NOT a careless technique. It is very efficient for a start, and if you don't paint neatly, the dip won't save you. So it's good for hobbyists who are starting out - all you need to do is to be as neat as possible and you're on your way to a great looking army. You can spend hours (or even days) painting a model to a high quality, but repeat that 5 - 10 times and you're in for a long journey. I won't say much more, dipping is awesome FTW.

Dipped/washed to traditionally painted Imperial Guardmen comparison:

http://www.dakkadakka.com/gallery/123845-Cadians%2C%20Camouflage%2C%20Imperial%20Guard%2C%20Urban%2C%20Wasteland.html

A Tyranid painted with washes and drybrushing:

http://www.dakkadakka.com/gallery/93509-Cosmic%2C%20Tyranids.html

I'm going to make my first attempt to dipping with my IoB skaven. I think it will work quite good ^^

I guess it works better in some minis than others - I'm not trying it with my DE. I have no problem at all with other people's armies, it's not my bussines. Unpainted armies are boring tho. Dipped is certainly better than unpainted! The Nids of the arcticle linke in OP look great.

Nothing wrong with it. It can look very nice, if done properly.

I am more then ok with it...Whatever gets painted models on the table...some people but alot more effort into this game then others... For those who dont have the time..or dont want to put in the effort.. This is a good easy way for them to get good lookin models on the table without alot of work.

I chose "other" because I felt the poll had a bit too much of a negative bent against dipping. I haven't done it yet but fully intend to w/ my Traitor Guard / Cultist / whatever you have to call them for 5th Ed. Dipping is no different than any other technique that has come along in the evolution of the hobby, it's an available tool that can lend to the speedy completion of a good looking tabletop army, but it can also also help create some of the most crap models I've ever seen. Like any other technique, it takes practice and experimentation. Like any other technique, people that disagree with it will find things to complain about. My bottom line is if dipping helps you put a painted army on the table and you're happy w/ the results, then do it. If you feel it necessary to spend 8+ hours on each model, I'll see you and your IG army in 2017. Happy painting.

I love to take time with my models because I'm an artsy person, however when I realized that I have not been able to play more than 6 games (since I first started putting an army together nearly a year and a half ago) due to the time consuming hobby of painting I decided to buy Army Painter color primer and quickshade to get an army ready to go fast.

I just started putting a Tau Army together a week and a half ago and I have nearly 1500 points painted to a presentable manner (base coated with minimal detail) ready to be fielded.

I have ideas for dioramas and those I will paint every detail by hand, but I really want to play 40k instead of spending months of work before I am able to field an army.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

youthminister40k wrote:I've dipped an entire army of Ogre Kingdoms with excellent results and I am currently working on dipping my IG. With a masters to get, a wife to love, and a baby to care for, dipping gets a big

Edit: My Relevant Threads on dipped armies
Ogre Kingdoms
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/320092.page
Imperial Guard
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/326196.page

Well I don't have a family of my own, but I can definitely sympathize with you. The Army eats up a lot of my personal life during the week (and sometimes the weekend!). It's also funny because I'm in the midst of assembling my Tau Army and there are models ALL OVER my room. My team leader walks in my room "...What's all the action figures for?" Haha, I love the comments on my hobby I get from my friends.

I've seen plenty of horribly painted models that have not been dipped. Many of those would have benefited from a dip.

I don't do it but I would rather play someone with dipped models then see someones crappily painted models that haven't been dipped.

I think anyone who comments on painting techniques should be required to post pictures of their own painting so we can judge their own technique.

I dont have a problem with dipping, it can actualy make for some interesting results.

I personaly wouldnt dip everything, but I do have a Nid army that is dipped, and the results are great! For all my other armies I paint, shade, and highlight the old fashioned way though.

While this is a pretty typical "I have an irrational opions"/"You're opinion is irrational" thread, it's a reminder exactly how bizarre many of our fellow hobbyists are.

Dipping in washes is ok-ish.

Dipping your whole army a solid color and then dipping them in a wash is heretical. No offense.

I wouldn't mind if they painted a rough 2 colors, and then dipped in a wash, but only dipping is lazy (in most cases.) and doesn't look that good.

You have misunderstood what "dipping is".

Dipping is derived from the term "Magic Dip", a technique developed in the 90s by historical wargamers, who typically need to paint hundreds of figures for an army.

It consists of painting the figures in base colours, then dipping them in a woodstain varnish. The excess varnish is flicked, spun or dobbed off.

When dry, the varnish both stains the figure like a wash, creating natural shading, and acts as varnish. If wanted, the figures are finished with matt.

I was raised with a different definition of dipping. By your definition, I wouldn't mind it... that much.

I would never do it myself, but I wouldn't mind people with huge armies and no free time to do it.

Dipping the whole model to actually paint it? that would look horrible

The Bringer wrote:I was raised with a different definition of dipping. By your definition, I wouldn't mind it... that much.

I would never do it myself, but I wouldn't mind people with huge armies and no free time to do it.

Non-dipped, left...........dipped, right

What's the problem?

FM Ninja 048 wrote:Dipping the whole model to actually paint it? that would look horrible

I've seen it, and every time I've heard dipping referred to, it is referring to that method... until now anyways.

You've been talking to the wrong people.

Magic Dip technique has been used for at least 15 years if not longer.

Don't honestly care if the opposing army is even painted.

Thanks for defining terms killcrazy. It is odd that some folks recently seem to think that dipping involves a miniature submerged in paint. I've never met anyone who has actually seen this method, but the "I heard that dipping is..." gets passed around like the telephone game.

The intense flash took away some depth of color but as you can see, easy peasy with satisfactory results.

I have no problem with dipping as some people are more 'gamers' or 'players' than painters. I've dipped 3 armies now. They were either just painted to sell on ebay or a commission army where the client wanted a low price. I'll never do it to a personal army that I play with not because I think its a short cut but because I'm a painter guy. I'd rather play against a poorly painted army any day of the week than plastic legion.

i just get sad when i se a model that is dippt.

Basic solid paint job



Paint on Dip with a tank brush



Finished with Dullcote to take away the Shine. Total time to paint 2 Dreads 6 hours with 24 hours drying time for Quickshade and a further 2 hours for the Dullcote (not bad for a weekend huh?)

These were painted using dip, quick and easy and gives a good effect, oh did i forget to mention it is a Varnish so it protects your paint job...I am going to keep posting examples until people begin to change their tune. Quickshade and dipping if done well can look good, so stop making generalisations like all "All people who dip are complete morons etc etc etc". If you don't like it, don't use it. Judge people if you want too, however when people return fire down the bearing don't start crying if they tear you a new A... I hope someone out there is producing an awesome army to make all the irrational fops jealous and get them to get off their high horse and mingle with the rest of us Dakkanauts...

They look dipped. A painted version looks better. I put in effort. You didn't. Thus my space wolves look better than your 'bear claws'.

He still put effort in, he just invested that effort in a different manner, that's like me saying, you washed thet, I did all the shading by hand, thus my army is supperior

What it comes down to is do you paint models or do you paint armies?

Bossasarus whatever mate. Stick up some photo's of your army, do something positive like write an article, contribute to dakka. Or alternatively piss on everyones bonfire, your choice.

I think that dipping is just another way of painting. You don't just dip a completely un-painted mini. I would see it as the epitome of lazy for, say, a an eldar player to spray base white, than dip golden yellow and just leave it at that. Even Tyranids need two colors to be considered 'table quality'.
However, back to my point of dipping being a painting tool. I have seen a absolutely STUNNING Blood Angles army, extremely well done conversions (if a tad on the chaosy side), very good paint job. When it very lightly dipped, it looked even better.

Say you had some catachans, with base coat colors painted. Could I use this method to 'dip' them? And what should I use to dip with?

Bossasaurus wrote:They look dipped. A painted version looks better. I put in effort. You didn't. Thus my space wolves look better than your 'bear claws'.

Even for the internet this seems needlessly inflammatory.

Also, if your work doesn't look better without needing to tell people that you put time and effort in, doesn't that make your time and effort a waste?

Cortez667 I have sent a PM with some tips, but check out my earlier article in this thread. Catachans would look ace expecially in Dark Tone Quickshade, but do not "Dip" them, put some washes on then get 10ml of Quickshade add 1-2ml of white spirit then paint it on with an old tank brush. Dullcote it when dry and they will look very good.

Dipping directly into the "Can" and then flinging the thing around can look ok, but it can "blob" your models, obscure details and leave drips or pools of dip.

"Thin it down, paint it on, Anti-varnish spray it" It will look better than you would imagine.

I don't think anyone is saying that the effects of dipping are as good as a well applied series of shading, washing, and highlighting. Dipping is just another technique that quickly achieves some aspects of the previously mentioned techineques.

So why the need to put down those who choose to dip? Why do anti-dipping advocates seem to need to tell us that...

"I put in effort you didn't",
"ive never seen a dipped model but im betting they look terrible "
" I'd just rather they put effort in and learnt to paint."
"I hate dipping, it's so lazy"

...just to quote a few from this thread.

I love converting, like playing, but don't really enjoying painting. I'm not lazy, or averse to putting effot into the hobby, so why is it so wrong that I dip my miniatures in order to achieve a better painting result than just block painting? Is it that bad of a thing to want to have more time to spend on the aspects of the hobby I like?

For many of us who aren't fond of the painting process, it's not a choice between dipping and a high standard of painting. Rather, it's a choice between dipping or just having block painted models. Here's my work. Just block painted with a drybrush on the mud and metals followed by a brushed on dip and matte spray.

Rest of the army here:
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/343518.page
Yes it's not carefully shaded, hightlighted washed, etc. But I think that most of us will agree that it looks a darn sight better than just block painted.

I really like your army Eili, has a real theme and a cohesive feel just like a real army would. Plus it looks good and didn't take you 1000hours to do... I would take time and effort in preparing a battlefield if you were coming around to battle, it makes the whole experience that much better if you have 2 well painted armies fighting over an interesting battlefield, you don't need to suspend belief for starters!

I would recommend an Army Profile to bring this all together out of the P&M Blog.

samwellfrm wrote:I don't see anything wrong with it. Some people don't have time to paint thier entire armies with a brush. I'd much rather see a dipped army on the field than a gray plastic army.

I just wanted to "Amen" the above statement.

Vasarto wrote:Actually meant "future owner"
Gonna be within 3 years...maybe 2-1/2. Saving up money for the first store and gonna have it ready by than.

Don't do it- it's a trap.

Seriously, starting up a gamestore is pretty much throwing away money, time and effort. It *can* be sustainable, but it takes an enormous amount of work and outlay. You would be better off sticking the seed money in a low interest account. Hobby games are a pretty bad business. The margins are low and its highly niche specialized. Given that it's hard as hell to startup a business anyway, it pretty much playing Russian roulette with all chambers loaded and hoping one is a dud.

Back on topic:

I consider myself a very good painter. I have won awards and done paid commissions. I also take a fairly long time to finish and get frustrated fielding grey plastic (though, I don't really care if my opponents do) and recognize that painting takes alot of time, practice, skill, and talent. Dipping is a quick, efficient way to get good looking models on the table. The product is easier and produces better results than many hobbyists can achieve otherwise. I think it is fantastic, especially for people who don't want to spend a bunch of time painting toy soldiers or who have limitations that prevent them from doing so.

Condemning dipping because it doesn't produce Golden Daemon caliber models is like saying no one should jog because they wouldn't qualify for the Olympics. It's a ridiculous line of criticism. The dipped models mwnciboo showed are very good and certainly top notch for tabletop use. But I suspect Bossarus is either being sarcastic or a troll....

Maybe I'm missing something, but dipped models still need to be basecoated (neatly) and simply are shaded by the dip.

Using the dip doesn't replace paint, it's simply a very strong wash.

Correct. It is simply a wash method that can quickly bring out details. But it is easier than using multiple washes and highlights, hence the appeal.

I'm not conviced it's that much easier. If you have a full army already based coated, I suppose you can spend an evening dipping the whole thing. But if you're painting by squads, I almost think it's easier to wash.

But that's my point: you can dip an unpainted model and have it look good.

A wash is definitely easier.

What I like about the Dip is that it's a wash, a shade and simulates a bit of a highight (if you use lighter colors underneath) as well as just about the most protective hardcoat you can get. All in one step.

Hmmm...I am yet to be convinced on the Colour Primer spray and then dip it immediately method. You need some detailing to help bring the model alive, even if it is just painting the eyes on and claws before dipping a Tyranid. But that said I could see a Tyranid army being a quick production line especially for Gaunts, Spray colour base coat then a quick eyes, claws and a few details, Dip dry and then leave them shiny to look slimey.. yeah that could look awesome.

Definitely agree. Even the dipped Tyranid army in the Article on Dakka has a red color for the plates and black accents drawn in with sharpie.

Skeletons are about the only thing that I think a strait spray and dip would work for, and even then you should probably paint the weapons.

My Tyranids are brush-on dipped.

I do the following scheme.

1. Spray grey primer.
2. Spray the ventral surfaces with Rattan Satin (Bleached Bone) -- when I run out of this I will switch to Elm (from Montana Gold range)
3. Spray the sides with Sahara Yellow (from Montana Gold range)
4. Spray the tops with Sand (from Montana Gold range)
5. Paint the mouths and mucous bits red oxide
6. Paint the teeth, spikes and claws pink.
7. Magic Dip! with Quickshade Softcoat.
8. Spray matt varnish.

I don't bother with the eyes because they are too small to notice. I used to, and it was a waste of time. They are so tiny on Nids.

I got 40 Termagants, four medium sized models and a Tervigon done in a weekend with that method.

IMHO, dipping is a useful painting tool that works on certain models only. I would use it, but infortunately dark elves aren't exactly cut out for that

The point of this thread is for us to share our opinions about dipping, thus opinions have been given.

Dipping is like using a drum machine, while painting is like playing the instrument.

Dipping is NOT painting, its a way to get mediocre results with only minimal effort.

Bossasaurus wrote:The point of this thread is for us to share our opinions about dipping, thus opinions have been given.

Dipping is like using a drum machine, while painting is like playing the instrument.

Dipping is NOT painting, its a way to get mediocre results with only minimal effort.

Have you dipped before?

No. But i have seen many dipped models.

Bossasaurus you don't really have the grounds to criticise dipping when you haven't even used it before
just cause you've seen dipped models...so what?
I've seen the moon many times. Does that make me an expert on it?

Hey guys,
I find Bossasaraus' opinion as offensive and il-informed as some of you do, but that doesn't mean he has no grounds to put out his opinion.

If only those who had done whatever is discussed commented on threads at Dakka, there'd be alot less going on here. Everyone gets their say on Dakka.

Bossasaurus wrote:The point of this thread is for us to share our opinions about dipping, thus opinions have been given.

Dipping is like using a drum machine, while painting is like playing the instrument.

Dipping is NOT painting, its a way to get mediocre results with only minimal effort.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion, however wrong it may be.

No dipping is not painting by definition.... it's a staining/shading technique, no different than applying a GW wash over a mini.The fact is you still need to paint your mini in base colors before applying the shade wash. I personally have brushed on a thinned out wash of polyshade over my base coats but I still had to "paint" on the colors,,, they didn't fly out of the pots on there own.

The fact is you can leave the figure as is after "dipping" but you can also go back and pick out details and add highlights to further improve the look. And if done right, the results are far from mediocre. It does take some experimentation to get the result you want, i.e. the right shade, the right amount of thinner, etc... but that's the fun part of it my opinion. To each his own. It's not a contest.

Bossasaurus wrote:Dipping is NOT painting, its a way to get mediocre results with only minimal effort.

I'd be interested to see how you define painting. I mean, is it simply "any technique other than dipping?" Is there a minimum level of effort? Or is it based on results?

Painting involves paint and a paint brush...
And honestly, why do I need to have dipped to not like dipping? I can put a mini in my water cup and brush of the excess- and I doubt dipping takes a lot more skill that that.
I was asked for my opinion, and pointed out that dipping was,
lazy- due to the fact it is as complicated as what i outlined above, and that it was not painting.
I also said that I was disappointed that people chose to dip instead of learn to paint properly.
Regardless of your rudeness I will still give you as much painting advice as I can.
This does not mean I am not irked by the attitude that since I do not agree with you I am being offensive.

So then to you airbrushing isn't painting, an airbrush isn't a paintbrush, it's an airbrush...

Also painting with sponges, salt or marmite weathering, and other such non brush techniques.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
feth it!

I've decided that anyone who doesn't use a neutron microscope and X-Ray beams to manipulate elements at the atomic level to create and position pigments is just being downright lazy.

All of you need to learn to paint properly.

Marmite weathering?

Bossasaurus wrote:Painting involves paint and a paint brush...
And honestly, why do I need to have dipped to not like dipping? I can put a mini in my water cup and brush of the excess- and I doubt dipping takes a lot more skill that that.
I was asked for my opinion, and pointed out that dipping was,
lazy- due to the fact it is as complicated as what i outlined above, and that it was not painting.
I also said that I was disappointed that people chose to dip instead of learn to paint properly.
Regardless of your rudeness I will still give you as much painting advice as I can.
This does not mean I am not irked by the attitude that since I do not agree with you I am being offensive.

I think you're operating under a misconception of what painting is; either that or your being intentionally obtuse or just plain trolling. As mentioned before, by several individuals in this thread; dipping is a method of applying a wash-like affect and a protective coat in one go. The act of dipping does not preclude the necessity to paint your mini before you dip it (although myself and many people just brush the minwax on to the mini as it's less messy and you maintain control over how heavy the minwax layers on given areas of the mini).

To recap. Dipping does not replace painting nor is it meant to; what it does do is replace the time that I would spend on applying several washes to an already painted mini and applying a varnish coat at the same time. Why would anyone want to take the time to apply several washes to a mini if you can get the same results by a quick flick of the brush or a dip? It's like telling someone building a house they're doing it wrong when they're using power tools instead of hand tools.

So, you're right in that it is not painting....because it's not as it is applied after completing the painting process.

There; hopefully I've repeated it enough that you'll understand.

FM Ninja 048 wrote:Marmite weathering?

See Article system for details.

Sounds like we've boiled this down to a matter of semantics and choice of definition. Checking the dictionary, only third and last defnition of painting involves a brush, with most definitions referring only to the applying of paint to a surface. http://www.thefreedictionary.com/painting

I subscribe to the broader definiteions that anytime you have a solid pigment suspended in a liquid (the definition of "paint") used to coat a surface, that's "painting". So the Minwax polyshades, laquer based paints, latex paints, washes, spray paints, airbrushed paints, etc, etc, can all be used for painting.

On the other hand, clearly we have those who use the third definition and define painting as paint being applied with a brush.

"What we have here is a failure to communicate...."

Actually, looking in a dictionary won't help you as the "dipping" that most of us are referring to is a word that has become jargon specific to our little microcosm of the universe. I recommend any and all that are confused as to what "dipping" is to type "wargame miniature dipping" into google and read a few of the resulting pages. I did and not once was "dipping" referred to as applying anything other than a shade and varnish.

agnosto wrote: Dipping does not replace painting nor is it meant to; what it does do is replace the time that I would spend on applying several washes to an already painted mini and applying a varnish coat at the same time. Why would anyone want to take the time to apply several washes to a mini if you can get the same results by a quick flick of the brush or a dip? It's like telling someone building a house they're doing it wrong when they're using power tools instead of hand tools.:

You see, there are some of us who do not apply 'several washes' to finish a paint job, like myself. I am not against dipping as a substitute for a number of washes, but I am against it when it is used over base colors to imitate a paint-job. I used to be a terrible painter, and now i'm pretty average- I can paint a many layered(at least 7 on the armor) space wolf terminator in around about two hours now.

Bossasaurus wrote:You see, there are some of us who do not apply 'several washes' to finish a paint job, like myself. I am not against dipping as a substitute for a number of washes, but I am against it when it is used over base colors to imitate a paint-job. I used to be a terrible painter, and now i'm pretty average- I can paint a many layered(at least 7 on the armor) space wolf terminator in around about two hours now.

Wow, 10 hours for a 5 man squad? I bet they look way better then people's dipped models. Of course, you have zero gallery images, so who knows?

Agnosto,
We do indeed...
I wasn't questioning the definition of Dipping. I've read the early articles, including the wargaming magazine scans. Rather I was trying to point out the falacy of the definitions of "painting" that some seem to be holding up as their basis for disliking dipping.

Bossasaurus wrote: but I am against it when it is used over base colors to imitate a paint-job.

Just to clarify, do you mean you are against dipping over:

-Base color. As in one basecolor, dip, matte spray and done.
or
-Base colors. As in basecoat, block colors, dip, matte spray, done.

Because if it's the second defintion, then you're pretty much against dipping as it's been intended to be done since it's inception.

That is not to say that people can't or don't add additional steps of highlighting, etc with the dipping. However, the most general and accepted definition of the dipping process is basecoat, block colors, dip (emersion or more recently, brush on), and done, with matte/flat sealer now being standard practice, though earliest articles make no mention of it.

Bossasaurus wrote:You see, there are some of us who do not apply 'several washes' to finish a paint job, like myself. I am not against dipping as a substitute for a number of washes, but I am against it when it is used over base colors to imitate a paint-job.

I'm not even sure you can imitate a paint job with it since it's just a shading tool and doesn't add any color (other than the shade that's going to collect in corners and joints).

My dipped Tyranids.

http://www.dakkadakka.com/gallery/images-299-14105_Hive%20Fleet%20Kielbasa.html

I love the look of dipped models I think for 40k its suits a lot of the armies and I rather play agaisnt a fully painted "dip" army then a grey horde with 3 or 4 well painted models that IMO dont really look that much better then the dipped as most folk can get a more consistent look using dip.

Sorry to all the hardcore painters out there but I dont really care how well your model is painted from 3ft away on the table

I chose 'Other'. I've played dipped armies, back when I first polayed with smurfs. Badly Painted, 1st time out of the blocks smurfs.
Since then I've painted a Tau and an Ork Army.
As long as I'm not facing the Plastic Legions with NO discernable markings, I couldn't give a feth how someone has finished their army. In fact, as many have pointed out, with a dipped army, you've to be neater and choose your scheme more carefully, other wise, it's the same effect as loading up a big brush and slathering a mini with wash.

What surprises me is that there is only now a poll about Dipping, when it's been a technique on the radar for what? 5 years now, from seeing my first Dipped army at Warpcon 2006?

Its a painting technique like anything else if you ask me...

Besides Im never one to critique most other peoples painting...if they are happy w how their army looks then so am I!

How is what people do to paint their models anyone's business but theirs?

For me its about adding a level of protection that a simple matte spray varnich can't provide. Its about adding shade and depth in addition to the techniques I am still learning. Like everything else, its a tool to be used. Your mileage will vary according to what your goal is.

I think the Nids look excellent dipped, it provides better results than i would be bothered to paint on 20-40 models.

I probably wouldn't dip anything larger than troops though as I quite like the painting aspect of the hobby.

Idk, I would never spend loads on a model and not do it justice with its paint job. Seems like a massive waste.

Bossasaurus wrote:Idk, I would never spend loads on a model and not do it justice with its paint job. Seems like a massive waste.

You are assuming that dipped models always look terrible? I've seen some great results with dipping. Dipped models can look awful, I agree, but that is true of any painting technique.

I'm not a huge fan of painting, I prefer to game. Plus I have more free money than I do free time...using the dipping method certainly doesn't seem like a "massive waste" to me.

Im not assuming dipped models look awful, just that i can paint way better...

Personally, I find that washes make dipping unnecessary. Maybe not quite as fast, but just as easy and the look better IMO.

That's what I do for my Orks, and it works great.

Mike Noble wrote:Personally, I find that washes make dipping unnecessary. Maybe not quite as fast, but just as easy and the look better IMO.

No no no no... Nothing flows better on the miniature than dipping. It fails at very large surfaces, but you can thin it. The only thing you can't do with dipping is control what shade you put on the miniature. It has to be entirely the same colour shade. I personally hate washes sometimes, mainly when you spend too long messing around with them and they begin to pool and blotch. I never use Cidatel Washes straight out of the pot. The drying time window with dipping is much longer. Also; why go for one rather than the other? Like I said earlier: you can use washing and dipping together. Orks are meant to be dipped!

Why washing the entire model rather than dipping is a bad idea:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YF85RNPriYw

You can't choose one technique over the other.

I've never done it, although I have doused an entire model in wash before.

Deuce11 wrote:



The intense flash took away some depth of color but as you can see, easy peasy with satisfactory results.

Could it be......easy white? I.....I'm speechless. PRE-HERESY WORLD EATERS FOR EVERYONE!
(What color is your dip, it looks black vs brown. I want to copy your technique.)

whitedragon wrote:

Deuce11 wrote:



The intense flash took away some depth of color but as you can see, easy peasy with satisfactory results.

Could it be......easy white? I.....I'm speechless. PRE-HERESY WORLD EATERS FOR EVERYONE!
(What color is your dip, it looks black vs brown. I want to copy your technique.)

The darkest tone is near black and is best for white models. I thinned the dip down with mineral spirits to about 1:3. I used the power drill method and sticky tac to adhere the models to the drill (BE EXTRA CAREFUL!) I think the final product would be even nicer if I sprayed a matte finish on the models but I have heard horror stories and didn't want to screw up my friend's models (since I was too poor to replace them!)

Up close, such as in the pic above, they look alright. But as far as table-top quality goes, it can't get any better for the value and the time.

It seems to me that this is a very heated topic for some but i really dont like haters like Mr. Bossasaurus because as my dad always said if you dont have something nice to say then dont say it. But really Dipping is a great technique. Im using it on my space wolves right now and i love it. So people like Bossasaurus that think they are so cool for being amazing at painting is a little annoying. But i know good art has its place and i love some of the stunning stuff i see here at Dakka daily but for a noob painter like me its great. Plus some day ill get better and start painting beutiful armies because its not like i just dip all day its important to work on brush teqniques so i hand paint my nice characters or my sergeants or sometimes even a few basic marines. But i think this is a great thread and brings up some good friendly debates between gamers and i didnt mean to offend anyone if i did im sorry. You guys are awsome

My wife's experimented with dipping when painting my son's Orks, but she moved on to thinning the dip and painting it on. IMO it looks perfect on Orks (who should almost always look at least somewhat grubby anyway). I use it on woodland style basing (oak woodstain, painted on over a primed mix of wood-ash, sawdust, sand, and grit), and sometimes on Dark Angels vehicles (black ash woodstain well thinned and painted on as a final coat before varnishing). It's just another tool in the toolbox. Whether you actually dip, or paint it on, is irrelevant; some people prefer one method or the other, and you can certainly get good or bad results with either, just as you can with any other kind of painting.

Saying it's "not painting" is about as constructive, interesting, or sensible as saying that you have to use enamel paints on minis instead of acrylics, or you have to use acrylics and never oils, or whatever. At best it's snobbery; at worst it's just nonsense.

Bossasaurus wrote:Im not assuming dipped models look awful, just that i can paint way better...

Zero gallery images.

Amaya put it well Bossasaoras show us some of your pretty models

I dip as well.. My nids aremy looks way better than if i had tried to paint them all by hand. FOr somearmies it works better than others and since nids are supposed to be wet and chitenouse it works perfect.
edit because i read some of the negative posts.
A) I would rather.... See a dipped army than a just primer, grey plastic, or block painted army with no highlights or shading. army any day.
B) Who cares how someone else paints their army.
C)Look at some of the dipped armies presented here. They look pretty good. Better than choice A.
some local gamers have grumped about my dipped nids. MOSLTY because dipping is so easy and fast compared to what they went through to get comparable looking minis. They addmitted to this. Fact is my minis look better than many of their minis do. Its demoralizing when you see that someone spent 10% of the time that you did doing something and their army is comparable if not better looking. Are washes cheating.? Is it cheating to go out and buy forgeworld instead of just sculpting your own minis. ITs hella fast to just go out and buy some forge world Mini-Bling rather than sculpt. I know. I sculpt. Im not very good but it takes practice and i do it because its fun. Is painting 120 gaunts that look more or less the same fun. NO. Its repetative and boring. thats a big reason people dip. It makes what may arguably be the most boring part of the hobby take less time. Sure some of us like to spend hours on our armies painting. MY Deathgaurd are taking me years because i am enjoying spending time customizing and sculpting... painting each one. Would i dip them. NEVER. Do i believe you can dip and acheive the same level of detail and shading that i have with my deathgaurd. No. would i be bummed if i faced an army that had a equivilent look that only took the player a fraction of the time to paint. Yup. Is that why there are so many haters of dipping. Yup.
Haters will hate. its what they do.

a dipped deamon prince. one color of paint on what is painted, then Army Painter Quickshade: Strong tone is brushed on and let dry, then it is givin a spray of testors dull coat. he took a long time to paint up even with the dip method, i cant even begin to fathom taking the time to paint him "For Real"




i entered this Mini into a Painting Competition at a smaller local toureny and won 1st place for "large model"... my dipped Oblits won 1st place in "Squad"
this is a conversation a buddy of mine had with the painting judge.

Buddy "Wow he is gonna be surprised he won, he wasent expecting to do that well."
Judge "Why not? They look really good."
Buddy "Because he dipped them."
Judge "Oh..."

if painting is based purely on looks, the prince is good. if it is based on technique used to paint, i would score low.


now here is the best story i have on dipping...

it was adepticon 2009.... i brought my dipped nids up with me but before i pulled them from the case i chated with the guy setting up stuff next to me.
i pull out my display base and start setting up my bugs. the guy looks over and comments something along the lines of how gakey dipping is, and how its to lazy and crap.

i look over at his display base and say "well at least my army is painted"...... he just walked away after that one.

now i know i will never win best apperance. but i never stood a shot at that anyways.


what it boils down to is this. my love of the hobby is building and converting. while i do enjoy painting, there is no way i could keep my sanity when painting the 30th boy with 90 left to go taking my time and putting effort into it. or for that matter taking my time on the 10 plague marine when i know i have 20 more to go, then 90 boyz, then 80 battle sisters, then 40 IG vets, then my entire Tomb Kings army, then my Empire, Then Khador, Cygnar, Mentoh, Circle, Trools..... well i think you get the point. i can focus on a squad for an army and hammer it out quickly. then to keep from getting board with painting the same thing over and over i can switch it up and hammer out another squad for another army.


my painting skills are also not the great. this is the best painted model i have.

my advice to all dippers is IGNORE THE HATERS,ive been checking out dipping videos etc for a while now and have decided im going to give it a bash on some of my jungle fighters etc.i see dipping as a way to help get armies up to an acceptable standard in a fair amount of time.ive got some mini's painted up that i really put the time into but id love to have a bigger force painted up before i burn myself out.
painters block is a real pain in the arse.

@Envy89 Best post on the thread

@shingouki Friggin hilarious sig!

Here is a link to my friends trollblood army it is a great example of what dipping can do. http://s7.zetaboards.com/Texas_Warmachine/topic/8464056/1/

As a side note, here is a suggestion for the next front page poll, keeping the weighting used in this poll intact:

Was the dipping poll the most heavily biased poll in Dakka history?

It was great!
I've seen better
Worst poll ever
Worst poll ever
Worst poll ever
Worst poll ever
Other (write in)

Ouze, I think you have completely nailed this one. It is pointless, uninformed, stupid, biased bandwagoning.

I think we all mellow with age, the young are desperate for acceptance and will say what they think their peer group or people they want to impress want to hear. Some older types just want to rub everyone up the wrong way and enjoy doing it (Abbandon-Fidelis anyone?) and they can be amusing occassionally in a purile way, in small doses, preferably milligram doses.

On the subject of Opinions, I completely disagree with everyone is "entitled" to an opinion. Professional opinion is always based on fact, experience, training and knowledge everyone can give an opinion but only those entitled to do so are listen to have any sway (like in Law Courts for example). Compare me with a Medical Doctor, you could come to me (I am not a Doctor) and you say "I have a pain in my head" and i say "well you've got a headache? Take a Man the Feth up pill". Where as a Doctor would give a proper professional opinion, run tests and give an evidence based opinion, or an opinion based on his experience.

I say everyone can give an opinion but "entitled" implies a knowledge, experience and fact based opinion. Not just an irrational response. To say everyone is "Entitled" to an opinion is to tolerate racism and groups like the KKK, sexism and judging peoples sexuality and Religious Intolerance.

Judging by peoples responses to "Dipping" if we carry on down this "Entitled to their Opinion Road" everyone will be killing each other until the end of time.

Dipping is here to stay, like it or loathe it, everyone get over it, move on, no one wants to hear it.

My buddy just started dipping to test his Blood Angels army, and I love the way they've turned out, but I don't think dipping will go well with a white-themed Eldar Army.

I plan on trying it soon

Hologram wrote:My buddy just started dipping to test his Blood Angels army, and I love the way they've turned out, but I don't think dipping will go well with a white-themed Eldar Army.

I plan on trying it soon

This way looks good (if you don't mind the sepia tint):

http://www.thearmypainter.com/gallery_presentation.php?GalleryId=37&Gallery

Dirty white:

http://www.thearmypainter.com/gallery_presentation.php?GalleryId=45&Gallery

This way takes more time, but it means that the blue receives the shading that it needs:

http://www.thearmypainter.com/gallery_presentation.php?GalleryId=74&Gallery

People are still talking about this? This isn't even an issue. If anyone gets their army painted at all that's great.

dipping doesnt even have to be the last stage in the model,

http://www.roundtable-bretonnia.org/index.php?option=com_fireboard&func=view&catid=25&id=90465&Itemid=87

here is an example of some bretonians painted by dipping, or using the dipping tecnique to speed up the process and the results are great

i have never dipped and i have always heard it refered to as the dipping of a unpainted or just undercoated model into a tub of paint and done, but having seen some of the results it looks great with the army painter stuff. i have a friend who paints really quickly and messy using the liberal aplications of washes and some how when its done it looks great, and i mean slapping the stuff on so it loosk a mess untill the final stage, i used to be annoyed at that as i would paint for hours and hours to get things to look good, but i dont mind now because surely if not the techniques used but the end product


also tau lend themselves to the technique well

Cammy good article find.. +1 Kudos to you, sir.

I think the post assumes that everyone who "dips" models does not bother to add detail.

I have several armies;
Tau - not dipped, but washed, weathered, etc.
Necrons - not dipped, special layering of metalics and shaded clear coats
Marines - not dipped, washed, weathered.
Nids - detailed, AND DIPPED!!

The dipping on the nids does a few things.

Is a great wash effect.
Actually transforms their base color into something amazing....
protects them
Makes the look "shiny' and "gooey". They LOOK like aliens that just hatched out of something vile.

I paint teeth, hooves, tongues, etc. then they are VERY CAREFULLY dipped....there is an art to doing it well.
Lastly, they are custom based.

I spent a LONG time working on their color scheme...trying about a dozen or so variations to achieve my final result. The dip I use combined with the very specific under colors produces an exceptionally rich color mixture when done.

For example, here is one of my models prior to the dip and final details.
He has about five different colors on him, and many details have been picked out.

here is is post dip and basing (forgive the blurry pics, it was late...).


My goal was to create a "chitin" like color on the shells similar to that of roaches.
(if you want bit of detail on the mal, check out my post on him Here


Now, it is also true, that you don't have to do much detail to still get a good look with dipping...nothing is wrong with this.
Its just another tool to get the job done.

mwnciboo wrote:I say everyone can give an opinion but "entitled" implies a knowledge, experience and fact based opinion. Not just an irrational response. To say everyone is "Entitled" to an opinion is to tolerate ....

I agree with you, I think in the USA we would say it differently (but mean the same thing). Everyone is entitled to have and speak their opinion, yes even the kkk, etc. However, some opinions have more value than others. Value being determined by professional status, experience with subject at hand, relationship to listener, etc.

cammy wrote:i have never dipped and i have always heard it refered to as the dipping of a unpainted or just undercoated model into a tub of paint and done.

This really gets to me. Dipping used with regular paint has never been a widely accepted definition of dipping, but it still seems to crop up here an there and skews conversations about dipping.

Dipping is the application of a stain (usually a stain/polyurethane combination) to a model that has had a basecoat and usually block painting already applied.

davethepak wrote:
The dipping on the nids does a few things.

Is a great wash effect.
Actually transforms their base color into something amazing....
protects them
Makes the look "shiny' and "gooey". They LOOK like aliens that just hatched out of something vile.

Very true, and it bears repeating that one of the best things about dipping, is that it is many things.
-A wash to darken colors and accent the crevases
-A Shading. When not over applied, dip settles gradually away from edges. Not a full painted shading (that takes many layers of paint) , but this progressive a shade effect which is one of the things that sets dip most apart from models that are clearly just block painted.
-A faux highlight. Because dip settles away from edges as mentioned above, when lighter colors are used it creates a highlight effect near the edges.
-Protects. Nothing like having a layer of polyurethane over your models.
-Shinyness. Good for nids, usually requires a matte spray for other models.

That's an awful lot of steps compressed and time saved for one technique. It's no wonder the dip is becoming so popular.

dont do it myself, but is a great thing to have in your toolbox!!!!

Its just another unofficial tequnique

Its a very useful technique to get large armies painted. I'd rather see a fully dipped army than an army where a few choice figures have had painstaking hours of painting done and the rest are grey plastic. I think there are some armies that lend themselves to dipping easier than others. I can't see it being a great technique with my Dark Eldar, though if anyone can prove me wrong I'd be very interested in seeing the results.

I have NEVER in 35 years experience heard of dipping as meaning the dipping of figures in paint.

For nearly 20 years, dipping (miracle dip) has been a widely known technique among historical players.

I can only assume that people who assume that dipping means dipping the models in raw paint are very new to wargaming and have not bothered to do any research on the topic.

Hopefully this thread will have informed people who had a mistaken idea about the subject, and they will now be able to try it out for themselves.

Agreed. Dakka -and only recently- is the only place that I've heard anyone refer to dipping as dipping a figure in paint.

I think it comes down to someone hearing "dipping" and making a huge assumption.

I gots no problem with dippin'! I don't do it too often, but anything 28mm and historical I dip. Mostly because you need so many figures for historical gaming.

Using the "dip method" actually gave me results that I wasn't embarassed about when I put my models on the table. It may not be for everyone, but it certainly works for me...

To be honest the only kind of dip I would ever consider using is Quickshade for tyranids, because it (as I heard) leaves a varnished "slimy" look.

Not interested in it in any other way though, I think I'll stick to brushes.

I dont care if you dip your models. I think its economical, not lazy and if you wanna do it...go for it. I wont do it because i prefer adding more detail and layering my colors, even for rank and file models. I realize not everyone is great at painting but if you keep cutting corners, even with rank and file models, I doubt your going to become a better painter anytime soon.

The dipped models look great but then you don't really give it the caring you would with other un-dipped models

dipping? isn't that some thing you do with french fries or chips

No seriously i don't really care how other people do their models if they're happy with them then fine
i don't dip my models

personally I prefer to not dip since it's obvious to notice and I do personally see it lazy but it does look good at times and it can be nice and quick compared to layers and washes.

I use spray paint when i find a color I like

If you purchase them, then you may do as you please with them. I have never denied nor will I ever deny a game with a player because of things like that. If he wants to dip, then so be it, at least the models will be painted and not grey.

Finally the live and let live mentality has won through. The democracy of popular intelligent opinion has won through and the verdict......

Who cares? do what makes you happy! If people don't like it well, so long it is not illegal who cares?

Live and let Live FTW

Nids only, IMO

Just dipped my Necron Lord and IMHO, it was pretty neat when all done and said. pics will be up soon of it dipped

I have no problem with it.

I've used Army Painter several times now and it is more versatile than people give it credit for. If you want a nice, clean consistent finish throughout your army, then dipping is the way to go. In fact I'm tempted to do it to my WoC army & experiment to see how far I can take the technique as the sole source of shading...

For example to get the best out of it I do block colours with some highlights & always brush it on, this way I have far more control over the amount of shading on the model and don't have to spend the time clearing off any excess - it takes a little longer than 'dipping and flicking' but is well worth the result. You can even add extra highlights once the dip coat is dry if you like & the matt varnish then blends it all together, I've even drybrushed onto a dipped surface and have had good results.

I'd never use it on Marines or any major flat surface models though - for me it simply doesn't look right.

To all the people who have put up pictures of their dipped models, two thumbs up, they all look quite good!

Haven't actually dipped myself, with one simple reason - I've yet to actually try it myself. I've improved my skills to a point I'm happy with the job I do on my current army (also my first army), and at the moment I'm hesitant to change my process.

Definately a technique I'll keep in mind, though, and that I will want to eventually try.

Here's my most recently dipped (minwax polyshades antique Walnut applied with a brush) models. A group of Gladiators from Urban-War/Metropolis Not the most amazing models by any stretch, but an excellent example of what an improvement the dip is for a block painted model and shows how well dip can work for skin, clothes and armor. I took extra care not to let too much extra dip pool in the crevases.The only other technique besides block painting and dip is drybrushed gunmetal guns and drybrushed tan over the dip on the hair/fur. They are sealed with cheap hardware store brand matte spray I'm really pleased with the results. and it was very easy.

Its a legit way to treat your moddels with, so I dont see the problem really.

I voted other - I'd never even heard of dipping before I read this. It looks great, anything to get the job done quickly, I'm going to give it a go with a load of plague bearers I've got to do. The way I look at it, it's just another way to get your army painted, no different to using an air brush to base coat loads of models (which I do - it's about all I'm capable of with an air brush!). Good post - thanks for enlightening me.

Never have dipped. No ononiopnoonon

I feel a little sad about it...

With all other problems world have, there is 140 people in this forum who think diping is so wrong that "all dipped models must be burned".

For me diping is another tool in the box. Very usefull for those rank and file models you dont want to make into a master piece, specially for people who have busy lifes.

I think dipping is a extremly lazy way to paint, but if you have alot of minatures you need to paint in a short time then it is a usefull method.

40k Ninja wrote:I think dipping is a extremly lazy way to paint, but if you have alot of minatures you need to paint in a short time then it is a usefull method.

Perhaps dipping is a "lazy" way paint (or rather efficient, quick and effective), but you can't say that a person is lazy for dipping their models.

It's another tool in the box.

Like using inks, glazes, washes, pigment powders, airbrushing, zenithal lighting, lighting effects, stippling, etc.

Those elitists against it have clearly ALWAYS been master level painters and have NEVER taken ANY kind of shortcut in their lives.

This includes the use of any accelerants, paint additives, decals, or the like (a true modeller freehands all of that stuff).

Tried it once, didn't like it.

I cannot believe this hasn't died yet.

Washing, inking, black lining, dipping, drybrushing, wetbrushing, airbrushing, block coating, masking, oil painting, ground up pastels, weathering powders, Non Metallic Metal painting, acrylics, retarders, accelerants, Matt Varnish, Gloss Varnish, anti-varnish, flow improver, stippling, dabbing, freehanding, marmite weathering, pin washing, magic wash, Matt Medium and probably a thousand other techniques that I have not added or yet been discovered.

If you hate dipping then you are basically saying "I am so narrow-minded that I cannot imagine a use for this or anyother technique" or more succinctly "I am a Snob"... A useful UK term here is "Bell-end".

Get paint on your models. I don't care how.

I think if you really need it, then using it is fine.

I'd prefer it if people spent more time on their models, but of a person wants to dip their models, they are entitled to; they are your toy soldiers after all.

I personally paint my space wolves in basic colors then give them 2 generous coats of devlan mud in the end. I like the effects it gives. IMO its better to see a dipped model than a non painted one.

It looks good but I would only do it if I was painting Tyranids or Orks because there is a lot of models but I would not do it for the space marines or other elite armies becouse there is few models.

This sort of thread makes about as much sense as one saying "what do you think of peopel that paint their models blue" or "is using flock cheating when you could use real ground cover", etc.

It smells of elitism and TFG...

I have seen this and thought about doing it as I am running so many points. But if you are going to spend so much money to buy models, you should at least try to make them look thier best.

Also, I would rather see base coat and dipping then grey plastic models on the field.

I'm trying to speed paint a CSM army right now and I REAAAALLY wish that I had dipping materials on hand for it...hand washing everything is just a pain and gives a less uniform result

Brother Vord,
Gead over to your local hardware and pickup some minwax polyshades for 6 bucks a can.

You can see the minwax to Army painter equivalents here:

http://chicagoskirmish.blogspot.com/2012/01/with-liberty-and-brush-dipping-for-all.html

I love dipping.

Personally i think its a great method if you need to mass produce an army! Its something i tell upcoming painters to do beacause of the great results!

Hmmm, after looking at the tyranid models all I can say is that there doesn't appear to be anything wrong with dipping, it's just another painting technique.

I'm not liking how some people have the cheek to say that dipping is 'lazy and achieves mediocre results' to be honest I actually prefer models that have been shading rather than ones which have been highlighted.

dipping.... huh?

NidMaster40000 wrote:dipping.... huh?

Do you not know what dipping is?
If that's the case, check out this tutorial.
http://chicagoskirmish.blogspot.co.uk/2012/01/with-liberty-and-brush-dipping-for-all.html

Adrian Fue Fue wrote:IAlso, I would rather see base coat and dipping then grey plastic models on the field.

There's a poll that needs to happen!

robertsjf wrote:

Adrian Fue Fue wrote:IAlso, I would rather see base coat and dipping then grey plastic models on the field.

There's a poll that needs to happen!

Just as long as the polster provides pics. People unfortuantely use "basecoat" in several ways. Do they mean...

one color
or
base colors block painted
or
....

I still dont understand what exacly dipping is, even after reading the article, but im happy wit painting everything myself.

It's using a tint, wash, ink or stain to make the details pop instead of painting every single panel and line.

That's all.

The simple way is to base coat in your preferred colour and dunk the model into the tub of dip. Then "shake" the excess off. This is wasteful and doesn't give the best results, but it is fast and does work.

The better method is to apply it with a brush, so you get it where you want it.

Daemonhammer wrote:I still dont understand what exacly dipping is, even after reading the article...

I don't mean to be snide, but really? This (from my tutorial) isn't clear?

What is dipping?
For the purposes of this article, dipping is the application of a polyurethane-and-stain combination product (referred to hereafter as the dip) to a miniature to create shading and highlighting. Traditional dipping involves the immersion of the figure in the dip. Brush dipping refers to using a brush to apply the dip instead of immersion, and is the subject of this article.

What does dipping do?
Dipping is a time-saving painting technique that in one step achieves the following results:
Gives a shading effect to the model
Darkens the recesses of the model like a wash or ink
Creates a pseudo-highlight as it settles away from the edges of the miniature leaving it lighter than the rest of the model.
Provides an extremely durable protective coating on the figure.

I'm happy to elaborate further to clear up anything you don't understand.

Complete apathy. How people paint their models is their business.

Dipping is for people who disregard major part of the hobby. Which is fair enough but without it you take away a lot of the skill and achievement. It's like mountain biking but getting your mate to give you and your bike a lift up the mountain in his van so you only do the descent.

Glorioski
That's just silly. By and large, people who dip are still priming, base-coloring, detailing (and usually basing) their miniatures. The only difference is that instead of either...
1) leaving them that way
or
2) using washes/highlights/shades
...they are using a dip technique instead to get tabletop quality results to the game.

In a gaming world that seems to be dominated by grey and silver figures, dippers are not the ones "disregarding a major part of the hobby". They've simply found a fast way to get a result that they like.

Those tyranids looked good but i wouldnt Dip i prefer to trust my own painting say for painting a load of boyz

I voted "other".

I have dipped. I like dipping. I have dipped both rank and file and hero models with excellent results on both. However, not everyone likes the effect of dipping, and I respect that.

Here are some pics I've dipped in recent years:





R.

I just see dipping as another tool in my arsenal. Some models make sense to dip. Some don't.

I voted as I did not do... But just recently I bout some from Army Painter. I also got the color primer to boot.

The idea is to primer in the base color, paint on the other base colors and do up some details. Then dip in a medium dark, pull off the puddles and spray falt varnish after hitting the details again.

I did this as I have 130 Zombies, 60 Daemons, 40 Scouts, and a couple miscellaneous models to paint. I see this as perfect without the primer for Daemons and Nids, as they should have glossy skin or exoskeletons. I use a varnish for the Zombies and Scouts as they should not be glossy, but should be grayish dirty as they are based in the city or undead. I can also see this as useful for creatures with lots of dirty skin showing, like Ogres, Spawns, Greater Daemons, or just dirty units, like Orks, Nurgle Units, and the like.

Dipping is for certain types of armies not rank and file vs character models.

I would happily dip all Tyranids, but would never dip any High Elves.

todeswind wrote:
I just see dipping as another tool in my arsenal. Some models make sense to dip. Some don't.

\

This man speaks the truth.
I also don't care how you paint your models. At least you've made an effort.
The poll answer choices are awful. Strong negative bias.

I didn't dip any of my Necrons, but I will likely dip my Tyranids I'm working on. For my 15mm minis from Rebel Minis, I dip them as well. Nice way to get a good protective coat and shading on some models (esp 15mm).

 samwellfrm wrote:
I don't see anything wrong with it. Some people don't have time to paint thier entire armies with a brush. I'd much rather see a dipped army on the field than a gray plastic army.

I think you've hit the nail on the head saying this, it's exactly how I feel towards dipping. Not everyone likes painting, or even has the time. I've got a Tau Battleforce + plus 4 extra Fire Warrior Squads, Dark Vengeance, and some Blood Angels to paint, I've got nearly 200 models to paint 0_o

I use it like a wash, applying it to some areas of the model rather than all over. It has a lovely effect when applied over metallic colours or bones. But you have to be aware of it's draw backs, such as pooling, and the fact it warms colours. But if you want an oily metal, or you just need to paint up a ton of models quickly, it's the perfect stuff...

Hmmm well I said "Other" as I had no idea what it was, but I can see it being useful for bulk identical forces like 'Nids. I'll stick to washes myself though, valid technique otherwise.

Ive always used washes and a wash doesnt take long anyway, its the highlighting that takes me the most time

tom191 wrote:
Ive always used washes and a wash doesnt take long anyway, its the highlighting that takes me the most time

I think this is one of the primary benefits of the dip and one of the things that sets it apart from a wash. Dipping gives a pseudo-highlight effect to models.

Of course it's not as dramatic an effect as a brushed-on highlight, but dip falls away from the edges (much like a wash, but less quickly) and creates a highlight-like effect where the edges are lighter than the rest of the model. It's especially pronounced when you prime in white or light grey and use lighter colors than usual, something you should always on dip-able models anyway as dip darkens the colors of a model.

I have dipped models in the past but to be honest I can get a very similar effect using washes which have the added benefit of not leaving a glossy finish.

If a model has a muted paint scheme or is supposed to look slimy/dirty then I will still dip but its not something that I default to.

I spend hours on my showcase models and maybe an hour on rank and file. But I wouldn't have it any other way. But then again I am more into the hobby than most gamers around my part of the country. That said dipped models have no place in painting competitions but are perfectly fine with me in regular gaming

If it looks good, then it's fine. A model doesn't have to look better, purely because it was done over days, rather than an hour. If it looks better, it looks better, and those tyranids, look epic

I don't like the glossy look of dipping. I knew a guy who dipped all his models, chaos, space marines, orks, necrons etc.. they just looked super shiny, not gritty

foxyfennec wrote:
I don't like the glossy look of dipping. I knew a guy who dipped all his models, chaos, space marines, orks, necrons etc.. they just looked super shiny, not gritty

I think your friend was doing something wrong and probably skipping the last step of dipping.

Unless it's tyranids, most folks also don't like the dip gloss. That's why almost everyone who dips finshes with an anti-gloss step. This could be dulcote, matte spray, brush-on matte varnish, etc, but the point is that glossiness isn't necessarily part of dipping.

The thing with dipping imo is that the model comes out half done, but most people decide its done!

I think if models were dipped for basic shading, then touched up with a brush, the standard would be much higher, and for only a little extra effort!

If it's on units that naturally lend themselves to the effects I love it. I'm also in favor or it if it is the difference between someone having a painted army or a field of grey plastic.

I actually love painting individual models, so I would never dip. It's the little details that differentiate the minis. But I don't begrudge anyone who does. It's their toy soldiers

The problem with all these votes is they really don't cover how I feel.

I haven't dipped, have no problem with it for any model, leader or troops, and if there is an army like zombies or bugs that I get down the road where I think it is appropriate, I will go ahead and dip them.

Why would you "hate" something that makes models look decent? The more tools out there for people to use, the more players the games get, the less model lines they have to cut, the more lines they can start, the more reasonably priced the game can stay, and the better the game will be!!

What causes many to buy more models? More finished product in the closest then WIPs.

Just say YES to dipping!!

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/394884.page

I found this a while back, surprised people still argue about dipping.
If you use it as a technique, and not liquid talent for all the things, you can dip in blueberry juice and have it look good.

If it works well with the army and yields good results, then sure why not? I have a Tyranid army still in the box that I haven't touched in years, might try it with them when I get chance to paint them.

I'm a huge fan of dipping, but I haven't done so myself. I really ought to though, it encourages batch painting in ways that my unpainted armies could only dream of.

However, just as I think it's unfair to severely (and I do mean severely, mind you) criticize people for dipping, people have a right to criticize it. It can be done poorly, and while a painted army is always better than an unpainted one the technique can result in less than stellar results.

Feth it, I'll post despite the age of this original thread.

If you don't wanna spend the time to paint the army because you don't care for painting, but want it to look decent, fine. If you wanna spend the time to paint it all yourself, that's cool too. Its a matter of pride when you can say I hand painted each model that you see before you, and every little detail. I will respect someones modelling and painting ability more when its hand painted, versus someone who just dips it. That being said, there is nothing wrong with dipping at all if painting isn't your thing. Its also acceptable when you have tons of rank and file troops(IG, Orks, and Nids), but I'll think your kind of lazy if you were to do it to a 20 model army. You do you, its better than seeing grey models on the board any day.

 Firehead158 wrote:
Feth it, I'll post despite the age of this original thread.

If you don't wanna spend the time to paint the army because you don't care for painting, but want it to look decent, fine. If you wanna spend the time to paint it all yourself, that's cool too. Its a matter of pride when you can say I hand painted each model that you see before you, and every little detail. I will respect someones modelling and painting ability more when its hand painted, versus someone who just dips it. That being said, there is nothing wrong with dipping at all if painting isn't your thing. Its also acceptable when you have tons of rank and file troops(IG, Orks, and Nids), but I'll think your kind of lazy if you were to do it to a 20 model army. You do you, its better than seeing grey models on the board any day.

An understandable point of view, but I would make the small point that dipped miniatures have still been "hand painted" it's just the "dipping" step may not have been. To further complicate the matter, myself and others often apply the "dip" with a brush, in the same way that many folks apply a wash. Is that not also hand painted?
Taken further, do you also require the primer to be applied with a brush? The clearcoat? The matte varnish? If those steps are done with a spray, is the model no longer handpainted?

Suffice to say I respect your respect of a highly detailed, well shaded/highlighted/etc paintjob, but I think you and others may be making some false distinctions between models that are "dipped" and "hand painted".

I brush the dip (per the tutorial in my thread) on almost every miniature and take sincere pride in having "hand painted" all (with few exceptions) of my own models.

 Eilif wrote:

 Firehead158 wrote:
Feth it, I'll post despite the age of this original thread.

If you don't wanna spend the time to paint the army because you don't care for painting, but want it to look decent, fine. If you wanna spend the time to paint it all yourself, that's cool too. Its a matter of pride when you can say I hand painted each model that you see before you, and every little detail. I will respect someones modelling and painting ability more when its hand painted, versus someone who just dips it. That being said, there is nothing wrong with dipping at all if painting isn't your thing. Its also acceptable when you have tons of rank and file troops(IG, Orks, and Nids), but I'll think your kind of lazy if you were to do it to a 20 model army. You do you, its better than seeing grey models on the board any day.

An understandable point of view, but I would make the small point that dipped miniatures have still been "hand painted" it's just the "dipping" step may not have been. To further complicate the matter, myself and others often apply the "dip" with a brush, in the same way that many folks apply a wash. Is that not also hand painted?
Taken further, do you also require the primer to be applied with a brush? The clearcoat? The matte varnish? If those steps are done with a spray, is the model no longer handpainted?

Suffice to say I respect your respect of a highly detailed, well shaded/highlighted/etc paintjob, but I think you and others may be making some false distinctions between models that are "dipped" and "hand painted".

I brush the dip (per the tutorial in my thread) on almost every miniature and take sincere pride in having "hand painted" all (with few exceptions) of my own models.

Point taken. A primer and a clear coat/matte finishing or sealant I can understand as being sprayed on.I also don't consider applying the "dip" with a brush, a dip at all. You're using it as an alternative to regular bottles of shade. If you put it on a stick, and dip it in, you most certainly have used a dip. It really depends. Its a matter of personal pride on the primer aspect. Hell, I built 35 to 40 models here in Afghanistan that I hand primed because I had no choice. I normally do use spray primer, and don't particularly care, but at the same time, primer is not the main coat of paint that you see on my models. Personally, priming regardless of how it is done is irrelevant t me, its all about what you see in the end. Slapping on a some paint on some Ork boys(green skin, brown pants, gunmetal pistol and axe) then dipping in minwax, is a lot different than painting on the green, shading with the appropriate color, then highlighting etc etc etct. Are the effects similar? Sure, you'd be hard pressed to tell the difference at distance. Now, we're playing a game, you tell me you dipped I might tell you "Thats cool, they look really good". Same situation you tell me "I painted these all by hand, did all the shading, and highlighting. Took me over 100 hours for this army", I will congratulate you on your hard work, and tell you they look great(or if they still look mediocre I'll be nice about it). I won't rip on you either way, again at least you have painted, playable models.

Dip, don't dip, paint, don't paint. Makes no difference to me. I like to make and play with models rather than spend my time painting them all anyway.

I recently started dipping my Kings of War (Mantic fantasy humans) and I have been real happy with the dusty-battlefield look. The dip is brushed on and mineral spirits is used to keep the dip thin. Once dried the minis are sprayed with matte. Several coats of washes are also applied before the dip.

I haven't decided which fantasy race to finish painting next. I have well over a 100 Dwarves and about 100 Elves, but I am thinking that the same dipping technique will work fine for both armies.

lol, i chose "I want to burn all dipped models" you can see the vein in my head bulging when I see a dipped army!

I don't get the beef against dipped models. I'd rather see dipped than grey plastic.

I get bored of painting quite quickly. I love painting but usually one or two models at a time, a hoard army would take me months and months so dipping would encourage me to finish everything