Do you think people who play with unpainted models on a regular basis / almost always, should be frowned upon and should stick to other games that don't have a modeling aspect to it.
Obviously I can't tell someone else what they must do with their own models, but I do feel that you should put some effort into them. It doesn't take much to at least spray your models with a colored primer and lay down a couple of base colors, and any amount of paint is infinitely better than none.
1. Not everyone has the time, money or desire to paint their models.
2. The game can easily be played without painting the models.
3. If you have a major problem playing against unpainted models, you're hurting yourself by limiting your pool of opponents.
Well i personally think it doesn't matter if you dont have the time in my opinion its like you are basically cheating and not really worthy of being called some one with a army. Thats just me though.
If you have the time and money to buy and assemble an entire 40k army, you have the time and money to spray them with a base color and block out one or two more with a brush.
3. If you have a major problem playing against unpainted models, you're hurting yourself by limiting your pool of opponents.
Nah. I don't play that often anyway, so when I do I prefer it to be a visual spectacle as this game should.
No the unpainted people in my eyes are not in the pool so its irrelevent.
Even if you cant paint well, atleast do your best thats part of the whole thing i mean, at this point you should not even use models, just use toilet paper rolls why even have models
I play Grey Knights and believe it or not my models are grey. In fact I was playing the other day and someone pointed to my models and said, "See, you don't need to paint your models to play." I then informed them that my models were in fact painted and meant to be the color they are. Embarrassment ensued.
If its one of my old gamer friends, well they get mocked and publicly disparaged.
If its a newbie, Point out the basics of painting can be a help.
If its a guy that is just there to play and doesn't want to paint, point out that a black spray with a silver dry brush really helps with both look, cohesion, and actually model identification on the table, and one of those things helps game play.
I'm a big advocate of the mediocre paint skill. I feel that the max amount of time spent on a army should be strictly limited. If you can't get a good solid look on the model and it on the table in relatively short order, do what your girlfriend did, and lower your standards.
The way I see it, a game is an agreement from two or more people to partake in a good looking game, with painted miniatures on nice terrain. That is the purpose of collecting miniatures for a game like 40K, and why we're not playing Hero Clix, etc. Thus, I consider it my responsibility to bring my best to the table. I consider my army or my terrain or my table as my donation to the event that we're playing in.
Do I judge people with unpainted stuff? Sure, a bit. You are deminishing the visual of a game, and thus not bringing your half of the experience. I want my opponent to look at my army and think "awesome, always wanted to play against a fully painted cohesive army on a cool table!", etc.
I think it's about respecting your opponent enough to put in the effort to make the combined experience as good as possible.
Now, having said that - I don't have any expectation of quality. We live in a world with amazing cheats available (colour spray primers, dip, etc.). If you say "I can't paint these X", you're likely lying. Spray the bases green or brown, spray the minis a base colour, and dip them or wash them and we'll go from there. Show that you're interested in the combined effort of a tabletop game.
Wow... I'm surprised by some of the nasty, elitist comments I'm reading. Super glad I don't play with you guys or your communities. Sounds pretty awful and unwelcoming.
My community does everything in its power to grow. Communities thrive on new blood. If that means taking on people who don't have the time or desire to paint, so be it. More players makes for generally healthier (i.e. more likely to survive) communities.
Only gripe I have with unpainted models is that its harder to tell what gear they are using or which model type they are at a glance on the table top (might be because my eyes are rather meh). Other than that I have zero issue with people using grey models.
I’d prefer to have painted models in play, making taking pictures look much cooler.
However, in the end I’m playing a game and not having a fashion show. I just want the game to work and not feel like I’m wasting 4 hours of my life on a foregone conclusion that was decided when I wrote up my list.
I don't think they should be frowned upon, but certainly pitied. One of the most fun and engaging parts of this hobby is painting your stuff. Players who "can't be bothered" to paint their army are truly missing out on (IMO) the best part of the hobby, and therefore pity, not disdain, it the right emotion to have for those players.
You also kinda rob your opponent of an aesthetically pleasing game if you refuse to paint your stuff. Even just a base coat is better than nothing
I like to see progress. If you show up to a game with a horde of grey but next month you have a unit or a couple pieces painted that's awesome. If it's still just the same horde of grey then I will silently judge you.
I'm always adding new stuff to my army so I usually have a handful of unpainted units. I like to try them out in a game before I commit the hours (I'm a horrible and slow painter) that I need to get them into table top shape. I still haven't based over 90% of my new additions yet (working on getting something competitive painted and then I'll actually base the models that don't get blown off the table by turn 3...) and I'm sure that bothers some people.
On the other hand I have no problem playing against proxies or counts as (as long as they are clear and about the same size) as long as it's not the fourth month you are still pulling out your counts as reapers.
Painting GK is a waste of time and money. I can imagine someone painting an army that is good, or any army that is ment for tournaments. But spending more money on GK, no thank you.
I casual games, i dont have a problem. I have lots of models that have been undercoated for 10 years and yet to be painted; this is due to lack of time or motivation.
In competition? Unacceptable. Theres a group around that runs a yearly tournament and one of their conditions is that all models must be painted too a good standard with highlighting and basing. If even one model doesnt meet that standard, then the player is ineligible to win prizes regardless of how well they may place.
Ive always felt that painting is not required to play this game. GW does a good job selling you on the presentation of the box art and most cant achieve that level.
Lately Ive come to the thought of priming and at least basecoating models in a primary color and coming back to them isn't that hard so Ive tried to get at least that much done before putting them on the table.
As time allows I will come back to the model and batch paint the rest of the details until the army is at an acceptable table top standard. Its worked for me so far and Ive tried to live by the mantra "just get some paint on it".
Karol wrote: Painting GK is a waste of time and money. I can imagine someone painting an army that is good, or any army that is ment for tournaments. But spending more money on GK, no thank you.
I don't get it, why is painting grey knights waste of time :S??
Karol wrote: Painting GK is a waste of time and money. I can imagine someone painting an army that is good, or any army that is ment for tournaments. But spending more money on GK, no thank you.
skchsan wrote: Why would you NOT want to paint your mini's? It's literally 99% of the hobby.
Why not just play a computer game if you want to play RTS without being invested in your models?
Um painting is like 10%, and I might be generous with that.
Playing the game is about competitiveness, strategy, game play, comradeship, developing an understanding of mathematics, then maybe distant way over there after army creation is Painting.
Karol wrote: Painting GK is a waste of time and money. I can imagine someone painting an army that is good, or any army that is ment for tournaments. But spending more money on GK, no thank you.
I don't get it, why is painting grey knights waste of time :S??
He's saying it's not worth playing GK's atm due to how crappy they are in the competitive scene.
I enjoy games vs painted armies more, and I will never bring more than 1-2 unpainted models max, but I'll never refuse to play someone if their army is unpainted, and I'll never tell them that they should paint their army. It's more of a personal preference.
skchsan wrote: Why would you NOT want to paint your mini's? It's literally 99% of the hobby.
Why not just play a computer game if you want to play RTS without being invested in your models?
Uh, it’s not 99% of the hobby, more like 25% or less. Some of us are in it for the game. If I could afford it, I’d only buy models that were already built and painted so I simply could concentrate on playing the game - and/or displaying the models.
Painting is the part of the hobby I like the least.
Karol wrote: Painting GK is a waste of time and money. I can imagine someone painting an army that is good, or any army that is ment for tournaments. But spending more money on GK, no thank you.
I don't get it, why is painting grey knights waste of time :S??
And money, and time is money. Am not going to invest more money in to something that has zero influence on how the army plays, just so someone else gets the option to tell me how bad they are painted.
Why not just play a computer game if you want to play RTS without being invested in your models?
Instead of upgrading my old PC, I bought the GK army with my confirmation money. My sister bought a good tabled. In hindsight I would say she made a much better decision.
skchsan wrote: Why would you NOT want to paint your mini's? It's literally 99% of the hobby.
Why not just play a computer game if you want to play RTS without being invested in your models?
Um painting is like 10%, and I might be generous with that.
Playing the game is about competitiveness, strategy, game play, comradeship, developing an understanding of mathematics, then maybe distant way over there after army creation is Painting.
You misunderstand - assembling and painting is 99% of the HOBBY that is 40k.
Playing a game of 40k is like having a cake and eating it too.
You misunderstand - assembling and painting is 99% of the HOBBY that is 40k.
No it isn't, even if you had some huge 300 models army, you would still spend hours getting to a store and playing. while assembly can be done in a single weekend.
skchsan wrote: Why would you NOT want to paint your mini's? It's literally 99% of the hobby.
Why not just play a computer game if you want to play RTS without being invested in your models?
Um painting is like 10%, and I might be generous with that.
Playing the game is about competitiveness, strategy, game play, comradeship, developing an understanding of mathematics, then maybe distant way over there after army creation is Painting.
You misunderstand - assembling and painting is 99% of the HOBBY that is 40k.
Playing a game of 40k is like having a cake and eating it too.
Which is what initially attracted me to the game in the first place. I really liked building models (plastic ones), but they just kinda sat around and I never really got to show them off to other people. Now I can have the fun of building plastic models, ADDED to a pretty cool game, with lots of interesting backstories and lore to read.
You misunderstand - assembling and painting is 99% of the HOBBY that is 40k.
No it isn't, even if you had some huge 300 models army, you would still spend hours getting to a store and playing. while assembly can be done in a single weekend.
I don't know how you're assembling things, but putting together a squad of 10 guardsmen takes me like 3-4 hours :( Painting them takes another 7-8 hours, but I enjoy that part a hell of a lot more.
lol painting is 99% i mean iv been in this hobby for like 8 months now and still havnt finished painting my whole army to even attempt putting them to war yet. So in terms of time yes 99%
The game itself is mediocre at best, if you don't care about how the models look, then there are much better games out there, especially if you actually want to compete in fair and balanced way. The hobby is about bringing the 40K universe alive in an interactive visual form.
Then why are you playing a game like 40k? The rules are something you suffer through so you can enjoy the fluff/model side of it, if you don't care about the models then why not play one of the far superior games out there?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
As for the question, voted "unacceptable". I won't say I will 100% refuse a game, because I have played against unpainted models, but I'm certainly going to judge you for it and there's a decent chance I'll turn down the game entirely.
Kriswall wrote: Wow... I'm surprised by some of the nasty, elitist comments I'm reading. Super glad I don't play with you guys or your communities. Sounds pretty awful and unwelcoming.
My community does everything in its power to grow. Communities thrive on new blood. If that means taking on people who don't have the time or desire to paint, so be it. More players makes for generally healthier (i.e. more likely to survive) communities.
Some of these same people are the "casual" players too, who are somehow more elitist than the competitive players.
Perhaps I don't want to commit to painting a unit just yet because I didn't decide its color scheme. Perhaps I just finished putting then together and want to try them in a list again. Maybe I'm simply not a good painter and would rather not waste my time creating a regular Clarence.
Spoiler:
There is simply no way you can say an unpainted army is more immersion breaking than those globs of paint.
Man i dont care how mediocre the 40k game is, the fact is my wonderful army of fantastic looking models can go to battle, i dont care if its a rather simplistic game rules.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Oh those pictures are so funny
Automatically Appended Next Post: Its like the badly painted models are the Mentally handicapped people of 40k universe lol
Automatically Appended Next Post: I guess we can say the same for grey models lol
Kriswall wrote: Wow... I'm surprised by some of the nasty, elitist comments I'm reading. Super glad I don't play with you guys or your communities. Sounds pretty awful and unwelcoming.
My community does everything in its power to grow. Communities thrive on new blood. If that means taking on people who don't have the time or desire to paint, so be it. More players makes for generally healthier (i.e. more likely to survive) communities.
I can't stand the attitude of "holding people to standards or expecting them to improve themselves is mean and elitist," in general. If you really care about getting people into the hobby then you'll gently encourage people to have some passion for it and give it an honest effort. No one gets excited about something that isn't a challenge or an accomplishment, and just patting everyone on the back for showing up is much less likely to end up with lasting relationships and communities than being a leader and an example and helping people realize their potential. No one is saying they spit at the feet of any dirty plebeian who dares to show up with grey plastic. If you want to turn new players into lasting hobbyists, then I can't think of a better way of doing it than offering to sit down and show someone the ropes, loaning them some supplies and showing them how proud they can be of what they're capable of doing with a little bit of effort. I am personally doing exactly that with two brand new players this weekend, and they're all pumped up about it and about making their models their own. I doubt that showing them apathy about their efforts, and demonstrating that whatever they do will meet with the same empty encouragement and praise regardless of those efforts, would engender the same excitement.
The kind of player who simply can't be bothered to engage in the hobby aspect of the hobby at all obviously doesn't really care about it that much and is probably going to disappear sooner rather than later, and that's no one's choice but their own. Being welcoming and accepting is good, but if everyone has a low level of engagement then you're selling them short on the experience and doing them a disservice; one which you can expect to be repaid in general lack of interest and eventual estrangement.
There is nothing elitist about encouraging people to take pride in what they're doing; it's elitist to deign to play with someone even though you're apathetic about them or their army because you don't expect them to be capable of a small bit of motivation and passion.
The problem with the question is that the answer can rely heavily on context.
Someone who has owned an army for years - yeah I'd sort of expect them to have painted it or at least based it. At that stage I'd rather suspect that they are either very unsure/lacking in confidence with painting and seek ways to support and educate them - or that they are just lazy or lack inspiration to paint.
Someone who just started a new army or has very limited time - yeah sure they might well not have painted because they've not yet had time to paint stuff up.
In general it doesn't bother me. Yes painted is nicer, yes its the ideal most gamers aim for; but no I'm not going to lose sleep over an opponent with an unpainted army now and then. That said I'd always try to approach the subject from the positive rather tahn the negative angle.
I do prefer playing against a fully painted army, as it adds a bit of depth to the whole spectacle of the game but it really doesn't bother me as much as proxies bother me. That's a different story entirely.
I bring work in progress models to the table on a regular basis so for me to say I won't play against a grey army would be a bit hypocritical.
Most of my army is painted but it took ages and at times was a real effort so I totally understand if people can't/won't do it. Yep, the game looks much better with fully painted armies on a beautiful properly modeled table but that's not always available so really you either deal with it or be one of those insufferably preachy people who love to dictate how strangers should treat the things they buy with their own money.
Crimson wrote: The game itself is mediocre at best, if you don't care about how the models look, then there are much better games out there, especially if you actually want to compete in fair and balanced way. The hobby is about bringing the 40K universe alive in an interactive visual form.
The hobby and 40K is what you want it to be about. For me, painting is a sometimes enjoyable chore, but a chore nonetheless. When it comes down to it, I’ve done enough painting that I’d have rathered that time had been spent in actual games instead*. I can definately understand others not spending that time on painting and getting down to the business of gaming (such as my main opponent, my son).
* I’ve also spent a lot of years assembling and painting pure models - mostly WW2 tanks & airplanes, so I can understand modeling for modeling’s sake. However, with the availability of prepainted models and kits, I’d rather just grab those than do-it-yourself kits - it took me 10 years to finally finish the last pure model I did - a Revell 1/48 B-18G model.
Painted armies definitely look nicer but I'd never begrudge anyone not painting their models. Not least because I struggle to get mine painted.
I know that this is apparently heresy on dakkadakka, but painting just doesn't interest me. I don't mind painting the occasional character, but painting legions of near-identical guardsmen (or other infantry) is something I find dull and tedious. It probably doesn't help that I often struggle to decide on a paint scheme, though even very simple paint schemes quickly test my patience.
Kriswall wrote: Wow... I'm surprised by some of the nasty, elitist comments I'm reading. Super glad I don't play with you guys or your communities. Sounds pretty awful and unwelcoming.
Same. I'll grant that I'm biased, since I frequently use unpainted/barely-painted miniatures, but many comments here seem unnecessarily hostile towards unpainted miniatures.
Stormatious wrote:Modeling ( painting ) goes hand in hand with every thing that is warhammer.
Marketing lies pushed by GW.
JohnnyHell wrote:Don’t we do this thread over again about once a month???
Yeah, this blossoms eternal like the “No Longer Available” threads
What are you talking about, of course it goes hand in hand.
Not when I can pay a commission to have someone build and paint my models for me (like say, Blue Table Painting).
I really wish that GW would offer prebuilt and painted versions of their models - like FFG does for X-Wing or how Dust/AT-43 did/does.
Dude that doesn't mean at all that it does not go hand in hand, your just giving the modeling aspect over to some one else, that doesn't mean ti dissapears.
Stormatious wrote:Modeling ( painting ) goes hand in hand with every thing that is warhammer.
Marketing lies pushed by GW.
JohnnyHell wrote:Don’t we do this thread over again about once a month???
Yeah, this blossoms eternal like the “No Longer Available” threads
What are you talking about, of course it goes hand in hand.
Not when I can pay a commission to have someone build and paint my models for me (like say, Blue Table Painting).
I really wish that GW would offer prebuilt and painted versions of their models - like FFG does for X-Wing or how Dust/AT-43 did/does.
Dude that doesn't mean at all that it does not go hand in hand, your just giving the modeling aspect over to some one else, that doesn't mean ti dissapears.
Both your names are similar enough I thought a poster was having a conversation with themselves.
Stormatious wrote:Modeling ( painting ) goes hand in hand with every thing that is warhammer.
Marketing lies pushed by GW.
JohnnyHell wrote:Don’t we do this thread over again about once a month???
Yeah, this blossoms eternal like the “No Longer Available” threads
What are you talking about, of course it goes hand in hand.
Not when I can pay a commission to have someone build and paint my models for me (like say, Blue Table Painting).
I really wish that GW would offer prebuilt and painted versions of their models - like FFG does for X-Wing or how Dust/AT-43 did/does.
Dude that doesn't mean at all that it does not go hand in hand, your just giving the modeling aspect over to some one else, that doesn't mean ti dissapears.
If my first contact with the model is with it already assembled and painted, then effectively the modeling aspect does not exist for me. Or we’d have to consider buying an action figure at Walmart “modeling” that had been handed over to someone else.
Leo_the_Rat wrote: I play Grey Knights and believe it or not my models are grey. In fact I was playing the other day and someone pointed to my models and said, "See, you don't need to paint your models to play." I then informed them that my models were in fact painted and meant to be the color they are. Embarrassment ensued.
Why? Because you'd also painted their weapons and accessories grey and left their bases unsanded and black? There is zero way this could have happened. Even from afar a grey painted model can clearly be seen that it is painted.
Crimson wrote: Everyone's (well, almost everyone's) first models will be badly painted. But that's no reason to not do it; you'll never get better without practice.
And why would I want to put a Clarence on the table just because you want them painted?
Sure one might not get better without practice. However if that person never improves no matter what, they basically continuously ruin models.
Refer to my first post in the thread. Are unpainted models really more immersion breaking than a Clarence? A Clarence is the opposite of having pride in the army.
Leo_the_Rat wrote: I play Grey Knights and believe it or not my models are grey. In fact I was playing the other day and someone pointed to my models and said, "See, you don't need to paint your models to play." I then informed them that my models were in fact painted and meant to be the color they are. Embarrassment ensued.
Why? Because you'd also painted their weapons and accessories grey and left their bases unsanded and black? There is zero way this could have happened. Even from afar a grey painted model can clearly be seen that it is painted.
Unless the person suffers from a certain kind of color blindness.
skchsan wrote:Why would you NOT want to paint your mini's? It's literally 99% of the hobby.
Reemule wrote:Um painting is like 10%, and I might be generous with that.
Stormonu wrote:Uh, it’s not 99% of the hobby, more like 25% or less.
You can't put a definitive number that applies to everyone, because everybody considers what makes up their "hobby" differently. Some players couldn't give two farts about painting, and are purely about the game. A 100/0 Gaming/Hobby split is for them. For others, they've never played a game in their life and just love collecting and painting cool models. That's a 0/100 Gaming/Hobby split.
I'd wager most of us fall somewhere in between those two extremes. To what degree is ours and ours alone to decide. Nobody else can dictate it for you, and it's certainly not worthy of "pity" from others who deem it necessary to impose their concept of the hobby on others.
Stormatious wrote:Modeling ( painting ) goes hand in hand with every thing that is warhammer.
Marketing lies pushed by GW.
JohnnyHell wrote:Don’t we do this thread over again about once a month???
Yeah, this blossoms eternal like the “No Longer Available” threads
What are you talking about, of course it goes hand in hand.
Not when I can pay a commission to have someone build and paint my models for me (like say, Blue Table Painting).
I really wish that GW would offer prebuilt and painted versions of their models - like FFG does for X-Wing or how Dust/AT-43 did/does.
Dude that doesn't mean at all that it does not go hand in hand, your just giving the modeling aspect over to some one else, that doesn't mean ti dissapears.
If my first contact with the model is with it already assembled and painted, then effectively the modeling aspect does not exist for me. Or we’d have to consider buying an action figure at Walmart “modeling” that had been handed over to someone else.
It doesn't exist for you personally but what you have is named a model because the modeling aspect, it arrived unpainted when it was bought in its brand new form, so the modeling aspect still remains with the model just not you personally.
Automatically Appended Next Post: and the model is 40k so yeah
skchsan wrote:Why would you NOT want to paint your mini's? It's literally 99% of the hobby.
Reemule wrote:Um painting is like 10%, and I might be generous with that.
Stormonu wrote:Uh, it’s not 99% of the hobby, more like 25% or less.
You can't put a definitive number that applies to everyone, because everybody considers what makes up their "hobby" differently. Some players couldn't give two farts about painting, and are purely about the game. A 100/0 Gaming/Hobby split is for them. For others, they've never played a game in their life and just love collecting and painting cool models. That's a 0/100 Gaming/Hobby split.
I'd wager most of us fall somewhere in between those two extremes. To what degree is ours and ours alone to decide. Nobody else can dictate it for you, and it's certainly not worthy of "pity" from others who deem it necessary to impose their concept of the hobby on others.
Well put. This is why I specifically called out hobby and the game itself as two separate entity.
Some (many) aspects of the painting process certainly are repetitive and tedious and feel like a chore to me as well. Though there are also aspects which are quite enjoyable. Regardless, I want my models to be painted, and I want them to be painted in the exact way down to the last details, so I need to paint them myself.
But commissioning someone else to paint your models is absolutely fine. As long as the models are painted before they hit the table, I really don't care how it happened.
I went with "I prefer painted mini's, but don't really care" since it's the closest to what I feel. However, I do care. I'll echo what other people have said about wanting to create good-looking scenes on the table, and painted mini's, even to a basic level look good.
I've always held this opinion, and never oppose people playing with grey minis (I do it myself on rare occasion) or proxies.
It's a little tiring, in my local town where people keep buying new armies or just making no effort to paint what they have, and having to play vs a sea of grey or black or white week after week.
I enjoy taking pictures of the games, then sharing it with friends and talking about the games, and it's a personal problem, but I'd prefer if both sides were painted even a little.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: However if that person never improves no matter what, they basically continuously ruin models.
I am an art teacher. Some people are better at these things than others, but everyone can learn.
I am an absolutely gak artist. I can still put down what I feel like is a decently painted army, because applying paint to models using basic techniques and tools is less about being artistic and more about following a procedure. Anyone without serious physical disability can paint to a reasonable standard.
vipoid wrote: Same. I'll grant that I'm biased, since I frequently use unpainted/barely-painted miniatures, but many comments here seem unnecessarily hostile towards unpainted miniatures.
Disagree. I think the comments have been excessively considerate and understanding towards people who play with unpainted models, but I suppose the honest truth would attract moderator attention.
Another tired old meme that 40k players have run into the ground. Why not wheel out Abaddon having no arms and Dorn having a moustache whilst we're at it? Play all the classics.
How long until models are considered even "presentable" though?
Also as a former teacher aide I completely disagree everyone can learn to be good at anything.
This is true, but Crimson and Horst are right about this one. It's not so much about inherent skill or ability so much as it is about developing a system of mechanical techniques. It can take a long time to figure that kind of thing out on your own through blind experimentation, but with a bit of guidance you can cut straight to what works.
How long until models are considered even "presentable" though?
Those clarences are presentable. Sure, they're objectively horrid, but at least the person is trying. Next ones will be better. And of course in this internet era tutorials are easy to come by, so getting past the clarence phase doesn't really take much effort at all.
Also as a former teacher aide I completely disagree everyone can learn to be good at anything.
Yeah, let's not pretend that painting is difficult. 99.9% of people are capable of doing a clean base coat + wash, and maybe some drybrushed highlights. The vast majority of people with unpainted armies don't have any disability that would prevent them from painting, they're just lazy.
Peregrine wrote: Yeah, let's not pretend that painting is difficult. 99.9% of people are capable of doing a clean base coat + wash, and maybe some drybrushed highlights. The vast majority of people with unpainted armies don't have any disability that would prevent them from painting, they're just lazy.
I cant believe you just said that... Its hard..... trying to learn how to do all these different techniques, applying perfect width edge highlights, learning how to simply use the brush and paint strokes properly.... dude what are you talking about, learning how to focus and control your brush i mean ...
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: However if that person never improves no matter what, they basically continuously ruin models.
I am an art teacher. Some people are better at these things than others, but everyone can learn.
How long until models are considered even "presentable" though?
Also as a former teacher aide I completely disagree everyone can learn to be good at anything.
Thing is a lot of school is actually a pretty rubbish environment to actually - you know - teach people.
Or at least to teach all people all things. Some students learn different ways at different paces and Art subjects highlight this greatly as they also require a period of practice of hand to eye coordination that will hinder any theory learned for a period of time.
I think if a person has determination and a skilled and enthusiastic teacher who is skilled in teaching AND their craft then most people can indeed learn anything. Mostly what they need to invest is structured and guided time and practice. It's why you can get students who will fail most lessons who can later hold down a very skilled specific job - because instead of learning 20 things lightly they are learning 1 thing in a direct manner and doing it for 5 days a week for most weeks of the year.
Art tends to get highlighted as one of those "you have to be born with the skill" subjects, which I personally find, as comment, to be a load of rubbish. No one is born and artist no more than they are born an electrician or a window fitter or an accountant.
Peregrine wrote: Yeah, let's not pretend that painting is difficult. 99.9% of people are capable of doing a clean base coat + wash, and maybe some drybrushed highlights. The vast majority of people with unpainted armies don't have any disability that would prevent them from painting, they're just lazy.
I cant believe you just said that... Its extremely hard..... trying to learn how to do all these different techniques, applying straight lines for highlights, learning how to simply use the brush and paint strokes properly.... dude what are you talking about
Are you serious? You don't need "techniques" to paint to a basic tabletop standard. Put some paint on the model, using the brush to spread it out into a smooth coat instead of just blobbing it on. Cover the whole model in a black wash. If you're feeling really ambitious maybe do a quick drybrush with the original color. We're talking about the equivalent of being able to color within the lines with crayons, not doing museum-quality paintings. GW even provides step by step guides for the entire process.
normally I would say paint them but if for instance its just 5 days past Christmas and they got 50 mini's they don't have enough time so I don't care its more of just the effort thing. I try to paint my models to the highest standard (exept for guardsmen which I use middle because if you want to paint 200 men identically with 3 different colours of edge highlighting be my guest).
Peregrine wrote: Yeah, let's not pretend that painting is difficult. 99.9% of people are capable of doing a clean base coat + wash, and maybe some drybrushed highlights. The vast majority of people with unpainted armies don't have any disability that would prevent them from painting, they're just lazy.
I cant believe you just said that... Its extremely hard..... trying to learn how to do all these different techniques, applying straight lines for highlights, learning how to simply use the brush and paint strokes properly.... dude what are you talking about
Are you serious? You don't need "techniques" to paint to a basic tabletop standard. Put some paint on the model, using the brush to spread it out into a smooth coat instead of just blobbing it on. Cover the whole model in a black wash. If you're feeling really ambitious maybe do a quick drybrush with the original color. We're talking about the equivalent of being able to color within the lines with crayons, not doing museum-quality paintings. GW even provides step by step guides for the entire process.
Well im talking about painting to high standards. What ever man mabey im just slow but i have found it hard over the few months of learning how to perfect many different things.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Learning how to do ware effects etc etc and applying it correctly
Peregrine wrote: Yeah, let's not pretend that painting is difficult. 99.9% of people are capable of doing a clean base coat + wash, and maybe some drybrushed highlights. The vast majority of people with unpainted armies don't have any disability that would prevent them from painting, they're just lazy.
I can't believe I'm agreeing with Perri, but here we are.
Too many times I've seen players who say "I don't have time to paint" yet they're sitting on their arses at the FLGS doing feth all (not even gaming). They could be spending that time painting yet they won't for some reason. Yes, I know you have slumps in painting then get a burst of activity when you get your mojo but it totally grates when their main excuse is "no time" yet the only time you see them is when they're wasting just that.
Peregrine wrote: Yeah, let's not pretend that painting is difficult. 99.9% of people are capable of doing a clean base coat + wash, and maybe some drybrushed highlights. The vast majority of people with unpainted armies don't have any disability that would prevent them from painting, they're just lazy.
I cant believe you just said that... Its hard..... trying to learn how to do all these different techniques, applying perfect width edge highlights, learning how to simply use the brush and paint strokes properly.... dude what are you talking about
It's not so much lazy, lazy is the wrong terminology entirey. I agree with Peri that most can learn to do painting of models; however there ARE barriers including, and not limited too;
1) Personal confidence - as I noted above many think of art as a "gifted" student thing and thus they tend to assume that as they were not gifted at school in the subject; that they are incapable of learning. That many art departments are poorly setup to actually teach the foundations and mechanics of how to draw and paint does a lot to reinforce this idea.
2) Guided instruction - both theory and practical. Practice on its own is near useless if there is no direction involved. Newbies need direction from theory and in person in order to advance their artistic talent. This way they can be shown methods; educated on the subject and generally aided through the process.
3) Self learning skills. Self learning is a skill and not everyone has learned it. Furthermore it can have major pitfalls - for example even with google if you don't know something exists its very hard to search for it because you won't even know its there to ask the question in the first place. So you can easily end up missing out small yet key details.
4) Time. Practice takes considerable time and sometimes people are pressured in life and don't have ample time. This doesn't just mean short periods or a few hours in a block once a week. Some people need an hour a day to learn something - esp at the start. So that they've time to reinforce one thing they've learned and repeat it before moving on - if they only get 30 mins a week it will take them ever so much longer and might forget more between sessions which will further hinder them.
Just saying they are lazy is basically a very lazy way to argue things. It totally ignores most of the actual reasons and instead tries to act as a slur on the unpainted of which I would wager the majority would love to have painted models by their own hand.
Stormatious wrote: i find it hard to believe you can just come in to this with no experience at all and watch a video and think your first mini will be table top
Literal first mini? Maybe not. But within the first 5-10, absolutely. Painting to a tabletop standard is easy. As long as you're capable of keeping the paint within the lines and buy a bottle of black/brown wash you can learn it in an hour or two at most.
Stormatious wrote: i find it hard to believe you can just come in to this with no experience at all and watch a video and think your first mini will be table top
People think that though. I dunno what parts of the internet you go on but I see many a social media post of newbies getting dismayed their first models are not totally amazeballs.
I would prefer painted if its 5 days after Christmas and not painted I don't care at all because you know TIME I personally paint al my models to the best of my ability exept for guardsmen because if you want to paint 200 minis all 3 colour edge highlights with about 15 in total be my guest.
Overread wrote: It totally ignores most of the actual reasons and instead tries to act as a slur on the unpainted of which I would wager the majority would love to have painted models by their own hand.
I disagree. In my experience, an impression confirmed by the anti-painting responses in this thread, the people with unpainted armies don't care about painting. They aren't sitting around wishing they could paint their models, they just don't give a about having a nice looking army and throw a heap of gray plastic in a shoebox (complete with broken parts, random legs on bases as proxies, etc).
Stormatious wrote: i find it hard to believe you can just come in to this with no experience at all and watch a video and think your first mini will be table top
People think that though. I dunno what parts of the internet you go on but I see many a social media post of newbies getting dismayed their first models are not totally amazeballs.
So you agree with me that to actually get a tabletop standard ( assuming tabletop standard is great quality ) you cant just jump in with no exp and watch a vid n get it.
Stormatious wrote: i find it hard to believe you can just come in to this with no experience at all and watch a video and think your first mini will be table top
People think that though. I dunno what parts of the internet you go on but I see many a social media post of newbies getting dismayed their first models are not totally amazeballs.
Which is normal - its often venting frustration because they have no means to understand what they are doing wrong. They don't understand why a guide that produces a great looking model isn't working for them. They don't realise all the little things that might even be as simple as changing their hold on the brush - they are unguided and attempting to self learn without proper self learning skills in place first. IT leads to frustration and a significant loss of self confidence.
Also lets not forget if you've just bought and built a £50 box of models and they all look rubbish that's a darn expensive lesson in time and money to learn to paint.
Stormatious wrote: Well i mean im noob but i thought tabletop standard was pretty high quality
No. Tabletop standard literally means what it says: suitable for putting on the table for an average game. The whole point is that it's the lowest standard of "you fully painted these models", it won't win any painting competitions but it works as a game piece. Usually it consists of very simple techniques like base coat + wash + drybrush that can get something that looks decent from across the table.
Stormatious wrote: i find it hard to believe you can just come in to this with no experience at all and watch a video and think your first mini will be table top
People think that though. I dunno what parts of the internet you go on but I see many a social media post of newbies getting dismayed their first models are not totally amazeballs.
Which is normal - its often venting frustration because they have no means to understand what they are doing wrong. They don't understand why a guide that produces a great looking model isn't working for them. They don't realise all the little things that might even be as simple as changing their hold on the brush - they are unguided and attempting to self learn without proper self learning skills in place first. IT leads to frustration and a significant loss of self confidence.
Also lets not forget if you've just bought and built a £50 box of models and they all look rubbish that's a darn expensive lesson in time and money to learn to paint.
EXACTLY!!
Automatically Appended Next Post: thats why its taking me months to get my stuf done
For what its worth I much prefer to play against a fully painted army but have not managed to get my own done in the twenty years I have owned it. Mostly because I don't enjoy painting.
Overread wrote: It totally ignores most of the actual reasons and instead tries to act as a slur on the unpainted of which I would wager the majority would love to have painted models by their own hand.
I disagree. In my experience, an impression confirmed by the anti-painting responses in this thread, the people with unpainted armies don't care about painting. They aren't sitting around wishing they could paint their models, they just don't give a about having a nice looking army and throw a heap of gray plastic in a shoebox (complete with broken parts, random legs on bases as proxies, etc).
Aye some are throw it in a shoe box and don't care - but I'd wager a greater proportion are those who maybe once tried to learn - failed and lost confidence to paint and never tried again. Confidence is an immensely fickle thing and very easily lost. Sadly its not something that is often instilled in many through school - often you find its the kind of thing only the best of teachers learn (although I'd say quite a few driving instructors pick up the skills on imparting confidence since its a key part of getting some people from being a danger to themselves to being a competent driver)
I do not mind unpainted models. I enjoy painted models though.
What I do not like is somebody who never paint their models because they have unrealistic goals. If I got 8 houers, glued models and all the supplies I wanted I could probably pick a colour scheme that allows me to paint them, all of then, within 8 houers.
Just prime in main colour. Add wash. Drybrush, roughly. Would work for crons, any spacve marine, demon, chaos space marine, tyranid and tau.
But when they do not paint because they have unrealistic goals. That is very bad.
Stormatious wrote: i find it hard to believe you can just come in to this with no experience at all and watch a video and think your first mini will be table top
People think that though. I dunno what parts of the internet you go on but I see many a social media post of newbies getting dismayed their first models are not totally amazeballs.
So you agree with me that to actually get a tabletop standard ( assuming tabletop standard is great quality ) you cant just jump in with no exp and watch a vid n get it.
Depends entirely on experience. Literally everyone has experience as pretty much everyone in the western world has painted something at school on paper at some point. The skills are transferable, which is why I always recommend newbies start with a white undercoat, as they will be far more familiar with painting on paper than a 3d object.
People do get dismayed as social media colours their perspectives. Reddit is one of the worst offenders for this as many people's "first models" are not their firsts or are the "first" for that army, they are their "first" (40k) minis, they are their "first" minis yet they neglect to mention their background in art etc.
vipoid wrote: Same. I'll grant that I'm biased, since I frequently use unpainted/barely-painted miniatures, but many comments here seem unnecessarily hostile towards unpainted miniatures.
Disagree. I think the comments have been excessively considerate and understanding towards people who play with unpainted models, but I suppose the honest truth would attract moderator attention.
I guess tabletop standard is very very bad lol.
Tabletop standard is as Peri outlines. And by Tabletop standard most do expect the bare bones bottom end. It's not saying that that is the standard all aim for on the tabletop. It's saying that that is the bare bones bottom end that gives you a basic painted force to play with. And at a foot away from you for most of a game its not all that bad. A lot of fine detail is great, but by and large you wont' see that during a game itself.
It's not that the standard is bad, its just basic and not aiming for anything of high skill nor high complexity. Heck you'd be amazed how many iwll use such a standard for their 300 clanrats and then use a much higher standard for their artillery and leaders.
My personal preference and the standard I hold myself to is nothing unpainted hits the table. Occasionally a partially finished model will get a run out, but it'll look like a finished model at first glance. I don't hold anyone else to my standards.
However.
We live in an era where a basic standard is easier than ever to achieve. I come from times when glazes and washes were things you made yourself, and even priming was done by hand if, like me, you were too young for your pocket money to stretch to a can of primer from the motor factors (because there weren't dedicated modeling sprays.)
Nowadays, you can buy a can of colored primer and a tin of dip and have an entire army two thirds finished in a weekend if your main concern is simply to get colour on the models.
I get that some people don't like the painting and modeling aspect of the hobby, but you're going to have to at least make a bit of an effort, or make peace with being tarred with the same brush as the try hards who are forever throwing down hastily assembled grey tide flavor of the month netlists in an attempt to validate themselves by stomping 11 year olds.
depends entirely on the situation..
Is it someone I know that's just started?
Are some of the models painted and others just haven't been done yet?
Is it x FOTM unit that they clearly built 30min before walking in?
Its one of those things that depend on a case by case basis. For example, there is one guy in my group that's super casual and just has 0 interest in painting. He just wants to show up on his occasional free weekend and play/drink beer. He also would never show up to an organized event with his grey army
Peregrine wrote: Yeah, let's not pretend that painting is difficult. 99.9% of people are capable of doing a clean base coat + wash, and maybe some drybrushed highlights. The vast majority of people with unpainted armies don't have any disability that would prevent them from painting, they're just lazy.
I cant believe you just said that... Its hard..... trying to learn how to do all these different techniques, applying perfect width edge highlights, learning how to simply use the brush and paint strokes properly.... dude what are you talking about, learning how to focus and control your brush i mean ...
Even things like edge highlighting are not "difficult", they're just not necessarily intuitive. It does take some degree of motor control, but it's very simple in practice, as you're just tracing lines (and you don't even have to do that perfectly, you just have to not apply so much pressure that you end up hitting the wrong part of the model).
Painting miniatures decently comes down to a few main concepts:
Paint consistency: how much should you thin your paints for your desired level of flow and opacity?
Brush positioning: how should you hold your brush in relation to the surface you're painting, and in which direction should you begin and end your stroke?
Pressure: how much pressure should you apply in order to control the thickness of your line?
Someone who has no idea what they're doing is going to mess up all of those things and never know what they're doing wrong unless they experiment enough to find out on their own, yet once you are thinking along those lines all you have to do is make small adjustments in each of those three areas to achieve your desired effect. Then it's all about developing your own system to make your process more efficient.
For example, I always paint "inside out". I paint the most recessed areas first and don't really care about hitting anything outside those areas, because I'm just going to paint over them later. That way, when I get to the most raised areas which are easiest to paint without running into anything else, I'll have a neatly painted model without ever having to worry much about making mistakes. Learning to paint miniatures is just learning how to make painting easy.
How long until models are considered even "presentable" though?
Those clarences are presentable. Sure, they're objectively horrid, but at least the person is trying. Next ones will be better. And of course in this internet era tutorials are easy to come by, so getting past the clarence phase doesn't really take much effort at all.
Also as a former teacher aide I completely disagree everyone can learn to be good at anything.
Maybe not 'good.' But let's aim for 'passable.'
You can only continue to paint as long as you have models.
And NO those models are not presentable. That's purely being contrarian for the sake of being contrarian.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also I disagree everyone can do something passable just because they're passionate to learn it. King Of The Hill had a good example of this with the character Dale not being good at basket weaving.
It doesn't have to be. Tabletop Standard CAN be bad, just like how somebody new to painting can try their best, and it's still not good or even bad.
Tabletop standard is simple and quick. It is enough to look good on the table from a distance* and get you around GW Store painting or tournament painting requirements.
*for the most part.
Tabletop Standard is a rather vague term, and it's specific definition may vary from person to person. Your Tabletop Standard, the basic that you paint to, may be better or worse than my own Tabletop Standard. But either way, it's enough to look good on the tabletop from a distance. It's different from how you'll paint your special characters and cool special dudes that you want to put more effort and actual technique in to, typically. Again, it differs from person to person.
Deadly serious or todernst....
Sarcasm and such things, but tbf you did not specify and made a general statement which promted me to pull your leg.
Fine. Tell me, which models of your collection have you painted predominantly grey?
My renegade and heretics, and my csm warband.
That fits the bill. Grey is such a depressing colour that would suit only the downtrodden which are desperate enough to ally themselves with the denizens of the warp.
I want to see progress over time. I don't expect a new player to hold off weeks or months to have a fully painted army before their first game. What I do expect is that week and months later that you have shown some progress.
Also it's not that hard to mass base minis. At least one color looks better than plain plastic.
It's not very bad, it's just adequate. It looks ok from across the table, which is how you see models most of the time. It's not like you're blobbing on thick paint or having streaks of silver across a model's face because you were sloppy in painting the gun, you're just using the most basic techniques to get a model that is complete but not refined. It's a perfectly fine standard if you just want to complete your gaming pieces and get them on the table. Anything above that standard is going to mean investing more work and skill to get something that looks good when examined in detail.
Peregrine wrote: Yeah, let's not pretend that painting is difficult. 99.9% of people are capable of doing a clean base coat + wash, and maybe some drybrushed highlights. The vast majority of people with unpainted armies don't have any disability that would prevent them from painting, they're just lazy.
I cant believe you just said that... Its hard..... trying to learn how to do all these different techniques, applying perfect width edge highlights, learning how to simply use the brush and paint strokes properly.... dude what are you talking about, learning how to focus and control your brush i mean ...
Even things like edge highlighting are not "difficult", they're just not necessarily intuitive. It does take some degree of motor control, but it's very simple in practice, as you're just tracing lines (and you don't even have to do that perfectly, you just have to not apply so much pressure that you end up hitting the wrong part of the model).
Painting miniatures decently comes down to a few main concepts:
Paint consistency: how much should you thin your paints for your desired level of flow and opacity?
Brush positioning: how should you hold your brush in relation to the surface you're painting, and in which direction should you begin and end your stroke?
Pressure: how much pressure should you apply in order to control the thickness of your line?
Someone who has no idea what they're doing is going to mess up all of those things and never know what they're doing wrong unless they experiment enough to find out on their own, yet once you are thinking along those lines all you have to do is make small adjustments in each of those three areas to achieve your desired effect. Then it's all about developing your own system to make your process more efficient.
In my experience many people often won't work out what is going wrong or it will take them a very long time. They might not even realise your 3 basic principle areas to work with. They might overcomplicate things or think that its all about using higher grade tools (yes that does help but its no replacement for practice and skill); or even some mystical magical art.
Guided learning helps immensley. It speeds things up, it introduces concepts and ideas people might never have got on their own and it also helps with a lot of the little things that might even go unsaid in books or videos.
In general my point is if you've got painting skills and you've got those at your club with unpainted models and you know they can't paint - then the best you can do is help them along.
That fits the bill. Grey is such a depressing colour that would suit only the downtrodden which are desperate enough to ally themselves with the denizens of the warp.
Filthy imperial, do we need to burn down the southern realm again like 1499, you corpse copulating plebian!!!
(historic joke is historical, i'd never burn down someones house, only loot his food supply!)
Edit: tbf the choice was made since it Highlights well with Red, and I like khorne, and secondly it's forgiving so that i am actually fairly content with the look. And as Strg Alt pointed out, fits the bill nicely for Chaos cannonfodder.
Rule #1 is be polite. If you cannot do so then remove yourself from this thread. Any more violations will earn their poster a warning and this thread will be locked.
In my experience many people often won't work out what is going wrong or it will take them a very long time. They might not even realise your 3 basic principle areas to work with. They might overcomplicate things or think that its all about using higher grade tools (yes that does help but its no replacement for practice and skill); or even some mystical magical art.
Guided learning helps immensley. It speeds things up, it introduces concepts and ideas people might never have got on their own and it also helps with a lot of the little things that might even go unsaid in books or videos.
In general my point is if you've got painting skills and you've got those at your club with unpainted models and you know they can't paint - then the best you can do is help them along.
Totally agree with you, that is my main point as well. Most people who are new to painting or are daunted by it just don't know how simple it really is (if also tedious), and that's what they need help to understand.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Also I disagree everyone can do something passable just because they're passionate to learn it. King Of The Hill had a good example of this with the character Dale not being good at basket weaving.
You do realise that it is fiction? As noted, achieving the tabletop standard is not particularly hard, anyone who doesn't have some sort of disability can definitely learn it, and with tutorials pretty fast too. (Basket weawing is probably more difficult, but with enough practice pretty much anyone could learn it too.)
Also, between my replies to this topic I applied the base armour colour and wash for twelve marines.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Also I disagree everyone can do something passable just because they're passionate to learn it. King Of The Hill had a good example of this with the character Dale not being good at basket weaving.
You do realise that it is fiction? As noted, achieving the tabletop standard is not particularly hard, anyone who doesn't have some sort of disability can definitely learn it, and with tutorials pretty fast too. (Basket weawing is probably more difficult, but with enough practice pretty much anyone could learn it too.)
Also, between my replies to this topic I applied the base armour colour and wash for twelve marines.
Remember that tabletop standard is a very broad definition as some one has mentioned already. So hard to say
bananathug wrote:I like to see progress. If you show up to a game with a horde of grey but next month you have a unit or a couple pieces painted that's awesome. If it's still just the same horde of grey then I will silently judge you.
I'm always adding new stuff to my army so I usually have a handful of unpainted units. I like to try them out in a game before I commit the hours (I'm a horrible and slow painter) that I need to get them into table top shape. I still haven't based over 90% of my new additions yet (working on getting something competitive painted and then I'll actually base the models that don't get blown off the table by turn 3...) and I'm sure that bothers some people.
On the other hand I have no problem playing against proxies or counts as (as long as they are clear and about the same size) as long as it's not the fourth month you are still pulling out your counts as reapers.
I really like the spectacle of fully painted armies clashing for supremacy on a scenic battlefield. Personally I don't care if your stuff is as painted as mine, matter of fact, I dont expect it. If someone wants to play with bare plastic, fine. as long as it is made clear what has what, big deal. While I would enthusiastically jump at the chance to play against an army as painted as mine(our flgs has a ton of nice terrain), I definitely would not turn someone away because of it. Someone who belittles another's painting(or lack thereof) is an donkey-cave and doesnt deserve your time.
It's pretty easy to get a unit done, if you're starting out. Take Ultra Marines...
1) Buy a rattle can of Macragge Blue. Check out a 2 min vid on how to use a rattle can (distance from model, ventilation, etc.)
2) Spray 10 models blue.
3) Apply Drakenhof wash.
4) Watch video on dry brushing, dry brush macragge blue back on, leaving recessed areas shaded.
5) dry brush on, in much lesser amounts, a lighter blue on edges and raised areas.
6) Paint trim gold, have a damp brush ready as you go to wipe off inevitable slips over onto the blue. Do the same for the boltgun with black. (Or go grey and wash with nuln oil for more definition)
7) Rattle can some testor dull coat varnish onto your unit to protect them.
8) Slap your choice of texture paint onto the base, and then spot with a detail of you fancy - skulls, spent ammo, grass, etc. Paint base edge black.
After this you can do some more detail if you want - make seargents stand out, apply some decals, etc. - but you're done. Your guys look really solid, and you didn't need to do much careful brushwork - the shoulder pad edges were probably the trickiest part. You can get all this done in a day, absolutley no problem, while listening to a batrep, audiobook, comedy, music, whatever, and have a great team read to show for it too. What's stopping you? Two Intecessor squads ready to go...
skchsan wrote: Why would you NOT want to paint your mini's? It's literally 99% of the hobby.
Well.... Honestly I just don't enjoy painting. Never have. Playing: 110%, modeling/assembling/converting: 100%, Painting: 2%?
But over the years, other than base coats/the occasional one-off (say about 1 model/month), it's been observed that I tend to paint when I'm depressed, when something's majorly wrong, or I'm really stressed. If I'm seen painting more than 3 models my GF asks what's wrong (if she doesn't already know).
I got quite a bit painted the other year when Dad was in hospice.
So if I'm not painting? Everything is pretty good.
My happiness > yours.
And if you have an issue with my unpainted stuff? We'll work out a price & you can paint it.
*For the record I DO have at least 1 fully painted army for any game I play. Often several. So in the event that I find myself in a tourney or playing at a gaming convention or such, you won't be seeing my WiP.
The GW store in Warhammer world, has all of its cases filled with unpainted built minis... There is an odd beauty in its purity and simplicity, and the actual quality of the model in my mind was magnified by their lack of paint. I found myself thinking that armies and games could look really wonderful on a board, just as they are.
In general I don't paint a lot, but when I do, I enjoy painting. I would rather play an entirely grey army than one thats a mess of semi painted stuff, or stuff that has been painted to a minimum standard to meet some event (which Im often guilty of).
People are allowed to enjoy the hobby as much as they want to in it's different aspects. If you want to judge people for how they prioritize differently from you, that's own prerogative and right. If you don't want to play armies that aren't painted because you have a desire for a more immersive experience, good for you. If you don't want to paint your army, good for you. Politely decline and talk about something else. Be adults, there is a line that must be respected.
"This hobby is about doing what I say it's about doing"
"Its just a joke"
"If they wanted to just play a game they should play something else"
"It's ok because it's promoting the hobby"
"It's only one comment now and then"
"That's how the game is supposed to be played"
"They're lazy so it's ok"
"They should expect to get treated badly"
I can't believe adults still use these kinds of crappy rationalizations. But TFGs never see themselves as TFGs, especially the "hobby side" TFG. The gatekeepers of the truly righteous hobby path that they have declared themselves to be. When in reality, one person's constant "encouragement" is really more like borderline (and sometimes clearly) harassment.
If you're repeatedly ostracizing or proselytizing to people over and over who do not return or engage your continued comments, quips, jokes, offers of help, etc, that's what it's called even if you're being polite about it. We never think of ourselves as a bully, but it happens more than we realize when we get passionate about something and try to act in good intention; even among good acquaintances and even friends sometimes. This happens because it's the reality of human interaction. We don't want to make a fuss or a scene, especially as a new person in a new environment even if it makes us uncomfortable or don't want to be treated that way. We look past certain things we don't like in our friends and loved ones because ultimately, being "good-natured but inappropriately overzealous" about a hobby doesn't make someone a bad person in the grand scale, either.
Be good to each other. It's fine to encourage people or offer help; but if people don't wish to reciprocate, it isn't appropriate to keep at them.
Ultimately I play wargames for the spectacle and I don't particularly enjoy playing with or against unpainted armies. However, I won't decline games with a guy with unpainted models as long as they are at least assembled. Minimum effort there. I just won't enjoy the game as much as if they were fully painted.
Besides which, painting models is like 90% of the hobby for me.
I prefer to play agaisnt painted models but I'm too lazy to paint anything.
I have 0 excuses. I love building models, the customization, and playing the game not because of the game but because the social event that it is.
But I hate painting.
The only painted army I have is my dark angels army that I painted in a marathon of 15 hours of painting the day before a Tournament I and my friends where inscribed 5 months before. I painted them with the 3 basic colours+base with a little of sand and dirt and the random skull and decoration.
I can go back to them and paint them properly. They are not badly painted just very basic colours.
I just don't have any kind of personal discipline to force me to paint until the last moment and when I have a big enough commitment.
I've only ever seen one store which demanded fully painted armies in order to let you play there. Despite having a fully painted army, I never went back. It just seemed like a really awful attitude to put out there. (Which is separate from a "these tables up front are our display tables; fully painted armies only on them, please" policy, btw--I understand some folks got a business to run.)
I'd much rather play against someone who's friendly, passionate about the game, and creative in their list designs than play against a fully painted army.
My preference is that you spend the time to put color on your models or pay someone to do so. Grey models defeat the purpose of one of the only things that is left in 40k that interests me - the fluff and appearance of the game.
However that being said most of the people I know never paint or rarely paint. So I just have to deal with that.
grouchoben wrote:It's pretty easy to get a unit done, if you're starting out.
It's pretty easy for you.
Many of the rest of us struggle mightily with motivation, or with having free time, or having space, or having adequate lighting, or any one of a hundred other perfectly legitimate reasons.
I prefer painted armies. However, I prefer modeling and converting over painting, I'm a slow painter, and I have trouble focusing on one project.
So my armies have varying levels of grey in them.
All I demand from myself and my regular opponents is that progress is made. If I play the same army twice against you, it will be more complete the 2nd time. Same for my opponents. All grey for the first game or two? Ok. Primed a squad for our 3rd game? good enough.
The only paint concession that I absolutely insist on is for all plastic multi-detachments. If you're running two guard detachments in all grey cadians, but one is actually tallarn, I'll ask you to mark one detachment. I'll even hand you the paint pen to do it. Just an easily visible colored dot or line. Which is something I hold myself to as well.
Stormatious wrote: Yeah its not easy at all takes i imagine years to become good
No, not easy at all, and you're always learning more. Been painting models of some sort since I've been 10 or so, I'm 48 now and I still can't paint nearly as well as I wish I could. Watching my son try to paint makes me cringe, I usually feel sorry enough for him that I take over for him - he likes "chaosifying" his models, but he absolutely hates painting (more than I do).
I'll never begrudge someone who doesn't paint their models, and it really ruffles my feathers when someone tries to insist "you have to do it" - for their enjoyment.
People don't start with a fully painted army. It takes time and effort to build and paint.
There's no way I'm talking down or mocking someone who hasn't put brush to model yet.
If there's someone who keeps gray plastic for a LONG time I might offer them some painting advice / lessons to help them along, especially newer players who are scared of 'messing up" their models.
Some people just don't like painting. I'm not turning them down. I'm still going to play the game and have a blast.
I'd rather play against a grey tide with an opponent who is a good sport and having fun than play against a fully painted army with someone who has a miserable attitude.
You should at least spray/undercoat and slap on a wash. That takes 5 minutes per model. Playing with unfinished models is fine IMO, but playing with models you haven't even started is kinda lame.
Making sweeping generalizations about people when you haven't the first clue as to their actual circumstances.
There are very few "actual circumstances" that justify unpainted models. Maybe you're one of the extremely rare few who has a legitimate disability that prevents them from painting, but the vast majority of the time when someone has an unpainted army it's because they're lazy, nothing more. Painting to a basic tabletop standard is way too easy and fast for an unpainted army to be acceptable.
I don't actually bother bringing models in the first place. I find it's cheaper and more expedient to just proxy everything with a various assortment of approximately sized Lego, toy dinosaurs and office stationary, all of which is coloured anyway, so no problem.
Making sweeping generalizations about people when you haven't the first clue as to their actual circumstances.
There sure are some special snowflakes on this forum that go out of their way to be offended by everything.
If someone can afford to buy an army and has the time to put the models together (which in almost every case takes longer than an undercoat), then it's not unreasonable to say they could also slap on some paint
Making sweeping generalizations about people when you haven't the first clue as to their actual circumstances.
There sure are some special snowflakes on this forum that go out of their way to be offended by everything.
If someone can afford to buy an army and has the time to put the models together (which in almost every case takes longer than an undercoat), then it's not unreasonable to say they could also slap on some paint
It actually could be unreasonable. Everything from undecided on color scheme, to don't actually have any money left after buying an army to buy paint, to hating painting, to having a complicated paint scheme (aka only a small amount painted), having to chose between playing and painting due to time reasons (family, work hours, ect). There's five broad reasons why. I'm sure there are more.
I'm sure there are some snowflakes who purposely get offended here on Dakka. Many of them are in this thread, getting offended over someone else having different table top standards then they do.
Making sweeping generalizations about people when you haven't the first clue as to their actual circumstances.
There sure are some special snowflakes on this forum that go out of their way to be offended by everything.
If someone can afford to buy an army and has the time to put the models together (which in almost every case takes longer than an undercoat), then it's not unreasonable to say they could also slap on some paint
It actually could be unreasonable. Everything from undecided on color scheme, to don't actually have any money left after buying an army to buy paint, to hating painting, to having a complicated paint scheme (aka only a small amount painted), having to chose between playing and painting due to time reasons (family, work hours, ect). There's five broad reasons why. I'm sure there are more.
I'm sure there are some snowflakes who purposely get offended here on Dakka. Many of them are in this thread, getting offended over someone else having different table top standards then they do.
To be fair, being undecided on a colour scheme for a new army is a perfectly valid reason, as is being new to the hobby and just wanting some game experience. Like with anything there's always exceptions. But I'm talking in general. The majority of players are not new, nor are the majority of armies that are played.
Mmmpi wrote: It actually could be unreasonable. Everything from undecided on color scheme, to don't actually have any money left after buying an army to buy paint, to hating painting, to having a complicated paint scheme (aka only a small amount painted), having to chose between playing and painting due to time reasons (family, work hours, ect). There's five broad reasons why. I'm sure there are more.
None of those reasons are good ones.
The people with unpainted armies (as opposed to a few unpainted models in the process of being painted) don't have them because they're very invested in awesome painting and don't want to sacrifice quality to get stuff on the table, they have unpainted armies because they refuse to paint them. Just look at this thread, lots of people talking about how they don't want to paint their armies or complaining about how people care too much about painting requirements, not a lot of people with galleries full of amazing work asking for a bit of patience while they finish their next masterpiece. Same thing offline in my experience. It isn't people playing with unpainted stuff for a while and then having fully painted armies, it's people playing with a bunch of broken models and random legs on bases that they throw in a heap in a box between games because they don't give a about having a decent army.
Money is not an excuse. For the cost of a single kit you can buy all the paints you need. If $20-30 is beyond your budget then how exactly are you playing this game in the first place?
Having to make time sacrifices does not deserve any sympathy. Painting to a basic tabletop standard takes very little time, so realistically we're talking about skipping a game or two out of your entire playing career even if we completely rule out the possibility of spending a few minutes each night on painting (a really unrealistic assumption). And as with money, if you're so overwhelmed with family/work/etc commitments that you can't find a few hours to paint your army then how are you playing at all? Why are you investing in a hobby that you don't have time to participate in?
So what it all comes down to is "I hate painting and shouldn't have to". People don't want to paint, and don't feel any obligation to do their part to make the game enjoyable. And so we should view it exactly as we'd view someone who doesn't bother learning the rules because they hate reading, someone who shows up with a bunch of legs on bases because assembling models is too difficult, etc.
i much prefer using unpainted miniatures, because i have back and nerve issues and i cant stay sitting for a long enough time or make fine/precise motor control movements, nor do i have the money or desire to spend money to have my models painted..
I can barely put models together as it is, but to a poor degree because i don't have the fine control to or patience to trim and remove mold lines.
I have recently started trying to paint again and its seriously bad. very discouraging.
grouchoben wrote:It's pretty easy to get a unit done, if you're starting out.
It's pretty easy for you.
Many of the rest of us struggle mightily with motivation, or with having free time, or having space, or having adequate lighting, or any one of a hundred other perfectly legitimate reasons.
I mean, you cut your quote at the bit where I explain all that would be needed to do a pretty nice army, in about 150 words.
I appreciate that all lives are complicated, most lives are tough, and it can get on top of us all. I'm certainly not trying to pile on anyone. In fact focusing attention on a complex task that has a positive feedback system, in which we see ourselves improve, and we are rewarded, can be a really big help in those regards, that's all. Painting minis is one example of that kind of field of attention and expression.
warmaster21 wrote: i much prefer using unpainted miniatures, because i have back and nerve issues and i cant stay sitting for a long enough time or make fine/precise motor control movements, nor do i have the money or desire to spend money to have my models painted..
I can barely put models together as it is, but to a poor degree because i don't have the fine control to or patience to trim and remove mold lines.
I have recently started trying to paint again and its seriously bad. very discouraging.
I'm sorry to hear that. I suffer from mild neurological issues myself, though it doesn't affect my motor skills or ability to paint (that's just lack of talent ). I sincerely hope you find some way to cope and figure out a way to keep up the hobby.
warmaster21 wrote: i much prefer using unpainted miniatures, because i have back and nerve issues and i cant stay sitting for a long enough time or make fine/precise motor control movements, nor do i have the money or desire to spend money to have my models painted..
Sorry to hear that brother, that sounds like it would impact a lot of your time, not just painting. I'm not posting this in a normative way, or trying to nudge you or judge you, but I read a pretty cool thread on reddit/40k last year about a guy's deathguard, and how he'd moved over to entirely using washes due to how little precise motor control he now had, and his minis look pretty awesome. Might be worth a peek. Here's that thread, lot's of great comments in it from people in the same boat too:
JohnnyHell wrote: Everyone should stop telling each other how they’re allowed to have fun. ;-)
Never! Without the reassuringly tempered hand of the Fun Police, where would society stand. It'd be complete anarchy, that's what. Next you'll be saying that Kevin Bacon was right to start dancing in that town!
Given some of the “terrain” used in tournament gaming (plain styrofoam on bare tables), it’s pretty clear that there is a “market” for unpainted, broken, unloved armies.
Not everyone gets into the cinematic spectacle of miniatures gaming. I perosnally have trouble understanding why anyone would pick minis gaming as a hobby otherwise but that’s as may be.
Obviously conquest and the other ways GW is making the game easy access to all and sundry is not taking hold in some areas.
My LGS didn't paint their Blackstone fortress or kill team or Munda sets and they get people playing them all the time..
a friend is now taking his kill team into 40K and tried painting straight onto sprue without priming.
Now THAT is something I have to take issue with and offer my services to help him out ... he buys the beers I provide the airbrush.
I don't see any of the complainers here offering much of a solution other than a "Final Solution" to new gamers that don't have our years of experience / patience / skill.
I think some have forgotten that we don't actually live in M41 yet and that they would be appreciated if they made a kind offer of assistance to those that field armies of grey men! - rather than turn them into servitors asap
Reanimation_Protocol wrote: I don't see any of the complainers here offering much of a solution other than a "Final Solution" to new gamers that don't have our years of experience / patience / skill.
What more solution do we need to offer? GW has plenty of step by step tutorials, complete with lists of products to buy, and the techniques required are extremely basic. The problem is not that people don't have the resources, it's that they refuse to use them.
I love assembling, converting and playing but I hate painting. I also don't have the time to paint all my stuff and to play games and going into commission work is too much money for the result IMHO and doesn't worth the investment.
In conclusion I always play with armies that have more grey models than painted ones. In fact two of the armies I own are still completely grey plastic, and we're talking about 10k of models, as I only painted orks so far and as long as the entire green collection isn't finished I won't start painting other stuff. To me is more important to be WYSIWYG.
Personally, I enjoy the hobby - building, converting and painting - and yet I often play with unpainted or undercoated models.
I only have a certain amount of hobby time (due to various calls on my life from other things like work, family, and other hobbies), and I don't like to bring half-painted or low-quality models. It's worse to me than playing with unpainted ones.
Several years ago, I played Guard. I went to a tournament with them, and in order to meet the painting requirements, I painted them to tabletop level - four block colours, shade with a wash, and base. To my surprise, it made me feel worse about the army - it actively detracted from my enjoyment. I quit the army not long after, and the fact that I hated the fact I was playing with models which were painted to a relatively low quality and which I had painted as a chore was a big part of that.
I paint my stuff, but slowly. It can easily take multiple evenings to paint a 10-man squad to the point where I don't feel actively worse for putting them on the table. More for characters or centrepieces. Sometimes I get a burst of energy and paint up two or three units over the course of a week, and sometimes it is a chore.
So the idea that someone is telling me I'm not allowed to enjoy the hobby with my gaming group until I've dedicated that much of my limited free time to painting it, removing the enjoyment I want to get out of painting because it's become an obligation... yeah, that's not going to inspire me to paint.
If you don't want to play against unpainted armies, that's fine; you can always politely decline the game. But don't insult me or claim my enjoyment of the hobby is invalid unless I let one of my favourite parts become an obligation. When i paint, it's to enjoy painting and produce something i can be proud of, not to meet someone else's threshold for a "proper" gamer.
Again, there is a huge difference between having an unpainted model or two in a mostly-painted army because you're still working on them and having an entire unpainted army because you refuse to paint anything. If, as you say, you're painting a unit a week and possibly 2-3 units then you should have no problem getting a fully painted army together. In fact you even mention playing several years ago, enough time to have painted multiple entire armies. So no, you aren't banned from enjoying the hobby, just bring some of your painted models and leave the unpainted stuff at home until it's finished.
Peregrine wrote: Again, there is a huge difference between having an unpainted model or two in a mostly-painted army because you're still working on them and having an entire unpainted army because you refuse to paint anything. If, as you say, you're painting a unit a week and possibly 2-3 units then you should have no problem getting a fully painted army together. In fact you even mention playing several years ago, enough time to have painted multiple entire armies. So no, you aren't banned from enjoying the hobby, just bring some of your painted models and leave the unpainted stuff at home until it's finished.
I didn't say I'm painting a unit a week; I said it takes multiple evenings and that I don't have much free time to dedicate to painting. It can take two weeks or a month for me to find the time to paint a unit, and that's before taking into account show months, crunch periods at work etc, which can easily leave me effectively unable find the time to paint at all for weeks on end.
EDIT: To clarify, it's rare that I get more than one evening a week I can dedicate to painting, and some weeks I don't even get that. I can only paint multiple units on those rare occasions when I have a burst of energy for it and have time off work at the same time; maybe once or twice a year.
I may not be banned from gaming entirely, but under your rules it would take me six months or a year to get a new army to a playable standard. Why should you get to dictate that I'm not allowed to use my new models for multiple months after I've settled on a list and bought and built the models?
I don't mind much, as I do it sometimes myself. Thing is, I prefer to play a grey/primed mini than one WIP without corrections or washes that just looks unfinished, it hurts me to watch my unfinished minis and I try not to play with them, so if I want to play with it I paint it reasonably fast.
I don't expect everyone to play fully painted because for some armies it takes a HUGE AMOUNT OF TIME (playing AdMech and Drukhari) and my priority is the game. I'm not going to wait until my whole army is painted to finally play with it months and months later when it hurts nobody to face an unpainted army.
With some opponents who made the effort to fully paint their armies I'll build a list with the most painted models possible though, as I want them to be rewarded in their work in a way. Especially with opponents who don't play often and want their game to be memorable.
Aelyn wrote: Why should you get to dictate that I'm not allowed to use my new models for multiple months after I've settled on a list and bought and built the models?
Because unpainted models look like and I don't want to see them on my table. You have painted armies, play with those until you finish the new stuff. You might as well complain that it isn't fair that you can't proxy your army with a bunch of legs on bases because you've settled on a list but shouldn't have to wait a few months until you can afford to buy the models.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Aaranis wrote: when it hurts nobody to face an unpainted army
Speak for yourself. I'd rather go home without playing a game than slog through a miserable experience against a horde of gray plastic.
Me, I'm a reluctant painter, but do get there in the end. And whilst I don't particularly enjoy playing against a TinBoy, it's not for me to tell them how to indulge their hobby.
The game, however, involves multiple players. If you want to keep your hobby to yourself and build models without ever painting them, fine. But if you want to play a game involving another person then painting them to a tabletop standard is just basic courtesy. You wouldn't show up for a game without bothering to bring your codex or dice or whatever, so why should it be ok to show up without a finished army?
If people have tried to paint, realised they're never going to get any good, and basecoated-with-wash, I'm happy.
If a proxy unit hits the table, mid-assembly, and is likely to be painted next time, I'm happy.
If a whole army is spending its 3rd year out and untouched by any kind of paint, I silently seethe, yet try to show no signs of grumpiness.
Painting is a huge part of the hobby, but not the only thing.
WYSIWYG is a part of some of these games, and can make-or-break an opponent's turn. Not being able to see the differences, due to the grey sea, is annoying.
Judicious use of a rattle-can, followed by dip or wash, is better than nothing. It is appreciated.
I'm not too bothered if it is one or two squads in amongst a lot of painted models. I'm not even talking good painting either, just 2 colours and I don't care about bases.
Monochrome armies are just harder to play against because you can't tell what a unit is at a glance sometimes.
This doesn't mean I won't play against new people with entirely unpainted minis, just as long as it gets done.
Because unpainted models look like and I don't want to see them on my table.
I feel the opposite. Most painted miniatures look like gak, especially those ones from dudes who want to go to tourneys since painted models are required there. Just 3-4 colors to make them legal. I regularly see 2000 points armies painted in less than a week, not a single one of them look at least ok-ish.
No, I'd rather play against a full plastic grey army. But it actually doesn't make any difference, as long as the player doesn't use bottles, cans and toys is ok to me.
I am extremely skeptical of this claim that painted armies that look better than bare plastic are at all common. Even the worst painted models I've seen anyone using are still better than nothing.
I've banged out the Ultramarines from Warhammer Conquest exactly as per the instructions - flat colours for the armour, skin, black weapon casings and pouches, red eyes, robes, cables and seals, Rakarth Flesh for the parchments, skulls and the white areas on the Lieutenant, and the metals are gunmetal with a black wash or gold with a brown wash. Took me hardly any time, minimal skill (just keeping within the lines) and they look vastly better than the bare plastic.
My opinion is that I will only use painted miniatures (unless it's a new game we're trying out) and terrain (just as important). I'd prefer my fellow gamers did the same, but if they're otherwise good company I'll not let it bother me. It does play into who I choose to game with, though. All else being equal, I'll choose to play with the person with a painted army rather than the unpainted one.
Mmmpi wrote: I seem to recall spending a bit more than $10 on paints and brushes.
Probably because you're painting to higher than a tabletop level. To paint to a basic tabletop level you need 1-2 base colors, a skin color, a silver metallic color, and a black/brown wash. That's $10, maybe $20 once you include a brush or two.
I also don't recall a set price point on what constitutes an army. We could also be talking about two $85 start collecting boxes.
Or we could talk about realistic armies, which means 1500-2000 points. But even $250 (don't forget the rulebooks) for the most basic start collecting boxes, well short of the point where you can play a normal game, means that painting supplies are 10% of the cost. If the difference between $250 and $275 is significant to you then you probably can't afford to play at all.
Finally, Paint might be an unnecessary expense after buying say...an alternator, or paying off the hospital fees for an injury.
Again, if your finances are so tight that you can't afford an extra $20 how are you playing this game at all? A single new unit is going to be $50+, on top of the cost of driving to the store to play, getting something to eat while you're out, etc. I have a lot of sympathy for people who are poor and have a budget so tight that an unexpected $20 expense is a big deal, but those people aren't playing 40k.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Mmmpi wrote: Follow your own logic here. If our standards don't apply to you, why should yours apply to anyone else?
Having nicely painted armies on the table does not ruin anyone's enjoyment of the game. Having gray plastic and knowing that your opponent isn't considerate enough to bother painting their stuff does.
The game, however, involves multiple players. If you want to keep your hobby to yourself and build models without ever painting them, fine. But if you want to play a game involving another person then painting them to a tabletop standard is just basic courtesy. You wouldn't show up for a game without bothering to bring your codex or dice or whatever, so why should it be ok to show up without a finished army?
No, keeping something subjective like this to yourself is basic courtesy. Again, your standards don't necessarily apply to everyone else.
Mmmpi wrote: No, keeping something subjective like this to yourself is basic courtesy. Again, your standards don't necessarily apply to everyone else.
Do you apply the same standard and insist that it's wrong to hold everyone to the standard of "bring your codex/dice/etc to the game", and object equally if someone was unwilling to let their opponent play from memory because they refuse to bring their rules?
if it was that much of a concern to me, I'd ask up front; "fancy a game?" "Is your army painted?" "er, no" "No thanks, then. That guy there's looking for a game though".
If unpainted miniatures is that much of a detriment to my enjoyment of a game, why shouldn't I refuse to play against them? If that upsets you, then I'm sorry, but it's not discourteous.
Mmmpi wrote: I seem to recall spending a bit more than $10 on paints and brushes.
Probably because you're painting to higher than a tabletop level. To paint to a basic tabletop level you need 1-2 base colors, a skin color, a silver metallic color, and a black/brown wash. That's $10, maybe $20 once you include a brush or two.
I also don't recall a set price point on what constitutes an army. We could also be talking about two $85 start collecting boxes.
Or we could talk about realistic armies, which means 1500-2000 points. But even $250 (don't forget the rulebooks) for the most basic start collecting boxes, well short of the point where you can play a normal game, means that painting supplies are 10% of the cost. If the difference between $250 and $275 is significant to you then you probably can't afford to play at all.
Finally, Paint might be an unnecessary expense after buying say...an alternator, or paying off the hospital fees for an injury.
Again, if your finances are so tight that you can't afford an extra $20 how are you playing this game at all? A single new unit is going to be $50+, on top of the cost of driving to the store to play, getting something to eat while you're out, etc. I have a lot of sympathy for people who are poor and have a budget so tight that an unexpected $20 expense is a big deal, but those people aren't playing 40k.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Mmmpi wrote: Follow your own logic here. If our standards don't apply to you, why should yours apply to anyone else?
Having nicely painted armies on the table does not ruin anyone's enjoyment of the game. Having gray plastic and knowing that your opponent isn't considerate enough to bother painting their stuff does.
Can of primer. $6. Two bottles of paint for base coat. $6 (both). Bottle of wash. $3. Brushes $10+. I'm already 150% over your $10.
We could talk about realistic armies. Which also includes the guy who picked up two start collecting boxes. Not a huge army. Still an army. Rule book optional if he/she's part of a club. Not sure how you can rule out things like cash expensive accidents. Or hell, even a spouse who's putting an expense limit. Oh wait, I do know how. You're moving the goalposts.
How are they playing the game? Well, we're already assuming they got an army. So sudden expenses are a thing. Or maybe it was a gift. Or Ebay. Or, again, as I just said, sudden expenses. I know several people who bought an army, and then lost their job. They were able to play because they a. had an army, and b. were able to get rides to games. Hmmm....seems like it's possible to play 40K while broke, if you already have an army...
--
Oh no! Everyone automatically agrees with Peregrine over what ruins their fun, and what is inconsiderate. Oh wait. We have a 7 page thread that shows there are people who don't agree with you.
Mmmpi wrote: No, keeping something subjective like this to yourself is basic courtesy. Again, your standards don't necessarily apply to everyone else.
Do you apply the same standard and insist that it's wrong to hold everyone to the standard of "bring your codex/dice/etc to the game", and object equally if someone was unwilling to let their opponent play from memory because they refuse to bring their rules?
There is a difference between them though, you can play without paint on your models, you can't play without rules, dice or a tape measure.
Mmmpi wrote: No, keeping something subjective like this to yourself is basic courtesy. Again, your standards don't necessarily apply to everyone else.
Do you apply the same standard and insist that it's wrong to hold everyone to the standard of "bring your codex/dice/etc to the game", and object equally if someone was unwilling to let their opponent play from memory because they refuse to bring their rules?
Show me in the rules where it says people have to paint their army. Then tell me where I said not using a codex is wrong.
Just because I'm not a fan, doesn't mean they can't do what they like. It just means I'm less likely to play them.
Just like no one is putting a gun to your head and saying you have to play against unpainted armies. Feel free to refuse games.
Just don't make the mistake of assuming your way is the only way.
Man all I have is this image of some grumpy old grognards on the doors of the FLGS .. physically stopping and inspecting the carry cases of younguns as they approach
"Sorry sonny, you call that 3 colours ? ... Get out and don't come back till til you're not a scrub!"
I mean honestly ... how do you even get games outside of the three regulars in the corner that the shop wonders why it lets you stay as your army is already 5,000,000 point strong .. already pro painted and you only ever buy a can of soft drink..
how do they even stay in business with you driving new people away that just want to have fun with cool models
Just like no one is putting a gun to your head and saying you have to play against unpainted armies. Feel free to refuse games.
Has anyone suggesting anything more drastic? Do you think us who prefer to play against painted armies regularly round up people who do not paint their models and lock them up on prison camps not to be released until they have at least 2000 points worth of models painted?
I really don't mind, but I also approach the hobby as two separate things: Painting and Playing. To play I see no need to require that an army be painted. Sure, it would be awesome to see painted armies, but for playing the game I see no need to enforce this.
I also accept the fact that we are not all privileged with time, skill, or ability to paint things immediately or quickly and therefore have no desire to add to this disparity between people who ultimately just want to throw dice and have some fun. For me the social aspect of the entire thing trumps most things.
Aelyn wrote: Why should you get to dictate that I'm not allowed to use my new models for multiple months after I've settled on a list and bought and built the models?
Because unpainted models look like and I don't want to see them on my table. You have painted armies, play with those until you finish the new stuff. You might as well complain that it isn't fair that you can't proxy your army with a bunch of legs on bases because you've settled on a list but shouldn't have to wait a few months until you can afford to buy the models.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Aaranis wrote: when it hurts nobody to face an unpainted army
Speak for yourself. I'd rather go home without playing a game than slog through a miserable experience against a horde of gray plastic.
Again, I have said that I have no problem with you declining a game. But the models are there - there's no question of proxying, everything that needs to be on the model is there. Why do the models need a specific level of paint before they're valid?
Also, my point was largely that lot of people who insist on painted models say "just give them a basecoat / tabletop standard" and accuse anyone who doesn't of being unworthy. I would rather play with unpainted models than a lazy three-colour tabletop scheme; can you at least acknowledge that's a valid perspective, even if you disagree with it?
I think bottom line here is a message we can all take from the General Slim of the Shady Chapter.
Their army motto goes like this...
"Step by Step, Heart to Heart. Left, right, left. We all fall down, like TOY SOLDIERS"
It honestly doesn't matter whether we play against painted or none painted. The painting side is for yourself. At the end of the day we're all playing toy soldiers.
Aelyn wrote: Why do the models need a specific level of paint before they're valid?
Because unpainted models look like , just like random legs on bases. Neither one is finished, neither one is acceptable.
I would rather play with unpainted models than a lazy three-colour tabletop scheme; can you at least acknowledge that's a valid perspective, even if you disagree with it?
Nope. I have never seen an army, even one painted to a basic tabletop standard, that looks worse than bare plastic.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Eldarsif wrote: I really don't mind, but I also approach the hobby as two separate things: Painting and Playing. To play I see no need to require that an army be painted. Sure, it would be awesome to see painted armies, but for playing the game I see no need to enforce this.
Then why enforce playing with models at all, if playing is a separate part of the hobby? Why not use paper cutouts (so you can draw LOS) on bases and save a lot of money?
I also accept the fact that we are not all privileged with time, skill, or ability to paint things immediately or quickly
Painting to a basic tabletop standard takes negligible skill and a small amount of time. Skip a game or two and you can paint your entire army.
It's everyone's game and refusing to play for some reason is perfectly fine and reasonable as all that matters is to have fun. If someone doesn't have fun in playing with/against unpainted miniatures fine, no problem at all, for example I can't stand playing against armies full of proxies and I regularly refuse to play with armies that have a level of optimization that is clearly too different, aka no utterly in-balanced games.
Reanimation_Protocol wrote: Man all I have is this image of some grumpy old grognards on the doors of the FLGS .. physically stopping and inspecting the carry cases of younguns as they approach
"Sorry sonny, you call that 3 colours ? ... Get out and don't come back till til you're not a scrub!"
I mean honestly ... how do you even get games outside of the three regulars in the corner that the shop wonders why it lets you stay as your army is already 5,000,000 point strong .. already pro painted and you only ever buy a can of soft drink..
how do they even stay in business with you driving new people away that just want to have fun with cool models
but that there is more or less what happens. Lets say the store runs a rare not 2000pts event. It will always have rules like minimum 5 colours. Same with escalation league. How many people that are starting want to spend 30-40$ on paints instead of models? But the vets will already have those, so they will get max points. So the noobs are more or less paying for the vets prize packs. Big events are the same, aside for veteran players having bigger collections, the armies have to be painted. But who judges if the army is table top, well the tournament orgs who are friends with the veterans, sometimes it is the same guys just switching out for events. So suddenly the mid tier of painting is on the level of a mid tier long time player, and not a mid painting skills of a new player. This means that if a new guy has to pay someone to paint the models to have a good scoring.And who runs the paint studios? Now the vet dudes that sit around the stores. Now how suprising.
Wow, ever hear of confirmation bias OP? I don't care if someone has a painted army or not. I care a lot more if they are a fun person to play a game against.
AndrewGPaul wrote: if it was that much of a concern to me, I'd ask up front; "fancy a game?" "Is your army painted?" "er, no" "No thanks, then. That guy there's looking for a game though".
If unpainted miniatures is that much of a detriment to my enjoyment of a game, why shouldn't I refuse to play against them? If that upsets you, then I'm sorry, but it's not discourteous.
It's funny because I agree, but it is odd to find Peregrine on this side of a "I would refuse to play that person" argument, because when you have people refusing to play someone because they have a competitive netlist Peregrine thinks that is Nazi Germany level CAAC Oppression.
I guess you can reserve the right to refuse a game if your opponent's army isn't painted though, and that's fine.
Protip: Warhammer is an opt-in activity. Showing up to a game store with miniatures does not put you under a social obligation to play a game you won't enjoy for four hours.
Reanimation_Protocol wrote: Man all I have is this image of some grumpy old grognards on the doors of the FLGS .. physically stopping and inspecting the carry cases of younguns as they approach
"Sorry sonny, you call that 3 colours ? ... Get out and don't come back till til you're not a scrub!"
I mean honestly ... how do you even get games outside of the three regulars in the corner that the shop wonders why it lets you stay as your army is already 5,000,000 point strong .. already pro painted and you only ever buy a can of soft drink..
how do they even stay in business with you driving new people away that just want to have fun with cool models
but that there is more or less what happens. Lets say the store runs a rare not 2000pts event. It will always have rules like minimum 5 colours. Same with escalation league. How many people that are starting want to spend 30-40$ on paints instead of models? But the vets will already have those, so they will get max points. So the noobs are more or less paying for the vets prize packs. Big events are the same, aside for veteran players having bigger collections, the armies have to be painted. But who judges if the army is table top, well the tournament orgs who are friends with the veterans, sometimes it is the same guys just switching out for events. So suddenly the mid tier of painting is on the level of a mid tier long time player, and not a mid painting skills of a new player. This means that if a new guy has to pay someone to paint the models to have a good scoring.And who runs the paint studios? Now the vet dudes that sit around the stores. Now how suprising.
99% of local events I attend decide paint and sportsmanship scores with a little questionnaire at the end of the round "how courteous was your opponent? How cool was his army painted?"
Where are these events run where some little clique has a snooty private painting judge who always makes the same little group of players win?
Reanimation_Protocol wrote: Man all I have is this image of some grumpy old grognards on the doors of the FLGS .. physically stopping and inspecting the carry cases of younguns as they approach
"Sorry sonny, you call that 3 colours ? ... Get out and don't come back till til you're not a scrub!"
I mean honestly ... how do you even get games outside of the three regulars in the corner that the shop wonders why it lets you stay as your army is already 5,000,000 point strong .. already pro painted and you only ever buy a can of soft drink..
how do they even stay in business with you driving new people away that just want to have fun with cool models
but that there is more or less what happens. Lets say the store runs a rare not 2000pts event. It will always have rules like minimum 5 colours. Same with escalation league. How many people that are starting want to spend 30-40$ on paints instead of models? But the vets will already have those, so they will get max points. So the noobs are more or less paying for the vets prize packs. Big events are the same, aside for veteran players having bigger collections, the armies have to be painted. But who judges if the army is table top, well the tournament orgs who are friends with the veterans, sometimes it is the same guys just switching out for events. So suddenly the mid tier of painting is on the level of a mid tier long time player, and not a mid painting skills of a new player. This means that if a new guy has to pay someone to paint the models to have a good scoring.And who runs the paint studios? Now the vet dudes that sit around the stores. Now how suprising.
Cheers for a measured response Karol, rather than boiling rhetoric.
I wasn't specifically speaking to events ... more the hobby club pickup games environment... but yes if the FLGS runs a tournament and they have a painting baseline requirement stated and a painting score then yes obviously grey plastic men is gonna have a bad day.
for regular games I would expect and encourage a much higher level of tolerance and interaction from those veterans .. the sheer amount of gatekeeping attitude I've seen in just 2 pages of this thread alone (I didn't have the stomach for more) is scary! ... "don't bother showing up unless Den of imagination painted your 2,000 points!"
GW has seen a golden year of new players .. without whom the hobby would be in the same place as Fantasy, with old men bemoaning the death of the game for reasons they can't see through their own myopia.
yes, that attitude to new people playing the game their own way IS the Problem!
so either be a force for change and help those guys either learn to enjoy painting of offer to base coat a few models so they can throw on a wash.
I am not a 20 year 40K veteran ... started playing in earnest mid 7th .. and am eternally grateful that I didn't encounter such horrible examples of hobby snobs.
the_scotsman wrote: Where are these events run where some little clique has a snooty private painting judge who always makes the same little group of players win?
The same place where (supposedly) the local players threaten to beat up anyone who doesn't concede to them in a tournament, and smashing your opponent's army so they have to forfeit is a perfectly acceptable tournament strategy.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
the_scotsman wrote: because when you have people refusing to play someone because they have a competitive netlist Peregrine thinks that is Nazi Germany level CAAC Oppression.
Hyperbole much? I never said that it's unacceptable to refuse to play against someone when you know their list is much stronger than yours and the game is going to be a one-sided slaughter. CAAC behavior is when someone comes running to the forums to whine and cry about how competitive players are morally wrong and destroying the hobby and how dare they take {insert overpowered unit}. I have nothing against people who want to play games at a reasonable level of list equality. I do have a problem with people who are smug s about how morally superior they are because their list is bad at winning, and then claiming to be "casual" despite their level of obsessive dedication to the game having nothing to do with any conventional definition of the word.
the_scotsman wrote: Where are these events run where some little clique has a snooty private painting judge who always makes the same little group of players win?
The same place where (supposedly) the local players threaten to beat up anyone who doesn't concede to them in a tournament, and smashing your opponent's army so they have to forfeit is a perfectly acceptable tournament strategy.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
the_scotsman wrote: because when you have people refusing to play someone because they have a competitive netlist Peregrine thinks that is Nazi Germany level CAAC Oppression.
Hyperbole much? I never said that it's unacceptable to refuse to play against someone when you know their list is much stronger than yours and the game is going to be a one-sided slaughter. CAAC behavior is when someone comes running to the forums to whine and cry about how competitive players are morally wrong and destroying the hobby and how dare they take {insert overpowered unit}. I have nothing against people who want to play games at a reasonable level of list equality. I do have a problem with people who are smug s about how morally superior they are because their list is bad at winning, and then claiming to be "casual" despite their level of obsessive dedication to the game having nothing to do with any conventional definition of the word.
Welp, saving THIS comment for a rainy day.
Peregrine, in pretty much any thread that's ever come up where it is mentioned that a person who runs a list significantly more competitive than their local meta will most likely have a problem finding a game in the future, you rail against this phenomenon as the epitome of hated CAAC behavior. Generally you equate it to some kind of anti-competitive gamer conspiracy within local play groups, rather than just a large group of individuals who notice that all their games against a certain player end up one-sided and privately decide to stop playing against that person.
Off the top of my head, I'd say you probably said something to this effect two or three dozen times in the first 100-page "But Muh Superheavies" thread by Unit.
Aelyn wrote: Why do the models need a specific level of paint before they're valid?
Because unpainted models look like , just like random legs on bases. Neither one is finished, neither one is acceptable.
I disagree with your opinion about the aesthetic quality of unpainted models. But that's just personal preference; you haven't said why they aren't valid.
I would rather play with unpainted models than a lazy three-colour tabletop scheme; can you at least acknowledge that's a valid perspective, even if you disagree with it?
Nope. I have never seen an army, even one painted to a basic tabletop standard, that looks worse than bare plastic.
I have, repeatedly. But that's incidental; it's interesting that you refuse to even accept my opinion and preference as valid.
I have already lost the passion for an army that cost me hundreds of pounds as a direct result of the obligation to paint it to a tournament-legal level leading to the paintjob being, in my mind, substandard. I kept playing with it for several months, even trying to touch up and improve the paint scheme to a level I found acceptable, but it was too late; I associated that army with an unpleasant experience, and enjoyed games noticeably less as a result from that point on.
I would rather play with unpainted models and paint them as and when I can than to have a hobby turn into a chore.
I also accept the fact that we are not all privileged with time, skill, or ability to paint things immediately or quickly
Painting to a basic tabletop standard takes negligible skill and a small amount of time. Skip a game or two and you can paint your entire army.
You think four to six hours is enough to paint an army, even to basic tabletop standard? I guess it might just about be possible to paint a 1000 point Necron army in that timeframe...
I'm getting a bit more sniffy about it as I slide into grognard senility
I'm one of the weaker (and phenomenally slow) painters in my local nerd herd but between moving to smaller skirmish games and getting a fair bit of my figures done by commission I rarely put unpainted models on the table, last time I think was testing units from an ebay army to figure which ones were worth painting.
Just like no one is putting a gun to your head and saying you have to play against unpainted armies. Feel free to refuse games.
Has anyone suggesting anything more drastic? Do you think us who prefer to play against painted armies regularly round up people who do not paint their models and lock them up on prison camps not to be released until they have at least 2000 points worth of models painted?
Nope, just reaffirming that Peri doesn't have to play anyone.
Automatically Appended Next Post: @the_scotsman
I know, it's hilarious how he doesn't even seem to notice! Or would be if it wasn't frustrating.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Aelyn wrote: [
I have, repeatedly. But that's incidental; it's interesting that you refuse to even accept my opinion and preference as valid.
Yeah, it's like hitting a brick wall.
Your described painting woes is one reason I'm a slower painter. When I rush it looks bad.
the_scotsman wrote: Off the top of my head, I'd say you probably said something to this effect two or three dozen times in the first 100-page "But Muh Superheavies" thread by Unit.
Odd, because I distinctly remember pointing out that his stubborn insistence on running that exact three-LoW list and shooting down any possible alternative was a problem for his group, and that people are justifiably reluctant to play against an all-or-nothing list like that.
Personally I have the issue that I can get a unit to "assembled and primered" in a day, but painting that same unit will take me a week or two. I'm not a fast painter and I didn't pick a scheme that would be easy. I can hardly hold anyone else's unpainted minis against them when my percentage of finished units is so low.
Aelyn wrote: I have, repeatedly. But that's incidental; it's interesting that you refuse to even accept my opinion and preference as valid.
I don't accept it because it's ridiculous. It is extremely easy to paint to a standard that is better than bare plastic, maybe your community has an unusually high number of small children pouring buckets of paint on their models but I don't think that's at all representative of 40k in general.
I have already lost the passion for an army that cost me hundreds of pounds as a direct result of the obligation to paint it to a tournament-legal level leading to the paintjob being, in my mind, substandard. I kept playing with it for several months, even trying to touch up and improve the paint scheme to a level I found acceptable, but it was too late; I associated that army with an unpleasant experience, and enjoyed games noticeably less as a result from that point on.
Again, that's not how it works most of the time. The vast majority of people with unpainted armies don't have them because they're great painters and unwilling to compromise on quality to get stuff on the table faster, they're people who reject the idea of painting entirely. Just look at this thread, lots of people talking about how painting shouldn't be necessary or how they don't paint their armies, not many people with galleries full of nicely painted miniatures asking for some patience as they finish their latest masterpiece.
(And really, if you're so no-compromises on quality how are you putting unpainted models on the table when painting to an above-tabletop level usually requires painting before final assembly? Are you playing with unassembled models as well?)
You think four to six hours is enough to paint an army, even to basic tabletop standard? I guess it might just about be possible to paint a 1000 point Necron army in that timeframe...
Spray with colored primer, spend a couple hours doing a base coat on the guns/shoulder pads/whatever that needs to be a secondary color, and throw a black wash on it. Yeah, I think 6-12 hours (1-2 games worth of time) is enough to paint a pretty large amount of stuff to that level if you assembly line it efficiently.
Sure, just as soon as you buy an army and all of the supplies required, assemble everything, send me the models, and pay me my hourly rate for the labor I'll prove that tabletop standard is that easy. I don't paint to tabletop standard with my own models, so I'm sure as hell not wasting my own stuff to win a forum argument.
skchsan wrote: Why would you NOT want to paint your mini's? It's literally 99% of the hobby.
Why not just play a computer game if you want to play RTS without being invested in your models?
Um painting is like 10%, and I might be generous with that.
Playing the game is about competitiveness, strategy, game play, comradeship, developing an understanding of mathematics, then maybe distant way over there after army creation is Painting.
You misunderstand - assembling and painting is 99% of the HOBBY that is 40k.
Playing a game of 40k is like having a cake and eating it too.
No you misunderstand. Playing is 90% of the hobby. Building, and painting is like unboxing. A necessary chore. But certainly not the point.
BTW, about the noobs. I think at least initially most people are drawn in to this hobby by the visuals; they see the pictures of resplended armies fighting in the magazine or on the internet and want to experience something similar. So if when they go to their local store and see legions unpaited models battling over lumps of styrofoam the are likely to lose interest.
I certainly do not expect new people to instantly paint 2000 points, but I will gladly play smaller games. If all you have painted is 500 points, then I rather play a 500 point game than a bigger game invilving unpainted models. I will of course gladly offer painting advice as well.
Then why enforce playing with models at all, if playing is a separate part of the hobby? Why not use paper cutouts (so you can draw LOS) on bases and save a lot of money?
I did. It was the old Ork Dreadnought in 2nd edition. Paper cutout and all. We also didn't get much Warhammer into Iceland due to lead in toys being forbidden so proxying was a thing. I also don't enforce anything. I have played ton of games against(and with) proxies and enjoyed those games. I buy the models and bases because I do like assembling and painting them eventually and putting them into a glass display. Two hobbies remember.
Painting to a basic tabletop standard takes negligible skill and a small amount of time. Skip a game or two and you can paint your entire army.
Because of the exact reason I mentioned before. I take these as two hobbies and I do enjoy painting and I sometimes spend inordinate amount of time on a single figure. For me painting your supposed tabletop standard is throwing money away on models that I would love to also paint.
Stormatious wrote: i find it hard to believe you can just come in to this with no experience at all and watch a video and think your first mini will be table top
Actually, when i first started i tried painting a couple SM tacs, and they turned out terrible, so i followed most of the steps from a tutorial on warhammer tv and it came out surprisingly good. It was what encouraged me to get behind the painting aspect of the hobby properly. Dont get me wrong, they are hardly EavyMetal standards, but decent enough for me to be like, "dude! look at these fellas i painted up!". Now i have my own variation of a painting procedure that doesnt take too much time and produces fairly decent tabletop quality im happy with.
I actually think if more people just tried to follow these tutorials that like Duncan does it would get more people painting as it would surprise them how easy it is to get a averagely decent looking model [which i would call tabletop ready]
Automatically Appended Next Post:
grouchoben wrote: It's pretty easy to get a unit done, if you're starting out. Take Ultra Marines...
1) Buy a rattle can of Macragge Blue. Check out a 2 min vid on how to use a rattle can (distance from model, ventilation, etc.)
2) Spray 10 models blue.
3) Apply Drakenhof wash.
4) Watch video on dry brushing, dry brush macragge blue back on, leaving recessed areas shaded.
5) dry brush on, in much lesser amounts, a lighter blue on edges and raised areas.
6) Paint trim gold, have a damp brush ready as you go to wipe off inevitable slips over onto the blue. Do the same for the boltgun with black. (Or go grey and wash with nuln oil for more definition)
7) Rattle can some testor dull coat varnish onto your unit to protect them.
8) Slap your choice of texture paint onto the base, and then spot with a detail of you fancy - skulls, spent ammo, grass, etc. Paint base edge black.
After this you can do some more detail if you want - make seargents stand out, apply some decals, etc. - but you're done. Your guys look really solid, and you didn't need to do much careful brushwork - the shoulder pad edges were probably the trickiest part. You can get all this done in a day, absolutley no problem, while listening to a batrep, audiobook, comedy, music, whatever, and have a great team read to show for it too. What's stopping you? Two Intecessor squads ready to go...
Aelyn wrote: I have, repeatedly. But that's incidental; it's interesting that you refuse to even accept my opinion and preference as valid.
I don't accept it because it's ridiculous. It is extremely easy to paint to a standard that is better than bare plastic, maybe your community has an unusually high number of small children pouring buckets of paint on their models but I don't think that's at all representative of 40k in general.
Dude. This is totally uncalled for. You may not agree with my position, but claiming it's ridiculous is another matter.
Besides, it's a strawman; you're mischaracterising me as saying that unpainted models look better than TTQ. Sometimes they do, normally they don't (they normally look... about as good to me, maybe a touch better.) I would prefer to play with unpainted models and do a good job of them later than to play with bare-bones TTQ.
If you can't even comprehend the idea that someone else has different preferences or experiences to you, maybe you shouldn't argue so vehemently about what is ultimately a subjective subject.
EDIT: I've realised you may have misunderstood my position. I personally don't like painting my army to "only" tournament-defined TTQ, and therefore object to playing that as my army; I have no objection to playing against them.
I have already lost the passion for an army that cost me hundreds of pounds as a direct result of the obligation to paint it to a tournament-legal level leading to the paintjob being, in my mind, substandard. I kept playing with it for several months, even trying to touch up and improve the paint scheme to a level I found acceptable, but it was too late; I associated that army with an unpleasant experience, and enjoyed games noticeably less as a result from that point on.
Again, that's not how it works most of the time. The vast majority of people with unpainted armies don't have them because they're great painters and unwilling to compromise on quality to get stuff on the table faster, they're people who reject the idea of painting entirely. Just look at this thread, lots of people talking about how painting shouldn't be necessary or how they don't paint their armies, not many people with galleries full of nicely painted miniatures asking for some patience as they finish their latest masterpiece.
(And really, if you're so no-compromises on quality how are you putting unpainted models on the table when painting to an above-tabletop level usually requires painting before final assembly? Are you playing with unassembled models as well?)
So because my position is unusual, it's invalid?
And there is a wide spectrum between "acceptable tabletop quality for tournaments" and "impossible to paint while assembled". My best work - the models I display with pride in my cabinet - often do require sub-assemblies. My personal bar to be happy with the models does not, except in extremely rare circumstances. Both are far above tournament-standard "tabletop" quality.
You think four to six hours is enough to paint an army, even to basic tabletop standard? I guess it might just about be possible to paint a 1000 point Necron army in that timeframe...
Spray with colored primer, spend a couple hours doing a base coat on the guns/shoulder pads/whatever that needs to be a secondary color, and throw a black wash on it. Yeah, I think 6-12 hours (1-2 games worth of time) is enough to paint a pretty large amount of stuff to that level if you assembly line it efficiently.
It takes you 6 hours to play a single game? Also I seriously doubt that's possible for 50ish models in a 6-hour block, taking into account drying time for the sprays and washes, without it looking absolute gak. Plus the job you described is only absolute borderline minimum tabletop quality, if even that.
Do you apply the same standard and insist that it's wrong to hold everyone to the standard of "bring your codex/dice/etc to the game", and object equally if someone was unwilling to let their opponent play from memory because they refuse to bring their rules?
The core rules outright state you need the rules, models, codex, dice, and measuring tape to play. This isn't anywhere near an equitable comparison.
I try to make sure my units are at least primed before they see the table. I don't like to field unpainted models, and if I can, i'll remove unpainted models as casualties first.
iGuy91 wrote: I try to make sure my units are at least primed before they see the table.
See, depending on the colour of the primer, I might actually prefer to play against grey plastic than models that have just been primed.
The reason is that when models are primed in black (or a similarly dark colour), it becomes very difficult to see any details - especially from the other side of the table.
Grey plastic may not be pretty, but it's a hell of a lot easier to pick out details on those models than on ones covered in dark primer.
iGuy91 wrote: I try to make sure my units are at least primed before they see the table.
See, depending on the colour of the primer, I might actually prefer to play against grey plastic than models that have just been primed.
The reason is that when models are primed in black (or a similarly dark colour), it becomes very difficult to see any details - especially from the other side of the table.
Grey plastic may not be pretty, but it's a hell of a lot easier to pick out details on those models than on ones covered in dark primer.
Lol, very true, however my primary army is Necrons...and silver...well...yeah....lol.
I will play grey plastic or unfinished armies but I much prefer painted. Most members of my local gaming group have whole basements full of grey plastic armies because they are victims of "apocalypse" games in previous editions or generally not fancy the painting that much.
I can understand how it's hard for them to start painting because there is no hope to finish all of that stuff in a lifetime but to be honest it's their own fault and no excuse in my opinion.
To give them (and myself some extra) motivation, I suggested playing tournaments of increasing scope (500pts, 750pts, ...) with mandatory fully painted models.
Worked out pretty well, we got to play 4 tournaments in 2018, everyone has at least 1500pts fully painted by now and casual / bigger games in between can still be used to playtest new or unfinished units.
SHUPPET wrote: I look down upon it, but it's like every opponent in my area so feth it I just gotta hold that
Yep... I wish I had the option to at least strongly suggest that long-time members of the hobby make an effort in painting their armies instead of starting yet another new one... But it's a very small group of people that are all older than me. So I must silently judge, and hope that new-comers to the group have the motivation to put a bit of colour on their space marines/sigmarines.
Not to say it isn't more entertaining to play with fully painted armies.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Cynista wrote: Honestly the only good thing about people not painting their models is that I can buy them on ebay and have fresh plastic to work with
Can't disagree there. Although there is something very enjoyable about taking a badly painted army, painting over it, and making it look better. As long as the paint isn't too thick.
Thadin wrote:Tabletop Standard is a rather vague term, and it's specific definition may vary from person to person. Your Tabletop Standard, the basic that you paint to, may be better or worse than my own Tabletop Standard. But either way, it's enough to look good on the tabletop from a distance. It's different from how you'll paint your special characters and cool special dudes that you want to put more effort and actual technique in to, typically. Again, it differs from person to person.
Yeeup.
BlackSwanDelta wrote:
People are allowed to enjoy the hobby as much as they want to in it's different aspects. If you want to judge people for how they prioritize differently from you, that's own prerogative and right. If you don't want to play armies that aren't painted because you have a desire for a more immersive experience, good for you. If you don't want to paint your army, good for you. Politely decline and talk about something else. Be adults, there is a line that must be respected.
I'm always surprised that it's always an either-or, but you're right. Everybody has their own priorities and reasons, and regardless of whether we think they're valid or not, what matters is that it's valid to them.
JohnnyHell wrote:Everyone should stop telling each other how they’re allowed to have fun. ;-)
You're not my supervisor!
Aelyn wrote:
You think four to six hours is enough to paint an army, even to basic tabletop standard? I guess it might just about be possible to paint a 1000 point Necron army in that timeframe...
Oh man, I wish it took me 4-6 hours to paint 1000 points of Necrons. I might be able to get 50 points done reasonably in that time frame... maybe.
I want people who put an effort into the game. I want to play people that want to play as much as I do, or more. I want them to want to play a better stronger game, and to learn and be effective, and who have shown a desire to have painted miniatures.
I'm of the opinion that you should play with fully painted armies. Case in point:
I recently attended an Age of Sigmar 2,000 point tournament with no painting requirement. I had 2,000 points of fully painted Iron Jawz. One of my opponents had Daughters of Khane. His army was about 50/50 glued and blu-tack. All the smaller models were glued, but all the characters, his cauldron, and the larger, more complex models were blu-tack'ed "so I can paint them later". My reply: "Maybe you should have painted them before the tournament?" As an aside, he was a total WAAC and cheater on top of that.
I realize not everyone has the talent, or that painting may be difficult for a variety of reasons. But painting is a part of this game, and it's kind of a slap to the face when I have a fully painted army, and my opponent shows up with a grey plastic army, and 50% of it is held together with blu-tack. I'd never show up to a GW tournament with an army like that.
While I understand the "I don't want to paint because I don't find it enjoyable" sentiments, and I am not enforcing or forcing 'you have to paint it or don't play the game' policy upon anyone, but I have to ask why exactly you're interested in 40k at all?
Let's face it - 40k does not support or sport a very good game system/mechanics, and there are better miniature based wargames out there most of which forego great models for great system.
What really draws/drew people into 40k is the modelling and painting aspect of the kits because 40k has one of the best line of miniatures, and it just happens so that there are loose set of rules where you can play with your little figurines.
I just feel like, and this is purely my opinion which you are more than welcomed to disagree with, painting and modelling is one of the biggest parts of the hobby and I just don't seem to understand the 0/100 painting/gaming camp's attraction to the game. What exactly is it that draws you into the hobby if you don't like the hands on aspect of it?
I would find that strange, that you would buy in to a miniature came because it's the only one in town to play, instead of buying in to a miniature game for the lore, for the gameplay or for the entire modelling package.
"You" used in an unspecific manner, not directed at anyone in particular.
Tamwulf wrote: I'm of the opinion that you should play with fully painted armies. Case in point:
I recently attended an Age of Sigmar 2,000 point tournament with no painting requirement. I had 2,000 points of fully painted Iron Jawz. One of my opponents had Daughters of Khane. His army was about 50/50 glued and blu-tack. All the smaller models were glued, but all the characters, his cauldron, and the larger, more complex models were blu-tack'ed "so I can paint them later".
There is a difference between unpainted and unbuilt.
I realize not everyone has the talent, or that painting may be difficult for a variety of reasons. But painting is a part of this game, and it's kind of a slap to the face when I have a fully painted army, and my opponent shows up with a grey plastic army, and 50% of it is held together with blu-tack. I'd never show up to a GW tournament with an army like that.
It is a tournament with no paint requirement there was always going to be at least 1 unpainted army, if you dont want to face it don't attend that event.
“Not very good” is not unplayable. And in my case, I’m working on a home brew ruleset, so I’m not playing 40K 8E - I’m sure there are others who are using other systems too (one page 40K, Beyond the Gates of 40K, Bolt Action 40K, Kill Team, etc.).
And just to throw in, I have an Eldar “guest” army for my brother to use that I initially bought back when the models were metal - they’ve been sprayed red, but I’ve haven’t painted them further because I’ve been waiting for my skills to get “good enough” before I tackle them (save the Falcons/Wave Serpent). As you can guess, that’s been years they’ve been their basic red selves, and I still don’t feel confident I’m near to the quality I’d like to get them done. Why don’t I have my brother paint them? Well, he paints at the speed of about one model a year, and completely gave up after his Tomb Kings army was invalidated (the only army I know of he ever fully painted).
skchsan wrote:
I just feel like, and this is purely my opinion which you are more than welcomed to disagree with, painting and modelling is one of the biggest parts of the hobby and I just don't seem to understand the 0/100 painting/gaming camp's attraction to the game. What exactly is it that draws you into the hobby if you don't like the hands on aspect of it?
You'd actually be surprised; a lot of people do enjoy 40k as a game, despite it's imbalances, and (in part, maybe because of the community?) find great enjoyment from playing the game?
Some of the top ITC players have expressed (I think Kopech and Nanavanti, maybe others, but my memory could be wrong) that the hobby holds little enjoyment for them, because they garner pure enjoyment from the competition, and keeping up with the meta and building the newest hot list for whatever event they're attending is exhausting if they also have to put in the effort to hobby to a high standard as well (and nevermind the extensive collection they'd have to maintain).
I'm not saying it's wrong, but they have their own reasons, equally as valid as yours, if admittedly totally mysterious and unknown to you.
Thadin wrote: I would find that strange, that you would buy in to a miniature came because it's the only one in town to play, instead of buying in to a miniature game for the lore, for the gameplay or for the entire modelling package.
"You" used in an unspecific manner, not directed at anyone in particular.
Actually, I am one of those. There are a number of games I thoroughly enjoy (or did enjoy), but simply don't play because nobody else does with any regularity in my gaming community, or it's only one player and it's boring playing the same game against the same person over and over again (games like Flames of War, Firestorm Armada until it was discontinued, Battlefleet Gothic, Necromunda (campaign), X-Wing and Guild Ball).
I bought in to 40k and Fantasy almost two decades ago because I did love the lore, and the miniatures, and because they were literally the only option when it came to tabletop games (I wasn't into video games, plus art background).
Do I like 40k or AoS? Meh. They're fun to play with beer and pizza, and for me, the game is just an excuse to throw dice and hang out with friends. And the majority of my community plays 40k or AoS, so those are the games I continue to collect.
Could I not play, and just collect single miniatures? Probably, but I love hobbying and painting, while occasionally getting some games in. If that means I have to play 40k or AoS, great.
If the entire local community tomorrow quit GW entirely and started playing exclusively, I dunno, Infinity and only that, I'd probably switch over too.
skchsan wrote: While I understand the "I don't want to paint because I don't find it enjoyable" sentiments, and I am not enforcing or forcing 'you have to paint it or don't play the game' policy upon anyone, but I have to ask why exactly you're interested in 40k at all?
Let's face it - 40k does not support or sport a very good game system/mechanics, and there are better miniature based wargames out there most of which forego great models for great system.
What really draws/drew people into 40k is the modelling and painting aspect of the kits because 40k has one of the best line of miniatures, and it just happens so that there are loose set of rules where you can play with your little figurines.
I just feel like, and this is purely my opinion which you are more than welcomed to disagree with, painting and modelling is one of the biggest parts of the hobby and I just don't seem to understand the 0/100 painting/gaming camp's attraction to the game. What exactly is it that draws you into the hobby if you don't like the hands on aspect of it?
My guess is the social aspect. I feel like a lot of Dakkanauts are forgetting the social aspect of it all. I haven't met many people who absolutely hate painting, but the very few I have basically were seeking the gaming and/or the social aspect of it. They also tended to lean towards easy to paint armies like Necrons.
I also think people tend to underestimate the fun of playing Warhammer. Regardless of balance a lot of people find the game highly entertaining and I could just as easily turn the question around and say:
"If you think the rules are gak and get nothing out of playing it then why the interest in 40k? Why not paint something else?"
Now, I know all of us here are very passionate about the hobby and as I have mentioned people come to it from all kinds of backgrounds. The rules may not be perfect, but to me and many people they are bloody fun, just like the painting aspect of it. This is why I just embrace it personally. Sure, I have some hard limits myself, but even then - in certain circumstances - I am willing to sidestep them.
Warhammer is also the largest wargame around that offers large scale battles with huge robots and small goblins. Which again ties into "social aspect" of it all. I mean, there are probably better rules around, but finding players and a group to play with? Easier said than done. At this point - and this is something a lot of us might have to accept - but Warhammer is the de facto language in wargaming where everyone meets at one point or another. It is the nexus and draws people of all kinds like Freeport.
Peregrine, in pretty much any thread that's ever come up where it is mentioned that a person who runs a list significantly more competitive than their local meta will most likely have a problem finding a game in the future, you rail against this phenomenon as the epitome of hated CAAC behavior. Generally you equate it to some kind of anti-competitive gamer conspiracy within local play groups, rather than just a large group of individuals who notice that all their games against a certain player end up one-sided and privately decide to stop playing against that person.
Off the top of my head, I'd say you probably said something to this effect two or three hundred times in the first 100-page "But Muh Superheavies" thread by Unit.
fixed it for you.
someone needs to learn the difference between subjective & objective or just understand that others may have a different opinion. it's ok if you're incapable of that.
I playing against unpainted. Its boring and feels like going through the motions. If my opponent charges a unit with a half built unpainted mix of bloodcrushers, skull crushers and unmounted juggernaughts and smashes my unit into pieces I just shrug and pick up my models. If it was charged and destroyed by a beautifully painted unit of Bloodcrushers with a hand painted banner and maybe a converted champion I'll laugh and probably retell the tale. Might even take a few pics on my phone.
I have painted quite a few armies in my day.
In order from memory (starting on the last week of 2nd edition)...
Space Marines.
Chaos Marines.
Space Wolves.
Necrons (metal models).
Orcs and Goblins.
Ultramarines (warmonger and several best painted awards).
Deathguard.
Dark Elves.
Chaos Daemons. (Nurgle)
Chaos Daemons. (Slaanesh)
Chaos Daemons. (Nurgle/Tzeentch)
Imperial Guard. (this was never painted)
Eldar.
Currently working on Daughters of Khaine and Custodes and 2 Knights.
This doesn't included all my Mordheim warbands and BFG fleets. Nor does it include fun extra things like Assassins, random cool minis, a comission for a friend ect.
My Ultramarines won several best painted and best overall awards. I spent about 4 hours per 10 marines. It was 3.5 and 4th those days so I had exactly 100 marines at 2000pts including vehicle crew. I showed a friend how I painted them and he started a Necron army (his first models ever). He painted a Necrons Lord on Destroyer body with no prior experience in painting or modeling. After about 3 hours he had a beautiful, unique and based Necrons model. Other long time players and painters praised him on fantastic work and couldn't believe he had never painted a model before. By the end of the month he had 2500pts of fully painted Necrons. And he didn't go the lazy route. They were copper and bone with silver damage and scuffs. He even converted a few to stand in different stances.
2 months after that he had a fully painted 3000pts force of Tau. He actually painted the City Fight color scheme before that book came out. He hand painted electricity on all the energy based weapons. He had dead Ultramarines around their feet. He pained his stealthsuits to match the pine forest terrain at the club and put his own plants on the bases to line up with the shifting camo.
He went on to collect and paint Grey Knights, Traitors and Heretics, Chaos Space Marines, Chaos Daemons, And most importantly... I sold him my Ultramarines which he sold for text books. Then he started his crowning achievement. His own Ultramarines 1st company army. It is breath taking how amazing they look.
In a few years he went from "Wow, man. That looks great!" to "Holy crap you're the best model painter I've ever known!"
My painting has remained the same for the most part. Consistent, clear and straight forward. My So far took exactly one month to paint. Why? Because another friend told me that if I could get it done in a month he would buy the army.
3 wave serpents, 20 dire avengers, 10 dark reapers, 10 fire dragons, 5 wraithguard, Avatar of Khaine, Eldrad, a few warlocks, 10 jetbikes and a couple of other things.
Did the entire army without a single metallic paint. One of the easiest armies I've ever painted.
I painted half of the Custodes named character...Trajann yesterday morning. Looks great so far. Took about 2 hours to get his robe done and the Retributor armor spray made the entire army a breeze. Shouldn't take me more than a month to finish 9 termies, Trajann and 6 jetbikes.
Models don't have to be perfect. Just painted. I judged a painting competition and the top 3 were Necrons (codex silver) space marines and Imperial Guard. I gave top score to the Imperial Guard player and the prize was a FW Thunderhawk.
The Necron player was furious he didn't win. He said the Imperial Guard player had chunky, unthined paints. That the conversions were sloppy. The eyes were sloppy. The basing was too chunky with too much static grass... Ect. He wanted to know what his Necrons (which were lovely btw) didn't win.
After the contest I spoke to him about it. I explained how Rogue Trader competitions were judged. I showed him the list of criteria that I was looking for. His Necrons army only had 3 colors on his models (silver, black and green) and his based were just brown on sand. No conversions, no creative basing, no unique ideas or hand painted symbology or icons.
The Guard player was much younger. He had a massive infantry based army. All his veterans had converted helmets. All bases had variant materials and lots going on. Home made autocannons to rep each autocannon, grenades and bayonets everywhere, hand painted banners, minimum of about 9 colors on ever models, kit bashes, lighting effects, and it was all on a diaramic carrying tray. Way more effort but not as pretty. I gave him top marks.
The point I'm making is that if someone wants their army painted it will get painted. If they don't it won't.
I have arthritis that usually flares into its worst stages after a few minutes of clipping bits from the sprue. I've had days where I couldn't even hold a Bloodletter because my fingers were twisted and swollen from assembling a few Fenrisian wolves. That never stopped me. If you want it, it will get done. You just have to do it.
Forgot to mention I painted the Eldar army while working 3 jobs. Mornings at a pizza place, afternoons in an Italian restaurant and overnight as a bank driver.
I hate to step into someone else's ongoing argument, but Peregrine does have a point. I did a Skorne army a while back where my process was:
1) Prime to white.
2) Paint robes/cloth orange, skin tan, weapons slate gray, weapon handles black.
3) Brown wash.
4) Seal.
I could finish a 10-man squad in a couple of hours by the time I was done (including doing basing work and actually gluing finished models to bases), and I still wasn't particularly fast.
I'd wager that if I picked a simpler scheme that would work with a single wash and skipped squad/chapter markings I could churn out a 5-man tac squad every 45 minutes or so once they were assembled and primered in my base color. I'd lose my mind trying to stay focused that long, but I'd finish my current 2000 point marine list in under 10 hours at that pace.
What really draws/drew people into 40k is the modelling and painting aspect of the kits because 40k has one of the best line of miniatures, and it just happens so that there are loose set of rules where you can play with your little figurines.
I just feel like, and this is purely my opinion which you are more than welcomed to disagree with, painting and modelling is one of the biggest parts of the hobby and I just don't seem to understand the 0/100 painting/gaming camp's attraction to the game. What exactly is it that draws you into the hobby if you don't like the hands on aspect of it?
That might be what drew you into the hobby. That's fine, but people start projecting what they prioritize as a universal constant and use it as an excuse to go so far as to outright berate and harass people and cheer others on for doing so.
Some people like the game.
Some people like the lore.
Some people like the game and the lore.
Some people like the modeling.
Some people like the modeling and the game.
Some people like the modeling and painting.
Some people like the modeling, painting, and the game.
Some people like the lore, modeling, painting.
Some people like the lore, modeling, painting, and the game.
I could go on with every possible combination of every aspect of 40k, but the point is, people like different things about it. They enjoy all, some, or none of these aspects in varying priorities and none of these combinations is the "right one", full stop.
Understanding this premise is a basic empathetic skill. You want to enjoy what you want to enjoy, probably without feeling questioned or judged for it constantly, and these other people would just like that same respect. I doubt most would not appreciate it if people constantly berated them for using their time to sit around painting toys and point out they could be doing something better when they're at your FLGS and I'm willing to bet most of the holy hobby rollers in this thread wouldn't appreciate it, either.
I'm not criticizing certain opinions. Someone not wanting to play an unpainted army is no more or less wrong than not wanting to paint your army. Competitive play styles do not hold any moral or objective truth over casual play styles. It's the complete lack of respect and value judgements for each other over these opinions that some people choose to rationalize that crosses the line and should be addressed.
This problem is prevalent on both extreme "sides" of the debate (of which there are many and not just two) of casual or competitive, hobby or game enthusiasts and contribute to 40k's reputation for community toxicity which, imo, is the biggest hurdle to actually expanding the hobby. Which is fine with some, since a surprising amount of these people would actually rather see the game dwindle and die before having a mainstream movement accepting of all playstyles. Or that they're the anointed savior of that which is the morally just cause of which gives them license to act upon others without this empathetic respect everyone deserves.
It's ultimately not even really your business, people don't owe you an explanation, and we all just want to be treated well and respected and have people stop making sweeping moral judgements based on how they like to play with their toys. How this is still even up for debate among the so-called "adults" in this hobby is what I don't personally understand.
Let's not forget that looking at the poll results overwhelming majority prefers playing against painted armies. It is just that when this preference is expressed in a manner that can be interpreted as "I'd prefer if you painted your army" it triggers a "You can't tell me what to do, you're not my real father!" reaction in some people. This is a very common occurrence in playstyle discussions.
Crimson wrote: Let's not forget that looking at the poll results overwhelming majority prefers playing against painted armies. It is just that when this preference is expressed in a manner that can be interpreted as "I'd prefer if you painted your army" it triggers a "You can't tell me what to do, you're not my real father!" reaction in some people. This is a very common occurrence in playstyle discussions.
A common preferred style of play is not a justification for disrespect and harassment, that's a straight up bandwagon fallacy.
"I prefer to play painted armies" is not the same as name calling, character judgements, and encouraging real life harassment to repeatedly "encourage" people of a different opinion all of which is also a common occurrence in playstyle discussions; there is plenty of examples in this thread alone.
Crimson wrote: BTW, about the noobs. I think at least initially most people are drawn in to this hobby by the visuals; they see the pictures of resplended armies fighting in the magazine or on the internet and want to experience something similar. So if when they go to their local store and see legions unpaited models battling over lumps of styrofoam the are likely to lose interest.
So like GW requires to play in their stores, which is a 3 colour minimum. Are GW the bad guys for daring to suggest gamer cannot play their own game without painting their gak first? No, they're not. Just like anyone else making the reasonable request you paint your models. What you choose to do with this request is up to you, but IME an unpainted force (sometimes part assembled) is like a giant red flag of "do not play this person" as it goes hand in hand with TFG behaviour and those that chase the proverbial dragon of the latest meta.
One of 40k's biggest selling points is the visuals. plonking a load of (let's face it, with modern GW models...) multicoloured plastic with sometimes parts of green stuff and/or bits used for gap filling on the board is just a mess. Even a simple undercoat will cover a multitude of sins here yet you don't see that sometimes for years on end. I just HATE that look. I know from experience of doing loads of conversions over the years that that extensive conversion will look awful until you hit that first undercoat and it brings it all together with a single colour, but I'm going off at a tangent here...
Note, I'm referring to generic "you" here and not "you you".
My guess is the social aspect. I feel like a lot of Dakkanauts are forgetting the social aspect of it all. I haven't met many people who absolutely hate painting, but the very few I have basically were seeking the gaming and/or the social aspect of it. They also tended to lean towards easy to paint armies like Necrons.
The social aspect of painting is precisely why I tend to do it at home. I've tried painting at my FLGS but get naff all done as I'll just start chatting.
That fits the bill. Grey is such a depressing colour that would suit only the downtrodden which are desperate enough to ally themselves with the denizens of the warp.
Filthy imperial, do we need to burn down the southern realm again like 1499, you corpse copulating plebian!!!
(historic joke is historical, i'd never burn down someones house, only loot his food supply!)
Edit: tbf the choice was made since it Highlights well with Red, and I like khorne, and secondly it's forgiving so that i am actually fairly content with the look. And as Strg Alt pointed out, fits the bill nicely for Chaos cannonfodder.
There is nothing wrong to have a healthy necrophilia fetish. You should know this, Slaanesh worshipper. Raiding my food supply? I fear you will run out of luck then because there are only sacks of potatoes and no cheese wheels to be found in my basement.
What kind of terrain are you using? I would advise a city of ruins theme to go with your grey painted models. The first source book from GW concerning cityfights had a great section for hobbyists in order to build their own ruins. These self-built ruins are way cheaper and more useful than the overpriced stuff GW tries to peddle us.
Crimson wrote: Let's not forget that looking at the poll results overwhelming majority prefers playing against painted armies. It is just that when this preference is expressed in a manner that can be interpreted as "I'd prefer if you painted your army" it triggers a "You can't tell me what to do, you're not my real father!" reaction in some people. This is a very common occurrence in playstyle discussions.
A common preferred style of play is not a justification for disrespect and harassment, that's a straight up bandwagon fallacy.
"I prefer to play painted armies" is not the same as name calling, character judgements, and encouraging real life harassment to repeatedly "encourage" people of a different opinion all of which is also a common occurrence in playstyle discussions; there is plenty of examples in this thread alone.
The social aspect of painting is precisely why I tend to do it at home. I've tried painting at my FLGS but get naff all done as I'll just start chatting.
We have a well attended painting group on Saturdays in our FLGS. Old players and new, both skilled and not skilled at painting, gather and share in the hobby. I find it beautiful.
I, however, do prefer to paint myself, but I also like to have Star Trek reruns or 40k audionovels playing in the background.
Crimson wrote: Let's not forget that looking at the poll results overwhelming majority prefers playing against painted armies. It is just that when this preference is expressed in a manner that can be interpreted as "I'd prefer if you painted your army" it triggers a "You can't tell me what to do, you're not my real father!" reaction in some people. This is a very common occurrence in playstyle discussions.
A common preferred style of play is not a justification for disrespect and harassment, that's a straight up bandwagon fallacy.
"I prefer to play painted armies" is not the same as name calling, character judgements, and encouraging real life harassment to repeatedly "encourage" people of a different opinion all of which is also a common occurrence in playstyle discussions; there is plenty of examples in this thread alone.
When did I harass anyone or advocate such?
I said it was a common occurrence with plenty examples in this thread. Of which, there are.
You made a point about people getting "triggeed" by people saying they don't want to play unpaired armies, I made a point that many people also cross basic lines of respect when doing expressing that opinion of not wanting to play unpainted armies.
I didn't say any thing about how it has to look mate, im just saying your not really "doing soccer" because your not using one of the main points of the game, just because you have the ability doesn't mean any thing unless its utilized
A common preferred style of play is not a justification for disrespect and harassment, that's a straight up bandwagon fallacy.
"I prefer to play painted armies" is not the same as name calling, character judgements, and encouraging real life harassment to repeatedly "encourage" people of a different opinion all of which is also a common occurrence in playstyle discussions; there is plenty of examples in this thread alone.
Which examples? Would you be so kind as to point them out? We all know and love Peregrine for his pomp and bluster, but who aside from him is advocating for name calling, character judgments or real life harassment?
The vast majority of what I'm seeing here is people simply expressing their preference for painted armies, responding to hyperbole about how impossible it is to paint models, and expressing their willingness to offer help and assistance to new painters. The fact that someone saying how willing they are to help someone improve a skill or gain confidence gets interpreted as harassment is kind of interesting on a psychological level.
Stormatious wrote: I didn't say any thing about how it has to look mate, im just saying your not really "doing soccer" because your not using one of the main points of the game, just because you have the ability doesn't mean any thing unless its utilized
Just because you consider painting to be a key part of the game doesn't mean everyone does. Paint makes literally no difference to the ability to play the game, laugh about old war stories with friends, think about lists and tactics, or enjoy the background. The only difference it makes is that stuff (generally) looks nicer.
Stormatious wrote: I didn't say any thing about how it has to look mate, im just saying your not really "doing soccer" because your not using one of the main points of the game, just because you have the ability doesn't mean any thing unless its utilized
Just because you consider painting to be a key part of the game doesn't mean everyone does. Paint makes literally no difference to the ability to play the game, laugh about old war stories with friends, think about lists and tactics, or enjoy the background. The only difference it makes is that stuff (generally) looks nicer.
Yes. It. Does.
In this age of multiple detachments and soup lists, being able to specify which models belong to what chapter, regiment, hive fleet or whatever is more important than ever. A sea of grey makes this practically impossible.
See? Just like I said earlier. TFG behaviour and unpainted armies tend to go hand in hand.
Whenever I have done intro games for 40K, 9th Age, Blood Bowl, Necromunda or Freebooter´s Fate in the past, I made sure to use painted minis from my collection. Tabletop games excel when the table features an interesting terrain set and minis which were painted with a love for detail. Noobs also get an impression right from the beginning that I care about the hobby and that they can achieve the same result with a little bit of dedication on their part. I also stressed the point that my painting skills were pretty bad at the beginning but nowadays with the interwebz, beginners can do much better than my younger self.
Do I criticize other people in my FLGS because they don´t paint their models? No, I just don´t associate with them. Tabletop games are after all a social affair and it can´t be expected that people get along well with one another who have a vastly different outlook on the hobby. My gaming buddies and myself want to have a good time when we decide to have a tabletop game. This means putting an effort with anything associated with said game. Having to face off against a grey plastic horde would be akin to showing utter disrespect to your opponent as much as a poster on this forum would refrain from using proper spelling or punctuation.
A common preferred style of play is not a justification for disrespect and harassment, that's a straight up bandwagon fallacy.
"I prefer to play painted armies" is not the same as name calling, character judgements, and encouraging real life harassment to repeatedly "encourage" people of a different opinion all of which is also a common occurrence in playstyle discussions; there is plenty of examples in this thread alone.
Which examples? Would you be so kind as to point them out? We all know and love Peregrine for his pomp and bluster, but who aside from him is advocating for name calling, character judgments or real life harassment?
The vast majority of what I'm seeing here is people simply expressing their preference for painted armies, responding to hyperbole about how impossible it is to paint models, and expressing their willingness to offer help and assistance to new painters. The fact that someone saying how willing they are to help someone improve a skill or gain confidence gets interpreted as harassment is kind of interesting on a psychological level.
Offering help isn't harassment. Repeated, unreciprocated offers of "help" and/or calling people lazy, disrespectful, etc because they don't prioritize their free time the same as you, is harassment.
The true real wargamer has a fully painted army on his miniture terrain table top where he trys to appear as one with the terrain to fully get the feel and keeping to what wargaming really is, which is painting or highly detailed realistic tiny miniture statues and putting them to war in a miniture enviroment.
Automatically Appended Next Post: One does not disrespect the laws of miniture wargaming
Automatically Appended Next Post: and disrespect the miniturized battlefield in which to war on
Stormatious wrote: I didn't say any thing about how it has to look mate, im just saying your not really "doing soccer" because your not using one of the main points of the game, just because you have the ability doesn't mean any thing unless its utilized
Just because you consider painting to be a key part of the game doesn't mean everyone does. Paint makes literally no difference to the ability to play the game, laugh about old war stories with friends, think about lists and tactics, or enjoy the background. The only difference it makes is that stuff (generally) looks nicer.
Yes. It. Does.
In this age of multiple detachments and soup lists, being able to specify which models belong to what chapter, regiment, hive fleet or whatever is more important than ever. A sea of grey makes this practically impossible.
See? Just like I said earlier. TFG behaviour and unpainted armies tend to go hand in hand.
That's fair (the part about telling detachments apart, not the part about TFGs.) I didn't think of it because I've never actually played with someone using the same models for different detachments. However, that's a fairly corner case - most of the time painting models doesn't make any difference to the game.
Its weird, personally I only use painted models, as this is a way to control the grey horde at home and keep it manageable, will play against anyone who is fun to play against regardless.
its annoying to be at a paid event, with paint rules that are then not enforced, if not going to enforce don't bother with them.
its also only ever been 40k & WHFB where this has ever been an issue, I have yet to attend an event for a historical game that needed to put paint guides in place, and have only ever seen one historical army at an event not fully painted (bod from my club who got some royal stick over it, and has since painted a couple of them...)
Seems the usual rule of civilised behaviour is in effect, hold yourself to a higher standard than which you hold against others
Yeah its because there money grubbers, they want people who will just buy the models and not paint them.
Automatically Appended Next Post: This encourges people who dont want to paint them to start getting in to 40k
Automatically Appended Next Post: "oh you can use greys in this??, awsome im in"
Automatically Appended Next Post: Sort of like how bringing the masses in to computer games created this micro transaction gaming generation where the games are crapper and crapper
Automatically Appended Next Post: GOTTA MAKE ALL THE MONEY BEFORE THE WORLD WAR 3!!!
I think some people are getting way too wound up over how other people play their hobby. Especially since if you don't want to play the grey then just be polite and say "ahh no thanks" in person. Baring in mind that half of the thread is talking not about actual games, but theoretical ones and theoretical gamers.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Well i mean how depressing... why not paint your whole inside and outside of your house grey
Automatically Appended Next Post: Nice detail
You might not be able to see detail from arm's length, but I can, at least.
.
Why are you trying so hard to find some "gotcha"about what people like and don't like? These things don't have anything to do with each other. People that like grey mini's might not like gray houses and that's really all there is to it.
Offering help isn't harassment. Repeated, unreciprocated offers of "help" and/or calling people lazy, disrespectful, etc because they don't prioritize their free time the same as you, is harassment.
Again, where are you getting any indication of that type of behavior from anything that has been said in this thread? I could say that someone who doesn't paint their armies and constantly begs, nags and insists that an opponent who prefers to play only with painted miniatures must take on their bare plastic army, is also guilty of harassment. But that's a strawman argument about a convoluted fringe case that isn't likely to happen, and a poor attempt at impugning everyone that disagrees with me in this thread.
Someone who feels disrespected by their opponent's lack of effort, after putting hundreds of hours into painting their miniatures themselves, isn't engaging in harassment. That's how they feel. Expressing that feeling on a discussion forum, in a thread for which the topic of discussion is whether you prefer to play against painted armies, is not harassment. It's the intended function of the platform.
Even generalizing people who don't paint their armies as lazy is not harassment in this context as long as it's not directed at anyone in particular.
If your definition of harassment is the expression of an opinion that anyone might find offensive or disagreeable, regardless of the context or setting, then you are guilty of harassment for insisting that openly disagreeing with you is harassment.
Harassment is typically considered to have a repetitive, prolonged component. Someone who constantly and repeatedly shows up to the FLGS and pressures everyone with unpainted miniatures to take painting lessons from them would be guilty of a type of harassment, but that is so far away from anything being advocated in this thread that it's kind of a bizarre thing to be fixated on in the context of this discussion.
Harassment is a type of behavior with at least a loose threshold of definition. If announcing your displeasure with playing against unpainted armies constitutes harassment merely because it carries indirect implications about the motivation or character of those who do not paint their miniatures, then the threshold is so low that it basically precludes any kind of meaningful interaction or discussion between two people who don't think and value exactly the same things. It renders harassment meaningless as a classification of behavior, because the only way to avoid engaging in harassment would be to read someone's mind so you'd know what they might find offensive before you say it, or simply not interact with another person at all because you can't know what they may find offensive and therefore can't possibly be sure you're not harassing them.
Someone who feels disrespected by their opponent's lack of effort, after putting hundreds of hours into painting their miniatures themselves, isn't engaging in harassment. That's how they feel. Expressing that feeling on a discussion forum, in a thread for which the topic of discussion is whether you prefer to play against painted armies, is not harassment. It's the intended function of the platform.
I don't know maybe because the painter crowed describe themself as adults, that play the game the right way and engage in the full spectrum of the hobby, which is also the only good way to enjoy it, everything else is inferior. While people who don't want to paint their models are lazy children who don't know better, which if they want to be treated as adults should pick up a paint brush and paint.
Someone who constantly and repeatedly shows up to the FLGS and pressures everyone with unpainted miniatures to take painting lessons from them would be guilty of a type of harassment, but that is so far away from anything being advocated in this thread that it's kind of a bizarre thing to be fixated on in the context of this discussion
Wait wait wait. This is only true if we assume that the normal state of playing is to have a painted army. only then can someone with a unpainted army, be forcing anyone to do something. But painting is not part of the game. It is not even part of the hobby, because someone may like to read the w40k books and play games, and never paint a model in their life.
Someone who feels disrespected by their opponent's lack of effort, after putting hundreds of hours into painting their miniatures themselves, isn't engaging in harassment. That's how they feel. Expressing that feeling on a discussion forum, in a thread for which the topic of discussion is whether you prefer to play against painted armies, is not harassment. It's the intended function of the platform.
I don't know maybe because the painter crowed describe themself as adults, that play the game the right way and engage in the full spectrum of the hobby, which is also the only good way to enjoy it, everything else is inferior. While people who don't want to paint their models are lazy children who don't know better, which if they want to be treated as adults should pick up a paint brush and paint.
Again, this is a discussion forum, and the topic of this thread is whether or not you prefer to play against painted armies. People engaging in discussion in this context are not "harassing" anyone, even if by implication or generalization they imply that their view of the hobby is the "best" or "correct" one. Maybe you don't like it when people say that, and maybe they're incorrect. However, stating an incorrect opinion with which you do not agree does not meet the threshold of harassment. There are plenty of examples of people questioning the character and life choices of someone who only wants to play against painted armies and won't play a game against someone with an unpainted army. Is that harassment? Simply holding different opinions, or stating them openly in the context of a discussion, can't be harassment. Do you not realize that otherwise the explicit function of a discussion forum such as Dakka Dakka would be to facilitate harassment?
Someone who constantly and repeatedly shows up to the FLGS and pressures everyone with unpainted miniatures to take painting lessons from them would be guilty of a type of harassment, but that is so far away from anything being advocated in this thread that it's kind of a bizarre thing to be fixated on in the context of this discussion
Wait wait wait. This is only true if we assume that the normal state of playing is to have a painted army. only then can someone with a unpainted army, be forcing anyone to do something. But painting is not part of the game. It is not even part of the hobby, because someone may like to read the w40k books and play games, and never paint a model in their life.
Now you're telling people that they can't even think, feel or believe something different from you internally. Someone may hold the opinion that playing with painted miniatures is the default state of the game. You may believe that painting is not a part of the game at all. Neither opinion is objectively correct; they're both opinions. They're preferences. You are, in effect, saying that someone who places the highest value on playing with painted miniatures and prefers not to play against unpainted armies is "wrong" because other people have different preferences. Who decides whose values and preferences take precedence, and who must cede their preferences to those of someone else?
Playing with painted miniatures is certainly how GW presents the hobby, so I think it is fair to say that that is how it is 'intended' to be played. Whether one cares about GW's intent is another matter.
SHUPPET wrote: I look down upon it, but it's like every opponent in my area so feth it I just gotta hold that
Yep... I wish I had the option to at least strongly suggest that long-time members of the hobby make an effort in painting their armies instead of starting yet another new one... But it's a very small group of people that are all older than me. So I must silently judge, and hope that new-comers to the group have the motivation to put a bit of colour on their space marines/sigmarines.
I feel you. I been a player for longer than a few of them, but I recognise that my desire for a painted force isn't mirrored by them, and nothing I can say will change that, so I'll just let it go. It won't stop me from looking down upon an army. There's no way I can view that on the same level as a fully painted army. If there was a selection of guys with painted armies that would be the ones I played against the most, but there's not there's like 1 left after the other guy moved town (:() so I just gotta make do.
So OP... I think you have an answer. The majority would rather you paint your minis but not really care, and maybe 1 in 10 will be visibly annoyed or refuse to play you.
Horst wrote: So OP... I think you have an answer. The majority would rather you paint your minis but not really care, and maybe 1 in 10 will be visibly annoyed or refuse to play you.
Is this thread done now?
Nope it's still a point of discussion. You don't have to click on it again though if you've said all you have to?
Automatically Appended Next Post: Well i mean how depressing... why not paint your whole inside and outside of your house grey
Automatically Appended Next Post: Nice detail
You might not be able to see detail from arm's length, but I can, at least.
.
Why are you trying so hard to find some "gotcha"about what people like and don't like? These things don't have anything to do with each other. People that like grey mini's might not like gray houses and that's really all there is to it.
I feel like yours is the "gotcha". There's zero chance you can see detail at the same level on grey plastic as you can with a well painted mini. The colors give depth and added visibility. This is how the human eye works. You're either some freak case, or you're ignoring his point.
Horst wrote: So OP... I think you have an answer. The majority would rather you paint your minis but not really care, and maybe 1 in 10 will be visibly annoyed or refuse to play you.
Is this thread done now?
No because theres many aspects to this discussion that are still being debated
Automatically Appended Next Post: Like is grey enough detail.
I've read most of this thread. It's not a debate. It's people with absolutely disparate viewpoints that are not going to come to any sort of middle ground. If you wanna keep arguing have at it, but it's not gonna achieve anything.
Middle ground or not atleast people can see what people think and why.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Is it not the true spirit of miniture wargaming to have only fully painted minis departed to the battlefield. Lets re enforce this important pioint of what is miniture wargaming is and is about, the more who make this clear or express there views the better. For all man kind. And how do the minitures feel? do you think they like being nothingness?
Offering help isn't harassment. Repeated, unreciprocated offers of "help" and/or calling people lazy, disrespectful, etc because they don't prioritize their free time the same as you, is harassment.
Again, where are you getting any indication of that type of behavior from anything that has been said in this thread?
I listed about half a dozen common sentiments in this thread that I've commonly encountered in the post I linked. I'm not going through all 10 pages of this train wreck of a thread to gather each individual link. If it's your opinion that those things were not said, then, sorry but "oh well". I also cannot reference of the totality of my experiences that formed this opinion in my time in stores, events, and online forums
I could say that someone who doesn't paint their armies and constantly begs, nags and insists that an opponent who prefers to play only with painted miniatures must take on their bare plastic army, is also guilty of harassment.
You could say that and you'd be absolutely 100% correct. I've made this point in both of my larger posts in this thread that this kind of behavior is present on both "sides" of the discussion.
But that's a strawman argument about a convoluted fringe case that isn't likely to happen, and a poor attempt at impugning everyone that disagrees with me in this thread.
It not only happens, it happens in at least a significant measure in my experience and one of my points was the difficulty in recognizing this behavior since it's fairly ingrained in the culture. Again, I'm sorry that I can't reference the entire totality of all my experiences in stores, events, and online forums, but my opinions were not solely the product of this one singular thread.
Someone who feels disrespected by their opponent's lack of effort, after putting hundreds of hours into painting their miniatures themselves, isn't engaging in harassment. That's how they feel.
Correct, I summed this up in the first paragraph in the linked post and restated that point again a couple posts back.
Expressing that feeling on a discussion forum, in a thread for which the topic of discussion is whether you prefer to play against painted armies, is not harassment. It's the intended function of the platform.
Correct, not what I was addressing, and I specifically discounted this in my previous posts.
Even generalizing people who don't paint their armies as lazy is not harassment in this context as long as it's not directed at anyone in particular.
Finally, I guess this is where we diverge.
Harassing people by grouping them together is still harassment. Agree to disagree, I guess. Calling groups of people pejoratives and making sweeping generalizations about character absolutely fall under a form of harassment and toxic behavior. If you feel that targeting groups of people isn't as bad as targeting people, I guess we'll never see eye to eye.
If your definition of harassment is the expression of an opinion that anyone might find offensive or disagreeable, regardless of the context or setting, then you are guilty of harassment for insisting that openly disagreeing with you is harassment
I repeatedly, repeatedly addressed this. I cannot make this any more clear that is not at all what I said. Disagreeing in a polite way without calling people names or using character judgements is fine. You don't feel untargeted statements qualify as harassment or poor behavior, then ok. But I disagree and believe using pejoratives and character judgements over toy soldiers is a problem if you are targeting someone by name or by group. Being targeted by group association is still wrong.
Absolutely none of these are required to discuss your opinion that models should be painted and are not useful in any measure of the conversation, targeted or not. You and I disagree here, and so far you and i have remained perfectly civil. People who disagree about paint can do the same. Discuss the idea, not the people.
The rest of your post seems to be a summation, so, I'll leave it here.
Offering help isn't harassment. Repeated, unreciprocated offers of "help" and/or calling people lazy, disrespectful, etc because they don't prioritize their free time the same as you, is harassment.
Again, where are you getting any indication of that type of behavior from anything that has been said in this thread?
I listed about half a dozen common sentiments in this thread that I've commonly encountered in the post I linked. I'm not going through all 10 pages of this train wreck of a thread to gather each individual link. If it's your opinion that those things were not said, then, sorry but "oh well". I also cannot reference of the totality of my experiences that formed this opinion in my time in stores, events, and online forums
I could say that someone who doesn't paint their armies and constantly begs, nags and insists that an opponent who prefers to play only with painted miniatures must take on their bare plastic army, is also guilty of harassment.
You could say that and you'd be absolutely 100% correct. I've made this point in both of my larger posts in this thread that this kind of behavior is present on both "sides" of the discussion.
But that's a strawman argument about a convoluted fringe case that isn't likely to happen, and a poor attempt at impugning everyone that disagrees with me in this thread.
It not only happens, it happens in at least a significant measure in my experience and one of my points was the difficulty in recognizing this behavior since it's fairly ingrained in the culture. Again, I'm sorry that I can't reference the entire totality of all my experiences in stores, events, and online forums, but my opinions were not solely the product of this one singular thread.
Someone who feels disrespected by their opponent's lack of effort, after putting hundreds of hours into painting their miniatures themselves, isn't engaging in harassment. That's how they feel.
Correct, I summed this up in the first paragraph in the linked post and restated that point again a couple posts back.
Expressing that feeling on a discussion forum, in a thread for which the topic of discussion is whether you prefer to play against painted armies, is not harassment. It's the intended function of the platform.
Correct, not what I was addressing, and I specifically discounted this in my previous posts.
Even generalizing people who don't paint their armies as lazy is not harassment in this context as long as it's not directed at anyone in particular.
Finally, I guess this is where we diverge.
Harassing people by grouping them together is still harassment. Agree to disagree, I guess. Calling groups of people pejoratives and making sweeping generalizations about character absolutely fall under a form of harassment and toxic behavior. If you feel that targeting groups of people isn't as bad as targeting people, I guess we'll never see eye to eye.
If your definition of harassment is the expression of an opinion that anyone might find offensive or disagreeable, regardless of the context or setting, then you are guilty of harassment for insisting that openly disagreeing with you is harassment
I repeatedly, repeatedly addressed this. I cannot make this any more clear that is not at all what I said. Disagreeing in a polite way without calling people names or using character judgements is fine. You don't feel untargeted statements qualify as harassment or poor behavior, then ok. But I disagree and believe using pejoratives and character judgements over toy soldiers is a problem if you are targeting someone by name or by group. Being targeted by group association is still wrong.
Absolutely none of these are required to discuss your opinion that models should be painted and are not useful in any measure of the conversation, targeted or not. You and I disagree here, and so far you and i have remained perfectly civil. People who disagree about paint can do the same. Discuss the idea, not the people.
The rest of your post seems to be a summation, so, I'll leave it here.
What an insult to miniture highly detailed minis models to call them "toy soliders"
Automatically Appended Next Post: Go ahead and give your minis to some children then
Stormatious wrote:You cant see detail with grey minis....
Depends on what you're painting it with. Black matte primer is going to give me far less detail than the naked model. Someone putting 5mm of paint on a model is going to obscure all detail. Painting straight from the pot can obscure plenty of detail. In fact, naked models have more detail since nothing is being obscured, short of flags and banners, of course.
So, not entirely true unless you're own vision is already too compromised to tell it with good paint.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Well i mean how depressing... why not paint your whole inside and outside of your house grey
Automatically Appended Next Post: Nice detail
You might not be able to see detail from arm's length, but I can, at least.
.
Why are you trying so hard to find some "gotcha"about what people like and don't like? These things don't have anything to do with each other. People that like grey mini's might not like gray houses and that's really all there is to it.
I feel like yours is the "gotcha". There's zero chance you can see detail at the same level on grey plastic as you can with a well painted mini. The colors give depth and added visibility. This is how the human eye works. You're either some freak case, or you're ignoring his point.
No, his point was just bad. He said you can't see detail, to which I could see detail at about arms length. Can you painted mini's detail better? Sure. Do they look better? Sure.
But that has nothing to do with his point that people are wasting their time and money engaging in a hobby to a level that they personally enjoy as if they are having fun wring. Then using a conflated example of something completely unrelated, in this case the color of their house, as if that has any relevance. People can enjoy different things to different standards as they please.
I’d play anyone as long as they presented themselves as not douchebags, regardless of the quality of their minis. But it is annoying. There is nothing more soul destroying than picking up beautiful models that you invested hundreds of hours into because they were killed by grey unpainted minis. I don’t feel that you’re really invested in your army unless you’ve painted it as best you can.
E - I also hold myself to the same standard, I only play with fully painted and based minis.
An Actual Englishman wrote: I’d play anyone as long as they presented themselves as not douchebags, regardless of the quality of their minis. But it is annoying. There is nothing more soul destroying than picking up beautiful models that you invested hundreds of hours into because they were killed by grey unpainted minis. I don’t feel that you’re really invested in your army unless you’ve painted it as best you can.
E - I also hold myself to the same standard, I only play with fully painted and based minis.
I won't put a model on the table unless it's fully painted either.
On the plus side I get a lot of compliments for having a beautifully looking army that the grey tide / ronald mcdonald wave guys are missing out on, so that's always nice.
Plus, my armies quite often kick some butt at locals, and being that I play with a fully self painted army, a friendly disposition, and a lot of knowledge of the lore and setting, I think it helps discourage anyone thinking to call me "WAAC". Not that anybody ever has ever said that to me, but the amount of people who whine about it online when they lose to a better player well it does make me wonder if its running through the head of some of the saltier seamen I've encountered, however I think it kinda takes the wind out of their sails to even consider doing so when they are sitting behind their grey wall of causalities.
I hate to step into someone else's ongoing argument, but Peregrine does have a point. I did a Skorne army a while back where my process was:
1) Prime to white. 2) Paint robes/cloth orange, skin tan, weapons slate gray, weapon handles black. 3) Brown wash. 4) Seal.
I could finish a 10-man squad in a couple of hours by the time I was done (including doing basing work and actually gluing finished models to bases), and I still wasn't particularly fast.
I'd wager that if I picked a simpler scheme that would work with a single wash and skipped squad/chapter markings I could churn out a 5-man tac squad every 45 minutes or so once they were assembled and primered in my base color. I'd lose my mind trying to stay focused that long, but I'd finish my current 2000 point marine list in under 10 hours at that pace.
I want to point out that's a squad in a few hours, not an army in a few hours, but the main goal was to have him objectively defend a subjective point. Are poorly painted armies better than unpainted ones? We have 10 pages an no consensus.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Spoiler:
Crimson wrote: Let's not forget that looking at the poll results overwhelming majority prefers playing against painted armies. It is just that when this preference is expressed in a manner that can be interpreted as "I'd prefer if you painted your army" it triggers a "You can't tell me what to do, you're not my real father!" reaction in some people. This is a very common occurrence in playstyle discussions.
Less "you can't tell me what to do", and more "you're not the final arbiter on what is playable".
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Spoiler:
Stormatious wrote: loool, its like if we were playing scoccer, but some chose not to use the ball..
Automatically Appended Next Post: cant really say you're playing soccer
More like: it's like we were playing soccer and one team brought uniforms, and the others were just playing in casual athletic cloths, but were otherwise equipped properly.
Stormatious wrote: loool, its like if we were playing scoccer, but some chose not to use the ball..
Automatically Appended Next Post: cant really say you're playing soccer
And yet, if you play soccer but are just wearing any old T-shirt instead of a club strip, you're still playing soccer.
not if you refuse to use ball
Except the ball, pads and cleats in this case are the army itself. The uniform is the paint job.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Spoiler:
Stormatious wrote: I didn't say any thing about how it has to look mate, im just saying your not really "doing soccer" because your not using one of the main points of the game, just because you have the ability doesn't mean any thing unless its utilized
Were in the rules of the game does it say "You must paint your army"?
Give me a page quote.
Now, missing an aspect of the hobby by not painting, sure. But the game and the hobby are two different things.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Spoiler:
Stormatious wrote: No having painted models is a key part, not saying you gotta do it ur self..
How does having unpainted models keep you from reaching mission objectives? How does it stop you from making die roles? How does it stop you from deploying against an opponent?
Stormatious wrote: I didn't say any thing about how it has to look mate, im just saying your not really "doing soccer" because your not using one of the main points of the game, just because you have the ability doesn't mean any thing unless its utilized
Just because you consider painting to be a key part of the game doesn't mean everyone does. Paint makes literally no difference to the ability to play the game, laugh about old war stories with friends, think about lists and tactics, or enjoy the background. The only difference it makes is that stuff (generally) looks nicer.
Yes. It. Does.
In this age of multiple detachments and soup lists, being able to specify which models belong to what chapter, regiment, hive fleet or whatever is more important than ever. A sea of grey makes this practically impossible.
See? Just like I said earlier. TFG behaviour and unpainted armies tend to go hand in hand.
No. It. Doesn't.
Just mark the heads with a paint pen.
And that assumes each detachment is from the same army. A guard/SM/Custodies list doen't even need that much done.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Spoiler:
Stormatious wrote: having grey models is not how you conduct warhammer games in the true sence and spirit of how the world of war gaming is.
A common preferred style of play is not a justification for disrespect and harassment, that's a straight up bandwagon fallacy.
"I prefer to play painted armies" is not the same as name calling, character judgements, and encouraging real life harassment to repeatedly "encourage" people of a different opinion all of which is also a common occurrence in playstyle discussions; there is plenty of examples in this thread alone.
Which examples? Would you be so kind as to point them out? We all know and love Peregrine for his pomp and bluster, but who aside from him is advocating for name calling, character judgments or real life harassment?
The vast majority of what I'm seeing here is people simply expressing their preference for painted armies, responding to hyperbole about how impossible it is to paint models, and expressing their willingness to offer help and assistance to new painters. The fact that someone saying how willing they are to help someone improve a skill or gain confidence gets interpreted as harassment is kind of interesting on a psychological level.
Offering help isn't harassment. Repeated, unreciprocated offers of "help" and/or calling people lazy, disrespectful, etc because they don't prioritize their free time the same as you, is harassment.
Amen
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Spoiler:
Stormatious wrote: The true real wargamer has a fully painted army on his miniture terrain table top where he trys to appear as one with the terrain to fully get the feel and keeping to what wargaming really is, which is painting or highly detailed realistic tiny miniture statues and putting them to war in a miniture enviroment.
Automatically Appended Next Post: One does not disrespect the laws of miniture wargaming
Automatically Appended Next Post: and disrespect the miniturized battlefield in which to war on
Where does it say you get to define what a true wargamer is? I can say "Because you don't field platoons of perfect in scale sherman and tiger tanks, meticulously hand painted with the historical markings, you're not a wargamer."
Point out that law to me. Where can I read it?
You mean the one made of Styrofoam, text books, and Christmas tree decorations?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Spoiler:
Stormatious wrote: Look if you like grey models its like i said, why are you not just using toilet rolls, why even spend all the money.
Automatically Appended Next Post: for the detailed minis
Re-read thread for answer.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Spoiler:
Stormatious wrote: Yeah its because there money grubbers, they want people who will just buy the models and not paint them.
Automatically Appended Next Post: This encourges people who dont want to paint them to start getting in to 40k
Automatically Appended Next Post: "oh you can use greys in this??, awsome im in"
Automatically Appended Next Post: Sort of like how bringing the masses in to computer games created this micro transaction gaming generation where the games are crapper and crapper
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Subjective. GOTTA MAKE ALL THE MONEY BEFORE THE WORLD WAR 3!!!
Automatically Appended Next Post: Well i mean how depressing... why not paint your whole inside and outside of your house grey
Automatically Appended Next Post: Nice detail
Good to know that out of the two of us, and despite my rather thick glasses, I can actually see something from more than two feet away.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Spoiler:
Overread wrote: I think some people are getting way too wound up over how other people play their hobby. Especially since if you don't want to play the grey then just be polite and say "ahh no thanks" in person. Baring in mind that half of the thread is talking not about actual games, but theoretical ones and theoretical gamers.
Not playing against unpainted armies is a perfectly good option.
Someone who feels disrespected by their opponent's lack of effort, after putting hundreds of hours into painting their miniatures themselves, isn't engaging in harassment. That's how they feel. Expressing that feeling on a discussion forum, in a thread for which the topic of discussion is whether you prefer to play against painted armies, is not harassment. It's the intended function of the platform.
I don't know maybe because the painter crowed describe themself as adults, that play the game the right way and engage in the full spectrum of the hobby, which is also the only good way to enjoy it, everything else is inferior. While people who don't want to paint their models are lazy children who don't know better, which if they want to be treated as adults should pick up a paint brush and paint.
Someone who constantly and repeatedly shows up to the FLGS and pressures everyone with unpainted miniatures to take painting lessons from them would be guilty of a type of harassment, but that is so far away from anything being advocated in this thread that it's kind of a bizarre thing to be fixated on in the context of this discussion
Wait wait wait. This is only true if we assume that the normal state of playing is to have a painted army. only then can someone with a unpainted army, be forcing anyone to do something. But painting is not part of the game. It is not even part of the hobby, because someone may like to read the w40k books and play games, and never paint a model in their life.
People engaging in this discussion aren't, but there are some very strong language being used that demeans people who don't, for whatever reason, have fully painted armies.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Spoiler:
Crimson wrote: Playing with painted miniatures is certainly how GW presents the hobby, so I think it is fair to say that that is how it is 'intended' to be played. Whether one cares about GW's intent is another matter.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Well i mean how depressing... why not paint your whole inside and outside of your house grey
Automatically Appended Next Post: Nice detail
You might not be able to see detail from arm's length, but I can, at least.
.
Why are you trying so hard to find some "gotcha"about what people like and don't like? These things don't have anything to do with each other. People that like grey mini's might not like gray houses and that's really all there is to it.
I feel like yours is the "gotcha". There's zero chance you can see detail at the same level on grey plastic as you can with a well painted mini. The colors give depth and added visibility. This is how the human eye works. You're either some freak case, or you're ignoring his point.
Is it not the true spirit of miniture wargaming to have only fully painted minis departed to the battlefield. Lets re enforce this important pioint of what is miniture wargaming is and is about, the more who make this clear or express there views the better. For all man kind. And how do the minitures feel? do you think they like being nothingness?
What an insult to miniture highly detailed minis models to call them "toy soliders"
But they are toy soldiers. Fine detailed, and in some cases, beautifully hand painted ones, intended for adults, but still toys. Don't delude yourself into thinking otherwise.
Stormatious wrote:You cant see detail with grey minis....
Depends on what you're painting it with. Black matte primer is going to give me far less detail than the naked model. Someone putting 5mm of paint on a model is going to obscure all detail. Painting straight from the pot can obscure plenty of detail. In fact, naked models have more detail since nothing is being obscured, short of flags and banners, of course.
So, not entirely true unless you're own vision is already too compromised to tell it with good paint.
You in no way shape or form see detail better with it being its orginal unpainted form, dont know what you are talking about seems like you're stretching unbelievely far to try and justify non painted models.
In the true sence of the word some one who would be called a wargamer would not not paint there models its simple as that, im not good at using a bunch of technical words to break this down in to a detailed anaylisis of what a wargamer is, if you dont understand what i mean then imo that's not my fault. But it is true to say a TRUE war gamer paints his army... ok
game like 
