Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

By statue-esque, I mean that I would spray them with AP Desert Yellow, and then apply Strong Tone Quickshade to them. I have tested this before with two models from Scibor, and they turned out better than I thought. They actually turned out to resemble statues.

I can never decide on a paint scheme, as I always seem to chop and change. Goes for the assembly phase and choosing an army too. The latest one I've settled on is the Necrons, whom this statue-esque scheme would look good on I reckon!

Regardless of whatever models I use, would anyone here have a problem playing against such an army? The very few friends I have who play 40k (one of a number of reasons I've even considered quitting for good) have said they would not, and I don't believe I'll ever enter into a tournament.

If you literally just spray them a single color then apply a single quickshade... yeah people will probably comment negatively. Necrons can almost get away with a single metal color, but even then its pretty lazy not to color at least a few details. If I spend 4hrs per model, its a little frustrating to see spray painted armies.
To be fair though, some people enjoy different aspects of the hobby. If you just want to get them on the table and play, I guess they're your models and you can't paint them how you like. If you're asking for opinions, I'd say try a little harder.

The "problem" is I just want to get on with playing the game, not spend hours just painting the models (or in some cases, even assembling them).

All I want to do is just play the game and enjoy that, without having to spend copious, near-eternal amounts of time tending to the models themselves.

I would have no problem playing agains this at all.
At my FLGS a lot of the time I play against unpainted armies.
Sure, I like seeing the table full of fully painted miniatures a lot more, but for friendly games, I don't see the huge problem, at least initially when you get the army assembled, just to get some games done, and a feel for the playstyle of the army.

After a couple of weeks/months though, I would like to see details slowly filled in and being completed. Just makes for much niver games, visually.

NeoAigaion wrote:The "problem" is I just want to get on with playing the game, not spend hours just painting the models (or in some cases, even assembling them).

All I want to do is just play the game and enjoy that, without having to spend copious, near-eternal amounts of time tending to the models themselves.

Then don't. There's no requirement for things to be painted. If you want to play, then play.

Go for it. I think it would be an interesting look for Necrons, and painted at all is better than unpainted, right?

Heck, you'll have a good base appearance, and it would be easy to go back later and add details (eyes, guns, emblems) if you really wanted to do so. You bought the models, so do what you want with them. I enjoy assembling models much more than painting them myself (well, actually, I like the first paint job, but repeating it? Not so much.)

If you think the paint scheme looks good, use it. Post some pics so we can see them.

My digital camera is busted, so for now I can't provide pics.

However, Da Butcha, you make an excellent point. It is MY army after all, so **** what others think!

Also, since it is the Necrons who'll be subject to this scheme, it is very suitable. Looking statue-esque can fit with them, and go along with their "slumbered for aeons" thing.

If you do Necrons, do the statue scheme and add details quickly for the weapons, eyes and unit markings. It will really bring up the look of the whole army without much trouble.

So, you have no painting ability and you don't know the meaning of statuesque...

So can we at least see these controversial minis? Seeing sometiing painted in some uniformity is better than grey plastic...

I've spent some time/money painting my army, so I prefer to play against other painted models. Personally I don't even see the point of playing with unpainted ones except to experiment and increase skills for eventually playing with painted armies. I just don't get, it what's the point? why go through the expense and trouble of buying detailed model kits to play a tabletop game that is admittedly a bit unbalanced, and not paint them or get them painted? And the same goes for good terrain. Once you play some games with good terrain/effects and well-painted armies there is no going back really.

Not saying it's wrong here, obviously you do what you want and there are plenty of monotone/proxy armies to go up against, I just have trouble understanding it personally. And painting them 'statuesque', unless it's maybe 'crons that you could get away with or a 'ghost army' that's slightly cheesy, is just the same as leaving them grey IMO. I mean at least if you leave them unpainted they are worth more to resell... rather than making someone strip them after they buy them from you.

Different strokes for different folks. If you ended up placing those on the table and the person across from you refused to play on the grounds of your paint scheme, they are just being an elitist douche-nozzle. No two ways about it. And if that rustles some jimmies then so be it.

Just because one may have invested many man hours per model doesn't mean other HAVE to. If this is seriously the attitude that people have then you (Mr.OP) can go have fun with other people of a similar mindset somewhere else and leave the hoity-toity whingers with their complex.

As a side note, I highly doubt they could look any worse than HBMC's Necron army. Not saying his army looks bad, he was actually the first in our group to have a fully painted army I believe (a fact we will never live down given he collects to play and not paint), but it is literally is minimal as you can get. Works well, and Necrons can get away with this easily.

Any pics of a test model you could put up? I'm interested in seeing this myself. Ceramic or stone looking Necrons have always been awesome IMO. As are Plastic looking ones if pulled off correctly. Personally all the Metal gets old after a while. Several aeons of existing and the height of their fashion is metal on metal. How bland.

Atma01 wrote:Different strokes for different folks. If you ended up placing those on the table and the person across from you refused to play on the grounds of your paint scheme, they are just being an elitist douche-nozzle. No two ways about it. And if that rustles some jimmies then so be it.

Just because one may have invested many man hours per model doesn't mean other HAVE to. If this is seriously the attitude that people have then you (Mr.OP) can go have fun with other people of a similar mindset somewhere else and leave the hoity-toity whingers with their complex.

I don't think I'd refuse to play someone, but I would avoid it if possible and in general, I would go out of my way to find a game that engages my senses, is fun and sportsmanlike, and has fluffy armies. Aside from a tournament setting, of course. It's simply more enjoyable, so why shouldn't I prefer it? If someone appears with an unpainted, obnoxiously cheesy list that I'm battling uphill against, there's very little enjoyment of the game for me, and therefore less reason to play.

I mean, we have all kinds of tactically challenging video games that come preloaded with graphics.... and don't cost money for the models. Would you pay for/play a video game where all the characters are grey and pixelated? Maybe if it was incredible gameplay, but even then meh. And it can be argued that 40k is not the pinnacle of gameplay.

Meade wrote:I don't think I'd refuse to play someone, but I would avoid it if possible and in general, I would go out of my way to find a game that engages my senses, is fun and sportsmanlike, and has fluffy armies. Aside from a tournament setting, of course. It's simply more enjoyable, so why shouldn't I prefer it? If someone appears with an unpainted, obnoxiously cheesy list that I'm battling uphill against, there's very little enjoyment of the game for me, and therefore less reason to play.

I mean, we have all kinds of tactically challenging video games that come preloaded with graphics.... and don't cost money for the models. Would you pay for/play a video game where all the characters are grey and pixelated? Maybe if it was incredible gameplay, but even then meh. And it can be argued that 40k is not the pinnacle of gameplay.

I think it is great that you wouldn't refuse to play, but you still are being elitist in your approach. It is your prerogative, and one you are entitled to have, to do this but it is going to make you an elitist in the eyes of many. So be prepare for some flak. One thing that I think always should be pointed out is that having this attitude that only your standard is good enough ultimately drives people away from the hobby. Imagine poor Johnny No-Mates who drove an hour to his only FLGS with his unpainted (or sub-par) army on his one day off, to only be told "Sorry, but you don't make the cut and I don't want to play with you.". Imagine if this wasn't the first time it happened to him.

Lets flip this up and reverse the scenario. Imagine if someone refused to play you because your army WAS painted to a certain high standard, and they didn't want your flashy shades distracting from their love of tactical play. I'm sure you would think no skin off your back , but somewhere in the back of your mind you would have to be thinking 'What is his problem?' as you walk away right? And feel a little dejected somewhere in there.

You also more or less put forth that you have more fun doing nothing, than playing against an unpainted army. This has nothing to do with cheesy or broken lists. That is a different argument for a different day, and I happen to agree with you when it comes to that single aspect. This is about people's reactions to a paint scheme that some would consider plain or barely there at all (and unpainted ones be default).

As for video gaming, I play Dwarf Fortress. So yes. You had best believe that I would pay and play a pixelated grey game if the gameplay was there. But like DF its not for everyone. But had I not taken that plunge and decided to look past what appears to be machine code akin to the matrix for 'graphics' and actually tried playing I would never have found the joy of setting up elaborate magma cannons to burn the entire world including some tree hugging hippy elves. But that is just me and mileage may vary.

Like the old saying, never judge a book by its cover. Or lack of one. For all you know you passed up some of the best games of your life, and potentially new friends, because you aren't willing to look past a lack of paint.

Unfortunately this attitude in the hobby rustles my jimmies ALMOST as much as the grown asshats I see ragging on the paint scheme of some poor kid who came in to play around with his AWESOME SPACE KNIGHT IN SPACE PEW PEW PEW like they have a right or obligation to do so. Rather than realising it doesn't make them cool and in fact the opposite, uncool.

Give me the guy with horribly assembled non-painted army with a look of excitement in his eyes over anyone who is looking down their nose at me to stroke their ego any day. Not accusing you of that buddy, but you are on a slippery slope that leads there. By all means no one is saying you have to accept all game offers, but when you are being presented a choice between playing and not playing based solely upon someone paint scheme and you choose to not play, it makes you an elitist. And you are going to cop some flak because of it.

NeoAigaion wrote:Regardless of whatever models I use, would anyone here have a problem playing against such an army? The very few friends I have who play 40k (one of a number of reasons I've even considered quitting for good) have said they would not, and I don't believe I'll ever enter into a tournament.

What sort of person would have a problem playing a game with someone based on the look of their models?

I'll play with people who haven't even primed their guys, and only would comment negatively if they stated they were never going to paint them (as opposed to not getting around to it yet). Painting them simply is fine with me. It's a freaking hobby, some people like to spend a lot more time playing than painting. Good for them, and me, and anyone else who is at a table looking to play a game.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Meade wrote:Personally I don't even see the point of playing with unpainted ones

Uh, what? What an absurd comment from you. I think you mispoke, or engaged in ridiculous hyperbole. You do see a point to playing that is not gazing lovingly at your models. Increasing skills like you mentioned, but having fun surely is a point to playing? I hope?

It should be fine, the issue is akin to painting Grey Knights blue or Blood Angels green; no reasonable person should have an issue with it. In fact it is even less of an issue than those.

Also given the new theme of the Necrons what sounds like it should give them the appearance of sandstone is somewhat of a plus. Not to mention if you do the bases in a similar fashion you can get away with calling it camouflage.

Meade wrote: I would go out of my way to find a game that engages my senses, is fun and sportsmanlike, and has fluffy armies.

Only one out of four of your requirements can even include painting (engaging the senses). A game that is fun, sportsmanlike and fluffy has nothing to do with how the models are painted. Also, your senses could be engaged from well done but unpainted conversions. Anyway, I am glad you pulled back from your "no point" argument, which was absurd, to put it mildly. Well painted armies are only one aspect of a good game for you. I've played against unpainted armies run by awesome guys and well painted ones run by jerks. How well the opposing army is painted, is in my experience, the least important aspect of having a good time.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Atma01 wrote:Like the old saying, never judge a book by its cover. Or lack of one. For all you know you passed up some of the best games of your life, and potentially new friends, because you aren't willing to look past a lack of paint.

Quoted. For. Truth.

(Atma, just to let you know the main reason I'm arguing is because I enjoy thinking about this stuff and giving my opinions... the OP asked for it so all in good humor)

Atma01 wrote:I think it is great that you wouldn't refuse to play, but you still are being elitist in your approach. It is your prerogative, and one you are entitled to have, to do this but it is going to make you an elitist in the eyes of many. So be prepare for some flak. One thing that I think always should be pointed out is that having this attitude that only your standard is good enough ultimately drives people away from the hobby. Imagine poor Johnny No-Mates who drove an hour to his only FLGS with his unpainted (or sub-par) army on his one day off, to only be told "Sorry, but you don't make the cut and I don't want to play with you.". Imagine if this wasn't the first time it happened to him.

Again, in real life it varies. If poor johnny showed up and there are no other games for me to play, and I showed up, then fine. But if the club is filled with poor Johnny's, and the terrain sucks and models are unpainted, I'd rather play with some close friends then make the effort to come out. I simply do what is most enjoyable for me. Of course in real life I go to a great club and most people have lovely or tabletop-painted armies, so I am generally satisfied.

Lets flip this up and reverse the scenario. Imagine if someone refused to play you because your army WAS painted to a certain high standard, and they didn't want your flashy shades distracting from their love of tactical play. I'm sure you would think no skin off your back , but somewhere in the back of your mind you would have to be thinking 'What is his problem?' as you walk away right? And feel a little dejected somewhere in there.

I've never met anyone like this. Everyone I play comments on how much they enjoy playing my army because of the effort I put into it, no matter who wins, and that makes me happy.

You also more or less put forth that you have more fun doing nothing, than playing against an unpainted army. This has nothing to do with cheesy or broken lists. That is a different argument for a different day, and I happen to agree with you when it comes to that single aspect. This is about people's reactions to a paint scheme that some would consider plain or barely there at all (and unpainted ones be default).

Yeah, pretty much. And it has a lot to do with cheesy or broken lists. I would suggest it's the same principle at work here. They make the game less fun, so I have less reason to want to play them. That doesn't take away all the fun or make me refuse to play, but nevertheless it is a factor I can't deny.

As for video gaming, I play Dwarf Fortress. So yes. You had best believe that I would pay and play a pixelated grey game if the gameplay was there. But like DF its not for everyone. But had I not taken that plunge and decided to look past what appears to be machine code akin to the matrix for 'graphics' and actually tried playing I would never have found the joy of setting up elaborate magma cannons to burn the entire world including some tree hugging hippy elves. But that is just me and mileage may vary.

So you can at least understand why someone wouldn't want to play a grey pixelated game? Indeed, that is just you.

Like the old saying, never judge a book by its cover. Or lack of one. For all you know you passed up some of the best games of your life, and potentially new friends, because you aren't willing to look past a lack of paint.

Unfortunately this attitude in the hobby rustles my jimmies ALMOST as much as the grown asshats I see ragging on the paint scheme of some poor kid who came in to play around with his AWESOME SPACE KNIGHT IN SPACE PEW PEW PEW like they have a right or obligation to do so. Rather than realising it doesn't make them cool and in fact the opposite, uncool.

Being an asshat is just being an asshat. It doesn't matter how your army is painted there a thousand ways to be one. Again, I've painted my army, and a lot of people I play against appreciate that fact, and I view it as a courtesy to everyone else and a gift that makes their game more enjoyable. I don't need to get that gift in return all the time but when I do I reciprocate, that's all. And I've gone out of my way to paint my brother's and a close friends army, as a good deal to them, and it makes everyone very happy.

Give me the guy with horribly assembled non-painted army with a look of excitement in his eyes over anyone who is looking down their nose at me to stroke their ego any day. Not accusing you of that buddy, but you are on a slippery slope that leads there. By all means no one is saying you have to accept all game offers, but when you are being presented a choice between playing and not playing based solely upon someone paint scheme and you choose to not play, it makes you an elitist. And you are going to cop some flak because of it.

Ah well, I agree with you there are probably elitist snobs out there. To be honest I might potentially refuse a game with an unpainted army, but not in a way that inconveniences someone else. I'd rather look at it that I would go out of my way more to play with those who are painted. Again, it is very complicated because I do play games with proxies and unpainted models... just among close friends for tactical/experimental purposes. I have far higher standards for myself when I take my army to the club, than for others. I've never taken an unpainted army out in public, as a courtesy to everyone else who makes the effort. From my perspective it's because I'm a nice guy, not an elitist.

Only one out of four of your requirements can even include painting (engaging the senses). A game that is fun, sportsmanlike and fluffy has nothing to do with how the models are painted. Also, your senses could be engaged from well done but unpainted conversions. Anyway, I am glad you pulled back from your "no point" argument, which was absurd, to put it mildly. Well painted armies are only one aspect of a good game for you. I've played against unpainted armies run by awesome guys and well painted ones run by jerks. How well the opposing army is painted, is in my experience, the least important aspect of having a good time

Come on man, being fluffy has nothing to do with being painted? That's a bit weak. The paintjob and overall appearance is what is bringing the fluff to life. Indeed, a well painted army that is run by a jerk... or a broken and spammy list... gets exactly the same treatment by me as an unpainted army does. I would say that the most important aspect of a good game is the game itself, yes. But the appearance runs a close second. It is much like a movie that has a great plot, but crappy appearance/effects. Once in awhile that movie could overcome these limitations, but most of the time it's an uphill battle. And it's nothing compared to a film that is visually striking and has a great plot at the same time... it's simply more enjoyable.

Go for it! I am doing something just like this but with copper and verdigris marines, although my way will take longer, I would love to see an army like this

Long as they look cool and the theme fits the army then go for it. Any paint is better than no paint.

On necrons your basically just doing a different colour scheme, most people wouldn't even raise an eyebrow. If you could take the time to use a micro pen to dot the eyes, even better.

It sounds cool, and if you like it, go for it.
However, some people might feel a bit negative seeing how little work you're doing on them.
I would suggest just doing a few details. Do your spray + wash/dip, then put a little colour to the eyes and the chest crest. A simple red dot on the eyeballs and the red crest could really make the minis more interesting without adding rather much time to make them.
However, if you don't feel like it, then go with your original idea.

erhm *cough* if i may interject, i don't get what all the fuss is about.

The funny thing is i have 2 friends and they both play 40k, now 1 has DE and swears by painted armys, he doesn't like unpainted and won't really play unpainted armys, he says they look gak and to play warhammer you really need to have a painted army and if you don't have a painted army it sucks you suck (for not painting which is part of the hobby). He doesn't really sound like that much of a dick but thats what he thinks he just says it in nicer words, i lack tact so i sound like a super dick but i digress

The other mate plays Eldar and hates painting and thinks painting is stupid, he doesn't mind playing against painted armys or unpainted he just wants to play, for him warhammer is all take all comers lists, win at all costs, be a strategic general worthy of the nato special forces. He actually flat out refuses to paint his army and sees it as a distraction to finding the perfect list and play style for his Eldar.

I think their personalities both match their chosen armys rather well don't you lmao but um anyway now i have played both and have had various success in fun with both. DE player thinks he knows rules, E player thinks to much about rules. As i am playing either 1 or the other i have never been bothered by my E players unpainted army, i found the game riveting and a lot of fun in terms of what was going on with our units. Playing against DE player i found the game riveting because our units where going nuts at each other and the Technicolor of our armys made the battle feel complete in a strange sort of way.

I have never actually noticed that an army was painted or not during the table top play, we are playing a game and like tunnel vision, paint/no paint simply does not register to me or bother me one bit. Hearing people talk about paint n no paint armys have this n that affect on the game puzzels me to no end lol.

I'm your typical johnny no friends (my 2 mates never play in stores) and painting is the last thing to bother me, what gives me the gaks is that being new, i take a long time to play the game because i'm learning how and i find this pisses off the people who play the game regularly because they have to wait on me, and seeing me not do this or that in game botheres them too. So at my game stores (GW and independent) painting is not the problem with playing warhammer, rather it's my inability to play at a veteran level that puts people off. ergo, painted army, not painted army? who cares about that crap, the question is can you play warhammer?

Meade wrote:(Atma, just to let you know the main reason I'm arguing is because I enjoy thinking about this stuff and giving my opinions... the OP asked for it so all in good humor)

All good buddy. The fact that is is staying reasonable and civil is great and I certainly appreciate it. I'm not trying to go you by any means, just trying to put it all on the table as it were. We are a race made up of some billions of individuals so opinions will vary.

Meade wrote:Again, in real life it varies. If poor johnny showed up and there are no other games for me to play, and I showed up, then fine. But if the club is filled with poor Johnny's, and the terrain sucks and models are unpainted, I'd rather play with some close friends then make the effort to come out. I simply do what is most enjoyable for me. Of course in real life I go to a great club and most people have lovely or tabletop-painted armies, so I am generally satisfied.

Completely agree with what you are saying. But the scenario was more or less if the OP plopped his army down on the table would people have issues with it. If you identified the group as not being something you gel with for any reason and wish to avoid it then so be it, but this is a spur of the moment scenario. Though I would recommend re-testing the waters in that hypothetical group every now and again just so you aren't potentially cheating yourself out of some great games and new friends. I have a few anecdotes in regards to a similar situation, but they kind of hit close to home and some involved may still post here so I don't really feel like dredging that up. But believe you me on that book/cover analogy. If I hadn't bitten the bullet at some point I wouldn't now count at least 2 of the coolest gamers and all round awesome people amongst those who have earned the title of friend.

Meade wrote:I've never met anyone like this. Everyone I play comments on how much they enjoy playing my army because of the effort I put into it, no matter who wins, and that makes me happy.

I initially put that up as a hypothetical, and yeah I couldn't imagine anyone being like that as well. But then Rogues Gambit there just pointed out a friend of his that is like that. So I guess what I am saying is...... I'M NOT A PSYKER AND YOU CAN'T PROVE A THING!

Meade wrote:Yeah, pretty much. And it has a lot to do with cheesy or broken lists. I would suggest it's the same principle at work here. They make the game less fun, so I have less reason to want to play them. That doesn't take away all the fun or make me refuse to play, but nevertheless it is a factor I can't deny.

I would have to disagree to an extent, since one can be proven quantitatively to a degree (broken/cheesy lists), and the other purely subjective (quality of painting). I get your gist, but I just don't agree that it is the same argument. And I completely agree about the inevitable not being fun. I stopped playing against HBMC's Nids at one point since in my mind I could see just how broken the whole concept of the Nid Dex was, and I could set my clock by when he would be in Hth and when the game would be over regardless of my list or tactics. Similar case in regards to some very broken rules that were made for our group's 40K Revisited project. It wasn't fun, so I didn't want to play. However I would still come back now and then just to make sure. But at no time could I justify refusing a game against one of our other player's Tau just because his Broadsides lacked legs and was being proped up using a flying base because it had been dropped that many times. Looked terribad and offended my senses, but I wouldn't have the memories now if I didn't move past that. So all I really want is to try and put the idea in your head that it is generally better to just give things a go and work outside your comfort zone now and then. You never know what you are missing.

Meade wrote:So you can at least understand why someone wouldn't want to play a grey pixelated game? Indeed, that is just you.

Oh definitely. I used to be on the forefront of the gameplay versus graphics argument with video games back in my heyday. Then casual versus hardcore. And so on. But what I learned is to sometimes just shut up and play before I render final judgment on the matter. I stupidly thought Borderlands was an MMO and avoided it like the plague, and when I finally got forced into sitting down with it for more than 15 minutes it is now one of my favorite games of all time. Basically all I am saying is you will never never know if you never never go.

Meade wrote:Being an asshat is just being an asshat. It doesn't matter how your army is painted there a thousand ways to be one. Again, I've painted my army, and a lot of people I play against appreciate that fact, and I view it as a courtesy to everyone else and a gift that makes their game more enjoyable. I don't need to get that gift in return all the time but when I do I reciprocate, that's all. And I've gone out of my way to paint my brother's and a close friends army, as a good deal to them, and it makes everyone very happy.

Champion for painting for them, though I do have to ask this unfortunately. Did you paint them for them out of friendship/love or because you didn't want to play against them until they were painted? Subconsciously or otherwise.

Meade wrote:Ah well, I agree with you there are probably elitist snobs out there. To be honest I might potentially refuse a game with an unpainted army, but not in a way that inconveniences someone else. I'd rather look at it that I would go out of my way more to play with those who are painted. Again, it is very complicated because I do play games with proxies and unpainted models... just among close friends for tactical/experimental purposes. I have far higher standards for myself when I take my army to the club, than for others. I've never taken an unpainted army out in public, as a courtesy to everyone else who makes the effort. From my perspective it's because I'm a nice guy, not an elitist.

Given more of the context you have given then yes I agree you aren't quite an elitist yet, but like I said you are on that slippery slope. So really I just don't want you to end up in this position again somewhere down the road with someone else pointing this out. Given the backlash in this thread it more or less shows that you have the potential to end up there. Or at least that with the way you are presenting yourself people will perceive you as such. Which is why I gave the warning about copping the flak. So long as you are ok with copping this then that is your prerogative, but you really don't need to if you maybe just changed how it is presented somewhat.

Meade wrote:Come on man, being fluffy has nothing to do with being painted? That's a bit weak. The paintjob and overall appearance is what is bringing the fluff to life. Indeed, a well painted army that is run by a jerk... or a broken and spammy list... gets exactly the same treatment by me as an unpainted army does. I would say that the most important aspect of a good game is the game itself, yes. But the appearance runs a close second. It is much like a movie that has a great plot, but crappy appearance/effects. Once in awhile that movie could overcome these limitations, but most of the time it's an uphill battle. And it's nothing compared to a film that is visually striking and has a great plot at the same time... it's simply more enjoyable.

This is an interesting argument. I can think of HBMC's Deathwatch army. It isn't even undercoated. But is clearly Deathwatch given all the little bits put into the modeling, and looks great visually. Sure if they were painted up it would be even better, but the lack of paint isn't really taking away from their fluff either. Between him and myself we have more than a few models like this where it is the modeling that conveys the fluff, rather than any paint job. And we can't even model that well in a technical regard. So this is a very thorny argument. As we have seen utterly horrific base GW models painted up in a manner that makes them no longer suck, awesome models that were made to look stupid by painting, and everything in between. And I can think of one instance were painting made things worse. Our friend's Chrome Marines from when he was much younger. Imagine if you will a model that was sprayed with chrome spray paint, and you couldn't take a picture of at all with any real light source because of reflection and lens flare issues. Fluff wise the army was hilarious since the Emperor's enemies would be blinded on a bright day, OH GOD MY RETINAS THEY BURN!

Of course if you have some vanilla Marine models unpainted and say they are Blood Ravens everyone just says 'Ok', but if you have the Raven emblem modeled onto the thing along with some other trinkets then people say 'Oh NOW I can see it'. So it really goes all ways with this argument.

For a while, before painting my fantasy army, I simply used it with grey primer and a badab black wash. Actually got a lot of comments on them, people telling me that if I added a little bit of red, it'd look like the Sin City movie.

So, I think it's definitely something to try, but you should be open to painting them further in the future.

Atma01 wrote:I would have to disagree to an extent, since one can be proven quantitatively to a degree (broken/cheesy lists), and the other purely subjective (quality of painting).

Both are equally subjective. There are many who would consider skill and chance to be equally important factors in a game... and on the flip side, there are objective qualities to a good paintjob. Out of the many different players out there, there are some who care little about playing against cheesy lists, and some who care little about paintjobs. I am only one who appreciates the appearance of the game. I am okay with going outside my comfort zone once in awhile, sure. And I genuinely have more fun playing on a board that is a complete, immersive environment, a bit like a miniature cinema is being played out.

As for the argument about gameplay versus graphics, like I've said before I think I can see the argument but I just think 40k is the worst example of a game that people should value gameplay over appearances. I honestly cannot wrap my head around people spending so much money for models to use in a tabletop game that is tactically no more advanced than many many computer games, and then keeping them half-way finished, because yes, they are built to be painted. The main reason I play this game is because it allows me control over the appearance and process of creating the game's elements and the tactile nature of them. And I think the game has traditionally been that way. Other than that it is really a stretch to say it is worth playing over computer games.

Champion for painting for them, though I do have to ask this unfortunately. Did you paint them for them out of friendship/love or because you didn't want to play against them until they were painted? Subconsciously or otherwise.

A little bit of both. We all got something out of the deal, rather not get into that, but it is still a lot of work and some cash to paint an army well. I would not paint an army for someone just to have the personal experience of playing against it in a few games, obviously.

Given more of the context you have given then yes I agree you aren't quite an elitist yet, but like I said you are on that slippery slope. So really I just don't want you to end up in this position again somewhere down the road with someone else pointing this out. Given the backlash in this thread it more or less shows that you have the potential to end up there. Or at least that with the way you are presenting yourself people will perceive you as such. Which is why I gave the warning about copping the flak. So long as you are ok with copping this then that is your prerogative, but you really don't need to if you maybe just changed how it is presented somewhat.

Meh. I admit that I enjoy arguing about things just for the sake of exploring different perspectives. Also I generally say what I feel even if it is a bit opinionated. So if I get some flak, so be it. The way I look at it, whenever you speak honestly someone will always tend to get offended no matter what (not necessarily you, just what you're warning me against), but hopefully most people can see the value in it. But thanks for warning me though, I can see your intentions are noble!

T

his is an interesting argument. I can think of HBMC's Deathwatch army. It isn't even undercoated. But is clearly Deathwatch given all the little bits put into the modeling, and looks great visually. Sure if they were painted up it would be even better, but the lack of paint isn't really taking away from their fluff either. Between him and myself we have more than a few models like this where it is the modeling that conveys the fluff, rather than any paint job.

Well, logically there is a difference between taking away from and not adding to... there are levels of fluff that go from the list, to how it is played, to the models, to the paintjob on the models. So playing with some well-modelled but unpainted stuff is better than playing with little men represented by tin foil, for example. I just like for the whole picture to be complete... same way you wouldn't like if a scene was missing in a movie. But I can still use my imagination, sure. I just find it taxing when I have little to work with. Again, I am a very visual, maybe even perfectionist person... but there are others out there like me and there is a whole spectrum here.

Sure, a unpainted models are very much preferable to a bad paintjob, especially one with goopy paint that needs to be stripped. I mentioned this before... at least their monetary value is not being diminished.

Well in that case you get some brofist bro! We seem to have similar mindsets even if we disagree on some of the finer points.

-PLACE FIST HERE BRO-

So yeah I think we probably hashed this out to the point I feel like we aren't going to go anywhere but in circles. So I'll leave it for the OP's original intent of gathering opinions rather than potentially drag it down with more back and forth.

The trollier part of me does kind of want to dredge up some of our Andronicon pics to show you for giggles. It was a MASSIVE gaming day we had many many years back. And nary a painted model in sight. I know there are a few floating around here somewhere, and somehow a few made it onto /tg/ out of no where, so if anyone else has some links of ones already uploaded please let me know. I recently found them all on this HD but could not be assed. Though I think the Chrome Marine is in there, so I might just dig them up so you know that no matter how bad things get they could be worse.

Oh and once again, OP PLEASE UPLOAD A PIC IF YOU CAN! I love seeing non-metal crons and these sounds interesting.

I think the most fun is when the 40k universe comes alive with well painted miniature on the tabletop. It brings alot of life into the whole thing. Id try harder than to just spray them.

I work with a guy that asked me why it was such a big deal to paint the armies. This was my answer: "It's a uniform."

To me this encompasses two things, 1) the pragmatic -- I can tell my models from yours and 2) the thematic -- uniforms are a part of war and warfare.

Bear in mind that I've only watched matches, thusfar. But if we had the same armies and my army is painted and yours isn't, item 1 is satisfied. I don't expect to care about item 2 until someone has a beautiful army (then, it's awesome).

Atma01 wrote:Well in that case you get some brofist bro! We seem to have similar mindsets even if we disagree on some of the finer points.

*BROFIST* It's all good bro

Atma01 and Meade, I was interested in your discussion, but those massive walls of text were too off putting, so I skipped to your shorter posts about a 'brofist' whatever that is. I guess all is well in the world now...

Tri-color minumum mate.

It's been said enough times, but tricolor, or i just don't consider it finished. I'm okay with dichromatic too, just so long as some effort was put into it and there's at least shading involved.

I'd be okay with monochrome if and only if it was immaculately done and ended up actually resembling a statue army.