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.

wwwZugZugorc wrote:

Rennoc215 wrote:Overall: Is it fair, yes. Is it practical, yes. BUT, would you feel accomplished after speed painting an army by using dipping? Probably not.

You might not feel accomplished but i'm sure hundreds of others do.

Exactly this. Everyone has their own standard of "done" and "good" paint jobs. While I don't personally consider my own models as "done" during the wash phase of painting, nothing is stopping others from being finished right there.

I'm 100% fine with people dipping their armies. Anything is better than bare plasic, and I love seeing fully painted forces of any quality as it shows that the person has invested at least SOME time and effort into the appearance of their force.

aerethan wrote:

wwwZugZugorc wrote:

Rennoc215 wrote:Overall: Is it fair, yes. Is it practical, yes. BUT, would you feel accomplished after speed painting an army by using dipping? Probably not.

You might not feel accomplished but i'm sure hundreds of others do.

Exactly this. Everyone has their own standard of "done" and "good" paint jobs. While I don't personally consider my own models as "done" during the wash phase of painting, nothing is stopping others from being finished right there.

I'm 100% fine with people dipping their armies. Anything is better than bare plasic, and I love seeing fully painted forces of any quality as it shows that the person has invested at least SOME time and effort into the appearance of their force.

Certainly they do, and if you put a bit of gravel and flock on the base they improve a hell of a lot more. Any scruffy or untidy bits tend not to be noticed once you have a good base because the model looks complete. Even simple paint jobs can look grand when a whole army is amassed on the table. You're not expecting someone to point a camera at them with the macro setting on.

You might not feel accomplished but i'm sure hundreds of others do.

I completely understand. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. If those people feel accomplished after dipping an entire army, then I say "Good for you!" If not, then I'll say "Its ok. at least you tried!"

Exactly this. Everyone has their own standard of "done" and "good" paint jobs. While I don't personally consider my own models as "done" during the wash phase of painting, nothing is stopping others from being finished right there.

I'm 100% fine with people dipping their armies. Anything is better than bare plasic, and I love seeing fully painted forces of any quality as it shows that the person has invested at least SOME time and effort into the appearance of their force.

I completely agree.

As it stands, I have dipped some Cadians and Tyranids, but even with that, I don't use it as a final step on painting the miniature, instead, it is an interim step that I can complete for a large portion of the models, get them playable, and then upgrade the painting in small batches to continue. For the most part dipping is very similar to a heavy wash of Devlan mud, Gryphonne sepia, or Badab Black (depending on which flavor of dip you are using)

Rennoc215 wrote:Overall: Is it fair, yes. Is it practical, yes. BUT, would you feel accomplished after speed painting an army by using dipping? Probably not.

Sure, if you're one of 2 people in the store who can actually field a completely painted and based army ...

Ifurita wrote:

Rennoc215 wrote:Overall: Is it fair, yes. Is it practical, yes. BUT, would you feel accomplished after speed painting an army by using dipping? Probably not.

Sure, if you're one of 2 people in the store who can actually field a completely painted and based army ...

I agree, I have the only tyranid army thats fully painted that i have ever seen in person. Thats 3.5k at least, mostly little bugs. I didn't dip them but I brushed on devlan mud, and then dry brushed the rest of the detail. Had I not used the shading I would be working on my bugs until I am in the ground. They look great and I really enjoy seeing the fully based and painted swarm. I completely understand using dipping and if you use it, more power to you.

Why for gods sake has this thread over 200 posts?

Alot of people see this as a touchie topic. And most of the original posts were just word fights with the OP, and his gak sturing.

Rennoc215 wrote:IMHO, I personally have not dipped, although it sometimes sounds like an easy way out. Trying to handpaint my nids has been fun, but trying to handpaint 60 stealers to a quota I feel is appropriate is incredibly difficult. It is never far from the back of my mind, and sometimes I feel like I want to try it. but then I remember "Dude, you blew all your cash on that monolith you've always wanted, you cant afford to try that..."

Overall: Is it fair, yes. Is it practical, yes. BUT, would you feel accomplished after speed painting an army by using dipping? Probably not.

I think people who are dippers would indeed feel accomplished. Getting any army from grey to coloured is an accomplishment. I'm a good painter, but I'm slow. I've never fully, properly finished an army to my own satisfaction. (though I have had fully-painted forces). I bought the original Spacehulk. I only got my first genestealers painted in 2009 (I think) by dipping them. It was also thematically approprate as I was matching a specific look for that army. (I really need to get some pictures of them taken...)

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/156666.page

Rennoc215 wrote:Overall: Is it fair, yes. Is it practical, yes. BUT, would you feel accomplished after speed painting an army by using dipping? Probably not.

Given that at the end of it I would have a fully painted, reasonable looking army in a relatively short time, yes, absolutely I would feel 'accomplished'...

thenoobbomb wrote:I think that if you like painting, you dont use army painter.

I enjoy painting. But I also enjoy being able to field fully-painted armies in less than a decade.

So I paint armies using whatever methods will get reasonable results as quickly as possible, and spend the time on character models and models I'm painting for fun.

Tech Guard wrote:Alot of people see this as a touchie topic.

But why should it be? Why do people care about the methods others use to paint their models? It's like reading the rantings of a person who have lost their grip on reality.

This isn't even about bashing people who paint badly. Which I think would be totally unacceptable. It's about attacking people using a technique irrespective of the outcome. Apparently there's this bizzare attitude that people need to spend a certain amount of time and effort on something before they deserve respect or should be allowed any pride in their own damn work. Never mind if the technique actually gives decent results, it's the TIME they spend on it is the crucial thing. Whaaa..? It's just a dick measuring contest, some people want to claim they are better than others because they use more hardcore techniques to paint their toy soldiers.

I mean look at the dipping article here on Dakka.
http://www.dakkadakka.com/wiki/en/Dipping_Tyranids

How can anyone complain about that?

Anyone who can place a competently painted and based army on the table has something to be proud of. It wouldn't surprise me if such people are in the minority because most games seem to field a couple if not large portions of unpainted figures. And that's not even getting into the not inconsiderable number of people who refuse to even pick up a brush.

Today at the shop there was 2 painted and based armies. One looked ok, though dipping would have helped and one was bought fully painted so it doesnt count.

Dip if you want.

I have dipped (not AP though - my attempts were done in the late 80s), I have painted, I have drybrushed, I have airbrushed and I have used spraypaint.

As I said previously. All are tools and methods used to achieve a desired effect. Desired to the person using them (whether they are to anyone else is more or less irrelevant).

Is using NMM cheating?
Is using lighting effects cheating?
Is having a painted army cheating?

Dip all you want.

chromedog wrote:Is having a painted army cheating?

I swear the dice gods favor a painted army over a non-painted, so yes.

Howard A Treesong wrote:It's just a dick measuring contest, some people want to claim they are better than others because they use more hardcore techniques to paint their toy soldiers.

Actually, I think a good analogy would be 'it's a dick measuring contest, and some people are claiming theirs is bigger and better because their number is bigger... because they're using the centimeter side of the ruler and not the inches, and then calling inches unfair because even though the end result is exactly the same, the number is smaller.'

Enzephalon wrote:Why for gods sake has this thread over 200 posts?

Because you are WRONG and I am RIGHT. Or something.


PS - I wrote this message on a computer I built myself, out of materials I mined myself, out of electricity I generated while riding this stationary bicycle.

Bookwrack wrote:

Howard A Treesong wrote:It's just a dick measuring contest, some people want to claim they are better than others because they use more hardcore techniques to paint their toy soldiers.

Actually, I think a good analogy would be 'it's a dick measuring contest, and some people are claiming theirs is bigger and better because their number is bigger... because they're using the centimeter side of the ruler and not the inches, and then calling inches unfair because even though the end result is exactly the same, the number is smaller.'

This made me lol. Good analogy.

Kirbinator wrote:

chromedog wrote:Is having a painted army cheating?

I swear the dice gods favor a painted army over a non-painted, so yes.

Not just the dice gods. A club that I used to play at years ago had a standard rule for tournaments whereby unpainted models suffered a -1 penalty to their armour saves...

Wow. really insaniak. that is crazy. Around here the best you can expect would be to face a lot of grumbling about how unpainted armies look like junk. Yet even that is starting to get toned down. My freind matt has the best meathod. constantly " Hey man, so when are you going to finish painting that, when are you gonna base those.... etc." It works

Ahh enacting change through public ridicule, my favorite. This thread continues because a group of Dakkanaughtz continue to make inane posts that slip under the Mods radar better than "btt" so everyone can see how epic this thread has become as we escalated to and backed away from total thermonuclear annihilation in full observance of godwins law and in the bargain have learned that the OP deplores dippers but upon viewing his models I can't understand why as I see no evidence of gradient shading, mixed paints, blending, osl, nmm, et cetera. I guess what Im saying is: at what point are we permitted to point at the OP and ask what high horse he's on?

sennacherib wrote:Wow. really insaniak. that is crazy.

It was effective, though. Even outside of tournaments, the club had very few people showing up with unpainted armies.

AustonT wrote: I guess what Im saying is: at what point are we permitted to point at the OP and ask what high horse he's on?

I thikn that was really covered already. At this point, people are mostly just airing their views on different painting techniques vs unpainted miniatures.

I think the key to understanding this "controversy" is that there is a chunk of the gaming community that doesn't actually want to see painted armies. They want to restrict the gaming community, either to simply keep it small, to conintue to have one of the best looking armies, or simply because they want to feel surperior about something.

Nobody that actually wants painted armies for the sake of aesthetics has a serious problem with dip. some don't like the look, but no more or less than any other technique.

Those that have a problem are part of the crusty side of gaming that wants the ability to judge others while playing against the same three guys.

What I don't understand is how a group of people largely characterized by the intense smell of BO, funions, marijuana, unkempt hair and an eternal lack of female companionship can judge others.

AustonT wrote:What I don't understand is how a group of people largely characterized by the intense smell of BO, funions, marijuana, unkempt hair and an eternal lack of female companionship can judge others.

Try to be less obviously troll-tastic next time.


PS - Is the BO really a problem? I am going to my first tournament, a very very large tourney, and while I have a poor sense of smell I can still smell body stank if it is strong enough. Should I be worried?

Stavkat wrote:

AustonT wrote:What I don't understand is how a group of people largely characterized by the intense smell of BO, funions, marijuana, unkempt hair and an eternal lack of female companionship can judge others.

Try to be less obviously troll-tastic next time.


PS - Is the BO really a problem? I am going to my first tournament, a very very large tourney, and while I have a poor sense of smell I can still smell body stank if it is strong enough. Should I be worried?

Worried, about your own BO or about others?

Colored Primers, Quick Shade dips, Washes, Inks, Paints, Brushes, Super Glue, "Natural Light" bulbs, hobby knives, etc.

All of the above are tools that people use in the war gaming hobby. Saying that the use of any are "cheating" is just silly to me.

My wife refuses to enter one of the hobby stores in our area because of the unique odor de nerd. Most gamers are polite enough to shower before going to tourneys, but a small segement do not. These days you are more likely to be assaulted by Axe than BO.

Any combination of enclosed spaces and lots of people will smell like a sewer eventually. Even bridal shows.

Stavkat wrote:PS - Is the BO really a problem? I am going to my first tournament, a very very large tourney, and while I have a poor sense of smell I can still smell body stank if it is strong enough. Should I be worried?

The stench of BO in a GW on a hot day when crammed with kids playing games could cut through bank vaults. If you could contain it you'd have something the Geneva Convention would probably class as a biological weapon.

LOL. Thanks for the warning.

Man, you see this kind of stuff cropping out all the time, only with different mediums.

Film photographers complaining that digital photography is too easy and you don't need a dark room to develop your photos.

Again, more traditional photographers complaining about Photoshop.

Graphic designers who are used to doing it manually complaining about softwares like Indesign.

Traditional painters complaining about digital painting.

and to go way, way back..... Bowmen complaining about crossbows. "They're too easy to learn how to use! They can punch through armor! It's so unfair!"

And so on and so forth.


To save this thread from eternal damnation, let me pose another question:

Your opponent's army is , at best, only 30% done. More than half of the army is just basecoated, and only a few are painted. BUT the painting level of those few are very, very sweet. A gakload of conversions, NMM, hardcore freehand painting: you can certainly say that your opponent took time and effort to produce said results.

How would you feel playing against that kind of opponent? Would you rather play with someone with a completed, average army or an incomplete (but oh GOD THE EFFORT) army?