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.

Ok.. minor ranting and frustration..

Earlier in the week I had a chance to play a team game of Tyranids/Tyranids vs SM/Eldar. I was one of the Nid players.

My teammate had black primed Nids with Pink parts (work in progress paint), the SM was fully painted Blood Raven. The Eldar was beyond Psychadelically painted. Parts of his army were painful to look at.

Now, this is a post about that Eldar army. He had it primed white, and used EXTREMELY bright colors on it. Bases were not done, and there were no fully painted models in his force. Lots of white with Pink, Yellow, Electric Green, Purple, Fuchsia, Ice Blue, etc. Combine this with another facet of the list.. each squad consisted of indivicually disctinct guys. His Ranger squad, for example, had a Pink cloaked guy, a Green guy, a Purple model, etc.. no coherency in the color scheme. Same for the Scorpion Squad, both Dire Avenger squads, and the Seer council he was running. The seer council was made of WHFB models (I can deal with that, no worries). He had both squads of Dire Avengers in one ruin, and even HE had issues with removing casualties, because (I think) he had 20 models in a tight area, with no squad definitions. His color was also heavy/blobby.. looked like splotches on a dropcloth against the table.

Combine this color riot with comments like "Yeah, those are Guardian models, but I paid for them as Dire Avengers".. "Oh, that Guy (pointing) is the Avatar (wtf?? He did not point that out at the beginning.. but on his list he paid the points and proxied a WHFB elf)" and the ever popular "The Farseer is in that unit over there.. (Farseer is 8 inches away from the unit in question)"

It was a LONG game..

Anyways.. rant mode off..

Would you all rather play against the archtypical metal/plastic gray army... or.. a really badly painted one?

Part of the "hobby" aspect for me is the belief that the little toy soldiers are "lifelike".. I can deal with the unpainted stuff as I can hope that they end up looking snazzy.. but these violent rorshach models just really blew it for me. I had taken a camera along to try to snap some shots for a battle report, but I decided against it.. as those models just didn't work for me.

-Porkuslime

To play against? Either. I probably wouldn't take a lot of pictures of shiny/plastic
armies, though. However, I'd hate to play proxy army from hell. I mean counts as.

As you might see:

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

@ pork:

Personally i find which ever gives me a clear view of what im looking at , from gaming distance ( 1 meter ish? )

Gray plastic can reflect enough light to let us see whats what from a distance . white and black primer without paint is bad. So are badly painted units ( i mean REALLY badly painted ones )

i wouldnt care how they were painted (or not painted in some cases)
its not my army so its not my issue
if they dont want to paint or cannot paint to a high standard who are we to judge

I don't have a problem playing against badly painted armies, it's livable. I can play bare plastic too, though after the work I put into my army I'd prefer to play painted over the grey plastic army of doom.

I'd have a much bigger problem playing the proxy/counts-as mistake army.

Which isn't to say I won't play a counts as army, if they're well done. Doesn't have to be amazing (like Gorgon's Stealer cult or Studderingdave's Deffwing) just organized and easily explained. But the random crappy counts as (re:WHFB elf-vatar, or guardians that count as dire avengers if the same models are used as guardians elsewhere) is not worth my time. Poor paint is a fact, we all started somewhere. But cop-out counts as? I'd rather keep the boys in the bag.

Unpainted. When its bad, i just can't deal with it.
Now, I don't often play, cause Im bad at gaming, and my first attempts at painting were ugly as hell.
But I have improved, and now I just don't like ugly armies, Ill play em but be distracted the whole time, and never say a word. Hey, its just me.

mcfly wrote:Unpainted. When its bad, i just can't deal with it.
Now, I don't often play, cause Im bad at gaming, and my first attempts at painting were ugly as hell.
But I have improved, and now I just don't like ugly armies, Ill play em but be distracted the whole time, and never say a word. Hey, its just me.

Did you go from crapy to golden demon?

Oh no, but i went from horrible to modest, and it doesnt make your eyes bleed. I dont think im great, but better than some of the stuff ive seen before.

Thats what i was thinking too >.>

If there's no rhyme or reason to the paint? Unpainted, and for the love of the Lord, use models that at least approximate the size of the units you are proxying for, and are unique enough that you can remember which unit does what thing. Maybe pieces of paper if you have to. As long as it doesn't interfere with the rules of the game (too much)...

I'm in the same boat as Teek. Some people aren't great painters nor do they have fantastic color sense. But as long as the model is what it's supposed to be, works for me! In fact, when my roomie and I were deciding which armies to choose, we had a few battles with mostly plain bases marked with letters to show what was what. It was a lot easier to pile in on assault with those fake 'models' then with my spiffy (but excessively spiky) real models. And there was no confusion as to what was what.

Plus it was considerably cheaper than throwing down for a dew Troop choices and an HQ before finding out you hate the army.

There's nothing worse than playing against someone who continually
plays an unpainted army.It does nothing for the hobby,to players and to
possible newcomers.Maybe you should have gave some painting tips,the
only way a bad painter is going to improve is he learns not to make
basic errors.It sounds like he's got a lax attitude to what he fields
which I don't think many players would go along with.Anybody who joins
this damned expensive hobby should at least try and paint the figures,
regardless how naff they might be at first!

I'd rather see the badly painted army.

I understand and have played against and fielded units occasionally when it's new or time demands don't allow them to be painted. But it's not and should not be a long term thing.

Ok, despite the maple leaf that appears on my post I'm in iowa. For the longest time, the local tribe of 40K enthusiasts had some really lazy f***s that fell into one of two categories, both of which really bugged the crap outta me.
The first being the boneheads (and no offense meant to you ogryn out there) who absoluitely refused to paint. This sucks as I feel a bit slighted that I'd drop hours and hours into an army to get it looking sweet, but you just slapped models together and played a game. One of thede cats had a tau armyy, some 5000 pts. I offered to paint this dudes army for free and his response was 'no, cuz then I'd have to start painting crap myself'
I mean really, why aren't you just palying heroclix or some other buttstravaganza of a game?
The other group did paint: three different colored dots on a model, so as to pass the 'minimum requirements' of a tourney. Back in 05 I was the GW coordinator at a hobby shop: I had a pissed off mom come at me because I wouldn't let little Dumpling compete for not having his army painted. These are the same kids that come with an army and whip out a Crapic: The Suckening deck on a gametable.
Sorry, but when there's prizes of somesuch involved, and 9 serious players are competing and you're this jackass middle school kid who can't even muster enough time to do more than 3 splotched of paint....
No, a crappy painted army is much MUCH better than a lazy mutant. I can understand not having time, hell not having the money, but when you're too busy playing world of warcrap, it bothers me. But effort, even a painted army that looks like poo is better than these half-shebbed spankers.

Badly painted armies make me sad as well, I'm too much of a perfectionist. I have a 2k-ish WE army from 5th ed (with rank upon rank of single pose archers. ) that I don't like to use anymore due to how bad it looks compared to my later paintjobs. But still, any sort of painted army is better than a naked one.


I once considered painting two small SM forces basically a different mono-colour with drybrushed highlights. Shouldn't that cover all 3-color requirements etc? And for bases you could just do black with neon green gridwork, like old computer games with "squiggly gridwork" surfaces.
For that lazy painter, that shouldn't take too long to do, assuming you can find the base color in a spraycan. It wouldn't look too bad either, and making a board and terrain would be pretty easy too.

That's a tough question to answer, I think for me it's a tie, but at least the armies that aren't up to par had some form of effort put into them.

Here's why it's a tie. There are far to many techniques to paint an army quickly and still have them come out looking nice. So there's just no excuse to not have a painted army or to have one that's atrocious to look at. I've even gone as far as to research quick easy painting methods to help motivate people who don't care to paint or suffer from model shock and to aid those who just lack the painting skills.

For example... Tyranids
Paints - White Primer, Mechrite Red, Gryphonne Sepia
Tools - Spray Gun, PVA Glue, Basing Sand, Brush

Step 1 - Prime White
Step 2 - Paint their shells Red
Step 3 - Base
Step 4 - Use the Spray Gun to spray the whole lot with the Gryphonne Sepia wash.

There you have it... how freekin' simple is that? One could have an ENTIRE army done in a single day and it would look perfectly fine.

I'm not sure I'd ever call 40K a game of lifelike soldiers.

The joy of it is not having to paint your figures according to a historical precedent.

I personnly try to have three colors on a army if i go to a toury but if its jut a fun game i have some unfinished models in it maybe some proxys but they willhave a index card underthem so i can remember what they are...

I'd far rather see a badly painted army than an unpainted one. Part of the appeal of the miniature wargaming hobby is the visual appeal - without painted models and scenery, how is it really different from the old Avalon Hill hex-and-counter wargames? With a badly painted army, there's room for assumption - the guy could be new to the hobby, new to painting, or just bad at it...but at least he's trying.

The guy with the perpetually unpainted army isn't even paying that lip service to the hobby. I understand if the army is new and unpainted, or he's put the minis together and wants to use them in a game but hasn't had time to paint yet, but the guy who's been playing with the same unpainted models for three years isn't even playing lip service to the conceit that a huge portion of our hobby is about visually cool scenes on the tabletop.

Our old WFB group had a rule - assuming you started in the group with an unpainted army, you need to paint at least 1 "unit" for every time the group met (biweekly). I don't think that's at all unreasonable, it's a fairly slow painting speed, and during a busy couple of weeks, you can just paint a single hero or some such. Now rules on quality of paint schemes (though the "3 dots of paint on a model" would get you thrown out), but at least try. You owe it to your opponent, if nothing else.

Totally. Agree.

When I were a lad it didn't even need to be made a rule. We just understood by instinct that we needed to paint our figures before we used them.

I think the thing that I'd take into consideration is the difference between Badly painted and trying, and badly painted cause I don't care.

When first starting out very few people are good painters. Refusing to play them because they aren't up to your standards does nothing to encourage them to improve. There's no motivation like facing an pretty army to get you to practice your own skils. You can also usually tell when someone is trying. They usually have "normal" colors (not neon green or something) and the worst you get is straight, non shaded block painting that doesn't necessarily stay "inside the lines" on the miniatures.

In the case of the Eldar player the OP talks about it sounds like he did something atrocious just to be able to say , "see they're painted!" That I find unacceptable, and would try to avoid playing them unless A.) they were really enjoyable as an opponent for some other reason, or B.) well, I can't really think of another reason.

If it comes down to playing with grey minis or playing with miniatures painted deliberately bad, I'd go with grey.

If I spend my time and effort painting an army, the least they can do is paint their own. Even if it does look like they put all their models in a shoebox and vomited all over them.

...and then based them accordingly.


In all seriousness though... Id rather play a poorly painted army than an unpainted one. They could be just starting out and it could be their first attempt at painting. I made a post a long time ago about my reasonings for this but the gist of it is that it is a hobby first and a wargame second (IMO, at least). It takes away from the gaming experience when I have a gloriously painted army and they have a mass of grey and silver (or pure white/black)...

Kyrolon wrote:I think the thing that I'd take into consideration is the difference between Badly painted and trying, and badly painted cause I don't care.

When first starting out very few people are good painters. Refusing to play them because they aren't up to your standards does nothing to encourage them to improve. There's no motivation like facing an pretty army to get you to practice your own skils. You can also usually tell when someone is trying. They usually have "normal" colors (not neon green or something) and the worst you get is straight, non shaded block painting that doesn't necessarily stay "inside the lines" on the miniatures.

In the case of the Eldar player the OP talks about it sounds like he did something atrocious just to be able to say , "see they're painted!" That I find unacceptable, and would try to avoid playing them unless A.) they were really enjoyable as an opponent for some other reason, or B.) well, I can't really think of another reason.

If it comes down to playing with grey minis or playing with miniatures painted deliberately bad, I'd go with grey.

But the problem you see is, some GW stores dont allow you to play there unless you have 3 colors.

So from the first day for someone to buy their army , till the day they finish painting them

thats months and months of not been able to play at all. It also explains the rushed paint jobs , so its not all their fault!

I mean not every where has a game club going where they accepted un painted minis. Many players buys from FLGS , and plays in the same FLGS
not able to play because unit isnt painted thus cant use the unit thus the army isnt complete thus cant play is really bad.


@ anti , thats alittle harsh ... I like to think i contribute to warhammer in my own way, but i still cannot play in those places either!
because i paint so incredibly slow that i havnt played a single game after the rogue trader store i used to play in is closed down.
Which is why some people were fed up and dot 3 colors on.

Bare rather than badly painted. I have badly painted models. They're not pretty. Bare at least still has the detail on it, even if it is all one colour.

I have played many types of armies in my many years in this hobby. Proxie, plastic, horrible paint jobs and partially glued armies. I would have to say that the ones I like least are the ones that are hard to know what you are fighting. I love to paint and think I do a decent job. I love to play nicely painted armies but do not expect it. We all play for different reasons. The example with the ranges by the OP would not be fun, in my opinion. I would rather them just be metal at that point.

If you have problems knowing what you are fighting the game becomes less interesting for me. Like a game of chess that you don't know what the pawns are. At the end of the day I don't care as long as I have a fighting chance to identify what I am playing against.

Friendly games I don't care. We've got a lot of new guys in the area playing and I'm just glad they're making an effort.

Tournaments: Badly painted, could care less. There is one less person whom I have to compete with in the painting scores. Unpainted to me is a big no no. I've spent $10+ to play and they could at least make an effort. I've been to Indy GTs and played armies that were assembled the night before (as far as I know). There is a local guy whom I have played against several times. As far as I know he has never picked up a paint brush. Of course he always brings a different army and they are always tough lists, but he's missing out on 1/3 of the game.

Painted is always better. "Counts as" without appropriate models is annoying but (for me) only becomes unbearable if the player continues on that way for months or permenately.

Boyz as Nobs = ok
IG as Kasrkin = ok
Warboss as Thraka = ok
Cool custom SM as Lord Macragge = ok
Guardian as Avatar = annoying
Warbike as Squiggoth = annoying
Genestealer as Carnifax = annoying

Last tournament I went to, this guy had an entire Ogre army based on WM Hordes minis. He had a little wooden sign in front of each unit indicating what model it was supposed to represent.

The music from the Price is Right when you screw up comes to mind.

@ Luna. Yeah I guess it is a bit harsh... but I'm old school . I havent played at a store in a looong time because I too paint way too slowly. I mean... I have a Bloodthirster that still isnt finished (it's 10 years old). I'm very shocked I actually finished as much as I did (reference my P&M blog).

I don't really mind if it's a WIP, because at least they're trying to get it done. If it's completely unpainted and they tell me it's because they don't have to then I'll simply play someone else. I personally am very dedicated to the hobby and if someone throws that back in my face then I'll do the same. Once they paint their force (or as I said, at least make an effort) then I will gladly destroy them

LunaHound wrote:

Kyrolon wrote:I think the thing that I'd take into consideration is the difference between Badly painted and trying, and badly painted cause I don't care.

When first starting out very few people are good painters. Refusing to play them because they aren't up to your standards does nothing to encourage them to improve. There's no motivation like facing an pretty army to get you to practice your own skils. You can also usually tell when someone is trying. They usually have "normal" colors (not neon green or something) and the worst you get is straight, non shaded block painting that doesn't necessarily stay "inside the lines" on the miniatures.

In the case of the Eldar player the OP talks about it sounds like he did something atrocious just to be able to say , "see they're painted!" That I find unacceptable, and would try to avoid playing them unless A.) they were really enjoyable as an opponent for some other reason, or B.) well, I can't really think of another reason.

If it comes down to playing with grey minis or playing with miniatures painted deliberately bad, I'd go with grey.

But the problem you see is, some GW stores dont allow you to play there unless you have 3 colors.

So from the first day for someone to buy their army , till the day they finish painting them

thats months and months of not been able to play at all. It also explains the rushed paint jobs , so its not all their fault!

I mean not every where has a game club going where they accepted un painted minis. Many players buys from FLGS , and plays in the same FLGS
not able to play because unit isnt painted thus cant use the unit thus the army isnt complete thus cant play is really bad.

Sorry, Luna I think I didn't articulate that as well as I thought. What I am trying to say is that I wouldn't enjoy playing against someone who more or less deliberately painted their army atrociously bad just because of a silly painting rule. If *I* made the rules at GW I wouldn't require 100% painted minis all the time. I'd go with the "progress" system. Play with grey stuff as much as you want as long as you make progress. I'd also have at least one day a week as a sort of free for all where you can play with whatever level of painting you want (including none).

The idea I got from the original post was that the Eldar player had done silly things like a neon green arm, red torso, purple helmet etc. I wouldn't get much pleasure from playing against someone who literally splashed three splotches of random color on a model. In that respect the old "three color" rule is counter productive. For the purpose of a basic rule, perhaps the best is requiring the models be properly assembled (meaning have all their limbs, heads and appropriate weapons) and possibly at least primed. It would also be preferable if squads could be distinguished somehow. For something like marines this could be as simple as assembling, priming, and painting one shoulder pad in each squad a given color. I don't think that's too much to ask, and can look fairly appealing, especially if the person takes one more step and either uses one of the magic washes that are on the market now, or drybrushes a few quick highlights.

If it absolutely came down to it, I don't think I'd ever say no I won't play you, but if I have the choice of opponents and one as a "deliberately" badly painted army, then I know which I'd rather play.