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.

@Kanluwen: To sharpen your point, I'm pretty sure I've seen some prize winning original sculpts in WD (remember that awesome Fulgrim from last year or the year before?) that were painted (when one checked via the internet) with non-GW stuff.

@Luna: *shrug* Okay, we agree GW is out to make money.

Ah but you see , GW's buisness plan as many many GW vets have pointed out through most of 2008-2010 is , GW is concentrating all their efforts into pushing product for new customers.
So just like all customers all need new army , chances are they'll be getting the paints / hobby product to go with it.

Which i agree with you, the vets with existing product will not need to repurchase hobby product .

That has always been their business model. Don't somehow act surprised now that you're a vet and don't feel catered too.

Yes , however i also added very strongly as well , that by making the GW product also an "hobby" it allows them to charge premium pricing for their products.

Yes, and theatres provide expensive popcorn providing the full "theatre" experience. What exactly is it you are arguing here? They are a business that provides a full product, but their brushes aren't overexpensive by art store prices. Nor are their paints. They are expensive by home depot prices, how about you go do something other than paint little tiny plastic men that involves a pigment and come back talking about price.

I dont' actually know how much it costs GW to make their paints compared to the price of their paints. But there are a lot of factors to consider:

Volume : Only GW stores and stores selling GW products (i.e. 40k, Fantasy, LotR, etc...) carry GW paints. So only a certain clientele are going to be buying them (artists don't go to a GW store for art supplies), and even then, a large number of their market don't buy them (because they are expensive!). Vallejo, by comparison, sells to just about everyone and can even be found occasionally in grocery stores. Everyone who wants to use model/craft paint is a potential realistic customer for them.

Source : I don't know where Vallejo makes their paints, but GW paints seem to be made in France (by way of their lable). Most "1st World Nations" are not cheap to produce goods from. If Vallejo makes their product elsewhere, there is a good chance it is cheaper.

Packaging : I can't be 100% sure, but I do know I have never seen anything else but GW paints in their paint pots. I have seen Vallejo (or Vallejo style) bottles used for a lot of other things (from ointments to lubricants). Not only that, but GW pots feel, at least, more expensive than Vallejo, and I have never seen hard plastic pots used by other paint companies. Why? I can't say.

Display : Vallejo has their own display cases, but they aren't required equipment for distribution like GWs are. The Vallejo displays I have seen are also very cheap, at least by appearance, while GWs are solid steel caging, rather expensive. Yes, they are bought, but probably not at a great profit, and the ones for their own stores are free.

Advertisement : Well, normally another consideration, but neither company seems to advertise as far as I have seen, so negligible here.

Bundle all those things together and Vallejo is a lot cheaper just to begin with before selling price is established. Now I am not saying this excuses GW for their high cost paints and displays, but in all honesty, they are allowed to do as they wish with their products (for good or ill). If GW didn't sell their own paints, they would have to use other companies paints, which would make how-to-guides difficult (rights and what not to use another company's product in their own advertisement/products), they would have no control over what colors will be available when, and they would be at the mercy of other companies.

Goes on and on.

But the bare fact of the matter is; you don't have to buy and use their paints on your miniatures for me to care about whether or not your army is painted. And remember, to us army painters, we're still willing to play unpainted armies! Just less willing than playing people who do paint their armies. So trying to say "painting your army with GW paints is you just caving to the man who sells you those paints so they can make a buck!" is just a load of bull droppings by lazy maternal-copulators (I'm not really that invested, I just wanted to use "maternal-copulators").

ShumaGorath wrote:their brushes aren't overexpensive by art store prices. Nor are their paints. They are expensive by home depot prices

Sorry , but if you think prices are the only factor to comparing a product , there is a problem here.

ShumaGorath wrote:how about you go do something other than paint little tiny plastic men that involves a pigment and come back talking about price.

Again sorry, i read and re-read this sentence , and i still dont get what you mean , can you explain?

LunaHound wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:their brushes aren't overexpensive by art store prices. Nor are their paints. They are expensive by home depot prices, how about you go do something other than paint little tiny plastic men that involves a pigment and come back talking about price.

Sorry , but if you think prices are the only factor to comparing a product , there is a problem here.

Would LunaHound like to not be elitist and explain to our friend WHY price comparison isn't the bare standard? Or is LunaHound just posting to be snide?

Quality is an important factor, and GW brushes aren't very good for their price. They aren't "OMG SO HORRIBLE" but they are probably a few dollars over priced. Compared to Walmart or similar store for art supplies, they are horrendously over priced. But compared to a pure art store, they're not that bad, I have seen far worse at "professional" stores.

LunaHound wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:their brushes aren't overexpensive by art store prices. Nor are their paints. They are expensive by home depot prices, how about you go do something other than paint little tiny plastic men that involves a pigment and come back talking about price.

Sorry , but if you think prices are the only factor to comparing a product , there is a problem here.

Not particularly. Water based acrylic paints for hobby modeling in art stores aren't particularly different. The unadultured and universal hate of GW products can be borne only from a point of ignorance, not righteousness. They are neither the worst, nor most expensive product in the field. They are simply the dominant force in the small segment of the demographic that you fill, and while they are marginally more expensive than marginally better products they aren't criminally so. They sell paints and brushes at semi advanced prices because they have a customer base that is largely unaware or unwilling to explore other possibilities. That makes them neither evil, nor does it make them deserve derision. Every single business on the planet adjusts product prices to fulfill what they believe to be the best combination of quality and affordability. To pick out such an utterly meaningless thing such as model hobby paint price point and quality, and to hammer it down in every thread speaks worlds more about the poster than it does the topic.

Skinnattittar wrote:Would LunaHound like to not be elitist and explain to our friend WHY price comparison isn't the bare standard? Or is LunaHound just posting to be snide?

Pretty unnecessary this. I think you make some good points, Skinnattittar, no need to mix them up with insults.

Skinnattittar wrote:Would LunaHound like to not be elitist and explain to our friend WHY price comparison isn't the bare standard? Or is LunaHound just posting to be snide?

Quality is an important factor, and GW brushes aren't very good for their price. They aren't "OMG SO HORRIBLE" but they are probably a few dollars over priced. Compared to Walmart or similar store for art supplies, they are horrendously over priced. But compared to a pure art store, they're not that bad, I have seen far worse at "professional" stores.

Well seems like you did a good job explaining it yourself already ( i dont need to add anymore right? ). Snide? elitist? if you are talking about the tone of the sentence used , are you sure im the snide one?

Skinnattittar wrote:

LunaHound wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:their brushes aren't overexpensive by art store prices. Nor are their paints. They are expensive by home depot prices, how about you go do something other than paint little tiny plastic men that involves a pigment and come back talking about price.

Sorry , but if you think prices are the only factor to comparing a product , there is a problem here.

Would LunaHound like to not be elitist and explain to our friend WHY price comparison isn't the bare standard? Or is LunaHound just posting to be snide?

Quality is an important factor, and GW brushes aren't very good for their price. They aren't "OMG SO HORRIBLE" but they are probably a few dollars over priced. Compared to Walmart or similar store for art supplies, they are horrendously over priced. But compared to a pure art store, they're not that bad, I have seen far worse at "professional" stores.

They're great "entry" level brushes. And they do the job fantastically for that matter.

A better comparison than a art supply store or Wal-Mart(why in the hell you're buying miniature painting supplies from a Wal-Mart rather than a dedicated hobby shop, be they a model train shop, or a GW shop is beyond me either way)...is Reaper's brushes, or Privateer Press' brushes.

Which, remarkably...GW's are in line with. Amazing.

How do PP's paints stack against Citadel? I notice they have faction packs, which is pretty nifty.

Kanluwen wrote:They're great "entry" level brushes. And they do the job fantastically for that matter.

A better comparison than a art supply store or Wal-Mart(why in the hell you're buying miniature painting supplies from a Wal-Mart rather than a dedicated hobby shop, be they a model train shop, or a GW shop is beyond me either way)...is Reaper's brushes, or Privateer Press' brushes.

Which, remarkably...GW's are in line with. Amazing.

Which brushes have you used so far , and how much would you rate them from 1-10 individually?
the price dont have to be listed unless you remember them off your head .

How do PP's paints stack against Citadel?

As far as I've seen they are indistingushable from Citadel or Valejo, meaning they need to be thinned and will dry out without proper care (the myth of the valejo bottle never drying out still bugs me, I've had to water those things like plants).

I notice they have faction packs, which is pretty nifty.

Though not particularly helpful. Both their magazine and their books have guides for what paint colors to use for what faction specific color schemes.

I hate painting almost as much as I hate playing with or against someone who is unwilling to paint. My painting skills are mockable (I know because I mock them). If my models are not viable for local tourneys, they are proxies.

Sorry to interject.

Manchu wrote:How do PP's paints stack against Citadel? I notice they have faction packs, which is pretty nifty.

They don't work so hot with airbrushes, which is frankly annoying. Same with Reaper's. It's probably just a thinning issue(as I *think* PP's paints use a different medium than *just* water)--but other than that they're pretty nice. The Mercenary pack is amazing for things like Trenchers or even Imperial Guard. Khaki and Traitor Green? They're pretty much EXACT matches for the multi-step process GW did for the Cadian 8th's colors. Which is a definite thumbs up, considering how well it goes on.

As for their brushes?
They're the same general thing as GW's. They're nice, they do tabletop standards well. But if you want to get *serious*, you better be looking at Windsor & Newton.

kirsanth wrote:I hate painting almost as much as I hate playing with or against someone who is unwilling to paint. My painting skills are mockable (I know because I mock them). If my models are not viable for local tourneys, they are proxies.

Sorry to interject.

APPOLOGY UNACCEPTABLE!!! SMITE HIM, OH MIGHTY GODS OF MOCKERY!!! SMITE HIM WITH ALL YOUR FURY!!!!!!

....


Well!?

...

I have lost faith in my gods of mockery....


In serious business. I'm not sniping LunaHound, I was jibing him/her... it would have been more obvious in real person....


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I do actually buy my brushes from Walmart, they're just so cheap and convenient! My brushes get beat up, I stretch their life out, but I they're paint brushes and I make them work. I don't ask them to hold enough paint to cover a small job, GW paint doesn't work that way anyhow (I like my quick drying GW paint), nor do I ask them not to ignore abuse (I clean them regularly), but they work out excellent for me, and I'm not afraid of damaging them!

I don't buy from my hobby shop because they sell high end brushes. I have owned some in the past, and they're not for me. I do very good work, if I may say so (warm fuzzy feelings when my attention gets noticed n,n probably the loving pangs of a neglected childhood and unappreciated attempts at seducing love from a cold mother and absent father.... I'm kidding!). They don't hold as long, can't take much rough handling, need special cleaning, shed, and are expensive! I have brushes from over a year ago that still work great! And I have painted.... over, seventy or so models in that time with them.

Question:

How many people have actually encountered someone refusing to play someone else because their models aren't painted?

ShumaGorath wrote:(the myth of the valejo bottle never drying out still bugs me, I've had to water those things like plants).

I started using Valejio paints around 6 years ago and I can honestly say I have never had one dry up on me in that time. To be honest the only paints I have had dry up on a regular basis are the GW hard plastic ones as you do not get a good seal with the lids (I still have a couple of the original Citadel paints from there first ever release that are still fine...).

Have any of the people out there who aren't keen on painting considered using the 'dip' method of painting which seems quite popular with a lot of wargamers lately? You basically put your base colours on then dip the figure in a can of shader and voila isn't table top quality figure!

Mick

@OP: Up to you, but not everybody has paints everything. Some of us are more relaxed about this. Or have different standards.

Skinnattittar wrote:Packaging : I can't be 100% sure, but I do know I have never seen anything else but GW paints in their paint pots. I have seen Vallejo (or Vallejo style) bottles used for a lot of other things (from ointments to lubricants). Not only that, but GW pots feel, at least, more expensive than Vallejo, and I have never seen hard plastic pots used by other paint companies. Why? I can't say.

Well the Miniatures range I tend to buy come in glass bottles and have done for a while. As for the prices and the exclusivity of GW paints, don't forget that the cote d'arms range are the older citadel range and currently cost £1.70, I doubt GW would be asking £1.70 if they were still supplying the same paint range. Also, the current paint pots may be unique, but the older ones were not. They conveniently thought to reduce the volume of the paint pots when designing their unique ones, and put the price up at the same time.

But anyway this whole thing about using GW paints is a nonsense. No they might not be too happy if you advertise other manufacturers by bringing their paints to use inside GW shops, but no one at any time has said that you have to use GW paints to use models at official events. It's pretty clear that even 'eavy metal studio staff don't use GW paints. What next, will someone suggest they will throw you out of their stores for bringing a jam jar to hold water instead of buying one of their "water pots"?

Howard A Treesong wrote:

What next, will someone suggest they will throw you out of their stores for bringing a jam jar to hold water instead of buying one of their "water pots"?

Silence you fool! don't give them any ideas!

frozenwastes wrote:
How many people have actually encountered someone refusing to play someone else because their models aren't painted?

I have not refused to play someone because their models aren't painted, if there is no one else around to play. I have chosen to play specific people, and not other people, solely based on the the fact that the people I played against had painted armies, and the people I chose not to play against didn't.

I have chosen not to attend certain events because they didn't have an all-painted requirement.

Redbeard wrote:

frozenwastes wrote:
How many people have actually encountered someone refusing to play someone else because their models aren't painted?

I have not refused to play someone because their models aren't painted, if there is no one else around to play. I have chosen to play specific people, and not other people, solely based on the the fact that the people I played against had painted armies, and the people I chose not to play against didn't.

I have chosen not to attend certain events because they didn't have an all-painted requirement.

When I go to play the game, I go to play the game. If i am at a tournament that has a painting requirement I am up till 2am making sure I have all my pieces painted too my standards, If its a day of casual I don't really care one way or the other. The only time i choose to play or not play against someone is based completely on whether or not I have played that person before.
If I play you and you are a d k then i won't play you again, regaurdless of the amount of paint on your figs. If you are a lot of fun to play against, I am gonna want to play you again, regaurdless of the amount of paint on your figs.
I myself have never been refused a game because I've never brought an upainted army to an event, a regular casual game day I have never been refused a game because my army wasn't painted. I guess my gaming groups are an exception on this board because we like PLAY the game, and we like to make sure EVERYONE is having FUN, which is why we all play games right??

hcordes wrote:When I go to play the game, I go to play the game. If i am at a tournament that has a painting requirement I am up till 2am making sure I have all my pieces painted too my standards, If its a day of casual I don't really care one way or the other. The only time i choose to play or not play against someone is based completely on whether or not I have played that person before.
If I play you and you are a d k then i won't play you again, regaurdless of the amount of paint on your figs. If you are a lot of fun to play against, I am gonna want to play you again, regaurdless of the amount of paint on your figs.
I myself have never been refused a game because I've never brought an upainted army to an event, a regular casual game day I have never been refused a game because my army wasn't painted. I guess my gaming groups are an exception on this board because we like PLAY the game, and we like to make sure EVERYONE is having FUN, which is why we all play games right??

Then you sound like you're a Gamer, not a Hobbyist. Painting the minimum amount to get by, doesn't sound like you really care what your army or your opponent's army looks like.... As I've said before, a 40k Hobbyist is different from a 40k Gamer in that they are also interested the painting aspect. There is nothing wrong with being a Gamer, you're just not a Hobbyist, you're just different, no worse no better. But if a Hobbyist wants to play another Hobbyist and you're a Gamer, they will most likely prefer to play a Hobbyist. If a Gamer doesn't want to play a Hobbyist, they're welcome to prefer to play other Gamers, and they do all the time, I've seen it (has nothing to do with how painted their army is).

Hobbyists care about other things than just playing the game. They care about making a fluffy list, the challenge of painting their army (which can be social, we have several people who come to sit and paint and talk with others), having fun with the game and even, I dare suggest, bending or breaking rules to make the game more "fun" to them and their opponents.

I don't think any of the Painters are calling the non-Painters bad people, they're just pointing out there is a difference.

Skinnattittar wrote:

hcordes wrote:When I go to play the game, I go to play the game. If i am at a tournament that has a painting requirement I am up till 2am making sure I have all my pieces painted too my standards, If its a day of casual I don't really care one way or the other. The only time i choose to play or not play against someone is based completely on whether or not I have played that person before.
If I play you and you are a d k then i won't play you again, regaurdless of the amount of paint on your figs. If you are a lot of fun to play against, I am gonna want to play you again, regaurdless of the amount of paint on your figs.
I myself have never been refused a game because I've never brought an upainted army to an event, a regular casual game day I have never been refused a game because my army wasn't painted. I guess my gaming groups are an exception on this board because we like PLAY the game, and we like to make sure EVERYONE is having FUN, which is why we all play games right??

Then you sound like you're a Gamer, not a Hobbyist. Painting the minimum amount to get by, doesn't sound like you really care what your army or your opponent's army looks like.... As I've said before, a 40k Hobbyist is different from a 40k Gamer in that they are also interested the painting aspect. There is nothing wrong with being a Gamer, you're just not a Hobbyist, you're just different, no worse no better. But if a Hobbyist wants to play another Hobbyist and you're a Gamer, they will most likely prefer to play a Hobbyist. If a Gamer doesn't want to play a Hobbyist, they're welcome to prefer to play other Gamers, and they do all the time, I've seen it (has nothing to do with how painted their army is).

Hobbyists care about other things than just playing the game. They care about making a fluffy list, the challenge of painting their army (which can be social, we have several people who come to sit and paint and talk with others), having fun with the game and even, I dare suggest, bending or breaking rules to make the game more "fun" to them and their opponents.

I don't think any of the Painters are calling the non-Painters bad people, they're just pointing out there is a difference.

un true, I am a hobbyiest, i paint and model more than i play, what I've said is what happens WHEN i play. how dare you tell ME what I am, and no i have never told you anything about what you are, just that your opinion is unfair, which of course is an opinion in of itself.
Most of us out there that play these game, and paint, and model, and generally involved in these activities, grew up in that "nerdy" category (at least i did) whether it was for gaming or something completely unrelated. why are you going to exclude someone and be a d k to people that get that kind of c p from everyone else they come in contact with.

Am I the only one who finds it hilarious that even among 40k players there is a need to divide ourselves on such pointless minutia? People just can't be happy unless they're in a clique.

Out of curiosity I started a similar thread on TMP http://theminiaturespage.com/boards/msg.mv?id=188879 Where there is a wider spread of type of gamer and age. So far out of 68 replies only 5 have said they would use unpainted figures (please note the guys over there are more historical gamers so tend to spend a lot of time and effort researching their armies to make sure they get the details right for painting).

Mick

Monster Rain wrote:Am I the only one who finds it hilarious that even among 40k players there is a need to divide ourselves on such pointless minutia? People just can't be happy unless they're in a clique.

its when people who never felt special in the real world need to feel the need to act out and pick on others to feel better about themselves. I do not need to put down some 12 year old kid and tell him he can't play cuz his army isn't up to my standards, because i like to sleep at night.
If you were at a tournament of nothing but Golden Daemon winning armies, and they said you can't play cuz you don't have a golden daemon and it doesn't matter how well your army is painted how would you feel?
I have played against a golden daemon winner(s) and several runner ups, and people that can paint at that level, no one has refused to play me, and playing these people only encouraged me to paint more. Maybe if you actually played people and ENCOURAGED them to paint, and show them your painted work it might light a fire in them and then they WILL paint.

Monster Rain wrote:Am I the only one who finds it hilarious that even among 40k players there is a need to divide ourselves on such pointless minutia? People just can't be happy unless they're in a clique.

Need? No. But when some people want to do one thing and others another thing, there is an impossible to avoid friction or divide. Very different thing from intentionally trying to make a divide or "clique."

@ hcordes : The only person here getting worked up is you. And if I mis-personified you, I appologize, but there is no need to fly off the handles. As I have said, you're the only person going "cry-baby" and hurling accusations of being discriminated against. I don't know how many times I, and all the other painters, have to say it, but we will play unpainted armies and non-painting gamers. I think it has been said so many times a billboard is in order, or perhaps a stamp-hammer to bonk open mouthed yellow-press non-painters.

So let me write it in bigger font:

The vast majority of people who prefer to play against painted armies seem to be willing to play against and alongside players and gamers who do not have, or possibly will not, paint their armies.

Skinnattittar wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:Am I the only one who finds it hilarious that even among 40k players there is a need to divide ourselves on such pointless minutia? People just can't be happy unless they're in a clique.

Need? No. But when some people want to do one thing and others another thing, there is an impossible to avoid friction or divide. Very different thing from intentionally trying to make a divide or "clique."

With the elitist attitude in some of the posts in this thread I simply can't agree with this statement.

And semantics aside, dividing into "hobbyists and gamers" was A: Not my idea, and B: Dividing into cliques. Period.

hcordes wrote:its when people who never felt special in the real world need to feel the need to act out and pick on others to feel better about themselves. I do not need to put down some 12 year old kid and tell him he can't play cuz his army isn't up to my standards, because i like to sleep at night.

I'm going to guess you never felt special in the real world? Because I have, but that's not the point of the discussions here, nor is it the point to go about insulting people who are different from you. People are allowed to play how they like, where they like, and with whom they like. In all honesty, if I ever met you, I would refuse to play you simply because you seem to lack maturity, and if you asked me that, I would say it to your face. Why? Because I enjoy gaming with people who will be able to take jibes, accept realities, and keep good humor. Sorry if that offends you, but you haven't really been acting very mature, heck you even know you aren't by bleeping your own swearing out.

hcordes wrote:If you were at a tournament of nothing but Golden Daemon winning armies, and they said you can't play cuz you don't have a golden daemon and it doesn't matter how well your army is painted how would you feel?

If that were a requirement to get into the tournament, I wouldn't feel anything at all, as I would not have attended that tournament because it wasn't for me. If it weren't a requirement, I would thank my opponent for the victory, as they would seem to be resigning from play illegally.

hcordes wrote:I have played against a golden daemon winner(s) and several runner ups, and people that can paint at that level, no one has refused to play me, and playing these people only encouraged me to paint more. Maybe if you actually played people and ENCOURAGED them to paint, and show them your painted work it might light a fire in them and then they WILL paint.

Yes, and that is why practically no-one here has said they will refuse to play against non-painted armies.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Monster Rain wrote:

Skinnattittar wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:Am I the only one who finds it hilarious that even among 40k players there is a need to divide ourselves on such pointless minutia? People just can't be happy unless they're in a clique.

Need? No. But when some people want to do one thing and others another thing, there is an impossible to avoid friction or divide. Very different thing from intentionally trying to make a divide or "clique."

With the elitist attitude in some of the posts in this thread I simply can't agree with this statement.

I'm curious, because I see "elitist" being thrown around whenever someone insinuates anything about improving or participating further than just showing up, could you define "elitist?" And lets not make this a joke of pointing fingers, I'm asking an honest question because I don't see anything elitist about attempting a minimum level of participation, or just plain having standards.