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.

Hey guys,

THis is one of my first posts here, but is a question I have been considering as I paint up my two current armies, having just got back into the hobby. I used to play, but don'tcurrently - and I was never a great player, more a collector, so this is a question mainly for the considerations of those who better balance the two sides of the hobby.

Namely, can you, and do you seek to, unerve your opponent with the modelling and painting of a figure?

To clarify, I believe trying to throw off an opponent by being an idiot, meddling, distracting posturing and gak talking is bad sportsmanship. However, throughout history armies have tried to give themselves the psychological edge, and is this replicated?

For instance, if you make a dragon/tank/hero or perhaps even a particulary mundane unit look more scary, will it persuade somone, particulary less experienced gamers to devote more forces to it, while neglecting those that lok more innocent, and might infact be as dangerous. It could work especially well if one isnt familiar with their opponents codex/army book.

For instance, if you see a kid with pink marines or lurid ultra mearines that look fingerpainted, and you see a well painted squad of templars or spacewolves that are painted to look formidable, and maybe flaunting the skulls of their foes, peraps based to look larger (eg, people bulking out slimmer figures). I for instance try to make my Dark Elves look horrifying, and the Cold One Knights have tropgy racks and look like nobles out hunting humans. This is partly because it fits the fluff, but I have considered if it might have an effects to make a unit deceptively large looking and scary, or conversely, more understated and vulnerable than it really is.

So Dakka, what do you think?

-Mortis- wrote:Namely, can you, and do you seek to, unerve your opponent with the modelling and painting of a figure?

Doesn't work. They're still inch-high little manz. I'm certainly going to admire the better painting job, but I know it does nothing to effect the abilities I read on pages X, Y, and B of their codex.

Wye-aye man, welcome to the forums!

A very interesting premise. Certainly a well painted army would indicate a greater interest in the hobby and prehaps even a greater attention to detail? I too am returning to 40k and don't have any games under my (XL!) belt.

I think that it would depend more on what sort of person you are rather than the quality of you oppenants paint job. Badly paraphrasing Zun Tsu - "If you are weak then feign strength, if you are strong then feign weakness" Would there be an advantage to a skilled player luring an opponent in to a false sense of security with a base colour only army? (to whomever now posts the correct quote - then NUTS, I mean thank you!) If you think like that you may just be over thinking the game.

Additionally would you gain heart from seeing you face the pimply kid or shudder at the grim faced Vet (fat old bloke)?

As I say interesting, not sure I have the experienece to answer, but I'm sure a frothing Tourney player will chip soon.

EDIT - proof read you fool!

I've always subscribed to the tennet of shooting my opponents best painted unit/figure in a closed list game. So you'd get me.

However, WH and 40K most lists are open so it is a moot point.

notprop wrote:I think that it would depend more on what sort of person you are rather than the quality of you oppenants paint job. Badly paraphrasing Zun Tsu - "If you are weak then feign strength, if you are strong then feign weakness" Would there be an advantage to a skilled player luring an opponent in to a false sense of security with a base colour only army? (to whomever now posts the correct quote - then NUTS, I mean thank you!) If you think like that you may just be over thinking the game.

I think so. It would also mean you have to be foolish enough to conflate tactical skill with painting skill. I know people who paint, but don't play. Despite almost lifelike paintjobs on their best work, they couldn't tell a troop choice from a tyranid monstrous creature. I know people who play, but don't paint. They have no patience or skill for it, so if he's feeling ambitious, one day you might see him paint an army basecoated black, rather than styrene grey and pewter metallic, but he's got fifteen years of tabletop commanding under his belt, and you'd better bring your a-game to the table, or you're getting your butt kicked.

Skill in painting does not correlate to skill in playing.

Exactly why i painted this army:

My god - that army is insane...

Although I didnt mention painting skill, theres also the question of id you were to paint one unit to a great standard, but made them look underpowered and with neutral colours, and paint another identical codex entry, with larger guns, bulked up bases, blood and gore and skulls, and also angry heads... to the same great standard... Would one seem more threatening on the table top than another, and would this be a tactic people use on those players that can't see things entirely objectively?

I know that in my games against my son, he always goes for my painted units over my unpainted units. Then again, he makes his lists based on what units he thinks looks the coolest. Only an inexperienced player - and an impulsive one at that - would make that mistake to be honest, but he's only 12 and plays 40K because it's something we can do together that we both enjoy.

I would never attribute such an attitude to a more experienced and mature player, however.

-Mortis- wrote:My god - that army is insane...

Although I didnt mention painting skill, theres also the question of id you were to paint one unit to a great standard, but made them look underpowered and with neutral colours, and paint another identical codex entry, with larger guns, bulked up bases, blood and gore and skulls, and also angry heads... to the same great standard... Would one seem more threatening on the table top than another, and would this be a tactic people use on those players that can't see things entirely objectively?

It might work on younger players who are really into the whole thud and blunder look of the game.

A player like me sees not a model or a unit, but a collection of combat stats, rather like Lord Hamster in Erfworld when he puts on his 3D glasses.

I like nicely painted figures, I just don't assign them superior combat ability.

jgemrich wrote:I've always subscribed to the tennet of shooting my opponents best painted unit/figure in a closed list game. So you'd get me.

However, WH and 40K most lists are open so it is a moot point.

Yh but people(me) dont constantly check their opponents lists and have TERRIBLE memorys, as far as I'm concerned if a carnifex is ripping up a rhino on its base, it's deadly, even if it's actually naked, and its tooled up mate is walking right past a devastator squad.