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.

Im half botherd by this question and some of the replies.

1. Of course i prefer playing against painted armys. I myself have 6 fully well painted painted armys.

BUT...

when it comes to new players we have to make exceptions.. i mean cmmon we were all new once.

I'll throw down with any new player who made an attempt to paint his army.. even if his skill is horrible.. he has a vision of his army and will enjoy seeing his force on the table just as much as i do seeing mine. An in the process of playing is how you teach them about techniques...

IMO its not an army unless its painted, its just a mass of plastic and metal, some people think its too much work too even spray a model and use 3 colours.
i wont use an army untill i have it fully painted.

In my opinion painting your army is part of the sportsmanship of the game. You paint your army not only for yourself, but for your opponent. Providing them with a good game is more than just not being a douche bag at the table. If I'm at a tournament and the guy across the table from me has an unpainted army I won't hesitate to take that as a factor in his sportsmanship.

I don't care if it's well painted, but at least try. We can't all be the 'eavy metal team, but if my opponent didn't even try to put painted plastic on the table then I will likely not play a pick up game against them. My paint isn't perfect, it won't win any golden daemons, but it looks nice and I put the effort into providing my opponent with a good game all around, why shouldn't I expect the same from them?

I voted yes. Last week I voted that I play 5th ed, this week that I prefer painted armies. Is next weeks hot button issue "Do you prefer to be kicked in the shin every morning by a heavy set Latvian woman?" If so, put me down for a no.

thats it mack, its the effort that gos into an army, anyone can spend £1,000+ on a great army, but its only great if it looks good, and plain plastic and metal looks like crap.

if by some means i have to fight an unpainted army (had to in ard boyz) i just do my best to table em, not playing nicely

how hard is it to spray an army then paint 3 basic colours on it?
then just add another colour or so every now and then, and after a little while it will look alot better

Well, I personally hate painting, its like torture to me. (im one of those people who cannon sit still enough to paint without it getting everywhere) So about half of my stuff isn't painted though I have had it for over a year. (The other half of my 3000 point dark angels, I play with the painted half) But I really like the look of painted armies. So I end up playing with a lot of unpainted models in larger point games. (also in the area I play in there are a lot just get goingers, so they are often as horribly painted or unpainted as I am)

Though my brother at one point painted his Space Wolves as "Rainbow Marines", all the specialists were different colours. (heavy weapons were wight or grey, flamer was purple or green, and sergeants were red) Absolutely drove me bonkers.

Everyone doesn't like painting, fair enough. (I don't like painting myself, I just like the results.)

That does not (in my opinion) excuse players from fielding naked armies.

My opinion is that printed figures are core to the concept of figure wargames. If a player really cannot find the time/talent/commitment/cash to get a painted army one way or another, perhaps it is the wrong hobby to be in.

Kilkrazy wrote:Everyone doesn't like painting, fair enough. (I don't like painting myself, I just like the results.)

That does not (in my opinion) excuse players from fielding naked armies.

My opinion is that printed figures are core to the concept of figure wargames. If a player really cannot find the time/talent/commitment/cash to get a painted army one way or another, perhaps it is the wrong hobby to be in.

So that's where that can of worms went!

Would you prefer people paid someone else to paint an army for them? Or play with
their own unpainted army?

I know that painting can feel like level grinding in a MMORPG, especially a competitive
MMORPG where the end game doesn't feel anything like the grinding (DAOC comes to
mind). So what do you do with someone who only really enjoys playing?

Can they outsource?

malfred wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:Everyone doesn't like painting, fair enough. (I don't like painting myself, I just like the results.)

That does not (in my opinion) excuse players from fielding naked armies.

My opinion is that printed figures are core to the concept of figure wargames. If a player really cannot find the time/talent/commitment/cash to get a painted army one way or another, perhaps it is the wrong hobby to be in.

So that's where that can of worms went!

Would you prefer people paid someone else to paint an army for them? Or play with
their own unpainted army?

I know that painting can feel like level grinding in a MMORPG, especially a competitive
MMORPG where the end game doesn't feel anything like the grinding (DAOC comes to
mind). So what do you do with someone who only really enjoys playing?

Can they outsource?

Yes, I would prefer people outsource their painting if they don't want to do it or can't do it for some reason.

This isn't a religion. There's no karma to be gained by only using figures you painted yourself.

If there are players who only enjoy playing and *refuse* to get painted figures, I would say perhaps AT43, or boardgames, is a better hobby.

I'll enjoy painting more when the players who paint up their armies spend some time learning the rules.

I freakin' HATE painted armies. I love seeing a field of all black primered guys, so you can't tell the difference. Even better if they haven't been fully assembled: "the guys with the heads are tac. marines, while the guys with the arms..."

Seriously, though, while I've fielded unpainted (or at least unfinished) armies in the past, I hate it, and I really don't enjoy playing against unpainted armies. Especially when you're talking about skirmish games (Warmachine, Hordes). It's 40 figs, tops. Paint your damn army.

I'm 22 models away from being fully painted in all my armies for Warmachine and Hordes (4 Uhlans, 4 MOWST, Sam Horne and the Devil Dogs, Khador Doomreavers), and since I won't field unpainted models anyway, it's almost moot. It's nice to have a fully painted army on the table. Even if it does lose to the army with no arms.

I like painted armies. I'm not fond of painting armies though.

Malf: Yea, I don't know if I would do an entire army like that, but perhaps a 5-10 man retinue would be fun. I have always loved working in charcoal for projects..


As to who paints it, I don't really care. I have been tempted to pay the girl at our FLGS to paint up a pile of orks for me, mainly because she does a great job and I don't have the patience for that many. In and ideal world I could chat with my opponants about their painting style and technique while we play, but I am just as happy saying "Wow, those look great!" and having them reply "Yea, so and so painted them for me, and I am really happy!" If nothing else it supports people who paint for a living, and thus advance the art of painting over all.

Just answering the question on its face, yes. Painted models have character and style, and it is much more involving to see painted models coming into contact with each other than when the only colors are pewter, grey, and black. There's a much better sense of 'that's MY captain, that's HIS warboss, and don't they both look badass about to go bare knuckles on each other.' There's just no way to argue against that having painted figures on the table just looks better.

I'm more than willing to forgive people who want to play unfinished minis - I'm a very slow painter of mediocre talent, but I'm determined that sooner or later, even if it's at a snail's pace, the army I'm fielding will be fully painted. It's why I've used Painted Figs several times (I have them working on about 50 Soritas right now). On average, I can complete one infantry model to a standard I find acceptable (here's an example) a day, and in the middle of working on my Tyranid army, the realization that after a month of hard work, I would have to keep up the same pace, painting the same general scheme for the better part of a year to get it done was enough to break me. Learning that there were guys out there who could tackle that tedium for me, and for a reasonable price match the models I'd painted and give me this is what has kept me from despairing that I like playing armies like IG, WH, and 'nids. It's not like it actually causes me pain to have unpainted minis on the table, but give me to identical opponents, one with a painted army and one without, and there's no doubt who I'll choose every time.