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.

I think my CSM are pretty good.

I actually would say tabletop standard, some models a little better.

I'd considder it table top standard - though some might disagree

I think "above average" is still below tabletop since such a vast number of people are below tabletop.

Random Carnifex from my nid army was a finalist (cut of 5) in GD Atlanta. That same army has won more over 2.5k worth of prize support =))

TT with a few choice pieces looking signifigantly better. i paint to play, i paint for the table.

I'd go with tabletop standard with anything that holds my interest long enough maybe dragging itself higher (few lucky miniatures seem to do this though). Though my interpretation of TT is "Things I would use in a game without potential embarrassment" so its more a personal standard.

I went table top standard, I was going to go for the option before but I've recently seen alot of stuff that isn't good and generally think i'm a little harsh on my own stuff as there are alot of really good painters in my group.

I'm not going to win any awards but from a couple of feet away my army don't look that bad and there are some bits ain't too bad closer than arms length but that probably more fluke than skill.

I chose tabletop standard, I like to play and I'll only play if it's painted so I tend to paint as fast as I can (with as many shortcuts as possible) whilst still producing a reasonable end result.

I choose Tabletop Standard. It's all neatly block painted and dipped with a bit of drybrushing where necessary.

I could have just as easily picked "better that average" as I've gotten pretty good with my chosen techiques and considering how many grey hordes there are around these parts, it's certainly better painted than 60% of the armies I've seen.

Hmm, I wish I could change my vote... Awhh well, no biggy.

Finished army is an odd concept. I did "finish" commission army jobs, as in did what I was asked to do.

Not sure if that counts...

It much depends on what you want to do as a hobby. Me, I like building, painting less so, and playing only occassionally.

If, like me, you're happiest going through a pile of bits to make a few "unique" figures, then paint them carefully because they're one-offs, it's win win.

If I get a job lot, like the warzone 80 figures for 20 quid, they get made production line style and painted accordingly; good enough on a tabletop from viewing 3 feet away, but hardly going to win any prizes.

And so to playing: if you've spent days detail painting your HQ or Veterans, do you really want them being covered in grubby fingerprints, dropped, knocked over by tumbling dice etc?

You pays your money, and make your choice...

I like my armies to be painted to a standard so when they're down on the table the whole army overall looks good, but if you look at individuals they're really not anything special.

At least they're all painted

I'd say better than average, most of the people at my FLGS classify my models as great. Having seen some great models though, I know I have yet a lot to learn in order to get there. Still, people come to me from time to time and ask me to paint a general or lord, and since I like painting whatever I can get my hands on, I usually go for it when I have the time.

My Tyranids are a work in progress, so I had to choose "Not even painted". Still need to get a wash or two and some higher quality detail brushes before I can be happy with the standard they're at now.

Ok... so Who put in Golden Daemon?

Pics or it didn't happen

Lol.

well, the models I do paint always look good IMO but it takes me too long to paint models (cos I just get board and wander off half the time XD) hence why I'm painting a draigo wing at 1500pts. 16 pallys, draigo and a libby shouldnt be too hard to paint...right :3

"tabletop standard".

I.E. You can tell what it is from 3' away.

I can't paint to GD standards and am not interested in learning - I can't SEE the fine details from arm's length or beyond, so they are more or less irrelevant to me.

I would say low end table top quality. I don't bother with shading or highlighting.

With my Lizardmen, you can just see my Battle Reports... "Unpainted"

Rented Tritium wrote:I think "above average" is still below tabletop since such a vast number of people are below tabletop.

Not sure what this is supposed to mean, in honesty. The statement seems to use words I recognize, but not in any recognizable way. Like Belgium.

As for the poll, 'garbage' all the way. My artistic talent is a disgrace to the hard work put in by the modelers of the models. I figure sooner or later I might reach up to tabletop standard. ... ... by the average person's definition, if not by Rented Tritium's.

I'd say better than tabletop: http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/424698.page