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 prefer facing un-assembled armies. Just show me your list and we can roll off. Whoever rolls higher wins the game.

See how much less effort that took? Now you have more time for your extreme life that leaves no time for painting.

 Dannyevilguy wrote:
Just show me your list and we can roll off. Whoever rolls higher wins the game.

Just as GW intended

I see why people dislike facing "unfinished" armies and i understand why, but generally there is a reason why. Not everybody is an artist. What i do have a problem with is when someone who is a great painter says things like "seriously learn to paint better" or "put effort into your army" among other things. At the end of the day not everyone can or wants to paint their army. I pay people to paint my army because i hate painting, its a chore, the only barrier i have with this hobby. But i have friends who suck at painting but try and when they go to tournaments get punished (points wise) and ridiculed about it (another reason i stay away from tournaments), and i see why they just give up painting.

If your good at singing you dont ridicule or put down those that cant, because not everyone can sing well. Same for painting.

I for one hate painting and find absolutely no joy in it, even when i see my finished product. I try make myself do it however it never works out. But i have the money to get it painted, a lot of people don't. I see no reason to get upset about it nor should anyone tell you how to enjoy your hobby.

The only exception is if there was a showcased tournament with lots of publicity, then by all means expect painted armies, but that's about it really.

 DeathReaper wrote:
Seriously, it seems that people who do not put time into painting think that others with such time should feel bad for being proud of their army and making the non painted armies look like garbage just because they are not painted.

That seems very elitist and neckbeardy to me... Thoughts?

Trolls gotta troll. What better way to get people's hackles up than to make a thread saying, 'What's with you neckbeards going and painting your army?'

Note that the last time we had this thread about a week ago, we also had the op claiming that this was something people got 'mad' about, just for a little extra taking the piss on top.

 Swastakowey wrote:
What i do have a problem with is when someone who is a great painter says things like "seriously learn to paint better" or "put effort into your army" among other things.

Sorry, but now that colored primer and washes exist anyone can paint an army to a basic standard. Spray your base color, paint the major details (skin, silver guns, etc) and then cover the whole thing in black wash. Unless you have some kind of disability that prevents you from using a paintbrush painting your army is a matter of effort, not skill.

(And of course if you're willing to invest a bit more effort there are basic techniques like drybrushing that can go beyond the bare minimum without needing any real art talent.)

But i have friends who suck at painting but try and when they go to tournaments get punished (points wise) and ridiculed about it (another reason i stay away from tournaments), and i see why they just give up painting.

Including painting scores in a tournament is legitimate. Some people feel that tournaments should be about more than just how many games you win and reward all aspects of the hobby. Fortunately there are plenty of tournaments that don't have painting scores.

Obviously that doesn't justify ridicule though. If an army deserves low painting scores then it should get low painting scores, but you don't need to be TFG about it.

If your good at singing you dont ridicule or put down those that cant, because not everyone can sing well. Same for painting.

The difference is that this is a hobby that involves painting. The better comparison would be like being terrible at singing but going to a weekly singing group and complaining when you're expected to sing.

What if your amazing performer but a terrible singer? Why cant you be on the same stage as the singer and both have fun?

 Swastakowey wrote:
What if your amazing performer but a terrible singer? Why cant you be on the same stage as the singer and both have fun?

Because that's not what singing is about. You're doing the equivalent of asking "why can't I have dry water" and then insisting it's ok to have sand.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Swastakowey wrote:
What if your amazing performer but a terrible singer? Why cant you be on the same stage as the singer and both have fun?

Because that's not what singing is about. You're doing the equivalent of asking "why can't I have dry water" and then insisting it's ok to have sand.

Ummm singing and performing are not opposites....

 Swastakowey wrote:
Ummm singing and performing are not opposites....

But I specified joining a singing group. You can't just change the example so it allows the outcome you want.

But war gaming isnt a painting group.

 Peregrine wrote:
This, of course, is how it's being used in this thread: as an attempt to dismiss anyone who doesn't agree with the OP's personal opinion and preemptively kill any counter-argument. Which is why this thread will probably be locked soon.

This, very much this. When you start your premise with a pejorative it really betrays the pretense of a reasonable discussion.

 Swastakowey wrote:
But war gaming isnt a painting group.

Painting is part of the hobby, despite the best efforts of certain people to try to remove it.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Swastakowey wrote:
But war gaming isnt a painting group.

Painting is part of the hobby, despite the best efforts of certain people to try to remove it.

Why is it ok for people to paint models without playing but not the other way round? They are both options to take up as to what you fancy. Some people like painting and hate playing, thats fine. Some people love playing and hate painting, thats fine. Some people hate both, thats fine. Some people love both, thats fine. I mean spending the money, taking the time to play and learning the rules is effort enough in my opinion. But i for one will not spend hours upon hours for months painting models, especially as i feel i cant paint to a great standard. But im a good player. I do sympathize with those who prefer to look at painted armies thats why i pay to get mine done) but i see no reason to be upset about facing an unpainted army.

Painting as an aesthetic, they have nothing to do with functionality therefore are not necessary. Its an extra, an optional part of the hobby.

 Swastakowey wrote:
Why is it ok for people to paint models without playing but not the other way round?

Because painting but not playing is something you do by yourself. Playing inherently requires at least one other person to play with you, and it's reasonable for that other person to want to have two painted armies.

But i for one will not spend hours upon hours for months painting models, especially as i feel i cant paint to a great standard.

It doesn't take that much time. Spray, detail a bit, black wash, done. You could probably have painted a unit in the time you've spent posting about how much you dislike painting.

Painting as an aesthetic, they have nothing to do with functionality therefore are not necessary. Its an extra, an optional part of the hobby.

Only if you consider the gameplay alone to be sufficient. Which is a pretty bad way of looking at it. The rules of 40k are absolute garbage, and the game only has value because of how the fluff and models allow you to imagine the "real" action represented by the models on the table. If you take away those parts and just have two ugly gray "armies" and some dice you're left with a pretty sad hobby. And honestly, at that point why even bother with models at all? Why not just play with cardboard tokens instead of having to spend time and money on models you're just going to ruin anyway?

 Peregrine wrote:

 Swastakowey wrote:


Only if you consider the gameplay alone to be sufficient. Which is a pretty bad way of looking at it. The rules of 40k are absolute garbage, and the game only has value because of how the fluff and models allow you to imagine the "real" action represented by the models on the table. If you take away those parts and just have two ugly gray "armies" and some dice you're left with a pretty sad hobby. And honestly, at that point why even bother with models at all? Why not just play with cardboard tokens instead of having to spend time and money on models you're just going to ruin anyway?

I do, because i enjoy playing with people. Paint or no paint. I dont find the rules garbage as i dont abuse its loops and combos. I have played with bases and tokens before when i was at 16 and had little cash. And as i said if painting is gonna ruin the model why bother painting? Better to have a clean gray model than have a ruined messed up colored army. And as i said i hate painting, why would i waste my time doing it? and im not happy with minimal effort painting. Why paint to a minimal standard? What a waste of time. When i paint i use a tonne colours for a basic troop and spend a lot of time on it, but id rather go work than paint. and im sure there are lots of people who feel the same way.

Having painted armies does not effect the outcome of the game, nor does it effect the goal or anything. It just makes it sometimes look nicer. Its not important nor is it necessary. Its a personal preference and personal preferences should never be forced upon others nor should you be offended by someones personal preference.

hmmm done something wrong here...

Painted armies are a joy. I like to imagine the two In real time and immserse myself in the game, but grey armies do not allow me to do that.

I'd like to know where you can find these paint obsessed neckbeards, because I don't know anyone of the sort.

May I add to the OP that this topic has been done before, and recently, so technically you're breaking one of Dakka's rules about multiple topic posts. Not that it matters - anyone who truly thinks that painted armies and grey armies have no differences between them, and who ignorantly cut out one of the best factors of the entire 40K hobby, clearly haven't thought out their argument properly.

G.A

General Annoyance wrote:
I'd like to know where you can find these paint obsessed neckbeards, because I don't know anyone of the sort.

May I add to the OP that this topic has been done before, and recently, so technically you're breaking one of Dakka's rules about multiple topic posts. Not that it matters - anyone who truly thinks that painted armies and grey armies have no differences between them, and who ignorantly cut out one of the best factors of the entire 40K hobby, clearly haven't thought out their argument properly.

G.A

What is it? Overpriced models, forgeworld, painted models, and some declaration of OPness of some unit? I think it is required of dakkadakka to oh yeah and something about CC. Anyways, I think it is required we have these quite frequently if not dakkadakka will implode upon itself. Anyways, yeah, there are some jerks that will rage and rage to no end if you have grey armies... that being said, that focuses upon the minority and the fact that you state neckbeards ruins any argument from the get go. Hhhhhhhhhow do we know that these people didn't just state they preferred fighting painted armies and then an individual conflated it to such a point.

Onto your post... psssht it might be in the trinity of the aspects of the hobby, but I wouldn't call it an objectively best factor of it in the slightest (I'm tired of painting my 50000thguardsman/marine/csm/pinkhorror

 StarTrotter wrote:

General Annoyance wrote:
I'd like to know where you can find these paint obsessed neckbeards, because I don't know anyone of the sort.

May I add to the OP that this topic has been done before, and recently, so technically you're breaking one of Dakka's rules about multiple topic posts. Not that it matters - anyone who truly thinks that painted armies and grey armies have no differences between them, and who ignorantly cut out one of the best factors of the entire 40K hobby, clearly haven't thought out their argument properly.

G.A

What is it? Overpriced models, forgeworld, painted models, and some declaration of OPness of some unit? I think it is required of dakkadakka to oh yeah and something about CC. Anyways, I think it is required we have these quite frequently if not dakkadakka will implode upon itself. Anyways, yeah, there are some jerks that will rage and rage to no end if you have grey armies... that being said, that focuses upon the minority and the fact that you state neckbeards ruins any argument from the get go. Hhhhhhhhhow do we know that these people didn't just state they preferred fighting painted armies and then an individual conflated it to such a point.

Onto your post... psssht it might be in the trinity of the aspects of the hobby, but I wouldn't call it an objectively best factor of it in the slightest (I'm tired of painting my 50000thguardsman/marine/csm/pinkhorror

I think you are missing my point here...

I simply state Neckbeards as the OP did - I've never seen anyone who rages about grey armies as the OP described.

"one of the best factors" - not the best. . Naturally people will have their views on the best part of the hobby, but 40k I believe was primarily designed for fluff and collecting first, and any wargame later. I'm no expert on other wargames, but from what I've heard, other wargames have better or more balanced rules compared to 40k. If people are going to complain about "neckbeards" complaining about one of the most important factors of the 40k universe - fluff, and how that ties in with the game and your army - and who are mainly into the hobby because of the game, then they should go elsewhere. There are better games out there that will suit such people, with better rules and sometimes pre painted models too. They certainly don't have the right to declaim anyone who puts a point across about how important the background of 40k is, and how your army should tie in with that.

In short, if you can't be bothered to paint yourself (or hire a commissioner (lets face it, if you have enough money for 40k you have enough for some commission work )) then go somewhere else. 40k is primarily a narrative wargame setting, designed for fun over competition. There are other wargames that bring on a more balanced competition.

G.A

 Gitsmasher wrote:
I don't mind an unpainted army. But what really grinds my gears are those people who use scratch builds. I find it down right insulting when a person is too cheap to buy a rhino, or drop pod, and use card board to make one.

Don't get me started on scratch built apoc units that have actual models.....

You know GW used to offer ways of Scratchbuilding right in their old books right? Many of which included how to build cardboard models.

 Gitsmasher wrote:
I don't mind an unpainted army. But what really grinds my gears are those people who use scratch builds. I find it down right insulting when a person is too cheap to buy a rhino, or drop pod, and use card board to make one.

Don't get me started on scratch built apoc units that have actual models.....

There is nothing wrong with scratch builds as long as they follow the rule of cool. I miss the days when GW games were for hobbyists, with tutorials for scratch builds in the rule book and white dwarf.

Didn't we just have this thread?

I play against painted and unpainted aswell as half painted armies, mine are all painted except for those that are primed and have had a few bits of work done to them but are only like 20% because i havent had time to finish them. My painting level is high table top standard, but my ocd is what makes me want to play painted armies, thats the reason i feel like armies must be painted, but honestly it depends on the person. If they dont play tournaments or nothing just friendly games then i cant see the problem if they dont paint there stuff, though id rather play a pried army than a plastic one.

Well this is something that annoys the peepee out of me, so just going to throw my oar in.
I don't paint my army because I don't enjoy painting. I'm no good at painting and don't really feel the desire to spend time and money learning.

I do enjoy seeing well painted models but I've always thought that an unpainted model looks better than a badly painted model, so why ruin my models by painting them badly?

Most of all though it comes to what people want to get out of the hobby. Some people like the painting aspect and never play a game and people have no problem with this and others, such as myself, prefer them gaming aspect. So why do we get discriminated against?

Is it because they is gray?

Az

Psychology, yay!

People attach there self-worth to their accomplishments (the degree to which a certain accomplishment affects your self-worth of course varies). Or in other words, people are proud of having painted their army.

People who have put a lot of effort into painting their army of course see this as a big accomplishment. Now if someone goes and doesn't put any effort into painting his army because "he doesn't think it's important", this diminishes the accomplishment, lowers the self-worth, and is thus seen as a attack against the painter.

Vice-versa, someone who hasn't painted his army, and now faces a situation where this is seen as a lack of accomplishment, is also attacked in his self-worth.


That's why both sides of this argument will keep bickering forever.

Starting threads like this serves the sole purpose of reinforcing your own self-worth by "counting" how many people agree with you and have no constructive value.

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

 Gitsmasher wrote:
I don't mind an unpainted army. But what really grinds my gears are those people who use scratch builds. I find it down right insulting when a person is too cheap to buy a rhino, or drop pod, and use card board to make one.

Don't get me started on scratch built apoc units that have actual models.....

You know GW used to offer ways of Scratchbuilding right in their old books right? Many of which included how to build cardboard models.

So it's bad to show up with unpainted models that are genuine, but its perfectly fine to show up with fake knock offs? Like I said its insulting to those of us who care enough to buy the models. It cheapens the hobby literally! As for gw giving tutorials on how to scratch build, let's just leave that in the past. Fake models take away from the spirit of the game. I like knowing the person I front of me takes the hobby serious enough to plunk down the cash to buy the models. Even if they are unpainted at least the person has enough respect for his opponent to have the correct models.

Last apoc game I was in this guy shows up with a fake scratch built thunderhawk, it was a complete insult to the players that had REAL thunderhawks! If you don't want to afford the real deal then you don't deserve one.

Terrain on the other hand is great! As gw doesn't make very appealing, practical, or functional terrain.

I get around an hour per day of painting time in.
However, if im assembling something, that time is lost.

So when i start a new army, i usually spend 2 weeks cleaning it all up and assembling it, then a further week with converting.

So i do have a grey army for quite a while.
3 Weeks before i can put a brush to anything, then an hour per night (2 on weekends if im lucky) to get it painted.

I dont see why i should rush paint jobs for people to keep them happy when its an army ive paid for and im painting.
I rather slowly paint my army to a much higher standard than rush it so i have a finished, yet scruffy looking army.


Edit:

Last apoc game I was in this guy shows up with a fake scratch built thunderhawk, it was a complete insult to the players that had REAL thunderhawks! If you don't want to afford the real deal then you don't deserve one.

Please tell me your actually talking about a very quick and rough looking Thawk.
Because alot of scratch built ones still run £100 or so in materials.
And thats the easy part, its the months people spend building them thats the hard bit and actually shows more dedication than buying one from the store.

 Aben Zin wrote:
I do enjoy seeing well painted models but I've always thought that an unpainted model looks better than a badly painted model, so why ruin my models by painting them badly?

This doesn't make any sense. Unless you're a small child you are capable of painting a model at a basic standard. A simple base coat + wash method requires no artistic skill at all beyond "don't put the brush on the wrong spot" and "don't blob on paint so thick that you can't see any detail anymore". Anyone can do that with a little practice, and the result will look much better than bare plastic.

So why do we get discriminated against?

Because unpainted armies look incredibly ugly, and many people would rather go do something else than play against an opponent who won't invest even a minimal amount of effort in doing their part to provide the full gaming experience.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Jackal wrote:
I dont see why i should rush paint jobs for people to keep them happy when its an army ive paid for and im painting.
I rather slowly paint my army to a much higher standard than rush it so i have a finished, yet scruffy looking army.

Most people who insist on playing against painted armies are willing to tolerate some unpainted models as long as you're making a legitimate effort to get them painted. There's a big difference between painting slowly because your painting methods take a lot of time and not painting at all because you just don't care enough.

Please tell me your actually talking about a very quick and rough looking Thawk.

Probably. The vast majority of Apocalypse "scratchbuilds" are absolute garbage made by people who just want to get the biggest guns on the table as quickly and cheaply as possible.

 Peregrine wrote:

This doesn't make any sense. Unless you're a small child you are capable of painting a model at a basic standard. A simple base coat + wash method requires no artistic skill at all beyond "don't put the brush on the wrong spot" and "don't blob on paint so thick that you can't see any detail anymore". Anyone can do that with a little practice, and the result will look much better than bare plastic.s possible.

Or, purely for an example, you could be dyspraxic. And still prefer an unpainted model where you can see all the detail to a model ruined by bad colour scheme and messily applied paints.
Or I could prefer to spend my time and money on something I do actually enjoy. Like blackjack. And hookers.
Or I could just be lazy.

 Aben Zin wrote:

Or, purely for an example, you could be dyspraxic. And still prefer an unpainted model where you can see all the detail to a model ruined by bad colour scheme and messily applied paints.
Or I could prefer to spend my time and money on something I do actually enjoy. Like blackjack. And hookers.
Or I could just be lazy.

At least you are honest.