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.

At least they are painted. Not everyone is a nerd with a bunch of time to burn.

Didn't we already have a thread about this last week?

The Grundel wrote:At least they are painted. Not everyone is a nerd with a bunch of time to burn.

So fully hand painting, shading, and highlighting makes one a nerd? At the end of the day all of us are grown men playing with toy soldiers.

I view dipping and using washes as simply a STAGE of painting, not a finished product.

So as far as judging the quality of paint job, I view the models as incomplete. That being said, I'd rather play against dipped armies than bare plastics any day.

Dipped is A-ok!

Fifty wrote:Didn't we already have a thread about this last week?

Pretty sure there's an ongoing one.

Dipping is the rage at my FLGS, they swear by it and probably eat it as well.

Where I grew up "dipping" was taking chewing tobacco and placing it in your mouth. Please don't tell me that "dipped" in this case means that the person literally just stuck his figure in a blob of paint and considers it finished. If so how is that different from just spray painting the figures (which most people seem to feel isn't a painted model)?

Dipping is putting a basecoat and a dry-brush onto a model and then dipping it in varnish.

To answer the OP's question: You shouldn't care.

I see no problem with it. Anything is better than bare metal and plastic.

Dipping is a method where you paint only bold basic colors with no highlights on them. So picture a flat blue space marine, with only single colors on it for the gold, eyes and bolter.

The model is then "dipped" into wood stain which shades the model in a uniform color and application. Alot of mass production toys use the same concept to show details in scuplts.

The format is generally used by those who:
1: don't know how to shade or highlight by hand
2: those who don't have time to paint up their army by hand
3: those who think it looks "good" as a completed model.

Like I said before, to me, it is merely a step in a normal paintjob on certain models. I would still follow up with highlighting on a model that had been "dipped".


Automatically Appended Next Post:
here is a "dipped model. Base colors painted on, then washed with a home made soft body black wash. I don't consider this model to be "done" at all, but it is tabletop at least.

pssst...everyone on this forum, and in your LGS is a nerd. You should probably come up with a different "insult".

That Dwarf looks fine to me, other than needing to be based.

Monster Rain wrote:That Dwarf looks fine to me, other than needing to be based.

To me it looks" adequate". Having spent 10 years on learning how to paint, and spending as much money as I have over those 10 years, I don't want to have mediocre models on the table.

Dipping has it's place, and for beginners or those who are speed painting new armies for tournies and stuff, I completely accept it as a valid technique to get tabletop quality.

I just prefer to have models that when you pick up any random model, it looks decent up close as well. My high elves swordmaster champion is more or less the level of detail I prefer on every single model I paint.

The Grundel wrote:At least they are painted. Not everyone is a nerd with a bunch of time to burn.

i have zero problem with dipped models but i would suggest that you take the time you apparently devote to trolling/namecalling on forums and use it to paint your models before you dip them. problem/drama solved.

warboss wrote:

The Grundel wrote:At least they are painted. Not everyone is a nerd with a bunch of time to burn.

i have zero problem with dipped models but i would suggest that you take the time you apparently devote to trolling/namecalling on forums and use it to paint your models before you dip them. problem/drama solved.

well played sir

Dipping, rolling, or whatever it shouldn't matter. It's your stuff and you can do with it as you please.

Wait, what are we talking about?

For us mediocre painters, dipping prevents burn out. I hate painting units, just freaking hate them. Solos, 'jacks, and 'casters are fun and get a lot of time and effort. But grunts? Screw em. They're on the table for a turn then things get awesome.

Doin' dat dip! Dip crew 4 lyfe.

I have no problem with dipping. First, I don't see any difference between a 'dip' and a heavy wash of Badab Black or Devlan Mud. Same principle.

I'm not a beginner at all, but I don't have a huge amount of time to spend on painting my armies, and I don't really enjoy painting. What i DO enjoy is the look of a coherent force on the table. For this reason, my mission is to get the whole army up to a tabletop standard so that it looks good as a whole on the table. For some armies, dipping or washing may be one stage of painting, for some others, a full wash is the final thing I do. It depends entirely on the army.

I don't agree that every model HAS to be painted to an incredible standard of detail otherwise it's 'unfinished'. You choose what your level of 'finish' is. That's very similar to saying 'if the insides of your vehicles aren't painted, they aren't finished', which I also consider a bit ridiculous...

I never said my standard of finished applies to everyone else.

Although I do paint inside vehicles...

For me, painting is the biggest part of the hobby, so I don't mind spend endless hours doing it.

The Grundel wrote:At least they are painted. Not everyone is a nerd with a bunch of time to burn.

Thanks for being high and mighty. You are truly a king amongst warhams. By being in this hobby you're by definition a nerd with time to burn; it's kind of a requirement.

I don't care if folks dip their models. Better than hordes of grey plastic or whatever. I don't think dipped models ever look as good as the real deal, but for people who aren't very good painters (or who want to paint a lot in a short amount of time) it seems useful. I did a fairly similar thing with my speedpainted orks where I washed almost the entire model Devlan Mud. Just a nice timesaver if you don't need your figures to look extra good.

Meh.

To be honest I really don't see that big of difference between the "dipped" dwarf and the "finished" high elf at a glance, and I certainly wouldn't notice on the table top. I think they both look pretty damned good. The only glaring problem I see with either of them is that they aren't based.

I always do basing at the end of an army after everything is painted.

Hopefully though I'll have the swordmaster unit done and based by today.

Ive dipped my entire skaven army, and its received universally high remarks.. People dont even know its "dipped"

From what ive gathered, people who complain about dipping dont like that the other person has a similar paintjob to their "hand painted" for 15% of the time

Its really absurd, since I fully paint the model.. Its just dipping is a style of shading



Again, its a style of shading not painting.. You gotta fully paint the model first

There is a poll on it in the Polls forum.

And yes, dipping is purely a style of shading.

A lot of dipping looks very effective. The tyranid article is great, though they come out a bit shiny what with all the gloss. A coat of dull coat and they probably look grand.

Kilkrazy wrote:There is a poll on it in the Polls forum.

And yes, dipping is purely a style of shading.

Then let me rephrase my OPINION:

Shaded models are not complete. For my style of painting there is priming, base coating, shading, and highlighting then details.

Nothing wrong with it for others, just not my preference, nor would I teach someone to paint using it as a method of finishing.

Again, this is all opinion, feel free to have your own, just know that it's wrong

I don't think the dwarf above looks unfinished at all.

ArbitorIan wrote:I have no problem with dipping. First, I don't see any difference between a 'dip' and a heavy wash of Badab Black or Devlan Mud. Same principle...

I'm not a beginner at all, but I don't have a huge amount of time to spend on painting my armies, and I don't really enjoy painting. What i DO enjoy is the look of a coherent force on the table. ...

I don't agree that every model HAS to be painted to an incredible standard of detail otherwise it's 'unfinished'....

This sums up exactly what I think. Dipping is just another way of preparing armies for the field. I don't enjoy painting all that much, but I want to have a good looking army. I carefully paint all my base and detail colors and yet after I dip them they look many times better than without the dip. It's true that dipping does not produce as fine a result as carefully layered washes, shades and hightlights. However there are many folks who like the fact that a well applied dip, on top of well chosen (brighter than normal colors) can aproximate some of the results of a wash, shade and highlight.

Brother SRM wrote: I don't think dipped models ever look as good as the real deal

I've not encountered anti dipping feelings in real life with my dipped guardsmen , but I've heard it online quite a few times. I realize that everyone has their own standards, but "unfinshed" "real deal" , etc. do rub me the wrong way.

Don't get me wrong, I would never tell someone that their army was crap because they dipped.

I get that not everyone enjoys painting, or they don't have the time or skill for it. To them I say: Dip Away!

I myself view every model that I paint as a chance to improve, so I see no reason in trying to make this model exactly the same as the last one.

Eilif wrote:

Brother SRM wrote: I don't think dipped models ever look as good as the real deal

I've not encountered anti dipping feelings in real life with my dipped guardsmen , but I've heard it online quite a few times. I realize that everyone has their own standards, but "unfinshed" "real deal" , etc. do rub me the wrong way.

I mean as a means to paint the entire model; I've seen a few dipped armies in my time where most of the work was done with the dipping technique. It's a tool, and like any tool it can be abused and overused.

What is finnished ?
dose it realy mater ?
everyone gets somthing differnt out of the hobby so as long as they are happy with there models i dont htink it has anything to do with others ?
its not as if theres a rules saying that all models have to be pro painted useing only the alowed colurs and styles brfore there let out of the house ..

So we are agreed. There is no reason to care if someone dipped their models.