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.

Karol wrote:
also since when spending hours on painting, and a ton of money on paints and brushs is considered a little effort. Basic 5-6 colours plus 2 brushs is more then a box of models for an army.

What the hell are you painting with, Unicorn blood and sasquatch snot?

 Lance845 wrote:
The local GW doesnt want my painted models in the store because i dont use gw paints (and its obvious when my nid shells are a color shift paint) in the same way that restraunts have "no outside food or drink" signs.

IMHO, if you're living in the United States and playing at the local GW, you're kind of a masochist. I can probably count on one hand the positive experiences I've had at GW stores. It's so universally awful for me, I don't even purchase from their stores to go play elsewhere.

I don't know who trains their brick & mortar staff in the US, but I'm almost convinced it's one of GW's competitors. If these guys wrote advice for charming women, I'm pretty sure they'd suggest making armpit noises and talking about your ex.

A Contrast paint is $7.80.
A Shade is also $7.80.
A Layer is $4.55 or $6.10.

A Medium Base Brush is $7.75.
A Small Layer Brush is $7.25.

All prices are US.

If you get two Contrast, one Shade, and two Layers (one of each price) plus the brushes, that's $49.05.

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:

Karol wrote:
also since when spending hours on painting, and a ton of money on paints and brushs is considered a little effort. Basic 5-6 colours plus 2 brushs is more then a box of models for an army.

What the hell are you painting with, Unicorn blood and sasquatch snot?

 Lance845 wrote:
The local GW doesnt want my painted models in the store because i dont use gw paints (and its obvious when my nid shells are a color shift paint) in the same way that restraunts have "no outside food or drink" signs.

IMHO, if you're living in the United States and playing at the local GW, you're kind of a masochist. I can probably count on one hand the positive experiences I've had at GW stores. It's so universally awful for me, I don't even purchase from their stores to go play elsewhere.

I don't know who trains their brick & mortar staff in the US, but I'm almost convinced it's one of GW's competitors. If these guys wrote advice for charming women, I'm pretty sure they'd suggest making armpit noises and talking about your ex.

I agree. I do not go to or play at gw stores. I have gone in to see what was up and give the individual locations their fair shake. They are all as you describe. Some of the staff i found to be decent enough people shackled by terrible corporate policy. The people who actually go there to play though.... The worst.

 Lance845 wrote:

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:

Karol wrote:
also since when spending hours on painting, and a ton of money on paints and brushs is considered a little effort. Basic 5-6 colours plus 2 brushs is more then a box of models for an army.

What the hell are you painting with, Unicorn blood and sasquatch snot?

 Lance845 wrote:
The local GW doesnt want my painted models in the store because i dont use gw paints (and its obvious when my nid shells are a color shift paint) in the same way that restraunts have "no outside food or drink" signs.

IMHO, if you're living in the United States and playing at the local GW, you're kind of a masochist. I can probably count on one hand the positive experiences I've had at GW stores. It's so universally awful for me, I don't even purchase from their stores to go play elsewhere.

I don't know who trains their brick & mortar staff in the US, but I'm almost convinced it's one of GW's competitors. If these guys wrote advice for charming women, I'm pretty sure they'd suggest making armpit noises and talking about your ex.

I agree. I do not go to or play at gw stores. I have gone in to see what was up and give the individual locations their fair shake. They are all as you describe. Some of the staff i found to be decent enough people shackled by terrible corporate policy. The people who actually go there to play though.... The worst.

my local GW seems fine, and the staff in canada are trained the same place (it's all GW NA) so if it's a people problem, eaither I've been fortunate, you've been unlucky, or it's a.... cultural issue?

 JNAProductions wrote:
I would agree it's pretty reasonable to say that people prefer well-painted models to bare plastic.

That being said, Insectum, do you agree that for people who don't care about painting as much as you do, they're not wrong to play with grey plastic minis?

"Wrong" is both too binary and contextual. It's wrong to play grey plastic at a tourney that requires you to paint your models. It's not wrong to play grey plastic with your brother on the day you get the box. It's not necessarily wrong to play grey plastic at the FLGS where everyone else has painted armies, but it might feel weird.

Imo it's not "wrong" in a broad sense, but I think in the PUG scenario, especially against strangers, a nicely painted army can go a long way. It's a whole gamut. I think of it more as a painted army is a lot of positive, while a grey army is only a slight negative. A poorly painted army with missing parts is more negative. Adding proxies lowers your score even more. A grey army with one squad painted scores higher than just grey, as I can see some effort is going into it. Local metas might care less about presentation, but if I were a travelling gamer I would make my army fully painted and free of proxies for a good impression. That's why I think "etiquette" is a useful word. Etiquette isn't necessary, but it's. . . Respectful?

 Lance845 wrote:
I agree. I do not go to or play at gw stores. I have gone in to see what was up and give the individual locations their fair shake. They are all as you describe. Some of the staff i found to be decent enough people shackled by terrible corporate policy. The people who actually go there to play though.... The worst.

I don't enjoy having merch shoved into my face while I'm trying to play. And this is after I've done the courtesy of making a purchase before I use the table. The one exception to this that I've found is a Warhammer store where the guy asked what I played and then began to rattle off related events the store was having- and sadly this guy no longer works there. He earned my business when his pitch was "this is the fun stuff we do here" and not waving a box at me.

BrianDavion wrote:
my local GW seems fine, and the staff in canada are trained the same place (it's all GW NA) so if it's a people problem, eaither I've been fortunate, you've been unlucky, or it's a.... cultural issue?

It's Tim Horton's.

Plus we all know you Canucks get the trolling out of your system when you mix your stupid moose money in our proper USA coins.

Paint matters in the same way that using miniatures matter, they both add flavor. If you can say that you don't paint for whatever reason then whats stopping you from saying that you just won't use models? I'm just going to play the game with clearly marked tokens because the models add nothing for me, I'm so terrible at building that tokens look better, I can't afford them, etc. If anyone says that models matter then they're forcing opinions on me! You're a jerk if you don't play my tokens.
That's ridiculous, anyone with eyeballs would take one look and immediately know.

 Irkjoe wrote:
Paint matters in the same way that using miniatures matter, they both add flavor. If you can say that you don't paint for whatever reason then whats stopping you from saying that you just won't use models? I'm just going to play the game with clearly marked tokens because the models add nothing for me, I'm so terrible at building that tokens look better, I can't afford them, etc. If anyone says that models matter then they're forcing opinions on me! You're a jerk if you don't play my tokens.
That's ridiculous, anyone with eyeballs would take one look and immediately know.

Know... What? That you're an accommodating fellow who's willing to help teach people even when they can't afford the minis? That you're the kind of person who likes to expand the hobby, and are trying to get someone not at all artistically inclined to join in?

Now, I do like the look of the minis, plus I play at a GW (so I can't play with just markers or tokens) but if someone wanted to play a game of 40k using nothing but tokens, proxies, action figures of the appropriate size, or whatever, I'd be fine with that.

I understand it's a bit silly to play 40k for the game part of it (since it's not a great game by any means) but I have fun with it. If you only have fun with well-painted, fully built minis, that's fine, you do you. But don't insult me for having different standards than you.

Edit: Also, it's easier to build minis than it is to paint them. Boxes of minis from GW include instructions on how to build them. They do NOT include painting instructions-they do include a paint list for the colors you'd need to recreate the box art, but that's pretty insufficient.

 Irkjoe wrote:
Paint matters in the same way that using miniatures matter, they both add flavor. If you can say that you don't paint for whatever reason then whats stopping you from saying that you just won't use models? I'm just going to play the game with clearly marked tokens because the models add nothing for me, I'm so terrible at building that tokens look better, I can't afford them, etc. If anyone says that models matter then they're forcing opinions on me! You're a jerk if you don't play my tokens.
That's ridiculous, anyone with eyeballs would take one look and immediately know.

Another fallacy from Irkjoe. The rules tell you to use the miniatures. They don't tell you to use paint. It's not the same. This argument is dumb.

 Lance845 wrote:

 Irkjoe wrote:
Paint matters in the same way that using miniatures matter, they both add flavor. If you can say that you don't paint for whatever reason then whats stopping you from saying that you just won't use models? I'm just going to play the game with clearly marked tokens because the models add nothing for me, I'm so terrible at building that tokens look better, I can't afford them, etc. If anyone says that models matter then they're forcing opinions on me! You're a jerk if you don't play my tokens.
That's ridiculous, anyone with eyeballs would take one look and immediately know.

Another fallacy from Irkjoe. The rules tell you to use the miniatures. They don't tell you to use paint. It's not the same. This argument is dumb.

Eh, I see his logic. A similarly-sized token wouldn't really have any GAME issues with replacing a model. And I'm sure there's lots of people who don't care about painting that wouldn't play against a token army.

The line is, ultimately, arbitrary, but that doesn't mean it doesn't matter. Some people will have fun just gaming with friendly folk, no matter the pieces. Others won't have fun if they're tokens. Others won't have fun unless the minis are fully painted. And none of them are wrong to have their preferences-they're only wrong if they try to force their preferences on others, or insult/belittle others for having different standards.

 JNAProductions wrote:

 Irkjoe wrote:
Paint matters in the same way that using miniatures matter, they both add flavor. If you can say that you don't paint for whatever reason then whats stopping you from saying that you just won't use models? I'm just going to play the game with clearly marked tokens because the models add nothing for me, I'm so terrible at building that tokens look better, I can't afford them, etc. If anyone says that models matter then they're forcing opinions on me! You're a jerk if you don't play my tokens.
That's ridiculous, anyone with eyeballs would take one look and immediately know.

Know... What? That you're an accommodating fellow who's willing to help teach people even when they can't afford the minis? That you're the kind of person who likes to expand the hobby, and are trying to get someone not at all artistically inclined to join in?

Now, I do like the look of the minis, plus I play at a GW (so I can't play with just markers or tokens) but if someone wanted to play a game of 40k using nothing but tokens, proxies, action figures of the appropriate size, or whatever, I'd be fine with that.

I understand it's a bit silly to play 40k for the game part of it (since it's not a great game by any means) but I have fun with it. If you only have fun with well-painted, fully built minis, that's fine, you do you. But don't insult me for having different standards than you.

Edit: Also, it's easier to build minis than it is to paint them. Boxes of minis from GW include instructions on how to build them. They do NOT include painting instructions-they do include a paint list for the colors you'd need to recreate the box art, but that's pretty insufficient.

I never said anything about openly telling people that they're doing anything wrong in whatever setting we're playing. Discussion here is entirely different than an actual social setting, stating that unpainted miniatures look worse than painted ones is not an insult. You won't paint? it looks bad. Explain to me whats insulting. Is it all the negative implications? That comes from within you, not me because you know that unpainted stuff does look worse.

As for building I'll agree that it's mostly easier, I agonize over things like vehicles when building and find the paint a lot more relaxed but you're right that paint matters to a lesser extent than having actual models. The point was that the same reasons can be applied to basically anything.

Have you... Have you read your posts? Do you not know that you're coming off as incredibly rude?

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:
my local GW seems fine, and the staff in canada are trained the same place (it's all GW NA) so if it's a people problem, eaither I've been fortunate, you've been unlucky, or it's a.... cultural issue?

It's Tim Horton's.

Plus we all know you Canucks get the trolling out of your system when you mix your stupid moose money in our proper USA coins.

well I DOOO find I'm more pleasent for the rest of the day if I start if off with a coffee and doughnut

This is descending into what the paint Vs. Not paint usually does. I give it 2 or 3 more pages before it gets locked.

 Irkjoe wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:

 Irkjoe wrote:
Paint matters in the same way that using miniatures matter, they both add flavor. If you can say that you don't paint for whatever reason then whats stopping you from saying that you just won't use models? I'm just going to play the game with clearly marked tokens because the models add nothing for me, I'm so terrible at building that tokens look better, I can't afford them, etc. If anyone says that models matter then they're forcing opinions on me! You're a jerk if you don't play my tokens.
That's ridiculous, anyone with eyeballs would take one look and immediately know.

Know... What? That you're an accommodating fellow who's willing to help teach people even when they can't afford the minis? That you're the kind of person who likes to expand the hobby, and are trying to get someone not at all artistically inclined to join in?

Now, I do like the look of the minis, plus I play at a GW (so I can't play with just markers or tokens) but if someone wanted to play a game of 40k using nothing but tokens, proxies, action figures of the appropriate size, or whatever, I'd be fine with that.

I understand it's a bit silly to play 40k for the game part of it (since it's not a great game by any means) but I have fun with it. If you only have fun with well-painted, fully built minis, that's fine, you do you. But don't insult me for having different standards than you.

Edit: Also, it's easier to build minis than it is to paint them. Boxes of minis from GW include instructions on how to build them. They do NOT include painting instructions-they do include a paint list for the colors you'd need to recreate the box art, but that's pretty insufficient.

I never said anything about openly telling people that they're doing anything wrong in whatever setting we're playing. Discussion here is entirely different than an actual social setting, stating that unpainted miniatures look worse than painted ones is not an insult. You won't paint? it looks bad. Explain to me whats insulting. Is it all the negative implications? That comes from within you, not me because you know that unpainted stuff does look worse.

As for building I'll agree that it's mostly easier, I agonize over things like vehicles when building and find the paint a lot more relaxed but you're right that paint matters to a lesser extent than having actual models. The point was that the same reasons can be applied to basically anything.

 Irkjoe wrote:
Nothing but excuses to avoid having any standards. Unpainted models look awful, it doesn't matter how you "feel" about the hobby. It also broadcasts to people that you're lazy and might be a bad opponent. The metaphysical waac player in my mind has an unpainted army.

This is you not just talking about whether a paint job looks worse in your opinion, but what unpainted says about the quality of the character of the person who brings it to the table. You called them lazy and probably a bad opponent. You dropped this line after several people pointed out that the opposite is actually true and/or there is no correlation between paint and personality but you did do it and saying now that you didn't when we can just quote you is ridiculous.

I'm surprise it lasted this long...

However I will just say this.

96% of people in this poll have said paint matters to some degree with only 4% saying it does not matter at all.

I think it is therefore safe to infer that the general concensus is that painted armies are the status quo and the "convention" expected of the hobby.

Anectodal story time: My GF who knows nothing about the hobby, nor cares for the most part as her view is: "toy soldiers are a silly waste of time and money and I will never understand this..."
So I show her a photo from my game of me playing VS a bunch of Gray plastic marines.

The response?

"Why is those not painted? You put so much time effort and care into your army! And this guys doesn't even bother to do anything!? Dick move... I wouldn't want to play him"
It is what it is. Own it but don't try to spin a narrative how painting doesn't matter because it does.

nobody cares if you going to play using cuts, out salt shakers and beer cans on your living room carpet (I know I did). Nobody will care if you have no time due to family commitements etc. But lets not pretend there is no convention in the hobby. Everyone has own standard and people do and will judge you every day in and out of war gaming. Welcome to reality of the human condition.

I feel that that's a little misleading.

I could just as easily say only 19% value it more than gaming-I don't think EITHER of those statements accurately reflect general opinion.

Just going off the poll, I'd argue that 0-2/5 are probably all people who do not mind at all if the opponent's army is not painted, and that there's likely plenty of 3/5 people who are similar.

My own anecdote is that virtually no one has a fully painted army, especially not those who play a lot, and yet we've all been having a fun time.

Why are you trying to spin the "Ohh its misleading" narrative?

I'm not picking numbers out of the air or making up narrative Just saying it how it is... Or am I blind and the poll I read are incorrect ?

At no points have I inferred that 96% will refuse playing vs unpainted armies which is what you are trying to shoe horn the post into to fit YOUR narrative...

People are welcome to go against the convention and status quo. As I said nobody really cares what you do with your plastic men at the end of the day. Nobody will break your arm if you do. But pretending there is no convention or status quo and therefore all the various nuances that go along with this fact is a bit.. Illogical?

You seemed to indicate that 96% of the respondents, including the 1/5 and 2/5, would constitute a status quo of painted models.

While the results would, even if just 4/5 and 5/5 people have fully painted armies, still indicate the majority of folk DO paint and have painted armies... That's not 96%.

I'm well aware that the poll indicates most people care about painting, and it's quite possible that a majority of folk here care MORE about painting than gaming. Which I'm a little surprised at, but not bothered by.

 JNAProductions wrote:
You seemed to indicate that 96% of the respondents, including the 1/5 and 2/5, would constitute a status quo of painted models.

While the results would, even if just 4/5 and 5/5 people have fully painted armies, still indicate the majority of folk DO paint and have painted armies... That's not 96%.

I'm well aware that the poll indicates most people care about painting, and it's quite possible that a majority of folk here care MORE about painting than gaming. Which I'm a little surprised at, but not bothered by.

It seems I'm writing in ancient Greek.. Can you just stop making stuff up as you go? I didn't say any of these things. I have literally just stated that the fact Only 4% said painting is not at all important(therefore 96% saying it is important to some degree greater than 0) in any way shape or form it is therefore safe to assume there is some sort of "paint on minis" convention in this hobby. And this is in my opinion undeniable...

And this can mean anything from one model's leg painted in your whole army with the rest being Gray plastic, to the entire army being painted to display standard and anything in between.

I would be interested to see another poll:

You get to pick an army of your choice for free containing everything you could ever want.

1. You get all gray/,metal/resin models

2. You get a display level painted army to your specification.

Which one would you truly pick?

Weirdly enough I think all the "paint matters most" crowd would want the gray models because they want to paint it all themselves greedy sausages that they are.

The fact is DakkaDakka has 124,958 registered users. Of which 509 have voted in this thread. Both of which are not an accurate representation of the majority of players who play 40k.

What we can tell from this poll is that of the 509 forum users who gave enough of a gak about the subject to read and vote on this thread the vast majority give a gak about painting in some capacity.

Or to summarize, 509 accounts on dakkadakka that gave enough of a gak about a thread titled "How Important Is Painting To You?" roughly 95% said it was at least slightly important.

However, I think in reality if you go to any location that does not require paint the chances of you finding more than 40-60% of models being played with being painted is incredibly unlikely. I think there is a good chance that in some places more than 50% are painted and in others it's for sure gunna be less than 50%.

If 90% of all models being played with were painted we would never be having these discussions. But here we are. Like all Dakka polls, the data was gathered in less than ideal circumstances with a crap sample to gather it from.

 Lance845 wrote:
The fact is DakkaDakka has 124,958 registered users. Of which 509 have voted in this thread. Both of which are not an accurate representation of the majority of players who play 40k.

What we can tell from this poll is that of the 509 forum users who gave enough of a gak about the subject to read and vote on this thread the vast majority give a gak about painting in some capacity.

Or to summarize, 509 accounts on dakkadakka that gave enough of a gak about a thread titled "How Important Is Painting To You?" roughly 95% said it was at least slightly important.

However, I think in reality if you go to any location that does not require paint the chances of you finding more than 40-60% of models being played with being painted is incredibly unlikely. I think there is a good chance that in some places more than 50% are painted and in others it's for sure gunna be less than 50%.

If 90% of all models being played with were painted we would never be having these discussions. But here we are. Like all Dakka polls, the data was gathered in less than ideal circumstances with a crap sample to gather it from.

Of the GW published images of 40k models, what percentage of those are painted?

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:
The fact is DakkaDakka has 124,958 registered users. Of which 509 have voted in this thread. Both of which are not an accurate representation of the majority of players who play 40k.

What we can tell from this poll is that of the 509 forum users who gave enough of a gak about the subject to read and vote on this thread the vast majority give a gak about painting in some capacity.

Or to summarize, 509 accounts on dakkadakka that gave enough of a gak about a thread titled "How Important Is Painting To You?" roughly 95% said it was at least slightly important.

However, I think in reality if you go to any location that does not require paint the chances of you finding more than 40-60% of models being played with being painted is incredibly unlikely. I think there is a good chance that in some places more than 50% are painted and in others it's for sure gunna be less than 50%.

If 90% of all models being played with were painted we would never be having these discussions. But here we are. Like all Dakka polls, the data was gathered in less than ideal circumstances with a crap sample to gather it from.

Of the GW published images of 40k models, what percentage of those are painted?

Of the Kellogs published images of a complete breakfast, what percentage of those have perfectly browned toast?

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:
The fact is DakkaDakka has 124,958 registered users. Of which 509 have voted in this thread. Both of which are not an accurate representation of the majority of players who play 40k.

What we can tell from this poll is that of the 509 forum users who gave enough of a gak about the subject to read and vote on this thread the vast majority give a gak about painting in some capacity.

Or to summarize, 509 accounts on dakkadakka that gave enough of a gak about a thread titled "How Important Is Painting To You?" roughly 95% said it was at least slightly important.

However, I think in reality if you go to any location that does not require paint the chances of you finding more than 40-60% of models being played with being painted is incredibly unlikely. I think there is a good chance that in some places more than 50% are painted and in others it's for sure gunna be less than 50%.

If 90% of all models being played with were painted we would never be having these discussions. But here we are. Like all Dakka polls, the data was gathered in less than ideal circumstances with a crap sample to gather it from.

Of the GW published images of 40k models, what percentage of those are painted?

Almost all of them which is what I'd expect from the game publisher whom is expected to take the game's presentation aspects up to the highest level.
As the publisher they're held to a higher standard.



these are some of my chaos space marines. I'm pretty happy at how they turned out. they're looking nice. And most people think they're "pretty good"

but if this was the standard GW painted their display minis to? I'd think they weren't good eneugh, nor would the rest of us.

GW, as the publisher is held to a higher standard then "Brian the Gamer" irregardless as to weather he paints his models, or just plays grey plastic.

More importantly, any image GW publishes is not just an ad for models, it's an ad for rule books, paint, brushes, War-Ter cups, measuring tapes, dice etc etc etc...

It's an ad. It's artificial as feth and not representative of reality.

 Lance845 wrote:
More importantly, any image GW publishes is not just an ad for models, it's an ad for rule books, paint, brushes, War-Ter cups, measuring tapes, dice etc etc etc...

It's an ad. It's artificial as feth and not representative of reality.

Commercial.


Reality

 Lance845 wrote:

Of the Kellogs published images of a complete breakfast, what percentage of those have perfectly browned toast?

Regardless of the rest of this thread, thank you for giving me the biggest laugh I’ve had all day.

BrianDavion wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:
More importantly, any image GW publishes is not just an ad for models, it's an ad for rule books, paint, brushes, War-Ter cups, measuring tapes, dice etc etc etc...

It's an ad. It's artificial as feth and not representative of reality.

There are at least 3 colors on that burger, and it is done. That's all I ask.

DeathKorp_Rider wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:

Of the Kellogs published images of a complete breakfast, what percentage of those have perfectly browned toast?

Regardless of the rest of this thread, thank you for giving me the biggest laugh I’ve had all day.

You are welcome good sir! I am glad my sense of humor entertains at least someone other than myself.