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.

Hmmmmm. Thanks for the info.

Dark Angels Champ-Master wrote:Is army painter really fair? What are your thoughts? I think its not.

There is no fair in the hobby.

Better ask yourself why do you paint miniatures to begin with?

For me painting miniatures is "me-time". Ever since i got back into the hobby i notice that my concentration is better, my eye-hand coordination is better, and I even quit smoking (after being a heavy smoker for 20 years). Painting is a hobby and should be treated as such. Its not a competition (but it appears that it is competition for some)

If someone invests 10x less time than me and has a prettier army, all I can say is that he rocks, but that doesn't automatically mean that I suck, but it certainly beats all the kids that come to our local game club and take pride in not painting their armies since they are there to play the game and not waste time on painting.

I can understand the OP's point. I do find it odd when people take pride in models they have dipped. They are your models and if you want to dip them there is nothing wrong with that but you can't really take pride in a model which has been painted using a method that requires no skill (I have experience dipping and it isn't hard). I prefer to play painted models and if dipping is your prefered method then do it but taking credit for great painting when others have at least put in some effort seems wrong to me.

HamHamLunchbox wrote:
how is using armypainter expensive?
its 24 euro and is enough for hundreds of minis(well if you apply it with a brush and dont dip it).

He probably means in comparison to the various off-the-shelf Wood Stain/varnish products that people were using before AP came along.

4M2A wrote:I can understand the OP's point. I do find it odd when people take pride in models they have dipped. They are your models and if you want to dip them there is nothing wrong with that but you can't really take pride in a model which has been painted using a method that requires no skill (I have experience dipping and it isn't hard). I prefer to play painted models and if dipping is your prefered method then do it but taking credit for great painting when others have at least put in some effort seems wrong to me.

Maybe folks who don't feel they have a lot of skill take pride in getting an army painted, that looks decent, using techniques they are comfortable with?

Why care what others feel proud about? Seems pretty condescending and petty to me.

Jake

4M2A - it does take skill - figures still need to be painted neatly and carefully. Just as neatly - or even more so than any other figure in fact since you can't go back and touch up areas that have been shaded.

Taking credit for great painting? Can't take pride? No skill? Mate, if someone dips then it's their work and they can be as proud as they like about it. Some effort?

What a load of elitist BS.

Ever used a wash or a glaze? Ever "liberally apply(ied) Devlan Mud to the whole model"? Same concept, different execution. Lazy.

You should have wet-blended the shading and the highlighting instead of being lazy and using a wash for shading.

Those last two paragraphs were sarcastic, but using the same logic as found in your post.

40k Ninja wrote:I think it is completly fair, just expensive and lazy. :/

You have no room to talk. Last I heard, you're so damn lazy that you don't even attempt to bother grinding your own pigments to make your paint, and instead buy pots right off the shelf.

4M2A wrote:I can understand the OP's point. I do find it odd when people take pride in models they have dipped. They are your models and if you want to dip them there is nothing wrong with that but you can't really take pride in a model which has been painted using a method that requires no skill (I have experience dipping and it isn't hard). I prefer to play painted models and if dipping is your prefered method then do it but taking credit for great painting when others have at least put in some effort seems wrong to me.

Hahahahahha wow!

Looks like you've used some washes on your miniatures.

Well I guess dipping was different when I did it. Dipping just requires you to be able to paint within areas. Painting single colours really isn't that difficult. It may appear elitist but IMO if someone takes the time and effort to learn how to paint a miniature without dipping they have a right to be proud of it. You wouldn't see someone who built furniture from scratch as equally skilled as someone who put together a kit and it would be wrong for them to claim they were.

I don't wish to take anything away from people who dip and they should still be proud that they bothered to paint their armies, as so many people don't, but I think it is unfair to claim they have put in as much effort and skill as someone who painted their army in the normal way. The whole point of dip is that it's easy and fast, you can't argue it takes as much time and skill as standard painting.

IMO it isn't right to say your a skilled painter because your dipped figures came out well. This isn't to say that people who dip are bad painters (they may not enjoy painting or not have time), just that those models don't demostrate good painting. I don't look down on dipped figures, they are still above the normal. However when I compare a dipped model and a normal model of the same quality I believe the person who put the time and effort into painting their model has more right to be proud of it.

4M2A wrote:Well I guess dipping was different when I did it. Dipping just requires you to be able to paint within areas. Painting single colours really isn't that difficult. It may appear elitist but IMO if someone takes the time and effort to learn how to paint a miniature without dipping they have a right to be proud of it. You wouldn't see someone who built furniture from scratch as equally skilled as someone who put together a kit and it would be wrong for them to claim they were.

Crappy example. No one is claiming someone who dips their minis is as skilled as a gold demon winner.

4M2A wrote:I don't wish to take anything away from people who dip and they should still be proud that they bothered to paint their armies, as so many people don't, but I think it is unfair to claim they have put in as much effort and skill as someone who painted their army in the normal way. The whole point of dip is that it's easy and fast, you can't argue it takes as much time and skill as standard painting.

Again, no one is claiming they they have as much skill. That does not mean they cannot be proud of the skill they do have and the results they got with that skill level.

4M2A wrote:IMO it isn't right to say your a skilled painter because your dipped figures came out well. This isn't to say that people who dip are bad painters (they may not enjoy painting or not have time), just that those models don't demostrate good painting. I don't look down on dipped figures, they are still above the normal. However when I compare a dipped model and a normal model of the same quality I believe the person who put the time and effort into painting their model has more right to be proud of it..

Actually your logic is flawed, as well as elitist. If some one can crank out gold demon quality figures with no problem, they don't really have anything to be proud of. If it isn't hard for them, or challenging, where is the source of pride? If it is okay to feel pride at something that was not a challenge, how much more pride should the new kid feel at having painted his first army, regardless of technique? A kid who has never painted has every right to be proud of his first figure, no matter how crappy it is in comparison to the gold demon winner. He has done something he never did before. Should he then strive to be better? Of course. That still does not diminish the pride he should feel.

No they have the right to be proud that they got to that level. No one is born a good painter. Some people start off better than others but to be a good painter you will have to practice. The amount of practice varies but you still have to put in effort. I am not trying to say that people who dip have no right to be proud, as I said they put some work in and did more than many people do. However my problem is with people who dip then compare their work to people who did put a lot of work into getting their models to the same quality. IMO that is demeaning the effort people put into painting by hand.

No one on this thread is comparing their skill but IRL I have come across people who do often comapre their skill- and that was what I said in my first post. Dipping is advertised as a fast quick way to paint and that is exactly what it is. It's not lazy, you have still put the time into using that technique however neither is it as skilled as someone who painted by hand.

Hmm, I do believe successful troll was successful.

Although, to take part in the discussion, it's simply nice to see some people taking to the hobby with some sort of gusto - most of the people I play against barely pick up an aerosol primer, let alone a tin of dip.

Troll? If your suggesting i'm a troll then you're mistaken. Having a different view doesn't make some one a troll. If I had posted a thread ranting at people who dip then maybe but so far all I have done is contributed my opinion to an open thread.

You have a right to be proud of any model that looks good once you're done, no matter the method of painting used. Both dipping and washing dramatically speed up the time you can have a tabletop quality army ready so I'm generally in favor of them.

As for dipping, it's been my experience that most dipped models look like eyesores running amok on the table. That's because you have only one color, usually something brown, that an entire multi-colored models is dipped into. Frequently I see models dipped into something (usually varnish) that's usually too thick to look very good on miniatures.

Washing is superior to dipping because you can target specific areas with specific wash colors and better control how much wash each basecoat color receives. I use washes myself and love them. You can't call washing "cheating" either, cause GW makes a line of washes specifically for use on their figures.

GW washes are often used a bit bit differently though.

Aside from the point, I really love that old video of the Army Painter guy thrashing away with his model - he looks like he's going to do his shoulder in.

Breotan wrote:You have a right to be proud of any model that looks good once you're done, no matter the method of painting used. Both dipping and washing dramatically speed up the time you can have a tabletop quality army ready so I'm generally in favor of them.

+1

I love Quickshade. It helps a sub-par painter like me be able to field better looking models. I have no interest in becoming a better painter. It's just not a part of the hobby that I care for.

There will always be trolls/elitists like 4M2A on this board. There always have been. Why some people feel the need to tell others how they run their hobby is beyond me, but there are certainly enough of them out there doing it. It's best to ignore them and let them continue preaching from their high horse.

On a side note, Quickshade works wonderfully as a brush on product.

Painted models win over non painted models no matter how they got there. Seriously would you rather play against a sea of grey, or a dipped army?

I've seen new young players very proud of there models which to us my look like dog turd, are they not allowed to take pride despite us all knowing its rubbish?

I would guess not now then.

Dark Angels Champ-Master wrote:Is army painter really fair? What are your thoughts? I think its not.

Forgive me for not reading the entire thread but...

Who in the bloody poop are you, or anyone else to that matter, to judge the fairness of a painting technique?

Time for a gaming history lesson.

You started gaming in 2010. People have been doing the "dip" (with wood stain) for nearly 20 years before you even picked up a mini and at least 15 before the "invention" of Army painter Quickshade!

IMO, the only thing unfair about Army painter is how much more it costs than the Minwax polyshades that folks used before it was "invented".

All right I see your point, I hate seeing unpainted models in the battle field. Normally I don't play until I have painted my minis.

I am being no more elitist than people who view a painted model as superior to a non painted one. What right do you have to judge a painted one than a bare plastic one? Our criteria may be different but we are doing the same thing- applying our own standards to others. Since the majority of people in this thread would see a dipped model as better than an undercoated one your being as elitist as I am.

I think Army Painter is unfair. Because you know, people can paint their army and it looks better than mine. And NO ONE can have a better army than me, otherwise I get angry and kick puppies. Anyone who claims 40k is a hobby or "fun" is going to get kicked in the groin. By me! Because what 40k is really is all about is winning, winning playing games, but winning in painting too. I need to be the most winningest person ever, otherwise there will be hell to pay! Army Painter is unfair because it makes me lose the painting game! Anything that makes me lose is unfair! I AM SO ANGRY! GRRRR. RAWR. *headbutts the mailman*


Automatically Appended Next Post:

4M2A wrote:I am being no more elitist than people who view a painted model as superior to a non painted one. What right do you have to judge a painted one than a bare plastic one? Our criteria may be different but we are doing the same thing- applying our own standards to others. Since the majority of people in this thread would see a dipped model as better than an undercoated one your being as elitist as I am.

Yes, and this is the same logic which says murder is exactly the same as jaywalking. After all, one is just as much of a crime as the other.

Ok ok. But don't you agree that it's unfair in painting comps?

Depends what the rules of the contest are. Though in general, no.

Dark Angels Champ-Master wrote:Ok ok. But don't you agree that it's unfair in painting comps?

No, they are unlikely to win being dipped, unless the competition is pretty bad

Also a competition can dictate rules, if they don't want dipped models they can say so, but t hey could also say no airbrushing because that's not fair either.

Yeah, true but I don't care about painting contests, I care more about gaming. Evan though I am a better painter than a gamer.

XD

Dark Angels Champ-Master wrote:Ok ok. But don't you agree that it's unfair in painting comps?

Well, it'd be a handicap in a painting contest. If you think it's unfair that someone is pretty much automatically ruling themselves out of winning a painting competition, then I suppose I'll let you have it.

Dark Angels Champ-Master wrote:Yeah, true but I don't care about painting contests, I care more about gaming. Evan though I am a better painter than a gamer.

... sooooo... what exactly are you complaining about?

Painting isn't an integral part of wargaming, however playing with nice looking armies is. It doesn't matter how people get there.

If colour primer sprays and magic dip helps people put nice looking armies on table, I'm all for them.

As far as Golden Daemon etc. awards go, it's the result that matters, not the techniques used to achieve them. I very much doubt anyone could win a high level competition with colour primer and magic dip.

If you start to worry about "artificial aids" where should it stop? Renaissance painters had to make their own paints. Does that mean buying Citadel or Vallejo paints is "unfair".