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.

If I painted my marines I wouldn't be able to switch between BA and SW at the drop of a hat now would I?

Ma55ter_fett wrote:If I painted my marines I wouldn't be able to switch between BA and SW at the drop of a hat now would I?

JJ did a Standard Bearer column in WD a few years back on how he painted his first Space Marine army grey and has used them ever since to represent any chapter he chooses.

Theduke07 wrote:Lowers resale value? Why buy them at all if you're only worried about the value you can hawk them for later?

He's clearly buying Warhams as an investment, just like you imply.

Or maybe he just wants to make sure if he gets sick of the game that he can recoup some costs but NO he surely ONLY cares about the value he can "hawk" them for later.

I want to get a job working full-time day trading on 40k speculation down at the PTS (Plastic Toy Soldier) exchange.

It depends on where you're playing to me. I have never really considered a LGS to be a 'serious venue', if you will, and feel like games played there are more akin to practice. In that setting it doesn't bother me to see unpainted figs (though I'll admit wincing when I saw an army with unassembled heavy weapons set in a pile on dip can lids).

Most of the gaming I do that isn't at home is at historical conventions. That setting is a bit differnt than GW games because the gamemaster usually provides all the figures (though FoW and FoG are changing that). I always felt that games like that were as much an aesthetic presentation as a tactical excercise and it was even inconsiderate to players to present a half-finished product. One local annual con requires fully painted figures. A couple years ago a GM got kicked out for trying to use bare metal figs (the fully painted requirement was made quite clear on the website and in gm registration info)

At the end of the day, I prefer everyone uses painted figs, mostly cuz I think it just looks prettier which makes it more fun for me. I feel like painting them is part of the hobby. I have seen a couple folks say things to the effect of "if you like painting great but if you just like the tactics that should be fine. You don't have to play with me if you don't like unpainted figs." but what would you think if you were playing soccer game and half the people decided they didn't like running. They aren't breaking any rules and may have great strategy but you wouldn't want to play with or against them because they weren't (here's where I am gonna get attacked) 'doing it right'.

Okay, follow me here. Simply because your main objective is to have fun and you are achieveing that objective doesn't necessarily mean you are doing to activity correctly. In something like this hobby it is OKAY if you 'don't do it right'. I mean, lives don't depend on it or anything. If you have more fun only doing parts of the game that's fine. Just don't argue that you are doing it right. Instead, argue that someone is being anal and legalistic if they care. It shouldn't bother anyone that you're not doing it right because having fun is what it is about.

LunaHound wrote:

Irdiumstern wrote:Painting is the most boring, painful, and slow part of the entire hobby for me. I much prefer converting and playing, and I'd rather not waste time on painting.

Exactly, not only is painting time consuming and not fun, it LOWERS the resale value.
So logically speaking, why would i put effort into something counter productive?

If you're only worried about the re-sale values you're either in the wrong hobby, or the wrong army. You buy this hyper expensive, legal crack because it's fun, not because you want to make a few quid selling it on.

JeneralJoe117 wrote:
If you're only worried about the re-sale values you're either in the wrong hobby, or the wrong army. You buy this hyper expensive, legal crack because it's fun, not because you want to make a few quid selling it on.

I need to get in on this Warham investment market you and that other guy seem to think exist.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ssgt Carl wrote:
At the end of the day, I prefer everyone uses painted figs, mostly cuz I think it just looks prettier which makes it more fun for me. I feel like painting them is part of the hobby. I have seen a couple folks say things to the effect of "if you like painting great but if you just like the tactics that should be fine. You don't have to play with me if you don't like unpainted figs." but what would you think if you were playing soccer game and half the people decided they didn't like running. They aren't breaking any rules and may have great strategy but you wouldn't want to play with or against them because they weren't (here's where I am gonna get attacked) 'doing it right'.

Okay, follow me here. Simply because your main objective is to have fun and you are achieveing that objective doesn't necessarily mean you are doing to activity correctly. In something like this hobby it is OKAY if you 'don't do it right'. I mean, lives don't depend on it or anything. If you have more fun only doing parts of the game that's fine. Just don't argue that you are doing it right. Instead, argue that someone is being anal and legalistic if they care. It shouldn't bother anyone that you're not doing it right because having fun is what it is about.

Who says what the "right" way to play a game is? Especially a way that doesn't impact the actual play? Just because people are not into the painting doesn't mean they are "doing it wrong." It's all personal preference.

As much as I enjoy painting, my time is limited, and what little time I have isn't always put towards hobby time. What's more, when I do paint, I do so at a fairly slow pace. I like to ensure that every single model looks great. I'm not going to waste my time painting my miniatures to a sub-par quality.

I think I agree with everyone here. ... I'm new to these forums so does that prevent me from being ?

Seriously though, a big draw of the game for me was the images of the miniatures in battle online and in the books. The fully painted models and boards are just too cool. I try not to field unpainted minis but if I haven't gotten to them yet, I'll put em out there if I need the point count. I certainly don't hold anyone else to my standard of trying to field only painted minis. I think it does make the act of playing the game more enjoyable, but I wouldn't avoid someone just for fielding an unpainted army. It would just be a better experience, for me at least, to play someone on a well-crafted table, with well-painted terrain and with fully-painted armies.

Brother Gyoken wrote:
Who says what the "right" way to play a game is? Especially a way that doesn't impact the actual play? Just because people are not into the painting doesn't mean they are "doing it wrong." It's all personal preference.

Playing the game is only part of the hobby. As far as GW specifically, and who says it is "right" The Warhammer rulebook describes unpainted figs and makeshift terrain as "humble beginnings" with an end result being a painted army on nice terrain. If you don't intend to paint your figs then you are not using the product the way it wasn intended.

Personal preference is used to figure out the way you have the most fun, but, as I said, its a non sequitur that because you are having fun you are necessarily doing it right.

Intent =/= Reality

Especially when it comes to game design, 'death of the author' is standard.

This is one of issues that draws me more to historicals. The maturity level in those niche areas of the hobby tend to lean toward people who are generally interested in their armies and thus you find painted forces more often. Hint: resale generally isnt on your mind when youre assembling a Peninsular British Guard list or a Marian Roman legion. Its kind of an unspoken rule.

Does it bother me when I see unpainted models on the field in 40k? Yes, it irks me a lot. They're your models, you assembled them, youre supposed to enjoy this, paint them for Throne's sake.

Would I say anything? I might give a gentle ribbing in good fun, but I expect unpainted/unfinished minis in GW games so I tend to keep it to myself. It just lends itself to the community. Its something I have to live with in exchange for playing the fluffy, unbalanced, cool model world of GW.

That's very true actually, I haven't come across many unpainted FoW armies. Even a couple of guys I know who took up FoW, having previously just played largely unpainted 40k armies, made some effort to paint up their historical forces. Also we spent a lot more time setting up themed terrain and trying to make it look good, much more than with 40k. I wonder why that is?

JeneralJoe117 wrote:If you're only worried about the re-sale values you're either in the wrong hobby, or the wrong army. You buy this hyper expensive, legal crack because it's fun, not because you want to make a few quid selling it on.

How in the world can you make that statement when GW flip-flops on whatever makes a good army with nearly every codex as the metagame shifts?

If you pimped out your Space Marines in 4th ed, you probably had a bunch of footslogging tactical marines with las cannons and plasma guns in minimum squads.

Then you probably moved to Land Raiders and TH/SS Terminators once 4th ed came out, and then you probably moved to lots of light mech with razorbacks, dakka dreads, predators, and maybe one Land Raider with a TH/SS squad and/or speeders. That is, if you didn't jump onto the SW or BA bandwagon with their 'new and different but better' marines.

GW in many ways forces players to 'churn' through models in their release cycles by making the 'new' the 'best'. For players that don't want to simply sit upon gigantic stockpiles of models, wanting to retain resale value in order to sell gently used and buy newer isn't something that one can really criticize.

Flashman wrote:

Ma55ter_fett wrote:If I painted my marines I wouldn't be able to switch between BA and SW at the drop of a hat now would I?

JJ did a Standard Bearer column in WD a few years back on how he painted his first Space Marine army grey and has used them ever since to represent any chapter he chooses.

This isn't necessarily a bad thing, I think that so long as someone at least coats the models, its preferable to bare plastic, IMHO. As for an earlier poster, so long as its wsywyg, i doubt anyone will tell you that your red space wolves are a problem... or your blue painted salamanders, etc.

Its a game that takes a certain degree of imagination to play, that being said, I don't think that its necessary to have everything in top shape, but the attempt to make the models nice is appreciated.

With that in mind, I'll say that I HATE playing people that leave weapons off and then say they are random things... or space marine legs on bases, with no torsos, weapons, etc.

I've avoided these people like the plague because the squad loadout seems to change at convenience.

Pacific wrote:That's very true actually, I haven't come across many unpainted FoW armies. Even a couple of guys I know who took up FoW, having previously just played largely unpainted 40k armies, made some effort to paint up their historical forces. Also we spent a lot more time setting up themed terrain and trying to make it look good, much more than with 40k. I wonder why that is?

I dunno, I like to think it's because people who play historicals are more interested in the history of their armies in a way that runs deeper than "GIANT SHOULDERS GIANT GUNZ THIS WILL WIN WOO" but that can't be entirely true because there are power gamers in FoW. I dunno, but whatever it is, its a very, very good thing.

Im quite happy that my historical gaming club requires painted figures. Historicals tend more to be about the entire hobby; a mix of tactics, painting, modelling and historical interest that melds together into something that feels a bit more personal. Its pretty safe to say that no one gets into Napoleonics because they love to dominate, first and foremost its about recreating something that you love: history.

Paints are so prohibitively expensive though

$6USD for a regular GW pot over here means every time I think about buying paint I look at more models I could be buying instead.

I'll get around to painting eventually, it's just a huge investment in time and patience. Plus it takes ages to get half decent.

i get my paints for $3 USD at my LGS, GW paints, I'm not sure about vallejo though.

Yeah, if price is that big of an issue for you, then search FLGs for discounts or just buy cheap model paint from model train shops or craft stores or whatever.

biccat wrote:

EldarN00b wrote:There's nothing wrong with not having a fully painted army, hell, all of our armies are works in progress.

Do you think other people feel the same way you do when they see your half-painted army across the table?

Personally, for gaming and aesthetic reasons I'd rather see a fully painted or fully unpainted army. I really don't like playing against partially-painted armies.

Dude, I'm the OP. What I field will always be fully painted. I don't have a single figure atm that I have not painted (except maybe the weapons on my Wave Serpent, doing that this games night). I meant that our ever expanding collections are works in progress.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Artanis wrote:Paints are so prohibitively expensive though

$6USD for a regular GW pot over here means every time I think about buying paint I look at more models I could be buying instead.

I'll get around to painting eventually, it's just a huge investment in time and patience. Plus it takes ages to get half decent.

Spend a saturday or two at your store's painting table. It's what I did, haven't bought a single thing on painting except for a fine detail brush.

EldarN00b wrote:

biccat wrote:

EldarN00b wrote:There's nothing wrong with not having a fully painted army, hell, all of our armies are works in progress.

Do you think other people feel the same way you do when they see your half-painted army across the table?

Personally, for gaming and aesthetic reasons I'd rather see a fully painted or fully unpainted army. I really don't like playing against partially-painted armies.

Dude, I'm the OP. What I field will always be fully painted. I don't have a single figure atm that I have not painted (except maybe the weapons on my Wave Serpent, doing that this games night). I meant that our ever expanding collections are works in progress.

I am unable to reconcile your most recent statement with your earlier one. You state "all of our armies," implicitly including your own, are "works in progress," and therefore there's an excuse for fielding unpainted armies.

Regardless, as has already been pointed out to you, other people enjoy different aspects of the hobby. While I have a fully painted army, I didn't for most of the 10+ years I've been in this hobby. I have at least 2 armies that have never seen the tabletop because since I've gotten those armies painted (1 warmachine, 1 fantasy, 1 40k) I haven't played with unpainted miniatures. The major reason that I don't have those other armies painted is because I don't have the time to paint. And I'm sure a lot of others are in a similar setting. If I can get 2-3 hours of free time a week, I'd rather spend it playing than painting.

Ssgt Carl wrote:Playing the game is only part of the hobby. As far as GW specifically, and who says it is "right" The Warhammer rulebook describes unpainted figs and makeshift terrain as "humble beginnings" with an end result being a painted army on nice terrain. If you don't intend to paint your figs then you are not using the product the way it wasn intended.

Personal preference is used to figure out the way you have the most fun, but, as I said, its a non sequitur that because you are having fun you are necessarily doing it right.

Who says these players are even part of "the hobby?" Maybe they are just playing a game.

And using this logic, how far does the "intent" go in determining if you're playing the "right" way? Is someone magnetizing arms "doing it wrong?" Obviously GW doesn't want that! What if they painted their models using Vallejo paints, or Krazy glue? The book clearly states they are meant to be painted and assembled with Citadel products, so clearly they are doing it "wrong." How about third party bits? DOING IT WRONG.

LunaHound wrote:

Irdiumstern wrote:Painting is the most boring, painful, and slow part of the entire hobby for me. I much prefer converting and playing, and I'd rather not waste time on painting.

Exactly, not only is painting time consuming and not fun, it LOWERS the resale value.
So logically speaking, why would i put effort into something counter productive?

I beg to differ...

How many painted armies you will ultimately see depends on your own involvement in the hobby. If you mostly buy to paint but also like to play the game casually around a local venue, then be prepared to see grey legion everywhere. If you start going to Indy GT's all over the country you'll rarely see an unpainted army. On a more competitive level people will show up with an army they painted or one they paid to have painted. Adepticon had 200+ players last year and all of them had (3 color minimum) painted armies.

Also it depends at what point you see your fellow hobbyist/gamers at in an armies evolution. For instance when I start a new army I play test a list for about 3 months to dial it in on a competitive level. I may only have one or two models painted and the rest will probably be proxies or a collection of things that don't even match the right army. Also at Ard Boyz I fielded a mish mash of unpainted and painted models from about 5 different players armies. If you casually walked past my table at any of these times you probably wouldn't think highly of my hobbying. In fact I have 6 fully painted armies for WH / WH40K / LotR and in the past year I've painted around 10-15 armies for commission. I always compete for best painted first for a tournament and go for best overall second but looking at 60% of my games you would have no clue.

Now that I've defended reasons people will field unpainted models I must say, if you only plan to casually play you should be prepared to see more unpainted than you'll see painted. Most players have no desire or intention to paint their little men. Just a fact of our hobby.

see, i love to paint but i want my space marine army to look nice so my painting is yellow and takes a age, i only have about 550 points of fully painted guys, because of this really doin't mind unpainted models on the battlefield, since i have quite a few on myself.

Well, I do enjoy playing against/with painted armies, but usually, I never get to paint mine. I tend to flip-flop army-wise (I've done Tau, Space Wolves, Black Templar, Grey Knights, Tyranids, and C:SM all in the past year, mainly through trading the previous army) and am just now really getting to like this space marine army, with the intention if re-doing my Tau when they get a new codex. Join that to the fact that I'm in college, and have limited time/funds, and paint like a slug, I don't usually paint much. In fact, I don't own any paints atm, though I did partially paint my Tau. Plus, having this as your available painting area isn't too good for wanting to paint !

biccat wrote:

kronk wrote:

biccat wrote:

EldarN00b wrote:There's nothing wrong with not having a fully painted army, hell, all of our armies are works in progress.

Do you think other people feel the same way you do when they see your half-painted army across the table?

Personally, for gaming and aesthetic reasons I'd rather see a fully painted or fully unpainted army. I really don't like playing against partially-painted armies.

I agree. Pick one.

If you're not a hobbyist, play with 100% grey models.

If you are a pure hobbyist, play with 100% painted and based models.

I won't allow any in-between at my table. Cheater.

Well, I'd never refuse a game, whether painted, unpainted, or cardboard chits.

I think it's confusing and aesthetically displeasing playing a half-painted army, especially when the painted half is done to a very high standard and they're placed next to their grey and metal bretheren. Or worse, primed. The contrast creates the appearance of a half-done job that you didn't care to finish. It shows you have the ability but not the interest in following through with your project.But like I said, I wouldn't turn down a game based on the state of someone's models. Everyone enjoys the hobby differently. I personally prefer not to play with unpainted models (which is why my O&G army hasn't seen a table yet...damn you goblins!)

Not sure if your joking or not, but maybe instead of them only doing a half ass job, maybe life got in the way and they had to stop painting a bit. Maybe it takes a while to get that level of detail and so it's play with half painted models, or not play for a year.

I will say this is not directed solely at you, but the 100% Golden Deamon Quality only or else A Kitten Dies crowd comes across more than elitest. It discourages people from playing, which I think some of them want. They want lower number of people playing and fear the game might become "hip" if we allow people to slowly or comfortably work on.

If you're only worried about the re-sale values you're either in the wrong hobby

There is nothing wrong with buying warhammer for gaming and collecting.
Of course this still falls under "everyone have a different opinion of why they are into warhammer" .
Please review yakface's poll thread to see that painting is NOT the only reason people are into warhammer.
Please accept this truth even if you think painting is the SOLE reason for some of you.

As i stated, painting is a hassle, this is a personal opinion, if i can game without painting them, i'll be happy with that.
As i stated putting in time to make a mini presentable is time and effort consuming, and it doesn't always fetch a good price ( in direct comparison of time spent ).
What i painted i can only sell at MSRP value which averages something like $5 earned per hour.

Hence is why i don't like painting my minis, which i'll state over and over again will not apply to most of you that ENJOYS painting.

I agree your point is valid Luna, but as others have noted, your painted stuff looks great, so it's bemusing to hear you don't enjoy painting

jbunny wrote:
I will say this is not directed solely at you, but the 100% Golden Deamon Quality only or else A Kitten Dies crowd comes across more than elitest. It discourages people from playing, which I think some of them want. They want lower number of people playing and fear the game might become "hip" if we allow people to slowly or comfortably work on.

No one here is advocating good painting, just painting. Hell, Im not a good painter and nothing I field is painted well, but it is painted.

littleboyblues wrote: Most players have no desire or intention to paint their little men. Just a fact of our hobby.

I don't believe this to be true in the least. I also will use this time to remind people "the interwebz" online community is a small small small portion of the gaming community and most people who buy GW models and play GW games have no idea people argue on the internet about this stuff.

Anyone who overestimates the vocal minority of the internet into how things are done is instantly wrong.