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.

gpfunk wrote:For me, I can't really understand the idea of basing. The model comes with a black base that looks fair on any board you'll play on because your mind will sort of ignore the black base and look to the painted mini. Basing just seems like another way to squeeze money out of hobbyists.

The real question for me is, if I just paint my base a color like brown, am I gonna catch flak even if my model is well painted?

I'd like to agree here. Basing sometimes ruins a model, either because the basing paints/flock gets onto the legs or the pose is knocked off-kilter. This means more work, especially when running a blob-heavy army like Orks (which I do). Black bases are simplistic, unobtrusive and allow you to see model positioning of entire armies at a glance. Flocked bases blend with the game board (usually) and require a closer look to see where everything lies.

If you like your miniatures to have a realistic look, then that's fine with me. But I don't understand why others expect or even demand everything up to flocked bases on a model. Model appearance in all aspects (outside of WYSIWYG) has no impact on the tabletop, but somehow seems to have an impact on those playing. I don't know why - can someone explain the other point of view?

i have learned that a well done base just makes your models look that much more cooler. granted its time consuming, and GW supplies cost more...

but i have found i can base an army fairly cheap using thin cork, some model train snow / water effects and a little bit of static grass.

however the effort and time put into such is another story. i spend almost as much time working on bases as i do the actual model. and i can fully understand the time restrictions. i work full time, school full time and have a wife and 2 kids to compete for any attention i have. but instead of rushing out 30 models in my 2 hours of modelling time, i prefer to make those hours more useful and actually finish maybe 1 unit or a set of bases or something.

to each his own. and i dont mind playing with bases proxying in. as long as i know whats what, and we agree before hand the height, / bulk of a model for LOS and cover i have absoultly zero issue. it allows people to field a unit without actually completing, or buying the model to get an idea of how something works. i did the same thing when trying my DE beasts out. decided i liked them, and finished playable models.

DarthSpader wrote:i have learned that a well done base just makes your models look that much more cooler. granted its time consuming, and GW supplies cost more.

I respectfully disagree.

I absolutely HATE the way models look with a base that is anything but black.

The flock detracts from the paint job on the model, and having an ice base on a lava board is terribad. IMHO.

I prefer my bases to be black so you can look at the paint instead of the base.

DeathReaper wrote:

DarthSpader wrote:i have learned that a well done base just makes your models look that much more cooler. granted its time consuming, and GW supplies cost more.

I respectfully disagree.

I absolutely HATE the way models look with a base that is anything but black.

The flock detracts from the paint job on the model, and having an ice base on a lava board is terribad. IMHO.

I prefer my bases to be black so you can look at the paint instead of the base.

You and I are in the minority.

There was a poll in Dakka Discussions about "based" models. The overwhelming opinion of Dakka was that you aren't allowed to play without scenic bases on every model.

Looks like we've all found like-minded people on the subject of basing, hooray.
I'm glad I'm not the odd-one-out. I thought flocking was the standard across the entire wargaming culture.

DarknessEternal wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:

DarthSpader wrote:i have learned that a well done base just makes your models look that much more cooler. granted its time consuming, and GW supplies cost more.

I respectfully disagree.

I absolutely HATE the way models look with a base that is anything but black.

The flock detracts from the paint job on the model, and having an ice base on a lava board is terribad. IMHO.

I prefer my bases to be black so you can look at the paint instead of the base.

You and I are in the minority.

There was a poll in Dakka Discussions about "based" models. The overwhelming opinion of Dakka was that you aren't allowed to play without scenic bases on every model.

Huh, I never knew that. I don't know if I want to base and flock a 150 guardsmen though *shudders* Maybe I can just buy some cheap cotton swabs or something and say they're in a blizzard

MrMoustaffa wrote:

DarknessEternal wrote:You and I are in the minority.

There was a poll in Dakka Discussions about "based" models. The overwhelming opinion of Dakka was that you aren't allowed to play without scenic bases on every model.

Huh, I never knew that. I don't know if I want to base and flock a 150 guardsmen though *shudders* Maybe I can just buy some cheap cotton swabs or something and say they're in a blizzard

Step #1: Clip the cotton off Q-Tips

Step #2: Glue clipped bit to the base so it looks like a snowball.

Step #3: Profit!

DarknessEternal wrote:There was a poll in Dakka Discussions about "based" models. The overwhelming opinion of Dakka was that you aren't allowed to play without scenic bases on every model.

And it is this kind of attitude that is more annoying than any kind of discussion on painted/non-painted, based/non-based models. "Oh, the other guy wants me to have all my models to have won awards and to have 800 hours put into them and 1000 hours in creating a realistic base which starts at the earth's core and has real actual magma and plate tectonics and has actual bonsai grass on top that I have to keep watered and trimmed."

No - just no. Ask anyone who wants to play primarily against someone with painted/based armies and they will tell you they want to play against them because it shows the other player has made some effort and commitment to the game beyond glueing some models together and maybe spraying them black. That they want to play against a painted/based army because it generally looks easier and is easier to tell what unit is what, etc.

If you turn up to a classic car rally in your lovingly restored car, would you let someone drive it who turned up in a rusty banger that has obviously not been cared for at all, with muddy shoes and oil stained clothes?

Haha..

Ailaros wrote:Most of the armies I play against are grey plastic. It would be a relief to me to see more that were even just primed, much less painted with more than one color.

Definitely agree with this. Some of the armies I have played again recently haven't even got as far as being fully assembled, let alone painted. In that regard something like this would be a breath of fresh air.

SilverMK2 wrote:
No - just no. Ask anyone who wants to play primarily against someone with painted/based armies and they will tell you they want to play against them because it shows the other player has made some effort and commitment to the game beyond glueing some models together and maybe spraying them black. That they want to play against a painted/based army because it generally looks easier and is easier to tell what unit is what, etc.

If you turn up to a classic car rally in your lovingly restored car, would you let someone drive it who turned up in a rusty banger that has obviously not been cared for at all, with muddy shoes and oil stained clothes?

I don't really understand this point of view. Whether or not their army is painted should be independent of their playing attitude - someone could be very good at painting miniatures and has a good-looking army, but that has no reflection on their sportsmanship or grasp of the rules. Likewise, someone who's poor at painting and modelling will give no direct indication of sportsmanship through their army quality.
Your metaphor is confusing - the other driver using your car seems to translate to the other player using or otherwise handling/touching your army, and when would you let someone do that in the course of a game? I'd love it if you'd explain to me why you take this stance, as I just don't get it myself.

DarknessEternal wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:

DarthSpader wrote:i have learned that a well done base just makes your models look that much more cooler. granted its time consuming, and GW supplies cost more.

I respectfully disagree.

I absolutely HATE the way models look with a base that is anything but black.

The flock detracts from the paint job on the model, and having an ice base on a lava board is terribad. IMHO.

I prefer my bases to be black so you can look at the paint instead of the base.

You and I are in the minority.

There was a poll in Dakka Discussions about "based" models. The overwhelming opinion of Dakka was that you aren't allowed to play without scenic bases on every model.

The internet, the home of hyperbole.

IIRC, the majority of the poll said they prefer a model based, not on a scenic base. There's a difference. Very simple basing (ie, paint the base a colour, put sand on it, wash it and drybrush to match the colour put down, and a few patches of flock) is based. It's not difficult, though it can be a time consuming since a wash over sand takes eons to dry. I find this method of basing preferable to a scenic base. It completes the model. It makes it look like its on a battlefield. EVen simpler, as my friend does - throw some medium grit on there (small shale chunks), paint it black, drybrush it grey.

I also don't get the idea that a black base makes it fit in on any battlefield. How so? Your guys are talking around with black counters under them? The way you make a model fit in on any battlefield is base them on clear perspex bases. Black just looks unfinished.

NimbleJack3 wrote:I don't really understand this point of view. Whether or not their army is painted should be independent of their playing attitude - someone could be very good at painting miniatures and has a good-looking army, but that has no reflection on their sportsmanship or grasp of the rules. Likewise, someone who's poor at painting and modelling will give no direct indication of sportsmanship through their army quality.

Sure, but their army does give an indication as to their attitude towards the game. For example, you go into your FLGS for a game and there are a few people getting their armies out ready to play who would be free to give you a game:

Person 1 - they have an army bag full of minis - from what you can see they have all been painted and based to a reasonable tabletop standard, and a few look like they could have had quite a lot of effort put into them.

Person 2 - They have an army bag with a mixed lot of painted, part painted, primed and plastic minis. Looks like they may be slowly working their way up to getting it all painted.

Person 3 - This person does have an army bag, but it contains almost entirely unpainted or primed models. Some look like they may even be partially assembled only.

Person 4 - This person carries their models around in an old fishing box with the models loose inside. Any paint they may have once had has long since been chipped off. Most of the models are broken.


There are some assumptions that can be made about the type of person each of these 4 people are just based on the armies they have and how they are kept/painted/etc. Of course, as you say, they could be wrong. Person 1 may be the king of TFG's, person 2 may be the local power gamer who will bring the hardest list in the universe to crush anything that stands in his way, person 3 may rescue puppies in his spare time and donate all the money he would spend on glue and paint to the homeless, and Person 4 may be a GD winner, best sportsmanship winning all round Saint of Gaming who picked up a fishing box full of minis off ebay as his next project and only came in to show people what he had bought and what terrible condition it is in before going home to fix it.

But in general someone who cares about their army enough to paint it up will be careful with your minis, may have some interest in the wider world of wargaming, etc. While someone who just tips out a box of broken models onto the table will more than likely have little respect for your models and probably does not really care too much about the game.

Your metaphor is confusing - the other driver using your car seems to translate to the other player using or otherwise handling/touching your army, and when would you let someone do that in the course of a game? I'd love it if you'd explain to me why you take this stance, as I just don't get it myself.

If someone demonstrates they take no care of their stuff, why would they take care of yours?

DarknessEternal wrote:There was a poll in Dakka Discussions about "based" models. The overwhelming opinion of Dakka was that you aren't allowed to play without scenic bases on every model.

Good thing that poll has no impact on me in the real world.

Skriker


Automatically Appended Next Post:

MrMoustaffa wrote:Huh, I never knew that. I don't know if I want to base and flock a 150 guardsmen though *shudders* Maybe I can just buy some cheap cotton swabs or something and say they're in a blizzard

Supposedly the new "textured" paint colors in the new GW paint line is supposed to offer a speedy base finishing alternative. I haven't tried any of them myself, so your YMMV.

Skriker

SilverMK2 wrote: *STUFF*

Completely agree. On the occasion that I've had vehicles slide down hills into my units, minis bounce down stairs into my guys stood at the bottom, and large units of things being pushed into close combat (I feel that had a spade been on hand, it would have been used), almost without exception it has been either an unpainted or unfinished army.

It is just plain common sense that people who have invested man hours into their army will take care of it, and no doubt understand the value of your own efforts and afford you the same courtesy.

SilverMK2 wrote:No - just no. Ask anyone who wants to play primarily against someone with painted/based armies and they will tell you they want to play against them because it shows the other player has made some effort and commitment to the game beyond glueing some models together and maybe spraying them black. That they want to play against a painted/based army because it generally looks easier and is easier to tell what unit is what, etc.

The concept of gauging someone's "committment" to the game and or hobby based solely on whether the army they have on the table for a specific game is just silly. I am currently buidling and learning to use to new armies: Dark eldar and chaos renegades. Neither army is painted right now and someone copping an attitude about my committment to the game based *solely* on the fact that my army isn't painted is just dumb. It completely ignores the fact that I have been committed to the game for 23+ years, have built and painted 20+ armies for the game already. It also ignores the fact that *every* model in the chaos renegades army is made using conversion pieces and since those conversion pieces are all from Forge World cost much more than if I had just built a cadian IG army instead. So my committment to the game is rock solid, but because I may not be using painted minis today I have less committment to the hobby than some guy who has been playing for a year and has fully painted and is using his *first and only* army for the game? Uh...no...For me the key is a fun game against an enjoyable opponent. Someone could have a great golden daemon level painted army with every mini having an amazing scenic base, but if they are a jerk or a poor sportsman I will not want to play them. Having a painted army just doesn't translate directly to being a good opponent/fun player.

With relation to later comments by you in the thread, there is a BIG difference between someone with an unpainted army and someone who has box full of minis that they just kind of dump on the table before they play.

Skriker

Not painting mini's is almost... Well... Lazy...

I mean, it hardly takes that much time to do does it? especially with washes. Using the painting tactics in the OP, how much extra time would it take to wash and dry brush that model? And then put some sand and flock on the base or even just slap on some of the new GW texture paint on the base? A few minutes each model? And on the table top the army would look a hundred times better. It's a waste of money to spend £15 on 10 plastic army men and not even be bothered to paint them.

I would never object to playing against grey mini's. But the excuses for having grey mini's don't make sense to me tbh

Skriker wrote:The concept of gauging someone's "committment" to the game and or hobby based solely on whether the army they have on the table for a specific game is just silly. I am currently buidling and learning to use to new armies: Dark eldar and chaos renegades. Neither army is painted right now and someone copping an attitude about my committment to the game based *solely* on the fact that my army isn't painted is just dumb. It completely ignores the fact that I have been committed to the game for 23+ years, have built and painted 20+ armies for the game already. It also ignores the fact that *every* model in the chaos renegades army is made using conversion pieces and since those conversion pieces are all from Forge World cost much more than if I had just built a cadian IG army instead. So my committment to the game is rock solid, but because I may not be using painted minis today I have less committment to the hobby than some guy who has been playing for a year and has fully painted and is using his *first and only* army for the game? Uh...no...For me the key is a fun game against and enjoyable opponent. Someone could have a great golden daemon level painted army with every mini having an amazing scenic base, but if they are a jerk or a poor sportsman I will not want to play them.

There is also a big difference between knowing about someone and their "gaming history" and a random pick up in a store with someone you may not know. I've already said several times that I would play pretty much anyone, regardless of their paint job (or lack there of) - however, the kind of army someone brings to the table can say a lot about them - same as if they rock up smelling of BO with pizza grease all over their fingers, swearing their heads off. Sure, they may be fantastic people who are great to play against, but first impressions count, even in wargaming. Given the choice between someone with a painted army and a normal looking non-painted army I would go for the guy with the painted army all things equal.

It is not like I go out of my way to insult or even comment on people who are playing with unpainted armies, or would bar them from an event I might run (though a lot of places enforce the 3 colour minimum). Just, with no other information to go on, I would assume that someone who has a painted army is likely to know the value of my painted army, in terms of the time and resources that have been committed to it.

With relation to later comments by you in the thread, there is a BIG difference between someone with an unpainted army and someone who has box full of minis that they just kind of dump on the table before they play.

Of course, it was used to highlight the subtle difference between a reasonable situation that you might encounter (someone with a painted/part painted/unpainted army), vs an unlikely (though I have seen it) situation (someone who just throws their models into a tub), and the assumptions you might make about the kind of people that do it and how those assumptions may or may not be valid.

WetAndCold wrote:Not painting mini's is almost... Well... Lazy...

I mean, it hardly takes that much time to do does it? especially with washes. Using the painting tactics in the OP, how much extra time would it take to wash and dry brush that model? And then put some sand and flock on the base or even just slap on some of the new GW texture paint on the base? A few minutes each model? And on the table top the army would look a hundred times better. It's a waste of money to spend £15 on 10 plastic army men and not even be bothered to paint them.

I would never object to playing against grey mini's. But the excuses for having grey mini's don't make sense to me tbh

Time is relative. It might not take that *much* time to paint certain armies, but it does take time and some people don't have the spare time in their schedules to always allow for it. It isn't a waste of money to buy a unit of minis and use them in a game on the table whether painted or not. It is a waste of money to buy minis and then not use them until you have the time to paint them knowing that such time is not going to be readily available for a while.

Skriker

DeathReaper wrote:

If you, like myself, have painted over 500 infantry and just do the bare minimum 15 pieces of flair, then so be it!

Is this an Office Space reference I see before me?

To the OP, I'd play that quite happily. I'd play anything quite happily as long as I can see what it is meant to represent.

DarknessEternal wrote:You and I are in the minority.

There was a poll in Dakka Discussions about "based" models. The overwhelming opinion of Dakka was that you aren't allowed to play without scenic bases on every model.

You're referring to this poorly worded poll question. And using hyperbole to do it. You really need a reality check, man.

The majority of people in that thread did say that they wouldn't consider a model finished if it wasn't based in some manner. However, VERY few people actually said that they would refuse a game with someone if their models weren't based. Furthermore, there was no mention that these had to be scenic bases, either. Please don't throw around phrases like "weren't allowed to play without scenic bases" until you've done some homework.

I'll play against a grey horde if only for the rule that painted minis roll better and guess who had time to paint his army

To be honest, i know several great painters, who have bought, say, a talos pain engine, assembled it late at night, and turned up bright eyed and bushy tailed the next morning, with a grey plastic model, not wished to spend several of the wee small hours of the morning painting. Let people play what they want!

SilverMK2 wrote:No - just no. Ask anyone who wants to play primarily against someone with painted/based armies and they will tell you they want to play against them because it shows the other player has made some effort and commitment to the game beyond glueing some models together and maybe spraying them black. That they want to play against a painted/based army because it generally looks easier and is easier to tell what unit is what, etc.

If you turn up to a classic car rally in your lovingly restored car, would you let someone drive it who turned up in a rusty banger that has obviously not been cared for at all, with muddy shoes and oil stained clothes?

I'd say that spending the large sum of money required to put out an effective fighting force, particularly at the higher points level, more than qualifies you for the category of "being committed to the game". The simple fact is that not everyone enjoys the painting/modeling aspect of the game. Some people want to get their minis, build them to a point where people can see what they are, and play. I can see no logical reason that someone should refuse to play a game with someone because they don't want to spend hours of their free time painting when they don't enjoy it.

Furthermore comparing a car rally to wargaming is really comparing apples to oranges. Obviously if you were in an event where the entire point is to make your vehicle look it's best, then someone coming in with a dumpy pick-up is going to be laughed out of a place, but when you're going to a gaming store to play a game, how much paint you have on your models shouldn't be a factor in whether or not you'll get to play. A car rally is more akin to a Golden Daemon competition than your casual weekend drop in wargaming event at the club.

GimbleMuggernaught wrote:..but when you're going to a gaming store to play a game, how much paint you have on your models shouldn't be a factor in whether or not you'll get to play. .

Perhaps it shouldn't be, in that the unpainted army is no less 'valid', but I find a lot of the time it is a factor. The guys with painted armies are often booked 2 or 3 weeks in advance, and it's the guy with unpainted Grey Knights who is sat alone and on the sidelines.

Pacific wrote:

GimbleMuggernaught wrote:..but when you're going to a gaming store to play a game, how much paint you have on your models shouldn't be a factor in whether or not you'll get to play. .

Perhaps it shouldn't be, in that the unpainted army is no less 'valid', but I find a lot of the time it is a factor. The guys with painted armies are often booked 2 or 3 weeks in advance, and it's the guy with unpainted Grey Knights who is sat alone and on the sidelines.

But saying that the kind of person who doesn't paint their army likely wont book their games in advance as opposed to people who do paint them is the same kind of blanket statement as the whole "well painted army = painting elitist" thing that we've been seeing. Obviously if someone booked their game, they should get to play over someone who didn't, but that has little if anything to do with how painted the army is.

I think he means that people are waiting to play him in that he has games lined up several weeks in advance.

SilverMK2 wrote:I think he means that people are waiting to play him in that he has games lined up several weeks in advance.

Ah yes. I think you may be right. My mistake.

Sorry, it wasn't particularly well worded on my part !

In summary I have to be honest that a lack of painted armies is one of the reasons my 40k stuff is shelved at the moment. I absolutely love the background for the game, and it's important to me that the game in progress can appeal to my imagination through a combination of painted minis and terrain - unfortunately the game system/mechanics by themselves aren't strong enough, and I just can't get excited by the concept of coming up with different 'lists' to try and power-game people.

Pacific wrote:Sorry, it wasn't particularly well worded on my part !

In summary I have to be honest that a lack of painted armies is one of the reasons my 40k stuff is shelved at the moment. I absolutely love the background for the game, and it's important to me that the game in progress can appeal to my imagination through a combination of painted minis and terrain - unfortunately the game system/mechanics by themselves aren't strong enough, and I just can't get excited by the concept of coming up with different 'lists' to try and power-game people.

Hopefully the release of 6th edition may change that.

Damn right I'd play against them. I like to play more than I care about how any army looks. The game only needs the models and dice, and sometimes you can get away without the models. The paint vs not paint thing seems pretty oppressive. One time I had a guy who didn't want to play me because my army WAS PAINTED and I was really confused. I bribed him with some fries and told him I'd run my unpainted and primed stuff cuz I bring all my WIP stuff with me in case I happen to feel like fielding those units' actual model and not proxying.

More games, more fun!