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.

I'm pointing out someone's bad attitude yes. Just as others have done with comments like "gee you'd be fun to play with."

There is such a thing as having a good idea or a good goal (having people paint their armies more - that I of course agree with) while at the same time having an absolutely counterproductive, terrible attitude.

And I pointed out your bad attitude. Spin it how you want to. You called out multiple people and said a bunch of nonsense about them.

To the OP.

All I have to say about this subject is paint your models YOUR way. It's a hobby. Nobody in there right mind will tell you that they don't live up to tabletop standards. People just want to play the game for fun. Something some asshats seem to forget about. Try to enjoy the hobby for what it is worth. I will to play against anyone at any tabletop standard YOU felt was done. Even if they where just assembled and not painted. Who cares ? The only one that should care is YOU. It is your choice not theirs.

As far as the definition is concerned it is what it is to YOU. Some like to make up their own rules about it but, there is no rules to a hobby when you're trying to enjoy it.

As for the rest of this thread before it gets out of hand. People please keep it civilized.

Have a Good Day and Happy Modeling/ Gaming

 Radiation wrote:
And I pointed out your bad attitude.

Uh. I'd rather have people like playing 40K than be discouraged from doing so because of snobbery. That's a good attitude to have.

Spin it how you want to. You called out multiple people and said a bunch of nonsense about them.

Spin? What in the world... Please take any further comments to PMs.

Super Newb wrote:

 Radiation wrote:
And I pointed out your bad attitude.

Uh. I'd rather have people like playing 40K than be discouraged from doing so because of snobbery. That's a good attitude to have.

Spin it how you want to. You called out multiple people and said a bunch of nonsense about them.

Spin? What in the world... Please take any further comments to PMs.

You told someone to go sit in a corner and then you told someone else that they are a fake account because they have a different opinion, then you sent me a pm asking me if I am high. Get over yourself. You have a bad attitude dude.

 Radiation wrote:

You told someone to go sit in a corner and then you told someone else that they are a fake account because they have a different opinion, then you sent me a pm asking me if I am high. Get over yourself. You have a bad attitude dude.

I am deeply sorry you misunderstood a great number of things. Please familiarize yourself with hyperbole and humor, and also what is known as "reading between the lines".

Once again, I want more people to play this game and not be discouraged by snobbery from painting fundamentalists. You keep ignoring this and just keep attacking me personally. You have said NOTHING about painting or a table top standard since you started yammering at me. NOTHING. You have been completely off topic. Please stop. Thank you.

Super Newb wrote:

 Radiation wrote:

You told someone to go sit in a corner and then you told someone else that they are a fake account because they have a different opinion, then you sent me a pm asking me if I am high. Get over yourself. You have a bad attitude dude.

I am deeply sorry you misunderstood a great number of things. Please familiarize yourself with hyperbole and humor, and also what is known as "reading between the lines".

Once again, I want more people to play this game and not be discouraged by snobbery. You keep ignoring this and just keep attacking me personally. You have said NOTHING about painting or a table top standard since you started yammering at me. NOTHING. You have been completely off topic. Please stop. Thank you.

Apology accepted.

RULE #1 - it is not optional - it is mandatory.

I'm not saying that models need to be painted to a table top standard, or any standard. yes, I feel that games are better if models are painted, but that has nothing to do with if a given army is TTS or not.

It might feel like people are being mean because they feel that words have meanings, but that's just how it is sometimes. The best of intentions don't turn an incompletely painted model into something that looks good. It just doesn't.

 Polonius wrote:
I'm not saying that models need to be painted to a table top standard, or any standard. yes, I feel that games are better if models are painted, but that has nothing to do with if a given army is TTS or not.

It might feel like people are being mean because they feel that words have meanings, but that's just how it is sometimes. The best of intentions don't turn an incompletely painted model into something that looks good. It just doesn't.

It might be more fun to play against a painted army than an unpainted one, but actively criticizing someone for not having an army painted to whatever standard you personally hold doesn't magically make the game more fun either, so there's really no point in doing it other than being vindictive.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 Polonius wrote:
I'm not saying that models need to be painted to a table top standard, or any standard. yes, I feel that games are better if models are painted, but that has nothing to do with if a given army is TTS or not.

It might feel like people are being mean because they feel that words have meanings, but that's just how it is sometimes. The best of intentions don't turn an incompletely painted model into something that looks good. It just doesn't.

It might be more fun to play against a painted army than an unpainted one, but actively criticizing someone for not having an army painted to whatever standard you personally hold doesn't magically make the game more fun either, so there's really no point in doing it other than being vindictive.

"In the name of Lord Vect, your army SHALL be properly attired, or you, commander, shall be flayed and fed to the beasts!"

*cowers* "Yesssss masterrrr...." *slithers away to find a paintbrush*

See, forging the narrative! I'll bet Vect would be very good at getting Kabalites to paint up their army to tabletop standard.

 Talys wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 Polonius wrote:
I'm not saying that models need to be painted to a table top standard, or any standard. yes, I feel that games are better if models are painted, but that has nothing to do with if a given army is TTS or not.

It might feel like people are being mean because they feel that words have meanings, but that's just how it is sometimes. The best of intentions don't turn an incompletely painted model into something that looks good. It just doesn't.

It might be more fun to play against a painted army than an unpainted one, but actively criticizing someone for not having an army painted to whatever standard you personally hold doesn't magically make the game more fun either, so there's really no point in doing it other than being vindictive.

"In the name of Lord Vect, your army SHALL be properly attired, or you, commander, shall be flayed and fed to the beasts!"

*cowers* "Yesssss masterrrr...." *slithers away to find a paintbrush*

See, forging the narrative! I'll bet Vect would be very good at getting Kabalites to paint up their army to tabletop standard.

"Ever'ting Red, boss!" said every ork painter ever! haha


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Polonius wrote:

 djphranq wrote:
I've come to understand table top quality to mean that the model looks decently painted on the playing field. (Of course 'decently painted' is going to mean different things for different folks).

In regards to '3 color standard', to me that's more of an organized play type of stipulation.

yeah, the phrase itself comes from the expression "it looks good on the tabletop," as opposed to a display cabinet.

Keep in mind that not only is this a bit subjective across people, it's changed over time. Minis painting has really gotten better over time. Just look at some of the codexes from late 1990s...

Oh I know right? I had one of the older Citadel how-to-paint books and would flip through it. It wasn't till I got a White dwarf that was from a more recent date (well recent compared to the book) that I saw the difference. I ended up looking for issues in between the publication of the book and the white dwarf I was looking through and it was kind of cool.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 Polonius wrote:
I'm not saying that models need to be painted to a table top standard, or any standard. yes, I feel that games are better if models are painted, but that has nothing to do with if a given army is TTS or not.

It might feel like people are being mean because they feel that words have meanings, but that's just how it is sometimes. The best of intentions don't turn an incompletely painted model into something that looks good. It just doesn't.

It might be more fun to play against a painted army than an unpainted one, but actively criticizing someone for not having an army painted to whatever standard you personally hold doesn't magically make the game more fun either, so there's really no point in doing it other than being vindictive.

You realize that nobody said that they would actively criticize anybody, right? Of course you encourage painters, no matter how minimal the results so far. It's also usually not too hard to separate a person that's reached the upper limit of what they can do, and a person that's only half painted their army, and craft responses accordingly. I'll give constructive feedback only if I think it'll help, otherwise I give a sort of vague, "I like the color scheme" type commentary.

 Peregrine wrote:

What does that accomplish when the main obstacle is a lack of desire, not a lack of skill? There are countless tutorials online for how to do basic painting if people want to do it. The problem is that they don't care if their models are plain gray, just like they don't care if half of them have broken pieces from being carelessly piled into a box between games.

Lack of desire often comes from lack of skill, lack of help, lack of other people giving positive feedback (constructive criticism included).

You're right, there are tons of painting tutorials online - but being shown in person is both more effective and more 'powerful' for most people. Reading a guide / watching a video pales in comparison to chatting with someone, having them show you how to do it, and then having them help you master it by pointing out little errors. Say what you will about GW stores, but back when I got into the hobby the store I went to was one of the main reasons I stayed with it. A couple of the guys there showed / told me a bout a lot of things and I've kept that knowledge to date. I probably would have dropped the plastic crack pretty damn quickly if everyone just said "You suck, go watch a video on youtube before you come tarnish our beautiful table with your crap models".

 Peregrine wrote:

Why not? If they can't even invest a token amount of effort in painting then why shouldn't I dismiss them? That sea of gray models isn't appealing to look at, and that removes a lot of my enjoyment of the game.

Not everyone has the same amount of time or the same interests. Some people love the heck out of building and converting, but aren't great / don't like painting. Some people are the opposite. Some people just want to play with their models.

Why are your toy soldiers better than yours? Since when did playing in the sandbox become about elitism?

 Polonius wrote:
You realize that nobody said that they would actively criticize anybody, right?

Actually that's where this whole thing started...

 Peregrine wrote:
And I absolutely will criticize the people who can't bother to do even a basic level of painting on their armies.

No body ever asked for praise for having unpainted models. Being encouraging or saying nothing is totally fine.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 Polonius wrote:
You realize that nobody said that they would actively criticize anybody, right?

Actually that's where this whole thing started...

 Peregrine wrote:
And I absolutely will criticize the people who can't bother to do even a basic level of painting on their armies.

No body ever asked for praise for having unpainted models. Being encouraging or saying nothing is totally fine.

Fair enough. I'll say this, while keeping in mind rule #1 (and the no true scotsman fallacy), some posters have a wide range of strong and inflexible opinions, that they present loudly and frequently, and actively seek "vigorous debate" on. I would sometimes think that suggestions about how they act when confronted with a given issue are due more to the inherent character of the poster than to relevant issue.

That said, I guess I wouldn't say anything critical of a person's paint job if they stayed silent on it. Whatever, if a person brings a "barely legal" army to an event, it's by definition allowed and I know that when I walked in. If that person made the claim that their color primer marines with boltgun bolters and contrasting shoulder pads was "table top standard," I might interject, as it really isn't. I can't imagine I'd actively say anything to the guy though.

The overwhelming majority of unpainted armies are unpainted because the owner has chose not to spend the time painting them. I know everybody has a list of excuses, but that's all they are for nearly all people. For brand new players, I'm all about cutting them slack, and anybody making progress is making progress, so I'm happy. But while I might not be as confrontational about it, I'm no less happy with perfectly capable people bringing the same bare plastic army to the club every week.

At the end of the day painting an army is usually an epic time investment so I'm not going to get too stressed if someone doesn't want to make time to do it especially if they don't enjoy it and/or don't care. Even though I prefer playing against painted models and only field painted models myself, to me it's not worth it being a point of contention.

If it's a minimum requirement to enter a tournament, whatever, if they can fulfil the minimum requirements who am I to call them out on it. Competition is all about bending the rules to your will, if that means only doing the bare minimum to field the models you want to field then I think that's acceptable.

To me "I can't be bothered" is a totally legitimate excuse for not painting an army. I don't expect people to sacrifice other parts of their life to grind through a part of the hobby they don't enjoy. Even though I myself don't hate painting these days if I wanted to start a new 40k or WHFB army from scratch I simply couldn't do it. My last army, Tyranids, took me years to get on to the table. I just don't have the time and while I could conceivable make time I don't want to.

In my tiny gaming community, I'm the only one with a painted army. If I refused to play with or heavily criticized my opponents for playing unpainted, I'd be sitting by myself in a corner. All I can do is put a fully painted army on the table and hope that encourages my opponents to get theirs painted.

As for the OP's question, I agree with a number of the posters here. I think of TTQ as "Does it look like a cohesive army when it's on the table and I'm standing across from it?" Armies that are good TTQ can look better than display pieces from that distance, often due to bright colors or good contrasts (as opposed to many display quality minis that have subtle color shifts and may not have such bright contrasts). I don't think TTQ is failure to meet the display standard, but painted with a different intent.

 Talys wrote:

 rexscarlet wrote:

 Talys wrote:

 rexscarlet wrote:
As others have noted;
Three color minimum and flocked bases (now it means finished bases, not smooth plain bases). And black is not a color, lol...
.
Think of it this way;
It is your hobby, but it is also your opponents hobby, so painting is a way to respect your opponent, thus a three color minimum is just what it is; a bare minimum.

Soooo... if you use blue primer, is blue a color?

In my years, I have played a bazillion ultramarines that are no more than painted blue, wash splashed on, and a decal on the shoulder. Sometimes, a cheapo drybrush. Some people count a colored ring on the base a "color" too lol.

.
lol, no really "black" is not a color by a science definition, and white is not a color by artist definition; http://www.colormatters.com/color-and-design/are-black-and-white-colors
.
Sad the way some treat this hobby as a whole, there are three books in WH40k as a whole, not just one, just as baseball as a whole includes specific uniforms and equipment rules, but some 40k players just use "The Rules" ("Physical" rules) book only, ignoring the other two books, like playing sandlot baseball and quoting a balk on little Susie when she lifts her foot off the Frisbee proxy pitchers mound, I like to call this "Have your Cake and Eat it too," http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/You_can%27t_have_your_cake_and_eat_it
This does not mean Sandlot baseball cannot be fun, but do not dare tell little Susie she cannot play because her inhaler is Steroids, lol...
.
This neglect of the rest of the game as a whole is where three color minimum stems from, best I can recall is back in 3e, when Tournaments were in full swing and GW stores only allowed playing in stores if a three color minimum was met (RT1e and 2e players painted, I cannot recall an unpainted model on the table in RT1e or 2e), a minimum for the "hobby as a whole," if you just like to play, or are a poor painter, or do not like to paint, and etc. a three color minimum is still achievable so ALL can enjoy "your" hobby. (opponents).
.

I was being a little facetious I've played since Rogue Trader, when we made up our own army lists, and even then, all models had to be painted (our club had a TWO color minimum -- other than primer -- hehe). I'm actually surprised by the number of posts to this thread. Putting aside tournament rules, I've always known what a "tabletop standard" was, even if it wasn't defined. Kind of like, I've always known what an ***hole player is

So was I lol, yes, since RT1e as well.

Again, here in the US, at the several FLGS in my area, there was no "minimum" during RT1e or 2e at FLGS, players, or tournaments; players just painted their models, this was the same with Battletech, Silent Death, Micro Armor, Historicals, and etc.
I would say here in the US, GW stores and 3e (this may have been 2e in UK?) is when it started, GW stores set the rule; three color minimum to play in store (on store tables), then players, groups, clubs, and FLGS set the rule, as GW IS the governing body of rules.
.
But then, in 5e, GW stores lifted the rule, and allowed bare plastic, metal, and resin to be played in store, but tournaments still enforced the rule; three color minimum.
.
Now throw in the rift between tournament players (organized baseball WH40K as a whole; all three books) and pew-pew players (sandlot players with strict physical rules using "the rules" only book) and the lack of GTs and support from GW, and the three color minimum has kind of fallen by the wayside.
.
What players forget is that WH40k is multiple single hobbies (playing, painting, modeling, back-story of your army/fluff, etc.) in one, BUT is designed "as a whole" all three books, and a three color "minimum" is just that, a minimum, because maybe we should show "minimum" respect to our opponents love of the hobby.

Super Newb wrote:

 Polonius wrote:

Super Newb wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:


If you're not meeting those three requirements then you're just using "tabletop standard" as an excuse for poor quality.

Lol. Look in the mirror. The say to yourself "My statements hurt the hobby and help no one." The go sit in the corner for awhile.

No, I think it's good for the hobby to seperate event specific requirements from an understanding of good paint jobs.

I thought having two accounts was against the rules? Anyway, whether you call yourself Peregrine or Polonius telling people they are making excuses for "poor quality", saying flat out that you will criticize other people's paint jobs to their face - basically acting like a complete and utter snob and all of the negative connotations that come with that word - no - definitively NO that is not good for the hobby. People who act like that turn people away from the hobby!

Super Newb,

I think you are right on with this observation. Being a paint/modeling snob in this way DOES turn people away from the hobby and it is NOT productive in the long run. It is also simply "not nice" (a violation of the first rule of this forum.)

I can tell you from personal experience Perigrine had some "not nice" comments about some of my work I posted a month or so ago. I was not even asking for comments/critique on the work but I got it, and it was not so nice. I don't/didn't have a problem with the critque in general, but I did have a problem with the "tone" it took. What was said could have been done in a nicer way, but I was told I just need to get thicker skin and suck it up by both the poster and the mods of this board. So as a result I will no longer share my work with this community. I am sure nobody will shed a tear over that, but it is an example of how harsh critque does have a negative effect on the hobby.

Then again this is the internet so if you are looking for unicorns and rainbows they are few and far between and for sure would NOT expect to find them anywhewre at this particular community.

As to the OP. I have no idea what "tabletop standard" means. Nor do I really care what it means. I just try and paint to the best of my ability on each model I do. I make slow progress but progress no less. For me my "standard" is no gray, all surfaces covered with some kind of paint and then sealed with quickshade to give them a washed look and protect them a bit. I don't generally use a model in a game until it is painted to my "standard". You can look at my gallery here for my examples (will not post to thread, see comment above as to why.)

Loborocket wrote:

Super Newb wrote:

 Polonius wrote:

Super Newb wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:


If you're not meeting those three requirements then you're just using "tabletop standard" as an excuse for poor quality.

Lol. Look in the mirror. The say to yourself "My statements hurt the hobby and help no one." The go sit in the corner for awhile.

No, I think it's good for the hobby to seperate event specific requirements from an understanding of good paint jobs.

I thought having two accounts was against the rules? Anyway, whether you call yourself Peregrine or Polonius telling people they are making excuses for "poor quality", saying flat out that you will criticize other people's paint jobs to their face - basically acting like a complete and utter snob and all of the negative connotations that come with that word - no - definitively NO that is not good for the hobby. People who act like that turn people away from the hobby!

Super Newb,

I think you are right on with this observation. Being a paint/modeling snob in this way DOES turn people away from the hobby and it is NOT productive in the long run. It is also simply "not nice" (a violation of the first rule of this forum.)

I can tell you from personal experience Perigrine had some "not nice" comments about some of my work I posted a month or so ago. I was not even asking for comments/critique on the work but I got it, and it was not so nice. I don't/didn't have a problem with the critque in general, but I did have a problem with the "tone" it took. What was said could have been done in a nicer way, but I was told I just need to get thicker skin and suck it up by both the poster and the mods of this board. So as a result I will no longer share my work with this community. I am sure nobody will shed a tear over that, but it is an example of how harsh critque does have a negative effect on the hobby.

Then again this is the internet so if you are looking for unicorns and rainbows they are few and far between and for sure would NOT expect to find them anywhewre at this particular community.

As to the OP. I have no idea what "tabletop standard" means. Nor do I really care what it means. I just try and paint to the best of my ability on each model I do. I make slow progress but progress no less. For me my "standard" is no gray, all surfaces covered with some kind of paint and then sealed with quickshade to give them a washed look and protect them a bit. I don't generally use a model in a game until it is painted to my "standard". You can look at my gallery here for my examples (will not post to thread, see comment above as to why.)

That's rather sad to hear that someone could discourage you to post pics of your work. I do understand though. This is what I was talking about in my OP about people ruining the hobby for others simply because they have to be asshats about it. It's not good for the hobby and it's not nice to do period.

Loborocket wrote:
[q

Super Newb,

I think you are right on with this observation. Being a paint/modeling snob in this way DOES turn people away from the hobby and it is NOT productive in the long run. It is also simply "not nice" (a violation of the first rule of this forum.)

Of course it does. But there's always a difference between having a standard, and how you enforce it. One of the major tenets of etiquitte is to not openly or rudely point out breaches in etiquiette. Polite speech and standards are not inherently linked. Being rude in the service of some ideal is probably neither noble nor benefitical.

I can tell you from personal experience Perigrine had some "not nice" comments about some of my work I posted a month or so ago. I was not even asking for comments/critique on the work but I got it, and it was not so nice. I don't/didn't have a problem with the critque in general, but I did have a problem with the "tone" it took. What was said could have been done in a nicer way, but I was told I just need to get thicker skin and suck it up by both the poster and the mods of this board. So as a result I will no longer share my work with this community. I am sure nobody will shed a tear over that, but it is an example of how harsh critque does have a negative effect on the hobby.

Then again this is the internet so if you are looking for unicorns and rainbows they are few and far between and for sure would NOT expect to find them anywhewre at this particular community.

That's interesting. I took a look through your posting history, and I could find only one intereaction between you two, in a matter of GW playtesting. I may have missed it, of course, but it looks like somebody deleted the offending post.

I also noted that nearly all of your threads in P&M had a lot of positive feedback. People were openly impressed with your work.

So, because one guy said something mean, you think this whole community is somehow flawed? That's messed up, man.

 Polonius wrote:

Loborocket wrote:
[q

Super Newb,

I think you are right on with this observation. Being a paint/modeling snob in this way DOES turn people away from the hobby and it is NOT productive in the long run. It is also simply "not nice" (a violation of the first rule of this forum.)

Of course it does. But there's always a difference between having a standard, and how you enforce it. One of the major tenets of etiquitte is to not openly or rudely point out breaches in etiquiette. Polite speech and standards are not inherently linked. Being rude in the service of some ideal is probably neither noble nor benefitical.

I can tell you from personal experience Perigrine had some "not nice" comments about some of my work I posted a month or so ago. I was not even asking for comments/critique on the work but I got it, and it was not so nice. I don't/didn't have a problem with the critque in general, but I did have a problem with the "tone" it took. What was said could have been done in a nicer way, but I was told I just need to get thicker skin and suck it up by both the poster and the mods of this board. So as a result I will no longer share my work with this community. I am sure nobody will shed a tear over that, but it is an example of how harsh critque does have a negative effect on the hobby.

Then again this is the internet so if you are looking for unicorns and rainbows they are few and far between and for sure would NOT expect to find them anywhewre at this particular community.

That's interesting. I took a look through your posting history, and I could find only one intereaction between you two, in a matter of GW playtesting. I may have missed it, of course, but it looks like somebody deleted the offending post.

I also noted that nearly all of your threads in P&M had a lot of positive feedback. People were openly impressed with your work.

So, because one guy said something mean, you think this whole community is somehow flawed? That's messed up, man.

The "exchange" is (or was) there when I posted this AM.

Some threads with images of my work may have positive feedback, but I have made a personal decision to not post images to threads in this community because of comments my work has received, and what I perceive to be the general negative tone of this community. Way to much nastyness and little care from moderation to curtail the behavior.

So no my decision is not based on one person's comments, it is simply the proverbial "straw that broke the camel's back". I still come to and post in the dakkadakka forums because it seems to have the most traffic, it is just too bad there is a nasty undercurrent here too. If you consider that "messed up", so be it.

Loborocket wrote:

The "exchange" is (or was) there when I posted this AM.

Some threads with images of my work may have positive feedback, but I have made a personal decision to not post images to threads in this community because of comments my work has received, and what I perceive to be the general negative tone of this community. Way to much nastyness and little care from moderation to curtail the behavior.

So no my decision is not based on one person's comments, it is simply the proverbial "straw that broke the camel's back". I still come to and post in the dakkadakka forums because it seems to have the most traffic, it is just too bad there is a nasty undercurrent here too. If you consider that "messed up", so be it.

Well, I guess you're complaining about the reception your work gets. I reviewed every thread you started, and saw nothing but positive or constructive comments. You're complaining of a general negative tone, which I don't see, at least not with regard to your work.

I think you can see why I'm a bit puzzled. What I see is very different from what you describe, which leads me to believe that either what you've exprienced has been deleting (thus showing that moderation does, in fact, "care... to curtail the behavior," or that you and I have different calibrations for nastyness.

For me, it's simple. Tabletop Standard is the level where the person who owns the model is happy to put it on the table without feeling ashamed of the quality of the paintjob. They don't need to feel proud of it; as long as they aren't making excuses for the quality, it's TTQ.

Table top quality to me means: base coated, washed and fully based.

Often I see people on the Internet refer to models as good as the 'eavy metal team's as "table top quality" and it's a bit of a pet hate for me lol (and an in-joke in my local GW).

I like to think of my models as above table top quality.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Table top quality to me means: base coated, washed and fully based.

Often I see people on the Internet refer to models as good as the 'eavy metal team's as "table top quality" and it's a bit of a pet hate for me lol (and an in-joke in my local GW).

I like to think of my models as above table top quality.

Aelyn wrote:
For me, it's simple. Tabletop Standard is the level where the person who owns the model is happy to put it on the table without feeling ashamed of the quality of the paintjob. They don't need to feel proud of it; as long as they aren't making excuses for the quality, it's TTQ.

there's a simple elegance to that definition that I like. It replaced the subjectivity of the observer with the subjectivity of the painter, and allows an observer to tell how a painter feels about their work.

Aged Cherrywood with a gloss varnish?

 queen_annes_revenge wrote:
Aged Cherrywood with a gloss varnish?

I see what you did there

Thought this thread Was getting a bit serious