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 feel I must counter-rant:

I recently finished my Blood Raven army, I have about 8 unpainted models out of around about 70... and two vehicles that still need assembling: THAT I would persecute me for.

But now I'm starting (finally) an Imperial Guard army; and I just started on some shock troops.

It took me about 3 hours last night to undercoat, base and add on camo patterns for 4 shock troopers; I still have to highlight and add on details and washes (this isn't even including assembly of course).

Now I intend to focus primarily on infantry with this guard army... if I get a whole platoon or more and decide to paint them to MY standards (which I've set pretty highliy) that's going to take me many, many, MANY hours: Time that I really don't have at the moment, so, if I decide I'd like to try out my guard army that I've paid for and get some battle experience with them under my belt... am I going to attract frowns because the majority probably won't be painted? Even if the minority are painted to a good standard?

CT GAMER wrote:
encouraging people to berate other members goes beyond this, especially when you have a "MOD" title.

How so? Look at this from a philosophical standpoint. There are two basic stances here;
1) People should be allowed to do whatever they want.
2) People should be required to meet some basic community standard.

Part of something being a community standard is the idea that the community requires adherence to the standard. As long as the community stays quiet on the issue, there is no community standard, and so stance 1 wins by default.

At the moment, the people who believe in allowing people to do whatever they want are willing to fight for their stance. They create negative labels to use (elitist), and by doing so marginalize the opinions of those who wish for a minimum standard. If you call me an elitist, you can then ignore anything else I say as the ravings of an elitist...

If you want there to be a community standard, you have to fight for it too. That fight involves creating the peer pressure required to have people want to change their behaviour so that they can be accepted by the community. And the way to create that peer pressure is by making public comments about the issue. These can be positive reinforcement (complimentary comments for people who post pics of their painted models) and they can also be negative reinforcement (derissive comments when people post pics of their unpainted models).

Perhaps it is the word berate that you object to. I don't mean that you call a person a name. I mean that if you see a battle report with pics of unpainted miniatures, you say something like "eh, that looks okay, but it would have been cool if the armies had been painted."

You cannot have a community standard unless the community actively seeks to meet that standard. And making comments, both positive and negative, are the only way to go about this.

---

As a side note, I'd also like to point out that most people who say 'you don't need to paint your miniatures' still want a community standard, just one that doesn't involve painting. Is it "elitist" to refuse to play against someone who cannot afford to purchase authentic GW miniatures, but who can field an army of appropriately-sized cardboard markers (See poorhammer)? It does not impact gameplay at all - if all you care about is the gameplay, why is this an issue?

This ties directly into Luna's financial comment as well. I'll grant that the price of a miniature goes down when it is painted, but it also goes down when it is assembled. Assembled models are fixed, whereas unassembled models can be customized by the owner. Therefore, there is a financial disincentive to assembling your models. Why don't people field armies of folded paper markers, or empty bases? Because there is a community standard that says you have to play with assembled miniatures.

Being in favour of community standards does not make one elitist. Apparently you believe that being in favour of community standards in excess of what you personally want to do does.

Redbeard wrote:
How so? Look at this from a philosophical standpoint. There are two basic stances here;
1) People should be allowed to do whatever they want.
2) People should be required to meet some basic community standard.

I follow #2. But the community standard I choose to follow has nothing to do with painting.

I use the Boolean logic:
Is my opponent TFG?
if true, don't play against him/her.
if false, play and have fun, regardless of what their army looks like.

I will bring a painted army, but all I ask in return from my opponent is that they are not TFG.

pombe wrote:
I follow #2. But the community standard I choose to follow has nothing to do with painting.

I use the Boolean logic:
Is my opponent TFG?
if true, don't play against him/her.
if false, play and have fun, regardless of what their army looks like.

I will bring a painted army, but all I ask in return from my opponent is that they are not TFG.

/agree, I hate TFGs.

Kilkrazy wrote:Most people who don't paint their figures are basically n00bs who will probably drop out of wargaming as fast as they bought into it.

Nearly anyone who is serious about tabletop games will come to paint their figures because that is the point of playing tabletop games.

I gotta disagree quite strongly here. Your first statement that people who don't paint their figs are noobs is simply inflammatory so i'll set it aside.

As for painting figures being the point of playing tabletop games, perhaps that is true for you, but who are you to say that is everyone's motivation? I have a new skaven army that I will NOT be painting for a few reasons.

1) Time - I work 10-14 hours a day, when I get time, I'd rather play than paint.

2) Value - Sure, an army painted by someone that has a clue looks nice, but it also drops the re-sale value right into the toilet. What if, in 2 years time, I want to play a new army. Am I stuck relegating my models to a box in the closet in case I ever get the uger to play them again? Not if they are unpainted! Unpainted models are easier to trade and sell.

3) Ease of switching weapons - My Ultra army is painted and looks great. Sadly, any time I want to change a weapon, I end up playing the paint touch-up game for an hour or two. If they were unpainted, I'd swap the weapons and move on with my life.


In this months WD, Jervis talks about how great painting is and how it makes us a niche hobby.
Jervis goes on to say that GW will never make prepaints for this reason. That's a cute spin, but rather I think that he and GW are aware that a thriving aftermarket would seriously cut into their profits. Right now, the combinations of the effort of paint removal and reassembly and the culture of painting snobs that GW has fostered have devalued painted models to the point where most people simply buy new.

If there were pre-paints you could have essentially "rent-an-armies" where you buy them, play them till you get bored and trade for or sell and buy a new one. It alters their business model significantly and that is something they certainly would not like.


In closing: If you want to paint, paint. If your the kind of meathead, however, that gives others crap about not having their army painted then I wouldn't want to play you anyway.


In response to REDBEARD's comment:

Is it "elitist" to refuse to play against someone who cannot afford to purchase authentic GW miniatures, but who can field an army of appropriately-sized cardboard markers (See poorhammer)? It does not impact gameplay at all - if all you care about is the gameplay, why is this an issue?

With true line of sight being introduced in 40K, the use of non-GW figs would affect the game, so yes, I would have a problem with it. On the other hand, in WHFB - be my guest!

I don't object to there being a standard, but as others before me have stated, I object that painting has to be the minimum standard.

Painted minis can also go for more on a resell, it all depends on how well they're done, and how much people like your color scheme, and whether or not people actually want that model and not the parts for a conversion.


I would like to disagree with the original post. I don't think we're seeing fewer people painting either more or less than we used to. There have always been a lot of unpainted armies out there, and there will always be.


Locally, we have a good number of very well painted forces, and a decent number of unpainted forces. I have to say, a lot of the painting snobs at my LGS have left 40k and are painting Warmachine or Hordes forces instead.

Altogether, though, I think there are local painting metas just like there are local gaming metas. The meta at my LGS has us at some pretty competitive levels, our local painting competitions are fierce. That drives some people to paint better, but it unfortunately drives some people away from the painting altogether.

When I lived in Denver, the LGS I went to the most had almost no unpainted forces, and the painting was fairly good overall. So, I'm convinced it is all local.

Loki_TBC wrote:
In response to REDBEARD's comment:

Is it "elitist" to refuse to play against someone who cannot afford to purchase authentic GW miniatures, but who can field an army of appropriately-sized cardboard markers (See poorhammer)? It does not impact gameplay at all - if all you care about is the gameplay, why is this an issue?

With true line of sight being introduced in 40K, the use of non-GW figs would affect the game, so yes, I would have a problem with it. On the other hand, in WHFB - be my guest!

What part of 'appropriately-sized' would prevent true line of sight from still working. It's really not that hard to measure a rhino and a marine and cut your cardboard appropriately.


In addition, I have sold quite a few miniatures. The ones I have painted have always sold for more than I paid for them, while the ones that I did not paint have sold for less. It's really a matter of how well the miniatures are painted, not simply whether they are or not that makes the difference. Poorly painted minis lose value for the reasons you describe. Well-painted minis gain value.

LunaHound wrote:
For the people that insist on others to hastily paint their army for the sake of visual appeal for your gaming experience i suggest you visit the swap shop.

There you'll see the heart breaking stories of people painting their army , some even had them commission painted.

At the end of the day, all the effort , time , $ spent on it fetches them below 20% off retail value , due to the buyer want to strip the paint off.

Well the idea of having a painted army is more for the owner's personal enjoyment not his opponent's.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Redbeard wrote:

This ties directly into Luna's financial comment as well. I'll grant that the price of a miniature goes down when it is painted, but it also goes down when it is assembled. Assembled models are fixed, whereas unassembled models can be customized by the owner. Therefore, there is a financial disincentive to assembling your models. Why don't people field armies of folded paper markers, or empty bases? Because there is a community standard that says you have to play with assembled miniatures.

I don't know if it so much external factors as internal factors; for example, people might get a inner sence of pride and accomplishment in fielding assembled or painted models. It is just that maybe some people run into deminishing returns when it comes to such accomplishments. For one person, simply assembling the models meets his sense of accomplishement and painting the models would not add any further meaningful sense of achievemnet. Where as someone like me doesn't feel aduquate achievemnet until a model is painted to a very high standard.

I do agree, I like to see both armies painted on the table. However, my army of orks is about 90% painted at 1500pts, 75% at 2k. If people are making it towards their goal, good for them. Like stated above, the painted army is for the personal enjoyment of the owner/painter. I know plenty of people who paint painstakingly slow, or ask others to paint for them, and I am ok with that.
As a casual gamer, I only require 2 things from my opponent, 1. They are not rude. and 2. We both have fun!

Redbeard wrote:

Look at this from a philosophical standpoint. There are two basic stances here;
1) People should be allowed to do whatever they want.
2) People should be required to meet some basic community standard.

I agree here.

Part of something being a community standard is the idea that the community requires adherence to the standard. As long as the community stays quiet on the issue, there is no community standard, and so stance 1 wins by default

.

This is an interesting point. I'd argue that perhaps 2 wins by default. If you are outside looking in I'd bet most folks would say painting is required. I'd also argue that most "communities" require some amount of effort to paint and that the pressure is applied. The reason is that if I set up a game with someone I usually get asked permission to play an "unpainted unit. Until they get to know me and I don't hold that standard.

At the moment, the people who believe in allowing people to do whatever they want are willing to fight for their stance. They create negative labels to use (elitist), and by doing so marginalize the opinions of those who wish for a minimum standard. If you call me an elitist, you can then ignore anything else I say as the ravings of an elitist...

The pro painting stance is hardly elitist and I don't think I've seen one of the "Pro what ever you want crowd" claim elitism. I certainly don't think the "pro paint" community is that way. In fact we (painters-yes I paint) are generally very inclusive and try to encourage others to paint their figures or show tips on how to paint...post articles and give a lot of theirselves to get others to pick up a brush. I'd argue that propainters do a considerable amount more for the hobby on average versus the "do as you please group."

What I find odd is the refusal of playing someone who isn't fully painted or even part painted. How do you introduce someone to the hobby? I don't get where the harm is? Perhaps it is permissive but I believe if you let someone into your world they will pick it up. Positive vs. Negative reinforcement.

If you want there to be a community standard, you have to fight for it too. That fight involves creating the peer pressure required to have people want to change their behaviour so that they can be accepted by the community. And the way to create that peer pressure is by making public comments about the issue. These can be positive reinforcement (complimentary comments for people who post pics of their painted models) and they can also be negative reinforcement (derissive comments when people post pics of their unpainted models).

Hmmm... I'm not sure the standard needs to be fought for.

You cannot have a community standard unless the community actively seeks to meet that standard. And making comments, both positive and negative, are the only way to go about this.

That is not the only way. Dakka Dakka runs painting contests, the site runs a "how to forum", it hosts a gallery. These ways passively show that painting is an active and encouraged part of the hobby. In your own LGS you might run clinics or other contests.
---

As a side note, I'd also like to point out that most people who say 'you don't need to paint your miniatures' still want a community standard, just one that doesn't involve painting. Is it "elitist" to refuse to play against someone who cannot afford to purchase authentic GW miniatures, but who can field an army of appropriately-sized cardboard markers (See poorhammer)? It does not impact gameplay at all - if all you care about is the gameplay, why is this an issue?

Your point is taken...yes.. at some point we all draw a line where the hobby starts. For you the minimum to participate in the hobby is a rulebook, figs, and three colors. For me it is a rule book and figs and to the guy with a Bootleg PDF and Cardboard chits I'm probably elitist. However... I don't fight for my 'community standard'. I don't go online and call out the cardboard chit guys to tell them they need to shape up and buy figures. Come to think of it though.... my first box of Warhammer came with cardboard chits of Orc/Goblins vs Empire.

I don't think it makes me less concerened about the hobby or where it heads... I just believe it is up to the individual to determine where they want to draw the line. I mean... I've lined up against Grey Plastic Black Reach Orks that were "Necrons" (new guy getting into the game). I've lined up against empty bases that were war walkers (guy said he forgot them... maybe yes...maybe he neve bought them... meh).

Being in favour of community standards does not make one elitist. Apparently you believe that being in favour of community standards in excess of what you personally want to do does.

Again... have I missed the post in this thread where the paint guys were called elitist? I think the pro paint guys threw this out as a defense mechanism vs. their points.


Good stuff,
John

Loki_TBC wrote:


In closing: If you want to paint, paint. If your the kind of meathead, however, that gives others crap about not having their army painted then I wouldn't want to play you anyway.

So true. The fact that time is a limited resource and money is not equal across the board, you should be willing to give a little slack instead of being TFG.

Kilkrazy wrote:Most people who don't paint their figures are basically n00bs who will probably drop out of wargaming as fast as they bought into it.

Nearly anyone who is serious about tabletop games will come to paint their figures because that is the point of playing tabletop games.

What? I hope nobody tells HBMC that, what with his multi-thousand dollar Legion of Grey that he has been collecting for years.

For me I like the gaming, the modeling and the painting. They are all facets of the hobby and while I am better at some than others, exploring them all and trying to attain a higher level of skill at them is most enjoyable.

It seems some in the local scene only want the gaming aspect. I've been to more than a few tournaments where every other army or every third army is painted by someone other than the owner. Now I would not suggest that having a figure, unit or otherwise filling in some slot with a nicely painted piece you obtained elsewhere was somehow not acceptable, but when whole armies are farmed out for painting it saddens me. There is a whole great adventure in building skills and learning new things that these players miss out on. I can always pick them out too; no real conversion work, nothing spectacular in the paint job, fairly clinical and unimaginative for the most part.

For me, I'd not turn down a game because someone fielded unpainted figs but I would encourage them to paint and I would not be above some good natured ribbing if they didn't show some kind of progress.

wyomingfox wrote:

LunaHound wrote:
For the people that insist on others to hastily paint their army for the sake of visual appeal for your gaming experience i suggest you visit the swap shop.

There you'll see the heart breaking stories of people painting their army , some even had them commission painted.

At the end of the day, all the effort , time , $ spent on it fetches them below 20% off retail value , due to the buyer want to strip the paint off.

Well the idea of having a painted army is more for the owner's personal enjoyment not his opponent's.

Yes thats my point , it was for people that insist " i cant enjoy playing if the other guy's army isnt painted"

Hence you have see some people quoted me into their sigs from a year ago " what? does the lack of painting not bring the realism you imagine your little plastic soldier to be?" or something like that.

2) Value - Sure, an army painted by someone that has a clue looks nice, but it also drops the re-sale value right into the toilet. What if, in 2 years time, I want to play a new army. Am I stuck relegating my models to a box in the closet in case I ever get the uger to play them again? Not if they are unpainted! Unpainted models are easier to trade and sell.

That's nonsense my friend.
Painting an army does NOT destroy it's resale value. If anything it usually enhances it greatly. Because of the fact (as we have seen in this thread) many people lack the skill/don't have time to paint/are too lazy/etc there is certainly a market for painted armies.

Granted if your army has an appalling paint job, the above statement is certainly true. Likewise if you make the mistake of trying to sell painted models on Ebay, you will be disapointed. (as an aside, I actually seek out horrible little kid painted models on ebay and buy them for pennies on the dollar with a mind to strip and repaint them) But the market does exist.

I'm generally considered to be slightly above average in painting skill. I generally get high marks in painting scores and have won "best army" a couple of time in historical competitions, but I'm never going to be remotely competative in high end painting contests like the Golden Daemon or the events you see at ReaperCon. But I could certainly be said to "have a clue", and sell painted armies at a profit all the time. Being a very fast painter, combined with the trait of growing tired of any army after a few years means this happens all the time. Just this last weekend at a local gaming convention I sold a 15mm 12th Century Byzantine army based for Field of Glory for 500$. The material cost for the figures was a little over 120$ or so. I of course turned right around and sank a large chunk of this into a bunch of unpainted lead in the dealer's room!

So please don't make the blanket unsuportable statement that painted figures have no resale value, because it simply is not true.

TR

Trench-Raider wrote:

2) Value - Sure, an army painted by someone that has a clue looks nice, but it also drops the re-sale value right into the toilet. What if, in 2 years time, I want to play a new army. Am I stuck relegating my models to a box in the closet in case I ever get the uger to play them again? Not if they are unpainted! Unpainted models are easier to trade and sell.

That's nonsense my friend.
Painting an army does NOT destroy it's resale value. If anything it usually enhances it greatly. Because of the fact (as we have seen in this thread) many people lack the skill/don't have time to paint/are too lazy/etc there is certainly a market for painted armies.

Granted if your army has an appalling paint job, the above statement is certainly true. Likewise if you make the mistake of trying to sell painted models on Ebay, you will be disapointed. (as an aside, I actually seek out horrible little kid painted models on ebay and buy them for pennies on the dollar with a mind to strip and repaint them) But the market does exist.

I'm generally considered to be slightly above average in painting skill. I generally get high marks in painting scores and have won "best army" a couple of time in historical competitions, but I'm never going to be remotely competative in high end painting contests like the Golden Daemon or the events you see at ReaperCon. But I could certainly be said to "have a clue", and sell painted armies at a profit all the time. Being a very fast painter, combined with the trait of growing tired of any army after a few years menas this happens all the time. Just this last weekend at a local gaming convention I sold a 15mm 12th Century Byzantine army based for Field of Glory for 500$. The material cost for the figures was a little over 120$ or so.

So please don't make the blanket unsuportable statement that painted figures have no resale value, because it simply is not true.

TR

it does sir , im sorry but it does. i dont want to mention any specific names , but it saddens me ( im sure the guy selling it was hit even worse ) to see his whole nicely painted army
sold for 70% retail price.

If you follow ebay or swapshop , you'll see unless the painted army scores around atleast a 7 ( dakka gallery ) , it will NOT even fetch the retail value.

ITT Paint nazis.

Its pretty simple.. Refuse to play unpainted. Be the rude person you are. If I turn up with an unpainted army, laugh in my face, and refuse to play. Say I forfeit due to my army being unpainted.

Then you wont need to post on dakka your sadness at unpainted armies.

People not painting their minis has been going on for a long long time, it isn't a new phenomenon. I remember back in the early 90's you would see a lot of unpainted stuff especially from so called "power gamers". So the "anymore" portion of your statement isn't really all that accurate.

Personally I think it's actually inconsiderate to your opponent to play with unpainted miniatures. There are some exceptions to that rule; for example a friendly game where one or both players want to experiment with a new troop type or model. For this reason I have a personal rule that I will not play a game with any unpainted miniatures unless it's just a small experimental troop/vehicle choice and it's against one of my friends. Otherwise i only field fully painted armies.

First off, shame to ye unpainters! Shame! Your army looks like crud! Have some pride, mon!

I respect anyone who tries to at least put some paint on a model. It doesn't have to be pro. But let it at least look good. There ARE games for people who don't want to paint (ie D&D minis). But I agree, why buy boxes of models and then NOT paint them?

That said, painting can take a long time to do, and I think most people will have some painted stuff and to go with it, mostly unpainted stuff. It is a journey - always more to paint! But keep at it! I don't field models unless they're painted. The rest stay home on the painting table. This is what motivates me to finish. You may find that you enjoy this sort of self-torture also.

So spray it black, highlight gold, DONE! At least it isn't grey! Take heart and join the club!

Well, I really think that us "painters" need to take a step back for a second.

Taking pride in our accomplishments in our art works is a personal inner reward. One that is not going to be shared nessessarily by others.

I know several friends, who are a joy to play against, that gain no personal fullfillment what so ever from painting thier miniatures. To them painting miniatures is about as fun as mowing grass.

For those of you who think that they will start enjoying painting once they get the knack of it, are missing the point that just because someone is talented at an activity or becomes good at an activity does not mean they will enjoy the activity. For example, I was a whiz at math in High School and College. I scored in the top 5% of the class ritualistically. In College, I regularily broke the test curve by scoring 97+. However, I did not nor do not enjoy math.

I don't enjoy painting, as such. I enjoy the satisfaction of playing with painted armies.

Some of my armies are ones I've painted myself, some were commissioned and some were bought secondhand.

I believe a lot of what Wyomingfox has written is true. If you don't like it, you probably won't learn to like it.

But a lot of it too is a matter of perception. I make a conscious decision everyday to paint or not. I make time for it because I enjoy it so much. When I paint it is like deep meditation where my mind is focused solely on the mini in front of me. Other ways of using up spare time are way too unproductive. TV is gak. Most films are gak. PC games are crack gak. All of them are either passive or frustrating at times. Mini painting can be frustrating, but it is never passive. You get better with each one until you get to the point that your regular guys look like the armies out of White Dwarf. It takes a long time. It took me almost 20 years to get to that point and probably a mountain of cash and time, but now I am so happy with the results of painting that I can't stop. I'll be painting until the day I die. Even if my hands are blown off and I'm blind in one eye, I'll figure some way around it.

If you follow ebay or swapshop , you'll see unless the painted army scores around atleast a 7 ( dakka gallery ) , it will NOT even fetch the retail value.

Read my complete post.
The problem is that you are talking about Ebay. Ebay is a notoriously bad venue to sell painted figures/armies and most people know it. The market and venue in which you sell is very important. I sell my work to other gamers at the local shop or take it to conventions. But decent paint jobs do NOT destroy the resale value.

TR

Khornholio wrote:But a lot of it too is a matter of perception. I make a conscious decision everyday to paint or not. I make time for it because I enjoy it so much. When I paint it is like deep meditation where my mind is focused solely on the mini in front of me. Other ways of using up spare time are way too unproductive. TV is gak. Most films are gak. PC games are crack gak. All of them are either passive or frustrating at times. Mini painting can be frustrating, but it is never passive. You get better with each one until you get to the point that your regular guys look like the armies out of White Dwarf. It takes a long time. It took me almost 20 years to get to that point and probably a mountain of cash and time, but now I am so happy with the results of painting that I can't stop. I'll be painting until the day I die. Even if my hands are blown off and I'm blind in one eye, I'll figure some way around it.

Couldn't have said it better

This thread has been reported.
1. Lets keep is calm people
2. moving to discussions.

This is a great thread, it's like a Christmas Special on television: the characters change, but the plot, the lessons, and the symbols all stay constant. Let's see what we have:

1) The smug feeling of superiority some posters have over they're ability to apply paint to toys.

2) Pathetic excuses for not having anything close to a painted army, including the classic chestnut "I'm a perfectionist and I paint really slowly." But somehow having a black primered army doesn't bother them, only having an army with base colors laid down would bother them. One person asserted that they couldn't afford paints. Really? Any veteran hobbyist could sell/give you a starter paint set, or tell you were to get stuff cheap. For a basic paint job it's about a $20 buy in (can of primer, 4 paints, a scoop of dirt for basing, elmers glue, and 2 brushes).

3) Thinly veiled contempt towards people that don't paint, as if they were some lesser form of creature unfit to discuss or play games with the like of a painter.

4) The shockingly ridiculous willful ignorance that leads to statements like "if you don't want to paint, why not just use cardboard," as if a three dimensional figure with a gun and base is somehow no more representative than chits.

5) The equally confounding willfull ignorance of those that seem to think that nobody could ever enjoy 40k without painting, and that removing any one aspect of the hobby makes a persons interest in the hobby beyond all belief.

6) The bewildering posts that seem to assert that "the new generation" raised on "TV and video games" demand instant gratification. That would be true if GW was launched in 1948, but since it's been around roughly the same time as console gaming and cable TV, that reasoning seems a bit thin. Even the internet has been ubiquitous for a decade now.

7) and finally, just because it's fun, the classic example of a Mod reminding us that "Mods can have opinions." Which of course, as most readers of the OT can vouch for, really means, "Mods can have and post opinions that would get any other user scolded."

Here are my positions:

First, shut up and paint your damn army. If you don't' have time because of work, than hire a kid to throw some paint on it. If you want to paint it beautifully (and honestly, how many of those armies are finished? 5%? Fewer?), put a basecoast down, and add highlights and layers later.

Secondly, get off your high horse about painting. Yes, painted armies are good, and we should do all we can to encourage them, but the proliferation of unpainted armies is a result of many factors, including expansion of the gamer base, increased army sizes, dramatically increased model detail, and relaxation of standards. For fun, open up a white dwarf from 1992, and one from today. Compare the armies in the battle reports, and consider how much more time it would take to replicate the results from the current army. Between number of models, increased detail, and far higher standards I'm guessing it takes triple the time.

Third, realize that people have fun in different ways, and if you have unpainted stuff, you should work to paint it to enable others to have fun. If you see an unpainted army, maybe you should play a game so others can have fun. By loosening sphincters and putting some time into the hobby, we can all have a lot more fun.

wyomingfox wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:Most people who don't paint their figures are basically n00bs who will probably drop out of wargaming as fast as they bought into it.

Nearly anyone who is serious about tabletop games will come to paint their figures because that is the point of playing tabletop games.

What? I hope nobody tells HBMC that, what with his multi-thousand dollar Legion of Grey that he has been collecting for years.

He is the exception that proves the rule.

Also, H.B.M.C. has recently experimented with painting Necrons, so perhaps he will eventually paint the rest of his stuff.

This is a great thread, it's like a Christmas Special on television: the characters change, but the plot, the lessons, and the symbols all stay constant. Let's see what we have:

1) The smug feeling of superiority some posters have over they're ability to apply paint to toys.
***Mmm superiority, it warms my heart
2) Pathetic excuses for not having anything close to a painted army, including the classic chestnut "I'm a perfectionist and I paint really slowly." But somehow having a black primered army doesn't bother them, only having an army with base colors laid down would bother them. One person asserted that they couldn't afford paints. Really? Any veteran hobbyist could sell/give you a starter paint set, or tell you were to get stuff cheap. For a basic paint job it's about a $20 buy in (can of primer, 4 paints, a scoop of dirt for basing, elmers glue, and 2 brushes).
***That’s me right there. Its taken me years to finish my evolving demon army and its still not done.
3) Thinly veiled contempt towards people that don't paint, as if they were some lesser form of creature unfit to discuss or play games with the like of a painter.
***Unfit! Unclean!
4) The shockingly ridiculous willful ignorance that leads to statements like "if you don't want to paint, why not just use cardboard," as if a three dimensional figure with a gun and base is somehow no more representative than chits.
***I’ve used cardboard frequently. Works just fine for me actually.
5) The equally confounding willfull ignorance of those that seem to think that nobody could ever enjoy 40k without painting, and that removing any one aspect of the hobby makes a persons interest in the hobby beyond all belief.
***Back in my day, not only did we have to paint, we had to make our own paint! None of the GW premade paint for us.
6) The bewildering posts that seem to assert that "the new generation" raised on "TV and video games" demand instant gratification. That would be true if GW was launched in 1948, but since it's been around roughly the same time as console gaming and cable TV, that reasoning seems a bit thin. Even the internet has been ubiquitous for a decade now.
***Them youngins suck, bunch of hooligans!
7) and finally, just because it's fun, the classic example of a Mod reminding us that "Mods can have opinions." Which of course, as most readers of the OT can vouch for, really means, "Mods can have and post opinions that would get any other user scolded."
***Damn straight why the heck do you think we’re Mods? Its what we do. ITS ALL WE DO! Polonius…banned. Wyomingfox…banned…Frazzled…banned hey wait!




Automatically Appended Next Post:
7) and finally, just because it's fun, the classic example of a Mod reminding us that "Mods can have opinions." Which of course, as most readers of the OT can vouch for, really means, "Mods can have and post opinions that would get any other user scolded."
***Wait, OT, I do believe Polonius is making a dig at both me and KK. Polonius...Banned! (did i already been him? I lose count), Bob from Accounting...banned, Yakface...banned...

Seriously. Mods can and do have opinions. You may disagree with them, and some of them are more abrasive than others (looks in the mirror) but frankly too bad! We try to restrain ourselves, but power corrupts and we loves the power.

Remember, the Mod team is your last line of defense from this...

wyomingfox wrote:

Well the idea of having a painted army is more for the owner's personal enjoyment not his opponent's.

This.

As much as I'd like to doll up my armies for other people's gratification, the most
important reason I apply the make-up to my models is also the most selfish. I do so
for my own pleasure.

Anything else is a bonus.

I do appreciate the inspiration a well painted army can provide across the tabletop, but
that's mostly between my opponent and his models.

Kilkrazy wrote:Most people who don't paint their figures are basically n00bs who will probably drop out of wargaming as fast as they bought into it.

Nearly anyone who is serious about tabletop games will come to paint their figures because that is the point of playing tabletop games.

Ha .. total bollocks

obviously you forgot the laughing icon to show you were being ironic.