Switch Theme:

Should armies be required to be at least slightly painted?  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


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.




Made in us
Infiltrating Oniwaban





Fayetteville

carmachu wrote:
Dear lord, what a condecening donkey behind one has become. Yes, its a skill, you didnt learn dipping, basing and other items by yoruself. Otherwise why would you say you were teaching folks and kids how to do it.



My god, how did you ever acquire the skill to put your models together? Was it a long apprenticeship?

The Imperial Navy, A Galatic Force for Good. 
   
Made in jp
[MOD]
Anti-piracy Officer






Somewhere in south-central England.

It is pretty much clear that people who want to play with painter armies think tournaments should have a painted army requirement. While people who don't mind if armies are painted or not do not want such a restriction.

Fortunately, there are tournaments of both persuasions, so both groups of players are catered for.

With that, I think the thread has run its course.

I'm writing a load of fiction. My latest story starts here... This is the index of all the stories...

We're not very big on official rules. Rules lead to people looking for loopholes. What's here is about it. 
   
 
Forum Index » 40K General Discussion
Go to: