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.

painted, even badly, generaly looks better then a flat coat of primer, I'd rather you base the entire model and paint the gun ignoring detail if thats all you can do.

Oh christ well yes if you paint in a remarkably obscure way but in general any kind of differentiation as opposed to a mono colour is going to make details stand out.

Does that mean I've found a universal rule? No I'm sure you could find someone a big enough arse out there to make it not so.

But as a general rule I am entirely correct. A sea of grey or black makes it very hard to pick things out.

 Eilif wrote:
Note that I did not deny the presence of unpainted models in the past, rather I pointed out two things that indicate a long-standing acceptance of painting as a vital part of the hobby and a trend away from that.

1- Fewer painted models in the past.
2- More acceptance now of completely unpainted miniatures by people who have no intention of painting them.

1- Anecdotal at best.
2- How can there be more acceptance when, according to this thread, the majority still see painting as a requirement and deride those that choose not to paint?

Your observation supports this, especially when you say that most of these historical players' "models eventually end up painted…". That reflects a strong adherence to the tradition (supported by shiny books) of painting at least as an ideal to aspire too. This is in stark contrast to the trends today (especially among some GW and PP gamers) where you have lots of people openly stating that they don't paint their miniatures. It's the difference of before when the expectation that folks were working toward a painted army as compared to now, where more and more (though probably not anywhere near a majority) folks acquire miniatures without the expectation of them ever being painted.

Some of the historical players didn't bother painting - and no one forced them to. Instead, we opted not to use their armies for picture days.
You're not a better "hobbyist" because you paint and I don't. You're a better painter. And I'm okay with that.

 Eilif wrote:
It's a very good question. conversions have never been an essential-and-required part of the hobby. They have existed for a long time, but in wargaming circles they really became more prevalent with the advent of GW's multipart kits, (plastic and metal). It's not something that gauges whether someone is fully participating. That said, if you have two similarly painted models and one has a particularly well executed conversion, I have not problem saying that the conversion is the better model. All things being equal I have no problem acknowledging that someone with mad green stuff skills who paints better models than me is a better hobbyist.

They've taken the time to refine skills that I haven't deserve to be commended for doing so. As with the comparison between unpainted and painted, the player with extensive conversions (assuming they're done well) just brings "more" to the table.

Interesting. Thanks for taking the time to answer. I am pleased that you hold conversions up alongside painting when considering how to attribute hobby quality. I am not sure why you think that whether or not something has been part of war gaming for 1000 years, 100 years, 50 years or 10 years makes it more or less a part of the hobby. That sounds to me like you are deciding what thinks count and don't based on tradition. A standard which I find quite flawed.

 Eilif wrote:
"Builds and Playstyles" on the other hand are a phenomenon unique to GW, PP and similar types of games. They only matter within the context of competitive gaming. Of course those players are going to be "better competitive players" but it's not a concern that can be extended to all wargames.

I disagree with your assertion I'm afraid. The competitive aspect of war gaming is far, far older than painting or converting. Additionally I know that play styles and builds, movement choices, statistical familiarity and game/system mastery have all been a part of this hobby for a long time. Even by your standard of tradition these things are at the core of what it is to be a war gamer. I'd argue that no part of the war gaming hobby can be extended to all war gaming, as there are games under that umbrella for which, either currently or historically, that aspect does not apply. The only exception to this is play. Strategy, tactics and such are what make it a war game and not simply a collection of statuettes.

For this reason I'd say that whilst someone may love to model and paint and may be fantastic at it, if they never play they are not a war gamer, they are a collector (which is fine, awesome in fact if that's what you enjoy). For this reason by your metrics I'd argue that a person's play skill would have to weight equally with, or higher than the johnny come lately's of painting and converting.

For myself I don't think of people as being 'better' or 'worse' wargamers. As the primary purpose (currently, although not always historically) is enjoyment anyone having fun is the best wargamer possible. Saying that I recognise there are people objectively better at painting, modelling and playing than others and testing your skill in any arena by comparison can itself be fun and entirely valid. That make you better at x activity though, not a better hobbyist/wargamer.

 Eilif wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 Eilif wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

So, like I said - painted models look better. So guess what appears in books that have pictures? Oh right - painted models.
I've never doubted that people used to paint models for miniature wargaming. I have doubted that there's some "rise" in the amount of unpainted armies, which is what would be required for your statement to be true.

if you insist on some sort of longitudinal study on painted miniature prevalence you're not going to find it. Demanding such isn't any more supportive of your position than mine and doesn't advance the conversation.

Except you are basing everything you say on "It's always been this way."

Anecdotal evidence is what we have. I can offer you my personal observations over about 20 years of being in the hobby and if you ask most older wargamers -especially those whose experience predates the popularity of warhammer- they'll tell you the same thing. There have always been some folks who don't paint all their figures, but there has been rise in the number (and acceptance in certain circles) of unpainted armies. Even more recent is the the wide use of completely unpainted armies by folks who seem to have no intention of ever painting them.

As I said, I also play historical games with many different people. I've seen and played against unpainted armies in pretty much every game system I've played in. And these are guys who have literally never cracked a GW rule book. Most of the models eventually end up painted because, as I said, they like to do pictures and painted minis look good in pictures, but there have been unpainted armies many times.

Note that I did not deny the presence of unpainted models in the past, rather I pointed out two things that indicate a long-standing acceptance of painting as a vital part of the hobby and a trend away from that.

1- Fewer painted models in the past.
2- More acceptance now of completely unpainted miniatures by people who have no intention of painting them.

Your observation supports this, especially when you say that most of these historical players' "models eventually end up painted…". That reflects a strong adherence to the tradition (supported by shiny books) of painting at least as an ideal to aspire too. This is in stark contrast to the trends today (especially among some GW and PP gamers) where you have lots of people openly stating that they don't paint their miniatures. It's the difference of before when the expectation that folks were working toward a painted army as compared to now, where more and more (though probably not anywhere near a majority) folks acquire miniatures without the expectation of them ever being painted.

 Eilif wrote:
Consider the response one would get if they were to say that paint was not part of hobbies such as finescale modeling, classic car clubs, model railroading, etc.

I very strongly suspect that if someone was to say that they are into, say, restoring classic cars but only interested in doing the body work and they generally leave the painting to someone else, that nobody would bat an eye at it.

As for model railroading... I went to a local model railroad exhibition a couple of years ago. At least half of the setups on show used unaltered trains straight out of the box, and commercially-available scenery with little or no alteration. They've just glued everything together and laid down some flock. While there were some guys there who had done some conversion and repaint work, and some building scenery from scratch (and one guy building a loco completely from scratch out of brass, which was one of the most awesome things I have ever seen) it was far from being seen as a requirement to be a part of that hobby.


Painting does form a 'part' of those hobbies... but that doesn't make it a 'requirement' of those hobbies. Same thing here. Yes, many wargamers paint models. Many don't. You don't get to choose which of those groups are doing their hobby the 'right' way... You just get to choose which way you find more appealing.

Drager wrote:

 Eilif wrote:
It's a very good question. conversions have never been an essential-and-required part of the hobby. They have existed for a long time, but in wargaming circles they really became more prevalent with the advent of GW's multipart kits, (plastic and metal). It's not something that gauges whether someone is fully participating. That said, if you have two similarly painted models and one has a particularly well executed conversion, I have not problem saying that the conversion is the better model. All things being equal I have no problem acknowledging that someone with mad green stuff skills who paints better models than me is a better hobbyist.

They've taken the time to refine skills that I haven't deserve to be commended for doing so. As with the comparison between unpainted and painted, the player with extensive conversions (assuming they're done well) just brings "more" to the table.

Interesting. Thanks for taking the time to answer. I am pleased that you hold conversions up alongside painting when considering how to attribute hobby quality. I am not sure why you think that whether or not something has been part of war gaming for 1000 years, 100 years, 50 years or 10 years makes it more or less a part of the hobby. That sounds to me like you are deciding what thinks count and don't based on tradition. A standard which I find quite flawed.

That would indeed probably be the crux of our difference. Though Tradition is not infalible, I see it and history in general as a very valuable guide to the present.

Our perspectives are probably different, but let me share my point of view with you. It probably won't convince you of anything, but it might helpyou understand where I'm coming from.

I am so passionate about the value of painting is my observation of what the current trends in popular wargaming are leading to. I'm seeing what was once a hobby dedicated to "the spectacle of painted armies clashing on a beautiful tabletop" slowly turned into a boardgame where people spend exorbitant amounts of money for potentially beautiful models that will only ever see the table as colorless chits. I see folks taking a marvelous whole that combined artistic craftsmanship AND cunning tactics and dividing it up into separate parts that are each less magical on their own. I see standards that while not ever universally adhered to at least encouraged everyone to try harder and urged everyone's participation in ALL aspects of the hobby falling away in the name of "my hobby" , "my way", etc. All this while year by year, it seems that fewer and fewer of the figures at my FLGS are painted.

Perhaps this makes me merely a reactionary, but it's a reaction of on one who sees something beautiful becoming something less.

Drager wrote:

 Eilif wrote:
"Builds and Playstyles" on the other hand are a phenomenon unique to GW, PP and similar types of games. They only matter within the context of competitive gaming. Of course those players are going to be "better competitive players" but it's not a concern that can be extended to all wargames.

I disagree with your assertion I'm afraid. The competitive aspect of war gaming is far, far older than painting or converting. Additionally I know that play styles and builds, movement choices, statistical familiarity and game/system mastery have all been a part of this hobby for a long time. Even by your standard of tradition these things are at the core of what it is to be a war gamer. I'd argue that no part of the war gaming hobby can be extended to all war gaming, as there are games under that umbrella for which, either currently or historically, that aspect does not apply. The only exception to this is play. Strategy, tactics and such are what make it a war game and not simply a collection of statuettes.

For this reason I'd say that whilst someone may love to model and paint and may be fantastic at it, if they never play they are not a war gamer, they are a collector (which is fine, awesome in fact if that's what you enjoy). For this reason by your metrics I'd argue that a person's play skill would have to weight equally with, or higher than the johnny come lately's of painting and converting.

I think you are using "Builds and playsyles" beyond their definition.

First , Builds.
The popular idea that the miniatures in a game are determined individually by each player based on a complicated series of decisions about the effectiveness of each unit in synery with the other unit is a fairly recent addition to wargaming. Such games have existed for some time (HoTT comes to mind), but not in the majority. Previously, the miniatures that were used in a game were usually determined by the units that participated in the given military action the game was recreating, or by approximating the types of units a given force would have had access to in a given theater of war. There are still games of all types (even fantasy and sci-fi) that function this way, drawing the armies used from set army lists or from scenario guidelines.

The current trend in which players "build" an army in the same way that players "Build" a deck of MtG cards and with such building being as important as the game itself is not applicable to all wargaming.

Second, Playstyles.
I assume (though I could be wrong) that playstyles refers to certain predictable ways that a player uses his units within the current meta. This is again, something that is pretty linked to army builds and to games that have an active tournament scene.

Where I think we would agree is the study and application of strategy and tactics. This is something fairly universal to all games that can be learned and usually applied in-game. However, it's very different from the pre-game "Build-Phase" that has become so central to many popular wargames.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 insaniak wrote:

 Eilif wrote:
Consider the response one would get if they were to say that paint was not part of hobbies such as finescale modeling, classic car clubs, model railroading, etc.

I very strongly suspect that if someone was to say that they are into, say, restoring classic cars but only interested in doing the body work and they generally leave the painting to someone else, that nobody would bat an eye at it.

As for model railroading... I went to a local model railroad exhibition a couple of years ago. At least half of the setups on show used unaltered trains straight out of the box, and commercially-available scenery with little or no alteration. They've just glued everything together and laid down some flock. While there were some guys there who had done some conversion and repaint work, and some building scenery from scratch (and one guy building a loco completely from scratch out of brass, which was one of the most awesome things I have ever seen) it was far from being seen as a requirement to be a part of that hobby.


Painting does form a 'part' of those hobbies... but that doesn't make it a 'requirement' of those hobbies. Same thing here. Yes, many wargamers paint models. Many don't. You don't get to choose which of those groups are doing their hobby the 'right' way... You just get to choose which way you find more appealing.

As for cars and painting, I completely agree that the source of the painting is not the essential element. Note that in my arguments I've repeatedly said that painted can be self painted, machine painted, professionally painted, whatever, the point is that they are painted. The first wargaming figures in the modern era were toys soldiers that were purchased pre-painted.

Where your argument breaks down is if the person bondoed up their camaro but never had it painted his clubmates would definitely look sideways at that person.

The trains you mention are indeed painted or pre-painted,( though the scale involved generally has alot to do with whether the standard is for out-of-the-box or from a kit) or at least molded in several of the correct colors. The point is that they have color (usually paint), decals, and other details to create the sense of realism. You aren't going to see many uncolored (or monocolored, train cars with no livery details on a train layout. Do you really think people would go to see a train layout if all the buildings and trains and cars were the same plain white or grey plastic?

The point is that color/paint, whether self applied or otherwise is an essential part of both of those hobbies and to expect it to be part of wargaming is not unreasonable.

 Eilif wrote:
. The point is that they have color (usually paint), decals, and other details to create the sense of realism. You aren't going to see many uncolored (or monocolored, train cars with no livery details on a train layout. .

That's because the vast majority of them are sold already painted.

When wargaming miniatures are similarly sold painted, you tend to see a lot more painted miniatures on the table.

 insaniak wrote:

 Eilif wrote:
. The point is that they have color (usually paint), decals, and other details to create the sense of realism. You aren't going to see many uncolored (or monocolored, train cars with no livery details on a train layout. .

That's because the vast majority of them are sold already painted.

When wargaming miniatures are similarly sold painted, you tend to see a lot more painted miniatures on the table.

Yes they are, but the point is still the visual appeal and realism given to those models because they are. That appeal is lacking when there is no color.

A fair number of games are -and have been- sold painted, but folks still seem to flock to grey hordes.

So you issue is that you have chosen to play a game for which the gaming pieces are sold unpainted, and you just expect other gamers to make up for that lack in order to improve your own hobby experience?

Although we still come back to the 'how does someone else not painting their stuff affect your hobby in the slightest when you can just not play against them?'

House rule at our gaming club: Painted models only, must be more than just a base coat.

 jasper76 wrote:
House rule at our gaming club: Painted models only, must be more than just a base coat.

I feel like this would drive players away. Why are new players expected to show up to play with painted armies? What about veterans who don't want/have time to paint? In an already small hobby, why are you driving people away?

 jreilly89 wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:
House rule at our gaming club: Painted models only, must be more than just a base coat.

I feel like this would drive players away. Why are new players expected to show up to play with painted armies? What about veterans who don't want/have time to paint? In an already small hobby, why are you driving people away?

Not my house, not my rules.

Actually though, it has helped get people into the hobby aspect of the game. The good painters in our club always help the newcomers out with painting their models if they need help.

 insaniak wrote:
So you issue is that you have chosen to play a game for which the gaming pieces are sold unpainted, and you just expect other gamers to make up for that lack in order to improve your own hobby experience?

Although we still come back to the 'how does someone else not painting their stuff affect your hobby in the slightest when you can just not play against them?'

That's exactly what I'm saying. Miniatures are meant to be painted and I have zero interest in pretending othewise. As for playing against them. I usually don't. My interest in encouraging higher standards is for what I see as the benefit of the hobby as a whole, though of course some will disagree.

 jreilly89 wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:
House rule at our gaming club: Painted models only, must be more than just a base coat.

I feel like this would drive players away. Why are new players expected to show up to play with painted armies? What about veterans who don't want/have time to paint? In an already small hobby, why are you driving people away?

Our whole club has the same rule, and if anything it's kept the club together for over 4 years now. We only meet every other week, but everyone knows that when they show up, they'll be treated to nothing but painted figures on nice terrain regardless of which member's home we meet at. That's kind of guarantee keeps people coming. We all have jobs, families, etc and our unofficial motto could be "life's too short to play with ugly minis".

It helps also that many of the games we play are skimish or platoon level, though we do some Company (aka "mass battle") games too. We keep it friendly and open by always being willing to provide painted figures to newbies, guests and even regulars who might not have quite the interest or time to paint up a force for a given game. We also sometimes get together to paint and we often trade projects which shares the load of painting horde armies or lets folks specialize in what they enjoy. I often build and paint terrain for others in exchange for them painting a unit for me.

I call it accommodation without compromise.

 jasper76 wrote:

 jreilly89 wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:
House rule at our gaming club: Painted models only, must be more than just a base coat.

I feel like this would drive players away. Why are new players expected to show up to play with painted armies? What about veterans who don't want/have time to paint? In an already small hobby, why are you driving people away?

Not my house, not my rules.

Actually though, it has helped get people into the hobby aspect of the game. The good painters in our club always help the newcomers out with painting their models if they need help.

Good to hear its helped you guys. My point is I just feel like this wouldn't always work out and people would feel pressured/obligated to have painted stuff.

 Eilif wrote:
That's exactly what I'm saying. Miniatures are meant to be painted and I have zero interest in pretending othewise.

And action figures are meant to be played with. Does that mean that the people who buy them and put them in a box with the rest of their collection are doing something wrong?

When it comes down to it, they ae HIS models to do with as he wants. I'd rather see plain grey out of the box than stupid schemes like the hello kitty marines (which a while back someone insisted did not exist).
Your first option is to find out WHY they arent painted. If it is laziness or lack of ability, there is nothing wrong with offering to help despite what the others here say. If the person with the grey marines doesnt care and you dont mind, forget about the guys in an online forum telling you you shouldnt.
If the guy just doesnt wan them painted, thats up to him. Like I said, at least they arent hello kitty or some of those that are so horrible they would look better unpainted. You know the ones I'm tlking about. So many layers of oil basd you can hardly tell what race the model is (yet, its "painted).
For pre-painted models... meh, some arent bad but ive also seen horribly prepainted ones where the paint machine was set wrong and the eyes were painted out of the sockets and the jacket paint on the legs ect. Personally, I'd rather do it myself or if using pre-painted ones, I'd hafta check them out ell beforehand to make sure they werent rejects.

 Eilif wrote:

"Builds and Playstyles" on the other hand are a phenomenon unique to GW, PP and similar types of games. They only matter within the context of competitive gaming. Of course those players are going to be "better competitive players" but it's not a concern that can be extended to all wargames.

There is no such thing as non-competitive gaming.

You either play, in which case you compete in an attempt to win, or you don't.

If you don't research builds and playstyles, it means you don't take playing seriously.

How do you feel about people who don't take painting seriously ?

Right, I thought so.

And guess what ? This is a game before being about miniatures. But then, there's no wrong way of hobbying so you're safe too.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

rigeld2 wrote:

2- How can there be more acceptance when, according to this thread, the majority still see painting as a requirement and deride those that choose not to paint?

Worse than that.

Even in competitive circles, which focus on the "game" aspect of the hobby, painting is mandatory (3colors+) and even often counts for some kind of points in all but the most competitive tournaments !

If that's "acceptance", I think it's just fine.

 jreilly89 wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:
House rule at our gaming club: Painted models only, must be more than just a base coat.

I feel like this would drive players away. Why are new players expected to show up to play with painted armies? What about veterans who don't want/have time to paint? In an already small hobby, why are you driving people away?

Yep. One of the ideas championed by people saying miniatures need to be painted is that "there's no downside to everyone painting their miniatures". Except a huge downside is people who can't get their miniatures painted in reasonable time. This is why the local GW dropped their "must be painted" rule, because they realised people were coming in month after month and having to borrow store armies as they weren't getting their own models painted before they quit and moved on.

When people say their club/group/store has a painting requirement and is strong, my mind tends to not go to the "strong" aspect and goes more to the "how many people are not playing who would be playing if that requirement wasn't there".

And I'm not necessarily saying you shouldn't have painting requirements at clubs/tournaments, I understand the desire to maintain a nice aesthetic. But I don't think people should so casually shrug off people who don't paint, and certainly not get to the point of insulting them by calling them lazy or tell them they aren't meeting some all encompassing "hobby standard" that you invented.

I will also say, even without a painting requirement, it's not a slippery slope... we haven't had a painting requirement at our local store for many years and there's still lots of people who have painted awesome armies.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 EVIL INC wrote:
When it comes down to it, they ae HIS models to do with as he wants. I'd rather see plain grey out of the box than stupid schemes like the hello kitty marines (which a while back someone insisted did not exist).
Your first option is to find out WHY they arent painted. If it is laziness or lack of ability, there is nothing wrong with offering to help despite what the others here say. If the person with the grey marines doesnt care and you dont mind, forget about the guys in an online forum telling you you shouldnt.
If the guy just doesnt wan them painted, thats up to him. Like I said, at least they arent hello kitty or some of those that are so horrible they would look better unpainted. You know the ones I'm tlking about. So many layers of oil basd you can hardly tell what race the model is (yet, its "painted).
For pre-painted models... meh, some arent bad but ive also seen horribly prepainted ones where the paint machine was set wrong and the eyes were painted out of the sockets and the jacket paint on the legs ect. Personally, I'd rather do it myself or if using pre-painted ones, I'd hafta check them out ell beforehand to make sure they werent rejects.

I feel you indirectly hit on one of my points.

Even if you want to maintain standards, "painted vs unpainted" is still an arbitrary standard, it's not...

a) Universally true that painted is better than unpainted.

b) Universally true that painted vs unpainted is the only standard or even the best standard to which we need to hold this imaginary "the hobby".

It wasnt inadvertant at all. I haveseen "painted" armies thaaaaaaat were horrible. Saw in another posssst herere someone found a model from a apainted army and they literally ad to post a pictre of it asking what it was. Sad part I couldnt tell if it was supposed to be aaaaaa mmmmmmmaaaarine or an ork.Heck, I win competitions for painting NOW but looking back on my earlier models, I'd be ashamed to take them to a table because unpainted would look better.
Some of the "bad idea" paint jobs can be embarrassing as well. I know I'm stepping on someone's toes here because I was told these armies did not exist and were impossible, but I've seen hello kitty marines, Nazi themed armies, slannesh armies that would make a porn star blush and even armies bade to look like smurfs with mushroom house drop pods and marines based on football teams. I'd rather play grey marines than those.

To me, yes a well painted army is generally more fun to play against and I enjoy hearing stories explaining uniuqe schemes and explaining mine. But at the end of the day, it is about playing a game with good people whose company you enjoy creating an imaginary story usuing rules and models. I'd rather play a buddy in a friendly game than a jerk with a golden daemon sword winning army.
Of course, playing my budy with both of us using well painted armies would be best for me which is why Ifind out why it isnt painted and refer to my earlier post. I've painted armies that werent mine just to help a buddy out and given painted armies away to them for the same reason, to keep them "in the family" and make sure they have a painted army.

I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. A rhino tank with paint so thick that rockets bounced harmlessly from it. I've encountered a guardsman with no face, just an oozing slab of...paint. And colour schemes so terrible that even a grey knight would go insane looking at them.

Give me an opponent with a bare plastic army rather than endure such sights again.

morgoth wrote:

 Eilif wrote:

"Builds and Playstyles" on the other hand are a phenomenon unique to GW, PP and similar types of games. They only matter within the context of competitive gaming. Of course those players are going to be "better competitive players" but it's not a concern that can be extended to all wargames.

There is no such thing as non-competitive gaming.

You either play, in which case you compete in an attempt to win, or you don't.

If you don't research builds and playstyles, it means you don't take playing seriously.

How do you feel about people who don't take painting seriously ?

Right, I thought so.

And guess what ? This is a game before being about miniatures. But then, there's no wrong way of hobbying so you're safe too.

Apparently you didn't read my post 11 posts above yours. Do that first. It will answer all your questions about my stance and clarify how "Build and Playstyle" relate only to certain games, while "Strategy and Tactics" are universal.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 insaniak wrote:

 Eilif wrote:
That's exactly what I'm saying. Miniatures are meant to be painted and I have zero interest in pretending othewise.

And action figures are meant to be played with. Does that mean that the people who buy them and put them in a box with the rest of their collection are doing something wrong?

And seatbelts are made to be worn, but some people don't. Some people kick Basketballs.

See, I can drag the conversation off topic with unrelated examples too!

 Eilif wrote:
See, I can drag the conversation off topic with unrelated examples too!

You didn't need to prove that, you've already used analogies that don't really fit previously

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 Eilif wrote:
See, I can drag the conversation off topic with unrelated examples too!

You didn't need to prove that, you've already used analogies that don't really fit previously

Clearly I don't agree, but I do bow to an excellent bit of repartee. Cheers!

 thegreatchimp wrote:
I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. A rhino tank with paint so thick that rockets bounced harmlessly from it. I've encountered a guardsman with no face, just an oozing slab of...paint. And colour schemes so terrible that even a grey knight would go insane looking at them..

One of the old-timers at the first gaming club I joined used to tell of a player who, in order to meet the 3-colour requirement for thier local tournies, had sprayed his models white, and then dipped their heads into a pot of blue paint, and their feet into a pot of red.


(And for the record, that was 20 years ago... People being unwilling to paint their models is not a new thing.)

 insaniak wrote:

 thegreatchimp wrote:
I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. A rhino tank with paint so thick that rockets bounced harmlessly from it. I've encountered a guardsman with no face, just an oozing slab of...paint. And colour schemes so terrible that even a grey knight would go insane looking at them..

One of the old-timers at the first gaming club I joined used to tell of a player who, in order to meet the 3-colour requirement for thier local tournies, had sprayed his models white, and then dipped their heads into a pot of blue paint, and their feet into a pot of red.

France Marines!

Actually, let the non-painters live. I paint mine and won an Ork Bommer for me boyz for Best Painted (my Dark Eldar) at a tourney.
And they only give you those prizes if ALL your figs are painted.

Verviedi wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

 thegreatchimp wrote:
I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. A rhino tank with paint so thick that rockets bounced harmlessly from it. I've encountered a guardsman with no face, just an oozing slab of...paint. And colour schemes so terrible that even a grey knight would go insane looking at them..

One of the old-timers at the first gaming club I joined used to tell of a player who, in order to meet the 3-colour requirement for thier local tournies, had sprayed his models white, and then dipped their heads into a pot of blue paint, and their feet into a pot of red.

France Marines!

With red heads and blue feet they'd be from the Netherlands.

If the dude who did them was Dutch, then mad props to him for that

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

Verviedi wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

 thegreatchimp wrote:
I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. A rhino tank with paint so thick that rockets bounced harmlessly from it. I've encountered a guardsman with no face, just an oozing slab of...paint. And colour schemes so terrible that even a grey knight would go insane looking at them..

One of the old-timers at the first gaming club I joined used to tell of a player who, in order to meet the 3-colour requirement for thier local tournies, had sprayed his models white, and then dipped their heads into a pot of blue paint, and their feet into a pot of red.

France Marines!

With red heads and blue feet they'd be from the Netherlands.

If the dude who did them was Dutch, then mad props to him for that

Maybe they were laying down in surrender?

Bad jokes at the expense of the French aside, there's a lot of projecting around this topic. Someone likes seeing their army painted and therefore expect others to reciprocate. Personally I don't care if my opponent paints or not. It's your army, do what you like with it, you spent enough $$$ I'm sure. Having just started Imperial Guard I'm going to be spending quite some time getting everything done, for someone to deny me a game for the year or more it will take me to finish seems stupid and somewhat selfish to me.

I painted up 750 points of space marines before I went into the flgs. O thought people would laugh or not want to play me if I went in with unpainted models.

Interestingly enough....the guy I was playing was playing with half painted models and grey stuff lol

I just like what a fully painted army looks like on the table. Problem is I've stepped away from 40k at my flgs (rarely played there anyways) but now I play fantasy. I play Skaven and my 2500 point standard list has about 200 models so its a lot to paint. I have all the big stuff painted tho and enough clanrats/slaves that it doesn't look bad on the table.

A fully painted and ranked up fantasy army looks great and most players in my area have great looking fully painted armies

let's keep the comments polite and helpful/thoughtful .