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.

 Squidmanlolz wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
IMO "three color minimum" isn't tabletop standard, it's an attempt to rules lawyer the painting requirements for a particular tournament. Who cares how many colors are on the model, what matters is what level of detail is used. A more reasonable definition for "tabletop standard" is that the model is completely painted, but not necessarily with any advanced techniques or multiple passes of detailing. It's a simple but complete paint job intended for mass-production efficiency instead of making a small number of display pieces. So that means three things:

1) All parts of the model, including details, are the appropriate color. How many colors this takes is irrelevant as long as it is done correctly.

2) All paint is applied cleanly without sloppy color placement/visible brush strokes/thick paint covering up details/etc.

3) Some level of shading is included, even if it's just a simple wash + drybrush.

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

I totally agree with this. I know that I'm a paint snob, but well painted armies improve the game greatly.[/quote

Three color minimum is not a rules lawer kinda thing. The bar needs to be set somewhere for a minimum standard and that's a pretty realistic one.

I also agree that it's fun to play with and against fully painted armies and it's nicer when they are both painted to a very high standard.

But I will never dictate to anyone else how to enjoy their hobby. I'll gladly play someone with a spruce grey army and smile and have a good time. That's what this is all about really. Enjoying playing with our little man dollies.

Personally I enjoy painting and pushing myself to the limits of what I can do. Heck you can see how many pictures of models I've posted to my gallery and I even have a painting blog. That's how I enjoy my hobby.

But to reiterate my point. There has to be a definition and the least subjective and fairest is still the three color and based minimum.

 darefsky wrote:

 Squidmanlolz wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
IMO "three color minimum" isn't tabletop standard, it's an attempt to rules lawyer the painting requirements for a particular tournament. Who cares how many colors are on the model, what matters is what level of detail is used. A more reasonable definition for "tabletop standard" is that the model is completely painted, but not necessarily with any advanced techniques or multiple passes of detailing. It's a simple but complete paint job intended for mass-production efficiency instead of making a small number of display pieces. So that means three things:

1) All parts of the model, including details, are the appropriate color. How many colors this takes is irrelevant as long as it is done correctly.

2) All paint is applied cleanly without sloppy color placement/visible brush strokes/thick paint covering up details/etc.

3) Some level of shading is included, even if it's just a simple wash + drybrush.

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

I totally agree with this. I know that I'm a paint snob, but well painted armies improve the game greatly.

Three color minimum is not a rules lawer kinda thing. The bar needs to be set somewhere for a minimum standard and that's a pretty realistic one.

I also agree that it's fun to play with and against fully painted armies and it's nicer when they are both painted to a very high standard.

But I will never dictate to anyone else how to enjoy their hobby. I'll gladly play someone with a spruce grey army and smile and have a good time. That's what this is all about really. Enjoying playing with our little man dollies.

Personally I enjoy painting and pushing myself to the limits of what I can do. Heck you can see how many pictures of models I've posted to my gallery and I even have a painting blog. That's how I enjoy my hobby.

But to reiterate my point. There has to be a definition and the least subjective and fairest is still the three color and based minimum.

Agreed. I have no problems playing an opponent with unpainted minis as long as they're not an ass, but for tourneys and the like, I think three colors and based is fine.

 darefsky wrote:
Three color minimum is not a rules lawer kinda thing. The bar needs to be set somewhere for a minimum standard and that's a pretty realistic one.

It is rules lawyering because it sets an arbitrary number of colors that has little, if anything, to do with the quality of a model. Does anyone really think that a squad of guardsmen with primer-colored faces is "tabletop standard" because their uniforms have two shades of green and the lasgun is silver? That's not a model with a basic but complete level of painting, it's an unfinished model that the owner was too lazy to paint properly. And then you can take it to the extreme where a gray plastic model with three dots of color on the shoulder pad technically meets the three-color standard.

The more useful standard for color count is the one that I already posted: every part of the model, including detail elements, is painted the appropriate color.

That's what this is all about really. Enjoying playing with our little man dollies.

For some of us playing against unpainted armies isn't enjoyable. And I absolutely will criticize the people who can't bother to do even a basic level of painting on their armies. A simple base coat + wash + drybrush method can be done even if you don't have a ton of painting skill and takes very little time. Anything less than that is simply a player who doesn't care enough to do it right.

(Yes, there are people with disabilities that prevent them from painting even if they wanted to. They are a tiny minority and the vast majority of people with unpainted armies have nothing preventing them from painting.)

The way I look at it personally is pretty simple. Not painting miniatures to a level at which they look like you know, an army, is a negative, just as someone who has a phenomenally painted army is a positive. The person's personality, their skill level relative to mine, what they want to get out of the game, and their play schedule are all factors too, none of which are particularly more or less important than whether the models are painted.

So yeah, if someone is a lot of fun to play with, and I get along well with them, but they hate painting models, then whatever. But if someone takes forever to make a turn happen, are boring, and spend half their night on their cell phone -- and they have crap models -- then I'd just as soon do something else.

Quality of minis is just a part of the equation. I guess I'm just lucky I've never met someone that I really enjoy playing TT wargames with that actually hates painting

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

Gee, you sound like a barrel of fun to play with.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

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

Gee, you sound like a barrel of fun to play with.

That's kinda of a crapy attitude to have. I get that you have put a good amount of time and effort into your models and that's fantastic. Maybe a more productive/constructive and definitely more inclusive idea would be to help someone learn how to do the basics.

Offer a painting class at your local store / club/ garage and invite them in.

Don't dismiss someone because of a sea of grey mini's.

Now if they are someone that is just not fun to have a game with... That's a whole different thread.

 darefsky wrote:
Offer a painting class at your local store / club/ garage and invite them in.

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.

Don't dismiss someone because of a sea of grey mini's.

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.

It means the lowest quality that a person is willing to paint to.
What one guy says is his "tabletop" quality could still be unobtainable by 90% of people out there.

For about 8 years now, for me, tabletop quality has meant the disappointing peak of my painting powers.

 Desubot wrote:

Raven Cowl wrote:
I've seen this phrase thrown around a lot and would like to know.

Place model on table.

Does it look good?

That is table top standard.

or "are you happy with it?"

My Infinity dudes are at the very edge of acceptable TTS on the photos I posted in the Infinity sub forum, but are actually pretty decent TTS when on the TT! Must be my old eyes...

@monders: the camera is a cruel mistress...
she loves to point out all of your flaws, and rarely gives you anything you hoped for...
eyes, on the other hand, are like beer goggles, overlooking flaws just to get some action...

i actually paint for the camera much more than for the eye...
once i started taking photos of my stuff, about ten years ago, it really changed my perspective on how to approach my painting, eliminate mistakes, and tighten up details...
turned that cruel mitress into a loving helpmate...

cheers
jah

I increasingly find myself resizing my photographs to a more realistic size I paint to have models that look good in reality, so taking a photo of a 1" tall model and having it displayed 6" tall on my computer monitor isn't really an accurate representation of what I was trying to achieve, lol.

 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).
.

Tabletop quality is something that looks good on the table (surprise), but doesn't necessarily holdup to close observation, and is lacking more advanced techniques. Most people paint their mooks to tabletop, especially in horde armies, if that helps solidify the idea.

Maybe in an effort to help out, we should have everyone post a picture of TTQ (a squad of guys) and a display piece (if they have one), in a spoiler. That should be immensely helpful.

 Peregrine wrote:

 darefsky wrote:
Offer a painting class at your local store / club/ garage and invite them in.

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.

Don't dismiss someone because of a sea of grey mini's.

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.

I call shinanigans, I would wager you that the people you refer to would probably sit down and paint with a group of friends. Most folks I've met that have large grey hordes feel overwhelmed at the sheer size if the project they have created for themselves.

As to tutorials online, yes they are great, I've learned some amazing things from watching some, but please understand what works for you or me may not for someone else.

Also if like to remind you this is a social game, you need two people to play them. If you want to play against fully painted armies help the folks get there.

It not man. I'm just offering you an alternative to being high and mighty.

 Eilif wrote:

Personally I refer to my miniatures as "tabletop". They tend to be 5-8 colors very neatly (applied), sometimes a drybrush, followed by a brush-dip with polyshades, matte varnish and basing. Technically it's better than the bare tournament minimum required and I frequently receive praise (possibly undeserved) for them. However, it's a standard that I find looks more than satisfactory from tabletop distances and I'd much rather understate their quality than claim a higher level of proficiency than I am capable of.

That's basically what I consider tabletop as well. The 3 color minimum IMO isn't tabletop standard but minimum tourny standard and the minimum necessary to officially call something painted. Tabletop for me means that you used around 5-6 colors for variety including maybe a wash or two, tried and largely succeeded coloring within the lines and not going over, and did something cohesive with the base to decorate it. I'm not a great painter as I lack both the skill and the patience to grasp the advanced techniques but I fell like I've got a firm grasp of the basic ones and use some of the medium level techniques when I feel it is necessary and I'm motivated (like with a character model). The models should look nicely painted at arms length (the "tabletop" distance) but the difference in paintjob quality should be evident between tabletop minis and display quality minis when you get closer.

well i say tabletop standard because i still dont think im good enough for winning competitions but i use multiple layers for shading, play with different styles
but when i compare it to my brothers painting skill... i feel much better about my painting skill...

There are some great responses here, including Eilif and Oadie. Clearly it's a statement used to cover a broad range of levels of quality.

The pretty clear minimum that anybody would call T"able top Standard" (TTS) is the old three color requirement, but I think you'd be hard pressed to find any defenders that improperly showing primer or other clearly unpainted elements are TTS. So, a gaunt whose skin, armor, eyes, and teeth are painted would be TTS, but a guardsmen with bare primer faces would not. At this very low end, large details might not be picked out, things such as bolter magazines, ammo pouchs, etc.

At the higher end, commission or professional painters will lable models that are of lower quality than they would enter in competition or sell as display pieces as "table top standard." Things that would not show up, even in this high level, are non-metal metallics, complex free hand, wet blending, etc.

In my opinion, calling a model that's three colors TTS is incorrect. Table Top standard, while it is meant more simply as a gaming piece, should be neatly and fully painted, something that three colors does not always provide. Further, calling a nicely highlighted piece with full squad markings TTS is a bit disingenous. I think that high level painters are also misusing the term when they consider anything not to display quality TTS.

To give a bit of an objective checklist, when I call something TTS i mean the following:
- All details larger than 28mm human eyes picked out.
- Some shading and/or highlighting
- At least minimal texture on the base

A model with painted eyes, rich highlighting/shading, unit designations, and fully flocked bases, is really more than TTS, although not necessarily executed at a level sufficient for display. I've pushed for the phrase "tournament level" for armies that are painted at this standard. This would include most painters upper limits, and the minimal standards of many commision painters.

To me tabletop standard means that some effort was put into making the model look good, but without going beyond that.

1. Colors - 1-2 minimum depending on model.
2. Some sort of wash or dry brush was applied.
3. Base is at least painted, preferably textured.

Example of a work in progress sniper - he's missing a base but I would not be ashamed to put him on the table with the rest of my army.

 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

 Talys wrote:

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

I would imagine most long time hobbyists have a pretty good handle on Table Top Standard, and while they might not all be exactly the same, they're broadly consistent.

I think that the use in two very specific avenues has muddied the water a bit: the "three color rule" for tournaments, and the humblebragging of top notch painters. For a new player, they hear a term that has no clear definiation, and then they see rules for events requiring a certain level of painting. Then, they follow a P&M blog, and see beautiful models described as "table top quality" by a painter, and get even more confused.

 Peregrine wrote:
IMO "three color minimum" isn't tabletop standard, it's an attempt to rules lawyer the painting requirements for a particular tournament. Who cares how many colors are on the model, what matters is what level of detail is used. A more reasonable definition for "tabletop standard" is that the model is completely painted, but not necessarily with any advanced techniques or multiple passes of detailing. It's a simple but complete paint job intended for mass-production efficiency instead of making a small number of display pieces. So that means three things:

1) All parts of the model, including details, are the appropriate color. How many colors this takes is irrelevant as long as it is done correctly.

2) All paint is applied cleanly without sloppy color placement/visible brush strokes/thick paint covering up details/etc.

3) Some level of shading is included, even if it's just a simple wash + drybrush.

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.

Super Newb wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
IMO "three color minimum" isn't tabletop standard, it's an attempt to rules lawyer the painting requirements for a particular tournament. Who cares how many colors are on the model, what matters is what level of detail is used. A more reasonable definition for "tabletop standard" is that the model is completely painted, but not necessarily with any advanced techniques or multiple passes of detailing. It's a simple but complete paint job intended for mass-production efficiency instead of making a small number of display pieces. So that means three things:

1) All parts of the model, including details, are the appropriate color. How many colors this takes is irrelevant as long as it is done correctly.

2) All paint is applied cleanly without sloppy color placement/visible brush strokes/thick paint covering up details/etc.

3) Some level of shading is included, even if it's just a simple wash + drybrush.

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.

A "table top standard" paint job is not a bad paint job. It's actually quite a decent job. Neat, fully picked out, with some shading and basing. It looks good, draws attention nearly as well as a gold demon piece from non-hobbiests, and shows a lot of pride.

A pure "three color" paint job is a grudging attempt to meet a requirement. Very different things.

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.

 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...

 Farseer Anath'lan wrote:

Maybe in an effort to help out, we should have everyone post a picture of TTQ (a squad of guys) and a display piece (if they have one), in a spoiler. That should be immensely helpful.

^ This would be very awesome indeed. I'm getting that it's very subjective and words may not be adequate. Actual models are easier to tell.

 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!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 darefsky wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 darefsky wrote:
Offer a painting class at your local store / club/ garage and invite them in.

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.

Don't dismiss someone because of a sea of grey mini's.

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.

I call shinanigans, I would wager you that the people you refer to would probably sit down and paint with a group of friends. Most folks I've met that have large grey hordes feel overwhelmed at the sheer size if the project they have created for themselves.

Baloney. Don't you know that everyone who doesn't paint their army in a way that Peregrine desires is a lazy good for nothing who deserves an upturned nose, a lack of respect and outright mockery?

I'm just offering you an alternative to being high and mighty.

But high and mighty is somehow positively productive according to some people.

Raven Cowl wrote:

 Farseer Anath'lan wrote:

Maybe in an effort to help out, we should have everyone post a picture of TTQ (a squad of guys) and a display piece (if they have one), in a spoiler. That should be immensely helpful.

^ This would be very awesome indeed. I'm getting that it's very subjective and words may not be adequate. Actual models are easier to tell.

Here is a squad I consider painted to a middle of the road TTQ:

They were painted during 3rd edition, with my skills at the time, with the intent to get them to the table to play with. The Dakka gallery gives them a 4.5/10 for a paintjob. Base/wash/drybrush work, with some effort on the eyes and face of the sarge.

I’m just an average joe, doing average work. Here is the latest mini to come off my bench, my entry for Para’s monthly challange. A far cry from “display quality” but a step above TTQ:

While the mini is more ornate, you will notice the difference in things like the gold aquila on the chest. The HG got a brown wash and a follow up drybrush on his (and the rest of his golds) The tabard is layered and blended up, washed, and re-highlighted. Actually based. Gun barrels drilled.

I would be happy to play against your TTQ models, Nevelon A little tip: if you paint lips red, they tend to look like lipstick. Instead, you're better off painting the whole face cadian, just washing the face gently (with reikland fleshshade or equivalent), and then lightly picking out a little bit of the upper lip, eyebrows and cheekbones with a highlight flesh tone (like Kislev). That gives you a dark mouth (or defines closed lips) and the highlight brings attention there, even though of course lips aren't really that color.

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!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 darefsky wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 darefsky wrote:
Offer a painting class at your local store / club/ garage and invite them in.

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.

Don't dismiss someone because of a sea of grey mini's.

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.

I call shinanigans, I would wager you that the people you refer to would probably sit down and paint with a group of friends. Most folks I've met that have large grey hordes feel overwhelmed at the sheer size if the project they have created for themselves.

Baloney. Don't you know that everyone who doesn't paint their army in a way that Peregrine desires is a lazy good for nothing who deserves an upturned nose, a lack of respect and outright mockery?

I'm just offering you an alternative to being high and mighty.

But high and mighty is somehow positively productive according to some people.

Funny, you're the only one attacking actual people. Yet you can't seem to see that.