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.

 queen_annes_revenge wrote:
Aged Cherrywood with a gloss varnish?

That wood better have linseed oil on it!

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

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

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

Looking through their post history I think Loborocket is talking about this thread where I pointed out that their "so good nobody can tell it is 3d printed" model is actually very obviously 3d printed if you know what 3d printed models look like, and falls well short of the quality of the original GW kit. But I have no idea where the "and then everyone told me to STFU and deal with it" part came from, since the discussion immediately moved on and nobody else (including Loborocket) commented on either the model or my opinion of it.

 Peregrine wrote:

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

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

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

Looking through their post history I think Loborocket is talking about this thread where I pointed out that their "so good nobody can tell it is 3d printed" model is actually very obviously 3d printed if you know what 3d printed models look like, and falls well short of the quality of the original GW kit. But I have no idea where the "and then everyone told me to STFU and deal with it" part came from, since the discussion immediately moved on and nobody else (including Loborocket) commented on either the model or my opinion of it.

Yep that is the thread. I did not like the tone your post/comments had to them. I reported them to the mods as a violation of forum rule #1 (be nice) and contacted you via PM and asked you to edit or remove the comments because I feel they violate the "be nice" rule. You responded back you would do no such thing and you stand behind your comments. Not even any kind of attempt at saying you were sorry if I took the comments the wrong way. So while not a direct STFU, it was pretty close. I also got no response at all from the mods about the post being a violation of rule #1. The post is still there so they obviously did not delete it. Perhaps it was "handled" in some other way but I was not given any indication of that. I never responded back because it would have been off topic and caused the thread to drift off (also a violation of forum rules.)

So take that for what you will. I still think your comments are a violation of forum rule #1 and I suppose that is a subjective scale so perhaps I am too thin skined. As a reaction I decided I do not need to share my work directly in threads any longer.

I responded in this thread because a comment was made about how a "snob like" attitude that you have towards what are deemed "unworthy" models can be bad for the hobby in general and drive people away. I had this exact experience with you, the very person involved in this thread and being accused of "snob like" behavior. I thought I would relay my experience with your "snob" attitude and how it affected me.


P.S. Actually someone else later in the thread noted your tone with me was "a little abrasive" http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/30/634284.page#7580649 so it was not totally my thin skin that saw a bit of negativity in your tone.

Now I want to do a tabletop challenge: ask really good painters what they can come up with with 3 colors and a wash and see the results.

Loborocket wrote:


Yep that is the thread. I did not like the tone your post/comments had to them. I reported them to the mods as a violation of forum rule #1 (be nice) and contacted you via PM and asked you to edit or remove the comments because I feel they violate the "be nice" rule. You responded back you would do no such thing and you stand behind your comments. Not even any kind of attempt at saying you were sorry if I took the comments the wrong way. So while not a direct STFU, it was pretty close. I also got no response at all from the mods about the post being a violation of rule #1. The post is still there so they obviously did not delete it. Perhaps it was "handled" in some other way but I was not given any indication of that. I never responded back because it would have been off topic and caused the thread to drift off (also a violation of forum rules.)

Rule #1 is not "Be nice," it's "be polite," which has evolved over time to mean that sheer abuse is not tolerated. Dakka encourages lively conversation, and generally doesn't make people stand down from statements that have on topic value that aren't abusive.

So take that for what you will. I still think your comments are a violation of forum rule #1 and I suppose that is a subjective scale so perhaps I am too thin skined. As a reaction I decided I do not need to share my work directly in threads any longer.

Well, a I pointed out earlier in the thread, Dakka has always had a few posters that exist to more or less solely to skate the edge of rule #1. They always have opinions, they always share them loudly and repeatedly, and they always feel that the end of "telling the truth" justifies nearly any means. But that's true of any community.

If you think having one vaguely bad experience with one poster on Dakka means that this isn't the right community for you, that's totally your choice. I'll say that your work has gotten quite a bit of comments when you posted it, and that most hobbyists would trade that level of recognition for a few unkind words from time to time, but it's your call.





Automatically Appended Next Post:
To bring this back around to the topic, the implied argument here is that quality standards are bad, because they can be used to hurt or exclude others. A casual knowledge of human history shows that, yes, standards can be used to exclude, rather than to maintain.

Does that mean standards have no value? I don't think so, as we follow standards of quality all the time.

For minis painting, there has always been three broad categories: unpainted, Tabletop, and display quality. The lower bound gets a bit fuzzy due to the infamous three color rule (which can sometimes result in a nice, TTS gaming piece, and sometime not), while the upper bound is getting fuzzy as tournament armies look better and better.

So, we end up with five categories, including the difficult to name "legal but unfinished" tournament legal standard, and the very well painted armies that are clearly well above TTS. I think that there should be a new category for high level paintjobs. I've used "tournament quality" in the past, but I doubt we'll ever come up with a clear term.

The lower bounds are murkier. I'll admit, my preferred level of TTS is more than fully painted, while the minimum for three colors is less than fully painted, which creates a level of paint job in which everything is painted, including at least major details, but there are no washes or decent basing. I'm okay to muddy the waters by coining a term like "fully painted," but I could also propose this:

All models that are fully painted, meaning all details that can be seen from four feet are picked out, shall be considered of table top quality, regardless of the actual craftsmanship at work. If you stay within the lines and base paint everything, you can call it TTS, and nobody will question you.

What do we think? Is the term "fully painted" acceptable for those models that have no primer showing and are reasonably neatly picked out, but aren't based or shaded to a TTS? Or is the base coat the defining feature of TTS?

 heartserenade wrote:
Now I want to do a tabletop challenge: ask really good painters what they can come up with with 3 colors and a wash and see the results.

Some armies might be able to pull this off. Necrons, Nids, maybe some chapters of marines

I still maintain that 3 colors and based should remain a "standard definition" of table top quality.

It is what Adepticon/GW/PP ect use for their tournaments. I feel like its an objective rather than a subjective standard. (we could debate nice looking well painted etc. but those are subjective measurements).

As to the vitriol in this thread..... Seriously people we are playing with 28mm models. They are fun and or hobby is great. We should be striving to have fun and enjoying it. Paint some models, try new techniques, make pew-pew sounds when rolling dice. Make new friends. Help out the new guy...... In other words stop taking it so gosh-darn seriously!

Also I'll pony up

Here is a squad I did to "Table Top"

\

 Polonius wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:
To bring this back around to the topic, the implied argument here is that quality standards are bad, because they can be used to hurt or exclude others. A casual knowledge of human history shows that, yes, standards can be used to exclude, rather than to maintain.

Does that mean standards have no value? I don't think so, as we follow standards of quality all the time.

For minis painting, there has always been three broad categories: unpainted, Tabletop, and display quality. The lower bound gets a bit fuzzy due to the infamous three color rule (which can sometimes result in a nice, TTS gaming piece, and sometime not), while the upper bound is getting fuzzy as tournament armies look better and better.

So, we end up with five categories, including the difficult to name "legal but unfinished" tournament legal standard, and the very well painted armies that are clearly well above TTS. I think that there should be a new category for high level paintjobs. I've used "tournament quality" in the past, but I doubt we'll ever come up with a clear term.

The lower bounds are murkier. I'll admit, my preferred level of TTS is more than fully painted, while the minimum for three colors is less than fully painted, which creates a level of paint job in which everything is painted, including at least major details, but there are no washes or decent basing. I'm okay to muddy the waters by coining a term like "fully painted," but I could also propose this:

All models that are fully painted, meaning all details that can be seen from four feet are picked out, shall be considered of table top quality, regardless of the actual craftsmanship at work. If you stay within the lines and base paint everything, you can call it TTS, and nobody will question you.

What do we think? Is the term "fully painted" acceptable for those models that have no primer showing and are reasonably neatly picked out, but aren't based or shaded to a TTS? Or is the base coat the defining feature of TTS?

It's not that standards are bad, personal standards are good. Imposing standards on others is what is bad. I have my own personal standards for what I consider to be worthy to put on the table, I don't expect others to have the same standards.

As for defining "table top standard" or "fully painted" I think it's somewhat fruitless because it's always going to mean something different to different people.

I think we should just avoid using terminology with ambiguous meaning when referring to OTHER peoples' models and stick to using it when referring to our own models. Using those terms to better communicate what you mean when presenting your own work is good, but using it to refer to other peoples' work I don't think is beneficial. When someone asks for comments and criticisms on their work I think the English language is rich enough to adequately evaluate someone's work without having to fall back on ambiguously defined standards that are never going to be consistent from one person to the next.

 Polonius wrote:

Loborocket wrote:


Yep that is the thread. I did not like the tone your post/comments had to them. I reported them to the mods as a violation of forum rule #1 (be nice) and contacted you via PM and asked you to edit or remove the comments because I feel they violate the "be nice" rule. You responded back you would do no such thing and you stand behind your comments. Not even any kind of attempt at saying you were sorry if I took the comments the wrong way. So while not a direct STFU, it was pretty close. I also got no response at all from the mods about the post being a violation of rule #1. The post is still there so they obviously did not delete it. Perhaps it was "handled" in some other way but I was not given any indication of that. I never responded back because it would have been off topic and caused the thread to drift off (also a violation of forum rules.)

Rule #1 is not "Be nice," it's "be polite," which has evolved over time to mean that sheer abuse is not tolerated. Dakka encourages lively conversation, and generally doesn't make people stand down from statements that have on topic value that aren't abusive.

So take that for what you will. I still think your comments are a violation of forum rule #1 and I suppose that is a subjective scale so perhaps I am too thin skined. As a reaction I decided I do not need to share my work directly in threads any longer.

Well, a I pointed out earlier in the thread, Dakka has always had a few posters that exist to more or less solely to skate the edge of rule #1. They always have opinions, they always share them loudly and repeatedly, and they always feel that the end of "telling the truth" justifies nearly any means. But that's true of any community.

If you think having one vaguely bad experience with one poster on Dakka means that this isn't the right community for you, that's totally your choice. I'll say that your work has gotten quite a bit of comments when you posted it, and that most hobbyists would trade that level of recognition for a few unkind words from time to time, but it's your call.

"Be nice", "Be polite", po-tA-to, po-TAH-to


The details of the particular incident are not all that important and the fact if it happened 1 time or 1000 times is also not important. The point that was being made when I responded was an elitist attitude towards others work DOES have a negative effect on the hobby, that is a FACT and my experience is exhibit 1. It just so happens my experience was with Perigrine who was the one involved in the conversation on this thread about how an elitist attitude is bad for the hobby.

So if imposing some kind of standard (tabletop or otherwise) before you will allow someone to play a game against you that is your perogoative, but I think that is really more about your ego than anything else and gives you some kind of license to "look down upon" the unwashed masses.

Also understand that enforcement of a "standard" does come at a cost. You will alienate a certain percentage of the people who are involved in or are interested in playing the game. It is a somewhat dangerous line to walk when the hobby is already an expensive niche thing to begin with. Driving any people away might just very well be the proverbial "cutting off your nose to spite your face." Soon enough you will find nobody to play against, or even worse, a discontinued game because players have been driven away to some other "more accessible" game.

Another personal experience related to this subject:

I have been interested in 40k for a long time but never played the cost was always high and I had heard in order to play the minis NEEDED to be painted. Back in my clooege days those 2 things were just simply too much for me to start the game. Fast forward ~20 years, my son and I used to play Heroscape and when that got discontinued I was looking for a new miniature game for us. I came back to 40k. I had a little more money now and some time to dedicate to painting. Even then it took another 6 months or so for me to get some models and get them painted up so I could play. i was still under the impression I HAD to paint the models before I could play. I kind of figured out that was not the case as I hung out at the store a bit more but I kept at it to get a small army painted before I played my fist game. I still lost my son as a player because for him the investment is too high of getting an army painted.

In my example the painting part of the hobby is what held me back from playing in college, took some time (6 months) before I played a game once I bought models, and has prevented my son from playing with me.

This is a real cost, and it is high enough that many are not willing to pay it in order play a tabletop game, they will just choose something else. So when you demand a high "standard" just understand it is not without consequence.

To bring this back to the original topic, "tabletop standard" really has no meaning or true definition. It is a subjective quality. I would encourage players to paint their models to the best of their ability given the time you have (or want to put in) that is your "table top standard" and in the end these are YOUR models.

When looking at someone's models deciding if it meets your "standard", compliment their work if you like it. If you don't like it, keep your comments to yourself. If you find yourself un-able to keep your comments to yourself at least be nice about how your deliver the message. If their models are "so bad" you can't enjoy playing a game with them tell a "white lie" of some kind to excuse yourself from the game. If they ask for help or critique, help to the best of your ability and be constructive with your crituque. If they don't ask, keep your comments to yourself.

Oh, forgot to pony up:




These are my tabletop standard now. It's very different from what i would consider my tabletop standard 3-5 years ago, so even with the same person you can have different interpretations!

Loborocket,
This is probably not be the best place to be airing your grievances against a particular poster's comments from a different topic and your following PM (they're called "private" for a reason) exchanges with them. If the Mod's were not convinced enough by the details of your situation to divy out punishements and post editings then the Dakka gen-pop isn't likely to be much more favorable to your cause.

I hope you enjoy Dakka and stick around, but you're probably right on with your self-observation about "thin skin".

 darefsky wrote:
I still maintain that 3 colors and based should remain a "standard definition" of table top quality.

It is what Adepticon/GW/PP ect use for their tournaments. I feel like its an objective rather than a subjective standard. (we could debate nice looking well painted etc. but those are subjective measurements).

Definitely agree. For those who are looking to an objective standard, 3 plus based is and has-been a long established standard. Sure a model can be 3 and based and look like poop, but 3 and-based at least sets the grounding.

Those who prefer subjective definitions relating to their own opinions or feelings will of course reject such a standard, but the truth is that they are not really answering the same question

 queen_annes_revenge wrote:
Aged Cherrywood with a gloss varnish?

I'm more a fan of bookmatched maple myself.

 Eilif wrote:
Loborocket,
This is probably not be the best place to be airing your grievances against a particular poster's comments from a different topic and your following PM (they're called "private" for a reason) exchanges with them. If the Mod's were not convinced enough by the details of your situation to divy out punishements and post editings then the Dakka gen-pop isn't likely to be much more favorable to your cause.

I hope you enjoy Dakka and stick around, but you're probably right on with your self-observation about "thin skin".

I am not necessarily "airing my grievances" in this thread. The conversation had gone into the area about how negative comments about what people consider "tabletop standard" can drive people away and is bad for the hobby. I shared a personal experience I had with this type of behavior (overly harsh comments which caused me to stop sharing work). It just happened to be with the same person who was involved in the conversation in this thread. I did not ask people to dig around for the details of it.

I still think a good point was made in that overly harsh critique or the refusal to play someone because their models are not up to YOUR standard is elitist/snobish and it not good for the hobby in general.

So the whole concept of "tabletop standard" is kind of a moot point since it is just too subjective. There is no real need to be an insensititive person about it.

Loborocket wrote:

So the whole concept of "tabletop standard" is kind of a moot point since it is just too subjective. There is no real need to be an insensititive person about it.

Surely it can't have escaped your notice that there are many folks -myself included- who think that "tabletop standard" is rather objective and are perfectly happy to state what the standard is. We don't think it's a moot point and we don't think that naming it is "insensitive".

I'm not going to get dragged into specifically addressing various posters sensitivities or insensitivities. That stuff truely is subjective. If you put stuff up at dakka you're going to get comments from the sensitive and the insensitive, from the objective and subjective and from the nice and not-so-nice. I'm not denying that you may have received harsh (perhaps even unwarranted) feedback, but that's just the cost of entry. Better to accept it and move on than to reshash it elsewhere.

 queen_annes_revenge wrote:
Aged Cherrywood with a gloss varnish?

I'm more a fan of bookmatched maple myself.

3 colours minimum and based.

If you're happy with your tabletop, queen_annes_revenge, fine - you and your friends can view your crappy tables in your collective basements. Me? I'd be ashamed to set out a cherry-topped table in public. Cherry tables (and high gloss? Get your eyes checked, peasant) are a discourtesy to those sitting across from you and do the community a grave disservice. Merely mentioning it on a forum decreases the legitimacy of the board.

Those of us that use superior woods (I'd take maple over cherry any day, but that's pretty much the bare minimum to be considered "worth more than its weight in kindling") are the true hobbyists. Scoff if you like, but we know what is what.

Lightly oiled teak - accept no substitute.

 oadie wrote:
If you're happy with your tabletop, queen_annes_revenge, fine - you and your friends can view your crappy tables in your collective basements. Me? I'd be ashamed to set out a cherry-topped table in public. Cherry tables (and high gloss? Get your eyes checked, peasant) are a discourtesy to those sitting across from you and do the community a grave disservice. Merely mentioning it on a forum decreases the legitimacy of the board.

Those of us that use superior woods (I'd take maple over cherry any day, but that's pretty much the bare minimum to be considered "worth more than its weight in kindling") are the true hobbyists. Scoff if you like, but we know what is what.

Lightly oiled teak - accept no substitute.

This is a pretty good recommendation, if you're a beginner. Only true table aficionados have the integrity to chop down trees and make their own tables by hand.

 heartserenade wrote:
Oh, forgot to pony up:

Spoiler:

These are my tabletop standard now. It's very different from what i would consider my tabletop standard 3-5 years ago, so even with the same person you can have different interpretations!

Very nice models for a TTS!

I will go a step further and say not only has my table top standard changed over the years, even now it varies from army to army. My earlier personal definition in this thread was basically "the standard to which I can realistically paint a whole army", and that obviously changes from one army to the next. I collect a lot of horde armies, Night Gobbo heavy O&G, Cadians and Nids and my TTS for those armies is far lower than my table top standard when it comes to my Space Wolves. I can spend a few hours on each Space Wolf and still complete the army in reasonable time, if I spend 3 hours on each Cadian it would look awesome but I'd shoot myself by the time I finished a single platoon. In other games, like my 15mm WW2 forces, my table top standard is higher again because I can put more effort in to a single tank to make it look awesome without it taking me an insanely long time to finish a force.

That's why I reckon it's a term best used to apply to your OWN models rather than OTHER peoples' models. If you call someone else's models "TTS" you might be insulting them basically saying "well that's gak" if what they were trying to produce was a display piece to the best of their abilities. On the other hand when describing your OWN models I think it's a useful term to use because it lets potential viewers know "Hey, this isn't necessarily the best I can paint for display purposes, but it's what I actually am going to paint for my army as a whole". So that when people view your models they don't make silly comments like "you should used this highly time consuming technique to make it look better when viewed from 2" away with a magnifying glass!".

For commission painters it then takes on another meaning, where it typically seems to mean "The least amount of effort I'm willing to put in to a model that I will sell you".

To me it means a quick paint job, bare minimum to get playing.

Unfortunately I cant apply this to myself, I'm by no means the best painter in the world, but I cant paint any model quickly, it has to be 100% spot on and done to the best of my ability. This is why I haven't played a game in years...

 darefsky wrote:
I go by the old standard of three colors and based for tournament play.

It's about the only way to look at it that's not subjective...

I'm inclined to agree. When I attended GW-sanctioned tournaments the rule was always Three colors and based, nothing more. Beyond that is entirely up to the player which certainly gives a vast amount of variety to be had.

At my LGS in the present league maybe 60-70% of armies on hand are painted. Some are painted shockingly well, some are just scraping by, and others are somewhere in between but as I said not even all of them are painted. The point I'm trying to make is that beyond three colors and basing it really becomes a personal issue. How nice do you want your army to be? How much time do you want to put in? How much CAN you put in?

 jreilly89 wrote:

 oadie wrote:
[stuff]

This is a pretty good recommendation, if you're a beginner. Only true table aficionados have the integrity to chop down trees and make their own tables by hand.

If you were a true table aficionado, you'd know that personal harvest is assumed - only wannabe joiners use processed wood. I'm sure you think you know tabletops, having read a few things on the internet, but I have to be honest, here. YOU DON'T.

(╯°□°）╯︵ ┻━┻) <-- table equivalent of pointedly dropping the mic

 oadie wrote:
If you're happy with your tabletop, queen_annes_revenge, fine - you and your friends can view your crappy tables in your collective basements. Me? I'd be ashamed to set out a cherry-topped table in public. Cherry tables (and high gloss? Get your eyes checked, peasant) are a discourtesy to those sitting across from you and do the community a grave disservice. Merely mentioning it on a forum decreases the legitimacy of the board.

Those of us that use superior woods (I'd take maple over cherry any day, but that's pretty much the bare minimum to be considered "worth more than its weight in kindling") are the true hobbyists. Scoff if you like, but we know what is what.

Lightly oiled teak - accept no substitute.

Truly, thou art wise. Oiled teak is most certainly the wood of quality, substance and good scandinavian design.

 Dust wrote:
The point I'm trying to make is that beyond three colors and basing it really becomes a personal issue. How nice do you want your army to be? How much time do you want to put in? How much CAN you put in?

So a gray plastic marine with three dots of color on the shoulder pad is considered tabletop standard and anything beyond that is just "how much do you want to put in"?

 Peregrine wrote:

 Dust wrote:
The point I'm trying to make is that beyond three colors and basing it really becomes a personal issue. How nice do you want your army to be? How much time do you want to put in? How much CAN you put in?

So a gray plastic marine with three dots of color on the shoulder pad is considered tabletop standard and anything beyond that is just "how much do you want to put in"?

Yeah sure, why not, if someone really doesn't give a gak enough to do that I don't imagine they'd be producing terribly high quality paint jobs anyway.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Dust wrote:
The point I'm trying to make is that beyond three colors and basing it really becomes a personal issue. How nice do you want your army to be? How much time do you want to put in? How much CAN you put in?

So a gray plastic marine with three dots of color on the shoulder pad is considered tabletop standard and anything beyond that is just "how much do you want to put in"?

It really bugs me when people take things to the extreme of stupidity in order validate a ridiculous argument. You and I both know that "three dots of paint and based" wouldn't fly at a tournament nor anywhere else. So please don't interject something so blatantly said to cause an argument based on something we all know is complete bunk.

 darefsky wrote:
It really bugs me when people take things to the extreme of stupidity in order validate a ridiculous argument. You and I both know that "three dots of paint and based" wouldn't fly at a tournament nor anywhere else. So please don't interject something so blatantly said to cause an argument based on something we all know is complete bunk.

Well yes, of course it wouldn't be allowed. But that's exactly the point: "three colors" says nothing useful about the quality of the model. And if you want to talk about "tabletop standard" you need to talk about the quality of the model, not just how many colors it has. The space marine with three dots is not "tabletop standard". The guardsmen with bare primer heads are not "tabletop standard" even if they have three colors elsewhere on the model because the painting is not finished. A model with three colors but sloppy placement of those colors and paint so thick you can't see any of the details is not "tabletop standard", it's "my baby smeared some paint on this". And a Necron model with two well-done colors (metal + wash) might be "tabletop standard" despite not having three colors.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
Yeah sure, why not, if someone really doesn't give a gak enough to do that I don't imagine they'd be producing terribly high quality paint jobs anyway.

So a model is "tabletop standard" because the person who "painted" it is going to refuse to do better if we criticize it? I can understand allowing the person to play (though in a tournament with a painting requirement I would kick them out) but that doesn't mean we should pretend that their "painting" is legitimate.

 Peregrine wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
Yeah sure, why not, if someone really doesn't give a gak enough to do that I don't imagine they'd be producing terribly high quality paint jobs anyway.

So a model is "tabletop standard" because the person who "painted" it is going to refuse to do better if we criticize it? I can understand allowing the person to play (though in a tournament with a painting requirement I would kick them out) but that doesn't mean we should pretend that their "painting" is legitimate.

It wouldn't be my personal definition of "table top standard" but then my whole point is that there is no useful objective definition of table top standard anyway, so you might as well call it 3 colours and if someone cares so little as to interpret it as meaning 3 dots on the shoulder pad, whatever, they probably weren't going to put in any more effort anyway.

To invent a definition that covers all armies and all painting styles is difficult and IMO mostly pointless. I don't think I've heard a definition of a minimum painting requirement that doesn't fail in some circumstances anyway.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
and if someone cares so little as to interpret it as meaning 3 dots on the shoulder pad, whatever, they probably weren't going to put in any more effort anyway.

But, again, what does how much effort a person is willing to invest have to do with anything? If a model sucks then you say "it sucks" regardless of whether or not the person wants to improve it. You don't just say "well that's all you want to do, and I guess we have to give everyone a passing grade". You can still call it an unpainted model when talking about it, you can still ban it from events with a painting requirement, etc.

To invent a definition that covers all armies and all painting styles is difficult and IMO mostly pointless. I don't think I've heard a definition of a minimum painting requirement that doesn't fail in some circumstances anyway.

I gave one earlier in this thread:

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.

That covers all armies and styles in all (reasonable) circumstances. And it's a pretty minimal standard that requires no significant artistic skill and can be done quickly on an entire army.

 Peregrine wrote:

 darefsky wrote:
It really bugs me when people take things to the extreme of stupidity in order validate a ridiculous argument. You and I both know that "three dots of paint and based" wouldn't fly at a tournament nor anywhere else. So please don't interject something so blatantly said to cause an argument based on something we all know is complete bunk.

Well yes, of course it wouldn't be allowed. But that's exactly the point: "three colors" says nothing useful about the quality of the model. And if you want to talk about "tabletop standard" you need to talk about the quality of the model, not just how many colors it has. The space marine with three dots is not "tabletop standard". The guardsmen with bare primer heads are not "tabletop standard" even if they have three colors elsewhere on the model because the painting is not finished. A model with three colors but sloppy placement of those colors and paint so thick you can't see any of the details is not "tabletop standard", it's "my baby smeared some paint on this". And a Necron model with two well-done colors (metal + wash) might be "tabletop standard" despite not having three colors.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
Yeah sure, why not, if someone really doesn't give a gak enough to do that I don't imagine they'd be producing terribly high quality paint jobs anyway.

So a model is "tabletop standard" because the person who "painted" it is going to refuse to do better if we criticize it? I can understand allowing the person to play (though in a tournament with a painting requirement I would kick them out) but that doesn't mean we should pretend that their "painting" is legitimate.

Again you keep wanting to get into subjective areas. Standards need to be objective. If you want to define something you have to go that way.

Your at the point of sounding like you are arguing about how wet the water should be. It's silly and has no real value....

I think that TTS is as varied as the person painting.

For example, I think that TTS is something that I wouldn't be embarrassed playing with in public. If someone walked into a store and looked at my minis and said, "Nice job" that would be a high table top standard. They aren't picking up my minis, I'm not trying to win awards, but my models are painted cleanly and have some effort at shading. I tend to put a little extra effort into Commanders, Special Weapon Guys, that sort of thing, but again they aren't going to win awards.

Though, amusingly, I did win the "best painted' award at a small Kill Team event. Everybody else's minis were pretty crap, except for one other guy, and the models were pretty nice. But he was a bit of an ass and nobody voted for him. Go popularity contest!

I digress. If someone walked in and asked me how I was going to finish a model, that probably wouldn't meet my definition of TTS, though it might hit low TTS if it was a tactical marine or something. So if a model looks "done" and you wouldn't be embarrassed to take it to a store to play with, you're probably meeting TTS.

If you have a mini that you like to "show off" to people, and I think we all do at some point, that's where you're trying to go past TTS, and into a display piece. Even if that isn't something to win an award, if you're sufficiently proud of a mini that you like to show people what you did, you're probably going past TTS, for yourself anyhow. I'm not a great painter, but I'm pretty proud of my Commissar, and a heavily converted Master Vox for my Command Squad, so I feel they're better than TTS. I like what I did with my Death Company, so even though they'll never win an award, I feel I did a better than TTS with them.