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.

 Lance845 wrote:
I, likewise, don't understand on any level why the Transformers movies all make a billion dollars in the theaters since they are total garbage but they do.

Not understanding why someone decides to spend their money and time on something you think is bad does not mean they are not welcome to go do that thing.

So the 40k game sucks and you are only in it for the painting. Cool. You don't get why anyone else would enjoy the game without the painting? So what? What relevance does your understanding have to do with anything?

I don't think not painting nor never painting your models is bad. I am not only in it for the painting. I don't think game mechanics of 40k suck only that they are kinda mediocre. Remeber what I wrote about Dakka Dakka turning up the contrast to almost binary in their statements/arguments. I think you are doing that here. The biggest draws is nice looking models/lore and popularity. Unpainted models don't really look all that nice (or at least nowhere close to their potential) and there is a potentially a fraction of players that will decline games, stores that don't allow unpainted miniatures and more and more tournaments that have painting requirements. Which cut into the advantage of popularity.

It just seems self limiting to not bother painting your models. Something I don't even see as any more difficult than actually building the models. Why is your tone so hostile toward my understanding or trying to understand the draw from players that do it? The unpainted armies well outnumber the painted ones in my area. I'm sure if ITC didn't have painting standards the percentage of painted would be even less (yes, playing vs. a painted army in my area usually means playing an ITC tournament list). So congrats, your 'don't tell me what to do with my stuff' side won. I simply lament that fact that tons of money are thrown toward what seem like half completed projects for reasons beyond my comprehension.

I think my position is relevant in that I am very much in the minority locally to even bother with painting. Because of that, I rarely bother making a trip to my FLGS to game because I don't think the potential fun to effort is going to be there because so few have painted models. I never say anything about it to the other players because I don't want them to feel bad about their choice. Lack of painting has allowed some slippage to not completely built models to also seen, and rather ramshackle looking tables with little concern of aesthetics. Which I will admit, I think is a determent to recruitment into the hobby having models/tables looking rather shabby in what should be a visual spectacle that invite would be players in. I don't feel bad or ill toward the players. If that is how they want and do enjoy the hobby great. I again lament in this bronze level that my area has declined into is the commonplace. I also think it is relevant to state my position in a forum concerning the importance of painting to me. Maybe I misread the OP, but that seems like the point of this thread. But thank you for making me feel unwelcome to participate in this thread because you think I do something you think is bad.

 Lance845 wrote:

 small_gods wrote:

 UncleJetMints wrote:

 small_gods wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

 Mmmpi wrote:

The minimum group standard for Larping and reenactments involves the pagentry.

And why you find this acceptable and not elitist gatekeeping? It is the fething same thing. Sure, you could do a fantasy LARP in your jeans, it still works, just like you can play with unpainted 40K models. It just looks like gak and the breaks immersion. And in both of these putting some effort into the visuals is what is expected. GW always shows painted armies and in historical wargaming people wouldn't dream of playing with unpainted models. I really don't understand why this phenomenon even exists, seem to be mostly just a Warhammer and fantasy wargaming problem.

No it's not.

40k is a boardgame. Playing a game of 40k is no different then playing a game of risk. It's baseline standards is following the rules.

There are other aspects of the hobby that people CAN participate in but are not required to.


Historical reenactment isn't about playing a game. It's about historical reenactment.

There is zero images in any GW publications of people playing with unpainted models. Where is the evidence that GW think that playing with unpainted models is the baseline? They would sell painted models if painting wasn't part of 40k, like X Wing.

I imagine the evidence is in the fact that the rulebook doesn't say that you have to paint.

It also doesn't say that midels have to be assembled and stiod on their bases but that's implied by looking at every picture they release being of assembled models, stood up and painted.

Incorrect, the baseline rules of the game require measurements and los drawn to and from models and bases. Therefore the models and bases play a rules role and are required. Paint isn't.
You can enjoy painting. You can enjoy seeing others do the things you enjoy. To look down on others because they don't makes you a problem. Nobody gets to dictate how anyone else spends their time.

I'm not dictating anything, you can use coins and tins of beans if you want. I was saying the game is meant to be played with painted models and I don't like to play against people who don't paint theirs.

Also I was being flippant about assembling models I wasn't actually saying that people would want to play with bare sprues, but tgere is nothing in the rules that say assemble infantry in this way, base must go on ground etc. You just look at the assembly instructions which also comtain paint schemes.

 Saturmorn Carvilli wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:
I, likewise, don't understand on any level why the Transformers movies all make a billion dollars in the theaters since they are total garbage but they do.

Not understanding why someone decides to spend their money and time on something you think is bad does not mean they are not welcome to go do that thing.

So the 40k game sucks and you are only in it for the painting. Cool. You don't get why anyone else would enjoy the game without the painting? So what? What relevance does your understanding have to do with anything?

I don't think not painting nor never painting your models is bad. I am not only in it for the painting. I don't think game mechanics of 40k suck only that they are kinda mediocre. Remeber what I wrote about Dakka Dakka turning up the contrast to almost binary in their statements/arguments. I think you are doing that here.

I am making a point that you seem to have missed.

The biggest draws is nice looking models/lore and popularity.

The biggest draw, for YOU. What draws someone else can be completely different.

Unpainted models don't really look all that nice (or at least nowhere close to their potential) and there is a potentially a fraction of players that will decline games, stores that don't allow unpainted miniatures and more and more tournaments that have painting requirements. Which cut into the advantage of popularity.

Irrelevant. And those stores and players are bad for the community as a whole.

It just seems self limiting to not bother painting your models. Something I don't even see as any more difficult than actually building the models.

Again, for you.

I honestly cannot on any level understand why someone would PAY to watch Transformers 5 but thousands do apparently. My opinions don't reflect those of others and neither do yours. The difference is I am not trying to stop people from watching transformers but you ARE encouraging the practice of forcing others to paint. Even if it's just by lamenting what people choose to do and calling it something less than.

Why is your tone so hostile toward my understanding or trying to understand the draw from players that do it? The unpainted armies well outnumber the painted ones in my area. I'm sure if ITC didn't have painting standards the percentage of painted would be even less (yes, playing vs. a painted army in my area usually means playing an ITC tournament list). So congrats, your 'don't tell me what to do with my stuff' side won. I simply lament that fact that tons of money are thrown toward what seem like half completed projects for reasons beyond my comprehension.

Stop thinking about it. Your comprehension is not necessary. People do what people do and trying to force them to do as you want is bad behavior. I like to paint sometimes. I would even go so far as to say I am good at it. But I don't spare a single thought on anyone who doesn't.

I think my position is relevant in that I am very much in the minority locally to even bother with painting. Because of that, I rarely bother making a trip to my FLGS to game because I don't think the potential fun to effort is going to be there because so few have painted models. I never say anything about it to the other players because I don't want them to feel bad about their choice. Lack of painting has allowed some slippage to not completely built models to also seen, and rather ramshackle looking tables with little concern of aesthetics. Which I will admit, I think is a determent to recruitment into the hobby having models/tables looking rather shabby in what should be a visual spectacle that invite would be players in.

The opposite is true. The fact that you don't show up to just have a good time with whatever everyone has playing the game is damaging to the community. If someone sees 2 armies that are entirely grey and they are laughing and enjoying themselves it will encourage new people in. If you see 2 miserable people playing with beautifully painted armies it won't invite anyone and turn others away. The encouraging bit is seeing people enjoying a hobby together in any capacity. People are attracted to fun. And if you don't even show up then what is there for anyone to look at? Having a good time playing the game does more good for community building then any other action and is the perfect gateway for encouraging those that will eventually paint to start painting. Your attitude of no paint means less fun has already degraded recruitment opportunities because you care WAY to much about crap that just doesn't matter.

Imagine going to a renascence fair where the people in costume refused to acknowledge the people not in costume until they starting buying and wearing some kind of costume. Do you think the fair would be bigger or smaller under those circumstances? A bigger community is a better community. And some of the people not in costume their first year will be encouraged to get into costume in subsequent years. But a fair that refuses to let anyone not in costume participate is a fair that has drastically cut off it's recruitment.

I don't feel bad or ill toward the players. If that is how they want and do enjoy the hobby great. I again lament in this bronze level that my area has declined into is the commonplace. I also think it is relevant to state my position in a forum concerning the importance of painting to me. Maybe I misread the OP, but that seems like the point of this thread. But thank you for making me feel unwelcome to participate in this thread because you think I do something you think is bad.

You are 100% welcome to state your opinion and I am 100% welcome to state mine. Our opinions conflict. Sorry that you don't have any arguments to support your opinions and that makes you feel bad.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 small_gods wrote:

I'm not dictating anything, you can use coins and tins of beans if you want. I was saying the game is meant to be played with painted models

That is you dictating your opinions to others. The game is meant to be played following the rules. Paint is irrelevant.

and I don't like to play against people who don't paint theirs.

Also I was being flippant about assembling models I wasn't actually saying that people would want to play with bare sprues, but tgere is nothing in the rules that say assemble infantry in this way, base must go on ground etc. You just look at the assembly instructions which also comtain paint schemes.

Really? Not a single assembly instruction book I have has a single paint reference anywhere in them.

 Lance845 wrote:
That is you dictating your opinions to others. The game is meant to be played following the rules. Paint is irrelevant.

There are things besides rules. The manufacturer of the game presents it being played with pained and assembled WYSIWYG models. This is also a tradition in the wargaming hobby as a whole. That is how it is intended to be played. You can do otherwise if you want, but let's not pretend that the intent is not perfectly clear.

Really? Not a single assembly instruction book I have has a single paint reference anywhere in them.

The boxes have paint instructions at the back.

 Crimson wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:
That is you dictating your opinions to others. The game is meant to be played following the rules. Paint is irrelevant.

There are things besides rules. The manufacturer of the game presents it being played with pained and assembled WYSIWYG models. This is also a tradition in the wargaming hobby as a whole. That is how it is intended to be played. You can do otherwise if you want, but let's not pretend that the intent is not perfectly clear.

Nobody new to the game has any historical point of reference. They buy the book and the book tells them what to do. The rules are ALL there is that matters in actuality. The rest is just bonus.

Really? Not a single assembly instruction book I have has a single paint reference anywhere in them.

The boxes have paint instructions at the back.

Where?

 Lance845 wrote:

Nobody new to the game has any historical point of reference. They buy the book and the book tells them what to do. The rules are ALL there is that matters in actuality. The rest is just bonus.

You cannot just state that rules is all that matters. That is a completely baseless and arbitrary claim. The 40K books describe the process of playing 40K holistically, and that involves assembled and painted models and terrain. And this is exactly what a noob looking at a 40K rulebook would see,

Where?

Don't be intentionally obtuse, you know where.

I would also like to point out that one can easily and clearly follow the instructions on how to build a model. The painting tips on the back of the box, for the regular boxes... They're not nearly so clear. You'd need to either be an already good painter or have a lot of advice from an experienced painter.

Side note-I painted some models yesterday, or at least started painting them. You know why? Because the manager of my GW is an encouraging, awesome fellow. He's never once forced me to paint models, or said "You can't play if they're not painted," or made mean comments about grey or primed plastic. He is, however, an enthusiastic painter, and encourages others to paint too, with advice, tips, and compliments. It's much, MUCH better to encourage others to paint than to punish them for not painting.

 Crimson wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:

Nobody new to the game has any historical point of reference. They buy the book and the book tells them what to do. The rules are ALL there is that matters in actuality. The rest is just bonus.

You cannot just state that rules is all that matters.

I can and I am.

That is a completely baseless and arbitrary claim.

No it's not. ALL I need to play the game is the game pieces and the rules. The paint is not needed.

Where?

Don't be intentionally obtuse, you know where.

No really. In order for your statement to carry any weight then the instructions should be on EVERY box. They are not. Where are they? Ever get a package from forgeworld with paint instructions? I haven't.

 Lance845 wrote:

I can and I am.

And I can say I'm the King of France but it doesn't make it so.

No it's not. ALL I need to play the game is the game pieces and the rules. The paint is not needed.

Presentation is part of the holistic experience of the game. The rulebook present the game to be played with assembled and painted models. That is what is intended.

No really. In order for your statement to carry any weight then the instructions should be on EVERY box. They are not. Where are they? Ever get a package from forgeworld with paint instructions? I haven't.

The instructions are on most boxes. Some boxes don't come with assembly instructions either. Do you think that you're not supposed to assemble the models then? Seriously, stop being intentionally obtuse, it is not cute.

 Crimson wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:

I can and I am.

And I can say I'm the King of France but it doesn't make it so.

No it's not. ALL I need to play the game is the game pieces and the rules. The paint is not needed.

Presentation is part of the holistic experience of the game. The rulebook present the game to be played with assembled and painted models. That is what is intended.

No really. In order for your statement to carry any weight then the instructions should be on EVERY box. They are not. Where are they? Ever get a package from forgeworld with paint instructions? I haven't.

The instructions are on most boxes. Some boxes don't come with assembly instructions either. Do you think that you're not supposed to assemble the models then? Seriously, stop being intentionally obtuse, it is not cute.

 JNAProductions wrote:
D&D 3.5 is meant to be played with a Healbot Cleric, a Blaster Wizard, a Sneaky Rogue, and a Big Fighter. Am I wrong to play it with an Archivist, a Gish Cleric, and a Psion?
Baseball is meant to be played on a regulation baseball diamond, of very specific sizes. Am I wrong to play with my friends in my backyard?
Poker is meant to be played without any wild cards. Am I wrong to play "Eights are wild" with my friends when we're killing time?
Megaman X is meant to be played with weapons, armors, and parts. Am I wrong to challenge myself by playing with buster only?

Do you see my point?

See my earlier post. What the designers intend can be important, but playing in a different way isn't wrong.

 Crimson wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:

I can and I am.

And I can say I'm the King of France but it doesn't make it so.

No it's not. ALL I need to play the game is the game pieces and the rules. The paint is not needed.

Presentation is part of the holistic experience of the game. The rulebook present the game to be played with assembled and painted models. That is what is intended.

No really. In order for your statement to carry any weight then the instructions should be on EVERY box. They are not. Where are they? Ever get a package from forgeworld with paint instructions? I haven't.

The instructions are on most boxes. Some boxes don't come with assembly instructions either. Do you think that you're not supposed to assemble the models then? Seriously, stop being intentionally obtuse, it is not cute.

You are making statements based on your own assumptions about the product and based on your personal past experiences. You have no statements that say the models are required to be painted because there are none. You are as obtuse as anyone else in this thread. Saying what is intended is like claiming you are the King of France. It doesn't make it so.

 JNAProductions wrote:

Side note-I painted some models yesterday, or at least started painting them. You know why? Because the manager of my GW is an encouraging, awesome fellow. He's never once forced me to paint models, or said "You can't play if they're not painted," or made mean comments about grey or primed plastic. He is, however, an enthusiastic painter, and encourages others to paint too, with advice, tips, and compliments. It's much, MUCH better to encourage others to paint than to punish them for not painting.

I am not disagreeing with you on that, and this is actually how it mostly goes outside these internet discussions. I mean obviously you sometimes need to call people heretics for doing the toy soldiers wrong, but that too is in good humour!

 Saturmorn Carvilli wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:
I, likewise, don't understand on any level why the Transformers movies all make a billion dollars in the theaters since they are total garbage but they do.

Not understanding why someone decides to spend their money and time on something you think is bad does not mean they are not welcome to go do that thing.

So the 40k game sucks and you are only in it for the painting. Cool. You don't get why anyone else would enjoy the game without the painting? So what? What relevance does your understanding have to do with anything?

I don't think not painting nor never painting your models is bad. I am not only in it for the painting. I don't think game mechanics of 40k suck only that they are kinda mediocre. Remeber what I wrote about Dakka Dakka turning up the contrast to almost binary in their statements/arguments. I think you are doing that here. The biggest draws is nice looking models/lore and popularity. Unpainted models don't really look all that nice (or at least nowhere close to their potential) and there is a potentially a fraction of players that will decline games, stores that don't allow unpainted miniatures and more and more tournaments that have painting requirements. Which cut into the advantage of popularity.

It just seems self limiting to not bother painting your models. Something I don't even see as any more difficult than actually building the models. Why is your tone so hostile toward my understanding or trying to understand the draw from players that do it? The unpainted armies well outnumber the painted ones in my area. I'm sure if ITC didn't have painting standards the percentage of painted would be even less (yes, playing vs. a painted army in my area usually means playing an ITC tournament list). So congrats, your 'don't tell me what to do with my stuff' side won. I simply lament that fact that tons of money are thrown toward what seem like half completed projects for reasons beyond my comprehension.

I think my position is relevant in that I am very much in the minority locally to even bother with painting. Because of that, I rarely bother making a trip to my FLGS to game because I don't think the potential fun to effort is going to be there because so few have painted models. I never say anything about it to the other players because I don't want them to feel bad about their choice. Lack of painting has allowed some slippage to not completely built models to also seen, and rather ramshackle looking tables with little concern of aesthetics. Which I will admit, I think is a determent to recruitment into the hobby having models/tables looking rather shabby in what should be a visual spectacle that invite would be players in. I don't feel bad or ill toward the players. If that is how they want and do enjoy the hobby great. I again lament in this bronze level that my area has declined into is the commonplace. I also think it is relevant to state my position in a forum concerning the importance of painting to me. Maybe I misread the OP, but that seems like the point of this thread. But thank you for making me feel unwelcome to participate in this thread because you think I do something you think is bad.

I just want to say that I did understand your post and thank you for responden

On the topic of why not using 2d models, empty bases or "IOU a model" slips? I have been playing MtG for far longer than WH40k, I even have siblings that are younger than my oldest magic cards, and coming from that hobby I'm a firm believer that WH40k is a hobby where you buy your game pieces to play with them, just like you buy cards to buy the card game. If you don't even have the gaming pieces to play, what are you doing here? In my opinion not having models or using models that aren't counts-as, but entirely different models (for example, an AoS army) is just as unacceptable as bringing photocopies or paper slips with names on them to represent cards you don't have.

In regard to painting vs building - it's not about complexity. Many people who hate painting just buy painted second-hand models. I love building and converting stuff, almost all of my collection is models I built myself. I still hate painting, no matter how much less complex painting a helbrute is compared to fully magnetizing it. Painting also eats a lot more time than building, which is also not to be underestimated for people with family, second jobs or long drives to work.

So don't get me wrong, painted models are without any doubt leagues more awesome than unpainted models. I just wish I could buy pre-painted sprues.

 Lance845 wrote:

You are making statements based on your own assumptions about the product and based on your personal past experiences.

This assumption is what can be obviously divined by looking at any GW rulebook, codex or a magazine.

You have no statements that say the models are required to be painted because there are none. You are as obtuse as anyone else in this thread. Saying what is intended is like claiming you are the King of France. It doesn't make it so.

This is because you don't understand expectations and conventions, perhaps even manners. Like in real like there are many things that are legal, but still not generally accepted. A normal person can understand these sort of things. And just like in life there are norms other than laws, in a game there are norms other than rules.

 Lance845 wrote:


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 small_gods wrote:

I'm not dictating anything, you can use coins and tins of beans if you want. I was saying the game is meant to be played with painted models

That is you dictating your opinions to others. The game is meant to be played following the rules. Paint is irrelevant.

and I don't like to play against people who don't paint theirs.

Also I was being flippant about assembling models I wasn't actually saying that people would want to play with bare sprues, but tgere is nothing in the rules that say assemble infantry in this way, base must go on ground etc. You just look at the assembly instructions which also comtain paint schemes.

Really? Not a single assembly instruction book I have has a single paint reference anywhere in them.

Here I thought I was on a discussion forum. I didn't realise I was stood next to people telling them not to play the game they're about to start.

Also you know that there's paint scheme guidance on the back of 90% of GW packaging and in their codex. Looking for ways to 'technically' be correct doesn't make it look like you have a strong argument.

 small_gods wrote:
Also you know that there's paint scheme guidance on the back of 90% of GW packaging and in their codex. Looking for ways to 'technically' be correct doesn't make it look like you have a strong argument.

Not that I've seen. I've seen more in the Warmachine Forces books. All I've seen is the paints they used to make those images, not how to use those paints.

Admittedly, I haven't seen any of the recent codices or Battletomes, but previously they've only given either the paints or how they could look.

So, I just checked 37 boxes flying around my home from various ork, chaos, terrain, tyranid and death guard models, and 34 of them say that the model requires assembly.
While almost as many have a list of paints on them, zero say the models require painting. There is also an amusing amount of cases where the paints listed neither match the image on the box nor the ones used in the GW how to paint videos.

I consider my painted minis to be my artistic expression.

Painted models don't change how the game plays, but they certainly show off my dedication, hard work, and my unique creative view. So while I don't begrudge anyone else playing with unpainted models, I personally see the hobby side of things as where I get my primary enjoyment for the last 25 years.

It's always cool to show off things I take pride and satisfaction in, and no one's going to compliment me on a good mold line removal and gluing job. It's going to be about the paintjobs and conversions. And compliments are always nice to give and receive.

 Jidmah wrote:
So, I just checked 37 boxes flying around my home from various ork, chaos, terrain, tyranid and death guard models, and 34 of them say that the model requires assembly.
While almost as many have a list of paints on them, zero say the models require painting. There is also an amusing amount of cases where the paints listed neither match the image on the box nor the ones used in the GW how to paint videos.

And depending upon when you bought the box/codex/etc the colors listed might not even be for sale anymore.

ccs wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
So, I just checked 37 boxes flying around my home from various ork, chaos, terrain, tyranid and death guard models, and 34 of them say that the model requires assembly.
While almost as many have a list of paints on them, zero say the models require painting. There is also an amusing amount of cases where the paints listed neither match the image on the box nor the ones used in the GW how to paint videos.

And depending upon when you bought the box/codex/etc the colors listed might not even be for sale anymore.

It's not even depending on when you bought it. It depends on when your local store ordered it. There is a white box with a metal pyrovore in my flgs.

 Lance845 wrote:

ccs wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
So, I just checked 37 boxes flying around my home from various ork, chaos, terrain, tyranid and death guard models, and 34 of them say that the model requires assembly.
While almost as many have a list of paints on them, zero say the models require painting. There is also an amusing amount of cases where the paints listed neither match the image on the box nor the ones used in the GW how to paint videos.

And depending upon when you bought the box/codex/etc the colors listed might not even be for sale anymore.

It's not even depending on when you bought it. It depends on when your local store ordered it. There is a white box with a metal pyrovore in my flgs.

I'm not counting special order items like your pyrovore. Special order items like that from GW have been coming in plain white boxes with ID tags for decades. I'm talking current off the local shelf stuff & how GW is prone to re-vamping the paint line. Colors get altered, re-named, etc. Remember about a year ago when all new paint racks arrived?

No, I know what he means. My LGS back home had maybe a quarter of their GW stock in mostly plain white boxes. That's off the shelves, not specialty orders.

 Lance845 wrote:
I, likewise, don't understand on any level why the Transformers movies all make a billion dollars in the theaters since they are total garbage but they do.

Spectacle.

Just as 40K has a lot to do with spectacle. Unpainted models detract from the spectacle.

 AegisGrimm wrote:

...
It's always cool to show off things I take pride and satisfaction in, and no one's going to compliment me on a good mold line removal and gluing job. It's going to be about the paintjobs and conversions. And compliments are always nice to give and receive.

You never know! I am one of those old jaded beardy types who has seen so many middle-of-the-road minis in their lifetime, that I might actually compliment a player for achieving a smooth thin coat of paint with good coverage using a difficult colour (red/yellows etc), or impeccable mold line removal on minis." Just ok" type of model assemblies with mold lines sticking out, jankily posed, painted-by-numbers colourschemes straight from the GW sales catalog do nothing for me, and to my eyes sloppily painted minis with thick coat of paint and fugly colourscheme look even worse than totally unpainted minis.

To my eye, even unicolor minis and board, if perfectly modeled (think ancient greek sculptures as an example) trump a halfassed assembly and uninspiring paintjob any day. Its not so clear cut that one can just say "I prefer seeing painted models".

Sorry, didnt mean this reply specifically to you. Just wanted to comment on the specifcs of painting and modelling with regards to tabletop aesthetics from my point of view.
And like I already stated earlier, this is just the academic-theoretical side of my brain. In practice I prefer playing and having fun over trying to pretend playing 40K is like being in art school LOL

tauist wrote:


To my eye, even unicolor minis and board, if perfectly modeled (think ancient greek sculptures as an example) trump a halfassed assembly and uninspiring paintjob any day. Its not so clear cut that one can just say "I prefer seeing painted models".

Ancient Greek sculptures were originally painted though.

ccs wrote:
I'm not counting special order items like your pyrovore. Special order items like that from GW have been coming in plain white boxes with ID tags for decades. I'm talking current off the local shelf stuff & how GW is prone to re-vamping the paint line. Colors get altered, re-named, etc. Remember about a year ago when all new paint racks arrived?

That isn't what I'm talking about though - there are charts to get the successor paint of both previous generations of paints.
I'm talking about cases where you are supposed to buy red paint, but the model doesn't even have red paint on it. Or for Mortarion, where I bought the paint listed on the box just to find out that I needed completely different paints for the wings and gas clouds.

 Insectum7 wrote:
Unpainted models detract from the spectacle.

For you. Not everyone agrees with you.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Grimtuff wrote:

tauist wrote:


To my eye, even unicolor minis and board, if perfectly modeled (think ancient greek sculptures as an example) trump a halfassed assembly and uninspiring paintjob any day. Its not so clear cut that one can just say "I prefer seeing painted models".

Ancient Greek sculptures were originally painted though.

Some were. Not all of them.

 Mmmpi wrote:

For you. Not everyone agrees with you.

Let's not be disingenuous here. Practically everyone thinks the game looks better with painted models, regardless of whether they actually play with such.

 Crimson wrote:

 Mmmpi wrote:

For you. Not everyone agrees with you.

Let's not be disingenuous here. Practically everyone thinks the game looks better with painted models, regardless of whether they actually play with such.

There's a vast difference between liking painted models and considering it to be a spectacle. Furthermore, I think you're wrong when you say practically everyone. Care to offer proof of your claim?

 Mmmpi wrote:
Care to offer proof of your claim?

No, just like I don't care to offer proof to the claim that most people think that movies are more enjoyable with sounds on. This is getting ridiculous.