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.

 Mmmpi wrote:

 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.

Care to offer proof of your claim?

Internet contrarian at work.

Boy I sure do like disagreeing with people too. What about you?

 Mmmpi wrote:

 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.

Care to offer proof of your claim?

It's pretty easy to make the case that it's the intended way to play, considering GW hasn't to my knowledge published a single pic of a game using unpainted models in the history of 40k.

 Crimson wrote:

 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.

You should stop making ridiculous arguments then.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Grimtuff wrote:

 Mmmpi wrote:

 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.

Care to offer proof of your claim?

Internet contrarian at work.

Boy I sure do like disagreeing with people too. What about you?

Hey, I guess when you make absolute claims that not everyone agrees with, we should just suck it up and agree? Right? Oh...wait.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Mmmpi wrote:

 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.

Care to offer proof of your claim?

It's pretty easy to make the case that it's the intended way to play, considering GW hasn't to my knowledge published a single pic of a game using unpainted models in the history of 40k.

...not what I was talking about, though several other people have already given you excellent answers that disagree with your point.

 Mmmpi wrote:

You should stop making ridiculous arguments then.

I haven't. But you're in a reality denial mode and it is pointless to argue with such a person.

To be fair to Crimson, I don't think anyone can reasonably say the game that the game doesn't look better with WELL-painted models. (Poorly painted models, though...) Sorry Mmmpi, you're wrong here.

But the idea that the look is the whole thing... That's true for a small number of people. For most people, at least in my experience, there's a hell of a lot more to the game than just looking cool.

 Crimson wrote:

 Mmmpi wrote:

You should stop making ridiculous arguments then.

I haven't. But you're in a reality denial mode and it is pointless to argue with such a person.

Sure buddy.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 JNAProductions wrote:
To be fair to Crimson, I don't think anyone can reasonably say the game that the game doesn't look better with WELL-painted models. (Poorly painted models, though...) Sorry Mmmpi, you're wrong here.

But the idea that the look is the whole thing... That's true for a small number of people. For most people, at least in my experience, there's a hell of a lot more to the game than just looking cool.

I would refer you to the post I made that started this conversation.

I vote pretty important; when I started the hobby way back with WHFB Bret vs lizard boxset, I made all kinds of painting mishaps even though I was studying art, like primed too close for too long, but I got good at paint over the years. I had played competitively, now I mostly just paint and collect.

I think most people would love to play with top notch painted minis and terrain, but they lack the whatever to make it happen or don’t want to spend $ to make it happen.

The kitbashing, painting is our effort to make our imagination a reality, the process is important and should be documented if possible, after all nothing lasts forever in our hobby.

 JNAProductions wrote:
To be fair to Crimson, I don't think anyone can reasonably say the game that the game doesn't look better with WELL-painted models. (Poorly painted models, though...) Sorry Mmmpi, you're wrong here.

But the idea that the look is the whole thing... That's true for a small number of people. For most people, at least in my experience, there's a hell of a lot more to the game than just looking cool.

But is is the primary reason for a lot of people. 40k is, on its own merits NOT a good game by any stretch but these deficiencies are nullified somewhat by good mates and/or fully painted armies and terrain. It's the spectacle.

People who say they are playing this game for the rules are just kidding themselves.

 Grimtuff wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
To be fair to Crimson, I don't think anyone can reasonably say the game that the game doesn't look better with WELL-painted models. (Poorly painted models, though...) Sorry Mmmpi, you're wrong here.

But the idea that the look is the whole thing... That's true for a small number of people. For most people, at least in my experience, there's a hell of a lot more to the game than just looking cool.

But is is the primary reason for a lot of people. 40k is, on its own merits NOT a good game by any stretch but these deficiencies are nullified somewhat by good mates and/or fully painted armies and terrain. It's the spectacle.

People who say they are playing this game for the rules are just kidding themselves.

It is the primary reason for some people. It is also not the primary reason for other people. Your reason for playing the game is not necessarily everyone's reason. How is this difficult to understand?

For me, I prefer seeing fully-painted armies, but it really doesn't make that much difference to how much I enjoy the game - maybe I enjoy it a few percentage points more, all else being equal, but the quality of company is significantly more important. In my experience, a sizable portion of the player base has roughly the same perspective - they don't deny that playing with well-painted models is "better", but also don't feel the minor amount it improves the experience justifies having it as a requirement.

I have been part of groups that required fully painted models, groups that had no requirements but encouraged working towards painting the army at your own pace, and groups that couldn't care less. For me - and I recognise others have different experiences - the paint-where-you-can groups tended to be the most fun to game with, followed closely by the didn't-give-a-feth groups, and the must-be-painted groups were by far the least fun.

One of my favorite parts in all this are the folk claiming the game is bad, but the models being painted makes it more tolerable.

...if this is indeed the case, why not invest the painting, money, and time elsewhere where the game is better? wouldn't that make for a better experience overall?

Bdrone wrote:
One of my favorite parts in all this are the folk claiming the game is bad, but the models being painted makes it more tolerable.

...if this is indeed the case, why not invest the painting, money, and time elsewhere where the game is better? wouldn't that make for a better experience overall?

What makes you think I don't?

40k has the biggest playerbase and is easiest to get a game of. If I have to vet my opponents to actually have an enjoyable game and not just be an exercise in rolling dice and/or an ego stroke for some wannabe pro 40k player then sue me. Been burnt too many times to waste my time and energy just setting up my lovingly painted and converted models for them to be took off the board by some Johnny-come-lately FOTM netlist of grey plastic.

I don't have any expectation of you. If one of the only things holding this game up is paints, then the amount invested in it is staggering for potentially small gains. for certain, the game does have major issues. it's just an odd defense of painting in it to me, when other shores would see the painting as more valuable, like games with the better rulesets.

at this point im not thinking of arguing against painting anymore, if thats what you thought- I already recognize im an outlier there in that if i could get a game, i wouldn't care much about the paintjob if there even is any. it's just weird to me to be defending painting with such a line.

I am not a great painter by any means, though I have improved quite a bit over the last several years from watching videos and reading painting tips. I had 2 games(and saw a few other games played)of 40k this weekend and the painted vs painted matches drew much more attention than painted vs unpainted and significantly more than bare plastic vs bare plastic. I had a lot more non-40k players ask about our game and what was going on and if they could watch than the other tables.

Thankfully none of the stores have a painting requirement but it definitely draws a lot more attention to a table with 2 painted armies and 40k as a whole. I can see where a store would want to incentivize getting players to paint models, both local stores do painting nights where you can come in and socialize while you paint and learn painting tips and tricks from other people.

I can't really believe anyone can honestly argue against painted models and terrain making any game cooler and more enjoyable, other than just to provoke arguing, even in a small way.

It's like saying that unpainted terrain and/or models is like having a large model train setup that has unpainted trains and buildings, bare carved styrofoam and plaster hills, and a bunch of trees where the flock never got glued on. Everything still will work mechanically fine, but an onlooker would say "When are you going to finish it?", and the owner responds with "Why would I finish it? Nothing says you need to do any of that, it's fine the way it is."

And that's definitely the owners perogative, but they shouldn't get in a huff if the onlooker's response to that is, "Okayyyyyy...". and a wierd look.

 AegisGrimm wrote:
I can't really believe anyone can honestly argue against painted models and terrain making any game cooler and more enjoyable, other than just to provoke arguing, even in a small way.

It's like saying that unpainted terrain and/or models is like having a large model train setup that has unpainted trains and buildings, bare carved styrofoam and plaster hills, and a bunch of trees where the flock never got glued on. Everything still will work mechanically fine, but an onlooker would say "When are you going to finish it?", and the owner responds with "Why would I finish it? Nothing says you need to do any of that, it's fine the way it is."

And that's definitely the owners perogative, but they shouldn't get in a huff if the onlooker's response to that is, "Okayyyyyy...". and a wierd look.

But equally, I don't see why anyone would say "You're having fun wrong," if they're fine playing with unpainted minis and improvised or function-only terrain.

 Grimtuff wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
To be fair to Crimson, I don't think anyone can reasonably say the game that the game doesn't look better with WELL-painted models. (Poorly painted models, though...) Sorry Mmmpi, you're wrong here.

But the idea that the look is the whole thing... That's true for a small number of people. For most people, at least in my experience, there's a hell of a lot more to the game than just looking cool.

But is is the primary reason for a lot of people. 40k is, on its own merits NOT a good game by any stretch but these deficiencies are nullified somewhat by good mates and/or fully painted armies and terrain. It's the spectacle.

People who say they are playing this game for the rules are just kidding themselves.

You keep saying this like you want everyone to believe it. It doesn't match my experience, nor the experience of many people who have been conversing with you, which is why I asked for Crimson to prove it true.

You're literally asking us to ignore what we've seen and heard.

As for rules? Yeah they're mediocre. But I know several people who play for the sake of the game, and only play 40K because it's the one game they know they can find an opponent for on any given night.

 Big Mac wrote:
I vote pretty important; when I started the hobby way back with WHFB Bret vs lizard boxset, I made all kinds of painting mishaps even though I was studying art, like primed too close for too long, but I got good at paint over the years. I had played competitively, now I mostly just paint and collect.

I think most people would love to play with top notch painted minis and terrain, but they lack the whatever to make it happen or don’t want to spend $ to make it happen.

The kitbashing, painting is our effort to make our imagination a reality, the process is important and should be documented if possible, after all nothing lasts forever in our hobby.

This guy gets it.

 Grimtuff wrote:
But is is the primary reason for a lot of people. 40k is, on its own merits NOT a good game by any stretch but these deficiencies are nullified somewhat by good mates and/or fully painted armies and terrain. It's the spectacle.

People who say they are playing this game for the rules are just kidding themselves.

I play the game because it's an enjoyable game to play. I stopped playing when it stopped being fun, and will do so again. It really doesn't matter whether the game is grey or in color.

I'd even take this one more step - I'd rather play a nice guy with unprimed models than a guy with golden demon worthy miniatures that is sort of a .

Paint adds a small percentage of "feels good" to a game that's generally working or not. If you think that painting models makes or breaks the game, you are the one kidding yourself.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Grimtuff wrote:
Been burnt too many times to waste my time and energy just setting up my lovingly painted and converted models for them to be took off the board by some Johnny-come-lately FOTM netlist of grey plastic.

So being blown off the board by commission painted FOTM netlists is fine?

People round these parts likely cannot afford or know about commission painting. Gotta save monies for those cans of Monster, Dominos and vapey juice. Even paint falls by the wayside for that.

That's not an answer to the question

 Jidmah wrote:
That's not an answer to the question

Sadly it is. Or at least the best we're going to see.

 Grimtuff wrote:
People round these parts likely cannot afford or know about commission painting. Gotta save monies for those cans of Monster, Dominos and vapey juice. Even paint falls by the wayside for that.

if you can afford to buy a new 40k army every few months you can afford to comission a painted army

I know the sort of players Grimtuff means. Some of them can afford commission painting, but choose to spend money elsewhere. Others will buy that third riptide instead of eating for the week. Plastic crack is a real addiction

phillv85 wrote:
I know the sort of players Grimtuff means. Some of them can afford commission painting, but choose to spend money elsewhere. Others will buy that third riptide instead of eating for the week. Plastic crack is a real addiction

Except the problem is the person, not the lack of paint.
Owning painted models is no indicator of whether a person is enjoyable to play against, despite what some people on this thread claim.

 Jidmah wrote:

phillv85 wrote:
I know the sort of players Grimtuff means. Some of them can afford commission painting, but choose to spend money elsewhere. Others will buy that third riptide instead of eating for the week. Plastic crack is a real addiction

Except the problem is the person, not the lack of paint.
Owning painted models is no indicator of whether a person is enjoyable to play against, despite what some people on this thread claim.

Except IME it is.

I have said twice ITT- the Venn diagram of "Is a chore to play against" and "has unpainted models" is an almost perfect circle. They intersect that much. If I see someone with a fully unpainted army I'll let some other schmuck play them first to actually see if they fall outside the circle. I'm not wasting my time traipsing into town to have an unenjoyable game.

 Grimtuff wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:

phillv85 wrote:
I know the sort of players Grimtuff means. Some of them can afford commission painting, but choose to spend money elsewhere. Others will buy that third riptide instead of eating for the week. Plastic crack is a real addiction

Except the problem is the person, not the lack of paint.
Owning painted models is no indicator of whether a person is enjoyable to play against, despite what some people on this thread claim.

Except IME it is.

I have said twice ITT- the Venn diagram of "Is a chore to play against" and "has unpainted models" is an almost perfect circle. They intersect that much. If I see someone with a fully unpainted army I'll let some other schmuck play them first to actually see if they fall outside the circle. I'm not wasting my time traipsing into town to have an unenjoyable game.

Which is completely anecdotal.

 Mmmpi wrote:

 Grimtuff wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:

phillv85 wrote:
I know the sort of players Grimtuff means. Some of them can afford commission painting, but choose to spend money elsewhere. Others will buy that third riptide instead of eating for the week. Plastic crack is a real addiction

Except the problem is the person, not the lack of paint.
Owning painted models is no indicator of whether a person is enjoyable to play against, despite what some people on this thread claim.

Except IME it is.

I have said twice ITT- the Venn diagram of "Is a chore to play against" and "has unpainted models" is an almost perfect circle. They intersect that much. If I see someone with a fully unpainted army I'll let some other schmuck play them first to actually see if they fall outside the circle. I'm not wasting my time traipsing into town to have an unenjoyable game.

Which is completely anecdotal.

And? Your anecdotal evidence is better than my anecdotal evidence then, I take it? We're done here. You're just being contrarian for the sake of it.

 Grimtuff wrote:

 Mmmpi wrote:

 Grimtuff wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:

phillv85 wrote:
I know the sort of players Grimtuff means. Some of them can afford commission painting, but choose to spend money elsewhere. Others will buy that third riptide instead of eating for the week. Plastic crack is a real addiction

Except the problem is the person, not the lack of paint.
Owning painted models is no indicator of whether a person is enjoyable to play against, despite what some people on this thread claim.

Except IME it is.

I have said twice ITT- the Venn diagram of "Is a chore to play against" and "has unpainted models" is an almost perfect circle. They intersect that much. If I see someone with a fully unpainted army I'll let some other schmuck play them first to actually see if they fall outside the circle. I'm not wasting my time traipsing into town to have an unenjoyable game.

Which is completely anecdotal.

And? Your anecdotal evidence is better than my anecdotal evidence then, I take it? We're done here. You're just being contrarian for the sake of it.

I'm not claiming anecdotal evidence as proof. You are.

This is what? The 2nd time this thread where you said you were going to stop talking to me? Because I thoroughly disagree with you? I mean, really, that contrarian charge just as easily points back at you Cupcake.

Yesterday I had Warmachine tournament with some silly kid. He had some cowardly remarks saying something about my unpainted Warmachine models. Then he proceeded to whine about losing a match against me under the rules on which we both agreed on.

 Jidmah wrote:

phillv85 wrote:
I know the sort of players Grimtuff means. Some of them can afford commission painting, but choose to spend money elsewhere. Others will buy that third riptide instead of eating for the week. Plastic crack is a real addiction

Except the problem is the person, not the lack of paint.
Owning painted models is no indicator of whether a person is enjoyable to play against, despite what some people on this thread claim.

Like doubtless many others here I have thousands of painted models and more unpainted. How enjoyable I am to play against varies and is no related to whether I have my best commissoned models, my own crap painted efforts or some unpainted. I do think Painted models are cool - at least you can enjoy them if the game is bad but is only part of the experience.

Its like terrain - I have commission pieces, pre-painted or my half assed attempts and loads of plain mdf pieces- but I would rather play on a battlefield with loads of unpainted terrain than little to none.