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.

 Crimson wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:

 Crimson wrote:
TMIR has nothing to do with etiquette, it is about resolving unclear situations.

So, we should apply rules from ANOTHER GAME to 40k, but we shouldn't apply a big part of TMIR...

apply the solution that makes the most sense to both of you (or seems the most fun!).

To the system it's a part of?

Right...

The AOS thing really isn't a rule, TMIR is. They're not comparable

You are right. They are not comparable. Because one clearly outlines etiquette for the game we are actually talking about and the other is entirely irrelevant example of a "not a rule" you are trying to use to establish a "guideline" laid down by GW for all their products as a code of conduct. The first has actual weight behind it and matters. The second is just you grasping at straws.

Nothing but excuses to avoid having any standards. Unpainted models look awful, it doesn't matter how you "feel" about the hobby. It also broadcasts to people that you're lazy and might be a bad opponent. The metaphysical waac player in my mind has an unpainted army.

 Irkjoe wrote:
Nothing but excuses to avoid having any standards. Unpainted models look awful, it doesn't matter how you "feel" about the hobby. It also broadcasts to people that you're lazy and might be a bad opponent. The metaphysical waac player in my mind has an unpainted army.

I have had more bad opponents with fully painted armies then entirely unpainted. I have seen more WAAC players at events where paint was required then in casual environments where everyone was welcome with "no standards". The amount of paint on a model means nothing. When competitive events require it all it does is get WAAC players to spray 3 colors on their models so they can play.

 Irkjoe wrote:
Nothing but excuses to avoid having any standards. Unpainted models look awful, it doesn't matter how you "feel" about the hobby. It also broadcasts to people that you're lazy and might be a bad opponent. The metaphysical waac player in my mind has an unpainted army.

So a person tries to paint. It ends up horrible, like a 5-year-old that got a hold of their mom's nail polish. It gets mocked and derided, or they are afraid that is how people would react if they ever saw it. Because of that failure, they choose never to paint again.

That's not a case of laziness, just a bad reaction to an event.

Next case, person wants to learn how to play the game, but only has had time to build. Most of the games around them are the standard tournament level, so they concentrate on building and never get around to painting or learning to paint. They show up with all their hard work in collecting and building, then some punk derides them on the grey plastic and calling them a WAAC bandwagoner.

Not a case of laziness, except the punk who never bothers to take the time to find out the situation the non-painter is in and proceeds to demonstrate how assinine they are.

 Irkjoe wrote:
Nothing but excuses to avoid having any standards. Unpainted models look awful, it doesn't matter how you "feel" about the hobby. It also broadcasts to people that you're lazy and might be a bad opponent. The metaphysical waac player in my mind has an unpainted army.

You think they look awful. To someone who doesn't care about painted minies they could feel infifferent about it, or that it looks fine.

Stop pushing your personal views onto other people.

And before you say you aren't, just remember, I got this from the quote above:

that you're lazy and might be a bad opponent. The metaphysical waac player in my mind has an unpainted army.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Lance845 wrote:

 Irkjoe wrote:
Nothing but excuses to avoid having any standards. Unpainted models look awful, it doesn't matter how you "feel" about the hobby. It also broadcasts to people that you're lazy and might be a bad opponent. The metaphysical waac player in my mind has an unpainted army.

I have had more bad opponents with fully painted armies then entirely unpainted. I have seen more WAAC players at events where paint was required then in casual environments where everyone was welcome with "no standards". The amount of paint on a model means nothing. When competitive events require it all it does is get WAAC players to spray 3 colors on their models so they can play.

This matches my experiences as well.

even if the general's handbook says you need your opponents permission it's irrelevant and the general's handbook is NOT considered part of the CORE rules. rather it's more "rules for higher level compeitive play" which yeah in 40k most tournies have requirements for minis to be painted.

 Vineheart01 wrote:
i'll never understand why people buy into this game if they hate painting.

Well, I'm here to play the games. Always have been. That's where my fun comes from.

 Vineheart01 wrote:
Its more than half of the hobby to me, and its quite literally my passtime. I spend on average 2-3 hours a day assembling/painting, longer when i dont work that day, just because its what i have to do i enjoy doing that i can keep doing to pass the time.

Good for you! My hobby though, & how I spend most of the time associated with it, is playing the games. I'd say 80% play/10% thinking, reading, discussing,/9%build/1%painting.
Painting for me is not something I particularly enjoy doing. It's something I simply do on occasion, in the down time cracks between playing & real life stuff. Or when stressed/upset/depressed. Odds are that if my painting output increases beyond the occasional mini or two a month then there's something wrong....
My glacial progress = Life is good.

It is a fact that they look bad, nobody admires bare plastic/metal. And why spend hundreds or thousands on miniatures that end up as nothing more than grey chess pieces for a game where the rules, by any comparison are shallow and uninvolved.

 Irkjoe wrote:
It is a fact that they look bad,

This opinion you bandy around as "fact" is irrelevant. Looking better or not the paint isn't needed to play the game and has no relevance to playing the game. It similarly has no connection to how good or bad an opponent is. Despite you trying to make that crap argument in your last post.

nobody admires bare plastic/metal.

Others admiration is likewise irrelevant. You let me know where in the rule book it encourages the persuit of outsider admiration as a goal of the game and then we might circle back to this pointless point you are making.

And why spend hundreds or thousands on miniatures that end up as nothing more than grey chess pieces for a game where the rules, by any comparison are shallow and uninvolved.

It doesn't matter why. Lots of people spend their money in ways I never would. Their motivations don't need to be understood by me and they have no relevance to the activity I chose to invest my time in. If you like to paint, paint. If you don't, don't. And if your playing the game, then play the game.

 Irkjoe wrote:
It is a fact that they look bad, nobody admires bare plastic/metal. And why spend hundreds or thousands on miniatures that end up as nothing more than grey chess pieces for a game where the rules, by any comparison are shallow and uninvolved.

I've seen paint jobs that were worse than bare plastic/metal/green stuff. Paint is slathered on so think that major detail is lost, to say nothing of minor detail. Colors chosen are not complimentary to each other and are painful to observe.

Still no measure on the skill level as a player or the level of sociability of the owner.

 Irkjoe wrote:
It is a fact that they look bad, nobody admires bare plastic/metal. And why spend hundreds or thousands on miniatures that end up as nothing more than grey chess pieces for a game where the rules, by any comparison are shallow and uninvolved.

Please don't dress your opinion up as fact.

And if you dislike the rules so much, why not play one of the many other games that have rules you like more, and nice models. Or convert 40K models to those rules.

the circle came back around! whenever someone brings up the rules are bad as an arguement in favor of painting, i just feel like asking "so do you play, or do you just buy these models to paint them"?

if you buy them only to paint then i still question spending this much, but if it has the quality or aesthetics you want, then alright.

however, if a larger percentage of your interest is still in playing a game, but the rules are bad, then... what keeps you buying and painting these models instead of some other one? an awesome paint job can be done on a LOT of things...

it just sounds like the painting is making the game more tolerable to you, and just seems really odd to me.

And your unpainted armies still look bad, it looks bad for your store and the hobby. In my case, I'm in it for the aesthetic, setting, modeling/painting so the rules are secondary and played as a way to reflect the story/narrative as well as a "beer and pretzels" game with friends. It seems that many of you don't care for the hobby aspect and recognize that the rules are poor so whats left? Guess just the fluff. You would be much more at home in mtg, prepainted games, something with smaller investments in time and effort.

Also bad paint jobs do not excuse no paint. Anyone can achieve an acceptable level of paint with little effort considering airbrushs, washes, dips, etc available. Again, if you don't have the time, $, or inclination your stuff still looks like crap.

 Irkjoe wrote:
And your unpainted armies still look bad, it looks bad for your store and the hobby. In my case, I'm in it for the aesthetic, setting, modeling/painting so the rules are secondary and played as a way to reflect the story/narrative as well as a "beer and pretzels" game with friends. It seems that many of you don't care for the hobby aspect and recognize that the rules are poor so whats left? Guess just the fluff. You would be much more at home in mtg, prepainted games, something with smaller investments in time and effort.

Also bad paint jobs do not excuse no paint. Anyone can achieve an acceptable level of paint with little effort considering airbrushs, washes, dips, etc available. Again, if you don't have the time, $, or inclination your stuff still looks like crap.

I'm glad I don't have to deal with you in my local GW. You sound really rude.

 Irkjoe wrote:
And your unpainted armies still look bad, it looks bad for your store and the hobby. In my case, I'm in it for the aesthetic, setting, modeling/painting so the rules are secondary and played as a way to reflect the story/narrative as well as a "beer and pretzels" game with friends. It seems that many of you don't care for the hobby aspect and recognize that the rules are poor so whats left? Guess just the fluff. You would be much more at home in mtg, prepainted games, something with smaller investments in time and effort.

Also bad paint jobs do not excuse no paint. Anyone can achieve an acceptable level of paint with little effort considering airbrushs, washes, dips, etc available. Again, if you don't have the time, $, or inclination your stuff still looks like crap.

What a load of crap. First, don't say what someone elses interests are. My interests havent even been expressed in this thread. I am just opposed to you pushing YOUR interests onto others. What any individual cares for the hobby aspects, the fluff aspects, or the game aspects doesnt matter. Nobody gets to push their preferences for liesure onto others.

Hear this and try to understand it. No paint job does not require excusing. Bare plastic has no inherent value and painted models have no inherent value. The value you asign to your own work is great for you and applies to nobody else. Each person will value others work differently, but, and most importantly, how someone else feels about your work has no actual value. You trying to push your percieved values onto others is gross. It makes you a toxic, gatekeeping, aspect of the hobby. You do more damage then bare plastic ever could.

Oh boy, I'm not pushing anything by stating that your unpainted miniatures look horrible. Also making assumptions about me being toxic and "damaging" based on this discussion has nothing to do with the importance of painting, nice ad hominem though. Explain to me why painted models don't look better than unpainted without saying that the paint job could be bad or that you just don't care. Why does gw and every manufacturer I know advertise/photograph painted models? Why do tournaments, leagues, narratives require painting at all? Why are prepainted minis prepainted and not bare? Why do playing cards have art? The visual aspect is huge. Because painted looks better than unpainted.

Wrong questions. I refuse to state a blanket opinion about something that has a wide range of effect. Painted does not, universally, have any impact. Companies show models that have been PROFESSIONALLY painted and staged. Or do you think those pictures at the beginning of the brb are actually images of games in progress?

You also called it people being lazy and a sign that they were a bad opponent. That is you pushing your opinion and being toxic.

This.
does not look better then bare plastic.

 Irkjoe wrote:
And why spend hundreds or thousands on miniatures that end up as nothing more than grey chess pieces for a game where the rules, by any comparison are shallow and uninvolved.

Because it's fun? I don't understand your question.

Of course painting has impact. I’m sure you’ll call this ‘my opinion’, but it’s an opinion shared amongst almost everybody, that painted models on a table look better than bare plastic. As long an you’ve done a better job than 8 year old me did, then the models look better. The amount of impact depends on the person, but I can’t imagine people saying “your paint job isn’t good enough, i’m not playing you!” And if they did, then you’ve just dodged a bullet anyway.

I admit, I'd rather see poorly painted miniatures than non-painted miniatures. I've mentioned this numerous times before, even in this thread; my opinion is that you should "do your part" to make an attractive game. If I see a poorly painted miniature, that at least tells me my opponent is at least trying to partake in the cooperative even that is a good looking wargame. It shows that my opponent has some respect for their opponents and is willing to put in the effort.

I'm curious for the people who refuse to even try to paint; do you not care about lowering the tone of a game? If six people agreed to a larger team game, and five people showed up with painted armies (of any skill level) and you show up with grey plastic, do you not care that you're lowering the visual of the game?

 Irkjoe wrote:
And your unpainted armies still look bad, it looks bad for your store and the hobby. In my case, I'm in it for the aesthetic, setting, modeling/painting so the rules are secondary and played as a way to reflect the story/narrative as well as a "beer and pretzels" game with friends. It seems that many of you don't care for the hobby aspect and recognize that the rules are poor so whats left? Guess just the fluff. You would be much more at home in mtg, prepainted games, something with smaller investments in time and effort.

Also bad paint jobs do not excuse no paint. Anyone can achieve an acceptable level of paint with little effort considering airbrushs, washes, dips, etc available. Again, if you don't have the time, $, or inclination your stuff still looks like crap.

You're really wrong on this.

What's embarrassing for a store is not unpainted plastic. It's incompetent painters.

Bad painters are worse than no paint jobs. Looking at $2000 worth of models covered in high gloss Testors dipped in furniture stain makes me want to tear out my eyes. Watching someone sit at a store doing "freehand" with a fat tipped Sharpie says these ain't my people better than anything else.

Slate grey Eldar are better than an entire army with inconsistent 3 color schemes caked over every model. Not to judge, but games against a really bad painter are miserable for us perfectionists. We always know what that model could have been and making me look at it for 2.5 hours is actual harm.

Keep the paint off the model or take the time to get it right. If you can't do that, forfeit your models and walk away.

 Elbows wrote:
I admit, I'd rather see poorly painted miniatures than non-painted miniatures. I've mentioned this numerous times before, even in this thread; my opinion is that you should "do your part" to make an attractive game. If I see a poorly painted miniature, that at least tells me my opponent is at least trying to partake in the cooperative even that is a good looking wargame. It shows that my opponent has some respect for their opponents and is willing to put in the effort.

I'm curious for the people who refuse to even try to paint; do you not care about lowering the tone of a game? If six people agreed to a larger team game, and five people showed up with painted armies (of any skill level) and you show up with grey plastic, do you not care that you're lowering the visual of the game?

I care as much as they care. If they are the kind of people who are in it for the visual spectacle, then yeah, I'd apologize to them for worsening the display.

But, if it's a game at my local shop where we compliment each other on paint jobs but really just care about having a fun time with friends, I wouldn't care in the slightest-because they don't either.

Again, it's 100% acceptable to only play painted models and only play against the same. It's just when you try to force your standards on others, or as some have done here, insult people for not enjoying the hobby in the same way that I have an issue.

 Irkjoe wrote:
Also making assumptions about me being toxic and "damaging" based on this discussion has nothing to do with the importance of painting, nice ad hominem though.

It's no assumption. It's based entirely on the evidence you've presented thus far.

Several things to unpack here, first if painting didn't have impact gw wouldn't bother painting or showing painted models. What does it being studio painted and photographed have to do with this? It's the intended way to play as stated on their site and the brb. Those marines look hilariously bad, you would have to try to paint them like that. If you're such a bad painter that you can't hit your models with wash/contrast/spray whatever and the only possible end result is that thick mess then get your nervous system examined. It's a really bad outlier and not what the average person can do. And from several feet away the poorly painted stuff looks better than plastic.

This idea that saying painted looks better means you swoop into the store upon leathery black wings to ruin someone's game is just silly. You can keep calling me mean but it's not above discussion. Fine if you don't want to paint but your stuff still looks bad.

 Irkjoe wrote:
nobody admires bare plastic/metal. .

actually.. you'd be wrong here, when I game with someone I'm happy to let them look at my minis a bit before the game started, my minis I try to use are painted etc. awhile back I showed up with a unpainted mini to a kill team game (it just hadn't gotten painted yet) the guy actually was admiring it because I did some tweeks with it that he thought looked neat.

So after asking my question several times, the best ive got is painted, don't care or even non painted preferred, we're basically all silly and there's little point. is that about correct?

Also, if i want to pick nits, i do like some bare metal models. specifically if i can find any out of print that were deviated with modern designs. even if later it means i could customize them easier should i care to paint them.

 Irkjoe wrote:
Several things to unpack here, first if painting didn't have impact gw wouldn't bother painting or showing painted models. What does it being studio painted and photographed have to do with this? It's the intended way to play as stated on their site and the brb. Those marines look hilariously bad, you would have to try to paint them like that. If you're such a bad painter that you can't hit your models with wash/contrast/spray whatever and the only possible end result is that thick mess then get your nervous system examined. It's a really bad outlier and not what the average person can do. And from several feet away the poorly painted stuff looks better than plastic.

This idea that saying painted looks better means you swoop into the store upon leathery black wings to ruin someone's game is just silly. You can keep calling me mean but it's not above discussion. Fine if you don't want to paint but your stuff still looks bad.

The impact of gws ad artwork is based on the same thing as a image of 2 scoops of raisons on the front of a box of raisen bran. Professional painters paint models and they are staged for photography not because gw gives a single feth what you do with them but because they want your money. THAT is the impact.

Its not stated intent ANYWHERE. The models themselves are ads for brushes and paints. Its product placement. NOT rules. NOT intent for etiquette. Its dollars. Because GW is a buisiness.

I prefer to use and play against painted armies as for me, it looks great to see 2 fully painted armies lined up on a good table.

There are 3 aspects of this hobby though and painting is only 1 of them.
Converting and gaming being the other 2.

I don’t mind playing against unpainted armies though as people have their reasons.


I’m a fairly slow painter, but that’s due to time constraints.
I work early shifts until late, so it’s generally dark before and after work for me.
This means I can only spray models during the weekend, which also happens to be the only real time I get to go and see family etc.

At the end of the day, I’m more than happy to let others enjoy the hobby their own way.

If someone is striving for congratulatory comments and putting forth paintjobs that are their eager best, it's not the place of some alpha-nerd to judge whether that's better or worse than bare plastic, even if they are the crappiest things you have seen in years.

I don't give a damn if the figures look like the Space Marines a few posts above. The correct adult response is a smile and saying "Well, I definitely see what you were going for. Is there anything you'd like my opinion on improving"? And if they don't take the initiative to state anything specific in response.....then you shut the hell up, don't bug them any further (even if you think their paintjob sucks), and have fun playing.

It is incontrovertible, however, that well painted models draw more positive attention to an in-store game than unpainted models.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Lance845 wrote:

 Irkjoe wrote:
Several things to unpack here, first if painting didn't have impact gw wouldn't bother painting or showing painted models. What does it being studio painted and photographed have to do with this? It's the intended way to play as stated on their site and the brb. Those marines look hilariously bad, you would have to try to paint them like that. If you're such a bad painter that you can't hit your models with wash/contrast/spray whatever and the only possible end result is that thick mess then get your nervous system examined. It's a really bad outlier and not what the average person can do. And from several feet away the poorly painted stuff looks better than plastic.

This idea that saying painted looks better means you swoop into the store upon leathery black wings to ruin someone's game is just silly. You can keep calling me mean but it's not above discussion. Fine if you don't want to paint but your stuff still looks bad.

The impact of gws ad artwork is based on the same thing as a image of 2 scoops of raisons on the front of a box of raisen bran. Professional painters paint models and they are staged for photography not because gw gives a single feth what you do with them but because they want your money. THAT is the impact.

Its not stated intent ANYWHERE. The models themselves are ads for brushes and paints. Its product placement. NOT rules. NOT intent for etiquette. Its dollars. Because GW is a buisiness.

Your missing the final step. It's easily argued that it's GWs intent that you paint your models well, since it makes any persons army a better advertisement for the game. Because GW is a business.