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.
Which if true is irrelevent because irkjoes point is that GW has a hard and fast etiquette that you are being a good player of the game by having painted models and not a good player if you don't. Which isnt true. Not painting doesnt hurt the guy across the table. Its just a sale of paint that that person was never going to make to begin with that only impacts gws sales figures. There is no etiquette involved. There is just marketing.
These are my opinions. This is how I feel. Others may feel differently. This needs to be stated for some reason.
Lance845 wrote: Which if true is irrelevent because irkjoes point is that GW has a hard and fast etiquette that you are being a good player of the game by having painted models and not a good player if you don't. Which isnt true. Not painting doesnt hurt the guy across the table. Its just a sale of paint that that person was never going to make to begin with that only impacts gws sales figures. There is no etiquette involved. There is just marketing.
Debateable. A good paint job can make an army easier to read, visually. Imo its good etiquette to make sure things are clearly represented as viewed from across the table.
Lance845 wrote: Which if true is irrelevent because irkjoes point is that GW has a hard and fast etiquette that you are being a good player of the game by having painted models and not a good player if you don't. Which isnt true. Not painting doesnt hurt the guy across the table. Its just a sale of paint that that person was never going to make to begin with that only impacts gws sales figures. There is no etiquette involved. There is just marketing.
Debateable. A good paint job can make an army easier to read, visually. Imo its good etiquette to make sure things are clearly represented as viewed from across the table.
And a bad paint job doesnt. Or sometimes a GREAT paint job has so much weathering and detail that individual elements like weapons get lost at the distances where the game is being played. So paint does not equal visibility inherently and nobody is asking for the models to be painted FOR visibility only that they ARE painted as though it equals a inherent fix to these "problems".
So try again?
These are my opinions. This is how I feel. Others may feel differently. This needs to be stated for some reason.
This maybe a strange question, but people actually see the detail on other people models from the other side of the table?
If you have to kill, then kill in the best manner. If you slaughter, then slaughter in the best manner. Let one of you sharpen his knife so his animal feels no pain.
Lance845 wrote: Which if true is irrelevent because irkjoes point is that GW has a hard and fast etiquette that you are being a good player of the game by having painted models and not a good player if you don't. Which isnt true. Not painting doesnt hurt the guy across the table. Its just a sale of paint that that person was never going to make to begin with that only impacts gws sales figures. There is no etiquette involved. There is just marketing.
Debateable. A good paint job can make an army easier to read, visually. Imo its good etiquette to make sure things are clearly represented as viewed from across the table.
And a bad paint job doesnt. Or sometimes a GREAT paint job has so much weathering and detail that individual elements like weapons get lost at the distances where the game is being played. So paint does not equal visibility inherently and nobody is asking for the models to be painted FOR visibility only that they ARE painted as though it equals a inherent fix to these "problems".
So try again?
Just saying it's not as cut and dry as you claim. Unclear presentation can hurt the other player, and is at least a nuisance. And since most people enjoy painted models vs. unpainted, it's not "just marketing". It's not a stretch to say army presentation can be considered part game of etiquette.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Karol wrote: This maybe a strange question, but people actually see the detail on other people models from the other side of the table?
Not fine detail maybe, but those blue plasma coils, sure.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/01/12 02:45:10
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.
Right, and we should all just go along with marketing because... We're a business?
No, that doesn't follow.
Clocks for the clockmaker! Cogs for the cog throne!
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.
Yet again, explain the blue plastic space marines and green plastic death guard in Know no Fear if GW thinks we should ALL paint our minis. Does GW think painted minis are ideal? sure, GW;s ideal is mini's assmbled using Citidel brand hobby tools, citidel brand glue, painted with citidel brand paint, using citidel brand brushes. which.. yeah is stuff that makes GW more money. that said they reckongize not everyone does that.
Opinions are not facts please don't confuse the two
Lance845 wrote: Which if true is irrelevent because irkjoes point is that GW has a hard and fast etiquette that you are being a good player of the game by having painted models and not a good player if you don't. Which isnt true. Not painting doesnt hurt the guy across the table. Its just a sale of paint that that person was never going to make to begin with that only impacts gws sales figures. There is no etiquette involved. There is just marketing.
Debateable. A good paint job can make an army easier to read, visually. Imo its good etiquette to make sure things are clearly represented as viewed from across the table.
And a bad paint job doesnt. Or sometimes a GREAT paint job has so much weathering and detail that individual elements like weapons get lost at the distances where the game is being played. So paint does not equal visibility inherently and nobody is asking for the models to be painted FOR visibility only that they ARE painted as though it equals a inherent fix to these "problems".
So try again?
Just saying it's not as cut and dry as you claim. Unclear presentation can hurt the other player, and is at least a nuisance. And since most people enjoy painted models vs. unpainted, it's not "just marketing". It's not a stretch to say army presentation can be considered part game of etiquette.
And I am just saying that the regurgitated argument that is being presented is not an accurate representation of the claims of people who want others to paint their models. For 1) I have no idea what every armies rules are let alone their bits let alone the bits that don't even actually exist. Which is why WYSIWYG is not a rule and "presentation" doesn't actually mater. Consider it what it is, a fault in the disconnect between the way GW writes it's rules and manufactures it's models. 2) Adding paint is no guarantee that it would help the issue and can in fact make it worse. 3) "Table Top Standard" is not about clearing up issues in model presentation to rule representation and is instead about a minimum number of colors and some basing material (because we all know basing material makes models rules more clear for the opponent).
In conclusion, it's a bull crap argument. And any lack of clarity is not because of the inclusion or lack of paint. It's because GW sucks at it's job. Switching that burden onto your opponent doesn't address the actual root cause and the "proposed" solution doesn't actually address the offending issue. I think that makes it pretty cut and dry.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/01/12 03:50:56
These are my opinions. This is how I feel. Others may feel differently. This needs to be stated for some reason.
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.
Since apparently you think this is fact, provide your evidence.
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.
Amen.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/01/12 05:59:47
depends on the detail and paint job, some models? absolutely, others less so, that said it's why even GW makes a distinction between "table top ready" and "display ready"
ultimately table top grade is basicly "take a space marine, slap some blue contrast paint, rim the shoulders in yellow, paint the eagle yellow, colour the gun a grey, and put red dots on the eyes. boom done!"
and THAT level of detail, yes you can see pretty easily
Opinions are not facts please don't confuse the two
Irkjoe wrote: 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.
The fact that you don't see that you're pushing is worrisome.
We're not making assumptions. We can read what you posted thank you very much.
Explain to me why they look better without using your opinion. Just straight up fact.
GW and company do it to sell more models. I however am not in the business of selling models, so whether I paint or not is up to me. Not you, and not some marketing division of a company I don't work for.
Tournaments do it because they want to.
Prepainted minis are prepainted because they think people want painted minis, but don't nessisarily have the time or skill to do it well.
Playing cards have art because it's traditional. Many playing cards don't have art though. Even the ones that do, don't put that art on every cart. Look at the 2-10 for instance.
Prove that it's better factually. Waiting for your sources.
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.
It's easy to do a lot of things. Doesn't mean that you're right about GW's 'intent'.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Karol wrote: This maybe a strange question, but people actually see the detail on other people models from the other side of the table?
It's easier when the models are primed, or primed and inked than just bare plastic at times, but easier is far different from 'can't be done without'.
A bolter doesn't look like a plasma gun, even if it isn't painted.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2020/01/12 06:20:03
Talizvar wrote:I genuinely would like to hear from those who play with bare plastic models: why do you stop there? Chomping at the bit to play and really have zero interest in the look of it so long as you can get to the game at hand?
I find painting to be absolutely miserable and actually ( no hyperbole) believe that people who say they enjoy painting are just lying to themselves. Me and my friends enjoy the games we play, many have been intense and we still talk about some, and many models were unpainted in them. I have played games against opponents in our area with fully painted armies that were not fun because they were using fotm fully painted for a tourney.
Elbows wrote: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?
No, no I don’t, if they don’t want an unpainted army in their games then they shouldn’t invite me to play.
UncleJetMints wrote:
I find painting to be absolutely miserable and actually ( no hyperbole) believe that people who say they enjoy painting are just lying to themselves.
You might see it that way but I disagree. I find painting to be satisfying because I see myself getting better and better with each model. My early stuff isn't too great but I don't beat myself up over it because I was learning. Seeing yourself get more skilled at something is great.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/01/12 08:14:47
UncleJetMints wrote:
I find painting to be absolutely miserable and actually ( no hyperbole) believe that people who say they enjoy painting are just lying to themselves.
You might see it that way but I disagree. I find painting to be satisfying because I see myself getting better and better with each model. My early stuff isn't too great but I don't beat myself up over it because I was learning. Seeing yourself get more skilled at something is great.
painting's a bit like any project that involves doing work with your hands to make something, once your done and can step back and see what you've done?
It feels REAAAALLY good. and yeah seeing those tiny marked improvements is pretty awesome
Opinions are not facts please don't confuse the two
There's a reason most FLGS want painted models on display, and a quite a few ask for painted models for store events. There's a lot of benefit to having something that strikes the eyes and draws in attention, and colors do that more effectively than grey plastic. So, while it is his 'opinion' that it looks like crap, and not a fact... there's certainly a measure of it having an advantage.
If you want to argue that unpainted models aren't factually more appealing than painted ones... well, you could also argue that dirt tastes better than vanilla and chocolate. I mean, maybe it does for you... so it's not an objective fact, but let's be honest... I've yet to see a dirt flavor at Baskin Robbins. I mean, maybe it exists.
Also, if this guy's opinion on an internet forum is 'damaging a hobby' that the overwhelming majority of 40k players either aren't aware of, ignore, or snicker at... well, then the hobby is weak and needs to be damaged. But he's not, so don't get hyperbolic. It makes us seem like poorly adjusted juveniles, and that's actually what repulses people about most geek hobbies.
It's your opinion that it's irrelevant. However, for me, there's a line.
I ask that people make an attempt. If you've had this army for months and haven't done anything to it... it's not exciting for me to play against it. In a skirmish game, you'd better try to get a few dudes painted up- especially if you're running 7 miniatures or something. Put a little effort, please. If not, fine- you do you, but I have more fun looking at a table with some colors on it rather than GW's "dead possum grey" plastic.
I think well painted models look nicer (poorly painted ones on the other hand..), anyone who tries to deny this is just being silly. BUT at the same time, I don't think it's essential to play 40k.
Opinions are not facts please don't confuse the two
I dont see why the cheaper starting boxes intended for new players having colored plastic means that they arent intended to be painted before more regular use.
Of course no one expects a new person to play their first game with a fully painted 2000pts army. Having colored plastic helps a bit with immersion compared to being gray and also makes it very easy for 2 new players who dont know anything about the game before see what model goes with which force.
Them being colored is a clear indication that GW expects it to not be gray armies vs gray armies in the long run. Not the reverse.
I have also heard from TOs in some areas that having no painting requirements leads to less attendance since even though most people want to play a game they do value their time as well and if they have to travel out of town and maybe even book a hotel room and spend a whole weekend in time and money they want good looking games and value for their money. Playing against bare plastic is for many players not that.
I wouldnt attend an event without painting requirements or that used only 2d terrain and definetly not both. I would rather get a single game in at my club and use up half my day instead of all of it. A few friends stopped playing warmachine when the events turned to more and more 2d terrain.
The looks definetly matter a lot for the majority of players around here. If not cardgames, board games or computer games would be playee instead. Especially true for rather badly written GW games.
There's a reason most FLGS want painted models on display, and a quite a few ask for painted models for store events. There's a lot of benefit to having something that strikes the eyes and draws in attention, and colors do that more effectively than grey plastic. So, while it is his 'opinion' that it looks like crap, and not a fact... there's certainly a measure of it having an advantage.
And the answer starts and ends at sales.
If you want to argue that unpainted models aren't factually more appealing than painted ones... well, you could also argue that dirt tastes better than vanilla and chocolate. I mean, maybe it does for you... so it's not an objective fact, but let's be honest... I've yet to see a dirt flavor at Baskin Robbins. I mean, maybe it exists.
We could argue that about dirt and vanilla. Just like we could argue about electric lights and swimming pool. Neither are fair comparisons to "Everyone likes painted models vs don't force your opinion on people".
Also, if this guy's opinion on an internet forum is 'damaging a hobby' that the overwhelming majority of 40k players either aren't aware of, ignore, or snicker at... well, then the hobby is weak and needs to be damaged. But he's not, so don't get hyperbolic. It makes us seem like poorly adjusted juveniles, and that's actually what repulses people about most geek hobbies.
It's your opinion that it's irrelevant. However, for me, there's a line.
I ask that people make an attempt. If you've had this army for months and haven't done anything to it... it's not exciting for me to play against it. In a skirmish game, you'd better try to get a few dudes painted up- especially if you're running 7 miniatures or something. Put a little effort, please. If not, fine- you do you, but I have more fun looking at a table with some colors on it rather than GW's "dead possum grey" plastic.
And if someone's reply to 'make an attempt' is "No" what will you do? Just shrug and go on with life, or will you become a 'that guy' and call them names?
If someone wants to push their opinion as fact, expect to get told to back it up.
You'll notice no one who says "I like painted models" and leaves it at that isn't getting asked to prove anything.
I don’t like to paint and I don’t have the time, plus I don’t want to shell out money for someone else to paint it. I have plenty of fun playing and building. I also don’t care for people who get snobby about me not painting.
Might just be my bias here in this thread but to me it looks like its more common in certain countries to not paint their miniatures than others.
I have played in a few different places a few different games and never met someone who didnt paint their models or pay someone else to do it. Even those who hated painting thought the game looked better and was nicer to play with painted models and either payed for commision or learned how to do quick and easy speedpainting. With a good choice of basecoat you do not need many minutes per model, no more than 10m for most models, to look ok to good 1m away on the table top if using washes, drybrush, dipping or airbrush. Then paint on one of the already colored basing paints with or without an effect and you can do a whole army in a single day.
I had a friend who were colorblind for real and saw everything in shades of grey from light to dark. He still painted all his models even though he had to ask others for the right colors and if he did a good job and at the same time trying to see if people were pulling his leg or not. Someone changed the label on I think it was tentacle pink to something equally light in color but light green or orange in his paint collection once. His trust in people fell a bit after that incident. It didnt feel right for him to use unpainted models since it would affect other peoples enjoyment and he always strived to make both players have a good time.
People with bad eyesight that cant focus long at all on small objects or people with damaged nerves and motorpatterns in their arms still do their very best to put some paint on their models. It perhaps might take a few years to get a fully painted army but even those that dislike painting the most do some progress most of the time between me seeing their armies.
I have helped quite a few people with tips and tricks to make painting faster and usually they dont have as much of a hatred toward painting when they realise they dont actually have to spend hours painting each miniature unless they actually want to but can use minutes instead. Usually ends up with them spending extra time on models they like like a certain character or monster they think look cool and now that they know how to speedpaint if needed they dont feel pressure only when painting but also some enjoyment. Not everyone, but most.
Helps if you make painting a social event as well. Either at a store, club or at someones home. Sit around chatting and working on your miniatures at the same time while having a good time and perhaps get a game in after some time. You dont have to make painting a requirement to sit there and have a nice time but if you are already sitting there discussing your favorite game and have grey models in your bag beside you and a bunch of paint on the table infront of you the step to put some paint on them isnt far. You arent there to paint but to talk and painting is just a way to keep your hands busy. Perfect place to learn and you can usually get a bunch of tips and tricks that works for you because even those people who love to paint also just want to finish some projects quick and have good advice for that as well usually.
There's a reason most FLGS want painted models on display, and a quite a few ask for painted models for store events. There's a lot of benefit to having something that strikes the eyes and draws in attention, and colors do that more effectively than grey plastic. So, while it is his 'opinion' that it looks like crap, and not a fact... there's certainly a measure of it having an advantage.
If you want to argue that unpainted models aren't factually more appealing than painted ones... well, you could also argue that dirt tastes better than vanilla and chocolate. I mean, maybe it does for you... so it's not an objective fact, but let's be honest... I've yet to see a dirt flavor at Baskin Robbins. I mean, maybe it exists.
Also, if this guy's opinion on an internet forum is 'damaging a hobby' that the overwhelming majority of 40k players either aren't aware of, ignore, or snicker at... well, then the hobby is weak and needs to be damaged. But he's not, so don't get hyperbolic. It makes us seem like poorly adjusted juveniles, and that's actually what repulses people about most geek hobbies.
It's your opinion that it's irrelevant. However, for me, there's a line.
I ask that people make an attempt. If you've had this army for months and haven't done anything to it... it's not exciting for me to play against it. In a skirmish game, you'd better try to get a few dudes painted up- especially if you're running 7 miniatures or something. Put a little effort, please. If not, fine- you do you, but I have more fun looking at a table with some colors on it rather than GW's "dead possum grey" plastic.
The only thing that can really ruplse people from the hobby is a store closing or the games costs. As the store wanting painted models on display. Don't they want those because they have paints on sell. Of course if a store would put a don't need painted models or don't need real rulebooks to play, few people would buy them. So comparing painted stuff to good food, and unpainted stuff to unedible stuff seems like a big stretch.
also since when spending hours on painting, and a ton of money on paints and brushs is considered a little effort. Basic 5-6 colours plus 2 brushs is more then a box of models for an army.
If you have to kill, then kill in the best manner. If you slaughter, then slaughter in the best manner. Let one of you sharpen his knife so his animal feels no pain.
There's a reason most FLGS want painted models on display, and a quite a few ask for painted models for store events. There's a lot of benefit to having something that strikes the eyes and draws in attention, and colors do that more effectively than grey plastic. So, while it is his 'opinion' that it looks like crap, and not a fact... there's certainly a measure of it having an advantage.
If you want to argue that unpainted models aren't factually more appealing than painted ones... well, you could also argue that dirt tastes better than vanilla and chocolate. I mean, maybe it does for you... so it's not an objective fact, but let's be honest... I've yet to see a dirt flavor at Baskin Robbins. I mean, maybe it exists.
Also, if this guy's opinion on an internet forum is 'damaging a hobby' that the overwhelming majority of 40k players either aren't aware of, ignore, or snicker at... well, then the hobby is weak and needs to be damaged. But he's not, so don't get hyperbolic. It makes us seem like poorly adjusted juveniles, and that's actually what repulses people about most geek hobbies.
It's your opinion that it's irrelevant. However, for me, there's a line.
I ask that people make an attempt. If you've had this army for months and haven't done anything to it... it's not exciting for me to play against it. In a skirmish game, you'd better try to get a few dudes painted up- especially if you're running 7 miniatures or something. Put a little effort, please. If not, fine- you do you, but I have more fun looking at a table with some colors on it rather than GW's "dead possum grey" plastic.
The only thing that can really ruplse people from the hobby is a store closing or the games costs. As the store wanting painted models on display. Don't they want those because they have paints on sell. Of course if a store would put a don't need painted models or don't need real rulebooks to play, few people would buy them. So comparing painted stuff to good food, and unpainted stuff to unedible stuff seems like a big stretch.
also since when spending hours on painting, and a ton of money on paints and brushs is considered a little effort. Basic 5-6 colours plus 2 brushs is more then a box of models for an army.
5-6 pots plus those brushes will do multiple boxes of models. If you're playing a low model count army and aren't constantly buying new stuff those 5-6 pots will likely last you a whole year depending on how much you use each colour. No one's asking you to paint to golden daemon standards, just getting to 3 colours is easily achievable and can even look good provided you're willing to spend a little extra time, I say this as someone who plays guard who's done the better part of 100 guardsmen to that standard and has another 30 or so to go. It's not like you need to go hard at getting stuff painted either, just an hour or two every week or so will see a surprising amount of progress done.
The local GW doesnt want my painted models in the store because i dont use gw paints (and its obvious when my nid shells are a color shift paint) in the same way that restraunts have "no outside food or drink" signs.
They want painted models on display because it helps sell paints and models. And they get their staff or some suckers in their local community to do it for them. Often for free. And often only if they meet minimum, marketable, standards.
A store wanting painted models isnt promoting etiquette. Its promoting sales.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2020/01/12 16:48:13
These are my opinions. This is how I feel. Others may feel differently. This needs to be stated for some reason.
I enjoy painting and I enjoy looking at painted models from other Armies. I would never gate keep or tell someone I won't play with them because their models aren't painted. I have had painting parties with buddies to help them get their models painted and show them how easy it is.
Lance845 wrote: Which if true is irrelevent because irkjoes point is that GW has a hard and fast etiquette that you are being a good player of the game by having painted models and not a good player if you don't. Which isnt true. Not painting doesnt hurt the guy across the table. Its just a sale of paint that that person was never going to make to begin with that only impacts gws sales figures. There is no etiquette involved. There is just marketing.
Debateable. A good paint job can make an army easier to read, visually. Imo its good etiquette to make sure things are clearly represented as viewed from across the table.
And a bad paint job doesnt. Or sometimes a GREAT paint job has so much weathering and detail that individual elements like weapons get lost at the distances where the game is being played. So paint does not equal visibility inherently and nobody is asking for the models to be painted FOR visibility only that they ARE painted as though it equals a inherent fix to these "problems".
So try again?
Just saying it's not as cut and dry as you claim. Unclear presentation can hurt the other player, and is at least a nuisance. And since most people enjoy painted models vs. unpainted, it's not "just marketing". It's not a stretch to say army presentation can be considered part game of etiquette.
And I am just saying that the regurgitated argument that is being presented is not an accurate representation of the claims of people who want others to paint their models. For 1) I have no idea what every armies rules are let alone their bits let alone the bits that don't even actually exist. Which is why WYSIWYG is not a rule and "presentation" doesn't actually mater. Consider it what it is, a fault in the disconnect between the way GW writes it's rules and manufactures it's models. 2) Adding paint is no guarantee that it would help the issue and can in fact make it worse. 3) "Table Top Standard" is not about clearing up issues in model presentation to rule representation and is instead about a minimum number of colors and some basing material (because we all know basing material makes models rules more clear for the opponent).
In conclusion, it's a bull crap argument. And any lack of clarity is not because of the inclusion or lack of paint. It's because GW sucks at it's job. Switching that burden onto your opponent doesn't address the actual root cause and the "proposed" solution doesn't actually address the offending issue. I think that makes it pretty cut and dry.
Of course presentation matters. Not only is clarity as to what is what important, but it makes the game more attractive to the players and onlookers. Painted armies add to the shared experience of the game. Don't believe me? Run a poll asking some variation of the question "Do you prefer your armies painted or unpainted?" Oh we have one in this thread? Look at that! 90+% of participants say that painting "matters" at least a little bit.
You can argue till you're blue in tha face that painting isn't necessary, and I'll agree. But presentation certainly matters, and a (not-s***) paint job is part of that.
It's easy to do a lot of things. Doesn't mean that you're right about GW's 'intent'.
GW portrays painted models on the kit boxes
GW provides paint color suggestions on the boxes
GW advertises the game with painted models
GW holds painting competitions
GW sells supplies to paint your models
GW provides video tutorials on how to paint your models
GW requires painted models for its tournaments
Now it may be that one can never truly know "intent", but I think the evidence provided is pretty compelling.
I would agree it's pretty reasonable to say that people prefer well-painted models to bare plastic.
That being said, Insectum, do you agree that for people who don't care about painting as much as you do, they're not wrong to play with grey plastic minis?
Clocks for the clockmaker! Cogs for the cog throne!
