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.

None.
My hobby is playing games. Miniatures games in particular.

Wether or not you paint your minis or to what standard is none of my concern.
(Well, ok, that's not entirely true. My least favorite thing to see is a foes army primed Black. That's because the lighting in many shops isn't the best & anymore without my glasses all I see when I look across the table are a bunch of little black lumps devoid of detail)

As to my own stuff? Sure, fully painted forces are the end goal. I'm just not worried about how long it takes me to achieve that. And your opinions about my stuff/painting speed aren't important to me.

So, about how I paint;
Normally? Slowly & sporadically (though decently) is the best description. But for me to pick up a paint brush the stars have to align correctly & I have to be in the right mood. When that happens I'll paint up a few more minis. And they won't necessarily be for 40k/whatever I'm playing atm.
Otherwise? I tend to make the most progress when under extreme stress &/or depressed. (2020 was a hella productive year minis-painting wise - hopefully we won't see that repeated....) So if I'm not making much or any progress? Life is OK.

In answer to Bobs question as to why I use models at all if the paints not important? Simple, I like the physical models.

 Altruizine wrote:

I can appreciate your honesty, but this is nevertheless an extremely toxic attitude. "I suffered, so now you should too." It's crazy enough when people wear that attitude in the classic boomer way ("i walked 600 miles to school because we didn't have a bus, so you should too") but it's an order of magnitude crazier when it's about something that you had complete choice over.

I mean, shouldn't you actually admire them for having more backbone than you? They didn't like painting, so they stopped. You didn't like painting, but you yielded to whatever pressures were placed on you, and now you're never getting that time back

I legit respect your honesty about it, though. You've revealed the core issue for many people -- some nasty emotional cocktail of resentment, jealousy and regret -- instead of pretending it's a moral failing on behalf of the people who don't want to paint.

Respectfully - calling out a poster for being a coward (no backbone) and mischaracterising it as 'resentment, jealousy and regret' is just as toxic.

Not painting stuff is not being brave or sticking it to the man.

We all have to do stuff we don't like or don't want to from time to time. Part of life, really.

 Altruizine wrote:

 overlord inspiron wrote:
Most of my group play with fully painted armies there are a few members who haven't made any real progression and it is starting to grind on us a little bit especially because those of us that don't play with partiality finished models don't use a unit if it isn't fnished, we get not liking painting, I don't yet I play with a fully painted army, it was a massive slap in the face when said group members had done nothing after we took a month off to get stuff painted for warhammer world

I can appreciate your honesty, but this is nevertheless an extremely toxic attitude. "I suffered, so now you should too." It's crazy enough when people wear that attitude in the classic boomer way ("i walked 600 miles to school because we didn't have a bus, so you should too") but it's an order of magnitude crazier when it's about something that you had complete choice over.

I mean, shouldn't you actually admire them for having more backbone than you? They didn't like painting, so they stopped. You didn't like painting, but you yielded to whatever pressures were placed on you, and now you're never getting that time back

I legit respect your honesty about it, though. You've revealed the core issue for many people -- some nasty emotional cocktail of resentment, jealousy and regret -- instead of pretending it's a moral failing on behalf of the people who don't want to paint.

Calling it suffering is melodramatic, I also wouldn't say they have a backbone it's laziness in my opinion, there are other avenues they could've gone down, the rest of us have offered to help and found ways to speed up the process but it all falls on deaf ears, we don't care if it isn't painted very well as long as it is painted, which is odd for 30k players. It isn't jealousy either, no one placed any expectations on me, I see it as a form of respect and also pride and that is more true now than before with contrast paint and other similar products being a thing, even if my painting is just average I can show how much I enjoy the whole hobby even the parts I don't like, picking and choosing what parts you do with the exception of gaming can lead to some silly scenarios such as a person playing with a base because "they don't like building".

As the poll had the word "require", I voted 0 - literally don't care. Just try to bring the right model(s).

I prefer to play with fully painted models, and I prefer to play against fully painted models - but I also know that not only do some people not enjoy painting (or are very good at it, even if they've been trying for 10+ years), it's also very time-consuming and for adults with full-time jobs and families, they might very well not have the time to fully paint all their armies, nor are they willing to spend what little spare time they have on doing something they don't really enjoy.

Can't help but think that this poll would've benefited from...
a, splitting "you" and "your opponent" into distinct scores
b, some form of guidance as to what a 5 represents.

I used to think non-painted models were kind of lame, but strangely as I become better at painting, and become more of a paint-snob, I'd almost rather play with and against grey plastic/base coated minis, than something which is scarcely tabletop standard (if you turn the lights down and stand 3 feet away...).

The problem with painting things to a higher standard is that its time consuming. I used to be able to chuck 3 colours on a mini and be happy with it, 30 minutes to an hour a squad. Now its an hour+ a mini. And that adds up if you want to build a new army. And you want to play with it now, not circa 3 years time when it will finally be all painted (maybe).

My armied fielded on the battlefield are always fully painted - no exceptions.
I remember at Hamburg GW I, unpainted models were removed from play by GW employees.

I have requirements for myself - characters/centrepiece models should be fully painted, and everything else should at least have the basics completed. They're not absolute, though. If I didn't have enough time to finish off a unit before a scheduled game I'll play the unit as-is and keep working on it when I next have time for hobbying.

I have no requirements for opponents beyond 'your models are identifiable'. I'm not really about that.

 Dysartes wrote:
Can't help but think that this poll would've benefited from...
a, splitting "you" and "your opponent" into distinct scores
b, some form of guidance as to what a 5 represents.

Nah. This thread was on its way to an early grave from the first reply onwards. I doubt a difference in poll wording would have made any difference.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Nah. This thread was on its way to an early grave from the first reply onwards. I doubt a difference in poll wording would have made any difference.

Yes, because obviously someone expressing the opinion that they aren't interested in playing against unpainted models is immediate doom. How can such an unreasonable position possibly exist in a polite society?

/s

If it gets models on the table I don't care how much time you put in to other parts of the hobby. As has been stated above a well painted army adds to the game but as someone who's not crazy about painting even seeing someone make an attempt at it is always praiseworthy.

CadianSgtBob wrote:

Yes, because obviously someone expressing the opinion that they aren't interested in playing against unpainted models is immediate doom. How can such an unreasonable position possibly exist in a polite society?

/s

+1

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Dysartes wrote:
Can't help but think that this poll would've benefited from...
a, splitting "you" and "your opponent" into distinct scores
b, some form of guidance as to what a 5 represents.

Nah. This thread was on its way to an early grave from the first reply onwards. I doubt a difference in poll wording would have made any difference.

You might want to read that first reply again. There's nothing problematic about it. It simply states a requirement for an opponent to have fully painted models. The problems actually started about 5 or 6 replies later, admittedly instigated by the person who posted that first reply.

The poll seems to lack detail for me. From my side, I won't play with anything other than fully painted. I don't require the same of my opponents. I do like to see progress being made and if given the choice between playing two similar games, with one being against unpainted and one against painted models I'd prefer the latter. That's not the case where new players are involved, or someone's building a new army. I find using fully painted armies tends to have a knock-on effect on the other gamers at my club. If everyone's using unpainted stuff, that becomes the norm and accepted. Likewise, using fully painted armies can often be a good source of encouragement for others to paint their own models.

Paint is aspirational IMO, but that said I'm willing to tweak to my game partner's preferences.

Slipspace wrote:
You might want to read that first reply again. There's nothing problematic about it. It simply states a requirement for an opponent to have fully painted models. The problems actually started about 5 or 6 replies later, admittedly instigated by the person who posted that first reply.

And if you couldn't tell that was going to happen from that first reply then you really weren't paying attention.

Or you just haven't been here long, where we've had this discussion before, and it always - always always always - ends up with some painting absolutist fighting everyone because of their intractable stubborn position on how everything must be painted and anyone else who says otherwise is having fun the wrong way.

And... here we are!

Let's place bets how long this thread will last before it gets locked like every single one of its ancestors.

My bet is 33 pages.

Put myself at 5. I only want to use painted models myself, but I really don't care what you bring to the table.

CadianSgtBob wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Nah. This thread was on its way to an early grave from the first reply onwards. I doubt a difference in poll wording would have made any difference.

Yes, because obviously someone expressing the opinion that they aren't interested in playing against unpainted models is immediate doom. How can such an unreasonable position possibly exist in a polite society?

/s

Nobody gives a gak if you don't want to play against unpainted models. People give a gak when you tell them to paint their models when they clearly said they dislike that part of the hobby. Stop playing the victim here.

And for the record, most of my armies are painted.

I have a problem with what constitutes what levels? Is aesthetics involved in the answer? For instance if someone paints, details, shades, highlights and, gives their figures diorama like bases is that a 10? If so, what happens when they do all that and their figures are disgusting or just a plain eyesore due to the color choices? I'll be honest I'd rather play against a grey army then something that I can't stand looking at. I don't want to spend a couple hours sitting across the table from an army that has organs falling out of the figures and other "realism" type painting. I don't go to slasher flicks for the same reason. Likewise I don't want to play against an army that is painted in eyewatering neon colors or painted like SS troops (both legitimate painting schemes). I play for my, and hopefully my opponents, enjoyment. I'm an adult I don't have to eat my vegetables if I don't want to do so.

This is a game. Everyone has the right to demand that their figures be held to their own standards. No one has the right to demand that someone else meet those standards. Not to mention the fact that one person's beauty can be someone else's "ugh". You have the right to refuse to play a game for any reason that you can come up with but you don't have the right to force someone else to conform to your views.

Leo_the_Rat wrote:
I have a problem with what constitutes what levels? Is aesthetics involved in the answer? For instance if someone paints, details, shades, highlights and, gives their figures diorama like bases is that a 10? If so, what happens when they do all that and their figures are disgusting or just a plain eyesore due to the color choices? I'll be honest I'd rather play against a grey army then something that I can't stand looking at. I don't want to spend a couple hours sitting across the table from an army that has organs falling out of the figures and other "realism" type painting. I don't go to slasher flicks for the same reason. Likewise I don't want to play against an army that is painted in eyewatering neon colors or painted like SS troops (both legitimate painting schemes). I play for my, and hopefully my opponents, enjoyment. I'm an adult I don't have to eat my vegetables if I don't want to do so.

This is a game. Everyone has the right to demand that their figures be held to their own standards. No one has the right to demand that someone else meet those standards. Not to mention the fact that one person's beauty can be someone else's "ugh". You have the right to refuse to play a game for any reason that you can come up with but you don't have the right to force someone else to conform to your views.

for me its the end effect, i've seen some paintjobs that had no shading and edge highlight yet looked better than some with double edge highlights.

The only thing more annoying than unpainted models is the ridiculous efforts people go through to avoid admitting they just can't be bothered. Maybe 20 years ago, when mini painting was somewhat arcane (and more models were one piece metals), it was different, but now we have colored primers, contrasts, high pigment layers, vivid washes, and a plethora of painting videos for every level of skill. I don't understand why you'd spend an hour or more building a single 100 plus part squad, and then not spend at least the same amount of time to throw a coat of primer, some base paint, and a wash.

"I want to do my hobby, but I want to do it half assed" is such a strange hill for grown men to die on.

depends 100% on the game.

Is a friend starting a new army they wanna get in a game as fast as they can? who cares if it's painted

Is it a narrative campaign where everyone is expected to show up with fully painted armies? you better be 100% painted

At the end of the day ive found the most enjoyable games against people who care about their army and put the time into painting it. I find you get way less WAAC players so i tend to avoid people with grey tides unless they are new or starting something new

 Polonius wrote:
The only thing more annoying than unpainted models is the ridiculous efforts people go through to avoid admitting they just can't be bothered. Maybe 20 years ago, when mini painting was somewhat arcane (and more models were one piece metals), it was different, but now we have colored primers, contrasts, high pigment layers, vivid washes, and a plethora of painting videos for every level of skill. I don't understand why you'd spend an hour or more building a single 100 plus part squad, and then not spend at least the same amount of time to throw a coat of primer, some base paint, and a wash.

"I want to do my hobby, but I want to do it half assed" is such a strange hill for grown men to die on.

The hobby has multiple different parts that not everyone enjoys

Building
Painting
Playing
Lore

you don't need to fully immerse yourself in all 4 of these to be a part of the hobby. Sure, contrast paints lets you paint up an army in record time, but not everyone enjoys the few hours you still need to spend painting.

If you prefer painted minis, thats perfectly fine, but don't go around shaming people that don't paint theirs.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:
you don't need to fully immerse yourself in all 4 of these to be a part of the hobby. Sure, contrast paints lets you paint up an army in record time, but not everyone enjoys the few hours you still need to spend painting.

If you prefer painted minis, thats perfectly fine, but don't go around shaming people that don't paint theirs.

I'm not shaming them, they're shaming themselves. Virtually everybody agrees that painted armies make the game better, so refusing to even try to paint is just burdening the hobby with an eyesore of grey plastic.

And you don't need to "fully immerse" yourself in painting. You literally need to do the bare minimum, which simply does not take long. Somehow people see no problem with spending hundreds of dollars to buy the models, hours and hours to build the models, but somehow spraying some primer and picking our a few details is this enormous burden? Get over yourself.

 Polonius wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:
you don't need to fully immerse yourself in all 4 of these to be a part of the hobby. Sure, contrast paints lets you paint up an army in record time, but not everyone enjoys the few hours you still need to spend painting.

If you prefer painted minis, thats perfectly fine, but don't go around shaming people that don't paint theirs.

I'm not shaming them, they're shaming themselves. Virtually everybody agrees that painted armies make the game better, so refusing to even try to paint is just burdening the hobby with an eyesore of grey plastic.

And you don't need to "fully immerse" yourself in painting. You literally need to do the bare minimum, which simply does not take long. Somehow people see no problem with spending hundreds of dollars to buy the models, hours and hours to build the models, but somehow spraying some primer and picking our a few details is this enormous burden? Get over yourself.

building a model takes less time than painting it. i don't get how people thing its shameful not to paint their minis but hey, thats what all these threads always come down to anyway.

 Polonius wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:
you don't need to fully immerse yourself in all 4 of these to be a part of the hobby. Sure, contrast paints lets you paint up an army in record time, but not everyone enjoys the few hours you still need to spend painting.

If you prefer painted minis, thats perfectly fine, but don't go around shaming people that don't paint theirs.

I'm not shaming them, they're shaming themselves. Virtually everybody agrees that painted armies make the game better, so refusing to even try to paint is just burdening the hobby with an eyesore of grey plastic.

And you don't need to "fully immerse" yourself in painting. You literally need to do the bare minimum, which simply does not take long. Somehow people see no problem with spending hundreds of dollars to buy the models, hours and hours to build the models, but somehow spraying some primer and picking our a few details is this enormous burden? Get over yourself.

I going to be honest, when I read this “just do the bare minimum” and things like it, I don’t really get positive vibes from the hobby, and shows to me how little care there is for it.
There is so many reasons that doesn’t work for people, also that they may not like the look that produces and to be told to ruin there models can be a huge turn off.
Being told to badly do something does not lead positively in the hobby I feel, especially if that’s not at all why so many army’s are left grey.

 Altruizine wrote:

 overlord inspiron wrote:
Most of my group play with fully painted armies there are a few members who haven't made any real progression and it is starting to grind on us a little bit especially because those of us that don't play with partiality finished models don't use a unit if it isn't fnished, we get not liking painting, I don't yet I play with a fully painted army, it was a massive slap in the face when said group members had done nothing after we took a month off to get stuff painted for warhammer world

I can appreciate your honesty, but this is nevertheless an extremely toxic attitude. "I suffered, so now you should too." It's crazy enough when people wear that attitude in the classic boomer way ("i walked 600 miles to school because we didn't have a bus, so you should too") but it's an order of magnitude crazier when it's about something that you had complete choice over.

I mean, shouldn't you actually admire them for having more backbone than you? They didn't like painting, so they stopped. You didn't like painting, but you yielded to whatever pressures were placed on you, and now you're never getting that time back

I legit respect your honesty about it, though. You've revealed the core issue for many people -- some nasty emotional cocktail of resentment, jealousy and regret -- instead of pretending it's a moral failing on behalf of the people who don't want to paint.

Isn't it kind of toxic to expect someone to want to play with you though? Like i have zero issue if someone wants to buy every army in the game and never paint a single thing... But wouldnt it be equilly if not more childish to expect someone to want to play with you?

A lot of this thread is really funny because its made to sound like those that want to play against another painted army are being "snobs"... But isnt demanding someone play against you and enjoy your unpainted army the definition of entitlment?

Fully painted to a battle ready standard. I don't know about zero exceptions.

I personally try not to put anything on the table that isn't to a battle ready standard, but there have been times where it was sort of unavoidable. In these rare situations I do ask if my opponent is cool with it because I would appreciate the same in return.

There have also been times where some of my friends have gotten really excited to throw dice and I didn't want to crush their enthusiasm. In these instances I try to build on that excitement and steer them to putting that energy into painting.

I won't field unpainted models of my own (generally, unless I just bought it yesterday and am so excited to use it but haven't had time to paint it yet...). I prefer my opponent does the same, but won't have a problem if they don't - not everyone has the time, or inclination, to participate in that aspect of the hobby; I understand. If their army is all grey I'll still play.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:
building a model takes less time than painting it. i don't get how people thing its shameful not to paint their minis but hey, thats what all these threads always come down to anyway.

Depending on the complexity of the kit, and the level of paintjob you're going for, they're closer than they used to be. Yeah, comparing doing layering and free hand to building one or two piece models is a huge gulf, but comparing building a modern, multi part kit to a quick battle ready standard? Not that far off. Look at a kit like Firewarriors: easily a dozen parts per model, lots of stuff to clip, trim, and file, and even if you just rip the parts off and bash them together, that's an evenings work. Priming takes a long time when you account for drying, but really only a few minutes for each coat. After that it's paint the armor, the undersuit, pick out a few details, wash, and scrape some texture paint on the base. Here's the thing: if you don't care how they look, then you can paint kind of sloppily! that's the beauty of it!

You can literally just prime your models, and they immediately look better, more so with a colored primer. That's literally a few minutes of work to turn grey plastic into at least color coded plastic.

And it's not shameful in a dramatic sense. It's not a grave sin to kin and countrymen... but it's a little bit, right?




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Apple fox wrote:
I going to be honest, when I read this “just do the bare minimum” and things like it, I don’t really get positive vibes from the hobby, and shows to me how little care there is for it.
There is so many reasons that doesn’t work for people, also that they may not like the look that produces and to be told to ruin there models can be a huge turn off.
Being told to badly do something does not lead positively in the hobby I feel, especially if that’s not at all why so many army’s are left grey.

This is the weirdest type of pretzel logic. You're trying to argue that getting people to do the hobby is bad for the hobby? My response to do the bare minimum are to people that are saying they don't want to paint at all. that's not my pitch to a new hobbyist, but to the guy who is showing up with the same grey plastic every week for years.

Personally, I think that for people with decent hand eye coordination and broadly normal motor skills battle ready is perfectly attainable. But... a color primer, picking out a few details, and a wash still looks better! I don't see why this is controversial.