Warhammer 40K Tabletop Thread XXXVII: Highlighting the Contrasts

[Cheesegear]

How important do you think painting is to the hobby?

Painting (and building/converting) is the hobby.

What painting isn't, is the game. This is GW's major problem. Where they try and equate the game, and the hobby, as the same thing.
"We're a models company!" implies that the rules don't matter.
"Rules sell models." implies that the models don't matter.

At no point in the rulebook, does it say "If you have a fully painted army, gain 7 VPs."
That's a 'soft score' invented by TOs to force 'gamers' to actually 'do hobby'.

In reality, however, if you can afford to have an on-meta list, you can afford to have it commissioned.

Do I, personally, like painting? Yes.
Do I, personally, like when my opponent puts effort into painting their army? Absolutely.
Do I think it's important? Hell no. If my opponent has the correct models - or makes it clear when their models aren't correct - then that's all I care about.

Do I want painted armies? Yes. It's what the hobby is about, after all.
Do I need painted armies? No. It has no effect on gameplay at all. Painted armies is 'just cosmetic'.

[Avaris]

So, a question I feel is quite appropriate given the title of the thread:

How important do you think painting is to the hobby?

It’s a component, as equally important and unimportant as any other. It’s possible to participate in and enjoy the hobby without it, just as one can participate while rarely playing or not caring about the lore, but having all these components enhances the experience.

A specific challenge/problem with painting is that it presents a seemingly significant barrier to entry. This creates an accessibility problem for new players: if they feel they HAVE to have a painted army, and realise this is a significant time and skill commitment, they may just not bother with the hobby at all. We don’t hold any other component of the game to this level: no-one HAS to have a tournament level army or a deep understanding of the lore, but I feel people are much more likely to be criticised for an unpainted army.

For this reason, I don’t think thinking about unpainted armies as ‘disrespectful’ of opponents is a particularly good way of thinking about it, though I 100% understand where Forum Explorer is coming from. We all like games with fully painted armies on both sides, and it can be galling if we’ve put effort in and others haven’t. I just prefer a ‘look what you could have’ attitude (positive reinforcement), rather than a ‘you’re not putting enough effort in’ one (negative reinforcement).

For this reason, I oppose a blanket ‘your models must be painted in every game’ attitude. This should be an aspiration, sure, but not a requirement. Note that this applies to pick up games in FLGS: for a specific event, it is the absolute right of an organiser to insist on this if they feel it is important to the event they want to run (though ideally this should be a consious choice rather than just going with a default painted models policy). If an organiser does choose to insist on painted models, I like to see it be an active part of the competition in the event, with some prize going to well painted armies: this creates a thing to aspire to, rather than a minimum standard to resent having to reach in order to participate in the bits of the hobby you like.

It’s the accessibility point which is why contrast paints, and the other things before them that also lowered the bar of entry, are important. Thanks to shade paints I’m achieving results I’d never have dreamed of when I first got into the hobby, the same will be true of others with contrast. And that’s great!

[DataNinja]

I know for me, though I've admittedly not really done the hobby in earnest in several years, I never really found the painting as satisfying as the building and converting part of the hobby. That's not to say that I got no satisfaction out of painting... but, honestly, in an ideal world, I'd be able to just have them assembled already in colours I wanted. The painting was always tertiary to everything else in the hobby. I loved seeing what others had done with their stuff... but it wasn't usually super-engaging for me.

[Voidhawk]

So, a question I feel is quite appropriate given the title of the thread:

How important do you think painting is to the hobby?

Warhammer looks like one hobby, but it's not. It's four hobbies in a trenchcoat.

1) Collecting - Some people get a kick from having a large collection,
2) Building/Converting - Some people like to custom build models from bits,
3) Painting - Some people get a sense of pride from having everything well painted,
4) Gaming - Some people enjoy the challenge of battling others to the death.

The trenchcoat that covers them all is the Fluff, the shared universe of insanity and skulls-on-everything without which the other four couldn't co-exist.

Of course, every person values each of the five differently for their own enjoyment.
Personally I enjoy the gaming first, fluff second, converting third, and painting/collecting doesn't really make the list at all.

You tend to get issues when one person's enjoyment of one aspect, interferes with another persons enjoyment of a different aspect.
"Your models must be painted." "But I just want to game!"
"Your Looted Wagon is on the wrong base." "But I converted it specially!"

[The Patterner]

Warhammer looks like one hobby, but it's not. It's four hobbies in a trenchcoat.

1) Collecting - Some people get a kick from having a large collection,
2) Building/Converting - Some people like to custom build models from bits,
3) Painting - Some people get a sense of pride from having everything well painted,
4) Gaming - Some people enjoy the challenge of battling others to the death.

The trenchcoat that covers them all is the Fluff, the shared universe of insanity and skulls-on-everything without which the other four couldn't co-exist.

This.

This was one of the best analogies I've seen regarding 40k and us, it's fanbase.

Personally I'm a solid builder/converter, followed by fluff and then gaiming. One of my gaming buddies is a number one, obsessed with expanding his collection, and he always try to get me to buy new stuff. Like "Oh you are thinking about starting a daemon army! There is a guy selling a 4000 points army at ebay, it's already painted!"

Before I could'nt really say why I disliked that, but I collect because I want to build models, not because I want to own a huge collection of models.

Thanks!

[Tome]

I like building and gaming, personally. It's nice to have a collection, but while I certainly would like to have everything painted, actually painting it is a chore I just don't have the energy or time for.

[Gwyn chan 'r Gwyll]

Speaking of painting, I'm at a crossroads. I'm doing up a Necron Monolith (I know, worst model in the worst faction, but I got it for chump change so) and I've been doing some pretty heavy green stuff on it, primarily making it look like it's built of rough-hewn stone blocks. Painting the stone is being tricky though. I've done it in Eshin Grey, and then a wash of Agrax Earthshade, but I'm wondering if it needs another Agrax Earthshade wash, I'm not sure if the contrast in the crevices will stay after I do the Karnak Stone highlight on the ridges. Advice? (click for larger image)

Spoiler

Show

Don't worry about the other colours, the only part that I've finished yet is the green.

[Grim Portent]

I think it might need a drybrush with an inbetween colour before another wash. I use a different palette for stone, but I usually go black base -> skavenblight dinge -> drybrush administratum grey -> nuln oil wash -> highlight of more administratum grey or ceramite white.

Done a few other types before, but I settled on this sort of slate-like colour. Doesn't look particularly real, but very eye catching.

I find that three colours helps make the ridges in stone pop. Deepest recesses stay very dark, then it fades up lighter and the very edges are bright and pop.

[JNAProductions]

Warhammer looks like one hobby, but it's not. It's four hobbies in a trenchcoat.

1) Collecting - Some people get a kick from having a large collection,
2) Building/Converting - Some people like to custom build models from bits,
3) Painting - Some people get a sense of pride from having everything well painted,
4) Gaming - Some people enjoy the challenge of battling others to the death.

The trenchcoat that covers them all is the Fluff, the shared universe of insanity and skulls-on-everything without which the other four couldn't co-exist.

Of course, every person values each of the five differently for their own enjoyment.
Personally I enjoy the gaming first, fluff second, converting third, and painting/collecting doesn't really make the list at all.

You tend to get issues when one person's enjoyment of one aspect, interferes with another persons enjoyment of a different aspect.
"Your models must be painted." "But I just want to game!"
"Your Looted Wagon is on the wrong base." "But I converted it specially!"

I love this explanation. Kudos to you!

And, I asked this since I'm (once again) getting arguments with people on Dakka Dakka about whether or not painting is mandatory. Mind if I quote you over there?

[LansXero]

I think it might need a drybrush with an inbetween colour before another wash. I use a different palette for stone, but I usually go black base -> skavenblight dinge -> drybrush administratum grey -> nuln oil wash -> highlight of more administratum grey or ceramite white.

Done a few other types before, but I settled on this sort of slate-like colour. Doesn't look particularly real, but very eye catching.

I find that three colours helps make the ridges in stone pop. Deepest recesses stay very dark, then it fades up lighter and the very edges are bright and pop.

That sounds more like fur than stone though (its pretty much what we did for black fur on Circle models, back when WarmaHordes was alive). Doesnt it come out a bit too black?

We've seen some result with eshin base into dawnstone drybrush into administratum edging into a light brush-over of longbeard, with a nuln wash but not all over, very specific / splotchy. It was for a present though, because it was stupid time consuming.

[Voidhawk]

I love this explanation. Kudos to you!

And, I asked this since I'm (once again) getting arguments with people on Dakka Dakka about whether or not painting is mandatory. Mind if I quote you over there?

Quote away.

[JNAProductions]

Quote away.

Much appreciated, friend Voidhawk!

[LordDavenport]

Thought this question through the whole contrast paint furor in the last thread: Would people play entirely with paper silhouettes on appropriate sized bases? You could but art of the unit on the silhouette, heck you could list the wargear on it if you want to be really WYSIWYG.

I imagine if you are in to any of the hobby aspects(painting/modeling), the answer is obviously no.

Also, since most of the places to play are in games stores, were such behaviour undermines their whole buisness model, this would not be an option. Further, people that have already invested(time and money) in building a model army probably are opposed for similar reasons.

I've just been contemplating making up a few 1500 point silhouette armies to take to university in the fall, given college has a combination of free table space and other poor college students. I personally find the painting/modeling aspect of the game to be like having to paint your own magic cards and manufacture your own sleeves.

[Grim Portent]

That sounds more like fur than stone though (its pretty much what we did for black fur on Circle models, back when WarmaHordes was alive). Doesnt it come out a bit too black?

We've seen some result with eshin base into dawnstone drybrush into administratum edging into a light brush-over of longbeard, with a nuln wash but not all over, very specific / splotchy. It was for a present though, because it was stupid time consuming.

Usually comes out a dusty grey colour, quite dark in the middle but fading to pale grey and/or white at the edges. Administratum tends to stay quite light ime, so it makes a decent fade colour between the skavenblight and the highlight.

I sometimes swap out the white highlight for a fenrisian grey one if I want to suggest a blue-ish hue, or just use a touch more administratum.


I do use a similar scheme for fur, but that's usually base black, layer of dark brown, doesn't matter which, drybrush skavenblight, either drybrush or highlight grey or white. Sometimes add a wash of agrax or nuln, but not always. Winds up with a more earthy tone than the previous.

[Avaris]

Thought this question through the whole contrast paint furor in the last thread: Would people play entirely with paper silhouettes on appropriate sized bases? You could but art of the unit on the silhouette, heck you could list the wargear on it if you want to be really WYSIWYG.

I imagine if you are in to any of the hobby aspects(painting/modeling), the answer is obviously no.

Also, since most of the places to play are in games stores, were such behaviour undermines their whole buisness model, this would not be an option. Further, people that have already invested(time and money) in building a model army probably are opposed for similar reasons.

I've just been contemplating making up a few 1500 point silhouette armies to take to university in the fall, given college has a combination of free table space and other poor college students. I personally find the painting/modeling aspect of the game to be like having to paint your own magic cards and manufacture your own sleeves.

This is an interesting question, particularly in light of the ‘4 hobbies in a trenchcoat’ analogy. It’s not as if this hasn’t been done in the past, 2nd ed had a cardboard cut out ork dreadnought after all, but my instinctive reaction is that it’s a step too far? I feel the presence of models in some form is important. Though then again, I think I’d be ok with an opponent proxying in this way if they needed to, so the ‘too far’ metric is more ‘I wouldn’t do that’.

A large part of me though is also thinking ‘why bother’: there are better games to proxy! I play because I have the models, instead of having the models because I’m desperate to play the game. Other people’s mileage may vary.

[Artanis]

Thought this question through the whole contrast paint furor in the last thread: Would people play entirely with paper silhouettes on appropriate sized bases? You could but art of the unit on the silhouette, heck you could list the wargear on it if you want to be really WYSIWYG.

I imagine if you are in to any of the hobby aspects(painting/modeling), the answer is obviously no.

Also, since most of the places to play are in games stores, were such behaviour undermines their whole buisness model, this would not be an option. Further, people that have already invested(time and money) in building a model army probably are opposed for similar reasons.

I've just been contemplating making up a few 1500 point silhouette armies to take to university in the fall, given college has a combination of free table space and other poor college students. I personally find the painting/modeling aspect of the game to be like having to paint your own magic cards and manufacture your own sleeves.

I mean, that's kinda what Vassal does, isn't it?

[LordDavenport]

This is an interesting question, particularly in light of the ‘4 hobbies in a trenchcoat’ analogy. It’s not as if this hasn’t been done in the past, 2nd ed had a cardboard cut out ork dreadnought after all, but my instinctive reaction is that it’s a step too far? I feel the presence of models in some form is important. Though then again, I think I’d be ok with an opponent proxying in this way if they needed to, so the ‘too far’ metric is more ‘I wouldn’t do that’.

Yeah, people get weird about proxies. Mostly this question was for the one guy largely playing with grey plastic...

Which is better: Grey plastic models, or paper with art of the thing the model represents on a base.

A large part of me though is also thinking ‘why bother’: there are better games to proxy! I play because I have the models, instead of having the models because I’m desperate to play the game. Other people’s mileage may vary.

I think 40k has a really good base engine, especially this edition. Most of the issues are unit balance and horrid rules formatting. The first can be solved with spot patches, the latter with rules cheat sheets.

Better games I might proxy are generally hard to get people into. Getting people exited about squad leader for instance.

I mean, that's kinda what Vassal does, isn't it?

Playing with people on a computer is A) a different experience and B)Far more of a pain to organize anything more then one off games. Even that in a consistent time frame is a raging pain.

[Requizen]

Warhammer is such a strange community in this way. It's almost like high school, everybody is part of a clique and they all think they're doing it right, and have tiffs with everyone else who does it any way differently.

A: "I just wanna play the game so I'll borrow armies or just put minimal effort in."
B: "That's not playing it right! Your armies should be your own."
C: "Right, you should only buy the models you want and paint them perfectly."
B: "Well no, you should buy the models that are good and get them to tabletop standard, though you can go farther."
C: "That's just powergaming!"
A: "Why would you ever play a game not to win? Also I found some non-GW models that I like better."
B: "That's fine, as long as you paint them."
C: "Why would you use different models?!"
D: "Hey guys I painted mine as a concept army, just primed and washed with no details picked out."
A: "Even I know that looks like crap."
D: "Don't shame my hobby, I tried really hard on this! They're all ghosty! There was even a GW video on it!"
C: "SPACE MARINES AREN'T GHOSTS!"


In my area alone, there are:
-People who play teeth kick lists, but say they're only in it for the hobby while walking away with Generalship trophies
-People who want to play ITC competitive but refuse to buy netlists or models they don't like
-People who just play casually but insist on going to tournaments and then complain about "powergamers"
-People who embrace their Spike status and bring crap painted FOTM armies
-People who bring hyper hobby armies and just have fun while getting drunk (high key the best people to play against, even if I'm not as good as hobby and more focused on gaming)

And they all refuse to play each other outside of big events, or go to events that other groups are running. It's... catty.

[LordDavenport]

Another question: If you didn't have to care about tournament point values, what is the best point values to play at the moment? 2K seems to big and drags games on. From previous editions I know 500 tends to be all hordes all the time, since you need to score. There a good middle ground? 1250? 1500?

[LansXero]

I run a store. Im probably top 3 in my country in hobby sales. We have a cardboard-cut Magnus right on the shelf, from a friend who used it as proxy this weekend.

We do gray plastic vs gray plastic, IG subbing in as nighthaunt because building and painting hordes takes forever, cardboard cutouts because buying an horde army then finding out you dont like playing hordes is stupid. We even had a guy top our previous tournament with a 100% borrowed army, because he didnt own anything beyond the IG Start Collecting! box.

Stores are not your enemy. They are places where people of all sorts can learn and love the game. They should, ideally, be the common ground for all subsets of the hobby population. Our sundays are a couple of guys painting, another couple of guys playing (maybe 4, we have the space), random chats about the lore, latest big tourney, latest cool model someone got or painted, etc. We all know what the meta looks like, and many have made a conscious choice to go as far as their hobby will take them. Thats fine, but we had to get them the info first, so they coulld choose on their own.

[Wraith]

Another question: If you didn't have to care about tournament point values, what is the best point values to play at the moment? 2K seems to big and drags games on. From previous editions I know 500 tends to be all hordes all the time, since you need to score. There a good middle ground? 1250? 1500?

1,250 points is quite fashionable in my local meta, it allows a reasonable number of miniatures and is just big enough for some variety in your lists - 1,000 can be a little bit restrictive to some armies who have expensive models, like Grey Knights, Custodes, Deathwing and similarly limited forces. It also plays reasonably quickly, whereas 2000pts can be a drag.

1000 points is a little better for 2 vs 2 games, simply because it seems to fit neatly on a standard 6x4 table without again causing the game to drag. It's also a handy size for collecting - you get a reasonable sized force that's convenient to upgrade or swap some units in and out around a solid core.

There is not yet a proven way to prevent people from playing hordes at any points amount. Whether you're playing at 500 points or 5000, someone will come along and work out how many Grots that number will get them.

[Manticoran]

Yeah, people get weird about proxies. Mostly this question was for the one guy largely playing with grey plastic...

Which is better: Grey plastic models, or paper with art of the thing the model represents on a base.

Playing with people on a computer is A) a different experience and B)Far more of a pain to organize anything more then one off games. Even that in a consistent time frame is a raging pain.

I think that was me! I'm actually quite happy with paper, especially if it's using actual artwork and looks nice.

The line of sight rules in eighth are stupid anyway. The folks I play with are often using things like a coke can on an appropriate base for dreadnoughts, and actual art is way better than that.

Also yeah vassal just isn't the same. It actually takes way longer and is more frustrating to play in my experience.

I'll note an additional hobby that's part of the game, which is theory crafting. My priority list is something like :

Lore
Theory Crafting
Gameplay
...
...
...
Models and collecting I guess?

[Cheesegear]

Would people play entirely with paper silhouettes on appropriate sized bases?

It only works when you're firing at the model front-on. The instant you turn sideways and you start firing at literally cardboard-thin cutouts, LoS goes out the window.

I mean, that's kinda what Vassal does, isn't it?

Speaking from experience, Vassal games are some of the worst experiences playing 40K I've ever had.
The biggest issue being, when you can spend literally 0 dollarydoos building your army, why doesn't everyone run the same net-lists over and over and over again - oh wait!

That's even before you factor in how agonising the UI is.

Which is better: Grey plastic models, or paper with art of the thing the model represents on a base.

Grey plastic models. Every time.
'Just Undercoated' is even better. But if you're <18 in Australia you can't buy spray paint (on your own) which causes problems for some of the younger players in my meta.

I think 40k has a really good base engine

Cover is wrong.
The to wound table is wrong.

The win conditions of the game, are wrong. When the win conditions of the game are wrong, how you play the game, becomes wrong. The game is...Bad...For beginners and casuals because there is only one right way to win - holding Objectives. Which Chapter Approved '19 breaking or fixing - depending on your PoV - how tabling works, the game now clusters around large, hard-to-kill units of <Infantry>, that move very little - if at all - away from Objectives, unless they're 'teleporting'. Alternatively, small units of Infantry that stay out of LoS (by never moving) on an Objective.
Contrasting to popular pinion from ITC players, The ITC doesn't fix this. It only exacerbates it.

Everything wrong with 40K is tied to the win conditions of the game.

Here's the kicker; How do we fix it? Easy. Remove 'Most models holds the Objective', and bring back Contested Objectives.

I don't like that 1KP = 1KP.
But the other way is that a unit is worth a number of VPs equal to its points cost. Which means an even harder swing to models that cost less winning games.

Most of the issues are unit balance

What makes a unit unbalanced?
...It's interaction with the rules.

D: "Don't shame my hobby, I tried really hard on this! They're all ghosty! There was even a GW video on it!".

If something looks ****. I'm going to say so.
Whether the person chooses to feel shamed, is on them.

If they tried hard, and they feel proud of it, then why give a **** what I say?

[LeSwordfish]

If something looks ****. I'm going to say so.
Whether the person chooses to feel shamed, is on them.

If they tried hard, and they feel proud of it, then why give a **** what I say?

This is an excellent example of how consistently obnoxious to people you appear to be, both here on the forums and clearly IRL. (It's possible a lot of this is an exaggeration - IIRC it turned out to be the last time I called you out on it. If so, I would consider thinking carefully about why you are so proud of appearing odious.) A key member behaving in this way would be sufficient reason alone for me to stop coming to a store or club, I suspect.

Of course, whether you choose to feel insulted is up to you.

[LordDavenport]

It only works when you're firing at the model front-on. The instant you turn sideways and you start firing at literally cardboard-thin cutouts, LoS goes out the window.

...you can rotate the silhouette to simulate width. The LOS issues are no worse then crouching models at worst.

For bigger issues like vehicles you have to add another paper to simulate width, and for flying models a third to difine the spherical area.

Speaking from experience, Vassal games are some of the worst experiences playing 40K I've ever had.
The biggest issue being, when you can spend literally 0 dollarydoos building your army, why doesn't everyone run the same net-lists over and over and over again - oh wait!

That's even before you factor in how agonising the UI is.

Because it is boring to play, and you can't stop people from quiting at any time. Also admittedly problems, but generally people I have played on there actually want people to stay in the tiny community.

UI is UI, they are always a pain till you learn them.

Cover is wrong.

Better then invuls.

The to wound table is wrong.

Better then the old table. The not quite a function was a pain to keep straight. WS table was worse.

The win conditions of the game, are wrong. When the win conditions of the game are wrong, how you play the game, becomes wrong. The game is...Bad...For beginners and casuals because there is only one right way to win - holding Objectives. Which Chapter Approved '19 breaking or fixing - depending on your PoV - how tabling works, the game now clusters around large, hard-to-kill units of <Infantry>, that move very little - if at all - away from Objectives, unless they're 'teleporting'. Alternatively, small units of Infantry that stay out of LoS (by never moving) on an Objective.
Contrasting to popular pinion from ITC players, The ITC doesn't fix this. It only exacerbates it.

An issue, sure. That isn't the engine. I was talking about the roll to hit, roll to wound, roll to save. The very basic engine that I like.

[Cheesegear]

This is an excellent example of how consistently obnoxious to people you appear to be

Okay, let's include the caveat. No. I don't treat everyone the same.

If you are a functional adult. You should be able to handle criticism. If you don't feel that criticism is valid, we can have a conversation.

Reality
Guy: Hey [Cheese], what do you think of my army?
Me: *Takes one look* The colours are discordant. I don't like looking at it. I hate it.
Guy: Discordant colour scheme was the point.
Me: In which case well done.
Guy: So it's good?
Me: If a discordant colour scheme was the point, then you did it.
Guy: So...It's not good. But that's what I was going for...So...It's good?
Me: I guess?
Guy: Rad.

#2
Me: I hate Ghost Knights. In fact, I don't even like the way GW paints Nighthaunt. I don't like when people paint their army like Ghosts, because it looks like you put no effort into it. Wash. Drybrush. Second Wash. Second Drybrush. Done. Right?
Guy: Well, it's quick and it gets the effect I want. It's what I want my army to look like. 1500 Points in two weeks is pretty good.
Me: *Shrug* It's your army. Did you say 1500? Want a game?

#3
Me: I'm not a fan of the colours.
Guy: Well I am.
Me: Well then my opinion means nothing. You like it. So who cares what I think?
Guy: I'll ask someone else. Your advice is 'Do exactly what you did, but with colours I like and not what you like.' I'm guessing...Yellow?
Me: lol. Pretty much.
Guy: lol. *Walks away to show other people. We have a game three hours later.*

Those are recent, real examples.

If you are non-functional and/or not an adult, that should be pretty apparent, and you will get treated differently; Not everyone is the same. Not everyone gets treated the same. Your 'criticism' will be different because people - including myself - will treat you differently.

We've already had several of the same conversations in this very thread regarding Contrast Paints.
I hate them. I think their use is limited. I think the effect they give, is bad, even when used properly.

But, if it gives the effect that other people want, quickly and easily, why does what I think matter?
You got the effect you asked for, in a relatively short span of time. Job's a good'un. Who cares if I don't like it?
...Unless you're the kind of person who treats criticism as a personal attack.
...Unless you're the kind of person who demands praise for effort, rather than results.
...Unless you're a child, and the praise of your role models is important to you.
...Unless you're disabled, and it's the best you can do.

...And several more caveats that I'm not going to include because I'm just going to assume that people will know that I treat people like people, because I'm a person.

Of course, whether you choose to feel insulted is up to you.

I've said it before and I'll say it again. There's very little - if anything - anyone on this forum could say to offend me. Partly because anything that I would probably find actually offensive would probably be banned from the Playground. ...And for everything else? ...I don't know you. You don't know me. If I don't like your opinion of me or something I do, I can pretty safely ignore it because I will never interact with you IRL.

If you were in my meta, and it was made known to me, that you weren't coming around anymore because of me (and only me, which seems very rash), then I would at least try to work something out. At worst, the only thing that should happen, is that you stop talking to me (like I said, physically not showing up at all because of one person of about 30 seems very rash), unless we're playing a game. In which case our games are fairly game-centric with little-to-no bantz. That is, of course, providing that you're a person who doesn't only play games with people they like.

[Artanis]

*gets home from work* *notices he put his foot in his mouth earlier*

Just to clarify, I meant my Vassal comment more as, "There are people who use Vassal, so I assume that there are people who would be fine with using cutouts in place of models", and not really as a suggestion or trying to hold up Vassal as a good way to do things, necessarily.

[Avaris]

Okay, let's include the caveat. No. I don't treat everyone the same.

If you are a functional adult. You should be able to handle criticism. If you don't feel that criticism is valid, we can have a conversation.

I think the fundamental difference in approach being seen here is between a positive, building others up attitude and a negative, tearing them down attitude. This isn’t just a conflict here, it’s a thing I see all over the place online, though 40k communities often seem prone to it.

Realistically, when people ask for opinions on things in the hobby, particularly things they’ve spent time and effort on, they aren’t asking ‘is this good or bad’ they’re asking ‘how can I improve this?’ It’s not what they said, sure, but it’s what they want. So saying ‘it’s terrible’ isn’t exactly helpful, even if it’s your honest opinion. More helpful is what comes after, where you explain why you think it’s terrible, but getting to that point in a conversation requires combating negative energy.

Should people be able to accept outright criticism? Yes: there’s nothing fundamentally wrong with your approach or the opinions you hold. You’re allowed to dislike something and you are open to people disagreeing with you. But given the nature of the hobby my personal preference is to take the more positive attitude, so as to create a positive space, so I don’t think outright criticism is exactly helpful!

Clearly your approach works fine in your local community: more power to you! I just personally wish the attitude of the global Warhammer Community tended towards a more positive outlook: in a lot of places people react by expressing extreme negative emotion: ‘this is the worst thing ever’, ‘this is broken’, and it’s just exhausting to wade through. This is a hobby and game that exists purely for fun, it doesn’t need that negative emotion attached to it!

[Cheesegear]

So saying ‘it’s terrible’ isn’t exactly helpful, even if it’s your honest opinion. More helpful is what comes after...

Exactly? We're agreed.

8-9/10 times, when I say that I don't like something, the immediate follow up question, is why.
If I say something is terrible. Why? Don't do the thing you're doing.
Hell, if I say something is good...Why?

It's not just enough to have an opinion. In any reasonable discussion, you need to be able to back your opinion up with...Something. Positive or negative.
Some people will have an opinion (on anything) and they wont even be able to tell you why they have that opinion. Happens all the time. That doesn't mean it's helpful feedback.

I like the model [...] Because you've got two different blacks on the same model (Eshin to Dawnstone, and Dark Reaper to Thunderhawk), and you've edge highlighted them both really well so that the reflective surfaces (e.g; Armour) reflect, and the non-reflectives (e.g; Leather-like materials), don't. But, both parts of the model are definitely black, just not the same black. Well done.
or
I don't like the model [...] because you've tried to drybrush black, you've turned the model grey, and now your model isn't black. Next time, drybrushing only really works when you have surface edges and raised areas. You can't drybrush a flat surface (e.g; The majority of a vehicle's armour plating).

I don't like when people do basecoat, wash, done. Is it quick? Sure. Is it easy? Absolutely. Would it totally be a 3-colour minimum in a tournament setting? Sure is! I still don't like it, and I don't like it because throwing a wash on your model and calling it a day makes your miniatures darker (unless you started with a white undercoat and a bright colour to begin with [e.g; Moot Green, Flash Gitz Yellow], even then, you're better off line-shading if you want to keep the vibrancy), which makes it harder to pick out the details, which means I don't like it.
I don't really care how long it took you.

I still don't like it. But I can give you a reason for why I don't like it. Can you highlight your models properly? Cool. Come back to me when you do. I like the colour scheme you've got going. It would look better if it was highlighted.
Can you not highlight your models because of poor motor skills, lack of proper sized brushes, or lack of finances? That's a shame. But if you're happy with what you've got, and you can't go any further because of a limitation? Then if you know, and I know, then whatever.

Unfortunately, nobody I've met starts with...
"What do you think of my model, bearing in mind that I have six paints and a single wash (it's always Nuln)?"

But given the nature of the hobby my personal preference is to take the more positive attitude, so as to create a positive space, so I don’t think outright criticism is exactly helpful!

That's the thing that makes IRL criticism so effective. People who actually know me, know what I look for on a model. People who know me IRL, also know me IRL - and I know them, and what they can handle. If they're looking for Feel Goods, they're not asking my opinion. They're asking me to tell them that they're pretty. They're looking for validation for reasons. That's a whole 'nother thing.

If they're asking for my opinion, then they get it.
If they're asking for criticism (i.e; how did I form my opinion). Then they should get it.

Clearly your approach works fine in your local community

Criticism should always be valid from people you ask it from. If you ask for criticism, and then reject it, something goes wrong in the relationship.
What I've found - especially online - is that people are not asking for criticism. They're saying "Look at this thing, and tell me it's good."

That's where the 2/10 non-functionals and/or children come in. They don't get the response they were looking for, and instead of engaging in a reasonable discussion about improvements, missed highlights, poor colour choices, THIN YOUR PAINTS, etc., they lash out and get defensive. They're not interested in improvements. They're interested in validation.
Why? Who knows.
But, IRL, you can spot it most of the time. Online, you can't.

I just personally wish the attitude of the global Warhammer Community tended towards a more positive outlook

I think when you're dealing with a merit-based community, you're gonna get merit based answers.

This post made me die inside.

Pink cape. It's what I wanted. Criticism invalid.
Bright yellow armour. It's what I wanted. Criticism invalid. My armies (plural) have been compared to Angry Marines several times.
White wings. It's what I wanted. Criticism invalid.
Wraith then points out he's not a fan of bright colours anyway. Cool. Now I know it also has to do with personal taste. I like yellow. He doesn't. Fantastic. We're not going to agree. Probably ever.

Wraith then points out mold lines.
FUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU UUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU
That is 100% legitimate criticism. I see it. You see it. I'm bad at life.

Now, being that the model is fully painted at this stage, the only way I can fix huge and unmissable mold line, is by putting in several hours work back into a model that I've already finished.
Am I going to do that? ...No.
If I'm not willing to fix it, I have to accept that that's the way the model is going to be.

If I pull out my Celestine (don't know why I would, she's barely useful anymore), and my opponent says "Nice mold line. I thought you were good at hobby."
I have to be okay with that trash talk, because I've chosen to keep the mold line.
If I don't want that said about my models anymore...I have to remove the mold line. That's just how it is.

[Wraith]

This post made me die inside.

Pink cape. It's what I wanted. Criticism invalid.
Bright yellow armour. It's what I wanted. Criticism invalid. My armies (plural) have been compared to Angry Marines several times.
White wings. It's what I wanted. Criticism invalid.
Wraith then points out he's not a fan of bright colours anyway. Cool. Now I know it also has to do with personal taste. I like yellow. He doesn't. Fantastic. We're not going to agree. Probably ever.

Wraith then points out mold lines.
FUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU UUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU
That is 100% legitimate criticism. I see it. You see it. I'm bad at life.

Hey, you leave *me* out of this one! You asked for an opinion and I offered one, and I did everything I could to offer it politely and justify it by admitting that, while technically excellent, I just didn't like the colour, and that was *my* failing and not yours.
Were I sat at the table in your FLGS and asked the same question, you would probably have expected something more along the lines of "Technique is fine, but your colour-scheme is ****" and *I* didn't do that because *I* am not a jerk in this small and specific area of conversation.

Although one thing I would like to suggest, possibly for the benefit of everyone in the current discussion, is the difference between an opinion being invalid and it just being irrelevant.

I don't like seeing models that have been painted in glow-in-the-dark green because I think it looks it looks bad; and I have seen that too, a whole army of Eldar Guardians that literally glowed in the dark and under black-lights.
I hated that colour. That's not "invalid" criticism because for it to be invalid it would have to be "wrong", and an observer's preferences are subjective, not wrong.
It's just irrelevant, because that's the colour that the owner wanted to paint them, so my opinion of the scheme is not important compared to critique of his brushwork or innovative basing, which admittedly were pretty good.

My opinion that "pastel pink and fluorescent yellow don't look good together" isn't invalid/wrong, it's just not the opinion that you're interested in. I made it clear that it was personal preference, you made it clear that you preferred technical criticism rather than aesthetic, we both understood that we were commenting at cross-purposes, and we left it at that with no hard feelings.

At least, I thought we did, except that it's been brought up again 14 months on....