I played a game at my local GW store today and I noticed the "rules" of the store that were posted:



Looks like GW, or at least this store, is punishing people for not having a painted army.

Now I will admit that I enjoy a game between two fully painted armies, but I know that not everybody has the time to actually paint all their minis before playing. Especially with the push towards giant units that we are seeing in WFB. One of my Skaven units was not painted, so they suffered from the house rule at the store. I also wonder if this is just to push people more towards the "HHHobby" and to make sure that people have fully painted armies that they are playing with so that the store gets the maximum benefit of the free advertisement from having people play at their store.

I guess it could also be a quick cash grap for the store since I could have decided to purchase three pots of paint and a brush and put three colors on the base to meet this "standard" at the store.

Anybody else see something similar at their store?

No reason the players at the store can't just quietly ignore that rule...

~Tim?

I actually approve of that rule. I don't call it "The Games Workshop Hobby" but I still call it "the wargaming hobby", and the hobby part is very important regardless of which game you are playing.

HAHA! I think this is great! I can hear all of the orks screaming WAAAAAGH! as they roll for their waaaagh! As for hatred of unpainted models... I think this is kind of cool too. Maybe we will instate this in our gaming group! I Try to paint my minis before I play with them but sometimes I get so excited to use them I put them out there before they are. This usually gets me some eye rolls from my friends. Why not encourage painting. After all this game, for me and my group at least, is more about having a cool army than it is about having the min maxed list for tournament play. We actually all buy one another gifts for birthdays. If the group wants to see a model on the table that looks cool we are more likely to buy it for our friend than the one that helps them with rule abuse and min maxing.

 Some_Call_Me_Tim? wrote:
No reason the players at the store can't just quietly ignore that rule...

~Tim?

I don't know if the GW guy will be breathing over your shoulder and "reminding" you about that rule everytime you play. I figured if I'm the guy with the painted army I would remind the unpainted guy about it since it benefits me .

Considering that the company policy previously was to NOT ALLOW unpainted armies to play under general circumstances, I'd say that this is not that big of a deal. They have limited table space in their ridiculous 1 man stores and that space is intended to sell product as a primary purpose. Painted armies are more visually attractive to potential customers and lead to more sales. It's better than closing down free play completely (like some GW stores have done according to threads here) or not allow unpainted armies to play at all (like they all used to do a decade ago).

I'm more enraged that they force you to yell Waaagh! for the roll.

Fair enough in my opinion. Way more attractive for a new customer to see painted armies on the table. Can't blame a retail outlet for wanting things to look as good as possible.

I've seen local GW's offer in game bonuses based on what the player bought that day. E.g. X amount of rerolls, or bonus effect cards, per game based on the amount spent on new release products that day. I don't play at GW stores but that sort of thing seems like its asking for trouble.

I wonder if this helps them?

It would for certain cut back my spending at my store if they had this rule, and possibly mean I didn't bother to turn up at all.
GW army's are just to big and painting a full army up is a slow process to begin with without any extra issues.D:
Thinking about it more, if a store I play at put this rule up I would quit playing at that store.

I like this idea. It's a good compromise between banning unpainted models entirely and allowing ugly gray armies without penalty. The only thing I'd change is make it preferred enemy so it also helps shooting units.

 Sidstyler wrote:
I'm more enraged that they force you to yell Waaagh! for the roll.

This. Mandatory yelling is just stupid.

Maybe the yelling is what brings Little Timmy into the store to see what's going on?

I actually think that's pretty funny. At least they haven't banned unpainted models outright, I'm pretty sure my store does.

GW used to require fully painted models up until the 'ard boyz events in the middle 2000s.

If you don't like it, paint your models or take your ball and go home? Stores can make and enforce any house rules they want. Sounds like a tongue in cheek way of getting people to paint. I have seen stores near me who allow people who buy and paint a unit from the store draw from a deck and that unit gains a "power". Incentivized buying and painting, you get a boost.

If you take gaming so serious that you get angry over losing a slight advantage, then don't play there.

I love all of those rules, actually.

If it drives away the types of players that need these sort of things put into writing, more the better.

 Monster Rain wrote:
I love all of those rules, actually.

If it drives away the types of players that need these sort of things put into writing, more the better.

Agreed, I find as I get older that I enjoy playing untainted armies less and less...

Yeah, I have no problem at all with stores insisting on painted models. One of the reasons for allowing in-store gaming is to attract passers-by. That works better with painted armies.

A club I played at years ago used to have a rule for thier tournaments whereby unpainted models suffered a -1 to their armour rolls. They had very, very few unpainted armies in their tournaments.



I would, however, not play in a store that required Waaagh! shouts. It's vaguely amusing the first time... and just irritating after that.

 insaniak wrote:
A club I played at years ago used to have a rule for thier tournaments whereby unpainted models suffered a -1 to their armour rolls. They had very, very few unpainted armies in their tournaments.

I can just imagine there being that one player with an entirely unpainted ork army and not giving a gak about that rule.

I have building and ork 2.0 army. My first army were orks. I have bounced around a bit, learned a lot about painting and have come back to my orks. I am going to shout WAAAAAAGH! every time I declare a waaaaagh when my force gets painted and ready to put on the table!


Automatically Appended Next Post:
The rule is 3 colors and based I hope?

rothrich wrote:
I am going to shout WAAAAAAGH! every time I declare a waaaaagh when my force gets painted and ready to put on the table!

Calm down kid, this is why people avoid game stores. Remember, it's not always about you and your volume.

I have no problem with asking that players have painted armies. This being said, none of my armies are completely painted, and I hate that. If I had time, I'd use the punishment as motivation to finish my armies.

Haha That remind me of this guy at a local store hear, he's got autism or something, but he is by far the most likable guy there, anyways, everytime he WAAAAGH!s he just SCREAMS IT! WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAGH!!!!!! Can be heard from miles around haha Although a "store rule" like that is kinda dumb.

As for painting, there could be better ways to encourage people to paint. I know quite a few guys that play for the game, and not the hobby, and I don't think that it should be something "forced" on them.

Those are cute, I like them. It might actually force me to spend more time painting and less time spending money though!!

 painkiller66678 wrote:
Haha That remind me of this guy at a local store hear, he's got autism or something, but he is by far the most likable guy there, anyways, everytime he WAAAAGH!s he just SCREAMS IT! WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAGH!!!!!! Can be heard from miles around haha Although a "store rule" like that is kinda dumb.

As for painting, there could be better ways to encourage people to paint. I know quite a few guys that play for the game, and not the hobby, and I don't think that it should be something "forced" on them.

Both my store and club encourage painting there, offer help to learn and give out regular prizes for it even I have won something !

Loud waaaghs are discouraged :p particular if the stores next door can here it.

Let's see, screw the ork players...

So, alternate rules for other armies;

No laser pointer, no markerlight.

No reanimation protocols unless you robot dance (or sing Mr Roboto)

No ATSKNF unless you "For the God-Emperor".

I have a thing about my armies being painted, I really avoid playing with models that dont have at least a base coat and a second color, but that just my personal thing. I dont believe in telling other people what to do with their property. If they want to paint or not is none of my buisness, not to mention not everyone has time. Punishing people over paint seem really petty and in my experience the carrot works better than the stick.

 painkiller66678 wrote:
...and I don't think that it should be something "forced" on them.

It's not. There is no requirement for those players to play in that store.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Madcat87 wrote:
I can just imagine there being that one player with an entirely unpainted ork army and not giving a gak about that rule.

It was a bigger deal back in 2nd edition, when Orks occasionally got to make armour saves...

Yeah i dont like running unpainted models, the least ive ran was 18 gaunts that had 2 colors on them, the rest painted. I only did it because i had just finished painting another tervigon and really needed the models for spawning. Playing unpainted armys can be okay, as long as i can feel the opponent being jealous that myn is painted. And with my lack of painting skills, thats very hard to do.

Calm down kid, this is why people avoid game stores. Remember, it's not always about you and your volume.

I am 27...
I actually don't play at a game store. I have a small gaming club that I play with and would shout WAAAAAAGH! really just to watch their eyes roll. They will only have to hear it once in a while since I have several armies to play. One of the main reasons I avoid playing at game stores is the fact that every time I have tried to play at a game store I end up playing against armies that are A. competitive points optimized lists (if thats your thing I am really not hating it is just not mine) B. not painted at all in any way C. Half painted. I have actually played with some nice people at games stores but you find a few people who are really hard to be around too. I really just enjoy my group of five friends or so that I play with.

 insaniak wrote:

 painkiller66678 wrote:
...and I don't think that it should be something "forced" on them.

It's not. There is no requirement for those players to play in that store.

Agreed, no one is makeing anyone play at that store. If my local store started posting up rules like this I would play someplace else, and paint someplace else and buy my product somplace else. The store has every right to set such rules and I have every right to take my buisness elsewhere.

That's exactly the reaction I would hope for.

Marcus Scipio wrote:

 Monster Rain wrote:
I love all of those rules, actually.

If it drives away the types of players that need these sort of things put into writing, more the better.

Agreed, I find as I get older that I enjoy playing untainted armies less and less...

This. I find it kind of embarrassing to have to field a model that isn't painted, because I feel it reflects badly on my army and painting.

Not to say that I won't, because an ork horde takes a while, but I don't enjoy having models that aren't painted.

I agree with the house rule regarding...well...everything!

I have enough Tau thrown together that I could field 500-750, I think.

But, I only have like 5 fully painted models.

I refuse to play until my army is painted.

A) It's motivating (the sooner I get them done, the faster I can play
B) It makes my army look better

My only problem is that I'm too much of a perfectionist..well..as much as my painting skills allow me to be, so I sometimes spend a bit too much time on even my basic troops

As someone who paints very slowly to get a result I can be proud of rather than 3 colour base, drybrush, dunk model in wash like a lot of people I know, this rule disgusts me.

 jonolikespie wrote:
As someone who paints very slowly to get a result I can be proud of rather than 3 colour base, drybrush, dunk model in wash like a lot of people I know, this rule disgusts me.

Much the same opinion. IF had to have fully paint armies to play, I would never get to play. Personally I prefer to see either full piant jobs or full greys as both have good detail. The half painted armies are less pleasing. Which is why I have one painted and one gray I play while I finish both half painted lists.

The waaagh rule is far more offputting than the painted rule, but I never play at GW stores (or any stores) as I'm not family friendly.

 d-usa wrote:

 Some_Call_Me_Tim? wrote:
No reason the players at the store can't just quietly ignore that rule...

~Tim?

I don't know if the GW guy will be breathing over your shoulder and "reminding" you about that rule everytime you play. I figured if I'm the guy with the painted army I would remind the unpainted guy about it since it benefits me .

I have my entire army painted, but even if my opponent didn't, I wouldn't take the cheat roll to gain an advantage. After all, I'd rather have a "Friendly-Competitive" attitude. You can always choose to decline the "hatred" rerolls.

I am not a fan of these rules. I am not saying there is a reason the store can't put up such rules, but if my FLGS put up rules like that, I'd go somewhere else, period.

I do not want to play somewhere that I am not welcome, and those rules are restrictive and embarrassing, which communicate that someone that does not comply really is not welcome.

You want a family friendly store, I'm down with that. You don't want drinking or eating at the tables, I'm fine with that too. You want to keep the store clean, respectable, and professional, that's fine.

You want to post up rules giving me crap for not having my army painted? No. Screw that. I have a job. I have kids.

If you want to use positive reinforcement to encourage folks to paint their models, that's fantastic. Host painting days, have free painting classes, make a beautiful table at the front of the store you can only play on with painted models. That's all great. Don't penalize me for walking in the door with unpainted models.

You know what crap like that does? It encourages people to paint badly and to not enjoy painting. It does less to grow the hobby in the long run than encouraging people to develop an appreciation for painting. I don't need a stick to prod me into behaving 'properly' in a hobby that I am supposed to be enjoying in my free time. I don't need to feel embarrassed about not having paint on models that are each getting time-consuming cleaning, assembling, and converting. I shouldn't feel like I have to put in my time before I can enjoy a game.

I can't adequately express how pissed off crap like that makes me. I could snip my models off of a sprue, stick them right on a base, throw on a splotchy spray primer, pick out a few details sloppily, dip the thing, and glue on some crude ballast. That would be an "adequately" painted model that would look like . I don't want my models to look like . I want to be proud of my models, but I also want to play a game some time.

If you want people to invest time and energy into their models, you've got to create a welcoming, encouraging atmosphere that invites increasing involvement. Demanding it does more harm than good.

I love the idea of hatred versus unpainted models, I've got a buddy that needs a huge kick to get him painting and that would totally work! Idea, stolen!

Sounds like a good rule to me. It doesn't prevent someone from playing, but it gives a good incentive to have as many units painted as possible.

If they have more players than tables available, then they might as well use rules that will make the game as attractive to potential customers as possible.

weeble1000 wrote:






I can't adequately express how pissed off crap like that makes me.

er, kudos for trying.

Seems pretty awesome to me! I would definitely be in favor of something like this.

The local store around me once had a 'painted armies only' policy, so this definitely seems like a more reasonable alternative.

It hardly seems excessively punitive to me.

In the first competitive league I ever played, you got a 1 battle point penalty per game in which you weren't WYSIWYG. That penalty kept me from qualifying for the league finals. Next league, you had better bet I was 100% WYSIWYG.

Shortly thereafter GW debuted their Rogue Trader Tournament rules pack for FLGS stores; and it was scored on total aggregate points (battle, painting, sports), with 40% of your available painting points just being for it being fully painted. I got my darn army finished.

Only later did I really start to enjoy painting, although I always felt satisfied and pleased whenever I finished a unit and was able to show progress at the store with my buddies and opponents. But as primarily a competitive player, who initially wasn't into painting, those points incentives really motivated me to finish armies and get my darn painting done. In the process I also developed techniques to get it done fast, as I have a tendency to procrastinate. I'd say 80%+ of the painting I've done has been shorly before a big tournament, where I knew I needed to be fully painted to play at all, or I knew I'd take a significant points hit if I wasn't.

So, all that is to say, that I approve of and appreciate rules like this.

We are currently doing an escalation league there, and one of the points each month is for having a fully painted army each month. The one unit is my only unpainted unit left, and I should have them painted by next week.

I like playing painted, just thought this was an interesting rule.

I'm just happy I don't get kicked out when they see my DakkaDakka dice!

Honestly I like the rule and wish more stores would kick players in the pants like this.

When you game at a store (GW or FLGS) its an agreement that you get to use the space but your army is an advertisement for the entirety of the game. Its unlikely you pay to play at the store and rent is not free.

The local store for me tends to only have open tables for 40K on saturdays. He gets lots of walk in traffic and many wander into the gaming space to look around. So what do you want them to see a grey knight army "painted" with a rattle can of krylon silver vs a blob of grey IG guardsman and tanks or two armies done up to table top standard? the visual contrasts creates that appeal and draws people in. I am not a great painter but I get people eye humping my army simply because my stuff is painted and most of the other players dont bother beyond colored primer.

One last point, it may not be valid for all stores but it can happen. If you are a regular with a reputation for having painted stuff, the store owner may cut you deals on models. I hadn't planned to get a riptide right away but I got a significant discount on one. Again there are like 4 to 6 Tau players at that store but I am the only one fielding a painted riptide. New painted models create buzz.

Simple fact is painted armies sells models. Unpainted armies waste the store owner's time and might as well replace us with MTG.

I don't play with unpainted models because it is rude to the stores who give me gaming space for free to play with unpainted models and harm his store.

Besides, requiring painted models cuts down on theft too. Much harder for people to pop a blister and assemble it in a corner and claim to own it if every model in the store is painted as it walks in the door. As someone who has seen his fair share of theft in this way, I support bans on unpainted models.

And screw your self-importance excuses. We all have families, we all have jobs, we all have time management issues... If you don't like it, play elsewhere and don't come back. No real loss. You guys say "waaaaah, use carrot, incentivize me!" But no amount of incentivizing works on self-important people, especially since every incentive to paint will be seen as a personal attack on those who have made up their mind to not paint. This store provided an incentive to paint by giving those who painted an advantage, and all the non-painters see is "I'm at a disadvantage!"

Guess what? Paint and you can have the advantage too! The issue is there can never be a carrot provided to painters that will not offend self-important non-painters who lash out with massive hyperbole to defend their inaction.

Since often the alternative to requiring painting for play is "banning war gamers and replacing gaming with MTG" because the only reason to allow gaming is for profit in the store, I support rules which make wargaming more profitable, which all painted armies does.

I don't like the rule. But then, I'd never play at a GW store anyway.

Many gamers in my area, including me, love collecting armies - a lot of them. Most of us are never going to have everything painted.
We sometimes manage to play Warmachine or Godslayer or Infinity fully painted. But Warhammer needs so many miniatures, we're never going to get there, ever.

If you could play WHFB with like 20 miniatures, okay. But you can't. And re-rolling to hit is massive.

Stupid rule.

Boy, I love this.

[thquote=nkelsch 545582 5938624 null]Simple fact is painted armies sells models. Unpainted armies waste the store owner's time and might as well replace us with MTG.

I don't play with unpainted models because it is rude to the stores who give me gaming space for free to play with unpainted models and harm his store.

Besides, requiring painted models cuts down on theft too. Much harder for people to pop a blister and assemble it in a corner and claim to own it if every model in the store is painted as it walks in the door. As someone who has seen his fair share of theft in this way, I support bans on unpainted models.

And screw your self-importance excuses. We all have families, we all have jobs, we all have time management issues... If you don't like it, play elsewhere and don't come back. No real loss. You guys say "waaaaah, use carrot, incentivize me!" But no amount of incentivizing works on self-important people, especially since every incentive to paint will be seen as a personal attack on those who have made up their mind to not paint. This store provided an incentive to paint by giving those who painted an advantage, and all the non-painters see is "I'm at a disadvantage!"

Guess what? Paint and you can have the advantage too! The issue is there can never be a carrot provided to painters that will not offend self-important non-painters who lash out with massive hyperbole to defend their inaction.

Since often the alternative to requiring painting for play is "banning war gamers and replacing gaming with MTG" because the only reason to allow gaming is for profit in the store, I support rules which make wargaming more profitable, which all painted armies does.

Part of the reason I wouldn't be caught dead in a GW store.

 Sidstyler wrote:
I'm more enraged that they force you to yell Waaagh! for the roll.

Agreed. I hate that, especially in small areas.

Mecha_buddha wrote:When you game at a store (GW or FLGS) its an agreement that you get to use the space but your army is an advertisement for the entirety of the game.

nkelsch wrote:Simple fact is painted armies sells models. Unpainted armies waste the store owner's time and might as well replace us with MTG.

I don't play with unpainted models because it is rude to the stores who give me gaming space for free to play with unpainted models and harm his store.
...
Since often the alternative to requiring painting for play is "banning war gamers and replacing gaming with MTG" because the only reason to allow gaming is for profit in the store, I support rules which make wargaming more profitable, which all painted armies does.

Or, you know, providing a place to play could simply be a way of getting people to buy from you to begin with. My FLGS sees little walk in traffic, especially on game nights as it is often pretty late, so I really can't see how games acts as advertisement there when every week it's the same wargamers and the same magic guys.
However, providing a place for us to play incentives us to buy from them rather than online (where we can get better than a 10% discount).

GW are determined to push the idea of their stores as advertisements, doesn't mean FLGSs are expecting the same. If a GW store want's to implement this fine, I have no reason to play there anyway, if my FLGS wants to give the guys 3 colour dipping their models an advantage over me I'm not going to want to play there which would lose them my business.

Everyone benefits from painted armies. I hate painting, but hate playing with unpainted models. I try to field only fully painted units whenever I play as it just adds so much to a game.

The one and only time I played at a GW store (back in 5th edition) I squared off my fully painted CSM army against a fully painted BA army and the staffer, who was painting some store figures at the end of our table, remarked that it was not often he saw painted armies in the store.

A house rule which isn't OTT to bias against unpainted models is a good thing IMO.

 jonolikespie wrote:
As someone who paints very slowly to get a result I can be proud of rather than 3 colour base, drybrush, dunk model in wash like a lot of people I know, this rule disgusts me.

Yeah, but let's be honest here. People who paint well but just need a little more time to get their models finished are a minority compared to the people who have bare plastic armies (often with broken parts due to careless treatment, glue puddles everywhere, etc) because they just don't give a .

 Peregrine wrote:

 jonolikespie wrote:
As someone who paints very slowly to get a result I can be proud of rather than 3 colour base, drybrush, dunk model in wash like a lot of people I know, this rule disgusts me.

Yeah, but let's be honest here. People who paint well but just need a little more time to get their models finished are a minority compared to the people who have bare plastic armies (often with broken parts due to careless treatment, glue puddles everywhere, etc) because they just don't give a .

I don't think I have ever met anyone that didn't care at least a bit about it, our worst painters still put in effort. The scale of GW games is getting bigger and bigger, the last thing as a community want to do would seem to make it even harder for players to feel they can get into it.

And a rule like this targets people who do take there time( for any reason ) and new players, it probably would only be a inconviance if I could get someone to just spray my army and then splash on some paint over a few days without any care D:

seems like decent enough rules.

i do sometimes think that an unpainted army looks better than a badly painted one.

the positive attitude thing i find a little strange. not all of us take happy pills in the morning. the "always positive" types tend to look either fake or crazy to me.
or maybe they just put that rule in because everyone was bitching about GW all the time lol.

 Peregrine wrote:

 jonolikespie wrote:
As someone who paints very slowly to get a result I can be proud of rather than 3 colour base, drybrush, dunk model in wash like a lot of people I know, this rule disgusts me.

Yeah, but let's be honest here. People who paint well but just need a little more time to get their models finished are a minority compared to the people who have bare plastic armies (often with broken parts due to careless treatment, glue puddles everywhere, etc) because they just don't give a .

Agreed. I paint slowly - it has taken me almost 2 years to paint my Eldar army and even then it is still not finished. It took me about 3 years to paint my CSM (and there are a couple of units I don't have painted which bump me from 1500 points to 2000 which I still need to do).

I've found the best motivator to paint is knowing I have a game coming up, regardless of whether there is any painting metric scores. Even a friendly game means that I am going to break out the stuff that needs painting and get going on painting. I don't have a local store/club without driving into the city, but if I had one in the local town and so could play easily you can bet your butt I would paint the hell out of my models faster than I do now, when I play only very rarely.

Being a slow painter is no excuse for not painting. Not enjoying painting is not an excuse for not having a painted army. I'm slow and hate painting - just means I have found ways of quickly painting models to a reasonable standard and whenever I have a game coming up I try to include at least one unit I have not got painted yet to motivate me

i know if they implement this rule at my local GW it be empty at the weekends, as most of the kids that play there go in, buy a new unit, build it and thenplay it right away at the game table.

A very minimal amount of skill is required to get figures painted. Spray, wash, drybrush, touch a few bits of detail like the guns, paint base and flock. If you can't do that you're not even trying and people putting figures on the table that are thickly daubed in paint and splodges of various colours simply haven't taken any time or made any effort at all.

Painted armies in shops just give a better image of the hobby to people coming in and make the place look colourful, it also gives the impression that people respect and care for their hobby when they put that effort in. As a shop that's an attractive atmosphere for customers, but it just looks good to look at.

The waaaargh rule is stupid though. I don't mind people getting genuinely excited but having a rule that encourages screaming and shouting isn't something I like because I'm not five and don't like screaming and shouting, I see enough of that in school.

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
A very minimal amount of skill is required to get figures painted. Spray, wash, drybrush, touch a few bits of detail like the guns, paint base and flock. If you can't do that you're not even trying and people putting figures on the table that are thickly daubed in paint and splodges of various colours simply haven't taken any time or made any effort at all.

And what if I want to put in more effort than that? I only get a half day off a week where I can actually do any hobby, if I don't have any assignments, why should I be penalised?
Instead of having this honestly stupid rule, reward people who paint, instead of penalising those who don't.
Something along the lines of if you increase the amount of stuff that is painted in between visits, you get a free re-roll in game, with people who have fully painted armies getting a free re-roll a turn or something?

 Krellnus wrote:
And what if I want to put in more effort than that? I only get a half day off a week where I can actually do any hobby, if I don't have any assignments, why should I be penalised?

I was working full time while going to university and I still managed to get paint on models. Being busy isn't really excluding people from painting. You just have to decide how you want to use your down time - play a computer game, watch some TV, or do some painting.

Instead of having this honestly stupid rule, reward people who paint, instead of penalising those who don't.

It's not really penalising those who don't paint any more than if you chose to play againt an army which has units which are good against your own army. Hell, it's not even as if you are forced to play by the rule in the store...

Something along the lines of if you increase the amount of stuff that is painted in between visits, you get a free re-roll in game, with people who have fully painted armies getting a free re-roll a turn or something?

"Oh nose! I don't have anything painted, that is soooo unfair! I'm gonna run home and never come back here again!"

 Krellnus wrote:

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
A very minimal amount of skill is required to get figures painted. Spray, wash, drybrush, touch a few bits of detail like the guns, paint base and flock. If you can't do that you're not even trying and people putting figures on the table that are thickly daubed in paint and splodges of various colours simply haven't taken any time or made any effort at all.

And what if I want to put in more effort than that? I only get a half day off a week where I can actually do any hobby, if I don't have any assignments, why should I be penalised?
Instead of having this honestly stupid rule, reward people who paint, instead of penalising those who don't.
Something along the lines of if you increase the amount of stuff that is painted in between visits, you get a free re-roll in game, with people who have fully painted armies getting a free re-roll a turn or something?

maybe something like a4% discount on purchases if you play with a full painted army that day. But I still think any rule like this serves only to alinaite some customers, but it's better to me than mucking with the rules in game over it.
Also I do like to put as much into my painting as I can when I can, if people think it's just a case of minimal effort they are taking huge assumptions of a lot of people.

nkelsch wrote:
GW used to require fully painted models up until the 'ard boyz events in the middle 2000s.

If you don't like it, paint your models or take your ball and go home? Stores can make and enforce any house rules they want. Sounds like a tongue in cheek way of getting people to paint. I have seen stores near me who allow people who buy and paint a unit from the store draw from a deck and that unit gains a "power". Incentivized buying and painting, you get a boost.

If you take gaming so serious that you get angry over losing a slight advantage, then don't play there.

Agreed.

It's just light-hearted. It could be worse, they could have banned unpainted armies altogether.

As for anyone getting genuinely angry about this...there are things more deserving of your rage.

 Fezman wrote:

nkelsch wrote:
GW used to require fully painted models up until the 'ard boyz events in the middle 2000s.

If you don't like it, paint your models or take your ball and go home? Stores can make and enforce any house rules they want. Sounds like a tongue in cheek way of getting people to paint. I have seen stores near me who allow people who buy and paint a unit from the store draw from a deck and that unit gains a "power". Incentivized buying and painting, you get a boost.

If you take gaming so serious that you get angry over losing a slight advantage, then don't play there.

Agreed.

It's just light-hearted. It could be worse, they could have banned unpainted armies altogether.

As for anyone getting genuinely angry about this...there are things more deserving of your rage.

It really comes down to how things effect you, if any of the stores I would go to put this rule up I think it would probably make me feel far worse than anything I think I dislike GW for now.

 Krellnus wrote:

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
A very minimal amount of skill is required to get figures painted. Spray, wash, drybrush, touch a few bits of detail like the guns, paint base and flock. If you can't do that you're not even trying and people putting figures on the table that are thickly daubed in paint and splodges of various colours simply haven't taken any time or made any effort at all.

And what if I want to put in more effort than that? I only get a half day off a week where I can actually do any hobby, if I don't have any assignments, why should I be penalised?
Instead of having this honestly stupid rule, reward people who paint, instead of penalising those who don't.
Something along the lines of if you increase the amount of stuff that is painted in between visits, you get a free re-roll in game, with people who have fully painted armies getting a free re-roll a turn or something?

I was mostly responding to people claiming that some unpainted armies look better than painted because of low painting ability. I really think that any army that really looks that bad is not due to lack of ability but effort. It's not a valid argument for playing unpainted IMO.

If you can paint to a high standard and wish to, it's just a matter of time management unfortunately.

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
I was mostly responding to people claiming that some unpainted armies look better than painted because of low painting ability. I really think that any army that really looks that bad is not due to lack of ability but effort. It's not a valid argument for playing unpainted IMO.

I don't think there are many people who would go out of their way to do a horrible paint job on their very expensive models just to spite this kind of rule either...

No but there are people who would rush to do the job as quick as possible to meet the 3-colour requirement at the expense of any quality. Anyone taking their time can do a reasonable, basic job and end up with something that looks a lot better than unpainted.

 Krellnus wrote:

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
A very minimal amount of skill is required to get figures painted. Spray, wash, drybrush, touch a few bits of detail like the guns, paint base and flock. If you can't do that you're not even trying and people putting figures on the table that are thickly daubed in paint and splodges of various colours simply haven't taken any time or made any effort at all.

And what if I want to put in more effort than that? I only get a half day off a week where I can actually do any hobby, if I don't have any assignments, why should I be penalised?
Instead of having this honestly stupid rule, reward people who paint, instead of penalising those who don't.
Something along the lines of if you increase the amount of stuff that is painted in between visits, you get a free re-roll in game, with people who have fully painted armies getting a free re-roll a turn or something?

You can get your models to three color minimum and then take as much time as you want to make them perfect.

Da krimson barun wrote:
[thquote=nkelsch 545582 5938624 null]They could game on the table but that looks horrible.

Seriously? Your worried about what the table looks like but don't care about your army being painted?

Anyway, I like it. Not sure about getting kids to scream but giving people a little advantage for having a painted force is a good thing. If it was a case of some people not painting some of there force thats fine, but it has reached a point now where not fielding a fully painted force is the norm rather than the exception and it is horrid.

I hate playing against unpainted because:

1: It looks horrid. I have put allot of time in to my army and want to play against the same. I like to see a nice table with good scenery and painted minis. I don't care how well you paint, but as long as you have painted as best you can.

2: Unpainted minis seems to be about having the best force as fast as possible then keep changing it. The players with most unpainted minis always seem to be the most WAAC. Come on, people complain about not being able to paint a full force, but with most army's getting 1000 points painted is not that hard. Its once you start trying to build multiple forces or lots of options that you get a problem. I mean, most 40k forces you can build something with less than 20 models. Spray color base coat, pick out the metals and a few other details. How hard is that on 20 minis? If you want to do more then work from there, or re-base coat them as you get to do them.

To me wargamming is more than just the actual playing the battle, its from start to finish, building, painting and playing. Otherwise, where do you stop? Bases with labels?

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
No but there are people who would rush to do the job as quick as possible to meet the 3-colour requirement at the expense of any quality. Anyone taking their time can do a reasonable, basic job and end up with something that looks a lot better than unpainted.

Sorry, I was replying to the implication that a couple of posters made that people would just glop paint randomly all over their models to meet the "painted" requirement.

What, deliberately paint as badly as possible to spite the 3-colour rule while complying with it? That's probably taking it a bit far. Models are a bit expensive to be that childish IMO.

We used to frequent a HLGS (it used to be friendly) that started with a painted rule similiar to this. It kept evolving as people would just spray the undercoat on etc. until there was a 4 colour minimum.

This led to the banning of a player who wrote underneath the rule "We'd hate you to spend money on more models when you haven't bothered to paint your current ones, we hate that as much as our players".

Mostly it led to a few armies with a few questionably painted squads, new armies poorly painted or just added some gate keeping in there just to keep people out entirely.

The shop eventually had to close but there were quite a few toxic things going on beside this.

As our own gaming group painted/proxing is quite common in casual games because we understand not everyone has alot of money or time to put into this hobby due to life in general (Toy soldiers is last on the list of stuff to get done), though this is a stance that seems to invoke alot of hostility from other parts of the community.

Lysit wrote:
We used to frequent a HLGS (it used to be friendly) that started with a painted rule similiar to this. It kept evolving as people would just spray the undercoat on etc. until there was a 4 colour minimum.

This led to the banning of a player who wrote underneath the rule "We'd hate you to spend money on more models when you haven't bothered to paint your current ones, we hate that as much as our players".

Mostly it led to a few armies with a few questionably painted squads, new armies poorly painted or just added some gate keeping in there just to keep people out entirely.

The shop eventually had to close but there were quite a few toxic things going on beside this.

As our own gaming group painted/proxing is quite common in casual games because we understand not everyone has alot of money or time to put into this hobby due to life in general (Toy soldiers is last on the list of stuff to get done), though this is a stance that seems to invoke alot of hostility from other parts of the community.

Then on the other side of the coin you get the players who only want to play super hard lists and bitch and moan if you come in with something fluffy.

There are all sorts of people who are into wargaming but a minimum level of painting for your models isn't exactly a huge ask. I'd be willing to bet that the store in your story shut down for reasons other than people having to paint their models.

Besides which it isn't the rule that it a problem, but how it is enforced. A house rule that players can ignore and joke about is great, someone checking your army cases on the way in and stamping "I AM A TOOL WHO DOES NOT PAINT THEIR ARMY" on your forehead and constantly badgering you about how much you suck as you play is clearly going to drive players away.

The paint rule I have no problem with, I'd go with something different.
Say a painted unit may re-roll one dice per game, or something like that.
I too remember the no paint, no play days of GW.
People made an effort to paint their armies.
The only unpainted models were the ones bought that day.
After the first fielding, they had to be painted.
It's not hard to paint up a 10 man squad or a tank in a week.

weeble1000 wrote:
I am not a fan of these rules.
.
.
.
If you want people to invest time and energy into their models, you've got to create a welcoming, encouraging atmosphere that invites increasing involvement. Demanding it does more harm than good.

You rant how you don't time to paint your model to have 3 colors but you have time to do the time consuming converting?

I'm from the old school days of no unpainted miniatures can play, apart from ones bought that day. I was chatting to my local GW employee, when i was last in there, about his rules with painted miniatures and using the tables. And he stated units have to be based and undercoated as a minimum, and there has to be noticeable progress on the units next time you play. Else your opponent gets hatred. I thought it was pretty cool!

Personally i hate playing unpainted mini's, and it annoys me when people are happy to play them. I've only played once at GW (as everyone was abit weird) and i got lectured by a 17 year old how he'd only play WYSIWYG, (and because my crisis suits weren't magnetized) The thing that annoyed me was that 75% of his army was just undercoated.

People can make time to paint their mini's, i don't buy any of these excuses.

People keep saying 'incentivizing painting'.

It has become clear that there is not a single 'carrot' you can give the people who paint that the people who choose not to paint won't see as a 'stick' against them.

If you give them a bonus rule, the non-painters see that as a 'stick' against them for not having the rule.

If you give them a discount, the non-painters see that as a 'stick' against them as now they cannot afford the same amount of models and are disrespected as customers.

If you give them first dibs on the gaming space, the non-painters see that as a 'stick' against them as now they are being dislocated and abused.

They always have excuses why they can't paint,t hey always trot out the strawman of every fast paintjob looks like it was shot by gloopy paintballs even though there are tons of techniques which can be done fast and look amazing. They blame money, family and work when those are issues everyone has, painters are not unemployed, single orphans with millions of dollars so they can paint.

Boils down to 'painted games sell models'. And if you are like 'there is no street traffic, we play on club night. Every think why your store owner banished wargaming to tuesday night and gives prime time to better customers like all day saturday Pokemon? Because he can't have you guys visible for days when there *IS* street traffic.

A Hatred rule is no big deal, and it is funny to boot because it calls you out on your BS more than it harms the game or challenges the sacred 'balance' of a 40k game. If it 'disgusts' you and you are really upset, you may need to adjust your personal world view. Rape in India and female circumcision 'disgusts' me. Nothing wargaming related is going to reach anywhere near that level of hyperbolic BS.

I think it's a cool rule.

It's pretty good for long-term customer retention, and arguably limits or smooths out purchasing, stopping people buying uber-competitive units before they've painted their basic troops.

So, apart from providing a more immersive experience, it probably builds long-term fans rather than short-term consumers.

we spent the weekend at a warhammer world tournament, the kids' one, where the rule was for fully-painted armies. It is way more fun.

You resent a CSM space marine helldrake spam army a hell of a lot less if it is beautifully painted! And our Bob The Hive Tyrant got voted best beast, even if he did splatter everything in sight... (apart from the helldrakes).

Paint your army, it is not that much work and if you have time to go over to the store to play a game, you also have that time to instead a.) sit your ass down b.) basecoat your models c.) put some paint on them.

Nobody is expecting golden demon level painting.

I for one am extremely annoyed by the fact that people don't seem to realize that your oponent or the person who made a beautiful wargaming terrain will have some level of satisfaction, gratification and a whole other level of immersion by playing against a painted army.

Almost ALL the excuses I have heard of people not painting their plastic crack are utter bull. Most of them revolve about being a.) lazy b.) not making time for it c.) afraid of failing at something and thus not even giving it a try.

Oh and... I think the rules the store set are great. It creates an incentive and gives people that put time and effort into making their army look cool and fun to play against a reward.

DanFST wrote:


People can make time to paint their mini's, i don't buy any of these excuses.

This to me is really what's wrong, and the attitude that I feel with such a rule. It assumes that people against such a rule or getting stuck with it as a problem only have to make some time and fix it.
It forces a rule into the game no matter the potential effect ( harmful to the game or not) weather they could help it or not, if they cannot then it can support an attitude that mocks and belittles players that don't have army's painted yet for any reason.

Often these players are customers also.

Have you guys even considered that some people maybe just don't like to be put under pressure to perform in their free time? There is enough of that everywhere in our professional lives.

Seriously, you make it sound as if people who paint slowly - because they are either rather new to painting, or because they spend a lot of time on details, or any other reason frankly - were bad, bad people who should not be allowed to play. As if they had to come up with a justification for not painting all the models they chose to buy.

Tell you what: they don't. Nobody needs a justification to do something he enjoys, as long as he isn't harming anyone else while doing it. And playing with unpainted minis is certainly not harming anyone.

Sorry, but you are the sons of silly persons. You can personally choose to never play against someone whose army isn't fully painted if you think that will make your hobby more enjoyable, but acting as if that were a crime against humanity is just childish.

It's hardly "punishing" because hatred is a pretty small rule. Its not a total game winner.

Plus, I thought it might even make for some cool gameplay mechanics, like if you both have one unpainted unit, you could try and dance them around the board to aim for each other or something to help mitigate the handicap.

Regardless, I rather like the craic at that store, I don't see the need to get pissed about such minor gak.

Apple fox wrote:

DanFST wrote:


People can make time to paint their mini's, i don't buy any of these excuses.

This to me is really what's wrong, and the attitude that I feel with such a rule. It assumes that people against such a rule or getting stuck with it as a problem only have to make some time and fix it.
It forces a rule into the game no matter the potential effect ( harmful to the game or not) weather they could help it or not, if they cannot then it can support an attitude that mocks and belittles players that don't have army's painted yet for any reason.

Often these players are customers also.

I do understand where you are coming from. but i have to say i think it's a far too sensitive and rose tinted view. (IMO of course )

Yes this is a game, but it's primarily a hobby. I love going into my local GW and seeing all the different armies being played, that my group of friends don't collect. I love seeing how people modify and personalise they're models. Sounds abit too much, but i also believe a persons mini's are an extension of them.

Hatred isn;t a gamebreaker, and as i stated before it's a big change from the old days of GW when everything had to be painted. But if people are complaining about how this rule is unfair belittles them and they have X and Y reason why most of their stuff is unpainted. Either stop being so sensitive and man up. Or take a session where you were going to game, and paint some of your stuff!

 Skylifter wrote:
. And playing with unpainted minis is certainly not harming anyone.

I know more than one FLGS owner who would disagree with you, and I can tell you the Gamers who have to play on Tuesday night while Pokemon gets the entire store on weekends would also disagree with you.

The only way to get weekend wargaming in many situations is to guarantee the store owner cash flow via an organized event which requires 100% painted models.

 Skylifter wrote:
Have you guys even considered that some people maybe just don't like to be put under pressure to perform in their free time? There is enough of that everywhere in our professional lives.

Seriously, you make it sound as if people who paint slowly - because they are either rather new to painting, or because they spend a lot of time on details, or any other reason frankly - were bad, bad people who should not be allowed to play. As if they had to come up with a justification for not painting all the models they chose to buy.

Tell you what: they don't. Nobody needs a justification to do something he enjoys, as long as he isn't harming anyone else while doing it. And playing with unpainted minis is certainly not harming anyone.

Sorry, but you are the sons of silly persons. You can personally choose to never play against someone whose army isn't fully painted if you think that will make your hobby more enjoyable, but acting as if that were a crime against humanity is just childish.

This is another thing, trying to get something painted because you feel you have to is a chore, not an enjoyable part of a hobby.

DanFST wrote:

Apple fox wrote:

DanFST wrote:


People can make time to paint their mini's, i don't buy any of these excuses.

This to me is really what's wrong, and the attitude that I feel with such a rule. It assumes that people against such a rule or getting stuck with it as a problem only have to make some time and fix it.
It forces a rule into the game no matter the potential effect ( harmful to the game or not) weather they could help it or not, if they cannot then it can support an attitude that mocks and belittles players that don't have army's painted yet for any reason.

Often these players are customers also.

I do understand where you are coming from. but i have to say i think it's a far too sensitive and rose tinted view. (IMO of course )

Yes this is a game, but it's primarily a hobby. I love going into my local GW and seeing all the different armies being played, that my group of friends don't collect. I love seeing how people modify and personalise they're models. Sounds abit too much, but i also believe a persons mini's are an extension of them.

Hatred isn;t a gamebreaker, and as i stated before it's a big change from the old days of GW when everything had to be painted. But if people are complaining about how this rule is unfair belittles them and they have X and Y reason why most of their stuff is unpainted. Either stop being so sensitive and man up. Or take a session where you were going to game, and paint some of your stuff!

That's the thing, I can't just paint as I please, right now I can't even hold a brush and paint as it gets very painfull and I likely won't be able to for a few weeks again probably. Playing a game is far less difficult for the time it takes and only difficulty would be reaching to the centre of the table.
I really enjoy painting, but it's a slow process that shouldn't effect me in the game as I want to do best as I can. Weather or not it's a big effect, it's only comes off as a punishment to me.

As someone who actually hates playing with unpainted models I agree with this rule. I don't play Warhammer just to play some war game, Risk is way cheaper, I play for an experience, a story, memorable moments, and the sometimes sheer awesomeness of those long shot high risk high reward plays. It really hurts the immersion when my Blood Angels of the 7th are fighting the grey tyranids of hive fleet Icantbebotheredtopaintihavetomanymodels.

This is a time intensive hobby, people knew that going in. If you can’t be bothered to paint your army then you are taking away from the experience of the players who did actually take the time to paint their armies, and that should be penalized. I honestly felt I needed to apologize the other day when part of my assault squad was fielded with only a base coat. They were the only unpainted on the table and it detracted from both armies. (However assault marines don’t survive all that long currently)

At my LFGS it wouldn’t matter, sense all of the tables are in the basement anyways. Someone who just walks in isn’t really going to check it out unless they are already interested. Which maybe an alternative, if you want to play with an unpainted army, you get to play on the table in the back. You know the one I mean, the one that’s just particle board decorated with boxes.

 jonolikespie wrote:
This is another thing, trying to get something painted because you feel you have to is a chore, not an enjoyable part of a hobby.

I find painting a chore more or less all the time - having a reason to paint is just that - a reason to paint. It is a great motivator to power through a unit or two so you can use them on the table fully painted regardless of how you feel about painting.

Pretty much the only time I paint for more than 20 minutes at a time before getting bored and going to do something else for the rest of the month is when I have a game coming up and need to paint something for it.

 Skylifter wrote:
Have you guys even considered that some people maybe just don't like to be put under pressure to perform in their free time? There is enough of that everywhere in our professional lives.

Seriously, you make it sound as if people who paint slowly - because they are either rather new to painting, or because they spend a lot of time on details, or any other reason frankly - were bad, bad people who should not be allowed to play. As if they had to come up with a justification for not painting all the models they chose to buy.

Tell you what: they don't. Nobody needs a justification to do something he enjoys, as long as he isn't harming anyone else while doing it. And playing with unpainted minis is certainly not harming anyone.

Sorry, but you are the sons of silly persons. You can personally choose to never play against someone whose army isn't fully painted if you think that will make your hobby more enjoyable, but acting as if that were a crime against humanity is just childish.

You are not put under pressure. Painted armies simply offer a lot more immersion. Then again you are right, people cannot be forced to paint their armies, however they shouldn't cry like little babies when other people either refuse to play against them or make snarky remarks. Or in this threads case my beautifully painted models gain "hatred" vs your plastic muppets.

I can remember when you weren't allowed to play with a non goblin green base!

**Pulls up sandbag and reminises**

The Division Of Joy wrote:
I can remember when you weren't allowed to play with a non goblin green base!

**Pulls up sandbag and reminises**

Those were dark days for the hobby painter...

 Mannahnin wrote:
In the first competitive league I ever played, you got a 1 battle point penalty per game in which you weren't WYSIWYG. That penalty kept me from qualifying for the league finals. Next league, you had better bet I was 100% WYSIWYG.

Shortly thereafter GW debuted their Rogue Trader Tournament rules pack for FLGS stores; and it was scored on total aggregate points (battle, painting, sports), with 40% of your available painting points just being for it being fully painted. I got my darn army finished.

Only later did I really start to enjoy painting, although I always felt satisfied and pleased whenever I finished a unit and was able to show progress at the store with my buddies and opponents. But as primarily a competitive player, who initially wasn't into painting, those points incentives really motivated me to finish armies and get my darn painting done. In the process I also developed techniques to get it done fast, as I have a tendency to procrastinate. I'd say 80%+ of the painting I've done has been shorly before a big tournament, where I knew I needed to be fully painted to play at all, or I knew I'd take a significant points hit if I wasn't.

So, all that is to say, that I approve of and appreciate rules like this.

I think there is a distinct difference between imposing penalties in a tournament and a store-wide rule. Tournament penalties are in place for a specific event. A store-wide rule is enforced, in theory, in casual games. A penalty at a tournament is negative reinforcement, but far more reasonable in the sense that it simply makes it difficult/impossible to win the tournament. You can still play normal games in the tournament, your overall score in the tournament is penalized.

Even so, I still vastly prefer positive reinforcement. Make painting separate from battle points, and award good prizes, make a big deal about it, give public praise to the winners and award plenty of recognition. You can have a "players' choice" painting award, and incentivise participants to rate the armies present. That positively encourages folks to walk around, look at well-painted armies, ask questions, have a conversation about it, and get inspired.

Why should painting feel like a job you have to do in order to be treated like a normal person? I don't think that is good for the hobby in the long term.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:

 jonolikespie wrote:
As someone who paints very slowly to get a result I can be proud of rather than 3 colour base, drybrush, dunk model in wash like a lot of people I know, this rule disgusts me.

Yeah, but let's be honest here. People who paint well but just need a little more time to get their models finished are a minority compared to the people who have bare plastic armies (often with broken parts due to careless treatment, glue puddles everywhere, etc) because they just don't give a .

What I don't appreciate is that I have seen several communities in which having a bare plastic or primed or even partially painted miniature gets you treated very much the same as if you did not give a crap. Too often I see people placing a huge emphasis on painting being essential to admittance into the clubhouse, but no emphasis on helping or encouraging people to paint in a positive, constructive manner.

If you want someone to paint their models, try offering to help. "Hey, those look great. Do you have a paint scheme in mind?" "I think that would be really cool! Have you thought about this technique?" "You know, I have an airbrush. I bet we could get a base coat on your whole army in an afternoon. Do you want to come over to my place this weekend and lay down a base coat?"

I rarely see that. If other people painting their miniatures is so important to your enjoyment of the hobby, why not take some of your own time and effort to make it a reality?

And I do not mean this to be directed at you personally Peregrine.

But painted models gaining hatred against unpainted is positive reinforcement. Painted models gain something. Unpainted models lose nothing.

 aliusexalio wrote:

 Skylifter wrote:
Have you guys even considered that some people maybe just don't like to be put under pressure to perform in their free time? There is enough of that everywhere in our professional lives.

Seriously, you make it sound as if people who paint slowly - because they are either rather new to painting, or because they spend a lot of time on details, or any other reason frankly - were bad, bad people who should not be allowed to play. As if they had to come up with a justification for not painting all the models they chose to buy.

Tell you what: they don't. Nobody needs a justification to do something he enjoys, as long as he isn't harming anyone else while doing it. And playing with unpainted minis is certainly not harming anyone.

Sorry, but you are the sons of silly persons. You can personally choose to never play against someone whose army isn't fully painted if you think that will make your hobby more enjoyable, but acting as if that were a crime against humanity is just childish.

You are not put under pressure. Painted armies simply offer a lot more immersion. Then again you are right, people cannot be forced to paint their armies, however they shouldn't cry like little babies when other people either refuse to play against them or make snarky remarks. Or in this threads case my beautifully painted models gain "hatred" vs your plastic muppets.

And yet those same people making snarky remarks just seem so self-narcissistic (Seriously, vs your plastic muppets? You people show your narcissism very easily) because they painted little toy men, there ARE people who enjoy just the game itself, and not the painting!

"It breaks MY immersium, I feel that they shouldn't play at all because they haven't painted!"

It's just so sickening how downright hostile you people are. Most of you wouldn't help them at all paint if it came down to it, and not everyone wants to ruin their models because they paint very poorly, or really just don't want to use their free time for something they'd consider a chore.

By forcing people to paint their models you build a connection between them and their models. You have put the effort into them, so you have something more valuable than just a pile of plastic glued together. It is a reinforcing behaviour, at least IMO, that gets people far more into the hobby than if they just assemble the latest kit, then drop it into a box when the next shiny thing catches their attention.

If people don't want to paint their models they don't have to, however a lot of people play miniature tabletop wargames for the enjoyment of the painted models.

You can't expect those people to want to play with unpainted models.

 SilverMK2 wrote:
By forcing people to paint their models you build a connection between them and their models. You have put the effort into them, so you have something more valuable than just a pile of plastic glued together. It is a reinforcing behaviour, at least IMO, that gets people far more into the hobby than if they just assemble the latest kit, then drop it into a box when the next shiny thing catches their attention.

In many cases that will cause less connection, and more of a spiteful outlook towards those narcissistic players who have to have everything their way, that forced them to go above and beyond playing a game they enjoy.

I've seen plenty of players who have unpainted armies have far better connection, fluff, and even entire stories for their played models, compared to the many WAAC players that do have painted armies that to them are just a pile of plastic that allows them to try and dominate the tournaments with the latest, strongest codex.

weeble1000 wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 jonolikespie wrote:
As someone who paints very slowly to get a result I can be proud of rather than 3 colour base, drybrush, dunk model in wash like a lot of people I know, this rule disgusts me.

Yeah, but let's be honest here. People who paint well but just need a little more time to get their models finished are a minority compared to the people who have bare plastic armies (often with broken parts due to careless treatment, glue puddles everywhere, etc) because they just don't give a .

What I don't appreciate is that I have seen several communities in which having a bare plastic or primed or even partially painted miniature gets you treated very much the same as if you did not give a crap. Too often I see people placing a huge emphasis on painting being essential to admittance into the clubhouse, but no emphasis on helping or encouraging people to paint in a positive, constructive manner.

I do not think that this is going to be the case in most situations based upon my own experience.
The only times I have ever seen individuals with bare plastic/primed or WIP miniatures get treated "as though they did not give a crap" was when the individual in question was known to the group as a codex hopper.

YMMV of course but that is my experience with a local group that is predominantly fun players.

If you want someone to paint their models, try offering to help. "Hey, those look great. Do you have a paint scheme in mind?" "I think that would be really cool! Have you thought about this technique?" "You know, I have an airbrush. I bet we could get a base coat on your whole army in an afternoon. Do you want to come over to my place this weekend and lay down a base coat?"

I rarely see that. If other people painting their miniatures is so important to your enjoyment of the hobby, why not take some of your own time and effort to make it a reality?

Anecdotal experience coming here as well:
I know of at least two individuals who turned down offers from group members exactly as you described.
Their reasoning?
"I can't unload a painted army as quickly when a new codex arrives."

I am kind of curious as to why this store has instituted that set of rules.

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:
It's just so sickening how downright hostile you people are.

I think the only people who are being hostile are those rage quitting because it is being suggested to give a bonus to people who put some extra effort into their passtimes.

Most of you wouldn't help them at all paint if it came down to it

Speaking in generalities, however I guess you mean that "most people would not help others paint"... not sure where you get that impression. Most of my posts are in the painting and modelling section - either talking about completed models, or advising on techniques, colour choices, ways of building etc... if I had someone who wanted to learn to paint I'd do all I could to help them to paint as well as they are able (my physical skills may not be the best when it comes to painting, but I know quite a lot ).

and not everyone wants to ruin their models because they paint very poorly or really just don't want to use their free time for something they'd consider a chore.

In this day and age of the internet for tutorials and things like washes, it is absurdly easy to paint up a unit that looks good on the table relatively quickly. Hell, look at the GD winners of the early 90's and compare them to what most people would consider tabletop today... the gap has closed considerably and in many cases surpassed what we were seeing then.

My Eldar are painted with white primer, a wash of orange paint, a light black wash, then black paint for the helmet and yellow for the face - a 3 colour minimum which is then enhanced with a wash of grey paint for the guns and blue ink for the stones and lenses. Total time per model (if I did it all in one sitting rather than getting bored after 20 minutes) is probably about 10 minutes.

Also bonus points as this is the second time I have posted this image in a thread today



Edit: Fixed quote.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:
In many cases that will cause less connection, and more of a spiteful outlook towards those narcissistic players who have to have everything their way, that forced them to go above and beyond playing a game they enjoy.

Perhaps "forcing people" was the wrong choice of words - since this rule is not forcing people to paint.

Also note I said "IMO".

I've seen plenty of players who have unpainted armies have far better connection, fluff, and even entire stories for their played models, compared to the many WAAC players that do have painted armies that to them are just a pile of plastic that allows them to try and dominate the tournaments with the latest, strongest codex.

I guess we play in different kinds of events/places

The only rule that the op's store that would make me not want to play their is about the waaaaaagh roll. I allways hate it when ork players yell at the top of their lungs. We have alot of them at my local store and it always makes me want to slap them.

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

And yet those same people making snarky remarks just seem so self-narcissistic (Seriously, vs your plastic muppets? You people show your narcissism very easily) because they painted little toy men, there ARE people who enjoy just the game itself, and not the painting!

"It breaks MY immersium, I feel that they shouldn't play at all because they haven't painted!"

It's just so sickening how downright hostile you people are. Most of you wouldn't help them at all paint if it came down to it, and not everyone wants to ruin their models because they paint very poorly, or really just don't want to use their free time for something they'd consider a chore.

You seem downright mad and stereotyping. It's like your afraid of painters. Painterphobe? All those you people...

In all seriousness. I have no problem with these rules. Even though in fantasy Hatred is far better than 40k (from the way people are downplaying that rule it seems that way). I work 30 hours a week. I go to school full time. I have a social life. I have a girlfriend. I paint a few hours a week. Even though my army isn't done, it's getting closer each week. I don't enjoy playing people who don't even try to get their stuff painted.

If its a chore, then instead of buying more models and getting the latest and greatest models, commission some work. If you know the right people you can get tabletop quality for pretty cheap.

Yeah I don't get the Waagh either. My orks are Waaghing, not me. I'm just standing here telling them to Waagh. If you feel you must Waagh, at least keep it to once in a while.

At the GW i play the rule is that to put it on the table it needs to be at least primed. I find this rule more then fair. The hatred against unpainted armiwes comes along when they run starter campaigns where you buy a unit and expand your army over the course of months and play every month with the models you worked on that month. And honestly the hatred really is not that big of a deal. infact entry into such campaigns is entirely optional and working towards a small painted force is the entire idea of the campaign so the rules for such a campaign giving incentive to painting is entirely valid.

I am personally an orky player, I have red (Charge, MtC & WAAGH rolls) blue (when i really need to make saves) and yellow dice (for when i need my shooting to hit). I love belowing a hearty waagh and honestly the hate against vocalised waaghs surprises me to no end. Its part of playing orks. It used to be mandatory in the rules. but above all its fun. Though a hearty waagh doesn't have to make the glass tremble and minatures explode spotaneously either. Moderation is good in all things.

I honestly love gaming at my GW. The store manager we have over here is a gamer himself and may be one of the nicest guys I've met in the hobby. With all the hate flying in this thread I figured i'd pitch in my two cents and say that.

I am not a great painter, I can paint FAST because I for 8 or so years was the guy with the sea of grey that only painted for tournaments and absolutely loathed doing it. But you know what? I actually discovered that having painted minatures even if i am a bad painter makes my day and GW's range of washes makes painting easy. my iyanden goes white primers, wash entirely with cassandra yellow, slap black on weapons and joints, put necron abyss on all blue parts and spirit stones and when the bruh is almost dry from this go over the weapons for some highlights on the black. I then drop a little silver with a black wash on cables vents and symbols, dryblush alaitoc blue over the necron abyss and go over the spirit stones and eyes with purple highlights and a dot of white. The entire process sees a painted minature in about 20 minutes and a whole squad in about an hour and a half. And honestly they look ace because of how easy the new paint system makes getting table top results. i just finished a wave serpent and a crimson hunter over the weekend with free hand runes and the works on em. Maybe its not great, but looking at the squigly crooked lines i put on there myself makes me tingly inside even if they are not perfect.

I do not want to go back to playing grey anymore, but i understand why it was so easy. For those of you who are like i used to be, who love playing but nothing else. Who despair at knowing that they will never get better at painting. Whom see beautifully painted armies as a discouragement because they think they can never get there. Just try it. it eventually, somewhere along the way, becomes fun.

Good post Nick.

Painted miniatures show whether their owner cares for the army or not. At our tournaments, we also enforce the 3-color rule. Before, often, people just went FOTM and quickly bought model X that was overpowered just to have it, but now, you gotta paint it at least. Furthermore, you want to paint it as good as you can as yes, you might make a really gakky paintjob to quickly show up at a tournament, but people will look down on you and you gotta live with the paintjob you just did.

The quality of any actual non-compensating WAAC player's army's painting doesn't matter. I am a really bad painter too and I paint solid tabletop standard - not more, not less, because I lack the time for detailed painting and have a very unsteady hand plus troubles focussing on one minor task for a longer period of time. But I still try my best and that's what counts. A friend of a friend of mine recently joined us and he's got really bad eyesight due to a medical condition and thus, his paintjobs are very simple and plain - but the fact is that he spent time on painting these because he likes his models. And that, dear lords and ladies, is what counts.

Oh, and the Waaagh thing...I mean, yeah, it can be fun, but it can also annoy others. Like that one guy speaking like a Skaven during a match. I mean...sigh.

Stoupe wrote:

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

And yet those same people making snarky remarks just seem so self-narcissistic (Seriously, vs your plastic muppets? You people show your narcissism very easily) because they painted little toy men, there ARE people who enjoy just the game itself, and not the painting!

"It breaks MY immersium, I feel that they shouldn't play at all because they haven't painted!"

It's just so sickening how downright hostile you people are. Most of you wouldn't help them at all paint if it came down to it, and not everyone wants to ruin their models because they paint very poorly, or really just don't want to use their free time for something they'd consider a chore.

You seem downright mad and stereotyping. It's like your afraid of painters. Painterphobe? All those you people...

In all seriousness. I have no problem with these rules. Even though in fantasy Hatred is far better than 40k (from the way people are downplaying that rule it seems that way). I work 30 hours a week. I go to school full time. I have a social life. I have a girlfriend. I paint a few hours a week. Even though my army isn't done, it's getting closer each week. I don't enjoy playing people who don't even try to get their stuff painted.

If its a chore, then instead of buying more models and getting the latest and greatest models, commission some work. If you know the right people you can get tabletop quality for pretty cheap.

My own models are painted, it's just annoying when I see people who dismiss out of hand someone who wants to play a game, it just..doesn't seem right by any means.

Also considering the rest of those are considering those who do not paint as FOTM players..

Many people would say that painting is part of the game. There are plenty of games with pre-painted models, if you don't want to ever paint anything, why would you play a game that has a lot of painting involved.

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

 SilverMK2 wrote:
By forcing people to paint their models you build a connection between them and their models. You have put the effort into them, so you have something more valuable than just a pile of plastic glued together. It is a reinforcing behaviour, at least IMO, that gets people far more into the hobby than if they just assemble the latest kit, then drop it into a box when the next shiny thing catches their attention.

In many cases that will cause less connection, and more of a spiteful outlook towards those narcissistic players who have to have everything their way, that forced them to go above and beyond playing a game they enjoy.

I've seen plenty of players who have unpainted armies have far better connection, fluff, and even entire stories for their played models, compared to the many WAAC players that do have painted armies that to them are just a pile of plastic that allows them to try and dominate the tournaments with the latest, strongest codex.

Mate, do you even know what a narcissist is? It doesn't make you a narcissist if you refuse to play against people with unpainted armies, it makes you simply, a bloke who likes playing against painted models!

Personally, id never refuse to play someone, but I like that I have a small advantage, its like it fits in with my general view of life, you should reward the people that put the most effort in!

 mattyrm wrote:

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

 SilverMK2 wrote:
By forcing people to paint their models you build a connection between them and their models. You have put the effort into them, so you have something more valuable than just a pile of plastic glued together. It is a reinforcing behaviour, at least IMO, that gets people far more into the hobby than if they just assemble the latest kit, then drop it into a box when the next shiny thing catches their attention.

In many cases that will cause less connection, and more of a spiteful outlook towards those narcissistic players who have to have everything their way, that forced them to go above and beyond playing a game they enjoy.

I've seen plenty of players who have unpainted armies have far better connection, fluff, and even entire stories for their played models, compared to the many WAAC players that do have painted armies that to them are just a pile of plastic that allows them to try and dominate the tournaments with the latest, strongest codex.

Mate, do you even know what a narcissist is? It doesn't make you a narcissist if you refuse to play against people with unpainted armies, it makes you simply, a bloke who likes playing against painted models!

Personally, id never refuse to play someone, but I like that I have a small advantage, its like it fits in with my general view of life, you should reward the people that put the most effort in!

You wouldn't be considered it, but just some of the replies in this thread against those unpainted was what got me.

Apple fox wrote:

That's the thing, I can't just paint as I please, right now I can't even hold a brush and paint as it gets very painfull and I likely won't be able to for a few weeks again probably. Playing a game is far less difficult for the time it takes and only difficulty would be reaching to the centre of the table.
I really enjoy painting, but it's a slow process that shouldn't effect me in the game as I want to do best as I can. Weather or not it's a big effect, it's only comes off as a punishment to me.

Then i apologise, but i'm sure if you mentioned that to your opponents, they wouldn't bother playing the rule. As that is a 110% a good a reason as any to field unpainted mini's.

Also i'm sure 99% of people on here wouldn't reject a game with an unpainted army. But if they were offered a choice and there is no valid reason why the mini's are unpainted, they would always prefer to play against someone with a painted army.

Also regarding i can't paint well therefore i won't paint them. A) why get into a hobby that a massive part of it is painting? or why havn't you paid somone to paint yours. B) most importantly how are you ever going to improve on your painting if you refuse to do it.

Its because a number of those people who won't paint their army are either FoTM or WAAC or both. And people don't like those types to begin with.

DanFST wrote:

Apple fox wrote:

That's the thing, I can't just paint as I please, right now I can't even hold a brush and paint as it gets very painfull and I likely won't be able to for a few weeks again probably. Playing a game is far less difficult for the time it takes and only difficulty would be reaching to the centre of the table.
I really enjoy painting, but it's a slow process that shouldn't effect me in the game as I want to do best as I can. Weather or not it's a big effect, it's only comes off as a punishment to me.

Then i apologise, but i'm sure if you mentioned that to your opponents, they wouldn't bother playing the rule. As that is a 110% a good a reason as any to field unpainted mini's.

Also i'm sure 99% of people on here wouldn't reject a game with an unpainted army. But if they were offered a choice and there is no valid reason why the mini's are unpainted, they would always prefer to play against someone with a painted army.

Also regarding i can't paint well therefore i won't paint them. A) why get into a hobby that a massive part of it is painting? or why havn't you paid somone to paint yours. B) most importantly how are you ever going to improve on your painting if you refuse to do it.

It's all good .
I actuly think if players want to play with painted army's, for and against that's all good. It's just when stores start to support that with in game rule changes it starts to get uncomfortable to me.
I don't think anywhere I play has taking up rules like this regarding painting outside of tournaments, which I also think is fine. At least all I have play in have given rewards for it as well as play.

 Krellnus wrote:

Instead of having this honestly stupid rule, reward people who paint, instead of penalising those who don't.

They are rewarding people who paint. Their units are more effective than unpainted units. It's really just semantics. If each painted unit got a re-roll, it still means the unpainted units are penalized because they don't share in the bonus. Wailing and gnashing of teeth would still issue forth from the owners of the unpainted armies.

 SilverMK2 wrote:
My Eldar are painted with white primer, a wash of orange paint, a light black wash, then black paint for the helmet and yellow for the face - a 3 colour minimum which is then enhanced with a wash of grey paint for the guns and blue ink for the stones and lenses. Total time per model (if I did it all in one sitting rather than getting bored after 20 minutes) is probably about 10 minutes.

Also bonus points as this is the second time I have posted this image in a thread today

Seeing as we are being open and honest, considering how those models are painted I would rather play with unpainted models. That standard of painting in no way makes me more connected to the "hobby" which you are trying to define for each and everyone of us. Also, considering how much GW models cost I find the time you have spent doing those wholly inadequate and quite laughable. Doesn't mean I would be a douche about it - opinions are opinions and are often best kept to oneselves. Having said that there are somethings I would like to share seeing as we are having this discussion:

Several points for everyone:
1) If you don't want to play against unpainted models politely decline but no need to be an ass about it.
2) If your army is unpainted and someone declines to play you, thems the breaks. Accept it with good grace and find someone who has a similar attitude to the hobby that you do.
3) The hobby of wargaming is breathtakingly broad in how it can be approached. It covers those who are horrified if a 15mm French 1812 army has the wrong color shoulder epiletes through to those who are quite happy using tokens with the name written on them.
4) Don't judge or get bent out of shape towards others who have a different approach. The level of enjoyment you seek from a hobby in order to relax and escape from the stress of life is purely up to you. However, there are consequences to the level you choose - accept that with good grace as well.
5) Using the would "force" or "encourage" in this thread is dumb - why should you be trying to change someone's opinion?
6) Your opinion is only valid to you and your circumstances. Judging other people in a hobby people use to relax is an anethma to having a hobby.

 fullheadofhair wrote:
Seeing as we are being open and honest, considering how those models are painted I would rather play with unpainted models.

May I ask why?

Edit: I see you think that the time spent per model isn't that high but is the result really that terrible?

 SilverMK2 wrote:

 fullheadofhair wrote:
Seeing as we are being open and honest, considering how those models are painted I would rather play with unpainted models.

May I ask why?

Sure, I will share my opinion, but as I have said I am only really sharing it as I am quite amazed at people's thoughts in this thread.

The reason why is I find models that have just been sprayed, washed and drybrushed and left unhighlighted with details unpicked out jarring to the eye. I prefer unpainted models to poor paint jobs - purely an aestetic thing and purely my own opinion. Not usually something I ever share with people. I absolutely hate seeing beautifully crafted miniatures sloppily painted with people saying this whole unit only took me two mins todo and hey, it has the three color minimum.

Wouldnt affect my decison to play with you in the slightest. Certain wouldn't share my inner thoughts on it with you.

But I find it quite amusing that people say it is about immersing themselves in the hobby but yet they are quite happy to put out, imho, appallingly rushed paint jobs and yet some how manage to be quite superior about it when comparing themsleves to the half painted army. If many people were truely honest I bet I am not the only person with this opinion.

Well I almost agree but there is a difference between a rush job and someone who isn't all the good at painting. Not everyone can be an artist, and I would rather see someone who is putting out an effort as opposed to not even trying. However it is very easy to tell the difference between someone who can't paint and someone who is doing a rush job.

 SilverMK2 wrote:

 fullheadofhair wrote:
Seeing as we are being open and honest, considering how those models are painted I would rather play with unpainted models.

May I ask why?

Edit: I see you think that the time spent per model isn't that high but is the result really that terrible?

Yeah, those Eldar are in no way 'bad' especially when the "pot calling the kettle black" models in his gallery are way worse.

Painted models show effort, and you can't leap to a amazing paintjob out of the gate. People will need to paint lots of gloppy models in their career to learn to paint better and send the old models to the stripping bath. I would rather play against someone's attempted paint, and expose him to other models so he can learn techniques and grow opposed to 'quit' and just say 'unpainted greys for my valuable models because a bad paint job is damaging my expensive models'.

I am actually in the process of striping and repainting my first army, IG. Now granted after the 100th guardsman my painting seriously improved, but those early models looked aweful. Now they look awesome.

Imperial Deceit wrote:
Well I almost agree but there is a difference between a rush job and someone who isn't all the good at painting. Not everyone can be an artist, and I would rather see someone who is putting out an effort as opposed to not even trying. However it is very easy to tell the difference between someone who can't paint and someone who is doing a rush job.

and I agree with you 100% - I will often admire a "poorly" painted army that someone has sweated over an army that appears great but you know is well below the standard that the person can produce. Often, we are gaming in commuties and we know the people we meet, talk with and play with and therefore the circumstances of their life and their abilities and their approach to the hobby.

Which goes to what I am saying about treating each other with respect and respecting how they choose to enjoy their hobby. But it goes both ways. So called "paint nazi" and the foams at the mouth non painter are just as bad as each other. The key is to find people who either have the same approach or are comfortable stepping out of their approach to the hobby.

I find the fact that people can get so bent out of shape in a modelling/ wargaming hobby quite amazing and totally not understandable in the slightest.

 fullheadofhair wrote:


Which goes to what I am saying about treating each other with respect and respecting how they choose to enjoy their hobby. But it goes both ways. So called "paint nazi" and the foams at the mouth non painter are just as bad as each other. The key is to find people who either have the same approach or are comfortable stepping out of their approach to the hobby.

I find the fact that people can get so bent out of shape in a modelling/ wargaming hobby quite amazing and totally not understandable in the slightest.

But there is a difference between painters and non-painters.

Non-painting can have a direct, quantifiable documented impact on sales within a store, and many times it is in the store owners best interest to require painting, or minimum standards during some or all of the 'open gaming'. There is also an issue with theft which requiring 'primed' helps protect against as often a store is hard to keep an eye if someone pops a blister and assembles a 25$ model vs brought it from home. 'primed' makes it easy to distinguish.

And when someone pays rent on the air you breathe, he has the right to tell you the 'correct' way to hobby while in his store. If that is with a minor rule change to encourage painting, then there is a 'wrong way' to hobby.

Showing up with a 100% painted army never imposes upon anyone. You never are never imposing on the store owner and hurting his space usage or sales, you are never imposing on opponents and burdening them with unclear greys with no visual contrast to help distinguish with in-game play, you are never helping provide a 'cloak' for those who wish to commit theft through obscurity in a crowd.

If you don't like it, play somewhere else. Problem solved. If a store wants to force or encourage painting via ways that 'offend' you then get out and you won't have to be offended.

People love their plastic crack, as long as it’s their version of it. Simple as that. Now group to group I agree that there is a lot more leniencies because you know them, and you know whose army is getting painted still and who is a warhammer Michel Angelo. However in this particular circumstance, the store is well within its rights to create any policy they feel is proper for their business. Whether or not you agree with it is something you have to vote on with your wallet. They have other motivation for the rules they created, we don’t know what the intention was. If I was a regular at that game store and saw it as a problem I would talk to the owner (in a logical, diplomatic way) and direct him to this thread so he can see what people think of the policy. Would he change it? Who knows, but such decisions are often made in a vacuum with little to no foresight except correcting the immediate problem. ( I see a lot of that)

Imperial Deceit wrote:
People love their plastic crack, as long as it’s their version of it. Simple as that. Now group to group I agree that there is a lot more leniencies because you know them, and you know whose army is getting painted still and who is a warhammer Michel Angelo. However in this particular circumstance, the store is well within its rights to create any policy they feel is proper for their business. Whether or not you agree with it is something you have to vote on with your wallet. They have other motivation for the rules they created, we don’t know what the intention was. If I was a regular at that game store and saw it as a problem I would talk to the owner (in a logical, diplomatic way) and direct him to this thread so he can see what people think of the policy. Would he change it? Who knows, but such decisions are often made in a vacuum with little to no foresight except correcting the immediate problem. ( I see a lot of that)

Actually, most policies like this are made with well-informed info which knows his local customer base much better than applying it to the internet as a whole. Some locations this may increase sales, others may face strict boycotts. Different groups of people want different things. This thread exists because it was this weeks way fo stirring the 'We all still hate GW' pot. This is not a global policy, just one at a specific GW... and the manager is the one who will know if it helps his store and he will live and die by his decision. A store owner knows full well if his sales jump a few hundred dollars when his tables are full of painted armies vs half-assembled greys... He also knows what days work best for which hobbies hence often Wargaming is banished to a weeknight when street traffic is low since the customers are not 'helping' generate more sales... (and then we have all card games all weekend)

This 'I don't like it and it wouldn't work in my area therefor it is a bad failed policy everywhere' is what is not valid, but if you did direct the GW person to this thread, you would find more people than not either agree with or don't mind the policy, which may validate what he expects to see local in his customerbase.

Eh, the only rule there that bugs me is the "No Waaagh! shout=no Waaagh! roll." I could do without people bellowing at the top of their lungs in the middle of games, thanks.

And I say this as someone with lots of unpainted minis.

nkelsch wrote:

 SilverMK2 wrote:

 fullheadofhair wrote:
Seeing as we are being open and honest, considering how those models are painted I would rather play with unpainted models.

May I ask why?

Edit: I see you think that the time spent per model isn't that high but is the result really that terrible?

Yeah, those Eldar are in no way 'bad' especially when the "pot calling the kettle black" models in his gallery are way worse.

Painted models show effort, and you can't leap to a amazing paintjob out of the gate. People will need to paint lots of gloppy models in their career to learn to paint better and send the old models to the stripping bath. I would rather play against someone's attempted paint, and expose him to other models so he can learn techniques and grow opposed to 'quit' and just say 'unpainted greys for my valuable models because a bad paint job is damaging my expensive models'.

Oh silly boy - as well you know that none of those models in there are finished by any means. I just use Dakka to host stuff I am selling as too lazy to do it else where - and the finished stuff I never actually painted myself. How can you tell? It's painted :-D .

I have actually recently stopped playing mainly because I hate the rules. Sold practically every thing I own. Now just paint individual models for fun when I can fit in the time and sold practically everything I own - I would cheerful admit to 90% of all my models being half finished. No biggie - that is now my approach to the hobby. Actually branching out to military models where I don't have to even care about other peole.

Most of the points you are making are 100% correct. Except you are missing the whole point.

He threw up a picture basically saying look, my unit is painted and it took me 20 mins so you can do it too and judging others. I am saying, actually, if that is all the effort you can be bothered put in I would rather not see it.

The newbie who starts and paints and wants to learn should be encourage and supported by the community. Agree with that 100%. As I said earlier - I will admire their efforts far more than the quick drybrush and wash call it good people who then sit there all smug because their army is ahem "painted".

The other point, some what tongue it check, is their is always someone more elitiest than you. I wonder if the person who threw up that photo might think twice about judging others after having someone openly judge him in front of others.

 fullheadofhair wrote:
The reason why is I find models that have just been sprayed, washed and drybrushed and left unhighlighted with details unpicked out jarring to the eye. I prefer unpainted models to poor paint jobs - purely an aestetic thing and purely my own opinion. Not usually something I ever share with people. I absolutely hate seeing beautifully crafted miniatures sloppily painted with people saying this whole unit only took me two mins todo and hey, it has the three color minimum.

Sure, I appreciate that - however, I stated that was what I did and how long it took to block out the models and get a minimum looking tabletop model - I have since gone back through and added more detailing, which obviously takes longer but that was not the point I was making, ie that it doesn't take long to paint a model to the point where you have a unit/army that, on the tabletop, looks pretty good. Which after all is what we are looking for. I'm not going to stick my head 2 inches away from your models the entire game

I'd be interested to hear your thoughts having clicked through to the gallery version of that image and having zoomed in to take a look more closely, obviously assuming that you have not done so already. I personally consider those models, with a few details picked out, based, etc, to be reasonable tabletop standard. My CSM, which are very poorly photographed in my own gallery I have to say, are painted, to me, to a similar standard and I have had positive responses whenever I have played - even narrowly missed out on beset painted at the last (?) Warhammer World DakkaDakka event

Wouldnt affect my decison to play with you in the slightest. Certain wouldn't share my inner thoughts on it with you.

Nor I with you, should you show up with the Grey Legion, commanded by Captain Grey de Grey, he of the missing head and arm. I would prefer it if you turned up with painted army, but hey

nkelsch wrote:

 fullheadofhair wrote:


Which goes to what I am saying about treating each other with respect and respecting how they choose to enjoy their hobby. But it goes both ways. So called "paint nazi" and the foams at the mouth non painter are just as bad as each other. The key is to find people who either have the same approach or are comfortable stepping out of their approach to the hobby.

I find the fact that people can get so bent out of shape in a modelling/ wargaming hobby quite amazing and totally not understandable in the slightest.

But there is a difference between painters and non-painters.

Non-painting can have a direct, quantifiable documented impact on sales within a store, and many times it is in the store owners best interest to require painting, or minimum standards during some or all of the 'open gaming'. There is also an issue with theft which requiring 'primed' helps protect against as often a store is hard to keep an eye if someone pops a blister and assembles a 25$ model vs brought it from home. 'primed' makes it easy to distinguish.

And when someone pays rent on the air you breathe, he has the right to tell you the 'correct' way to hobby while in his store. If that is with a minor rule change to encourage painting, then there is a 'wrong way' to hobby.

Showing up with a 100% painted army never imposes upon anyone. You never are never imposing on the store owner and hurting his space usage or sales, you are never imposing on opponents and burdening them with unclear greys with no visual contrast to help distinguish with in-game play, you are never helping provide a 'cloak' for those who wish to commit theft through obscurity in a crowd.

If you don't like it, play somewhere else. Problem solved. If a store wants to force or encourage painting via ways that 'offend' you then get out and you won't have to be offended.

A store owner has the right to do what he pleases. You either agree or patronize elsewhere. No issues there.

I am talking opinions and my attitude in theory to the painted v's unpainted and more horrified at the way people are trying to define a hobby and force their idea of what is a bobby on others. Despite me saying my opinions wouldn't affrect a decision to play a person you seem determined to show that I would be - no need to make stuff up.

If you find an unpainted army a "burden", don't play against them. Be open as to why but respect the other person opinion and approach to the hobby - is it really that hard?

It is possible to disagree with people and not foam at the mouth.

nkelsch wrote:

This 'I don't like it and it wouldn't work in my area therefor it is a bad failed policy everywhere' is what is not valid

I didn't say that so I assume it wasn't directed at me, despite attaching it to what I did say.

All I can really do is speculate and throw out options for both sides of the argument, sense I don't hobby there and I don't know the exact reason for these rules.

Also I think the manditory Waagh is to add levity. As the topic has already proven, some people take this game a little to seriously in a casual setting.

Honestly I find the rule stupid. If a new would be player walks in to a store and sees a incredibly well painted army they will get intimidated by what they think is the standard for the game and not want to play until they have a army painted just as good, this can cause them to feel overwhelmed and drop the hobby because it is too much work. I have had this happen to a multitude of my friends and not want to get into the game due to this standard that they see, when compared to the armies that have a mixture of some well painted some just basecoated/primed and some grey models that feel much more relaxed about getting into the game knowing that they can play whenever and paint at their own pace without being critiqued bu others for fielding unpainted or unfinished models.

Our GW manager prefers that you paint to a high standard and only have a bit of your army painted rather then have an army full of a poorer quality spread tthrough an entire army

TLR Quality over Quantity causes less intimidation to people getting into the game since they know that they can paint at their own pace without being critiqued for unpainted minis

Wait does that mean for every game there, that oily stinking teens and preteens with stained dorito fingers are going to be constantly shouting Waugh!?

Sweet baby Jebus we just found the Terrordome. Forget waterboarding. Send the captured terrorists there.

 fullheadofhair wrote:
I wonder if the person who threw up that photo might think twice about judging others after having someone openly judge him in front of others.

I'm not judging anyone based on their army paint status - I am happy to game. Certainly I get the chance rarely enough that as long as the army is assembled I'd be happy enough to play you

As to being judged on my painting? When I read the initial comment, yeah, it did hurt a little, but I'm a big boy and can take it. It also helps knowing that I think my models look pretty good. As I have repeatedly said in this thread, I am a) slow at painting and b) don't really like painting. Most of my focus on techniques has been on getting a good looking result quickly - and I think given the limitations of that my models generally look pretty nice. Do I spend more time once I have the basics down going back and adding details, improving figures etc? Certainly - I would imagine most people do. Would I field my models having spent 10-20 minutes per model to get them to a 3 colour minimum? No, I wouldn't, as I want them to look better than that. Would I be bothered if someone else did? No, not really.

So, no, I am happy for people to judge my minis and painting as they would the minis and painting of anyone else. If I put up that picture and made no mention of how long it took to get them to that stage (which is probably around 20-30 minutes per model? I paint them over so long a period of time and on a production line so it is hard to keep track), would you make the same comments? I would guess not.

This is the best thing I've seen come out of a GW store in a long while. Would game there.

Anougher thing some people play 40k for the stratagy aspect of the game not the hobby aspect. Like myself I love the game because it challenges my mind, but i have very poor eye sight and hand eye cordination so untill recently I have not really got past just putting the models together. This is because other people really like to detail and paint minis themselves if I ever want to trade or sell my minis. And I have a wide range of armys I am intrested in so I like to be able to trade models and my painting sucks. But recently I have started to slowly convert a dreadknight to a knealing position with a blade coming out of one arms gauntlet and the other arm has strapped on the heavy incinerater, The dk will also have a cloak and a loin cloth when its done. This has actually been fun but really slow procces because of some physical disabilities.

I suppose it some way that it is logical in a business sense. I really can't begrudge the store that option, can't say I'd make the same one, but that is their choice nonetheless.

Some responses in here however, read as: Stop enjoying this game the wrong way/different than me.

 Mastiff wrote:

 Krellnus wrote:

Instead of having this honestly stupid rule, reward people who paint, instead of penalising those who don't.

They are rewarding people who paint. Their units are more effective than unpainted units. It's really just semantics. If each painted unit got a re-roll, it still means the unpainted units are penalized because they don't share in the bonus. Wailing and gnashing of teeth would still issue forth from the owners of the unpainted armies.

It is not a reward for people who paint, it is a punishment for people who don't paint. It isn't, "Painted armies get +1 armor save" or "Painted armies gain +1 inch of movement." It is painted armies have hatred for unpainted armies. Hatred, while a rule in the game, is a snarky, mean-spirited dig on people who have unpainted armies.

Unpainted modes are unwelcome. They are so unwelcome that painted models hate them to such a fury that they kill more ruthlessly and efficiently. It is a not very subtle ostracism of people with unpainted models. Do you understand what I mean? Hatred. Not 'Preferred Enemy' even, but Hatred. And don't go saying that it is just a rule in the game. It is a rule in the game chosen for its rhetorical value as much as its value in the game.

It is not even an efficient bonus because it only applies in close combat. It is a penalty for people with unpainted models, and more importantly, it communicates that unpainted models are bad, something to be embarrassed about, and not something that is welcome in the store. It is not positive reinforcement. It is the essence of negative reinforcement.

Don't paint because you want to earn something offered, paint because you want to avoid being stigmatized. Note that the rule only applies against unpainted models, so if everyone in the store has painted models, nobody gets a bonus. So no, it is not something to be earned. It is both a penalty in the game and a means to ostracize. In fact, it is particularly insidious in that it encourages connection with the hegemonic authority by immediately giving those who paint their models the power to turn a negative influence they were faced with against someone else.

It is not so dissimilar from hazing, and if you want to think of it like that, fine. But I don't think it is good for the hobby to go around hazing people interested in the hobby. You wouldn't trash someone in a demo game as a way to encourage them to get better at playing would you? You wouldn't give people with a bad win/loss record penalties in their games until they got better would you? Do you think that would help grow the hobby?

If you wouldn't do that, why do it for painting?

If I played there...

I won't allow anyone to use their army unless it was painted to codex colors.

I won't allow my opponent to use any special rules unless their army was painted to the same or better standards than my own.

I would have a 2+ invul on all my models that I think are cool looking.

My weapons are all twin linked and have rending and unlimited range because I say so.

If you take allies against me you auto lose the game.

Totally fair and in the spirit of GW.

Some of this thread is just surreal. I paint my stuff, I like seeing well-painted miniatures on the other side, but I'm here to play the game first, and I get that some people just don't enjoy painting. Heck, I don't enjoy painting big units with uniform schemes (I have to push myself to get Warmachine units done, and they're twelve dudes maximum), preferring characterful individual models or big creatures, so I'd really struggle to get a 40-model WHF unit done. FWIW, I certainly wouldn't play anywhere with passive-aggressive paint snobbery.

My daughter took up rowing last year. She and some of her fellow girl rowers were moaning about getting wet and muddy. I told them they would most likely find there is quite a lot of water involved in the sport.

It's the same with tabletop miniature wargaming and paint.

The store isn't pressing for passive-aggressive paint snobbery. They just want to have the game represented by models that are painted. They didn't say your army had to be painted to such and such standard or codex colors or anything. Just painted. And it's only a penalty for those models you don't have painted, not your whole army, so it's not even that heavy of a penalty if you are in the process of adding new units. its only an issue if you don't paint anything.

weeble1000 wrote:

 Mastiff wrote:

 Krellnus wrote:

Instead of having this honestly stupid rule, reward people who paint, instead of penalising those who don't.

They are rewarding people who paint. Their units are more effective than unpainted units. It's really just semantics. If each painted unit got a re-roll, it still means the unpainted units are penalized because they don't share in the bonus. Wailing and gnashing of teeth would still issue forth from the owners of the unpainted armies.

It is not a reward for people who paint, it is a punishment for people who don't paint. It isn't, "Painted armies get +1 armor save" or "Painted armies gain +1 inch of movement." It is painted armies have hatred for unpainted armies. Hatred, while a rule in the game, is a snarky, mean-spirited dig on people who have unpainted armies.

Unpainted modes are unwelcome. They are so unwelcome that painted models hate them to such a fury that they kill more ruthlessly and efficiently. It is a not very subtle ostracism of people with unpainted models. Do you understand what I mean? Hatred. Not 'Preferred Enemy' even, but Hatred. And don't go saying that it is just a rule in the game. It is a rule in the game chosen for its rhetorical value as much as its value in the game.

It is not even an efficient bonus because it only applies in close combat. It is a penalty for people with unpainted models, and more importantly, it communicates that unpainted models are bad, something to be embarrassed about, and not something that is welcome in the store. It is not positive reinforcement. It is the essence of negative reinforcement.

Don't paint because you want to earn something offered, paint because you want to avoid being stigmatized. Note that the rule only applies against unpainted models, so if everyone in the store has painted models, nobody gets a bonus. So no, it is not something to be earned. It is both a penalty in the game and a means to ostracize. In fact, it is particularly insidious in that it encourages connection with the hegemonic authority by immediately giving those who paint their models the power to turn a negative influence they were faced with against someone else.

It is not so dissimilar from hazing, and if you want to think of it like that, fine. But I don't think it is good for the hobby to go around hazing people interested in the hobby. You wouldn't trash someone in a demo game as a way to encourage them to get better at playing would you? You wouldn't give people with a bad win/loss record penalties in their games until they got better would you? Do you think that would help grow the hobby?

If you wouldn't do that, why do it for painting?

Good god, I'm blinded by the hyperbole.

Yes, I'm sure there are some would-be gamers who would be stigmatized and embarrassed by the hatred exemplified by snarky, mean-spirited hazing , but I suspect those people may not be suited to leave their homes to be in public. Most others would just suck it up and play the game.

Let me ask you this; do you feel an outright ban on unpainted models would be preferable?

weeble1000 wrote:
Do you understand what I mean? Hatred. Not 'Preferred Enemy' even, but Hatred. ...It is a rule in the game chosen for its rhetorical value....

It is particularly insidious in that it encourages connection with the hegemonic authority....

It is not so dissimilar from hazing...

Great point. That people could contemplate such cruelty to little metal (or finecast) figures is unthinkable. Oh, and definitely hegemonic. Who is that store manager, Tom Kirby?

 DeffDred wrote:
If I played there...

You don't get to enforce house rules when you don't own the house or pay the rent on it

I won't allow anyone to use their army unless it was painted to codex colors.

I won't allow my opponent to use any special rules unless their army was painted to the same or better standards than my own.

I would have a 2+ invul on all my models that I think are cool looking.

My weapons are all twin linked and have rending and unlimited range because I say so.

If you take allies against me you auto lose the game.

Totally fair and in the spirit of GW.

When you run a FLGS, club, or have people to your house... you can make all the house rules you wish to impose your way of playing on others... and they can vote with their feet/wallet if they want to play there by your rules or not.

You don't get to go to someone else's house/store/club and say 'you have rules I don't like? Let me make up rules and be a poor guest because I want to make a scene!'

nkelsch wrote:

 DeffDred wrote:
If I played there...

You don't get to enforce house rules when you don't own the house or pay the rent on it

I won't allow anyone to use their army unless it was painted to codex colors.

I won't allow my opponent to use any special rules unless their army was painted to the same or better standards than my own.

I would have a 2+ invul on all my models that I think are cool looking.

My weapons are all twin linked and have rending and unlimited range because I say so.

If you take allies against me you auto lose the game.

Totally fair and in the spirit of GW.

When you run a FLGS, club, or have people to your house... you can make all the house rules you wish to impose your way of playing on others... and they can vote with their feet/wallet if they want to play there by your rules or not.

You don't get to go to someone else's house/store/club and say 'you have rules I don't like? Let me make up rules and be a poor guest because I want to make a scene!'

Correct me if I am wrong, but I do believe he was being sarcastic about the matter. (Exaggerating the point of penalizing people who do things you don't like and patronizing the random rules-making.)

 Mastiff wrote:

Good god, I'm blinded by the hyperbole.

Yes, I'm sure there are some would-be gamers who would be stigmatize and embarrassed by the hatred exemplified by snarky, mean-spirited hazing , but I suspect those people may not be suited to leave their homes to be in public. Most others would just suck it up and play the game.

Let me ask you this; do you feel an outright ban on unpainted models would be preferable?

What hyperbole? You don't think it would be embarrassing to be in a place that has a rule posted saying that painted models hate your unpainted models? I thought I explained my point pretty clearly. For those of you thinking that it is positive reinforcement to give all painted models Hatred for unpainted models, it is objectively not positive reinforcement.

I do not see any hyperbole in explaining why that is factually correct. You may not like the word "stigmatize," but it is an accurate word to use to describe the effect of the rule. What word would you use? Motivating? But why is it motivating? That is the question I was specifically addressing; i.e. positive reinforcement versus negative reinforcement. It is, and is clearly intended, to motivate by penalizing and stigmatizing players that play with unpainted models.

Stigmatize is merely a way to say marking or identifying something as being bad or undesirable. By giving painted models Hatred for unpainted models, the unpainted models are marked as being undesirable and by extension the player, for the actual models have no agency or control in the actions they perform or the state that they are in. A model cannot paint itself. It is the player that paints them, and thus the player that bears the burden of their unpainted nature.

Nor in the imaginary world the models are used to represent are the characters the models represent "unpainted." It would not make logical sense in the fictional universe. So there is no reason for the painted models to "hate" unpainted models. The models therefore represent the undesirability of the painted models, and not merely undesirability, but hatred. There is your hyperbole. I did not choose that word; whoever wrote on that board chose to use the word "Hatred." And as I said, Hatred was not the only available option if one's goal was merely to provide some benefit to painted armies/penalty to unpainted armies. In fact there were literally hundreds of other options. And yet "Hatred" was specifically chosen.

Logically, it was chosen to represent someone's hatred for unpainted models, presumably whoever wrote the rule and by extension, those who support it.

I really shouldn't have to delve into the issue in this depth. The rule is intended to make people 'feel bad' when they don't have a painted army. It is not intended to make them want to 'feel good' by painting their army. Hence, negative reinforcement of norms conceived of and enforced by an authority figure. This is why I think it is mean-spirited.

I would not feel welcome in a place in which my models are subjected to (imagined) brutal, hate-fueled physical violence meant to symbolically punish me for not adhering to arbitrarily normative behavior. Imagined though it may be, there is indeed hate behind that "Hatred," whether or not the person who wrote that rule is consciously aware of it.

Would it feel better if the rule were called "Disdain"?

Hivefleet Oblivion wrote:

weeble1000 wrote:
Do you understand what I mean? Hatred. Not 'Preferred Enemy' even, but Hatred. ...It is a rule in the game chosen for its rhetorical value....

It is particularly insidious in that it encourages connection with the hegemonic authority....

It is not so dissimilar from hazing...

Great point. That people could contemplate such cruelty to little metal (or finecast) figures is unthinkable. Oh, and definitely hegemonic. Who is that store manager, Tom Kirby?

I'm sorry guy, I'll try to use smaller words in the future.

That dude totes runs the shop man. He can, like, kick you out and stuff. So if you, like, want to hang out there, like maybe 'cause you got bros that are there, you would feel, like, pressure to act right and stuff. Like how you're not 'sposed to throw popcorn in the movies. Only this is, like, if the move people said you had to sit way up at the front if you were with a fat chick.

So what am I supposed to do if my girl is big? When we sit down there everybody knows why we're there. That aint right, bra!

weeble1000 wrote:


I would not feel welcome in a place in which my models are subjected to (imagined) brutal, hate-fueled physical violence

So why are you playing wargames then?

Are the models supposed to sing kumbaya and talk therapy-speak, so they can all feel validated?

weeble1000 545582 5941479 null wrote:

I'm sorry guy, I'll try to use smaller words in the future.

Might be a good idea. Or, if you're using longer ones like hegemony, find out what they mean?

Hivefleet Oblivion wrote:

So why are you playing wargames then?

Are the models supposed to sing kumbaya and talk therapy-speak, so they can all feel validated?

Allright, let's try again.

I enjoy imagining violence in the FICTIONAL IMAGINED PRETED world.

That is why I play WARgames.

It is enjoyable because the violence does not symbolize an attack on me personally.


Are we getting somewhere yet? Is there a meeting of the minds?

The little fake men "Hate" that my little fake men are not painted.

But hold on a minute................Little fake men can't think. Little fake men have no feelings about painting. They are fake. They, like, live in a world of my imagination.


If I IMAGINE that the FAKE PRETEND people in their FAKE PRETEND WORLD hate the enemy for NOT BEING PAINTED it is like, totally weird.

It kinda breaks the mood, right? I mean, does it make sense for the Eldar Guardian to HATE the Imperial Guardsman because he is a tiny grey plastic model with no paint?

Yea, weird, huh?

So if it is NOT the FAKE PRETEND Eldar Guardian that HATES my models, then................then.....................then.......................IT MUST BE A REAL PERSON!!!


Holy crap!!! A REAL PERSON HATES MY UNPAINTED MODELS, not an Eldar.

So that must mean the person who wrote that rule hates my unpainted models.................and is punishing me for it.

Do you really think that people hate you for not having unpainted models?

Why not simply make the unfinished armies play on unfinished plywood tables?

weeble1000 wrote:


I would not feel welcome in a place in which my models are subjected to (imagined) brutal, hate-fueled physical violence meant to symbolically punish me for not adhering to arbitrarily normative behavior. Imagined though it may be, there is indeed hate behind that "Hatred," whether or not the person who wrote that rule is consciously aware of it.

It is not arbitrary... Painted models drive sales. Arbitrary would be if there was no purpose behind it except to remove a random group for no discernible reason. There is a valid reason to isolate those models and attempt to have them not be welcome in the store and drive people to change behavior. Painting bans, minimal requirements and 'incentives' (even if they are seen as punishments) serve valid purposes from a financial point of view for store owners who want to have 'open gaming' actually benefit the store opposed to being a drain.

Also: People with Paranoid Delusions are probably not healthy to have in a social group and a risk to commercial businesses... so if such a 'rule' makes people with such paranoid delusions 'not come to the store' because they can't take a joke or don't understand jokes... that sounds like a win-win to me.

@everyone:

Please remember that this is a web forum for discussing toy soldiers.

If you find yourself upset enough to insult a stranger over toy soldiers, consider taking a break from the discussion. And keep in mind that our Rule Number One is Be Polite. If you think someone else is being rude, please hit the yellow triangle at the top right of their post to report it to the moderators.

Thanks!

weeble1000 wrote:

What hyperbole? You don't think it would be embarrassing to be in a place that has a rule posted saying that painted models hate your unpainted models? I thought I explained my point pretty clearly. For those of you thinking that it is positive reinforcement to give all painted models Hatred for unpainted models, it is objectively not positive reinforcement.

So if my painted models hate your unpainted models, your feelings are hurt?

I...

You...

You know models don't have feelings, right? There is no hatred. The models don't hate, the players don't hate. It's a store owner having a little fun to motivate players to paint their armies. If he or the players truly hated the models, they would not be allowed on the board.

Why do you believe the store owes you positive reinforcement? You keep using that term as if protecting your personal self-image should be the store's primary goal.
.

nkelsch wrote:

weeble1000 wrote:


I would not feel welcome in a place in which my models are subjected to (imagined) brutal, hate-fueled physical violence meant to symbolically punish me for not adhering to arbitrarily normative behavior. Imagined though it may be, there is indeed hate behind that "Hatred," whether or not the person who wrote that rule is consciously aware of it.

It is not arbitrary... Painted models drive sales. Arbitrary would be if there was no purpose behind it except to remove a random group for no discernible reason. There is a valid reason to isolate those models and attempt to have them not be welcome in the store and drive people to change behavior. Painting bans, minimal requirements and 'incentives' (even if they are seen as punishments) serve valid purposes from a financial point of view for store owners who want to have 'open gaming' actually benefit the store opposed to being a drain.

Also: People with Paranoid Delusions are probably not healthy to have in a social group and a risk to commercial businesses... so if such a 'rule' makes people with such paranoid delusions 'not come to the store' because they can't take a joke or don't understand jokes... that sounds like a win-win to me.

Who wants to see fat people in a movie theater, right? Fat people are ugly. Nobody likes to be around a place where there's fat people. It is better if they sit in the front then.

I do get your point though. But I would be less upset about a rule that nobody can play with unpainted miniatures. That makes sense if you are looking to keep play at your one man shop on the one available table strictly for pretty looking finished models to showcase the game.

But it is not about making sure the store looks good. It is about encouraging people to paint their models by stigmatizing them. Another option would be to have painting days, or offer to paint some of the models. How about the store owner paints one for two. You paint two models and I'll paint a third! The more you paint, the more of your models I will paint, and I can show you some neat tricks too.

How about saying that you can't play with unpainted models in the store, but you can play with the shop's painted models if you like.

My point is that making people feel bad about not having their army fully painted is a poor way to encourage people to paint their armies and ultimately bad for the hobby. Negative reinforcement is completely unnecessary.

Can we agree on that?

Can't believe what I'm reading here. Are people really that worked up over this?

It's not some sort of personal attack, it’s them trying to attain a certain standard within the store without totally excluding the people who have unpainted units.

I think you'll find many other hobbies are not so forgiving. 50% of golf clubs will kick you out if you don't adhere to a dress code? Does it matter if you've bought the most expensive clubs to play with? no. Does it matter if you are imagining yourself as Tiger Woods while you hit the ball around? no, other people still see you in your daggy clothes not Tiger. It's them saying your personal taste does not meet our standards, which people find fair enough and either abide by the rule or find another club.

I suggest you do the same if it’s a huge problem for you.

weeble1000 wrote:


The little fake men "Hate" that my little fake men are not painted.

But hold on a minute................Little fake men can't think. Little fake men have no feelings about painting. They are fake. They, like, live in a world of my imagination.


If I IMAGINE that the FAKE PRETEND people in their FAKE PRETEND WORLD hate the enemy for NOT BEING PAINTED it is like, totally weird.

It kinda breaks the mood, right? I mean, does it make sense for the Eldar Guardian to HATE the Imperial Guardsman because he is a tiny grey plastic model with no paint?

Yea, weird, huh?

So if it is NOT the FAKE PRETEND Eldar Guardian that HATES my models, then................then.....................then.......................IT MUST BE A REAL PERSON!!!


Holy crap!!! A REAL PERSON HATES MY UNPAINTED MODELS, not an Eldar.

So that must mean the person who wrote that rule hates my unpainted models.................and is punishing me for it.

What it is totally fluffy. Grey ghost like being are trying to invade the 40K setting, instead of using red tape or moving to a wifi-less zone. They have done the Grimdark thing and attacked with righteous fury, to keep the invasion of the grey masses at bay.

 Mastiff wrote:

weeble1000 wrote:

What hyperbole? You don't think it would be embarrassing to be in a place that has a rule posted saying that painted models hate your unpainted models? I thought I explained my point pretty clearly. For those of you thinking that it is positive reinforcement to give all painted models Hatred for unpainted models, it is objectively not positive reinforcement.

So if my painted models hate your unpainted models, your feelings are hurt?

I...

You...

You know models don't have feelings, right? There is no hatred. The models don't hate, the players don't hate. It's a store owner having a little fun to motivate players to paint their armies. If he or the players truly hated the models, they would not be allowed on the board.

Why do you believe the store owes you positive reinforcement? You keep using that term as if protecting your personal self-image should be the store's primary goal.
.

You have missed the point again. Your painted models don't hate mine because they are all fake plastic things, right? But in the context of that which they represent in one's imagination, having the Hatred rule because of unpainted enemy models is not very fluffy, right? So there's no basis for the models to hate each other that makes sense.

So the models represent the hatred of something else, something in reality. The same cold reality in which the models are not painted. Are you with me? The models represent the undesirability of the unpainted models. That undesirability comes from another real life human being.

So no, the fake plastic models do not hate anybody. Rather, the individual that wrote the rule dislikes unpainted models, finds them undesirable, and has chosen to express that with the Hatred rule. Now, if you unpack that a bit, you have a some choices.

The person who wrote the rule wanted to communicate something: unpainted models are undesirable in this area under my control. A choice was made to do that by creating a disincentive for people with unpainted models. Do this thing and this bad thing happens to you. Okay? Disincentive.

The person chose to effect that disincentive with the Hatred rule. Why? Probably because it reflects that individual's feelings. The painted models hating the unpainted models represent that individual's hatred for unpainted models. The models are unpainted because someone did not paint them, right?

Ergo the negativity is directed from one human being towards another. The store manager does not like that your models are not painted. The store manager would prefer that you paint them if you are going to play in the store. The store manager decided to influence you with a disincentive, i.e. negative reinforcement.

1: Negative reinforcement is not necessary to achieve the desired effect

2: You get more bees with honey than with vinegar.

It is unnecessary negativity that both inefficiently achieves the desired goal and causes long term harm to the business. So I think it is a pretty bad idea.

Do you get me?




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 vossyvo wrote:
Can't believe what I'm reading here. Are people really that worked up over this?

It's not some sort of personal attack, it’s them trying to attain a certain standard within the store without totally excluding the people who have unpainted units.

I think you'll find many other hobbies are not so forgiving. 50% of golf clubs will kick you out if you don't adhere to a dress code? Does it matter if you've bought the most expensive clubs to play with? no. Does it matter if you are imagining yourself as Tiger Woods while you hit the ball around? no, other people still see you in your daggy clothes not Tiger. It's them saying your personal taste does not meet our standards, which people find fair enough and either abide by the rule or find another club.

I suggest you do the same if it’s a huge problem for you.

I am actually worked up that several people seem unable to grasp a seemingly simple concept. I just think the rule is silly and less productive than something else. I would't play at such a store because there's plenty of other options, and I think the rule is a bit dickish. There's enough places to go that that most people have the option of avoiding dickishness when it comes to wargaming.

But to argue that it is positive reinforcement? That I somehow think the models hate me personally?

Considering that the rule in question is likely tied to an "Escalation League"--which is done as a slow grow manner with 'build dates' at the store, I still do not see why this is such a big deal.

 Kanluwen wrote:
Considering that the rule in question is likely tied to an "Escalation League"--which is done as a slow grow manner with 'build dates' at the store, I still do not see why this is such a big deal.

Nobody said it was a rule for an escalation league. If that's the case the dickishness goes down dramatically.

It is dickish as a blanket rule that theoretically applies to all games played on the premises. Still though, I think you get more bees with honey. A small disincentive is fine, I think, in a context in which everybody signed on to meet goals: the goals of building and painting an army. In that case you are essentially looking for group-oriented motivation, like going to the gym with a friend. You have made a public commitment mostly because failing in that commitment is itself a disincentive. You want the group to (playfully) ostracize/rib/goad/nag you into successfully completing the goal, along with positive reinforcement of encouragement, congratulations, shared experience, etc.

So if that were the context then it would be an entirely different story.

This is why the hegemonic bit I mentioned is important. In an escalation league, it is a choice to enter into a commitment that carries certain goals and expectations. When I walk into a retail store, I expect to be treated in a welcoming, respectful manner. Presumably my patronage is desired. Within the context of those expectations, an expression of negativity directed at the customer is very different.

weeble1000 wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
Considering that the rule in question is likely tied to an "Escalation League"--which is done as a slow grow manner with 'build dates' at the store, I still do not see why this is such a big deal.

Nobody said it was a rule for an escalation league. If that's the case the dickishness goes down dramatically.

It is dickish as a blanket rule that theoretically applies to all games played on the premises. Still though, I think you get more bees with honey. A small disincentive is fine, I think, in a context in which everybody signed on to meet goals: the goals of building and painting an army. In that case you are essentially looking for group-oriented motivation, like going to the gym with a friend. You have made a public commitment mostly because failing in that commitment is itself a disincentive. You want the group to (playfully) ostracize/rib/goad/nag you into successfully completing the goal, along with positive reinforcement of encouragement, congratulations, shared experience, etc.

So if that were the context then it would be an entirely different story.

There is a reason I'm saying "likely" and other statements.

Even with it being tied to an "Escalation League", I am still not sure why you insist on referring to this as "dickish".
Unless there are members taking it obscenely beyond "You get hatred for your painted units against enemy unpainted units"(like "My entire army gets hatred against your army because you have a single unpainted unit" levels), I do not see it as a big deal.

I'm with weeble on this. I'm old enough to remember buying and playing Rouge Trader. People bought the book and maybe one boxed set, and then played the game because the game was fun ( didn't the Rulebook have paper counters in the back to use instead of models? ) Then the Heavy Metal Team started to show how good painting can enhance a model, which became a part of the hobby, but not the most important part. Then GW realises how much money can be made by really pushing painting and introduced concepts such as inks, dry brushing, shading etc and suddenly, minimum painting standard rules started to raise their head. Don't get me wrong, I admire what some people can do with a paintbrush, but for me the initial attraction to the hobby was the war gaming, strategy and background. The painting was nice to look at but frustrating if I attempted it myself. Now it seems as though anyone who doesn't like painting doesn't "get" the hobby. This type of snobbery can only drive away those, who, like me, enjoy the battles and fluff, but not the painting. There's something slightly irritating about a teenager, boasting that he's been playing the game since the 4 th ed, graciously consenting to play against a poorly painted or unpainted army.

There has to be some flexibility on the painting rule. Not everyone has the time to paint all of their models in a given army. If someone tries to make an effort in painting their army on a weekly basis, like it was done officially in the GW stores years ago in my region, then they should be able to play. If they don't want to paint their armies then they should not go to that particular store.

Back on 2005 a very small GW store enforced this rule and during that year it was ranked in the top 10 in sales in the US. People also had fully painted armies as well at the end of the year.

But that was then and times and people's mindsets have changed. I'm not really sure that the painting rule can be effectively enforced as written, due to the possibility of affecting overall sales.

GW Game Managers are on quota that they have to meet. Better believe they will go for sales first than that particular rule as written.

Its a general store rule, not tied to a league. The league we do have just gives you an extra point for being painted.

As someone who just got into miniature gaming a year and a half ago (Malifaux), this has been an interesting thread to read through.

Luckily, my games are played at someone's home, and while we all relish painted figures and cherish the rare days that entirely painted crews faced each other, it was never a requirement. I can see how a store might make this a priority, and can respect 'their space, their rules', but honestly I'd find it offputting if such a requirement were in place to play.

I'm not an artist. The paint jobs that some of you scoff and disdain as rushed or lazy or laughable are still leagues better than I can pull off, and while they might not prevent you from playing me if we ever set up across the table from one another, it's a bit disconcerting to know that some people view others with such disdain or scorn based on that aspect.

I can respect that it can be a matter of personal opinion, preference, immersion, whatever, but at the end of the day some of the (perhaps Internet Hyperbole style) judgement laden upon those who lack the time or inclination to paint up for a game is surprisingly intense.

Yes, yes, caveats surely exist where most of you probably wouldn't bat an eye knowing someone had only been in the hobby for a year or two compared to your years or decades of experience, and that many have played for years and years so time isn't a consideration. I'm just reflecting as something of an 'outsider' how much time and effort went into even building and priming dozens and dozens of figures across 6 crews (an entire faction) and 2 off faction crews, let alone getting the 3 painted up as I have. That the purely built and primed section of my case could draw ire simply by opening it in the wrong section of a store would be.. well, it'd be something alright.

Note, I'm not trying to misrepresent anyone's opinions, nor put words in their mouths. Just noting the raw venom that, intended or not, seems to be coming out over the matter.

The only time I would ever really "pick on" someone for having something unpainted is if I know they hop from faction to faction as new books and netlists come out.

Fireytas wrote:
I'm with weeble on this. I'm old enough to remember buying and playing Rouge Trader. People bought the book and maybe one boxed set, and then played the game because the game was fun ( didn't the Rulebook have paper counters in the back to use instead of models? ) Then the Heavy Metal Team started to show how good painting can enhance a model, which became a part of the hobby, but not the most important part. Then GW realises how much money can be made by really pushing painting and introduced concepts such as inks, dry brushing, shading etc and suddenly, minimum painting standard rules started to raise their head. Don't get me wrong, I admire what some people can do with a paintbrush, but for me the initial attraction to the hobby was the war gaming, strategy and background. The painting was nice to look at but frustrating if I attempted it myself. Now it seems as though anyone who doesn't like painting doesn't "get" the hobby. This type of snobbery can only drive away those, who, like me, enjoy the battles and fluff, but not the painting. There's something slightly irritating about a teenager, boasting that he's been playing the game since the 4 th ed, graciously consenting to play against a poorly painted or unpainted army.

I think you have it back to front. There was a section in the RT book that covered painting and scenery building. The expectation was there. Warhammer arrived after historical war gaming was well established and unpainted figures were definitely frowned upon, partly because lead figures are not the nicest things to handle, but also the historical wargamers take themselves a bit more seriously.

Warhammer players are among the ones that are least likely to paint their miniatures, from what I have observed. And GW's relaxation of the painting expectancy, in order I suspect to boost sales of flavour of the month stuff by encouraging its use immediately painted or not, has made it far more common.

In previous painting-nonpainting threads I've seen some really belligerent non painters proudly proclaiming their right not to ever paint their stuff for one reason or another, which is fairly bizarre. It's simply part of the hobby, don't complain when other people wish to play in games with people who have completed their army and are not fielding a work in progress, or a work you have no intention of completing. Not painting the figures is rather like not fully assembling them. But some people don't even assemble figures properly for play either. Presumably those not painting stuff look down on those not sticking arms on their marines before fielding them. *shrug*

weeble1000 wrote:

You have missed the point again. Your painted models don't hate mine because they are all fake plastic things, right? But...

Stop there. Beyond that point you're running on conjecture, and assuming malevolent motives for the owner. No one's missing your point. Unless you know him, you're making huge leaps involving transference and assumptions.

weeble1000 wrote:

The person chose to effect that disincentive with the Hatred rule. Why? Probably because it reflects that individual's feelings. The painted models hating the unpainted models represent that individual's hatred for unpainted models.

That's your assumption. No matter how passionately you feel about it, you're bringing your own interpretation that he's acting in bad faith. And assuming that his level of intensity over the matter matches yours.

He may have a mature audience that isn't bothered by his stance. He may have a customer base that even responds well to light-hearted teasing as an incentive to push forward. Or he may have more players wanting spots than he can accommodate, and can afford to be a bit more exclusive. Or he's tried using honey without effect, and decided it's time to bring out the vinegar. He may even have a sense of humour. It happens.

You can explain how the rule makes you feel, and no one's disputing that. But you're losing people when you turn this into a morality play, where the only possible interpretation is that the owner is filled with an seething hatred for all things unpainted. It's a possibility, but not the only one.
.

Haven't read through the first 6 pages, but my take on the painting rule is this.

I LOVE this rule.

Painted armies are the reason I got into this hobby and I fully support clubs and FLGS's that are willing to take a bit of risk to promote the glory that is masses of painted soldiers. The shop in the OP seems to have taken a small, but not drastic step by not denying unpainted miniatures, but providing an incentive to get them painted.

Also, they set an extremely low standard. 3-colors is one colored primer plus two colors on that, something anyone can do quickly.

I also practice this myself. I organize a club that has been meeting every-other-week for 3 years that does not allow unpainted miniatures. Now this is tempered by the fact that...
1) We don't set standards for how well a miniature must be painted.
2) We allow pre-painted miniatures.
3) We have enough painted miniatures to always be able to lend an army/warband/etc to anyone who wants to play but doesn't have the figures.
4)We are very open and encouraging to new players.
...but we are unflinching in our resolve that our wargaming will be a glorious spectacle of painted miniatures on evocative terrain.

Is there anyone who can post the text for work restricted people who cannot view the image containing these rules?

1) This store is Friendly-Competitive

2) No Waaaagh! shout, No Waaaagh! roll

3) Painted units have "Hatred" of unpainted units (3 colour-standard)

4) Positive Attitudes!

5) Family Friendly Store

I dont see the big deal, before painting, rule number 4 is what gets most of these people kicked out of this store. Complaining about unpainted armies either way is not very positive > (Devils Advocate)

I'm in the middle on this,

2). I don't play Orks and will never shout Waaaagh for any reason. So I particularly do not agree with this rule at all

3) I do not have problem with this for ALL store associated events including campaigns and leagues. But for a friendly pick-up game I would never allow my opponent to use this rule (store rule or not)

 fullheadofhair wrote:

 SilverMK2 wrote:
My Eldar are painted with white primer, a wash of orange paint, a light black wash, then black paint for the helmet and yellow for the face - a 3 colour minimum which is then enhanced with a wash of grey paint for the guns and blue ink for the stones and lenses. Total time per model (if I did it all in one sitting rather than getting bored after 20 minutes) is probably about 10 minutes.

Also bonus points as this is the second time I have posted this image in a thread today

Seeing as we are being open and honest, considering how those models are painted I would rather play with unpainted models. That standard of painting in no way makes me more connected to the "hobby" which you are trying to define for each and everyone of us. Also, considering how much GW models cost I find the time you have spent doing those wholly inadequate and quite laughable. Doesn't mean I would be a douche about it - opinions are opinions and are often best kept to oneselves. Having said that there are somethings I would like to share seeing as we are having this discussion:

Several points for everyone:
1) If you don't want to play against unpainted models politely decline but no need to be an ass about it.
2) If your army is unpainted and someone declines to play you, thems the breaks. Accept it with good grace and find someone who has a similar attitude to the hobby that you do.
3) The hobby of wargaming is breathtakingly broad in how it can be approached. It covers those who are horrified if a 15mm French 1812 army has the wrong color shoulder epiletes through to those who are quite happy using tokens with the name written on them.
4) Don't judge or get bent out of shape towards others who have a different approach. The level of enjoyment you seek from a hobby in order to relax and escape from the stress of life is purely up to you. However, there are consequences to the level you choose - accept that with good grace as well.
5) Using the would "force" or "encourage" in this thread is dumb - why should you be trying to change someone's opinion?
6) Your opinion is only valid to you and your circumstances. Judging other people in a hobby people use to relax is an anethma to having a hobby.

Wow just wow this is uncalled for. The guy was just trying to show that you can get decent results even if you are not the best painter. Insulting someones work is no way of making friends.

It really is funny that people think they have the right to determine what standard another person's models, purchased with their own money, should be held to. When you start buying my models you can determine what standard they are painted to, and how fast I paint them. Offending your aesthetics is not a rational reason to require paint standards as it has no bearing upon the actual game play. The only legitimate gripe I have seen is when TFG continually rotates thru the latest net lists repeatedly at tournaments. Have no problem with special events, or the big tournaments {ie Feast of Blades and Adepticon}, having the minimum paint requirements...do not think it is appropriate for casual play and casual tournaments in a LGS. Painting your models is only one aspect of a multifaceted hobby.

That being said, any store does have the right to have requirements. One can shop and game somewhere else if you do not like the requirements at a particular store.

My FLGS just had a tourney with 3-color minimums{normally no requirement} and they had approximately 50% of the normal turnout. That translates into $200+ less the store made/had available for prizes from the tourney itself and half as many people who might have bought something on impulse while they were there. Kind of shoots down the theory that painting requirements translates into increased sales. Though my models are painted above 3 color minimums, and WYSIWYG, I chose not to attend to show my displeasure with the policy. Politely expressed my opinion to the store owner to let them know why I would not attend and would return when they dropped the requirement.

And other FLGS have increased turnout when requiring all painted, as people will travel farther for a better event so you draw from a larger area... But every area has different customers. What works in one area may not work in another.

There is no "one size fits all" standard, and trying to use the interned to say "clearly the minimum standard is always best" and makes most money" is nothing but Internet MBA bullcrap.

Store owners will do what is best for their location, and what is best will differ between locations. But that does not mean "no standards" is always the best or most successful. What you find more often is that "changing to MTG" simply beats all various standard for war gamers when they get pissy and disagree and you can't make them all happy. Got a split group which disagrees? Dump them all for card games and make more profit.

Dolgan wrote:
It really is funny that people think they have the right to determine what standard another person's models, purchased with their own money, should be held to.

They aren't doing that. What you do with your models is completely up to you.

They're just giving an incentive for painting your stuff. If you don't want to, they're not grabbing you by the balls until you buy a paint kit and a tutorial DVD.

Marcus Scipio wrote:

 Monster Rain wrote:
I love all of those rules, actually.

If it drives away the types of players that need these sort of things put into writing, more the better.

Agreed, I find as I get older that I enjoy playing untainted armies less and less...

Loki. The store might not be saying that but there seem to be plenty of people about who wished they would.

Ok so catching up on this thread I still think this is a stupid rule but I can see where the other side is coming from so let me just say this:

The WAAC players who never even intend to paint thier models should be punished, those of us who don't want to feel rushed however should NOT be lumped in with them and punished too.

nkelsch wrote:
And other FLGS have increased turnout when requiring all painted, as people will travel farther for a better event so you draw from a larger area... But every area has different customers. What works in one area may not work in another.

I don't currently play games that have tournaments, but if I did, I would definitely travel a bit further and put a higher priority on events that have a painting requirement.

I'm sure there are areas where in order to have a tournament you have to cater to players who either don't paint or don't like having painting standards, but I really hope that's the minority of locales.

Really, these kind of issues seem to boil down to "you can't tell me what to do" vs "Let's have a community standard".

"You can't tell...."
Everybody plays on an equal playing field, and it does make it easier for those for whom the game is the focus, but it does seem to often result (as I've seen at local FLGS's) in alot of grey plastic on the battlefield.

"...Community Standard"
Some folks loose out on some games (or a bonus roll) while they paint, but it does result in an better looking store and gaming room and encourages the painting side of the hobby.

I tend to find some intrinsic value (this is my own POV, mostly stemming from working with children) in having to work for something, and in the positive benifits of delayed gratification and self regulation. So unless the standards are onerous (I don't believe the painting standard in the OP is) I usually will favor higher standards.

Further, as the painting standards don't discriminate based on race, class, religion, etc. it's just the kind of merit/effort-based standard that I can get behind.

 Kanluwen wrote:
The only time I would ever really "pick on" someone for having something unpainted is if I know they hop from faction to faction as new books and netlists come out.

Oh I definitely agree with you on that as they are the types that are not going to change their mindset. The ones that are either just lazy or the "flavor of the month" players are the ones that should be dinged.

I don't have any problem with a store deciding policies like this. I take my custom where I find the most value. I don't play with unpainted models. But, I have 3 sons. All of whom have dabbled in this hobby or still do. Rules like this would preclude them from participating in the larger community (especially considering the large model count of armies and short attention spans). I like encouraging my kids to model, paint and play. However, I have had plenty of grouchy grognards who have already tarnished their enthusiasm without additional rules like this. I've actually run into enough wargamers who would delight in telling a 10-year old that he can't play because he only has 2 colors on his figures.

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
Warhammer arrived after historical war gaming was well established and unpainted figures were definitely frowned upon, partly because lead figures are not the nicest things to handle, but also the historical wargamers take themselves a bit more seriously.

Indeed. I've heard from a few historical gamers over the years who, on discovering the world of sci-fi and fantasy gaming, were quite surprised to find that there were people who didn't paint their armies. Until FoW came along and poached a large part of the previously 40K oriented gaming world into the historical realm, it was never in question... it tended to be just assumed in historical gaming circles that miniatures needed to be painted in order to be used on the table.

A large part of the negativity towards this policy seems to be just coming from the fact that many don't see painting as an expected part of the hobby, but just as something that you do if you want to... which is fine, everyone is entitled to stick to the parts of the hobby that actually interest them. But it's not worth getting as riled about as some people are here... If you don't want to play somewhere that expects painted armies, then don't. I disagree with the store in question requiring Ork players to yell when they want to Waaagh!, because I woudln't want to do that, and it's irritating as hell whenm others do it in a confined space.. but I'm not going to accuse them of having some sort of agenda or of hating me for not playing Orks the way they want me to. I just wouldn't play in that store so long as they had that rule.

Perspective, people. It's just toy soldiers.

Really, these kind of issues seem to boil down to "you can't tell me what to do" vs "Let's have a community standard".

No, the issue is that the "community standard" for those that want painting minimums is exclusive as it limits ones ability to play based solely upon the aesthetics of their models Their attitude seems to be I've chosen to paint my models and everyone else should paint theirs as well to my minimum standard. If they don't paint their models to my standard then they should not be able to participate, or have penalties against them if they are allowed to participate, as they are just not taking 40K serious enough for my taste.

Not having the painting requirement as a "community standard" is inclusive and encompasses a wider base of players who are more concerned about playing the game versus whether or not their models are painted.

I get a bad feeling when i look at that sign, if it were me being thrown under the bus because my army isn't fully painted i wouldnt like it much, but neither would anyone else. Sure to discourage frequent bandwagon jumpers and for a professional aesthetic for the hobby, just those two are situational. The hobby is expensive and people who have that kind of money and the mind to spend it on miniatures frequently should not be as big a problem as it sounds. And for people who get curious and see unpainted models, that enough isnt going to drive people away from the hobby or possible business, id say its more the people behind the army that are the real role models and not the actual miniature setting the example for the game being played.

Just my thoughts, those two reasons stood out to me the most.

 Doomsdave wrote:
I don't have any problem with a store deciding policies like this. I take my custom where I find the most value. I don't play with unpainted models. But, I have 3 sons. All of whom have dabbled in this hobby or still do. Rules like this would preclude them from participating in the larger community (especially considering the large model count of armies and short attention spans). I like encouraging my kids to model, paint and play. However, I have had plenty of grouchy grognards who have already tarnished their enthusiasm without additional rules like this. I've actually run into enough wargamers who would delight in telling a 10-year old that he can't play because he only has 2 colors on his figures.

I'm one of those Gronards that encourages the youth in anyway possible to continue this aspect of the hobby. People forget that fine manipulation skills, mental agility are some of the positive aspects of playing any sort of miniatures game. Some of the Old guard are incredibly narrow minded on what is "fun" suppose to be, and that is not my view point.

A great deal of time now these days to fully paint an army because on how fast paced our society has become and how much of your time it takes to keep yourself afloat in these still hard times we live in. We are in the New Economy and to the average middle class person is having a harder time living than in 2006. Encouragement of painting their armies is necessary and if people make as much time as possible and there is improvement on a weekly basis on their armies in question then they should encouraged to continue.

We of the old guard, those with +40 years of hobby experience, that truly believe that working deftly with your hands, which is a good thing mind you, are fading away. It is up to the youth to carry on what we can show them about the hobby and the skills that you will carry with you for the rest of your life.

It doesn't take that long to paint an army, except the bad effect of GW's Eavy Metal is to make people think they need to do it to Gold Daemon standard, which is ridiculous.

I think some of it is a generational thing. Boys used to grow up making model kits, painting them and shooting them to bits with air rifles.

Modern boys grow up playing video games. Perhaps they don't build up the craft skills.

weeble1000 wrote:
Who wants to see fat people in a movie theater, right? Fat people are ugly. Nobody likes to be around a place where there's fat people. It is better if they sit in the front then.

I do get your point though. But I would be less upset about a rule that nobody can play with unpainted miniatures. That makes sense if you are looking to keep play at your one man shop on the one available table strictly for pretty looking finished models to showcase the game.

But it is not about making sure the store looks good. It is about encouraging people to paint their models by stigmatizing them. Another option would be to have painting days, or offer to paint some of the models. How about the store owner paints one for two. You paint two models and I'll paint a third! The more you paint, the more of your models I will paint, and I can show you some neat tricks too.

How about saying that you can't play with unpainted models in the store, but you can play with the shop's painted models if you like.

My point is that making people feel bad about not having their army fully painted is a poor way to encourage people to paint their armies and ultimately bad for the hobby. Negative reinforcement is completely unnecessary.

Can we agree on that?

I like that 'positive' encouragement basically boils down to 'give me paints, brushes, time, space and your effort for free... oh, and your wife is pretty hot... some quality time witg her would totally motivate me!'.

Back on topic, another factor is that 25 years ago all wargaming figures were single pose metal castings. If you wanted to personalise them in any way, you had to paint them.

Since then, plastic multi-part figures have become almost standard in GW. Maybe the input of assembling the models gives players the psychological connection that used to be provided by painting.

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

 aliusexalio wrote:

 Skylifter wrote:
Have you guys even considered that some people maybe just don't like to be put under pressure to perform in their free time? There is enough of that everywhere in our professional lives.

Seriously, you make it sound as if people who paint slowly - because they are either rather new to painting, or because they spend a lot of time on details, or any other reason frankly - were bad, bad people who should not be allowed to play. As if they had to come up with a justification for not painting all the models they chose to buy.

Tell you what: they don't. Nobody needs a justification to do something he enjoys, as long as he isn't harming anyone else while doing it. And playing with unpainted minis is certainly not harming anyone.

Sorry, but you are the sons of silly persons. You can personally choose to never play against someone whose army isn't fully painted if you think that will make your hobby more enjoyable, but acting as if that were a crime against humanity is just childish.

You are not put under pressure. Painted armies simply offer a lot more immersion. Then again you are right, people cannot be forced to paint their armies, however they shouldn't cry like little babies when other people either refuse to play against them or make snarky remarks. Or in this threads case my beautifully painted models gain "hatred" vs your plastic muppets.

And yet those same people making snarky remarks just seem so self-narcissistic (Seriously, vs your plastic muppets? You people show your narcissism very easily) because they painted little toy men, there ARE people who enjoy just the game itself, and not the painting!

"It breaks MY immersium, I feel that they shouldn't play at all because they haven't painted!"

It's just so sickening how downright hostile you people are. Most of you wouldn't help them at all paint if it came down to it, and not everyone wants to ruin their models because they paint very poorly, or really just don't want to use their free time for something they'd consider a chore.

You are missing the point. There is nothing hostile about it. And it has absolutely nothing to do with narcissism. To alot of us this is more than just ''a game", the models are very expensive and painting does take time and effort. Furthermore, I like the 40k universe, I read the novels and I like to be immersed. My armies have a story and fluff. I am proud of my little army and when they hit the table I would like to fight against another army that is also inspired.

Playing against unpainted plastic models is just not that immersive, why did I bother painting and building a beautifull terrain board? Why did I spend hours coming up with a theme in my army and painting it?




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 snurl wrote:
Why not simply make the unfinished armies play on unfinished plywood tables?

Hahahaha.... good one!

I don't have enough free time to only play with painted armies; I'd rather use my free time to game than paint (I do paint, but it's a slow process).

So I'd be put off if I was that handicapped because I can't spend time painting (hatred(unpainted) gives a re-roll to hit in CC? that's quite a handicap).

I'd certainly never turn down or complain about an opponent not having a fully painted army, because it doesn't actually affect the game play, and I know people have time restraints.

I do approve of the idea that they must be at least primed though, because it's a start and allows you to distinguish between new/stolen stuff and the stuff the gamer prepared earlier. Using coloured primers also helps.

I'm not shouting Waargh! in a store/club though, even if I don't get to benefit from the rules. Just no.

Yeah I'm too old and miserable to be shouting waagh like.


I'd tell them my Warboss has tourettes the same as me, and as a result always shouts out truly disgusting expletives when we waagh.

They might rethink the rule after I bellow a waagh full of F and C bombs in the face of a horrified parent.

Oh and I also have a nervous condition that causes me to go shoplifting after being exposed to loud noises... did I forget to mention that?

 SilverMK2 wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 jonolikespie wrote:
As someone who paints very slowly to get a result I can be proud of rather than 3 colour base, drybrush, dunk model in wash like a lot of people I know, this rule disgusts me.

Yeah, but let's be honest here. People who paint well but just need a little more time to get their models finished are a minority compared to the people who have bare plastic armies (often with broken parts due to careless treatment, glue puddles everywhere, etc) because they just don't give a .

Agreed. I paint slowly - it has taken me almost 2 years to paint my Eldar army and even then it is still not finished. It took me about 3 years to paint my CSM (and there are a couple of units I don't have painted which bump me from 1500 points to 2000 which I still need to do).

I've found the best motivator to paint is knowing I have a game coming up, regardless of whether there is any painting metric scores. Even a friendly game means that I am going to break out the stuff that needs painting and get going on painting. I don't have a local store/club without driving into the city, but if I had one in the local town and so could play easily you can bet your butt I would paint the hell out of my models faster than I do now, when I play only very rarely.

Being a slow painter is no excuse for not painting. Not enjoying painting is not an excuse for not having a painted army. I'm slow and hate painting - just means I have found ways of quickly painting models to a reasonable standard and whenever I have a game coming up I try to include at least one unit I have not got painted yet to motivate me

I also paint slowly, and like yourself, always find that an upcoming game motivates me to paint.



@jono - dont disparage people who basecoat and dip. They get their models done, to a standard that they are comfortable, able and happy with. It's a lot better than the grey hordes out there.

 Krellnus wrote:

And what if I want to put in more effort than that? I only get a half day off a week where I can actually do any hobby, if I don't have any assignments, why should I be penalised?
Instead of having this honestly stupid rule, reward people who paint, instead of penalising those who don't.
Something along the lines of if you increase the amount of stuff that is painted in between visits, you get a free re-roll in game, with people who have fully painted armies getting a free re-roll a turn or something?

(Also in reply in part to jono) They get their models done, to a standard that they are comfortable, able and happy with. It's a lot better than the grey hordes out there.

As a painter myself, I can tell you from personal experience that laying down some basic basecoats so your figures aren't horriblegrey when it comes to play with them isn't hard. Sure, you won't have the details done, and you'll need to touch up the odd figure, since it's just unfixed basecoats, but it makes a hell of a difference on the table.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

weeble1000 wrote:

What I don't appreciate is that I have seen several communities in which having a bare plastic or primed or even partially painted miniature gets you treated very much the same as if you did not give a crap. Too often I see people placing a huge emphasis on painting being essential to admittance into the clubhouse, but no emphasis on helping or encouraging people to paint in a positive, constructive manner.

If you want someone to paint their models, try offering to help. "Hey, those look great. Do you have a paint scheme in mind?" "I think that would be really cool! Have you thought about this technique?" "You know, I have an airbrush. I bet we could get a base coat on your whole army in an afternoon. Do you want to come over to my place this weekend and lay down a base coat?"

I rarely see that. If other people painting their miniatures is so important to your enjoyment of the hobby, why not take some of your own time and effort to make it a reality?

Before my local GW moved away, I'd sometimes go in there, buy my WD and hang out for a short time. Especially when my wife was going to meet me in the same mall after she finished work (my work was closer) so I might have an hour's wait. While there's approximately no chance in hell I'd be inviting a stranger from a GW store into my home to airbrush models, I did enjoy offering painting and modelling advice to the people who would be in there working on their models, occasionally fixing a broken model for those without the skill/knowledge to do so (pegasus knights and flying stands!) or even doing some painting on their stuff (eyes, a bit of freehand detail, checkerboards or chapter badges, or some highlighting/shading.) Of course, I never actually played there, but the point is that I'm one of those bastards saying that getting basecoats done for a game isn't especially hard, and I actively enjoyed helping my fellow geeks when the GW was still local.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 fullheadofhair wrote:

He threw up a picture basically saying look, my unit is painted and it took me 20 mins so you can do it too and judging others. I am saying, actually, if that is all the effort you can be bothered put in I would rather not see it.
The other point, some what tongue it check, is their is always someone more elitiest than you. I wonder if the person who threw up that photo might think twice about judging others after having someone openly judge him in front of others.

I think his stuff looks good, and I'd be happy to play him any day of the week. It looks gakloads better than unpainted models, or any of the stuff I saw in your own gallery. If someone can paint something that looks good in 20 minutes, why is that something to be critical about? I can't paint a damn thing in 20 minutes. Pots and Kettles. Glass Houses and Stones.


"example of painted ones"
http://www.dakkadakka.com/gallery/79954-example%20of%20painted%20ones.html

This kind of situation is pretty much the only time you'll find me saying anything even vaguely negative about something that someone has taken the time to paint. Don't put other people's work down unless you want to be held up yourself.

 Azazelx wrote:


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 fullheadofhair wrote:

He threw up a picture basically saying look, my unit is painted and it took me 20 mins so you can do it too and judging others. I am saying, actually, if that is all the effort you can be bothered put in I would rather not see it.
The other point, some what tongue it check, is their is always someone more elitiest than you. I wonder if the person who threw up that photo might think twice about judging others after having someone openly judge him in front of others.

I think his stuff looks good, and I'd be happy to play him any day of the week. It looks gakloads better than unpainted models, or any of the stuff I saw in your own gallery. If someone can paint something that looks good in 20 minutes, why is that something to be critical about? I can't paint a damn thing in 20 minutes. Pots and Kettles. Glass Houses and Stones.


"example of painted ones"
http://www.dakkadakka.com/gallery/79954-example%20of%20painted%20ones.html

This kind of situation is pretty much the only time you'll find me saying anything even vaguely negative about something that someone has taken the time to paint. Don't put other people's work down unless you want to be held up yourself.

Oh silly boy - you obviously haven't read the thread. Those aren't my models - I use Dakka to host stuff I am selling that comes from a variety of sources. I never painted those (not even the finished Imperial Fists) - you can tell because they are finished. 99% of my stuff is never finished.

I am quite comfortable with that - it is how I approach MY hobby and it is how I get MY fun but on the flip side I don't expect you to consider playing against an unfinished army if you don't want to as that is how you get YOUR fun from YOUR hobby. We can just be civilized about it and communicate in a reasonable manner.

The point I am making, is many people with painted armies who judge those who don't paint for whatever reason - actually most of your armies don't look that good. They really don't. But why the judging? How offended would you be if you asked some-one for a game and they refused being all elitist about saying "I am sorry but you really haven't put enough effort into that - maybe when you have improved".

 aliusexalio wrote:

To alot of us this is more than just ''a game", the models are very expensive and painting does take time and effort.

I suppose here in lies the issue. To a lot of people, it is just a game.

My armies have a story and fluff. I am proud of my little army and when they hit the table I would like to fight against another army that is also inspired. Playing against unpainted plastic models is just not that immersive, why did I bother painting and building a beautifull terrain board? Why did I spend hours coming up with a theme in my army and painting it?

Fair enough. And I agree that you can refuse to play whoever you like, and this store can put any rules into affect it likes. But you did all that because you enjoyed it, not because someone made you.

It really seems to be a case of stop enjoying my hobby/game different than me.

 Azazelx wrote:
[


"example of painted ones"
http://www.dakkadakka.com/gallery/79954-example%20of%20painted%20ones.html

This kind of situation is pretty much the only time you'll find me saying anything even vaguely negative about something that someone has taken the time to paint. Don't put other people's work down unless you want to be held up yourself.

Not sure who painted this, or what point was trying to be made, but I'm a "painted only" kind of player and I think they look fine. They're rank-and-file minis that are going to look fine. Especially when en'masse on the game table viewed from 3 feet away.

I'm a painted-only guy, but I rarely judge another persons paint job.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

I think some of it is a generational thing. Boys used to grow up making model kits, painting them and shooting them to bits with air rifles.
Modern boys grow up playing video games. Perhaps they don't build up the craft skills.

I really think this is a big part of it. I'm in my 30's, and I've watched video games go from a novelty to what many folks consider (incorrectly, IMHO) to be an essential part of life. Alot of the video game and CCG "buy-and-play" mentality seems to have infested popular wargames.

Those who feel it is an imposition to have to paint their figures are very much a new breed as far has hobbies go. Consider model railroading. Whether prepainted, or self-painted, NO ONE brings unpainted models to the club's layout, no matter how much they paid for them (the prices of high end railroad models would make even a 40k spender's wallet cry) or how little hobby time they say "real life" has left them. Until a decade or so ago, this was largely the way miniature wargaming was.

Model railroad clubs still insist on painting, what's wrong with FLGS's or clubs doing the same?

I wonder if the root of the animosity is folks feeling that a purchase of a game item should entitle them to use that item at that store, regardless of how/if it is painted. It's an understandable point of view (especially when models are so dang expensive) but I'm still sticking with the benefits (to the store, the hobby and the hobbyist) of community standards and painted models.

Gw used to have a standing rule that was fully painted based or you can't even put your models on the table

 gunslingerpro wrote:


It really seems to be a case of stop enjoying my hobby/game different than me.

Not really. If you're playing against someone else, what's wrong with hoping they enhance the experience by playing with painted models instead of unpainted? If you're playing at a public location, why not hope for a better experience than you get at home?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

weeble1000 wrote:

But it is not about making sure the store looks good...

Yes, yes it really is. The store should put in place the policies that keep it profitable, and open.

Go to a club or restaurant, there are often minimum dress requirements. Go to a golf course and there are minimum equipment or skill requirements. It's in the businesses' best interests to keep their regular customers happy, and sometimes that means having a minimum requirement for entry. Whether that reinforcement is positive or negative does not matter if they are keeping their regulars happy and coming back. Self-realization is the customer's own responsibility.
.

 Mastiff wrote:


Not really. If you're playing against someone else, what's wrong with hoping they enhance the experience by playing with painted models instead of unpainted? If you're playing at a public location, why not hope for a better experience than you get at home?

Alright, so hope. But the minute that hope turns into require you've substituted what that person may find most important (the game, human interaction, strategy) with what you deem most important (the hobby, immersion, aesthetics).

i.e. stop enjoying my hobby/game different than me.

People still game at GW stores?

I'm so sorry to hear that.

 gunslingerpro wrote:

 Mastiff wrote:


Not really. If you're playing against someone else, what's wrong with hoping they enhance the experience by playing with painted models instead of unpainted? If you're playing at a public location, why not hope for a better experience than you get at home?

Alright, so hope. But the minute that hope turns into require you've substituted what that person may find most important (the game, human interaction, strategy) with what you deem most important (the hobby, immersion, aesthetics).

i.e. stop enjoying my hobby/game different than me.

The store owner *ALWAYS* Substitutes what he deems most important... PROFIT. He owns the space you game on, he determines how you game. if you don't like it, get out.

You keep talking like you have rights and deserve to be treated equally when you have no rights and deserve nothing when gaming in someone else's space. If you want rights and to control how you game or want a place where you can have influence or input... game at home, or organize a club where you have input.

Human interaction for you does nothing for the store's profit. You enjoying Tactical strategy does nothing for the stores profit. Gaming immersion, painted models, quality tables, opponents with painted models, well run events all do positive things for the stores profits.

What if you were someone who 'hated' tourneys... and a store did nothing but tourneys? "I don't enjoy competitive play as part of my hobby, but all they do is run events!" well then guess what? the store is organizing play, forcing what they determine the 'best' way to play in his store is to make the most profit... and if you don't like it... you know where the door is.

Painting requirements have been around and part of gaming in stores since before many of you were even born. If you don't like it... then get out? You don't have a right to game in public or anyone else's space. Go find like-minded people and enjoy yourself. Accept your way of enjoying yourself may not be a profitable venture for the FLGS. Some people like to do papercraft which is 100% not profitable for FLGS, some like to play RPG games with freeware RPG systems, that is not profitable for the FLGS. Some people play card games with printed out paper proxies, that is not profitable for the FLGS. You can say that those are valid ways for those people to 'enjoy their hobby'. That's fine, they can just do it out on the street or in their own homes.

There are two conversations going on here that are on parrallel tracks and no intersection in sight:

1) The general "unpainted" v's "painted" and who gets to decide how someone approaches a hobby. No-one gets to decide this but the person him/her self. Be respectful towards other people's attitudes.

2) A Store owner making a policy to benefit painted armies which he has 100% right to do and if you don't like you are SOL. Take your business elsewhere if sufficiently offended - I am sure he has done the research and decided lost trade v's gains is lower.

nkelsch wrote:

 gunslingerpro wrote:

 Mastiff wrote:


Not really. If you're playing against someone else, what's wrong with hoping they enhance the experience by playing with painted models instead of unpainted? If you're playing at a public location, why not hope for a better experience than you get at home?

Alright, so hope. But the minute that hope turns into require you've substituted what that person may find most important (the game, human interaction, strategy) with what you deem most important (the hobby, immersion, aesthetics).

i.e. stop enjoying my hobby/game different than me.

The store owner *ALWAYS* Substitutes what he deems most important... PROFIT. He owns the space you game on, he determines how you game. if you don't like it, get out.

You keep talking like you have rights and deserve to be treated equally when you have no rights and deserve nothing when gaming in someone else's space. If you want rights and to control how you game or want a place where you can have influence or input... game at home, or organize a club where you have input.

Human interaction for you does nothing for the store's profit. You enjoying Tactical strategy does nothing for the stores profit. Gaming immersion, painted models, quality tables, opponents with painted models, well run events all do positive things for the stores profits.

What if you were someone who 'hated' tourneys... and a store did nothing but tourneys? "I don't enjoy competitive play as part of my hobby, but all they do is run events!" well then guess what? the store is organizing play, forcing what they determine the 'best' way to play in his store is to make the most profit... and if you don't like it... you know where the door is.

Painting requirements have been around and part of gaming in stores since before many of you were even born. If you don't like it... then get out? You don't have a right to game in public or anyone else's space. Go find like-minded people and enjoy yourself. Accept your way of enjoying yourself may not be a profitable venture for the FLGS. Some people like to do papercraft which is 100% not profitable for FLGS, some like to play RPG games with freeware RPG systems, that is not profitable for the FLGS. Some people play card games with printed out paper proxies, that is not profitable for the FLGS. You can say that those are valid ways for those people to 'enjoy their hobby'. That's fine, they can just do it out on the street or in their own homes.

The GW store here (NYC, 8th street) has two tables. One of them you're not allowed to play on unless you're fully painted.

I hate it.

It's hard enough to find a game / somewhere to play, but then to be told 'oh, no, this empty table can't be used by your models that aren't finished'..

I haven't been back to that store. Probably won't go back.

Sure, a store owner / manager has every right to put whatever requirements they want on the use of their space. But, the rest of us also have a "right" to gripe about it.

This "if you don't like it, get out" attitude is fine, and that's what a lot of people will do, but I'm going to "get out" and then complain about it. "right" has nothing to do with it.

If the apple store required you to have the background of your phone set to a picture of steve jobs in order to get technical support, they'd certainly be within their "right", but then people would leave..... and complain.

Most people who would be effected by this rule would probably be customers buying the models(pay where you play) and a lot of stores even charge for table time.
What I require for both is a safe and comfortable environment to play, using the rule hatred amplify the negatives that pushing people to paint in such a way does. And honestly I think with just the way some people have post in this thread have show that it gives them power to be rather nasty.

This isn't them saying you need to make effort, or incentivising positively in there store, they have chosen the rule hatred and I find hard to believe it was chosen for its small effect in the game.
I would even find them just saying you can't play as more acceptable if your army isn't painted.

 fullheadofhair wrote:
There are two conversations going on here that are on parrallel tracks and no intersection in sight:

1) The general "unpainted" v's "painted" and who gets to decide how someone approaches a hobby. No-one gets to decide this but the person him/her self. Be respectful towards other people's attitudes.

2) A Store owner making a policy to benefit painted armies which he has 100% right to do and if you don't like you are SOL. Take your business elsewhere if sufficiently offended - I am sure he has done the research and decided lost trade v's gains is lower.

The intersection is people who play with unpainted, feeling their human rights are being assaulted by this store rule and then dragging the 'painted vs unpainted' into the conversation.

No one cares or looks down upon you for not painting. But people claim 'being respectful' into 'you must play me or else you are hating me'. I would rather sit at a painting table and paint a mini than spend 2 hours playing against unpainted models. No mater what I do, declining a game and not playing someone they will take that as 'not respecting them' and we enter an unwinnable situation. The simple act of declining a game makes some people gak their pants in rage. The simple act that someone somewhere disallows unpainted models gets them frothing at the mouth mad even though it doesn't impact them.

It boils down to there is an entitlement that "if I deem the game is most important, anyone who refuses to play me must be disrespecting me" and they can't respect my choice to not play them. So to 'avoid' people who are going to carry a chip like that around, I choose to find events where painting is 'required' so I will be with like-minded people and those who don't want to follow the rules are dealt with before I even approach a table. I don't have time to go to a store and choose to play 'Random guy A' over 'Random Guy B' and have Mr. B bitch for 4 hours about his right to have unpainted armies because I chose to play Mr. A and his painted army.

If you have to assault me with excuses on why you don't paint when I decline a game, you are not respecting me... I am not upset that you have unpainted models, I don't have an issue, I just don't want to spend 2 hours playing a game with you then. You should say 'that's cool' and find someone else to play. That takes a level of maturity lacking from a lot of people interacting with strangers at a lot of stores (and seen on this forum). They seem to always take it personally and want to say I am an elitist and they have rights, while claiming they deserve respect when what they really want is for me to sacrifice my existence to serve them by playing a game which I do not want to play.

If someone didn't want to play me for any reason I wouldn't want to play with them really, I wouldn't force them or feel any need or insult.

This is entirely based on the store, and the way they have decided to rule it for me.
I find it as little more than a sour joke at people's expense made into a rule. If a store I did go to where to put this up I would complain, and my business would go another way.
This no way to grow and support a store community.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
My daughter took up rowing last year. She and some of her fellow girl rowers were moaning about getting wet and muddy. I told them they would most likely find there is quite a lot of water involved in the sport.

It's the same with tabletop miniature wargaming and paint.

You two need to combie your sports. Table top rowing! (might not travel as fast)

I find this hilarious, I'm a constant offender of having a partially untainted army, but then so are most of my 'group' at my local (non gw) club, whilst I wouldn't chooses for this rule to be implemented I defiantly think its a cool idea, 40k, and i assume fantasy, is intended to be a casual game after all.

That said, the one thing that bugs me ( and I'm glad the rule covers this ) is the guy with the marines primed black with splotches of gold, who sneers down his nose at you because yours aren't painted yet

Apple fox wrote:
If someone didn't want to play me for any reason I wouldn't want to play with them really, I wouldn't force them or feel any need or insult.

"You can't fire me... I quit!" "You are out of Pie? Your Pie is terrible anyways" "I coudln't go to your party? I bet your party sucked anyways"

basically mentally protect your ego by putting down whatever you can't have or rejects you by filling in the blank. Anyone who refuses to play you *MUST* be a terrible person to play against. You didn't refuse to play me, I refused to play you!

This is entirely based on the store, and the way they have decided to rule it for me.
I find it as little more than a sour joke at people's expense made into a rule. If a store I did go to where to put this up I would complain, and my business would go another way.
This no way to grow and support a store community.

So you mean playing for free on a store owners prime real estate and showing a product he is attempting to sell to new customers in a less than favorable light is helping that store owner 'build a community'? And you think a store owner is going to care what a person who disrespects his store and undermines his sales thinks?

You want to build a community? Then you respect the store, work with the owner and work out a way so during peak times, you help make sales for him through promoting amazing appearance on tables and then negotiate relaxed rules on 'club night' when there is no street traffic. Kids don't know how their actions impact others, but as adults, we sure as hell do. You want to build a local community? that means helping drive sales which means sucking it up once in a while and putting away our unpainted models. Having a little self control and delayed gratification. Play with your 1500 which is painted on saturday and whip out those WIP models on club night.

That is 'building a community' not being an unreasonable burden on the place where you game.

I bet if you asked your store owner, he would say he would rather everything be painted, but won't force it because in general people are selfish and don't think how their actions impact others. I don't want to be disrepsectful to anyone's gaming store, so I pay where I play and bring only painted models to help promote the hobby as much as possible in a positive light for the owner. It is the least I can do for the service they provide by allowing me to game there.

nkelsh, the first snippet about apple fox doesn't seem quite sound! Maybe I misunderstood, or am just too eager to play devils advocate! hehe! A game by the nature of it, unless your playing in a competition, is done so for fun, right? Enjoyment being the #1 purpose. If one person is enjoying the game and the other isn't, it's just that! Seeing as it's a game designed for more than one player, ensuring your opponent has a good time isn't required, but it doesn't make the experience enjoyable for both parties.

If I knew that someone would automatically have a bad time playing against me (despite me being a wonderfully cheery nice guy who isn't a rules lawyer) over the mere fact that I'm X, I would refrain from pursuing a game with that fellow out of respect that he could spend his time playing a game he WOULD find enjoyable (instead of an un-enjoyed game vs. me for X reason).... X could be because my models aren't painted, because I'm stinky, because I reek of booz and obviously drunk, or it could be because I'm of a race that fellow has a prejudice against... there could be a million reasons why someone may not want to play with ME! I don't have to resent them, or be insulted! I also don't have to wish to not play with them also for a superficial reason! I could not want to play with them for the reasons I have mentioned. more or less my point!

It's not merely, "oh John doesn't want to play with me. So I don't want to play with him because of that!"

as it is more "Oh john doesn't want to play with me. So I don't want to waste his precious time by making him play a game with me, that only I will enjoy, as I know he doesn't enjoy playing against me for X reason."

or at least thats how I see it!


this is solely in response to the tidbit here ""You can't fire me... I quit!" "You are out of Pie? Your Pie is terrible anyways" "I coudln't go to your party? I bet your party sucked anyways"

basically mentally protect your ego by putting down whatever you can't have or rejects you by filling in the blank. Anyone who refuses to play you *MUST* be a terrible person to play against. You didn't refuse to play me, I refused to play you!"

cheers!

I have yet to see any proof that requiring painted models increases a store's profits, as all I've seen is a bunch of unsubstantiated claims that this is the case. The mandatory painting crowd are also trying to use invalid comparisons of model railroading, entry into nightclubs, and Private Golf Club memberships to bolster their opinions as they are not even remotely close to the 40K hobby--which has multiple aspects. Some people just collect and paint models, some are just into the game, some are just into the lore, and some think that to participate in one aspect you have to also take part in all of the other aspects as well.

It is as if there are those out there who want to keep 40K as a niche game instead of growing the base of players. They seem to think that there is booming demand for gaming shops to open on every corner, when the opposite has been true with many more stores closing over the last several years. How welcoming is it to a new player to have them buy several hundred dollars worth of models and then tell them they cannot come back and play until their models are painted? How does it help newcomers learn to play game and become more interested so they keep buying products and participate more?

When you see comments about grey models, such as:
It is insulting to see grey models on the table...
It ruins my immersion...
I painted my models quickly this way, so you should be able to do the same...
I work 40 hrs a week, have a family, and still am able to paint my models quickly--you must have the same capability...
It is the younger generation's fault because my generation did it this way...
The only way to truly enjoy the game is by participating in every aspect of the hobby--there is no other option....
Only having painted models in the store makes it look better for possible customers...

...you are left with the conclusion that it is Elitist Fanbois who believe that they, and everyone else, can only properly enjoy the hobby when they participate by their imposed rules, and are ruining the hobby if they do not comply.

Actully I was referring to the fact that if someone didn't want to play with me I wouldn't force them, they don't want to so I can accept that.

You think I play for free ? I am happy to pay for a table and I do every week. I also buy products to support the store, which are more expensive to buy at the store.
I also only play on main days, I talk with new custermers and help support the store as best I can. But at a certain point the store has to support me as a customer also.
Also I don't have issue if a store wants everything painted, if I could I would want to be at that standard.
Response to nkelsch since quoting is broke on iPad for me nowD;

Dolgan wrote:
I have yet to see any proof that requiring painted models increases a store's profits, as all I've seen is a bunch of unsubstantiated claims that this is the case. The mandatory painting crowd are also trying to use invalid comparisons of model railroading, entry into nightclubs, and Private Golf Club memberships to bolster their opinions as they are not even remotely close to the 40K hobby--which has multiple aspects...

What all the comparisons have in common is that they are all businesses offering space for the public to use. Therefore, they should set the rules that satisfies their needs. Which is what this particular store is doing. Whether you see any proof of a financial advantage, it's what the store owner feels works best for his particular customers. It's not an overarching rule beyond their borders.
.

gunslingerpro wrote:
Fair enough. And I agree that you can refuse to play whoever you like, and this store can put any rules into affect it likes . But you did all that because you enjoyed it, not because someone made you.

It really seems to be a case of stop enjoying my hobby/game different than me.

Wait, is that me agreeing with the point you're making about store owners, BEFORE YOU MAKE IT? *GASP*

nkelsch wrote:
The store owner *ALWAYS* Substitutes what he deems most important... PROFIT. He owns the space you game on, he determines how you game. if you don't like it, get out.

You keep talking like you have rights and deserve to be treated equally when you have no rights and deserve nothing when gaming in someone else's space. If you want rights and to control how you game or want a place where you can have influence or input... game at home, or organize a club where you have input.

Human interaction for you does nothing for the store's profit. You enjoying Tactical strategy does nothing for the stores profit. Gaming immersion, painted models, quality tables, opponents with painted models, well run events all do positive things for the stores profits.

What if you were someone who 'hated' tourneys... and a store did nothing but tourneys? "I don't enjoy competitive play as part of my hobby, but all they do is run events!" well then guess what? the store is organizing play, forcing what they determine the 'best' way to play in his store is to make the most profit... and if you don't like it... you know where the door is.

Painting requirements have been around and part of gaming in stores since before many of you were even born. If you don't like it... then get out? You don't have a right to game in public or anyone else's space. Go find like-minded people and enjoy yourself. Accept your way of enjoying yourself may not be a profitable venture for the FLGS. Some people like to do papercraft which is 100% not profitable for FLGS, some like to play RPG games with freeware RPG systems, that is not profitable for the FLGS. Some people play card games with printed out paper proxies, that is not profitable for the FLGS. You can say that those are valid ways for those people to 'enjoy their hobby'. That's fine, they can just do it out on the street or in their own homes.

You're being rather quick to jump down anyone's throat who opposes your view. I even state that you don't have to play anyone you don't want to. Odd. It's like I totally agree with everything except your indignant attempts to paint non-painters who dislike this rule as, how do you put it, people 'acting like we have rights and deserve to be treated equally'.

I didn't say that. Most people who don't like it didn't say that. You and I are actually on the same side of this discussion, you're just so quick to demonize anyone reaching the same conclusion from another angle that you missed it.

The issue isn't the store, they have that right. The issue here is the people who think that by not painting, for whatever reason, people are doing the hobby/game wrong, and they are wrong by association. A store can put whatever standards it wants on who plays at it. You can choose not to play people who don't paint, who don't base, who don't waaagh, who don't wear blue on consecutive thursdays in January, that is your right.

Where I disagree with people is where they say 'not painting is not playing the game/hobby right', cause all I hear is stop enjoying the game/hobby different than me

I'm kinda on the fence about this. On the one hand, I personally won't play with models I have not painted as well as I can at the time I painted them.

On the other hand Weeble had a good point, that positive reinforcement might be a better way to go. I don't like painting, and if I was losing games because the rules were slanted against me to try and force me to paint, I wouldn't start painting, I'd find a hobby that I enjoyed instead of one that was a job with chores.

I get that's supposed to be a good middle ground between gray legions and "unpainted models can't touch the table"; but I think I prefer the two extremes rather than half measures. I guess because I wouldn't want to think i beat someone less because I was a good player, and more because I got a special rule to slant the game in my favor and my opponent didn't.

Either way, though.

The "no waaaaaagh shout, no roll" is odious beyond belief though. I'd feel inclined to do a little "waaaaaaagh" as quietly as possible.

I think there is a bit of stereotyping going on here from BOTH sides that people are drawing conclusions on. 'The painters' see 'Unpainted players' as THE WORST that the unpainted has to offer.

I present to you the Unpainted Stereotype. The Flavor of the Month hopping, Win at all cost player who keeps his models unpainted not because he can't paint, but because he needs to be able to sell the models when something more overpowered comes out. This type of player generally has no connection to the hobby and plays only to crush other people in games, he could play monopoly if the rules allowed him to be better then everyone else when using the shoe instead of the car. This is the guy that doesn't even tell his opponent why a move he made is wrong. Doesn't let a single mistake go. Who argues RAW loopholes at the game table and who is just a D-BAG. These people exist, unfortunatly. And i am pretty sure that most of the people who have unpainted models because they paint slow, don't like to paint or just haven't gotten the time to get to it don't want to play with the Unpainted D-bag either.

Next the 'pro-painter' stereotype. This guy sits around painting all day to ALSO have his FOTM army done, he is just lagging either one codex behind or working on the current one. He is every bit the pretentious guy that the unpainted guy above is except he taunts the people that are unpainted with the superiority of his painted models. He writes of the people that paint slowly but much better then him as doing to much work that doesn't matter because he gets all his painting points at tournaments by putting in a day of work so they should paint faster better and harder because he did it to. You don't want to play this guy either, he just crushes your army or whines that his army is not so good against what you just fielded because of codex creep when he is one codex behind and he would have crushed you if he brought his unpainted army that he doesn't play out of principle. Even worse, this guy has enough money and space to buy a new army at every codex release and will ALWAYS smack you in the face with that fact whenever he can.

THESE PEOPLE, Lets just take a weird approach to this thread and assume that these people are NOT the people we talk to. That we are actually arguing the merits of people beeing allowed to play with unpainted models purely based on the fact that allowing people to play actually tends to build a commitment to the hobby that will eventually see them expand their intrests into other aspects, wether thats painting for an unpainted player or playing more for a painting only person. The approach of having a table at the back for unpainted and one at the front where only fully painted armies can play really is a great idea where no one wins but everyone compromises. As for the all painted standard this store handles. Its always sad to see a store exclude any part of its customer base. So I don't really agree with the logic behind it but People should always at least prime their minatures IMHO. If you don't want to prime for resale values, you might actually honestly fall into the type 1 douchebag field. And then i don't really care for your opinion anymore anyway.

so peace out everyone. And have a bit of faith in humanity/fellow dakkaites!

Dolgan wrote:
The mandatory painting crowd are also trying to use invalid comparisons of model railroading, entry into nightclubs, and Private Golf Club memberships to bolster their opinions as they are not even remotely close to the 40K hobby--which has multiple aspects. Some people just collect and paint models, some are just into the game, some are just into the lore, and some think that to participate in one aspect you have to also take part in all of the other aspects as well.

I disagree with your assertion that Model Railroading (my comparison of choice) is not even remotely close to the Wargaming hobby which you think is different in that it "has multiple aspets". I would say that railroading, in it's many aspects is remarkably close to wargaming, perhaps the most similar hobby out there.

You say that "Some people..."
..."just collect and paint models" -In Railroading some folks don't run trains, they just collect. Some just build. Some do both.

..."some are just into the game" -Some Railroad enthusiasts just want to run trains and have no desire to build and paint. Some choose 0 or 027 where nearly everything is available prepainted and pre-assembled.

..."some are just into the lore, " -Some Railroad Enthususiasts rarely pick up a train, building kit, paintbrush or control module. They are most happy just researching the history of rail lines, the livery of various companies, types of rolling stock, etc, etc...

Just as in wargaming, many railroaders have many different aspects of the hobby, and some choose one part to the exclusion of others. My point is that when it comes time to put trains or buildings on the table, there are some basic visual standards that most/all clubs agree to as well as many other higher standards that many clubs add for themselves. These standards keep the appearance of the hobby high, create expectations that are clear and achievable and result in the polished look of model train layouts that most everyone is familiar with. It's a good thing for the hobby, hobby stores, and the individual hobbyist.

Why I agree that model railroading is similar( I enjoy my trains but more my dads thing), I think it's also has some differences. There is also some differences. That you mention, there are much more pre painted and there isn't really a game in the same sense as with 40k. I have also found it to be a much more personal hobby, and going to the trains club has been inclusive without any negativity towards people.
(I don't think I have ever been to a railroading store that had track set up for anything other than for people to put trains on thay where considering of buying)
I would also say that all the rules thay use are positive in the hobby. At least where I was to go there was no competive game to use a rule like this in.
Why we can draw similarities we also have to allow for differences .

Paint your army.

 Peregrine wrote:
I like this idea. It's a good compromise between banning unpainted models entirely and allowing ugly gray armies without penalty. The only thing I'd change is make it preferred enemy so it also helps shooting units.

 Sidstyler wrote:
I'm more enraged that they force you to yell Waaagh! for the roll.

This. Mandatory yelling is just stupid.

Amen to both the above

In the time posters have spent arguing with the hatred rule, saying it's unfair. They could have painted at least a squad of troops.

DanFST wrote:
In the time posters have spent arguing with the hatred rule, saying it's unfair. They could have painted at least a squad of troops.

You're allowed to paint at work?

Man, and I thought a little forum browsing/posting was pretty sweet...

 Forar wrote:

DanFST wrote:
In the time posters have spent arguing with the hatred rule, saying it's unfair. They could have painted at least a squad of troops.

You're allowed to paint at work?

Man, and I thought a little forum browsing/posting was pretty sweet...

Proof that sarcasm really is lost on North Americans!


Edit: it's late here...... but i think i know what you're reply might be. *Self-facepalm*

*shrug*

You said that people could have painted troops instead of posting their complaints.

I pointed out that just because someone is posting doesn't mean they could be painting.

Match. Point. ;-)

I think this is honestly a good rule, because there's nothing better than two brilliantly painted armies facing off an a vibrant battlefield, it just makes the game so much more enjoyable for everyone. I also quite like that the store has clarified what counts as painted to stop people arguing. This rule strikes me as really well thought through.
It always bugs me when people talk about games workshop "using" players for free advertising like it's some kind of awful thing. of course they're using you for advertising, imagine how much more dull their stores would be without all the players and modelers, and in return, we get a great place to hobby!
I think people are too quick to see the negative in GW right now, when really, a lot of the individual stores are still doing a great job!

I've posted my disagreement to policies like this in a lot of other threads, so I won't repeat them. However, something new I thought of: You know what attracts new people more than seeing two painted armies? Seeing two people having fun. I'd be more interested in checking out a game if I saw two people with gray plastic having a blast than two amazing looking armies having an ok time. Player attitude is a better form of in-store advertising than appearance of models.

 Forar wrote:

DanFST wrote:
In the time posters have spent arguing with the hatred rule, saying it's unfair. They could have painted at least a squad of troops.

You're allowed to paint at work?

Man, and I thought a little forum browsing/posting was pretty sweet...

I've painted very nearly every single one of warhams models at work - everything rhino size and smaller.

 MandalorynOranj wrote:
I've posted my disagreement to policies like this in a lot of other threads, so I won't repeat them. However, something new I thought of: You know what attracts new people more than seeing two painted armies? Seeing two people having fun. I'd be more interested in checking out a game if I saw two people with gray plastic having a blast than two amazing looking armies having an ok time. Player attitude is a better form of in-store advertising than appearance of models.

Of course, what beats two players have a great time with a couple of grey blobs? Two players having a great time with painted miniatures. It's not like one excludes the other, you know. Painting my miniatures hasn't sapped the fun out of my games.

 Ouze wrote:

 Forar wrote:

DanFST wrote:
In the time posters have spent arguing with the hatred rule, saying it's unfair. They could have painted at least a squad of troops.

You're allowed to paint at work?

Man, and I thought a little forum browsing/posting was pretty sweet...

I've painted very nearly every single one of warhams models at work - everything rhino size and smaller.

I know somebody that works as a security guard at a parking garage.... Care to guess where he paints?

In regards to the model railroading argument....

Both Wargaming and Model Railroading are kind of umbrella hobbies - with a lot of other hobbies that can be encompassed underneath that umbrella.

I like painting miniatures, a lot of folks enjoy painting trains, and the folks that go with the setting of the railroad.

I like designing a setting - there are some amazingly detailed fictional settings for model railroading such as the much lamented Gorre & Daphetid, (Destroyed thirty years ago, and still missed.)

I like building terrain for gaming - there are folks that go to amazing lengths to create terrain for model railroads. The setting of the Franklin and South Manchester dwarfs the trains.

There is a thriving business in computer wargaming - and games such as Railroad Tycoon have been a staple of computer games for decades.

The comparisons can go on - there are similarities. (And I don't even do railroad modeling - I look because I like the modeling, not because I want to run a railroad.)

The Auld Grump

If only there were GW stores in Michigan that would cause me to have concern about this issue... I was rather disgruntled when I called GW and found out basically all hobby centers in the SE area were closed.

Instead, I play with just a couple friends at our homes. Sure, we use a floor or table and not a nice looking board, but we can manage to enjoy the game.


Also, what about more extreme proxies? Until I have more models, I use some old Uruk-hai for extra guardsmen/cultists where they are needed. Fine with my friends, but to what extent would stores tolerate this?

 Forar wrote:
You're allowed to paint at work?.

I do sometimes bring in stuff to paint on my lunchbreak...

 TheAuldGrump wrote:
I know somebody that works as a security guard at a parking garage.... Care to guess where he paints?

I had a mate in the same boat... He got more work done in the year or so he worked in the garage than in the entire previous decade he was playing 40K.

It's funny to see the painting argument threads pop up every now and again. People get so angry when other people even suggest that miniatures are actually for painting and that the complete hobby is playing games on finished terrain with completely painted miniatures. It's a normal thing, though, getting angry when someone points out you are falling short of a standard. People hate being judged and if there's even an implication of it, they'll cry and cry.

That said, I remember that during GW's greatest period of growth where they grew from a UK only company to an international one, they had a policy of only allowing painted miniatures in their stores with a three colour minimum and finished bases including no bare sand on the bases.

They should return to this and support more in store gaming as a means of having free demonstrations of actual games going on in all their stores. Just like when they grew across the planet.

 insaniak wrote:
I had a mate in the same boat... He got more work done in the year or so he worked in the garage than in the entire previous decade he was playing 40K.

"This job would be great, if it weren't for the f'n customers."


So anyway - what is a different approach for handling this? How could gaming stores provide incentives, positive feedback, to playing with painted armies?

infinite_array wrote:

 MandalorynOranj wrote:
I've posted my disagreement to policies like this in a lot of other threads, so I won't repeat them. However, something new I thought of: You know what attracts new people more than seeing two painted armies? Seeing two people having fun. I'd be more interested in checking out a game if I saw two people with gray plastic having a blast than two amazing looking armies having an ok time. Player attitude is a better form of in-store advertising than appearance of models.

Of course, what beats two players have a great time with a couple of grey blobs? Two players having a great time with painted miniatures. It's not like one excludes the other, you know. Painting my miniatures hasn't sapped the fun out of my games.

Ok, but my point was that paint on models doesn't actually make a difference to the impression that somebody walking by the store would get. What are you honestly more likely to notice just passing by outside, the colors of the models on the board, or whether the guys playing seem to be having a good time? From outside a store, the models would just look like little colored specks, but I'd definitely be able to tell whether the players were laughing/smiling or not. Even more so for someone who wanders in to check it out because then they can talk to the people playing. It's a cop-out excuse to say that unpainted or partially painted models are bad advertising.

I can see arguments on either side - I paint my armies, which is the only ones that I have control over.

I like facing a painted army across the board.

But either way... whether the other army is painted or not... I will crush them!

The Auld Grump, well... about 75% of the time I will crush them....


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 MandalorynOranj wrote:

infinite_array wrote:

 MandalorynOranj wrote:
I've posted my disagreement to policies like this in a lot of other threads, so I won't repeat them. However, something new I thought of: You know what attracts new people more than seeing two painted armies? Seeing two people having fun. I'd be more interested in checking out a game if I saw two people with gray plastic having a blast than two amazing looking armies having an ok time. Player attitude is a better form of in-store advertising than appearance of models.

Of course, what beats two players have a great time with a couple of grey blobs? Two players having a great time with painted miniatures. It's not like one excludes the other, you know. Painting my miniatures hasn't sapped the fun out of my games.

Ok, but my point was that paint on models doesn't actually make a difference to the impression that somebody walking by the store would get. What are you honestly more likely to notice just passing by outside, the colors of the models on the board, or whether the guys playing seem to be having a good time? From outside a store, the models would just look like little colored specks, but I'd definitely be able to tell whether the players were laughing/smiling or not. Even more so for someone who wanders in to check it out because then they can talk to the people playing. It's a cop-out excuse to say that unpainted or partially painted models are bad advertising.

Yes - it really does make that big a difference to passers by. They may not understand the game being played, but they can look at the minis and understand that somebody does a nice job of painting them.

Heck, part of the reason that I paint miniatures in places like Burger King is so that random folks can come up to me and say - 'those look fantastic!'

The best was a mom that told her daughter that I was one of Santa's elves, and later hired me to paint her little girl a Christmas present.

That mom was one of the best liars that I have ever had the pleasure of meeting. She even told her daughter not to stare as I painted her present, because Santa's elves don't like it when people watch them working on toys....

The Auld Grump

Hold on, people actually play games in GW stores?

 frozenwastes wrote:
It's funny to see the painting argument threads pop up every now and again. People get so angry when other people even suggest that miniatures are actually for painting and that the complete hobby is playing games on finished terrain with completely painted miniatures. It's a normal thing, though, getting angry when someone points out you are falling short of a standard. People hate being judged and if there's even an implication of it, they'll cry and cry.

That said, I remember that during GW's greatest period of growth where they grew from a UK only company to an international one, they had a policy of only allowing painted miniatures in their stores with a three colour minimum and finished bases including no bare sand on the bases.

They should return to this and support more in store gaming as a means of having free demonstrations of actual games going on in all their stores. Just like when they grew across the planet.

no bare sand huh? I put bare sand on my troop models... everything else at least get some rocks and shrubery

I've read countless opinions on here, on this subject; which comes up WAY too often. I stand on both sides of this fence. Yes, yelling in a public place is an annoyance, but not being boisterous is rather UNORKY. Oh, now I get it, you are all mad about the paint rule. In the current system where firing armies instead of massive assault armies are being taken. Why complain? Like many of you, I work a day in, day out , 40+ hour week. Heck, my weekend is in the middle of many of your workweek. I have taken the time to at least get my ever-expanding Night Lords to "good" table quality. Because I want to show how far I've come in the hobby since I've started. I think that it is fair to me that if a player comes into my FLGS or GW and wants a game on one of these days, that they should be proud to show off their army instead of just "testing rules to make sure I made a good purchase." If their painted army incites me to ask about how they achieved an effect or vise versa, I feel and I hope they feel a sense of pride in their army and their skills.
Now that I'm returning to Eldar, I'm employing all the new skills I've gained since I first started and am happy to field them as they get painted. Yes, I still have some that need to be striped from my first painting fiasco, and be inducted into my new craft world.
I can honestly say I would rather play against my fully painted and extremely basically based Night Lords, than my grey plastic Space Wolves. I can find 1 hour of my life to work on one model a day.
Oh, and yes I've have taken a small kit of paint with me to work and have worked on a model whilst on lunch. Yes, I got crazy looks, but it did incite a conversation that led to one of my coworkers getting into the hobby and buying my untainted orks army off of me. He and his girlfriend spend time together painting my old primed / assembled boyz. So I'm happy to see them get new life, and have been happy to play against that green tide.
I have another friend who always complains about not getting a game in to test his new tau army, because he doesn't want to play "new players and have to teach them the rules," or "I don't want to play without a fully painted army." So, he will never get snother game in at that rate.
I, on the other hand, have on MANY of occasions have stopped a paint project to play a teaching game or get a game in with my painted army. That is part of creating a friendly environment, you don't have to be fake just polite and/cordial.
I agree that the painting may not be "your" part of the hobby, but you may have a.friend who only likes to paint, ask him or pay him to paint for you. My part of the hobby is all aspects: collecting, assembling, painting, and playing.
Professional sports teams don't forget their team colors at home when they show up for the big game, why should your models? And saying you have no time, no skill, just really sounds like a cop-out to not say you're lazy.
If that store wants to reward that hobbist that is painting and playing with a very minor buff, that is their business. You were not forced to buy or play there.

I've heard that GW are bringing out a new range in the autumn, for players who don't have time to assemble or paint their models. It is pre-unassembled, pre-unpainted. The first release will of course be Space Marines Tacticals, priced at £30 per box of five. Here is a sneak preview of them on a pre-unbuilt terrain board.

Wow - those are not painted really well!

 Kilkrazy wrote:
I've heard that GW are bringing out a new range in the autumn, for players who don't have time to assemble or paint their models. It is pre-unassembled, pre-unpainted. The first release will of course be Space Marines Tacticals, priced at £30 per box of five. Here is a sneak preview of them on a pre-unbuilt terrain board.

Boom, there it is. I personally think the rules are cute, fun things (it is a game, after all). The Waaagh thing is also funny, and if you play orks (THE comic relief faction) that should be mandatory anyways. the yelling makes it like Yahtzee or Uno, just with more dakka.

Anyways, if you aren't going to to make an effort to paint your models, why not just get a big sack of bases with the units names on them, or go play a card game, or chess, or just roll dice for a few hours. a big part of 40k is the models. I'm sure a lot of people disagree, but I think it becomes a slippery slope of laziness.

I'm probably not being completely fair right now, and I'm not saying unpaint-ers(?) shouldn't be allowed to play, but if you aren't willing to accept a minor disadvantage, then I see no issue with playing somewhere else (how many people play at GW stores, anyways?)

 CommanderAlexander wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
I've heard that GW are bringing out a new range in the autumn, for players who don't have time to assemble or paint their models. It is pre-unassembled, pre-unpainted. The first release will of course be Space Marines Tacticals, priced at £30 per box of five. Here is a sneak preview of them on a pre-unbuilt terrain board.

Boom, there it is. I personally think the rules are cute, fun things (it is a game, after all). The Waaagh thing is also funny, and if you play orks (THE comic relief faction) that should be mandatory anyways. the yelling makes it like Yahtzee or Uno, just with more dakka.

Anyways, if you aren't going to to make an effort to paint your models, why not just get a big sack of bases with the units names on them, or go play a card game, or chess, or just roll dice for a few hours. a big part of 40k is the models. I'm sure a lot of people disagree, but I think it becomes a slippery slope of laziness.

I'm probably not being completely fair right now, and I'm not saying unpaint-ers(?) shouldn't be allowed to play, but if you aren't willing to accept a minor disadvantage, then I see no issue with playing somewhere else (how many people play at GW stores, anyways?)

Why not just keep your pretty little models up on a shelf then, since you don't actually seem to enjoy playing the actual game?

I mean if all you care about is painting, keep em up nice and pretty to show them off.

Since there is plenty of people saying they shouldn't be allowed to play at all up in this thread.