I don't like playing people who haven't taken time to paint their army. Anyone can glue some "Nids" together and show up. Is it wrong that if I am not in a tournament that I refuse to play someone with an unpainted army? 1 or 2 models I can handle but an entire army with not one drop of paint on in? Come on people get your act together and take some pride in the hobby!!! Opinions welcome, please explain why you haven't painted your army or why you agree that it is very annoying to go up against a grey plastic Leman Russ?

In a tournament, I think you should have your stuff painted, but not everyone will have the time or inclanation to paint all their stuff for casual play.

I work and have other things that I have or want to do in my free time rather than paint soldiers.

Although my goal is to get all my stuff painted. I would certainly not want to play at any serious game without a painted army.

At my FLGS, a lot of people build stuff they've bought that day in the store. Its nice that they can assemble their model, and then play a game or two with it before the final gluing and painting. I did it saturday with my Vindicator, and I was pleased that no one cared I was fielding it with just the body assembled and no paint. I did the same with my predators which was especially nice because I could play around with the configurations before deciding what to glue together.

I can get the official events, but at a friendly game its nice to let people play with their new unit before they begin the arduous task of painting.

I would call it highly unsportsman like to outright refuse to play someone in a tourny whose army wasn't painted(personally my pet peeve is people who basecoat and play like that, plain plastic is ok, black or white is bad)

many tournys have rules about the army being painted or seriously encourage it.

Now it might be in bad taste to bring a unpainted army in(it isn't fantastic to play against, I am one of 2 people at my group who can play an entirly painted army), but that doesn't mean you have to be a jerk about it. maybe it's a new army for him, maybe he hasn't much time, or something.

you could nicely ask him to paint it next time, BUT above all be polite

@beard102479: If you use the search function you'll find a lot of threads on this subject already. This topic has been discussed contentiously and exhaustively many a time.

@everyone else: Please let's not do this again.

Heh, each Gaming Group has different standards.
There is no right or wrong, only peer pressure.

Manchu wrote:@beard102479: If you use the search function you'll find a lot of threads on this subject already. This topic has been discussed contentiously and exhaustively many a time.

@everyone else: Please let's not do this again.

then don't read it. you get annoyed by people starting threads that have been already discussed? i get annoyed by people who post in a thread to simply tell someone to use the search function next time.


and no... i dont paint my armies. i barely have enough time to get them assembled let alone paint them. on top of that i simply do not like to paint. if i showed up with my primed army in a friendly open game atmosphere and you said you wouldnt play me then i'd ask the next person or leave.

as far as tournaments go, most require some form of paint on the miniatures so its usually not an issue.

In reality you have a right to not play anyone for any reason, but from a sportsmanship view simply not having an army painted should be no reason to not pick up a casual game.

At the FLGS that got me into 40K we weren't allowed to play with unpainted models. A couple grey models were generally accepted, but past that the owner wouldn't permit you to play. Overall I think that was a very good idea because battles would always be nice to look at and it got me into the habit of always painting my models when I got them.

usernamesareannoying wrote:then don't read it. you get annoyed by people starting threads that have been already discussed? i get annoyed by people who post in a thread to simply tell someone to use the search function next time.

Despite your best efforts, it's nothing personal.

Lorek wrote:3. Before posting on a topic, check for existing threads! There's a Search feature that works really well for this, and usually all you really need to do is scan the first few pages of the appropriate forum to make sure you're not duplicating something. This especially applies in You Make Da Call, where your question very well may have already been argued to death (and beware the rusty spoons!).

So, someone who plays orks, for example, should have to paint 150+ guys before you would deem them worthy of a game? They can't play while in the often several-month-long process of painting dozens of models?

Your arbitrary rules exclude everyone who is just getting into the game or a new army and thus condemns the hobby to failure. Great job. Way to think that through. How about you take pride what in YOU enjoy about the hobby and get off your high horse about everyone else.

Modquisition on.
The beginnign of this thread almost insured a flamefest. lets keep it calm or the thread will be closed and persons disciplined. By calm i mean discuss the merits of the topic and avoid personal attacks or disparagement of other posters.

A couple models, fine. Half the army, ok. All base-coat, no way. Call me an ass or whatever but to have nothing painted is just lazy. At least try. This is open games at the shop of course. At your buddies house, do whatever. I dont have to deal with you.

The local club I go to has an 'unwritten' rule that any figures or scenery used should have at least a basic paint job on them which no one has complained about, or gone against, in the 10 years its been going.

LeperMessiah- We play from 400 points up in 40k so if someone does start a new army they don't have to wait until they have 1500+ points painted before they can use it.

Mick

Cpt Gate wrote:A couple models, fine. Half the army, ok. All base-coat, no way. Call me an ass or whatever but to have nothing painted is just lazy. At least try. This is open games at the shop of course. At your buddies house, do whatever. I don't have to deal with you.

being lazy has nothing to do with it. i do not like to paint. why should i have to? painting the models is merely one aspect of the hobby. its like saying you wont play someone if they don't convert their models or clean their flash or drill out their gun barrels.

Well, there are those that follow the hobby.
Then there are those that just participate to beat people in a game.

All this should be well known beforehand.
The only time I see this is an issue is in a pick-up game situation. (As tourneys should be real clear WHAT sort of slant they are leaning too Hobby or just Gaming).

If it's a pick up situation, then each person will decide who they want to play with, it's as simple as that. Why waste time if I'm not enjoying the game when I like to play against painted armies...? It's each persons' right to decide who they play with in a pick up game situation. (Assuming perfect information).

40k is a hobby and each individual should be entitled to enjoy it as they see fit. I don’t mind playing an opponent with an unpainted army in a friendly game.

With that said, however, I believe it’s important that local gaming clubs enforce painting rules for club-sponsored events. The reason for this is because it distinguishes the people who want to “play with toys” and genuine hobbyists. There’s a practical reason behind this beyond “gamer elitism” which I’ll get to in a second.

I’ve seen cases of unpainted models brought into my store where the models were dumped in like a toy box. The owner dug threw them like a box of Lego’s. These people are completely entitled to treat their property as they wishes. However, this behavior is an indication that they regard the models as “toys” and opponents “playmates”.

Conversely, many people in my gaming club have well painted armies in custom made and costly cases. They regard their property as a component of their hobby and value the hobby on a broader level beyond the set of rules needed to participate in a game.

The second type of person is the type that will likely be playing the game for many years to come. This is the type of person who brings value to the gaming club by virtue of his experience. He is also the type of person who forms the core of a gaming club that will last for years or decades.

It is inevitable that life pulls people away from the hobby at some point; college, girlfriends, wives, children, houses, careers, so on and so on. An individual who regards his past time as a collection of toys will be extremely unlikely to form that core of dedicated gamers that every gaming club needs to survive the changes life brings to all of us. An individual who sees his pastime as a hobby, as more than a game, will see many gamers come and go over the life of his hobby but, hopefully, he will always be there to ensure the gaming club outlasts even himself… establishing the community of hobbyists that we all enjoy. If those who regard the hobby merely as toys to play a game ever find themselves transitioning into the realm of “dedicated hobbyist”, than perhaps they can take the reigns of the engine that drives the gaming club community.

Until then, the two schools aught to be bale to share a friendly game with one another for fun… maybe the dedicated hobbyists can learn something about fighting a particular army and maybe his opponent will be inspired to paint his models.

In my situation i am waiting for the new Tyranid codex to come out. I bought second hand a bunch of poorly painted and ripped apart Tyranids. I intend to simple green them after the codex comes out and start painting them, i have a scheme ready but i don't want to have to rip off well painted armaments. My painting is table top standard and possibly slightly above. Would you allow me to play you?

Hmmm... maybe I read the originals posters post wrong, but WTF are you? I mean, who are you to put your morales on what should or should not be done to play a game?

I mean you didn't even say that if the person has time to paint. Maybe he is to busy working but wants to play. So all the time he has is to just buy the mini's and put them together and that's it. Does this make this person a less person than you? I don't know, you are making yourself a holier than though person just because you have a painted army.

Is this the first time you ever met this person? Maybe he just started and wants to game. Maybe the 3rd or 4th time if you don't see an improvement then you can say "sorry, you armies arn't painted, I don't feel like playing you anymore since you can't take the time to paint your army" but be polite about it. I don't know, you sound so snobbish.

But then again, who are you to say I have to have a painted army? Maybe I don't have time to paint. Maybe I have kids around so I can't paint because of them, and I work off hours so when kids are sleeping I am either working or have to sleep my self. Maybe I should quit my job so I have more time to paint. Maybe I should kill and slaughter my children so I don't have to worry about them getting into the paint. Maybe I just hate painting.

Do I sound stupid in talking? Yeah I do, but you do as well since you can't take the time to explain why it bothers you so much and why it's a big deal for you. It's funny you want us to explain why, but you can't explain why yourself.

I do try to paint, but I suck at painting. Because of this, I havn't played any games in 5 years. I think I missed the gaming part of the hobby because of this. So now I will put my mini's together, and if they are not painted oh well, I want to game as well. Because of work and kids, I can't paint as I would like too.

So because of this, you are a better person than me? If you want to play the you are better or holier attidute with me, I can say you are wotherless person because you spend too much money on plastic toy soldiers that should only cost pennies to buy, and you waste your time painting them, when you should be giving money to less fortunate people than you, and devoting your time to charities. I don't mean what I just said here, but that is how I precieve you with your statement about unpainted armies.

You should really not worry about if it's painted or not, but just have fun playing with strangers and maybe make some new friends or what not.

Sorry for the rant, I just get upset when I read a post when someone thinks they are better than others just because their army is painted and the other is not.

Well i got 1500 points of guard. So far i painted 2 leman Russ executioners 1 chimera and 1 vet squad. Still 4 chimera's 4 squads and 2 Valk's to go. The only thing is that i dont like to paint. Well i dont like to paint alone and since the fgs is not exactly arround the corner. It is exactly what i have to do often. But its all cool tough since i have not played a 40k game yet. Still as a beginner myself i would not have a problem with unpainted armies.

Grtz
L.D.

Oh yeah and i have not found a suitable replacement for daylight. So i dont paint when it is dark outside.

Who cares what people think?

If you don't want to play against an unpainted army, then don't.

Personally, I don't care if the army is painted.

For tournaments, each TO will enforce painting to the level they want.

Fully painted is great. Half-painted I have no problem. Base-coated I don't really mind either. Heck, I've only painted half of each of my armies to to refuse playing someone who hasn't fully painted theirs would be hypocrytical.

For those who have a problem with people who haven't taken the time to paint their armies...

How do you feel about people who buy their stuff on feebay prepainted?

I mean, THEY didn't paint THEIR armies, either.

Do they care more about it because they can afford to buy painted stuff?

Where is the line drawn?

Is it because you want the person to expend the effort to prove they care, or because you just don't want to play against gray plastic?

Personally, I don't care a BIT about painted status. Not at all.
As long as I can tell the units apart (posts, markings of some sort, colored bases, etc), then it's all good.


Eric

@incarna - close but i think a category is missing. as stated, i do not paint although i have been playing and converting since rogue trader days. i do not treat my figures like toys and am constantly on the lookout for the next great storage method to try however i have no desire to paint them. to say i and others like me are not part of the hobbiest side of the community simply because i dont paint is a bit unfair.

Personally I have three armies. One fully painted, and in the stage of being repainted, and one with no paint. I work, married and have a son plus a foriegn exchange student. They take my time and energy. Do you mean that I can only play one army until I get the others painted?

In tournaments I use the fully Painte Blood Angels.

You have the right to refuse to play with anyone. You have that right, but I have the right to play with unpainted models. Besides I much rather someone take their time and do a good job instead of rushing the paint just to play.

Also forcing a new person (someone who more than likely never painted before) to have their whole army painted befroe they get to play their first game really limits the people willing to get into the game.

People fall into three groups.
1)People who have or make the time to paint their armies
2) People who do not have time to paint their armies
3) People who collect with no interest in painting, only playing

At the end of the day you have no right to tell a person that they "must" paint their army. However you are also well entitled to refuse to play an opponent because you feel strongly against doing so.

Each of us have our own lives to lead with limitations on the time and money we can spend on the hobby we love and no one enjoy others dictating how another should play or act around the hobby within reason.

I suggest a simple method of respecting the opinion of the other person in regards to their painting or lack of painting methods and respectfully decline to play against people you don't wish to play against.

I myself am a base-coater with 90% of my Tau painted and 50% of my Marines painted. The rest are undercoated waiting for me to decide on a new paint scheme that I'm "still" trying to choose lol. If someone declared that they won't play against me then I wouldn't fuss. I'd either switch to my other army if I was allowed by my opponent or redo my list so that I only had painted models. In my gaming group I have never had an issue with this.

As far as tournaments go, having a painted army is just common sense even if it were not a rule of participation. With the amount of hussle and bussle going on, if you were to lose or misplace a minature that was unpainted then I seriously bout you'd have any chance of getting it back as it would not have any markers decalring it as yours, aka a clear paint scheme identifying it as part of your army

Surely if its a persons choice that they want to use an army that's unpainted (no matter what the reason) it must be fair that its another persons choice not to play against an unpainted army?

We do this hobby for the enjoyment of it. If the op doesn't enjoy playing against unpainted armies why should he have to do it?

I personally prefer to play against painted armies but won't refuse to play against an unpainted one if the owner has a problem getting the army done and would probably offer to help out (mind you if was just through not being bothered I would think twice about playing against them...).

Mick

incarna wrote:a wall of text I enjoyed reading.

I hope this guy becomes a regular. I like his posts.

On topic though, I am two faced about this issue. I will refuse to play people who do not intend to paint their stuff, but I'll gladly play people who haven't had the time to. Painting is part of the hobby, and anything worth doing is worth doing well. Even a basic three color paint job that takes 5 minutes is miles better than all grey or primed.

usernamesareannoying wrote:@incarna - close but i think a category is missing. as stated, i do not paint although i have been playing and converting since rogue trader days. i do not treat my figures like toys and am constantly on the lookout for the next great storage method to try however i have no desire to paint them. to say i and others like me are not part of the hobbiest side of the community simply because i dont paint is a bit unfair.

I won’t deny there are shades of grey. If you fall in a limbo category between the two groups I would say that’s your right and you are entitled to enjoy your hobby as you see fit. I would also say you are probably in the minority.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

DarkHound wrote:

incarna wrote:a wall of text I enjoyed reading.

I hope this guy becomes a regular. I like his posts.

On topic though, I am two faced about this issue. I will refuse to play people who do not intend to paint their stuff, but I'll gladly play people who haven't had the time to. Painting is part of the hobby, and anything worth doing is worth doing well. Even a basic three color paint job that takes 5 minutes is miles better than all grey or primed.

thank you. I hope to post more regularly. I've been browsing for quite some time now.

*laughing* These threads really irk me, along with the "better than you views" that come out with them.

I just got a new Dark Eldar army. I've got 2,000 points of Dark Eldar. Its going to take me months and months and months (and maybe even a year+) to get it all painted. I participate in 40k to play, not to paint - painting is done at leisure, when time permits. My fun is in the playing, not the painting.

Agreed fully with Dashofpepper.

I play chess competitively, and to be honest I find wargames more strategically complex - the fact that you can never rely on the dice forces you to always have a backup plan (nothing like that in chess). I chose 40k over other wargames because I like the background, even if I am another boring Guard player.

40k is a tactically immersive game, and I'm a strategy guy - by no means an artist. I accept that people think it more proper to paint armies so I make a half-assed effort at painting (boy, do I suck at it). I've been playing maybe half a year and have painted two squads of Guardsmen and one Sentinel.

Admittedly, I do find converting to be fun.

This sort of thread is fun. Hipocritical, Heated and Holier-than-though. Three H's.

Does anyone really have the right to tell anyone else how to enjoy thir Hobby? I think we can all agree on "No". This means that,m While I cannot tell you that you have to paint your army, if I choose that my "Hobby" involves only fighting fully painted armies, by the same note that means I can refuse to play you. I won't, because then I would never get to play, but still, I could, and there is nothing you can do to naysay it.

Crazy_Carnifex wrote:This sort of thread is fun. Hipocritical, Heated and Holier-than-though. Three H's.

I couldn't resist.

I personally try to paint everything i have, i Really love when my Wolves of Russ stand victorious on the field of battle, and my Opponents always say its "cause they look good painted" most of my models have about an average of 20-30 Paints and 2-3 washes on them. From the Newest Blood Claw to the Oldest Wolf Gaurd. And with the new models make it even more enjoyable for me to spend my hours sitting behind my desk with my hundreds of paints and brushes and going to town making each model an Epic story upon itself. And i prefer to play painted armys

That being said, is my entire army painted? About 2500 Points is. But i have over 7000 points of space wolfs to put together, and most of those are not painted yet, or put together , but i do have a few squads put together that are primer black, and i don't mind.

Most my friends play with a squad or two painted, but more then half the army black, i don't mind, because when all said in done my painting inspires and they get different models to work on painting them better.

I actually Encourage people to play with anything they have together, painted or not, because sometimes its just a proxie for something someone -wants- to get put together but cannot make up their mind. A few battles help them make up their mind and then they get working on actually painting it and whatnot

If someone never plans to paint their army, woopie doo, My army looks awesome, they are a good opponent i don't see any problems with it, i prefer to play, but to those who love to paint, i love sitting and talking about that too

People are welcome to have holier-than-thou attitudes like this. Until they open their mouths to proclaim that others are unworthy because they are not holy enough.

Feel free to be a jerk, a racist, a snob, or anything else you like but please keep it to yourself!! If you choose not to play with someone else because you don't think their hobbying efforts are good enough for you, that's fine - but be polite about it. Don't communicate that sentiment. Say "I'm not here to play today, just watching" or "I'm got something scheduled, we'll have to try another time."

If you really want them to paint their stuff before you will play them, how about this one: "I haven't got time to play right now, but I'll help you with a paint scheme if you like?"

I agree that there are many reasons for not having painted models. Painting to me means that you do care about other aspects of the game. You take great pride in your armies and the hobby. Yes there are all kinds of players and yes everyone has the right to play as they see fit. There in so reason anyone should be forced to paint if they don't want to. I , do however wait and paint all my models for months before I bring them out. I have always had to find time to paint, but it is important to me to do so. Weather you paint or not it is about enjoying the hobby, it just erks me that some people put in hours of time to make great looking models and some don't. So it is again my choice to play people that I think take similar time to prepare there army. I just enjoy the game so much more when it becomes more than grey plastic. Cheers for all the responses.

I don't have much to spend, so attempt to enforce the 'you can't buy any more until you've finished what you've got' approach.

It has at least limited success. My limiting point is actually my speed at converting, it's common to see me playing some grey, silver and green halfway finished models, but not many in black primer; once I hit that stage I usually get them completed pretty quickly. Half painted models are always vehicles and HQs because I take such a long time.

Morgrim wrote:I don't have much to spend, so attempt to enforce the 'you can't buy any more until you've finished what you've got' approach.

It has at least limited success. My limiting point is actually my speed at converting, it's common to see me playing some grey, silver and green halfway finished models, but not many in black primer; once I hit that stage I usually get them completed pretty quickly. Half painted models are always vehicles and HQs because I take such a long time.

I try my best with this attempt as well, but being such a small army at the moment it's more important for me to get things modeled and glued so I can actually start playing. I actually have kind of an opposite approach to my models as you - most of my models are at the black primer stage, because it takes more time for me to paint than it does to model. The main problem is, my eyes strain easily, so staring at a model for a long period of time actually makes me go a little cross-eyed. Modeling, however, I can easily just glance at a model for a few seconds, dab on some glue, and watch TV while I hold pieces together and wait for them to dry.

At the OP: I really can't understand why it's annoying to see models that don't look absolutely gorgeous with a few hours put into each individual model. First off, there are vast differences between armies and their individual paint schemes. For example, Tau and Necron both require very little painting - they have fairly monocolor models in the first place (Necron especially, though Tau Fire Warriors seem to require little more than a base coat over the armor and a few sept markings). The other prime example is horde armies that require a lot of models to be built before playing - Orks are especially notorious, since they have skin and muscles that require painting.

While I admit that it's great to see beautiful models that look like they have some serious time spent on them (My buddy has an absolutely amazing Tyranid army that has numerous 32-man gaunt squads that are actually flocked on top) there's no reason to shun someone - that is, refuse to play against them - because they lack time to paint models. Jobs, families, school, homework, etc. can all quickly chew up free time that's required for painting.

There are 2 sides to 40k.

1: the GAME
2: the HOBBY

Remember its a wargame. the hobby part of it is just fluff along nthe lines of the lore and so on. GW grinding more cash out of us....

personally i think it extremely childish to force the hobby part of 40k on someone who only wishes to play it for the actual gameplay. I really don't think anyone has the right to force many hours of work and many € of expense on someone who only wants to play the game side of it, and who would not enjoy the painting part of it.

For me its a hobby, and i've got 30/220 models painted so far, with more being completed everyday, but it has taken me weeks to get to this stage. can i not play till its all painted? i'll be waiting the next year and a half in that case........

I would have no trouble playing someone with an all grey army, as i understand how life is for people with a busy schedule. for me its paintballing, scuba diving, work, girlfriend, friends, etc etc. If this is the be all and end of of your free-time, then fine! enjoy it, but grow up and understand this is not the case with everyone.

Well, I'll post my two cents to fit in.
Personally, I love painted armies, but I take a very long time to fully motivate myself and I jump from model to model a lot. Plus, having just got into the hobby maybe 7 months ago, I am still getting new models, assembling, and playing. And when time permits I paint. I do agree with the view that you can refuse to play unpainted armies, but be polite, or be really nice and just do a small points game. Maybe getting the person to play against a painted army will inspire him/her to paint, thus making your next encounter more enjoyable. I know it does to me, though there is one guy who intimidates me paintwise. Damn veteran players with lots of practice...

Just out of curiosity, all those of you who don't really want to paint your figures, what attracted you to the hobby in the first place? This is not a trick question or anything, I'm really curious because for me it was seeing all the painted figures being used in a game.

Likewise its seeing the pictures of painted figures in WD or on-line that makes me think about buying them. If GW just advertised their figures with pictures of sprues or put together unpainted figures I'm sure it would affect their sales.

If you don't want to paint your figures that's fair enough and your right to choose not to but I think its unfair if you have a go at someone who says they would rather not play against your unpainted army as that's their choice as well.

Mick

Well, I'll reiterate it, but I think that to help the painting hobby, try to wow the players who aren't big into painting into painting, or volunteer to help them get good. It shouldn't so much be shun the non painters as it should be help turn them on to the whole hobby experience.

This is a rule I have imposed on myself. I play an Ork army. Sort of. I have yet to play a game with it. I bought the Green Tide a year ago, throw in procrastination and suddenly I'm just finishing my first unit now. This is so I don't assemble them, battle and then buy more to improve my army.

You know what? It is starting to look good. Not White Dwarf quality, but it's what I define as tabletop quality. It's painted to the best of my ability. That's what I strive for. Not everyone needs to do this, but I appreciate it if some effort is included.

I don't have a problem with others playing with grey models, but it's nice to see the army slowly get coloured in each time you face it. I would never refuse a pickup game due to unpainted models, but in a tournament I may not be as forgiving. With friends, it's different. I'll play with them, but after the first few times without progress I'll start to nag. I'll suggest that he starts to paint, or that he assembles his models. That sort of thing. If I notice that he's buying more when he's got most of his army unpainted, I will comment. I will start suggesting that he doesn't play with unpainted, or that he doesn't buy more until he finishes what he has.

Does it bother me when an opponent sets up a grey or black army? Yes. Yes it does. Will I respect him less than I would if he painted his models? Yes. Am I a holier-than-thou prick? Yes, if that's what you define someone who likes to have a scenic battle that looks good as.

Most of Dakka supports me. Look at the Batrep section. You'll find threads where there are unpainted/proxied armies v.s. well painted converted models. The comments will swing in favour of the painted models, and there will be comments such as "I wish your opponent painted their models.". Painted battles look better, and make the experience better for all involved. Otherwise you might as well be using tokens to represent models.

I don't think the:

"I have no time to paint" excuse works...they had the time to assemble the models. Then there is the high possibility of making time to paint them within a reasonable amount of time.

"Not wanting to" is the reason rather than having no time. Sure, gak happens in life, but I spend maybe 20 minutes to do some highlighting, hand base coat, a face there, a base there.

Hell, you have time on the john... you could be doing something there that's not terribly important like reading a magazine, substitute it for..../shrug painting...

At least that's my opinion on that.

Dashofpepper wrote:People are welcome to have holier-than-thou attitudes like this. Until they open their mouths to proclaim that others are unworthy because they are not holy enough.

Feel free to be a jerk, a racist, a snob, or anything else you like but please keep it to yourself!! If you choose not to play with someone else because you don't think their hobbying efforts are good enough for you, that's fine - but be polite about it. Don't communicate that sentiment. Say "I'm not here to play today, just watching" or "I'm got something scheduled, we'll have to try another time."

If you really want them to paint their stuff before you will play them, how about this one: "I haven't got time to play right now, but I'll help you with a paint scheme if you like?"

But it will be quite funny, that he is too busy to play with an unpainted army, but the has time all of a sudden when someone with a painted army comes in. Just be polite and say no thankyou, I prefer to play a painted army. Be honest, and don't be a jerk about it.

Mick A wrote:Just out of curiosity, all those of you who don't really want to paint your figures, what attracted you to the hobby in the first place? This is not a trick question or anything, I'm really curious because for me it was seeing all the painted figures being used in a game.

Likewise its seeing the pictures of painted figures in WD or on-line that makes me think about buying them. If GW just advertised their figures with pictures of sprues or put together unpainted figures I'm sure it would affect their sales.

If you don't want to paint your figures that's fair enough and your right to choose not to but I think its unfair if you have a go at someone who says they would rather not play against your unpainted army as that's their choice as well.

Mick

I was playing alot of Battletech at the time. I wanted to try something different with different rules. So it wasn't the painted minis that got me into 40K but RT and it's rules that did. Unfortunately, nobody else played so I never continued until years and years later.

I greatly prefer playing against painted armies. Warhammer and Warhammer 40k are actually pretty poor games when taken just as games. There's something wrong with game design focused on selling the newest models.

If I wanted just to play a game, I wouldn't even look at these games. There are so many ridiculous conventions (such as having guns that have a realistic range of several miles being deployed within a turn's charge range of guys with swords) that the whole concept seems rather silly.

No, the reason to play these games is the visual appeal. And that includes the models being painted. If I wanted to play against an unpainted army, I'd play Chess (I mean, no one paints their army in Chess).

I won't be a dick about it. I will play against unpainted armies, especially if someone is just starting up. But I won't go out of my way to do so. The easiest way to get me interested in an event, be it a big apocalypse game, or a tournament, is to tell me that painting will be required. Because then I know that we'll have the visual appeal going for us.

Painting isn't hard, it doesn't take a long time. A few techniques go a long way. If you cannot be bothered to invest a little time and effort (or $$ - I have nothing against people who pay to have their armies painted) in order to field a painted army, why should I be bothered to invest the time and effort in gaming with you?

As a side note to the painted vs. unpainted conversation, I make decent money painting models and then slapping them up on Ebay. I haven’t had time to do it lately, but it’s nice to turn a $35 model into an extra $20 on top by assembling and painting for pure enjoyment.

It might behoove the good painters out there to observe the armies at their LGS, purchase a common element of that army such as a Rhino, Squad of Guardsmen, or whatever, paint it up, and offer it for sale to the player of that army for a little profit. If they don’t bite, you can always sell it on Ebay.

I recently attended a tournament where another participant was running an army I sold off several years ago. It was kinda cool having “two” opportunities to win Best Painted (I ended up taking it with the army I currently own).

If you’re bound and determined to play against painted armies, maybe you can lend your artist touch to those without – and turn a little profit doing so.

Redbeard, while I respect your opinion, I have to slightly disagree. The reason YOU play these games is the visual appeal. I play because I love the tactical aspects of the game and know that any FLGS I walk into will probably have 40k players that frequent it. Painting is probably one of the smallest factors in my enjoyment of the game. Honestly, when I play, I don't even notice whether units are painted are not as I'm focusing on the tactical situation. 40k is unique enough to have fans even without the painting aspect. Saying that the absolute only reason to play 40k is visual appeal is simply not true. It's your reason, but it's not everyone's reason.

Having said that, if someone was to tell me "Hey, I really would rather play that guy because his army is painted." I wouldn't consider that any different than my screening comment of "I really would rather play that guy because I need to practice for an upcoming tourney and his army gives me fits."

Redbeard wrote:I greatly prefer playing against painted armies. Warhammer and Warhammer 40k are actually pretty poor games when taken just as games. There's something wrong with game design focused on selling the newest models.

If I wanted just to play a game, I wouldn't even look at these games. There are so many ridiculous conventions (such as having guns that have a realistic range of several miles being deployed within a turn's charge range of guys with swords) that the whole concept seems rather silly.

No, the reason to play these games is the visual appeal. And that includes the models being painted. If I wanted to play against an unpainted army, I'd play Chess (I mean, no one paints their army in Chess).

I won't be a dick about it. I will play against unpainted armies, especially if someone is just starting up. But I won't go out of my way to do so. The easiest way to get me interested in an event, be it a big apocalypse game, or a tournament, is to tell me that painting will be required. Because then I know that we'll have the visual appeal going for us.

Painting isn't hard, it doesn't take a long time. A few techniques go a long way. If you cannot be bothered to invest a little time and effort (or $$ - I have nothing against people who pay to have their armies painted) in order to field a painted army, why should I be bothered to invest the time and effort in gaming with you?

I can see where you are coming from until I read your last post. WTFAU to be saying if I or someone else can't be bothered to invest a littltine time and effort or $$. So you are better than me because you have more money than me? How do you know that we have time? Do we have to explain our life situation to you? How about I lost my job so I already bought what I have when I had a job, but now, no job I can't afford new paints now. Thanks a ******* lot now for making me feel good, because I can't afford new paints to what I already bought when things were going good. Thanks for making me feel like crap because I am too poor now till things get better in the economy so I can get a job to get extra income so I can buy more paint.

Oh I see I guess my kids and family should starve then. And don't tell me, paint is only $5 bucks a bottle. To get more paint and what not, living pay check to pay check $20 or $30 bucks go a long way to get milk, bread, gasoling so my Wife can still get to work.

Thanks alot for making me feel less human because my company closed down, I don't have the spare income now to get paint to complete an army even though I have the time now.

There are many reasons why people can't paint an army, again, don't be an ass about it, just be polite about it. Saying "why should I bother play with you when you can't bother painting an army" is just plain rude, insulting and belidilling, unless you know for shure the person dosn't bother painting, and says he will but dosn't.

Sorry, for the rant, you made me feel like gak now, but I am over it now.

Mick A wrote:Just out of curiosity, all those of you who don't really want to paint your figures, what attracted you to the hobby in the first place? This is not a trick question or anything, I'm really curious because for me it was seeing all the painted figures being used in a game.

Likewise its seeing the pictures of painted figures in WD or on-line that makes me think about buying them. If GW just advertised their figures with pictures of sprues or put together unpainted figures I'm sure it would affect their sales.

If you don't want to paint your figures that's fair enough and your right to choose not to but I think its unfair if you have a go at someone who says they would rather not play against your unpainted army as that's their choice as well.

Mick

dont get me wrong, it is awe inspiring seeing two fully painted forces go at it on an honest to goodness well made and prepared game table. it is a definite game selling tactic and i understand that however, to say "i wont play you because you're force is unpainted and you obviously dont care about the hobby as much as i do because of it" is just wrong. ive played a lot of people with painted armies who are complete a-holes and ive played plenty of people that can barely put a miniature together that are some of the nicest people in the world. by having this elitist i paint and am therefore better than you are attitude really does nothing other than deprive you of the chance to meet some nice folk and possibly have a great game. and to say that people who only put their miniatures together without painting them are only in it for the gaming aspect of the hgobby and looking to win is completely false.

now... what got me into the hobby? rogue trader... i saw someone in high school reading a book labeled warhammer and thought it had something to do with battletech... silly me, so i struck up a conversation with the guy and low and behold a short time later we were battling it out on the table top with ... wait for it ... unpainted miniatures.

now what has kept me over the years? its certainly not the rules because they have changed who knows how many times over the years. it is the background(which unfortunately GW seems to be getting lazy with), the fun of assembling little toy soldiers and the time spent with friends and strangers while letting little armies duke it over a miniature battlefield.

Davor wrote:I can see where you are coming from until I read your last post. WTFAU to be saying if I or someone else can't be bothered to invest a littltine time and effort or $$. So you are better than me because you have more money than me? How do you know that we have time? Do we have to explain our life situation to you? How about I lost my job so I already bought what I have when I had a job, but now, no job I can't afford new paints now. Thanks a ******* lot now for making me feel good, because I can't afford new paints to what I already bought when things were going good. Thanks for making me feel like crap because I am too poor now till things get better in the economy so I can get a job to get extra income so I can buy more paint.

Oh I see I guess my kids and family should starve then. And don't tell me, paint is only $5 bucks a bottle. To get more paint and what not, living pay check to pay check $20 or $30 bucks go a long way to get milk, bread, gasoling so my Wife can still get to work.

Thanks alot for making me feel less human because my company closed down, I don't have the spare income now to get paint to complete an army even though I have the time now.

Less human? Talk about putting words in his mouth. I have to raise two points, if your army is unpainted now why didn't you buy paints at the same time you could afford the figures? Figures are far more expensive than paints, I've been using the same paints for years other than basic colours like black, white and flesh, and then buying the odd specialist military colour. I doubt I even spent £20 on paints and brushes last year. £20 goes nowhere on GW miniatures, it's a squad of something. And secondly, if you're seriously having trouble feeding your children your Warhammer army isn't a priority painted or otherwise. It's sheer hyperbole - "Hey, stop forcing me to paint my minatures or my family will starve and have to take to living in a cardboard box! Is that what you want?! IS IT?!!?!!11!"

I've cut back on buying and sold off some of my stuff to go through the hard times, I'm still saddened to think that I had to sell off my Slaves to Darkness and Ere We Go, I wish I'd thought of something else actually. If anything, painting is what I do to get the most from the hobby now. I can't afford large amounts of figures, I have to work with what I have and get the best out of them which means painting and occasionally playing Skirmish games though GW have done their best to finish off the budget games like Gorkamorka and Necromunda.

Mick A wrote:Just out of curiosity, all those of you who don't really want to paint your figures, what attracted you to the hobby in the first place? This is not a trick question or anything, I'm really curious because for me it was seeing all the painted figures being used in a game.

Mick

For me it is the gaming aspect. I love strategy games (risk, Rome total war, etc).

Painting i see as pure fluff and while i enjoy it, it means absolubtely nothing when it comes to tactics, good army planning, etc.

If i were to take up painting for paintings' sake, i would have bought myself a canvas and oil paints.....

Well,I think its OK to play.
Every one have own view.
In my case,I play with undercoated one first. Then find important miniatures which do good job on board. Some times I gave name for him.
And I have plan to choose "command chimera" after game. I bought 5 chimeras(not yet arrived tho).
When their debut game,I'll use them at same time and after that,chimera which last longer or work very well would awarded as "command chimera". I'll do special paint on it.
Its like dice religion but yeah its fun part I think.

BTW

LordofHats wrote:At my FLGS, a lot of people build stuff they've bought that day in the store. Its nice that they can assemble their model, and then play a game or two with it before the final gluing and painting. I did it saturday with my Vindicator, and I was pleased that no one cared I was fielding it with just the body assembled and no paint. I did the same with my predators which was especially nice because I could play around with the configurations before deciding what to glue together.

I can get the official events, but at a friendly game its nice to let people play with their new unit before they begin the arduous task of painting.

I love this idea. I wish I could do same on my FLGS.

I bought my mini's years ago when I was working. Then I got out of the hobby again. Then a few years later I came back into the hobby.

Most of my paints have dried up. It's a bit hard to explain to the wifey that I need new paints. I could only buy a few at a time, but what can you do with Black, blue and green? It gets boring after a while.

Then again, I do paint my minis with what I have. But if I am in this kind of potion, what about others who are really worse off than me? If he could make me feel like crap (buy saying not having $$$) imagine what others could feel like?

I guess what pissed me off the most was, he was saying he has more $$$ than me so he is better than me. Just becasue you got more money dosn't mean you are a better person than me. Again sorry for the rant, and lets get back on topic.

Just because something is not painted, don't be a dick about it, just be polite, and that is one thing I havn't seen from the people who don't like non painted armies. They are not polite or respectable about it. There are many reasons why someone can't paint one reason or another, and we should respect it.

What's next, we are going to expect everybody not to look like nerds slobs? Oh I can't play you because you look to geeky and nerdy. I don't want to be associated with 'your' type. Is that next?

You could avoid the whole problem of Pred sponson choosing by magnatising it, or using some other method to make it inter changable...

Greenstuff + paper clips.
Legos.
Magnets.
Etc.
_________________
@CruelCoin:

These minis are but a different canvas and the GW paints are a different medium.

I go to holistic tourneys, so painting is required...and hell they look better..."and perform better" as the gaming superstitions go.
________________
@Davor:
I do expect those 'nerds' to bathe.
So, is delcining a game vs. an unpainted army a dick move in your opinion?

Gornall wrote:Redbeard, while I respect your opinion, I have to slightly disagree. The reason YOU play these games is the visual appeal. I play because I love the tactical aspects of the game and know that any FLGS I walk into will probably have 40k players that frequent it. Painting is probably one of the smallest factors in my enjoyment of the game. Honestly, when I play, I don't even notice whether units are painted are not as I'm focusing on the tactical situation. 40k is unique enough to have fans even without the painting aspect. Saying that the absolute only reason to play 40k is visual appeal is simply not true. It's your reason, but it's not everyone's reason.

If you're looking for a tactical game, there are many significantly better ones out there than W40k. I accept your point about being able to find opponents more easily, as GW games are the most widespread wargame. Still, on a more global scale, I can walk into any town anywhere in the world and find someone to play chess with.

Davor wrote:
So you are better than me because you have more money than me?

Obviously.



I refuse to dignify your absurd rant with any further responses. If you're out-of-work and your family is starving, maybe you should sell your figs on eBay so you can feed them rather than worrying about whether they're painted or not.

Do whatever you want or feel is right, but don't be surprised if someone calls you a jackarse for doing it.

Rules for living

Redbeard wrote:If you're looking for a tactical game, there are many significantly better ones out there than W40k. I accept your point about being able to find opponents more easily, as GW games are the most widespread wargame. Still, on a more global scale, I can walk into any town anywhere in the world and find someone to play chess with.

Not shure how you can find chess players. I don't see and FLGS that people play chess. Then again, I live under a rock now

I see chess players:
-in the park.
-Outside Au Bon Pain on the tables.
-internet.
-I'm sure they have something akin to bingo night with certain clubs.

IMO, if your at least intending to paint, then you're good. I played a game this weekend against an ork player. It was a tourney (albeit tiny one) and he showed up with a list that included 150 gretchin... Besides the inanity of having that many models to move and set up in a timed tourney, he didn't have them painted, and didn't even really bother deploying them. He told me before the game "Hey, to save us both time, i'm just going to plop this ziploc bag full of unpainted gretchin here where they are, instead of actually deploying them."

Now, I'm not saying I'm better than that, but there is a tendency to not care about your paint = not caring about your models.

(and even more frustrating than waiting for 150+ models to move was him looking up every stat for his army... seriously, know your codex. Tangent off.)

Maybe he was having a bad day. That does take some fun out of the game though, but if you are in a timmed Tourney, I guess he wanted to play and maybe he didn't want to bore you from him settng up either.

No if this was an ongoing thing, then you really have something to complain about to him.

Espically in a tourney scene where many people can be playing at one time, there are bound to be people stressed and want to play and not worry about the small details. But I do see where you are coming from andruin.

Well catch you later guys, be back in a bit, off to do some modelling and painting

@Redbeard:
Chess is a completely different beast from 40k tactically as nothing in 40k is certain... the dice are fickle. The element of chance is actually something that makes 40k more interesting as a game than chess, IMO (even if sometimes I do get hacked when the dice go against me). At the end of the day, the preference of 40k's ruleset/armies is subjective. What constitutes "better" rulesets/game systems is mostly subjective. If someone likes playing 40k for the ruleset/tactics/etc, then how is that opinion any more or less valid than those that prefer another system?

Declining ANY game is your right as long as you're polite and upfront about it. It's when people start talking down to someone that it becomes a TFG situation.

@Andruin:
And lets not turn this into non-painters = not-caring about their models/game issue. I've seen beautifully painted armies where the owner didn't know the rules or his codex at all and I've seen the same thing from unpainted armies too. Once again, it's an enjoyment/focus issue. Some people focus on painting, some on fluff, some on tactics, some on beer and pretzels, and some on combinations of the above.

Because every person has the time to paint a full army lickity split...It's not like we have, oh I don't know, jobs or lives outside of toy soldiers or anything...
/sarcasm

Just because I don't have a fully painted army doesn't mean I'm lazy or have no respect for the hobby...

I myself am a slow painter, I think my models end up looking pretty good when they're done, but I try to make them look their best, and it takes time. I'm not going to rush them and make them look crappy just for the sake of having a few colors on them to make other players happy. I want an army that makes me happy when I look at it, not one that looks like a rushed blob of red paint. Sorry, but in my opinion, if you are that much of an elitist prick that you won't play someone that doesnt have a fully painted army, then I wouldn't want to play you even if I did have a fully painted army. If I'm going to pay thousands of dollars for little plastic soldiers I'm going to take my time to make them look their best, and if I want to get a few game in in the meantime, who are you to say I shouldn't be allowed to?

(Not flaming anyone. These expressions were general and not targeted at any individual. I am just expressing my feelings on the subject in a stern, but honest way.)

Ive been painting GW models for a long time, and there are very few things in this world I like more than my fully painted army of Space Wolves on a professional terrain filled table facing off against any other army wth even a halfway decent paintjob.

I make it a point to build my lists around models that I have fully painted, I dont bother with models im not done with.

Having said that, I would not reject a game from someone without a fully painted army, I just dont really get much enjoyment out of it.

My FLGS hosts tournys all the time, and only a couple of players dont have fully painted armies (one guy with horde orks, half painted, and one guy with chaos marines, all bare)

the ork player is lazy, and the chaos player hates painting.

Ill play against either of them any time, they are still great people to hang out with. But everyone at the FLGS gives them a hard time about their armies lack of paint, and they perpetually come in 2nd and 3rd place because of soft scores at the tourneys.

in all honesty, EVERYONE has time to paint, time is never an excuse to not do anything unless you are working 2 full time jobs and taking care of children on your time out of work, then you have the time.... lets put it this way, you always have time for sex, right? no one ever complains about that? What are you doing right now? sitting online chatting on dakkadakka? WHY AREN'T YOU PAINTING? I was able to paint 3000 points of space wolves up to "best painted" status in a week, and I work full time and had to swap a motor into my friends car on the weekend.

Just yesterday after work I built, converted, primed, and basecoated 2 Leman Russ tanks, a Hellhound, and a Manticore, after that I molded the hills out of foam for a 3'x3' display board.

People who complain about time must not realize there are 24 hours in each day...

Demogerg wrote:People who complain about time must not realize there are 24 hours in each day...

no, i realize that there are 24 hours in a day, it's just that my kids dont seem to respond well when i get home from work and tell them to go play with each other while daddy paints his toy soldiers. i suppose i could tell the wife to sod off and use the little alone time we have after the kids go to sleep or i suppose the 6 or 7 hours a night of sleep that i get could be trimmed down.

good call demo, thanks for reminding us how many hours are in a day and how to manage it.

Demogerg wrote:What are you doing right now? sitting online chatting on dakkadakka? WHY AREN'T YOU PAINTING?

work will tolerate the occasional internet session but they tend to frown on painting at my desk.

Another point I will bring up in this discussion.

A while back I played in a tournament against a Games Workshop employee (I can’t, for the life of me, remember his name, but I believe he is no longer with GW. He was something like the GW North American events coordinator. He had a very nice Ultramarines army and, if I recall correctly, he built the Lost and the Damned/Beastment army featured in White Dwarf around the Eye of Terror Campaign)

Anyway – some of his associates were wandering around taking photographs of battles.

If the tournament had allowed unpainted armies I believe two things.

First, I doubt this GW employee and his friends would have come.

Second, and perhaps more importantly, had I been facing an unpainted army and these employees were wandering around taking photographs of scenic battles, perhaps for use in White Dwarf or some other publication or even blog, I’d be a tad perturbed. I’d love for my work to be shown, even in a postage stamp sized image on some blog somewhere and I’d be disappointed if I lost that chance because I was playing against an unpainted army.

Like I mentioned earlier, friendly games – no problem. Tournaments, especially club sponsored events should have minimum painting standards in place.

usernamesareannoying- how many times a month do you play games? Could you not give up one session a month to paint? That would be a couple of hours which could be a couple of units in basic colours. As I said earlier in this thread our local club plays games from 400 points upwards, depending on what army you use that could be a painted force for a small game in a couple of months without losing any quality time with family (I'm a family man myself so know where your coming from there).

If you don't enjoy painting how about trading skills with someone who does? You must have some useful skills someone might need?

Just a couple of ideas anyone could try.

Mick

The biggest issue I see coming from the pro-nonpainted armies is the time it takes to paint. If you are only looking for a basic tabletop quality, three colors and a wash is all you need. It takes my IG buddy a few minutes to put out a Guardsmen, and he barely does any fine details. He can put out an entire squad in about half an hour. He isn't exceptionally talented, he's just dedicated. It really doesn't take that much time to paint and produce an army.

usernamesareannoying wrote: no, i realize that there are 24 hours in a day, it's just that my kids dont seem to respond well when i get home from work and tell them to go play with each other while daddy paints his toy soldiers. i suppose i could tell the wife to sod off and use the little alone time we have after the kids go to sleep or i suppose the 6 or 7 hours a night of sleep that i get could be trimmed down.

Of course, no one else has responsibilities, or families or jobs. Excuses are just that. Painting, or not painting, is a choice you make. Saying you don't have time is a cop-out. If you wanted to do it, you would find the time. You don't want to - and that's fine. But don't throw the pity party about how little time you have.

I painted a 5500 point army in a week - and won best painted with it at a tournament the next weekend. If I can do that, anyone can paint a 2000 point army to a tabletop standard in three months if they can average five hours a week (that's one hour a night, just on weeknights). I'm not telling anyone to rush their work, as long as you're making progress, that's great. But seriously, five hours a week... that's like one less hour of TV each night.

I do my greenstuffing for around 20 minutes a day, sometimes every other day.
It adds up and stuff will get done.

Even 40 minutes over the course of a week can have some impressive bases at the very least...
Not saying gak doesn't happen, but you have to have some time to yourself to keep sane...even on the john... Grandfather Nurgle protects...

Redbeard wrote:

usernamesareannoying wrote: no, i realize that there are 24 hours in a day, it's just that my kids dont seem to respond well when i get home from work and tell them to go play with each other while daddy paints his toy soldiers. i suppose i could tell the wife to sod off and use the little alone time we have after the kids go to sleep or i suppose the 6 or 7 hours a night of sleep that i get could be trimmed down.

Of course, no one else has responsibilities, or families or jobs. Excuses are just that. Painting, or not painting, is a choice you make. Saying you don't have time is a cop-out. If you wanted to do it, you would find the time. You don't want to - and that's fine. But don't throw the pity party about how little time you have.

Is it a pity party? I thought that all seemed pretty reasonable. I'm kind of in the same boat, though the majority of my armies are painted. It just takes me a lot longer to get it done than my single counterparts.

My wife works nights on occasion so I have a few evenings a month that are free and clear.

I guess we have to do this at least twice a year along with the "GW Sucks", "Worst GW model", "Best GW model" and my personal favorite, "Top tiered armies are?" threads.

Anyway..... just to add my 2 cents. I love painted armies and prefer to play with and against painted, but am a realist and understand real world situations keep people from painting there plastic toys. Therefore, I have played with plastic, and have played against plastic.

GG

I can honestly say that I'm not an artist, and have no aspirations to be one. Also, I don't like painting. It takes me hours to paint a single model, and it looks like crap when I'm done. I even use a magnifying glass light thing to get a closeup so that I can paint sections and not overlap, and it still looks poor. Like most people, I dislike doing things that I'm not proficient at.

My wife paints my stuff. She also paints her stuff. She's going to paint some stuff tonight while we watch Lost. I've hired someone to paint and base some of my stuff (Ork Stormboyz done by Hulksmash here on dakka) so that we'd have a full army ready to rock for 'Ard Boyz, but I ended up not using the Stormboyz after all.

Does my point make its point? I hate painting because I'm not good at it. I love playing 40k. I started playing 40k because I saw a tactical game where I could utilize my tactical skills. Ok, that's a lie - I started 40k because a FLGS owner was a prospective customer and I bought some stuff to scratch his back. But I started playing and stuck with it for its tactical utility. My abilities pay for the hobby. I rarely enter a tournament that I don't win, and my winnings have funded almost two entire armies. That's why I play.

Painting has nothing to do with it.

I can understand the similarities between "I don't want to play with you because your army isn't painted" and "I don't want to play with you because I crave a challenge and you can't provide one," but I think that they're different too. There are people I prefer not to play against because their skill level is so abysmal that there's simply no purpose in putting my models on the table to prove that I can table them.

@Redbeard - i suppose it comes down to priorities. i would rather spend that hour with my family. congrats on managing to paint all of that, you must be a better man that i am. here's your cookie.

and keep in mind... i have said it several times now, some folk simply do not like to paint and it does not make them any less of a hobbyist because of it.

Here in Aus all / most tournies have a 3 colour minimum, and painting is worth 20%, minus bonus points.

Personally I have no real problem with it, though it is nice when you do have two painted armies.

@Red - You say it seems like a cop out or excuse, but a cop out or excuse from what? What moral/ethical authority/responsibility are they copping out from? Some people don't prioritize painting. I think it's cool that you like it as much as you do, but no one should have to feel bad saying their army isn't painted if they don't feel like painting it. I'm not one for unnecessary hassle/guilt and I have to say I feel this crosses that line pretty strongly.

I could be wrong, but I think Redbeard is trying to say that if you really wanted to paint your figures you would find time some how, even if it was only a couple of hours a week. Saying its impossible to find any time what so ever to paint due to family commitments does sound like a 'I'm going to try and make you feel guilty' tactic in this case. How much time is spent gaming rather than attending to those family commitments...?
Mick

Redbeard wrote:

usernamesareannoying wrote: no, i realize that there are 24 hours in a day, it's just that my kids dont seem to respond well when i get home from work and tell them to go play with each other while daddy paints his toy soldiers. i suppose i could tell the wife to sod off and use the little alone time we have after the kids go to sleep or i suppose the 6 or 7 hours a night of sleep that i get could be trimmed down.

Of course, no one else has responsibilities, or families or jobs. Excuses are just that. Painting, or not painting, is a choice you make. Saying you don't have time is a cop-out. If you wanted to do it, you would find the time. You don't want to - and that's fine. But don't throw the pity party about how little time you have.

I painted a 5500 point army in a week - and won best painted with it at a tournament the next weekend. If I can do that, anyone can paint a 2000 point army to a tabletop standard in three months if they can average five hours a week (that's one hour a night, just on weeknights). I'm not telling anyone to rush their work, as long as you're making progress, that's great. But seriously, five hours a week... that's like one less hour of TV each night.

Hurrzah!

Very well put Redbeard.

It's not that hard to rearrange your free time or painting habits to accomplish multi-tasking. And at this point, even statements like "Too many models" have no relevance with the GW Spraybrush being made explicitly to allow for large scale basecoating quickly.
(Whether you like it or not is not relevant. It works FANTASTIC for it, and works about x1000 better when coupled with a nice adapter to feed to a small compressor).

Mick A wrote:How much time is spent gaming rather than attending to those family commitments...?
Mick

What's wrong with gaming instead of painting? If someone has limited hobby time, I don't think they should be forced to spend it on their least favorite part of the hobby just to make someone else happy. I know if I had to choose between 2 hours of painting and 2 hours of playing a game... I'd choose the playing the game every single time.

I have 2000+ points of Salamanders. I have MAYBE 10 out of over 70 models done, and neither of my vehicles painted, and some of them are still my old Black Templars colors. When i paint, I detail EVERY SINGLE MODEL, often spending over 30 minutes on each one, up to 2 hours on one of my captains once. So it takes ALOT of time for me to paint my whole army, and I work 2 jobs and raise a 6 month old. I take a bit of time every weekend to paint a model or 2, but I'm still nowhere near done (painting right now as a matter of fact). I agree wholeheartedly on tourneys forcing painted models, but a FLGS? Thats just silly. Of course the GW in Newcastle under Tyre in the UK makes you paint and base (I refuse to base my models as of yet) before you can play. And yet they still get people in there all the time, but no one plays. I'm getting slightly off topic here, but the bottem line is not evenyone has the time, or want, to paint, and as long as theres no confusion brought about from it, theres no real need to pretend your better then them because you paint more. Its disruptive to the flow of teaching new people the game, and hurts the hobby overall, and whatever place you play at.

Gornall wrote:

Mick A wrote:How much time is spent gaming rather than attending to those family commitments...?
Mick

What's wrong with gaming instead of painting? If someone has limited hobby time, I don't think they should be forced to spend it on their least favorite part of the hobby just to make someone else happy. I know if I had to choose between 2 hours of painting and 2 hours of playing a game... I'd choose the playing the game every single time.

which is completely acceptable and a valid choice... just as someone not wanting to play against an unfinished army because a large part of the appeal of the game is visual. no one is "better" or more devoted to family as some of the more hotheaded posts in this thread claim. army building, assembly, painting, AND playing are all a part of the hobby. just because someone doesn't like one of them or simply doesn't have the time or talent to make it a part of their hobby doesn't mean that the prior sentance isn't a fact. taking this to an extreme, technically we could all be playing bases labelled with a unit type and weapons glued to the flat top except for one model per unit to be used for LOS purposes. would the "game" still be the same? yup. would it be as fun for a large portion of players out there? NOPE. people compare those who choose (and lets face it, it's a choice no matter how busy you are as you could easily give up every second game to 3 color paint an army) not to paint their armies to those who paint but don't play... there is a significant difference in that the later doesn't possibly inconvienance anyone else's fun. a more correct example would be to compare it to a person who CHOOSES not to learn the rules of the game. both playing against an unpainted army and a new (or simply one who doesn't have the time to learn the rules) is possible but not as fun as it could be.

Dashofpepper wrote:... It takes me hours to paint a single model, and it looks like crap when I'm done. I even use a magnifying glass light thing to get a closeup so that I can paint sections and not overlap, and it still looks poor. Like most people, I dislike doing things that I'm not proficient at.

That's a self-fulfilling prophecy. You cannot expect to be good at anything without putting in the effort to learn how. I respect your decision to choose not to pursue this skill, but I think that if you put in the effort, you could learn the skill, and then not being good would no longer be a reason to dislike it.

usernamesareannoying wrote:@Redbeard - i suppose it comes down to priorities. i would rather spend that hour with my family. congrats on managing to paint all of that, you must be a better man that i am. here's your cookie.

It has nothing to do with being a better or a worse person. It has to do with acknowledging your choices, rather than making excuses. You choose to spend your time in one way. I respect that decision. But for you to claim that you don't have time because you have a job and a family is ridiculous. I don't know anyone who doesn't have a job. I don't know many people without social obligations, whether they be to family or friends. And yet, I also don't know anyone who is unable to find a few hours a week of time to spend on themselves, while fulfilling their other obligations. I'm totally cool with your decision not to paint. I just wish you'd phrase it as such, rather than trying to blame your family and work for your lack of painting.

and keep in mind... i have said it several times now, some folk simply do not like to paint and it does not make them any less of a hobbyist because of it.

Well, it doesn't make you any less of a gamer. Opting out of part of the hobby does make you less of a hobbyist - that's sort of a definition thing. If I engage in four aspects of the hobby, and you engage in three, I do more, and you do less. Again, I'm not disrespecting your choice, just trying to be precise with language.

Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:@Red - You say it seems like a cop out or excuse, but a cop out or excuse from what? What moral/ethical authority/responsibility are they copping out from? Some people don't prioritize painting. I think it's cool that you like it as much as you do, but no one should have to feel bad saying their army isn't painted if they don't feel like painting it. I'm not one for unnecessary hassle/guilt and I have to say I feel this crosses that line pretty strongly.

Read the above. Again, it's not about how people choose to spend their time, it's about them blaming others for their choices. You choose not to paint, that's fine, that's on you. You say you cannot paint because your wife won't let you? Sorry, I just don't buy it. I'm married, most of my friends are married, and that's not taking responsibility for your own choices. That's what the excuse is from - taking responsibility for your own choices.

I'm just putting it out there...but this whole thread is just a mismash of:

Person 1: "I want to paint but I don't have time."

Person 2: "Make time."

Person 3: "YEAH MAKE TIME LOLOLOLOL."

Person 4: "Some people have jobs."

Person 2: "You have to get your priorities straight to participate in this hobby."

Person 1: "Who are you to say what I have to do to be a hobbyist?"

Person 3: "STOP BEING LAZY LOLOLOLOLOL!"

Person 1: "I have other things to do than paint. As much as I'd like to paint my models, I simply don't have the time to paint a whole army."

Person 2: "Make time."


And the cycle continues until it gets inflamatory and the Modquisition comes and closes the topic.

/sigh

Darth Bob wrote:I'm just putting it out there...but this whole thread is just a mismash of:

Person 1: "I want to paint but I don't have time."

Person 2: "Make time."

Person 3: "YEAH MAKE TIME LOLOLOLOL."

Person 4: "Some people have jobs."

Person 2: "You have to get your priorities straight to participate in this hobby."

Person 1: "Who are you to say what I have to do to be a hobbyist?"

Person 3: "STOP BEING LAZY LOLOLOLOLOL!"

Person 1: "I have other things to do than paint. As much as I'd like to paint my models, I simply don't have the time to paint a whole army."

Person 2: "Make time."


And the cycle continues until it gets inflamatory and the Modquisition comes and closes the topic.

/sigh

you forgot one important one.

person 5: but i don't wanna!! and you can't make me!

usernamesareannoying wrote:and keep in mind... i have said it several times now, some folk simply do not like to paint and it does not make them any less of a hobbyist because of it.

Except that they are not participating in part of the hobby. So by definition, it does make them less of a hobbyist.

I think one of the reasons that so many people get so up in arms whenever someone starts talking about some sort of standard when it comes to using painted miniatures is that they don't meet it and part of them thinks that they should and then judges themself. If you feel judged, you're the only one who can control that feeling.

I'm moving towards playing with only painted miniatures. I've told my gaming buddies that not now, but sometime in the next few months, I'm going to only play with and against painted miniatures on completed terrain. They didn't freak out and make themselves feel all judged. Instead we started scheduling painting days. And I'm showing the guy who works 100 hours a week between his job and his business how to quickly put on base colours and then wash with a future floor finish black wash.

@redbeard - i suppose things get spun out of control over the internet but i have said from the first post that i simply do not like to paint. i suppose i got caught up in the i dont have time to paint campaign defending a statement someone else has made.

there are a lot of elitist attitudes in here and again, i will say that by denying someone a game based on paint or modeling level is only preventing someone from a possibly great game.

I agree that it is nice to look at well painted models, but it takes a long time for SOME of us (and by that, I mean me...) to paint well. My Eldar, (which was my first army BTW,) took me forever to paint. I spent 2 weeks tring to get a squad of Dire Avengers painted well.

As I'm playing several armies during any given month of any year, it goes without saying that I have unpainted models all the time that I'm playing with.

Therefore, I don't judge people who play with unpainted models. I do however, judge people who anybody can easily table in 2 turns.

STOP COMPLAINING ABOUT UNPAINTED MODELS!!!

*edit* Some people here keep saying they respect people for not painting their models, but still stick thier nose down at them for doing so. How can you respect somone for thier choice when your sticking your nose down on them?

Darth Bob wrote:I'm just putting it out there...but this whole thread is just a mismash of:

Person 1: "I want to paint but I don't have time."

Person 2: "Make time."

Person 3: "YEAH MAKE TIME LOLOLOLOL."

Person 4: "Some people have jobs."

Person 2: "You have to get your priorities straight to participate in this hobby."

Person 1: "Who are you to say what I have to do to be a hobbyist?"

Person 3: "STOP BEING LAZY LOLOLOLOLOL!"

Person 1: "I have other things to do than paint. As much as I'd like to paint my models, I simply don't have the time to paint a whole army."

Person 2: "Make time."


And the cycle continues until it gets inflamatory and the Modquisition comes and closes the topic.

/sigh

What he said.

frozenwastes wrote:Except that they are not participating in part of the hobby. So by definition, it does make them less of a hobbyist..

They're not participating in part of your hobby.

As I've said before in these sorts of discussions, there is a misconception in GW-gaming circles that there is some all-encompassing 'Wargaming hobby' (perpetuated in part by GW's branding of the 'GW Hobby') that includes painting & modeling, and playing, and that you have to do both in order to be participating in the hobby.

Which, to be frank, is nonsense.

Collecting miniatures is a hobby.
Painting and modeling is a hobby.
Wargaming is a hobby.

If you enjoy doing all of those things, that's great. If someone only enjoys (and only does) one or two of them, that doesn't make it any less a hobby, or them a hobbyist.

Wargaming does not exclusively involve painting miniatures. There are a whole swag of wargames out there that don't even use miniatures. To a lot of players, miniatures are no different to the tokens or cardboard chits used in any other wargame. Painting is an optional extra, not a requirement.


Don't get me wrong, I prefer playing with painted miniatures. But that's my preference. I'm not going to turn my nose up at someone else because they don't care for it.

insaniak wrote:


They're not participating in part of your hobby.

As I've said before in these sorts of discussions, there is a misconception in GW-gaming circles that there is some all-encompassing 'Wargaming hobby' (perpetuated in part by GW's branding of the 'GW Hobby') that includes painting & modeling, and playing, and that you have to do both in order to be participating in the hobby.

Which, to be frank, is nonsense.

Collecting miniatures is a hobby.
Painting and modeling is a hobby.
Wargaming is a hobby.

If you enjoy doing all of those things, that's great. If someone only enjoys (and only does) one or two of them, that doesn't make it any less a hobby, or them a hobbyist.

Wargaming does not exclusively involve painting miniatures. There are a whole swag of wargames out there that don't even use miniatures. To a lot of players, miniatures are no different to the tokens or cardboard chits used in any other wargame. Painting is an optional extra, not a requirement.


Don't get me wrong, I prefer playing with painted miniatures. But that's my preference. I'm not going to turn my nose up at someone else because they don't care for it.

QFT

No-one's view is better, this is an opinion and is simply based on how you view the hobby. Don't look down on someone because they are different. Because that makes you a NAZI!

insaniak wrote:

frozenwastes wrote:Except that they are not participating in part of the hobby. So by definition, it does make them less of a hobbyist..

They're not participating in part of your hobby.

As I've said before in these sorts of discussions, there is a misconception in GW-gaming circles that there is some all-encompassing 'Wargaming hobby' (perpetuated in part by GW's branding of the 'GW Hobby') that includes painting & modeling, and playing, and that you have to do both in order to be participating in the hobby.

Which, to be frank, is nonsense.

Collecting miniatures is a hobby.
Painting and modeling is a hobby.
Wargaming is a hobby.

If you enjoy doing all of those things, that's great. If someone only enjoys (and only does) one or two of them, that doesn't make it any less a hobby, or them a hobbyist.

Wargaming does not exclusively involve painting miniatures. There are a whole swag of wargames out there that don't even use miniatures. To a lot of players, miniatures are no different to the tokens or cardboard chits used in any other wargame. Painting is an optional extra, not a requirement.


Don't get me wrong, I prefer playing with painted miniatures. But that's my preference. I'm not going to turn my nose up at someone else because they don't care for it.

Very true points.

However, one of the major complaints that I've remembered seeing is from the folks who were marked down for having unpainted models in a tournament setting and being marked down.

Do you think exceptions should be allowed in a "3 color minimum and flocked base" tournament environment for someone who couldn't find the time?

insaniak wrote:

frozenwastes wrote:Except that they are not participating in part of the hobby. So by definition, it does make them less of a hobbyist..

They're not participating in part of your hobby.

...

that includes painting & modeling, and playing, and that you have to do both in order to be participating in the hobby.

Excellent point. And given that my hobby includes more behaviors/processes/actions than someone who just plays and doesn't paint, they're less of a hobbyist given the criteria that I use to define "that thing we do" with people who do the same thing as me.

Why should they care that they don't meet my criteria for my hobby? If it's my hobby to paint and play with miniatures and it's another person's hobby to play games with unpainted miniatures and I say, "You know, that's not my hobby, I do that and also this," why do I become the elitist bad guy? We have separate hobbies and somehow it's okay for them to ask me to sacrifice part of my hobby and play with their unpainted models but it's not okay for me to ask them to add in a part to their hobby and paint their models?

Wargaming does not exclusively involve painting miniatures. There are a whole swag of wargames out there that don't even use miniatures. To a lot of players, miniatures are no different to the tokens or cardboard chits used in any other wargame. Painting is an optional extra, not a requirement.

Absolutely. For those who are doing the whole "unpainted miniature wargaming" hobby. I'm getting out of that hobby and into the one that's more visually appealing. I understand that it's not for everyone.

Painting absolutely is required to participate in the hobby of "painting and playing with miniatures". If you don't do it, your just "----- and playing with miniatures." Which I guess is fine. I do that too.

Also, you stated, "To a lot of players, miniatures are no different to the tokens or cardboard chits used in any other wargame." You might find that the generals who marshall their bare metal hordes will get up in arms and look down upon someone who shows up for a game with cardboard flats they printed to play the game with.

i suppose it wouldn't be a thread of this type if i didn't add in that if you refused to play me because i had unpainted miniatures that i would smash your miniatures with a hammer and then punch you in the face.

oh...

is the painting requirement RAW or RAI?

and finally

goto www.mustpaintminiatures.com to sign my petition to make it so all miniatures must be painted before you can use them.

have i forgotten any?

4 pages of opinions later i think that the OP should have gotten a fair assessment of how people feel about this subject.

Kanluwen wrote:However, one of the major complaints that I've remembered seeing is from the folks who were marked down for having unpainted models in a tournament setting and being marked down.

Do you think exceptions should be allowed in a "3 color minimum and flocked base" tournament environment for someone who couldn't find the time?

I think that's down to the tournament. There are tournaments out there that don't have painting requirements. Just as some have Comp requirements and some don't.

frozenwastes wrote:And given that my hobby includes more behaviors/processes/actions than someone who just plays and doesn't paint, they're less of a hobbyist given the criteria that I use to define "that thing we do" with people who do the same thing as me.

My point as that they're not less of a hobbyist. They're just participating in a slightly different hobby to you.

You might find that the generals who marshall their bare metal hordes will get up in arms and look down upon someone who shows up for a game with cardboard flats they printed to play the game with.

You'll also find a lot who won't care. I've seen people play games of 40K with tokens marked 'Tactical Marine' and the like.

Although the point was more about other games. My version of Risk has miniature soldiers, cavalry and canons for pieces. For having that set, I don't consider myself more of a hobbyist than my sister, who has the old fashioned set with the plastic roman numerals for pieces...

insaniak wrote:
You'll also find a lot who won't care. I've seen people play games of 40K with tokens marked 'Tactical Marine' and the like.

Yep. Done something like that myself. Used empty film canisters as proxies for Bloodbowl Ogres.

My point was a bit hidden, I'll admit. As well as the obvious analogy of people thinking those who use markers instead of miniatures are cheap or lazy, there's another. It was that if you are doing a hobby that works even when you use "tokens marked 'Tactical Marine' and the like" then your making a statement that the visual side of things doesn't matter. That the miniatures don't matter.

At that point, I'd question whether or not the person is participating in the hobby of miniature wargaming if the miniatures don't matter. Sounds like wargaming to me. Which is fine. Do that myself.

But when we use the word "hobby" in reference to Warhammer or Warmachine or any other miniature wargame we mean something more than just wargaming with cardboard markers. If someone isn't doing the common actions that make up the hobby, then they're not participants in that hobby. They're less of a hobbyist than someone who fully participants in all the common actions that make up the hobby. Just like I'd consider someone who converted everything or even sculpted all their own miniatures more of a hobbyist than I am.

And I'm alright with that, because I'm not as dedicated to the task of being judgemental to myself as those who are threatened by people wanting to play with only painted miniatures. I accept that I'm less of a hobbyist than those who convert their whole armies and sculpt their own miniatures. And if they said to me, "I really like the visual appeal when someone personalizes their force with conversions and their own sculpts and only play against such forces," I'd be fine with that. Good on them for not settling for a less enjoyable experience!

frozenwastes wrote:But when we use the word "hobby" in reference to Warhammer or Warmachine or any other miniature wargame we mean something more than just wargaming with cardboard markers.

That was kind of my point, though.

We've been brainwashed by GW into believing that it's one all-encompassing hobby. It's not. It's several different hobbies, which people participate in to varying degrees depending on their own interests.


Kudos to GW, the branding of the term 'GW hobby' is one of the most brilliant pieces of marketing they've ever come up with, (on par with 'You must use GW miniatures to play, which has become such an ingrained facet of the 'GW hobby' for so many players, whether they're playing in 'official' events or no) since it pushes certain people into all sorts of directions (and subsequently purchases) that they otherwise possibly wouldn't have bothered with.

insaniak wrote:My point as that they're not less of a hobbyist. They're just participating in a slightly different hobby to you.

Aiya, that's kinda ridiculous. I get the metaphor MDG is pushing in his thread but it's not a literal truth. You play 40k, I play 40k. Maybe you paint, maybe I don't. We're both playing 40k and not slightly different versions, either. Jervis isn't going to come and arrest me--or you for that matter (at least not over this issue). If I can't compete in some tournaments, so be it. If some people won't play against me, so be it. When a thread like this results in the hardening of the tolerant position into a kind of dogma it has become part of the problem.

I don't care if someone plays with an unpainted army, its their stuff, so let them do with it as they please. Also, I don't know the reasons behind why they didn't paint them, maybe they didn't have enough time, or they are on a budget and wanted to get the most models, or any number of other reasons.

insaniak wrote:

frozenwastes wrote:But when we use the word "hobby" in reference to Warhammer or Warmachine or any other miniature wargame we mean something more than just wargaming with cardboard markers.

That was kind of my point, though.

We've been brainwashed by GW into believing that it's one all-encompassing hobby. It's not. It's several different hobbies, which people participate in to varying degrees depending on their own interests.

Except that miniature wargaming as a hobby predates GW and the same things that GW pushes as "the Games Workshop Hobby" existed in the activities of those pre-GW hobbyists. Historical miniature wargamers, for example, are some of the biggest sticklers for painted miniatures.

Given this, I believe it's accurate to talk about miniature wargaming in terms of collecting miniatures, painting miniatures, setting up terrain and carrying out a battle game. That's historically been the behaviour of those who have participated in miniature wargaming.

It's completely logical then, to talk about someone collecting miniatures, setting up terrain and carrying out a battle game as missing a piece of the pie-- painting miniatures. If and only if we appeal to past behaviour of painting the miniatures rather than the current behavior of using armies of bare metal when defining miniature wargaming.

But if we go down that road, we basically end up in a stupid sub-culture identity war where those who paint their miniatures battle with those who don't over who gets to decide who qualifies as a real hobbyist.

My main point in my previous posts was that it's okay for someone to decide that certain things are deal breakers for them. For some, it's no proxies. For others, it's no unpainted miniatures. And if you or I don't meet their standard for how they want to spend their time, then they can find someone who does. We don't need to judge ourselves as failing to meet the higher standard.

I have decided to raise the bar in my own hobby life and move towards painted only on finished terrain. Not out of judgement or pride, but for the merits of that approach (visual appeal and my enjoyment of the painting process). If someone doesn't want to paint their miniatures, cool! Given how common bare metal and plastic are these days, I'm sure they'll find someone else to play against.

Posts I found insightful from last time:

Redbeard wrote:I think what happened was that the community of gamers allowed the Corporation to establish the community standards, rather than setting them themselves.

There's a definite community standard issue. Once upon a time - and still in historical communities - playing with unpainted models was simply not kosher. You wanted to play with someone else - you painted your models.

Once upon a time, Games Workshop upheld this standard. Once upon a time, GW would require that models be painted in order to play in their stores.

What happened was that GW chose to pursue more money. They decided that they'd sell more models if they started allowing unpainted models to be played in their stores. And, the community sheepishly followed along. Rather than the gamers saying, 'no, I won't play with you if your stuff is unpainted', they went along with GW's decision.

If you want the community standards to change, you need to be willing to be the guy who makes it happen. When you see someone post a battle report with unpainted miniatures in it, berate them for it. When someone asks for a game with their unpainted army, say no.

At the very least, lead by example. Play with painted armies. Make a point of complimenting other gamers you see playing with painted armies.

Otherwise, you're simply allowing GW to set the standard, and their standard is going to be the one that gets them the most money, not the one that provides the best gaming environment.

malfred wrote:As much as I'd like to doll up my armies for other people's gratification, the most important reason I apply the make-up to my models is also the most selfish. I do so for my own pleasure.

Anything else is a bonus.

I do appreciate the inspiration a well painted army can provide across the tabletop, but that's mostly between my opponent and his models.

Ghidorah wrote:

MisterMoon wrote:Why don't people paint anymore?

It's my experience that it has always been this way. At least for the last 15 years. The overwhelming majority of people play unpainted/partially painted armies. As we all know, it's very easy to get overwhelmed in this hobby. It is commonplace to buy minis often enough to outweigh your speed at paining. Soon, you find yourself in a sea a grey plastic and boxes of unbuilt kits.

Sadly, though, sooo many people just want to play the game and don't want to paint, can't paint, don't have time to paint, whatever.

It's always been this way.

There's also some good stuff in the 'Ard Boyz paint requirement debate thread.

usernamesareannoying wrote:@redbeard -...
there are a lot of elitist attitudes in here and again, i will say that by denying someone a game based on paint or modeling level is only preventing someone from a possibly great game.

I'll say it again, just so there's no misunderstanding... I won't refuse to play against someone who hasn't painted their stuff. However, my criteria for a "great game" requires (among other things) that both armies, and the terrain, look good. I'll never miss a "great game" if I pass up a game against an unpainted army.

Davor wrote:*edit* Some people here keep saying they respect people for not painting their models, but still stick thier nose down at them for doing so. How can you respect somone for thier choice when your sticking your nose down on them?

I don't respect anyone for not painting their models. There are very few 'not doings' worthy of respect. Not doing drugs is as close as I think it comes. I don't see how someone not doing something is worthy of respect. I respect their right to choose not to do so. But that's not quite the same as respecting their choice. That doesn't mean I disrespect them, but if you didn't paint your models, what exactly did you do to earn my respect? Respect must be earned.

This, of course, applies only to this topic. Please don't take this to mean that I'd look poorly upon other aspects of someone's life. There are lots of different types of respect. I can respect someone as a human being, as a parent, a good worker, a soldier or firefighter, etc. and their playing with an unpainted army certainly wouldn't make me think any less of them as a person. But if they had painted it, I'd think more of them as a hobbyist.

It would have to be "not doing drugs if you're addicted to drugs," which turns out to be an active thing anyway.

And before anyone takes a shot at redbeard's "great games" phrase, take a look at his set-up:

http://www.dakkadakka.com/gallery/30324-.html?m=2

This is objectively better than playing on a kitchen table with books under a table cloth. The person who does as much (like myself) simply isn't the hobbyist redbeard is. I don't see what's elitist about that.

Manchu wrote:Aiya, that's kinda ridiculous. I get the metaphor MDG is pushing in his thread but it's not a literal truth. You play 40k, I play 40k. Maybe you paint, maybe I don't. We're both playing 40k and not slightly different versions, either. Jervis isn't going to come and arrest me--or you for that matter (at least not over this issue). If I can't compete in some tournaments, so be it. If some people won't play against me, so be it. When a thread like this results in the hardening of the tolerant position into a kind of dogma it has become part of the problem.

I was going to say something like this, but why repeat perfection and water it down?

QFT

insaniak wrote:
We've been brainwashed by GW into believing that it's one all-encompassing hobby. It's not. It's several different hobbies, which people participate in to varying degrees depending on their own interests.


Kudos to GW, the branding of the term 'GW hobby' is one of the most brilliant pieces of marketing they've ever come up with, (on par with 'You must use GW miniatures to play, which has become such an ingrained facet of the 'GW hobby' for so many players, whether they're playing in 'official' events or no) since it pushes certain people into all sorts of directions (and subsequently purchases) that they otherwise possibly wouldn't have bothered with.

Insaniak this is so true that sometimes makes me cry .

I´m into playing miniatures and building stuff not into the GW hobby whatever that is. I have 3 armies a WHFB Tomb King 90-95% finished unless I start changing things again. An eternal wip Eldar army about 60% done and now an IG ground pounder one that it´s almost 99% unpainted. Both my 40k armies are not GW official as I´m using the models I like to have not the ones GW wants me to have but I wanted to use the more popular rules available to players (even if the rules are quite lacking).
So due to this very successful branding I was "expelled" from my (not so)F(not quite)LGS because I was not using "official" miniatures and couldn´t care less about painting.

It´s a trade off I guess, if I have to go on without gaming the other side will have to do with less opponents and less money being spend on their products. If your ideal gaming shop/club is full with people that only play with GW official painting stuff be my guest and enjoy yourself but if not methinks that you´ll have to get down from your high horse and evolve towards a more open view.

Evolve or Die (motto of Urban War game with some cool figures to use as HB or IG count as )

M.

I don't know how GW could have created this myth when the historical hobbyists (from a much older pedigree than spring chicken 40k or even WHFB) seem to paint their armies more often than not while GW is running 'Ard Boyz with no paint requirement at all. No doubt GW wants to glean a profit off of the "hobby" as they sell it by enticing you with overpriced primer, etc. But they didn't invent a myth about the wargaming hobby involving assembling and painting models. The simply capitalized upon it. The "hobby myth" theory seems a hindsight rationalization of either efforts on the part of Rackham, WotC, WizKids, etc, or that GW customers have more money to buy models than time/desire to paint them.

in my opinion my game is less entertaining when im not playing someone with a painted army, the one thing i refuse is to make a battle report with an unpainted army,

and if it comes to a tournament i could careless at the paint job but it does make me see less thing so it irritates me a little,
i my self dont have everything painted but i am one to make the majority painted

i even have a skaven army, 120 clan rats painted in less then 2 weeks with no painting time over week ends, along with some other things, my goal is if you start painting a unit dont stop till your finnished with that unit,

Can anyone out there honestly say they prefer the look of a bare plastic/metal army compared to a painted one?

If you answer yes then I fully respect your choice to have an unpainted army as that's what appeals to you more.

If you answer no and have an unpainted army why not try and get this situation changed? If you seriously cannot find any time to paint, or can't afford the paints, or don't want to paint there are other options out there. Get a mate or someone else to paint them for you, cash doesn't have to be involved if you can't afford it. Help them out by doing something for them you like doing. I've painted units for guys at the club who didn't have time or didn't like painting and they've done things for me like lifts to shows or helping me move furniture.

To me (and this is my personal opinion that I'm not trying to force on anyone) this is a very visual hobby (I love looking at other painted armies and talking about them with their owners as much as playing the games). If thats not your view, fair enough, we enjoy the hobby in different ways and need to respect each others different views.

Mick

You know what I would prefer?

Buying my box of plastic miniatures and having them already painted. Given that a box of Lootas or space marines or anything else pretty much costs $5 per model, I can honestly say that I'm a bit offended that I'm expecting to cut, assemble, and paint them myself. For $5 per model. I can also honestly say that most of the reason I participate in this hobby is because 90% of all the models I get are free - earnings from tournament winnings. I'll take a free model and assemble and try painting it.

But for $5 per model, the least I could get is a model already assembled and painted. Stamped with color in a factory; I don't care. The cheapest price that I've ever seen to get a model painted and based was $2.50 per model, bringing the tally up to $7.50 per model for a tiny bit of molded plastic. How absurd is that?

Dashofpepper wrote:... I can honestly say that I'm a bit offended that I'm expecting to cut, assemble, and paint them myself...

You know, there's a clue in there somewhere. You're right, $5 for a game piece is too expensive. $5 for a detailed model that you will enjoy assembling and painting, well, that's a different matter. But, yes, $5 for just a game piece is ludicrous.

Perhaps you should look into some of the clix games. They're assembled and painted for you, might be more to your liking.

Honestly I don't like seeing unpainted armies in tournies, but I would play the person.

I would much perfer to see an unpainted army than a poorly [really poorly painted] army, you know the kind where you know the person could paint much much better but they did a terrible job just to say its painted and play with it without getting marked off points if theres a painting score.

I honestly don't mind playing against someone whos army is in the process of being painted and has a few models well painted and the rest undercoated or untouched as I know they are going to finish.

edit- there are many painting services overseas [inda, china, thailand] that will paint your models to very high standards for less than half the cost of the model including shipping if you really want prepainted models. If you take the time to buy models only when on sale at 20% off or more, or from ebay, or secondhand and strip them you can actually get high quality painted models for the cost of the brand new model from GW. Seriously.

@ dashofpepper

so you want to pay MORE money so some kid in a sweatshop can paint your minis b4 they are sent to you?!? more £, less fun. great idea! LMAO

YOU ALL have obviously been brainwashed by GW into thinking they care.
*looks over shoulder*

(To be clear, I do run a fully painted army, so this isn't me whining about people who want to play against painted armies... this is an argument for "live and let live")

GW != Historical minis wargaming. The two hobbies have (IMO) different focuses and target groups, leading to different rules and conventions. Because the fluff/history of those armies are so important, not painting loses a significant part of that hobby.

This reminds me of certain evangelical groups. If you don't agree with them it's a character flaw that you should get changed. If you don't like/want to paint, you should either find a different hobby because you're a leper that isn't wanted around by the serious hobbyists, or you should just "get over it" because "I can paint X amount of models in Y amount of time... so why can't you?"

I applaud those that do realize that everyone enjoys different parts of the hobby and that "live and let live" works better than "Why don't you go play Chess or Clix?" Once again, nobody forces anyone to play against someone they don't want to. If you don't want to play against someone that doesn't have their army painted... DON'T. There's nothing wrong with that. But I would argue that you not try to tell them that they're "doing it wrong" and the "hobby" only consists of painted armies. If they're having fun, who are we to be the ones to tell them they need to change?

MOMUS wrote:@ dashofpepper

so you want to pay MORE money so some kid in a sweetshop can paint your minis b4 they are sent to you?!? more £, less fun. great idea! LMAO

they make them paint and make candy? the bastards!

I take, on average, 2 hours to paint a single trooper model. That applies to any trooper model; tyranids, tau, skaven, lizardmen, etc. That will speed up slightly if I paint a whole unit at once. I could paint faster, but the model wouldn't look nearly as good. As a result a lot of my stuff is still unpainted.

I don't care how much faster other people are, or that someone can get best painted with an army they worked on for a month. I work at my pace.

People can refuse to play me for having unpainted armies, that's fine. They aren't the people I want to game with anyway.

Gornall wrote:
GW != Historical minis wargaming. The two hobbies have (IMO) different focuses and target groups, leading to different rules and conventions. Because the fluff/history of those armies are so important, not painting loses a significant part of that hobby.

The fluff/history of the armies in 40k seems fairly important to me. There's easily as much written about the organization, "history" and heraldry of the Ultramarines as there is on the Prussian army circa the Austro-Prussian war. Not paying heed to this background loses as much of the GW hobby as it does in the historical games, where you could simply put unpainted soldiers on the table and use whatever rules you wanted...

One of the gamers in my regular game is actually more concerned with this stuff than anything else. It matters more to him that he's got the right iconography and numbering in his squads than it does if they're either painted well, or play well on the tabletop.

Redbeard wrote:
One of the gamers in my regular game is actually more concerned with this stuff than anything else. It matters more to him that he's got the right iconography and numbering in his squads than it does if they're either painted well, or play well on the tabletop.

That's great for him. He found something that caught his interest and went for it. I think that's the point. 40k has enough different aspects that it can appeal to a variety of different people, each with different ideas of what is "fun". The key is finding the ones that share your ideas of fun so you can have enjoyable experiences and don't have to fight about the "right" way to enjoy "the hobby".

80% of this hobby for me is the painting and the modeling, the playing is a great excuse to give the wife to get out of the house and sit at the hobby store painting in relative peace and quiet. I have TWO kids under the age three, finding time to paint is EXTREMELY hard. When I do play, I hold MYSELF to a very very high standard. I field at all times an army that is AT LEAST 95% painted, the minis that are not completed are at least 50% done. My biggest pet peeve is when someone plays with the models they do not own. If they have unassembled tanks or troops they purchaced that day and have a reasonable proxy, im down to play. When the tanks were bought six months ago and he's only got them rebberbanded together... then we might have a problem. Also if they have to borrow the propper models from another player.. i hate that.
My general point is, just because i have a high standard for myself, there is no reason to force my standard on someone else who never agreed to it. I do not play much because of my own personal high standard, but thats fine for me because when i do play my army looks fantastic and i get a lot of compliments, everyone likes to see a fully painted army.

usernamesareannoying wrote:

MOMUS wrote:@ dashofpepper

so you want to pay MORE money so some kid in a sweetshop can paint your minis b4 they are sent to you?!? more £, less fun. great idea! LMAO

they make them paint and make candy? the bastards!

i know they make me sick

they probably have been brainwashed by GW to make 40k by day and WFB by night!

i only look @ GW site by using a mirror, direct LOS will make you one of their drones!!!!!!!!!!

I don't know about kids in sweat shops painting, but that's not what I want. Toys at K-mart aren't painted by kids in a sweat-shop....they're mass produced. All I'm saying is that I'd like it if Ork boys were mass-produced already assembled and green. I'm not into this hobby to paint, I'm in it to wargame.

You know why I don't play hero-clix or whatever clix things you guys are talking about? Precisely because I don't know what they are, and no one else really does either. =p 40k is big, hero-clix is not. We could just as easily switch that around. Warhammer 40k is a tabletop tactical wargame. If you'd rather paint, why don't you take up canvas painting, or mural-making, or something else? That's much more painting focused than 40k, and you can get away from people who want to PLAY with their toys instead of just looking at them.

Folks, when I want to play a video game, I don't want to lovingly craft and program it, I just want to play it for entertainment. Table-top gaming is the same to me. I want to play it, not paint it.

I think my beef is that unpainted armies look naff. I don't know how people have the face to turn up to tournaments with them. They just look rubbish, what's the point in spending £10 or more on special characters and much more on vehicles and the like and not doing anything with them? They just end up grey and silver like the rest of the army, and just about every other army. All of them, just a sea of bland grey and metal. So what chapter are your Space Marines? Oh Blood Angels, cool so umm...which ones are the Death Company?

I like to have a really good layout when I play a game, something you can really visualise, something to be proud of and enjoy for several hours. A load of grey plastic and metal men fighting other plastic and metal men around scenery made up of coffee cups and heaps of magazines doesn't cut it unfortunately.

I don't mind borrowing a friend's army. It's fun to get a new perspective sometimes. And I lent a few units to another dark eldar player, he was playing a pickup game against someone preparing for a tournament and didn't have his full 2k touni army there. Since both our armies are painted totally differently, it wasn't hard to sort out what belonged to who after.

beard102479 wrote:I don't like playing people who haven't taken time to paint their army. Anyone can glue some "Nids" together and show up. Is it wrong that if I am not in a tournament that I refuse to play someone with an unpainted army? 1 or 2 models I can handle but an entire army with not one drop of paint on in? Come on people get your act together and take some pride in the hobby!!! Opinions welcome, please explain why you haven't painted your army or why you agree that it is very annoying to go up against a grey plastic Leman Russ?

There isnt really much to say that i havnt said before.
Just need to know , that yes to you Yourself its a hobby.

But to many others , its a game.

LunaHound wrote:
There isnt really much to say that i havnt said before.
Just need to know , that yes to you Yourself its a hobby
.
But to many others , its a game.

aint it the truth, this is why i can't hold people up to the same standards i hold myself to. because i go all out with my painting and modeling, doesn't mean the next guy has to, but when they start using fantasy movement trays for rhinos.... thats where i draw the line.

The trouble with Luna's position is that a lot of people in the "I don't have to paint!" crowd say that the game/hobby distinction is just another elitist insult against them. And, what do you know, the paint or else crowd does seem to claim that the non-painters are not hobbyists or at least are defective hobbyists.

The closest thing to a compromise is the KK/insaniak position that playing with painted figs is a separate hobby from playing with unpainted ones. But that's just a rationalization geared to deflating these threads.

Manchu wrote:The trouble with Luna's position is that a lot of people in the "I don't have to paint!" crowd say that the game/hobby distinction is just another elitist insult against them. And, what do you know, the paint or else crowd does seem to claim that the non-painters are not hobbyists or at least are defective hobbyists.

The closest thing to a compromise is the KK/insaniak position that playing with painted figs is a separate hobby from playing with unpainted ones. But that's just a rationalization geared to deflating these threads.

there are tournament regulations which must be obeyed when they arise. but as far as pick up games, and casual game nights, i am pretty much on the "i don't have to paint" side, because you really don't have to paint. For my personal armies, oh yes there will be paint, there will be lots of paint. I do not concider myself a better hobbiest because my army is painted and yours isn't, i am a believer in that we are all just there to have fun and play a game.

Yeah, that's my take on it, too.

The models are all that's needed to play. Tournaments are part show part game so painting is expected there. In a normal game why would it matter? Can anyone honestly say they've not once, in ANY miniature game played with unpainted models? How else do people learn their army, but by playing games. Imagine the time investment to buy an army, paint it, then play it and find out you spent all that time on an army that's not your style. You can trade it back in and see about trying a new one sure, but it's easier to sell an unpainted army than a painted one unless you're truly an excellent painter. My bugs spent a year and a half unpainted. I am *counts* 26 models away from it being completed. A person who owns the models deserves to put their purchase to use.

These arguments are silly and this is the third time I've seen this thread. @op, why did you even start this thread? Probably just to gloat about how you're better than "us" nonpainters. Anyone can say yes or no to a game with or without reason. Deal with it and move on. There's no sense in complaining about things you can't control.

if i enter a painting comp do i
have to glue the bits together?
or even take the models off the sprues?

@MOMUS

Manchu wrote:I think painting is very fun. It's awesome to see your stuff go through that transformation. That and I feel like I make progress in skill from model to model. Assembly is kind of a drag for me, however. What a pity that playing with an unassembled army is impossible.

Can I still get up on a soapbox and lecture everybody else about how playing WHFB/40k isn't about the hobby? "I'm no less into it because I refuse to put my little men together! How dare you question my preferences!" Whoops, here come the flames, gotta run!

There is a difference between those guys/gals that are slow painters. They like to play their army, but you will see them with only a few models or squads done every so often. Which is fine. And I have a very good friend who is a superb painter and puts just as much effort into every model as he would into a center piece type model. And he will play with unpainted, often times only some primed, and a few units that are drop dead gorgeous.

Then you have those guys/gals (and you know who I am talking about, there is always one at nearly every flgs, and probably a few of them right now in this thread) that show up every week, every month, and years with the same unpainted models. Then they pick up a new army...and years later still unpainted...then a new army...unpainted, and the horrible cycle keeps repeating.

I prefer to play against a painted army ( I myself have well over 500 models, all painted). I work a full time job, married with 3 children, help my son with his school work, take care of the baby, and I find time every day to do a little bit of painting, and on my off days I do more. The I don't have time to paint is not an excuse. The I am to lazy to paint is one.

However, I really don't mind playing against unpainted armies at all, as long as you ARE working on it. Then it is absolutely fine. As someone else already said, we've all shown up with at least one model not finished.

Painted miniatures really bring the game to life and becomes a much more enjoyable experience. Its like a game with awesome graphics compared to one with next to no graphics. We don't mind playing the game with horrible graphics if its fun...but a game with great graphics can really bring the game to life.

In conclusion: Playing with/against a painted army (even ones not that well done) is still a much more enjoyable experience than one that is just bland...I can agree with the OP in that even I have chosen not to play against a player who ALWAYS has a completely unpainted army, it just depends on who shows up, I will pretty much choose to play against a painted army over the unpainted one if the choice presents itself.

I only want the armies recognisable as a criteria to play, although granted I don't do many pickup games (raiders are a pain to transport, I prefer arranged so I know I'll get a game if I'm hauling the things in).

I have seen one of the store's apoc matches with a lot of chaos marines. Two armies of which were unpainted, and mostly indistinguishable. So, 15 min before the match, one player is quickly dabbing a stroke of red paint on all his CSM, and the other guy a dab of blue paint on his CSM. Not my desired game, but at least doable. Still be better if they'd sprayed them with a coloured primer, it doesn't take long and drastically improves an unpainted army (and lets you see which one is yours).

In fact, I usually play with a fully painted army
and I expect the same from my opponent.

Gornall wrote:

Redbeard wrote:
One of the gamers in my regular game is actually more concerned with this stuff than anything else. It matters more to him that he's got the right iconography and numbering in his squads than it does if they're either painted well, or play well on the tabletop.

That's great for him. He found something that caught his interest and went for it. I think that's the point. 40k has enough different aspects that it can appeal to a variety of different people, each with different ideas of what is "fun". The key is finding the ones that share your ideas of fun so you can have enjoyable experiences and don't have to fight about the "right" way to enjoy "the hobby".

Ok...Except the title of this topic is "No Paint? No Play?", not "Are only people who paint true fans of the game?".

I keep seeing you and others quoting Redbeard and arguing things that are irrelevant.

Warhammer is not a very deep game. It is not hard to play (if you think it is, you need to open up and look at some of the other much more skill based games). This is why, to me, the most intriguing aspect of the hobby is the painting, and then fielding my painted models on a great looking table.

But guess what? The immersion of the entire battle/scenario is thrown right out the window for me when I see Im about to play a gray horde. Everything on the board begins to look worse. This severely hinders my enjoyment of the game.

Redbeard is also 100% correct that there have been a lot of excuses in this topic, excuses trying to be passed off for laziness/poor time management/no care to paint. If you have time to play, you have time to paint. If you have money to spend on models, you have enough to spend on paint. If you dont want to paint, that's fine, that's your right, but I have the right to refuse to play you because you dont have your army painted. It is a choice not to paint. If the reason is due to someone being new or still working on them, that's fine, but dont think that it's somehow more enjoyable for me.

So my point is, while I wont necessarily refuse to play someone with a giant gray blob, if theres 2 identical players to play against - one with a painted army and one without - Im going to pick the painted one everytime. Im sorry to say, but the people who were posting "you are looking down on us as lesser humans, boohoo " need to get a grip on reality and grow some thicker skin. If you dont like the thought of this happening to you (the horror) , there's a simple solution - paint.

Night Lords: Once again... that's your enjoyment of the game. My argument is that just because you define your enjoyment of the hobby that way, doesn't mean that is THE way.

If you want it more on topic: Yes, you have the right to not play people if their army isn't painted. No questions asked. Anyone calls that "elitest" or anything like that does need to grow thicker skin (grip on reality is a bit harsh IMO) and accept by not painting their army, they might miss out on some games.

Gornall wrote:Night Lords: Once again... that's your enjoyment of the game. My argument is that just because you define your enjoyment of the hobby that way, doesn't mean that is THE way.

I have yet to see anyone argue this, which is why Im genuinely confused as to why you keep bringing it up.

Several people have made comments that if you're not painting your army, then you shouldn't bother playing 40k and go find a different game (Clix, Chess, etc). I'm just arguing that because you don't think 40k is a deep enough game to enjoy for the gaming aspects alone doesn't mean that other people can't find it to be a good fit.

You guys have written a butt load, so I'm just going to through in my double singles.

For casual play rejecting a match with someone who hasn't painted their models would be faux pas. It's not uncommon for people to not be ready or in the process of painting their armies. Some armies are just too big! (See: Orks, Imperial Guard). But chronic non-painters are even more faux pas, regardless of their army size. I, personally, do not play units that aren't at least two colors (I have a Leman Russ that sits out 90% of the time and is low on my priority list that is only green and black with a half converted turret, no sponsons or hull). So rejecting them, politely, isn't that bad, but could be considered unsportsmanlike if you're doing nothing else.

At professional levels, however, such as Tournaments or Leagues, I would say it is entirely permissible to deny play for non-painting. A major part of the hobby is the painting and converting, if less than 75% painted, it's just people not caring about the game, which is rather rude.

For large armies, like Orks and Guard, three basic colors are easy to get to. Spray base your primary, paint for their tunics/armor, and some paint on the base or special weapons. That's easy to do even with 100+ guys.

If you don't like painting, pay someone else. If you can't do that.... well you're in the wrong hobby or you're going to have to adjust fire and figure something out....

Skinnattittar wrote:
If you don't like painting, pay someone else. If you can't do that.... well you're in the wrong hobby or you're going to have to adjust fire and figure something out....

This is where i take issue (more than likely the only) in what you are saying. I started playing when I was 13, the first time I ever fielded a UNIT that was fully painted i was 17, the first Army i fielded that was "fully painted" i was 19/20. Why did it take so long? Because I was a kid. I had school, i did my school work, i went to school, i really did not have time to paint. And thats something EVERYONE has to think about when you want to refuse the kid thats been playing for years but doesn't have his army anywhere close to being painted. There are MORE important things in life (like Graduating High School, going to Prom, having your first date) especially for a high schooler, who just likes to PLAY THE GAME. When i was in high school I only wanted the weekend to show up because Fri night was MTG night, Saturday in day was 40k time, Saturday night was my friend night, Sunday was church then D&D (great combo right?!) Where am i painting in that time frame? During the week its all homework/classwork. I really didn't give myself the time or put in the effort until i was in college when i made my own schedule.
While I doubt i'll refuse to play the kid, who is still in school, and has his unpainted army, i am more inclined to not play the 40 year old who has his 2nd ED marines that are still natural silver.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
how is a high school student that wants to PLAY, and spends all his allowence on 40k, doesn't has a job (yet) afford to pay someone to paint his army???

Skinnattittar wrote:A major part of the hobby is the painting and converting, if less than 75% painted, it's just people not caring about the game, which is rather rude.

... If you can't do that.... well you're in the wrong hobby or you're going to have to adjust fire and figure something out....

This is the type of view I talking about. People tend to define how the hobby should be enjoyed through their view of what they find fun. I'm just saying that people should understand that everyone comes to 40k for different reasons. Some people choose not to paint, because it is not value added for them. They just prefer the gaming aspect, social interaction, etc. That's what makes it fun for them and that's their choice.

The whole painting/not-painting issue doesn't become an "elitist" issue if someone simply says "I prefer to play against painted armies." That is a perfectly reasonable, justified response. It only becomes an issue in my my mind when people are rude about it, or start saying stuff like "You shouldn't even be in this hobby."

I played and painted during High School, I still have a lot of models I painted back then (though most got stripped and repainted since). I understand some people don't like that part, which is okay, you don't HAVE to paint them, or do anything. But to me, the game isn't just about playing, it's also about painting. To me it is similar to liking hot rod cars but not liking to work on them. To me that's a lazy, or at least half-assed, hobbyist.

You can own a hot rod that isn't worked on often and still be in the hobby of it, but you can't just own one that sits undone in your back yard rusting and call your self a hot-rodder. I would still talk to you if this was your case, but it's sort of a joke.

Tournaments and Leagues should be a professional atmosphere, and part of that is having a painted army. It's okay to not be at that level, you just have to live with the fact that you're not at that level, which again, if that's your situation, it's okay, you don't have to be a professional player to play casually. For me, I go a step closer, I wouldn't play in a tournament unless I had painted and WYSIWYG, with only minor caveats (like having smoke launchers on the model or some other small option, or a small powerfist on models, like I use for augmetics). But painting is part of the hobby.

I'm not calling anyone a piece of gak for not painting. But I'm not going to consider your army professional quality.

I hate unpainted armies AND it makes me better than all of you.

Do we have to go through this again?

EDIT : Oh, hold on, this is page 5 already...I guess so....

@Skinnattittar "professional" seriously... its a HOBBY/GAME, there are no professional contracts out there for 40k players. Guys that spend all their time absorbed into their hobby/game want to call themselves professional(s) fine.... i think they are a little out of touch with reality, like pro poker players, or pro Halo players, its all an f-ing joke. Pro-sports is mostly a joke too (but i still enjoy them) just so we are all on the page.

I don't think the Hot Rod example works... you can still race (play) a hot rod (army) and do well with a good engine (army list) and driver (player) no matter what the paint looks like. It's not like Orks with Red Paint Jobs.

Also, unless people out there are making enough money on 40k to support their families (maybe commission painters), I doubt anyone would call any 40k player professional.

I disagree with the tone of hcordes response, along with his assessment of certain "pro" activities. If you make money from it, you're a professional.

I feel lucky in that I currently live in an area with several different FLGS, each with a different culture. One is completely painting-optional, which is great when you want to focus on the gaming aspect. Another is more paint/fluff oriented and is fun for themematic/visual games. The other big one is more of your RTT type with an emphasis on the entire hobby.

It's great because if I want to try out my new army/list I can get games in regardless of the army/unit's status in my painting backlog. If I want to have a fluffy Apoc/PS game with lots of painted models and take some really cool pictures, I have an outlet for that. When I want to play my primary army in a RTT environment where painting/generalship both come into play, I also have an outlet for that. Each of those types appeals to different people (or in my case the same person depending on the day), and I think it would be a shame to lose any of those venues/outlets. That's why I'm a big proponent of the whole "live and let live".

hcordes wrote:@Skinnattittar "professional" seriously... its a HOBBY/GAME, there are no professional contracts out there for 40k players. Guys that spend all their time absorbed into their hobby/game want to call themselves professional(s) fine.... i think they are a little out of touch with reality, like pro poker players, or pro Halo players, its all an f-ing joke. Pro-sports is mostly a joke too (but i still enjoy them) just so we are all on the page.

There's a difference between "professional sports/games/players" and just playing 'professionally.' Being a professional is a way of acting and handling something, like being respectful and holding yourself to standards or practices. Like any occupation, including something a trivial as being a cart collector or bagger, there is a way to be professional at those jobs.

For hobbies, they have their standards and practices; standards of models and play, practices for sportsmanship and socializing. Basically how you look and how you act.

somethings out there you shouldn't really be able to make money doing. i think pro sports players are overpaid, they encourage poor education (lets drop out of college and go pro!), while yes i guess if you make money at it you can call yourself a professional... but i'm just gonna call you obsessed.

@Gornall: No doubt what you're saying makes practical sense and is the right answer in reality. But this is the internet! And the internet are srs business!

Skinnattittar wrote:

hcordes wrote:@Skinnattittar "professional" seriously... its a HOBBY/GAME, there are no professional contracts out there for 40k players. Guys that spend all their time absorbed into their hobby/game want to call themselves professional(s) fine.... i think they are a little out of touch with reality, like pro poker players, or pro Halo players, its all an f-ing joke. Pro-sports is mostly a joke too (but i still enjoy them) just so we are all on the page.

There's a difference between "professional sports/games/players" and just playing 'professionally.' Being a professional is a way of acting and handling something, like being respectful and holding yourself to standards or practices. Like any occupation, including something a trivial as being a cart collector or bagger, there is a way to be professional at those jobs.

For hobbies, they have their standards and practices; standards of models and play, practices for sportsmanship and socializing. Basically how you look and how you act.

very semantic.
i'm just gonna pass on a real responce, what i really want to say will more than likely get me banned. going to click "unsubscribe" now.

Gornall wrote:I don't think the Hot Rod example works... you can still race (play) a hot rod (army) and do well with a good engine (army list) and driver (player) no matter what the paint looks like. It's not like Orks with Red Paint Jobs.

Then you're a driver/racer, which isn't really the same thing as a hot-rodder.

Gornall wrote:Also, unless people out there are making enough money on 40k to support their families (maybe commission painters), I doubt anyone would call any 40k player professional.

Partially true, by way of multiple definitions, but playing in a professional manner and playing "professionally" are two different, but related, things.

Gornall wrote:I feel lucky in that I currently live in an area with several different FLGS, each with a different culture. One is completely painting-optional, which is great when you want to focus on the gaming aspect. Another is more paint/fluff oriented and is fun for themematic/visual games. The other big one is more of your RTT type with an emphasis on the entire hobby.

It's great because if I want to try out my new army/list I can get games in regardless of the army/unit's status in my painting backlog. If I want to have a fluffy Apoc/PS game with lots of painted models and take some really cool pictures, I have an outlet for that. When I want to play my primary army in a RTT environment where painting/generalship both come into play, I also have an outlet for that. Each of those types appeals to different people (or in my case the same person depending on the day), and I think it would be a shame to lose any of those venues/outlets. That's why I'm a big proponent of the whole "live and let live".

Again, I have no problem with people playing new and unpainted armies, or even things they only use once in a blue moon. But not painting your army simply because you don't care what your army looks like isn't professional. Its a standard, and a very popular and common one.

Manchu wrote:@Gornall: No doubt what you're saying makes practical sense and is the right answer in reality. But this is the internet! And the internet are srs business!

Indeed.

Skinnattittar wrote:

Gornall wrote:I don't think the Hot Rod example works... you can still race (play) a hot rod (army) and do well with a good engine (army list) and driver (player) no matter what the paint looks like. It's not like Orks with Red Paint Jobs.

Then you're a driver/racer, which isn't really the same thing as a hot-rodder.

And that is the very crux of it. 40k has the equivilent of drivers/racers in addition to the hot-rodders. Both use the same medium (cars/armies) to have fun, but put a different emphasis on that medium and how they achieve their fun. A professional (even using your definition) hot-rodder has a different focus than professional driver/racer. Is one any more valid than the other? I would argue NO, with the exception of contexts/venues. A professional in one context is lazy/anal-rententive in another context. I wouldn't try to enter my primered race car into an auto show, and likewise, I wouldn't bring my chromed/blinged out show car to a dirt track to race. Same goes with 40k. It's a big enough to have "drivers/racers" and "hot-rodders" both under the same general umbrella. The key is to find out what your emphasis is and find those individuals that share that emphasis to enjoy the hobby with.

So my entire Dark Eldar army is painted black, they have night shields, and their army name is "black night riders."

Since I don't have multiple shades of non-black paint on them....does that mean my army isn't playable for you who require painted armies?

A few things I find funny here. Geeks (and yes we are all geeks for playing with plastic toy soldiers) are putting other people down as if they were jock in high school. lol.

Also it is agreed that if you don't like non painted fine, you don't have to play them, but you don't have to be a falcon prick about it. Alot of you in the I don't like non painted armies camp almost sound respectable but at the last sentence just makes you sound like an A-hole.

I also find it funny that the I don't like non painted armies camp keep referring to Tournies. Well don't Tournies or some Tournies have scoring based on Sportsman ship? Refusing to play non painted armies is not good sportsman ship.

Again, you don't have to be a prick. Just be polite about it, and so far, I havn't read any polite I don't like non painted armies. Why do you have to be an arse about it?

Just say "No thankyou, I don't want to play with a non painted army right now"

Comments like, I have time you should have time, or if anyone can buy mini's can buy paint. That just gives you the I am holier than you and better than you attitude. That might make you better in your own eyes, but you are still a Geek. I just find it funny a Geek has to make himslef better than another Geek.

That's right.


I don't understand what the big deal is.

You say you don't like to paint, and just want to play, so why should you have to do something you don't like. And that's fine with me.

I say I don't like to play against unpainted armies. Why should I have to do something I don't like? And then you call me elitist for not wanting to play with you. And then you start coming up with excuses about money and time, and everything else under the sun about why you shouldn't have to paint.

I didn't call you a name... I didn't tell you that you had to do something you didn't want to do. Why do you not extend me the same courtesy, and simply accept that playing against unpainted armies is something I don't enjoy doing, in the same way that painting those armies is something you don't enjoy doing? You don't have to start throwing labels around because of it.

I'm more than happy to play against other people with my mindset, and partake in tournaments and events that require painting with the other hobbyists, and let you play games against the other pure gamers.

At the end of the day, we just won't play each other without one (or both) of us bending a little. That's fine too. I'll be happy to meet you half-way. You show up with an army that's half painted, and I'll play you.

Davor, no offense bud, but you seriously need to get your emotions in check. You are taking this far too personally.

Davor wrote:
Also it is agreed that if you don't like non painted fine, you don't have to play them, but you don't have to be a falcon prick about it. Alot of you in the I don't like non painted armies camp almost sound respectable but at the last sentence just makes you sound like an A-hole.
...
Comments like, I have time you should have time, or if anyone can buy mini's can buy paint. That just gives you the I am holier than you and better than you attitude. That might make you better in your own eyes, but you are still a Geek. I just find it funny a Geek has to make himslef better than another Geek.

I think that "I don't have time" or "I can't afford it" are excuses. If you want me to be upfront with you, then you have to be upfront with me too. Tell me you don't like painting, I'll say fine. Tell me you can't afford it... and I'll point out how much the figures cost. Tell me you don't have time? That's BS, everyone can find the time to do something they want to do. It isn't that you don't have time, it's that you don't want to do it. Be a man, tell me the truth, and I'll treat you like a man. If you make excuses like a child, expect to be treated like a child.

I also find it funny that the I don't like non painted armies camp keep referring to Tournies. Well don't Tournies or some Tournies have scoring based on Sportsman ship? Refusing to play non painted armies is not good sportsman ship.

The tournaments that are being referred to have rules about fielding painted armies too. Sometimes, those of us who enjoy playing with painted armies host events for like-minded hobbyists. We don't mind if other people want to join in, but we do want the event to cater to the hobbyists. It is the pure gamers who are complaining about this painting requirement that cause the problem. No one is stopping them from hosting their own events that don't require painting. We do object to their demands that we change our events to accommodate them though.

Davor, I don't know if you realise this, but everyone wants to be better than someone at something. That's not a "geek" v. "non-geek" thing. Even among "Jocks," there is stratification of importance and superiority. It's human nature. And yes, some people ARE better than other people, even in general, but I certainly haven't said "people who don't paint their models are inferior people." I just think it's not as professional as people who DO make sure they paint as much of their armies as possible, and set some sort of standard for themselves. There's nothing wrong with that! Everyone does it.

Heck, even yourself, you are trying to compare the quality of people to "sportsmanship." Not painting your army for reasons other than casual play or not having a reasonable amount of time to paint it, meaning just plain refusing to paint your army, or not caring if your army is painted or not, lacks sportsmanship. By that I mean, you don't care enough about the hobby to paint your miniatures. Which to some people is a bit of an insult, and they're allowed to have their opinions!

Sportsmanship is more than just playing anyone who comes along and how nicely you get along with others, part of it if how you treat yourself and the hobby. For me, that includes painting the models.

@ Dashofpepper : Consider, I have an army from a planet of gray shale, gray flora, and gray buildings. So my army wears plastic gray uniforms, paints their tanks plastic gray, and soldiers paint their exposed skin plastic gray. Yeah, that fits their fluff, but you still have an army out of the box assembled but unpainted. So yes, painting your entire army a single shade of black and palming off an explanation like "they're night fighters!" is kind of lame from a painting perspective.

Redbeard wrote:You say you don't like to paint, and just want to play, so why should you have to do something you don't like. And that's fine with me.

I say I don't like to play against unpainted armies. Why should I have to do something I don't like? And then you call me elitist for not wanting to play with you. And then you start coming up with excuses about money and time, and everything else under the sun about why you shouldn't have to paint.

I didn't call you a name... I didn't tell you that you had to do something you didn't want to do. Why do you not extend me the same courtesy, and simply accept that playing against unpainted armies is something I don't enjoy doing, in the same way that painting those armies is something you don't enjoy doing? You don't have to start throwing labels around because of it.

I'm more than happy to play against other people with my mindset, and partake in tournaments and events that require painting with the other hobbyists, and let you play games against the other pure gamers.

At the end of the day, we just won't play each other without one (or both) of us bending a little. That's fine too. I'll be happy to meet you half-way. You show up with an army that's half painted, and I'll play you.

/agree

It's perfectly okay to politely decline games for whatever reason. Both sides tend to throw around labels too much.

It's also perfectly acceptable to run whatever event you want with whatever requirements you want. Just don't complain if you go to a painting-required tournament and they tell you that you can't use your primered models. You also shouldn't be suprised if you end up against a primered or unpainted army at a no-requirement tournament.

As for "the demands to change events", that also cuts both ways (look at the 'Ard Boyz thread for example).

The thing that irks me is when people say things such as "If you don't like to paint you need to find a different hobby." or "Just get over it... it's not that hard." or "If you cared about the hobby and your opponent you would show them the respect of painting for them." or "I'm a better sportsman because I have a painted army." (Sorry... couldn't resist. Seriously, though, dinging someone on sportmanship for painting is kinda double-jeopardy. They already have to take dings on the painting score too.)

Just for clarification; I'm not saying I would NOT play someone with an unpainted army. In fact, I do! Nor am I saying I would not be friends with someone who has an unpainted army, because I DO have friends with unpainted armies. But if my opponent or my friends were to say "I am just as much a proffessional player as you(me) are," I would have to greatly disagree with them.

There's a difference between a "player" and a "hobbyist." A similarity would be a "driver" and a "hot-rodder." A player/driver plays/drives whatever they like the feel of driving, but have no real loyalty to what it is exactly they are playing/driving, as long as they get the same feeling. So it could be Warhammer 40k or some other game using similar rules, just as a driver would drive a 1932 coupe or a car coming off the production line with the same driving characteristics.

A hobbyist or hot-rodder has some sort of investment in what they are spending their time on; they have objectives. Someone who builds WWII tanks is going to be after making the most realistic period vehicle they can, and making interesting, but realistic, variants from that period (say, a 1941 production Sherman with 1945 treads, explaining that at some point, as did occur, they were replaced). A hot rodder will do as they do. One into 1930s cars will try to go with 1930s bodies and mechanic techniques, guys who are about other things will go after those things.

Different objectives for different people. A hot-rodder will still appreciate the 1930s coupe a "driver" drives, and a hobbyist will still appreciate the way a "player" plays. But if you want the hot-rodder to appreciate the 2010 stock Mustang or a hobbyist to appreciate primer gray and poorly converted models, you're going to be disappointed.

Skinnattittar wrote:A hot-rodder will still appreciate the 1930s coupe a "driver" drives, and a hobbyist will still appreciate the way a "player" plays. But if you want the hot-rodder to appreciate the 2010 stock Mustang or a hobbyist to appreciate primer gray and poorly converted models, you're going to be disappointed.

And "players" appreciate the work the "hobbyists" (using your terms even if I don't believe your connotations) put into their armies. But don't expect for them to agree that you're more "professional" than them. In their realm, professional is measured primarily on tabletop conduct and generalship. Painting simply doesn't factor into the equation in that context.

Oh wait a second guys. Did I say I don't like to paint? I do paint my mini's. They are bad, I love to paint. If I made you think I play with unpainted mini's then I am sorry, I didn't mean it that way. I guess I just used myself as an example so I wouldn't call anyone out.

Maybe I did, and I am sorry I didn't mean to make it into an arguement, and I am sorry for doing it that way. I guess it goes both ways, I made myself look like an A-Hole too. I was just arguing on behalf of the not painted models because of how some people made themselves better than others, intended or not.

So to all, and espeacially Redbeard and Nightlord, I didn't mean to make it personal. I am sorry and hope you take my applogies.

If my army was unpainted I would explain as to why, some were, some wern't, and then play some games.

Just got pissed a bit at some people makeing themselves better than others, because nobody here is better than anyone else.

But I just want to say, again, sorry if I misbehaved or made it personal, it wasn't my intent.

Back on track, I do like painted armies, but I would not refuse a game with anyone a painted army. Also if I had some armies that were unpainted I would hope nobody would refuse me a game either, but I would understand if they didn't. I would hope thou the person would be polite and respecatable about it.

Davor wrote:...nobody here is better than anyone else.

But I just want to say, again, sorry if I misbehaved or made it personal, it wasn't my intent.

Back on track, I do like painted armies, but I would not refuse a game with anyone a painted army. Also if I had some armies that were unpainted I would hope nobody would refuse me a game either, but I would understand if they didn't. I would hope thou the person would be polite and respecatable about it.

That's a much more reasonable post than your previous. /bravo

I have never felt the need to refuse to play someone who had an unpainted army. I have, however, felt as if the other person cared less about the hobby than me because they have been coming in with the same unpainted army for the two years I had known them, with no advancement.

hcordes wrote:@Skinnattittar "professional" seriously... its a HOBBY/GAME, there are no professional contracts out there for 40k players. Guys that spend all their time absorbed into their hobby/game want to call themselves professional(s) fine.... i think they are a little out of touch with reality, like pro poker players, or pro Halo players, its all an f-ing joke. Pro-sports is mostly a joke too (but i still enjoy them) just so we are all on the page.

weeeellll......

pro poker players like phil ivey, and danny negranau: multi- millionaires. not a joke, just mega rich. these guys play 40 hours a week solid poker. that is their job.

pro sports players, people pay to see em play, so whats the big deal here?

as for pro halo or pro 40k players, i agree with you there. these are the nerdy, spotty, social recluses that give this hobby/game a bad name.....there is a distinct difference between being enthusiastic and being obsessive. as i said in a previous post, if this is the be all and end all of your free time and discretionary income then you have a problem. well balanced individuals need several interests, not just one.

be proud of the effort you put in painting, be proud of the clever new tactics you come up with to defeat an enmey, but can we please close this thread with the adage "live and let live"?

This hobby is a social hobby.
Since conversing and "shooting the sh**" are social activities, I refuse anyone who wants to *only* play the game and isn't willing to have a 4 or 5 hour 1500 point game with me as we have extensive conversations about myriad topics.
Those people just don't understand what the hobby is all about and aren't worth my time.

Dashofpepper wrote:So my entire Dark Eldar army is painted black, they have night shields, and their army name is "black night riders."

Since I don't have multiple shades of non-black paint on them....does that mean my army isn't playable for you who require painted armies?

First of all:

http://blog.brushthralls.com/?page_id=1942

If you were going to paint an all black army, it probably shouldn't just be a single shade of black (likely sprayed on).

Secondly, what you've come up with is an attempt to justify your way into someone else's standards. Why do you feel the need to do that? So you can say "you're not being fair! whine! whine! whine!" when they refuse to play you?

So if I was the type of person to not play against unpainted armies, I'd refuse to play your "Black Night Riders" just as I'd refuse to play "Ghost Marines" that are all a single shade of white (also conveniently applied with a spray can).



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Night Lords wrote:But guess what? The immersion of the entire battle/scenario is thrown right out the window for me when I see Im about to play a gray horde. Everything on the board begins to look worse. This severely hinders my enjoyment of the game.

Exactly. So often those who prefer painted models (or insist on them) are called "rude" or "elitist" or other names by those who refuse to paint their models. The truth of the matter is that if you bring unpainted models against a person who has painted models, you could well be lowering their enjoyment of the game. When you do something to lower the enjoyment of your opponent, that's the definition of bad sportsmanship and rude behavior. Some people here are intentionally doing this and then acting like they're the victim when they're actually the offender.

So my point is, while I wont necessarily refuse to play someone with a giant gray blob, if theres 2 identical players to play against - one with a painted army and one without - Im going to pick the painted one everytime.

I'm pretty much at the same place. I've stopped putting stuff on the table that isn't atleast partially painted and won't put it on the table again unless there's progress. I'm heading towards only fielding painted stuff and am at the point where I'd play against a painted army vs non-painted, ceteris paribus. When I put down my unpainted stuff against someone that's got painted stuff, I apologize by saying something like, "Sorry my stuff isn't done, I don't mean to lower your enjoyment of the game."


Automatically Appended Next Post:

MagickalMemories wrote:This hobby is a social hobby.
Since conversing and "shooting the sh**" are social activities, I refuse anyone who wants to *only* play the game and isn't willing to have a 4 or 5 hour 1500 point game with me as we have extensive conversations about myriad topics.
Those people just don't understand what the hobby is all about and aren't worth my time.

- Now you've added conversational skill as a requisite to be your opponent.

And yeesh, if you're going to spend 4 or 5 hours playing a game, why would you want to do it with substandard looking models? I'd rather enjoy a conversation around a beautiful game than an ugly one.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Manchu wrote:The trouble with Luna's position is that a lot of people in the "I don't have to paint!" crowd say that the game/hobby distinction is just another elitist insult against them. And, what do you know, the paint or else crowd does seem to claim that the non-painters are not hobbyists or at least are defective hobbyists.

"defective hobbyists" LOL!

I guess if I define my hobby as both painting and playing and someone does one but not the other, they aren't in the same hobby as me.

I currently play against unpainted miniatures. But the people who are fielding them are working on them. I currently field unpainted miniatures-- but I won't field them again until some progress has been made.

@ Frozenwastes : I find we are on similar pages, or at least in the same paragraph.

All other things being equal (ceteris paribus), painting players are superior to non-painting players in just about all respects, meaning they receive a minimal +1 to all their other stats. It's like a modifier.

I would say that being a table top hobbyist is actually composed of two other pass times; modelers and gamers. Meaning that you have to be at least a bit of both to start ascending the "hobbyist" class ladder. The mechanic being:

{ [ (Gamer Level) + (Modeller Level) ] / 2 } - | (Gamer Level) - (Modeller Level) | = (Hobbyist Level)

Intent being that if there is a major discrepancy between you Gamer and Modeller Level it detracts from your Hobbyist Level (remembering that it has to be YOUR level as a Modeller and a Gamer. A professional Modeler doesn't get credit for a professional Gamer's victories at a tournament), so you should try to balance your skills in both classes before deciding to switch to Hobbyist combined class. It's not a perfect system, and one that must be carefully assessed. I would suggest that the Gamer and Modeller Levels would be based on a maximum and minimum comparative system, where Epic characters would have to break the formula and use a base Hobbyist Level.

Skinnattittar wrote:@All other things being equal (ceteris paribus), painting players are superior to non-painting players in just about all respects, ...

And I'm done.

Gornall wrote:

Skinnattittar wrote:@All other things being equal (ceteris paribus), painting players are superior to non-painting players in just about all respects, ...

And I'm done.

Well, taking what I said out of context.... bye!

I took what your're saying as to mean that those who paint and play just do more than those who just play. Like, one thing more-- paint. And you added into some sort of cooky RPG level system.

If I had two gamers to play against that are identical in any meaningful way other than one of them has their army painted and the other does not, I'll go with the opponent with the painted miniatures.

Would I use the word "superior"? Not sure, but I'd pick the painted over the not painted, so I guess that implies some sort of opinion on my part as to which is superior.

Is anyone honestly going to say that if everything about the game and player was the same, that unpainted miniatures are superior to painted miniatures?

frozenwastes wrote:I took what your're saying as to mean that those who paint and play just do more than those who just play. Like, one thing more-- paint. And you added into some sort of cooky RPG level system.

If I had two gamers to play against that are identical in any meaningful way other than one of them has their army painted and the other does not, I'll go with the opponent with the painted miniatures.

Would I use the word "superior"? Not sure, but I'd pick the painted over the not painted, so I guess that implies some sort of opinion on my part as to which is superior.

Is anyone honestly going to say that if everything about the game and player was the same, that unpainted miniatures are superior to painted miniatures?

Pretty much what I'm saying.

If something is even minuscule "better" than another thing, then that thing is technically superior in all respects. This is assuming effects cascade, which they usually do.

ok so as a endgame


IF all 'propaint' gamers refused to play all 'nopaint' gamers as a general rule of thumb
we would have either alot more gamers painting in their FLGS rather than playing
or only grey/metal armies playing across MDF brown wastelands
either way that alot less games being played
-which is a bad thing

i would only think my army was complete when fully painted
i have just started a new 5th ed army and have yet to buy a new set of paints for them

i promised myself i wouldn't post in this thread again, but I had too.
I think there is one side of this that we all missed. What about the guys who DONT PLAY at all, they just paint?? Why would they bring their masterfully painted minis to a game store? Just to have them oggled and touched by a bunch of 12 year olds? Playing with minis, thats how they get broken, lost, or even stolen.
you argue back an forth that its elitest to say you wont play against an unpainted army, but seriously it is a hobby be it painting, playing or both. everyone is in it to have fun for whatever reason(s) they find enjoyable. if you can't have fun with them.. find a new gaming group, or be miserable the rest of your gaming days, or maybe YOU need to find a new hobby/game.

I think that it is perfectly acceptable to politely decline to play someone based on how their army is painted or assembled. It isn't much fun to play against a twelve year old with a half assembled army who is proxying a large chunk of their force. While I personally do not have an issue with playing against people with unpainted armies, it seems fair that someone would try to avoid them. Many of the best gamers I've played against use unpainted armies and take the game very seriously. Although these games tend to focus on the winning/losing aspect more than the creating a cool narrative aspect.

One of the joys of this hobby is putting together a well painted army and playing against another painted army. The critical moments of these games really feel more critical and the painting adds a lot to the experience. This is my preference, and I am always dismayed by the amount of players who do not paint their armies. The people who take the time to paint are usually the ones that I befriend and actively seek to play.

Unpainted armies are less fun to play against and it really is a personal choice about who you are interested in playing games against.

Someone who just paints would be a Modeller, and yes, they do often show up at my hobby shop just to hang out and paint, while enjoying the company of the other regular attendees. Heck, we used to have a group of guys and gals that would just show up and talk hobbies, not even painting or gaming (though they all did). Sadly, many of them moved on to different things in life.... so sad.

frozenwastes wrote:
First of all:

http://blog.brushthralls.com/?page_id=1942

If you were going to paint an all black army, it probably shouldn't just be a single shade of black (likely sprayed on).

Secondly, what you've come up with is an attempt to justify your way into someone else's standards. Why do you feel the need to do that? So you can say "you're not being fair! whine! whine! whine!" when they refuse to play you?

So if I was the type of person to not play against unpainted armies, I'd refuse to play your "Black Night Riders" just as I'd refuse to play "Ghost Marines" that are all a single shade of white (also conveniently applied with a spray can).

So not only won't you play against an unpainted army, you won't play against a painted army that doesn't meet your specifications. Nice.

Dashofpepper wrote:So not only won't you play against an unpainted army, you won't play against a painted army that doesn't meet your specifications. Nice.

Well, no, just not with you.

Skinnattittar wrote:

Dashofpepper wrote:So not only won't you play against an unpainted army, you won't play against a painted army that doesn't meet your specifications. Nice.

Well, no, just not with you.

as long as we aren't making this personal.

Dashofpepper wrote:

So not only won't you play against an unpainted army, you won't play against a painted army that doesn't meet your specifications. Nice.

Is your army just sprayed black? If so its what the majority of people call undercoated not painted and therefore, unfortunately, your army comes under the 'unpainted' class for those who only want to play against painted armies (three colours is normally the accepted minimum).

Mick

I'm just playing devil's advocate.

Out of my entire Dark Eldar army (mostly primed black), I have 3 painted raiders, a painted archon, and two half-painted raiders. I'm playing them in a tournament this weekend, and they're mostly black - I have enough painted raiders that I can distinguish which are warriors and which are wyches for my opponents. I just spent $300 on battlefoam so that I can transport my fragile stuff around too.

I basecoat/drybrush stuff, but I leae the painting up to my wife - she's better at it than I am.

Am I really supposed to hold off playing my Dark Eldar because they aren't painted? I'll be damned if I am. I fit into the school of thought of "play 40k, and paint as time and will permit" instead of "assemble and paint, and play 40k as time and will permit."

We're shifting back into painting mode (IE, giving up video games and going to start watching T.V. shows and painting), but even painting every night, its going to take months and months for 1850 to get painted. Last night, I got a black primed raider base-coated purple in about...3 hours. I simply haven't the painting skills that others have.

You know what a great middle-ground would be? Since you'd rather paint, and I'd rather play...you paint my models while I play with yours.

Dashofpepper wrote:Am I really supposed to hold off playing my Dark Eldar because they aren't painted? I'll be damned if I am. I fit into the school of thought of "play 40k, and paint as time and will permit" instead of "assemble and paint, and play 40k as time and will permit."

Not everyone follows your school of thought. Call ahead and ask if an undercoated army can be played. If you don't want to do that, just bring a second army with you that is painted just in case. Its their tournament and they can set the requirements for play as they wish.

We're shifting back into painting mode (IE, giving up video games and going to start watching T.V. shows and painting), but even painting every night, its going to take months and months for 1850 to get painted. Last night, I got a black primed raider base-coated purple in about...3 hours. I simply haven't the painting skills that others have.

I've painted the base colors of a large Crimson Fists army in about 70-80 hours. 50 Tacticals, 10 Assault Marines, 2 Dreadnoughts, 2 Predators, 1 Vindicator, 3 Rhinos, 2 Devastator Squads, 2 Landspeeders, 5 HQ's, and a command squad. I suck at painting. If I can do it in about a month of free time for about $40, anyone can. And that time includes the conversion of 3 5 man Sterngaurd Squads, and a Librarian. EDIT: I'm I'm still working on my routine. I just came up with a new way to paint details that will probably cut the time it takes to paint my models by several minutes.

Dashofpepper wrote:

Am I really supposed to hold off playing my Dark Eldar because they aren't painted? I'll be damned if I am.

I dont know why you keep saying this stuff. Obviously there are people who are willing to play you.

Its funny actually, because while you are posting off these over-exaggerated statements, you are actually just proving the other side's point. You are a power gamer. I dont think it's unreasonable to say that if someone wants to play painted miniatures, they're most likely looking for more of a fun/cinematic game than a pure game of W40k (otherwise they'd play you).

So funny enough, you, with the unpainted army, dont provide that either. You are going to play to win, argue small rules, watch your opponent's every move, etc., and while that's fine, that's not what everyone wants out of the game.

What I think hasn't been brought up in this topic is the correlation between unpainted armies & the types of players that play them. Seriously, what type of player doesnt have a painted army (for a long period of time)?

1) A new W40K player
2) Pure "Gamer" player

As much as I help out the new players, theyre not exactly exciting to play against, and as said above, the #2 doesnt have the same reasons for playing. So by restricting oneself to playing only painted armies, theyre more likely to find people with a similar mindset to themselves about the hobby, which, generally, leads to a much more enjoyable game I would think.

Dash, Im sure you prefer playing people in the tournament crowd to get a more competitive game, correct? Well, people who are playing for fun are also looking for a certain type of person to play against, and odds are, a person with an unpainted army isnt the one.

LordofHats wrote:
I've painted the base colors of a large Crimson Fists army in about 70-80 hours. 50 Tacticals, 10 Assault Marines, 2 Dreadnoughts, 2 Predators, 1 Vindicator, 3 Rhinos, 2 Devastator Squads, 2 Landspeeders, 5 HQ's, and a command squad. I suck at painting. If I can do it in about a month of free time for about $40, anyone can. And that time includes the conversion of 3 5 man Sterngaurd Squads, and a Librarian. EDIT: I'm I'm still working on my routine. I just came up with a new way to paint details that will probably cut the time it takes to paint my models by several minutes.

This is cool, and great that you found a fast way to paint ALOT of minis and meet a basic painting requirement. What those of us that take great pride in our painting, and we want to make sure EVERY mini is of a certain high quality paint job? I would love to find a fast effective to paint a lot of minis and have them turn out to my standards.
maybe i need new standards to fit in with the rest of you all??
Its taken me 5 YEARS to get where i am with my 3rd Company Ultras, thats right years.. not months. Its a project i set to fit into that "i'm gonna paint and then MAYBE play" that i didn't have to worry about rule changes etc. It took me a year to get a tech. down so that I can effectively paint what i have left to finish and have them come out the way I want to look on the table.

We're shifting back into painting mode (IE, giving up video games and going to start watching T.V. shows and painting), but even painting every night, its going to take months and months for 1850 to get painted. Last night, I got a black primed raider base-coated purple in about...3 hours. I simply haven't the painting skills that others have.

I think a lot of people have this problem, and it makes painting seem like a chore. Lots of people set goals for themselves that they aren't necessarily ready to follow through with. The people who can afford to accept that models for gaming don't have to be perfect (and probably won't be perfect) get painting done a lot faster.

If you're taking this much time just to get a figure onto the board, you need to start looking at some different techniques and evaluate exactly what you want out of these models.

IE, are they going in a display? Or will they just sit in your foam trays in between games? Does it really matter if the underside of a raider isn't done perfectly? Do you need a perfect, streak-free coat and straight-edge highlights on a model that you're fielding 9-12 of and will never really be looked at up close?

Raiders have lots of spiny bits, and as far as vehicles go, are about as good for drybrushing as you can get. Just take some time and practice with the amount of paint you need on the brush to catch the edges without too much streaking and you'll do fine. Consider using different shades of dark colors instead of just lighter shades of greys, dark blue or purple looks great as an edge highlight and once you're comfortable with a drybrush you can crank out a completed vehicle in about an hour and a half.

Or if your time is more valuable to you than your money (and as a married, employed man with 3 armies I'm assuming you have some cash to kick around) get yourself an airbrush. 3 hours for a basecoat turns into 3 minutes.

I used to be slow as hell with my painting until I took a step back and convinced myself that "good enough" really was good enough. Now I can do a squad of 10 infantry models in under 2 hours, from black primer to finish.

hcordes wrote:i promised myself i wouldn't post in this thread again, but I had too.
I think there is one side of this that we all missed. What about the guys who DONT PLAY at all, they just paint?? Why would they bring their masterfully painted minis to a game store? Just to have them oggled and touched by a bunch of 12 year olds? Playing with minis, thats how they get broken, lost, or even stolen.
you argue back an forth that its elitest to say you wont play against an unpainted army, but seriously it is a hobby be it painting, playing or both. everyone is in it to have fun for whatever reason(s) they find enjoyable. if you can't have fun with them.. find a new gaming group, or be miserable the rest of your gaming days, or maybe YOU need to find a new hobby/game.

Very well said. Now that I am actually thinking, (scarry I know, I thought I smelt something burning) is it's not painted vs unpainted but focing your opnion on what others should be. I think that is why some of us are so upset. Morales being put on someone else when they don't want to. Be it painted or not painted.

Dashofpepper wrote:...

Out of my entire Dark Eldar army (mostly primed black), I have 3 painted raiders, a painted archon, and two half-painted raiders. I'm playing them in a tournament this weekend, and they're mostly black - I have enough painted raiders that I can distinguish which are warriors and which are wyches for my opponents.

...

Am I really supposed to hold off playing my Dark Eldar because they aren't painted?

I removed the superfluous comments, like how much you spent on battlefoam. The only real answer to this question is, does the tournament that you're going to require armies to be painted. If it does, then yes, you really are supposed to hold off playing them because they're not painted. It is the height of arrogance to take an army that does not meet the entry requirements to an event and expect to be allowed to play, in spite of not meeting the requirements. It reduces the enjoyment of everyone who attends the event with the expectation of the entry requirement being in place. Unfortunately, some people insist on doing just this...

If, on the other hand, the tournament you're attending has no such requirement, then I think the answer to your question is pretty obvious. It's an event designed for people with unpainted armies, and you should have no qualms about showing up with an unpainted army.

Well I dont care if someones minis are painted or not as long as you can tell, and i can tell what the units are. Im find.
Ive heard stories of People going too GT's with just three colors on them..( which was black primer, and three dots of paints on the shoulder pads...)

If I was an official and saw literally just three colored dots on primer, I wouldn't count that as three color painted and not allow it. Spirit of a rule so obvious is far greater than someone else's lawyering of the rule. Though most Tournament rules are a bit more explicit about what is "three colors."

A poll would be interesting to see how many paint their figures and how many don't...

Mick

Skinnattittar wrote:If I was an official and saw literally just three colored dots on primer, I wouldn't count that as three color painted and not allow it. Spirit of a rule so obvious is far greater than someone else's lawyering of the rule. Though most Tournament rules are a bit more explicit about what is "three colors."

Apparently someone hasn't heard of the Ninja Marines!


Seriously though. Its a game. Some people hate or don't have time to paint models. This doesn't mean their WAAC gamers or have any indication of how they play.

If you don't want to play someone, don't play them, its as simple as that. Of course in a tournament, if you don't want to, well then suck it up or take the 0.

Nope, never actually seen Ninja Marines, but if they are just primed and pipped (given a few dots of color to be "three color legal"), then I wouldn't count them as three color legal. However, if they have been given some other details, like dry brushing to make the black stand out (an extremely simple and easy painting skill to learn) or have details highlighted, then I wouldn't count them.

Maybe tonight I'll pull a blank Marine out and make an example of how to do something with a black figure.

If you can't paint and are refusing to even give an honest try at painting, then I wouldn't consider you an honest hobbyist. If you keep playing and refusing to try and make honest attempts at getting your army painted, then you're a "gamer," which is different from being a hobbyist, which is what I, and many other people it seems, think that 40k is about.

StarGate wrote: Well I dont care if someones minis are painted or not as long as you can tell, and i can tell what the units are. Im find.
Ive heard stories of People going too GT's with just three colors on them..( which was black primer, and three dots of paints on the shoulder pads...)

That sort of thing would make me refuse to play someone. If you have a "three colour" rule to encourage a minimum standard of painting, and some smartass brings figures in primer with three coloured spots on the shoulder they are totally taking the piss. If they twist and abuse the letter of the tournament rules to enter the army so obviously defying the spirit of the event...well what do you think they are like to play against? I don't play rules lawyers, if someone really did produce a 'three-spot' three colour army it's beneath contempt.

Dashofpepper wrote:
So not only won't you play against an unpainted army, you won't play against a painted army that doesn't meet your specifications. Nice.

Seriously? You think no one saw your obvious attempt at some sort of internet trap? Oh, you got me... Where's that picture of Admiral Akbar when we need him.

All black or all white doesn't equal painted, it equals primed.

Would I play against an all bare metal army? Yes. Did it last week.

Would I play against an all primed army? Yes. Did it a few days ago.

Would I play against an a partially painted army? Yes. Also did that a few days ago.

If I were the type of person who didn't play against unpainted stuff, I wouldn't play against the "lame internet trap" dark eldar or the "I'm so clever I'll make a sneaky point" white space marines.

I am headed in the direction of painted models only. I've decided to start with myself. Nothing goes back on the table unless it's been worked on or is complete. Eventually I'm going to enjoy only games with completely painted models on both sides playing on completed terrain.

And even if I was the kind of person to only play against painted miniatures and miniatures that meet my standards, why not? They're my standards. If having such standards meant I have a smaller pool of players to play against, I assume that would be something I'd be willing to accept if I thought that way. Why do you even want to trick your way into them?

Oh, I found it:


That was so clever, what you did.

I prefer this one...

Howard A Treesong wrote:I prefer this one...

as do I

LOL, that one is great.

It's nice to have arrived at dakkadakka just in time for the season's painted vs not-painted thread. They're always a good time.

Mick A wrote:A poll would be interesting to see how many paint their figures and how many don't...

Mick

There was , only 23% ish of people that play warhammer paints their army as a hobby.
The rest are gamers , collectors , socializing aspects and a few other aspects

And then 24% of that previous 23% actually have a fully painted army complete.

So you are looking at like 10% or less of warhammer people actually with a full painted army.

Which i have to add , different gaming groups have different types ( after all flocks of a feather )
can often give the illusion that everyone "around me" does A or B

I also want to add , the first gaming group / store i have ever been to , DOES NOT PAINT their armies.
Thus it also fully depend your personal attitude on how you address that issue. If you dont want to play with unwanted armies , you should find another
place to play at . If you have a positive attitude on how you present yourself + your army , its possible to even sway others to start painting their army.
I know this because the gaming group pretty much have their armies painted by me.

I don't hate on people who don't have their army painted. Some of us are just too busy to do a full paint job on our armies. I used to have the time but now I work on an average of 10-15 hour days as an EMT and I have a second job. I'll be happy if I can paint one model a month let alone a whole sqad. When I used to live in new york I asked one of the GW people why do they have that paint to play rule? They told me that other people put in alot of time painting their armies and it's unfair to them when other people come in with their armies unpainted. Part of me says "Yeah, that makes sense" But then another part of me goes "It just to get people to buy GW paints" . Anyway in the end isn't this all about playing the game? If a player has a couple of models painted and is showing progress it shouldn't be a big deal. If they can only get their army based that's better than nothing. People making a big deal out of a minor issue. Sheesh!

You know, it's a slippery slope, letting people play with unpainted models...

my army is in varius stages of painting mainly because i have no skill at painting i would love to have a painted army but until i get better i don't see that happening

Night Lords wrote:
Its funny actually, because while you are posting off these over-exaggerated statements, you are actually just proving the other side's point. You are a power gamer. I dont think it's unreasonable to say that if someone wants to play painted miniatures, they're most likely looking for more of a fun/cinematic game than a pure game of W40k (otherwise they'd play you).

So funny enough, you, with the unpainted army, dont provide that either. You are going to play to win, argue small rules, watch your opponent's every move, etc., and while that's fine, that's not what everyone wants out of the game.

And the stereotypes continue. So you've got us sorted into two groups now: Painters who enjoy thematic games, and non-painters who are power-gamers and aren't fun to play with. Very nice.

*EDIT* My apologies for not fitting into your neat little bucket there, but I usually get 7/10 or 8/10 for my army's paint - they aren't based, but even pink orks are painted (see my gallery). I usually get 8/10 to 10/10 for sportsmanship and comp as well.

I have a new army now. To one of the previous posters talking about me spending 3 hours painting a model so that it looked really nice...no, you missed what I said. I spent three hours dry-brushing the BASE coat onto a raider, and it still looks pretty much like crap. *laughing* I just can't paint. I spend hours and hours and HOURS painting, don't get me wrong, but I'm simply no good at it.

For all the slinging from the painters who refuse to play against a non-painted army, I have but this to say: Who cares?

This hobby has 3 aspects to it, painting, modelling and gaming.

Some of us like this hobby because it lets us put paint to model and make them look pretty.

Some of us like the more viceral aspect of actually modelling and converting, working with our hands to actually BUILD something, instead of just slapping so paint on a boring-looking model.

Some of us are gamers, which means we enjoy the game for the mental aspects of the game. Mathhammer and list building. tweaking, refining and playing game after mental game in our own heads until we dream of taking our distilled tactics and techniques to the table.

A painter saying "I don't play armies that aren't painted to my own standard" is like a gamer saying "I don't play against what I think are garbage lists" or a modeller saying "You've got too many static poses, GTFO". I like to build. I like to convert. I love to play. I paint when I feel like painting, as it just isn't really my thing and it takes me a long time to do it. Frankly, I'd rather be perfecting my art, working on army lists and evolving my game. I'm not a power gamer, but I AM a gamer, through and through. Don't stick your nose up at me because you somehow think that because you're interested in 1/3rd of the hobby that everyone should be.

If somehow ME not having MY army painted is a detriment to YOUR enjoyment of the GAME we're about to play, then I could readily argue that YOU'VE got your priorities way out of whack. I've played on tables ranging from beautifully sculpted and embelleshed pieces to playing on a door spanned across a couple of computer cases with whatever we had handy for terrain. I can appreciate well-made pieces, but it's not a priority for me. If it's a priority for you, then by all means... put brush to plastic and make a masterpiece of your own army. Paint for yourself, model for the world, game for the people at the table.

The major bone of contention is that the "I only play painted armies" types (or at least the OP) are trying to somehow advertise themselves as superior. But allow me to kinda run it this way: a prick is a prick, even if he does have a well-painted army. I'd rather play against someone who enjoys the game, everything else is trivial and meaningless, IMO.

Dronze wrote:If somehow ME not having MY army painted is a detriment to YOUR enjoyment of the GAME we're about to play, then I could readily argue that YOU'VE got your priorities way out of whack.

And they'd say the same to you about your priorities. Why did you spend your first part of your post talking about gamers and painters and modellers just to then denigrate the priorities of some members of one of those groups?

You can't see where someone's enjoyment might be lessened when they pull out their painted army, plunk it down on finished terrain and then someone pulls out a bare metal horde? You can't see how your actions could lessen someone's enjoyment?

The major bone of contention is that the "I only play painted armies" types (or at least the OP) are trying to somehow advertise themselves as superior. But allow me to kinda run it this way: a prick is a prick, even if he does have a well-painted army. I'd rather play against someone who enjoys the game, everything else is trivial and meaningless, IMO.

I agree that one shouldn't play jerks. That said, I don't think wanting to raise the bar when it comes to the aesthetic spectacle of a game is advertising oneself as superior. I'd say it's as much how you express it as what you express.

Don't stick your nose up at me because you somehow think that because you're interested in 1/3rd of the hobby that everyone should be.

If a person prioritizes the aesthetic spectacle of a game and your army doesn't work for that goal, how is refusing to play you sticking up their nose at you? Maybe, just maybe, the feeling of someone sticking their nose up to you is something you do to yourself. You judge and reject yourself. Why? Because you fail to realize that they have just as much right to prioritize in the way they desire as you do. And if that means a game with you doesn't get them what they want, why in the world should they waste their precious free time doing something they don't want to do?

Are we all such delicate flowers that people have to play us so we don't feel bad? I should hope not.

There are a lot of assumptions being made here and a lot of stereo-typing. I've played against unpainted armies and had a really good, fun (the reason I do 40k), game. I've also played against painted armies that I haven't enjoyed because they were power gamers. It takes all sorts...

I only use painted armies, I start with 400 points worth then add to it (starting a Space Wolf one tonight). I prefer to play against painted armies but wouldn't go without a game just because the other person who wanted to play had an unpainted army (you never know, during the game I might be able to convince the person to start painting or offer to help...).

Lunahound- cheers for the info. I expected there to be less painters than non-painters but didn't expect it to be that much lower.

Mick

@Redbeard , i see what you did there!!

@Mick A , i cant be 100% about the number atm , the thread was made like 3 months ago.

I also would like to see painters attempt to answer this question , which i dont recall anyone trying to come up with
something reasonable.

Ok , so far we say the "gamer" can quickly apply paints to minimum color so its atleast "painted"
so first question: You have seen pictures and heard horrible tales of armies that are better off left unpaintd right?

2nd question , since a gamer only plays it for game , there are chances that they might switch from army to army , since there are no feeling of attachment to unpainted army.
Thus when they want to sell their army , how do you think their quickly painted army's value will deplete when they try to sell it? compared to bare plastic metal army?

3rd question: So far there is a standstill between the a) i play warhammer for game , vs b) im in warhammer for painting purpose.
thats fine and all , but what happens when you factor in people trying to sell their unwanted army ( situation already explained earlier )

Forth point - where's the middle ground of people who want to paint, want to play and want to balance that with other parts of their life?

the_ferrett wrote:Forth point - where's the middle ground of people who want to paint, want to play and want to balance that with other parts of their life?

You just do what you have time to do and play with whom you can play with. If you happen upon a "painted only" opponent, or want to adopt that standard for yourself, you accept that it's going to take time to get to larger sized games and learn to enjoy the smaller ones. If you don't, then you just don't worry about it-- and when you do come accross someone who doesn't want to play against your unpainted army, you accept that without judgement on either side.

I have never refused someone a game because their models aren't painted. I've never been refused a game because of my models not being done. I don't think it's quite that common of a practice, even if I am moving towards it myself.

I enjoy painting, not entirely subtle about my paint schemes (purple and orange joy) but I was halfway through my lootas when I managed to hook a deal on some stormboyz and flashgitz. So I had to stop painting the lootas to get to the other, gradually builds up though. (For the record I have no clue how someone could paint uniquely 45 lootas. And if you paint mimic orks its a shame)

Dronze wrote:A painter saying "I don't play armies that aren't painted to my own standard" is like a gamer saying "I don't play against what I think are garbage lists" or a modeller saying "You've got too many static poses, GTFO". I like to build. I like to convert. I love to play. I paint when I feel like painting, as it just isn't really my thing and it takes me a long time to do it. Frankly, I'd rather be perfecting my art, working on army lists and evolving my game. I'm not a power gamer, but I AM a gamer, through and through. Don't stick your nose up at me because you somehow think that because you're interested in 1/3rd of the hobby that everyone should be.

However the standard they're talking about is simply starting painting. Doing a bit of it. So it would be like a gamer saying "I don't play against people who calculate armies by the number and units and don't use point values" or a modeller saying " I don't play against people who only stick the legs of their models on the bases!".

If someone ignored the rules of the game or didn't assemble the models, you'd feel justified in not playing them. It's the same for the no-paint-no-play crowd.

Well, I've been in this thread for a couple pages, and I think I've found the trends:

Painters : "I prefer to play other painted armies over non-painted armies, though I will generally still play against non-painted armies, and if I don't feel like playing a non-painted army (for whatever reason) I will politely decline playing that person (though their army not being painted isn't the only factor to me declining playing against/with them). I can understand and appreciate how some people don't have a lot of time to paint their armies, but as long as they are making improvements, that's okay with me."

Non-Painters : "I don't have the time to be bothered with painting my army and I don't want to wait a single second to play something I bought. Even if I own something for 50 years and never even glue its arms on, I have no second feelings about it while other gamers spend their time painting their armies to a minimum three color standard. I don't particularly care about the hobby aspect of 40k, I just want to play the rules. Also, anyone who believes that painting armies is a requirement to be considered a '40k Hobbyist' is obviously an elitist and a prick."

I'm not saying that's what people are directly saying. But that's how it sounds to me. I hung out at my hobby shop last night, and even our Mega-Power-Gamer had made advancements on painting since last week. We even had a couple of new 12 year olds to the shop and they both had 85% painted armies! I didn't see a single non-painted army (meaning no paint on their models or no advancement in painting). And that's pretty common for our shop. Occasionally you'll see someone come in for a month without any painting being done, but before the next month is out they have 75% of their army painted up.

This bothers me a bit. Someone said that GW said that they don't allow non painted armies because other people have taken the time to paint them and it's not fair to them. How is this so? What's not fair? I don't get it. Do unpainted armies get better dice rolls? Do unpainted armies get better stats? Please explain to me how is it unfair for a painted army? I can't see how it is unfair. It's all about selling GW paint and brushes.

Davor wrote:This bothers me a bit. Someone said that GW said that they don't allow non painted armies because other people have taken the time to paint them and it's not fair to them. How is this so? What's not fair? I don't get it. Do unpainted armies get better dice rolls? Do unpainted armies get better stats? Please explain to me how is it unfair for a painted army? I can't see how it is unfair. It's all about selling GW paint and brushes.

First, if you're buying GW brushes, shame on you! They have all the quality of a Walmart special at several times the price!

It's called "Standards." Some people have them, some people don't. Some people who run tournaments and leagues decide to set a standard that everyone has to abide by. If GW says "this is the standard" then yes, it would be unfair for people who don't meet that standard to be able to compete with other people that do. People who spend time painting their models so they can use them on the table are meeting a standard of GW's. People who aren't, don't. It's an abstract, something one can only understand if they are open to them.

I'm not really surprised when I hear people complain about such things. People are becoming lazier and lazier, not to mention whinier and whinier. As I said before, if you say you consider 40k your "hobby," then painting models is an integral part of it being a hobby. If you don't want to paint your models, then you're in the wrong hobby, there are many game systems that come with pre-painted miniatures and simple and fun game systems. I'm sure you can find someone to sell or trade your minis so you can get minis for those game systems.

Skinnattittar wrote: I'm not really surprised when I hear people complain about such things. People are becoming lazier and lazier, not to mention whinier and whinier. As I said before, if you say you consider 40k your "hobby," then painting models is an integral part of it being a hobby. If you don't want to paint your models, then you're in the wrong hobby, there are many game systems that come with pre-painted miniatures and simple and fun game systems. I'm sure you can find someone to sell or trade your minis so you can get minis for those game systems.

You left out this view in your breakdown of the painter vs non-painter viewpoint trends.

Well, I've been in this thread for a couple pages, and I think I've found the trends:

Painters : "I prefer to play other painted armies over non-painted armies, though I will generally still play against non-painted armies, and if I don't feel like playing a non-painted army (for whatever reason) I will politely decline playing that person (though their army not being painted isn't the only factor to me declining playing against/with them). I can understand and appreciate how some people don't have a lot of time to paint their armies, but as long as they are making improvements, that's okay with me." But I'll basically think they are lazy and whiney and are in the wrong hobby."

Non-Painters : "I don't have the time to be bothered with painting my army and I don't want to wait a single second to play something I bought. Even if I own something for 50 years and never even glue its arms on, I have no second feelings about it while other gamers spend their time painting their armies to a minimum three color standard. I don't particularly care about the hobby aspect of 40k, I just want to play the rules. Also, anyone who believes that painting armies is a requirement to be considered a '40k Hobbyist' is obviously an elitist and a prick."

It's comments like those that can bring out the "elitist" labels. If you want to try and show both sides of the argument, at least sum them up correctly. You make it sound like you're completely reasonable and understanding but every non-painter is pissed off at all painters and calls them all elitists without justification. I would argue that most non-painters are just as pragmatic about things as the painters. They'll respect your decision to want to play painted armies and go about their business. They understand that the hobby offers different things for different people. Don't make non-painters out to be lazy, whiney people who don't deserve to be in the same hobby/game as you while you're arguing that you are some benevolent person that is more than willing to grace them with a game and wonder why someone would think you sound like an elitist.

Dashofpepper wrote:

Night Lords wrote:
Its funny actually, because while you are posting off these over-exaggerated statements, you are actually just proving the other side's point. You are a power gamer. I dont think it's unreasonable to say that if someone wants to play painted miniatures, they're most likely looking for more of a fun/cinematic game than a pure game of W40k (otherwise they'd play you).

So funny enough, you, with the unpainted army, dont provide that either. You are going to play to win, argue small rules, watch your opponent's every move, etc., and while that's fine, that's not what everyone wants out of the game.

And the stereotypes continue. So you've got us sorted into two groups now: Painters who enjoy thematic games, and non-painters who are power-gamers and aren't fun to play with. Very nice.

And the exaggerations continue. Now with generalizations!

If you notice I said "People who want to play a painted army are most likely painters who enjoy cinematic/fun games as opposed to just a pure W40k game". Not all painters, painters who care enough to refuse to play a non painted army. To someone willing to dedicate a ton of hours painting, the game is probably more than a game to them because theyve put their time and heart into it. You wouldnt know this feeling because youre not willing to even try, so why even comment?

When I was talking about "power gamers", I was more so specifically talking about you because youre the perfect opposite of what a relaxed game of 40k is about. You argue. Ive seen you make topics where you ask clarification on a rule after arguing about it. The point is, youre whining that people are saying they wont play you, yet youre the exact type of person they would probably want to avoid - someone not into the hobby/fluff aspect at all.

So congratulations, you managed to generalize my reply into two types gamers, yet got both completely wrong. Please read before you spurt more BS. Thanks.

@ Gornall : When did not being lazy and whiny become elitist? When did not painting an army include whiny? I only meant to say (and I think I did) that people who insist that not painting their armies is just as much a part of the 40k hobby as painting their armies are lazy and whining. Very different, and I would appreciate you not putting dumb-feth (and no, that is not insulting you, just what you're doing) exaggerations into my posts and claiming that is what I said. I very calmly and, in my own way, rationally wrote out how I feel the two arguments are presenting themselves. I have not seen anyone actually say "I will never play a non-painted army because people who don't plaint their armies are poopy-faces." What I have seen is "I prefer to play painted armies and I would prefer to only play painted armies over only playing non-painted armies because [blah]." Some people have voiced that some day they may only play other painted armies, but the major census I would say is playing both.

It's alright for people to be different and like different sorts of things and to rationalize such things to themselves. Heck, it's even alright for them to dislike other sorts of people for rational reasons. We're not talking about the color of people's skin, we're talking about the color, or more specifically lack there of, of their armies.

In any codex, magazine, article, website, etc... have you ever seen professionals using unpainted miniatures to advertise their game? How many official battle reports do you see with gray and unpainted armies? How many issues of White Dwarf, the official GW Hobby magazine, use unpainted miniatures (outside of "How To" guides)? Painting miniatures is just as much, if not more, important than the playing aspect of the game itself. If it weren't, then paper discs with "Space Marine" written on it would be just as a valid model as the actual latest and greatest thing being sold.

Once again what about those snobby folks who don't even play with their painted minis, remember how HALF the hobby is painting? So are those folks only taking advantage of half a hobby? should they find something better to do with their time?

GW i know did have rule like that, where you had to show progress and what not, and really its so you buy their paints and brushes and what not. You know that 12 year old kid thats all "i have to paint....?" and then the redshirt goes "Yeah, here let me show you our paints" Thats the GW experience. I think GW has a new approach now, with their academy classes, to encourage a more rounded hobbiest, who builds, paints, and plays.

Gamers: Just want to have a fun game, never interfere with painters painting.
Painters in this thread: Refuse to game with gamers when looking for a game, lessening other peoples fun in the part of the hobby they like because of personal biases and prejudices. Claim they're not jerks or elitist.

Got it. Glad my FLGS is about fun and not excluding people.

My armies aren't painted for the simple reason that 40K and Fantasy aren't my primary games. I play games to have fun, and don't need a painted model to have fun.

In the end, I probably have more Battletech models painted than you know even exist, and have painted more of them than you have ever, or will ever, paint Games Workshop figures.

"Hobby" is a pretty simple term. If you won't play against someone with an unpainted army, you are limiting your fun. That's a YOU problem.

Gamers: Just want to have a fun game, never interfere with painters painting, claim all people who want to play with painted miniatures only, or even wanting someone to ATTEMPT to paint their army to a tabletop standard are "elitist".

Painters in this thread: Just want to paint. Obviously, being painters y'know?

Gamers who want painted armies for both sides: ...Want exactly that. It's a preference. Much like not wanting to play video games with people who hack, or preferring to play in a party formed from their friends list rather than a bunch of whiny tweens spouting their new racial slur of the day.

Gorkamorka wrote:Gamers: Just want to have a fun game, never interfere with painters painting.

Of course not, how could they? Painting is an individual activity not a social thing unlike gaming which requires interaction with others. Figures are not diminished by not being gamed with, but the quality of games is diminished by models not being painted.

Painters in this thread: Refuse to game with gamers when looking for a game, lessening other peoples fun in the part of the hobby they like because of personal biases and prejudices. Claim they're not jerks or elitist.

How does someone refusing to play people with unpainted armies lessening other people's fun? Why? If I don't wish to play a game with you for any reason, I'm now "diminishing your fun"? You must be easily disappointed to not get to play anyone you want to try and put the painters on this guilt trip.

People with unpainted armies know that they aren't participating in all areas of the hobby compared to others, they can't actually legitimately criticise people with painted armies so they come out with this illogical nonsense about them being elitist and spoiling everyone else's fun. Being elitist for just buying stuff, building and painting it and turning up to play expecting others to do the same. Why is it elitist to expect people playing games to assemble a presentable army, which includes full assembly including a lick of paint. It's ridiculous, building and painting your models used to be considered the expected standard for wargaming for years, I don't know where this creep of belligerent non-painters has come from.

hcordes wrote:Once again what about those snobby folks who don't even play with their painted minis, remember how HALF the hobby is painting? So are those folks only taking advantage of half a hobby? should they find something better to do with their time?

Well, I don't know why you're calling them snobby, I know several people who just paint and hang out, and they're usually the most interesting people to talk to. But if they just paint models and don't play then they're not 40k "Hobbyists," but 40k Modeller hobbyists.

hcordes wrote:GW i know did have rule like that, where you had to show progress and what not, and really its so you buy their paints and brushes and what not. You know that 12 year old kid thats all "i have to paint....?" and then the redshirt goes "Yeah, here let me show you our paints" Thats the GW experience. I think GW has a new approach now, with their academy classes, to encourage a more rounded hobbiest, who builds, paints, and plays.

While I agree that GW paints are outrageously priced, I find them to be great paints. They apply well, dry quickly, and look good! But they are expensive. You can't really fault them for wanting to sell product, every business you go to is only really interested in selling product.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Gorkamorka wrote:Painters in this thread: Refuse to game with gamers when looking for a game, lessening other peoples fun in the part of the hobby they like because of personal biases and prejudices. Claim they're not jerks or elitist.

Who is saying all painters are not going to game with nonpainters? I certainly am not. Please don't lie, it hurts us all and detracts from everyone else's fun! You biased and elitist person you

Mattlov wrote:My armies aren't painted for the simple reason that 40K and Fantasy aren't my primary games. I play games to have fun, and don't need a painted model to have fun.
In the end, I probably have more Battletech models painted than you know even exist, and have painted more of them than you have ever, or will ever, paint Games Workshop figures.
"Hobby" is a pretty simple term. If you won't play against someone with an unpainted army, you are limiting your fun. That's a YOU problem.

Very nice, no one cares about your painted Battletech when you're talking about painted 40k models. I have probably rebuilt more engines than you ever have or ever will, taken targets at longer ranges than you probably ever see, and operated heavier equipment than you know exists. But nobody particularly cares about that stuff, so why mention it? And who says people who are only playing painted armies are limiting their fun? Wouldn't forcing them to play unpainted armies be reducing their fun?

Just throwing this out there. I know this is stupid talk but bear with me for a few minutes. I am trying to make a point, but I am not good with words unfortunately.

If this is suppose to be a hobby, and if you are not painting you are lazy, as some people have said. I said some people. A few people did actually say some people are lazy if they don't paint.

So if you say someone is lazy and that person has an unpainted army, why are you buying miniatures? Why not make them from scratch? Why are you only doing a half assed job in painting only? Why are you not doing it all the way, buy making instead of buying? If you can call a person with an unpainted army lazy, well then you are lazy for not making the army from scratch. You can call me lazy for not painting an army (btw I do paint mine, slowly but shurely) but I can call you lazy for not making an army from scratch. See we get nowhere with this kind of talking. BTW, Now that is a hobby where you make your own mini's and paint and assemble them as well.

Also what about the person who buys the mini's but pays someone else to paint them? They never painted the army themselves so do they deserve to play a game? Are they any less of a person? As you say, they only do half the hobby, so they shouldn't be able to play as well, or at least play you? Is this a double standard now? They didn't paint, so only is doing half the hobby, or 1/3rd of the hobby since they didn't make the minis either.

See we all are in the Hobby for different reasons. It's like telling someone they can't play street hockey since they are not using a puck and they are not on ice. You only are doing it half way since you don't have the proper equipment on, and not wearing jearsies.

PS
Again what ever happened to people being polite and non judgemental?

I've got two decent sized painted armies, i'm about to start a third, it'll get playtested around my place but i probably won't take it on the road till it's a bit more painted.

I don't mind if i'm playing someone who's got a painted army or not, i'd rather play a painted army on properly done terrain, as there is a visual part of this hobby that really appeals.

I'd also rather that my opponent enjoys themself, if thats by just playing brilliant, i'd rather someone not rush and ruin their models.

guess that my 2 pence

Davor wrote:Just throwing this out there. I know this is stupid talk but bear with me for a few minutes. I am trying to make a point, but I am not good with words unfortunately.

If this is suppose to be a hobby, and if you are not painting you are lazy, as some people have said. I said some people. A few people did actually say some people are lazy if they don't paint.

Well, I said if they are refusing to paint their models because they think it is not worth their time, and still want to be considered a 40k Hobbyist. That was my standing.

Davor wrote:So if you say someone is lazy and that person has an unpainted army, why are you buying miniatures? Why not make them from scratch? Why are you only doing a half assed job in painting only? Why are you not doing it all the way, buy making instead of buying? If you can call a person with an unpainted army lazy, well then you are lazy for not making the army from scratch. You can call me lazy for not painting an army (btw I do paint mine, slowly but shurely) but I can call you lazy for not making an army from scratch. See we get nowhere with this kind of talking. BTW, Now that is a hobby where you make your own mini's and paint and assemble them as well.

(a) GW won't let you build your own models from scratch and play them. (b) Making a model from scratch and painting a model are two very different things. (c) A major part of the hobby is assembling and painting the models, not building them from scratch. (d) Standards are subjective, not relativistic objective; i.e. painters feel painting your models is a minimum standard for being 40k Hobbyist.

Davor wrote:Also what about the person who buys the mini's but pays someone else to paint them? They never painted the army themselves so do they deserve to play a game? Are they any less of a person? As you say, they only do half the hobby, so they shouldn't be able to play as well, or at least play you? Is this a double standard now? They didn't paint, so only is doing half the hobby, or 1/3rd of the hobby since they didn't make the minis either.

I would say they are some sort of hobbyist. They appreciate painted armies, though they may lack the time or ability to paint one themselves and make the sacrifice in some other way. Benefit of the doubt would give them "Hobbyist" status, but I would place them more in the Gamer status. I would play that by ear if I was caring.

Davor wrote:See we all are in the Hobby for different reasons. It's like telling someone they can't play street hockey since they are not using a puck and they are not on ice. You only are doing it half way since you don't have the proper equipment on, and not wearing jearsies.

No, you might still consider yourself to be playing street hocky, but you're probably not going to be able to join a Street Hockey Association or whatever. This is an apples to oranges thing... well, more like apples to banannas, or maybe striated legal systems to sub-nuclear fusion theory applied to thermo-conductivity theory. They're just not related.

Davor wrote:PS
Again what ever happened to people being polite and non judgemental?

Never existed. Everyone judges everyone and politeness is subjective. I think I'm being polite, maybe I'm abrasive, but I am certainly being civil.

Just woke up after a small nap. Man I am not feeling good today. What did I type? What was I trying to prove? LOL, guess I shouldn't be reading forums when I don't feel good.

I wasn't directing anything at you Skinattattar. You are being polite, and your arguements and rebutals are good.

I am trying to start painting my Tyrainds, and man I hate painting. It use to be fun, but I guess I suck at it, and don't like the result I see so it's more of a chore now than fun as it use to be. I guess I have to keep at it to get better.

Just wundering, did I miss the OP replying after he made his 2nd or so post? I am wundering what he thinks after reading all this.

Davor wrote:It's all about selling GW paint and brushes.

Q.F.T
Dont forget , it also allows GW to push their prices out of logic just by slapping on
"Warhammer is a game , and ALSO a hobby you get 2 activities so you should pay more."

LunaHound wrote:

Davor wrote:It's all about selling GW paint and brushes.

Q.F.T

If that were true, they wouldn't let you play with models painted with Vallejo, etc.

They do, so it's a wrong statement.

The "painting standard" for official GW events is to make an enjoyable photograph that they can print in White Dwarf/their website.
It does NOT make people want to play seeing bare metal/plastic facing each other over a gorgeous landscape.

Kanluwen wrote:

LunaHound wrote:

Davor wrote:It's all about selling GW paint and brushes.

Q.F.T

If that were true, they wouldn't let you play with models painted with Vallejo, etc.

They do, so it's a wrong statement.

The "painting standard" for official GW events is to make an enjoyable photograph that they can print in White Dwarf/their website.
It does NOT make people want to play seeing bare metal/plastic facing each other over a gorgeous landscape.

1) They cant police what paints you use at home , and they arnt going to strap you to lie detector test and investigate every painted army .
One easy way to test this theory Kan , bring vallejo paints and brushes to paint in GW store , if they let you , i'll forfeit my point.

2)See the 2nd part i added in the paragraph above.

1) *sigh* Once again--GW CAN enforce what you do on their storegrounds. And it will vary, repeatedly. The GW store I visited in NY had no issue letting me paint a little bit with unmarked things of Vallejo paints. If someone commented on the color, I'd give them a link to Squadron shop's Vallejo line. Part of the issue is that GW stores won't really react well to it if someone in turn asks them where to get that specific kind of paint. But provided you don't try to push the paints on customers or badmouth GW's stuff, I don't see why they'd really have an issue.

2) That's a ridiculous statement. Their prices, while out of line, are no worse than Privateer's or any other miniature competitor. The painting standard is for, once again, display purposes.

Which would get you more interested in a game:
A gorgeously painted pair of armies duking it out over a gorgeously themed table...
-OR-
Terribly painted/bare models duking it out over the same quality table

1) Remember the point Davor pointed out and i "QFT" for , is regarding GW wanting to capitalize the customers buying their product for extra profit.
Then you said the main purpose is for better presentation for the GW armies + players get more enjoyment out of playing painted army.

Now if thats the "main reason" then there is nothing wrong with allowing other company paint because the main priority you brought up was to present and play with a painted army.

2) Ridiculous or not , you will be surprised to see it been true. Dig up the thread "how do you justify GW prices"
PP's price are made purely on because "because they can , and because we still buy it"

If you are going to try and convince me that GW product or PP products are worth anymore than 1/4 of what they are priced at , its not going to happen.

I don't think the the GW Hobby (TM) angle is really where the money is to be made--i.e., buying paints and brushes. Seems like the real money is in selling people expensive plastic kits faster than they can assemble and paint them.

Manchu wrote:I don't think the the GW Hobby (TM) angle is really where the money is to be made--i.e., buying paints and brushes. Seems like the real money is in selling people expensive plastic kits faster than they can assemble and paint them.

Very interesting Manchu , rather then me explaining this , let me point out the buisness plan of why large stores like walmart or ... ( oops i dont know much USA chain stores )
But why walmart would put so much effort into gathering all kind of products even though they know perfectly well their prices and quality cannot always match.

Its the same with GW

Kanluwen wrote:1) *sigh*

I just want to say in advance , i appreciate not needing to read this type of things that doesnt contribute in any positive manner.

@Luna: I'm not saying that GW is losing money by selling paints and brushes. I'm just saying that they probably make most of their money by selling kits. And they make more money when we buy more kits more quickly. But the more quickly we buy kits, the less chance there is that we will actually assemble and/or paint all of them. This is one of the reasons I think insaniak's "myth of the hobby" theory is weak.

Manchu wrote:@Luna: I'm not saying that GW is losing money by selling paints and brushes. I'm just saying that they probably make most of their money by selling kits. And they make more money when we buy more kits more quickly. But the more quickly we buy kits, the less chance there is that we will actually assemble and/or paint all of them. This is one of the reasons I think insaniak's "myth of the hobby" theory is weak.

Ah but you see , GW's buisness plan as many many GW vets have pointed out through most of 2008-2010 is , GW is concentrating all their efforts into pushing product for new customers.
So just like all customers all need new army , chances are they'll be getting the paints / hobby product to go with it.

Which i agree with you, the vets with existing product will not need to repurchase hobby product .

LunaHound wrote:

Manchu wrote:I don't think the the GW Hobby (TM) angle is really where the money is to be made--i.e., buying paints and brushes. Seems like the real money is in selling people expensive plastic kits faster than they can assemble and paint them.

Very interesting Manchu , rather then me explaining this , let me point out the buisness plan of why large stores like walmart or ... ( oops i dont know much USA chain stores )
But why walmart would put so much effort into gathering all kind of products even though they know perfectly well their prices and quality cannot always match.

Its the same with GW

Kanluwen wrote:1) *sigh*

I just want to say in advance , i appreciate not needing to read this type of things that doesnt contribute in any positive manner.

Then *please* stop trying to make the same point, over and over and over again.

Games Workshop stores, just like any other chain in its vein(with laid back OR overzealous staff, etc etc), will have different rules in place. Some stores will have no issue with it, provided you don't sit there espousing the values of Vallejo or trying to convince every customer out of buying what they want from GW. Others will just ask you, flatout, to put it away--for the very same reason(if you can't figure it out, then ask around at stores if they'd let you do something for their competitors on the premise). Cheap snipe shots at the store policies is ridiculous, and completely unlinked to your original point(That Games Workshop's prices are based upon the sales of "the hobby") .

You don't expect to walk into a Burger King and sit down to eat your McDonald's burger. Just like the prices of oil don't affect the price of that burger.

Which brings us back to the original point of "why" is GW doing this.

Which again i'll remind you , to keep competition away from the product they are selling. Which Davcor said earlier and i QFT with.

@Luna: Once again, not saying GW won't make money off of the hobby stuff. So let's take your example: person getting into 40k buys $200 dollars of models and $100 of hobby supplies on her/his first order/trip to the shop. Wha's the next trip to the shop going to be like? Most likely another $35-$100 on models and $5-$10 on supplies. And the next trip? Some money for models probably little to nothing on supplies. And this is assuming the new customer is actually assembling and painting some of what s/he buys. I think it's much more likely for a customer (especially a new one but vet also) to buy more models than to assemble/paint one s/he already owns. So the rate of buying models is probably much higher than buying supplies. Also, I'd be VERY surprised if the hobby supply products had a higher mark-up than the kits.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

LunaHound wrote:Which again i'll remind you , to keep competition away from the product they are selling.

Seems correct to me. Then again, GW's in-store policies seem reasonable to me, too.

Manchu wrote:@Luna: Once again, not saying GW won't make money off of the hobby stuff. So let's take your example: person getting into 40k buys $200 dollars of models and $100 of hobby supplies on her/his first order/trip to the shop. Wha's the next trip to the shop going to be like? Most likely another $35-$100 on models and $5-$10 on supplies. And the next trip? Some money for models probably little to nothing on supplies. And this is assuming the new customer is actually assembling and painting some of what s/he buys. I think it's much more likely for a customer (especially a new one but vet also) to buy more models than to assemble/paint one s/he already owns. So the rate of buying models is probably much higher than buying supplies. Also, I'd be VERY surprised if the hobby supply products had a higher mark-up than the kits.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

LunaHound wrote:Which again i'll remind you , to keep competition away from the product they are selling.

Seems correct to me. Then again, GW's in-store policies seem reasonable to me, too.

Yes , but i dont consider repeat / multi time customers "new"
When i meaned "new" i was talking about the type that just got into warhammer. The type that is drawn in by AOBR , purashes AOBR + Hooby + W/E army they end up choosing.
Basically the type of "new customers" GW is catering to , the type that is making the vets angry in so many threads.

GW's policy is reasonable , i never said its not. Manchu you need to know something about me , just because i dont like somethings GW do , that doesnt mean
i'll automatically think EVERYTHING they do is wrong. Further more , im used to seeing how corporation work , i have seen it all my live growing up.
Just because it makes sense in a very cold heartless , no mercy way , doesnt mean i'll have to like it.

I really don't think GW caters to one-time-only purchasers.

Luna, I'm not trying to overextend your arguments into something that you aren't saying. I know you don't hate GW or think it's HUGE EVIL CORP. I know you are making observations based on your experience. I'm simply reiterating my point about GW making more money off of you buying new stuff instead of painting what you have in response to the idea that GW has made up the idea that you should paint minis in order to sell paints and brushes.

LunaHound wrote:Which brings us back to the original point of "why" is GW doing this.

Which again i'll remind you , to keep competition away from the product they are selling. Which Davcor said earlier and i QFT with.

You think that the purpose behind them having a painted standard for the *official* events, which they like to photograph for promotional efforts(and have said as much) is to sell more hobby product?


I'm going to put it nice and simple here:

Yes. They do maintain hobby products. Yes, they do mainly also make their sales to 'new' players.
HOWEVER

Those new players DO eventually find out about other hobby products via word of mouth, forums, or just plain going to a non-GW shop.

Your logic in this area is flawed. If they were to maintain a 100% GW paint/brush policy, then you'd be right.

But they don't. So you're, quite simply, not.

Kanluwen wrote:You think that the purpose behind them having a painted standard for the *official* events, which they like to photograph for promotional efforts(and have said as much) is to sell more hobby product?

Nope , i have mentioned different reasons GW have for doing so , and selling paints are just among the small reasoning , like i said , just like Walmart.

Manchu wrote:I'm simply reiterating my point about GW making more money off of you buying new stuff instead of painting what you have in response to the idea that GW has made up the idea that you should paint minis in order to sell paints and brushes.

Yes , however i also added very strongly as well , that by making the GW product also an "hobby" it allows them to charge premium pricing for their products.

@Kanluwen: To sharpen your point, I'm pretty sure I've seen some prize winning original sculpts in WD (remember that awesome Fulgrim from last year or the year before?) that were painted (when one checked via the internet) with non-GW stuff.

@Luna: *shrug* Okay, we agree GW is out to make money.

Ah but you see , GW's buisness plan as many many GW vets have pointed out through most of 2008-2010 is , GW is concentrating all their efforts into pushing product for new customers.
So just like all customers all need new army , chances are they'll be getting the paints / hobby product to go with it.

Which i agree with you, the vets with existing product will not need to repurchase hobby product .

That has always been their business model. Don't somehow act surprised now that you're a vet and don't feel catered too.

Yes , however i also added very strongly as well , that by making the GW product also an "hobby" it allows them to charge premium pricing for their products.

Yes, and theatres provide expensive popcorn providing the full "theatre" experience. What exactly is it you are arguing here? They are a business that provides a full product, but their brushes aren't overexpensive by art store prices. Nor are their paints. They are expensive by home depot prices, how about you go do something other than paint little tiny plastic men that involves a pigment and come back talking about price.

I dont' actually know how much it costs GW to make their paints compared to the price of their paints. But there are a lot of factors to consider:

Volume : Only GW stores and stores selling GW products (i.e. 40k, Fantasy, LotR, etc...) carry GW paints. So only a certain clientele are going to be buying them (artists don't go to a GW store for art supplies), and even then, a large number of their market don't buy them (because they are expensive!). Vallejo, by comparison, sells to just about everyone and can even be found occasionally in grocery stores. Everyone who wants to use model/craft paint is a potential realistic customer for them.

Source : I don't know where Vallejo makes their paints, but GW paints seem to be made in France (by way of their lable). Most "1st World Nations" are not cheap to produce goods from. If Vallejo makes their product elsewhere, there is a good chance it is cheaper.

Packaging : I can't be 100% sure, but I do know I have never seen anything else but GW paints in their paint pots. I have seen Vallejo (or Vallejo style) bottles used for a lot of other things (from ointments to lubricants). Not only that, but GW pots feel, at least, more expensive than Vallejo, and I have never seen hard plastic pots used by other paint companies. Why? I can't say.

Display : Vallejo has their own display cases, but they aren't required equipment for distribution like GWs are. The Vallejo displays I have seen are also very cheap, at least by appearance, while GWs are solid steel caging, rather expensive. Yes, they are bought, but probably not at a great profit, and the ones for their own stores are free.

Advertisement : Well, normally another consideration, but neither company seems to advertise as far as I have seen, so negligible here.

Bundle all those things together and Vallejo is a lot cheaper just to begin with before selling price is established. Now I am not saying this excuses GW for their high cost paints and displays, but in all honesty, they are allowed to do as they wish with their products (for good or ill). If GW didn't sell their own paints, they would have to use other companies paints, which would make how-to-guides difficult (rights and what not to use another company's product in their own advertisement/products), they would have no control over what colors will be available when, and they would be at the mercy of other companies.

Goes on and on.

But the bare fact of the matter is; you don't have to buy and use their paints on your miniatures for me to care about whether or not your army is painted. And remember, to us army painters, we're still willing to play unpainted armies! Just less willing than playing people who do paint their armies. So trying to say "painting your army with GW paints is you just caving to the man who sells you those paints so they can make a buck!" is just a load of bull droppings by lazy maternal-copulators (I'm not really that invested, I just wanted to use "maternal-copulators").

ShumaGorath wrote:their brushes aren't overexpensive by art store prices. Nor are their paints. They are expensive by home depot prices

Sorry , but if you think prices are the only factor to comparing a product , there is a problem here.

ShumaGorath wrote:how about you go do something other than paint little tiny plastic men that involves a pigment and come back talking about price.

Again sorry, i read and re-read this sentence , and i still dont get what you mean , can you explain?

LunaHound wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:their brushes aren't overexpensive by art store prices. Nor are their paints. They are expensive by home depot prices, how about you go do something other than paint little tiny plastic men that involves a pigment and come back talking about price.

Sorry , but if you think prices are the only factor to comparing a product , there is a problem here.

Would LunaHound like to not be elitist and explain to our friend WHY price comparison isn't the bare standard? Or is LunaHound just posting to be snide?

Quality is an important factor, and GW brushes aren't very good for their price. They aren't "OMG SO HORRIBLE" but they are probably a few dollars over priced. Compared to Walmart or similar store for art supplies, they are horrendously over priced. But compared to a pure art store, they're not that bad, I have seen far worse at "professional" stores.

LunaHound wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:their brushes aren't overexpensive by art store prices. Nor are their paints. They are expensive by home depot prices, how about you go do something other than paint little tiny plastic men that involves a pigment and come back talking about price.

Sorry , but if you think prices are the only factor to comparing a product , there is a problem here.

Not particularly. Water based acrylic paints for hobby modeling in art stores aren't particularly different. The unadultured and universal hate of GW products can be borne only from a point of ignorance, not righteousness. They are neither the worst, nor most expensive product in the field. They are simply the dominant force in the small segment of the demographic that you fill, and while they are marginally more expensive than marginally better products they aren't criminally so. They sell paints and brushes at semi advanced prices because they have a customer base that is largely unaware or unwilling to explore other possibilities. That makes them neither evil, nor does it make them deserve derision. Every single business on the planet adjusts product prices to fulfill what they believe to be the best combination of quality and affordability. To pick out such an utterly meaningless thing such as model hobby paint price point and quality, and to hammer it down in every thread speaks worlds more about the poster than it does the topic.

Skinnattittar wrote:Would LunaHound like to not be elitist and explain to our friend WHY price comparison isn't the bare standard? Or is LunaHound just posting to be snide?

Pretty unnecessary this. I think you make some good points, Skinnattittar, no need to mix them up with insults.

Skinnattittar wrote:Would LunaHound like to not be elitist and explain to our friend WHY price comparison isn't the bare standard? Or is LunaHound just posting to be snide?

Quality is an important factor, and GW brushes aren't very good for their price. They aren't "OMG SO HORRIBLE" but they are probably a few dollars over priced. Compared to Walmart or similar store for art supplies, they are horrendously over priced. But compared to a pure art store, they're not that bad, I have seen far worse at "professional" stores.

Well seems like you did a good job explaining it yourself already ( i dont need to add anymore right? ). Snide? elitist? if you are talking about the tone of the sentence used , are you sure im the snide one?

Skinnattittar wrote:

LunaHound wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:their brushes aren't overexpensive by art store prices. Nor are their paints. They are expensive by home depot prices, how about you go do something other than paint little tiny plastic men that involves a pigment and come back talking about price.

Sorry , but if you think prices are the only factor to comparing a product , there is a problem here.

Would LunaHound like to not be elitist and explain to our friend WHY price comparison isn't the bare standard? Or is LunaHound just posting to be snide?

Quality is an important factor, and GW brushes aren't very good for their price. They aren't "OMG SO HORRIBLE" but they are probably a few dollars over priced. Compared to Walmart or similar store for art supplies, they are horrendously over priced. But compared to a pure art store, they're not that bad, I have seen far worse at "professional" stores.

They're great "entry" level brushes. And they do the job fantastically for that matter.

A better comparison than a art supply store or Wal-Mart(why in the hell you're buying miniature painting supplies from a Wal-Mart rather than a dedicated hobby shop, be they a model train shop, or a GW shop is beyond me either way)...is Reaper's brushes, or Privateer Press' brushes.

Which, remarkably...GW's are in line with. Amazing.

How do PP's paints stack against Citadel? I notice they have faction packs, which is pretty nifty.

Kanluwen wrote:They're great "entry" level brushes. And they do the job fantastically for that matter.

A better comparison than a art supply store or Wal-Mart(why in the hell you're buying miniature painting supplies from a Wal-Mart rather than a dedicated hobby shop, be they a model train shop, or a GW shop is beyond me either way)...is Reaper's brushes, or Privateer Press' brushes.

Which, remarkably...GW's are in line with. Amazing.

Which brushes have you used so far , and how much would you rate them from 1-10 individually?
the price dont have to be listed unless you remember them off your head .

How do PP's paints stack against Citadel?

As far as I've seen they are indistingushable from Citadel or Valejo, meaning they need to be thinned and will dry out without proper care (the myth of the valejo bottle never drying out still bugs me, I've had to water those things like plants).

I notice they have faction packs, which is pretty nifty.

Though not particularly helpful. Both their magazine and their books have guides for what paint colors to use for what faction specific color schemes.

I hate painting almost as much as I hate playing with or against someone who is unwilling to paint. My painting skills are mockable (I know because I mock them). If my models are not viable for local tourneys, they are proxies.

Sorry to interject.

Manchu wrote:How do PP's paints stack against Citadel? I notice they have faction packs, which is pretty nifty.

They don't work so hot with airbrushes, which is frankly annoying. Same with Reaper's. It's probably just a thinning issue(as I *think* PP's paints use a different medium than *just* water)--but other than that they're pretty nice. The Mercenary pack is amazing for things like Trenchers or even Imperial Guard. Khaki and Traitor Green? They're pretty much EXACT matches for the multi-step process GW did for the Cadian 8th's colors. Which is a definite thumbs up, considering how well it goes on.

As for their brushes?
They're the same general thing as GW's. They're nice, they do tabletop standards well. But if you want to get *serious*, you better be looking at Windsor & Newton.

kirsanth wrote:I hate painting almost as much as I hate playing with or against someone who is unwilling to paint. My painting skills are mockable (I know because I mock them). If my models are not viable for local tourneys, they are proxies.

Sorry to interject.

APPOLOGY UNACCEPTABLE!!! SMITE HIM, OH MIGHTY GODS OF MOCKERY!!! SMITE HIM WITH ALL YOUR FURY!!!!!!

....


Well!?

...

I have lost faith in my gods of mockery....


In serious business. I'm not sniping LunaHound, I was jibing him/her... it would have been more obvious in real person....


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I do actually buy my brushes from Walmart, they're just so cheap and convenient! My brushes get beat up, I stretch their life out, but I they're paint brushes and I make them work. I don't ask them to hold enough paint to cover a small job, GW paint doesn't work that way anyhow (I like my quick drying GW paint), nor do I ask them not to ignore abuse (I clean them regularly), but they work out excellent for me, and I'm not afraid of damaging them!

I don't buy from my hobby shop because they sell high end brushes. I have owned some in the past, and they're not for me. I do very good work, if I may say so (warm fuzzy feelings when my attention gets noticed n,n probably the loving pangs of a neglected childhood and unappreciated attempts at seducing love from a cold mother and absent father.... I'm kidding!). They don't hold as long, can't take much rough handling, need special cleaning, shed, and are expensive! I have brushes from over a year ago that still work great! And I have painted.... over, seventy or so models in that time with them.

Question:

How many people have actually encountered someone refusing to play someone else because their models aren't painted?

ShumaGorath wrote:(the myth of the valejo bottle never drying out still bugs me, I've had to water those things like plants).

I started using Valejio paints around 6 years ago and I can honestly say I have never had one dry up on me in that time. To be honest the only paints I have had dry up on a regular basis are the GW hard plastic ones as you do not get a good seal with the lids (I still have a couple of the original Citadel paints from there first ever release that are still fine...).

Have any of the people out there who aren't keen on painting considered using the 'dip' method of painting which seems quite popular with a lot of wargamers lately? You basically put your base colours on then dip the figure in a can of shader and voila isn't table top quality figure!

Mick

@OP: Up to you, but not everybody has paints everything. Some of us are more relaxed about this. Or have different standards.

Skinnattittar wrote:Packaging : I can't be 100% sure, but I do know I have never seen anything else but GW paints in their paint pots. I have seen Vallejo (or Vallejo style) bottles used for a lot of other things (from ointments to lubricants). Not only that, but GW pots feel, at least, more expensive than Vallejo, and I have never seen hard plastic pots used by other paint companies. Why? I can't say.

Well the Miniatures range I tend to buy come in glass bottles and have done for a while. As for the prices and the exclusivity of GW paints, don't forget that the cote d'arms range are the older citadel range and currently cost £1.70, I doubt GW would be asking £1.70 if they were still supplying the same paint range. Also, the current paint pots may be unique, but the older ones were not. They conveniently thought to reduce the volume of the paint pots when designing their unique ones, and put the price up at the same time.

But anyway this whole thing about using GW paints is a nonsense. No they might not be too happy if you advertise other manufacturers by bringing their paints to use inside GW shops, but no one at any time has said that you have to use GW paints to use models at official events. It's pretty clear that even 'eavy metal studio staff don't use GW paints. What next, will someone suggest they will throw you out of their stores for bringing a jam jar to hold water instead of buying one of their "water pots"?

Howard A Treesong wrote:

What next, will someone suggest they will throw you out of their stores for bringing a jam jar to hold water instead of buying one of their "water pots"?

Silence you fool! don't give them any ideas!

frozenwastes wrote:
How many people have actually encountered someone refusing to play someone else because their models aren't painted?

I have not refused to play someone because their models aren't painted, if there is no one else around to play. I have chosen to play specific people, and not other people, solely based on the the fact that the people I played against had painted armies, and the people I chose not to play against didn't.

I have chosen not to attend certain events because they didn't have an all-painted requirement.

Redbeard wrote:

frozenwastes wrote:
How many people have actually encountered someone refusing to play someone else because their models aren't painted?

I have not refused to play someone because their models aren't painted, if there is no one else around to play. I have chosen to play specific people, and not other people, solely based on the the fact that the people I played against had painted armies, and the people I chose not to play against didn't.

I have chosen not to attend certain events because they didn't have an all-painted requirement.

When I go to play the game, I go to play the game. If i am at a tournament that has a painting requirement I am up till 2am making sure I have all my pieces painted too my standards, If its a day of casual I don't really care one way or the other. The only time i choose to play or not play against someone is based completely on whether or not I have played that person before.
If I play you and you are a d k then i won't play you again, regaurdless of the amount of paint on your figs. If you are a lot of fun to play against, I am gonna want to play you again, regaurdless of the amount of paint on your figs.
I myself have never been refused a game because I've never brought an upainted army to an event, a regular casual game day I have never been refused a game because my army wasn't painted. I guess my gaming groups are an exception on this board because we like PLAY the game, and we like to make sure EVERYONE is having FUN, which is why we all play games right??

hcordes wrote:When I go to play the game, I go to play the game. If i am at a tournament that has a painting requirement I am up till 2am making sure I have all my pieces painted too my standards, If its a day of casual I don't really care one way or the other. The only time i choose to play or not play against someone is based completely on whether or not I have played that person before.
If I play you and you are a d k then i won't play you again, regaurdless of the amount of paint on your figs. If you are a lot of fun to play against, I am gonna want to play you again, regaurdless of the amount of paint on your figs.
I myself have never been refused a game because I've never brought an upainted army to an event, a regular casual game day I have never been refused a game because my army wasn't painted. I guess my gaming groups are an exception on this board because we like PLAY the game, and we like to make sure EVERYONE is having FUN, which is why we all play games right??

Then you sound like you're a Gamer, not a Hobbyist. Painting the minimum amount to get by, doesn't sound like you really care what your army or your opponent's army looks like.... As I've said before, a 40k Hobbyist is different from a 40k Gamer in that they are also interested the painting aspect. There is nothing wrong with being a Gamer, you're just not a Hobbyist, you're just different, no worse no better. But if a Hobbyist wants to play another Hobbyist and you're a Gamer, they will most likely prefer to play a Hobbyist. If a Gamer doesn't want to play a Hobbyist, they're welcome to prefer to play other Gamers, and they do all the time, I've seen it (has nothing to do with how painted their army is).

Hobbyists care about other things than just playing the game. They care about making a fluffy list, the challenge of painting their army (which can be social, we have several people who come to sit and paint and talk with others), having fun with the game and even, I dare suggest, bending or breaking rules to make the game more "fun" to them and their opponents.

I don't think any of the Painters are calling the non-Painters bad people, they're just pointing out there is a difference.

Skinnattittar wrote:

hcordes wrote:When I go to play the game, I go to play the game. If i am at a tournament that has a painting requirement I am up till 2am making sure I have all my pieces painted too my standards, If its a day of casual I don't really care one way or the other. The only time i choose to play or not play against someone is based completely on whether or not I have played that person before.
If I play you and you are a d k then i won't play you again, regaurdless of the amount of paint on your figs. If you are a lot of fun to play against, I am gonna want to play you again, regaurdless of the amount of paint on your figs.
I myself have never been refused a game because I've never brought an upainted army to an event, a regular casual game day I have never been refused a game because my army wasn't painted. I guess my gaming groups are an exception on this board because we like PLAY the game, and we like to make sure EVERYONE is having FUN, which is why we all play games right??

Then you sound like you're a Gamer, not a Hobbyist. Painting the minimum amount to get by, doesn't sound like you really care what your army or your opponent's army looks like.... As I've said before, a 40k Hobbyist is different from a 40k Gamer in that they are also interested the painting aspect. There is nothing wrong with being a Gamer, you're just not a Hobbyist, you're just different, no worse no better. But if a Hobbyist wants to play another Hobbyist and you're a Gamer, they will most likely prefer to play a Hobbyist. If a Gamer doesn't want to play a Hobbyist, they're welcome to prefer to play other Gamers, and they do all the time, I've seen it (has nothing to do with how painted their army is).

Hobbyists care about other things than just playing the game. They care about making a fluffy list, the challenge of painting their army (which can be social, we have several people who come to sit and paint and talk with others), having fun with the game and even, I dare suggest, bending or breaking rules to make the game more "fun" to them and their opponents.

I don't think any of the Painters are calling the non-Painters bad people, they're just pointing out there is a difference.

un true, I am a hobbyiest, i paint and model more than i play, what I've said is what happens WHEN i play. how dare you tell ME what I am, and no i have never told you anything about what you are, just that your opinion is unfair, which of course is an opinion in of itself.
Most of us out there that play these game, and paint, and model, and generally involved in these activities, grew up in that "nerdy" category (at least i did) whether it was for gaming or something completely unrelated. why are you going to exclude someone and be a d k to people that get that kind of c p from everyone else they come in contact with.