crazykiwi wrote:put the knives away guys sheesh

LOL--you must be new here

this thread is making me sick to my stomach. I have to agree that this "no paint no play" thing is really just a myth. I have never encountered it, and I will never push that rule on someone. Its got to just be a myth that people throw out there, as a hypothetical, just get people fired up in an online forum that means absolutely nothing when it comes to what actually happens in an actual game, or an actual game store.

Not really. I've personally refused to play against a guy who changed his army's codex(without ever changing models or even bothering with WYSIWYG) to whatever would make him "better" against his opponent every match and claimed that it was allowable because he had no paint on the models.

Bear in mind, he also *refused* to paint them on the grounds that they were 'Alpha Legion who utilized an advanced chamelonic suit of armor'.

@Kanluwen: First of all, LOL. Secondly, that's hardly refusing to play simply because the models weren't painted.

Kanluwen wrote:Not really. I've personally refused to play against a guy who changed his army's codex(without ever changing models or even bothering with WYSIWYG) to whatever would make him "better" against his opponent every match and claimed that it was allowable because he had no paint on the models.

Bear in mind, he also *refused* to paint them on the grounds that they were 'Alpha Legion who utilized an advanced chamelonic suit of armor'.

this is the most ridiculous thing i have ever heard of in gaming, whether its true or not, its strait ridiculous.

Manchu wrote:

crazykiwi wrote:put the knives away guys sheesh

LOL--you must be new here

long time watcher short term poster

crazykiwi wrote:long time watcher short term poster

Yeah, this is one of the typical brawling thread topics. Hope you brought a weapon. ::ducks as bottle whizzes past and smashes against wall::

So what would you recommend to somebody who likes modelling, and likes gaming but hates painting? If you are defining the hobby of 40k you make a decision about whether or not to include these people. If you exclude them, than you should only do so with the understanding that they have somewhere else to go. But they really don't.

I would also remind you that I will still stipulate that some competent tabletop quality painting job should still be a goal, just not an immediate requirement.

@nintendoeats: First of all, no one kicks non-painters out of 40k. They can't participate in some tournaments, sure, but I don't think that's what you're talking about. The question is not "should they be allowed to live? ( ::knife-sharpening noises:: )" but rather "are they as committed to the game as people who reliably painter their armies?" As a person who has very little of my army painted, I'd say no. I'm not as committed to this game as Redbeard. I'm not as good a hobbyist as he is. That's pretty simple to admit.

my profile pic has the answer but make ME a hypocrite lol

Manchu wrote:@Kanluwen: First of all, LOL. Secondly, that's hardly refusing to play simply because the models weren't painted.

That's kinda the point though.

Noone in their right mind would refuse a game simply because the models "weren't painted". There's circumstances involved, just like any other decision ever made.

If it's a major tournament and the person refused to paint their models? Well...refuse the game, mark their crap down and move on.
If it's someone who's just trying to be a pennypincher and alter their list everytime the internets says something new is "omgz the winnar!"? Feel free to refuse it, people like that aren't worth playing anyways. At least put some effort into it, do some conversions. Don't just use bare plastic Marines(hurr!) as your one size fits all.

Ok... What are we talking about here? lets go back to OP:

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?

We agree that people who do really good paintjobs are more dedicated. We agree that competently painted armies are more fun to play and play against. And we also agree...that people who are less dedicated still basicly have the right to take part, but they won't win the awards and they probably won't enjoy the full range of pleasures that Warhammer provides. Their loss, and one which they are probably comfortable with,

Did anybody disagree with these things coming in? No, we just thought about them in different terms, which led to a terrible defenition of what this argument was about. Which in the end is nothing, since we all seem to pretty well agree.

Now, unless somebody has something constructive to say I'm getting out of here before I get hurt (also because its 1 in the morning).

Buh-bye!

People who refuse to play against unpainted stuff are very, very rare. Atleast in GW and Privateer Press's gaming circles. Among the historical crowd, it's far more prevalent. As well as among gamers over 35 who have established social networks, host games and are otherwise uninvolved in the scene at a local store. Do i have studies to back this up? Polling of different demographics? Nope. It's just a summary of what I've observed during my last couple decades as a miniature gamer.

So, to the original poster: Yes, it's okay to refuse to play people. For any reason. It's your hobby and whatever reasons you come up with to do what you do and not do what you don't do are yours. Also expect to come across people who are insulted by your decision. People are very bad at being rejected.

To anyone who's insulted at the *idea* of someone refusing to play them because their stuff isn't paint: Get over yourselves. It's your hobby and whatever reasons you have don't apply to other people and vice versa. If someone won't play you, move along and find someone who does and stop judging yourself. A mindset of victimhood never helps in the long run

Kanluwen wrote:

Bear in mind, he also *refused* to paint them on the grounds that they were 'Alpha Legion who utilized an advanced chamelonic suit of armor'.

He could of at least paint the eyes and the bolters.

Some interesting things for consideration:

Just because a topic has been discussed many times before , it doesnt mean its by the same people ,
it just means its a popular topic that everyone have wondered about.
If it isnt by the same people , then the new ones joining in have their absolute right to voice their opinion.
If anyone find it repetitive and boring , they are never in any circumstances required to read / participate the thread.

Also , when people dont want to play against an unpainted army , they seldom say it to their face directly
like " No i wont play you , your army isnt even painted "
They'll usually give some excuse and find someone else to play. Well , its been polite i guess right?

I guess I should first say that I do paint my armies. I also have played with unpainted armies before I was able to take the time to paint them. I have no problems with using a grey unit or two until it gets painted. I don't think that playing against an unpainted opponent's army ruins my fun. (paint does not effect the rules or flow of the game guys)

I guess the bottom line is, if you do not want to play somebody with an unpainted army, you don't have too. I'm sure the people with unpainted armies will be happy enough playing against people who are not as uptight as you are.

LunaHound wrote:Just because a topic has been discussed many times before , it doesnt mean its by the same people

That is an interesting point, considering that no matter who is involved the discussion seems to go the same way every time (see Polonius's post early on in this thread).

LunaHound wrote:Also, when people dont want to play against an unpainted army, they seldom say it to their face directly

Rather than trying to prove that people turn down games for lack of painted opposition with evidence, you are trying to prove it with a lack of evidence. This is simply a weak argument, especially when considered in the context of this thread. There is no need to be polite about one's views toward non-painted armies in this thread (clearly) but no one here claims they actually turn down games for this reason. Even redbeard says he prefers playing against painted armies but will, when there are no painted armies around, play against an unpainted one.

Manchu wrote:Rather than trying to prove that people turn down games for lack of painted opposition with evidence, you are trying to prove it with a lack of evidence. This is simply a weak argument, especially when considered in the context of this thread. There is no need to be polite about one's views toward non-painted armies in this thread (clearly) but no one here claims they actually turn down games for this reason. Even redbeard says he prefers playing against painted armies but will, when there are no painted armies around, play against an unpainted one.

Evidence? weak? Its from my personal experience in my LFG , and my local battle bunker.
Manchu you need to know im not here to "argue or debate" Im telling you what i have seen numerous times , why on earth do i need to prove anything or lie about my personal experience
in my LFGS and bunker?
Im sure Redbeard is right when he said when there are no painted armies around he'll rather play vs unpainted instead of no games.

For example , i told you that my LFGS dont paint , they just play , and im the only one there that paints.
On warhammer weekends i wasnt playing yet , was gluing some mini , and guy A asked guy B for a game
then B said he wasnt planning on playing . 5 mins later when im done gluing and went to take out my army , guy B
came over and ask for a game. I asked what happend since i over heard him rejecting player A , then he said he want to play against me instead.

Well i do understand painted armies are more fun , but my point is , if people wont always openly decline a game with direct excuse given or
"i dont want to play against you because they arnt painted "

You can choose to believe it or not Manchu , it doesnt really benefit me in any way to make anything up.

The tone of your response is exaggerated as at no point have I accused you of lying or even making something up. I have simply pointed out that your observation (since your refuse to acknowledge that it is an argument) is based on speculation. There are other explanations for the event you described.

Manchu wrote:The tone of your response is exaggerated as at no point have I accused you of lying or even making something up. I have simply pointed out that your observation (since your refuse to acknowledge that it is an argument) is based on speculation. There are other explanations for the event you described.

Perhaps im confused then , because im not too sure what evidence you need or are you looking for.
Or am i supposed to provide when the example = 100% what i experienced myself.

Or what exactly is there argument of?

I think we can probably agree that the amount of people who will only play against painted armies but won't tell anyone is probably pretty small.

Even in LunaHound's account, the reason isn't given at all.

frozenwastes wrote:I think we can probably agree that the amount of people who will only play against painted armies but won't tell anyone is probably pretty small.

Even in LunaHound's account, the reason isn't given at all.

Or , another reason that i have raised earlier ,
its all in the "type" of group you play with.

Here is example.

Say you are in a gaming group that everyone has pretty good standard of painted army,
where having painted armies = respectable and important. Thus when an unpainted army show up ,
its easily viewed as a negative aspect. Thus a direct reply of "hmm , i dont want to play against unpainted army"
is normal , and easily accepted.

Then example 2 , a gaming group that can care less about whether army is painted or not.
Then someone declines a game and say " no thank you i dont play with unpainted armies"
then by all means GOOD LUCK playing there EVER again.
And lets apply that group to what i was talking about earlier , say there is wow 1 person that does paint
and he wants to play against that instead , do you find it rare or impossible to believe that he'll lie / give excuse
to avoid playing unpainted person just to play me?

frozenwastes wrote:So again, I ask:

Has anyone actually encountered another person who refused to play because models were unpainted?

I'm talking in real life here. I real encounter with someone where they said "no thanks, I only play against unpainted models." Not some guy on the internet, but around a gaming table.

Anyone?

No. Though I do think it's a factor behind the reason some gamers at our club consistently avoid playing others.



@Luna: Other than a tourney or a very close group of some sort, I don't think the first example is all that applicable. ou just simply won't get entire clubs that refuse to allow people with unpainted armies to enter.

@LunaHound: I hope that I can straighten out this misunderstanding.

The main point of contention in this thread seems to be that people who paint their own armies and expect others to do so as well are being accused of elitism by people who both/either do not paint their own armies and/or do not expect others to do so. The people who are doing the accusing have especially claimed that it is elitist, outside of a particular tournament or club setting, to refuse an opponent a game because their army is unpainted. The question that frozenwastes asked, and to which I assumed (perhaps incorrectly) that you were either directly or indirectly replying, was whether there was any evidence that people actually exhibit this attitude.

For our purposes, the best evidence that someone would refuse or has been refused a game on account of their would-be opponent's lack of painting is (1) a person saying in this thread that they would refuse a game for this reason or (2) a person saying in this thread that someone had explicitly refused them a game for this reason. Neither form of evidence has yet been presented.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
EF's last post is another good example of mere speculation rather than explicit evidence.

My last post =bad...? EF do bad?

TBH, I think I answered frozenwastes question. (At least on the behalf of our club).

No one there refuses to play another simply becuase it is not painted. (However, I have cringed at the poor painting skills of some people there)

Emperors Faithful wrote:@Luna: Other than a tourney or a very close group of some sort, I don't think the first example is all that applicable. ou just simply won't get entire clubs that refuse to allow people with unpainted armies to enter.

Its should be applicable, my battle bunker ( not a tourney or a private group )
Its the sole reason why i stopped gaming after my LFGS closed down.

What's the definition of a 'Battle Bunker'?

Emperors Faithful wrote:What's the definition of a 'Battle Bunker'?

Games Workshop wrote:Battle Bunkers

Battle Bunkers are like regular Hobby Centers but much bigger. Battle Bunkers include dozens of gaming tables, large areas for painting and modeling and an expanded selection of products including Specialist Games, Black Library and Forge World.

Each Battle Bunker features dozens of gaming tables complete with scenery, all at your disposal for open gaming. All Bunkers also have large painting and modeling bars where you can sit and work on your army.

Each battle bunker has a busy schedule of tournaments, campaigns, leagues and contests designed to help you get the most out of your hobby. These activities range in scale from small gatherings to huge regional events. Battle Bunkers also tend to be hang-outs for local gaming clubs. Whether you are looking to expand your hobby skills, meet new opponents or just get in a pick-up game, Games Workshop Battle Bunkers are an excellent spot for you and your friends. See the links to the Events Calendars below for more information about upcoming events.

Emperors Faithful wrote:What's the definition of a 'Battle Bunker'?

Its what i called the local Games Workshop 's game room.
Apart from the shop they have a separate room split by glass doors.
And inside have fancy walls with GW art works.

So it was run by GW, but they wouldn't allow people with unpainted armies to play? What a dumb manager, that's bad for bussiness.

It used to be a general GW rule, IIRC.

Interesting. Is it still so?

Nope. I don't think Luna said that it was a rule there (unless I misread) but rather that the general attitude of the regulars there was one of expecting armies to be painted.

*shrug* Fair enough.
Sound like a bunch of TFG's though.

Emperors Faithful wrote:Sound like a bunch of TFG's though.

Why so? I think it's pretty reasonable to foster an atmosphere of encouragement regarding painting. This is especially so at a GW. BUT we've been over all of this before in this thread, I guess, so whatever.

nintendoeats wrote:We agree that people who do really good paintjobs are more dedicated. We agree that competently painted armies are more fun to play and play against.

Do we? It was my impression that people were saying that they enjoyed "the game" itself and the painting was effectively immaterial to them, the opinion that people who paint armies they play with are in any way more dedicated or better was described as being elitist.

To quote one person...

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.

and another

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.

It was disagreeing to these sorts of claims that eventually led to cries of elitism.

It is interesting than in the poll from the Miniature Page website, a much broader cross section of this hobby, there was a much lower tolerance of unpainted armies, this has been my observation of wargaming too. The insistance on being able to play with unpainted armies is suprisingly pronounced with GW gamers. I don't know why it is myself, but I think it's to do with GWs "quick fix" approach to selling. Selling to younger players and always pushing the latest item as the coolest and most powerful thing. If you tell people they have to wait a month or more to field their new army or however long it takes for them to paint it, it'll put them off impulse buying the latest cool awesome thing, because by the time they get to field it it'll be old hat. GW have seen requesting people to paint stuff as a barrier to sales and thus have allowed unpainted models to be used in shop and at tournaments. The problem is that this may have initially been thought of as a way to remove an obstacle from people getting to play straight away with their latest purchase, but has been latched onto by people who have no intention of ever painting their army, in part because there's no compulsion in order to play. Undoubtedly GW would like more people to paint because it improves the image of the hobby and they make money on paints and other supplies, but at the end of the day they'd prefer a person to buy miniatures and not paint than simply not buy anything. That's why GW allow unpainted miniatures. Yet again the gamers allow GW to set the house rules, the community should take the hobby back, the wider hobby largely doesn't allow unpainted miniatures to be played with, that's normal not elitist.

@Manchu: Meh, I guess it's becuase we're so laid back over here.


Ozzy!
Ozzy!
Ozzy!

Oi!
Oi!
Oi!

We'll know GW have caved in completely to instant gratification when they allow you to play in official tournaments with models still in box.

Kilkrazy wrote:We'll know GW have caved in completely to instant gratification when they allow you to play in official tournaments with models still in box.

While not a GW allowed thing, I did once see someone cut the Space Marines off the front of a box of Space Marines they just bought and glue them upright to the bases, and used them instead of assembling the Marines in the box they just bought.... I would have been annoyed if it wasn't so epically silly!

I still propose my mathematical ranking system for hobbyists;

[ (Painting Level) + (Modeling Level) + (Gaming Level) ] / 3 = (Hobbyist Level)

Where the "Levels" are based on a 0 through 10 rating system.

For Painting, 0 is awarded to chronic non-painting, 1 is awarded to chronic base coating, 3 for minimum number of reasonably applied colors (three), and 10 for Golden Daemon level painting.

For Modeling, 0 is awarded for just the "core" of a model applied, 1 is for fully assembled (including bad conversions), 3 for reasonable effort, and 10 for, again, golden Daemon Level painting.

For Gaming, 0 is awarded for non-participation, 1 for basic participation (actually playing), 3 for competent participation, 5 for experienced participation, and 10 is that guy at your store that nobody can complain about playing, even though everyone loses to him, but he is so fun to play everyone wants to!

I think the 'Ard Boyz tournaments had a lot to do with the epidemic of non-painted armies.

A lot of people's only motivation for getting their models painted quickly was tournament participation. 'Ard Boyz removed this requirement, and it seems that around here this attitude has spread to every other tournament.

Howard A Treesong wrote:
... The insistance on being able to play with unpainted armies is suprisingly pronounced with GW gamers. I don't know why it is myself, but I think it's to do with GWs "quick fix" approach to selling. Selling to younger players and always pushing the latest item as the coolest and most powerful thing. If you tell people they have to wait a month or more to field their new army or however long it takes for them to paint it, it'll put them off impulse buying the latest cool awesome thing, because by the time they get to field it it'll be old hat. GW have seen requesting people to paint stuff as a barrier to sales and thus have allowed unpainted models to be used in shop and at tournaments...

Yet again the gamers allow GW to set the house rules, the community should take the hobby back, the wider hobby largely doesn't allow unpainted miniatures to be played with, that's normal not elitist.

Ding ding ding. This is exactly it. GW, the company, knows that they'll sell more if they don't require painting. As the largest provider of game-space, and tournament support, people follow their lead when it comes to default house rules. The corporate interest defeated the long-standing community standard, in the name of making a buck, and suddenly anyone who believes in the community standard is considered an elitist bastard.

Redbeard wrote:

Howard A Treesong wrote:
... The insistance on being able to play with unpainted armies is suprisingly pronounced with GW gamers. I don't know why it is myself, but I think it's to do with GWs "quick fix" approach to selling. Selling to younger players and always pushing the latest item as the coolest and most powerful thing. If you tell people they have to wait a month or more to field their new army or however long it takes for them to paint it, it'll put them off impulse buying the latest cool awesome thing, because by the time they get to field it it'll be old hat. GW have seen requesting people to paint stuff as a barrier to sales and thus have allowed unpainted models to be used in shop and at tournaments...

Yet again the gamers allow GW to set the house rules, the community should take the hobby back, the wider hobby largely doesn't allow unpainted miniatures to be played with, that's normal not elitist.

Ding ding ding. This is exactly it. GW, the company, knows that they'll sell more if they don't require painting. As the largest provider of game-space, and tournament support, people follow their lead when it comes to default house rules. The corporate interest defeated the long-standing community standard, in the name of making a buck, and suddenly anyone who believes in the community standard is considered an elitist bastard.

Sorry my friend. people don't think someone is an elitist bastard by someone who believe in the communit standard. I think people say elitist, is when someone who is posting on the internet and by using a one sentence line, saying something like " I don't like unpainted armies, I am not playing you, because if I have time to do it so do you." See that sentence is all the person says, and is pretty rude. If the person cannot take the time to post politely his point, and just makes a one sentence rude comment, how else are people going to take it? Basically the peroson is saying what he wants and that's it. That in my eyes is saying he is right and everyone else is wrong and then comes back to post more without even considering other posibilities. If you can even consider and respect other posibilites, then yes that person is being elitist because he is putting himself above everyone else. I guess other words could be used, but I thought Elitist was being polite while others are still being rude.

Why are you getting upset the word elitist being used? Also nobody has used the word bastard, why are you putting words into peoples mouths? You don't have to be being so rude about it? You were making good points about your side of the argument, there is no need for harsh words that nobody has said before. Again, respect, kindness, and politely declince. There is no need to be rude about this my friend.

Because "elitist" infers a negative attribute to most people. Plus, wanting painted armies isn't an elitist feature to the painters, it's a minimum amount of effort.

If you (ambiguous you) want a hobby where you don't have to paint models to game, there are several systems out there that come with painted miniatures. Or one can accept that not painting your miniatures (or not wanting to paint your miniatures) just means one isn't part of the 40k Hobby, but part of the Gaming Hobby.

Yes I guess elitiest is a negatvie attribute to most people, but saying "If I have time, you should have time too" makes the person who said it better than someone else. That is pretty negative to most people as well.

I think that is why most of us are so upset, not because of painted armies, but because some people think they are better than others, be it people who have painted armies, or people who don't have painted armies.

Nobody is better than anyone else. I guess being on the internet and being faceless we can be more rude or pretend we are tougher than we are if we actually met face to face.

So let me be the first, if I was rude or being condesnding, I am sorry. I am not here to argue with anyone.

Davor wrote:
...
Nobody is better than anyone else.
...

What an absurd statement. Of course some people are better than others. Throughout human history people have tested themselves against others in order to find out who is better. Tiger Woods is a better golfer than I am. I am a better husband than he is. Joe Satriani is a better guitar player than I am.

These things are testable, objective facts. They're not value judgments about someone's worth as a human being, but within a given scope, it is ridiculous to say that no one is better than anyone else.

I am a better hobbyist than someone who doesn't bother to paint their miniatures. Dave Taylor is a better hobbyist than me. This isn't elitism, it's realism.

Redbeard wrote:What an absurd statement. Of course some people are better than others. Throughout human history people have tested themselves against others in order to find out who is better. Tiger Woods is a better golfer than I am. I am a better husband than he is. Joe Satriani is a better guitar player than I am.

These things are testable, objective facts. They're not value judgments about someone's worth as a human being, but within a given scope, it is ridiculous to say that no one is better than anyone else.

I am a better hobbyist than someone who doesn't bother to paint their miniatures. Dave Taylor is a better hobbyist than me. This isn't elitism, it's realism.

QFT.

This ladies and gents is a life lesson. Learn it, because "not being any better than anyone else" won't get you into college, won't get you a job, and won't get you much of anything else in life either.

I'm in with the crowd who doesn't like to play against someone who doesn't paint their army. I have no problem with them as human beings, it simply takes a huge aspect of fun out of the game for me. I don't play a unit until I paint it. I really take a lot of pride seeing my fully painted army on the field of battle and don't feel any sense of accomplishment winning against (or defeat losing against) a bunch of plastic and metal. It's purely ritual, nothing logical about it. Painting the army marks it as yours in a way that no other strategy game I've come across offers.

LordofHats wrote:

Redbeard wrote:What an absurd statement. Of course some people are better than others. Throughout human history people have tested themselves against others in order to find out who is better. Tiger Woods is a better golfer than I am. I am a better husband than he is. Joe Satriani is a better guitar player than I am.

These things are testable, objective facts. They're not value judgments about someone's worth as a human being, but within a given scope, it is ridiculous to say that no one is better than anyone else.

I am a better hobbyist than someone who doesn't bother to paint their miniatures. Dave Taylor is a better hobbyist than me. This isn't elitism, it's realism.

QFT.

This ladies and gents is a life lesson. Learn it, because "not being any better than anyone else" won't get you into college, won't get you a job, and won't get you much of anything else in life either.

Semi-QFT.

I disagree with your assessment, because better is the comparative of good, and what is 'good' varies from person to person. For example I might consider a 'good' golfer to be one who goes out for a hit under the sunshine with his mates, then has a barbecue with his opponent after thoroughly enjoying the game and congratulating the winner, as opposed to Tiger, who prostitutes his ability on television for the massess and looses the spirit of the game. (Just an example, I have no real stance on golfing).

You could argue that your models are considered more aesthetically pleasing than your opponent's to the majority of people, but a blanket statement of being a 'better' is difficult to back up.

Redbeard wrote:

Davor wrote:
...
Nobody is better than anyone else.
...

What an absurd statement. Of course some people are better than others. Throughout human history people have tested themselves against others in order to find out who is better. Tiger Woods is a better golfer than I am. I am a better husband than he is. Joe Satriani is a better guitar player than I am.

These things are testable, objective facts. They're not value judgments about someone's worth as a human being, but within a given scope, it is ridiculous to say that no one is better than anyone else.

I am a better hobbyist than someone who doesn't bother to paint their miniatures. Dave Taylor is a better hobbyist than me. This isn't elitism, it's realism.

So you are a better "hobbyist" than those that choose not to paint their armies, according to your mathematical formula. ::claps hands::

Take a bow... Then consider for a moment that the game doesn't revolve around painted miniatures as much as you think. I know plenty of people who are happy to play with grey pieces. I was one of them at one time. When my painting level was very low I didn't want to paint my armies and take them to the FLGS because they looked worse than a grey army.

What about converting models? If one does not include conversions in his army is he considered less of a "hobbyist?" If you were to include conversions into your three part hobbyist formula would it carry the same weight as painting?

My main reasons I play 40k are now and always have been the interesting fluff and the cool models. Painting and converting my models is more like an added bonus. I have a higher painting ability now and have more time since I am no longer in school so I paint my figures now. I actually enjoy it most of the time. It gets tedious at times but whatever. However I really can't say that playing against a grey army lessens my experience. I've have had some great and memorable games against the grey tide.

@augustus5: you are confusing Redbeard's posts with those of Skinnattittar

Pika_power wrote:Semi-QFT.

I disagree with your assessment, because better is the comparative of good, and what is 'good' varies from person to person. For example I might consider a 'good' golfer to be one who goes out for a hit under the sunshine with his mates, then has a barbecue with his opponent after thoroughly enjoying the game and congratulating the winner, as opposed to Tiger, who prostitutes his ability on television for the massess and looses the spirit of the game. (Just an example, I have no real stance on golfing).

You could argue that your models are considered more aesthetically pleasing than your opponent's to the majority of people, but a blanket statement of being a 'better' is difficult to back up.

Arbitrary it may be societies have created their standards of what is "better." You are more likely to get that killer management job with the nice health benefits at the fortune 500 company if you show up with a college degree wearing a suit and with a polite professional attitude than you are with a high school diploma wearing jeans and talking with poor grammar. In this comparison the college grad will likely be viewed as the better applicant, because he better meets the common expectations of the individuals he is seeking to be employed by. If you want something you need to be "better" at it than those you compete with. That means educating yourself on not only the task at hand, but also knowing what the norms and expectations of the group you will work with are.

Better is defined by the norms and expectations your social group. In the case of painted armies, we can break this down naturally. Some groups won't think much of anything when you show up with unpainted models. Some will. In the broader 40k Hobby as everyone here is speaking of it one can actually say a player with painted armies is a better hobbyist than a player who doesn't paint their army at all. Thats harder to define though because its hard to look at everyone who plays 40k through a window. I would only say painting is important because GW encourages it so much, and most tournaments require you to bring models painted to a certain standard. Now, if most tournaments in turn did not have painting requirements, then the social dynamic could be analyzed differently. As far as I know though most tournaments do require painting.

Well, I'll propose this. Two people, exactly the same in every way. One guy paints his army, his clone (or is the other guy the clone?! Or are they both clones!!!) does not. Who do you think cares more about the hobby?

Shido was a Judoka and also a medicine man.
When Jet Li and him were having tea together, Shido was telling Jet Li about how there are many different kinds of tea in the world that can do different things to benefit the drinker.
Different teas like Earl Grey, green tea, black tea, jasmine tea, etc... (metaphor to different type of martial arts in the world )

Jet Li replied that even though there many different kinds of tea, it doesn't matter as long as the drinker is in a good mood.

*strokes massive goatee*

Very wise, Lunahound-san.

LunaHound wrote:Shido was a Judoka and also a medicine man.
When Jet Li and him were having tea together, Shido was telling Jet Li about how there are many different kinds of tea in the world that can do different things to benefit the drinker.
Different teas like Earl Grey, green tea, black tea, jasmine tea, etc... (metaphor to different type of martial arts in the world )

Jet Li replied that even though there many different kinds of tea, it doesn't matter as long as the drinker is in a good mood.

I like this story. I don't readily see it's application, however.

Manchu wrote:

LunaHound wrote:Shido was a Judoka and also a medicine man.
When Jet Li and him were having tea together, Shido was telling Jet Li about how there are many different kinds of tea in the world that can do different things to benefit the drinker.
Different teas like Earl Grey, green tea, black tea, jasmine tea, etc... (metaphor to different type of martial arts in the world )

Jet Li replied that even though there many different kinds of tea, it doesn't matter as long as the drinker is in a good mood.

I like this story. I don't readily see it's application, however.

Application? let the different individuals enjoy their different tastes for things.
You cant compare whats better or best because from the very start they might very well already have different purpose and priorities.

LunaHound wrote:Shido was a Judoka and also a medicine man.
When Jet Li and him were having tea together, Shido was telling Jet Li about how there are many different kinds of tea in the world that can do different things to benefit the drinker.
Different teas like Earl Grey, green tea, black tea, jasmine tea, etc... (metaphor to different type of martial arts in the world )

Jet Li replied that even though there many different kinds of tea, it doesn't matter as long as the drinker is in a good mood.

And... scene.

I don't think anyone could address the subject more artfully.

Monster Rain wrote:
And... scene.

I don't think anyone could address the subject more artfully.

*Curtsies *

Thank you <3
with that i shall leave this thread and go buy groceries -_-

LunaHound wrote:

Manchu wrote:

LunaHound wrote:Shido was a Judoka and also a medicine man.
When Jet Li and him were having tea together, Shido was telling Jet Li about how there are many different kinds of tea in the world that can do different things to benefit the drinker.
Different teas like Earl Grey, green tea, black tea, jasmine tea, etc... (metaphor to different type of martial arts in the world )

Jet Li replied that even though there many different kinds of tea, it doesn't matter as long as the drinker is in a good mood.

I like this story. I don't readily see it's application, however.

Application? let the different individuals enjoy their different tastes for things.
You cant compare whats better or best because from the very start they might very well already have different purpose and priorities.

One could also argue that Jet Li was no medicine man.

Manchu wrote:

LunaHound wrote:

Manchu wrote:

LunaHound wrote:Shido was a Judoka and also a medicine man.
When Jet Li and him were having tea together, Shido was telling Jet Li about how there are many different kinds of tea in the world that can do different things to benefit the drinker.
Different teas like Earl Grey, green tea, black tea, jasmine tea, etc... (metaphor to different type of martial arts in the world )

Jet Li replied that even though there many different kinds of tea, it doesn't matter as long as the drinker is in a good mood.

I like this story. I don't readily see it's application, however.

Application? let the different individuals enjoy their different tastes for things.
You cant compare whats better or best because from the very start they might very well already have different purpose and priorities.

One could also argue that Jet Li was no medicine man.

That doesn't mean he's lazy though...

Monster Rain wrote:

LunaHound wrote:Shido was a Judoka and also a medicine man.
When Jet Li and him were having tea together, Shido was telling Jet Li about how there are many different kinds of tea in the world that can do different things to benefit the drinker.
Different teas like Earl Grey, green tea, black tea, jasmine tea, etc... (metaphor to different type of martial arts in the world )

Jet Li replied that even though there many different kinds of tea, it doesn't matter as long as the drinker is in a good mood.

And... scene.

I don't think anyone could address the subject more artfully.

Not really.

Bruce Lee's point was that the style of martial art doesn't matter, its the practitioner. If we were discussing whether or not a painted army plays better than an unpainted one this would be true. Putting some color on the models doesn't really change their stats or how you use them really. If we were talking about ones enjoyment of playing 40k this would also be true. If we were talking about painting before assembling models or assembling after painting, it would be applicable.

But we're not talking about those things. The current topic is whether or not people who paint their models can be called better hobbyists. The metaphor in that case is not only misapplied, its misleading. There's a defined difference between a Judo practitioner who is fully dedicated to his art and a lazy (or a really pumped up aggressive) Karate practitioner who just wants to spar but not train form or kata.

The real question here is how do we define 40k as a hobby. Do you really only need to participate in 2 of the 3 areas of 40k to be a hobbyist? Is someone who does all three better than someone who just does two? In these questions this metaphor is meaningless.

Gornall wrote:

Manchu wrote:One could also argue that Jet Li was no medicine man.

That doesn't mean he's lazy though...

But he also wasn't claiming to be a medicine man.

Manchu wrote:One could also argue that Jet Li was no medicine man.

Gornall wrote:That doesn't mean he's lazy though...

But he also wasn't claiming to be a medicine man.

Touche'... kind of.

My argument is that certain painters classifying all non-painting 40k players as lazy is simply an unfair label. The same way certain non-painters label parts of the pro-painter crowd as elitists. Lazy does not mean "You don't choose to focus your efforts in the same area as I do." If people want to call themselves better "hobbyists" that's fine. Whatever floats their boat and lets them sleep at night. Just don't be calling people lazy if they focus on a different aspect of 40k. That's the thing that burns my grits.... making character judgements about someone because they prioritize certain aspects of a game of toy soldiers differently.

(Not directed at you, personally, Manchu)

Someone who paints all of their models is objectively a better hobbyist than someone who does not. Again, I am saying this as someone who does not get his gak painted on any kind of schedule. As to value judgments: I think you'll agree (since you've said as much before and I agreed with you when you said it) that these terms "lazy" and "elitist" have more traction on the internet than in real life. If someone were to call me lazy because I didn't paint my miniatures, it could indeed be a mistake--after all, I could have been busy doing many other things. Whether I could have made time for painting or not is beside the point. The definition of "lazy" is not "does not paint Games Workshop models," after all. But I think we should accept that by "lazy" what is meant in this thread is something like "less committed to the hobby."

augustus5 wrote:
What about converting models? If one does not include conversions in his army is he considered less of a "hobbyist?" If you were to include conversions into your three part hobbyist formula would it carry the same weight as painting?

Of course it does. You make it sound like it's so hard to determine that one thing is better than another. But the Golden Demon judges do it, several times a year. At some levels, you'll be comparing apples to oranges, such as whether the impact of green stuff sculpting within a conversion makes a piece better or worse than the freehand painting on the second piece. That's not an easy call, and yet somehow we end up with Golden Demon winners and second places.

At lower levels of competency, it is even easier to tell what's better or worse. Did you bother trying is a big step... If one person has a nicely painted army that involves many conversions and another has a nicely painted army that has no conversions, is it really that much of a stretch to say that the one with the conversions required more skill? Anyone who has been to a tournament where appearance is judged can follow this.

I'm not the best hobbyist out there. I'm pretty good, but I can point to other people's work and say, without a doubt, that they've done a better job than I have. I don't feel any shame because of this, it's just a fact. Look at the P&M blogs around here, and you'll see people who have scratch-built gargants and titans that look awesome, and you'll probably see a couple where people glued together their cereal boxes too. Is it that hard to point out that one is better than the other?

This doesn't mean that those who don't paint are bad human beings, or that their reasons for not painting are invalid. But you cannot objectively look at a painted army and an unpainted army and say that the person with the unpainted army is as much of a hobbyist.

so the moral is we agree to disagree?

crazykiwi wrote:so the moral is we agree to disagree?

I disagree

LordofHats wrote:

crazykiwi wrote:so the moral is we agree to disagree?

I disagree

to disagree? so you agree

crazykiwi wrote:

LordofHats wrote:

crazykiwi wrote:so the moral is we agree to disagree?

I disagree

to disagree? so you agree

I agree that I disagree with your agreement... wait... what?

LordofHats wrote:

crazykiwi wrote:so the moral is we agree to disagree?

I disagree

mind lol

the way I see it though to each there own and the way you either play against painted or non painted armie is for your judgement only

Manchu wrote:But I think we should accept that by "lazy" what is meant in this thread is something like "less committed to the hobby."

I think "lazy" and "elitist" are both loaded words with fairly bad connotations to them and should be avoided. They tend to hack people off and escalate the discussion... and not in a good way. I agree with what you said but for one minor quibble: Not painting is being less committed to the "hobby" side of the 40k hobby. I still argue that gaming is a very important part of 40k hobby and that the people who pour their effort into that should not be looked down upon as "lazy or less-committed", but maybe less "well-rounded." They still put a lot of time, money, and effort into 40k... but it's mostly on the gaming side.

No doubt 40k has more than one facet as a hobby. I was speaking of the "hobby" aspect, as you put it.

Manchu wrote:No doubt 40k has more than one facet as a hobby. I was speaking of the "hobby" aspect, as you put it.

And I agree with you completely on that. I just get hacked when I see people saying things such as "If you're not going to paint you should find a different hobby." as that view completely ignores the gaming side of 40k.

Yes, but I understand their perspective (if not why it must be expressed rudely) to some extent given that there are games out there that don't require painting.

Manchu wrote:Yes, but I understand their perspective (if not why it must be expressed rudely) to some extent given that there are games out there that don't require painting.

And in many venues (mine included) 40k is one of those games that doesn't require painting. In all seriousness though, I do understand that view. However, I have to polietly disagree. If people enjoy 40k without painting, who's to argue against that. In some ways it is no different than playing Space Hulk without painting the models.

Actually, I would think it a bit strange if someone collects all this plastic and yet has NO intention whatsoever to paint it, not that month, not 10 years later. Or even pay someone else to paint it?

I would say that thier (for want of a better word) laziness is making them miss out on an important aspect of the game. And who could argue that two fully painted armies pitted against each other on the field looks SO much more enjoyable than one big mess of grey?

Skinnattittar wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:We'll know GW have caved in completely to instant gratification when they allow you to play in official tournaments with models still in box.

While not a GW allowed thing, I did once see someone cut the Space Marines off the front of a box of Space Marines they just bought and glue them upright to the bases, and used them instead of assembling the Marines in the box they just bought.... I would have been annoyed if it wasn't so epically silly!

I still propose my mathematical ranking system for hobbyists;

[ (Painting Level) + (Modeling Level) + (Gaming Level) ] / 3 = (Hobbyist Level)

Where the "Levels" are based on a 0 through 10 rating system.

For Painting, 0 is awarded to chronic non-painting, 1 is awarded to chronic base coating, 3 for minimum number of reasonably applied colors (three), and 10 for Golden Daemon level painting.

For Modeling, 0 is awarded for just the "core" of a model applied, 1 is for fully assembled (including bad conversions), 3 for reasonable effort, and 10 for, again, golden Daemon Level painting.

For Gaming, 0 is awarded for non-participation, 1 for basic participation (actually playing), 3 for competent participation, 5 for experienced participation, and 10 is that guy at your store that nobody can complain about playing, even though everyone loses to him, but he is so fun to play everyone wants to!

why oh why can i not stay away?????

I actually kinda like this rating system you've come up with, although in your gaming scale it shouldn't just be the guy that everyone looses too, cuz there is that guy that generally always looses but still has fun and everyone wants to play him because he is a good sport (yes that guy is me.) its not his fault his dice likes to roll ones all the time. so really [small edit] that last line should read, "win or loose everyone still wants to play him"

using your system of ranking, based on personal and general opinion from others i play with, my ranking comes out right around a 6

based on your rankings where would you say the "true hobbiest" should fall?

Emperors Faithful wrote:Actually, I would think it a bit strange if someone collects all this plastic and yet has NO intention whatsoever to paint it, not that month, not 10 years later. Or even pay someone else to paint it?

I would say that thier (for want of a better word) decision not to paint is making them miss out on an important aspect of the game. And who could argue that two fully painted armies pitted against each other on the field looks SO much more enjoyable than one big mess of grey?

I removed the loaded word.

I agree that painted on painted battles look better. But from a pure gaming aspect, having paint on the models doesn't have a big impact. I personally enjoy using my painted army, but it doesn't affect how I play or the outcome of the game. For those who play 40k purely for the gaming aspect, painting isn't a concern. Yeah... you might think that is silly, but obviously they don't, and that's what matters. To each their own.

True, it doesn't really affect the tactics or actual gameplay itself, but it does add a good deal of awesomeness to it.

You can't help but think that they ARE missing out on some of the hobby aspects.

And really, I call starting a whole new army which would cost $250 or more, yet not painting (or getting someone to paint) their ready-made army just a little bit lazy.

So far this week(and past weekend), my wife and I have basecoated, painted, and clearcoated 8 Dark Eldar Raiders. We're incredibly proud of how much we've done. The tournament I went to this past weekend, I had 2 raiders painted and one model. We're up to 10 painted raiders now....still haven't gotten to work on the actual army yet because vehicles are probably more important.

They were all primed black, basecoated purple, and given arctic blue highlights - not professional grade painting, but they look pretty good. The lance gunners have red or white hair, and the dark lances have their plasma tank painted green. The gunner and driver were left primed black, but have arctic blue highlights.

Now, the morale of the story: We've spent probably 24 hours in the last four days converting and painting. I do more building, she does more painting. If I took my half painted army to a store for a game and someone declined to play with me because of how they looked, I would be incensed.

There are too many parallels to list here, but this is no different than church-goers frowning at other congregation members for not wearing their Sunday best, or for kids in school to make fun of another kid for having thick glasses or shoes that aren't brand name.

I realize that its human nature to try elevating yourself, but I will *always* detest, despise, and revile people who elevate themselves at someone elses' expense. People who demand that classes exist so that they can feel that they are better than someone else. This is a hobby for super-nerds who get suckered into spending far too much money on molded plastic that we have to assemble ourselves and paint ourselves. We're all suckers. This is the LAST place....at the bottom of the pile of the super nerds where one nerd needs to turn to another nerd and express elitism. It is absolutely sickening.

No, refusing to paint your army (or refusing to spend time painting it) and demanding to still be considered a 40k Hobbyist is lazy. In the same way refusing to go to work but demanding all the labels and benefits as someone who does is lazy. Is it that extreme of a comparison? No, not exactly, but the main work of 40k is the painting. And not doing that while someone of comparable gaming/playing status does, make one an inferior 40k Hobbyist. Ones reasons for not painting their army might vary, but in the end, yes, it is on you to manage your time to participate in the hobby.

Gaming is only one part of the 40k Hobby, and in all honesty, it's the easiest part. Painting and modeling, that's where there really is a difference between playing 40k or all those other table top games that come with painted models, or playing any turn based RTS game.

My mathematical system is mostly a joke. Painting and Modelling would be one category, but we were talking a lot about modeling at the time. Really I would just have as a basic equation:

[ (Modeling Level) + (Gaming Level) ] = (Hobbyist Level)

Where Modeling includes conversions, assembly, paintings, basing, etc... And Gaming include sportsmanship, achievements, etc....

The reason I put the guy that always wins, or never loses considering how easy it is to tie, as the number 10 rating is because they have mastered not only sportsmanship, but also the actual gaming aspect (yes, gamers who win are better gamers than those that lose, all else being equal).

@ Dashofpepper : Um, welcome to reality?

If someone goes to a hobby shop looking for a game with someone with a painted army, or an army of a certain caliber, that's their decision, that's what they are there for. How dare YOU try and tell them that the HAVE to play YOUR army because YOU want them to.

Painters aren't elevating themselves at someone else's expense, they are elevating themselves at THEIR expense of time and money, not yours.

Emperors Faithful wrote:True, it doesn't really affect the tactics or actual gameplay itself, but it does add a good deal of awesomeness to it.

You can't help but think that they ARE missing out on some of the hobby aspects.

And really, I call starting a whole new army which would cost $250 or more, yet not painting (or getting someone to paint) their ready-made army just a little bit lazy.

I agree that you miss out by not painting your army, but that doesn't mean everyone shares that view. Once again, it depends on your focus of the game. Some people like having really nice, fancy chess sets and some like playing with the basic black and white pieces.

Painting is only one part of the 40k Hobby, and in all honesty, it's the easiest part. Army list construction and playing, that's where there really is a difference between playing 40k or all those other artistic activities such as painting and pottery.

See what I did there? Don't get me wrong, as I know painting to a high standard is difficult and time consuming. However, playing at a tournament-caliber level is just as difficult and time consuming.

Dashofpepper wrote:There are too many parallels to list here, but this is no different than church-goers frowning at other congregation members for not wearing their Sunday best, or for kids in school to make fun of another kid for having thick glasses or shoes that aren't brand name.

I realize that its human nature to try elevating yourself, but I will *always* detest, despise, and revile people who elevate themselves at someone elses' expense.

So do I. But is that really what's going on here? Has anyone actually refused to play against your unpainted or partially painted stuff? Your dark eldar sound awesome and I'm guessing that you don't have any such problems.

If someone ever did refuse to play you with your partially painted stuff it does not mean they are looking down upon you like some self righteous church goer who's egotistical about their high-end suit. Miniature gaming really is a visual hobby and you need to understand that if someone has aesthetic standards that you don't meet, they are in no way judging you as a person (unlike the aforementioned self righteous church goer).

For some people, bringing unpainted models to the table is like showing up for a cocktail party in gym shorts. We need to take a chill pill and let people who are visually oriented enjoy their standards and stop judging them because we think they are judging us.

To be quite frank, I think you can see an example of the type of people Dash is refering to on this page.

Skinnattittar wrote:If someone goes to a hobby shop looking for a game with someone with a painted army, or an army of a certain caliber, that's their decision, that's what they are there for. How dare YOU try and tell them that the HAVE to play YOUR army because YOU want them to.

Painters aren't elevating themselves at someone else's expense, they are elevating themselves at THEIR expense of time and money, not yours.

QFT

Skinnattittar wrote:
The reason I put the guy that always wins, or never loses considering how easy it is to tie, as the number 10 rating is because they have mastered not only sportsmanship, but also the actual gaming aspect (yes, gamers who win are better gamers than those that lose, all else being equal).

this isn't fair reasoning, it all comes down to dice rolls. this is a game based on a chance roll. you can bring all the "math hammer" and probability you want into it, it all still boils down to a random roll. I can have every codex cover to cover, every rule and ruling down pat, I can have a golden daemon winning army, i can know all the tactics for every army, I can have the sportsmanship the planet has ever seen, and I can still loose every game i play because it all comes down to THE DICE and because I loose everygame doesn't make me any less a sports man or "good gamer" it just means i have sh y luck.

also where should be an "average" score on your "hobbiest level" so that we all know where a "real hobbier" needs to rank??

@ hcordes : First off, it's a hypothetical. In reality, you're right. No one can always win every game at their own level when you consider luck. But over time, you will get an average ability, and a better gamer will have a better average than those they are better than.

I'm not going to give you a number, hcordes, because it's not up to me to tell you if you should be a better hobbyist. That's up to you. Me, I would probably rank myself as a level 6 or 7. I have a well painted army with a bunch of simple conversions and special this and that. I win more often than I lose gaming, but I'm not really good at putting together lists, and I play IG, so tournament flexibility is limited.

@ Gornall : No, I don't see what you did there. It looks like you just changed my words, which means nothing. Gaming is easy to do. Anyone with a rule book and something that can count as units (coins, bits of paper, empty bases, pieces of lint from your pocket, etc...) can play 40k. Buying, assembling, modeling, painting, etc... That is what takes real time and really sets 40k apart from other games.

It isn't wrong to want to play with painted armies.

Kilkrazy wrote:It isn't wrong to want to play with painted armies.

Nope... there isn't. Likewise, there is nothing wrong if someone wants to play with a non-painted army as long as they don't try to force games with people who prefer playing painted armies.

Skinnattittar wrote:Gaming is easy to do. Anyone with a rule book and something that can count as units (coins, bits of paper, empty bases, pieces of lint from your pocket, etc...) can play 40k. Buying, assembling, modeling, painting, etc... That is what takes real time and really sets 40k apart from other games.

So painting at a high caliber is hard, takes a lot of skill, and requires a big investment of time while playing at a high caliber is easy, requires no thought or skill, and has no time investment associated with it. Got it. Glad to see that you're being reasonable and everything.

Gornall wrote:

Skinnattittar wrote:Gaming is easy to do. Anyone with a rule book and something that can count as units (coins, bits of paper, empty bases, pieces of lint from your pocket, etc...) can play 40k. Buying, assembling, modeling, painting, etc... That is what takes real time and really sets 40k apart from other games.

So painting at a high caliber is hard, takes a lot of skill, and requires a big investment of time while playing at a high caliber is easy, requires no thought or skill, and has no time investment associated with it. Got it. Glad to see that you're being reasonable and everything.

If that's how you'd like to read it, you're more than welcome to

But, to everyone else who might be confused, no, that's not what I meant, nor what I was saying. Being a 40k Hobbyist requires more than just playing the game, which can be done by anyone with a rulebook and something to represent their models, as I said before. Might it be required to pay out the nose for expensive models and invest a lot of time painting them? Yes, some hobbies require your time and money. Collecting and restoring is a hobby, and that requires a lot of money and a lot of time, way more than 40k actually (even a starter car will cost more than most any 40k army). But just buying antique cars isn't much of a hobby, that's shopping. I wouldn't say going to the mall is a hobby either.

EDIT : Fixed quote issue.

Skinnattittar wrote:@ hcordes : First off, it's a hypothetical. In reality, you're right. No one can always win every game at their own level when you consider luck. But over time, you will get an average ability, and a better gamer will have a better average than those they are better than.

what silly about this is it still isn't true, because its still all RANDOM, you can have the best tactics (and use those tactics correctly) and have the best list contruction, and some 12 year old shows up with whatever his allowence can buy him and kicks your butt because you can't roll a 2 and all he seems to roll is a 6. I've been on both ends of that and it all boils down to luck.

@ Paint proponents
We will have to disagree on what constitutes a "hobby". I tend more towards the merriam-webster dictionary deifinition, "a pursuit outside one's regular occupation engaged in especially for relaxation"; if someone doesn't enjoy painting but very much enjoys the gaming aspect, they're pursuing a hobby, by definition.

I know, I know, we'll get all into the levels of involvment in the hobby but if a casual gamer likes the game and fluff but doesn't have the inclination to paint, that doesn't mean they aren't "hobbyists".

Personally, I paint as well as do most of the people I play. Those that don't like to paint generally pay someone at the FLGS to help them out. That said, I wouldn't refuse to play someone or otherwise denigrate them simply because their little army men aren't painted.

hcordes wrote:

Skinnattittar wrote:@ hcordes : First off, it's a hypothetical. In reality, you're right. No one can always win every game at their own level when you consider luck. But over time, you will get an average ability, and a better gamer will have a better average than those they are better than.

what silly about this is it still isn't true, because its still all RANDOM, you can have the best tactics (and use those tactics correctly) and have the best list contruction, and some 12 year old shows up with whatever his allowence can buy him and kicks your butt because you can't roll a 2 and all he seems to roll is a 6. I've been on both ends of that and it all boils down to luck.

Yes, that happens, and that will factor into the average, because that person that rolled all 2s one game has the same chance as rolling all 6s the next game. That's why its called an average, and not a one sample conclusion.

BTW... if you're going to argue that 40k gamers aren't "hobbyists", at least change your equation to truly reflect that. As it stands now, you can still get a reasonable "Hobbyist" score even if you get a 0 for your modeling.

agnosto wrote:@ Paint proponents
We will have to disagree on what constitutes a "hobby". I tend more towards the merriam-webster dictionary deifinition, "a pursuit outside one's regular occupation engaged in especially for relaxation"; if someone doesn't enjoy painting but very much enjoys the gaming aspect, they're pursuing a hobby, by definition.
I know, I know, we'll get all into the levels of involvment in the hobby but if a casual gamer likes the game and fluff but doesn't have the inclination to paint, that doesn't mean they aren't "hobbyists".
Personally, I paint as well as do most of the people I play. Those that don't like to paint generally pay someone at the FLGS to help them out. That said, I wouldn't refuse to play someone or otherwise denigrate them simply because their little army men aren't painted.

Ah, now we're debating over what hobby someone is pursuing. One can still be a hobbyist and only play the game. Then their hobby would be as a gamer, of Gamer Hobbyist. However to qualify as a 40k Hobbyist, you would have to meet the standards that would make you a 40k Hobbyist.

In my opinion, and many others or so it seems, that means painting your army. 40k isn't that unique as a gaming experience, it's actually pretty generic d6 game (the devil being in the details). So what makes it different? Well you don't need the fluff to play the game, and fluff doesn't really make it to the table all that much, fluff is more of a sportsmanship thing (being able to discuss the hobby and trying to work it into the game as background material). Then what? Well the models, really.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Gornall wrote:BTW... if you're going to argue that 40k gamers aren't "hobbyists", at least change your equation to truly reflect that. As it stands now, you can still get a reasonable "Hobbyist" score even if you get a 0 for your modeling.

You're right, but that's an abstraction, a joke. I'll write a more complicated one, if that makes you happy? But I don't actually use an equation like that in real life.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oh, and I'm not agruing that gamers aren't hobbyists, just not explicitely 40k Hobbyists. A gaming hobbyist who is interested only in gaming 40k would be more like a 40k Gaming Hobbyist, rather than a 40k Hobbyist. Which, again, is different rather than positive or negative.

Skinnattittar wrote: Oh, and I'm not agruing that gamers aren't hobbyists, just not explicitely 40k Hobbyists. A gaming hobbyist who is interested only in gaming 40k would be more like a 40k Gaming Hobbyist, rather than a 40k Hobbyist. Which, again, is different rather than positive or negative.

And that's perfectly reasonable and something I can pretty much agree with. To each their own.

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?

Your an elitest snob. *shrug*

Everyone approaches the game differently. SOme people like the all around. Some people like to paint. Some like to convert. SOme like to play.

Just because you approach it as "pride" to get something painted, doesnt mean that folks dont take pride in something in the hobby. Back when I was a young whippersnapper, basing the models was optional. Wasnt even a requirement. No one did it. Now its a standard thing.

A good player thats a joy to play is a better opponent thena jerk with a beautifully painted army.

carmachu wrote:
A good player thats a joy to play is a better opponent thena jerk with a beautifully painted army.

+1, i concur!!

carmachu wrote:A good player thats a joy to play is a better opponent thena jerk with a beautifully painted army.

What about a player that's a jerk with an unpainted army compared to a player with a wonderfully painted army that's a joy to play? Or how about two jerks one with a painted army and the other with an unpainted army? What about two wonderful players, one with an unpainted army and the other a painted army?

carmachu wrote:

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?

Your an elitest snob. *shrug*

Everyone approaches the game differently. SOme people like the all around. Some people like to paint. Some like to convert. SOme like to play.

.

And some people like to play painted armies.


You're*

Exactly... I haven't seen a relationship between painting and jerkness. And if a person politely declines playing because they don't want to play against a grey army, that's not being an elitist snob. That same person talking down to someone for not painting might deserve that label, but someone who prefers painted armies and is polite about it does not.

Gornall wrote:Exactly... I haven't seen a relationship between painting and jerkness. And if a person politely declines playing because they don't want to play against a grey army, that's not being an elitist snob. That same person talking down to someone for not painting might deserve that label, but someone who prefers painted armies and is polite about it does not.

It is very much elitest. On the converse side, there really is no relation between a painted army and a good game.

You can decline it politely or rudely, it makes no difference. You're still turning your nose up at actually playing the game. It doesnt make the OP a bad person. But elitest, most certainly.

Ultimately its about how the game is played. Not whether it looks pretty or not. A painted army is a bonus.

carmachu wrote:Ultimately its about how the game is played. Not whether it looks pretty or not. A painted army is a bonus.

And I'm going to argue the same thing I've been arguing this entire time (previous in favor of non-painters): To you it's how the game is played. To others it is more important to them how the game looks. Neither side is wrong... trying to impose your views on the other side is.

Skinnattittar wrote:

carmachu wrote:A good player thats a joy to play is a better opponent thena jerk with a beautifully painted army.

What about a player that's a jerk with an unpainted army compared to a player with a wonderfully painted army that's a joy to play? Or how about two jerks one with a painted army and the other with an unpainted army? What about two wonderful players, one with an unpainted army and the other a painted army?

You illustrate my point exactly. Its not about the army thats painted. So limiting your options playing, you limit the fun you have.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Gornall wrote:

carmachu wrote:Ultimately its about how the game is played. Not whether it looks pretty or not. A painted army is a bonus.

And I'm going to argue the same thing I've been arguing this entire time (previous in favor of non-painters): To you it's how the game is played. To others it is more important to them how the game looks. Neither side is wrong... trying to impose your views on the other side is.

Except of course, I'm not the one imposing my views. I play anyone anywhere anytime anyarmy. The OP and yourself are the ones imposing them, just like now. Just by limiting yourself.

He asked, I asnwered. As I said, doesnt make hima bad person, but he most certainly hits the ranks of elitest.

carmachu wrote: Except of course, I'm not the one imposing my views. I play anyone anywhere anytime anyarmy. The OP and yourself are the ones imposing them, just like now. Just by limiting yourself.

He asked, I asnwered. As I said, doesnt make hima bad person, but he most certainly hits the ranks of elitest.

Read back through my posts and you'll see that I have no problem with unpainted armies. I've actually been on of the people defending them, even though I do run a fully painted army.

I argue that you are imposing your views on people because you're basically saying that people who play to have visually stunning/fluffy games should have to play people that don't have painted armies. That's putting the painter in a position where he has to play a game that isn't fun for him (as his focus is less on the game itself but the visual experience). That's basically equivelent to TFG walking up and saying "You have to play me even if it limits your fun because otherwise you're being an elitist."

So if someone shows up to the hobby shop with a Flames of War army, and I have a 40k army, and I know how to play Flames of War, but I say no because I don't want to play Flames of War, I want to play 40k, I'm an elitist?

Also, no Carmachu, you just strawmanned my question. You didn't actually answer or address it.

People who go around claiming a moral high ground by slapping offensive labels on others are elitists. This includes calling others elitists.

I don't mind playing un-painted armies. Granted, it looks a lot better to play painted ones and you should have them painted but i think its fine for casual games.

Manchu wrote:People who go around claiming a moral high ground by slapping offensive labels on others are elitists. This includes calling others elitists.

Be quiet you elitist!

Skinnattittar wrote:So if someone shows up to the hobby shop with a Flames of War army, and I have a 40k army, and I know how to play Flames of War, but I say no because I don't want to play Flames of War, I want to play 40k, I'm an elitist?

Also, no Carmachu, you just strawmanned my question. You didn't actually answer or address it.

So...you use a strawman bad example to counter what is an elitest stance? Thats a apples and oranges example and has no bearing on the matter.

Your not in an eltiest in that example. Your an idiot.

i don't mind when someone turns up for a game without some models painted, but a whole army is going a tad too far for my liking.

Modquisition on. This thread has been reported again, and at 14 pages its getting beyond its shelf life. Closing at this time.